[In these minutes: Student Senator responsibilities, Crookston visit,
Alcohol Task Force Report, 2004-05 SSCC/Student Senate Chair and Vice Chair,
other student issues]
STUDENT SENATE CONSULTATIVE COMMITTEE (SSCC)
MINUTES
APRIL 1, 2004
[These minutes reflect discussion
and debate at a committee of the University of Minnesota Senate or Twin Cities
Campus Assembly; none of the comments, conclusions, or actions reported in these
minutes represent the views of, nor are they binding on, the Senate or Assembly,
the Administration, or the Board of Regents.]
PRESENT: Dan Weiske
(chair), Joshua Colburn, James Kanten, Levi Kary, Scott LeBlanc, Charles Stech,
Jeremy Steil, Adam VanWagner.
ABSENT: Sean Bell, Derek
Brunsberg.
GUESTS: Josh Borowicz, Tom Pielow.
1.
ASSESSMENT OF ADVISING
Josh Borowicz, talked to the committee about
the work being done about advising in preparation for the accreditation review
in 2005. There are four working groups: Curriculum, Academic and Research
Advising, Technology, and Curriculum Assessment. He serves as chair of the
Academic and Research Advising.
In 2002-03 a student satisfaction survey
of advising was completed that found specific learning outcomes from advising.
The next step is to determine student, advisor, and administrator
responsibilities. He distributed a first draft of language from the working
group. He is looking for feedback from groups on the draft.
Q; Was
continuing education looked at at the University or other
institutions?
A: It was examined at other places, but advising is not
well assessed anywhere. There is less response to non-degree seeking students,
as well as graduate student advising, since most literature is on undergraduate
students. Principles are being first developed for undergraduates, and then
will be related to the other populations.
Q: How are advisors
chosen?
A: Each school or program has a different way to chose advisors.
This working group is not meant to be prescriptive in choosing
advisors.
Q: To whom is the draft being distributed?
A: It is
going to advising groups and undergraduate deans.
Q: Are the student
responsibilities realistic?
A: The last two points will be stressed more,
but the working group is open the changes. Advisors need to test students, and
students need to be acquainted with on-line materials.
Q: Is the working
group looking at department and collegiate advising and defining the role of
each?
A: The working group will look at identifying best practices and
see if outcomes achieve goals.
Members made the following
comments:
- Career-oriented advising is needed
- Some departments and colleges do a good job of preparing students for
careers, while others do not; all students needed to receive career options
- Student conversations need to be in-person
- More internships need to be encouraged so students can visualize
possibilities
- Advisors need to go beyond the basic description of the job to help
students
- Advising should be based on goals and needs, not the collegiate
enrollment
- Some students need career advising while other students need help with
liberal education classes
- Should advising be more centralized? Should advising be split by which
students have a major and which do not?
In closing, Josh
Borowicz asked that any suggestions be forwarded to him, such as expectations of
an advisor.
2. PROPOSED SENATE REVISIONS
Dan Weiske
reviewed the reorganization process and senator responsibilities with SSCC. He
said that the biggest concerns for the students are that the Senate remain an
academic Senate, not an employee-advocacy Senate, and to allow for enough
influence from academic professionals and civil service staff.
The new
numbers being proposed are 167 faculty, 60 students, 25 civil service staff, and
25 academic professionals, which include Consultative Committee members. With
these numbers, the faculty will retain a 60 percent majority in the
Senate.
The philosophy behind this proposal is to have all employee
groups involved in the Senate, while allowing each to have an autonomous voice.
Committee membership, however, will remain untouched while reporting lines
change. The Educational Policy Committee and the Research Committee will have a
primary reporting line to the Faculty Senate, while the Finance and Planning
Committee will have a dual primary reporting line to the Faculty and University
Senates.
Members made the following comments:
- Students should be provided with a cheat sheet
- Academic professionals and civil service staff should be at the meeting
- Graduate students who were opposed in the past need to be convinced
- Information should be sent to students in advance of the meeting
- Duluth students are not in favor of the proposal because they are losing
representation
3. APRIL 29 STUDENT SENATE
AGENDA
The April 29 Student Senate agenda was approved with two
revisions.
4. STIPEND REVIEW
Dan Weiske distributed
language to implement a stipend review process. SSCC, minus stipend receiving
members, would conduct the review each spring semester. Stipend-receivers would
get half the stipend each fall, and the rest would be disbursed following the
review. Members then voted to forward the process to the Student Senate for
approval.
5. OTHER BUSINESS
With no further business, Dan
Weiske thanked all members for attending and adjourned the meeting.
Becky
Hippert
University Senate