ASCnet

Details

Date

2007-11-20

Time

Location

Agenda

1-3PM Smith Lab 4187

Agenda:

1. Political Theory bundle
2. Geo 410
3. Communication minor (sent back and revised)

Notes

Subcommittee C

10/30/2007

APPROVED

Present: Vasey, Berman, Bitters, Soundarajan, Breitenberger, Lee

1. Math minor— Non-honor- approved; Honors- sent back.

            i. overview of the proposal

            ii. Honors Minor—sent back

a.        Clarification/definition of “Honors Minor” – committee is unaware of other examples

b.       the Math Department should contact the Honors for supporting statement for “the Honors Minor”  

c.        Clarification needed: could honors students take the non-honors minor?

iii. Non-honor Minor—approved.

 

Motion to approve the Non-honor Minor part: Berman Yes: All   No: none

 

2. Astro 294— approved with contingency

            i. General info statement- should include “does not count as an upper division”

ii. Clarification: could 294 students take 161 or 162? Should there be axclusion clauses on 161, 162 for 294? Rationales?

 

Motion to approve with contingency: Vasey        Yes: all.  No: none

  

• For the committee, should the Assessment element be separate, since many things would be already in the syllabus? It could overwhelm new faculty member. --Yes, many elements could be new and specific. Part of OSU operation.

3. Ed P&L 551 & 552— approved

i. difference btw 551 and 552? Time period. Difference issues discussed.

ii. Social diversity category appropriate: addresses roots of social diversity issues.

Motion to approve: Vasey       Yes: all.  No: none

 

4. Ento 597 – approved with contingency.

            i. recap of the history of committee review

ii. looks like a great course

iii. inconsistencies between the course request form and the syllabus:  

a.       course contact time (2- 2hr cl, 1 hr discussion? 1-2hr cl, 2 hr discussion?)

b.       pre-reqs (showed on syllabus but not on the course request form)

iv.      Provide a (representative) reading list in the syllabus for the students

            v. Clarity of assessment plan is improved but it is still somewhat unclear.  However, this is common as objectives for this GEC category are somewhat vague

 

Approved with contingency on changes: Berman.    Yes: all.      No: none.

 

5. Communication minors—sent back

            i. Why do minors not correspond to the majors?

            iii. Clarification of the intent:

a.       Are they meant to mainly be open to Communication major students? If yes, provide justifications/rationales as to why it makes sense for Communications majors to minor in communications.

b.      If they are meant to be open to non-Comm majors, demonstrate how that is possible since most courses have Comm. Major status as a pre-req.  or have courses as pre-reqs that themselves require Comm Major status.

iv.     Provide evidence of university rules that students can minor within their majors. 

Motion to send back: Breitenberger                  Yes: all.      No: none.

6. Bio 103—approved

            i. overview

            ii. description – change to be within 25 words

            iii. perfectly designed GEC course

Motion to approve.                   Yes: all.     No: none.