Faculty Assembly Executive Council | Minutes | 4/17/19

Faculty Assembly Executive Council [FAEC] Meeting Minutes

Date: Wednesday, April 17, 2019 | Location: A220  | Time: 10:30 am to 12:00 pm

Attendees: Kathryn Zeno, Tae Kwak, Donna Flynn, Sam Mustafa, Renata Gangemi, Christina Connor, Hugh Sheehy, Eva Ogens, Catalin Martin

Secretary: Nakia Matthias

Guests: TAS Student

I.  FAEC Minutes Approved

Voting items for May 1st FA meeting must be decided by next week 4/24/19.  

Graduate Student Council was last Thursday.  

II.  Data Science Program Tenure Track Positions

5 tenure-track lines were approved for the forthcoming Data Science Program (2 in Data Science, 2 in Computer Science, and 1 in Math) that the Provost has been endorsing and promoting.  TAS faculty from Computer and Math submitted an ARC application for a BS program and an MS program in Data Science which has been approved by the Graduate Council. The 5 faculty lines will support the curriculum for the program.  

III.  SGA Forum [attended by FA member]

The Provost explained that his desire to shift to a three credit system will enable students to obtain certificates and enroll in elective courses, allowing students more breadth of education that a four-credit system cannot provide for.  However, several students stated that they were minoring or double-majoring. Additionally, the implications of the three course load shift was not fully explained. Based on their responses during the event, Some students did not understand these implications and  there was no education in helping them understand. It appears that the Provost is interested in a move to a 3 credit system rather than restructuring.

During the SGA Forum Students from TAS mentioned that they were  informed by their dean that they would need a total of twenty three-credit courses or more classes versus their current course load should a shift to a three-credit system occur.

Currently the requirements for schools’ programmatic needs dictate students’ ability to enroll in certificates and take on additional electives rather.   Some programs such as nursing or business programs have accreditation requirements that bear structured course loads which may not prevent extraneous courses.

Many RCNJ students currently double major, enroll in certificate programs, and take elective courses toward these ends.  Limitations to students’ uptake of electives may be based upon the program’s needs or accreditation requirements that constrict extraneous courses.  This is not a college-wide issue but rather a matter of the needs-based structure of some programs.

For example many ASB students enter RCNJ as transfer students. These students may not have certain prerequisite courses which would allow them to pursue certificate or to have a minor.  

However, Freshman students in ASB have a different experience and can enroll in two to three electives.  Some courses could double count in business and other certificate programs. Such is the care whereby many ASB marketing students are also minoring in psychology.  The four to three credit shift could add classes while reducing the number of courses that students can take. The purview of the convening group should be made to assess prior performance with three versus four credit courses.  For programs such as Nursing this model simply adds credits but does not improve the major.

The number of core courses for some majors has not changed since RCNJ’s move from three to four credits.  There is concern that a switch to a three credit system will result in an increase in core courses. Too many classes were converted on a 1 to 1 many were three credits but became four credits without proper auditing or adjustments.  

The potential for shifting to a three credit system also raises concerns over what will happen with the General Education curriculum work that has been done.  Since the State’s exemption is indefinite for 128 credits but the move to a 120 credit model may only be important for community college cohesion and transfer student ease.  However RCNJ should not prioritize compatibility at the cost of the quality of education and the structure of curriculum.

During the student forum assumptions were made about faculty regarding class contact time. It was mentioned by some students that faculty do not use the full class time for teaching.  Faculty must be sure to take full advantage of class contact time and ensure that final exam time is used accordingly,

IV.  Teaching loads,  Course Capacity, and Cost Savings

The AFT informed the FAEC that even if faculty are on a 4/4 teaching load three preps is the maximum that faculty contracts provides for.  Lab courses constitute a 4th course for some full time faculty.

Class capacity sizes relate to the nature of classroom size that a course is assigned to and is not the ideal or recommended number of student enrollment for teaching effectiveness. Pushing caps up for first year seminar may jeopardize the very purpose for the seminar as a retention tool.  Making theses classes larger will not enable students to receive individualized support and attention. Cost savings in support of maximizing efficiency has been presented as the need for increasing class caps. At present o save one million dollars RCNJ would need to close 167 classes taught by adjuncts.  To save three million dollars RCNJ would need to close 500 courses.

V.  Shared Governance

President Mercer requested that the FAEC affirm the task force to promote diversity as defined within the strategic plan.

VI.  Special Faculty Forum, 2:30-4:00 pm, Padovano Commons

Meeting Adjourned at 12:00 pm

Categories: Uncategorized