Minutes
Curriculum Committee
4:15 p.m., Tuesday, September 24, 2002
PDR F
Members: Gerald Adams, Diane Robertson, Andy Hamilton, Jerry Lalonde, Courtney Sloger, and Devan McGranahan.
1. The minutes
from the 9/10/2002 meeting were approved.
2. Andy Hamilton
reported that the Social Studies Division has been notified of the proposed
changes in the procedure for course change and so far he has not received any
negative comments. Diane Robertson said that the proposal was briefly discussed
in the Science Division and she is waiting for suggestions. Jerry Lalonde reported
that the Humanities Division has some suggested modifications that he will submit
for the committee to consider. In general there appears to be favorable reaction
to the proposal among the divisions.
3. Andy Hamilton
reported that the Social Studies Division has discussed the 10-credit limitation
with respect to MIP's 299 and MAP's 499's. A few members of the division felt
that MIPs and MAPs should be included in the 10-credit limit. Jerry Lalonde
reported that the Humanities Division had a mixed reaction about including or
excluding MIPs and MAPs in the 10-credit limits. Some felt that the limit should
be raised if you are going to include MIPs and MAPs. Diane Robertson reported
similar reactions among the members of the Science Division. Some wondered if
there is a problem with students exceeding the 10-credit limit. Some members
of the Science Division wonder if the limit should be with respect to the major
and not the department as we have one department that has two majors.
4. Marci Sorter
brought the following MAP questions for the Curriculum Committee to consider
A. Grading multi-term
MAPs.
At present, the student receives an S/D/F for the first portion of the MAP,
pending assignment of the final grade after conclusion of the second portion.
This can pose problems for the calculation of GPAs for honors and graduate school
applications. It also requires the Registrar retroactively to change a growing
portion of the grades assigned at the College. It may also result in students
and MAP directors wrongly concluding that no gradable work need be produced
until the conclusion of the second portion.
Possible Solutions:
a. Have a special
placeholder designation for the first portion of a multi-term MAP.
b. Assign grades to both portions.
The committee feels at this time that the best solution would be for each segment
of a MAP to have its own grade.
B. In the case of a multi-term MAP, should any portion be less than 4 credits? Should a student be allowed to start with a 2-credit portion? The committee feels at this time that a MAP project should start with 4 credits and then maybe be followed with a 2 credit Map but a MAP project should not start with 2 credits. If a student is not prepared to start a 4 credit MAP then she/he should do a MIP or a 397 or 297 etc. as preparation for the MAP.
C. Deadline for
summer MAP applications.
The current deadline (Monday after memorial Day) is so late that it is difficult
to catch problem applications before the student is well into the project and
has begun receiving a stipend. It also allows for some people to initiate a
summer MAP at the last minute. Science faculty, however, have capitalized on
the deadline, using it as an early milestone for the students' formulation of
their research plan.
Possible solutions:
a. Keep the deadline
where it is. This retains the greatest flexibility for science summer research
(which constitutes most summer MAPs).
b. Move the deadline to Monday of Finals week in Spring. This helps the Registrar's
and Dean's offices catch problem MAPs before they start.
c. Move the deadline to the Monday of the tenth week of Spring semester. This
helps support the intent of the MAP program: for the mentored project to be
carefully formulated and-especially for summer MAPs-to be part of the mentor's
research program.
d. Two applications and two deadlines for summer MAPs: an early deadline when
the student is identified as intending to carry out a MAP, and a late deadline
when that student then submits a fully conceived research program.
At this point the Science Division would probably be most in favor of solution a while c would take care of the problems that arose this past summer from proposals from the Humanities and Social Studies Division. The committee has reached no conclusion or recommendation on this issue.
D. Should there be a single application form for all types of MAPs? This is related to Question 2 above. The Committee decided that this issue would be considered when the above issue has been resolved.
E. Reconsidering
what we expect of faculty mentors of summer MAPs.
How do we communicate to mentors that the summer MAP is expected to be a full
time project, and that faculty support must be accordingly intensive? Insufficient
guidance has been a problem for some of our summer MAPs.
Possible solution:
a. Stipulate the
minimum number of hours and meetings that MAP directors must commit to, and
stipulate that both the faculty member and the student agree to meet every week
of the period of the MAP. E.g. a minimum of three hours, with two meetings a
week?
This may not be a Curriculum Committee issue.
F. Do we want to allow MIPs during Fall and Spring semesters? At present these are summer only. The committee did not have time to discuss this issue.
G. Can a MIP count
toward a major requirement? The committee did not have time to discuss this
issue.