University of Puget Sound
Faculty meeting Minutes
March 6, 2001
Dean Terry Cooney, serving as Acting President while President Pierce is on sabbatical, called
the meeting to order at 4:03 p.m. in McIntyre 103. Thirty-eight voting members of the faculty were
present by 4:20 p.m.
Minutes of the February 13, 2001 faculty meeting were approved with one clarification from Ted
Taranovski. He asked that the record show that the reason he said in that meeting that a course
in Shakespeare would fulfill the humanistic approaches rubric over his dead body was that the
motion passed by the faculty April 20, 1999 approved approaches to knowing as “broadly
conceived courses that would focus on basic disciplinary content and methodology,” and in that
context Shakespeare does not qualify.
There were no announcements.
Dean Cooney commented on the February 28, 2001 magnitude 6.8 earthquake by saying that the
university had been extremely lucky, with no damage or injuries. He said that the one crack that
building engineers examined was declared to have been there prior to the earthquake.
Faculty Senate Chair Bill Haltom said that the Senate would not meet the Monday immediately
following spring break.
We turned to the main agenda item, continued discussion of the proposed core curriculum. Dean
Cooney called on Jerry Kerrick who, for the mathematical task force, read the proposed
Mathematical Approaches Rubric learning objectives and guidelines.
MATHEMATICAL APPROACHES RUBRIC
LEARNING OBJECTIVES
Students in Mathematical Approaches courses develop an appreciation of the power of
Mathematics and formal methods to provide a way of understanding a problem
unambiguously, describing its relation to other problems, and specifying clearly an
approach to its solution. Students in Mathematical Approaches courses develop a variety
of mathematical skills, an understanding of formal reasoning, and a facility with
applications.
GUIDELINES
I.
These goals are met by courses that treat formal reasoning in one of the
following areas.
A. Quantitative reasoning: The ability to work with numeric data, to reason
from those data, and to understand what can and can not be
inferred from those data;
B. Logical reasoning: The study of formal logic, at least to the extent that
is required to understand mathematical proof.
C. The algorithmic method: The ability to analyze a problem, to design a
systematic way of addressing that problem (an algorithm), and to
implement that algorithm in a computer programming language.
II.
Where these skills or methods are taught within the context of a discipline
other than mathematics or computer science, they must receive greater
attention than the disciplinary material.
University of Puget Sound Faculty Meeting Minutes
February 13, 2001, Page 2
In response to Ili Nagy’s pointing out that the word “data” is plural, not singular, we by general
consensus agreed that “that data” would be replaced in the proposed language by “those data”
the two places they appeared in Guideline I.A. Taranovski raised the question whether logic
courses would qualify for the rubric. Bob Matthews pointed out that logic courses would be
eligible under Guideline I.B. and Dean Cooney reminded us that the Philosophy 273 logic course
fulfills the current mathematical reasoning core requirement under similar guidelines wording. Bill
Barry said the proposed Mathematical Approaches Rubric language was very similar to current
Mathematical Reasoning core guidelines language.
George Tomlin suggested that students might interpret the word “applications” in the learning
objectives to mean “job applications,” but there was no motion to change the language. There
was no further discussion and Dean Cooney asked if we were ready to move to a discussion of
the Natural Scientific Approaches Rubric. The consensus was that we were.
Doug Cannon introduced the Natural Scientific rubric by enumerating three issues the task force
had dealt with in creating proposed learning objectives and guidelines language: (1) thematic
courses and interdisciplinary courses were intended to be included only if these courses “are
founded in and explore fundamental elements of one of the involved disciplines;” (2) whichever
departments are prepared to offer courses that cover the fundamental elements of one or more
natural sciences and that meet the learning objectives and guidelines are eligible to offer courses
in the rubric, even though such departments might not be natural science departments; and (3)
the task force felt that lecture courses in the rubric should be small enough to respond to students
as individuals. Cannon then read the guidelines.
NATURAL SCIENTIFIC APPROACHES RUBRIC
LEARNING OBJECTIVES
Students in Natural Scientific Approaches courses develop an understanding of scientific
methods. They also acquire knowledge of the fundamental elements of one or more
natural sciences.
GUIDELINES
I.
Courses in Natural Scientific Approaches are founded in and explore the
fundamental elements of one or more of the disciplines of astronomy,
biology, chemistry, geology and physics.
II.
Courses in Natural Scientific Approaches emphasize scientific methods in
problem solving. They develop the student's analytical abilities and,
whenever possible, incorporate quantitative methods.
III.
Courses in Natural Scientific Approaches have regularly scheduled
laboratory or field experiences involving data collection and analysis.
Bill Beardsley asked why “the fundamental elements” of science and the methods of science
“stand alone” in the rubric without the “gloss language” that seemed to be necessary in the
humanistic approaches rubric. He said he liked the simpler language of the natural scientific
rubric and that he yearned for a parallel in the humanistic approaches rubric. Barry Goldstein
responded that it had to do with the clarity of science versus the obscurity of the humanities.
While not all agreed with Goldstein, there was no motion to change any language.
There was no further discussion and Dean Cooney asked if we were ready to move to a
discussion of the Social Scientific Approaches Rubric. The consensus was that we were.
University of Puget Sound Faculty Meeting Minutes
February 13, 2001, Page 3
Nick Kontogeorgopoulis introduced the Social Scientific rubric by indicating that the task force
sought to create language that would not result in the automatic inclusion in the rubric of every
course in social science departments. Kontogeorgopoulis then read the Social Scientific
Approaches Rubric proposed learning objectives and guidelines:
SOCIAL SCIENTIFIC APPROACHES RUBRIC
LEARNING OBJECTIVES
The social sciences provide systematic approaches to understanding relationships that
arise among individuals, organizations, or institutions. Students in a course in the Social
Scientific Approach to Knowing acquire an understanding of theories about individual or
collective behavior within a social environment and of how empirical evidence is used to
develop and test those theories.
GUIDELINES
I.
Courses in Social Scientific Approaches
A. explore assumptions embedded in social scientific theories and
B. examine the need to simplify or describe the observed world in order to
construct a model of individual or collective behavior.
I.
Courses in Social Scientific Approaches require students to apply a social
scientific theory as a way of understanding individual or collective behavior.
In response to Paul Loeb’s call for parallel structure in the language of the second sentence of the
learning objectives, Bill Breitenbach M/S/P that “the ways that” replace “how” in the second
sentence of the learning objectives.” The motion passed without discussion on a
unanimous voice vote.
Breitenbach pointed out that we were creating rubrics that were trying to do very different things,
and asked whether we should attempt to bring them “into some kind of parallelism,” as Beardsley
implied we should earlier in the meeting. Breitenbach answered his own question by saying no,
we shouldn’t. But Beardsley said yes, we should; that this would be worth doing. He said the
structures of the rubrics should be similar. Barry said it would be difficult to find a common
structure; that the current proposals give greater freedom to instructors to determine appropriate
methodology. Haltom agreed with Breitenbach and Barry and suggested we should not start
slandering each other’s disciplines. He said we should accept the fact that the proposed rubrics
reflect what people in the various disciplines think the courses should do. Warning added that we
need to keep in mind that these guidelines will be used by the Curriculum Committee to evaluate
proposals for the core, and Beardsley responded that that was an argument for trying to unify the
rubrics. He reiterated again that he liked the Natural Scientific rubric language and said the
language of the other rubrics leave it too much to the Curriculum Committee to decide what’s
appropriate in a course.
Dean Cooney suggested that, given that the rubrics will require some kind of contextualizing
language later on anyway, we might want to make a decision then whether to try to unify the
rubrics in some way.
Loeb raised a concern about the meaning of “the need to simplify” in guideline I.B. Cannon asked
whether the guidelines were specific enough not to automatically qualify any introductory course.
Kontogeorgopoulis responded that the guidelines specify what the task force felt a social science
course should do as an approach to knowing including--in response to Loeb-- “the need to
University of Puget Sound Faculty Meeting Minutes
February 13, 2001, Page 4
simplify” in I.B. Geoff Proehl suggested that students might read “the need to simplify” as
“psychologically problematic,” implying some kind of psychoanalysis of social scientists. Haltom
said he saluted the task force for defining what a social scientific course should do and for
keeping the language simple without including disciplinary details.
John Hanson M/S/P “to replace ‘need to simplify or describe’ with ‘importance of
simplifying or describing’ in Guideline I.B.” After several minutes of discussion pro and con,
Matthews M/S/P to close debate. The motion to close debate passed on a hand vote. The
Hanson motion then passed on a voice vote.
Loeb M/S/vote reported below “to replace ‘the observed world’ with ‘our observations of
the world’ in Guideline I.B.” Haltom’s suggestion to delete “our” was accepted as a
friendly amendment. Barry M/S/P to close debate. The motion to close debate passed on
a hand vote. Loeb’s motion then passed on a voice vote.
Then began a discussion of Guideline II and the meaning or importance of “applying” a social
scientific theory. Haltom suggested that by applying theory one moved beyond social studies to
social science. Loeb said he thought the meaning would be unclear to students. Will the
Curriculum Committee know what “apply” means, he asked? Kontogeorgopoulis replied that the
proposer would have to describe what “apply” means in the particular course.
Cannon inquired whether the proposed language would allow psychology courses to qualify for
the social scientific rubric, and Kontogeorgopoulis replied that the guidelines were created to allow
psychology courses to qualify. Haltom said he liked the fact that any department “that pursues the
approach” could create courses that would qualify for the rubric.
There was no further discussion. The Social Scientific Approaches Rubric as amended in today’s
meeting was:
SOCIAL SCIENTIFIC APPROACHES RUBRIC
LEARNING OBJECTIVES
The social sciences provide systematic approaches to understanding relationships that
arise among individuals, organizations, or institutions. Students in a course in the Social
Scientific Approach to Knowing acquire an understanding of theories about individual or
collective behavior within a social environment and of the ways that empirical evidence is
used to develop and test those theories.
GUIDELINES
I.
Courses in Social Scientific Approaches
A. explore assumptions embedded in social scientific theories and
B. examine the importance of simplifying or describing observations of the
world in order to construct a model of individual or collective
behavior.
II.
Courses in Social Scientific Approaches require students to apply a social
scientific theory as a way of understanding individual or collective behavior.
Dean Cooney asked if we were ready to move at our next meeting to a discussion of the
Connections Rubric. The consensus was that we were.
Keith Ward M/S/P to adjourn and we did adjourn at 5:11 p.m.
University of Puget Sound Faculty Meeting Minutes
February 13, 2001, Page 5
Respectfully submitted,
John M. Finney
Secretary of the Faculty