Academic Policies Committee
Minutes - October 23, 2007

Present: Tom Kazee, Brad Barron, Kristy Maher, Ken Abernethy, Doug Cummins, Dan Koppelman, John Harris, Ben Able, Robin Visel (recorder). Lloyd Benson & John Barrington came to answer questions about the Historical Analysis CGA.

The meeting began at 3:00.

1. Approval of the Minutes for October 2 Meeting, with amendments. Ken will resend the corrected minutes. 
2. Discussion of how special topics courses should be listed on transcripts: Brad suggested that the course number with an identifying letter and topics title can appear on the transcript. The committee agreed.
3. Discussion with Lloyd Benson & John Barrington about historiographical theories and other Historical Analysis questions.

The committee had requested clarification on the CGA questions, especially # 3 re historiography. Lloyd distributed checklist developed for CTEL sessions by the Historical Analysis discussion group.  APC discussed an exemplary course, ANTH 211, which explores anthropological evidence that may or may not be judged historiographical.  The CGA requirement places new emphasis on competing theories of interpretation, questions of objectivity and subjectivity, and epistemological frameworks (as opposed to list of dates and events); it also stresses the understanding of appropriate tools and techniques. The course should answer the basic questions: What happened? Why did it happen? How did/do we interpret it? Historical frameworks and analytical skills need to be transferable to other courses. These courses should study change over time, i.e. eras and stages of transformation. For courses at this level, historiographical theories might also be described as interpretations or viewpoints.  
The committee agreed that it is incumbent upon course proposers to be at the faculty meeting to explain and defend their courses. We wondered if we could or should make this mandatory for a course to be considered. The committee also agreed that APC could suggest to a proposer that he or she might consult with colleagues, such as the informal H A discussion group, before the course reaches the faculty floor. Lloyd said that the H A brown-bag sessions were very useful and that similar informal sessions should be facilitated by APC and CTEL. The H A checklist might be posted as a resource (e.g. by CTEL).  However, ultimately it is the proposer’s responsibility to try to reach consensus on his or her courses, and when opinion is divided, it can be salutary to debate on the floor. Committee members may be called to defend APC’s judgements, but are not responsible for answering all questions about a controversial course. 
In answer to a question about the importance of precedence in APC’s deliberations, the committee concluded that we try to look at each course proposal individually on its own merits and to interpret the CGA answers consistently.  We did agree that at some point (later in the year) we might want to revise the CGA questions and possibly ask for faculty approval.  For example, the H A questions might be revised to include a reference to “change over time.”  Lloyd and John were thanked for their help, and left the APC to address its business.

1. Consideration of the  “consent agenda” consisting of the following:

ART 113 (Visual/Performing Arts) approved
CHM 110 (Natural World) approved
CHM 120 (Natural World) approved
(We discussed the technical language and whether any proposal whose jargon we don’t understand should be sent back for clarification.  We concluded that we should be more willing to accept jargon from other departments.)
ECN 242 (Empirical: Human Behavior) sent back re second question: please describe extent of empirical methods used. 
ENG 305 (Analysis of Texts) approved
FR 331 (Analysis of Texts)  approved
SPN 240 (World Cultures – note: already approved for LAS)  approved
SPN 361 (Analysis of Texts – note: already approved for LAS)  approved
SPN 412 (Analysis of Texts)  approved
SPN 440 (Analysis of Texts – note: already approved for LAS)  approved
SPN 445 (Analysis of Texts – note: already approved for LAS and WGS) sent back to ask for specific example in answer to first question.
SPN 470 (Analysis of Texts) –  approval of this version only.

We discussed whether topics-based courses should be given blanket CGA approval.  It was decided no, that a special-topics course requesting CGA credit should come before APC every time a new version is offered. This should be a policy communicated to all departments.  Departments should also be reminded that CGA credit may be redundant for advanced courses with CGA-approved prerequisites.

1. We then discussed EES 111, concluding that it has already been approved by Curriculum as a new or heavily revised course.

The meeting ended at 5:00.