Meeting Minutes
Minutes of the UPC Meeting
May 11, 2004
Meeting held via tri-campus video-conference
Members Present:
LUMC: E.J. Neafsey
LSC: Paula DeVoto, Alan Gitelson (chair),Theresa Gross-Diaz, Sheila
Haas
WTC: Karla Petersen
Members Excused: Emily Preheim, Jermaine Bell, Anthony Barbato<br>
Guest - LSC: John Pelissero
The meeting was called to order at 2:05 PM.
Approval of the minutes of the April 19th, 2004, meeting was
unanimous.
The single item before the AAUPC was the proposed new University Core
Curriculum. Associate Provost John Pelissero, chairperson of the Core
Renewal Steering Committee, submitted four recommendations for the AAUPC's
review and approval. These recommendations were considered in the form of
motions:
that the AAUPC move to recommend the approval of a University Core
Curriculum of
15 courses (45 credit hours) with the distributional and skills requirements
as outlined by the
Core Curriculum Renewal Steering Committee in Table 1
that the AAUPC move to recommend approval for requiring four values
across the
curriculum whereby students must complete course work, although not
necessarily
additional coursework, encompassing these values (12 credit hours)
that the AAUPC move to recommend the establishment of a review process
for
courses to be approved for "values" and that the established skills
requirements in the
revised core curriculum be integrated and reinforced in all core courses
and that the AAUPC move to recommend implementation of the revised core
curriculum begin with the 2005-2006 academic year.
During discussion of the various motions, it was revealed that the Academic
Council of the College of Arts and Sciences had met especially to discuss
the proposed core revision document, as had its core curriculum
subcommittee, and acknowledged that none of its concerns had been ignored,
so in general it offers "guarded support" of the core revision as presented
in the document. The chair of the CAS Academic Council, Theresa Gross-Diaz,
presented a letter clarifying the deliberations of the Council at its April
21st meeting.
On motion "a)," Sheila Haas moved and Paula DeVoto seconded approval. The
vote was six (6) in favor, none opposed, and none abstaining. It was noted
that, after discussions with the president, deans and provost, the Core
Renewal Steering Committee brought forth an ethics requirement as a
separate, specific requirement, with which CAS concurred, noting that
"justice can be studied across the curriculum."
On motion "b)," discussion ensued about "civic engagement or leadership" and
whether students actually get such training or involvement through
credit-bearing courses. The AAUPC did not find these qualities exclusive
and noted that students can do both. Examples of students who have
non-credit bearing training in leadership include resident assistants and
nursing students, Credit might be awarded for activities such as tutoring in
public high schools, university ministry's immersion programs, or
internships if these actions are linked to a course. Theresa Gross-Diaz
moved and Karla Petersen seconded approval of this motion which, in its
entirety, reads...<em>The AAUPC recommends approval of requirements for "values
across the curriculum" whereby students must complete coursework on four
values within their undergraduate studies: 1) Understanding and Promoting Justice,
2) Understanding Diversity in the United States or the World, 3)
Understanding Spirituality or Faith in Action in the World, and
4) Promoting Civic Engagement or Leadership, and notes that these requirements
may be fulfilled through courses in the core curriculum, major, or
electives, or through co-curricular experiences that have been approved for
academic credit.</em>
The vote was six (6) in favor, none opposed, and no abstentions.
On motion "c)," there was concern expressed over pre-requisites since
traditionally core courses do not have them. A course such as advanced
accounting could not qualify as "core," but major requirements may be
allowed to substitute for core if the knowledge base is met. A biology
major, for example, would fulfill the scientific literacy core. There was
also concern about whether individual school's requirements would be decided
by the time of core implementation (they should be) and about restrictions
on "double-dipping," which would only be disallowed when two areas of the
core are involved. A component of this motion is the establishment of an
oversight committee for the University core. Schools will submit courses to
this committee for core approval. Students will be able to identify core
courses, outcomes and values' courses, skills courses, etc. from listings in
schedules and catalogs.
There would be a "core implementation committee" as well, presumably of
fourteen (14) members; how it would be constituted was unclear. Would six
(6) members from CAS be elected by the Academic Council or appointed by the
CAS dean? It would though be a two-tier system to allow for "checks and
balances..." the oversight committee and the implementation committee. Could
individual faculty propose core courses? No, schools and departments can;
discussion on proposed courses would occur within departments and/or schools
before submission to the CIC.
To a question as to whether a graduate core existed, E.J. noted that the
biomedical sciences are implementing a common set of courses (12 s.h.) for
all Ph.D. candidates entering the seven programs of the Medical School.
Will there be a core director? Yes, a half-time administrative position
awarded to a full-time faculty member.
How will evaluations for courses or faculty be measured? Through outcomes
assessment. For example, a social science outcome might take the mid-term
exams from a half-dozen core courses and have expert faculty not teaching
the courses evaluate how well the students are responding. Since this type
of evaluation is not in current practice at Loyola, it needs to be
developed.
After consensus that the core does not have ownership over the learning of
skills and values -- this can be achieved through the major or minors as well
-- a motion as made by Sheila Haas and seconded by paula DeVoto for the AAUPC
to recommend that the policies for the University Core Curriculum as
proposed by the Core Curriculum Renewal Steering Committee form the basis
for the development of the governing and administrative policies for the
core. The vote as five (50 in favor, none opposed, and one (1) abstention.
CAS still has concern about unlimited double-dipping and does not assume
that the Advising Center will be able to monitor everything.
Motion "d)" was stricken as a recommendation since it is not a policy but an
administrative issue.
A cognate issue ... how many credits are required for graduation ... was
discussed by the Core Renewal Steering Committee but tabled as "beyond our
charge." It has also been brought up at the Vice Presidents' meetings. The
issue has both academic and fiscal implications. There does not seem to be
much dispute about the upper end ... only the lower end; should Loyola drop to
120 s.h. degree requirement? This may be the topic of a future proposal to
the AAUPC.
The meeting adjourned at 3:37 PM.