Date: May 20, 2003
To: Greg McLauchlan, UO Senate President 2002-03
John Moseley, Senior Vice President and Provost
From: Alison Evans - FSPC Chair, 2002-03
RE: Yearly Report from the Foreign Study Programs Committee (FSPC)
1. Provide your name and the names of the active members of your committee:
Jack Bennett, Student Retention Programs
Estelle Brunner, Registrar’s Office
Dan Close, Counseling Psychology
Alison Evans, American English Institute
James Harper, Art History
Kathleen Karlyn, English
Huaxin Lin, Math
Shelley Merello, Romance Languages
Michael Linman, ASUO Student Representative
Kevin Nute, Architecture
Tom Mills, Ex Officio, Office of International Programs (OIP)
2. Provide a copy of the mission statement (charge) for your committee which has guided your work.
3. Comment on the usefulness of the mission statement in guiding your work.
What should be included or deleted?
The mission statement was revised in 1996 and is very useful in guiding the committee. The committee sees no need to revise the mission statement at this time.
4. Briefly summarize the major work accomplished by your committee this
The FSPC approved 8 new programs during 2002-03 and reviewed 15 existing programs, most of which are on a two to three year review cycle. Programs are reviewed every three to five years unless the committee finds reason to review them more frequently. The results of this year’s reviews are to be found in the following list. The schedule for future reviews and detailed summaries of this year’s reviews are available from Tom Mills, the Associate Vice President for International Programs. The following programs were reviewed in 2002-03 and judged satisfactory by the FSPC. They will be reviewed again on the following schedules:
Four Year Review. The FSPC recommended that the following programs be reviewed in four years (during the 2006-07):
England, University of East Anglia (UO)
Italy, Florence, Fibers Studio (UO Art)
Three Year Review. The FSPC recommended that the following programs be reviewed in three years (during the 2005-06):
England, London (NCSA)
Greece, Athens (NCSA)
Japan, Kyoto Landscape (ARCH)
Japan, Waseda University (OUS)
Two Year Review. The FSPC recommended that the following programs be reviewed in two years (during the 2004-05):
Argentina, Rosario (NCSA)
Chile, Valdivia (NCSA)
China, Beijing (OUS)
Denmark, Copenhagen (OUS)
Ecuador, Quito Neotropical Biology
Ecuador, Quito (OUS)
Mexico, ITESM (OUS)
Thailand, Khon Kaen (CIEE)
One Year Review. The FSPC recommended that the following program be kept on experimental status and reviewed in one year (during the 2003-04):
Italy, Oira - Fine Arts Studio
Program Suspension. The Office of International Programs staff reported to the FSPC that the following programs were temporarily suspended due to safety and/or health issues:
Israel, Hebrew University (UO)
Jordan, Amman - University of Jordan (CIEE)
China, Beijing, Central University for Nationalities (OUS)
Hong Kong, University of Hong Kong (ARCH)
New Program Approvals. After careful deliberation, the committee approved the following new overseas study programs. They are given an "experimental" status for 2003-04 academic year and reviewed after they have been in operation for at least one cycle:
Australia, University of Sydney (UO)
Australia, Canberra, Australian National University (UO)
Archaeology Field School (ANTH): various locations
Germany, Cologne (AHA/UO)
Mexico, Morelia (NCSA)
FIPSE Urban Ecology, The Netherlands, Germany, Spain
Norway, Oslo, University of Oslo (UO)
Spain, Segovia (AHA/UO)
5. Briefly summarize the major work you believe this committee should undertake next year.
Next year the committee will review about 18-20 programs. Also, the committee will consider new program proposals submitted during the academic year, and programs where issues may arise during the year.
6. Briefly summarize the work-load of this committee in hours per week.
The committee met 10 times during the past academic year. Meetings average about 1.5 hour. On average, each committee member prepares review material for the committee for two programs. This preparation involves reviewing program materials, student and faculty evaluations and preparing a summary. Program summaries can take three to five hours to prepare, in general. Therefore, committee members will spend about 25 hours during the academic year attending meetings and working on committee assignments.
7. Explain whether you think the current mission and structure of this committee is best serving the short and long-term goals of the university faculty.
Yes, this committee provides a useful and necessary review of foreign study programs by an impartial cross-departmental body. The committee can complete its mission effectively because of the diligent and insightful work of committee members, and the organization and support provided by the OIP staff. As a bonus, committee members become better informed of the student opportunities for overseas study, and faculty opportunities for teaching abroad.
8. Explain what work of the committee you believe to be central and therefore should continue to be carried out by the committee.
All work currently carried out by the committee is useful, central to the mission of the committee and should be continued.
9. Explain what work might be best done elsewhere. Where do you suggest?
The committee works efficiently. No changes are suggested.
10. Is there one or more committees you believe this committee could usefully merge with in the conduct of business?
No, the committee is appropriately focused and with a reasonable workload.