Study Away Committee (StAC)
Meeting Minutes
October 16, 2007, 4:00-5:30pm

Present: Professors Ching, Hutton, Kazee Khandke, Knight, Nelsen, Patterson, Worthen; Elizabeth Bradley

Kailash Khandke Report on 2008/09 programs

Assistant Dean for Study Away and International Programs Kailash Khandke reported on the responses he has received regarding study away programs for 2008-09.  Currently there are seven programs intending to run in the Fall (Latin America, England, Madrid, China, Versailles, Tuscany, and Brussels) and five in the Spring (Mediterranean, Africa, Chile, Versailles, and Washington).  There are also two biology programs (Belize and African ecology) for which he has not yet received responses but expects to hear from soon.  Prof. Worthen stated that the African ecology program will actually run on campus, with a study away portion in the May term.  Prof. Nelsen stated that there is also a similar Political Science program in the works with an on-campus program in the Spring and off-campus in the May term.  There are also programs planning to run in Summer 2008 (Ireland, Washington, and possibly Charleston).

Prof. Khandke has had an initial meeting with Boyd Yarborough, Benny Walker, and Marylou Merkt to discuss issues of housing and revenue.  The only 2008-09 program that has indicated their intention to be on campus for part of the term is the Religion/Communication department’s Mediterranean program.

Dean Kazee comments on study away

Dean Kazee expressed his satisfaction that the university is now able to talk about the future of Study Away in concrete ways, as a part of the transition to the new curriculum and calendar.  He observed that the system that was in place when he arrived on campus in 2003 was very decentralized and that it has remained so.  Since that time existing programs have essentially been “grandfathered” – amidst an ongoing discussion of costs and values that such programs bring to the university – while new programs have been discussed on a case-by-case basis.

Under the existing system the lack of consistency in policies between programs has been problematic and idiosyncratic.  We are now moving towards a standardization and principled consistency without hurting existing successful programs, and within an understanding of finite financial resources.

The ITF Study Away sub-committee made some concrete recommendations in terms of a new administrative structure (now in place:  Assistant Dean for Study Away and International Education, Study Away Committee), and for an institutional priority for developing an endowment for long-term financial viability of programs.

The University is to begin a new major capital campaign, including the intention of developing a significant endowment dedicated to Study Away programs.  This plan has received positive responses from the Advisory council, and looks very promising.  There will be a transitional period in which there will be issues of bridging until the new financial resources can become available in several years.

Prof. Khandke added that an endowment can protect against the need for outsourcing of Study Away programs, and let Furman maintain the academic integrity of its programs.  He also stated that other International Educational goals (including international students, international opportunities for faculty) can also advance many of the same goals of study away. 

Prof. Nelsen stated that recent data on Political Science graduates shows that those students who went on Study Away programs while students are twice as likely to live outside the US, 10% more likely to travel outside the US more than once per year.  Study Away programs have a real influence on the cosmopolitan outlook of students.

Draft proposal for an approval process for new study away programs

Prof. Nelsen stated that in drafting the proposal he used the model procedures on “how to propose a new major”.  The multi-step, and possibly iterative process, involves a proposal going to both the Assistant Dean for Study Away and International Education and the Study Away Committee, which is eventually presented to the faculty for a vote of approval, and then to the Dean/Provost who will make the determination as to when the program would actually run.

He noted that there are currently some minor inconsistencies between the current draft proposal and the draft Memorandum of Understanding on the issue, which will need to be fixed.

Later discussion surrounded the issue of the extent of faculty governance on this issue.  All courses offered on Study Away programs need to be approved by the faculty, which means that there is a degree of academic oversight.  Should the faculty as a whole be required to review and approve a program as a whole?  Would current programs which have run in the past require approval?  This is an issue that will require further discussion.

FTEs and draft Memorandum of understanding

The other major item on the agenda was that of FTEs for study away programs.  There has been previous email discussion of a draft Memorandum of Understanding on the subject which continued in the meeting.

Dean Kazee said that he and the administration understand that there are administrative issues required of program directors for any study away program.  However in his view the automatic granting of FTEs for administration depends on many factors including the kind of program and whether the program is new or has been running multiple times.  His personal experience in running a study-away program multiple times was that after a couple of iterations there was relatively less work involved, to the point that he could not rationalize a full course credit for administrative overhead.  He brought up the idea of some cases warranting as much as a full credit for administration, while others might garner partial credit or even none at all.  FTEs are not cheap.  They lead to overloads, or additional adjunct teaching. 

There is a need to reasonably reward hard work within the resources of the institution, but there also needs to be a compelling rationale.

There is a great disparity among the programs running for 2008-09 in terms of what faculty appear to expect in terms of FTEs.  Some programs appear to expect as many as 3 FTEs per faculty member, which is significantly greater than some other programs. 

Prof. Worthen suggested that rather than focusing on separating teaching and administrative FTEs that programs have to apply for a total number of FTEs for a program, making a case for additional credit by giving great detail as to the actual work involved.

The current draft Memorandum of Understanding will be further revised – for example the “however” section should perhaps be clarified - and perhaps turned into a “statement of principles” for future consideration.

Furman comprehensive fee

The issue at hand was the new comprehensive fee policy approved by the trustees.  This policy, beginning with the Class of 2011 (current first-year students), will no longer permit seniors who have excess credit hours to pay tuition based on the number of hours enrolled.  Danielle Vinson (PS) expressed concern via email that this will hinder students from participating in summer study away programs (such as the Washington program).  She noted that some students “enroll in those programs knowing that they can underload their senior year and pay by the credit hour, which allows them to get back some of the money they spent.” She requested that the committee raise the issue.

Dean Kazee provided the primary response to the issue. He said that the policy has a three-year grandfather clause and that in the long run with the new capital campaign and the creation of a hopefully substantial endowment for study away, that students participating on such programs, especially those with demonstrated financial need, might be subsidized. He also said that the trustees approved the change to a comprehensive fee in part because under enrolling was costing the university a significant amount of money, and that very few other schools like ours allow for rebates for under enrolling. In the short term, since the policy has just been approved, it is not likely to be subject to reevaluation. He further stated that he hoped that students enroll in the Washington program, or other similar programs, because of the inherent value of their participation and not simply because it might enable them to under enroll during their senior years.  Since the comprehensive fee policy has been changed, we’ll have a chance to see if enrollments in the Washington program are negatively affected.  The appropriate way to address concerns about potential declines in enrollment would be to identify sources of financial support for students who would like to participate but are otherwise unable to do so.

Respectfully submitted,
Christopher Hutton, Music