1. Proposal for a Bachelor of Science Degree in Wellness, Health Promotion and Injury Prevention.
2. Report from the University Committee on Undergraduate Education.
3. Report from the Senate Planning Review Committee
4. Report from the Senate Budget Review Committee
5. E-mail Message from Stafford Rorke (Feb. 19, 2002)
2. Report from the University Committee on Undergraduate Education
PROGRAM PROPOSAL FROM SCHOOL OF HEALTH SCIENCES FOR A
BACHELOR OF SCIENCE DEGREE IN
WELLNESS, HEALTH PROMOTION, AND INJURY PREVENTION
UCUI REPORT TO UNIVERSITY SENATE
January 30, 2002
The University Committee on Undergraduate Instruction (UCUI) submits this program proposal (available in revised form through the Senate website) to the Senate Steering Committee with the recommendation that it be advanced to the Senate for discussion and approval. We have reviewed this proposal at three meetings, maintained active communication with its developer, Professor Stafford Rorke, and have been pleased with adjustments he and his colleagues have introduced into this proposal as a result of our discussions. Although we still have reservations about certain aspects of the proposal and about how realistic some of its projections may prove once the program is put into practice, we conclude that the program as represented here offers a valuable new opportunity for Oakland University undergraduates and that many problems may be resolved between the time of implementation and the point when UCUI conducts its five-year review.
REASONS FOR SUPPORT The proposed program offers a beneficial learning opportunity for Oakland University undergraduates aspiring to a variety of health-related careers and should be attractive to many who cannot now find an appropriate major. This is a distinctive program that will be a pioneering venture in Michigan and the larger academic world and may therefore bring distinction to Oakland University. Its six different tracks offer students significant options while making extensive use of the university’s resources, not only in the School of Health Sciences but also in the College of Arts and Sciences, School of Business Administration, and School of Education and Human Services. Overall, it impresses us as an ambitious and promising program.
SOME QUALIFICATIONS Despite the program’s evident merits, UCUI calls the Senate’s attention to several concerns that have emerged in our discussions.
Lack of Interaction with Nursing Program As part of the feasibility study that preceded formal development of this proposal, the Interim Dean of Nursing was approached for her endorsement. Subsequently, however, the School of Nursing was never approached about possible curricular interactions and the issue of pre- and co-requisites to see if opportunity might be provided for non-nursing majors to take the wellness course that school offers. At least six courses in the WHP program have been identified by SON faculty as potentially attractive to their students, although these have pre-requisites that exclude Nursing students just as Nursing courses now have pre-requisites that exclude WHP students (about to be dropped for three introductory courses). UCUI recognizes that the social science emphasis of the WHP program varies from the natural science emphasis of the Nursing program. There is room for both in the university, but we hope to see closer curricular cooperation between these schools in line with recommendations that emerged from the task force report delivered to the Senate in winter 2001 on Nursing/Health Sciences interaction. The revised degree proposal being presented to the Senate articulates its sponsors’ response to concerns raised by the Interim Dean of Nursing to UCUI.
Career Prospects for Graduates WHP will be marketed as an opportunity for students to qualify themselves for careers after a four-year undergraduate program, although the Pre-Professional track encourages some to aspire to graduate work in Public Health and related specializations. Focus groups of prospective employers have indicated likely acceptance of graduates with this major, and a wide range of job possibilities appears in the proposal. UCUI members wondered about which focus tracks would lead to which outcomes and felt concern that many of the listed careers would actually require greater depth of biological knowledge than most of these tracks provide. Many of these career options depend on a flourishing economy or on government and corporate funding of health care that these days looks problematic. We are concerned that students may assume that a tightly programmed pre-professional curriculum guarantees immediately satisfactory employment outcomes that may not result. In any case, if specific focus tracks are thought to increase students’ employment prospects either immediately or in the long term, we encourage the program’s sponsors to make arrangements with the Registrar’s Office to include six curriculum codes for use on transcripts.
Advising and Scheduling We anticipate that students will switch frequently between tracks within the program as they shift their career goals, which may create scheduling and advising problems. A program with so many specifications looks easy to follow on the surface, but it creates problems when anyone gets off track for any reason. Strong advising support, chiefly within Health Sciences, is essential.
Curriculum The program’s sponsors have incorporated UCUI’s curricular advice into the document being proposed to the Senate and have added information on assessment plans. We still wish that third-year students could take a smaller number of 3- or 4-credit courses rather than a piling up of 2-credit ones, though we respect the curricular judgment of the sponsors. We are uncomfortably aware that four General Education offerings are established as requirements in the core program and worry about the impact of General Education reform. That, however, is a concern that affects a great many undergraduate programs that piggyback their requirements on the university system and should not be allowed to hold up implementation of this one program in particular. Some of us would like to see more electives within the program, especially since graduates are not assured of any specific employment. Some electives are recommended in the proposal; others that might be included include suitable advanced writing work in Science Writing (ENG 381) and Writing for Human Services Professionals (RHT 335). Judging from our experiences at Oakland University, we have reasons to believe that students who actually graduate in four years will be relatively rare: most students will need RHT 150 as well as 160; many will transfer either from outside institutions or from other OU programs or undecided status and will have credits that do not apply to this program; others will shift focus areas within WHP and thereby extend their period of study.
Program Name Given the long name of this major and the likelihood of its being abbreviated in some misleading or vulgar way, we wish a more economical title could be devised. There are strong arguments for including the full range of specific areas of study, however, and even for adding to that string of words whatever focus area the student has chosen. We have consulted with the Registrar’s Office to find that Banner can accommodate comprehensible versions of this information.
University Support In the course of reviewing four departmental self-studies over the past year, UCUI has become aware of how poorly Oakland University tends to support its programs over the long-term. Although there is encouragement for innovations, budget and position allocations seldom correlate with growth. We are concerned that this program involves considerable costs to develop sixteen new courses, expand clerical and advising staff in Health Sciences, and fund nine new faculty positions by the time the program reaches steady state. This program strikes us as vulnerable to resource short-falls outside its sponsoring unit, as new faculty requisitions in Psychology and Human Resource Development may not be seen as hiring priorities in the College of Arts and Sciences and School of Education and Human Services. We are also concerned that allocations to foster new programs could translate into reduced support for worthy programs already in existence.
Overall, UCUI concludes that this is will be a worthy addition to Oakland University’s array of undergraduate majors and that it offers attractive opportunities both for students who now attend OU and for those whom it might attract to our campus because it is such a distinctive major. We defer to the Senate Budget Review Committee for advice to the Senate regarding its unusually heavy resource needs and to the Senate Planning Committee for advice on its relation to university mission and goals.
3. Report from the Senate Planning Review Committee
To: University Senate
From: Senate Planning & Review Committee
Frances Jackson, Chair
Re: Proposed Degree in Wellness, Health Promotion and Injury Prevention
The Senate Planning and Review Committee (SPRC) has evaluated the proposed bachelor’s degree from the School of Health Sciences in Wellness, Health Promotion and Injury Prevention (WHP). We make the following report for consideration by the Senate.
This degree is proposed as a new major for the university. There are six "specialization" areas: General Health Enhancement, Health Promotion Interventions, Wellness and Complementary medicine, Injury Prevention, Wellness and Exercise Science, and a Pre-professional track suitable for students planning to go to medical school, Physician Assistant program, etc. In addition, a minor in WHP is also available. The core curriculum requires 96 hours. The focus areas require 32 credits for a total of 128 credits.
Faculty
Dr. Stafford Rorke was hired to direct and initiate this program and is eminently qualified in this discipline. While a number of other faculty currently teaching in the SHS are listed in the proposal, only faculty teaching in the Exercise Science program are realistically expected to contribute substantially to this degree. By year 5, nine new faculty will be needed. It is not clear if these are all SHS faculty, or if additional faculty in HRD, SEHS and Psychology are counted in this number. Concurrent increases in secretarial support, advising and other staff are also projected.
Students
The proposal projects that this new degree will recruit 80-120 applicants each year with a projected enrollment of 30 in the first year, 40 the second year, and 50 in the third year. These projections are based on surveys sent to a variety of agencies and companies, a high school student survey, two focus groups held by the SHS, 549 surveys completed by current and admitted OU students and projections identified by Ms. Berry, the SHS academic adviser. Four hundred and fifty-seven agency/company surveys were mailed and 61 were returned, a return rate of 13.4%. There were 25 high school surveys. There were two focus groups, one with nine participants and the other with four participants.
Interface With Other Units
This degree will provide increased curricular options for students majoring in other fields. The two strongest curriculum links would occur with the SEHS and the Psychology Department. For example, SEHS would support a curriculum that meets the requirements for a teaching minor in health education. Students in HRD would also have appropriate career links with a minor in one of the six focus areas. It is noted that additional HRD faculty would be needed if this new initiative increases enrollment in HRD.
There are several areas of interface that exist between this proposed degree and the Department of Psychology. The Psychology Department is willing to design a minor that would complement the wellness field.
Notably absent from the links described above is a collaborative relationship with the School of Nursing (SON). In fact, the proposal erroneously states that non-nursing students cannot take nursing courses that might be of interest to students in WHP. Dr. Rorke drew this conclusion from information in the OU catalog, but did not actively pursue exceptions that exist within the SON that would make collaboration possible between the two units. In fact, several nursing courses are taken each semester by non-nursing students and both the pre-requisites and co-requisites required are waived on a regular basis without difficulty. On the other hand, WHP courses also have co-requisites and pre-requisites that would have to be waived for nursing students. All of these issues are easily amenable to resolution, if the SHS is interested in having a relationship with the SON.
Strengths
Based on the discussions and deliberations of SPRC, we note many strengths of this proposed degree. First we note the credentials of Dr. Rorke and recognize the many strengths his background will bring to this program. Secondly, this focus area is consistent with the goals of OU’s strategic plan and reflects an area of need that SPRC can easily support. Fourth, while the data upon which student projections are based is of some concern (61 agency/company surveys reflecting a return rate of only 13.4%, 25 high school student surveys, two focus groups with a total of 13 people), we believe there is student and faculty interest in this degree. Fifth, the interdisciplinary nature of the degree is a major strength and we commend the approach that was taken to make this degree relate to several established programs currently operating at OU. Sixth, this program is unique in Michigan, and if it reaches projected enrollments, will bring an area of distinction to the university. Finally, it prepares students in a field that will be increasingly needed by an aging population. Both individuals and society benefit from a focus on wellness.
Concerns
While this proposal has many strengths, there are some undeniable concerns that must be carefully monitored with the initiation of this degree. SPRC is not persuaded that the job market for graduates is as extensive as reflected in this proposal. The university has some ethical obligation to carefully monitor the employment rate and adjust admissions accordingly. Secondly, this curriculum requires a lot of course work that will make it difficult for students transferring to this degree to complete course work in a reasonable amount of time. The Pre-professional track in particular, will require far more than 128 credits if students are to also take the courses needed to qualify for medical school or a physician assistant’s program. Third, this is an expensive degree. Like UCUI, we note the lack of financial support generally provided by the university for new and established programs and are concerned that needed faculty, staff and other resources may not be provided to help SHS meet program goals. This concern exists not only for SHS faculty, but for additional faculty that may be needed by SEHS and other departments to support a minor in WHP by students majoring in education or psychology.
Lastly, we noted the interdisciplinary focus as a strength, but we also note the lack of interface with the School of Nursing as a concern. It is the expectation of SPRC that Dr. Rorke will make an effort consistent with the work developed with the SEHS and Department of Psychology with the SON to find and identify courses of mutual interest to both WHP and SON students.
Recommendation
The SPRC recommends that the University Senate approve the adoption of a B.S. degree in Wellness, Health Promotion and Injury Prevention.
4. Report from the Senate Budget Review Committee
MEMORANDUM
March 4, 2002
TO Oakland University Senate
FROM: Senate Budget Review Committee
SUBJECT: Review of Proposal for a new B.S. degree in Wellness, Health Promotion and Injury Prevention
We have reviewed the proposal for a new B.S. degree in Wellness, Health Promotion, and Injury Prevention, to be offered within the School of Health Sciences. Our review was concentrated on the budget information provided in the proposal, considering both the anticipated incremental revenues and the incremental expenditures. While not our primary charge, we also considered the academic merit of the proposed major, and the ability of the school to deliver a viable program.
The amount of additional resources requested for this major is quite significant: from $360,000 the first year to $890,000 the fifth year. Given the program description, we do conclude that the amount of resources requested is appropriate. Further, we believe that, if allocated the resources requested per the proposal’s budget amounts, the School of Health Sciences should be able to deliver a meaningful major program.
The greatest concern is the extent to which this program will require redirection of existing or creation of new university resources. Analysis of the incremental revenues is always difficult. As with all new major programs, determining an estimate of students is inexact. Further, distinguishing between incremental new enrollments at Oakland University due to the new major (students who would not enroll at Oakland if the new major were not available) and students who would enroll at Oakland University in another major anyway, but will choose the new major, is also difficult. Based on the proposal, we conclude that there is considerable demand for the new major, and that it is likely that the availability of the Wellness, Health Promotion and Injury Prevention major will result in increased total student enrollments at Oakland University. We are uncertain whether there will be sufficient incremental new enrollments at Oakland University to generate new revenues to fully offset the expected expenditures.
We also recognize that there is an intrinsic value in having a wide range of majors available for students, even if a specific major does not "make a profit". We believe that the Wellness, Health Promotion and Injury Prevention major is desirable and would enhance the offerings of Oakland University.
RECOMMENDATION: The Senate Budget Review Committee recommends that the University Senate approve the B.S. degree in Wellness, Health Promotion and Injury Prevention.
5. E-mail Message from Stafford Rorke (Feb. 20, 2002)
Dear Senate Member:
Please review the attached Concept Document. This graphic is not included in the electronic version of the WHP proposal document. However, it serves as a useful overview of the proposed WHP degree.
Your support for this degree initiative will be appreciated. The proposed degree has several strengths:
1. A full feasibility study was completed prior to initiating the degree proposal.
2. It is unique to Oakland University and to Michigan, and has significant support from well-informed practitioners in the field.
3. It meets a societal public health need, namely to prepare specialists to address changing demographic and health promotion needs.
4. It is interdisciplinary and has multiple, flexible specialization tracks.
5. It is intended as a "hands-on" degree with several practical course modules, and both a 4 credit hour internship, and a 4 credit hour senior culminating experience (project) to be completed in the work place.
6. It will generate significant social capital by attracting new students to OU, by offering wellness courses to the general student body, by offering student peer-group health promotion initiatives, and in time, by offering a WHP-initiated, incentive-based OU employee wellness program.
7. Significant interest has been expressed by prospective students. Without any significant marketing of the proposed degree the SHS has recently received over 80 inquiries. It is my assessment that approximately one third of these are serious candidates for the major (high school or community college transfer students), one third are more likely to enter the minor (current freshmen and sophomore status), and one third are not serious candidates (stated goals are pre-medicine, PT, AT etc., or they are already junior to senior status - they may choose WHP elective courses however).
I will be happy to answer any questions prior to the Senate meeting on 14 March. Most concerns to date have centered around projected student numbers (that I do not see as a problem, given the obvious interest); employability (the degree was designed specifically to address market need); and, the cost of the proposed program (we have built in safeguards to assure that if projected student numbers are not attained, we will not hire new faculty).
Sincerely,
Stafford Rorke
Stafford C. Rorke, D. Phil., FACSM
Associate Professor and Director
Wellness, Health Promotion, and Injury Prevention Program
School of Health Sciences
Oakland University
Rochester, MI 48309
Tel: (248) 370-3544
Fax: (248) 370-4227
Email: rorke@oakland.edu
3/8/02