February 14, 2002 Academic Council Report

at the University of Oregon

Submitted by Bob Turner

 

Present at the meeting:

Shirley Clark, Chair	Grattan Kerans	Lorraine Davis, UO	Burr Betts, EOU
Jim Arnold	Dave McDonald	Sara Hopkins-Powell, SOU	John Miller, EOU
Andy Duncan	Ben Rawlins	George Kartsounes, OIT	John Minahan, WOU
Vicki Falsgraf	Loren Stubbert	Mary Kathryn Tetreault, PSU	Lesley Hallick, OHSU
Nancy Goldschmidt	Holly Zanville	Yvette Webber-Davis	Tim White, OSU
	Guest:	Bob Turner, WOU, IFS

 

February Board Meeting Agenda/Issues

Academic Council will join Administrative Council and Student Affairs Council to discuss tuition at 11 AM, then return to finish its meeting. This report will first summarize the joint meeting, and then the items addressed by the Academic Council in its separate meeting

 

Academic Council, Administrative Council and Student Affairs Council Joint Meeting:

The joint meeting was devoted entirely to an effort to “make the board aware of the philosophies of the institutions” on the issue of tuition, with discussion meant to focus on a draft of “Proposed Principles Governing Tuition at OUS Institutions”. The actual goal is to build a position to submit to the board in April that can then be used by the board in July as it constructs the ’03-’05 budget. The OUS staff favors the simplest possible tuition structure for ease in selling to the board and campus to campus adjustments made with student fees. There is some concern that the E-Board sees fees increasing and offsetting the need for more dollars from the General Fund. There was much conversation from the provosts about an item in the “Proposed Principles” draft that treated undergraduate and graduate nonresident tuition under the same heading and about mechanisms to deal with campus to campus, programmatic, and other factors that generate differences in the cost of serving students. These last two issues dominated March’s joint meeting of these two councils with some resolution at that time. The February joint meeting ended with a call to review the Principles and forward comments to OUS Vice Chancellor for Finance.

 

Admission requirements:

In a couple of weeks Dave McDonald will present information on entering GPA & retention for limited distribution.

 

Searches

WOU presidential: Roger Bassett will chair, with Geri Richmond and Kerry Barnett as OUS Board members.

Chancellor: search continues to be an open search, so people can still nominate candidates.

 

 

Continued Discussion of PSU Program Proposals

Ph.D. in Mathematics: Mary Kay Tetreault reminded the Council that this is an interdisciplinary doctoral degree with positive feedback from industry and others in the Portland area. Concerns expressed about library costs were answered with assurances that they would be minimal. Suggestions that this is an “applied math” program produced an offer of a clarifying memo. After discussion, several campuses supported the proposal, which will be clarified and external reviewers identified.

Graduate Certificate in Addictions Counseling: In response to last meetings concerns, students admitted to the program would either be licensed professionals or qualified for admission to the M.A./M.S. program

New Program Proposal from EOU for a B.A./B.S. in Biochemistry: General support was expressed with some reservation about the absence of molecular biology. The program seems in line with the new young Chemistry faculty, new science building and work force demand. The latter sentiment generated discussion of the negatives of having academic programs driven by workforce needs/industry demand. The proposal will move to the Board in April.

 

Dave McDonald discussed 2001 OUS High School Visitations and Plans for 2002 as a fine illustration of increased efficiency since costs were cut 40%, the number of schools visited only dropped by 3%, the number of students seen decreased 6% and goodwill continues to be generated.

 

Extensive Discussion of Teacher Education:

In the context of the tuition discussion at the earlier joint meeting, resource fees and supervision fees are under varying degrees of examination. There was much discussion of the relative merit of and the interactions with TEAC and NCATE as accrediting bodies that culminated in affirmation of continuing campus autonomy on this front.

Campus autonomy was also the topic and resolution of a conversation over the use of vouchers, as some campuses restrict their use, which was not known by deans on some campuses that do not. Since vouchers are compensation to school districts, it is possible that actions of one campus may inadvertently negatively impact another campus.

The equivalence of student teaching and continuing education was discussed in the context of increasing pressures for funding to be on a self-support basis. The real issue seems to be which courses need to be offered on a self support basis and which must be accommodated within the regular budgetary framework. Continuing Ed is seen as clearly self supporting with distinctly different hiring contracts. The issue remained unresolved.

A supply and demand study shows Oregon is still not preparing enough teachers in physics, math, chemistry, and Spanish graduates; provosts were asked to examine this problem on their campus.

 

Liability Issues for Student Internships

Goldschmidt reported that a common definition of student internships is imminent, and campus representatives have started meeting with Ben Rawlins to look at internship insurance. Campus experiences to date suggest that such insurance is not exorbitant (yet), and in some cases the students pay. Rawlins reported the settlement of a couple of litigations for much more than the apparent cost of insurance. Much discussion of paperwork completion ensued, without resolution. Goldschmidt’s request for precise information on intern numbers and placements by March 10, in the absence of a format for such a report was acknowledged to be unrealistic, though Clark responded that the goal is getting the information ready for purposes of estimation by the end of spring.

 

Performance Funding Guidelines Update and Proposed Performance Incentive Awards for 2000-01:

Discussion was extremely brief, since this funding has moved from $2 million to $1 million and then to zero. This discussion ended with the comment that “It’s hard to say what will happen in the future of performance funding”.