Monday, October 23, 2006
Attendance: Orin Chein, Gretchen Condran, Bruce Conrad, Chris Dennis, Rob Drennan, Jane Evans, Mary Anne Gaffney, Peter Jones, Bernie Newman, Michele O’Connor, Catherine Schifter, Karen Sofranko, Concetta Stewart, Karen M. Turner.
The meeting was called to order by Mary Anne Gaffney at 2:06 PM.
The minutes of September 25 were amended to include Catherine Schifter appointed by EPPC to the Transfer Credit Subcommittee of GEEC, and to remove a sentence “A representative of the Advising Service is also needed” from the section on EPPC/GEEC Transfer Credit Subcommittee. Minutes were then approved as amended.
GEEC and Transfer Credit report by Karen Turner:
The Transfer Credit Subcommittee is exploring various scenarios of transfer students. They talked about other options, e.g., 30+ credits, 62+ credits. They want to preserve the intellectual integrity of gen. ed., but not dissuade transfers to Temple. They are going to look at the numbers of students affected and what core courses they still take. They are talking about a possible “transfer specific” gen. ed. course.
Questions:
- Where do reports from this committee go? – to GEEC then EPPC
- What is the relationship between GEEC and EPPC? – Peter noted that GEEC only addresses gen. ed. GEEC has brought all matters to EPPC for approvals.
- Concern was expressed about the long haul integrity of gen. ed.
- What about core-to-core agreements? – Michele noted that all partners want to continue and Temple is unique in these agreements. If students graduate with the Associates degree from the partner schools, there will be alignments with the new gen. ed. – which is what the transfer committee is addressing.
- Discussion took place about the 45+ connection with the new gen. ed., which is part of the conversation in the transfer committee
- Will schools have to renegotiate articulation agreements? Michele noted that since these are not core-to-core agreements, they may need to be renegotiated if affected by the new gen. ed. Michele noted she would like to facilitate these discussions, but the onus is in the colleges.
Articulation agreements are listed on the Vice provost website.
Russian Courses
Michele presented the proposal from Ben Rifkin for an exemption from the foreign language requirement for ‘heritage speakers’ who take Russian 227 and 228. She had letters of support from deans of CLA and CST, and Jane Evans indicated there would be support from Tyler. The motion was made to approve the proposal, seconded and approved.
Free Elective Credits
A lively discussion took place on the spirit and intent of what are called “free credits” in the overall undergraduate degree. Peter noted that four year undergraduate degrees have 120-124 credits. Gen. ed. Equals 36 credits, with some scenarios for reducing this number. Free electives were never defined, but President Adamany used the number 24, leaving the major approximately 60 credits, which most do not use. The problem appears to be with majors wanting to use electives to satisfy prerequisites for the major. While these requests have only come from Fox and Tourism to date, Peter expected more and wanted guidance on how to proceed. Accreditation appears not to be an issue, yet.
Suggestions:
- Suggest specific areas of study, but not specific courses to give choice. Peter noted that electives can be within the major department or within cognate areas, but the spirit of electives was to give students latitude to explore areas not required in the major.
- This is a problem for professional degrees where if students don’t start early, there is not enough time to graduate in 4 years.
- Concetta suggested benchmarking against other schools
- Should there be a minimal number of electives? The Gen Ed documents note there will be a significant number of free electives, but no number is attached.
- Should departments require a certain number of electives prescribed or otherwise?
Next steps: - each member of EPPC will think about and come to the next meeting with suggestions for definitions of “free electives” and “significant number.”
Academic Warning, Probation and Dismissal Policies for non-matriculated students
Karen Sofranko presented the case for changes in CE academic policies in these areas. After discussion, the section on Withdrawing from Classes was moved for approval, seconded and approved.
Discussion moved to the section on Academic Warning, Probation and Dismissal. Karen noted that CE students cannot have been denied admission to Temple, have been dismissed, but can be visiting or taking college AP credit. The proposal was amended in two ways: 1) under Policy – the word ‘matriculated’ was changed to ‘non-matriculated,’ and 2) the Note under Probation was eliminated. The proposal was moved for approval, seconded and approved.
EPPC listing in the Faculty Handbook
At this point there was approximately 10 minutes left in the meeting. Given the limited time and the discrepancies between what is listed the handbook and what is on the Senate website, much discussion was needed. One suggestion was to eliminate the Chair of UCPC since it does not exist, and the Graduate Board representative since they never attend, and to add the GEEC representative. Also, it was noted that official voters and ex officio members needs to be revisited. The discussion was tabled to the next meeting.
Old Business
The discussion about how many times a person can take a course was revived. Chris said there was a policy and he would look into this. The discussion was tabled to the next meeting.
New Business
Just FYI – a joint request from CLA and SCT has been received in the Vice Provost office to terminate the American Culture and Media Arts program. The deans support this proposal. Question was raised about provisions for those in the major now – all majors must graduate by 2010.
The meeting was adjourned at 4pm.
