University Senate
April 27, 2001
Among
the recurrent responsibilities of the Education Committee is the review of
proposals for the creation of new academic programs, institutes, and
departments within the University.
Separate subcommittees studied
proposals for two new programs, three new institutes, and a record number of
seven new departments. After review by the committee all but one of these
proposals were recommended for Senate approval.
1. Certification
of Professional Achievement in TESOL (Special Programs Division)
This non-degree program required approval by the
committee only. It was approved on October 6, 2000, after several committee
meetings and discussions with members of the administration of Teachers
College. The issue of concern was that this program would seem to violate the
historical division of responsibility for TESOL between Teachers College and
the American Language Program in the Special Programs Division. While the
committee reconfirmed the principle that other units of the University must not
encroach upon the core mission of Teachers College, it did approve this
proposal for a summer program, when it was clear that Teachers College did not
intend to offer a comparable program. The committee further stated its opinion
that a qualified faculty should not be denied its request to teach a unique
program to a special targeted audience that is not in competition with any of
the programs that Teachers College offers or intends to offer.
The committee reported its action to the Senate on
October 27, 2000.
2. Certificate in Public Policies Studies (SIPA)--approval
pending (4/27/2001)
New institutes
1. Institute at Reid Hall (Paris, France)--approved
11/17/00
2. Institute for Social and Economic Research and
Policy--approved 1/26/01
3. Sackler Institute for Developmental
Psychobiology--approval pending (4/27/2001)
Dr. Myron Hofer (professor
of psychiatry, and proposed first director of the institute) met with the
committee to answer several questions about the proposal, and to explain the
mission of the new institute as well as its relationship with similar
institutes at other universities.
The
committee started an inventory of known and listed institutes and centers in
the University. It also reviewed extant definitions of institutes and centers.
Institutes require approval by the Senate and are authorized by the President
on authority of the Trustees. Centers do not rise to this level of review and
approval, although a central registry would be desirable.
It has become clear that since 1975
the distinction between institutes and centers has become blurred. This
situation is confusing to all, especially those who propose to create such an
administrative unit, as well as those who are charged with the review of such
proposals. The committee, in consultation with the Vice Provost, is developing
a working definition and has set preliminary thresholds of size,
interdisciplinary complexity, and educational activity to assist it in its
charge to review proposals for new institutes.
1. Department
of Ecology, Evolution, and Environmental Biology (Arts and Sciences)--approved
12/8/00
2. Department
of Biostatistics (Public Health)--approved 1/26/01
3. Department
of Environmental Health Sciences (Public Health)--approved 1/26/01
4. Department
of Epidemiology (Public Health)--approved 1/26/01
5. Department
of Health Policy and Management (Public Health)--approved 1/26/01
6. Department
of Population and Family Health (Public Health)--approved 1/26/01
7. Department
of Sociomedical Sciences (Public Health)--approved 1/26/01
The six new departments in
the School of Public Health represent conversions of previously existing
divisions in the School. The committee was aided in its review by Dean Allan
Rosenfield and Vice Dean Andrew Davidson of the Joseph L. Mailman School of
Public Health, who met with the committee to answer all questions that had
arisen, and to address any concerns about this major change in the
administrative structure of the School of Public Health.
Five-year
reviews of newly approved programs
A questionnaire was developed and approved by
the committee to survey new programs five years after their approval by the
Senate. The survey is intended to assist the committee in determining whether a
program has been implemented as originally proposed, whether it has met its
purpose, how many students have applied, matriculated, and, when applicable,
completed the program.
Dual-degree
programs
This
topic has been an important action item for the committee during the year and
will continue so in the year 2001–2002. Concerns have been expressed by student
senators about several issues that affect students who are enrolled in dual
degree programs. Most of these are graduate programs, but similar issues were
identified by students in the 3-2 and 4-1 programs of the Fu Foundation School
of Engineering and Applied Sciences (SEAS).
The committee met with three guest
students and Deputy Registrar John Carter for a discussion of these issues and
recommendations for possible solutions.
While the number of graduate dual-degree students is
relatively small, there appears to be a pervasive flaw in the administration of
such programs, which may be a result of the failure of the schools involved to
take ownership. There is a strong need for the creation of administrative and
advising structures that address the dual degree students as a separate group
with its own identity and needs in academic advising, student services, and
community.
The Education Committee set up two
subcommittees, one for graduate dual-degree programs and one for undergraduate
(3-2 and 4-1 Engineering) programs.
The former has developed a survey to
ascertain the current status of the administration and the requirements of
dual-degree programs. The survey was sent out on March 9, 2001, with a request
for replies by March 23, 2001. The subcommittee will review the responses and
report to the education committee in May. Its recommendations will guide the
actions on this subject by the committee in the year 2001-2002.
The latter met with a representative
of the administration of the SEAS. The administration exhibited awareness of
the issues that were raised, and already had made plans to address them. It is
our expectation that the willingness of the administration of SEAS to resolve
the issues will do much to alleviate the problems. The subcommittee will meet
again next year to review the implementation of the proposed changes and their
impact on the administration of the program.
The committee followed up on an earlier meeting by once again inviting Dean Kathryn Yatrakis to a meeting to discuss the impact of the larger undergraduate class on the average section size in the core. The sections have not increased in size, but have increased in number. Financial adjustments are made by Arts and Sciences, when it becomes apparent that another section is needed.
Concerns were raised in committee
about the number of available and suitable classrooms to accommodate the increased
number of sections. Another issue is the prospect of a reduction in the number
of graduate students, which may exacerbate possible staffing problems in the
future, especially in logic and rhetoric.
Professor Hervé Varenne served as
the committee’s liaison on the Fathom.com subcommittee.
The
Committee acknowledges with thanks the active participation of Trustee Emerita Anna
Longobardo and Carlos Muñoz, alumni representative, in its work. We value their
conscientious attendance and valuable input in our deliberations and actions.
Letty
Moss-Salentijn, chair