San Francisco State University Academic Senate
Agenda of March 9, 1999
The Academic Senate was called to order by Acting Chair Dawn Terrell at 2:10
Senate Members Present:
Aaron, Eunice; Barnes, Paul; Bartscher, Patricia; Bernstein, Marian; Bhat,
Subodh; Cancino, Herlinda; Chen, Yu-Charn; Cherny, Robert; Consoli, Andres;
Corrigan, Robert; Craig, JoAnn; Cullers, Susan; Duke, Jerry; Elia, John; Fehrman,
Ken; Ferretti, Charlotte; Flowers, Will; Goldsmith, Helen; Gonzales, Angela;
Graham, Minnie; Gregory, Jan; Harnly, Caroline; Haw, Mary Ann; Hom, Marlon;
Hu, Sung; Jenkins, Lee; Jerris, Scott; Johnson, Dane; La Belle, Thomas; OÃ±ate,
Abdiel; Raggio, Marcia; Scoble, Don; Shapiro, Jerald; Simeon, Roblyn; Smith,
Miriam; Swanson, Deborah; Terrell, Dawn; Turitz, Mitch; Valledares, Juan; Vaughn,
Pamela; Verhey, Marilyn; Wade, Patricia; Warren, Mary Anne; Warren, Penelope;
Wong, Alfred; Yee, Darlene.
Senate Members Absent: Alvarez, Alvin(exc.); Contreras, Rey;
Shrivastava, Vinay; Fox-Wolfgramm, Susan(exc.); Graham, Michael(exc.); Moss,
Joanna; Strong, Rob(exc.); Choo, Freddie; Phillips, Mark(exc.); Tarakji, Ghassan;
Eisman, Gerald; Kelley, James(exc.); Collier, James(exc.); Montenegro, Ricardo;
Senate Interns Present:
Guests: R. Maghroori, G. West, P. Guitron, M. Rees, B. Luzardi,
P. Ricketts, C. Gaglio, G. Whitaker.
Announcements and Report
- Acting Chair Dawn Terrell reported that the Executive Committee of the Academic
Senate had a brief, productive exchange on February 26, 1999 with Trustee
Lawrence Gould, who is on the Trustee's collective bargaining committee.
- Statewide Academic Senator Eunice Aaron reported on her attendance
at CSU legislative day where the Fiscal and Governmental Affairs Committee
was updated on a number of the 1,400 or so bills floating around that may
impact the quality of education. During the visit, they also asked legislators
to remember that one of the reasons we're suffering this tremendous reduction
in teaching ranks is because the profession is not attractive and compensation
is part of that.
Agenda Item #1 - Approval of Agenda for March 9, 1999
M/S/P (Duke/Fehrman) to delete Agenda Item #7, the proposed revisions
to A.S. Policy #F87-32, Graduate Student Award for Distinguished Achievement.
The agenda was approved as amended.
Agenda Item #2 - Approval of Minutes for February 23, 1999
The minutes were approved as printed.
Agenda Item #3 - Report from Vice President La Belle
Provost La Belle provided a mid-year overview of some of the independent actions
that have been taken over the past year and a half relative to the curriculum
and academic progress for the students.
He went over a chart that outlines Programs and Policies for Undergraduate
Student Progression at SFSU. Entering lower division students are tested and
placed, and then go through mandatory advising, orientation, and registration.
There is a new initiative on academic orientation, and there are many different
activities and initiatives tied to retention, remediation, and mandatory advising.
Moving on to entering upper-division students, La Belle highlighted advising
for entry to the major and the upper-division, advising at the graduation point,
and outcomes assessment. He also foregrounded the array of policies and services
to facilitate student progress no matter where the student is, reviewing Academic
and Student Affairs programs related to retention as well as recent Senate policies
related to retention. He emphasized that it is the totality that we are after,
trying to support students and increase the likelihood of success.
Robert Cherny asked if there is discussion under way on creating courses
that teach students how to be college students?
La Belle answered that it's a combination. There is already a library requirement
in place, and we would work on study skills and time management with these courses
probably lodged in colleges, but there would be some standard units. Some of
it would be done on the web and some of it would be done face to face. Elsewhere,
for example, some others do alcohol and drug abuse, and a whole host of things
that might be brought into student life. It would be an orientation to the university,
it would be required, and it will be coming back to the Senate for approval.
Darlene Yee suggested that interaction be encouraged among the people
doing advising at the different points. She also suggested that minors be included
in the box that says "Advising at entry to major." La Belle added that they
are trying to get faculty teaching math and English to meet with tutorial people
Jan Gregory asked who is creating the course and how La Belle sees other
courses being developed. La Belle answered that the prototype course for Liberal
Studies and Education at the freshman level is being developed by Susan Taylor,
Dean of Undergraduate Studies; the Liberal Studies Council; and Elementary Education
faculty. By developing units around some of the topics, some would be exportable,
like study skills. Faculty would need some training and orientation to teach
these courses, and we would probably ask for volunteers.
Gregory followed up by asking if it would be a unit-bearing course and if the
Academic Senate and normal faculty curricular processes would be brought to
bear. La Belle replied that the courses would be for graduation units and that
the standard faculty curricular oversight would definitely be in place.
Jerry Duke asked about the resources for such orientation courses. La
Belle replied that we'll have to face up to that issue but that we should remember
that we're trying to increase the probability that students have success. He
re-emphasized that research shows that orientation helps students be successful.
JoAnn Craig asked if it would be useful to have the cross-cultural aspects
of succeeding in an American university for those who come from foreign universities.
La Belle agreed that it is an important issue.
Abdiel OÃ±ate asked about the impact on faculty time of fully
implementing the advising as outlined on the chart. La Belle answered that of
the five advising points, two of them are at the university level and three
at the college level. We felt that this was the minimum amount of time to ask
that a student see a faculty person. Colleges and departments are working on
this in different way, using computers, staff, students, and faculty in various
Aaron commented that Chancellor Reed has promised to do everything possible
to make the CSU responsive to our constituents, and in order to do that, he
has made the commitment to make the CSU work 12 months per year, 6 days per
week, and 12 hours per day. Aaron urged La Belle to bear in mind the importance
of good advising when he discusses these issues with his counterparts. While
electronic advising will get to more people, there is a great deal to be said
about face to face advising, particularly with new students, and that takes
faculty time and faculty resources.
La Belle added a footnote to Aaron's comment, saying that we are trying to
use the power of the web and computers to develop tools that can be used by
the faculty member and student, pulling up records, for example, or resources
to guide them in the advising process. Where faculty members might be most useful
is as a good listener, a responder, for we know that students who spend time
with faculty outside of classroom get much more out of their education.
Agenda Item #4 - Proposed Calendar for the 2000-2001 Academic Year
Academic Policies Committee Chair Helen Goldsmith introduced the attached recommendation
for the 2000-2001 Academic Calendar, pointing to Senate Policy Resolution #RS95-142,
which sets the beginning of the Fall semester, and commending the hard work
of Barbara Luzardi, Academic Scheduling Coordinator.
Mitch Turitz asked why classes do not have finals at the time of the
class - why, for example, a Tuesday/Thursday class might have a final on Friday
night when the class does not meet on a Friday night. Luzardi, Goldsmith,
La Belle, and Pamela Vaughn all contributed to the following explanation:
given that finals are longer than most classes and that students should have
their finals distributed across the exam period, it is necessary that many finals
will not be on the time or day of regular class meetings. Assignments are then
made according to models that lessen and share the burden of having exams at
less attractive times.
President Robert Corrigan added that on his last three campuses, the
single most common student complaint is that faculty ignore the final exam schedule.
We should respect the final exam schedule and have a full class schedule.
Yee raised a question about how we as a campus might handle year-round
operations. Aaron responded that year-round operations will take lots
of extra hours with some of it done in a centralized fashion from Long Beach.
Cherny added that the Legislative Analyst's report on year-round operations
is on the web, and that the short answer is that it probably would not change
that much in the immediate future.
Vaughn asked about the lack of a review day on this calendar and the possibility
of having one on future calendars. Luzardi responded that the review day is
an optional day with no local or statewide requirement, and Goldsmith added
that it all has to do with days of the week and how many there are and how the
days work in that year.
M/S/P (Duke, Fehrman) to second reading.
M/S/P (Duke/Fehrman) to close debate.
The vote was taken and the proposed Academic Calendar for 2000-2001 passed
Agenda Item #5 - Proposed Revisions to the Bachelor of Science in Business:
Concentration in Entrepreneurial/Small Business Management
Curriculum Review and Approval Committee Chair Al Wong introduced the
proposed changes to the College of Business's undergraduate concentration in
entrepreneurial/small business management.
Goldsmith asked whether there were new prerequisites for minors. Connie
Gaglio, Co-Director of the Center for Enterprise and Assistant Professor of
Management, answered that nothing will be added for minors.
Deborah Swanson suggested that the elective English 414 should be shifted
to the junior year, semester 5, because English 414 and the JEPET are upper-division.
Gaglio said that they would make that adjustment.
M/S/P (Fehrman, Duke) to second reading.
Cherny asked about the total number of units. Gaglio responded that
they were not changing any of that and that it's the same as all the other ones.
M/S/P (Jerris/Fehrman) to close debate.
The vote was taken and the item passed unanimously.
Agenda Item #6 - Proposed Resolution on Memorial Grove
Student Affairs Committee Chair Ken Fehrman introduced this proposed
resolution to initiate efforts to better identify the location of the SFSU Memorial
Grove in order to raise awareness and enhance the utilization of the Grove.
Marian Bernstein wondered whether this resolution might go along with
improved signage on campus. Fehrman and most Senators nodded in vigorous agreement
while Terrell added that Student Affairs has already been looking at this issue.
Mary Anne Warren asked where the Grove is. Fehrman replied that this
is exactly one of the reasons for the resolution. It's in front of the gym,
there's a small rock with a small plaque, and then you wind your way into the
M/S/P (Goldsmith/Fehrman) to second reading.
M/S/P (Minnie Graham/Fehrman) to close debate.
The vote was taken and the item passed unanimously.
The Senate was adjourned at 3:10 p.m.
Secretary to the Faculty