Undergraduate Council Attending: J. Earl, W. Gottshall, R. Koch, J. Long, K. Nicholson, J. Nicols, M. Partch, S. Ponder, S. Pratt, J. Rice, M. Smith, J. Wade, R. Zimmerman Absent: F. Chadwell, H. Chereck, P. Engelking, M. Gleason, A. Leavitt Meeting began at 8:15 am. Process for Change: Task Force Projects for 2000 Karen Sprague, Task Force Leader, discussed the proposed mentoring project, seeking advice from the UC mainly dealing with budget constraints. The purpose of the project is to provide every freshman with the opportunity to get started with close association with a small group of students and a faculty member. The purpose is not to replace pathways and/or FIGS, but to "take up the slack." The mentoring program would be a combination of things now done in Freshmen Seminars. The purpose would be for the freshmen to have a small course experience when enrolling in a regular course to satisfy a requirement for general education or a major. The course would be led by a regular faculty member, and the faculty member would not only lecture but become a mentor to the students. It is estimated the program would cost the equivalent of 30 additional faculty. It is hoped that a pilot program would be started and involve five units on campus, including those from CAS and the professional schools. The pilot program would involve courses already being taught of which the class can be divided into four or five sections each taught by a separate faculty member. It is estimated this would be $300,000 to $500,000, depending on the intensity of the mentoring activities. The question posed to the UC was should the task force push ahead even though there are budgetary constraints, or should they delay. Karen indicated that it would take a year to plan the pilot, and then a year to find out what works. At the present time, it is possible to get the required funds for the pilot. Some of the questions posed by members: a) Would the $300,000 to $500,000 cover the pilot only? Yes, this is the minimum for the pilot to be effective. b) Would a class of 200 be broken down into 8 sections? Yes, with 4 sections going to separate mentors. c) How will faculty be paid? Faculty would be paid on an overload basis. This would be over their usual teaching course. It was noted that the ultimate goal would be to hire new faculty, but what departments would get the new faculty? K. Nicholson stated that pilot programs usually go to the larger departments, and the smaller departments with large lecture courses are unable to have discussion sessions due to lack of money. She suggested putting the money available toward discussion sessions. J. Earl indicated that he was in favor of the proposal in theory, but the money needed for the pilot is too high given other problems on campus. He indicated he is committed to opposing any proposal asking for teaching on an overload basis, and he is against keeping salaries low and offering more money if teaching is increased while still trying to maintain a research profile. An initiative to raise salaries by small increments does not address the big problem. K. Sprague indicated that the full program would not be done on an overload basis. M. Smith asked if the money for the pilot would be coming from a grant or the administration. K. Sprague indicated that grants are being written for pathways, and some of that money would be diverted to the mentoring project. In addition, private money would be used to support the project. J. Rice asked about the different projects that were discussed; namely, expanding FIGS. K. Sprague indicated that the task force did not consider expanding FIGS, and pathways cannot be extended. In a question posed by S. Pratt concerning the goals for the proposed project, K. Sprague indicated that the goal would be happier students who are able to figure out what the academic environment is about. He also asked if the task force had examined research on retention to which she replied that J. Moseley had considered those estimates and is trying to project the long-range financial impact. J. Nicols commented that mentoring would be useful to students but the "allure" diminishes, and he did not know whether mentoring can be justified. Karen reiterated the pilot would be the experiment to see if more mentoring can be justified. J. Nicols also indicated that a project similar to this was tried about 15 years ago. There were no perceived advantages so it was abandoned. In addition, a similar project was tried in Chemistry and was also abandoned. It was also noted that the push to do this would be extra pay, not the educational value. Another suggestion was to reassign all faculty to have some freshmen advisees. Also, it was suggested that faculty require their freshmen students to see them. It was noted that students who see faculty on a regular basis do better than those who do not. In addition, it was recommended that graduate students participate in this effort. Another question asked was what is done when classes are full and the freshman student cannot enter? Karen admitted this is a problem, but the pilot program should answer that question. On the whole, the UC liked the concept but were questioning the funding. If there is money to get new faculty, why not use those funds to retain the people we are losing now? Again, Karen indicated the pilot should answer this question. Karen indicated she concluded that the UC would rather provide adequate discussion sessions. She will get together with the task force members and then advise the UC of the next steps. Multimedia Proposal The proposal was distributed to the members prior to the meeting. Questions and/or comments: a) 19 new courses are proposed, but only hiring 3.0 FTE b) This is the most comprehensive proposal the Council has seen, as it would be starting a new program. A very important proposal for the UC to examine. c) May not be possible to have it in place by Fall 2000. May be some confusion on the timing. Must go through the college and university course committees. General Education Requirements J. Long indicated that the proposals passed the Senate. Should the UC start thinking about a global change? D. Koch cautioned the UC that group requirements should be changed slowly. J. Long will follow up with Jim Buch regarding the accreditation report. Other Issues the UC Should Pursue This Year Suggestions made: a) FIG experience should be a requirement for all freshmen. b) Admission policies and practices: have Director of Admissions give an overview to UC. c) SRC and ARC issues. d) Graduate credits for undergraduate student: increase from 9 to 12 (leftover from 3-4 credit conversion). e) Policy decision that only 4 credit classes will be included in list of classes approved for general education requirement Meeting adjourned at 9:05 am Minutes submitted by Carol White 
|
