|
|
|
Attendance: Approximately 80
Announced Agenda: 5 items
1. Approval of the minutes of May 9, 2003 (http://www.ruf.rice.edu/~facsec/facmin/03-05-09.html)
2. Proposed Academic Calendar 2004-05
3. Report from University Standing Committee on Athletic Admissions
4. Athletics at Rice: A Report to the Faculty Council (available at the Reserve Desk of Fondren Library)
5. Adjournment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
President Malcolm Gillis called to order and chaired the General Faculty Meeting in McMurtry Auditorium of Duncan Hall at 4:04 PM. Alan Chapman served as Parliamentarian. Guests from the media were acknowledged as being present. Also in attendance were the college and Student Association presidents.
1. Minutes of May 9, 2003 Faculty Meeting - On motion duly made and seconded, the minutes of the May 9, 2003 Faculty Meeting were APPROVED as circulated in advance on the web.
2. Proposed Academic Calendar 2004-05 - President Gillis called on Ed Akin, Speaker of Faculty Council to address the calendar issues.
Akin began by announcing that Alan Chapman's three years of service as Parliamentarian would end in October. The first item of business at the next faculty meeting on November 11, will be the nomination and election of a new Parliamentarian.
The first calendar issue addressed was the need for a change to the spring 2004 calendar. The software used by the Registrar's Office will not allow preregistration to begin on the same date as the deadline for students to drop a class. Stan Dodds suggested changing the preregistration date, which is less significant to students than the drop deadline. A motion was made and seconded, to change the beginning date of preregistration from Monday, March 29, 2004, to Tuesday, March 30, 2004. The date change was APPROVED by unanimous vote.
Akin explained that the issue of the proposed calendar for 2004-05 was an informational item and could not be voted on at this time. In addition, he reported that Faculty Council is accessing the impact of dropping the two-day break in spring. Kathleen Milazzo, President of Brown College, spoke on behalf of all the college presidents and the SA co-presidents. Milazzo voiced student concern about the absence of the two-day break in the spring 2004 academic calendar. She remarked that while students understand the break was removed from the spring 2003 calendar in an effort to equalize the number of class days in the fall and spring semesters, they do not see how its absence from the 2004-05 academic calendar promotes the same goal. Further, they believe that the periods of uninterrupted class days created in this calendar are detrimental to student health and academic performance, and they encourage a reevaluation of the need for this break, suggesting the spring 2005 calendar be reworked to include the two-day spring recess.
The proposed fall 2004 calendar provides for 70 class days in uninterrupted increments of 5 days until Labor Day, 29 days until fall break, 26 days until Thanksgiving break, and 10 days until the end of the term, excluding weekends. The proposed spring 2005 calendar provides for 69 class days, in uninterrupted increments of 34 days before spring break and 35 days after spring break, excluding weekends. The students feel this two-day break would be most beneficial occurring between the week-long spring break and the end of the semester.
A faculty member asked about the status of having the Rice spring break coincide with the HISD spring break, noting that this was not reflected on the proposed 2004-05 academic calendar. Akin responded that having the two spring breaks coincide was still the goal, but in the last several years, it had not been feasible, either because of HISD's lateness in setting their date or due to complaints from the reviewing committee or the student body.
Akin explained that formal treatment of the 2004-05 academic calendar issue would come before the general faculty after it has been reviewed by University Council and the Committee for Undergraduate Curriculum.
3. Report from University Standing Committee on Athletic Admissions.
After the students exited the meeting, President Gillis called on Fred Rudolph, chairman of the subcommittee of the University Committee on Admissions and Financial Aid, to report for the UCAFA. Rudolph began with some general facts regarding the new entering freshman class. He discussed athlete admissions and compared the credentials of 2003 admitted scholarship athletes and performance of scholarship athletes enrolled at Rice over previous years. SAT scores for entering freshmen athletes and non-athletes were summarized and compared.
Performance of freshman athletes was examined by SAT score providing the mean spring GPA and spring credit earned from 1997 through 2003. Also an analysis of scholarship athletes by class was provided showing spring 2001, 2002, and 2003 cumulative GPAs for freshmen, sophomores, juniors, and seniors. Data comparing the GPA for scholarship athletes and all students was also provided. Information was provided regarding the number of athletes living on campus and their participation in the colleges. This data was presented by each unidentified college and rated in percentages of above average, average, or below average. Data on the selected majors of scholarship athletes was also presented. Rudolph provided printed handouts of all data presented. A printout is attached to the hard copy of these minutes.
4. Athletics at Rice: A Report to the Faculty Council (available at the Reserve Desk of Fondren Library)
President Gillis pointed out that copies of this report have been available to faculty members through the reserve desk at Fondren Library for the last three weeks. Beginning on September 4, a copy of this report will be delivered to each academic department for faculty members' perusal.
Akin explained that prior to issuance of this report, the Board had begun the initiative to conduct a serious study of athletics. They have created a subcommittee of Board members, and are planning to retain a consulting firm to gather data. It is anticipated the Board will execute this thorough study on a nationwide basis, and it is envisioned that they will be coming to the constitutes of the University, the students, the faculty, and the alumni, for open discussion of these topics. Since only a small percentage of the faculty has read the Faculty Council report to date, no serious motions were to be introduced today. All faculty members were encouraged to read the report. Further discussion will ensue at the November faculty meeting.
Chandler Davidson, presented an overview of the Faculty Council Subcommittee on Athletics and explained its charge. He commented on the short timeframe for collection, evaluation and reporting of information which resulted in somewhat limited research, and he gave an overview of the committee's meetings and work in arriving at their findings. Davidson emphasized the subcommittee's intent to point out strengths and weakness of the athletic program at Rice and to point to areas where further research was needed.
Davidson then summarized the conclusions of the committee's
report. He began with the positive findings:
1) Rice's intercollegiate athletic program is, in a number of ways, superior
to those of almost all of the more than 100 such programs in Division I-A.
2) Many of Rice's athletes do well as students and some are truly outstanding.
3) President Gillis, on coming to Rice in 1993, set up a committee to reform
the procedure for admitting athletes.
Davidson then reported the troubling facts the committee believed
merited serious consideration and further research:
1) The net cost of Division 1-A athletics at Rice is astonishing high. Would
these costs be similar if Rice moved from Division 1-A of the NCAA to another
division?
2) The last three years witnessed a precipitous drop in the SAT scores in the
bottom quartile of scholarship athletes with the difference of these athletes
and non-athletes being greater than at any time since before 1989. Also the
admission process for scholarship athletes, under a reform implemented in 1995,
seems to have regressed in those three years with the percentage of Procedure
III athletes matriculated increasing even though the Faculty Subcommittee unanimously
advised against admission, increasing from 3% in 1998 to 14% in 2002.
3) Graduation rates of athletes have risen in recent years. The committee felt
a number of factors could be responsible: SAT scores are not a good predictor
of academic ability; the athletic department provides better tutoring and stresses
academics to its athletes much more than in earlier years; some department or
courses serve as shelters for weak students. The committee examined the departments
that athletes majored in and found in spring 2002, 29% of declared majors of
athletes were in Kinesiology, 17% in Managerial Studies, and 17% were in Economics.
They made no effort to determine if any of these three majors was a shelter
and felt further study was required.
4) The Committee found that time pressures on athletes at Rice as a result of
athletic duties is very high, but they could not determine with any precision
how much time, in terms of countable hours Rice athletes spend on athletic endeavors.
5) On the basis of the questionnaire sent to the masters of the nine colleges,
they concluded that there were probably still serious problems with the integration
of athletes into the activities of college life.
6) Athletes break campus rules at a higher rate than non-athletes.
Davidson ended with the committee's recommendations: 1) review of intercollegiate athletics every seven years, to begin this current academic year; 2) create an ongoing, comprehensive database of relevant information to be easily assessable; 3) present the completed report to faculty and the Trustees with a copy deposited in Fondren Library as a permanent historical document; 4) continue the current annual presentation of admission data regarding athletes each year.
President Gillis opened the floor for discussion and questions. A lengthy discussion of the pros and cons of the report ensued with emphasis on questions and comments relating to the admission process for student athletes as it compares to the general student population, the possibility of the existence of "sheltered programs" at Rice for athletes; grading standards; concern over the shifting of majors from engineering and science to other less difficult programs; academic performance of student athletes; costs versus benefits of the athletic program; and changes in the external environment of intercollegiate athletics.
John Boles provided a brief overview of how the athletic sub-committee reviews prospective athletic admissions, what information they have about a candidate, and what they find most important in coming to their determinations.
President Gillis explained the new Board study would examine factors such as the external environment and develop a basis of cost comparisons for Division A-1, A-2, A-3 athletics for use as a tool in analysis. After some further discussion, a motion was made to adjourn and passed by unanimous vote.
The meeting adjourned at 6:15.
Respectively submitted,
Janis Cain
Secretary to the Faculty