Academic Master Plan – Task Force
Minutes November 17, 2020
Present: Paula Barbel, Patty Follansbee, Cathy Houston-Wilson, Jeff Lashbrook, Eric Monier, Paul Moyer, Pam Neely, Kathleen Phillips, Jennifer Ramsay, Jacqueline Slifkin, Chris Wilkens
- Recording Secretary – Dr. Paula Barbel
- Acceptance of minutes of 11.9.20- Minutes approved.
- Review updated Template from the Provost- changes were in item # 4
- Heading changed to Program
- Other language changed, sentences shortened and more succinct.
- Discuss other recommendations and questions: Discussion and actions
-
2.2 Does your program contribute to the College’s General Education program and/or provide Service Courses for other programs? If so, how many of your courses are General Education and/or Service Courses? This item was brought to the Steering Committee for further discussion. – Shared with head of Institutional research. We believe IR can provide additional metrics. We need to deliberate more on what better represents what we are looking for. We do not agree that total number of courses should be the only measure. We would prefer the addition of student credit hours, # of sections, FTE’s, other programs that the course(s) support
-
2.3 - How do you expect internal demand to change in the near future, and what are the factors that support your prediction? It is really a best guess, is it going to get better or worse based the market. Demand fluctuates based on market demand.
-
Table 3.1: Trend data in Admissions by Major. Where is this data coming from? Data will be provided by Institutional Effectiveness – may not be reflective of all programs Correct, but can be discussed in the narrative.
-
3.2 If applicable, who do you consider your main competitor peer institutions and why? - Why is this important? You mean other SUNY schools? – it can help make the case for things you need to do to attract students to your program so they come here instead of there – it can be both SUNY and privates if applicable What would set the program apart. Suggested language change to state “academic programs external to the institution”.
-
Could there be an area where a program can put in things like High Impact practices and engaged students learning activities? Yes in 4.3 – Jeff will add additional boxes- to be developed. Strengthen the wording re: alignment to the mission. Add prompts related to the question on the Strategic Plan. Add to # 2
-
4.2 Please summarize evidence of faculty recognition within the past 3 years. Data can come from Activity Insight. Additional information can be uploaded into Appendix A as appropriate. Is this about awards? Yes, or other forms of recognition
-
Where does this come from? And again what if we are a program that is not taught in High School? Then there might not be much data. – This data will come from IR and any peculiarities can be discussed in the narrative
-
4.6 was updated (Resources and Staffing)- Think about revising the question- make it more directive. Discuss faculty and adjuncts’ ability to meet the demands of the program and the college.
-
5.2 Please comment on additional indicators of student success outcomes over the past 3 years (e.g., certifications, test past rates). Grad school acceptance, jobs? Yes, if you have that data
-
5.5 How does the program meet the needs of the local and broader community? In what way? Does your program graduates fill any kind of void or what effect does a degree in x have on y.
-
Add prompts to think about how they think about contributing to the Strategic Plan in 1.1
-
How long ago did the new strategic plan kick in?
-
-
Discuss terms that should be included in the Glossary – Distribute who will be responsible for generating the definitions of these terms
-
Come to consensus on how many years of data we should expect people to review – 3, 4, 5? Committee agrees to go with 5 years of data
-
Discuss word limits – should we have a standard no more than 200 words or just leave open ended?– word limits were identified to help people just hone in on just the answer to keep it simple and brief – common guideline – figures and tables do not count in the word count – give guidance – answer as succinctly as possible but no more than 250 words
-
Discuss the rationale for all programs to be reviewed simultaneously
- This is all about resource allocation – you have to have the full picture of who is doing what to make informed decisions – this is not PPR and cannot be done in cycle
- Completing the report can be divided up among members of the program
- . There are no resources for course release
- Members of the Steering Committee will do a second pilot before it gets rolled out to the entire campus – we can provide additional feedback on effective strategies to complete it
-
Discussed creating orientation information to persons completing the forms. Need to provide continuity to those who come after us
-
For next meeting – Review final report from 2016 and report from the pilot 2016 in the Teams folder for background information and discussion
Adjourn
Next meeting – December 1, 2020 – Recording Secretary will be Dr. Patti Follensbee
Respectfully submitted by Paula Barbel