From: Sawyer, John
[mailto:sawyerj@lerner.udel.edu]
Sent:
To: dgh@UDel.Edu
Cc: Ferry, Diane; Karren Helsel-Spry
Subject: RE: from Coordinating Committee/new IBS major proposal
questions
Please
find attached a revised proposal for the International Business Studies major
in which we have made corrections in response to your points 1 and 2 below.
See also my response to your point 3 below.
I
would be happy to address your committee regarding the issues raised in your
item 3.
John
E. Sawyer, Ph.D.
Professor & Department Chair
Department
of Business Administration
302-831-1787
sawyerj@lerner.udel.edu
From: dallas
hoover [mailto:dgh@UDel.Edu]
Sent:
To: Ferry, Diane
Cc: 'Abraham Avron'; 'Karren Helsel-Spry'
Subject: from Coordinating Committee/new IBS major proposal questions
Hello Diane,
The
Faculty Senate Coordinating Committee met on Friday, 20 January, to review the
materials submitted to us by the Undergraduate Studies Committee. Your
proposal for the new degree in International Business Studies was reviewed and support for the proposal was positive; however, there were
questions and suggestions raised that require your response. Could
you please look these over and get back to me with comment?
[If you
have any questions regarding what I’ve written below, please feel free to get
back in touch with me.]
Thank you,
Chair, FacSen Coordinating Committee
(x8772; dgh@udel.edu)
___________________________________________________________________________________
1. Credit totals.
There
appears to be some contradictions regarding the number of credits students must
take to complete the degree. At the bottom of page 7 (page numbers from
print-out), the ‘Credits To Total A Minimum Of’ is
listed as 126. If one adds the number of required credits listed on pages
6 and 7, the number is 121 credits, excluding credits for Electives. Then
in the paragraph under Electives, it is stated, “After required courses are
completed, sufficient credits must be taken to meet the minimum credits
required for the degree (usually a minimum of 8 credits).” Therefore 121
+ 8 = 129 credits. Should the statement read “usually a minimum of
5 credits” so that the total comes to 126 credits?
On page
9, Detailed Proposal, the third paragraph under Description, it is stated that
the curriculum is almost equally split between the
We
have corrected the credit counts. You are correct; there are 5 credits of
electives equaling a total of 126. Also the program is equally split with
63 credits in business and 63 credits outside business for a total of 126
credits.
2. Wording of document.
Some
committee members requested revision to some sections of text in order to
clarify content.
a)
In the
statement on page 5, under the heading, (NOTE: The following is a modification
to the introductory section . . ., in the second paragraph: Students may
also pursue a minor in international business and/or apply to the minors in
management information systems, economics, or a variety of other fields.
I think the confusing point may be which student majors are being referred to
in the statement with regard to their options for minors.
We
have changed this wording to be explicit about which minors are available for
which majors.
b)
On page 9, Detailed Proposal, in the section Rationale and Demand, there were
issues with paragraphs 1 and 2 in which comparisons are made to other
institutions. For example, at the end of paragraph 1 is a reference to
Widener (University?) only requiring six credits of language as part of their major. How is this intended for comparison to
UD? Does this imply we are better or worse than Widener? I believe
the committee felt that these comparisons should be reworked to more obviously
highlight positive comparisons; these were difficult to interpret.
We
have included a sentence at the end of this paragraph indicating that or
proposed program is more comprehensive that the comparator programs. See
also the paragraph which follows that explicitly states this and identifies the
program at the
3. COMM 212 requirement.
This is
probably our most important concern with the proposal. It was our
understanding that BUAD 110 (along with ENGL 110) will provide students with
the necessary experience in written and oral communications. It was felt
that if the new course, BUAD 110, is not approved this year,
your proposal will be delayed. There was also uncertainty that BUAD 110
would be adequate to deliver the necessary experience in written and oral
communications. Comment was made in committee that assurances have been
given by Dean Tom Apple that enough resources will be available to offer COMM
212 to all students at UD. As a compromise, our committee recommends that
COMM 212 be made a requirement in your curriculum with ENGL 301, 312, 410 and
415 listed as recommended electives. This would strengthen the argument
that these students will receive adequate instruction in written and oral
communications.
This
issue is currently being considered in the undergraduate committee. I
will be addressing that committee at their next meeting. That committee
has approved our BUAD110 course, but has the same concern about reducing the
communication requirements.
Our
argument is that we are not reducing our emphasis on the oral and written
communications goals of the general education curriculum, but are instead
improving our ability to deliver on them. I was a member of the campus
wide committee over the past two years commissioned by Associate Provost
Gempesaw and chaired by John Courtright which investigated our ability to deliver
on oral and written communications. The conclusion of that investigation
was that separate 3-credit courses was NOT an effective way to deliver this
education and that integrating oral and written communication across the
curriculum was a much more effective means.
Our
freshman course was developed in response to that committee
recommendation. We learned that students do not transfer learning well
across courses unless the bridge is built for them. Thus, in our BUAD110
course we have partnered with the English and Communications departments.
Our BUAD110 course is linked with the ENGL110 course to provide intensive
focused education on written communication across those classes. We also
make extensive use of the Oral Communication Fellows program in the BUAD110
course. The Oral Comm fellows present instruction within BUAD110 and
provide mentoring and feedback to students on their oral presentations.
We
believe that this will provide a much better and more integrated education on
written and oral communication that the existing independent courses. We
have the cull support of Steve Bernhardt of English and Elizabeth Perse of
Communications for this plan.
I
will be discussing this with the Undergraduate curriculum committee at their
next meeting and suspect they sill support the idea. Doug Buttrey seems
to be supportive given conversations I have had with him. I am happy as
well to discuss this with your committee.
_______________________________________________________________________________