Core Curriculum Advisory Committee May 7, 2013 13 Voting Members in Attendance

Core Curriculum Advisory Committee May 7, 2013 13 Voting Members in Attendance

Core Curriculum Advisory Committee
May 7, 2013
13 Voting Members in attendance

HMS203

  • Specific issues: Justification includes no mention of empirical or scientific methods.
  • Vote ended in a tie at the last meeting and so the course was discussed again now that more people were available.
  • Felt it was not foundational enough.
  • Is it too narrow?
  • Focused on teachers only?
  • Dr. Szafran made a motion this course is unacceptable for the core, the motion was seconded, the vote was:
  • FOR the motion:5
    AGAINST the motion:6
    ABSTAIN:2
  • Result: this course is Acceptable for the core.

EPS250

  • Too narrow to be the only social behavioral course a student takes?
  • Very popular courses were not submitted because the department felt it did not fit the broad social structure. Dr. Szafran feels this one does not either.
  • The committee commented that it was an excellent application.
  • Dr. Steward made a motion this course is acceptable for the core, the motion was seconded, the vote was:
    FOR the motion6
    AGAINST the motion7
  • Result: this course is unacceptable

RHB222

  • Specific Issue: Justification would be improved by adding the phrase “society and culture” to the last sentence.
  • Dr. Steward stated that 9% of the population have problems with substance abuse.
  • In the last three years there has been an increase in student abuse/addicted level – it is a wide problem.
  • Dr. Szafran feels it is too narrow for social behavioral category, which only allows three hours.
  • SIP code for this course is a Social Work one, not social science.
  • Not foundational
  • Dr. Szafran made a motion this course is unacceptable to the core, the motion was seconded, the vote was:
  • FOR the motion8
  • AGAINST the motion3
  • ABSTAIN2
  • Result: the course was found to be unacceptable for the core.

AEC200

  • Specific Issue: Justification needs to better link course content to the explorations of behavior and interactions among individuals, groups, institution, and events, examining their impact on the individual, society, and culture. This may be accomplished by moving some information from the course description to the justification.
  • Duplications in syllabus with old course.
  • Using unique industry as an example – too narrow.
  • Don’t see a strong focus on ag.
  • Dr. King believes it is an applied economics course and made a motion to approve for the core, the motion was seconded and the vote was:
  • FOR the motion7
  • AGAINST the motion5
  • ABSTAIN1
  • Result: the course was acceptable for the core.

FOR 251

  • Too narrow! Syllabus does not tell us much.
  • On checking Dr. Szafran discovered syllabus depends on news clips, etc.
  • Dr. King stressed that ll readings should be listed in the syllabus.
  • Offer broader framework.
  • Dr. Szafran made a motion this is unacceptable for the core, the motion was seconded, the vote was:
  • FOR the motion9
    ABSTAIN3
  • Result:the course is unacceptable for the core.
  • Discussion followed on the procedure for letters being sent out with recommendations on each course.
  • Even those that have been deemed unacceptable, will have an opportunity to respond.
Top View