College of Arts and Sciences
Academic Council
Minutes
DATE:
PLACE:
TIME:
October 17, 2001
Damen Hall 147, LSC
6:00 PM
Members Present: P. Arnold, D. Birge, I. Boussy, P. Chiarelli, C. Cruz, J. Dykla, N. Frommelt,
T. Giaquinto, J. Harder, D. Heyck, A. Houston, L. Langman, H. Mann, J. Marley, J. McCarthy
(Chair), S. Mezey, R. Nackoney, D. Olson, R. Pinzon, D. Slavsky, J. Trahey, A. Vander Nat.
Guests: J. Mallow, M. Goldwasser
The meeting was called to order at 6:00 pm.
2360 Motion: To approve the minutes from the 9/12/01 meeting. Vote: Unanimous. Motion
carried.
2361 Dean’s Report - Dr. David Slavsky
Results of National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) - Loyola freshmen surveyed ranked
LU as one of the 4 highest on academics finding LU an academically challenging institution. Dr.
Vander Nat asked if this indicates that LU is too difficult. Dr. Slavsky responded that the answer
is based on things like the number of books read and commitment to undergraduate education.
Raul Pinzon asked which students participated in the survey and do we know their major. Dr.
Slavsky stated that he was not sure that the data was broken down with that detail. Last year 1/7
of the freshman class participated however; he was unsure how they were chosen.
Dr. Arnold asked if the rating “academically challenging” was a function of less strong students.
Dr. Slavsky noted that the data does not support that notion. This year the freshmen have the
same or equivalent ACT/SAT scores as previous classes. Dr. Birge commented that
“challenging” was equivalent to rigorous, makes you think, and that it was a good connotation,
and not “how hard”. Dr. Olsen inquired if there was a survey available so that we could poll the
students ourselves. Dr. Slavsky indicated that Senior Surveys have been done for a number of
years. Dr. Heath has been doing several snapshots of the freshmen and their attitudes. Dr.
Slavsky said that might be a possibility if we had more resources in Institutional Research.
Currently we only have two people in this area, while many other universities have 6-12 people.
Role of Academic Council - Dr. McCarthy asked Dr. Slavsky to speak to the role of Academic
Council (AC). Dr. Slavsky stated that it goes beyond gatekeeper, noting that there are many
important issues that need to be addressed this year. He stated that the Interdisciplinary
Program, including the related majors and minors need to be looked at and that he wants to work
out procedures and protocols. Some other issues are 1) developing a common understanding
regarding cross-listing, the policy on the limit of # of crossings (currently three), academic credit
for cross-listed courses, and whether the course will count as core and major credit. 2) Joint
appointments, and 3) procedures between schools.
Dr. McCarthy asked how AC would work with these issues. What are the problems and how
would AC be involved? Would they go to the current committees, i.e., Core and Curriculum
Committees or an Ad Hoc Committee? Dr. Slavsky responded that Core and Curriculum
Committees should be able to handle these issues. Dr. McCarthy asked for a laundry list of
issues including current procedures, where they work and where they fail. Dr. Slavsky indicated
that he would send what is currently in place and seek the assistance of AC.
Loyola Saturday - Dr. Slavsky noted that we have received 1,700 confirmations for people
planning to attend and visit on Loyola Saturday. If these numbers were accurate, this year’s
event would be the most successful.
2362 Committees
I. By-Laws Committee - Dr. Boussy - No report at this time.
II. Core Curriculum Committee - No report at this time.
III. Curriculum Committee - Dr. Harder
1. New Course: PLSC 313 - Resistance and Obligations - The Curriculum Committee did not
have any issues with this proposed course. Dr. Langman suggested adding “Terror” to the
title.
2363 Motion: The Curriculum Committee, as a standing committee put forward a Motion to
approve PLSC 313. Vote: 16 in favor, 0 opposed, 0 abstentions. Motion carried.
2. New Course: PHYS 111C and 112C - College Physics I & II - Calculus Sections - Dr. Harder
noted that the Committee did not have the syllabus at the time of the meeting and inquired of
Dr. Mallow, Chair of Physics, how the proposed courses were different from PHYS 113 &
114. Dr. Mallow explained that the current PHYS 113 & 114 (4 credits-Algebra based
courses) are targeted to the Chemistry majors and non-prehealth students. The proposed
calculus-based PHYS 111C & 112C (3 credits-Calculus based courses) are geared toward
Biology majors and prehealth students who have already completed their calculus
requirements. He indicated that they are basically the same courses, using the same book, but
different mathematics. Council members agreed that these new courses should be sent back
to the department and Curriculum Committee for further discussion. It was further suggested
that the proposed numbering should be changed.
3. Biology Student Assessment - Dr. Harder expressed the Committee’s concern that with this
proposed assessment, students could pass all courses and fail the exam, and not graduate. He
inquired if this was an assessment of teaching or testing of student’s learning. Dr. Boussy
responded that the original plan came as a directive from Dean McCourt. It was originally
done as a voluntary senior survey. About one year ago, the Biology Department reexamined
this process and felt that the ETS exam would be a good tool to assess our students. The
department can contribute questions to the exam. One reason it was proposed as a
requirement was because the “voluntary” exams were not proving to be good measures. The
ETS tool gives information regarding the student’s acquired knowledge and is a measure
utilized by many other Universities. It may also point out any weaknesses in the curriculum.
Dr. Chiarelli asked if the GRE would accomplish the same results. Dr. Boussy indicated that
the GRE is a more difficult exam and intended for individuals planning to go onto graduate
education. Dr. Vander Nat asked whether this could not be done without consequences, if it
would test teaching effectiveness, and also check to see if the students leave LU well
prepared. He inquired if other departments have similar exit requirements. Dr. Marley stated
that Social Work tried to do an evaluation of graduate students as part of their reaccreditation. They are planning to do an assessment (a package that can be bought) with a
pre- and post-test, but it would not tie graduation to passing the exam.
Dr. Olsen noted that all seniors in Criminal Justice must take an exam. He asked if a good
GPA could get some out of taking the exam. Dr. McCarthy noted that there are two tracks in
Theology. In one track, all majors are required to do a final paper above and beyond any
course work in order to graduate. The other track does not have this requirement. Dr.
McCarthy asked, what are the specific problems that the Curriculum Committee had with the
proposal. Dr. Harder responded that they were concerned that something other than a course
can stop a student from graduating. Are there any legal issues here? Dr. Mezey inquired if
this was more of a college issue rather than Curriculum Committee. She also indicated that
she was concerned about the $25 fee for the exam. Dr. Dykla indicated that the scheduling of
this new requirement is clearly described and that the incoming class of next Fall 2002 would
be effected - giving them fair warning of the requirement. He stated that he did not have a
problem with the proposed requirement.
Dr. Birge noted that Fine Arts have a portfolio requirement. Many schools have
comprehensive exams. It is not uncommon for some students fail in their last semester and
have to continue. Dr. Birge indicated concern that if this was really a tool to assess teaching
that the students were being subjected to a lot of stress. Raul Pinzon noted that the content of
the exam is important. He also inquired if any student input had been sought. Dr. Boussy
indicated that students had not been involved. Dr. McCarthy asked that the Curriculum
Committee get back to the department with their concerns and then the Committee should
reconsider the proposal.
Dr. Harder inquired if this was an acceptable practice in the College. Dr. McCarthy noted that
other departments have this king of requirement. Dr. Marley asked if a general opinion by
Administration could be sought on this issue and whether graduation can be contingent on
some level of performance on the exam. Dr. Slavsky asked that the Council hold off on a
decision until he can deal with some of this questions and check with the legal department if
we can have requirements for graduation not tied to a course. Dr. Trahey indicated that he
believed it was a matter for the major, that other departments requires this sort of thing and
that it was a directive of the North Central Accreditation and the Dean. He felt it is not a legal
issue. The Theater Department has a comparable requirement. Dr. Trahey stated that the
proposal should be returned to the Biology Department to be rewritten addressing these
concerns.
IV. Elections Committee - No report at this time.
2364 USGA Report - Raul Pinzon, USGA’s VP of Academic Affairs, introduced the new
student representatives including Caroline Cruz (Freshman Biology Major), Nick Frommelt
(Undeclared Freshman), and Mark Repasy (Sophomore).
2365 New Business - Dr. McCarthy
Dr. McCarthy asked member to consider to what extent AC should be involved in issues such as
class size, leave of absences, and searches. Is class size simply matching the number of students
with the available resources? Does AC have any role, concerns or input on the number of leaves
granted? There seems to be a move toward national searches for Chairs. Does AC have any
concern about this or the structure of the search committees? Are these issues in or out of our
purview? Dr. Vander Nat responded that he believes Faculty Council rather than AC should
address these issues. Dr. Slavsky stated that AC could participate in the LOA process. The
number of leaves granted is decided by upper administration and AC would have no input in it.
CFA asked this year that each unit develop protocol on how the leaves are recommended. AC
could help develop this protocol. Dr. Boussy indicated that guidelines was done in Faculty
Council and sent from the college to CFA last year. Dr. Olsen stated that it was unclear how
LOA’s were determined. Dr. Boussy indicated that Dr. Braskamp has said repeatedly that
availability of funds has nothing to do with leaves. Dr. Slavsky said that Deans have more
authority over who gets LOA’s. CFA wants to know how a Dean would make that decision.
Dr. McCarthy reminded AC and the By-Laws Committee that the number of students on the AC
needed to be revised, and that references to BUGS must also be addressed. He asked if the
current committee structure is sufficient.
Dr. Harder stated that class size can affect academic quality and seems to e a legitimate issue for
AC. Dr. Mann noted that a workshop was being offered on Monday regarding large classes. Dr.
Slavsky stated that we are planning a 40% increase in undergraduates without an increase in
faculty if we are to break even within 4-6 years. The annual operating deficit to the return on
unrestricted investments is critical. We had a range of 22/23% last year. Dr. Slavsky noted that
some departments, i.e., Chemistry have been teaching large sections for some time. Dr.
McCarthy asked if it would be appropriate to add a question to new course forms about the
maximum number of students. Dr. Mezey suggested that AC should be proactive and play some
role, helping to make decisions, be a part of the process, before the decision is made. Dr. Marley
agreed that AC could develop some guiding or operating principles that would be helpful to
department in making these decisions.
The meeting was adjourned at 8:50pm.