University of Dallas Quality Enhancement Plan The Integrated Experience

University of Dallas Quality Enhancement Plan The Integrated Experience: the merger of the liberal arts and professional education. Executive Summary: The goal of the Quality Enhancement Plan of the University of Dallas is to provide every undergraduate business student with the opportunity for an educational experience that merges the foundational elements of a traditional liberal arts education with professional studies. The merging of disciplines will be accomplished through the development of an integrated core curriculum that draws on the strengths of each discipline. The University of Dallas has developed, in its short history, a reputation as a unique liberal arts university. This is in large part due to the requirements of the core curriculum. Every undergrad at UD takes between 60 – 72 hours of required courses, the majority of them containing common assignments and readings. As described in the University of Dallas General Bulletin, the “core is thus a specific set of courses focusing on the great deeds, ideas, and works of western civilization – including in particular those expressive of its Christian character – in the belief that they are sure guides in the search for truth and virtue.” This has been centerpiece of the undergraduate curriculum regardless of a student’s major. The core has long been seen as incompatible with professional degrees programs due to the requirements of those disciplines. The administration, in addressing both short and long-term goals, entered into a discussion of this premise and decided that it was an important part of the mission to find a way to merge these important educational programs. The resulting initiative to develop a unique undergraduate experience has thus become the Quality Enhancement Plan. This plan allows the university to respond to the increased pressure to extend the undergraduate degree offerings of the university to professional fields while remaining true to the liberal arts mission and character of the institution. The first degree developed under this plan is Business Leadership. This seemed appropriate since 10% of the undergraduates were already enrolled in the business concentration or the “Through-Plan to the MBA” and the resources of the Graduate School of Management were readily available. A special curriculum committee consisting of both liberal arts and business faculty has been formed to create a set of courses that both meet the requirements of the common core while being fundamental to the discipline of business. These “bridge” courses will be the centerpiece of the degree and serve as the link between the foundational and universal teachings found in the liberal arts and the professional knowledge and skills found in business education. The full curriculum is still in development and the first group of students has been enrolled for the 2003-2004 school year. If this program accomplishes its stated purposes, there should be a difference in the way these graduates view business and their place in the world. It has been a learning experience for everyone, and the ultimate test is not how well these students will perform on comprehensive assessments, but as leaders in the future. 1 The Issue: The SACS documents identify the Quality Enhancement Plan as “a well-defined topic or issue related to improving the quality of student learning”. The QEP of the University of Dallas centers not only on improving the quality of student learning but what should be the goals and nature of that learning. If one is to improve the quality of a program, one must be clear as to the goals of that learning. The questions that formed the issue for the University of Dallas were: Is it possible for an undergraduate education to blend both the foundational requirements of UD's traditional liberal arts curriculum with the practical knowledge of professional education? If yes, then how can this be accomplished while being true to the integrity of each program? If no, then what could and should be attempted? The Response: The Provost of the University of Dallas, Dr. Tom Lindsay, addressed the issues raised in the preceding section in the following manner: "On reflection, these questions may be said to be the most pressing questions facing higher education in the 21st century, for the following reasons. To begin, the boom in information technology poses a daunting challenge to business educators, namely, the relatively narrow set of skills and primarily technical expertise that constitute today’s business degree are–as business writers are themselves the first to admit–increasingly insufficient to prepare the workforce needed for the Information economy. That is to say, with our transition from the Industrial to the Information Age, intellect, more than anything else, is ascending in importance as the basis of a company’s capital valuation. The Information economy changes with laser-like speed, rendering technical expertise nearly obsolete in the same manner, and for the same reasons, that computer software is nearly obsolete the moment it hits the store shelves. Accordingly, a new business education is needed for an economy made new. The business leaders of tomorrow must be deft and deep, nimble and visionary. They must be able not only to survive but also prosper in a world where business paradigms and even the language with which those paradigms are constructed change every few years. To meet this challenge, tomorrow’s business leaders need, at a minimum, an education that gives them intellectual depth, a strong analytical capacity, historical perspective, command of at least one foreign language, and familiarity with cultures other than their own, cultures with which they are more than likely to be doing business on an increasing scale as globalization continues to eradicate all past trade barriers. In short, they are going to require an education that provides the depth, breadth, creativity, and vision demanded to anticipate and even embrace the constant of change. 2 For the development of such capacities the set of required courses composing the University of Dallas’s core curriculum are particularly well suited–as our 2003 Senior Survey results revealed (see graph). The Senior Survey also attests to the University’s effectiveness at inculcating and deepening our students’ concern over moral issues. Abilities and Types of Knowledge Enhanced by Undergraduate Education May 2003 Senior Survey 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 21% 29% 27% 34% 30% 29% 42% 49% 71% 69% 62% 62% 59% 58% 49% 42% Greatly Moderately A little Not at all gi ca lly Tr ut h s This has powerful implications for business education, because even before Enron, studies have shown us that executives who fail (financially as well as morally) rarely do so from a lack of technical expertise. Rather, they fail because they lack interpersonal skills and practical wisdom, which Aristotle, studied in our Core Curriculum, calls “prudence.” Aristotle teaches that genuine leadership consists in the ability to identify and serve the common good. To do so requires much more than technical training. It requires an education in moral reasoning, which must include history, philosophy, literature, theology, and logic–that is, a liberal education. Our undergraduate mission statement (see General Bulletin, pp. 5-6) reflects a conviction that a Pl ac e 3 us ic ,D H ra is ul m t/C at a ul e t/P C re hi at lP Ev iv er al e/ ua sp O rig ec te in tiv & al C Id ho ea os s e & Al So te rn lu tio at iv n e C ou rs es of Ac tio Fo rm in & hi ca lI Lo ge no w le d & al yt ic al ly rit e Et Ef fe ct iv el y Ar t, e C ur re n tP Li te ra tu ss ue W & rs ui to fK An Pu rs ta nd Th in k M or al Ap pr ec ia t En g ro bl em s ag e U nd e in re , M liberal arts education fosters ethical leadership like no other training can, because it gives students the life-transforming exercise of engaging in conversations with history’s greatest thinkers and doers. Indeed, one thing that has distinguished history’s great leaders has been their ardent study of those who preceded them. Alexander the Great was a passionate student of the exploits of his role model, Homer’s Achilles. In turn, Julius Caesar patterned his ambitions after those of Alexander the Great. Among the members of the founding generation of the United States, Plutarch’s Lives of the Noble Greeks and Romans was second only to the Bible in readership. Lincoln credited the Bible, Shakespeare, and the Declaration of Independence as his teachers. As a young man, Winston Churchill read and embraced Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics. This work contains the famous description of the “magnanimous man,” whose vision is so grand that, for him, even great honors are a “small thing.” Such greatness of soul explains Churchill’s moral capacity in the 1930s–when he was out of office, discredited and ridiculed–to stand up and rouse a slumbering world to the coming danger of Nazism. History’s great authors and leaders do not always agree on what constitutes leadership. But it is in studying the disagreements that students can gain the maturity necessary to become genuine leaders. What is the just society? What is human excellence? What do the individual and the community owe each other? Wrestling with the greats over these questions forces students to examine and defend their own beliefs and thus develop the breadth, depth, creativity and vision to face today’s complex ethical dilemmas. These exercises find their analogy in athletics: you play like you practice. Currently, business education compels students to spend 95% of their time learning how to calculate with a view to maximizing wealth. Just 5% of their time–usually no more than a half-semester course–is spent developing their moral capacities. Given these ratios, should we be surprised at students’ priorities after they graduate and move to the “real world” of business? For all these reasons, the University of Dallas concluded that it was not only possible, but imperative that it blend both the foundational requirements of a traditional liberal arts curriculum with the practical knowledge of professional education. But, having answered the “why?” of our new degree, the B.A. in Business Leadership, the question remains, “How can this be accomplished while being true to the integrity of each program?” In addressing the issue of implementation, the J.C.B.E. (Joint Committee on Business Education), chaired by the Provost/Vice President for Academic Affairs, rejected simply marrying the 60-odd hours of required core courses with the 30-odd hours of general business (accounting, management, etc.; see attached degree requirements). That is, the new degree would not realize its stated aim to improve the quality of student learning if its two components stood “alone together.” What was required was a bridge between the two worlds, a bridge whose contours took their direction from the world-historical change that gave rise to the need for the new degree. Accordingly, the JCBE collaborated in producing five courses explicitly titled “Bridge” (now called “Leadership core”) courses. 4 ENG 2312 - Literary Tradition IV HIS 1312 - American Civilization II BIO 1302 - Biotechnology with lab or BIO 2360 - Environmental Science with lab THE 3340 - Social Justice in World Religions PHI 3334 - Business Ethics Perhaps the course that best exemplifies the dual impact on student learning of the Business Leadership degree is the course titled, “Social Justice in World Religions” (THE 3340). In addition to being required for all business majors, the Social Justice course is taken by the business students in the Theology Department. Beginning with Catholic social teaching on wealth, the course then goes on to examine Protestant, Jewish, Islamic, and Buddhist perspectives on the place of individual profit-making in relation to the common good. So framed, the course simultaneously enhances learning in both business and the liberal arts. First, students achieve a broadened view of the ethical dimensions of commerce. Accordingly, and second, they are liberated from knee-jerk attachment to the unexamined moral assumptions that constitute their–and indeed, all–cultures. Third, and last, in our increasingly globalized economy, the term, “international business,” is nigh well redundant. That is, to be in business today, is to be in daily contact with parties and products across the world. Accordingly, it is not only morally broadening and intellectually liberating to acquaint oneself with the mores and spiritual convictions animating the great cultures of the world, it is also good business. In this light, the social justice course provides the paradigm by which all of the above-mentioned “bridge” courses blend the liberal arts with professional education. As the preceding discussion demonstrates, they accomplish this blending while maintaining fidelity to the integrity of each program." The History: As stated in its mission, the University of Dallas “is dedicated to the pursuit of wisdom, of truth and of virtue as the proper and primary ends of education. The University seeks to educate its students so they may develop the intellectual and moral virtues, prepare themselves for life and work in a problematic and changing world, and become men and women able to act responsibly for their own good and for the good of their family, community, country and church.” This mission is further defined in the specific mission of the Constantin College, which states that “Constantin College is to provide undergraduate education through baccalaureate degree programs which include a substantial and coherent core curriculum common to all undergraduates, and major studies in the humanities and sciences proper to liberal learning. The core curriculum emphasizes the study of the great deeds and works of Western civilization, both ancient and modern. The majors are built upon the core and invite students to disciplined inquiry into fundamental aspects of being and of our relation to God, to nature, and to fellow human beings. The curriculum as a whole seeks to enable students to achieve the knowledge of nature and the understanding of the human condition necessary for them to 5 comprehend the fundamental character of the world in which they are called to live and work.” In light of these goals and aspirations, the undergraduate curriculum and particularly the “core curriculum” was developed. This “core” includes 15 required “common” courses, a foreign language requirement, and 5 courses from specific disciplines. While there have been minor changes over the years, the “core” has remained fundamentally unchanged. The second major aspect of the UD undergraduate curriculum has been the belief that professional education should be the aim of graduate studies. In keeping with this belief, there were no professional undergraduate degree programs, while UD was home to the largest MBA School in the Southwest, the Braniff Graduate School of Management. Over the years the two schools existed side by side but with little or no connection. It was noted in the 1994 SACS review that it was difficult to see any connection between the undergraduate college and graduate business school. The only real connection was a concentration in business offered to undergraduates and a five-year through plan, which allowed undergraduates to use the concentration courses toward the MBA degree. Three years ago the administration, at the behest of the Board of Trustees, began exploring ways of expanding the undergraduate and graduate programs. A number of programs were discussed and investigated. For example, an undergraduate music degree was researched, but the cost was found to be prohibitive. Another avenue of investigation was the possibility of creating an adult completion program, to be paired with the MBA program, for corporate clients and working adults. This stirred a great deal of debate concerning the mission of the university and the proper role of undergraduate education. It is from this debate that the proposal to develop a unique undergraduate business degree eventually emerged and was chosen as the Quality Enhancement Plan of the University of Dallas. The Discussion: In 2000 an analytical study was undertaken to assess the factors affecting the Constantin College enrollment. The net contribution to overhead was declining and it was felt that the identification of the fundamental causes and potential opportunities be explored. An assessment of UD's discipline offerings compared to national trends was developed with the intent on identifying programs with the highest growth potential. After due consideration the faculty did not feel this "follow the leader" approach would best serve the inherent strengths and mission of the University of Dallas. The group did however suggest that certain options merited further investigation. One of those options was an adult completion program. The discussion concerning the formation of an undergraduate business program began with the investigation into the establishment of an adult completion program. The idea was presented to the Faculty Senate, which established a committee to study the feasibility of such a program. The 6 committee commissioned a market survey, to measure the viability of an undergraduate adult completion program that included the core curriculum. At their April 2002 meeting, the Faculty Senate was given a summary of the results of the market survey on the possibility of offering Constantin education for adult completion programs for local business people. It was reported that in the Dallas and Collin County areas, there are 4000 students in adult completion, 90% of whom are getting degrees in business. For the liberal arts, there is a small niche market of maybe 200-250 students. The report further stated that in terms of UD’s ability to attract these students, the major disadvantages were. We don’t have great financial aid and scholarships. We don’t have a good mix of Internet courses Our core is extensive and not what adult students want. We would not offer lifetime experience credits. Companies aren’t willing to pay for courses that don’t seem to apply to the job. The committee’s conclusion was that such a program would not work and was not worth the cost invested. The investigation however helped define the framework for the type of curriculum the committee felt was appropriate in light of the mission Earlier during this same meeting, Msgr. Joseph, President of the university, had stated that besides the adult completion program the Board “was continuing dialogue on these issues, with consideration of various options, including Adult Completion Programs, an undergraduate BBA, …” In the following discussion, one faculty member summed up the debate by commenting that he thought there were two ways of looking at UD as a liberal arts university. “One was to think of the core curriculum as the liberal arts foundation, which united a diverse group of disciplines and majors, among which an undergraduate business degree could be conceivably fitted. Another way was to hold that every major and discipline had to be a liberal art, and that a professional program would potentially damage the liberal arts character of the University. Both positions were currently held at the University, and therefore the question of an undergraduate business degree would be answered differently according to the position held.” It was also noted at this meeting that 10% of the undergraduate population were already taking business courses, equaling approximately half of what they would need for a major. (Appendix 1) This discussion was incorporated into the agenda of the April meeting of the University Affairs Committee of the Board of Trustees. Mr. Joe Neuhoff, Chair of the University Affairs Committee, stated at the April 30, 2002 meeting that, “it would be the UA Committee’s role to ascertain whether or not the business school could work without destroying the integrity of Constantin.” He reported that he had talked with Dr. Louise Cowan, former chairman of the English Department and the co-developer of UD’s core with her husband, Dr. Donald Cowan, and that she saw no problem and was enthusiastic about the opportunity to give business people two years of the core. She even offered to talk to the Board about the matter. The administration was asked to prepare a proposal 7 concerning both an undergraduate business degree and the formation of a College of Business in which to house it for submission to the Board at a special June meeting. The administration called a faculty meeting to discuss the requested proposal. The meeting was centered on concerns about the process and the fit of this type of program to the mission of the university. (Appendix 2) The discussion continued at the May Faculty Senate meeting, where concerns again centered on the process and timetable established for the proposal. It was agreed that a special meeting of the Faculty Senate would be held on June 4, 2002 to review the proposal. (Appendix 3) The Provost requested volunteers from the faculty to help develop a program and created an ad hoc committee from those who responded. The Joint Committee on Business Education (JCBE) was formed from volunteers from the tenured faculty of Constantin College and chosen members of the faculty from the Graduate School of Management. Care was taken to insure that each department that was to offer a “bridge” course was represented. The committee consists of: Thomas Lindsay Frank Doe Bob Lynch Louis Gasper Robert Wood John Sommerfeldt Brian Murray Robert Kugelmann Alexandra Wilhelmsen Stan Kroder David Sweet Sue Conger Blake Frank Claudia McMillan Louise Cowan J. Lee Whittington John Norris Chair, Provost Dean of Constantin College Dean of the College of Business Graduate School of Management Philosophy History, former President of the University College of Business (ex officio, August 2002) Psychology Spanish, History Graduate School of Management Dean of the Braniff Graduate School of Liberal Arts Graduate School of Management Associate Dean Graduate School of Management Assistant Dean of Constantin College English, Professor Emeritus Graduate School of Management Theology The committee prepared the following outline of the program and course descriptions for the “bridge courses”. 8 UNDERGRADUATE BUSINESS MAJOR A PROPOSED PROGRAM DESIGNED BY A JOINT COMMITTEE Summary of the Credit Hour Requirements: 1. Liberal Arts Courses1 a) Constantin Core b) Business Leadership Core c) Liberal Arts Electives Totals… 2. Business Courses a) Business Core b) Business Electives Total… OVERALL TOTALS… 1 55 to 66 sem. hrs.2 12 sem. hrs 8 to 13 sem. hrs. _______________ 80 to 86 sem. hrs. 31 sem. hrs. 9 sem. hrs. _______________ 40 sem. hrs. 120 to 126 sem. hrs. The range of semester hours in the core and elective categories is due to the language requirement. present Constantin Core is covered in its entirety by combining the courses listed above as Constantin Core, the Business Leadership Core, and one course in the Business Core. The Business Leadership Core includes Lit. Trad. IV (Leadership in the Novel), American Civilization II (American Civilization II – Business), Life Science Requirement (Biotechnology or Environmental Science), plus one additional course in Theology (Social Justice). The Business Core includes the fourth required Philosophy course (Business Ethics). THE BUSINESS LEADERSHIP CORE COURSES COURSE DESCRIPTIONS: Leadership in the Novel. The modern novel, as an expression of its society, reflects the crisis in leadership of the last three centuries. Various types of responses to this crisis are to be found in: Melville’s, Moby Dick; Dostoevsky’s, Crime and Punishment; Conrad’s, Lord Jim; Faulkner’s, Go Down, Moses; Achebe’s, Things Fall Apart; and Naipaul’s, A Bead in the River. 2. The 9 Social Justice. This course examines the social teachings of the major world religions. Specific topics include the communal nature of man, just-war theory, liberation theology, the death penalty, the relationships between religion and the political order, and the interaction between religious teachings and various economic systems. American Civilization II – Business. The course surveys the development of the American nation from the Civil War and reconstruction; it considers the close of the frontier, the impact of technology and petroleum, the emergence of the United States as a world power, and the American role in the World Wars. In this section of American Civilization II special interest is placed on the relationship of commerce and industrialization to American history. An effort is made to place American civilization in context by reference to events occurring in the rest of the world. Texts studied include “The Significance of the Frontier in American History” by Frederick Jackson Turner, The Education of Henry Adams, and George Kennan’s American Diplomacy. Environmental Science. Historical perspectives on environmental problems begin with study of fundamental biological and geological principles and then follow with their application. Economic and political realities and the effects of different social experiences and ethical backgrounds are integrated with the study of the natural world and the global effects of humans. Emphasis is placed on current events. Student debates will stimulate the public dialogue that occurs throughout the process of establishing environmental policy, and cover a variety of worldwide issues from the perspective of business, environmental organizations, and government. Biotechnology. An overview of the interrelationships between the fundamental discoveries in modern biology and medicine, their application to developing new products and processes, and the practicalities of solving the accompanying engineering, social, and management problems. Course will describe the vision of developments and opportunities in the biotechnology industry, and enable students to knowledgably view the scientific issues that underlie the technologies. Units on genetics, nervous system, reproductive system, and immune system will act as a guide through biotechnology, and will enable discussion of the legal, social, economic, and ethical aspects of biotechnology. BUSINESS COURSE REQUIREMENTS AND COURSE DESCRIPTIONS Basic business course requirements for the Bachelor of Arts degree with a major in Business Leadership… A total of 40 semester hours of business courses are required for the major. Of this total thirty semester hours are included in the business core, nine semester hours are business electives, and one semester hour is a course designed to bring the business student in contact with the Dallas/Ft. Worth community and its cultural environment. 10 The Business Core: All students earning the B.A. in Business Leadership must complete the following 10 courses (30 semester hours): 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Fundamentals of Accounting Analytical Accounting Management Theory Management of Organizations Fundamentals of Finance Fundamentals of Marketing Production and Operations Management Legal Environment Business Ethics Senior Business Seminar Students will take courses in economics and statistics in the Liberal Arts Core. The Business Electives All students earning the B.A. in Business Leadership must complete 3 Business Electives (9 semester hours). The following courses are suggested electives that could be offered on a rotating basis: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. International Business Processes and Institutions International Study Tour Courses (in conjunction with GSM) Leadership in Organizations Decision Making Advertising and Promotion Retailing Management Managing the Not-For-Profit Organization Information Systems in Organizations Systems Analysis and Design Introduction to Entrepreneurship eBusiness 11 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. Money and Capital Markets Decision Support Systems Statistics and Business Forecasting Fundamentals of Market Research Human Resource Management The Community and Cultural Environment All students earning the B.A. in Business Leadership must complete a one-semester hour course designed to introduce the student to the Dallas/Ft. Worth area business community and its cultural environment (1semester hour). 1. The Community and Cultural Environment This program was presented to a special meeting of the Faculty Senate. The Senate voted unanimously to accept the proposed program. This was followed by a great deal of discussion on the process and timing of the implementation of the plan. The Senate finally ratified the following recommendation by a vote of 10 -5: Recommendation to the Board: The Board accepts the establishment of an undergraduate degree in business, to be offered beginning with the 2003-2004 school year. The degree will be housed in a to-be-established College of Business. The Board also establishes the Joint Committee on Business Education (the present business degree curriculum committee, named on the first page of the document titled “Undergraduate Business Major" as the group responsible to the Provost for the oversight and development of the undergraduate business degree and all other matters related to the establishment of a College of Business. This group shall serve for a minimum of the next four years. If any present member resigns or is otherwise unable to serve, the committee will select a replacement by a procedure to be designed by the committee. The duties of the committee include but are not limited to: The development and review of an undergraduate business curriculum and continued evaluation of the program over the first four years of its existence. The committee will provide a forum in the fall allowing for faculty comment and discussion of the proposed curriculum. (Bob Lynch’s friendly amendment.) The preparation of a list of corrections, additions and deletions to all handbooks and other related documents required by the establishment of a College of Business. These changes must be forwarded to the Provost in time for presentation to the Faculty Senate and Board of Trustees for consideration at their respective October, 2002 meetings. 12 Propose procedures and processes related to the selection, membership and duties of the Joint Committee on Business Education, in consultation with the Faculty Senate, to be enacted at the end of the present committee’s tenure. (Appendix 4) The Faculty Senate recommendation was presented with the proposed curriculum to the Board of Trustees at their special meeting on June 11, 2002. Following a discussion of the issues the Board passed the following resolution. Where as the Board of Trustees of the University of Dallas approved in concept the creation of an undergraduate business degree at its May 9, 2002 meeting and instructed the Provost and administrative officers to explore further and formalize a proposal. BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Board of Trustees of the University of Dallas approves the establishment of an undergraduate degree in business and the creation of the College of Business to house the new degree program and the Graduate School of Management. The College of Business will begin operations upon the approval of all necessary changes and additions to related handbooks and documents, which are anticipated to be completed no later than October 2002. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT, the Board also approves the establishment of the Joint Committee on Business Education* as the group responsible to the Provost for the oversight and development of the undergraduate business degree and all other matters related to the establishment of the College of Business. The Provost is responsible for the creation and development of all matters relating to this committee. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the degree to be granted from the College of Business will be a Bachelor of Arts in Business Leadership. *The present business degree curriculum development committee, named on the first page of the document titled “Undergraduate Business Major”. The administration was then charged with meeting the terms of the resolution. (Appendix 5) 13 QEP Timeline January Adult Completion Comm. Report June Board authorizes Business Leadership Degree August First Business Leadership students enrolled May First Senior Exam Administration 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Internal Analysis May Joint Committee on Business Education established August - January Director for program is named. Original program design revised. Undergraduate admissions prepares recruiting strategy for new major. Faculty identified and 14 Post Implementation: 2003 - 2008 Analysis and review of Curriculum and courses. 2006 – Alumni Surveys The Joint Committee on Business Education: Beginning in August 2002 the Joint Committee on Business Education (JCBE) commenced a series of meetings to work on the details of the Business Leadership degree. Every department with a course in the Leadership Core had at least one faculty representative on the JCBE. These individuals served as liaison between the departments and the committee, as the courses are being developed. The committee discussed and was responsible for approving the curriculum rollout, concentrations and all other matters related to the program. The JCBE was chartered for a four-year term. At the end of that time the members will decide whether they should continue as a committee or turn the curriculum responsibilities over to the to be established College of Business curriculum committee The JCBE over the course of a year developed a program leading to Bachelor of Arts in Business Leadership, including four college concentrations including Corporate Ethics and Social Responsibility, International Business, Behavioral Management Studies, and Financial Accounting, and a university concentration for non-business majors in Business. (Minutes of JCBE meetings Appendix 6) Bachelor of Arts in Business Leadership The Bachelor of Arts in Business Leadership is a 120-hour program combining a core curriculum committed to the Western heritage of liberal education with a traditional program of business study to develop principled and moral leaders who are competent and responsible managers. The degree program is composed of four categories of course work: the University Core Curriculum, the Leadership Core, the Business Fundamentals Core, and electives. The Core Curriculum includes courses in the humanities, economics, math, foreign language and science. Students who do not have an elementary foreign language background are required to complete six additional semester hours of basic study before completing the core language requirement. The Leadership Core is composed of traditional humanities and science courses that are particularly important to leadership development. These courses include business ethics, social justice, literature, history, and environmental or biotechnology science. The Business Fundamentals Core courses represent the traditional functional areas of business. They include accounting, finance, marketing, operations management, and business law. Elective courses may be selected from among all of the undergraduate courses, but students are encouraged to use them to complete a concentration in addition to the business major. A sample of the available concentrations includes International Business, International Studies, Spanish, French, German, Italian, Financial Accounting, Behavioral Management Studies, Corporate Ethics and Social Responsibility, Computer Science, Journalism, Applied Mathematics, and Environmental Science. Students likewise are encouraged to participate in a formal internship as part of their elective course work. The degree program culminates with the Senior Business Seminar. This experience is an opportunity to integrate lessons from each of the areas of study within the degree program. 15 Requirements of the Major. 48 credit hours of study constitute the student’s coursework within major, which includes 16 hours of the Leadership Core and 32 hours of the Business Fundamentals Core. In addition to the University Core Curriculum, the student also must complete the credit hours necessary to graduate with no less than 120 credit hours in total, a minimum of 38 credit hours of which must be at the advanced level. To graduate with the Business Leadership degree, the student must successfully pass the comprehensive examination during his or her senior year. Leadership Core ENG 2312 Literary Tradition IV HIS 1312 American Civilization II BIO 1302 Biotechnology with Lab or BIO 2360 Environmental Science with Lab THE 3340 Social Justice in World Religions PHI 3334 Business Ethics Business Fundamentals Core BUS 1301 Introduction to Business BUS 1310 Accounting Principles I BUS 1110 Accounting Lab BUS 1311 Accounting Principles II ECO 2312 Fundamentals of Economics II BUS 3302 Leadership and Organizations BUS 3310 Fundamentals of Finance BUS 3320 Fundamentals of Marketing BUS 3330 Production and Operations Management BUS 3340 Legal Environment BUS 4490 Senior Business Seminar Sample Course Sequence for the Bachelor of Arts degree (without concentration) YEAR I SPRING FALL Introduction to Business Accounting Principles II Accounting Principles I Fundamentals of Economics Accounting Lab Literary Tradition II Literary Tradition I Philosophy & Ethical Life Understanding the Bible Elementary Language II Elementary Language I General studies elective (1 cr.) YEAR II ROME SEMESTER Literary Tradition III Western Civilization I Philosophy of Man Western Theological Tradition Fine Arts course IRVING SEMESTER Fundamentals of Economics II Principles of American Politics The Calculus Literary Tradition IV – Leadership Western Civilization II 16 YEAR III FALL Leadership and Organizations Fundamentals of Finance American Civilization I Philosophy of Being Intermediate Language I YEAR IV FALL Environmental Science with Lab Legal Environment of Business Physical Science Upper division electives (2) SPRING Fundamentals of Marketing Production and Operations Management American Civilization II Introduction to Statistics Intermediate Language II SPRING Senior Business Seminar Business Ethics Social Justice in World Religions General studies elective (1 cr.) Upper division electives (2) College Concentrations. Formal opportunities are available for the student to pursue in-depth study in a particular field associated with business. Concentrations are a coherent set of courses, typically four to six that define a specific area of study. Each concentration has a designated advisor, and is identified as a concentration in the catalog and on the transcript. No more than two courses in a concentration may also count as major field requirements. At least three courses in any concentration must be at the advanced level, and for each course, a minimum grade of “C-” or better must be earned. Students may declare a concentration by completing the form provided by the Registrar’s Office. Declaration of a concentration is recommended, but not required. The student may select from any of the concentrations offered within the Constantin College, or may choose one of the four concentrations available only to majors within the College of Business. With the exception of the Business Concentration for non-business majors, only declared Business Leadership majors may declare one of the College of Business concentrations. See the alphabetical listings for Constantin College concentrations described in this bulletin. Concentration in Corporate Ethics and Social Responsibility The concentration in Corporate Ethics and Social Responsibility is an 18-hour curriculum focused on social and ethical foundations of corporate responsibility. It exemplifies the College’s commitment to its mission to develop “principled and moral leadership.” It is the opportunity for the student to pursue in-depth study of business within the contexts of applied ethics and Catholic social teaching. Business Leadership majors only are eligible to participate. Its primary audience includes students interested in understanding the ethical dimensions of corporate behavior and studying alternative social views of corporate responsibility. Concentration requirements. 18 credit hours of study to include: BUS THE THE PHI PHI 3341 3340 3341 3334 4336 Business and Society Social Justice in World Religions Moral Theology Business Ethics Ethics 17 Select 1 course (3 credit hours) from allied social and ethics studies: THE THE PHI PHI PHI PHI ECO BUS BUS 4343 4345 4334 5321 5331 5345 4346 3352 4352 Social Teaching Bio-ethical issues Bioethics Social Philosophy Philosophy of Law Philosophy of Technology Economics & Social Ethics Topics in Business Leadership (ethics or social issues topic) Topics in Business Leadership (ethics or social issues topic) Sample course sequence for Years III and IV* YEAR III FALL SPRING Leadership and Organizations Fundamentals of Marketing Fundamentals of Finance Production and Operations Management American Civilization I American Civilization II Philosophy of Being Introduction to Statistics Ethics Business Ethics YEAR IV FALL Environmental Science with Lab Legal Environment of Business Moral Theology Business and Society SPRING Senior Business Seminar Social Justice in World Religions Physical Science Concentration elective * Intermediate Language I and II taken during Year I or II. Concentration in International Business The concentration in International Business is an 18-hour curriculum focused on economic and management foundations of global business. The purpose of the International Business concentration is to provide a vehicle for business majors to pursue in-depth study of the global business issues. It is designed to integrate coursework from the Economics Department and Graduate School of Management to provide a formal framework for international studies in business. Business Leadership majors only are eligible to participate. Its primary audience includes students interested in careers in multinational or global companies or in organizations engaged in international trade or development. Concentration requirements. 18 credit hours of study to include: BUS 1301 Introduction to Business MGT 6387 Global Business ECO 3330 International Economics & Finance or MGT 7381 International Economics (permission required) or MGT 7385 International Finance (permission required) 18 Select 2 courses from the following (6 credit hours): ECO 4332 ECO 4335 BUS 3352 BUS 4352 MGT Comparative Economic Systems Economic Development Topics in Business Leadership (international topic) Topics in Business Leadership (international topic) (global/international business course; only 1 concentration directed elective course may be MGT; permission of concentration director is required) Select 1 course (3 credit hours) of Advanced Grammar or Advanced Communication (3323) or Advanced Composition in a modern language offered by the University. Sample course sequence for Years III and IV* YEAR III FALL SPRING Leadership and Organizations Fundamentals of Marketing Fundamentals of Finance Production and Operations Management American Civilization I American Civilization II Philosophy of Being Introduction to Statistics Advanced Language Global Business YEAR IV FALL Environmental Science with Lab Legal Environment of Business International Economics/Finance Concentration elective SPRING Senior Business Seminar Social Justice in World Religions Physical Science Business Ethics Concentration elective * Intermediate Language I and II taken during Year I or II. Concentration in Behavioral Management Studies The concentration in Behavioral Management Studies is an 18-hour curriculum in the managerial and psychological foundations of organizational behavior studies. The purpose of the Behavioral Management Studies concentration is to provide a vehicle for business majors to examine the intersection between social psychology and organizational behavior theory in the context of managing complex organizations. It is a formal framework for behavioral science studies in business. Business Leadership majors only are eligible to participate. Its primary audience includes students interested in management and supervisory careers, management consulting, or pursuing graduate work in management or organizational behavior. Concentration requirements. 18 credit hours of study to include: BUS BUS PSY PSY 3302 Leadership and Organizations 4303 Organizational Behavior Theory 2313 General Psychology 3338 Social Psychology 19 Select 2 of the following (6 hours): PSY PSY PSY BUS BUS BUS BUS 3341 3352 4339 3303 3304 3352 4352 Psychology of Personality Special Topic (with approval of concentration director) Psychology of Perception Theory of Management Practice of Management Topics in Business Leadership (management or behavior topic) Topics in Business Leadership (management or behavior topic) Sample course sequence for Years III and IV* YEAR III FALL SPRING Leadership and Organizations Fundamentals of Marketing Fundamentals of Finance Production and Operations Management American Civilization I American Civilization II Philosophy of Being Introduction to Statistics General Psychology Organizational Behavior Theory YEAR IV FALL Environmental Science with Lab Legal Environment of Business Social Psychology Concentration elective SPRING Senior Business Seminar Social Justice in World Religions Physical Science Business Ethics Concentration elective * Intermediate Language I and II taken during Year I or II. Concentration in Financial Accounting The concentration in Financial Accounting is a 15-hour curriculum in foundational accounting studies. The purpose of the Financial Accounting concentration is to provide a vehicle for students to pursue accounting coursework that will aid them in preparation for graduate study in accounting. Business Leadership majors only are eligible to participate. The concentration is intended for students graduating during or subsequent to 2008. Its primary audience includes students interested in preparing for graduate study in accounting toward the CPA designation. Concentration requirements. 15 credit hours of study to include: BUS BUS BUS BUS BUS 3311 3312 3313 4314 4315 Accounting Information Systems Intermediate Financial Accounting I Intermediate Financial Accounting II Federal Income Taxation Auditing Principles 20 Sample course sequence for Years III and IV* YEAR III FALL SPRING Leadership and Organizations Fundamentals of Marketing Fundamentals of Finance Production and Operations Management American Civilization I American Civilization II Philosophy of Being Introduction to Statistics Intermediate Accounting I Intermediate Accounting II YEAR IV FALL Environmental Science with Lab Legal Environment of Business Accounting Information Systems Federal Income Taxation SPRING Senior Business Seminar Social Justice in World Religions Physical Science Business Ethics Auditing Principles * Intermediate Language I and II taken during Year I or II. Concentration in Business for non-business majors Program Coordinator: H. Cousins The Business Concentration offers an opportunity for non-business majors to study business in addition to their major program of study. It allows the non-business student to gain a broad understanding of the field of business and prepares students for business-related issues that will arise as a facet of their chosen careers. Accordingly, its curriculum draws on the strengths of the College of Business through a series of business core courses. These courses survey the traditional functional areas of the business enterprise and prepare students to interact effectively with professionals from those areas. Additionally, the courses aid students in acquiring the business knowledge and critical analysis and interpersonal skills needed for leadership roles in their careers and in social, volunteer, church and community activities. Concentration requirements. 19 hours of study to include: BUS BUS BUS BUS BUS BUS ECO 1301 1310 1110 3302 3320 3V57 3322 Introduction to Business Accounting Principles I Accounting Lab Leadership and Organizations Fundamentals of Marketing Internship Fundamentals of Finance 21 Business Through Plan to the MBA Program Coordinator: H. Cousins The Through Plan is a cooperative program with the University of Dallas Graduate School of Management (GSM) that provides the opportunity to acquire both an undergraduate degree and a Master of Business Administration (MBA). An undergraduate student from any major who meets the requirements of the program may complete his or her undergraduate degree while also taking courses in the GSM. If the student follows a carefully prepared, full-time program, it is possible to earn both the undergraduate and graduate degrees in five years. Students in the Through Plan may begin taking graduate courses within the GSM as early as the last semester of their junior year. Those graduate courses may be utilized as elective courses in the undergraduate program. Additionally, prescribed pairings of undergraduate courses may be used for Through Plan credit. Up to four GSM courses (12 credit hours), or approved undergraduate course pairs, may apply toward transfers or waivers for the MBA degree. Additional graduate course work may be evaluated for substitutions within the GSM curriculum. A minimum grade point average of 2.5 in undergraduate course work is required prior to taking any GSM course. Enrollment in GSM courses requires permission of the Through Plan coordinator and Registrar. Through Plan courses. Select up to (4) of the following (eligible for transfer credit to the GSM): MGT 5362 Economics and Competitive Advantage MGT 5368 Financial Accounting MGT 5371 Data Analysis for Decision Making MGT 6367 Marketing Management MGT 6370 Managerial Cost Accounting (prerequisite required) MGT 6386 Human Behavior in Organizations MGT 6387 Global Business MGT 6398 Financial Management (prerequisite required) MGT 7373 Operations Management A “B” or better in any GSM course taken as an undergraduate is required for the credit to apply toward transfer to the MBA. Grades earned in Through Plan courses are not used in calculating the GPA at GSM. Further information is available from GSM Admission or Student Records counselors. Following completion of their undergraduate studies, students who have completed the Through Plan as undergraduates, and wish to continue toward the MBA, are required to complete the application process to the GSM. A 3.0 cumulative GPA will allow the Through Plan student full admission to GSM, after graduating from the University, without having to take the Graduate Management Admissions Test (GMAT) normally required for admission. Students whose cumulative GPA is not at least a 3.0 will be required to fulfill other conditions for admission to the MBA program, which may include submitting an acceptable score on the GMAT. 22 Program Leadership: In August 2002, Dr. Brian Murray an Associate Professor of Management was named the Associate Dean for Undergraduate Business Programs at the University of Dallas' College of Business. Prior to his appointment at the University, he held faculty positions at the University of New Hampshire, where he served on the business core curriculum committee and led the design of the Organizational Leadership concentration, and the University of Texas, San Antonio, where he chaired the Curriculum Committee for the Management and Marketing Division. He has taught undergraduate and graduate courses in human resource strategy, compensation, staffing, career management, applied business statistics, and organizational behavior, among others Dr. Murray received his doctorate in Industrial and Labor Relations from Cornell University where he concentrated his studies in Personnel & Human Resources, Economic & Social Statistics, and Organizational Behavior. His areas of expertise include compensation, staffing, and quantitative evaluation of human resource programs and employees. He also has credentials and expertise in the management of service and service employees. Dr. Murray maintains an active research program and has published a number of articles regarding human resource and service industry studies. His work has included studies of skill based pay, employee pensions, human resource planning, quality training, and job search. His work has appeared in the Academy of Management Journal, Personnel Psychology, and Decision Sciences, among others. His current research is focused on employee benefits, pensions, and benefit administration service quality. Dr. Murray has been recognized for his teaching and research with the E. Lou Curry Teaching Excellence Award (1996), Combined Teaching, Research & Service Award (1998), and Outstanding Research Article of the Year, Travel & Tourism Research Association (1999). Recruiting: To make sure that potential students are aware of the unique nature of the Business Leadership program, the staff of undergraduate admissions has prepared special recruitment materials and developed a unique marketing approach based on the idea of “Not business as usual”. Sr. Mary Brian Bole, Assistant Dean of Enrollment Management, prepared the following description of the program for use with prospective students and parents. Doing “business as usual” is NOT the University of Dallas approach to anything, so it is only natural that the Business Leadership program should take its place within the liberal arts curriculum of the University. Because global businesses affect every business, leadership needs to be cognizant of all the avenues available for the forming and sustaining of the new international system which integrates capital, technology and information across borders. Through the core curriculum a straight-forward approach to daily matters is apparent: we live under the U.S. Constitution, which is based on English Common Law, which comes from Roman law, which comes from the Greeks. Thus, the UD student begins with the Greeks, and, in 23 reading the literary tradition, sees elucidated the vagaries of the human condition. With that as background, the philosophy, history and theology courses serve as prisms through which to consider that human nature. Together with politics, economics, math and foreign language, the core gives the business programs the fundamentals on which to build principled and moral leaders. Because the study of literature and history involves the study of human character, the business major observes both the integrity and eccentricity native to mankind, and the many ways it can be manifested or manipulated. Business is not merely a marketing of human desires, but an awareness of the essence of what it means to be human. Out of this study one can then observe the tension inherent in the system of globalization contrasted with the forces of culture and tradition. How different are the Roman-ization of the world and the current globalization of free trade zones? How much the same? How were the essential malfunctions addressed then? Now? Successfully? Was Alaric’s toppling of Rome inevitable? Why? Why not? Who is the current Alaric? Knowing the important questions is crucial in the world of business. But knowing that the speed of contemporary business makes the possibility of thoughtful consideration almost an oxymoron requires that the practitioner have a framework out of which to think about the question: re-inventing the wheel when we are landing on Mars is not an option. Business decisions are about marketing; marketing is about one’s desires; one’s desires come from human nature. The UD core curriculum is the study of human nature; the business program is a direct expression about how to do business well, i.e., in keeping with human nature as a moral and intellectual being. The Business Leadership degree, then, is a direct response to the mission of the University of Dallas which “is dedicated to the pursuit of wisdom, of truth, and of virtue” such that students “become leaders able to act responsible for their own good and for the good of their family, community, country, and church.” The First Business Leadership Class: In Spring 2003 the first courses in the Business Leadership program were offered to transfer and enrolled students in the business concentration. The first recruited class enrolled in the Fall of 2003. In September 2003, Dr. Murray surveyed the Business Leadership students and prepared the following report on the program. COLLEGE OF BUSINESS - UNDERGRADUATE BUSINESS PROGRAM SUMMARY INFORMATION (as of 09/18/2003) TABLE 1: Concentrations Currently Offered within the College Corporate Ethics & Social Responsibility Behavioral Management Studies Financial Accounting International Business Business (non-majors only) 24 TABLE 2: Summary Enrollment Statistics for Business Majors / Advisees (09/18/2003) CLASS* AVG. SAT VERBAL New Freshmen 37 54% 575 Continuing/Transfer Freshmen 10 60% 548 Continuing/Transfer Sophomore 23 52% 557 Continuing/Transfer Junior 12 58% 582 All Classes 82 55% 568 * Total of 6 new transfers, yielding overall new enrollment of 43. TABLE 3: Course Enrollments for Fall 2003 Business Courses TOTAL % MALE AVG. AVG. SAT ACT MATH 579 24 518 24 587 23 595 24 574 24 AVG. UD GPA 2.21 2.66 2.92 2.63 COURSE TITLE BUS 1110 Accounting Lab (2 sections) BUS 1301 Introduction to Business (2 sections) BUS 1310 Accounting Principles I (2 sections) BUS 3302 Leadership and Organizations BUS 3310 Fundamentals of Finance BUS 3340 Legal Environment of Business TOTAL ENROLLMENT 56 49 57 16 13 20 TABLE 4: Summary of Information from Student Survey Approximately 20 students would not have enrolled at UD were it not for the Business major. Other schools considered: Trinity, SMU, Houston, UTEP, UTA, Loyola of Chicago, TX A&M. Most likely alternative major to business: Mode = psychology (n=6; of first-time freshman only). Decisive factor for enrollment: scholarships/money, location, Catholic, Through-plan to MBA Important information source for enrollment decision (in rank order): campus visit (individual or Odyssey weekend); family or friend; admission counselor, professor, dean, or staff member; University of Dallas website; catalog or brochure; e-mail/correspondence. 81% plan definitely or “probably” to go to the UD Rome Campus. 79% plan definitely or “probably” to continue through to the MBA at the GSM. Career areas of interest (in rank order): Sports management, entrepreneur/small business, marketing, finance or banking, accounting, human resources. Dr. Murray is collecting data for use in curriculum evaluation and refinement. A variety of other assessments are being prepared to help evaluate the success of the program. These evaluations will culminate in the Senior Seminar and Exam. 25 The Senior Seminar and Exam: The Senior Seminar and exam are the culminating experience for the Business Leadership student in the pursuit of a Bachelor of Arts degree. The essence of this degree is captured in the College’s mission statement, which calls us to develop principled and moral leaders who also are competent and responsible managers. It also calls us to a shared mission with the Constantin undergraduate college to provide an educational basis to help students to achieve a meaningful and fulfilling life’s work whether through immediate career entry or through further education. Given this mission, the senior exam evaluates the success of our program in developing both leadership and managerial competencies. Because we believe that the mastery of leadership concepts arises from learning across multiple disciplines, we require the students to demonstrate knowledge of leadership-related content in literature, history, theology, science, ethics, economics and law. We necessarily, therefore, involve each of the various disciplines in the design of the exam or the evaluation of the student. Likewise, because we believe that the mastery of managerial concepts arises from a firm grounding in the traditional studies of business, we require students to demonstrate knowledge within accounting, finance, marketing and operations management. A senior seminar and exam have been chosen as the students’ final experience because we believe it is important for the students to be intellectually challenged to integrate diverse areas of learning for the purpose of building a multifaceted understanding of what it means to be a leader within the dynamic and complex environment of business. From this exercise, we expect several important learning achievements: (1) students’ understanding of concepts will be deepened by the necessity of applying them to novel business problems or questions; (2) students’ mastery of business concepts and techniques will be reinforced by the necessary study and application of them outside the original classroom setting; (3) students’ leadership development will be enhanced as they are required to critically examine their understanding of the world and their use of analytic tools and ethical principles in addressing leadership dilemmas within business; and (4) students’ life-long learning will be facilitated by the experience of bringing together diverse sources of information to answer questions that are new to them. We believe this experience is a unique learning experience and demonstration of learning because it motivates and enables the business student to develop and demonstrate their intellectual mastery of the discipline beyond the traditional and artificial boundaries typical to contemporary business studies. SENIOR COMPREHENSIVE EXAM Bachelor of Arts in Business Leadership The senior comprehensive exam is the culminating evaluation within the Bachelor of Arts in Business Leadership curriculum. Its purpose is to measure a student’s knowledge and skills at the end of the program. It integrates content from those courses that are designated as Leadership Core and Business Fundamentals Core. Leadership Core: ENG 2312 Literature Tradition IV HIS 1312 American Civilization II BIO 2360 Environmental Science Business Fundamentals Core: BUS 1301 Introduction to Business BUS 1310 Accounting Principles I BUS 1311 Accounting Principles II 26 or BIO 1302 Biotechnology THE 3340 Social Justice PHI 3334 Business Ethics ECO 2315 Fundamentals of Economics II BUS 3302 Leadership & Organizations BUS 3310 Fundamentals of Finance BUS 3320 Fundamentals of Marketing BUS 3330 Production & Operations Mgmt. BUS 3340 Legal Environment of Business BUS 4490 Senior Business Seminar The exam is composed of four sections: Section 1: Leadership (leadership theory, management, strategy, ethics) Section 2: Leadership Environment (legal, social, economic, ethics) Section 3: Business Functions (marketing, operations, management, strategy) Section 4: Financial Aspects (finance, economics, accounting) Sections 1 and 2 are primarily knowledge integration and critical evaluation questions, and shall be composed primarily of essay responses. Sections 3 and 4 are primarily knowledge and application questions, and shall be composed of questions of fact, application, and evaluation in a variety of potential formats. The exam shall be administered twice during the regularly scheduled semester (approximately weeks 3 and 14). At either administration, students may elect to sit for all sections or for a subset of sections. Unless in a case of extraordinary circumstance, there shall be only two administrations of the exam during a given semester, and additional administrations must be approved by the Associate Dean of the College of Business. Students must be registered for the Senior Business Seminar, and the exam must be completed in partial fulfillment of the course requirements. Students must receive passing marks for all four sections in order to be eligible to receive a passing grade for Senior Business Seminar; however, the exam shall not constitute the full grading requirement for Seminar, and may be excluded from the course grade calculation at the discretion of the instructor. The exam shall be scored as Fail, Pass, and High Pass. Where there is a numeric scoring for a particular section of the exam, a score of “70%” shall constitute a Pass, and a score of “90%” shall constitute a High Pass. Otherwise, pass shall be determined at the discretion of the scoring instructor or panel of scoring instructors The Learning Outcomes Evaluated: I. BUSINESS MANAGEMENT and STRATEGY Learning requirement: Demonstrate mastery of management, organizational design, human resource, and business strategy principles. Demonstrate specific knowledge of contemporary businesses, business practices, and business vocabulary. Demonstrate ability to critically evaluate business strategy and practices. Supporting courses: Introduction to Business (Management Theory/Practice), Senior Seminar. General topics: • Global business environment • Small versus large businesses characteristics 27 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • II. Internal organizational structure and design Human resource management and motivation Empowerment and teamwork Production and service operations Marketing management activities Using technology to manage information Financial management and institutions Scanning the external environment Assessing the internal organization environment Industry, organization and customer analysis Managerial decision making Planning and strategic management Corporate and business level strategies Resource based strategy Ethics and corporate responsibility Managerial controls U.S. businesses and contemporary business issues LEADERSHIP THEORY Learning requirement: Demonstrate mastery of contemporary leadership theories, literary representation of leadership, and historical manifestations of leadership. Demonstrate specific knowledge of leadership in literature (Lit. Trad. IV readings) and of important events during the American industrial revolution. Supporting courses: Leadership and Organizations (Management Theory/Practice), Literature Tradition IV, American Civilization II. General topics: • Leader – follower relationship • Leader traits • Power and influence • Leader behaviors • Situational approaches to leadership • Substitutes / neutralizers / enhancers to leadership • Charismatic / transformational / transactional leadership • Servant leadership • Dysfunctional leadership • Character development and description of the leader in literature • Plot characteristics in the representation of leadership in literature; leader as an actor in modern society; leader acting within the cultural contingency. • Leadership as represented in Moby-Dick, Mansfield Park, Crime and Punishment, and Go Down, Moses. • American leaders’ traits and impact on American industry • American industry development and historical events’ impact on American leader behavior 28 III. LEADERSHIP ENVIRONMENT Learning requirement: Demonstrate mastery of macro-economic principles related to the business environment. Demonstrate ability to critically evaluate social and economic issues arising from industrial and scientific developments, to critically evaluate issues related to social responsibility of American business, and to complete ethics-based evaluation of business practices. Supporting courses: Fundamentals of Economics II, policy-based science (Biotechnology or Environmental Science), Social Justice in World Religions, Legal Environment of Business, Business Ethics, American Civilization II. General topics: • Development of American industry and its impact on society and government • Impact of American military activity and government policy on the development of American industry • Twentieth century social change and civil rights impact on American business • American historical events’ impact on labor and business • Technological innovation’s impact on American industry • Environmental policy development and evaluation or biotechnology policy development and evaluation • Contemporary issues in business and the ethics-based evaluation of them • Moral theories and the nature of business • Moral/ethical obligations in business relationships • Corporate culture in its social context • Corporate social responsibility • Social teaching of the Catholic Church / economic social teaching Rerum Novarum: On the Condition of Workers Quadragesimo Anno: On the Reconstruction of the Social Order Mater et Magistra: Mother and Teacher Pacem in Terris: Peace on Earth Octogesima Adveniens: A Call to Action (May 14, 1971) Issued for the Eightieth Anniversary of Rerum Novarum Populorum Progressio: On the Development of People Laborem Exercens: On Human Work Sollicitudo Rei Socialis: On the Twentieth Anniversary of Populorum Progressio Centesimus Annus: The Hundredth Anniversary of Rerum Novarum • American commercial and civil law; government regulation of business • Measuring Economic Activity: GDP and Unemployment • Measuring the Price Level and Inflation • Economic Growth, Productivity, and Living Standards • Workers, Wages, and Unemployment in the American economy • Saving and Capital Formation • Money and the Federal Reserve • Financial Markets and International Capital Flows 29 • • • • • • IV. Short-term Economic Fluctuations Aggregate Demand and Output in the Short Run Stabilizing Aggregate Demand: The Role of the Fed Inflation and Aggregate Supply International Trade and Trade Policy Exchange Rates and the Open Economy ACCOUNTING Learning requirement: Demonstrate mastery of generally accepted accounting principles for financial and managerial accounting. Demonstrate ability to critically evaluate accounting practices. Supporting courses: Accounting Principles I and II. General topics: • Principal financial statements and the financial reporting process • Balance sheet: content, posting, analysis • Income statement: content, posting, analysis • Statement of cash flows: content, posting, analysis • Financial statement analysis • Receivables and revenue recognition • Inventories recording and analysis • Tangible and intangible assets recording and analysis • Liabilities including leases, deferred income taxes, deferred compensation, and retirement benefits • Shareholders’ equity including capital contributions, earnings, and distributions • Managerial accounting and management/controlling • Professional ethics and accounting • Contemporary managerial issues in managerial accounting • Cost classifications: predicting cost behavior, assigning costs, decision making • Product and period costs • Job-order costing • Process costing • Cost behavior • Cost-volume-profit relationships • Variable costing • Activity-based costing • Profit planning • Standard costs • Balanced scorecard • Segment reporting • Flexible budgets and overhead analysis • Capital budgeting decisions 30 V. FINANCE Learning requirement: Demonstrate mastery of corporate finance principles. Demonstrate elementary specific knowledge of the corporate treasury function. Demonstrate elementary specific knowledge of investing principles. Demonstrate ability to critically evaluate financial practices and opportunities. Supporting courses: Fundamentals of Finance, Fundamentals of Economics II. General topics: • Financial institutions and markets • Corporate securities • Interest rate • Time value of money • Risk and return fundamentals • Valuation • Financial statement analysis • Capital budgeting • Cost of capital • Capital structure • Financial planning • Investing principles • Mutual funds and asset allocation • Derivative securities VI. MARKETING Learning requirement: Demonstrate mastery of marketing principles. Demonstrate detailed specific knowledge related to issues of price, product, place, and promotion. Demonstrate elementary specific knowledge of marketing management, research and strategy principles. Demonstrate elementary specific knowledge of retailing, merchandising, business-to-business marketing, sales management, and wholesaling/distribution logistics. Demonstrate ability to critically evaluate marketing proposals and practices. Supporting courses: Fundamentals of Marketing, Senior Seminar. General topics: • Linking Marketing and Corporate Strategies • Marketing Plans • Scanning the Marketing Environment • Ethics and Social Responsibility in Marketing • Consumer Behavior • Business-to-business marketing and Buyer Behavior • Market Segmentation and Targeting • Product development • Managing Products and Brands • Managing Services • Pricing • Financial Aspects of Marketing 31 • • • • • • • Managing Marketing Channels and Wholesaling Integrating Supply Chain and Logistics Management Retailing Integrated Marketing Communications and Direct Marketing Advertising, Sales Promotion, and Public Relations Personal Selling and Sales Management Implementing Interactive and Multi-Channel Marketing VII. OPERATIONS Learning requirement: Demonstrate mastery of manufacturing and service operations principles. Demonstrate ability to conduct quantitative analysis of operations problems. Demonstrate specific knowledge of contemporary production and operations vocabulary, issues and practices. Demonstrate ability to critically evaluate manufacturing and operations practices. Supporting courses: Production and Operations Management, Senior Seminar. General topics: • Operations Strategy • Project Management. • Forecasting. • Design of Goods and Services. • Managing Quality / Statistical Process Control. • Process Strategy. • Capacity Planning. • Location Strategies. • Layout Strategy. • Human Resources and Job Design / Work Measurement. • Supply Chain Management. • Inventory Management. • Aggregate Planning. • Material Requirement Planning and ERP. • Short-Term Scheduling. • Just-In-Time and Lean Systems. • Maintenance and Reliability VIII. LEGAL ENVIRONMENT Learning requirement: Demonstrate detailed understanding of the American regulatory environment. Demonstrate detailed knowledge of the legislative, judicial, and regulatory practices impacting American business. Demonstrate elementary specific knowledge of the Uniform Commercial Code, contracting, negligence, torts, and employment law. Demonstrate the ability to evaluate the legal and regulatory implications of contemporary business issues. Supporting courses: Legal Environment of Business, Business Ethics, Senior Seminar. 32 General topics: • U.S. court system • Alternative dispute resolution • Constitutional law relative to business operations • Administrative law relative to business operations • Criminal law relative to business operations • Contracts • Sales and leases • Torts • Liability • Intellectual property • Creditor-debtor relations • Forms of business organization • Agency • Employment law • Consumer protection • Environmental law • Antitrust law Longitudinal Assessments: A number of assessment and evaluations will be employed with graduates of the Business Leadership program to assist in gathering information concerning the success of the program. One of the planned assessments is an Alumni survey, which will be administered 3 month after graduation and then repeated at the 3rd and 6th anniversary of their graduation. The survey will gather information including: Career Attainment Program Satisfaction Recommendations Graduates' GMAT and GRE scores will be tracked as well as acceptance rates to Graduate School An Advisory Board may be formed to assist in the systematic evaluation and review of the curriculum. Future Plans If the University of Dallas' Business Leadership program accomplishes its goals it may become an example for other liberal arts institutions. The program may also provide a model for the development of other liberal arts based business degree programs, as well as, other professional programs. 33 Appendix 1: Faculty Senate Minutes April 2, 2002 (Topics unrelated to the QEP have been deleted) In Attendance: Dr. Bruce Evans, Dr. John Norris, Dr. Charles Sullivan, Dr. Frank Doe, Dr. David Sweet, Dr. Tom Jodziewicz, Dr. David Higgins, Dr. Sally Hicks, Dr. Tom Lindsay, Dr. Bob Lynch, Dr. Hella Hennessee, Dr. Mike Cosgrove, Dr. C. W. Eaker, Dr. Rich Olenick In Absentia: Dr. Bill Frank, Dr. Alexandra Wilhelmsen, Dr. Dale Fodness, Dr. Scott Dupree Visit of Msgr. Milam Joseph, President Msgr. responded that there was continuing dialogue on these issues, with consideration of various options, including Adult Completion Programs, an undergraduate BBA, and increased summer programs. There were broad differences in points of view amongst the Board..... Bruce Evans asked whether a B.B.A. would be in conflict with the core curriculum. Msgr. Joseph responded that he did not think that the liberal arts disciplines and core curriculum would be in conflict with possible new offerings. John Norris commented that he thought there were two ways of looking at UD as a liberal arts university. One was to think of the core curriculum as the liberal arts foundation which united a diverse group of disciplines and majors, among which an undergraduate business degree could be conceivably fitted. Another way was to hold that every major and discipline had to be a liberal art, and that a professional program would potentially damage the liberal arts character of the University. Both positions were currently held at the University, and therefore Bruce’s question would be answered differently according to the position held. Charles Sullivan noted that it was important to keep the core alive and vibrant, since it is at the heart of the University education. Dave Higgins noted that a B.S.B.A. program could be a good addition to Constantin. One could retain the Rome program for it, maintain the core curriculum, and emphasize international business. You could restrict the number of B.B.A.’s through GPA’s, keep it to 20% of the undergraduate population, and preserve the essential characteristics of the University. In the last 15 years, one of the greatest problems in the business world is CEO’s who should have known better. If business people had a Constantin background, it would give them depth and perspective. Nevertheless, Dave agreed with the concern that once the tent flap is opened for the camel’s nose, there is always the possibility that the whole camel will want to come in. Bob Lynch noted that already 10% of the undergraduate population are taking business courses, approximately half of what they would need for a major. 34 Msgr. Joseph noted that we are the only Catholic University in North Texas. This situation is not a case of limitations but a chance for expansion. Leadership in society generally comes from business. There are those who consider that the University is doing a great disservice to the Church because we place such a limitation on our disciplines. Nursing—that’s something that’s really needed. He would be glad to deal with the problem of too many students. He thinks we should be considering these issues even apart from the money concerns. Capstone Survey Bob Lynch then gave the Senate a summary of the results of the Capstone survey on the possibility of offering Constantin education for adult completion programs for local business people. Currently in the Dallas and Collin County areas, there are 4000 students in adult completion, 90% of whom are getting degrees in business. For the liberal arts, there is a small niche market of maybe 200-250 students. In terms of our ability to attract these students, there are some advantages and many disadvantages. 1) We could offer courses on nights or weekends. 2) We do have good content delivery. 3) We don’t have great financial aid and scholarships. 4) We don’t have a good mix of internet courses 5) In terms of the primary desires of students, we are not the best candidate. We don’t offer value right now as much for the future, nor do we have quick degree plan. We would not offer a flexible admission standard, daycare, or networking very easily. 6) Our core is extensive and not what students want. 7) We would not offer lifetime experience credits. 8) Companies aren’t willing to pay for courses that don’t seem to apply to the job. Bob’s conclusion was that such a program would not work and was not worth the cost invested. Hella asked whether it would work if we were more flexible and offered internet opportunities. Bob Lynch responded that even still, companies would not pay for liberal arts degrees. After brief discussion, the meeting was adjourned at 4:55 p.m. Respectfully submitted by John Norris, May 5th, 2002. 35 Appendix 2: Executive Summary of University of Dallas Faculty Meeting, May 8, 2002 Submitted by Scott Crider to the Faculty Senate Chair, May 9, 2002 Several members of the administration—Milam Joseph, Robert Galecke, Robert Lynch, Tom Lindsay, and Fred Zuker—informed the faculty of the circumstances, principles and particulars of its proposal to the board. After pointing out that the institution has historically been unable to raise sufficient money for the endowment or to attract a sufficient number of students for Constantin to be self-sufficient, and that the administration has not been able to reverse that trend as quickly or fully as it would have liked, Milam Joseph listed the four parts of the proposal to the board: 1) To accept in concept an undergraduate degree consistent with the Core; 2) and/or to create a separate college which will house both GSM and the new undergraduate business degree; 3) to develop marketing for 1 and/or 2; and 4) to develop a new unified vision of UD. The Faculty Senate Chair then suggested four points of faculty agreement for the discussion in the time remaining: 1) that UD is one university, though more than one school, bound by the Mission; 2) that UD is facing a critical moment when one school, GSM, is facing financial difficulties, and when another, Constantin, must be careful to maintain its distinct liberal arts vision; 3) that clear, principled procedures of deliberation are required for a good decision; and 4) that civility, respect for one another, is important. No one questioned the administration’s representation of the financial difficulties. Faculty questions or positions about its proposed remedy fell into the following four categories: 1) Those about due process: When asked, “What deliberative body is responsible for the proposal?” Milam Joseph explained that the University Affairs Committee was the deliberative body involved. There is faculty concern over the constitutionality of the process as explained. Faculty members voiced concern that the faculty has not been involved in the deliberative process and that it fears that its involvement later, especially if a new college is approved by the Board, will be nominal. The faculty was assured that the Board is only considering “the concept,” not its “implementation.” Those about the prudence of the proposal: Many faculty members questioned the practicality of the proposal. When asked, “Has the administration found other examples of successful undergraduate business majors/schools,” Tom Lindsay said that it was looking. When asked if business majors would find the Core attractive, Fred Zuker said that they don’t know since it’s untested, though he projects within 4 years the program could attract over 200 students. When asked if he had calculated the possible loss of students from the school’s base, he answered that he hadn’t and 36 2) that the administration does not know how the “legacy families” will respond. Faculty members questioned the financial cost of the proposal, both in its inauguration—How much do we have to spend?—and later—Can we be sure that these students will pay full tuition? 3) Those about other programs that could be proposed or have already been approved: Faculty members suggested other possible “practical” majors or schools: engineering, architecture, communications, etc. Faculty members asked if this is the only program being offered to solve the financial situation, and it was explained that it is, but that there will have to be other means to raise money as well. Faculty members wondered about the relationship between the new program and our Finance major: Has it been given sufficient opportunity to attract students? Those about the conflict between a business major/school and UD’s historical commitment to the liberal arts: Faculty members pointed out the tension between a liberal arts culture in Constantin and the new major/school. If a major, faculty members questioned the commitment, even of intelligent business majors, to a liberal education not obviously in harmony with their major. Would they change the atmosphere of liberal learning at, and distinct to, UD? If a school, faculty members wondered about the exact relationship between the schools—Constantin and the new school which would encompass both GSM and the undergraduate school of business. And, finally, is a “business major/school” consistent with the Mission of the university? Louise Cowan made a case that it could be consistent since liberal learning is not confined to specific subjects, but is defined by an attitude; others were less persuaded. 4) 37 Appendix 3: Minutes Senate Meeting May 14, 2002 (Topics unrelated to the QEP have been deleted) Present: John Alvis, Frank Doe, C.W. Eaker, Dale Fodness, Bill Frank, Hella Hennessee, Sally Hicks, Dave Higgins, Tom Jodziewicz, Stan Kroder, Bob Kugelmann, Tom Lindsay, Bob Lynch, John Norris, Rich Olenick, David Sweet Absent: Charles Sullivan, Mike Cosgrove New business: The future undergraduate business degree Provost Lindsay announced that there is a need to discuss the curriculum for the future undergraduate business degree, since the Board of Trustees will meet on June 11 to discuss the matter. The Provost suggested an extraordinary session of the Senate prior to the June 11 date, so that the faculty representatives could give their input. A committee, consisting of representatives for the Humanities, Sciences, and GSM is to deliberate on the structure of the future major. Bob Lynch and Frank Doe will co-chair the committee. C.W. Eaker observed that the proposed time schedule was unrealistic, since such an important matter could hardly be handled in this short a time span. Bill Frank concurred and stressed the necessity of careful deliberation of the plans for the new program. Tom Lindsay regretted the need for quick action and explained that the date was put forth by the Board. He hoped that the Senate would offer its co-operation. Tom Jodziewicz also advocated careful deliberation, since at this time, there exists a great deal of unhappiness on the part of the faculty about the lack of faculty input. Tom Lindsay stressed again that it was the Board’s time schedule, and that it would like to implement the undergraduate business major in the Fall of 2002, if the proposed curriculum should pass on June 11. Publicity and other preparations would take considerable lead-time. Tom Jodziewicz responded that collegial acceptance of such a plan is necessary, even under the given time pressure. David Higgins remarked that the Senate would be better off considering the curriculum proposal than not having any input. John Alvis reminded the others that the proposed Degree Completion Plan was abandoned after a study showed that it would not bring the desired revenue to the university. This example should lend support to the suggestion to engage in a feasibility study before implementing the undergraduate business major. The rush came as a surprise, since faculty was told that the Board would consider the plan only in principle, not yet in its practical application. The Senate should convey the feeling of surprise to the President. Provost Tom Lindsay reiterated that the Board wants to discuss the cost-benefit analysis as well as the curriculum for the proposed undergraduate business major as soon as possible, since the trustees are concerned about the financial crisis of the University of Dallas. At this point John Norris put forth two items, which had been brought up to him by several members of the faculty: 38 1. Some faculty members believe that there should be a statement describing the faculty’s concern about the proposed program. Many feel that the proposed process does not sit well with the spirit of collegiality. 2. Some faculty members feel that there should be another meeting of the general faculty, since time constraints at the last faculty meeting did not allow the faculty to be heard in full. Responding to faculty input, John Norris then stated that he would like to call another faculty meeting. He made the following statement as a member of the UD Senate: he was in favor of a business degree, but he, together with other faculty members, feels discouraged, disheartened, and angered about the way the change was brought about. This is the greatest change for the University of Dallas since the 60s, and the voice of the faculty should be heard. Stan Kroder voiced his surprise at the perception of suddenness or hurry concerning the proposed new business degree. He reminded the Senate that Bob Lynch had presented a strategic plan two years ago. The crisis was discussed at several meetings of the general faculty, and it must have been obvious to everyone that UD has a serious problem. He was not aware of any other possible solutions; therefore an extension of the deliberating process seems like asking for a delay of the necessary. C.W. asked again how it could be possible to plan a good program by June 11. His suggestion for a delay was made in the interest of coming up with the best possible program. In his opinion, June 11 was unrealistic. John Alvis suggested an alternative route the university might consider to overcome the crisis: raise the goals for raising funds for the Annual Fund and the Endowment; look at raising money for the immediate needs rather than adding a new program. Stan Kroder asked how this might be accomplished. John Alvis pointed out that the major efforts of fundraising had been directed toward planning new buildings rather than strengthening the Endowment. Dean Doe stated that in the beginning he had seen the proposed new program as based only on financial consideration, but now he saw it more as an obligation to the Catholic community to educate future business leaders in a responsible program. This would mean a new age for the University of Dallas. Bob Lynch agreed with those who thought that it would be ludicrous to come up with a firm curriculum in such a short time span. Rather, a vision must be established, and that should be presented to the Board. Hella Hennessee remarked that even such a vision would necessarily contain critical decisions, for example how much of the core must be included in the curriculum of the new program. Tom Jodziewicz voiced his concern that this was really an issue of faculty governance, because there was no real discussion about the new program until last month. The symbiotic relationship between faculty and administration, which was in place before, should be re-established. The case at hand points to a larger, lasting issue: there is, among faculty, some outright anger because there was no venue for real discussion. If instituted in a hurry, the program will be tainted. Tom Lindsay pointed out that there was a series of meetings, where the Administration asked for faculty input: general Faculty meetings (which were not well attended), a University Council meeting, and the spring Faculty Retreat. Indeed, he thought that there had been never any more solicitation for faculty input. 39 Tom Jodziewicz replied that there had never been any specific discussion about the proposed new program. Bob Kugelmann stated that faculty had been warned indeed about the critical financial situation, but the anger among faculty arose from the perception that the proposed cure was a top-down decision at the last minute. The necessary studies would simply take some time to do. David Higgins commented that the question is whether the Senate wishes to comment on the proposed program. He therefore put forth the following motion: The Senate should vote to decide on an extraordinary meeting prior to June 11 in order to discuss the model. C.W. seconded the motion. Discussion: Bill Frank said that David Higgins’ point was well taken in that the faculty should be consulted. However, if the consultation were to be nothing more than a perfunctory going through the motions, it would mean a breach of good faith. It is unfair to ask the faculty to come up with alternative plans, since we are not business people. He warned that risking the good will of the faculty should not be risked for something that might not be feasible in the end. Provost Tom Lindsay responded that the crisis requires the university to take risks, we are under great time pressure. David Sweet commented that the Board is as yet open minded about the solution to the crisis, they are looking for an abstract model, a basis for a feasibility study. Unfortunately, all this is happening in the summer. John Alvis said that two issues needed to be considered: 1. the feasibility 2. the form of the program Tom Jodziewicz added that the Curriculum Committee should be responsible for finding the basic model for the new program. John Norris suggested that the Senate should meet and consider various proposals for the new program. Then the motion was passed with three abstentions. John Norris put a motion on the floor: The Senate wishes to express its concern that insufficient collegiality and communication was evident in the process that led to the declaration that an undergraduate business program be considered. David Higgins seconded the motion. Discussion: John Alvis proposed to send this expression of concern to the President of the University and the President of the Board of Trustees. Sally Hicks remarked that the President thinks that faculty is not being collegial. Collegiality must be defined. Both sides are unhappy, and somehow the ice must be broken. John Alvis asked what the forum for the discussion had been, especially since the last general faculty meeting had not allowed a full discussion. Sally Hicks responded that here seemed to be a big wall. John Alvis repeated his question what the forum had been. 40 Hella Hennessee remarked that John Alvis had not been called on during the last faculty meeting, although he had raised his hand repeatedly. Provost Lindsay assured that he had not meant to ignore John Alvis. He added that the problem occupied him 24 hours a day. The Administration’s reports were not an attempt at filibustering but rather a necessity to give information on the crisis. John Alvis answered that there had been a pattern in recent faculty meetings, which all filled with long presentations by the Administration, which did not leave sufficient time for faculty discussion. C.W. raised the issue that John Norris’ motion might not accomplish anything and might actually prevent the opportunity to get involved and hopefully even push back the deadline. Tom Jodziewicz asked how we can know whether Monsignor is aware of the exasperation of the faculty. Bill Frank offered an amendment to the motion: Ask the Board to push back the deadline to October to give faculty in general and the Senate in particular the opportunity to discuss the proposal. John remarked that this was a different issue, since the motion had tried to express faculty disgruntlement. Bob Kugelmann said that collegiality was the issue; faculty participation in University affairs must be addressed, and from this perspective the resolution might be counterproductive. John Norris stated that such a resolution might worsen the situation, especially since the Board views extraordinary communication as problematic. Provost Lindsay agreed with the two previous speakers and pointed out that faculty did not want to marginalize themselves. A vote was taken on the motion: One in favor, 2 abstentions, the rest was negative. The motion did not carry. Provost Lindsay assured the Senate that he would convey the Senate’s feelings to the President and inform him that faculty felt taken aback. John Norris put forth another motion: The Senate should consider calling a General Faculty Meeting before the summer break. Stan Kroder seconded. C.W. commented that a faculty meeting would not mean much and asked whether faculty members could not serve on the committees which would propose the model for the new undergraduate business major. Provost Lindsay confirmed that a broad spectrum of faculty members would constitute the committee. A vote was called for John Norris’ motion to call a meeting of the general faculty. 6 yes votes 8 no votes 1 abstention The motion did not carry. C.W. suggested to try to find a time for the extraordinary Senate meeting, since there might be difficulties in finding a good time. Provost Lindsay suggested an e-mail discussion, but Sally Hicks pointed out that previous experience had shown that e-mail does not work very well for discussion. Tom Jodziewicz suggested June 4 as a meeting date. Four senators could not make it, and finally it was decided not to fix the date yet. 41 Appendix 4: Faculty Senate Minutes June 3, 2002 (Topics unrelated to the QEP have been deleted) In Attendance: Dr. C.W Eaker, Dr. Mike Cosgrove, Dr. Frank Doe, Professor Bruce Evans, Dr. Dale Fodness, Dr. William Frank, Dr. Sally Hicks, Dr. David Higgins, Dr. Thomas Jodziewicz, Dr. Robert Kugelmann, Dr. Stanley Kroder, Dr. Thomas Lindsay, Professor Robert Lynch, Dr. John Norris, Dr. Charles Sullivan, Dr. David Sweet In Absentia: Dr. John Alvis, Dr. Hella Hennessee, Dr. Richard Olenick Members of the ad hoc Joint Committee on Business Education who were in attendance, but who are not senators, are Dr. Sue Conger, Dr. Louise Cowan, Dr. Blake Frank, Dr. Louis Gasper, Dr. Claudia MacMillan, Dr. John Sommerfeldt, Dr. J. Lee Whittington, Dr. Alexandra Wilhelmsen Lindsay: The provost provided a brief description of the process followed by the Joint Committee on Business Education in devising a proposed undergraduate curriculum in business administration. He then introduced Bob Lynch. Professor Lynch presented the product of the committee, incorporated herein by attachment. Made inquiry regarding the flow of courses and course requirements for Constantin students who choose to become business majors as juniors. Responded that the Joint Committee will have to address these issues. Indicated that the science course requirement may involve courses that do not have a laboratory requirement. Responded that none of the courses will be offered immediately. There is sufficient time to adjust the specifics of the curriculum. Lynch: Jodziewicz: Lynch: Eaker: Lynch: Wilhelmsen: Questions lab vs. non-lab courses as regards number of credits. Doe: Norris: Indicated that this can adjust over the two phase-in years. Noted that the curriculum is “busy” at 126 hours. Questioned students’ ability to pursue their own interests as these interests evolve. 42 Wilhelmsen: Responded that students have sufficient latitude. Whittington: Also responded that students have sufficient latitude. Sommerfeldt: Noted that this curriculum requires more theology and philosophy than the regular Constantin major. Lindsay: Frank: Lindsay: The committee made a strong effort to emphasize ethics and leadership in devising the curriculum. Many students transfer to the University of Dallas. Judgments within the rules will be necessary. There is sufficient lead-time for the faculty as a whole to influence the specifics of the curriculum, but the plan as presented is the plan as of this moment. Wilhelmsen: Inquired regarding the future basis of the Joint Committee on Business Education. Lindsay: Eaker: Said that the board of trustees will be asked to empower the Joint Committee to provide oversight to the continued development and implementation of curricula. Indicated that he liked the curriculum, but specific policies are needed about how specific curricula and curricula changes will be approved, amended, implemented, etc. Emphasized that the June 11 board of trustee meeting is a “drop dead” date from the standpoint of being able to begin recruiting students now for admission in Fall 2003. Repeated his inquiry about procedures and structure At the June 11 meeting of Trustees, the President of the University will ask the Board to empower the Joint Committee to promulgate procedures and structure. Indicated that that is fine, but the senate has no information about how power will be distributed. Will the GSM Dean hold it? The Provost? Who? Ultimately, the Board of Trustees holds the power. If the senate approves this plan, it would like to know that the essence of the plan would remain intact. Expressed sympathy for that viewpoint. Lindsay: Eaker: Lindsay: Eaker: Lindsay: Cowan: Lindsay: 43 Jodziewicz: Lindsay: Sullivan: Does the handbook in Sec. 5.8 adequately address this change in academic organization? Board of Trustees may have to formally add a committee. We have a very good curriculum committee for Constantin, and we have a GSM committee for the graduate business program. We do not have a curriculum committee for this hybrid Constantin-GSM program. The senate is being asked to address the program, but take the formulation and administration of it on trust. If approved by the Board of Trustees on June 11, the new Joint Committee on Business Education will, de facto, no longer be ad hoc. What about hiring faculty? Business office and Fred Zuker are putting together a plan for this. The faculty search committee should be joint GSM-Constantin committee. Asserted agreement with that viewpoint. Do we not need changes in the faculty handbook? That is probably so, and will have to be addressed. The proposal looks to be a responsible, coherent program. It does overcome a certain curricular inertia, but in order to make it work, we must fuse two schools that have not collaborated on curricula in the past. Also, we will have students moving from one college to another. Therefore, there are serious governance questions. There are, for example, problems associated with a lack of clear jurisdiction. The governance structure is a nontrivial matter that must be decided and known in advance of approval of the curriculum plan. Any changes in the faculty handbook must be approved by the board of trustees. Asked senators if they had any questions for the ad hoc committee. There being none, he released committee members, and members of the committee who are not senators departed. We need to remember that this will be a separate college. It is thus the case that some handbook provisions may not apply to it. [Dr. Cowan departs] Now we must decide how to address the issue set forth before the senate today. Lindsay: Sullivan: Lindsay: Sullivan: Lynch: Wood: Lindsay: Frank: Lindsay: Norris: Cowan: Norris: 44 Frank: Expressed three concerns: 1) Fusing two academic operating units of the university presents significant structural and administrative issues. 2) There is a tension between liberal and instrumental (or propelled) learning, and the committee of deans and chairs has never considered this curriculum proposal. 3) He assumes the program will have a catholic character, but wants to know how this will be ensured. There are larger concerns related to the university’s identity and mission. The senate should consider the impact of the program on the goodwill and proper governance of the university in addition to its academic worthiness. If the senate does not place some sort of delay on the program, the faculty may feel railroaded. In such case, the faculty may be disinclined to embrace it. It may even develop an obstructionist stance. Offered the following motion: The senate requests the President and the Board of Trustees to defer a decision on proposals to introduce an undergraduate business major to the University of Dallas until critical components of the proposal concerning curriculum and governance are discussed and deliberated in the appropriate forums, which would include the appropriate Curriculum Committee – be that Constantin, GSM, or a new Curriculum Committee for the College of Business; then the Council of Deans and Chairs, the Faculty at Large, and the Faculty Senate. Norris: Frank: Eaker: Frank: Motion second by Dr. Eaker. The following rationale is offered in support of the motion: A Good Program: To better insure (sic) the ends of deliberation, which include (a) crafting a worthy program, (b) shaping expectations among those whose learning and teaching lies at the center of University life, (c) permitting participation by members of the faculty community whose rights and duties include care for the curriculum, and (d) safeguarding the identity and integrity of the University and its academic programs. Citizenship and Process: To affirm and exercise roles of the faculty and the Senate in matters concerning care for academic programs. Lindsay: The Provost agreed with all of the ends Dr. Frank seeks through his motion; but, if deferred now, the program will be “killed” for academic year 2003-2004. The opportunity cost could be high based on protected Fall 2002 enrollment. He stated that he had a counter motion to offer. What is the substance of the counter motion? Sullivan: 45 Lindsay: The Provost stated that his motion would ask the Board of Trustees to accept the establishment of an undergraduate program in business administration beginning with the 2003-2004 academic year, and that it empower the Joint Committee on Business Education to devise oversight and development procedures for the business major for at least four years. He expects that recruiting brochures could not be prepared, but printing delayed until (say) September 15. Noted that this was discussed today in administrative circles prior to this meeting. It was concluded that this would not work. What does enrollment in GSM look like? Bad. Projections were cited. Stated that the fat is removed. There is nothing remaining to cut except faculty. The dollar shortfall in next budget year is at least $1.2 million. Asked the Provost how he sees adequate care for the identity of the University of Dallas through his proposal, and how the faculty’s desire for governance and ownership of the curriculum is addressed by it. The curriculum was written by the faculty, not the administration. He expected that the overwhelming majority of the faculty would be pleasantly surprised when they see the curriculum. It will ”ennoble the commercial soul”. It is a fine academic program even though it arose in response to financial exigency. In periods of stress, leadership requires that a position be taken to advance a good idea that is experiencing resistance at the time. It is important that the faculty not become disaffected or loses commitment because it feels pressured in this matter. Suggested a possibility: We can go to the Board of Trustees and display the basic structure of the curriculum and ask for conceptual approval, then return with a more specific proposal at the October Board meeting. The board would then be granting approval to promote a business program. This is a very sensible suggestion. If we want to recruit for Fall 2003, it cannot be had both ways. Bill’s motion, no matter the intent, will produce a delay. The final problem that exists is not well addressed by delay. He senses an opportunity to reach out to high school seniors who would not consider UD with its present curriculum. To Eaker: Lindsay: Sullivan: Lynch: Lindsay: Frank: Lindsay: Norris: Lynch: Frank: Lindsay: Evans: 46 postpone this opportunity is not wise. There is a plan in place and the admissions office can adapt quickly. We should not delay. Jodziewicz: Today is the only opportunity the faculty has (through the senate) to show its support for positive change. Even so, there is legitimate cause to be troubled by the processes taking place. Supported acting favorably on the program today. He realizes it is an emotional issue. The GSM members of the ad hoc joint curricula committee were unanimous in their effort to preserve the Constantin core and educational values, and believe they have done so. He hopes that a senate vote today will not break down along Constantin vs. administrator/GSM lines. He wants a way to avoid that and may be able to do so by devising a formalized process to oversee hiring, etc. A short delay will provide an opportunity to address serious governance issues. To do so will be a good thing for the university and take away some of the “sting” that is felt due to the way this change has been rushed along. Doing so will enhance the prospects for Constantin faculty acceptance, which is of genuine importance. There is time for the board and faculty to establish procedures after June 11. If the board contemplating a new college on June 11, that is fine. If it is creating a new college, that is a real problem. Agreed with that observation. In his research of the faculty handbook, there is little provision for faculty governance in these matters. On the other hand, the handbook says the President has responsibility for curriculum. He said he believes the financial crisis is not manufactured; rather, it is real. There is a financial crisis, and this work has been done to address it. No-one is cooking numbers to indicate that there is a crisis. Bob Galecke has done all he can to reduce expenses. Ninety-four percent of all expenses are payroll related. Constantin freshmen enrollment will probably fall short of the budgeted number. The admissions office needs and deserves a green light to aggressively market the program. Also, the senate’s actions should encourage the Board of Trustees to act on the proposed changes. Bill Frank’s points are good. It is all quite new. To put a structure in place now is to set the bar too high at this time. Structure will have to follow. It will have to evolve into the next year. Kroder: Sullivan: Eaker: Sweet: Frank: Sweet: Kugelmann: Lindsay: Doe: Cosgrove: 47 Higgins: Alvis: The competition GSM faces is intense and can no longer be fully counteracted. (In absentia – read by Norris) “1) I have read Bill Frank’s two motions and support both. 2) I ask that a meeting to consider establishing an undergraduate business major be set for some date after June 7. 3) If the senate decides instead to collect the sense of the senators on a motion to approve any undergraduate business major at the June 4 meeting, I request to be recorded as opposed. If the motion should be cast as deeming the proposal to establish unwise, please record me in support.” If a new college is formed now, it will be viewed as an imposition. The senate should approve the curriculum plan now, and ask the Board of Trustees to authorize the senate to indicate the handbook changes needed. Proposed suspending Roberts Rules of Order for the purpose of having a sympathy vote on the proposed curriculum. Called for a sense of senate vote. The vote was unanimous (16-0) in favor of the curriculum as proposed. Roberts Rules of Order restored by J. Norris. We should approve the curriculum plan for marketing purposes only and ask the board to defer on the organization and administrative location of the business major (whether in the Constantin College or the Graduate School of Management). Called the question Requested a roll call vote on the motion by Dr. Frank. Called for a vote on whether to have a roll call vote. The request for the roll call vote passed by a vote of 10 ayes, 1 nay, and 0 abstentions. Asked Dr. Higgins to call the roll on Dr. Frank’s motion. By order of the call: Hicks: Sullivan: Evans: Lindsay: Jodziewicz: Sweet: Aye Nay Nay Nay Aye Nay Hicks: Lynch: Jodziewicz: Norris: Sullivan: Evans: Sullivan: Norris: Norris: 48 Cosgrove: Lynch: Doe: Kugelmann: Kroder: Fodness: Frank: Eaker: Norris: Higgins: Ayes: Nays: Abstention: Nay Nay Nay Nay Nay Nay Aye Aye Aye Nay 5 11 0 The motion failed. Lindsay: Stated that he appreciates Bill Frank’s remarks and knows that he is not opposed to change per se. He asked Dr. Frank whether his countermotion would solve Dr. Frank’s governance concerns. The motion does not address the issue because a new college has not yet been established. Reads his motion into the minutes in its entirety, as follows: Recommendation to the Board: The Board accepts the establishment of an undergraduate degree in business, to be offered beginning with the 2003-2004 school year. The degree will be housed in a to-be-established College of Business. The Board also establishes the Joint Committee on Business Education (the present business degree curriculum committee, named on the first page of the document titled “Undergraduate Business Major) as the group responsible to the Provost for the oversight and development of the undergraduate business degree and all other matters related to the establishment of a College of Business. This group shall serve for a minimum of the next four years. If any present member resigns or is otherwise unable to serve, the committee will select a replacement by a procedure to be designed by the committee. The duties of the committee include but are not limited to: The development and review of an undergraduate business curriculum and continued evaluation of the program over the first four years of its existence. The committee will provide a forum in the fall allowing for faculty comment and discussion of the proposed curriculum. (Bob Lynch’s friendly amendment.) Frank: Lindsay: 49 The preparation of a list of corrections, additions and deletions to all handbooks and other related documents required by the establishment of a College of Business. These changes must be forwarded to the Provost in time for presentation to the Faculty Senate and Board of Trustees for consideration at their respective October, 2002 meetings. Propose procedures and processes related to the selection, membership and duties of the Joint Committee on Business Education, in consultation with the Faculty Senate, to be enacted at the end of the present committee’s tenure. Evans: Kroder: Higgins: Norris: Seconded the motion. Described ad hoc curriculum committee’s deliberations. The committee discussed both curriculum and governance. Questioned whether the issue of governance should be addressed by a committee distinct from the curriculum committee. Called question on Dr. Lindsay’s motion. The motion passed by a vote of 10 aye, 3 nay, and 2 abstentions. Norris: Fodness: Norris: Raised the possibility that the senate might wish to register its displeasure with process to the Board of Trustees. The curriculum should be distributed to the faculty as a whole with an invitation to comment. Moved that the senate register its concern over process and governance procedures with the Board of Trustees as related to the issue of an undergraduate business major. (The motion was not seconded.) Adjourned the meeting at 4:40 pm. Norris: Addendum: [Hella Hennessee, Secretary of the Senate] In the Faculty Senate meeting of September 3, 2002 1. David Higgins asked to add to the minutes: “Respectfully submitted by David Higgins” 2. The Provost suggested adding another point of discussion, which had been omitted. He reminded the Senators that John Norris had stated in the meeting of June 3, 2002 that a number of faculty members had approached him to voice their opposition to the proposed new College of Business. The Provost had asked him whether he could specify the number of professors who had approached him. John Norris had replied that eleven colleagues had spoken to him about their concerns. The Provost stressed the importance of this point, because the discussion of the number subsequently came up at a Board meeting. 50 Appendix 5: University of Dallas Board of Trustees June 11, 2002 (Topics unrelated to the QEP have been deleted) Minutes Present: Bishop Charles Grahmann Bishop Joseph Galante Matt Boyle (Alumni Rep.) Jan Collmer Michael Corboy Dan Cruse Ralph Ellis Catherine Searcy Finn Dan Flaherty Mary Fox Pat Haggerty Harry Longwell Carolyn Lyde Patrick Maher Also Present: Frank Doe Ilene Stern Thomas Lindsay Robert Lynch Jim Klassen Fred Zuker University Affairs Committee Nancy Marcus Cecilia McKay James Moroney Joe Neuhoff Neil O’Brien Bob Power Denis Simon Michael Terry Peggy Thompson Patricia Joan Turner Gene Vilfordi Ray Wooldridge Monsignor Don Zimmerman Manuel Zuniga Robert Galeck David Sweet Tom Lindsay presented the information regarding the resolution that was passed by the Board of Trustees at their May meeting: “To enhance the viability of the University in a manner consistent with its stated mission, and affirming Constantin’s unique curriculum, the University Affairs and Executive Committees recommend that the Board of Trustees: 1. Accept in concept the creation of an undergraduate business degree that takes its basis from the core. 2. Consider the establishment of a separate college of business that would include the new undergraduate business program and be deliberately integrated with GSM in order to fulfill our mission with regard to this established component of the university. 3. Develop a comprehensive marketing plan for existing programs within Constantin College. 4. Following the above, develop a comprehensive plan for the promotion of a unified 51 image of the University’s special undergraduate and graduate programs and orientation.” After much discussion, the following resolution was presented: Whereas, the Board of Trustees of the University of Dallas approved in concept the creation of an undergraduate business degree at its May 9, 2002 meeting and instructed the Provost and administrative officers to explore further and formalize a proposal, now therefore: BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Board of Trustees of the University of Dallas approves the establishment of an undergraduate degree in business and the creation of the College of Business to house the new degree program and the Graduate School of Management. The College of Business will begin operations upon the approval of all necessary changes and additions to related handbooks and documents, which are anticipated to be completed no later than October 2002. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT, the Board also approves the establishment of the Joint Committee on Business Education* as the group responsible to the Provost for the oversight and development of the undergraduate business degree and all other matters related to the establishment of the College of Business. The Provost is responsible for the creation and development of all matters relating to this committee. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the degree to be granted from the College of Business will be a Bachelor of Arts in Business Leadership. *The present business degree curriculum development committee, named on the first page of the document titled “Undergraduate Business Major”. Cecilia McKay made a motion to approve the resolution. The motion was seconded by Manual Zuniga and unanimously approved. Dr. Lindsay then presented a resolution of appointment for the new Dean for the Graduate School of Management and Dean of the College of Business: Whereas, the University of Dallas conducted an extensive search, including interviews by members of the Board of Trustees and administrative officials and has chosen a final candidate: BE IT RESOLVED THAT H. Gene Swanson, Ph.D. is appointed to the position of Dean of the Graduate School of Management and Dean of the College of Business, effective August 15, 2002. Joe Neuhoff made a motion to approve the resolution; it was seconded by Pat Haggerty and unanimously approved. 52 Appendix 6: Joint Committee on Business Education Meeting August 26, 2002 Attendees Frank Doe Lou Gasper Sue Conger Discussion • Brian Murray Gene Swanson Blake Frank Tom Lindsay Alexandra Wilhelmson David Sweet John Sommerfeldt Louise Cowan J. Lee Whittington Dale Fodness Stan Kroder Bob Wood • • • • Issue: Application to business school as being a Constantin student. o Okay to have students declare on entry—no formal application. o No discrimination between business and Constantin students on entry. o Tabled: whether new students will be a Constantin vs. a COP student. B. Murray’s role as COB student advisor was officially finalized. He was made an ex officio member of the JCBE. Dates for coordination & committee: B. Frank, B. Murray, C. MacMillan, & J. Burk will form a group and will determine its future needs. T. Lindsay will hold a meeting regarding procedures for COB to include B. Murray, G. Swanson, H. Cousins, and L. Webb, Constantin Admissions Committee member. Schedule JCBE & Faculty meeting Joint Committee on Business Education Meeting October 17, 2002 Attendees Frank Doe Tom Lindsay John Sommerfeldt Discussion It was unanimously agreed that new undergraduate business students will have “dual advisors,” 0ne form Constantin and one from the College of Business based on the model currently used for pre-med students. Brian Murray, Sue Conger, and Alexandra Wilhelmson will work out the specific details of the procedure to make this happen. Note: it is desirable that new students be informed of their advisors in advance of their arrival. • Matriculation of business students • Brian Murray Gene Swanson Lou Gasper Alexandra Wilhelmson Louise Cowan Sue Conger Blake Frank David Sweet J. Lee Whittington 53 • • • • • New COB students are Constantin students L. Cowan: What happens to the Business Leaders of Tomorrow? B. Murray: Nothing. No change. In case of a problem, who has jurisdiction, Constantin or COB? o F. Doe: If there’s a problem in a COB course, it’s a COB issue; if there’s a problem in a Constantin course, it’s a Constantin issue. This is consistent with the duality of the COB/Constantin relationship, i.e., issues are handled by the school sponsoring the course. All 4 years. This concept was unanimously approved by the JCBE group. Lindsay: Add JCBE members to the Admissions List Serve. Will create constructive dialogue with Admissions Department that will result in improvement (collaborative, jointly developed metrics, timeliness, development of procedures. B. Frank agreed to contact Sean Malone to create the listserve. S. Conger will contact Sean Malone to get him to put “Great Books” metatags on the UD website. The following were unanimously approved by the JSBE group: o Fold 1 hour Commerce & Culture course into the Senior Seminar. o Granting of permission to add independent studies, special topics and internships. o Change prefix, number, and title of Theory of Management and Practice to Bus 1301 & Bus 2311. o Name change of accounting courses to Accounting I and Accounting II. o New electives in COB must be approved by the JCBE; JCPE does not need to approve special topics courses. o Joint Committee on Business Education Meeting December 12, 2002 Attendees Frank Doe John Norris Alexandra Wilhelmson Discussion • Bob Woods Brian Murray Blake Frank Tom Lindsay David Sweet John Sommerfeldt Gene Swanson Lou Gasper Louise Cowan o The initial discussion focused on the use of labs: Environmental Science/Biotech requires a lab. That means that the lab was taken away from accounting. Swanson: Accounting lab is needed and even though the lab will not receive credit, students will be required to attend the labs anyway. If ES/Bio were at the 3000 level, the lab could be moved from Finance to Accounting. Possible to do away with an elective and use the hours for lab hours. Decision. Keep hours and electives the same as the 12/02 degree plan states. Move the lab to the Accounting course in year one (Bus 1310 Acct. Princ. I). So moved and unanimously approved. 54 There was a motion to accept the amended proposal for the business concentration for non-business majors. So moved and unanimously approved. See the 12/02 degree plan for wording. • There was a motion to accept the modification of the Thru plan. So moved and unanimously approved. See the 12/02 degree plan for wording. • The Economics department will maintain the Fundamentals of Economics course as is and the Economics department will create a new macro economics course: Eco 2312 Fundamentals of Economics II. • Will need course descriptions for new courses to be created to put into the 03/04 general catalogue. These are the Business Leadership Core . o March 1, 2003 is the deadline for getting the descriptions ready for the catalogue. Representatives on JCBE from these departments will get the appropriate descriptions. o Am Civ & Lit Trad IV are frequently waived as advance placement credit. o L. Cowan: There should be a special course dedicated to leadership and the novel. Students will miss something special if it’s left out. o English Department is re-imaging Lit Trad IV to make it universal, but having a leadership orientation. o Should bridge courses be a true bridge, i.e., distinct in terms of content? o Regarding the Business Leadership core, we will continue as is—no changes now. • Joint Committee on Business Education Meeting March 26, 2003 Attendees Frank Doe Bob Woods Tom Lindsay Lou Gasper Discussion Lou Gasper submitted a course description for Phi 3334 Business Ethics for the University Bulletin. The course description was the product of a committee consisting of Lou Gasper, Dennis Sepper, and Lance Simmons. The JCBE unanimously approved the course description as submitted. • The group discussed the Socail Justice course proposed by John Norris. The group concluded that the course syllabus needs to include a section on comparative religions and not just focus on social justice from a Catholic tradition. It was agreed that John Norris would work on the course description and would rework the syllabus per the discussion. • Brian Murray Robert Lynch John Norris Blake Frank Curt Ely (Guest) Alexandra Wilhelmson David Sweet 55 Joint Committee on Business Education Minutes of Meeting: April 15, 2003 Attendees: Thomas Lindsay (Chair) Robert Lynch Robert Wood Robert Kugelmann Item 1:Social Justice course description Frank Doe John Sommerfeldt Alexandra Wilhelmsen Louis Gasper Brian Murray Stan Kroder A course description developed by Dr. Norris and reviewed by theology faculty was distributed. Three points of discussion were brought forward by committee members: (1) edit of text, (2) whether content should explicitly include one or more eastern religions, and (3) whether the title should reflect the multiple religious and philosophical perspectives included in course. (1) (2) (3) Dr. Sommerfeldt provided an edit of the text in accord with the discussion. Dr. Lindsay proposed the explicit inclusion of Buddhism in the topic listing. Also considered in the discussion were Hinduism and philosophical traditions. Three course title proposals survived the discussion of the course title: “Social Justice,” “Social Justice: Economies and Theologies,” and “Social Justice in World Religions.” Points of discussion: Catholic social teaching is our basis for understanding other social teachings on justice. The course shall introduce the student to Catholic social teaching regarding justice in a manner such that it will act as a lens through which the student can view and understand other religions’ social justice teachings. The course shall prepare leadership students for interaction with people representing diverse cultures and backgrounds. The breadth of the course should expose the student to the primary religious views that he or she might encounter while working in a global economy. Course description: moved, seconded and approved by vote (no nay vote): This course addresses the intersection of economics and theology, considering it as the foundation and means of formation of a just society. The student will be introduced to the development and principles of the Catholic Church’s social teaching. The course will also introduce the social justice theories of the Protestant, Jewish, Muslim, and Buddhist traditions. Course title: moved, seconded and approved by vote (one nay vote): 56 Social Justice in World Religions Item 2: Concentrations for Business Leadership Majors Based on the handout provided prior to the meeting, Dr. Murray presented proposals for the creation of concentrations to be offered as options within the Leadership degree. He stated that some of the objectives of the concentrations were to (1) provide guidance to the students in their advanced studies, (2) facilitate the integration of liberal arts studies with advanced leadership studies, and (3) to guide him in elective-course creation and course inventory management. (See handout provided prior to meeting for full description.) (a) Concentration in Corporate Ethics and Social Responsibility Dr. Murray presented the course structure and the argument for a concentration in Corporate Ethics. The concentration plays an important role of explicitly identifying ethics and social responsibility as a cornerstone of the Leadership degree. The concentration includes one new course, “Business and Society,” for which Dr. Gasper provided a course description and prospectus, and for which he was commended by committee members. Moved, seconded and approved by vote (no nay vote) to accept (1) the idea of the concentration and (2) the structure of the concentration, which included the new course with description. (see attached) (b) Concentration in International Business Dr. Murray presented the course structure and the argument for a concentration in International Business. No new courses were proposed for this concentration. The concentration is distinguished from existing University concentrations by its emphasis on international economic issues and its inclusion of advanced language study. Moved, seconded and approved by vote (no nay vote) to accept (1) the idea of the concentration and (2) the structure of the concentration. (see attached) (c) Concentration in Behavioral Management Studies Dr. Murray presented the course structure and the argument for a concentration in Behavioral Management Studies. This concentration was designed to recognize the managerial aspects of leadership and the importance of understanding human behavior in leadership. The concentration included one new course proposal, which was amended by Dr. Murray to include the word “contemporary”. The course prospectus was not available at the meeting, but has been attached to this document. Moved, seconded and approved by vote (no nay vote) to accept (1) the idea of the concentration and (2) the structure of the concentration, which included the new course with amended description (see attached) 57 (d) Concentration in Financial Accounting Dr. Murray presented the course structure and argument for a concentration in Financial Accounting. He cautioned the committee that it included a substantial number of new courses (five), and would require additional faculty. He also stated that the courses would have to be approved by the Texas State Board, and that the Business Ethics course could not be submitted for approval until it had been taught. Dr. Lynch added that the Graduate School of Management is beginning a study of the feasibility of an MS in Accountancy. Dr. Wilhelmsen objected to the size of the proposed curriculum (24 hours) based a concern about the precedent that might arise and its potential impact on the core curriculum. The proposal was amended to strike BUS 1310, BUS 1311, and ECO 4337 from the curriculum. The first two were chosen because they already are required by the major, and they are not recognized by the Board for course hours qualifying for the CPA. The last was chosen because it did not directly apply to the purpose of the concentration. Moved (as amended), seconded and approved by vote (no nay vote; Dr. Wood absent from vote) to accept (1) the idea of the concentration and (2) the structure of the concentration, which included the new course descriptions. (see attached) Committee members were asked to save the last proposal in the pre-meeting packet (Business Leaders/Scholars Program) until the next meeting. Respectfully submitted, Brian Murray April 15, 2003 58