IRA

Forms

var _gaq = _gaq || []; _gaq.push(['_setAccount', 'UA-48720098-1']); _gaq.push(['_trackPageview']); (function() { var ga = document.createElement('script'); ga.type = 'text/javascript'; ga.async = true; ga.src = ('https:' == document.location.protocol ? 'https://ssl' : 'http://www') + '.google-analytics.com/ga.js'; var s = document.getElementsByTagName('script')[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(ga, s); })();

USCP Meeting May 24, 2016

Meeting Details

  • Date:  Tuesday, May 24, 2016
  • Time:  2:10 to 3:00 pm
  • Place:  33-285
  • Attendance:  Bruno Giberti, Margaret Bodemer, Elizabeth Adan, Denise Campbell, Katie Tool

Business

Discussion of Enrollment Numbers for USCP classes (EXCEL)

  • Generally, there are enough USCP courses based on the 2015-16 analysis.  
  • Less than 10% of USCP courses are outside of GE.
  • If USCP were to go under GE, how would that affect the review process for USCP-non GE courses?
  • USCP courses are currently reviewed by Academic Senate Curriculum Committee.
  • Jane Lehr/Denise Isom do review USCP courses informally via email.
  • If we propose to put USCP under GE, how can we construct a process to make it work?  GEGB would want expertise from the ES/WS or other diversity experts.
  • We would write into the resolution that we would specify a designee.

Draft of Goals for Academic Senate by End of Spring Quarter

  • Do we want to specify that USCP goes under GEGB in the resolution?
  • If agreed, we would take the resolution to the GEGB for discussion.  There are not many USCP courses per year (between 1-5).
  • The oversight of USCP within GE could be done through a sub committee; We would identify faculty in WGS/ES through Chair of GEGB, and could possibly call it the USCP committee.
  • It is recommended to minimize the levels of review in the curriculum process.
  • this would move the USCP review from the Academic Senate Curriculum Committee to the GEGB.

Question of Timing

  • Are we going to look at a course renewal process?
  • Curricular documents could potentially be updated through a short process/one page addendum.
  • We may not want to deal with course renewal process right now because the GEGB and the ASCC are looking at it.  We should wait until the campus agrees on some type of process. Review process could be in off-calendar years.
  • How are we going to move forward with a better aligned  DLO, USCP?
  • Is it effective immediately or when should it move forward?
  • Should it be effective immediately for all new courses (Fall 2016), or must we delay it for a reasonable length of time.
  • Two issues - Effective date? Fall 2017?  What about review of existing classes?
  • Effectively immediately - for new course proposals?
  • Process - Faculty must submit a new course proposal 
  • We could say it would apply to new courses effective 2017
  • We could propose faculty development opportunities to improve USCP courses.
  • Diversity in Program Review - Are USCP courses part of a possible assessment?

Related Content

Office Contact

Academic Programs and Planning 
1 Grand Avenue
Kennedy Library
  (Bldg. 35), Suite 319  
San Luis Obispo, CA 93407 

Main Number 
(805) 756-2246

General Email
acadprog@calpoly.edu