|
|
|
Attendance: Approximately 50
Announced Agenda: 5 items
1. Approval of the minutes of January 29, 2003 (http://www.ruf.rice.edu/~facsec/facmin/03-01-29.html)
2. Unfinished business - Report on the current status of the degree requirements
3. New Business
a) Exceptions for candidates for May graduation
b) Discussion on "Professors of the Practice"
4. Announcements - Elected faculty representatives to the Presidential Search Committee
5. Adjournment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
President Malcolm Gillis called to order and chaired the General Faculty Meeting in McMurtry Auditorium of Duncan Hall at 4:04 PM. The following guests were acknowledged as being present: Daniel McDonald, representing the Thresher, Bryan Debbink and Michael Leggett, the newly elected co-presidents of the student body.
1. Minutes of 01-29-03 Faculty Meeting - On motion duly made and seconded, the minutes of the January 29, 2003 Faculty Meeting were APPROVED as circulated in advance on the web.
2. Unfinished Business - Report on the current status of the degree requirements:
President Gillis called on Jim Pomerantz, chair of the Undergraduate Curriculum Committee, to report the current status of the degree requirements issue. Pomerantz stated that the Curriculum Committee reviewed the problem of the change in the distribution requirements in the General Announcements and the Provost's proposal to revise the distribution requirements with respect to the School of Music, and to some extent the School of Architecture. The Committee examined the issues of equity and stability, with the problem of constant changes of distribution requirements, in an attempt to develop a fair set of distribution requirements across campus.
The Committee identified an underlying problem in certification of a small number of courses not appropriate for certification and felt the best solution to this problem was to alter the process of course approval for certification. Their first action was to determine that the University should revert to the language of the 2001-02 General Announcements. In an effort to find a reasonable solution to resolve the issue of inappropriate courses being certified, the Committee sent a recommendation to Faculty Council that makes no distinction among the six deans of undergraduate programs at Rice. Under this recommendation, all six deans have an opportunity to review the courses in their individual schools and to recommend to the Committee on Undergraduate Curriculum those courses in their schools that they believe should be certified for distribution credit. The committee also recommended that requests for courses that affect or involve more than one dean be accompanied by written opinions of the affected deans.
Gene Levy asked what the phrase "affect more than one dean" meant. Pomerantz explained that Group 1 is normally identified with the Humanities, Group 2 with the Social Sciences, and Group 3 with Natural Sciences and Engineering. In cases where courses are of interest in other schools, the deans' involvement comes from three different perspectives: the dean who is proposing a course for certification; the dean of the school in which the course resides; and the dean associated with the relevant group (1, 2 or 3) for which the courses are being certified for distribution credit. In order to ensure the Committee does not get raw, unfiltered, and unprocessed recommendations, they request the signatures of the affected deans, giving their opinion regarding the course in question.
Levy requested the Committee consider a cleaner process in which each of the six deans communicates his/her recommendations to the Curriculum Committee, and the Committee gets further information as necessary so that no deans are privileged in certain areas of the curriculum. Because of the limited time remaining in this academic year, Pomerantz recommended waiting until next year to make any further changes giving the Committee time to evaluate the new process.
Gale Stokes asked about the fate of courses that are currently approved. Pomerantz replied that the Committee asks the deans, when they submit their reports, to group courses into 3 categories: 1) new courses that are being proposed to be added to the list; 2) courses that are proposed to be deleted from the list; and 3) courses that are to remain the same as last year. The Committee asks the opinions of the deans from these first two categories.
John Zammito announced that this recommendation from the Undergraduate Curriculum Committee would be reviewed by Faculty Council and University Council and then be brought before the general faculty for approval, since a policy change is involved. With one faculty meeting remaining in this academic year, the general faculty vote on this proposal will probably come next fall.
3. New Business
a) Exceptions for candidates for May graduation:
Deborah Nelson-Campbell, chair of the Committee on Examinations & Standing, provided the facts surrounding the one case of an exception for a May graduation candidate. This student is requesting to graduate with 117 hours instead of the required 120 hours.
It was discovered after a degree audit in January that a system error occurred during the transition from the old student information system to the new system. This student was told he needed 13 hours to graduate. The student found, in reviewing his transcript, that one course was repeated and, therefore, only counted as 3 hours instead of the 6 hours of credit reflected in the system. Due to substantial health problems, he petitioned the EX&S Committee to make an exception in his graduation requirements. After a thorough review of the case, the Committee recommended the exception be granted.
The question was asked as to the existence of any precedent for this type of circumstance. Registrar Jerry Montag recounted four exceptions granted last year by the general faculty. These were also due to system problems when changing from the old system to the new system.
Stan Dodds asked for clarification that the mistake was bad information given to the student that created a problem clearly beyond the student's control. John Hutchinson confirmed that this student planned his curriculum on the basis of the information provided him by the system and pointed out that the student only determined the information was incorrect at a very late time. The result was the incorrect information put him in a situation of having to take a greater number of hours in his last semester, which is inconsistent with his current medical and physical condition. The student had attempted to plan his curriculum to accommodate his medical and physical condition. Montag confirmed that the student was officially informed of the error on January 30.
On motion duly made and seconded, the exception was APPROVED.
b) Discussion on "Professors of the Practice"
Zammito provided information regarding a proposed addition in faculty titles. Recently, the President and the Provost brought before Faculty Council a proposed change to policy 201-01, which would include a new designation of faculty. The new title would be termed "Professors of the Practice" and would allow Rice's professional schools to invite practitioners, people of significance, in the various professions to teach on a temporary basis. After general faculty discussion, the policy committee and Faculty Council will evaluate this measure and bring a proposal to the general faculty that the policy be amended accordingly.
John Casbarian, Associate Dean of the School of Architecture noted teaching in the architecture program requires a balance of both academic and professional expertise. While the permanent Architecture faculty are distinguished practitioners and/or theoreticians, the School of Architecture has traditionally relied on a group of local practitioners, who teach part-time, to augment the very extensive curriculum requirements necessary to meet their rigorous accreditation. Having such a group for short terms provides the opportunity for additional insight and variety to keep the program innovative and fresh. Among this group of visiting critics is a handful of key players who are recognized leaders in practice and who play a fundamental role in the program. Their commitment to practice is such that they do not want to occupy full time tenure-track positions. Because they make significant contributions to the program, it is appropriate to give these practitioners longer appointments than the standard one-year contracts and to recognize them with a special title. Many schools, including our competitors such as Harvard, have such positions as "Professors in Practice". The School of Architecture is proposing this new position/title be created in order to offer these few part-time visiting critics a greater sense of being part of the school, a longer contract than the standard one-year lecturer contract, and a title that recognizes their significance.
Dean Gil Whitaker added comments from the perspective of the Jones Graduate School of Management. While the use of this title is less critical to the Jones School, there are occasionally opportunities to hire one or more industry practitioners on a full-time basis to add critical dimensions to the teaching in the business school. Often these people began their careers with a Ph.D. before going into practice. They bring intellectual insight coupled with practice to education and can enrich the curriculum. Whitaker explained the use of this type of title is a fairly common practice in schools of management and is widely practiced by Rice's peer institutions. Whitaker added the use of the new title, "Professor of Practice" would be a valuable addition to the current list of titles. Pomerantz asked if these other institutions typically incorporated adjectives in the titles that proceed the word "Professor", i.e., Assistant, Associate, full Professor of Practice. Whitaker responded that in most cases only the word "Professor" was used because these are usually very senior people, but in some instances the use of these adjectives was incorporated. In order to meet all foreseeable future needs, Levy felt it would be appropriate to use these adjectives in the new title category. Whitaker relayed that the Jones School would use this type of title for only a few individuals.
When asked if a holder of this new title would typically have a Ph.D., Levy responded that a Ph.D. would not necessarily be required, pointing out that this is currently not a requirement for regular tenure-track people in Architecture and Music.
Herb Ward asked if a set of criteria had been developed on which to base hirings for this new title. Whitaker responded that nothing was in writing at this time.
Ward added that the School of Engineering currently had a number of lecturers with one-year appointments, many who have been teaching for years, and catorgized them as truly "professors of practice". He suspected this new title would be attractive to people beyond the School of Architecture and the Jones School and envisioned a possible problem in that regard.
Moshe Vardi brought up the title of "Research Professor" which is being used in the School of Engineering and requested this title be included in a revised policy 201-01. Zammito replied that Faculty Council was looking into some of these other issues also.
When asked about the term of this new appointment, Whitaker responded the term should not be longer than several years and renewable on performance. Casbarian stated the term of appointment in the School of Architecture would be for three years.
Anne Schnoebelen related that the Shepherd School of Music has a number of people called artist teachers. These appointments are not in the tenure ranks and are one-year contracts. Also a number of Shepherd School part-time faculty, who are currently symphony players, have the title of "Associate Professor" which is not a tenure-track or tenured position.
Zammito closed the discussion by announcing that the policy committee of Faculty Council would be considering this matter. President Gillis added that before the new title was finalized, the terms of appointment and other details would be determined.
4. Announcements
Elected faculty representatives to the Presidential Search Committee
President Gillis announced that four faculty members had been elected to serve on the Presidential Search Committee. Zammito thanked all those who worked on the elections as well as all those who offered to serve. The four faculty representatives elected were announced: Robert Curl, Jim Pomerantz, Robin Forman, and Bob Patten.
The meeting was adjourned 4:53 PM.
Respectfully submitted,
Janis L. Cain
Secretary to the Faculty