Date: June 8, 2005
To: Andrew Marcus, UO Senate President 2004-05
John Moseley, Senior Vice President and Provost
From: Robert Haskett - FSPC Chair, 2004-05
RE: Yearly Report from the Foreign Study Programs Committee (FSPC)
1. Provide your name and the names of the active members of your committee:
Carol Ann Bassett, Journalism
Estelle Brunner, Registrar
Juanita Devereaux, Romance Languages
Alison Evans, American English Institute
Dennis Galvan, International Studies
Robert Haskett, History, FSPC Chair
Alexander Mathas, Germanic Languages
Shelley Merello, Romance Languages
Tom Mills, Ex Officio, Office of International Programs (OIP)
Kathy Poole, Ex Officio, Office of International Programs (OIP)
Richard Stein, English
Bruce Tabb, Library
2. Provide a copy of the mission statement (charge) for your committee which has guided your work.
See attached.
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
academic year.
The FSPC approved 4 new programs during 2004-05 and reviewed 18 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 Irini Papantoniou, Secretary to the FSPC.
The following programs were reviewed in 2004-05 and judged satisfactory by the FSPC. They will be reviewed again on the following schedules:
Five-Year Review. The FSPC recommended that the following programs be reviewed in five years (during the 2009-10):
Italy, Paderno del Grappa (BUS)
Italy, University of Pavia (UO)
Italy, Siena (Fine Arts)
Spain, Oviedo (AHA)
Four-Year Review. The FSPC recommended that the following programs be reviewed in four years (during the 2008-09):
China, Beijing (OUS)
Denmark, Aalborg University (UO)
Germany, Baden-Württemberg (OUS)
Germany, SIP Tubingen (OUS)
South Africa, Cape Town (CIEE)
Three-Year Review. The FSPC recommended that the following programs be reviewed in three years (during the 2007-08):
Australia, Canberra (AHA)
China, Shanghai (CIEE)
Germany, Cologne (AHA)
Mexico, ITESM (OUS)
Mexico, Morelia (AHA)
Two-Year Review. The FSPC recommended that the following programs be reviewed in two years (during the 2006-07):
Africa Ghana (CIEE)
Africa, Ghana (Journalism) (remains on experimental status)
Denmark, Business (OUS)
Hong Kong U of Hong Kong (ARCH) (remains on experimental status)
New-Program Proposals:
Approved programs: After careful deliberation, the committee approved the following new overseas study programs. They are given an "experimental" status for 2005-06 academic year and reviewed after they have been in operation for at least one cycle:
England, Cambridge (UO)
Greece, Kefalonia (AHA)
Japan, Hokkaido University (UO)
South Korea, Hanyang University (UO)
Non-approved programs:
Peru, Machu Picchu (ARCH) Additional information required.
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 workload of this committee in hours per week.
The committee met 9 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.