Skip to content
  • Print

May 8,2003

University of the Pacific – Stockton Campus
Academic Council Meeting
Minutes of May 8, 2003

R. Hoverstad (p), N. Peery (p)
Conservatory: J. DeHaan (a), F. Wiens (p)
COP: B. Beal (p), D. Borden (n), C. Dobbs (p), B. Klunk (a), C. Kramer (p), P. Meyer (p), C.
Ostberg (a), L. Spreer (p), D. Tedards (p), K. Whittington (a)
Dental: D. Castagna (a), R. Cohan (p), J. Levy (a), B. Peltier (a)
Education: M. Draheim (p), V. Snyder (a)
Emeriti: G. Blum (p)
Engineering: T. Wrensch (p), D. Turpin (p)
Law: F. Galves (a), W. Jones (p), G. Scully (p)
Library: L. Knight (p), R. Ray (p), L. Knight (p)
Pharmacy: R. Abood (p), S. Smith-Stubblefield (p), D. Umphred (p)
SIS: C. Smith (p)
Students: A. Hudson (p), TBD (a)
Ex-Officio: D. Brennan (a), R. Brittin (a), A. Freedman (p), P. Gilbertson (p), J. Gonsier-Gerdin (a), B. Gundersen (a), K. Hatschek (a), C. Hawbaker (a), J. Herche (a), R. Koper (a), T. Kuhlman (a), T. Kulisch (a), T. Nelson (a), J. Sprankling (a), R. Sylvester (a), J. Preisser (a), J. Purnell (p)
Guests: Keith Hilton, Tom Rajala, D. Fries

Chair Becky Beal called the meeting to order at 3:07 p.m.

1. Approval of Minutes

Motion: M. Draheim moved, R. Abood seconded to approve the minutes of April 10, 2003. Motion unanimously approved

2 Conversation with President DeRosa

Capital Campaign was publicly announced after 33 month of the silent phase with a $103 million with a goal of $200 million. Regent members are confident with the campaign because some of them have been as involved and understand that they have a roll at the university which is not only governance but is also a roll of helping us bring the resources to Pacific. Office of Enrollment has processed 4,500 freshman applications for the Stockton campus, 3,000 for Law School and 2,000 for Dental School.

With a profile looking stronger than the previous years higher SAT scores than last year, as well as a better diversity of applicants.

3. PRC Report – Dick Turpin

PRC endorses the University’s commitment to teaching, scholarships and service. They believe there is consensus on the part of both faculty and administration that teaching is of paramount importance, scholarship is second to teaching and service is of less importance. However, we are extremely concerned that a significant gap appears to exist in the definition, interpretation and implementation of the processes designed to achieve these goals as viewed by the faculty and the administration. Without an explicit agreement of these issues, faculty and administration will remain frustrated in their efforts to attain the ultimate goal of a superior university. Basis for their concerns are:

A) New guidelines for promotion and tenure explicitly diminish service as a criterion. Junior faculty will have a large disincentive to join committees that will help them learn how their own work fills the larger mission of the university and, thus, they will have no active part in formulation policies that will guide their careers at Pacific.

B) Proposed guidelines for departmental chairs will exaggerate the disincentive for associate professors to engage in service. Since the new role of departmental chair would entail more developmental work, more administration, more leadership rather than service, it would fully disrupt any scholarship and thus prevent promotion. Consequently, the major university and unit governance committees will soon be staffed exclusively by full professors.

C) Most importantly, younger faculty members believe that the new guidelines, despite what they say about the importance of teaching, are in fact now biased toward scholarship. Given that the new guidelines make a gesture toward quantification in the fifty/thirty/ten percentage breakdowns, there is no corresponding percentage that will clearly earn promotion and tenure. It appears that scholarship is the most easily measured of the standards and therefore, the one that makes or breaks a tenure and/or promotion case. Given the research backgrounds of most junior faculty members, it should surprise no one that these young scholars are feeling pushed more toward scholarship than toward teaching.

The following recommendations were maid:

A) The ideal in faculty promotion and tenure is to take each case on its own merits against the standard of how well a faculty member helps serve the university’s mission. Unit guidelines now being developed recognize that different standards for scholarship and teaching apply to different disciplines, but we feel the recognition of difference should go deeper. As the guidelines are written now, all faculty must be all things in the same proportion. We find this standard unrealistic and potentially damaging to the university.

B) If the university were to take our first recommendation, it would need to establish more substantial and rigorous evaluation of teaching. Course evaluations are a very weak tool to evaluate teaching. No major faculty evaluation should pass without other faculty embers observing a candidate’s classes, reviewing assignments and syllabi, going over graded assignments, etc. peer review would provide substantial, case specific information to facilitate teaching evaluations.

C) This would also require consistent, and substantial administrative support for faculty development in teaching.

D) If the administration does not take the above recommendations seriously, then it should apply consistently with idea of numerical standards and tell faculty exactly what constitutes a passing mark on the fifty percent for teaching, the thirty percent of scholarship, etc.

E) There should be a transparent appeal system.

Discussion followed to continue with the research and documentations of concerns and suggestions in more widely diverse forums to in the fall, with the President, Provost, Academic Council Chair, Deans and Faculty.

5. Course Syllabus/Learning Assessment – Ron Hoverstad

Motion: Ron Hoverstad moved Andrew Hudson seconded to accept change in section 11.7 of the faculty handbook for discussion.

At its meeting on April 3, the Academic Affairs Committee approved a change in section 11.7 of the Faculty Handbook. Deletions are identified by strikethrough; additions are identified as underlined text.

“At the beginning of each semester, each faculty member must (will) provide a course syllabus in writing to the students. The course syllabus constitutes an agreement between the instructor and the student.

The course syllabus must include the following:

a. Course learning objectives, goals and description of the material to be covered

b. Student responsibilities

c. All major assignments and examinations

d. A clear statement of attendance policies

e. A clear statement of the modes of assessment and grading policy

f. A statement that copies of student work may be retained to assess how the learning objectives of the course are being met

g. Description of violations of the honor code and a statement of procedures for handling such violations (see 11.24)

h. Course instructors and their means of contact

Motion unanimously passed with friendly amendment to change the word “must” first line on first paragraph for the word “will”.

6. Program Review

Motion: Ron Hoverstad moved Marilyn Draheim seconded to accept Academic Affairs Program Review recommendations for the Gender Studies Program.

A. Funding recommendations:

a. Provide funding to hire a full-time coordinator, or increase the course release and stipend to the coordinator if one is chosen from the current faculty,

b. Provide an office stipend to pay for supplies and a student assistant for the coordinator,

c. Provide additional funding for lectures, performances, workshops, and other Gender Studies-sponsored events.

2. The program should develop a coordinated academic strategy, including a review of the Gender Studies curriculum, a uniform method of obtaining student evaluations, additional techniques for assessing student learning in Gender Studies, and a timetable for implementing these strategies.

3. The Gender Studies Program should develop a long-range strategic plan.

4. The Gender Studies Program and the registrar should develop a method for tracking students who are participating in the program.

5. The Gender Studies Program should foster ties with Ethnic Studies, SIS, and the Jacoby Center. The program should continue to strengthen ties with the natural sciences, education, business, engineering and law.

6. The Gender Studies Program should work toward increasing program visibility to enhance recruiting and to increase participation in its events.

Motion unanimously passed

B. Religious Studies

Motion: Cynthia Dobbs moved Andrew Hudson seconded to accept Academic Affairs Program Review recommendations for the Religious Studies Program,

The Academic Affairs Committee approved the panel's report, with the following comments.

First, the committee noted that several Religious Studies courses have not been taught for some time. More problematic, RELI 23, Biblical Studies, a required course for Religious Studies majors, has not been offered since fall 2000, and the last time it was taught the instructor was an adjunct faculty member. Another course has been substituted in place of RELI 23, so students are able to graduate. The committee finds this situation troubling, and note that it has hiring implications when recruiting future faculty members.

Second, the Department of English has no expectation that whoever replaces Professor Schedler will have a joint appointment in English and Religious Studies. By implication, if the Religious Studies Department is allowed to replace Professor Schedler, the net result would be a modest gain in faculty resources for the department (a full load of five courses taught instead of three). As a result, the argument for recommendation one, replace retiring Professor Schedler, has stronger support than recommendation two, an additional faculty member. Still, the arguments for greater breadth of coverage, the dependency on adjunct faculty, and healthy enrollments in the department are strong arguments for increasing the faculty size in the department.

Third, the suggestions for improving the department's learning assessment plan rely heavily on the analysis of student ratings of courses and instructors. The committee suggests an additional focus on outcomes of student learning, e.g., samples of student work to supplement the student rating data.

Motion unanimously passed

7 Adjournment

Motion: Andrew Hudson moved, Tom Wrensch seconded to adjourn. Motion unanimously approved. Meeting adjourned at 5:35 p.m.

Respectfully Submitted,

Ana T. Orellana, Academic Council Secretary