Having convened the Arts and Sciences Council at 3:35 p.m., Prof. Shanahan previewed the afternoon’s agenda: (1) discussion of Duke’s current Quality Enhancement Plan with Prof. Prasad Kasibhatla (Nicholas School of the Environment); (2) discussion of certificate programs with Dean Robert Thompson (Trinity College); and (3) discussion and voting on a proposed Genome Certificate Program, introduced by Prof. Ruth Day (Psychology and Neuroscience; outgoing chair of the Council’s Curriculum Committee) and Prof. Huntington Willard (Vice Chancellor for Genome Sciences). 

    

     Prof. Shanahan next ascertained approval of the minutes of the Council’s January meeting, then invited Prof. Kasibhatla to the lectern.

     Prof. Kasibhatla first reminded the Council that Duke University, in accord with regulations established by the Southeastern Association of Colleges and Schools, was once again engaged in the process of reaccreditation.  As in earlier years, Duke would be focusing on a particular theme.  Twenty years ago the theme had been “Crossing Boundaries,” and ten years ago it had been “Balancing Roles.”  This time Duke would be developing the theme “Re-imagining Liberal Arts Education in the 21st Century.”  The 2008 leadership team, headed by President Richard Brodhead, was comprised of senior administrators, faculty members, and students, and co-chaired by Prof. Tolly Boatwright (Classical Studies) and Prof. Kasibhatla himself.  Furthermore, the committee would be reaching well beyond itself, the better to discuss goals and possibilities with a good many other groups—the Inter-Community Council, the Duke Student Government, the Library Advisory Council, and the Board of Trustees, to mention just a few.

     Major goals that had emerged thus far were:

1. The need for a transformative educational experience;
2. The centrality of critical thinking, adaptability, evidence-based reasoning, ethicality, self and group identity, and citizenship as goals of a liberal arts education;
3. The demonstrated acquisition of core knowledge and competencies, including an ability to communicate effectively;
4. The need for an in-depth understanding of important contemporary issues in the context of the history of the world’s civilizations and today’s globally interconnected world; and
5. The need for understanding technological trends that are                      profoundly reshaping the world

     On behalf of the QEP committee, Prof. Kasibhatla was glad to report that a number of groups were already in position to further the work toward these goals—organizations such as the freshman FOCUS program, the Research Experience for Undergraduates Program, the Study Abroad Program, and even Independent Study.  According to the committee’s current thinking, its goals might even be furthered by evolving some ways of interfacing with Duke’s professional schools.

     Most recently, four sub-committees had been exploring various routes to reach the goals of the committee as a whole.  For instance, one of these sub-committees was discussing the idea of constructing an “academic framework” made up of courses and field study for sophomores in preparation for better engagement in programs such as Study Abroad and DukeEngage–one major goal being to encourage international perspectives.  At present it appeared that some of the themes now emerging would be included in the final QEP statement.   Promising goals currently under discussion included the following:

 

1. A “University Curriculum” component comprising traditional and non-traditional course offerings not tied to specific departments;
2. Better integration of professional schools with undergraduate                   education;
3. Better vertical integration of undergraduates, graduate students,                 and faculty; and
4. More effective horizontal integration of the curricular and co-                 curricular experience

     Having rapidly sketched the current status of Duke’s Quality Enhancement Plan, Prof. Kasibhatla invited reactions from Council Members.  How are we doing?  And what have we left out?

     Prof. Chris Conover (Public Policy) hoped to have a little elaboration regarding what and how much it meant to be a member of some student group or other.  And, regarding sophomore courses, he wondered if there would be requisites for going abroad or involving oneself in DukeEngage (a pilot program launched in the summer of 2008).  Prof. Kasibhatla: These details had not yet been worked out.  Prof. Conover: As a matter of fact, DukeEngage already had its own requirements.

     Dean Margaret Riley (Study Abroad), who described herself as “very interested” in some of the possibilities being discussed, wondered whether the work of the various committees was far advanced, perhaps even near completion.  The matter was of consequence insofar as she and her colleagues were simultaneously shaping their plans, and “We want to be moving in the same direction that you are.”  Response: Yes, we do need to consult with one another.

     Dean of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences George McLendon remarked that “all sorts of temporal issues” were implicit in these plans.  DukeEngage, for instance, had been crafted to involve a student’s summer between the sophomore and junior years.  And some of the planning could be “pretty tricky” with regard to Curriculum 2000.  Prof. Kasibhatla asked if it would be possible to work with some of the “designations” that were already in place.  Then again, and more broadly at the moment, he would like to know, “Are we basically on a good track here?  Are you excited by its possibilities?”

     Prof. Ron Grunwald (Biology) was not ready to answer those questions, but wondered whether some problems might be alleviated by initiating short sessions. Then again and, he thought, more importantly, Trinity College and the professional schools here at Duke were not only separate entities but also very different from one another.  Are we contemplating a really major shift from what we now have?  Prof. Kasibhatla replied that Duke had very rich resources within its professional schools and he himself believed that we should take advantage of that richness.  In at least a limited way, we had already done this when we established the “university course.”

     At this point Prof. Shanahan called for some more “general feedback.” Was anything that we were hearing about compelling?

     Prof. Leslie Digby (Biological Anthropology and Anatomy) observed that at least some students seemed to be “hungry for this sort of thing.”

     Prof. Kasibhatla remarked that a number of Duke deans seemed to be very receptive to the major direction of “all this.”  He invited anyone in attendance to feel free to write to him on the subject.  As for a timeline, the planning now under way was to be finished by the end of the academic year.

     Prof. Shanahan expressed the Council’s thanks for his presentation, then turned the lectern over to Dean Robert Thompson.  The latter, in turn, pleased to speak about the “landscape of certificates,” congratulated Prof. Shanahan for crafting the day’s agenda with such mutually integrated subjects.

     For a bit of history, he observed that the biography of Duke’s certificate programs stretched back to 1983, and, interestingly enough, the self-study done for reaccreditation at that time focused on interdisciplinarity.  In 1997 the Academic Affairs Committee of the Arts and Sciences Council revisited the overall situation and set forth guidelines concerning the structure of certificate programs.  At that time and continuing to the present a certificate program was defined as

a course of study that affords a distinctive, usually interdisciplinary approach to a subject matter that is not available within any single academic unit.  No fewer than six courses are required for a certificate that are offered across two or more departments, and no more than half the courses can originate in any one department.

 

     The theme of the self-study for the SACS process in 1998 was “Balancing the Roles of a Research University: Graduate and Undergraduate Education– Teaching and Research.”  Duke at that time began to re-envision undergraduate education, reaffirming our commitment to provide a liberal education but reshaping it to take advantage of the fact that Duke was a research university.  We decided to make the connections more apparent between our professional schools, faculty research, and graduate and undergraduate education.  The main drive was to connect undergraduate education to the inquiry and discovery processes that characterized the work of our faculty.  During the last decade, knowledge production and application had gone through fundamental changes, and Duke currently was trying to address three types of knowledge in the undergraduate experience: (1) general education, (2) the depth and breadth of traditional disciplinary knowledge, and (3) the increasing move toward interdisciplinary knowledge. 

     In 2001 the Curriculum Committee’s continued focus on certificate programs led to the requirement that of the six courses requisite for a certificate program, there had to be an introductory experience and a culminating capstone experience.  In 2002, the Curriculum Committee made two important additional deicisions.  First, a formal review process was instituted in order to ensure quality: new programs were to be reviewed in three years, and existing programs were to be reviewed on a regular cycle.  And, second, certificate programs were allowed to have homes outside departments–in programs, centers, and institutes.  This was designed to reflect the fact that Duke was building an infrastructure to foster interdisciplinary research.

     Interdisciplinary research was currently a signature strength for Duke, and undergraduate research should continue to reflect that fact.  Duke was continuing to foster the development of additional certificate programs, and encouraging emerging research centers to think about certificate programs as a contribution to undergraduate education.  Duke was very fortunate, of course, in having the Duke Endowment and the Howard Hughes Program to assist with these objectives.  Furthermore, Duke had the additional support of major university commitments like Genome Science and Public Policy and Global Health.  Duke was cultivating these certificate programs because they were viewed as “value added.”  The “adding” was occurring in two major ways: first, the programs made possible a flexibility that could provide stability without committing us to their perpetuity, and, second, they enabled us to organize faculty and students around common interests.  Currently there were twenty-one certificate programs, four of which were approved last year, and he was particularly delighted this afternoon to welcome the proposal for a genomics certificate program, since it provided yet another and outstanding example of Duke’s “major strategic investments.” 

     Questions being invited, Prof. Grunwald asked whether there had been any discussion about incorporating an honors component or “graduation with distinction” in certificate programs.  Dean Thompson replied affirmatively.  Given the centrality of the “certificate experience” for undergraduates, there ought to be an opportunity “to make that type of intellectual commitment.”  In fact, “We’re encouraging it in general.”

     Dean Norman Keul noted that all departments offered their strongest students the possibility of graduating with distinction by completing an honors thesis or project.  Several years ago, when the Undergraduate Teaching, Academic Standards, and Honors Committee discussed whether certificate programs might also confer honors, one of the concerns raised was that, unlike departments and programs, certificate programs do not have their own separate faculties but are supported by faculty members whose primary appointments are in departments or programs that offer majors and honors in those majors.  The UTASH Committee was concerned that the faculties of departments and programs not be overburdened by taking on the additional obligation of directing honors theses associated with certificate programs.

     Prof. Digby wondered whether one might always be able to balance the multiple aims of certificates with the amount of preparation needed to complete some research projects successfully.  Four or five courses might not be enough preparation in some fields.

In response to a query about the possibly worrisome low number of students involved in some programs, Dean Thompson replied that “We’re learning as we go along the way how to use our advising systems to help students see . . . the range of possibilities and how to tailor their educational experiences in relation to their goals.”  Part of the “joy” of the possibilities involved was the very flexibility of a certificate program.  Conceivably a group with as few as three students might prove “magical.”  Ideally, in any case, he would like to see all of the certificate programs “reach a critical mass.”

     Prof. Shanahan asked how one might define critical mass in a certificate program.  Dean Thompson: “If we could go for a cohort of eight, . . . that would be something I’d shoot for. . . .  We are, frankly, still learning.”

     Dean McLendon: The way we define such programs, with not only a gateway course but also a capstone course, might make it hard to retain some students.

     Prof. Grunwald thought there could be something a little misleading here: namely, most of these programs involved some overlap in requirements.

     Prof. Ruth Day had a different sort of observation regarding the complexity of the situation: while the information on the Council handout contained only the numbers of graduates, the information that Dean Ingeborg Walther had provided for the Curriculum Committee on total enrollments revealed that certificate programs at Duke currently had about a thousand students enrolled, by no means an insignificant number.

     Dean Riley: Yes, in their enthusiasm, our students sometimes over-reach.  They are eager to “do” a couple of majors and a certificate program . . . and then end up dropping the certificate program.

     Moving on from the subject of certificate programs in general, Prof. Shanahan turned to Professor Day and Vice Chancellor Willard, who were slated to open a discussion in preparation for a vote on the proposal to create a Genome Certificate Program at Duke. First of all, however, Prof. Day mentioned that although she had now passed on to Prof. Jody McAuliffe (Theater Studies) the chairing of the Council’s Curriculum Committee, Prof. Day herself was doing the day’s presenting because the Genome proposal had been reviewed during her watch. 

The proposal now before the Council was put forth by the Institute of Genome Sciences and Policy.  It involved the life sciences, biomedical science, social sciences, and the humanities, and its opening “Statement of Rationale” was worded as follows:

With the availability of the full sequence of the human and other genomes, there are enormous opportunities and expectations for utilizing the sequence to expand our knowledge of living systems and to benefit the public welfare through equitable and broadly accessible improvements in health.  At the same time, however, the rapidly increasing pace of genome discovery and the prospect of widespread use of genomic information have raised awareness of a number of complex and potentially troubling issues for society at large, in areas as diverse as individual rights, genetic discrimination, the nature of humanity and human being, intellectual property law, the meaning of normal variation, large-scale data storage and analysis, and national health and science policy. . . .

                      The Duke Institute for Genome Sciences & Policy (IGSP) is a multidisciplinary network of centers, research programs, and educational activities that together form a campus-wide, integrated approach to advancing the Genome Revolution and to addressing its implications for health and society.  The creation of the IGSP represents Duke’s recognition of the need to build bridges among researchers, clinicians, policy experts, business leaders, and the general public and to ensure that the next generation of scholars is trained broadly in the range of experimental, quantitative, social, and humanist disciplines needed to successfully address the intellectual and societal challenges represented by the Genome Revolution.   

     Prof. Day pointed out that the Council’s Curriculum Committee had first received this proposal in August of 2007, and that a few revisions had been requested and made.  Subsequently all of the basic formal check-list of items required of a proposed certificate program had been completed, and the proposal had been approved by the Curriculum Committee with great enthusiasm.   The proposal had then been presented to the Executive Committee of the Arts and Sciences Council, which in turn had approved the proposal both unanimously and enthusiastically on 8 February 2008. 

     In response to Prof. Day’s request, Dean Thompson then proceeded to comment on the proposal, saying first and foremost that he shared Prof. Day’s enthusiasm about it.  The proposal now before the Council could not have been a better example of what a strong proposal should be.  He was very appreciative of the work that had gone into it, and he himself had no doubt that it was a wonderful opportunity for undergraduates to do this work at Duke, “a place on track for being world class in the realm of genomes.”

     Vice Chancellor Willard, invited front and center, thanked both Prof. Day and Dean Thompson for their guidance and support.  He was pleased to say that the IGSP had rejected the concept of remaining boxed solely within the sciences.  The social aspects of genomics could and should be perceived not only as broad and complex but also as “incredibly important.”  The scholars now putting forward the proposal believed firmly in the importance of staying in touch with the social sciences.  He himself was completely invested in the inter-involvements of disciplines.  And, yes, his entire faculty was “very much onboard with this.”

     Prof. Conover, describing himself as “very excited” by the matter, commended the “fantastic array of courses” that had been put forth in the proposal.  Then again, he had heard little or nothing about the financing of everything.  This remark triggered immediate, vigorous, and multi-voiced assurance that the economic side of the genome proposal was as fascinating and encouraging as everything else he had heard about it.

     Prof. Grunwald wondered about some of the implementation that would be necessitated by the proposal.  In particular, whose responsibility would it be to oversee any overlapping of courses?  Prof. Day: To begin with, the Director and sometimes a staff member would be monitoring this.  Furthermore, though one could not say immediately how all the details would work, the Curriculum Committee of the Council would be helping to “flesh out” some already-existing guidelines so as to make such procedures explicit.   

     After a few more quick and informal words the proposal was put to a vote and unanimously passed with the Council’s palpable enthusiasm at 4:45 p.m.  Without further ado, Prof. Shanahan declared the meeting closed.

Respectfully submitted,

Dale B. J. Randall

Executive Secretary