MCS College Council
Minutes from Meeting on Friday, April 26, 1999

In Attendance:
Susan Henry, David Owen
Eric Grotzinger, William Brown
Richard McCullough, James Greenberg
Robert Swendsen, Amy Kennedy
Robert Suter, Andrea Wiethoff
Rebecca Connor, Richard Edelstein
Lorraine Miller, Kary Myers

1. PROPOSED NEW TRACKS IN APPLIED PHYSICS, ASTROPHYSICS, BIOLOGICAL
PHYSICS AND CHEMICAL PHYSICS (R. Edlestein)

The Physics Department introduced four new tracks and presented the
history and goals of the proposal.  The main goal is to offer students
increased flexibility in choosing to enter the work force--including
technical fields--or in furthering their education after earning a B.S. 

W. Brown and R. McCullough voiced concern that, since they had not been
consulted in the construction of the curriculum for Biological Physics
and Chemical Physics, they were not confident that the requirements were
appropriate.  After general discussion, the College Council agreed to
vote to pass the proposal with stipulations instead of delaying voting
until the next meeting in the fall.

Further concern was expressed by R. McCullough that he had no prior
knowledge about the new tracks being developed and proposed by Physics. 
A discussion about the flow of information between committee members and
department heads ensued.  It was agreed that CUA members should be
responsible for reporting all relevant issues back to their department
heads.

A. Kennedy voiced concern that the wording under the Biological Physics
track regarding fulfillment of pre-med requirements could be misleading,
and it was agreed that the language be revised to be more explicit.

The College Council discussed the inconsistent use of "option,"
"concentration," and "track," among the departments in MCS, and between
MCS and the university.  It was agreed that the issue would placed on
the agenda for the next College Council meeting.

COLLEGE COUNCIL ACTION: The tracks in Applied Physics and Astrophysics
were passed unconditionally; the Biological Physics and Chemical Physics
tracks were passed with the stipulation that they would be subject to
review, revision, and approval of the Biological Sciences and Chemistry
departments.  

2.  NAME CHANGE FOR THE SEQUENCE 33-131 AND 33-132 (R. Swendsen)

The Physics department proposed the following name changes with the
intent of eliminating the word "Honors" from the course titles.

33-131: Name will change from Honors Physics I to Matter and Interactions I
33-132: Name will change from Honors Physics II to Matter and Interactions II

The content of the classes is to remain the same.  Students will
self-select for the courses, then be subject to "counseling out" pending
results of an evaluation test.

COLLEGE COUNCIL ACTION: The name change for the sequence was approved. 

3. PROPOSED OPTION IN MATERIALS CHEMISTRY FOR CHEMISTRY MAJORS (R. McCullough)

The Chemistry department proposed a new option in Materials Chemistry. 
The main goal is to provide flexibility for Chemistry students who have
a strong interest in materials engineering.  General discussion ensued,
and no concerns or objections were voiced.

COLLEGE COUNCIL ACTION: The proposal for a new option in Materials
Chemistry was passed.

4. ADDITION OF THE SEMINAR SERIES IN THE CHEMISTRY DEPARTMENT AS A
COURSE (R. McCullough)

The Chemistry department proposed that the seminar currently referred to
as "Current Research in Chemistry" be assigned course number 09-912. 
General discussion ensued, and no concerns or objections were raised.

COLLEGE COUNCIL ACTION: The proposal to assign a course number to the
seminar was passed.

5.  PROPOSALS FOR AN MCS POLICY ON SUPPORT FOR FACULTY DEVELOPMENT (D. Owen)

D. Owen presented a brief history and an update of the three proposals
for a policy regarding support for faculty development.  The task of the
College Council was to discuss the proposals, and decide on how to
advise the dean on adoption of a proposal.  S. Henry voiced the concern
that College Council would advise in a manner unacceptable to the
faculty, resulting in a petition and referendum.  It was her wish
that a conference committee chaired by R. Suter meet to resolve the
contending issues, including 1) Who should be responsible for providing
information on the past activities and future plans of faculty members? 
2) Should providing such information be "optional" or "expected" of
faculty?  3) Should a formal process of review of planning documents be
put in place?

S. Henry also initiated a discussion of the current process of faculty
review, and her suggestion for a revision.  Currently, the Annual
Reports are treated like "non competitive renewals," but they are
perfunctory and often lacking in depth.  She suggested that faculty
members submit a longer report every five years in addition to their
annual report.  The purpose of the longer report would be to reflect on
their past and future in their fields in  detail, providing the dean
with a better sense of their contributions and strengths in MCS.  

COLLEGE COUNCIL ACTION: The committee approved the call for a meeting of the
conference committee, consisting of Faculty Senate representatives and
chaired by R. Suter.  The conference committee is charged with taking
all proposals--including S. Henry's for the enhanced 5 year report--
under advisement, and developing a mutually acceptable policy.  The
first agenda item of the conference committee will be to develop a time
line for reporting back to the dean with final recommendations.