|
|
|
Attendance: Approximately 141
Announced Agenda: 4 items
President Malcolm Gillis called the meeting to order at 4:03 pm in 301 Sewall Hall. Alan Chapman served a Parliamentarian. No guests were acknowledged.
1. Minutes: APPROVED as circulated with 3 corrections. Dean Brown said undergraduate admission required 2, not 3, years of a foreign language, and some other wording has been modified slightly to reflect more accurately what she said. The final correction has John Polking saying that 192 Rice students, not Hispanic students, took the introductory Spanish course last year.
2. Curriculum Reform: For the third consecutive Faculty Meeting, the President called on Gerald McKenny (chair, Committee on Undergraduate Curriculum, CUC) to lead the discussion of Curriculum Reform. The discussion focused on a yellow page titled "General Education Curriculum Proposal, revised on April 14, 1999" that was distributed to all attendees [ATTACHMENT A] at the meeting. An identical version of this document had been circulated to the faculty via email and hard copy one week earlier. These documents were generated by the CUC after considering results of a "straw vote" taken at the March 1 faculty meeting and were unanimously passed by the University Council. The intent of the discussion was to have the first of two votes on this important issue.
McKenny took about 10 minutes to review the salient points of the proposal. He pointed out that it represents the best the CUC could generate and is simple and coherent. It allows for innovation and experimentation in such areas as freshman seminars, communication-intensive courses, and interdivisional and interdisciplinary cooperation. In his view the proposed curriculum really fits Rice by encouraging creative teachers and supporting the best impulses of the faculty. Following a round of applause, he opened the floor for discussion.
In response to Stan Dodds' question about "passing grades" in the language courses, Harvey Yunis explained that the technical term "intermediate-mid" would apply to all Rice language courses and that a D- (asked by Alan Grob) would be a passing grade. Robert Patton inquired about why we were discussing the language requirement in this context if it has already been passed. McKenny said that indeed the language requirement did pass, but it is included here to give an overall picture of the entire distribution package. If the proposal fails, we will revert to the current distribution requirements plus the new language requirement.
Charles Stewart proposed that item 6) under ways of satisfying the language requirement (see ATTACHMENT A) be amended to read:
6) By completing with a passing grade the second semester of any foreign language course taught at Rice, or at an institution accepted for transfer credit.
He alleged that inconsistencies exist between items 1) and 6) under the current version that has been passed, viz. secondary school AP courses will be accepted but Rice first year Minutes of Faculty Meeting March 14, 1999 2/10 language courses will not for satisfying the requirement. The motivation behind the proposed amendment is that enforcing the original language requirement could essentially eliminate the free electives for many science/engineering students. Bernard Aresu asked if this proposed amendment is in order since the language requirement has already been passed on two votes by the faculty. Gillis replied that it was in order, but two affirmative votes would be required for the amendment to become effective.
Meredith Skura pointed out that in a sense the engineering students are getting two accredited degrees during the same period of time, one in general education from Rice and another from their highly specialized discipline. It seems natural to her that those students may have to sacrifice some courses in order to obtain the two degrees. In defense of the AP course credit, Klaus Weissenberger said that the AP exams (which he has administered, corrected, and graded) are extremely difficult and are equivalent to some of the upper level courses at Rice. Yunis agreed with Weissenberger's assessment of the AP credit and added that we are talking about a competency requirement, not necessarily one based on courses. He and others are now preparing exams for incoming students that will assess their competency during O-week.
Lane Kauffmann spoke eloquently about his vision of Rice graduates being educated people who are not limited by a single language. He felt that passing a course with a D- is the least desirable way of satisfying the requirement. As originally adopted, the language requirement does not take away any courses, force any single way of meeting the requirement, or specify how many courses a person must take. The rule will cause prospective students to prepare in advance for the Rice experience and to realize that foreign language competency is an essential mark of an educated person.
John Bennett disagreed with his language colleagues that the language requirement will have little impact on free electives. He spoke of his experience as a college master where ~3/4 of the entering students who take the placement exams are assigned to the 100-level foreign language courses, which must be taken at the expense of electives. Michael Hammond echoed that feeling for the outstanding music students who already must take not 8 courses from 2 groups but 12 courses from all 3 distribution categories, in addition to all their music courses. While he strongly favors linguistic ability, he worries that the language requirement may decrease to zero the number of free electives his students take.
Pat Reiff spoke on behalf of double majors who may find that the language requirement as currently formulated will greatly limit their flexibility. Curt Michel is "sympathetic" with both sides, but he sees the proposed amendment as the worst of all cases. First, it will cost certain students some free electives, and second, it does not guarantee language proficiency by requiring only 100-level courses. He is concerned about the way these changes would be viewed by the outside world.
After an unsuccessful attempt to stop debate, John Polking pointed out that ~420 students take 100-level language courses each year, or about 2/3 of all Rice students, with an average grade of 3.5. Spike Gildea believes these statistics are misleading, as some students take the lower-level courses because they want a break from some of their more demanding courses and don't apply themselves thoroughly. Jim Copeland is convinced that dropping the requirement from a passing grade in 200-level to 100-level courses would have a severely negative impact on the intent of the language requirement. No "quality" university would recognize a passing grade in a 100-level course as a viable certification of competency.
Jim Thompson, who twice voted against the language requirement, now applauds the work of the CUC because their proposed curriculum has a strong element of consistency. To go back and undo what has already been passed would "make us look silly." Alan Grob agreed that the amendment is a poor compromise by replacing what is viewed as an onerous requirement with one that is meaningless. David Nirenberg also agrees that changing the policy already passed twice by a large number of faculty would be an "uncivil political Minutes of Faculty Meeting March 14, 1999 3/10 action." He calls the proposed amendment an "expedient incoherence."
George Sher calls the amendment an "unhappy compromise" that would be worse than no language requirement at all. Since the original requirement was narrowly passed after several voting faculty members had departed and (in his view) the faculty had not had time to consider all the ramifications, he moved that we reverse ourselves and recall the entire language requirement. The motion died without a second.
David Scott inquired about the way language requirements are being addressed at the University of Chicago. Gillis has heard they are beefing it up a lot but called on Regina Kecht who said the outcome is still not certain. She also presented anecdotal evidence that some engineering students have achieved competency in 10 months by taking intensive language courses in August and May with two semesters of Rice courses sandwiched between. Matthias Felleisen reported on a letter from the Dean that Chicago is planning to require AP credit, or 3 quarters of language courses, plus encouraging a summer abroad in the foreign language country with grants from the university (maybe). Gillis stated that "Not all of them will get grants; I know that much!" (laughter from the faculty)
In consideration of those whose commitments will force them to leave shortly, Patton called the question. As a final word, Stewart reminded the faculty that the original language requirement was passed in the context of the "current" distribution requirements, which would have allowed first year language courses to be taken as distribution courses. The CUC curriculum proposal represents a change that has a significant impact on the language situation which would not allow that possibility.
But there were a few other brief "final" comments before the vote. Two speakers reminded folks that the requirement was based on "competency" and that the language faculty did not feel one year of study was sufficient to guarantee that objective. Aresu said that the proposed amendment would create an inconsistency within the language requirement. After restraining himself for more than an hour, Corky Cartwright expressed dismay that the 100-level courses (some 10 hours credit, equivalent to more than three normal Rice courses) could not produce proficiency. With the exceptional quality of Rice students, he called for a strengthening of the language courses to where they would exceed the requirements designed for a "generic" institution. Atieno Odhiambo believes it would be a mistake to compare foreign languages with, for example, history. However, since many of our students go on to graduate schools, they should have appropriate exposure to foreign languages to do well where that is required. Yunis emphasized that the AP exam was not the standard on which the Rice language requirement is based. Because of its rigor, students who do well on the AP coincidentally have proficiency that exceeds 200-level Rice courses. Stan Dodds opined that the "professional" argument has been thoroughly debunked and expressed dismay in the lack of proficiency produced in 10 hours of credit, as is the case with first year Spanish.
After a unanimous vote, the amendment question was called. The amendment FAILED by a vote of 42 FOR, 70 AGAINST.
Debate on the main CUC proposal was re-opened. Stephen Baker noted several leaving and proposed that the question be called before more escaped. A show of hands clearly indicated that the remaining faculty wanted the debate to continue. Grob spoke against the CUC motion because he preferred a less restrictive curriculum such as the one proposed in the Ambler/Polking/Harter version which maximizes freedom for the students to take upper level courses as part of the distribution requirement. McKenny defended the CUC proposal by pointing out that it did not prohibit students from taking upper level courses.
John Stroup proposed an amendment to the first sentence, Part Two, 1. that would greatly expand the group involved in selecting distribution courses. Amendment FAILED.
In response to a question from Grob, McKenny affirmed that history will remain a part of Group II. Gale Stokes expressed strong approval for the way the CUC has gone about its task in fashioning a reasonable proposal. Not to pass this proposal, he said, would leave the impression that we faculty can't make up our minds about what we want to do. John Freeman raised the issue of restrictions on taking sequential interdivisional courses. McKenny said that would be possible with one course being taken in one division and the other in the second division. While Polking still prefers the Ambler/Polking/Harter proposal, he advocates passing this proposal now but still continuing debate in future years about the merits of restricted vs. unrestricted distribution courses. Carol Quillen said curriculum issues will always be debated at educational institutions, but she urged faculty adopt this proposal now in the interest of getting beyond the "paralysis" that has engaged us for a long time. Only feedback based on experience will allow faculty to determine what works and what does not. John Ambler urged that the time to act is NOW. Without proposing an amendment, Jim Kinsey recommended that a faculty committee be appointed to solicit and test student suggestions for a few creative changes on a small scale in some of the distribution requirements. Judith Brown and Jim Thompson urged that we pass the proposal now. Bill Wilson mentioned that this proposal, even if passed, would not go into effect until the year following this next year.
Patton called the question. The CUC General Education Curriculum Proposal was then PASSED by a substantial majority of the faculty present.
3. Academic Calendar 2001/2002: Jim Williamson briefly discussed the proposed calendar [ATTACHMENT B] for the academic year 2001/2002 which had been circulated to the faculty along with the meeting agenda. The ATTACHMENT compares the proposed calendar with calendars for the preceding 5 years. Williamson affirmed that there were no significant changes in the proposed calendar.
Several people noted that the fall semester has more class days (70) than does the spring semester (67). Discussion ensued about the benefits of equalizing the class-days in the two semesters by shortening one or lengthening the other.
The question was called. The proposed 2001/2002 Calendar PASSED by a substantial but uncounted majority vote.
4. Announcements: Gillis announced that Gale Stokes had been appointed to head a search committee for a new Provost. The committee expects to have a "short list" by the fall.
There being no other business, the meeting was adjourned at 5:56 pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Joe W. Hightower, Secretary of the Faculty
Note: A second reading of the CUC Curriculum has been scheduled for May 5, 4 pm.
ATTACHMENT A
GENERAL EDUCATION CURRICULUM PROPOSAL
Revised on April
14, 1999
The Committee on the Undergraduate Curriculum at its meeting on March 18, 1999 unanimously passed the following proposal for a general education curriculum, which it now recommends to the faculty for approval. The proposal is twofold. Part One constitutes the first stage of the program, which will take effect at the beginning of the 2000-01 academic year. Part One contains the wording that, if approved, will appear in the General Announcements for 2000-01. Part Two consists of three procedural matters, one for determining distribution courses and the other two for voting on the second phase of the general education program.
Part One: GENERAL EDUCATION REQUIREMENTS (to appear in General Announcements, effective 2000-01)
1. Each student is required to take 12 semester hours of designated distribution courses in each of Groups I,II and III. The 12 hours in each Group must include courses in at least two departments in that Group (divisional or interdisciplinary designations, e.g. HUMA, NSCI, etc., count as departments for this purpose). Interdivisional courses approved for distribution credit may count toward the 12 semester hours in any relevant Group; however, students may not count any one such course toward the 12 required hours in more than one group, and may count no more than one such course toward the 12 required hours in any one Group.
A distribution system presupposes that every Rice student should receive a broad education along with training in an academic specialty. This goal is achieved by courses that are broad based, accessible to non-majors, and representative of the knowledge, intellectual skills, and habits of thought that are most characteristic of a discipline or of inquiry across disciplines.
Group I. These courses have one or more of the following goals. They develop students' critical and aesthetic understanding of texts and the arts; they lead students to the analytical examination of ideas and values; they introduce students to the variety of approaches and methods with which different disciplines approach intellectual problems; and they engage students with works of culture that have intellectual importance by virtue of the ideas they express, their historical influence, their mode of expression, or their critical engagement with established cultural assumptions and traditions.
Group II. Three types of courses fulfill this requirement. The first are introductory courses which address the problems, methodologies, and substance of different disciplines in the social sciences. The second are departmental courses which draw upon at least two or more disciplines in the social sciences or which cover topics of central importance to a social science discipline. The third are interdisciplinary courses team-taught by faculty from two or more disciplines.
Group III. These courses provide explicit exposure to the scientific method or to theorem development, develop analytical thinking skills and emphasize quantitative analysis, and expose students to subject matter in the various disciplines of science and engineering.
2. Each student must demonstrate competency in a foreign language. There are six alternative ways to fulfill this requirement:
1) By earning a score of 4 or 5 on the national Advanced Placement foreign language or literature tests while still in secondary school.
2) By earning on a nationally accredited standardized placement test a score equivalent to "intermediate-mid" or higher, as defined by the American Council on Teaching Foreign Languages.
3) By completing with a passing grade (equivalent to "intermediate-mid" or higher) a single Foreign-Language-Across-the-Curriculum (FLAC) course that has been designed to bring students up to the required level of competence. Such courses are content-based courses in which all or some of the instruction is conducted in a foreign language.
4) By one semester of study or work abroad in a foreign-language environment, followed by satisfactory performance ("intermediate-mid" or higher) on a Rice fourth-semester equivalency examination.
5) By completing a course of instruction in an intensive summer language program (in the United States or abroad), followed by satisfactory performance ("intermediate-mid" level or higher) on a Rice fourth-semester equivalency examination.
6) By completing with a passing grade (equivalent to "intermediate-mid" or higher) the fourth semester of any foreign language taught at Rice, or at an institution accepted for transfer credit.
Part Two
1. Courses designated as distribution courses in each Group will be determined by the dean(s) of the division(s) included in that Group. Foreign-language courses at the 200-level or their equivalents (e.g. FLAC courses) will count as distribution courses in the relevant Group.
2. During the fall semester of the 2000-01 academic year, the faculty will vote on whether or not to require freshman seminars beginning with the 2001-02 academic year. These seminars will count toward the 12 hours in the relevant Group.
3. During the fall semester of the 2000-01 academic year, the faculty will vote on whether or not to require communication-intensive courses beginning with the 2001-02 academic year. These courses should be implemented in a way that does not add to the total number of courses students must take in order to fulfill their general education requirements (i.e. they should overlap with freshman seminars, distribution courses and major requirements whenever possible).
ATTACHMENT B (1/4) PROPOSED CALENDAR (Fall, 2001-2002)
ATTACHMENT B (3/4) PROPOSED CALENDAR (Spring, 2001-2002)
(The attached calendars require Adobe Acrobat Reader to read. If you do not already have Adobe Acrobat installed on your computer, you may download it from http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/readstep.html.)