September 30, 2009, 3:30 pm
Michael Barnhardt, Brian Colle, Cynthia Dietz, Sarah Fuller, Kane Gillespie, Norm Goodman, Cheryl Hamilton, Robbye Kinkade, Joe Mitchell, Beverly Rivera, Scott Sutherland (chair)
1. Campus Lifetime Classes
This time period (12:50-2:10pm) is reserved for student life purposes, not academic courses. There are some exceptions for some courses (chemistry, physics, and biology) that require laboratory sections at this time given the relatively large student numbers and more limited lab space.
Beverly Rivera supplied a list of fall 2009 and spring 2010 courses that are scheduled during campus lifetime. The number of lecture courses during this period is fairly limited, only some Art courses, a SBU 101 section (Oops!), and 4-5 other courses. This is not a widespread problem, but the UG Council decided that some action is needed.
Scott S. suggested that we need a firm policy statement regarding campus lifetime: “No campus lifetime courses except by approval of the Dean (and consultation of the UG Council).” This statement was not voted on to be implemented today.
Rather, Kane G. suggested that we need to revisit the existing policy for course scheduling. He distributed the current Course Scheduling Policy to be discussed at a subsequent meeting.
2. SBU- Songdo (S. Korea) Issue
Stony Brook has been invited to be part of a global university campus at Songdo, South Korea. There are already some tentative plans for Stony Brook to participate in some courses as early as Fall 2010. Brent Lindquist will visit the UG Council next week (10/7) to discuss Stony Brook’s potential involvement. The goal today was to start some preliminary discussions on the topic.
The UG Council should focus on the academic program issues. There are many fundamental questions: What type of programs? Will there be an impact on Stony Brook resources (e.g., how will the 25-50 faculty be replaced if they go to S. Korea to teach for a semester or two?)? Is there a target market versus academic program mismatch?
Norm G. emphasized that an international footprint for Stony Brook is a good idea as long as it is done well and it does not hurt the main campus.
Norm G. and Sarah F. noted that the general education consortium does not cover the range of courses offered at Stony Brook. It is not clear how the general education will be delivered (Who will teach D.E.C. D – Art?). How will the faculty be hired? Who is making these decisions?
Sarah F. recommended that we request a concrete list of general education courses that will be offered. What is the academic plan? Who is going to deliver the curriculum? Which courses will be taught be SBU faculty, and which ones outsourced to other institutions?
Some discussion occurred regarding what is the benefit of an international footprint? Why is this a good opportunity (as opposed to others?)? What is the proof?
Kane noted that more and more money is driving new academic endeavors (e.g., journalism grant for New Literacy, Southhampton, etc….).
Joe Mitchell mentioned that the faculty needs to be involved in the planning process. There does not seem to be many faculty involved in the SBU Songdo planning group.
The UG Council decided to ask Brent L. for the detailed SBU Songdo proposal, and how this effort might impact the SBU main campus (staffing impacts in particular)?
Meeting adjourned 4:45 pm