Academic Affairs / Provost
- About Academic Affairs
- Academic Procedures and Regulations
- Transfer Guidelines
- Faculty/Staff Resources
- Faculty/Staff Support & Development
- Faculty Compensation
- Internal Program Review
- Organizations & Governance Groups
- Administrative Committees
- Consumer Information
Academic Council Minutes
Tuesday, January 8, 2013
I. Department Chair and Provost Curtis Discussions
A. Student tech fees
Current policy only allows items to be purchased if used directly by students. Some faculty would like to keep it this way, others would like to see this modified. What about unspent funds? Could those be utilized? 30% is going to the Provost’s office for campus wide purchases, so only 70% is going to students directly in specific classrooms. Should it be divided differently? By credit hour generated? Some departments do not get adequate funds as it is. Each college has their own process. Software licensing is a big issue on campus and some departments make big use of the funds and is important. Department budgets have not increased. Can’t supplying faculty with equipment still benefit students?
Provost Curtis will put together a committee to review the policy (APR 18). Ideally this should be done every 5 years to remain current.
B. Electronic course evaluation dates
Some faculty were not happy about having course evaluations open after students knew what their grades would be. There is also an issue with 8wk classes and other classes that end early. Course evaluations should really be closed before finals week, perhaps last class date. Dates will be considered for the spring semester.
C. Fall plan days
Tues, Wed, Thurs for new Faculty, Friday and Monday for plan days. This brings us back to two plan days, but it starts a day earlier than in the past. There were some concerns that some faculty would not be happy with coming back a day earlier, but overall chairs felt it was not too much to ask, and having two plan days again would be advantageous.
II. Approval of Minutes from December 11th, 2012
Approved as written
III. Questions on Written Reports
IV. Information Items
V. Discussion Items
A. Wait lists and Student Success Committee - Rick Sluder
Some students are already registered for a full load and are on multiple wait lists and would drop one class for another. Wait list numbers do not fully represent what students want or need. While there is some validation that wait lists demonstrate demand for a course, the number of factors involved make it difficult to sometimes really determine what is a true need and what is a preference. What if students had to go to advisors instead? If students really need a class they will track down a chair or advisor. Perhaps we need to have students provide more information about why they want to be on the waitlist. Close off the ability for students to put themselves on the waitlist? We have to do something to determine who really needs to be on the list and who needs to be in a class. Wait list for gen ed and then contact dept for major courses? Sounds like some programming could be accomplished to get some additional form for students to complete. Perhaps have students put forth some effort and explain why they need a class when they add themselves to a waitlist. Sluder will look into possibilities in regards to technical possibilities.
Student success, national publication with results of best practices for retention. Handout provided with rapid response team makeup. Information available at ucmo.edu/undergrad/em
VI. Other Items As May Arise
Minutes recorded by Odin Jurkowski