 |
|
Attendance: Approximately 70
1. Minutes of the previous meeting
2. Proposal to change graduation honors
3. Discussion of implementation of restricted distribution courses plan
President Malcolm Gillis called the meeting to order at 4:00 p.m.
Minutes for November 1, 1995 were approved.
Gus Armeniades, Chair of the Committee on Examinations and Standing, presented the proposal to change graduation honors from 20 percent to 30 percent of the graduating class. Alan Grob and Jane Chance argued that the quality of students has improved since the 20 percent rule was made; Stephen Zeff and Charles Stewart argued that the 20 percent policy already honors those we acknowledge to be truly outstanding. The proposal passed (34 YES to 33 NO).
The main purpose of the meeting was to discuss implementation of the faculty's mandate to develop a list of restricted distribution courses that all students could take for the purpose of general education in broad fields: humanities, social sciences, engineering, and natural sciences. The resolution passed earlier called for interdisciplinary courses that would meet regularly with the professor and be taught in sections small enough for professors to discuss topics with students and assign frequent papers. The goal was to ensure general education and to avoid socializing students into accepting passive education--a result likely in large introductory lecture courses.
As reported on November 1, faculty in the School of Engineering believe that its new introductory course in engineering complies with the mandate. Social Sciences proposes to continue to teach Foundations of Social Sciences but not require this option, adding to it other courses already listed. The Natural Science faculty reported that the current Natural Science sequence should be replaced by "Science Today 1 and 2" and "Science and Society," courses that will take several months to develop. These three and other introductory courses usually offered would fulfill the requirement for all but Group Three majors, who would choose from the regular list of introductory courses rather than from the new sequence. In Alan Grob's judgment, the Natural Science faculty's proposed solution would return the University to the situation that had prompted creation of a restricted list in the first place. Students would be able once again to choose introductory courses with a narrow disciplinary focus and avoid gaining a general introduction to the sciences. Governance and faculty compliance seemed to be at stake.
On December 5 the faculty took up the matter of implementation in light of this earlier discussion. President Gillis requested reports from the deans. Judith Brown, Dean of Humanities, reported that a committee headed by Walter Isle has been meeting regularly to develop a variety of interdisciplinary courses. She emphasized the need for coherent intellectual goals and content, plus the need for faculty who would volunteer to teach these courses. She rejected the idea of making teaching in this program compulsory.
Timing is critical. Isle's committee expects to have specific proposals ready by the middle of the spring semester and courses ready by fall '96. Bob Stein, Acting Dean of Social Sciences, emphasized that it is very late in the year and scheduling has become desperately urgent for his School. Don Johnson, Associate Dean for Academic Affairs in the School of Engineering, noted that the problem in the past has been mathematics prerequisites, but the new introductory-level engineering course has overcome this difficulty. No one has yet volunteered to teach the new proposed courses in natural sciences, and these cannot be ready in time for the fall of 1996.
The primary issues appeared to be (a) whether deans must compel faculty to comply with the mandate; (b) the degree to which offerings in one school must mirror offerings in other schools in concept and structure, and (c) whether all schools' courses must be implemented simultaneously. These issues were posed as a matter of "symmetry" among the several schools. Because these issues could not be immediately resolved, decisions pertaining to the implementation of the restricted distribution requirement will be deferred until the Faculty Meeting of February 28, 1996. [This meeting date was subsequently moved to February 12, 1996.] Faculty are strongly urged to attend this meeting, which will be critical in determining whether curriculum reform will continue. Some faculty commented that large numbers from their respective schools will be recruited to attend and vote at the February meeting.
The meeting was adjourned at 5:40 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
Linda P. Driskill, Secretary of the Faculty