WILLIAM MARSH RICE UNIVERSITY

Bill Martin, spokesperson for the Ad Hoc Curriculum Review Committee (AHCRC) , called attention to a distributed blue page [Attachment 1] that described the University-Wide Requirements as revised and PASSED by the Faculty on first reading at the 9-9-98 meeting. That page, and attached explanations, explained the proposed Freshman Seminar, Ways of Knowing, and Required Capacities. Martin then moved adoption.

Tom Haskell began the discussion by proposing three amendments titled "Resolution of Understanding Regarding Curriculum Reform" which reflected several faculty members' concerns and was being submitted with the knowledge and approval of the AHCRC. Its three points are summarized as: (1) excellence cannot be legislated, nor should new courses resulting from the Reform be automatically deemed better than existing courses; (2) the criteria used for selecting distribution courses should be suggestive, not exhaustive; and (3) the proposed Committee on General Education involves a "high trust" of the faculty, and its members must be careful to maintain a balance and carry out their mandate in an ecumenical and fair manner.

Charles Stewart proposed a fourth amendment: (4) that in the "Ways of Knowing" category "Engaging Science and Technology" not be intended to add additional requirements for students majoring in Science or Engineering; and that the requirements for the other "Ways of Knowing" categories should not ordinarily be satisfied by courses taken to satisfy the requirements of a Science or Engineering major.

Kyriacos Zygourakis distributed a statement from Chemical Engineering students that Ceng currently has a BS degree that requires more semester hours than any other curriculum in the Engineering School. To tack on additional courses would place an undue burden that would make the degree much less attractive.

While John Hutchinson and Bill Martin felt the proposed amendments were unnecessary, neither felt they would do harm to the proposal.

By voice vote, all four amendments were APPROVED.

Debate continued on the Amended Curriculum Reform Proposal. Stephen Baker expressed concern about the logistics of implementation. Martin explained that it would be phased in gradually beginning in the fall of 2000 and would probably involve a dual-track system over a 5-year period, e.g. option A or B. Bob Patten called attention to a Minutes dated 2-2-96 where the faculty APPROVED Jane Chance's motion to use "substitute courses" for no longer than two years and that the faculty would meet no later than 2-1-98 to confirm the present [1996] restricted distribution plan or adopt a new set of requirements. He felt this demanded some "tidying up" of our current operations.

Corky Cartwright questioned the wisdom of hiring at least 25 new faculty that would be required to handle the Freshman Seminar. He and Paula Sanders debated issues surrounding class size and faculty demands for upper level courses in rapidly developing areas such as Computer Science. Alan Grob spoke against the proposal on the basis that it would leave too much power in the hands of a small committee. Carol Quillen urged colleagues to step back and look at the broader picture of this proposal as a mechanism that would encourage more communication across departmental boundaries.

When Jane Chance requested additional information about who would really have the authority in the proposed system, Bill Wilson responded with certainty that the authority would always rest ultimately with this body, i.e. the faculty. Jim Thompson felt that "5-year plans" were not usually very effective and urged that Rice maintain a more laissez faire approach to Reform. Joe Warren urged that any Reform be implemented slowly.

The question was called, and the faculty DEFEATED the revised Reform Motion: 77 FOR, 106 OPPOSED.

Since the Language requirement had been separated for the first reading, it was considered separately in this meeting. Harvey Yunis distributed a yellow sheet [ATTACHMENT 2] that described the six alternative ways to fulfill the proposed foreign language exit requirement. He urged that this was a "competency," not a "course" requirement. Alan Grob proposed two amendments: (1) Change the "C+" requirement in the proposal to "passing grade," arguing that the C+ would exceed all other grade requirements in the University [PASSED]; and (2) the third item dealing with FLAC (Foreign Language Across the Curriculum) courses be dropped [DEFEATED].

Steve Zeff wondered how transfer credit for the Language requirement would be handled. Gale Stokes, Bob Patten, Jim Copeland, Regina Kecht, and Deborah Harter addressed the issue of FLAC courses urging that they could be used effectively perhaps as 1-hour add-ons to existing courses for individual work in a foreign language in any discipline which would demonstrate competency in that language. Charles Stewart questioned some of the numbers shown in the handouts about how many foreign language courses Rice students would need to take, and Paul Stevenson decried the fact that these requirements would necessarily involve a heavier burden of courses for science and engineering students. Harvey Yunis said that the strengthened language requirement would change the environment at Rice, and Lane Kauffmann commented that monolingual persons are often considered lesser educated than those with multiple linguistic skills. Jim Copeland called attention to statements from alumni, industrial recruiters, and peer institutions that have urged strengthened foreign language requirements.

The question was called, and the Language Proposal narrowly PASSED by a vote of 87 FOR, 84 AGAINST.

Dick Grandy suggested separating the two motions for independent votes, and Jim Thompson raised the question about whether the second would require two readings.

By voice vote the faculty APPROVED continuing the current Distribution Course policy but TABLED the motion to appoint the Committee on General Education. The President promised to call another meeting within three months to address the tabled issue.

Herb Ward observed that the actions taken today do not indicate any lack of interest in curriculum reform but simply reflect the feeling that the proposed reforms were not appropriate for Rice at this time. Rather, he urged that another group be appointed to continue the curriculum discussions aimed at developing a pilot program that is understandable, doable, and would not involve such sweeping changes as those in the current proposal. Nevertheless, he recommended a vote of thanks to the present committee for their hard work, to which the faculty responded with a long round of applause.