Provost

Committees and Special Task Forces -  University Task Force on the Undergraduate Experience, 2003-2006

Steering Committee

The Provost's Charge:


First, thank you for being willing to give your time to this important task. You have accepted the responsibility of leading a determination of what the undergraduate educational experience is to be in years to come. This is not just another committee; the results have the potential to shape Richmond's future in the most fundamental way imaginable.

The guide for the work of this Task Force is the Report and Recommendations of the Curriculum Review Exploratory Committee that was voted at the University Faculty Meeting on May 5, 2003; it provides a sound rationale and a process for this undertaking.

The purpose of this charge is to remind the Steering Committee of special responsibility for the broad oversight that will lead to results of institutional significance.
  • We should start with defining outcomes: what is the undergraduate experience meant to accomplish in the lives of students? If the university measures success by the accomplishment of its graduates, how does the four-year experience here prepare students for the great achievements that we envision for them? How will we measure whether the undergraduate experience actually does accomplish what the faculty intend it should? Should we define some developmental milestones for students in the first, second, third and fourth years that transcend specific requirements?
  • The Steering Committee must have the broad view, always mindful of the whole educational experience rather than separate pieces, mirroring the assumption that the education we offer is meant to be an integrated experience, not a series of separate activities and requirements. Much of the Task Force work will be done in subcommittees; only you, the Steering Committee, will be able to relate and integrate all the parts, and to anticipate how changes in one area will affect others.
  • While you have been elected to represent different schools and discipline clusters, to be effective you will need to wear a "university hat". The Steering Committee must be above the protection of interests for a school, department, major, course, or tradition for its own sake; some hard choices may be necessary to shape a forward-looking undergraduate experience. An important goal is to delineate an educational experience that is truly integrated across all the traditional boundaries.
  • Be bold. If there are risks to be taken that have the potential to yield great benefits, let us consider them. Shall we tinker, or shall we set a new national standard?
  • If we propose to add specific features to the undergraduate experience, it stands to reason that we might recommend dropping features that are less important.
  • It will be important to hear opinions from junior faculty; of course, they can bring fresh ideas unburdened by institutional memory for the "way we have always done it". But more importantly, they have a large stake--the results of this Task Force will shape their whole career experience at Richmond.
  • Study available literature and examine what other institutions offer. What has been done with good effect elsewhere with respect to reviews of curriculum and undergraduate experience? Are there good models that play into Richmond's strengths? Are there innovations that we could adopt to serve our goals? Perhaps most important, what is distinctive about the Richmond experience?
  • When advisable and possible, base deliberations and recommendations on data rather than anecdote. For example, do we really know how students fulfill and benefit from the current curriculum?
  • Do curricular requirements and extra-curricular opportunities combine to create an intellectual climate that engenders substantive dialogue outside the classroom, that makes debate and inquiry habits of life?
  • What strengths can we develop to help outstanding prospective students decide that we are their first choice for enrollment?
  • Be mindful of SACS accreditation requirements, and document the Task Force work in a way that will serve the upcoming re-accreditation process.
  • The Task Force will have to work hard to develop not just consensus, but enthusiasm for change. The process must respect faculty governance and administrative responsibility for the outcomes.
A final report is due to the Provost by May 2005; the report will likely include specific recommendations with rationale for each. It should also include:
  • A clear articulation of the strengths and distinctive features of the intended Richmond undergraduate experience, especially in relation to other institutions of our type.
  • A rationale that explains how the recommendations will lead to the intended student outcomes.
  • Any potential impact of the recommendations on institutional goals for faculty development
  • A chronological record of the steps taken to reach a consensus among undergraduate faculties and with the administration on the value of the recommendations proposed.
  • An outline of a process and an estimation of the human and financial resources needed to implement the recommendations.

Membership:


Elected:

Thomas Cosse – International Business Studies, Business School
John Earl – Finance, Business School
Michael Kerckhove – Mathematics, Arts & Sciences
Walter Stevenson – Classical Studies, Arts & Sciences
Patricia Stohr-Hunt – Education, Arts & Sciences
Hugh West – History, Arts & Sciences
Thomas Wren – Jepson School, CHAIR

Provost Appointee:

Ken Ruscio, Dean, Jepson School

Sub-Committees:


Advising & Residential Education:

Steve Bisese, Dean of Richmond College, CO-CHAIR
Braxton Bragg, RC student
David Brandenberger – History
Jennifer Cable – Music, Associate Dean of Arts and Sciences
Thomas Cosse – Business School
Elisabeth Gruner – English & Women's Studies
Michael Kerckhove – Math
Juliette Landphair, Dean of Westhampton College, CO-CHAIR
Terry Price – Jepson School
Jaime Settle, WC student

Athletics & Academics:

Voting Faculty Representatives:
Jane Berry – Psychology
John Gupton – Chemistry
Val Kish – Biology
Kibibi Mack-Shelton – History
Michael Spear – Journalism
Jerry Stevens – Business School, CHAIR
Louis Tremaine – English
Susan Quisenberry, Trustee Liaison & Alumna
Joe Kent, Provost's Liaison
David Walsh, Athletic Department Liaison
Steve Bisese, Student Life Liaison
Brooke Boncher, Student Athlete
Brandon Neuman, Student Athlete
Chase Rowan, Student Non-Athlete
Hugh West, TFUGE Steering Committee Representative
Gene Corrigan, Outside Consultant

Calendar, Credit & Assessment:

Susan Breeden, Registrar
John Earl – Business School
Jill Fasching, Jepson School student
Gill Hickman – Jepson School
Yvonne Howell – Modern Languages & Literatures
Dean Simpson – Classical Studies
Christian Stadler, RC student
Patricia Stohr-Hunt – Education
Ellen Walk – Continuing Studies
Neil Ashworth – Business School, CHAIR

Curriculum:

Sam Abrash – Chemistry, CHAIR
Harold Babb – Business School
Catherine Bagwell – Psychology
Melanie Mayhew, WC student
Andy Newcomb, Dean of Arts & Sciences
Karen Newman, Dean of Business School
Kathy Panoff, Executive Director of the Modlin Center for the Arts
Gary Radice – Biology
Roger Revell, RC student
Ken Ruscio, Dean of Jepson School
Anthony Russell – English
Terry Weisenberger, Associate Dean of Business School
Hugh West – History
Tom Wren – Jepson School

Chronological Process:


Curriculum Review Exploratory Committee Report and Recommendations - May 2003

Curriculum Committee Statement on Aims of a General Education Curriculum

Interim Reports (May 2004):
Steering Committee
Advising & Residential Education Sub-Committee
Athletics & Academics Sub-Committee
Calendar, Credit & Assessment
Curriculum
Proposed Curricular Reform - Draft for Discussion (November 2004)

Proposed Curricular Reform - Draft Number 10 (February 2005)

Spring 2005 Versions of TFUGE Documents (March 2005):
Curriculum Proposal
Calendar and Credit Proposal
Advising Proposal
Implementation and Resource Issues
Interim Versions of TFUGE Documents (September 2005):
A Primer on General Education at Richmond
Why the New Curriculum? A Brief Overview
Proposed Reforms to the General Education Curriculum at the University of Richmond
Report to Faculty Concerning Resources and Implementation of TFUGE Proposals
Summary of Proposed Reforms to the Calendar and Credit System at the University of Richmond
Introduction and Summary of Proposed Reforms to Advising and Residential Education at the University of Richmond
Current Versions of TFUGE Documents (January/February 2006):
A Memorandum to Members of the Undergraduate Faculties
TFUGE Steering Committee Motion on Process
A Primer on General Education at the University of Richmond
Proposed Reforms to the General Education Curriculum at the University of Richmond
Introduction and Summary of Proposed Reforms to Advising and Residential Education at the University of Richmond
Resources and Implementation of TFUGE Proposals
Provost's Statement of Support
Minutes of the February 1, 2006 Special-Called Meeting
Amendment Motions for February 15, 2006 Meeting
Minutes of the February 15, 2006 Special-Called Meeting
Minutes of the February 17, 2006 Special-Called Meeting
Status of Advance Motions 1-15 for February 21, 2006 Meeting
Submitted Motions from the Floor
Minutes of the February 21, 2006 Meeting
Amendment Proposed by Palazzolo for February 23, 2006 Meeting
Minutes of the February 23, 2006 Meeting

Final Versions of TFUGE Documents for Vote (March 2006):

Proposed Reforms to the General Education Curriculum at the University of Richmond, FINAL AMENDED VERSION FOR VOTE
Introduction and Summary of Proposed Reforms to Advising and Residential Education at the University of Richmond, FINAL AMENDED VERSION FOR VOTE
A Primer on General Education at the University of Richmond
TFUGE Feasibility Summary
Provost's Statement of Support
Supplemental Information on TFUGE Implementation

Athletics and Academics Subcommittee Report (October 2006)

Report of the ad hoc Writing Committee (March 2007)