MINUTES
ACADEMIC STANDARDS COMMITTEE
February 15, 2006
Present: Jo Crane, Martin Jackson, Kathryn McMillan, Ben Bradley, Kevin David,
Alison Tracy-Hale, Gary McCall, Houston Dougharty, Melissa Bass, Ken Clark, Maria
Sampen, Martins Linauts, Bill Kupinse, Fred Hamel, John Finney, Brad Tomhave,
Jack Roundy
1. Minutes: The minutes of the February 1 meeting were approved as written.
2. Announcements: Finney announced that a Hearing Board will be convened on
Friday, February 17, at 3 pm. Jackson announced that Dougharty and his colleague
Donn Marshall will present a longitudinal view of the academic persistence and
success of students who have been granted Medical Withdrawals or Emergency
Administrative Withdrawals, as well as those who have been subject to academic
sanctions. This presentation will constitute the April 5 ASC meeting. Roundy
announced that as he will be absent from the March 1 meeting for an out-of-town
conference, another secretary will have to be named.
3. Petitions Committee (PC) Actions: Tomhave provided the following report of PC
actions since our last meeting:
Date
2/2/06
2/9/06
YTD
Approved
15 (6PPT + 5R)
7 (2PPT)
121 (50 PPT + 23R)
Denied
1
0
26
No Action
0
0
1
Total
16
7
148
4. Re-evaluate the Class Schedule: Jackson renewed our conversation in the
context of an email he sent earlier in the day (attached). He drew our attention to the
goals of our 1999 schedule revision and current ideas for modification. He also
reported on his take from a department chairs meeting at which this was discussed
and subsequent conversations with various faculty colleagues, the upshot of which
was that adding two 80-minute 2-day-per-week teaching slots on MWF afternoons
garnered the greatest interest. He said that some faculty suggested attempting to run
two 80-minute slots on MWF afternoons concurrently with three 50-minute slots,
which all acknowledged could create conflicts. He reported great interest among some
faculty for retaining the “unofficial” 80-minute slot on MW from 3-4:20. He reported
some support for moving the desired “co-curricular hour” from its current 4 pm to
4:30 pm, so as to create space for the MW 3-4:20 teaching slot. Other faculty, he
said, suggested either that we make no changes to our current model, or that we
return to square one and work out a new model from scratch.
Sampen said that any change to course scheduling from 3 pm onward on MWF could
prove problematic for music scholarship students (including many from outside the
music major). She expressed particular concern about increasing use of the MW 34:20 slot or moving the start of the “co-curricular hour” from 4 to 4:30. The principal
problem for music scholarship students is meeting times for ensembles, particularly
for students who must play in more than one. In fact, Sampen said, Music is
currently working with the Registrar to make adjustments arising from conflicts in the
current schedule, conflicts she said would worsen if certain proposals are approved.
Tomhave identified the three music-related issues as: 1) MW 3-4:20 scheduling, 2)
science labs that do not end by 4 pm, and 3) science labs that run in the evening, and
“hedge in” ensemble meeting times “from the other end.” Sampen added that music
ensembles are very large and involve significant numbers of our students. Jackson
noted that several faculty with whom he had spoken question the importance of the
goal of reducing co-curricular conflicts in setting the class schedule.
David inquired why there was a restriction on 3-hour seminars to begin at 3 pm or
later. Finney replied that at most institutions, seminars of that length are held in the
evening. At Puget Sound, the late start is intended to avoid “wiping out” three
consecutive time slots (on MWF, at least] for a given classroom.
Jackson asked members if we should revisit the goals of class scheduling, as
articulated in 1999 (see attached). He added another not in today’s message: to make
more efficient use of classroom space. David also noted that a goal missing from our
list was the one articulated in the Holland memo: to create a “professional
development day” (likely Friday) by more widespread use of 80-minute blocks on MW
and TTH. McMillan said she thought another goal ought to be avoiding imposing a
scheduling “squeeze” on students.
Finney said he liked the notion (mentioned earlier) of “starting from scratch” in
developing a scheduling model. Jackson made ironic mention of a “kluge” approach
to our schedule, but suggested seriously that in if we were to start from scratch, he’d
want to explore exchanging current 4-day-per-week offerings of 50 minutes for
slightly longer, 3-day-per-week offerings.
McCall, returning to Jackson’s earlier comment, wondered “who gets to decide”
whether co-curricular conflicts with the class schedule are an important
consideration? He thought these conflicts were very important, and cited musical and
athletic groups that he felt were central to the college experience. David thought that
faculty in conjunction with administration ought to make these calls. Finney gave a
brief history of the growing importance of the co-curriculum in the Puget Sound
community, beginning in the Phibbs era. He opined that the significant growth in the
co-curriculum, together with greater demand for afternoon teaching slots had created
rising tensions around priorities recently. Jackson also spoke up for the value of the
co-curriculum, counting in it the weekly (Thursday, 4 pm) Thompson Hall science and
math seminar—he wished more students could attend, but scheduling conflicts limit
participation. Jackson said he thought there was some resentment in some faculty
minds about the way in which our current schedule was decided—in effect, that the
administration had imposed a schedule at the end of the last round of discussions in
the ASC and Faculty Senate in 1999. He said he thought a process in which clearer
faculty “buy-in” were solicited might make these colleagues happier. Finney said he
thought it most ironic that the most controversial piece of the last schedule revision—
the replacement of MTTF offerings with MWF and a floating T or TH fourth day—has
essentially eroded by now. He said the most pressing current concern of many
faculty, to increase the number of 2-day-per-week, 80-minute slots, actually arose
after the 1999 “rationalizing” of the schedule.
Sampen wondered why 80-minute blocks on MWF mornings were not under
consideration. Crane replied that those blocks would create conflicts for students
who had to reconcile them with the 50-minute standard Thompson Hall must follow.
These problems cannot be resolved simply within a single department, but across
departments. Sampen asked whether new space in Harned will give us new flexibility.
Crane replied that Harned will not add lecture classroom space to our inventory.
David asked whether we could tweak our mixed model in some of the proposed ways
(including side-by-side 80-minute and 50-minute blocks on MWF) and try it out for
two or three years? Jackson said such a plan would pose problems for
Math/Computer Science, since in his department all of the 50-minute MWF (with
floating T/TH hours) are fully used now. Losing the 2 pm “start” anywhere in the
system would create new conflicts for his department. Roundy asked Jackson
whether Puget Sound has an “optimization” expert who could model a mixed system
for us. Jackson was sure one could be found, but at a significant cost, because this is
not a simple problem. Finney added that the cost of optimization would have to be
borne annually, as well, because of changes in the curriculum and in our offerings.
Jackson asked members if we were ready to “wrap up” the discussion. He said that
all the ASC can do is to make a recommendation to the Faculty Senate and Academic
Vice President. We might suggest, for example, that the Academic VP look for ways to
increase the number of 80-minute teaching blocks. Sampen replied that even though
the proposed 80-minute blocks beginning at 1 pm MWF would leave free the 4 pm
“co-curricular hour,” they would still pose difficulties for music scholarship students,
since some ensembles have to begin at 3 pm (because many students are in more
than one ensemble).
Hamel said that in listening to the discussion he had not heard that we have a
problem with the current schedule, but rather that it no longer suits the teaching
preferences of certain faculty. He said he thought “nothing is ‘not working’ now.”
Crane said she thought the one real current problem was the one Roundy brought up
earlier—disproportionate use of TTH 80-minute blocks in some departments has
forced some students into out-of-balance TTH schedules. Finney reported that the
scheduling memo he sent out most recently has reduced to some degree
disproportionate use of TTH slots in the 2006-07 schedule. There followed several
remarks about how important it is to keep Friday as a fully used teaching day on
campus, for both academic and community reasons.
Jackson then invited a motion for a recommendation to the Faculty Senate. David
offered another suggestion for a single 80-minute slot on MWF—would mandating a
1:30 start for that slot help with our current problems? Finney replied that the way
he would prefer to implement any 2-day-per-week model with 80-minute slots on
MWF would be to assure that a MW, WF, and a MF slot had all been filled before a
second MW entered the schedule, for any department. David returned to the earlier
concern about Friday classes in the 2-day-per-week model for students who had to
travel for athletics or other university-sponsored activities. Finney replied that if we
are committed to Friday as an instructional day, we must schedule it accordingly.
Hearing no motion for a recommendation to Faculty Senate, Jackson invited a motion
to adjourn, which was supplied by all assembled voices.
We adjourned at 3:50, with a petitions subcommittee contingent remaining to handle
the week’s single petition.
Respectfully submitted by the ASC amanuensis,
Jack Roundy
All [Members of the Academic Standards Committee],
Below are some ideas that might set directions for our discussion of the course
scheduling issues at today's meeting.
Martin
1. The Senate charge of Feb 1999 articulates goals that were considered in the
discussions leading to the adoption of the current system by the academic deans. We
could examine these goals and make a recommendation on reaffirming or
reconsidering each one. Here's my summary of the goals (using wording taken from
the 1999 Senate charge):
* Reduce the number of conflicts between classes for students.
* Make available a greater number of desirable class blocks.
* Reduce late afternoon class conflicts with rehearsals, athletic practices, and the like.
* Allow a common meeting time for committee meetings, department meetings, student
meetings, and the like.
Are each of the goals still valued? Have the relative values of the goals changed?
2. I've solicited and received comments from chairs at the chairs meeting and by email. Many have responded positively to the proposal for 80 minute blocks on MWF
afternoons. There are some objections. Additional suggestions I have received
include:
a. Allow both 50 minute blocks at 1:00-1:50, 2:00-2:50, 3:00-3:50 and 80 minute
blocks at 1:00-2:20, 2:30-3:50 on MWF afternoons.
b. Allow 80 minute block at 3:00-4:20 on MWF.
c. Move "co-curricular hour" to 4:30-5:30 on MWF.
d. Make no changes.
e. Start from scratch rather than making modifications to the existing system.
We could discuss the costs and benefits of each suggestion. We could also generate
additional suggestions.
3. The product of our discussions might be in the form of recommendations to various
parties. We could begin formulating specific recommendations.
[2/15/06]