Faculty Senate Minutes
February 14, 2006
Meeting called to order at 3:35 PM
Call of roll: Senate members present: Kit Andrews, Robert Broeg (for Charles Anderson), Mary Bucy, Keller Coker, Kristina Frankenberger, Camila Gabaldón, Irja Galvan (for Sarah Boomer), Jessica Henderson, Klay Kruzchek, Peggy Pederson, Mark Perlman, John Rector (president), Doug Smith, Julia Smith, Jem Spectar, John Minahan
Postponement of Meeting
Due to the scheduling of a Western Oregon Union Federation of Teachers (WOUFT) meeting at the same time, it was moved and seconded to cancel the Faculty Senate meeting to allow faculty senators to attend the WOUFT meeting.
The motion was amended to postpone the Faculty Senate meeting one hour (until 4:30 PM), and to limit the meeting to discussion of the proposed Business and Economics Division program change.
Motion as amended passed unanimously. Meeting postponed one hour.
Meeting reconvened at 4:30 PM
Proposed Business and Economics Division program change
John Rector gave background on the process of discussing and approving the proposed changes required for the Business major:
The proposal consists of two changes: 1) substituting new course BA 362 Business Ethics for BA 390 Management, 2) adding a new course BA 243 Business Statistics as an option for the required Mth 243 Introduction to Probability and Statistics (if approved either BA 243 or Mth 243 would fulfill the requirement—currently there is no option for Mth 243).
After initially reviewing the proposal, the Faculty Senate Executive Council approved the substitution of Business Ethics, and invited the chairs of the Math and Business to present their differing views of adding BA 243 as an option.
The Executive Council then decided to send the proposal for BA 243 back to the Business division asking them to provide further clarification of the reasons for offering this option.
At this point, the Executive Council has decided to submit the proposal to the full Faculty Senate for its consideration.
Dean Scheck has also created an ad hoc committee comprised of faculty from both Business and Math to look at this issue.
Some of the issues involved in this proposal include:
Do we encourage or discourage potentially duplicate courses in different programs?
How does a change in requirements for one program affect other programs?
To what extent should requirements for a major depend on a broad or concentrated program of study?
Who defines curriculum--the department, the Faculty Senate, the administration?
Presentation by Hamid Bahari-Kashani, Division Chair, Business and Economics:
After the proposed changes were approved by the Faculty Senate Curriculum Committee, the Math department notified the Faculty Senate president and the Dean of LAS of its concern about the BA 243 option.
The BA 243 proposal matches the offerings of other campuses in the OUS system.
The Mth 243 course “has not served us”—BA 243 would better serve Business majors. It would have a higher quality for its target audience.
The Business division has the right to decide what its major should include. Decisions involving the LACC are a separate issue.
Duplication is not an issue. At UO two courses with identical descriptions exist--one for the Honors program, the other not.
Similar courses at WOU already exist that teach statistics within the department offering the major rather than in math, such as psychology.
Question from Irja Galvan: How does Mth 243 not fit for business majors?
Hamid Bahari-Kashani: The prerequisite of a C- or better in previous Mth 111 makes a problem for students’ schedules, making them put it off till later in their course of studies. Like psychology students, business students would appreciate it better within the business program.
Maria Fung and Klay Kruzchek pointed out that for the last three to four years the teachers of Mth 243 have had a business background, and that the two departments needed to have a dialogue to discuss the issue of duplication.
Klay Kruzchek moved that the Faculty Senate delay the vote on the Business program changes until the ad hoc committee of Math and Business could meet and analyze the two courses, adding that the prerequisite of Mth 111 for Mth 243 was open for discussion, and it was difficult to compare Honors courses with those offered in other majors.
Question from Kristina Frankenberger: What is the objection of the Math department to the change?
Maria Fung: The problem is the lack of being consulted. The Math department was not aware of the proposal early enough in the process.
In response to concern voiced by Mark Perlman, and Camila Gabaldon about the need for some prerequisite for BA 243 given students’ frequent lack of math skills, Hamid Bahari-Kashani added that Mth 99 could be included as a prerequisite for BA 243.
Julia Smith asked if the Math department was concerned about loss of enrollment in the Mth 243 course that this change might cause.
Klay Kruzchek responded that this was not a concern because other majors take the course.
Given concern about delaying the consideration of the proposed Business major changes indefinitely the motion for delay was amended to 1) move forward with a consideration of the Business major proposed changes with substitution of BA 362 Business Ethics for BA 390 Management as Old Business for the next Faculty Senate meeting and 2) postpone the consideration of the BA 243 option one additional meeting in order to give the ad hoc committee time to meet, discuss, and prepare a report.
Motion as amended passed with one abstention.