Minutes: April 12th, 2005

ACADEMIC SENATE MEETING

MINUTES

for

TUESDAY, 12  APRIL

2005

    

Meeting Attendance:

CALL TO ORDER: 2:17 p.m.

State Senator

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.

ANNOUNCEMENTS

Chair Colvin reminded senators about

nominations for senate positions with the memos currently circulating in the

colleges.

Two senate

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

election.

CHAIR’S REPORT

Chair Colvin

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

program.

AGENDA ITEM #1—APPROVAL of the

AGENDA for April 12, 2005

Senator and

CRAC chair Nichols moved to amend

item 7, clarifying for the record that the item arrived from both CRAC and the

Graduate Council.

Approved.

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.

Approved as

amended.

AGENDA ITEM #3—REPORT from HELEN

GOLDSMITH, ASSOCIATE DEAN OF UNDERGRADUATE STUDIES: PATH TO GRADUATION TASK

FORCE

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

closer examination.

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

UR Min.”

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

minutes.

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.

Whitaker

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.

The “next

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.

Four areas

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.

Digital

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

doing.

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

use.

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

Senator and

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.

Undergrad

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

approach.

As for

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.

The current

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.

AGENDA ITEM #7—RECOMMENDATION

from the CURRICULUM REVIEW & APPROVAL COMMITTEE and GRADUATE COUNCIL:

PROPOSAL for a GRADUATE CERTIFICATE in GUIDE DOG MOBILITY, 1^st

& 2^nd Readings

Senator

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.

Sandra Rosen,

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

program.

Senator Langbort asked whether this certificate

would be added to another program or a stand alone certificate.

Rosen

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

available,

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

mentality.

Move to

second reading.

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

training,

Passed

unanimously.

AGENDA ITEM #8—RECOMMENDATION from the EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE: RESOLUTION in SUPPORT

of the NEW YORK TIMES PROGRAM, 1^ST Reading

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

peer.

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, 1^STReading

Meredith, Bernstein m/s

Senator Meredith preferred to have the GEC

chair comment on the proposal.

GEC chair

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.

The agenda

item would return to the senate at their next meeting in second reading.

Furman,

Ulasewicz, and Abella were on the speakers’ list.

AGENDA ITEM #10—ADJOURNMENT 4:03

p.m.