Faculty Meeting Minutes
March 26, 2001
Dean Terry Cooney, serving as Acting President while President Pierce is on sabbatical, called the
meeting to order at 4:04 p.m. in McIntyre 103. Fifty voting members of the faculty were present.
Minutes of the March 6, 2001 faculty meeting were approved with the following correction to the last
paragraph describing the discussion of the Social Scientific Approaches Rubric: "Cannon inquired
whether the proposed language would allow psychology courses to qualify for the social scientific
rubric and in particular whether Introduction to Psychology would qualify. Kontogeorgopoulos replied
that the guidelines were not created with any particular course in mind; that each proposed course
would be evaluated on its own."
In response to Dean Cooney’s call for announcements, Bill Haltom reported that Juli McGruder and
George Tomlin had asked him to announce that the occupational therapy faculty regretted being
unable to attend today’s faculty meeting. They were already “double booked,” hosting a visiting
consulting group on campus as well as guest students and faculty from Japan.
Dean Cooney announced that among our students we have one recently named Watson fellow and
another student serving as a Watson alternate. He applauded the efforts of involved students and
faculty, in particular Professor Michael Veseth, in bringing about this result. Dean Cooney said that
the visiting Watson official was very impressed with our student nominees this year and that earlier
reservations expressed by Watson about our participation in the program appear to have been
assuaged.
Dean Cooney announced that he has received a letter from the Peace Corp informing us that the
University of Puget Sound is ninth among all colleges in the United States in the number of Peace
Corps alums. He said there are currently fourteen active Puget Sound alums serving in the Peace
Corps.
Dean Cooney announced that on Friday, March 30 visitors from the Luce Foundation will be on
campus in connection with the University’s application for funding for a Luce endowed senior
professorship. He said that we are one of six universities being visited, from which Luce will select
two for funding. He said that making it this far in the competition is noteworthy and he applauded the
efforts of faculty who have been involved.
We turned to the main agenda item, continued discussion of the proposed core curriculum. Dean
Cooney called on Ted Taranovski who, for the connections task force, introduced the proposed
Connections Rubric learning objectives and guidelines:
CONNECTIONS RUBRIC
LEARNING OBJECTIVES
Students in Connections courses develop their understanding of the interrelationship of fields
of knowledge by exploring connections and contrasts between various disciplines with
respect to disciplinary methodology and subject matter. Students also develop an
appreciation of the benefits and limits of interdisciplinary approaches to knowledge.
GUIDELINES
I.
Connections courses draw upon the curricula of either established disciplines or the
University's interdisciplinary programs. These courses may involve the collaboration
of faculty from more than one department or the efforts of individual faculty with
interdisciplinary expertise and interests.
II.
In the Connections course, students engage the interdisciplinary process by
A. identifying multiple disciplinary approaches to a subject;
B. analyzing the subject from multiple perspectives;
C. participating in cross-disciplinary dialogue; and
D. exploring the integration or synthesis of multiple approaches to foster
understanding of the subject.
III.
Connections courses explore interdisciplinary issues at a level of sophistication
expected of an upper division course. These courses may have appropriate
prerequisites.
Doug Cannon M/S/P “to strike the word ‘may’ from the second sentence of Guideline I.
Before the vote, Suzanne Barnett and Harry Vélez-Quiñones said that they liked the word “may”
because it allows courses to develop within conversations among faculty but does not require formal
collaboration between faculty. She added that practically we may have to allow connections courses
to be taught by single faculty members. Florence Sandler responded by pointing out that, with or
without the word “may,” team-taught and individually taught connections courses are both allowed by
the guidelines.
The motion then passed on a voice vote, with one abstention.
Keith Ward asked whether the disciplinary approaches identified in Guideline II.A. were to come from
different rubrics or from a single rubric. Taranovski replied that the operative word is “disciplines,” not
rubrics, which are much broader categories than disciplines.
Barnett said that it seemed that the only thing that matters in connections courses is that they involve
more than one discipline. What, she asked, “does a student get from a connections course that has
two disciplines in it beyond what the student could get from any other really good upper division
course?” Cannon responded that students are well served by developing an understanding of the
interrelationships of disciplines of knowledge. Taranovski added that some issues, perhaps for
example environmental issues, are better addressed from the perspectives of several subject areas
than from just one perspective
Bill Barry M/S/P “to add to the end of the 2nd sentence in Guideline III ‘, so long as they do not
unduly limit the audience in numbers or in level of disciplinary sophistication.’” The sentence
would then read: “These courses may have appropriate prerequisites, so long as they do not
unduly limit the audience in numbers or in level of disciplinary sophistication.” Barry indicated
that a principle reason for making the motion was his concern for staffing of all of the sections that we
would need to offer.
Taranovski spoke against the motion, suggesting that we should see if the original prerequisite
wording works first before changing it. Haltom said he liked the motion, noting that the word
“appropriate” doesn’t really mean anything anyway. Ward also favored the motion, saying that
clarification would instruct the faculty member proposing the course. He added that he shared Barry’s
concern for staffing. But Cannon said he was puzzled by the staffing concern. He pointed out that
there is “an enormous mass of seats in science in context courses already.” He wondered whether
such a course as, for example, a capstone course in some interdisciplinary minor area, might be
proposed for connections under the motion. Barry responded that he didn’t know what kind of
courses would come forward, but that he was worried that we might have a problem if the
prerequisites “are too heavy.” He said the revised wording provides some direction to the Curriculum
Committee for evaluating the prerequisites issue.
The motion then passed on a voice vote.
Barry M/S/P “to delete the last sentence (‘Students also develop an appreciation of the
benefits and limits of interdisciplinary approaches to knowledge’) from the learning
objectives.” Barry explained that the Curriculum Committee had simply failed to consider
deletion of this sentence from the learning objectives. This sentence had been deleted from the
learning objectives of other rubrics. He said that such a statement is in the proposed curriculum
statement.
Bill Breitenbach argued that even if the sentence did not appear in the other rubrics it was still
appropriate in connections because this rubric was designed to take advantage of interdisciplinary
fields of knowledge. Barry responded that the sentence treats interdisciplinary study as a “second
class part of the core by being so pointed.” Vélez-Quiñones agreed that the sentence was
superfluous if we believed in the virtue of having such a rubric. He said that retention of the
sentence might turn the connections rubric into one in which people would feel compelled to show
both the virtues and the worthlessness of interdisciplinarity. Barnett added that she would object
to having to demonstrate the limits of interdisciplinarity in assessing the rubric.
The motion then passed on a voice vote.
Arguing that the current title is too vague and that we should make it parallel to approaches to
knowing, Paul Loeb M/S/F “to change ‘Connections Rubric’ to ‘Interdisciplinary Approaches
Rubric.’”
Pasco-Pranger objected, saying the goal was to distinguish connections from the approaches to
knowing. Barnett argued that the question of what to call this rubric went back to her contention
that it was vaguely described.
The motion then seemed to fail on a voice vote. Loeb requested a hand vote and the
motion failed with 10 in favor, 28 opposed, and 9 abstentions.
There was no further discussion of the Connections Rubric and Dean Cooney asked if we were ready
to move on. The consensus was that we were. The net effect of today’s actions was to produce the
following revised Connections Rubric:
CONNECTIONS RUBRIC
LEARNING OBJECTIVES
Students in Connections courses develop their understanding of the interrelationship of fields
of knowledge by exploring connections and contrasts between various disciplines with
respect to disciplinary methodology and subject matter.
GUIDELINES
I.
Connections courses draw upon the curricula of either established disciplines or the
University's interdisciplinary programs. These courses involve the collaboration of
faculty from more than one department or the efforts of individual faculty with
interdisciplinary expertise and interests.
II.
In the Connections course, students engage the interdisciplinary process by
A. identifying multiple disciplinary approaches to a subject;
B. analyzing the subject from multiple perspectives;
C. participating in cross-disciplinary dialogue; and
D. exploring the integration or synthesis of multiple approaches to foster
understanding of the subject.
III.
Connections courses explore interdisciplinary issues at a level of sophistication
expected of an upper division course. These courses may have appropriate
prerequisites, so long as they do not unduly limit the audience in numbers or in level
of disciplinary sophistication.
We next began discussion of the revised Curriculum Statement.
Barry M/S/vote reported later “that the document entitled Curriculum Statement dated 1-302001 be added to the package of guidelines motion that is on the floor.” Barry pointed out
that the core guidelines would be positioned within the Curriculum Statement immediately
following IV.A. in the 1-30-2001 document. That document was mailed in hard copy to all faculty
the week of March 19, 2001. Hard copies were available at today’s meeting, and a copy is
attached to these minutes.
Barry explained that the Curriculum Statement: (1) provides the rationale for the core; (2) guides
departments in their curriculum reviews; (3) addresses core requirements of transfer students;
and (4) addresses course sequencing. He said that much of this needed to be revised, and that
the Curriculum Committee’s revisions are indicated in bold in the document. He said that not all
of the issues of concern to the Curriculum Committee were incorporated in order to get this to the
faculty as quickly as possible.
Dean Cooney asked how we wished to proceed, and Haltom’s suggestion that we proceed section
by section was adopted by consensus. We began by considering section I, “General
Considerations.”
Walter Lowrie said he did not like the notion of including reference to “vocation” in the first
sentence of the bolded paragraph. Lowrie M/S/P “that we reverse the two sentences and
make minor adjustments.” By consensus the group agreed with Dean Cooney’s suggestion that
this was “a motion of spirit, not specific language,” and that we would see revised language at the
next meeting. Barry asked if we could reverse the order of the three items in the first sentence,
and the consensus was that this could be done within the motion. Bill Beardsley supported the
motion but pointed out that demonstrating whether students are trained for jobs is the easiest item
to assess in some departments, while other items are vague and hard to assess. Ward asked
who would do the revising, and we understood by consensus that the Curriculum Committee
would do the revising. The motion then passed on a unanimous voice vote.
Alan Thorndike M/S/vote reported later “to delete the first paragraph in section I, ‘The
University of Puget Sound as an academic community provides a meeting place for those
committed to the generation, study, analysis, and exchange of ideas. The intellectual
purposes of the University are of paramount importance. At the same time, the University
recognizes that the life of the mind creates a context for the personal and professional
growth of individuals as whole persons. The University thus encourages both formal
thought and self-reflection and offers a curriculum supporting the exploration of diverse
ideas, values, and cultures.’”
Kris Bartanen pointed out that this paragraph is the only place where we talk about educating the
whole person. Barnett added that the paragraph served a function when it entered the original
Curriculum Statement when it described our interest in maintaining an intellectual community.
She said it has been used over the years to justify our attention to the co-curriculum and diversity.
“With the paragraph gone,” she said, “those things are just in the ether.” She concluded by saying
that she herself wrote this paragraph and Thorndike responded, “I didn’t know that.”
Taranovski supported the motion saying it was redundant and that this was a curriculum
statement, not a statement about the university as a whole. Vélez-Quiñones argued that the last
sentence in the paragraph was important to retain because it lays the basis for the pursuit of
diversity. Nancy Bristow agreed and asked if the last sentence “could be shuffled into the second
paragraph.”
Loeb asked why the new paragraph in bold was created, and Barry responded that writing was
not emphasized in the new guidelines as it had been in the old. But he pointed out that the bolded
paragraph was in fact in the original curriculum statement, and appeared here with some revision,
including the reference to writing.
Orlin suggested as a friendly amendment deleting the first paragraph by combining the
first two paragraphs into a single paragraph. Thorndike and the seconder accepted this.
The motion then became “to shuffle the first paragraph into the second.”
Haltom argued that we needed to clarify what from the first paragraph was to be shuffled into the
second paragraph. Thorndike responded that what he intended to be incorporated into the
second paragraph was “the exploration of diverse ideas, values, and cultures.”
Loeb opposed the motion saying he didn’t want any of what’s in the first paragraph to get lost.
Vélez-Quiñones said that he, too (along with Bartanen), believed that the notion of treating the
whole person was important to keep and that he favored wider shuffling into the second
paragraph than just the last half of the last sentence of the first paragraph.
Ward said that he agreed that there was more substance in the first paragraph that needed to be
retained that defines some of our principles, and he said he did not support the motion. PascoPranger argued that even if there were such substance, it may not be relevant to a curriculum
statement, whereas the last half of the last sentence is relevant. Bartanen said that the first
paragraph provides context and that the second gives goals, so that the first paragraph was
indeed appropriate in a curriculum statement. Vélez-Quiñones added that this was “no ordinary
curriculum;” that the first paragraph established the context in which our special curriculum
resides. Barry said he favored keeping the first paragraph because it would be easier to revise
the first two paragraphs if we keep it. He said he agreed with Bartanen and Vélez-Quiñones that it
“sets the stage.”
The motion then failed on a voice vote, with one abstention
There were no further comments on section I, so moved to section II. Dean Cooney pointed out
that virtually everything in section II would require the trustees’ approval to change. We therefore
agreed to move to section III.
But at this point Loeb M/S/P to adjourn and we did adjourn at 5:10 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
John M. Finney
Secretary of the Faculty
Material added in bold.
CURRICULUM STATEMENT
1-30-2001
I. General Considerations
The University of Puget Sound as an academic community provides a meeting place for
those committed to the generation, study, analysis, and exchange of ideas. The
intellectual purposes of the University are of paramount importance. At the same time,
the University recognizes that the life of the mind creates a context for the personal and
professional growth of individuals as whole persons. The University thus encourages
both formal thought and self-reflection and offers a curriculum supporting the exploration
of diverse ideas, values, and cultures.
An undergraduate liberal arts education should prepare a person to meet the
demands of a vocation, to cope with the complexity of modern life, and to pursue
interests and ideas with confidence and independence. Such an education should
ground undergraduates well in a field of specialization; develop their ability to write
with clarity and power; deepen their understanding of the structures and issues of
the contemporary world; broaden their perspective on enduring human concerns
and cultural change; and provide the foundation for continued learning and
appreciation.
The curricular requirements set forth in this document represent the minimum demands
of a liberal education. Academic advisors should urge each student to explore varying
fields of study in the process of constructing a broad educational program on the
foundation of the required curriculum.
II. Educational Goals for the University
The undergraduate curriculum will emphasize the following educational goals:
A. The ability to think logically and analytically
B. The ability to communicate clearly and effectively, both orally and in writing
C. Intellectual autonomy and the accompanying capacity to learn independently of a
formal educational structure
D. An understanding of the interrelationship of knowledge
E. Familiarity with diverse fields of knowledge
F. Solid grounding in the special field of the student's choosing
G. An acknowledged set of personal values
H. Informed appreciation of self and others as part of a broader humanity in the world
environment
III. Graduation Requirements
In order to receive the baccalaureate degree from the University of Puget Sound, a
student must have
A. Completed a minimum of 32 units. The 32 units may include up to 1.5 units of activity
courses, up to 4 units of independent study, and up to four academic courses
graded on the pass/fail system;
B Earned a minimum of 16 units, including the last 8, in residence at the University;
residence requirements also exist in Core, majors, minors, and graduation
honors.
C. Maintained a minimum grade-point average (GPA) of 2.0 for all courses taken at
Puget Sound;
D. Maintained a minimum GPA of 2.0 for all graded and all Puget Sound courses in the
major(s) and the minor(s), if a minor is elected;
E. Maintained a minimum GPA of 2.0 for all graded courses, including transfer courses;
F. Met University core requirements;
G. Satisfied the Foreign Language Graduation Requirement by at least one of the
following:
1. Successfully completing two semesters of a foreign language at the
101-102 college level, or one semester of a foreign language at the 200
level or above;
2. Passing a foreign language proficiency exam at the third-year high
school or first-year college level;
3. Receiving a score of 4 or 5 on an Advanced Placement foreign language
exam;
(Students with documented learning disabilities that affect the ability to process
language may be eligible for waivers)
H. Met requirements in an academic major;
I. Completed all incomplete or in-progress grades;
J. Filed an application for graduation with the Office of the Registrar. Applications are
due in September for graduation in the following May, August, or December.
IV. Core Requirements for the Bachelor's Degree
The faculty of the University of Puget Sound have designed the core curriculum to give
undergraduates an integrated and demanding introduction to the life of the mind and to
established methods of intellectual inquiry. The Puget Sound undergraduate's core
experience begins with two freshman seminars that guide the student through an in-depth
exploration of a focused area of interest and that sharpen the student’s skills in
constructing persuasive arguments. In the first three years of their Puget Sound college
career, students also study five “Approaches to Knowing”— Fine Arts, Humanities,
Mathematics, Natural Science, and Social Science. These core areas develop the student’s
understanding of different disciplinary perspectives on society, culture, and the physical
world, and explore both the strengths of those disciplinary approaches and their
limitations. Connections, an upper-level integrative course, challenges the traditional
boundaries of disciplines and examines the benefits and limits of interdisciplinary
approaches to knowledge.
Further, in accordance with the stated educational goals of the University of Puget Sound, core
curriculum requirements have been established: (a) to improve each student's grasp of the
intellectual tools necessary for the understanding and communication of ideas; (b) to enable each
student to understand herself or himself as a thinking person capable of making ethical and
aesthetic choices; (c) to help each student comprehend the diversity of intellectual
approaches to understanding human society and the physical world; and (d) to increase
each student's awareness of his or her place in those broader contexts. Specific objectives of the
core areas are described below.
A.
Core Curriculum: Rubrics and Guidelines. Each core rubric consists of two
sections, "Guidelines" and “Learning Objectives.” Faculty have developed
the Guidelines section to achieve the particular Learning Objectives of the
core rubric and, more broadly, the educational goals of the University. The
Guidelines are intended to be used by faculty to develop core courses and
by the Curriculum Committee to review core courses. The Learning
Objectives are intended to provide a clear statement to students of what
they can expect to learn from any given core area. Although the Learning
Objectives will assist the faculty in developing Core courses and in meeting
the spirit of the Core area, the Curriculum Committee will evaluate and
approve Core courses based on their adherence to the Guidelines, not the
Learning Objectives.
INSERT CORE GUIDELINES HERE
B.
C.
D.
Sequence of Core Courses. Students are expected to satisfy the eight core
requirements in the following sequence:
Units
First Year: The Freshman Experience
Writing and Rhetoric Seminar
1
Scholarly and Creative Inquiry Seminar
1
Any time during the undergraduate years: Five Approaches to Knowing
Fine Arts
1
Humanistic
1
Mathematical (strongly recommended in the first year)
1
Natural Scientific
1
Social Scientific
1
Junior or Senior Year: Interdisciplinary Experience Connections
1
8
Core requirements for transfer students.
1. All transfer students, prior to receiving the bachelor's degree, must meet core
requirements in Writing and Rhetoric, the Five Approaches to Knowing,
and Connections. The Scholarly and Creative Inquiry Seminar will be
waived for transfer students entering with sophomore standing or
above.
2. Students entering the University with advanced standing must complete the
following minimum core requirements at the University of Puget Sound.
a. Students entering with sophomore standing must complete a course
in Connections and three additional core areas.
b. Students entering with junior standing or above must complete a
course in Connections and two additional core areas.
Enrollment limits for core courses.
Faculty and administration recognize the value of small classes for
teaching and learning and will work together to reduce the size of core
classes whenever possible. Sections of the Writing and Rhetoric Seminar
and of the Scholarly and Creative Inquiry Seminar will have enrollment
limits of 17 students.
V. Departmental, School, and Program Guidelines
A.
Each program, department and school within the University will review its
academic program regularly to ensure that the basic educational objectives of the
University are being addressed. This re-examination should not be cursory, nor
designed merely to affirm the status quo. Courses should be revised, if
necessary, to address University and departmental objectives.
B
Each program, department and school will maintain at least one course suitable
for, but not restricted to, the non-major, for whom that course may comprise the
sole exposure to the field. The course should consider methodology and
assumptions as well as substantive disciplinary knowledge.
C.
Each student should become familiar with values, assumptions, and perspectives
conditioned by cultures different from her or his own. Wherever it is appropriate
and possible to do so, courses should consider the subject matter in a
multicultural context.
D.
Since the University supports and encourages writing in all disciplines,
students need to have opportunities for significant writing experiences
whenever appropriate across the curriculum.
E.
Writing in the Major. Because the Writing and Rhetoric Seminar anticipates a
further development of writing abilities throughout the undergraduate years, it is
appropriate that all students should encounter substantive writing experiences
within their major fields of study. Each department, school, or program with an
undergraduate major shall demonstrate to the Curriculum Committee that the
major contains significant writing expectations within its curricular requirements.
(Please see Addendum A of the Departmental Curriculum Review Self-Study
Guide for guidelines.)
F.
To encourage study outside the major field, the following limitations will govern
the requirements imposed by each program, department or school:
1. No more than 9 units may be required in the major field.
2. No more than 16 total units may be required in the major and
supporting fields.
3. Exceptions will be permissible only with the approval of the Dean and
the Curriculum Committee.
An academic minor must consist of a minimum of 5, but no more than six,
units with the minor area.
All courses and requirements shall be reviewed and approved by the Curriculum
Committee.
G.
H.