 |
|
Attendance: Approximately 200
The announced agenda consisted of the following 5 items, of which only the first 3 were covered:
1. Approval of minutes from the May 8, 1998 meeting
2. Report on athletic admissions (Rudolph)
3. Proposal for revision of the undergraduate curriculum (Martin)
4. Reconsideration of the academic calendar schedule for academic year 2000-01 (Reiff)
5. Other reports and announcements
President Malcolm Gillis called the meeting to order at 4:03 pm in Room 301, Sewall Hall. He noted that the Thresher was represented but that no other non-faculty press people were present. Alan Chapman served as Parliamentarian.
The minutes by Faculty Secretary Linda Driskill for the May 8, 1998 General Faculty Meeting were approved unanimously by voice vote.
Fred Rudolph, chair of the Athletic Admissions Standing Committee, distributed and discussed a 12-page document marked "Confidential Information for Faculty Only" of tables and figures comparing scholarship athletes with non-athletes during the last decade. His findings are summarized as follows:
SAT Scores: At the 25th and 75th percentile levels, SAT scores for athletes increased by 3 to 5% since 1989 compared with increases of 2.5 to 3% for all students. The largest increase occurred in the lowest quartile for the scholarship athletes which rose 14% between 1993 and 1998.
Athletic Signees by Category: In 1998 70% of the 61 scholarship athletes were admitted under the most stringent rules (compared with 58% in 1997). 82% of the matriculated students in 1998 received majority votes (3-0 or 2-1) from the Faculty Council Athletic Committee; 9 received 1-2 votes while only 2 came in over the 0-3 vote of the Committee.
Freshman Grades, Credit: When ranked into quartiles by SAT scores, freshman scholarship athletes’ average spring GPAs ranged from 2.6 to 2.8 with spring semester credits earned between 13.8 and 14.0.
Residence Status of Athletes: 47% of scholarship athletes lived on campus in 1998, which is down slightly from 53% in 1997.
Declared Majors: Many scholarship athletes have 2 (some even 3) majors. The two most popular majors in 1997 were HPER (42%) and (MANA 30%). The latter requires a second major with ECON, POLI, or PSYC being popular accompanying majors.
Other Comparisons: In comparisons of athletes with non-athletes, several plots showed combined average SAT scores, semester credit earned (13.1 vs. 14.4 hours), and spring semester GPAs (2.76 vs. 3.35). While the freshman athletes in 1998 had slightly lower SATs than in 1997, both the semester GPA (2.75 vs. 2.64) and semester credit earned (13.8 vs. 12.8) were up in 1998 when compared with 1997.
As the person whose 1994 comments on the athletic admission policies led to these extensive reports, Chandler Davidson commented that he found these results encouraging and moving in the right direction, although the progress was slower than he would have hoped and we still have a long way to go. In response to a question about "why confidential?" Tom Haskell said that these broad-brushed SAT, GRE, earned credit numbers were not sufficiently detailed as to identify individuals and thus should not be confidential. Rudolph responded that this report was being made under guidelines hammered out by a committee of board, administration, and faculty members.
Bill Martin, representing the Ad Hoc Curriculum Review Committee, moved approval of a Proposal for extensive revisions in the undergraduate curriculum at Rice. Martin explained that the Proposal had resulted from a 2-year "faculty-driven process" (through departments, open meetings, etc.) and spent the next few minutes describing the major points of the Proposal, which included a Freshman Seminar, 4 Ways of Knowing, 4 Required Capacities, and Other Important Capacities. The Committee divided the Proposal into two parts with the Language competency requirement considered as a separate issue. As the product of a duly formed Committee, the motion came ready for discussion and the first of two votes at consecutive Faculty Meetings.Discussion on the main motion began with a series of motions.
Judith Brown moved that speeches be limited to 2 minutes/person and no more than 2 comments/person on a given topic.
PASSED by 2/3 majority vote
Stephen Baker moved that the question be divided and that each of the 4 sections be voted on separately.
FAILED by majority vote
Gerald McKenny moved that the "Ways of Knowing" category be modified as explained on a yellow sheet distributed to all attendees. The motion was to replace the 4 categories in the original proposal with the following 5 categories:
- Engaging Science and Technology
- Approaches to the Past
- Encounters with Texts and the Arts
- Interpreting Human Behavior
- Methods, Analysis, and Inquiry
Students would be required to take four courses from category "1) Engaging Science and Technology" and six courses from categories 2) – 5), with at least one course from each of these categories.
PASSED by a majority vote
- Jane Chance moved that the curriculum revision be limited to a 3-year "experiment."
FAILED by majority vote
More than 20 faculty members contributed to the discussion. John Bennett urged his colleagues to try the experiment. Joan Strassmann spoke in favor of the Proposal. Susan McIntosh asked what would happen if the Proposal failed. Stephen Baker opined that we would go back to the current catalog if the motion failed. Alan Grob saw academic freedom under attack in this Proposal which might limit flexibility in what one could teach. Tom Haskell did not see this Proposal as an infringement of academic freedom, and he deplored the ill will and hostility that appeared to underlie some of the comments made by colleagues during the discussion. David Minter advocated approval of the Proposal but with ongoing review. In response to a questions by Bob Curl and Pat Reiff, Kathy Matthews described material that would be included in the two required science courses. Tim Cochran deplored no explicit mention of "math" in the Proposal. Martin Wiener said that originally he had misgivings about the Proposal but that they had been adequately addressed by the Committee. Steven Crowell was concerned about the content of certain philosophy courses and questioned the criteria used for determining distribution courses. Terry Doody argued for the proposal, as did Helena Michie. Jane Chance applauded the work of the Committee but expressed the need for more details before she could support the document. John Polking noted the many revisions, including some earlier in the day, and echoed the sentiments of many when he asked, "What is the current Proposal?"
It appeared that the Proposal to be voted on was the 2-page handout titled "General Education Requirements" published on the web [at http://www.ruf.rice.edu/~currev/UWRJHworld1.html -- no longer available] (as amended by adoption of Jerry McKenny’s motion earlier in the meeting). Hard copies of these documents were available to attendees as they entered the auditorium.
The Question was called and APPROVED.
The Main Motion as Amended PASSED 100 to 61.3a. Language Requirement
The second part of the divided Curriculum Reform Proposal calls for all students to satisfy a foreign language requirement before graduation. Bill Martin explained that this proposed requirement may be satisfied by any one of six alternative ways, as spelled out in an article detailing the overall Proposal and published in the Rice News, April 23, 1998, p. 6.Paul Stevenson began the discussion by pointing out that English is the acknowledged "universal language" and that requiring students to spend a significant part of their precious University time studying foreign languages, while important, may not in their best educational interest. Deborah Harter strongly disagreed by claiming that not to adopt the requirement, which could be used to satisfy a distribution requirement, would be a step backwards for Rice. Fred Rudolph pointed out that at present all entering students must have taken 4 semesters of a foreign language. Stressing flexibility, Harvey Yunis urged that the Proposal be approved but pointed out that taking courses is but one of the several ways of satisfying the requirement. To him a "minimal" language proficiency is meaningless; being able to "think" in a foreign language is what really counts. Stan Dodds believes that the Proposal would require most students to take 2-4 semesters of a foreign language. He’d rather see his science/engineering students take additional courses in economics, history, or literature than focus on languages. If the language requirement is adopted, Dodds noted that the "classical" languages may not be as helpful in the emerging world as would be Mandarin Chinese, etc. Regina Kecht has observed that engineering employers favor students with foreign language capabilities, which leads to "international sophistication." Michael Hammond supports the Proposal and notes that "language" is one educational experience all the world holds in common. Rich Smith claims that his best history students have foreign language expertise, which has a strong symbiotic effect on their understanding different cultures. Gale Stokes urged that foreign languages should be made "exciting" by learning them in a variety of ways such as through experiences abroad, but he feels that they should not be a required part of a graduation package. Spike Gildea and Bernard Aresu stressed the "flexibility" of the proposed program and that taking foreign language courses could be involved in 3 of the 5 "Ways of Knowing" requirements. Joan Strassmann noted that in her research, foreign language expertise is essential. Bob Patten pointed out that all English students are already required to study foreign languages.
After almost an hour of debate, Bill Leeman called the Question, which was gratefully accepted without discussion by the hoarse and hungry faculty.
The Language Requirement motion PASSED by a sizable but uncounted majority vote.
The President announced that the next meeting on November 4, 1998 would include second readings of the two sections of the Curriculum Reform Proposal. In response to a question from John Stroup about changes between now and November 4, the President responded that it would be up to the Ad Hoc Committee.*
The meeting was adjourned at 6:05 pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Joe W. Hightower, Secretary of the Faculty
* After the meeting adjourned, the Committee recommended that any substantive changes (as judged by the President) to the adopted Proposal at the next reading on November 4 would automatically require a third reading and vote at a later date.
P.S. As a note of personal privilege, let me extend thanks from all of us to Linda Driskill who served effectively as Secretary of the Faculty since 1990 and made preparations for this first meeting of my service. (She’s already received her loaf of my "thank you" sourdough bread!) I also thank Tom Lytle for videotaping the Faculty Meeting and Priscilla Huston for making audio tapes (which turned out to be extremely useful backups to the videotape!) of the proceedings. I welcome any suggestions for ways that we can make MINUTES of future meetings more useful.
JWH