 |
|
Attendance: Approximately 115
1. Minutes of the previous meeting
2. Implementation of the restricted distribution courses requirement
3. Discussion of long-term curriculum reform and general education
President Malcolm Gillis called the meeting to order at 4:04 p.m.
Minutes for December 5, 1995 meeting were approved with one correction: that approximately 70 people rather than 60 had attended.
President Gillis invited Provost Auston to summarize progress on the implementation of the restricted distribution courses requirement and to introduce the proposal for an interim step. Auston emphasized that although many people in the schools of natural sciences, social sciences, and engineering had worked hard on this project, a logistics issue had arisen that the faculty must address. The Registrar needs to distribute materials to advisors and students and must have the titles of courses to be offered in the academic year 1996-1997.
Auston asked Bill Wilson, Chair of the Curriculum Committee to lead the discussion. Wilson invited John Hutchinson, who had evaluated the success of the Foundation Courses as Chair of the Curriculum Committee, to review the history of the matter. He recounted how the faculty had decided in 1993 to require students to select courses from a restricted list to ensure general education. Hutchinson emphasized the faculty's strong commitment to general education at the time the requirement was passed and urged the faculty to maintain its direction.
Wilson brought the current dilemma to the faculty's attention: The current plan requires students to take courses that are not in fact available. The foundation courses in social sciences and natural sciences will be discontinued next year and the full complement of new courses in these fields has not been developed. The best alternative is to offer students a list of courses they can substitute for the required courses until the required courses are ready.
Jane Chance brought up the need to prevent recurrence of last-minute curriculum decisions by ensuring timely deliberations. After some discussion, she moved (a) that the approval of the use of substitute courses last for no longer than two years and (b) that the faculty meet again no later than February 1, 1998 to confirm the present restricted distribution plan or to adopt a new set of requirements. This motion passed.
A lengthy discussion followed concerning the courses to be available for substitution. The list of substitute courses was criticized as including courses that are too specialized or that do not meet the requirements of small size and attention to writing. Dean Kinsey pointed out that there are really two lists. One list contains largely interdisciplinary courses; the second contains introductory courses that science and engineering majors would be required to take anyway. Wilson emphasized that the combination of these two lists represents all of the departments. The Undergraduate Curriculum Committee and the Provost will be in charge of additions and deletions of courses from the list of substitute courses. The list can be improved without a vote of the faculty. The faculty adopted the Curriculum Committee's interim plan in accordance with Chance's earlier motion.
Tom Haskell, Speaker of Faculty Council, reported on Faculty Council's discussion of possible ways to strengthen the curriculum reform process. Although some members of Faculty Council had expressed some ambivalence, a consensus had developed in support of having a coordinating committee appointed jointly by Faculty Council and the Administration. Such a committee could focus discussions over a one- to two-year period. President Gillis reiterated that he has always stressed the primacy of faculty in curricular matters. To ensure the feasibility of the committee's recommendations and the success of its efforts, the President pledged that personnel and financial resources would be available to the committee so that issues such as computing costs, personnel, space, and other critical matters could be considered as part of curriculum planning. A lengthy discussion of the committee's possible composition, functions, and processes followed. Although many faculty members expressed reservations of one kind or another (representativeness of the committee, possibility of deadlock, tacit rescinding of earlier commitments, and so on), the mood was cautiously optimistic when the discussion concluded.
The faculty adopted Option 1 (beginning the week before Labor Day) for the fall semester and Option 2 for the spring semester.
The meeting was adjourned at 5:20 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
Linda P. Driskill, Secretary of the Faculty