WILLIAM MARSH RICE UNIVERSITYWILLIAM MARSH RICE UNIVERSITYSummary
1. Minutes
2. The second discussion and vote on the undergraduate curriculum committee's motion
3. Motions, amendments, and actions
President Malcolm Gillis called the meeting to order at 4:04 p.m. in 124 Herring Hall. After the minutes of the May 6, 1994 meeting were approved as corrected, the President called the faculty's attention to the vital relation between systematic curriculum revision and strategic planning. He invited David Auston, Rice's new provost and a faculty member of the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, to make additional comments. Provost Auston affirmed the importance of planning a curriculum consistent with the University's long-term strategy. He pointed to various (admittedly extreme) undergraduate curriculum options: a predoctoral program, a preprofessional program, or a version of the British liberal education. Each of these choices would entail different requirements in hiring, facilities, and other commitments. The president and the provost both supported the process of identifying resource limits and making curriculum choices within those limits.
Having established the perspective of strategic planning as the context for the faculty's deliberations, the President invited Bill Wilson, the chair of the Undergraduate Curriculum Committee, to lead the discussion of his committee's motion for creating a restricted list of approved distribution courses. This motion, amended as described below, passed after considerable debate.
The third item on the agenda, a second reading for approval of revised by-laws for Faculty Council, was postponed. The meeting was adjourned at 5:19 p.m.
The minutes of the May 6, 1994 meeting were approved.
Bill Wilson, Chair of the Undergraduate Curriculum Committee, commented that approval of this motion would signal that the faculty wanted further elaboration of the present proposal before they endorsed any revised program of general education for students. Wilson said that upon approval of the motion the Committee would work with all the deans involved to develop the courses that would then be brought back to the faculty for a second round of approval. Wilson called on John Hutchinson of Chemistry, who was chair of the Committee while this motion was being developed, to explain its history.
The discussion that followed Hutchinson's remarks focused on the following arguments.
Arguments Advanced in Favor Arguments Advanced Against The most significant feature of the motion is the commitment to freshman education. Whatever courses are developed will be small in size, offer opportunities for discussion, and include a sizable writing component. Some of the terms in the proposal, such as "small size," "sizable writing component," and "similar to," have not been defined sufficiently for the proposal's implications to be understood. The Committee met with many individuals and groups during the formulation of the proposal and held several poorly attended public forums before the first reading of the motion. The proposal and the details of the current courses on which "similar" courses are to be based are not widely understood by the faculty as a whole and have not been thoroughly debated. The Committee expected deans to develop a list of courses, not the courses themselves. The wording of the proposal puts the development of courses in the hands of the deans, not in the hands of instructors. Because the Committee did not foresee the long period before the motion's approval, it did not anticipate that the natural science courses would have to be continued. The proposal causes those teaching the present foundation courses to continue teaching courses that should be terminated./TD> The proposal does make this distinction. The proposal treats humanities restricted distribution courses differently than it treats other types. Basic courses in specific disciplines of social sciences or natural sciences would be acceptable in the restricted list. All proposed humanities courses would appear to be interdisciplinary--taught by people who were specialists in one of the topics they taught but not in all.
The interdisciplinary humanities course was approved enthusiastically and judged to be of high quality by those who taught in it. Courses in a single discipline taught by specialists in that discipline are better courses than interdisciplinary courses taught by nonspecialists: it is a question of quality. We have debated this for at least two years now and should act on the information and work that has been done. We should make decisions about the strategic direction of the curriculum as a whole and about the future of the institution before making piecemeal changes in required courses. In the past many students did not choose their distribution courses in such a way as to give them a broad general education. There is not widespread support for the vague notion of "general education" among the faculty at large. There is no intention of limiting the Humanities list to the present foundation courses. Being disposed to approve this motion, the upper administration is committed to funding its development. Putting additional resources into new courses on the restricted list will deprive other courses of important resources.
Many of the other objections and comments were procedural and concerned the timing of the change, the use of an unnecessary "grandfather" clause, and the pertinence of certain words or sentences. In response to this debate, the following motions were proposed and voted on.
The meeting was adjourned at 5:19 p.m.3. Motions, amendments, and actions
After the discussion of the motion's content, John Ambler of Political Science moved that the following changes be made (insertions shown in bold and deletions in italic):We propose that the current requirements for graduation regarding the Foundation Courses be dropped at a time to be determined upon faculty approval of the final proposal of the Undergraduate Curriculum Committee. starting with the 1995-1996 academic year.Art Few of Space Physics proposed as an amendment to this seconded motion the division of the vote on the amendments so that people could decide on each of Ambler's revisions separately. Few's seconded motion to divide Ambler's amendment was defeated. The faculty then approved the motion to vote on Ambler's amendment. Ambler's amendment passed.
The primary responsibility for developing the list of specific Restricted Distribution Courses in each group will rest with the divisional dean(s).
In Group I (Humanities) two of the four required distribution courses would be either HUMA 101, 102, or perhaps other similar courses (to be developed) which would be general education courses built around the concept of a broadly interdisciplinary content, small class size, a significant writing component and an opportunity for in-class discussion and analysis.
Steve Zeff noted that Ambler's amendment, now approved, made the following sentence unnecessary and moved to delete it:Students who started at Rice up through the 1994-1995 academic year have the choice of satisfying the requirements under the current rules, or under the new rules proposed above.Zeff's motion, seconded, passed.
The faculty then voted to call the question on the Undergraduate Curriculum Committee's motion. The Parliamentarian, Alan Chapman, noted that a verifiable two-thirds majority would be required. The faculty passed the motion to close debate and passed the Curriculum Committee's motion.
Those interested in a more detailed understanding of the debate that occurred may view the videotape of the meeting deposited in the archives in the Woodson Research Library in Fondren Library.
