COMMITTEE MEMBERS

Michael Arnush, Advisory Committee on International Study (chair)
Jim Chansky, Special Programs
Jordana Dym, Curriculum Committee
Michael Ennis-McMillan, Curriculum Committee / Office of the Dean of the Faculty
Cori Filson, Office of International Programs
Sarah Goodwin, Associate Dean of the Faculty, Office of the Dean of the Faculty
Ruth Andrea Levinson, Committee on Educational Policies and Planning

PROPOSED GUIDELINES

Curriculum Committee Criteria and Procedures (draft 3/7/06)
Expression of Intent Form (draft 2/13/06)
Curriculum Committee Proposal Form (draft 2/22/06)

INITIAL QUESTIONS FOR CONSIDERATION

1. What are the educational and institutional goals of short-term programs?
2. Should we/How do we limit short-term opportunities in light of limited resources and students to fill the programs? (Could we really fill 6 or 7 programs in one semester?)
3. With the addition of portable financial aid, the opportunity to participate is available to all students. Do we limit aid and increase the number of opportunities or do we maintain increased student accessibility and limit the number of options?
4. How do we address the question of faculty control over the curriculum vs. the role of the administration in terms of resource management?
5. How do we approach managed growth of these programs – again, with limited students, with limited resources, and without cannibalizing our semester programs? How do we manage student interest and participation, especially in light of the financial aid commitment?
6. How do short-term program enrollments support or compete with the strategic goal of providing 60% of our students with a significant study abroad experience? Are we increasing the number of students on multiple programs rather than increasing the total number of students studying abroad? Should short-term program enrollments count towards the goal of 60%?
7. If we agree that we need to limit the number of options, how do we establish the selection process and criteria? Do we privilege programs that

   • enhance the curriculum in ways that are not possible through semester programs (i.e., the natural sciences)
     are tied to a semester course rather than "stand alone" options
   • involve faculty who have little international opportunity otherwise
   • involve tenured over non-tenured faculty
   • support larger institutional initiatives regarding diversity?
8. There obviously need to be clearer guidelines for the development, selection and implementation of these programs. Who should be involved in creating these guidelines? Who enforces them? How do we ensure transparency throughout the process?
9. How does Summer Programs fit in? How do we create guidelines that help ensure an easier coordination between OIP and SP regarding short-term programs?

TABLED QUESTIONS (CEPP will address 3-5)

1. Should CEPP or the subcommittee construct an additional guideline to accommodate an unusual opportunity that arises for a short-term program abroad, one that would require quick action rather than the 18 months of planning we have proposed? That is, have we eliminated the possibility of creative improvisation?
2. What should be the guidelines for faculty who wish to lead short-term programs to domestic environments - e.g., to the communities that suffered from the fall storm season?
3. The Curriculum Committee form has as its audience the faculty who will submit the proposals. It does not, perforce, incorporate all of the reviews and consultations that such a proposal will engender. We recommend CEPP craft a protocol that lays out for all reviewing bodies the appropriate procedures at every stage of a proposal.
4. What constitutes a direct connection by a short-term program to the curriculum?
5. Should the College continue to sponsor non-credit-bearing trips and, if so, under what auspices and to what purpose?

-- Back to ACOP Home --