Minutes of Main Campus Faculty Council Meeting
16 April 2004

MCFC Members present:

UniFC members present: Joel Goldhar (Stuart), Howard Chapman (Kent).

Members absent:

Visitors: Zia Hassan (Stuart), Carlo Segre (Grad College), Don Ucci (Associate Provost).

The meeting began at 12:11pm.

Resolutions reported out from Committees:

Undergraduate business curriculum, as recommended by Undergraduate Studies Committee:

Zia Hassan described the proposal. The undergraduate business program was approved during the 2002-2003 academic year at the "macro" level, i.e. in terms of the overall plan. This time Zia and colleagues have provided a complete curriculum, and he provided a copy to the Council. The curriculum is set forth in terms of all eight semesters in both of the program's concentrations.

Zia said that his own role has been to ensure that the curriculum will meet all accreditation requirements. The Business Administration degree is unique among roughly 150 undergraduate business programs nationwide in that it is geared toward an understanding of technology, entrepreneurship, and globalization. The second concentration, Business Administration and Applied Sciences, is particularly special. Zia observed that he was one of those who favored abolition of IIT's previous undergraduate business program a decade ago; that cancellation enabled the Stuart School to concentrate on getting its graduate program accredited.

Michael Young asked whether all the university requirements for General Education and IPROs are embedded in the curricula; Zia said yes. Michael asked who will be teaching the business courses. Zia said that one tenure-track position has already been advertised, and about 60 applications have been received for that position. Stuart faculty will teach the other business courses until the program is able to stand on its own. He noted that there already exists a business minor for undergraduates, and the business courses taken by the business minors now will carry over into the new era.

Joel Goldhar articulated his dissatisfaction with the structure of the program He argued that the program will require duplication of the staff and faculty already present in the Stuart School. He asked whether there will be enough enrollees in the program to justify the expense of creating it, and how appropriate economies of scale will be realized. He argued that the program is not set up to be either efficient or intellectually rigorous.

Phil Troyk pointed out that the degree program has already been approved: only the curricular content is under discussion. Joel expressed concern that the business / science combination may not provide enough of either.

Zia said the admissions office has said that the demand for the program exists. It could grow to 200 students within four years; 12 students have already applied to transfer into it and 70 students have applied for freshman admission to it, so the starting class should be about 30.

Christine Nippert-Eng suggested that we analyze the two curricula separately. The ordinary business program is straightforward, whereas the combination program will require more careful scrutiny. She asked what marketing strategies were planned for attracting people to the program. Zia said a well-crafted brochure is being mailed a large number of high school students according to a formula that the admissions office has devised. The program is not a niche program--it's a mainstream program, whose uniqueness derives from its context in a technological university with a strong tradition of entrepreneurship. She also asked how the design component of the business major will work, given that the Institute of Design offers only graduate courses. Zia said the graduate courses will allow undergraduate enrollment. Vijay Kumar said the Institute of Design has just begun a discussion of how this will work; there are perhaps a dozen courses that could be relevant to this major. His institute is prepared to develop introductory courses in areas for which there are already grad-level courses.

Ken Schug asked to what degree this program is designed to accept parachuting engineering or science majors, as opposed to attracting incoming freshman directly. Zia said both will occur, and that the program ought to improve retention. Don Ucci affirmed that the program could be helpful for retention. Joel argued that it would be dangerous to extrapolate from the small sample size that has been analyzed to date. He pointed out that the planned size of the program would imply attracting about 50 new freshman each year, and asked how probable that was. Phil Troyk said that the BME program did, in fact, attract close to 50 new students in each of 2002 and 2003.

Glenn Broadhead expressed a concern about concentrating on marketing discussions in a Council whose proper sphere of interest is the curriculum. He feels that the list of classes that Zia has supplied does not really constitute a fully-characterized curriculum, and that he wanted to hear a true academic rationale for directing students toward this major. He acknowledged that the administration is prepared to spend money developing and promoting the program, but that our responsibility is to scrutinize the program's intellectual content. Christine said her questions about design courses and marketing are derive from a concern for the students: she wants to know whether the students will really get what the program designers claim it will give them.

Michael Young asked Glenn and Don, who had attended the Undergraduate Studies meeting at which this curriculum was considered, to summarize the discussion at that meeting. Don said there was a detailed discussion of the curriculum and of how similar programs at other schools work. The Undergraduate Studies Committee has strongly urged the program planners to develop course descriptions for all new courses, and they have, for the most part, complied. There remain some concerns regarding the use of graduate courses in the program and about the mathematics requirements, but the proposal was approved.

Joel asked where the jobs for graduates of this program would be. At some schools these programs become primarily pre-law programs. Zia said the brochure touts techno-business and effectiveness in business organizations.

Phil observed that the Faculty Council has expressed concerns over faculty oversight of this program in the past. Zia said the planning committee that he chairs will evolve into the Academic Committee for the program: it includes Nassrin Khalili and John Twombly, three faculty members from the main campus, and Dennis Roberson and Jay Fisher as ex officio members. Joel argued that that committee lacks representation from the Management side of the Stuart School. Michael Young said that the Provost has reconfirmed that the planning committee continues to have authority to make decisions in the program, with an expected 3-5 year path to independence. Geoff Williamson asked why the program is not being run from the Stuart School; Zia confirmed that its independence helps to ensure maintenance of the graduate program's accreditation.

Following the discussion the Faculty Council voted on the curriculum; the curriculum passed by a 9-3 vote.

Intellectual Property for Internet Courses

The proposal for establishing policies regarding intellectual property rights and remuneration for Internet-based course offerings has passed in the Graduate Studies Committee, and Carlo Segre presented the proposal. He had presented it at the March meeting and had been asked to fine-tune it through discussions with three Faculty Council members--Joel Goldhar, Andy Howard, and Glenn Broadhead. He confirmed that he had discussed the issue directly or indirectly with Joel, Andy, and Glenn. Carlo said the policy is intended to be limited in scope; it is intended to define Intellectual Property rights associated with rebroadcasting courses, and providing some incentives to the academic units for posting courses over the Internet. Two issues had been brought up at the March meeting: one was incentives to faculty for developing Internet courses in the first place, and the other was the potential pressure on academic units to continue offering Internet material beyond its useful shelf life. Carlo argued that those are significant issues, but that they ought to be kept separate from this proposal. With respect to the shelf-life issue, he observed that each faculty member can always choose to update his or her lectures, and the academic unit can effect change simply by assigning a different faculty member to teach the course. He argued that both of these concerns come down to an issue of the relationship between the academic unit (or its chair) and the individual faculty member. Carlo argued that the Faculty Council should not try to legislate that relationship.

Phil Troyk asked what jurisdiction the Faculty Council has over this issue. The issue came to the MCFC because it started in the Graduate College; endorsement for these ideas in the Faculty Council will certainly motivate the Graduate College to take the policy seriously. Michael Young said that Appendix P in the faculty handbook deals with this kind of policy decision, and that it ought to go before the full faculty for final approval after approval at the Council level. It also is an issue that affects the main campus and the downtown campus, so it really ought to be approved at the University Faculty Council level and by the University faculty.

Accordingly the Main Campus Faculty Council voted on the proposal; the vote was 10-1 in favor, so it passed. At that point the University Faculty Council convened temporarily to consider the proposal as well; at that level the proposal passed 8-0. The Main Campus Faculty Council then reconvened. The proposal will go before the Main Campus Faculty at its meeting on 21 April as a report out of the MCFC, and it will go before the University Faculty as an action item at its 28 April meeting.

Committee Reports:

1. Sabbatical Leaves: Judi Zawoyevski confirmed that the committee met and made recommendations for roughly twelve applications for sabbatical leaves; the committee recommended all of them. There was a modest delay in getting the recommendations to the Provost because of Miles Wernick's family emergency, but the Provost does have the recommendations now. At least some of the recommendations have been acted upon.
2. Library: George Schipporeit reported that the committee met Monday, 12 April at 10am in Galvin Library. Two items emerged The first was that Sohair Wastawy is about to start a sabbatical, during which she will help to develop a library in Alexandria, Egypt. During her absence, Christopher Stewart will be acting librarian. The second is that Sohair would like next year's budget approved before she leaves. After extensive discussion the decision was to delay the library committee's approval of the budget until it finds out from the University Faculty Council's report on the university finances what the overall financial health of the university is likely to be in 2004-05. Last year's library budget was $2.3 million, but the library spent $2.8 million because of sudden increases in the costs of journals. The proposed 2004-05 budget is $3.2 million; the increase will primarily cover further increases in journal costs, but it will partly provide for new books. The administration has indicated that the library will receive $2.3 million, so Sohair is very concerned. The Library Committee has asked her to determine what will have to be subtracted from her programmatic plans if she only receives $2.3 million. She's putting that determination together now and will present it to the committee on Monday 19 April. Joel asked whether the library budget will include support for the undergraduate business program. Phil Troyk said that it did not, and said the library committee will report back to the MCFC after Monday's meeting. Christine suggested that it is important for the MCFC express its deep concern for the library situation; Phil indicated that the committee could report at the main campus faculty meeting on Wednesday 21 April.
3. UG Studies: A motion was brought before the undergraduate studies committee in March proposing to reduce the minimum general eduation requirement for IPROs from two to one. The motion was seconded at the early-April meeting, and discussion was vigorous, particularly regiarding the financial aspects. The committee will vote on the proposal next week, and if it passes, it will come before MCFC.

Announcement:

Adjournment: