The University Senate
of Michigan
Technological University
Minutes of
Meeting 516
15
February 2012
Synopsis:
·
Presentation
on “Undergraduate Student Government” by
Lucia Gregorakis
·
Presentation
on “Update on AQIP” presented by Associate
Provost Christa Walck
·
Presentation
on Proposal 12-12: “BS in Engineering
Management” by Dean Darrell Radson
1. Call to order and roll call. President Rudy Luck called the
University Senate Meeting 516 to order at 5:30 pm on Wednesday, February 15,
2012. The Senate Secretary Brian Barkdoll called roll. Absent were
representatives of Biomedical Engineering, Electrical and Computer Engineering,
Physics, Auxiliaries and Cultural Enrich., Advancement, Staff Council, and
Graduate Faculty Council.
Recognition of visitors. Guests
included Max Seel and
Christa Walck (Provost Office), Darrell Radson and Thomas Merz (School of
Business and Economics), Keshon Moorehead
and Eli Korttuen (Undergraduate Student Government), and
Rhianna Williams
(Library).
2. Approval of agenda. Luck asked
if there were any changes; there being none Luck declared the agenda stood approved.
3. Approval of minutes from Meetings 515. Luck asked if there were any
changes; there being none Luck declared the minutes stood approved.
4. Presentation: “Undergraduate Student Government” by Lucia Gregorakis
Issues were presented. The students decided that Thanksgiving break
should be kept the way it is and not shortened.
Regarding final exams, the question was raised as to whether or not the
Friday of Finals Week was needed if there are not many final exams on that
day. It was also suggested that
accommodations be made for students having 3 exams on one day. A suggestion was made that mandatory midterm
course evaluations be administered to aid teachers in improvement. In regards
to the web site ratemyprofessors.com it was thought that it does not truly
reflect the teaching quality and, therefore, should not be given much
consideration. The idea of having a standard curriculum with a uniform grading
scale was brought up to help homogenize all the students’ experiences for each
course section. In addition, more
grading increments were requested. It
was also requested that non-degree courses not have prerequisite courses and be
retroactive. Johnson stated that each
department had the choice as to whether to require prerequisites or not. Seel stated that
there can be a problem if a student changes from non-degree seeking to degree
seeking if they have not had the prerequisite courses and that he will
investigate. Gregorakis
went on to say that there is a drive for student voter registration for the US
Presidential Election through various activities. Vable asked how we
can combat the negative publicity by ratemyprofessors.com. Gregorakis stated
that it is not necessary since students don’t care. Breffle
stated that we could publish the existing course evaluations instead. Vable said that
they used to be published but that there were privacy concerns but that we
could publish by department or without a professor’s name attached. Breffle raised the
concern that the ratemyprofessors.com web site had more professors listed than
were currently employed at Michigan Tech so it was not accurate. Seel stated that
some professors listed were retired.
Scarlett asked what grading increments the students had in mind. Gregorakis
reemphasized the need for more increments, no matter how it was done. Mullins asked if the students will publish the
salary book. The students replied that
they were working on it. Seel said that there are state regulations regarding the
publishing of salary amounts.
5. Presentation:
“Update on AQIP” presented by Associate Provost Christa Walck
Walck gave the URL of AQIP info www.mtu.edu/aqip
including the schedule
for when evaluators are here and names of evaluators. All faculty and staff are invited to the open
session. She also reviewed a handout
entitled “AQIP 101
for Faculty” that should be used by faculty to familiarize themselves with the
Michigan Tech AQIP process for the upcoming accreditation visit. She emphasized that AQIP focuses on processes
and improvements and quality feedback changes.
She encouraged us to know what assessment you do before the AQIP
visit. Luck asked about the information
given by departments on assessment goals and activities. Walck stated that
they are not currently on the AQIP web site since they are being reviewed by
the Assessment Council, which has building a framework for university assessment
and learning goals. Mullins raised
concern that mostly community colleges use AQIP. Walck
stated that continuous improvement which AQIP requires is better than the
former system in which we tended to wait until year 7 in a 10 year cycle to
start our self-study. However, after
this visit we can consider changing to a different method of accreditation.
6. Reports
a. Senate
President
Luck
welcomed new senate members Jeremy Goldman and Keat
G. Ong from Biomedical Engineering and Shane Sullivan
from IT. He then gave an overview of the senate web site and the location of
the previously-submitted Board Of Control report
submitted already.
b. Senate
Standing Committees
The
Elections Committee stated that 339 ballots were sent out, out of which one
third responded electing Mohan Rao and Zhang-Ping You
to the Committee on Tenure, Promotion, and Reappointment Committee.
c. Provost
No
report.
7) Old Business:
a. Proposal 11-12: “Evaluation Procedure for the University
Senate” presented by Senator Madhu Vable
Changes
are still being made. Will
wait until changes are made to vote on it.
b. Proposal 12-12:
“BS in Engineering Management” presented by Dean Darrell Radson
Vable proposed changing the language
to read: “Currently there is only one similar curriculum focusing on the design
and management of engineering systems which is offered though the Bachelor of
Science in Engineering program.” Luck stated that it is not that similar and
has already been checked. Gierke said that even with the proposed change it will not
change the committee’s mind. Luck said that if we list this program, then we
will have to list all similar programs.
Luck called for a vote on the suggested amended language, which passed.
Mullins stated that the proposal is not ready because the courses
suggested by the Chemical Engineering Department are not included and that some
listed courses are not offered anymore.
He asked if anyone has checked to see if all proposed courses are still
available. Gierke
stated that his department’s comments were adopted and that all department
chairs had been asked for feedback. Radson said that he had talked to the Dean of Engineering
and Associate Dean Bohmann and got suggestions from
them, but that it is possible to still add electives. Seel said that
changing courses will go through the binder process. Radson said that a
liaison to work with departments will be appointed. Irwin expressed concern
that there are degrees in Mechanical Engineering Technology and Electrical
Engineering Technology and asked if there was overlap with the proposed
program. Mullins stated that he talked with Bohmann
and he also recommended ABET accreditation for the proposed program. Seel stated that
the proposed program is designed for a business focus and that it is good for
this purpose. Luck called for a vote and
the proposal passed.
8) New Business:
a. Proposal 13-12: “Constitution Change”
Luokkanen introduced the proposal
describing the redistribution of senators.
Kinesiology and Integrative Psychology will be considered academic for
senate purposes. Velat
expressed concern that athletic coaches were being removed from the senate and
asked if they were aware of this fact.
Luck stated that post-doctoral associates should not be part of the
senate due to their temporary nature and coaches are also temporary so they should
be removed. Velat
asked if that meant that we should eliminate all short contract people. Luck
stated that they were never included. Velat asked if we were setting a bad precedent. Luck stated that he wasn’t sure how many
people were involved and that this was not necessarily a precedent for the
removal of soft-money people. Further,
it gives more representation for other members, but the issue can be
discussed. Velat
expressed concern that there might be a group of staff that is not represented
by the union or the senate. Velat proposed to include coaches in the senate. Luck stated that the proposal is to remove
“non-academic” but that might include coaches.
Scarlet stated that the coaches should be asked before altering the
proposal language. Riehl agreed. Luck stated that the coaches’ representative
was already consulted but will be asked to talk about this at the next senate
meeting. The question was asked if
coaches also teach. Seel
replied that coaches are considered 10-20% for teaching. Barr stated that some coaches have been in
their position a long time. Velat expressed concern that even if coaches do not express
interest in being represented in the senate, they would be talking for all
future coaches. Luck said that he had no
objection to reinstating coaches and that it will be discussed at the next
meeting at which a vote will be taken.
b. Proposal 14-12: “Minor in Global Business”
Radson stated the purpose was to
increase international awareness and competency. Merz gave an
overview of the proposed minor stating that their accreditation team looked at
international issues. Seigel asked if students can do more or other experiences
abroad than the proposed minor requirements.
Merz replied in the affirmative. Velat asked if other international
experiences outside Michigan Tech
also
qualified, to
which Merz
replied not now, but that it can be considered for the future. Radson said that the idea is to get credit for it. Luck asked for comments from the Curricular Policy
Committee and Finance Committee but received none.
9. Adjournment.
Onder moved to adjourn.
President Luck adjourned the meeting at 6:45pm.
Respectfully submitted
by Brian Barkdoll
Secretary of the University Senate