COLLEGE OF ARTS AND SCIENCES
ACADEMIC COUNCIL
Minutes
DATE: February 16, 2000
PLACE: Damen Hall 147, LSC
TIME: 6:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT: M. Allee, D. Amick, I Boussy, V. Foster, A. Fitch, J. Gondek, P.
Hanley, K. Johnson, N. Laff, S. Macksey, G. McCulloh, A. McKenna, S. Mezey, H. Miller, D.
Olson, M. Pollock (chair), J. Shapiro, S. Simon, R. Sinnett, J. Smarrelli, J. Trahey, M. Udo, J.
White.
GUESTS: F. Fennell, A. Figert.
The meeting was called to order at 6:00 p.m. Dr. Pollock requested the Council approve moving
all business until after the CARP presentation and called for any other changes to the Agenda.
Vote: Unanimous. Motion carried.
2244 Guests - Drs. Frank Fennell and Anne Figert, Committee for Academic Review and
Planning (CARP) Representatives from CAS
Dr. Fennell began the discussion by explaining to Academic Council what the newly formed
CARP has been doing thus far. They have been meeting every Monday afternoon since January.
The Committee is taking their charge very seriously and doing extensive readings on the subject
of academic reviews. The Committee is very aware of their responsibility and limited authority;
for example, CARP could not cut a program. All such decisions are to be by the appropriate
bodies, i.e., Academic Council. CARP’s hope is for faculty to reclaim the academic sector.
CARP is following as its guidelines, the recommendations from the Retreat in January, and the
"summary" directives for the Committee which are posted on the webpage (the Academic
Council’s webpage has a link to CARP’s webpage). These provide standards and criteria for
which recommendations will be made.
Dr. Figert said that the CARP is taking a "two-prong attack" with a long-term and short-term
process. The long-term process will establish periodic reviews. The short-term process will be a
prioritization across units where they ask a few questions of all units.
The schedule for the short-term review will begin 3/1/00 when an instrument is sent to all
academic units. The Committee does not expect a great deal of data will be required as a result of
the instrument. The document or response from each unit, due in May, should consist of 6-12
pages with a few appendices. Over the summer, CARP will review these documents and will
most likely need some feedback from the Departments and Deans. By November, CARP will
produce and submit a final written report to Dr. Larry Braskamp. This will be a public document,
posted on CARP’s webpage. The Committee will consider the University mission as they review
these documents. Finances will be a consideration, however not a deciding factor. No firm
template has been developed for comparing units. They are relying on the programs, departments
and units to tell CARP what they are doing and their strengths.
At this point, the two CARP representatives began to respond to the questions submitted by the
Academic Council. Question #1 - RE: Teaching and erroneous data - Dr. Fennell agreed that data
needs to be accurate and agreed upon by all parties as useful data. The original reports with
"Frendreis units" were sent to all chairs for review. The departments need to provide CARP with
feedback about needed modifications in order to make this information useful. Each department
may have its own issues.
On Questions #2 & 3 - RE: Research and Service - Dr. Fennell said that the departments would
have to tell CARP how they weigh Teaching/Research/Service, as it will vary between
departments. It is not within CARP’s purview to determine research expectations or support.
Dr. Figert addressed the following questions:
Question #4 - RE: Financial Targets - Dr. Figert stated that CARP has not been given any
financial targets. They are to look at all programs on a few dimensions: centrality of mission,
intrinsic excellence, societal, impact, etc.
Question #5 - RE: Comparative Data - The units of measurement have not been determined at
this point and are often not comparable. Data may not be collected unless it is relevant to an
argument being made.
Question #6 - RE: Prior Information - The Committee will be asking the same questions of all
units and are not expecting information submitted from Departments will be from previous
assessments.
Question #7 - RE: Data from Non-Academic Units - Shared services and athletics are not within
CARP’s purview. It was announced on Monday that shared services, etc. would be putting
together a Committee similar to CARP to conduct a similar review process.
Question #8 - RE: Checks & Balances - CARP is operating independently of Administration.
They are not receiving any input or distortions from others units. Everything is public and posted
on the webpage and will continue to be this way.
Question #9 - RE: Cross- or Interdisciplinary Programs - 132 programs or departments will be
reviewed. Data will be collected from Interdisciplinary Programs in the same manner as other
departments. It has not been addressed whether Core will be reviewed other than within the
individual departments.
Question #10 - RE: Strengths & Weaknesses - CARP will consider a program’s self-reported
strengths and weaknesses, and also potential strengths and weaknesses which may require
additional resources.
Question #11 - RE: Communication Structure - CARP will continue to post its Minutes, etc. on
their website. On 2/25 Drs. Fennell and Figert will be guests at "Conversations in the College".
Dr. Figert recently spoke with the Social Sciences Chairs. CARP plans to be interactive with
departments over the summer. Committee members are accessible by phone, e-mail, or by
scheduling meetings.
Question #12 - RE: Strategic Coordinating Committee (SCC)/Serious Consideration of CARP’s
Report - The SCC is also an evolving Committee. Ida Androwich is the CARP representative to
the SCC. CARP members are working with the assumption that their findings/report will be
taken seriously.
Question #13 - RE: Faculty Leaves - This is not within CARP’s purview.
Question #14 - RE: Mission Statement - The Mission Statement is a description of where the
University needs to go. The mission of the University, College, and Departments will be in the
individual unit reports submitted to CARP.
Question #15 - RE: Revenue-Neutral/Deficit-Reducing/Increase Spending - CARP has been
given no financial targets. The Committee is looking at it straight on and may ultimately
recommend some increased resources.
Question #16 - RE: Quantitative vs. Qualitative - Data will be limited to the essential. How are
they going to do this? This is a tension the Committee is currently grappling with.
A discussion followed. Dr. Johnson asked if the report would contain a statement(s) in the end
which would say, i.e., "strong program - add resources", or "strong program - continue", or
"weak program - discontinue". Additionally, will there be staff and resources for Minors and
Interdisciplinary Programs that have centrality to the mission? CARP will make
recommendations such as these; it will be up to the faculty to see if they are implemented.
Dr. Udo asked for clarification of the Carnegie Classifications. Dr. Fennell stated that LU is a
"Research/Doctoral One" institution. We want to maintain this and CARP should be mindful of
this fact. The classification used to be based on the number of doctoral programs and external
dollars from grants for research. Carnegie is changing its guidelines currently. CARP interprets
the "summary directives" to say that LU is a research/graduate institution and we want to remain
that way.
Dr. White expressed a concern about departments that have not been allowed to replace faculty
resulting in a weakening of the departments. Will this be taken into account during this
assessment? In discussion, others expressed concern about how the information received from
departments would be assessed. Also, that the CARP report will be used to "excise" programs
and departments. Dr. Fennell responded that CARP expects departments to make the best case,
with data to support this case. If CARP does a good job, their recommendations will help to
shape decisions. The CARP members have a shared commitment to faculty and hope that their
recommendations will be taken seriously. CARP wants departments to tell what is wrong and
right with their programs. All activities of CARP will be posted on their website. Meeting
minutes will not, however, reflect specific comments regarding departments. Individual
department reports will not be posted although a department may choose to post their own
document.
CARP is working toward a 3/1/00 deadline to produce the criteria and information needed for the
assessment. It is a complex task, which is gradually clarifying. Based on the "summary
directives" posted on the website, CARP will be using such criteria as excellence and relevance
to the mission to evaluate departments and programs. Missions will be different from department
to department; therefore CARP needs departments to define their own. Academic Council
members, regarding the credibility of the information submitted, expressed some concerns
whether CARP will be able to judge it. Also, it was suggested that no one is going to state that
their department or program is weak. Dr. Pollock said that when Dr. Braskamp was here last
month, he didn’t understand Academic Council’s concern regarding the overlap between CARP
vs. Academic Council in decision-making issues. Dr. Pollock asked that members remind fellow
faculty about the Conversations in the College session with CARP members on 2/23.
2245 Chair’s Report - Dr. Mark Pollock
Minutes - Dr. Pollock explained that the January minutes would need to come back to Academic
Council after further revisions. The Council agreed to postpone approval until the March
meeting.
BAC - Drs. Braskamp, Murphy, Pollock, Shawn Campbell and Craig Kois met recently and
agreed on a revision to the charge for the Broadcast Advisory Committee (BAC). All references
to academic issues will be removed and only non-academic issues will remain in the charge.
They will also be looking at how the BAC is constituted and are doing research how to
regularize it.
2246. Dean’s Report - Dr. John Smarrelli
New Form - A new form has been implemented by the Dean’s Office to help track decisions
made by the Academic Council. Ada Steenken will insert the portion of the minutes that relates
to the motion which was passed by the Council and Drs. Smarrelli and Braskamp will have space
to sign off. Copies of the document will be forwarded to the Chair of Academic Council.
Enrollments - Enrollments continue to be of concern because we need to maintain current
enrollments to meet budget. The University budget is based on 1,120 Freshman admissions.
Applications are currently at 1997 level which yielded 1,188 Freshmen. The financial aid
deadlines are rolling and applications are coming in later. Dr. Johnson asked if the loss of the
Director of Admissions has had an effect on the number of applicants. Dr. Smarrelli responded
that it has had little or no effect and that Terry Richards is now directly over this area.
WTC - The counselors held an open house meeting on Monday. We have registered 50 students
out of the 100 target. If we get between 50-70 students, it will be considered successful. There
will be Monday-Wednesday and Tuesday-Thursday schedules developed and linked courses so
that commuter students can still work and take courses. We are in the process of repackaging
what we currently offer.
New Frontiers - A $50,000/yr. 5-year grant has been received for off-site courses at museums,
etc. This money will support students and faculty to take or teach courses at off-site locations.
Ted Karamanski, History, is the Chair of the New Frontiers Committee. They are still defining
how this will process will work.
Lycee’ Françoise - A new high school based the French system, will be housed on the 4th floor of
Marquette Center. The goal is to enroll about 100 students from Chicago High Schools. The
students will be allowed to take LU courses through this partnership opportunity.
Greensheet - Faculty reviews will be completed over the next two weeks with Chairs looking at
positive aspects of faculty performance. Salary increases will be determined when the Board of
Trustees meets on 3/3/00 and approves the FY01 budget. It appears there will be funds available
for a merit increase with another fund set aside amount for special cases.
Cohort Program - The new Cohort Program will be piloted in Fall 2000. This learning
community should engage students to be more a part of the University. The Cohorts are available
to commuters and not limited to residential students. As an example, the Cohort Program in
Biology will have the students living together on the 2nd floor of Mertz Hall with a Biology
Major as their Residence Assistant and they will take classes together in designated sections. Dr.
Robert Buckholz is the Faculty Advisor for the Humanities Cohort. These students will take their
English, Philosophy, and History courses together. Dr. Foster said the Humanities Cohort would
have substantive links between courses. Faculty will work together regarding what is to be
taught. Students will be recruited at orientation. Dr. Miller mentioned the successful Honors
Interdisciplinary Seminar with 4 faculty teaching this writing intensive course which provides
students with double credit from this course. The Cohort Program may want to look at this
Honors Program.
CPS - The College is looking at several potential programs in partnership with the Chicago
Public Schools (CPS), including language and computer science. Paul Vallas, Superintendent of
CPS, expects to recruit 120 students for this partnership.
Pre-Health Students - Admissions for Pre-Health students is good with over 50 students
accepted.
Catholic Studies Minor - This minor is currently on hold until resources can be evaluated to
make sure that it can be supported and will succeed.
2247 Committees
I. By-Laws - Dr. Boussy - No report at this time.
II. Curriculum Committee - Dr. Ed Menes
Political Science renumbering of the following courses as the department is restructuring their
graduate program. The following changes were considered by the Curriculum Committee to be
non-substantive and they reported their approval to Academic Council:
Renumbering:










Political Science 205 to 377 American Public Politics
Political Science 210 to 379 Legislative Process
Political Science 211 to 381 American Presidency
Political Science 212 to 384 Judicial Process
Political Science 214 to 385 Introduction to Law
Political Science 217 to 386 American Parties and Elections
Political Science 221 to 389 State Politics
Political Science 222 to 390 Urban Politics
Political Science 224 to 391 Chicago Politics
Political Science 235 to 392 Environmental Politics
Title Change: Art Appreciation was approved by the Curriculum Committee to change the title
of the course to Art and Visual Culture to better reflect the content of the course.
New Courses:
2248 Motion: Psychology 371 - Psychology of Political Behavior - It is a similar course to one
in Political Science. The Committee recommends approval even though the courses are similar;
they use different approaches and perspectives. Motion to approve. Vote: 23 in favor, 0
opposed 1 abstention. Motion carried.
2249 Molecular Biology Laboratory - This is a rather unusual course as it is a lab only - no
lecture. Additionally, a significant amount of unscheduled independent laboratory work is
required. This course has been taught twice as a Special Topics course. Motion to approve.
Vote: 25 in favor, 0 opposed, 0 abstention. Motion carried.
Biology 381 - Biology of Sharks, Skates, and Rays - The Committee was concerned about two
items: a) exam on the last day of class, and b) readings needed to be clarified - as no text is to be
used in the revised syllabus. Although the clarification was received before the meeting on the
readings, it was not soon enough to take to the Committee. Dr. Boussy objected to the concern
about the exam stating that it was not a final and therefore could be given on the last day of class.
Dr. Menes stated that the Committee’s understanding of the Dean’s policy is that no exams may
be administered on the last day of class. Dean Smarrelli clarified the policy stating that no final
exams may be given on the last day of class however, an exam is permitted. Approval of this
course was postponed to the March meeting after the Committee considers these clarifications.
The proposed Major in Women’s Studies and Minor in Asian Language & Literature need
further clarification and will be considered at the March meeting.
IV. Elections Committee - Dr. Verna Foster
Three nominations have been received for the open At-Large positions: David Yondal, John
Jacobs, and John White. Nominations from Chairs for Council Members who are not returning
should be submitted by 2/21/00 to Dr. Foster.
2250 Student Government Report
LSGA - Joshua Shapiro is the new LSGA member replacing Casey Gralewski. He reported that
student members had been nominated to serve on the Strategic Committee, 1 each from Lake
Shore Campus, Water Tower Campus, and a resident assistant. Nicole Leduc was elected. LSGA
is working on clarifying the "openness" of the Strategic Committee’s activities.
The Student Government's referendum on "Save Loyola" states that the situation hasn’t changed
from last semester and that the Student Government still stands by their previous resolution to
remove Fr. Piderit.
WTSA - The WTSA representative was absent from the Council Meeting. Dr. Smarrelli reported
that he attended a session concerning WTC and the open house. There are no residence halls at
WTC. Study groups are being formed and M-W and T-Th class schedules are being developed.
WTC Student Government passed legislation regarding a cultural core, which would require
students to experience cultures outside their own to enhance diversity, and understanding.
The new French school will be located in the Marquette building which needs to be revamped.
2251 New Business
Dr. Laff noted that Dr. Patch Adams would speak on Managed Health Care at Mundelein
College on 2/23/00 at 6:00 pm.
Becky Sinnett requested that Academic Council reaffirm their previous position similar to the
one approved by LSGA. She distributed some Save Loyola materials and asked Academic
Council to support the movement and to sign off on the distributed letter.
2252 Motion: That Academic Council goes on record as supporting Save Loyola and sign the
letter stating this position. Discussion: Dr. McKenna raised a question as to whether a motion
can be voted upon during New Business. Dr. Miller, Parliamentarian, stated that a motion may
be voted upon immediately or postponed to the next meeting. A discussion followed as to
whether it was necessary to reaffirm this position. Several individuals felt it urgent and necessary
to take this stand. Others believed reaffirming would be inappropriate and unnecessary.
2253 Motion: A motion was made to postpone the motion to support Save Loyola. Vote: 19 in
favor, 5 opposed 1 abstention. Motion carried.
2254 After further discussion Becky Sinnett proposed another motion. Motion: Move that
Academic Council support the four proposals of Save Loyola. Discussion: Conversation
continued with some members expressing concern that the Save Loyola proposals go beyond
what was discussed and voted upon in the Council’s previous referendum and that they have not
had a chance to discuss or consider the contents of the materials. Vote: 6 in favor, 14 opposed 5
abstentions. Motion fails.
2255 Motion: The Council instructs the Council Chair to convey to Upper Administration that
Academic Council has not changed its previous stance as stated in previous Motion #2225. Vote:
23 in favor, 1 opposed 1 abstention. Motion carried.
The meeting was adjourned at 8:54 pm.