|
|
|
Attendance: Approximately 109
Announced Agenda: 6 items
President Malcolm Gillis called the meeting to order at 4:02 pm. Alan Chapman served as Parliamentarian. The only media guest present was Brian Stoler representing the Thresher.
1. Minutes of 5/14/99 Faculty Meeting - APPROVED as circulated (see Minutes).
2. Report on Athletic Admissions -
In accord with actions taken by the faculty and reported in the Faculty Meeting Minutes of December 4, 1997, the order of agenda items was changed to make the Athletic Admissions Report first after passing the Minutes. Following is a quote from that mandate.
"To ensure that faculty advice on admissions during the upcoming recruiting season can be delivered in a timely manner, Chandler Davidson moved that (1) the chair of the Committee on Admissions shall present the report on special admissions at the first faculty meeting of the semester, which should be held no later than October; (2) this report shall be scheduled as the first item of business on the agenda after the approval of the minutes, and (3) this report shall include the number of times that the dean of admissions approved students who were not recommended by a majority of the faculty subcommittee. This motion passed."
As chair of the Admissions Committee, Fred Rudolph, reminded the faculty that about five years ago the process for admitting athletes was changed to include more faculty involvement through an advisory subcommittee of the Admissions Committee appointed by the President. The subcommittee (Rudolph, Phillip Davis, John Boles, Deborah Nelson) reviews all athletic applications and makes recommendations to the Dean of Admissions who is ultimately responsible for the decisions. The recommendations are to be kept confidential, which accounts for the absence from these Minutes of tables and figures that accompanied Rudolph's report. The SAT data submitted have been reviewed by the University Council and are presented as averages to protect individual scores.
The bottom line is that SAT scores of scholarship athletes have continued to improve during the last five years with the median score now above 900. Especially in the bottom quartile has the improvement been significant (only 3 admitted with SAT scores below 900), although the top quartile remains virtually unchanged. To ensure valid comparisons with previous years, the subcommittee used "non-recentered" data which keeps all the data on the same basis. However, in the future the subcommittee intends to switch to the "recentered" data now used by the College Board. [Recentering raises the scores to the point where an old 800 will become about 810-820.]
Rudolph observed that the Athletic Department is now recruiting athletes with higher SAT scores than was the case in the past and are not "bothering" the Committee with those who have only a small chance to succeed at Rice. The "three admissions procedures" (in declining order of rigor) last year resulted in 43, 14, and only 3 admissions in the bottom category as opposed to 10 in '98 and 14 in '97 with SAT scores <900.
This year for the first time the subcommittee compared the grades made at Rice by athletes and non-athletes who matriculated in previous years. GPAs at Rice were broken out by class into the top and bottom quartiles and compared with SAT scores. Since 1995 there has been a considerable dilution of the lowest SAT scores, and Rudolph predicts that in a couple of years there will be no scores less than 900. There has also been an increase in the higher SAT scores.
Concerning student majors, Rudolph observed that there is an increasing breadth of majors among the athletes, and the incidence of double majors is also increasing. In summary, the process for improving scholarship among athletes seems to be working.
For general admissions, in 1999 Rice admitted 48% women (down slightly from 1998), 49% out of state, and 20% underrepresented minorities. A healthy diversity is noted in that 33% of those admitted represented minorities (including 85 Hispanics [the highest ever], 50 African Americans, and 85 of Asian descent). The Admissions Committee is pledged to maintain this diversity.
Gillis commented that these data clearly indicate the positive changes that are being made in the admissions processes. Talks with presidents at Stanford, Duke, Vanderbilt, and Northwestern have convinced him that we have by far the most stringent standards for athletic admissions among the group. He congratulated Rudolph and colleagues on the Athletic Admissions subcommittee.
3. Proposal to establish Faculty Meeting By-Laws (Attachment 2) -
Gillis reported that several faculty members had expressed a interest in having a set of guidelines to be applied during General Faculty Meetings. Even though the system is not "broken," there are some things that need attention. He expressed gratitude to Parliamentarian Alan Chapman for producing a DRAFT copy (Attachment 1), and called on Faculty Council Speaker Bill Wilson lead the discussion. Gillis has ruled this to be an "important issue" which will require two votes. There was no objection.
Wilson noted that the document had been approved by both University and Faculty Council. Section 3.1 calls for at least three days advance notice of any meeting, including any meeting where "important issues" are to be discussed. He called attention to "special rules" (Article 5) wherein the normal rules can be suspended under specified conditions.
Moshe Vardi asked why the General Faculty Meetings are chaired by the President rather than the Speaker of the Faculty Council. Gillis said Faculty Meetings are chaired by the President in that about a third of the universities he has polled. Walter Isle asked (facetiously) if anyone had ever considered a "two our of three" vote on important issues? Laughter. Wilson (seriously) pointed out that a third vote would be required if "substantive" amendments (to be determined by the President) were made after the first vote.
Alan Grob recalled the chaos that prevailed during consideration of last year's Curriculum Reform discussions when modifications were sent around by email on the very day of the final vote. This would supposedly by avoided by the three-day advance notice. Jim Kinsey raised the issue of meeting scheduling by pointing out that as much advance notice as possible should be given to avoid conflict with important seminars and lectures that must be scheduled quite early. Gillis stated that he has no problem with setting the year's meetings early in the academic year. Gerald McKenny proposed that General Faculty Meetings be decided a year in advance and be listed in the Academic Calendar. Although his schedule is uncertain that far in advance, Gillis offered to test such a plan for the next couple of years on an ad hoc basis. He proposed at least three meetings each academic year, the first being the third Thursday in October, next the third Tuesday in January (to confer mid-year degrees), etc. Judith Brown raised the issue of the time for faculty meetings. She has observed that many of the younger faculty need to collect children or perform other domestic duties that make it difficult for them to attend late afternoon meetings. Jim Copeland noted that Thursday was a popular day for symposia and therefore would not be a good choice for faculty meetings.
Stephen Baker suggested that it would be a good idea for Faculty Council to have more of an active role in setting the agenda for faculty meetings. He proposed the following addition to the Faculty Meeting By-Laws:
"The Faculty Council shall have the right to establish agenda items."
In response to a question by Spike Gildea, Wilson explained that any New Business introduced at a Faculty Meeting by faculty without prior notice would probably be referred to the appropriate committee for further study and possible action at a future meeting. Jane Chance inquired if the three-day advance notice requirement would prevent any issue that might raised on the spot at a Faculty Meeting, to which Wilson replied, "No." Pat Reiff suggested that "circulated" replace "circularized" in Article 5.
Amendment PASSED unanimously.
Requiring a two-thirds majority, the amended proposal PASSED unanimously.
4. Proposal to amend Faculty Council By-Laws -
After announcing the promotion with tenure of a Faculty Council member who currently holds an untenured elected slot, Wilson proposed that the following sentence be added to Section A-1, p. 3/10 of the By-Laws of the Faculty Council of Rice University:
"An Assistant Professor who is promoted to Associate Professor before the end of his or her term shall remain on Council, but will not serve on the Promotions and Tenure Committee."
There being no discussion, the motion PASSED unanimously.
5. Proposal for Non-thesis Master's Degrees (Attachment 2)
Kate Beckingham, chair of the Graduate Council, presented a petition for changes in the requirements for non-thesis Masters Degrees as shown in Attachment 2. The specific proposal is that the following wording be be added to the General Announcements (top of p. 72)g:
"In certain departments, students may receive a masters degree when they achieve candidacy for the doctoral degree or when they have met alternative departmental requirements."
Speaking for the motion, Vardi said that three departments had urged the acceptance of such a policy. He said that some students who have worked for several year in a PhD program sometimes must drop out before its completion, for which they receive no recognition for their labor. It seems appropriate to have a degree based on courses taken and/or special projects that will give them some reward. He said that we have already the thesis MA degree and other non-thesis MS degrees that require only coursework in certain schools. His proposal is that we broaden that option.
Gildea asked if it would always require some sort of "milestone event" (comprehensive examination, special project, etc.), to which Vardi's answer was affirmative. Currently, the only way to receive an MA or MS degree is by being admitted into candidacy for the PhD degree. He would like to see that requirement broadened. Copeland said that this proposal would not be universally applicable but might work in some departments but bit in others. In affirming that hers was one of the departments that proposed this motion, Pat Reiff mentioned two other classes of students it would affect: (1) those who, after having taken several courses, suddenly receive an extremely attractive job offer, and (2) those who have only a limited amount of time to spend (e.g. from the air force) but who desire a quality education but do not have time to complete research on a PhD. It would not be a "consolation prize." Gale Stokes said that in history the thesis requirement for a masters degree is a leftover vestige of an earlier era when the MA was some sort of a research degree. He argues that a degree requiring two years of intense coursework involving some research is more valuable than a research project for people who want to go into secondary school teaching.
Bob Patten supported of final part of the statement in affirming that masters degree students in his department often take courses in other departments that are "relevant" to the field but not directly "in" the specific department. Kyriacos Zygourakis explained the existing "professional" master of a specific engineering discipline, which are non-thesis degrees. He fears that the establishment of this new non-thesis degree would have financial consequences and further blur the distinction among these various degrees. Jim Young is concerned about the consequences of using the same name to describe two very different types of masters degrees, although McKenny does not see this as a significant problem since the various departments will set their own requirements. Ed Akin proposed calling such degrees by their discipline, e.g. Master in History, Master in Ethics, but not a Master of Science.
Herb Ward does not believe that the proposal has been sufficiently clarified to warrant a vote now. He says Rice has successfully resisted the temptation to make the MS degree a consolation prize. The current proposal might strengthen the temptation. Brown pointed out that departments have a variety of needs that a single policy will not accommodate. She urged flexibility that the present proposal would allow, an observation echoed by Beckingham. A thesis degree is not always the better degree in every case, as often a non-thesis course masters degree may often be more appropriate. The decision should be left up to the individual departments.
After a bit more discussion, the vote was called and the motion PASSED by an uncounted show of hands. The President was asked if this was a ONE or a TWO vote issue. Since the faculty was about equally divided, the President ruled this to be a TWO vote issue. It will be considered at the next meeting.
6. Other reports and announcements -
Gillis explained some administrative changes that involve reconfiguring Admissions, Registrar, and Financial Aid. He then introduced Ann Wright who briefly explained two of her goals as the new VP for Enrollment Management. First, she informed us of a new Rice Century Scholars program aimed at attracting the top 5% of our accepted student pool, a group for which we have had only a 15% yield. Second, she explained changes that will streamline the application process and make Rice more competitive. Already the applications for next year are up from 500 at this date in 1998 to more than 3,000.
The President called on Wilson to read the following resolution:
"WHEREAS Carl MacDowell has served Rice University for over 30 years and has been a dedicated assistant to three different presidents
and WHEREAS he has fulfilled an invaluable role in coordinating and overseeing the running of the institution
NOW THEREFORE do we, the Faculty of Rice University, wish to express our sincere gratitude and thanks for his outstanding and dedicated service to the University and wish him the very best in the coming years."
The reading was followed by a lengthy standing ovation.
Gillis announced that the new Assistant to the President will be Dr. Mark Scheid who will assume his new role in November.
There being no other business, and upon motion duly made and PASSED, the meeting was adjourned at 5:16 pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Joe W. Hightower, Secretary of the Faculty
NOTE: The next General Faculty Meeting will be held on November 11, 1999.
These bylaws are provided for the equitable and orderly conduct of business in meetings of the faculty of Rice University and in no way attempt to define or describe the governance structure of the University.
ARTICLE 1. MEMBERSHIP AND PARTICIPATION
1.1. Voting Members. Voting members in meetings shall consist of the following members of the faculty:
a. Tenured faculty whether full-time or part-time.
b. Untenured full-time professors, associate professors, and assistant professors.
c. Full-time lecturers and instructors with two or more years at Rice in these positions.
d. Part-time untenured professors; associate professors and assistant professors, designated as half-time or more, with two or more years of such service to Rice.
e. Research faculty, except such faculty shall not be eligible to vote on matters pertaining to tenure and exclusively to undergraduate curriculum affairs.
1.2. Attendance. In addition to the voting members, attendance at meetings is open to students, staff, and other interested persons unless the meeting is closed as provided in 1.4. Members of the media must identify themselves.
1.3. Participation. Privileges of the floor and participation in the business proceedings of a meeting are limited to voting members and those staff members whose special knowledge is required. Other attendees may speak upon the invitation of the chair or by a majority of the voting members.
1.4. Closed Meetings. A meeting may be closed by the declaration of the chair, or by a majority of the voting members upon the adoption of an undebatable motion to do so. In such a closed meeting only the voting members and such senior staff members as specified may remain in attendance.
ARTICLE 2. OFFICERS
The officers of a meeting of the faculty consist of:
2.1. Chair. The presiding officer, or chair, of all meetings shall be the President of Rice University and will conduct the meetings in accordance with the parliamentary authority specified in Article 4. When necessary the President may appoint the Provost or the Speaker of the Faculty Council to chair a meeting.
2.2. Secretary. At a regularly scheduled meeting, the faculty shall elect a Secretary to serve for a term of three years. The Secretary shall issue the notices of meetings of the faculty and shall keep minutes of all meetings. Generally, there will be no verbatim reporting of remarks and discussion, except when the Secretary deems this advisable, nor will professorial rank be recorded. The Secretary will deposit a complete set of the "Minutes of the Faculty" in the University Archives at the end of each academic year.
2.3. Parliamentarian. At a regularly scheduled meeting, the faculty shall elect a Parliamentarian to serve for a term of three years. The Parliamentarian shall advise the chair in its rulings in accordance with the adopted parliamentary authority.
ARTICLE 3. MEETINGS
3.1 Calendar. There shall be at least three general meetings of the faculty each academic year in addition to an end-of-the-year meeting for the conferral of degrees. Midyear degree conferral may occur at one of these three meetings, but if necessary an additional meeting may be held for this purpose. The dates of the meetings shall be determined by the President, in consultation with the University Council and Faculty Council as necessary. A notice of a meeting of the faculty, with agenda and any specific proposals, shall be issued by the Secretary at least three days prior to a scheduled meeting.
3.2. Special Meetings. A special meeting of the faculty, for a stated purpose, may be called by the presentation to the Secretary of a petition signed by at least 50 members of the voting faculty.
3.3. Quorum. At any general or special meeting a quorum shall consist of those voting members in attendance.
3.4. Order of Business. The order of business at a general meeting will usually be as follows:
a. Approval of minutes of the previous meeting.
b. Unfinished business.
c. Reports of special committees.
d. Reports of standing committees.
e. New business.
f. Announcements.
g. Adjournment.
3.5. Agenda. The agenda for a meeting of the faculty are established by the President, in consultation with the University Council, the Faculty Council, and other standing and special committees of the University. Individual voting members may propose business items to be introduced under the heading of New Business; however, if such proposals concern matters under the jurisdiction of a standing or special committee, such items will not be admitted as agenda but will be, instead, referred to the appropriate committee.
ARTICLE 4. PARLIAMENTARY AUTHORITY
The rules contained in the current edition of Robert's Rules of Order, Newly Revised shall be the parliamentary authority for the conduct of business at all meetings of the faculty. These rules shall be applied in all parliamentary questions to which they apply and which are not superseded by these bylaws and any special rules of order that the faculty may adopt.
ARTICLE 5. SPECIAL RULES OF ORDER
At a regularly called meeting, the faculty may adopt special rules of order to supersede those of the parliamentary authority by a two-thirds majority of the voting members provided that the proposed rule has been circulated with the agenda for the meeting. At any meeting, a special rule of order may be suspended for a single, stated, purpose by a two-thirds majority of the voting members.
ARTICLE 6. AMENDMENT OF BYLAWS AND SPECIAL RULES OF ORDER
These bylaws and any special rules of order may be amended at any regularly called meeting by a two-thirds majority of the voting members provided that the proposed amendment has been circularized with the agenda for the meeting. A proposed amendment may itself be amended at the meeting provided that the amendment-to-the amendment does not increase the modification contemplated by the original amendment.
SPECIAL RULES OF ORDER FOR MEETINGS OF THE FACULTY OF RICE UNIVERSITY
Superseding the rules of the parliamentary authority, the following special rules of order shall apply to meetings of the faculty:
1. Important Items. A matter before the faculty judged to be an "important item" shall be adopted after two hearings and two affirmative votes, at separate meetings. Significant matters of curriculum requirements and establishment of major courses of study are to be considered to be "important items". Other business may be made an "important item" by declaration of the chair or by a majority of the voting members acting on a motion to so designate. An "important item" that has been substantively amended between the two required votes shall require a third affirmative vote to become adopted. Whether an "important item" has been substantively amended shall be ruled by the chair.
2. Debate. Each voting member may speak twice for a maximum of five minutes, each time, on any main motion or applicable debatable secondary motion.
3. Voting. The methods of voting at a meeting shall be by voice, show of hands, secret ballot, and/or roll call according to the following procedures:
a. The chair shall determine whether to use voice voting. In the taking of a voice vote, if the chair is in doubt, or upon the request of any eligible voter, the chair shall retake the vote by a show of hands.
b. The chair shall determine whether to use voting by show of hands. In the taking of vote by show of hands, if the chair is in doubt, or upon the request of two or more eligible voters, the chair shall retake the vote and order it to be counted.
c. Voting by secret ballot shall be conducted only when so ordered by a majority of the eligible voting members voting on an undebatable motion to vote in that manner.
d. Voting by roll call shall be conducted only when so ordered by a majority of the eligible voting members voting on an undebatable motion to vote in that manner. If both a secret ballot and a roll call vote have been moved, the assembly will vote first on whether to take the vote by roll call.
To: William K. Wilson, Speaker of Faculty Council
From: Ron Soligo, Chair of Graduate Council
Date: November 24, 1998
Re: Changes in requirements for Non-professional Masters Degrees
On May 20 of this year, Moshe Vardi, then Chair of the Graduate Council, wrote to the Faculty Council regarding a recommendation to amend the requirements for the nonprofessional Masters programs to permit Departments to substitute other requirements, such as additional course work or special projects, for the Masters thesis.
I am not sure whether or not the Faculty Council has disposed of this issue. In any case, the Council took up the issue again this semester and have unanimously voted to recommend that such a change be made.
Specifically, the Council proposes to change the text in the General Announcements (p. 72) as follows:
In the sentence reading "in certain departments, students may receive a masters degree when they achieve candidacy for the doctoral degree." We propose to add "or when they have met alternative departmental requirements."
In addition to the requirements already enumerated in the General Announcements (p. 71), namely:
1) 30 semester hours of study (including the thesis)
2) 24 semester hours must be at Rice
3) Minimum residency is one semester of full-time study
the Council recommends the following additions:
4) at least 15 hours of course work must be at or above the 500 level,
5) all 30 hours of course work applied to the degree must be relevant to the field.
Finally, the Graduate Council recommends that all changes proposed by departments be endorsed by the appropriate Divisional Dean and approved by the Office of Graduate Studies with the advice of the Graduate Council.
As the letter from Moshe Vardi stated, our recommendation does not introduce a new degree but suggests changes in the existing requirements. We do not know whether these changes require the approval of the Faculty and ask that the Faculty Council make this determination
Minutes Homepage * Back to Top