Undergraduate Council Academic Programs Subcommittee Meeting

September 9, 2003

Members Present: Bonnie Barber (Co-chair), Sandra Beeler, Patti King, David Tansik

Members Absent: Byron Bissell, Ara Arabyan, Wayne Decker, Ted Pope, Denise Roe, Cindy Rankin (Co-chair)

Guests: Tim Vance – Department of East Asian Studies and Jeff Silvertooth – Department of Soil, Water & Environmental Science

Bonnie Barber called the meeting to order at 3:40 p.m. A quorum was not present.

A motion was made by D. Tansik to forward the minutes of the meeting of April 8^th, 2003 electronically for approval. Seconded by B. Barber. Passed

Speech and Hearing Sciences name change
Sandy Beeler reported that the department had indeed confirmed that the name of the major and the course subject code should change to reflect the new department name. Departments that were poled regarding any conflict with the use of “language” in the title (Language, Reading, and Culture, Linguistics, and Cognitive Science) confirmed no conflict.

New Asian American Studies Minor
Tim Vance, Department Head of East Asian Studies, was attending the meeting to answer questions concerning the Asian American Studies Minor. Sandra Beeler passed out a summary of the subcommittee concerns from past meetings to help focus the discussion.

Bonnie asked Tim to give an overview of the changes that had been made to the program that directly related to concerns of the subcommittee.

Tim stated that the courses listed as possibilities for the minor are all changed from the original submission. There was resistance to the old courses from the College of Social and Behavior Sciences. In working with departments that were sympathetic to the minor and have its students in their courses, we developed the current list. And, actually, we are happier with this list than the original. It does give better exposure to broader issues concerning Asian Americans.

Bonnie pointed out that there had been concern about having the new courses in order for the minor to work. It appears now that this is not so. Tim confirmed that the new courses were not needed.

Bonnie also pointed out that the enrollment of 5 students per year raised the low enrollment issue. Tim stated that his department had not thought of this program. It was a response to a student petition that was dumped on him by the Provost’s Office and we were expected to find a home for it. No one expected it to be a high enrollment program. It is to fill a niche and is a perceived gap with little cost and resources. Bonnie wanted to know if the low numbers were based on students who might not participate themselves. Tim responded that those students had graduated now. It seems a little dishonest now to claim that number of students is interest. Bonnie wanted to know if the minor would be advertised as an effort to improve enrollment. Tim said yes, certainly. However, most people would not think about looking under East Asian Studies. It would be far better if we could get it under the College of Humanities. We think it would be better found.

Patti noted that another concern was that the curriculum should reflect the name of the minor. The focus seemed to be Chinese American and that Korean, Vietnamese and other Asian populations should be included. Tim said that what is in the curriculum reflects availability. There are only very small different Asian ethnic populations at the UA and the small groups are banding together because they cannot make it on their own. The purpose of the petition was of a political nature in the first place.

Bonnie pointed out that the observation was based on a number of courses with more content devoted to Chinese American history. Tim said that it might be possible that the English Department might provide diverse literature courses.

Sandy wanted to know if it would help to change the name to Asian-Pacific American Studies. Tim said no. This adds a whole new category including Hawaiians and Samoans who would not have a category of their own. Essentially, it does not make any difference.

Patti this is not the first time the committee has seen merging majors and splitting minors, so to speak. This minor could be accomplished with the existing thematic minor. The students have to do this in consultation with an advisor anyway. Does it make sense to create a minor for such a small number of students when the thematic minor already exists? Tim wanted to know if the thematic was tailored to individual students. Patti responded that it is, very individualized. Tim said it is possible and very true. This must be looked at as a political question.

Bonnie commented that it might appear to say that we would do a thematic minor unlike some other places where interest groups of students have a focus.

Bonnie wanted to know if it was an empirical question where is one develops a minor like this and ran it for awhile and 5 years from now if there was still nothing happening there would be a way of looking at continuance. Do these not die naturally if there is not interest. Patti responded that this did not happen with minors. Once there they are seemingly eternal. These department may say that they do not want to offer anymore but then ten years later students will request them. The curriculum morphs and they are really not the same.

Tim said that what is really being claimed by students is that the University of Arizona does not think that they are important enough to have a minor in their name.

Bonnie asked if Tim would have a preference for it to be a titled minor rather than thematic. Tim said that the thematic did not answer the concerns in the petition.

Patti and Bonnie wanted to know about the time required for faculty and the necessity of the exit conference for measuring student outcomes. Not only is this method time consuming but does not guaranty that all students will be captured. Exist interviews and signing off are not required and time consuming. No one signs off on a minor. There needs to be another mechanisms used to capture the students.

Bonnie thanked Tim for attending the meeting.

David Tansik stated that he has been concerned about the minor all along.

Patti added that it seems wrong that we are cutting programs that are producing 12 grads annually and yet we are going to put in a minor that we have no evidence that would support the enrollment numbers.

Patti thinks it is still in subcommittee because there were so many concerns when sent to full council and they never felt comfortable with it. I still do not think there is anything new.

Bonnie said that it no longer takes resources and Jim Shockey no longer disapproves.

Bonnie does not want it to die in subcommittee. It needs to go to full council. Can it be sent forward with out concerns? Continuing to table at this level and not advancing seems unfair. Patti suggested that it be sent forward with the inclusion of the subcommittee concerns. Dave wonders if we endorse this will every separate small group of students want the same treatment.

Dave suggests that the vote on the proposal be put through electronically but state that we are very concerned. No more changes can be made by the department and it is time for full council to make a decision. Bonnie says she feels the same but due process is fair.

Patti suggests that it go forward as a negative vote with a recommendation not to approve. Let them vote on that.

Dave made a motion to send the proposal forward for an electronic vote with a recommendation that we are concerned about the program and would recommend a negative vote to full council. Bonnie seconded. Passed.

Patti commended that at times things move forward and it is assumed that prior groups have done all the work. It, it is thought that someone else will stop the process and it isn’t. Then you have a situation like we have with the BAS.

Bonnie want to know what would happen if full council wanted to approve. Patti said that another motion could be made and voted on.

Bonnie suggested that full council be told that the subcommittee has sent forward as a negative recommendation for these reasons, however, the options before you are: Full council can then agree or make their own motion.

Merging of the BS in Soil & Water Science with the BES in Environmental Sciences
Jeff Silvertooth, Department Head of Department of Soil, Water & Environmental Science, was asked to present background and rational for the merging of the BS SWS.

Jeff said that over a year ago he had been contacted by the Vice President of Undergraduate Education who recommended that the program did not meet recommended levels for enrollment. So, we took the Soil & Water Science program and merged it with the Environment Sciences program. There is no change in terms of course work.

Bonnie commented that this appeared to be a mandate from above. However, what will happen to the student’s currently in the program. Jeff said that they would transfer to the soil science option in the environmental science programs. Bonnie asked if they were happy about that. Jeff said that it was not a problem, not of the students were hurt. The real change is that the major will be in environmental science as opposed to soil & water science. They will still have all the same requirements.

Sandy Beeler wanted to know if any of the three students mentioned in the document would be completing the old program. Jess responded that those three would be grandfathered through. The new students will be enrolled in the new program.

Patti King wanted to know about the mandates regarding program changes and how the department feels that it will benefit the university since you have the same courses, the same faculty, but one less major name. What have we really influenced by doing this.

Jeff responded that it is window dressing. We are moving things around and changing labels. We have removed X number of undergraduate degree programs. We have consolidated others. So, what are the real advantages? I have moved programs around under a different umbrella and now, on top of that, this really will not hurt even though the major name has changed. However, it effects my recruitment. It makes me more concerned about that.

Patti King added that, the number of person hours at a very high level that goes into implementing these changes and approving them seems to accomplish virtually nothing. If you look at the number of Focused Excellence changes coming forward this year, it seems horrendous the volume this subcommittee will have to deal with.

Jeff continued that at the time he received the notice, he was just completing an academic program review. I got this notice within just a few days.

Bonnie commented that an electronic vote would take place to try to move this to full council. You will be notified when it does. I don’t perceive big conflicts about this so I don’t think you will have to attend full council unless a flag gets raised through the electronic vote of the subcommittee.

Sandy wanted to know about the disposition of the soil and water courses. Jeff assured the members that the courses were utilized in many of the other programs and were always in demand.

Patti wanted to know about the undergraduate minor and if it was being offered. Jeff responded that he thought that it would be a stand-alone minor under the new program. He promised to confirm with Sandy that it is the department’s intent.

Motion made by D. Tansik, seconded by B. Barber to merge the Bachelor of Science with a major in Soil & Water Science with the Bachelor of Environment Science with a major in Environmental Sciences.

Name change of the BSR degree and the School of Renewable Natural Resources
A motion was made by D. Tansik, seconded by B. Barber, to change the name of school from Renewable Natural Resources to the School of Natural Resources and the corresponding bachelors degree from the Bachelor of Science in Renewable Natural Resources to the Bachelor of Science in Natural Resources. Motion passed.

Patti King gave some historical information about why the change is being made. The merger of the graduate level majors into one major is also taking place. The undergraduate programs had been merged several years ago. Under-enrollment was the motivation for the change.

The motion will be forwarded for an electronic vote.

Name change of the Department of Accounting
David Tansik spoke about the name change for the Department of Accounting. He stated that what is happening in accounting is a special audience, CPA firms. The American Institute of CPAs recently passed requirements that the degree, Master of Accounting, had to have 150 units. This represents 120 units for the bachelors and an addition 30 at the master’s level. Potentially, all the accounting schools around the country have or will have the same bachelor’s/master’s programs in place. Every student that enters the program has a chance to go for the full 150-unit program, and at the end, have both a bachelor’s and master’s degree.

Patti King added that the program is much like the Doctor of Pharmacy program.

David continued that the rational for changing from a department to a school that the department is kind of a special breed. A key thing is that there are opportunities to raise outside funds from big accounting firms if they can get a name associate with the school. Also, going up against other schools for faculty, it would be advantageous.

Bonnie Barber asked if this is then a "school within a school" situation. Yes, David confirmed and added that this is not precedent setting within the state. ASU have several schools within schools. ABOR is rigid about naming schools but is not rigid about schools within schools.

Motion was made by B. Barber to recommend the name change of the Department of Accounting to the School of Accounting. Seconded by D. Tansik. Passed.

The motion will be forwarded for an electronic vote.

Name change of the College of Architecture, Planning & Landscape Architecture

The meeting was adjourned at 4:55 P.M.

Respectfully submitted by Sandra Beeler