ACADEMIC COORDINATING COMMISSION
Meeting of October 4, 2011
CALL TO ORDER . Chair Roger Anderson called the meeting of the 2011-12 Academic Coordinating Commission to order at 4:05 pm. There were nineteen (19) people present (see attached roster).
APPROVAL OF MINUTES (Exhibit A). May 24 minutes were approved in spring quarter.
Chair Anderson welcomed new members and explained the policies that will be reviewed and approved in future meetings include the Student Rights and Responsibilities Code, and small changes to the Academic Honesty Policy.
Steven VanderStaay, VPUE, in his welcome to new members noted that Western is unique in that faculty have 100% control of curriculum through its joint governing processes. VanderStaay added that sometimes it takes a year for new ACC members to grasp the complexity of such responsibility.
APPOINTMENTS TO ACC STANDING COMMITTEES: To Graduate Council: Lina Zeine, CSD
DISCUSSION: Admissions: Enrollment, Recruitment and Achievement committees
Ø Chair Anderson directed members to extensive articles and research on their Bb sites related to Admissions best practices across the country. Most schools have “Admissions Advisory committees” chaired by faculty and at some level under the auspices of the Faculty Senate. Anderson emphasized the need to revamp our present committee and reorganize its work through modifying or redoing its charge in order to be much more engaged in Admissions and to establish clear sets of policies.
Ø VanderStaay reported that with a little bit of faculty effort many programs have been extremely successful at finding good students with very high academic index (70) compared with 50 for our average student. Faculty involvement is needed to draw strong students and the slate is empty with regard to efforts being made.
Ø Senate President Karen Stout added that this is a complex issue and that Karen Copetas, Director of Admissions, has been asking for input from a variety of folks on campus in order to strategize about where we want to be as a university in the next ten years, and that there is a need for more faculty to have a stake in the process.
Ø Scholastic Standing Committee must also be considered to be its own standing committee. Admissions as a standing committee of ACC cannot have a “standing or subcommittee” (see R. Anderson on Sturgis’ Parliamentary Procedure).
Ø Anderson concluded that Admissions committee members should figure out what they can do and be creative in discovering how to move the processes forward. We need to identify faculty who are engaged or eager to become engaged, and everyone should access the Bb materials. Copetas can provide information, ideas, and expertise.
Ø Some of the areas of focus might include:
a. Addressing the pre-health career interest and the impact and course issues in the sciences;
b. Should there be both an enrollment committee and an admissions advisory committee;
c. Do we need an ad hoc committee to work on attracting high achieving students, transition them properly, and challenge them not only in their first year but thereafter (some might be Honors, others would not);
d. Can we increase our numbers from 5% or 10% high achievers to a much larger percentage;
e. Attract faculty committed to the long-term because of the learning curve required regarding Admissions and related processes, perhaps 3-year terms;
f. How to maximize intercollege relations;
g. Bring in transfers and ensure timely completion of their majors (in some departments one-third to one-half of the graduates are transfers); make use of data that shows that a high GPA in community college is a better predictor of college success than a high school SAT. For many of these students community college is a second chance wiping away the SATs and high school grades and we can focus on these high achievers across Washington;
h. Sharing information with faculty brings forward a lot of new ideas because many do not know what possibilities exist.
George Mariz, Director, Honors Program, commented that the Honors Program is at a point that it is ready to grow, but needs greater support. 40% of Honors students last year were from out of state and they pay extra tuition. Some get WUE grant assistance (Western Undergraduate Exchange in which they pay 150% of WA state residents). Some students have awards in addition. They are still paying a premium and we need to make sure their educational experience lives up to it. We have pathways to high schools in Montana and Colorado to attract students. Honors Chemistry sequence was a substantial draw but we have been unable to offer that because basic chemistry load is so heavy for faculty. Steve VanderStaay added that for the record the Honors Program is less expensive – at the moment Honors students have less dollars spent on them, costing less per SCH.
A MOTION was made by Tracy Thorndike-Christ, second by Yvonne Durham, to direct the ACC Executive Committee to draft a charge for an ad hoc committee in the short term, perhaps later morphing into a standing committee of the ACC. The motion passed unanimously.
Roll-out of Course Proposals and Revision/Cancellation E-Forms – Lisa Zuzarte
Lisa Zuzarte, Catalog Coordinator, presented the new online course proposal and revision/cancellation forms on the screen. The new forms take the 11 old forms and reduce them to 4 which contain automatic documentation, instructions, as well as drop-downs explaining meanings along each required step.
A change was proposed to the language on the GUR portion of the form so that it reads:
“Mark no more than one or two total of the eleven competencies presented.” ACC members pointed out that the form at present appears to invite a selection of two competencies under each of the three headings, and that is not what is intended. This change is forwarded to CUE.
Adjournment: 5:47 pm
Rose Marie Norton-Nader, Recorder – October 4, 2011
ACADEMIC COORDINATING COMMISSION 2011-2012 ROSTER