UNDERGRADUATE COUNCIL MEETING                            

November 15, 2007

Johnson Hall Conference Room

 

Present:

Andrew Bonamici, Gavin Bruce, Herb Chereck, Hilary Gerdes, Dave Hubin, Elizabeth Jarvis, Anne Laskaya, Alexandra Marcus, Lyllye Parker, Steven Pologe, Karen Sprague, Alan Kimball, and Jim Imamura

 

Absent:

Andrew Leavitt, Dean Livelybrooks, Karen McLaughlin, Ron Severson, Arkady Vaintrob, Kate Wagle, Malcolm Wilson, Bill Rossi, Paul Engelking, and Elizabeth Reis,

 

Anne Laskaya chaired the meeting in the absence of Ron Severson who was unable to attend. After opening the floor for discussion, a vote was called for accepting the minutes from the previous meeting.

 

Minutes:

           

            The motion was made to accept the minutes from the November 1, 2007 meeting.

 

            Moved:           Gavin Bruce

            Seconded:       Jim Imamura

            The motion to accept the minutes passed unanimously.

 

 

Agenda

Proposals from Office of the Registrar in response to internal OUS audit on grading practices

            Herb Chereck proposed responses to OUS auditors regarding grading policies at UO. He noted that these proposals are in response to recommendations from OUS auditors for all OUS institutions.

            Proposal 1. Remove access to DuckWebgrade change function for faculty who have left the University.  Grade changes will still be possible to  make within one year of the initial assignment and after an instructor’s employment ends, but they will require department head approval.  The change must be submitted on a Supplemental Grade Report (SGR) and be signed by the department head.

            After brief discussion, the motion was made to endorse Proposal 1.

 

            Moved:           Steven Pologe

            Seconded:       Gavin Bruce

            The motion to endorse the proposal passed unanimously.

 

 

            Proposal 2. Limit grade changes to one year after original posting.

                        Grade changes after the one-year period will require department head approval and a memo of explanation from the faculty member to the University Registrar.

 

            After brief discussion, the motion was made to endorse the second proposal     from the Office of the Registrar

 

            Moved:           Steven Pologe

            Seconded:       Alexandra Marcus

            The motion to endorse the proposal passed unanimously.

 

 

Multicultural Review – Process  for Transmitting Recommendations

Anne Laskaya distributed a proposed memo from the Undergraduate Council along with supporting documentation (Undergraduate Council Multicultural Course Review Process, UO Multicultural Requirement criteria, and Summary of the Multicultural Review).  The memo is addressed to the Chair of the UO Committee on Courses with a cc. to the Provost’s Office.  The Council reviewed the memo carefully and discussed it:

            Discussion:

- The  memo is directed to the University Committee on Courses inviting their comment and input in submitting a joint recommendation to the UO Senate for the reclassification of reviewed courses that, in the Council’s judgment, do not meet the Multicultural criteria. The logic of sending the recommendations to the UOCC is that this committee initially approves the Multicultural designation for courses. Actually changing the designation, however, requires University Senate action. A joint proposal to the Senate, from both the UGC and the UOCC, seems most appropriate;

- The Council should remind the campus that regular review of courses is a normal part of maintaining a curriculum. The Group-satisfying Course review in 2002 and the current Multicultural Course review are part of the regular review cycle, which is intended to minimize the curricular drift that otherwise occurs;

-This memo should go to the UOCC and the Provost’s Office at this time.  The UOCC should have the opportunity to review the Council’s recommendations and make their response to the Council by early Winter term 2008. The joint recommendation should be shared with Deans and Department Heads.

 

            The Council was generally in favor of sending the Multicultural Review memo (with some emendations) to the UOCC with a cc to the Provost.  The Chair called for an informal vote.  All members concurred.

 

Possible Recommendations Connected with the Multicural Requirement

 

Anne Laskaya distributed a summary of four issues that emerged during the Multicultural Review process and that might become Council recommendations.  Council members briefly discussed them:

-A key issue for students taking Multicultural classes is that in many instances, the actual classes do not present themselves “as advertised” in syllabi and course descriptions; moreover, students cannot always understand how courses fit the three categories of the Multicultural requirement. There needs to be more transparency for students;

-Course evaluations can help drive improved, transparency and relevance of syllabi;

-It would be helpful for the Undergraduate Council to add questions probing students’ understanding of the purpose of General Education courses to the standard University course evaluations;

-Students support using international study-abroad experiences in fulfillment of the Multicultural requirement.  The Office of International Programs will be invited to present their ideas on this point to the Undergraduate Council.

 

Discussion of specific recommendations from the Undergraduate Council will be continued at the next meeting.

 

Karen Sprague announced that the College of Education has proposed revising their undergraduate major program.  This proposal will be presented and discussed at the next meeting.

 

The meeting was adjourned.

 

The next UGC meeting is scheduled for Thursday, [date], 2007, 11:00am at Johnson Hall Conference Room.