ACADEMIC SENATE MEETING
TUESDAY, 12 APRIL
Absences: Irvine, Patricia (exc); Stowers,
Gemello, John (exc);
CALL TO ORDER: 2:17 p.m.
Yee invited members to several UC
club events: at noon April 27 members will be served a special lunch by
“celebrity” (administration) servers, the annual “Are you being served?”
luncheon. On Thursday May 12 from 4-6, there would be a farewell celebration
for the UC club and on Friday June 3, a sale from UC furniture and property
would take place.
Senator Chelberg gave an update on DoIT from
the Executive Committee meeting, regarding the status of email servers and infrastructure.
The recent slow email response would be remedied in the short term by
installation of new servers by the end of April, which should permit a marked
improvement to email performance. A much larger scale upgrade would occur the
next year, with the massive project in conjunction with IBM.
Chair Colvin reminded senators about
nominations for senate positions with the memos currently circulating in the
meetings remained and the upcoming agendas included the all-university
committee elections, with available information on the senate website; the
clinical lab sciences revision; and a set of dance BA and minor revisions. On
May 10 the senate would elect new senate officers and seat the new senate. The
Executive Committee sought a strong senate pool of nominations. The secretary
would not return to office but both chair and vice chair sought to continue,
but the chair urged senators to nominate themselves or colleagues for service
in the interests of conducting a wide-ranging and fully representative
indicated that an overview of the program discontinuance process would be
posted at the senate website by the next day, and urged senators to contact her
or the senate office with further information or questions.
She offered a report from the Senate chairs’ meeting from
the previous week, citing the major issue as the path to graduation. This
essentially was a CSU response to the issue of facilitating graduation, and she
indicated that the senate would hear the SFSU’s own campus response. Compared
to other campuses, ours was unique in that it included people from the
enrollment management side of the house to help create new ideas. Another major
issue was the GE revitalization discussion, and she mentioned the prevailing GE
wars on various campuses. SFSU had not revised GE thoroughly since 1981, and
she was considering a meeting with Associate Dean of Undergraduate Studies
Goldsmith and Susan Shimanoff, chair of GEC, to think about a review. The
initial question was whether it was realistic and necessary to review the GE
AGENDA ITEM #1—APPROVAL of the
AGENDA for April 12, 2005
CRAC chair Nichols moved to amend
item 7, clarifying for the record that the item arrived from both CRAC and the
AGENDA ITEM #2—APPROVAL of the MINUTES for MARCH 29, 2005
Senator Morishita desired that his presence at
the previous senate meeting be acknowledged for the record.
AGENDA ITEM #3—REPORT from HELEN
GOLDSMITH, ASSOCIATE DEAN OF UNDERGRADUATE STUDIES: PATH TO GRADUATION TASK
Goldsmith indicated that the document in purple in the senators’
packets was a supplement to her remarks. She stated that this was a report of a
task force that included Chair Colvin, Senators Brett Smith, Meredith, and
Abella, and represented a summary of what the committee had done in four months
since its inception. Graduation rates throughout CSU were listed as compiled by
Northridge, along with some interesting recommendations. A CSU task force, as
well as all the campuses, were looking at this issue, and at hand was what our
own campus could do about it. The goal was not necessarily to rush students
through, but rather to try to establish what could be done to ease the path to
graduation for students. The committee had examined some 300 students with high
units, to ascertain why they were still here. Students usually were trying hard
to finish, but there were reasons for taking so long. The committee looked at
Fall 2004 graduation denials to see if there were patterns in place. Not
surprisingly, very often students did not finish their final class. There was
some consensus on advising, with four broad areas established to pursue. More
data was required, and campus was putting together a pulse survey for students
for Fall 2005. Bottlenecks included advising, and so the committee had spent
some time thinking about how to make better. The task force recommended
implementing more fully the advising policy we already have.
Goldsmith indicated that the numbers of first-time freshman were at
record highs. The previous fall and the coming semester saw the same number of
transfers as new freshman. Eleven thousand people came the previous weekend for
“sneak preview” day, and these new students likely would require a great deal
of guidance. Registration and enrollment issues had to be addressed, and there
was no central plan for advising.
Senator Ulasewicz asked for some clarification
as to what time period the graduation rate, 38.5%, was for.
Volkert responded that we did not have data for our particular
campus, but that system-wide students often took more than 6 years. Percentages
went up with more years, but in general it was desirable to speed the process.
Goldsmith noted that the numbers were rising slowly.
Senator Yee indicated that the statewide
senators had had a meeting the previous Friday on this issue, and observed that
our campus was one of the first to start gathering such data to help
troubleshoot the problem. Other campuses were looking to our campus for
information. SFSU was unique with respect to the policy on repeating courses,
and was the only one that did not allow forgivable repeatable courses.
Statewide was looking at insisting on degree audits at 70 units, and possibly
reducing the number of units required for the BA, perhaps with a 120 unit
minimum, and perhaps reducing larger departments. There were five general areas
for advising: Entry to the university, declaration of manor, upper division
status, pre-graduation, and whenever any difficulties were encountered.
Senator Boyle asked if there were any exemplary
departments who did better than the graduation rate listed.
Goldsmith responded that no one had looked at that, which was an
interesting question. Some departments certainly did better than the average,
and some majors definitely had students staying much longer. This merited a
Senator Alvarez thanked the task force for
educating the senators, and expressed some shock at the data. He asked if it
were possible to look at the number of advisors and the ratio of advisors to
students in comparison to other campuses, and even here in the past. He deduced
that campus had devoted inadequate resources for the job.
Senator Stowers asked the meaning of “percent
Goldsmith responded that it meant, “Underrepresented minorities.” She
also been shocked with the data, and had looked at remediation rates, which
were striking. Campuses with low remediation rates were able to facilitate
their students’ progress much better.
Chair Colvin asked to extend discussion five
Senator Morishita asked if the data applied to
regularly admitted students, and perhaps did not account for those who
transferred to other institutions. There was a clear need for a standardized
method of tracking, as some of these numbers were not necessarily “failures.”
Change of majors could look like problems.
Senator Bernard-Powers noted that at other
comparable institutions, the rate was closer to 55 percent. She asked about the
job market in our area and the role of advising for vocational counseling.
There had been a cutback in advising some ten years ago.
Goldsmith agreed that future planning needed improvement.
AGENDA ITEM #4—REPORT from HELEN
GOLDSMITH, ASSOCIATE DEAN of UNDERGRADUATE STUDIES & JO VOLKERT, AVP,
ENROLLMENT PLANNING & MANAGEMENT: LDTP FORUM
Goldsmith noted that the LDTP (Lower Division Transfer Program) had
begun in Fall 2004, and had accomplished some unique work. All the rules about
this were derived from CSU-wide concerns beginning at the community college
level. There was a desire to find a way to inform community college students so
that they could come to a four-year institution as prepared as possible, and
the committee had examined the most popular majors and transfer patterns.
Students would be guaranteed admission if all the right things were done.
Feedback was solicited from the community colleges particularly City College,
the College of San Mateo, Diablo Valley College, Skyline College, the top four
feeder schools to SFSU who comprised over half our transfer population. A good
enthusiastic meeting with representatives from each of these institutions had
occurred in February, and one of the main insights that came out of the meeting
was the importance to communicate often and thoughtfully with them.
Considerable apprehension existed at community colleges that they would be
dictated to, not listened to.
AGENDA ITEM #5—REPORT from GAIL
WHITAKER, AVP, ACADEMIC PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT:
INSTITUTE for the NEXT GENERATION INTERNET
Whitaker stated that she had met with various constituencies to plan
for the “next generation” internet. In order to do this, a Research and Service
Organization (RSO) was needed. The
Senate Executive Committee had
suggested some ideas for projects that would be good to do.
introduced Joaquin Alvarado who
indicated the main goal of the institute was to reflect the convergence of
advanced technology in laboratory and university settings. He had been working
with CNIC to design tools. There were opportunities to partner with the government,
community organizations and the private sector, to enhance learning environments,
build public and private relationships, and help the city spread its vision.
Currently the RSO would serve as a gateway for international partners, Fujitsu
being one such Pacific-rim partner.
generation internet” would be thousands of times faster than a regular T1
connection. Already SBC leased some lines from us. It was a great network which
needed great tools; a sequel to the first internet. This would be the first
time to come to the table with policies and establish strong connections with Japan and Asia.
To answer the
question as to why an institute was needed, it seemed best if one unit brokered
partnerships, and provided faculty and students opportunities to extend
research and learning. The RSO’s mission was broadly and deeply defined. It
would work with the mayor’s office and city, local governments to broker
certain relationships. SFSU brought its own expertise, the highest level of
applied technology, to extend international programs.
were of particular interest: youth
media, bio-technology and bioengineering, digital media, and e-learning. The
RSO would have a close relationship with Apple, the only such university to
have this connection.
cinema issues would work well with BECA and bring faculty into process,
creating intellectual resources for the city.
As for asset
management, SFSU would partner with UCSF in bio-tech, establishing requirements
to meet their standards, and would participate in the bio-tech sector. By having
partners there were ways to take advantage of collaboration, having classes
downtown for example.
Senator Bernard-Powers asked for some basic
information, some very practical questions. She asked about the youth media,
now two years up and running, and asked what had changed, and what people were
Alvarado responded that youth media was handled well in community,
and it was desirable to align it with a college curriculum. Already in place
was a working relationship, and SFSU knew what was required to study, and what
would get kids into university. Digital technologies were familiar to the
institute, and while we had gotten very good at buying stuff, we needed to do
more to drive that technology ourselves, and allow us a voice in its design and
Senator Ulasewicz asked about the potential use
of this technology.
Alvarado responded that technology allowed more enhanced
collaboration, and could take programming out of the classroom. The technology
would move away from the personal desktop, and be put on a campus server, so
that the user would not need so much, which would make it more collaborative.
Another piece was what we should be doing with the network, and what would make
it better for the future.
Senator Yee asked about ownership, and if intellectual
property rights would be an issue with partners.
Alvarado had met with Bartscher, and it was clear the campus needed
workable models. Lots of questions remained and there was a great need to
consider this area more fully.
President Corrigan commented that he also had
some difficulties with the language of technology and that perhaps it was a
generational characteristic. He spoke to where this would fit with the
community, with three basic initiatives at work: Lucas films moving into the
city that would need employees and technologically savvy help and that SFSU is
well positioned to make that connection. South of market, there was the new
campus of UCSF, but they did not have the same technological expertise that
SFSU did. There were health care issues, such as Mary Beth Love’s Asthma
project, where SFSU could spend less money on preventative issues and
education. This initiative was a confluence of technology with projects. The
system was already there, but ideas were needed. He thought this a fine way to
reaffirm the campus mission of being the “City’s university.”
AGENDA ITEM #6—REPORT from OSWALDO
GARCIA, CHAIR, ACADEMIC PROGRAM REVIEW COMMITTEE: UPDATE from the TASK FORCE on
GRADUATE PROGRAM REVIEW
chair of APRC Garcia offered the committee’s
draft copy for review, now available for the first time. He indicated that the
draft would also reside on the senate website shortly. He outlined the
membership of the task force, reminding senators that the motivation for the
task force had come from the WASC report, which had called for more attention
to graduate programs at SFSU and similar sentiments expressed in the recent
CUSP recommendations. He indicated that a focus on graduate programs would mean
that undergraduate programs would not be fully reviewed for the sixth cycle,
although there was a need to consider the balance a particular program took
with respect to resources between graduate and undergraduate programs.
For the first
time there would be explicit standards of quality to be used in program
evaluation. Departments and programs that had outside accrediting programs
might provide a supplemental report to APRC to answer university-specific
questions. A central issue was what role APRC might have in the future, and
that perhaps it should align itself the form of the promotion committee
structure. The MOU might be replaced with a different document.
programs would not be evaluated, and new standards were under discussion. There
were university, college and program levels of standards. Administrative
requirements and program requirements suggested that programs must be able to
tell their story fairly. He hoped that ARPC would not adopt a cookie-cutter
outside accreditation, departments would need to do supplemental work that was
not covered by outside agency.
As for the
new APRC role, it might be appropriate for APRC to write the document to be
used for program change. Timelines and action items would be used to improve
program. Elected members might change the way the committee operated. These
were all significant changes.
draft of the document was now at senate website, and new standards would be the
next topic of conversation. The task force sought feedback from the broader
community, and at least now there was a draft document to use for discussion.
Chair Colvin announced that the senate was
past time certain for the next agenda item, and would maintain the speakers
list and return to this item if time allowed at the end of the meeting. Barring
that, the item would return to the senate in two weeks.
and CRAC chair Nichols indicated
that this was a consent item after two reviews from CRAC and from the graduate
council. This had been a collaborative effort between the Guide Dogs for the
Blind organization and SFSU. It would be funded by the organization as long as
the certificate was in existence, and would cover faculty salary costs,
materials, and space on the San Rafael
campus as well as provide highly qualified instructors. This arrangement would
be the only one of its kind in the country.
Senator Chelberg supported this certificate.
Professor in the department of Special Education, and Nick Certo, chair of that
department, were present to answer any questions.
Senator Steier asked what made this graduate
special, and what kind of formal guide work training was envisioned. Some of
the courses looked like “obedience training” plain and simple and he wondered
what pieces involved an intellectual component.
Rosen responded that the basis of the certificate was to have a
graduate level, teacher preparation course of study which was entirely
comparable with graduate level education. As reasons, she gave the complexity
of coursework, which was not only about how to train dogs, but how to train users
how to use the animals, a fairly complex process.
Senator Heiman observed that the first course
was a 600 level and thus would have undergraduate students, in effect a paired
course. He asked whether this should be its own graduate level course.
Rosen responded that this already was a situation that existed in
other programs, where the 600 was also available to undergrads, but it was a
required course for several areas.
Senator Chelberg made a clarification that the
Guide Dogs for the Blind supported the program but not the employees.
Senator Bernstein thought this was an exciting
program but did not see any courses in psychology.
Rosen responded that this area of study was infused in the
Senator Langbort asked whether this certificate
would be added to another program or a stand alone certificate.
indicated it would be a “stand alone” certificate.
Langbort noted that there did not seem to be anything in the courses
that describe the teaching component.
Rosen responded that that was part of the teaching preparation
and that the program included an internship.
Senator Suzuki asked about the administration
requirements and why a cohort was chosen.
Rosen responded that the main issue was cost effectiveness, and
the need to provide a variety of experiences for students.
Certo also observed that one issue was the number of dogs
Suzuki asked what type of person would make the cohort.
Certo responded that students would already have a BA and some
experience, or at least interest, in people, and would have a teacher
Abella, Steier, m/s/p
Senator Mak noted that this seemed an
innovative program and asked about how it would be assessed or accredited.
Rosen noted that the certificate would be assessed by different
dog schools and an international organization. The was a strong desire to move
this to a university, graduate, level, and set standards for international
Abella, Gregory m/s
Senator Abella indicated that the New York
Times was willing to work with the campus, and had a highly proactive and
educational value for the campus.
Senator Gregory observed that the resolution
did not mention the obvious: that students were largely unaware of the nature
of serious, reflective reporting.
Turitz questioned whether there had been any competitive bidding
from any other newspapers or whether faculty members had been consulted.
Senator Daley noted that during the pilot
program, her department had devoured all the newspapers available and commented
that there was no newspaper comparable to the Times.
Senator Abella responded that USA Today had
also been contacted but that the Times had a comprehensive package, and had
shown commitment to such efforts as voter registration.
Senator Gregory seconded the comments in
support for voter registration, noting as well the NYT commitment to the
American Democracy program. She was unclear on how competitive bidding might
take place when the product was free. The Times had taken a superior analytic
treatment of the news, always printed a range of op-ed articles, and had no
Senator Steier took vehement exception to the
previous comments which glorified the New York Times in an excessive and
misguided manner, noting that in fact the NYT basis for existence was profit
and not some altruistic vision. He sought to diminish the hagiographic
hyperbole a notch or two. He cited several international newspapers superior in
content, style, and political sophistication to the Times but ruefully
acknowledged that perhaps for SFSU the NYT was the best that could be done. He
allowed that the Times edged out USA Today as a newspaper.
Senator Heiman observed that the papers were
not taken by students, and that distribution was a potential issue, as well as
fire safety depending on where the newspapers were stacked. Half his students
had not been able to get newspapers, some of which was due their attendance at
evening classes. He urged consultation with facilities authority, and large
numbers of kiosks or distribution racks.
Senator Abella accepted these comments as well-taken
points, and promised to explore these options. The pilot runs had helped to
troubleshoot some of these issues.
Senator Chelberg noted that while the
newspapers were still free, there was still a cost involved
Senator Abella indicated that the cost was
sixteen thousand dollars a semester.
Senator Gregory asked about use of the word
“suitable” word in line 41.
AGENDA ITEM #9—RECOMMENDATION from the ACADEMIC POLICIES COMMITTEE:
PROPOSAL for NON-MAJORS’ ACCESS to GE COURSES, 1STReading
Meredith, Bernstein m/s
Senator Meredith preferred to have the GEC
chair comment on the proposal.
Shimanoff stated that this policy
came partially by the senate’s request, as a result of a revised enrollment
policy passed in an earlier session. The proposed revision did not represent
just a language change but a substantial change to policy. Previously, some GE
courses had allowed majors to have priority registration. This policy change
would serve to level the field for GE students.
Senator Ulasewicz had voted against the
proposal. She noted that a number of committee members had commented that
several departments were disproportionately affected by this change. One way of
managing enrollment in the past was to limit students from non-majors.
Senator Chelberg asked how this might affect
the path to graduation.
Goldsmith said it was a bit of a struggle to figure out the answer to
this question. With the current web registration, students were aware
immediately whether enrolling in a given class was possible.
Senator Bernstein defined the phrase “GE” as
general education. Departments could not have it both ways. Many courses had
been brought into GE to enhance enrollment, and if a course was labeled GE, it
should be open to everyone.
Senator Meredith observed that when APC
discussed this, one of the most important reasons given for rejection was the
significant number of students who could “double count” courses both for their
major and GE. If these courses were pulled out, majors would need to find
classes elsewhere. APC supported this for reasons that Bernstein outlined. GE
courses need to be actually available, not just theoretically available.
item would return to the senate at their next meeting in second reading.
Ulasewicz, and Abella were on the speakers’ list.
AGENDA ITEM #10—ADJOURNMENT 4:03