Minutes of the November 2006 Faculty Meeting

Opening

Provost Jim May called the meeting to order at 11:40, noting that President Anderson sent his regrets from the steering committee for the Meeting for the Consortium of Faculty Diversity.

Pastor Benson opened the meeting with prayer.

President’s Remarks

Dean May, on behalf of the President, made several remarks about upcoming events on the college calendar. He observed that both the dedication of the wind turbine and the celebration of Founders’ Day would take place on November 6 th. He also noted that on November 9 th, the college would celebrate the 30 th anniversary of the Kierkegaard Library with a number of events, including a visit from the Danish ambassador.

May also read a letter from President Anderson which addressed the faculty on the science complex fundraising, which noted that $18.6 m. in gifts and pledges had been raised, that the next benchmark was $22 m by January 7, and that there would be a groundbreaking ceremony on December 1 st, to which everyone on the faculty was invited. The letter also acknowledged that because the math and science departments would be moving to the new science center in Fall 2008, decisions would need to be made about how best to use the space of the old science center. In light of this need for decisions about this topic, President Anderson proposed to bring the discussions already started around campus to a conclusion by chairing and convening a committee consisting of the members of the Dean’s Council, Michael Kyle, Greg Kneser, Peter Sandberg, Roberta Lembke and a representative of the student government of the student body. The committee would focus on who should move to the Old Science Center and what would be done with the space from which they move. He acknowledged that the discussions about space tended to bring out the best and the worst of people, and that he planned to elicit the best and eschew the worst. In order to do this, he promised the committee would welcome everyone’s perspective and input, and stay focused on what was best for the college as a whole.

Agenda

It was moved that the minutes of the October 2006 faculty meeting be approved.

Wes Pearson offered a friendly amendment to the minutes. The minutes, as amended, were approved.

Bruce Hansen moved a waiver of the seven day rule so that a last minute action item, IDOCS 06/07-02 could be discussed, and the motion to suspend was approved.

Karil Kucera moved the approval of IDOCS 06/07-02 and spoke on behalf of the motion. Jeanine Grenberg quipped that it would be nice if the members of the course would make an on-campus presentation when they returned to campus. The motion was approved.

Committee Reports

Matt Richey reported that RPC was moving ahead on the four fronts – faculty life, student life, governance, and curriculum -- of the committee restructuring process were moving forward well, and he made brief comments on each front. He reminded the faculty that RPC was hoping to have green sheets on committee restructuring in the spring. Second, Richey also noted that the committee was continuing the process of deliberation about extending the probationary period, also known as the stoppage of tenure clock. He reminded the faculty that RPC hoped to bring the issue back to the faculty for discussion well before it would come up for a vote. Third, Richey noted the committee had been discussing issues of the salary line with Alan Norton. He also noted that RPC planned on making a recommendation about this issue and that the committee was looking forward to a more substantive discussion of the disbursement of the salary. Finally, Richey added that RPC had also taken part in the discussion of test-taking policy that would be discussed later in the meeting.

Jill Dietz reported that CEPC had been working hard on approving new course proposals, and the two issues of grading practices and test-taking policies. In November, she noted, the committee was looking forward to possible changes to the Family Studies program and possible revisions to the MCS General Education Requirement.

Faculty Discussion of the Examination Policy

Matt Richey then led a discussion of the college’s examination policy. He clarified that the language of the proposal came out of CEPC and passed through RPC because it represents a possible change to the faculty handbook. He also clarified that there would not be vote on the issue today, but only a discussion. The vote would be postponed to the December meeting.

There are two key questions, the first dealing with how best to manage in-class test policy, and the second dealing with how best to make policy for tests given outside of normal class hours.

Bob Jacobel asked about what was meant by the phrase “fixed times,” as it pertained to the second question. Dietz clarified that the phrase was introduced to address situations, for example, where professors asked students to show up in the evening outside of class to take an exam. The phrase “fixed time” was intended to help distinguish between exams that are given in a fixed time, e.g., an hour and a half, and those exams that were given, e.g. take-home exams, that are given over the course of several days.

Kathryn Ananda-Owens clarified that the CEPC requirements addressed the difference between requiring students to do work or take an exam in a two hour time frame of their individual choosing, and requiring them to take an exam at some specific two hour time frame.

Bob Jacobel asked whether the committee was trying to prohibit the possibility of a faculty member telling his class that he would be in his office from 7-9 pm on Wednesday evening, and that those students who could come and take the exam at that time should come, and, e.g., the four students who couldn’t take it then could make different arrangements.

Dietz said that she didn’t want to address that particular example, but that the bigger and more general policy issue, she thought, was what the faculty thought reasonable to require of students outside of class time.

Jonathan Hill noted that watching movies in the evening seemed to be an example of this kind of requirement. He wondered whether it was fair to simply trade the time in the evening for time in class, but acknowledged that this was a complicated issue.

Brian Borovsky proposed that perhaps the question was not what faculty did but how they did it. He worried that a blanket policy could be problematic. He confessed to being a practitioner of the kind of example that Jacobel raised. The need arises for him because sometimes an hour-long class period is simply not enough time to take a physics exam.

Mary Carlsen asked for historical clarification about when the faculty began to move outside the limits of the specified class periods.

Jacobel said that given the nature of the material, e.g. in Physics, this had been practiced for a long time and was not a new issue.

Carlsen, in response, asked why the faculty was talking about the issue now. She then recalled that she raised it last year because students had complained to her about her exam policies and supported their complaints with reference to other professors who regularly gave them more time to finish exams.

May noted that the administration received at least five complaints a year from one faculty about another with respect to their scheduling of exams that go over into other classes and into chapel. He also noted that the issue seemed to threaten to become a larger problem: if everyone started to schedule longer exams or exams outside of class, it could become a great imposition on students.

Richey noted that with respect to the language of the current recommendation, it was consistent with Jacobel’s example. It was suggested that students be given a minimum of 24 hours of flexibility in which to complete the exam.

Grenberg wondered whether any discipline could make a case similar to the case made for Physics. She noted that it would be great to have longer periods of time during which to give philosophy exams. She indicated that she did not think a rule supporting the practice of outside-class exams was universalizable, and she suggested that therefore, it was unfair.

Mike Leming suggested that the faculty was now facing particular problems and trying to resolve them with general rules. He confessed that he had been an offender in the past of scheduling out of class events, and wanted now to repent and make amends, but acknowledged that he wasn’t sure how to do this. He noted that extra-curricular events often interfere with classes, and wondered if on occasion and in return, classes couldn’t have time outside of class. He added that regarding films and field trips, he could think of two possible solutions: either one could make the event optional, or the faculty member could organize several different times for the event, and agree to repeat the event when students could make it.

Maggie Odell agreed with Leming’s point about the difficulty of addressing particular problems with general rules. She said that the real issue, in her mind, was how to establish degrees of fairness within disciplines.

Richey noted that fairness across groups was also a concern. If there was a conflict between a film and an exam,for example, the faculty policy should provide some guidance for resolving the issue.

DeAne Lagerquist asked whether someone could organize her life so that she never had two obligations at the same time, noting that this seemed to be the heart of the problem. She counseled that the faculty be generous with each other on the level of particulars, and concern itself with a systemic analysis of the problem, only if the problem was systemic. She noted that the project of extending the role of film in the curriculum could pose a systemic problem. She concluded by commending those who were working for a flexible policy.

Ananda-Owens asked whether those who gave evening exams could answer the following question over e-mail or by phone: “Why does a 2 hour exam need to take place in the evening, instead of over 2 class periods on two days?”

Richey noted that the discussion need to be wrapped up, and noted that at the December meeting there would be a vote. He hoped the faculty could continue the discussion between the present and then, and encouraged interested parties to contact him.

Faculty Discussion of Grading Practices

Dietz provided background on the issue, repeating past conversations about the 2005 spring Steen report and the spring 2006 vote to raise the grade point average of students graduating cum laude. She noted that CEPC was in favor of encouraging the college to think about grading practices, but not in favor of firm legislation without more discussion. She noted three goals and four the committee had put forward: 1) help departments and programs engage in conversations about their grading practices, 2) make the grading process more transparent, and 3) keep the average GPA holding steady. She also noted four objectives the committee had put forward: a) change the catalogue’s grade descriptions to better describe current practices, b) develop college wide achievement standards for each grade level, c) pilot the conversion of some .25 courses to P/N courses, and finally d) monitor the grade situation via Dean’s Council and/or CEPC. She noted that she had sent out Steen’s initial report and some suggestions for grade standards.

Matt Rohn warned against the use of the term “competent” in grade standards, especially for a “B.” In our era of assessment, he thought that a “B” had a technical meaning that designated a level lower than a “B.”

Grenberg asked for clarification about the phrase and goal of “making grading practices more transparent.” To whom should we aim to make practices more transparent?

Deitz said that the goal was to lead to transparency for everyone -- students, other faculty members, outside evaluators, graduate school boards, and future employers.

Jim Farrell asked whether the real problem wasn’t the GPA. He wondered whether it was really possible to compare grades across classes, much less departments. He stated that he thought it better to consider a grade the result of a transparent conversation between students and instructor, that didn’t have a precise correlate to other conversations between students and other instructors. He voiced skepticism about the commensurability of an “A” in English and an “A” in Chemistry. He acknowledged that the faculty could try and set up standards, but confessed that he did not think it would be effective. The best and most honest answer, he said, was to stop calculating the GPA, though he concluded by acknowledging that this wasn’t likely to happen.

Eric Lund asked whether it would be possible to put into the transcript what the average was in any course.

Dietz said that this option had been discussed, and noted that some institutions do it.

Leming wondered whether the faculty could adopt both Farrell’s approval, and Lund’s also.

Grenberg stated that she found Farrell’s proposal compelling in an ideal world, but that the issue of how the institution looks from the outside world is important, and for that reason the institution needs overarching standards and overall institutional effect. In recent years, grades have, in fact, gone up, and we should address that. She acknowledged that the faculty does need to try and be sensitive to particulars.

Farrell noted that although he found Lund’s proposal worth thinking about, he still foresaw problems. He noted that in some of his classes, he gave recursive assignments, and by the end, most students got “A”s. He asserted that reporting on what the average grade in the class was, would not provide any useful information about what went on in the class.

Dean May noted that “at his back he always hears time’s winged chariot hurrying near,” and with that, signaled the end of the discussion.

Open Agenda

Margaret O’Leary noted that she had posted her report on the Board of Regents meeting, and added that she, Paul Wojick or other committee members would be happy to discuss any details.

Kris Thalhammer reminded the faculty that the Political Science department was scheduling four sessions in February and March with the Carleton department on the topic of citizenship, and invited all who were interested. She only asked that people would RSVP.

Mary Carlsen noted that some of the faculty were battling big health issues, and exhorted everyone to be kind and helpful.

The meeting was adjourned at 12:30.

Respectfully submitted,
Jamie Schillinger