MINUTES
ACADEMIC STANDARDS COMMITTEE
February 1, 2006
Present: Jo Crane, Martin Jackson, Kathryn McMillan, Kevin David, Alison TracyHale, Gary McCall, Houston Dougharty, Melissa Bass, Ken Clark, Maria Sampen,
Martins Linauts, Greta Austin, Bill Kupinse, Fred Hamel, Dave Moore, John Finney,
Brad Tomhave, Jack Roundy
1. Minutes: The minutes of the January 18 meeting were approved as written.
2. Announcements: Dougharty shared a postcard from Andrea Hatch, former
student representative to the ASC, written from Cambodia. Austin announced the
Clark Lombardi lecture, entitled Islamic Law in National Constitutions: Iraq and
Beyond, scheduled for February 2 at 5:30 pm. Finney announced that a Hearing
Board would be convened on Friday, February 3, at 8 am in Jones 010. Another
Hearing Board will be convened in the coming weeks.
3. Petitions Committee (PC) Actions: Tomhave provided the following report of PC
actions since our last meeting:
Date
1/24/06
YTD
Approved
8 (6R)
99 (42 PPT + 18R)
Denied
0
25
No Action
0
1
Total
8
125
4. Re-evaluate the Class Schedule: Jackson revived the conversation by presenting
considerable documentation on ASC class schedule discussions from earlier years,
together with a memo Finney routinely sends to chairs inviting their schedule
proposals. Finney also provided background materials (attached), including the “key
documents” for this discussion. Jackson reported on an unstated (in the committee
charge) but significant motive factor in this schedule review, which is a growing
faculty pedagogical preference for 2-day-per-week course offerings (see attached
memo from Suzanne Holland). Finney reported that when ASC did its last thorough
review of the schedule, its primary objective was to “rationalize” course offering times.
This time, he said, the primary objective of reconsideration appears to be making
adjustments that would allow faculty to “do what they want to do” as they order their
teaching schedules. Finney expressed a preference for a “rational” schedule over
“anarchy” in course offering times, but thought adjustments would be possible.
Bass reported that her colleagues in Politics and Government “to a person” wanted
additional 2-day-per-week, 80-minute options that were not limited to
Tuesday/Thursday. At the very least, her colleagues wanted to send a strong
message against further limiting use of the Monday/Wednesday 3-4:20 time slot (an
initiative implicit in Finney’s most recent scheduling memo owing to conflicts after 4
pm with co-curricular activities). Jackson repeated that his reading of the Faculty
Senate’s “hidden agenda” in sending the scheduling matter to ASC was a widespread
desire to open up more 2-day-per-week, 80-minute teaching slots.
Linauts addressed the perceived conflict between MW, 3-4:20 teaching slots and
regular 4 pm Faculty Meeting times, asking if an easy solution there might not be to
move regular Faculty Meetings to 4:30-5:30 pm. Austin reported that Doug Edwards
had suggested holding Faculty Meetings between 7-9 am. Crane quickly responded
that early morning Faculty Meeting times would cause problems in Thompson Hall
where mornings must be fully used for science lectures in order to make space for full
deployment of science labs in the afternoon.
Moore and Finney exchanged clarifying comments about how “Model 2” upon which
our current schedule is based has evolved a bit since its adoption in 2001.
Essentially, Finney explained, our current schedule offers 8 teaching blocks on MWF,
and 6 blocks on TTH. Technically, there is no 4 pm option in either teaching pattern,
to allow for co-curricular activities to begin at that hour, though of course the handful
of MW 3-4:20 offerings fall outside the model.
Jackson reported a suggestion he had been given by interested faculty. Would it be
possible, he asked, to maintain our current 50-minute blocks on MWF until 1 pm, at
which time we would open two 80-minute blocks as an alternative option (1-2:20,
2:30-3:50) to be put in place alongside continuing MWF (or MWTF, MTWF) 50-minute
blocks? This added option would allow for more 2-day-per-week, 80-minute slots. On
the plus side, this arrangement would both expand the 2-day-per-week possibilities
and assure that all classes were finished before 4 pm, to allow for co-curricular
activities (and 4 pm Faculty Meeting times). The drawback to the suggestion would be
a reduction in MWF offering times from 8 to 7 (and this would squeeze his
department, Mathematics and Computer Science). Jackson thought that his
department, with its 4-day-per-week teaching schedule, would have to give up 2 pm
class start times in this revised model.
Finney said the 80-minute slots on MWF would work so long as all pairs were fully
used (MW, MF, WF) since then we would simply be replacing 3 hrs/week of
instruction delivered over three days to the same number of hours deployed over two,
with all classroom slots still filled. Bass thought that MF slots might be tough to fill.
Austin approved the option, on pedagogical grounds, though she wondered whether
students would come to Friday meetings of these classes. McMillan said that Friday
afternoon classes work now, so should work in a revised schedule. Crane worried
that student athletes with 2-day-per-week afternoon classes that included Fridays
could be negatively affected, since absence for “away” competitions would mean
missing half of the week’s class sessions.
David wondered if our model could be made even more flexible by offering 50-minute
slots on TTH, so that some classes might run MTTH, for example. Finney thought this
was possible.
Jackson returned to the MWF, 80-minute block idea, asking Finney if he could do an
analysis to see if it would work. Finney replied that logically, we can see that it will
work so long as Friday is used to the fullest. David asked about Linauts’ idea of
moving Faculty Meetings to 4:30. Finney replied that Faculty Meetings move among
the days of the week, and some occur on Tuesdays and Thursdays, so the scheduling
changes under consideration would not consistently affect Faculty Meetings. Jackson
remembered that at one point we were trying to keep 4 pm Wednesday free for Faculty
Meetings. Finney replied that that idea had fallen away because of science labs.
Crane reported that science colleagues must use afternoons on every day of the week
for labs, given available lab space. Protecting a 4 pm Faculty Meeting slot would
mean moving more labs into the evenings. If we wish to continue the pursuit of a
protected hour, Finney said, we should probably do an analysis of the least used hour
of the week. He guessed that hour would be on Friday at 4 pm. He suggested that 7
am might also work on most days of the week.
Returning to the question of 80-minute slots in afternoons on MWF, Tomhave said
that faculty currently choose to use only MW, so he wasn’t convinced that all
combinations of MW, WF, and MF would be used if we created two slots with those
options on MWF afternoons. In that case, McCall replied, we would lose a teaching
slot, since available slots on MWF would be reduced from 8 to 7. Hamel was
concerned that even with full usage of MWF 80-minute slots, we would not be able to
offer as many courses with that model because of the puzzle of allocating classrooms.
Finney thought there were ways of assuring full utilization.
Roundy mentioned that in Academic Advising the biggest current issue is the
imbalance in some departments between MWF and TTH offerings. He mentioned a
senior student in one department who was obliged to take four TTH classes this
spring. His view was that we need either to find a better balance between MWF and
TTH offerings (in some departments) or expand the option for MW 80-minute
offerings, to allow students to make more reasonable schedules.
Finney endorsed the Jackson notion of taking all of these questions to the Friday
department chairs meeting. He said he had noticed a developing faculty preference
for 2-day-per-week offerings in recent years, and thought that it would be good to poll
the chairs on their departmental preferences. Bass checked her understanding that
in order to make expanded 80-minute options on MWF work, all variants of MW, MF,
and WF would have to be mandated. She was not sure how favorably this would be
viewed in her department. Crane wasn’t sure that we could make rational student
scheduling possible without continuing to work on balance between 3-day-per-week
and 2-day-per-week offerings. She said the issue is not significant within her
department, however, where the 2-day-per-week offering is not an option. Kupinse
and Tracy Hale indicated that there is no strong sentiment either way (2-day or 3-day)
in English. Moore said there was strong sentiment in favor of increasing 2-day-perweek options in Psychology. Austin said she had informally canvassed several
departments in Wyatt (Religion, Classics, Philosophy) and found considerable
sentiment in favor of the 2-day-per-week option, as well.
We adjourned at 3:55.
Respectfully submitted by the ASC amanuensis,
Jack Roundy
To:
From:
Date:
Re:
Dean Kris Bartanen, Associate Deans John Finney and Alyce DeMarais
Suzanne Holland, Religion Chair
November 10, 2005
Class Scheduling
I am sending this letter to request some kind of discussion in whatever forum you think
appropriate about the issue of the MW 3:00 – 4:20 class schedule, or more correctly, about
its disappearance as a scheduling option. In Associate Dean Finney’s 9/27 memo to
Department Chairs he wrote: “The use of 3:00 MW courses meeting longer than fifty
minutes has become excessive, affecting late-afternoon cocurricular events in a manner
contrary to the goals of faculty when they created the current class schedule. The university
operates on a MWF/TT course schedule. Please use these options.”
I have spoken with my colleagues in Religion about this and would like to let you know
some of our thoughts. First of all, as Chair of the Department I scheduled 2-3 classes in that
time slot for each semester of next academic year, and I did so because in my view my
colleagues have perfectly acceptable pedagogical reasons for wanting to teach particular
classes in longer rather than shorter blocks of time. It seems to me that restricting all 80minute courses to TT results in a disservice to students (who end up taking too many
courses back-to-back on those days), and gives limited teaching options to faculty who do
not teach well in 50-minute formats. Indeed our president was heard to remark that he
himself would find it difficult to teach a humanities course in such a time slot.
Secondly, by any measure, Religion has always been fully cooperative with scheduling
requests from the administration, particularly where Core courses are concerned; we pull our
weight and have one of the highest Cores per FTE of any department on campus. I say this
to place my protestation in context; colleagues in Religion are not trying to “get out of”
teaching MWF courses; in fact some of us prefer that format. It is also the case that over
time those persons teaching TT courses end up teaching more time than those teaching
MWF. My larger point is that a good schedule should make room for a variety of
pedagogical preferences for this is integral to a good classroom experience.
Third, contrary to what Associate Dean Finney’s memo said, I believe the current schedule
under which we labor was never approved by the faculty; to the best of my knowledge we
were told by then Dean Cooney that the schedule would be changing to its current format.
At the time many of us lamented the loss of the 90-minute period, now 80 minutes. There
was indeed concern, as there always has been, about having some time in the schedule in
which faculty meetings could take place, and then it seemed to someone a good idea to try
and protect an hour for co-curricular activities; hence the reference in John Finney’s memo.
One wonders why a co-curricular activity hour could not be scheduled for 4:00 pm on a
Friday instead of on a Monday, thus freeing the MW time slot again for classes.
Finally, I would like to say a word about one of the issues that is implied in John Finney’s
memo, which is that faculty should be following a teaching schedule that would have us here
five days a week. It seems to me that the Puget Sound in which we work today is a different
place than the UPS that many of us came to years ago. One of the chief differences is the
intentional recruitment of faculty with solid research agendas who are writing and publishing
regularly in addition to their focus on teaching. Maintaining a balance between these is very
difficult indeed, and I encourage my faculty who are not teaching five days each week to take
a day for their own research if they feel they need to do so. If this means that they are not
on campus that day this is something I feel we should support. Otherwise, I cannot see how
we can nurture the growth of our teacher-scholars. In this same vein, it would be wonderful
if the schedule itself could help balance the struggles of teaching and scholarship by giving
more, rather than fewer teaching options.
As I said at the outset, I respectfully request a conversation on this whole issue. Thanks very
much for reading and considering my current thinking on the matter as a department chair.
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
September 27, 2005
Department Chairpersons and School Directors
John M. Finney, Associate Dean and University Registrar
2006-2007 Class Schedule
It is time to prepare your department's 2006-2007 class schedule. Please submit your
2006-2007 schedule to Associate Registrar Brad Tomhave in the Office of the Registrar
no later than October 25, 2005. Attached are printouts of your 2005-2006 schedule. You
may make changes to existing courses in blue ink just above the course entry, and you
may add new courses at the bottom of the printout. If you prefer to submit your new
schedule on your own spreadsheet, that is fine so long as it contains the same information
as on the printouts.
Please note class scheduling guidelines:
MWF
TT
8:00 - 8:50
9:00 - 9:50
10:00 - 10:50
11:00 - 11:50
12:00 - 12:50
1:00 - 1:50
2:00 - 2:50
3:00 - 3:50
8:00 - 9:20
9:30 - 10:50
11:00 - 12:20
12:30 - 1:50
2:00 – 3:20
3:30 - 4:50
8 Periods
4:00 Hour Not Used as Starting Time on
MWF
MTTF/MTWT/MTWF/MWTF/TWTF
6 Periods
MTWTF
8:00 – 8:50
10:00 – 10:50
11:00 – 11:50
1:00 – 1:50
2:00 – 2:50
8:00 – 8:50
10:00 – 10:50
11:00 – 11:50
1:00 – 1:50
2:00 – 2:50
Four-day-per-week courses that begin at
9:00, 12:00, or 3:00 will have Tu and/or Th
session(s) that are adjusted to fit within the
closest legal 80-minute time period (see the
box at upper right)
Five-day-per-week courses that begin at
9:00, 12:00, or 3:00 will have Tu and Th
sessions that are adjusted to fit within the
closest legal 80-minute time period (see the
box at upper right)
2006-2007 Class Schedule Request
September 27, 2005, Page 2
Please adhere to the following guidelines:
[1]
Schedule classes over the entire day. The 8:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. hours are
especially underused. Please make every effort to schedule at least twenty per
cent of your department’s courses before 9:00 a.m. or at 3:00 p.m. or later. This is
especially critical during the years of transition to a new core curriculum, during
which there will be more mid-sized classes on a campus with a limited number of
classrooms of this size. Also, please consider whether the department is
suggesting a higher number of classes beginning at 11:00 than at other hours. Too
heavy a load at midday can make it difficult both for faculty and for students to
get lunch in a reasonable time.
[2]
Please try to minimize the number of courses that will have an actual enrollment
of fewer than 10 students. With the large number of small freshman seminars in
the core, there are greater enrollment pressure in others areas of the curriculum.
Courses enrolling fewer than ten students may need to be canceled in order to
provide another course elsewhere where the need is greater.
[3]
The schedule needs to be consistent with the number of faculty teaching units
available to your department through full-time faculty and any approved adjunct
units. Make sure that the total assignment of each career and full-time member of
your faculty is six units. Compute science lab assignments at the rate of 6 hours
in lab = one unit in load. Do not schedule any faculty person for a load of more
than 6 units without budgetary approval. And do not adjust the length of labs
without first consulting Associate Dean DeMarais.
[4]
Make sure your courses do not create scheduling conflicts for students who must
also take courses in other department(s) at the same time of day. It is important to
maintain contact with chairs in other departments to minimize this kind of
disruption. If faculty in your department are teaching in interdisciplinary
programs, please cooperate with those program coordinators in formulating
schedule plans.
[5]
Schedule courses for the department and for individuals using the full week.
Arranging a departmental schedule so that all faculty teach only TuTh or only
MWF is inappropriate.
[6]
Monday-Wednesday-Friday courses begin on the hour and end ten minutes before
the (next) hour.
2006-2007 Class Schedule Request
September 27, 2005, Page 3
[7]
Tuesday-Thursday courses begin and end within the six 80-minute blocks shown
in the table on page one. The use of 3:00 MW courses meeting longer than fifty
minutes has become excessive, affecting late-afternoon cocurricular events in a
manner contrary to the goals of faculty when they created the current class
schedule. The university operates on a MWF/TT course schedule. Please use
these options.
[8]
Tuesday-Thursday sessions that are part of 9:00, 12:00, or 3:00 four-day-per-week
or five-day-per-week classes are shifted by thirty minutes to fit within one of the
legal 80-minute TuTh time blocks. See the lower two blocks on the first page of
this memo.
[9]
Seminars scheduled for two hours or more should begin no earlier than 3:00 in the
afternoon or in the evening. Laboratory sections and studio courses currently
scheduled for blocks of three hours or more would continue to be scheduled as
they are at present.
[10]
Please review enrollment limits to make sure they are neither too low nor too
high. A low limit which is then raised during registration is unfair to students
shut out before the limit is raised. The bookstore often under-orders books when
this happens. Because rooms are assigned in part on the basis of enrollment
limits, it is often difficult or impossible to find new rooms when limits are raised.
If you wish to lower enrollment limits from what they have been in the past,
please consult with Associate Dean DeMarais.
[11]
Requests for specific classrooms will be honored whenever possible. In some
cases it may be necessary to assign classes to other rooms or times of day,
depending on the needs of the University and the availability of space.
[12]
It is crucial that the class schedule be coherent and allow flexibility in course
selection. It may on occasion be necessary for us to move a class to a different
time of day than originally requested. Your support and cooperation when this
occurs are important to the continued academic health of the University.
[13]
Once the class schedule is posted on-line, no changes in day or time can be
made. New faculty you hire to teach existing courses are expected to teach at
times already published.
[16]
The 2006-2007 Class Schedule is due in the Office of the Registrar no later than
October 25, 2005.
2006-2007 Class Schedule Request
September 27, 2005, Page 4
If you have questions about the preparation of your 2005-2006 class schedule, please call
Associate Registrar Brad Tomhave (3529), Assistant Registrar Lori Blake (3105),
Schedule Coordinator Doris Acosta (2850), or me (3207).
cc:
Alyce DeMarais
Kristine Bartanen
Jack Roundy