Faculty Council
Tuesday, March 23, 2004, 11:45 a.m.
Cohen House, Esther M. Cohen Dining Room
Present: Ed Akin (Speaker), Lynne Huffer (Deputy Speaker), Stephen
Baker, Marjorie Corcoran, Steven Crowell, Rebekah Drezek, Deborah Harter, Tom
Haskell, Hannah Landecker, Bob Patten, Caroline Quenemoen, Patricia Reiff and
Herb Ward. Absent: Michael Emerson, Julia
Morgan and Mark Wiesner Guests: Ann Wright, VP for Enrollment, Jerry Montag,
Registrar and Dustin Stephens, Student Association Representative.
(1) Minutes (3/11/04): The minutes were
approved.
(2) On-Line Written Course Evaluations: A member of the Student
Association was invited as a guest to attend the Faculty Council business
meeting to discuss and address concerns relating to the proposal to place the
narrative portion of the course evaluation on-line for public access as
mentioned in an article from the March 19, 2004 Rice Thresher entitled ³Course
Evaluations Will be Online.² A
copy of the article was distributed. Akin opened the discussion by summarizing
that course evaluations are important to the faculty and were developed for the
intent and purpose to improve teaching. Currently instructors, chairs and the
Provost look at these course evaluations.
Faculty Members brought up concerns to posting the narratives for the SA
Representative to address. These
concerns included: 1.) The process for determining if the information was not
relevant to the subject and if determined irrelevant, what would be the process
for removing that information from the narrative posting. 2.) Confirmation that this information
would only be available to current Rice students and Faculty members 3.) The additional burden this will place
on the Provost staff who will be charged with overseeing the approval and
appeals process. The SA
Representative confirmed that they are not looking at having on-line completion
of course evaluations as they also agreed that this would reduce the number of
evaluations completed. However,
they wish to make available to prospective students considering taking a course
the narrative portion of the evaluations in order to help make more informed
decisions. He stated there would be two levels of screening in place before the
evaluations would be placed online.
First, the student making the evaluation would have to check the box
indicating that this evaluation could be made public. The second level of screening would give the faculty member
30 days to review the evaluation and make an argument to remove the
information. The request for removal
would be made through the Provostıs Office. Faculty members brought up the need to be able to track the
number of evaluations received versus posted and also the importance of
allowing the faculty member to make a written response to the evaluations. In addition, it was mentioned that
course evaluation are voluntary and currently are not distributed to graduate
classes and classes with large attendance. Jerry Montag stated that the course evaluation process would
stay the same as currently with course evaluations distributed voluntarily by
the faculty member, but with the new process would then be scanned and
available through the Faculty Information System that is already in place. Speaker Akin dismissed the SA
representatives stating that the Faculty Council will take a position on the
proposal for On-line course evaluations and based on that position, will make
the necessary recommendation for the General Faculty meeting.
(3) Self-Scheduling of Exams: 35% of students that
self-schedule exams do not show up for the exams; thus causes a burden on the
Registrarıs Office which has therefore resulted in a proposal to move the
administration of self-scheduled exams from the Registrarıs Office back to the
department. Registrar Jerry Montag
and VP for Enrollment Ann Wright were invited to discuss this topic. Wright
stated that self-scheduled exams have over the years become very difficult to
administer administratively stating that in several cases (27:99) the students
do not show up to proctor or pick-up the exams. Montag and Wright want make suggestion for improving the
process and evaluate whether this is the right process for Rice. Harter asked
and suggested that this topic be brought before the teaching committee. Recommendations made to the Provost
Office: 1) Increase the number of days between the deadline from 3 days to 5
days. 2) Offer self-scheduled exams in 37 courses. 3) Better announce and
advertise the process and procedure. 4) If the student fails to register for
self-scheduled exam or does not show up, the student will then be directed back
to the department. A request was
made by the Faculty Council to review the process and procedures that were
already established and approved by the Faculty. In addition, a recommendation was made to consult to the
teaching committee that to come up with some alternatives. One suggestion was to automatically
assign a grade of incomplete to any student who misses their self-scheduled
exam.
(4) Graduate Council Response: A motion passed
unanimously to place the recommendation of the Graduate Council to change the
title for the thesis masterıs degree in Earth Science from Master of Arts to
Master of Science on the agenda for the April 6th General Faculty
meeting. Speaker Akin reiterated the need for these types of issues to be
presented to Faculty Council before being passed to the General Faculty. A motion also passed to add the
elimination of the graduate degree program System Theory, which has been
inactive for 10 years.
(5) Athletics Report: Discussion of
distribution of the Athletic Report and cover letter. Two cover letters were drafted, one by Speaker Akin and one
by Haskell. Faculty Council chose
to include the cover letter drafted by Akin as the official cover letter to
accompany the athletic report and the second copy of the letter to be included
in the Faculty Council minutes.
Deputy Speaker presiding and Faculty Council approved unanimously. A special thanks was noted to all
members involved in preparing the Athletic Report. Discussion followed about how to release and distribute the
Athletic report. Motion passed to provide paper copies to colleges, departments
and the Student Association with excised material marked as ³removed². Members agreed on the importance of
being able to download a digital version of document. Electronic version will
be available to all interested individuals including Faculty, Student and
Alumni.
(6) Athletic Poll: Deputy Speaker Huffer
presiding. The
Faculty Council subcommittee on Athletics distributed a proposed Faculty Poll
on Athletics, which is a revised and updated version of the poll used in 1992.
The poll in 1992 had a 61% return rate.
Haskell consulted with Michael Emerson, who is an expert in polling. Desire
is to get the poll sent out to voting faculty members as soon as possible to
allow enough time to return and analyze the results prior to the end of the
academic semester. Data will be
tabulated and analyzed by an outside firm to ensure integrity of the
results. Deadline for return will
be 10-14 days after receipt of poll.
Haskell will draft cover letter and instructions. Faculty Council agreed to send out poll
with minor revisions.
(7) Adjournment: The meeting was
adjourned at 1:30 p.m., with the next Faculty Council business meeting scheduled
for Tuesday, April 13 2004, 11:45 a.m., Esther M. Cohen Dining Room, Cohen
House.
Sarah Holloman
Executive Assistant
Attachments:
Statement
of Faculty Council dated March 10, 2004