Present: S. Conklin (EDUC), C. Downing (BUS), P. Eubanks (LAS), W. Goldenberg (VPA), D. Gough (HHS), J. Hertz (HHS), K. King (EDU), C.T. Lin (LAS), K. Millis (LAS), N. Osorio (LIB), L. Rigg (LAS), D. Rusin (LAS), S. Short (EET), D. Sinason (BUS), J. Stewart (EET), W. Tolhurst (LAS), R. Wheeler (Interim Vice Provost). Students: K. O’Kelly (LAS)
Guests: K. Van Mol (Catalog Editor/Curriculum Coordinator)
R. Wheeler made introductions and then asked the committee members to introduce themselves and state who they are representing.
ADOPTION OF AGENDA
The agenda was adopted.
A. D. Rusin said that there were several references in the bylaws to the Associate Provost that needed to be changed to “Vice Provost.”
B. A Summary of Meeting Dates was included in the packet but didn’t include the date of the annual retreat. This will be discussed later during the meeting.
C. D. Rusin said that there was a change last year in the approval of minutes and that most of the committees on campus now do an electronic approval of minutes. R. Wheeler said that this was a change that was adopted by the UCC and by all six of the standing committees so that henceforth all minutes are to be approved electronically, which typically means that the minutes of the standing committees get to the UCC a month earlier than they otherwise would. He said in the Operating Procedures under article 4 we could insert that the UCC minutes will be approved electronically. W. Tolhurst said that the more we put in our operating procedures the more we’re going to have to talk about change in future meetings, so his feeling is that the less said the better. R. Wheeler said that the minutes included in the packet were approved electronically and are now a part of the permanent record. S. Conklin asked that they be corrected to show that she was in attendance at the May 2, 2002 meeting. R. Wheeler said that we would make the correction.
D. R. Wheeler said that the UCC Annual Report to the University Council for 2001-2002 was constructed by him in consultation with W. Tolhurst and W. Goldenberg, and is basically a compendium of the reports of the six standing committees from the last academic year. He saidclass=Section2>
D.that reading it will give a certain sense of where important issues stand as we start the new academic year.
E. D. Rusin said that in the Operating Procedures for the UCC, references to the Associate Provost needed to be changed to “Vice Provost.” There was discussion about the faculty chair’s responsibility to conduct an orientation session for new UCC members. W. Tolhurst suggested that this could be folded into the retreat. D. Rusin wondered if the section on orientation should be deleted from the operating procedures or changed to say that “the faculty chair of the UCC is responsible for orienting new members, including student members.” W. Tolhurst suggested tabling this pending the experience of the next retreat. D. Rusin asked who is responsible for preparing the agenda for the UCC. He noted that in the bylaws it is stated that the chair, assistant chair, and other such faculty members as the Council may designate are responsible for preparing the agenda for the meeting, but that in the operating procedures it mentions that the chair, faculty chair, AND faculty representatives of the standing committees will prepare the agenda. R. Wheeler said that what typically happens is that the representatives of the UCC to the standing committees may talk with him prior to the UCC meeting about the nature of their report and that has seemed to function fairly well in an informal way. D. Rusin said that we can also revisit this issue after the retreat.
On behalf of APASC, R. Wheeler moved that the UCC receive the May 1, 2002 minutes. The motion carried.
R. Wheeler said that the minutes reflect ongoing discussion about a number of important issues, but there are no particular policy recommendations that were passed during the course of the APASC meeting.
W. Tolhurst pointed out that in receiving the minutes of the committee we approve and forward whatever the committee did, so this is an opportunity to exercise oversight of the committee if one has concerns. R. Wheeler said that if this body does not wish to accept a recommendation from the standing committee it may so indicate and return the matter to the standing committee and receive the minutes except for that item. He also said that if we chose to receive minutes that contain substantial items, it may happen that the University Council will take an interest in the matter and pursue it further because the reports of the activity of this committee do go to the University Council.
R. Wheeler reported that at the September 4, 2002 APASC meeting there were a number of things in progress that will be coming to the UCC later in the semester, and some may be of great interest to the UCC. He said one is the issue of admission requirements to the university. He said right now the university requirements say, for example, if you have an ACT composite of at least 19 and you are inclass=Section3>
the upper half of your high school class, you can be admitted to the university as a new freshman. He said an increasing difficulty with that provision is that many high schools do not rank students, and consequently they are concerned about their students being treated fairly. He said that APASC will recommend to the UCC at the October meeting that a grade point average of 2.75 in high school be considered equivalent to upper half of your high school class. He said there is another way you can get into the university on a regular basis and that is to have an ACT composite of at least 23 and rank in the upper 2/3rds of your high school class. APASC will also recommend to this body that a high school grade point of 2.5 be accepted in lieu of rank in the upper 2/3rds of the high school class. APASC will further recommend for high schools that do weighted class rank and weighted grading, that that be considered in the admission process. For high schools that offer Advanced Placement classes or honors classes, they may weight those grades to take account of the fact that students are enrolled in a more challenging experience. He said right now in our admission process we don’t take that into account, but APASC will recommend that we do, and if the student on the basis of weighted grading has a higher rank than they otherwise would, that would be considered in their case. W. Tolhurst asked that if a high school weights grades and computes a class rank on that basis, do we recompute it? R. Wheeler said that no, we take whatever they give us. He said some high schools give us two ranks, the regular rank and the weighted rank, and right now we take the regular rank, but this would change if approved.
R. Wheeler said we may see in October a recommendation that honors students be given priority in registration. This is under discussion now by APASC and the advising deans; it would be a significant change in procedure for the university. He said right now the only students who get priority registration are l) student athletes, and 2) students with a documented disability who work with the CAAR office, which collectively is about 4% of our undergraduate students. Honor students are about 6% of the undergraduate students, so this would significantly change the number of students getting priority registration if adopted. He said that the matter currently before APASC refers only to university honors students, but that’s not to say that in the course of discussion other aspects of that might not come out such as the departmental honors issue.
R. Wheeler said there is also on-going discussions about the Monday, Wednesday, Friday course meeting schedule. He said that with the opening of Barsema Hall and the Convocation Center we’ve become acutely aware of how stretched the campus is from East to West, probably a good mile and a half from Barsema to the Convocation Center. He said for students faced with the issue of getting from DuSable to Barsema for classes, it’s no longer something you can do in ten minutes, and the question is what should be done about that. Sooner or later this will be coming to the UCC. He said a shuttle bus has been placed in service. K. O’Kelly said that it takes about 12 minutes to get from DuSable to Barsema using the shuttle, and the shuttle only runs every 20 minutes. He said for the classes that start on the ½ hour, the shuttle bus leaves DuSable at 3:12, but his class doesn’t get out until 3:15, so there are a few things that need fixing. He said for now that ridership is actually pretty good. R. Wheeler said there are many proposals that have been floated including one that would adjust the Monday, Wednesday, Friday class meeting schedule to have start times at 8, 9:05, 10:10, 11:15, 12:20, etc., giving a 15 minute passing period rather than 10. He said our director of admissions walked fromclass=Section4>
DuSable to Barsema the other day at a good pace and it took him 13 minutes, not counting the time it takes to get into or out of DuSable and the time it takes to get into and out of Barsema.
GEC — D. RUSIN
On behalf of GEC, D. Rusin moved that the UCC receive the April 18, 2002 and April 25, 2002 minutes. The motion carried.
D. Rusin said that one of the major functions of the GEC is to review the specific courses that are part of the general education program. He said departments are periodically asked to resubmit courses, and new courses can always be suggested. He said the GEC looks these courses over to make sure that the courses really do meet the goals of the general education program. He said that one of the issues that was undertaken last year was a noticeable change in the way that students could fulfill their core competency requirements with regard to quantitative reasoning with the use of statistics courses. To make sure that those statistics courses would continue to meet the general education goals, we asked the division, departments and colleges involved to submit some documentation that these courses would actually satisfy the general education goals, which they did. Similar documents will come from the Math Department.
D. Rusin reported that a major item of business for the GEC was to develop new forms for the departments to use for submitting and resubmitting courses for general education credit. He said that in the April 25 minutes the GEC approved the submission form to make it compatible with the new resubmission form. R.Wheeler said these forms are now in the APPM, the Academic Policies and Procedures Manual, which is the repository for many hundreds of items of this type. He said that last year this body gave careful scrutiny to the resubmission document and enthusiastically endorsed it in the end, and the submission document is very much in the same vein.
S. Conklin asked if the GEC had decided to go to an eight year rotation. R. Wheeler said that if you look back at the records of the GEC from about 4 years ago, the GEC voted to have an eight year cycle, but it’s not clear that it was ever adopted. He said this is an agenda item for the first meeting of the GEC this fall, and we’ll report back in October. R. Wheeler said we were operating on a five year cycle using the categories of distributive studies: core competency, humanities and the arts, social sciences, science and math, and interdisciplinary. He said in practice we never get through any category in a single year. He said it is an issue for the GEC because of the sheer volume of carryover of resubmissions that it has to account for. He said over the last 4 years 80 courses have been reapproved for the general education program.
On behalf of the Honors Committee, R. Wheeler moved that the UCC receive the September 6, 2002 minutes. The motion carried.
R. Wheeler said that there were no matters of policy dealt with at this meeting.
Minutes were dealt with last spring.
Minutes were dealt with last spring.
Minutes were dealt with last spring.
V. OTHER REPORTS
A. UNIVERSITY ASSESSMENT PANEL — J. STEWART
J. Stewart said that a portfolio workshop was held over the summer. He said there were a number of projects in progress now. He said there were a number of reports last year from Student Services and that they were pleased with the quality of work that is being performed around the university.
VII. NEW BUSINESS
A. Selection of Representatives to Standing Committees for 2002-2003
Appointments for 2002-2003 are as follows:
APASC - David Sinason, ACCY
CIUE - Ken King, TLRN
CUAE - C.T. Lin, CHEM
CUC - Jim Stewart, TECH
GEC - Lesley Rigg, GEOG and Judith Hertz, NURS
HC - Deb Gough, COMD
B. Selection of a UCC Representative to the University Assessment Panel
Nestor Osorio, LIB
C. Date and Agenda for Annual UCC Retreat
D. Rusin suggested using the retreat as an orientation to discuss how we would like the committee to operate. He said that last year Provost Ivan Legg attended and he could be invited to attend this year’s retreat. He said some other agenda items could be the North Central accreditation of the university that is coming up. He said he would like to find a way to integrate the activities of the standing committees that report to the UCC. He said it would be nice for members of this committee to be able to get the other committees to think about how their operations are going to affect the whole undergraduate experience. C.T. Lin suggested inviting the standing committee chairs to attend the retreat. After discussion it was decided to have a UCC retreat on Sunday, October 20, 2002 from 10 a.m. until 3 p.m. It will be held in the University Suite of the Holmes Student Center, if available. Lunch and coffee will be provided. D. Rusin would like input from the committee members and would like agenda items submitted to him. R. Wheeler said that this could also be talked about at the October 3 UCC meeting.
D. Rusin said that we have a very large incoming class this year. He said that while this is great, it could have a serious impact on our ability to offer classes. He said that in the bylaws, there are 7 things that the UCC is charged to do, and number 4 is to foster high standards of undergraduate instruction. He said it bothers him that we would be able to continue to do this with the same size or even smaller faculty, and yet have a larger number of students. He said he’s not sure how this will affect each of the different standing committees. R. Wheeler said the President in his remarks to the Board of Trustees’ subcommittee yesterday said we cannot be stretched any further without additional state resources. He said that’s a typical example of an APASC matter because APASC deals with admissions. He predicts that it will come to this body to consider how we wish to manage enrollment: do we want to simply cut off admissions at an earlier date; do we want to raise the ACT floor; do we want to do something else?
D. Rusin also suggested one more agenda item that has to do with the work loads of the committees. The GEC has a backlog of things that it needs to do and he wonders if we are asking the GEC to do too much. He said that the UCC is supposed to coordinate the efforts of the standing committees, and if we don’t like the way the GEC is operating and if we think we’ve given them too much to do we have the capacity to initiate some changes in the university bylaws. R. Wheeler said that last year with enormous labor, the GEC resolved two matters: 1) the resubmission document and 2) the core competency in mathematics. It doesn’t have to do either of those things this year, and maybe things will return to a more normal state. W. Tolhurst suggested having Chris send the committee a message regarding the agenda, then those who want to make suggestions regarding the agenda could do so by hitting the reply to all button and share their suggestions with everybody.
Meeting adjourned at 2:08 p.m.
Christine Welch, Secretary