II.Approval of the Agenda
III.Approval of the Minutes of the September 11, 2002 Meeting
IV.Senate Nominating Committee
V.University President's Report
VI.Update on the Honors Initiative (Report No. 2, 2002-2003)
VII.National Survey of Student Engagement
VIII.Senate President's Report
IX. New Business
PRESENT: David Adams, C. Alexander, E. Anderson, Atherton, Ball, Bathala, J Bazyk,
Beckette, Buckley, Charity, B. Cook, Dieterich, Dobda, Doerder, Ekelman,
Forte, Geier, Govea, B. Green, Gross, Hanlon, S. Hill, Jeffres, M. Kaufman,
Konangi, Kuo, Lambert, Larson, McCahon, J. McIntyre, Meeting, Misra Moutafakis,
N. Nelson, Ng, Nuru-Holm, L. Patterson, Rom, Rosentraub, A. Schwartz,
M. Schwartz, Shah, M. Smith, Sparks, Spicer, Stivers, Thornton, Wadhwa,
J. Webb, J. G. Wilson.
ABSENT/EXCUSED: Annapragada, Bagaka's, Barbato, Burt, Dillard, Droney, Hinds, Keller, Kiel, Lopresti, McLoughlin, Nolan, Perkins, L. E. Reed, Sawicki, Scherer, Spiker, Steinglass, Tewari, Tumeo, Webster, F. White, S. Wright.
ALSO PRESENT: E. Brennan.
Senate President Vijay Konangi called the meeting to order at 3:05 P.M.
A. Eulogy for Maxine Goodman Levin
Dean Mark Rosentraub delivered the Eulogy.
"The first time I met Maxine was two years ago; yet, before I had my initial conversation with her on a beautiful summer's day, I knew Maxine. Everyone involved with urban universities knew Maxine and her love for Greater Cleveland.
Maxine was an urbanist and philanthropist, first and foremost. She not only loved cities and Cleveland, in particular, but she understood what cities represent for America's immigrants and what opportunities cities create can mean for families that strive to build a better life.
Maxine also taught that each of us is responsible for rebuilding cities to insure that generations to come can enjoy the opportunities and life that Greater Cleveland permitted her and Al to enjoy and build. Maxine was a role model for each of us and what responsibilities those who have benefited from cities owe to next generations that come to build lives in urban America. Across her life she served on the boards of more than 30 organizations whose mission were simple: make life better for residents of Greater Cleveland.
Maxine, the philanthropist, lived by a very simple creed; she wanted to leave her beloved Cleveland better off than she found it. She accomplished that goal ten fold. She built facilities and institutions to help those who suffered with mental illness or who had to face the challenges life brings those who have disabilities.
Maxine also wanted everyone to fall in love with the city she adored in her youth. That was the part of Maxine that I met and learned about years ago from the scholars and students who came from the Levin College of Urban Affairs. Her commitment, zeal, and dedication to urban life were what drew me to Cleveland. After my first conversations with her, I realized her commitments and dedication to cities and Cleveland were even more significant than the reputation that circulates among all of us involved with America's urban universities.
To be sure her passing fills us with sorrow, but there is so much to celebrate in the life she lived, and so much that inspires us to build, that it is impossible to be among her friends and family and not rejoice in her accomplishments and the significance of her life.
Maxine's desire to be part of the rebuilding of Cleveland into the glorious city of her youth is evident in the projects she supported and the neighborhoods she helped rebuild one house and one building at a time. Any of us can walk down several streets in Cleveland and see Maxine. She is in the buildings rebuilt, in the University and College she adopted, in the numerous charities and organizations she supported.
She remembered Cleveland as the city where she and Albert learned to love each other and where she and Albert were able to build their lives and fortune. She wanted other young people to have the same opportunities in a city -- her city -- that preserved its heritage while opening doors. How did she do that?
After Al's sudden death, Maxine began to create her legacy through a series of gifts for Greater Cleveland. She chose Cleveland State University as the home for an urban college that would provide educational opportunities for students and families who could not afford a residential college. She wanted a "think tank" for Cleveland at this urban college that would produce ideas, plans, and partnerships to rebuild Cleveland's neighborhoods. She believed Cleveland needed a place where bankers and activists, developers and dreamers, critics and enthusiasts could meet to discuss their hopes, ambitions, and forge programs of action for Cleveland's future. She wanted accomplishments and things to happen for her beloved Cleveland. Plans were fine and needed; but actions and deeds were the currency of Maxine's world and life. She provided the funds for the first faculty chair focused on research and the application of that research for Cleveland's benefit. Make Cleveland better was her only goal and her charge to all of us.
Maxine's commitment never started or ended with the College that bears her name or the chair that memorializes her and Albert. She supported projects to restore buildings and neighborhoods. She served on boards and supported Woodruff Hospital, the Women's City Club, the Cleveland Restoration Society, and the Cleveland Landmarks Commission that she founded.
Maxine's beloved Cleveland and love for Cleveland also included acceptance of responsibility for Cleveland's Jewish community and life. This past July, Maxine signed the Jewish Community Federation of Cleveland's Book of Life and wrote, "Because I remember our history, I have always been vigilant about the present and the future. It is easier to be Jewish now than it once was, but it may not always be easy. We should never take our community's well being for granted. We must transmit the underlying values of our heritage to future generations so that they can fight whatever battles they might face. My feelings about our Jewish community come straight from my heart, but I believe in backing those feelings with supportive action. We have to take our place in the community in a way that is meaningful to each of us, providing personal leadership and financial support. It is expensive to keep the community engine running, but it is our obligation to provide the necessities for those who will inherit it. If we show them how much we cherish what we have built for them and teach them by example to do the same, then our community will remain vibrant and strong..."
Her commitments to Greater Cleveland's Jewish community included membership in the Silver Circle, the King David and Legacy Societies, and membership and service on the Federation's Endowment Fund and Budget and Community Relations committees. Maxine also led us in understanding the need for a commitment to the State of Israel through her support of two universities, the Technion and Bar Ilan. Maxine also once planted a simple garden in a slum area of Jerusalem. Why did she do that? "I wanted to open up a little space for the women and children to play. I like to help people" she explained to a reporter after her induction into the Ohio Women's Hall of Fame and recipient of the Outstanding Philanthropist Award by the Association of Fund-raising Professionals.
Maxine will be missed. But we will see her every day. We will see her in our College that continues to educate the leadership for Greater Cleveland. We will remember her and honor her hopes and dreams in every student that we welcome, in every project that we undertake, in each Forum that we host, and in each plan and program we put forward to build Greater Cleveland.
Maxine, last night, as we mourned your passing, we also convened more than 300 people to discuss the future of Cleveland's Burke Airport. I was there last night for that conversation, and you were in my thoughts. Forgive me, but I think you were smiling and satisfied that even as we paused to remember your life, you were satisfied that we were doing the work you challenged us to perform. Yes, Maxine, we were pushing people to consider what is best for your beloved Cleveland, and we will do that tomorrow, next week, and in the generations that will come through your college for years to come.
Maxine lived her last years continuing the love affair she began with Al years ago. She helped to rebuild neighborhoods one building at a time. She provided her College with a general endowment, and then with a supplemental endowment to help younger faculty members and women. She always urged us to focus on the rebuilding of Cleveland. She was a pure philanthropist, concerned only with leaving her beloved Cleveland better off than she found it. She accomplished that goal ten fold. She is a role model for each of us as she used her intelligence and resources to improve life for her fellow citizens.
Several sages have noted that one who dies immediately after atoning for their sins is welcomed to heaven without sin to receive G-d's embrace. Maxine passed away the day after Yom Kippur, but by her deeds she had already insured that G-d and Greater Cleveland would embrace her, her memory, and her legacy for ever more.
Maxine, you left your beloved Cleveland and the Greater Cleveland Jewish Community better off than you found it. We now accept your challenge and our responsibility to make both far better."
B. Eulogy for Barbara Reynolds (Social Work)
Professor Maggie Jackson delivered the Eulogy.
"Professor Barbara Reynolds, Associate Professor Emeritus, died August 23, 2002. Professor Reynolds completed her undergraduate degree at Mt. Allison University and Masters of Social Work from Boston University. Before coming to CSU, she spent 20 years in social services working in the area of child care.
Professor Reynolds joined the Department of Social Services, now Social Work, in 1973 and was a member until her retirement in 1995. She taught in the area of social work practice with a focus on work with children. She was a leading authority in child care and assisted parents and other professionals to develop skills to assist children in developing coping skills. She provided training for foster parents through work with Beech Brook, Metzenbaum Center, Bellefaire, Lutheran Childrens' Services, Jones Home, Christian Home, and other agencies. She was a leader in the Ohio Child Care Association as her expertise touched most of the agencies in northeast Ohio.
Professor Reynolds was part of the National Task force to develop a child care workers curriculum for institutions used for training child welfare workers. This resulted in a series of seven books that address the knowledge, skills, and values that child care workers utilized in building a positive relationship with children who were housed in institutions over an extended period of time. The significant component of this training taught child care workers how to take care of themselves. She recognized that this is a profession that creates quick burnout.
Professor Reynolds was an advocate and a tireless supporter of issues impacting the well-being of children. She had a deep concern for their well-being and was often invited to provide leadership addressing such concerns. These invitations were extended from beyond the borders of Ohio, including Iowa and Massachusetts.
Professor Reynolds developed one of the first courses concerning HIV infection and AIDs issues. This was a popular course and students who completed this course acquired a rare sensitivity in understanding the nature of HIV AIDs. Through her work with the AIDs Task force of Greater Cleveland, she raised funds for the Task force through hand-knitted sweatshirts. Each year, colleagues in the Department of Social Work purchased a sweatshirt, often more than one. One did not say "no" to Professor Reynolds in this amazing fund raiser.
Students loved Professor Barbara Reynolds. She was an excellent teacher and had a special gift to help each student feel special. She had a wonderful sense of humor and loved to have fun. She will be missed for all the wonderful experiences shared, however, her legacy will live in the hearts and minds of her students and colleagues of the Department of Social Work."
C. Eulogy for Patrick Flanagan (Mechanical Engineering)
Dr. William Atherton delivered the Eulogy.
"Patrick Michael Flanagan was born April 15, 1950 and died September 10, 2002 after a 10 month struggle with leukemia. Pat spent most of his childhood years growing up in Buffalo, NY with an older brother and a younger sister. His father was a senior engineer at Bell Aerospace and his mother was a homemaker. Through his father's influence, Pat was always exposed to the engineering profession so it's easy to see why he chose that career for himself. He received his Bachelor of Science degree in Mechanical Engineering from Clarkson College in upstate New York. From there he went to MIT and in 1975 received his Master's degree also in Mechanical Engineering. From MIT he went to the University of Cincinnati to begin his doctoral studies.
Cincinnati is where I first met Pat and I remember the first time I noticed him. I was in a class listening to one of the other students engage the instructor in a lengthy, technical discussion about some topic from the course. I turned to one of my friends and whispered, "Who is this guy?" Well the guy turned out to be Patrick Flanagan and that inquisitive nature he first exhibited to me in that classroom served him well as a student and later as a faculty member. We became good friends and were roommates for part of our graduate studies. Pat had a lot of energy and he liked to get things done. Because of his interest in acoustics and vibrations, he found funding and built an anechoic chamber for the University of Cincinnati. By this, I mean he actually built it. The funding was only for materials; Pat provided the labor. He spent hours and hours fabricating fiberglass wedges and attaching them to the walls, floor, and ceiling of the chamber. Fiberglass was everywhere including his eyes, nose, and skin.
Pat finished his Ph.D. in 1980 and came to Cleveland State University in 1982 as an Assistant Professor. He immediately became active in the fledgling Advanced Manufacturing Center and found his niche in experimental work and engineering applications. In the Department of Mechanical Engineering, he most enjoyed teaching the laboratories and developed his reputation among students and faculty as an exceptionally talented experimentalist. This talent extended far beyond the classroom, however, as he compiled over $2,000,000 in research funding through CSU and more through the AMC and private consulting. For NASA, Pat developed innovative sensor technology that now flies on the space shuttle main engines. For this work, he received an EDI Innovation Award from NASA. His work with local industry earned him two Marshall V. Yokelson Memorial Awards from the Wire Association International and a Manny Award. He was principle in his consulting business, Synapse Technology Inc., and an owner of Apollo Research of Buffalo, NY. He had published 31 papers and received four patents.
More important, I believe, than his professional accomplishments is the personal legacy that Pat leaves with us. Pat was always a positive person, quick, with a joke and could always find a way to brighten your spirits. He had energy, drive, and tremendous creative ability. He had new ways of looking at old problems that led to innovative solutions and products.
I had a daughter that died in infancy, at 14 months, my friend Patrick died at age 52, and both of my parents lived into their 90s. From these experiences, I have come to believe that the length of one's life is not so important as how we touch the lives of others in the time we have. Patrick had a friendly, outgoing presence that made a positive impression on everyone he met: students, friends, colleagues. My life is richer for having known Pat as are the lives of many others. In the time that we have, let us all make a positive impact on those we teach, those we work with, those we encounter everyday, and especially, those we love."
D. Eulogy for John Binnion (Business Education/Marketing)
Professor Kenneth Mayer delivered the Eulogy.
"I am honored to say a few words about the passing of Professor John Binnion.
John Binnion began his service to Cleveland State University in 1972 as chair of the Department of Business Education in the College of Business. He served until 1979, before taking the interim post of associate dean in the College. He retired from CSU in 1981. He and his wife Doris returned to their home state of Texas and finally moved to Idaho to be nearer family. John Binnion died on June 14 and was buried at Arlington National Cemetery.
John's life was a testament of duty to country, the teaching profession, and his family. He fought in World War II in the U.S. Army, serving under the leadership of General George Patton. He was severely injured on Anzio Beach in Italy and spent months recuperating in hospitals back in the U.S. He retired with the rank of captain and was honored with the solider's Medal of Honor and Purple Heart. His military service to the country continued nonetheless. He became active in veteran affairs and continued to work tirelessly for the balance of his life in the name of combat-disabled veterans. He was national commander for the Military Order of the Purple Heart in 1976 and continued as editor of their magazine for almost 10 years. Characteristically, John gave of his time and talent generously and quietly.
Education was the center of John's professional life in the civilian world. After serving as chairman of business education departments at the University of Denver and Texas Tech University, he was recruited to service in the same capacity at Cleveland State University in the 70s. This was a period of tremendous growth in the College of Business both in student enrollment and faculty development. He oversaw the development of the business education certification program, office management curriculum, and business communication core courses. He believed in and practiced the same time-tested and enduring principles of hard work, high standards, dedication, practicality, and fairness in the classroom that he practiced in everyday life.
He recruited the business education and business communication faculty -- myself, Ed Thomas, and Margaret Bahniuk -- and he was very proud of us. He nurtured our teaching and our scholarship. And I know he regarded his department and his faculty as one of the great accomplishments of his academic life and a great asset to the College of Business. And I know, Ed, Margaret, and I are grateful and indebted for his formative role in our professional lives.
John, in his last years, centered his life around his faith, serving as lay minister in the United Methodist Church, and around his family -- his wife of 57 years, Doris, and his four children, and numerous grandchildren and great-grandchildren.
John used his time, talents, and treasures in the service of his country, his family, and, at Cleveland State University, the students and faculty with whom he worked. I, like many others in the College of Business, active and retired, am grateful for having John Binnion as mentor, colleague, and friend."
Senate President Konangi asked everyone to please stand in a moment of silence.
Senate Nominating Committee
Professor Rodger Govea, a member of the Senate Nominating Committee, announced that the Committee received and approved one name to be placed in nomination for the Faculty Senate Vice Presidency, that of Mieko Smith. Having received no other applicants or nominees, Dr. Govea entertained a motion to elect Professor Mieko Smith by acclamation to the position of Senate Vice President. The motion was seconded and Professor Mieko Smith was elected the new Faculty Senate Vice President for a one-year term.
V. University President's Report
President Michael Schwartz called to the Senate's attention a letter to the editor in today's "Plain Dealer." He quoted the letter: "Cleveland State University President Michael Schwartz clearly has some good ideas for education but who is to pay for them? To the extent that the Cleveland Foundation and the Gund Foundation bear the costs, few will complain. But Schwartz indicates that he wants more State support for higher education which means you and I pay. Although I do think the State has a reasonable interest in good basic education for the young, I have doubts about State support for higher education. Nevertheless, I congratulate Schwartz on his inauguration and wish him luck." This letter was signed by David A. Seidenfeld of Cleveland.
President Schwartz commented that he brought the letter to Senate's attention today only because he thinks it is fair to say that Mr. Seidenfeld's view is unfortunately widely shared in the State of Ohio. This same view is not unknown or unheard in the State's legislature. There is a good deal for us to do.
President Schwartz thanked everyone who participated in the events of inaugural week, especially faculty colleagues who participated in the ceremony and the many others who came to the Alumni and community dinner, and especially to those who participated in the showcase of events. The two dinner events raised somewhere between $500,000 and $600,000 so far for the scholarship program.
President Schwartz offered congratulations to Professor Mark Tebeau in History for his recent grant of $978,000 from the United States Department of Education having to do with curriculum development and the teaching of history. Congratulations are also due to Andy Rindfleisch in Music for being the recipient of an Ohio arts prize in addition to his second ASCAP award. And congratulations to Professors Virginia Williams in History and Lynn Deering in Dance for capturing two of the coveted Northern Ohio Live Awards of Achievement. He has special appreciation for the faculty's willingness to participate in the early warning system in reporting mid-term grades for first semester freshmen.
President Schwartz reported that the State faces, in the next biennium, an enormous shortfall and just how that is going to be covered, no one quite knows yet and nobody is going to talk about it until after the election in November. If someone were to ask the President if another cut is possible, he will have to say that it is certainly possible. That doesn't mean that it will happen but everybody needs to understand that it can happen.
President Schwartz invited everyone to come to the event tonight in Waetjen Auditorium -- Hardball from our campus. The telecast from Waetjen Auditorium will be at 9:00 P.M. tonight.
Schwartz invited everyone to a three part Presidential Inaugural Lecture
series on fuel cells technology. The speaker will be Trevor O. Jones who
is a member of our Board of Trustees and an expert on fuel cells. This
lecture is called, "Fuel Cells, the Ultimate Disruptive Technology."
Mr. Jones knows exactly what he is talking about and what he means by
disruptive technology. That will be held at 5:00 P.M. on Wednesday, October
30th in the Dively Auditorium of the Urban College. Two other lectures
will follow on fuel cells as well.
VI. Update on the Honors Initiative (Report No. 2, 2002-2003)
Senate President Konangi informed the Senate that last spring the Academic Steering Committee set up an ad hoc Committee on the Honors Initiative. The understanding at that time was that the ad hoc Committee will try to bring forth a proposal by the end of the semester. The ad hoc Committee is chaired by Professor Patricia Falk from the Law School. She was unable to be at Senate today because of her class conflict so Professor William Bowen will report for the Committee.
Professor William Bowen reported that the Committee was charged with creating a draft proposal for the honors program by the end of the semester. The Committee has met six or seven times in the spring and now meets weekly. Subcommittee meetings are now taking place. A speaker from the National Collegiate Honors Council will come to talk to the committee about setting up honors programs. Committee members have read through the Pew Roundtable recommendations earlier. The Committee has collected data on honors programs throughout Ohio and 18 urban universities throughout the country. They have looked at admission and retention data to understand who is coming. The Committee is thinking at this point on the order of 50 students per cohort. They intend to conduct focus groups with students to better understand coming and going decisions. The Committee is seeking as much faculty input as they can get.
Professor Jane McIntyre asked Dr. Bowen if he could fill the Senate in about the kind of structure for a program that is being discussed. Professor Bowen responded that at this point, the Committee is talking about having a first two-year component and then another two-year component. The Committee is looking at the possibility of hooking it with colleges or departments and trying to decide what would be administratively doable and make it so that faculty would buy into the program and have some benefits from it. There are different subcommittees looking at different parts and none of them yet have anything terribly concrete.
National Survey of Student Engagement
Provost Chin Kuo thanked the Senate for the opportunity to discuss the National Survey of Student Engagement. He stated that, as the Senate is aware, our students participated in the National Survey of Student Engagement back in the past spring -- sometime in March and April. The results came back during the summer. Since the Faculty Senate's Academic Steering Committee would not meet until September 25th, his office, along with the help of Vice Provost Marie Zeglen, began to do some of the ground work. During the summer, he presented the summary at a Vice President's meeting in mid August. He also shared the survey results with Dr. William Bowen who was still the President of the Faculty Senate.
Provost Kuo reported that on August 21, 2002, he shared the results of the survey with all members of the Academic Council which consists of Deans, Directors, and Vice Provosts. He noted that the copy distributed to Senate members included the questionnaire, some of the raw data, and the brief summary. Several things can be argued saying, "Well, we are just an urban university. Our student body is different." However, when the results are compared with our peer urban universities, they don't really look very nice either. They began to draft a proposal to see what other things could be done to present some sort of plan to the Steering Committee and then, eventually, to get all of the faculty involved. Provost Kuo said that he has done the groundwork so a lot of time doesn't have to be spent to get the feedback or comments from the group he just mentioned. In addition, he discussed the survey results in the Dean's Council meeting with the help of Vice President Njeri Nuru-Holm and Vice Provost William Shorrock who also contributed to the summary. At this point, the Senate has the data and the brief summary.
Provost Kuo reported that he presented the whole package to the Steering Committee on September 25, 2002. It is his understanding that the Steering Committee has scheduled a special meeting on October 16, 2002 to review the material. It is hoped some sort of plan will come out of the faculty group. Then we can say, "Here are the goals we would like to achieve, how can we achieve them, what kind of resources do we need, what kind of time frame, what type of majors do we need." In one year or so, we will be able to come back and say, "All right, did we actually improve and what is the evidence?" That will be done continuously every year until we see some results of improvement.
Provost Kuo mentioned that there is a meeting in a week or two sponsored by the University of Akron inviting the schools in this region to participate in a discussion. That discussion will focus on how can we better utilize the results of this survey. We have some common ground and common interest so we will send two people to Akron. Vice Provost William Shorrock and Walter Rom, the University Curriculum Committee chair, will attend.
Professor Jane McIntyre noted that when the survey results were discussed in the Arts and Sciences Caucus, and when the Caucus looked at the raw data that was presented -- she referred to page 16 -- "respondent characteristics, table 7", the Caucus was very concerned by the fact that the sampling error for Cleveland State University was very high compared to other schools and even compared to the urban schools. Because of the high sampling error and one very distinguishable difference in our student population, mainly that we have a much larger percentage of off campus students, the Arts and Sciences Caucus was concerned whether we ought to consider this as reliable enough data to make any sort of plan on the basis of it. According to members of the Arts and Sciences Caucus, we have data here. Our experience dealing with this kind of data is that this is data we should be suspicious about making plans on the basis of. Before another plan goes forward, we should have a very serious analysis of the defects in this sample to determine whether we might be responding to something that is not actually a problem. Given the sampling error, many of the responses could well fall within the range that might be normal for urban universities. Given the resources that you might commit to this project, that first step seems to be reasonable and could be done just using the experienced persons on this campus who are used to dealing with this kind of data. Dr. McIntyre urged the Senate to refer the survey results to some kind of preliminary analysis first before other projects go forward.
Provost Kuo responded that Dr. McIntyre's point is well taken and this is a positive message to the Academic Steering Committee. He also stated that he recognized that the statistical data presented may not reflect accurately what is actually here on campus. However, there are some items that we probably have a good idea of how we can do them better. In the meantime, Dr. Kuo reported that we do have some other data of our own available. Dr. Leo Jeffres of the Communication Department informed Provost Kuo that his class is trying to do a telephone survey of some of our own students in terms of their experience, student profile, etc. That type of data should be available soon and should be of some help to all of us to develop a plan. On the other hand, we don't want to keep waiting and doing nothing. While we are doing something, we continuously receive input and will continuously improve.
Professor James Wilson stated that his impression in the Academic Steering Committee meeting is that the qualitative issue came up. A fair number of people thought that the data was really secondary. There was a problem here concerning improving the quality of life of the students. Some people felt we should try to move forward in a couple of particular directions. One issue was the question of advising and another was the question of improving writing.
Dr. Kuo added that a third item mentioned in the Steering Committee was communication between the faculty, administration, and the students.
Dr. Jane McIntyre stated, "To the extent that when we are doing things such as solving problems, we ought to know that the problems exist. People may have a gut feeling that there is a problem about writing assignments on campus. We have a writing across the curriculum requirement; we have evidence about the assessment on that; we have evidence about whether we are meeting our goals in that area or not meeting our goals in that area. We are not being encouraged by anyone in the administration generally to make our plans on the basis of our guesses, our intuitions -- just our feelings about what needs are being met or not met. An argument was presented that there are some things we need to do because of this data. We need to have a better basis for investing scarce resources in academic planning. They may or may not be good things to do, but let's have reasons for which we undertake and don't undertake." Professor McIntyre went on to say that she is worried that these are not good reasons and, gut feelings, whether she agrees with them or not, she probably does agree with the Provost's reasons, but they are also not good reasons.
Professor James Webb stated that his reading on the survey says that many schools refuse to make these results public. There is a question about who is using these results and what the results are for. He personally would rather see time spent on looking into the criteria of the US News and World Report studies, improving those, and moving us up in the ranking which everybody in the whole wide world sees.
Professor Andrew Gross stated that he agreed with Professor James Webb. With regard to what Professor Jane McIntyre said, this is the only document we have now. The sampling error is really far bigger for CSU and others. What is important here, pointed out by Professor Webb and others, is that there is a very important item down the road in one of the questions that is really not faculty related. It is interesting to note that the relationship with other students improved from the freshman year to the senior year. The relationship with faculty members improved from the freshman year to the senior year. But the relationship with administrative personnel in offices is just the opposite. There is a serious non-improvement or deterioration from a 4.43 to 3.81. This goes back of course to the PeopleSoft fiasco that we had and related items. With all due deference to faculty being active here, number 10.c. Relationships with administrative personnel and offices, has much to do with how students perceive this university and how they treat it after they leave. The most important step that this University can and should take is to improve its relationship with the alumni. The university is ultimately judged by its alumni. If we can improve that, we will be moving up.
Professor David Forte commented that he does not believe we should allow US News and World Report to be the tail that wags this dog. Once you start down that road, and we have seen it in law schools, you lose the sense of your own peculiar and particular mission. You get to defining yourself by some criteria which may or may not be accurate. Professor Forte felt that Professor Gross was right about the alumni, but alumni are always more proud of the university as it improves. The last thing the alumni wants to say is, "Boy it was really good twenty years ago, but it isn't now." They want to know that they are part of the community that is growing in quality every year and be proud of that relationship. So, whether we have to redo these figures and whether we go on these figures, let's focus on who we are and what we think is valuable for our students. Then let the alumni and US News and World Report be the tail and let us be the dog.
Dr. Barbara Green commented that there is the difference also between talking about how we are rated externally and what the quality of what we are offering our students internally is. These are two different things that can be similar and affect each other, but they are not the same thing. The easiest way to raise our scores in US News and World Report would be to have admissions standards. If the students have higher standards than when they came in, we would have higher retention as a result and we wouldn't have to do anything in terms of quality internally. There are questions we ought to look at. When we look, for example, at the issue of the quality of what we do in writing across the curriculum, that the Curriculum Committee evaluate that and not use something like this to say that we need to have a portfolio. We know what the quality of improvement is through writing across the curriculum. We have a curriculum committee. They studied it over a decade now and we know what those results are. Simply to say off the top of your head, as somebody did in the listing of remarks from some of those meetings, that we have to require portfolios for every student who graduates and examine their writing, makes no sense if we don't know there is a problem with that issue. How would we improve internally in the university if we made every student present a writing portfolio before they graduate? There are certain things that we ought to pay attention to but then we ought to follow them up and see if there really is a problem and how we go about doing something about it.
Provost Chin Kuo remarked that for those who are not very familiar with US News and World Report, they use two factors very heavily -- S1 and S2. S1 means that you divide the number of students you have admitted by how many students apply. S2 is how many students actually show up at your door divided by how many students are admitted.
Professor Susan Kogler Hill asked Provost Kuo how he would explain the suggestion that whatever is ultimately decided about this particular survey and results, when you plan a committee that is going to talk about university planning and how planning should occur, things like this need to be part of a long range plan and not something that happens just because it pops up. These things need to be woven into the long perspective of how to improve engagement on this campus and not necessarily to respond too quickly because we are working on other things at the same time.
Provost Kuo replied that there is a strong possibility that the Steering Committee can look into and make such a recommendation but, at the same time, we need to know where we are and where we are going.
Senate President's Report
Senate President Vijay Konangi thanked the Senate for the honor bestowed on him by electing him Senate President. He realizes that the Senate has confidence in him and he will be looking forward to their cooperation when the time comes.
Senate President Konangi reported that the University President is willing to continue with a series of President's Chats and the Steering Committee agreed that Senate will sponsor the Chats and will take the same format as last year in rotating these Chats from College to College.
Senate President Konangi reported that as far as the Senate meeting location is concerned, the Steering Committee decided that perhaps we would like to continue to meet in the Convocation Center. After the Steering Committee meeting, we found out that we won't be able to get the Convocation Center for all of the dates we asked for as far as the Senate meetings are concerned. We may have to meet sometimes in the Convocation Center and sometimes on the 19th floor of Rhodes Tower.
Dr. Konangi reported that the Academic Steering Committee is meeting next week (October 16, 2002) to follow up on what Provost Kuo just reported on. The purpose of the Steering Committee meeting next week subsequent to today's meeting is so that any discussion items and suggestions that come up from the floor of Senate can be taken into consideration in next week's Steering Committee meeting.
Finally, Dr. Konangi reported on the Program Review Committee. Last spring, Graduate Council proposed a revision of the program review process. That went to the University Curriculum Committee and the UCC essentially recommended that the whole process be suspended for at least one year. The recommendation was brought forth to Senate and Senate agreed with the recommendation of the University Curriculum Committee to suspend the process for one year until we look into what is the proper process for program review. At that time, the Curriculum Committee recommended that an ad hoc Committee for Program Review be appointed. That committee's responsibility would be just to set up the process for program review; not conduct the actual program review. The Steering Committee is in the process of setting up the committee and giving a charge to the committee. When all of the college caucuses have nominated their representatives, the Steering Committee will form the committee and go forward with it.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 4:05 P.M.
Cynthia A. Dieterich
Faculty Senate Secretary
Faculty Senate Secretary
[Top of Page]