March 10, 2014 Minutes of the Undergraduate Council

Attending
Kathleen Bratby, Colleen Cheslak, Janet Clarke, Arlene Feldman, Mario Ferone, Sarah Fuller, Jeff Ge, Norm Goodman, Ellen Hopkins, Peter Khost, Anne Moyer, Scott Sutherland

Minutes of the February 10, 2014 meeting
These minutes were approved.


Review of the proposal for an ACE course in Geospatial Science at Sayville High School

 After considerable discussion, this proposal was approved with the following conditions:

If this course is being requested for credit in fulfilling a requirement of the new Stony Brook Curriculum, it must meet the relevant learning outcomes. [Reply from Michael Sperazza: “Yes the GSS313 has now been certified with the new Gen Ed of TECH.  This will be reflected in the syllabus for the fall. The syllabus submitted did not yet reflect the TECH code or the new outcomes.  We will also include this in the promotional materials.”]

There needs to be a check as to whether there are any required prerequisites (e.g., calculus). [Reply from Michael Sperazza:  "AP Statistics or AP Math"]

Review of the proposal for a School of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Science

There was a detailed discussion of both the original proposal, the questions and comments raised by CAPRA about the proposal, and Vice President Kaushansky’s response to CAPRA’s comments and questions.  There were a number of concerns and questions about the proposal and the relevant comments on it that were reviewed:

The nature of the type of students being sought and whether the controversial PCAT was an appropriate selection tool.
Questions about the nature of the coordination with existing relevant Stony Brook programs and the apparent lack of adequate consultation with them.
Concerns about the effect of the increase of students from the establishment of this proposed School in light of the current problems of class size and inadequate classroom availability.
The lack of adequate consultation with the Melville Library regarding the anticipated needs for materials, appropriate staff, and space.
Concern whether the establishment of this proposed School would create perverse incentives among relevant departments in their competition for students.

Anne Moyer and Norm Goodman were to receive more detailed comments from the members of the undergraduate Council and draft a formal response to the proposal for the Executive Committee of the University Senate that would first be sent to members of the UGC for review.
Respectively submitted,
Norm Goodman

Appendix: Undergraduate Council’s Comments on Proposal to Create the School of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences at Stony Brook Medicine

The Undergraduate Council met and discussed the original proposal, the questions and comments raised by CAPRA about the proposal, and Vice President Kaushansky’s response to CAPRA’s comments and questions on March 10, 2014. While the Council was generally supportive of this important initiative, members strongly encouraged ensuring that adequate and sustained resources and support be committed prior to launching the new school to address enrollment pressure on existing courses and programs, adequate infrastructure, and sufficient library resources. Additional consultation and information-gathering was also encouraged. Specific comments and questions are noted below.
There were questions about the nature of the type of students being sought and whether and how the controversial PCAT would be used. How “exceptional students”  who show promise in the field of pharmacy eligible for the 2-4 program would be defined and identified needs to be clarified. As these would be students at the end of their sophomore year, there will be a need to complete pre-requisite courses which will require a pathway to facilitate doing so in a timely manner, supported by proper guidance and advisement. This may involve additional Student Advisement resources and sensitivity to the unique needs of these second year students.

Considerations related to resources for simulation experiences (What are the plans to include these and what will be the impact on the Simulation Center?), online courses/programs (Is there consideration of using this to ease space demands and what problems, if any, this may involve?) and experiential rotations (Will the proposed School be paying Stony Brook Medical Center and its affiliated institutions for students’ experiential rotations, and how was a savings of approximately $450,000/year projected/calculated?). There needs to be greater clarity about the total number of clinical hours required and whether out of state/area students could complete these out of state/area and what provisions are planned to contract for such arrangements.

In general, there were questions about the nature of the coordination with existing relevant Stony Brook programs and the need for detailed consultation with them. This would include other Schools that share the Health Sciences Center space and resources and which could provide valuable input and offer insights on the proposal and its impact, challenges, and opportunities.

Relatedly, the call for “an interdisciplinary approach to provide appropriate coordination of treatment involving multiple health care professionals and clinical settings…” was noted, and how this proposed program “will enhance the learning environment of all health degree programs.” More specificity is needed to describe how this will be accomplished through inter-professional education with the other health degree programs at Stony Brook University.

There were concerns about the effect of the increase of the number of students due to the establishment of this proposed School at steady state in light of the current problems of class size and the inadequate number of available classrooms. There was the sense that there may be a higher than anticipated impact on undergraduates coming to Stony Brook and seeking spots in classes in Biology, Chemistry, Physics and Math. There should be detailed consultations with undergraduate admissions, the pre-health post-bac program, and similar long-established programs such as Nursing, to refine the estimate of how the establishment of the School of Pharmacy will impact the make-up of our undergraduate and post-bac enrollments.

There is a need for additional consultation with the Melville Library regarding the anticipated needs for materials, appropriate staff, and space. Library resources need to be accounted for in the new program/school proposal to support robust research and educational goals as well as patient care and teaching requirements. Some of these needs include: baseline monographs for the new program because the library has not previously collected for pharmacy, current journals (not just in large packages, which may have content "embargoes" of 6-18 months), backfiles of core titles, relevant databases, additional staff with relevant expertise (i.e., to teach information management skills to students to meet accreditation requirements), and study space. A precedent for start-up funding (i.e., when the Graduate Program in Public Health was established) supports the notion that these new programs/schools require library funding.

The initial projected number of administrators seems excessive, based on the number of students, especially having both an Assistant Dean of Student Affairs and Chairperson.  
Dr. Kaushansky will lead the search for the new Dean” (Founding Dean) of the proposed School. Based on prior concerns of the University Senate regarding concerns for impropriety in previous Search Committees’ composition (i.e., such that the person who will supervise the position should not be on the search committee, or lead it) and conduct, it would seem that this statement raises similar concerns which should be addressed.