TO:
Beth Dobkin, Provost
FROM:
Tomas Gomez-Arias, Chair
Academic Senate
DATE:
May 11, 2012
RE:
Senate Action S-11/12-31
Academic Calendar Task Force Report to the Senate
At the May10, 2012 meeting of the Academic Senate, the attached Report to the Senate,
Calendar Task Force, April 22, 2012 was accepted by a vote of 9-0 with 1 abstention.
This action was assigned Senate Action # S-11/12-31.
Attachment
cc:
Br. Ronald Gallagher, President
Vice Provost Richard Carp
Report to the Senate
Calendar Task Force
April 22, 2012
I. Introduction
At the January 11, 2012 Senate meeting, Senate Chair Tomás Gomez-Arias announced the
appointment of a task force. Its charge is to review long-term calendar options permitting
compliance with WASC and federal contact-hour requirements and to present a written report to
the Senate before the end of the academic year. The task force members are Kara Boatman, Claude
Malary and Steve Cortright.
The task force held two sessions, on April 13 and 18, 2012, to appraise faculty of its raison d’ être,
to share its preliminary analysis, and to discuss options. The task force herewith presents its
preliminary report to the Senate, so that senators may provide feedback. Feedback from the two
April sessions and from the members of the Senate will serve to enrich the draft, which will
subsequently become the task force’s final report to the Senate, fulfilling its charge, for presentation
at the meeting of May 10, 2012.
Including this Introduction (Section I), the report is divided into five main sections. Section II
explains how Carnegie units are calculated and how Saint Mary’s College currently defines its
instructional periods. Section III presents selected, alternative calendar configurations that would
align the College’s practice with federal and WASC guidelines. Section IV explains how contact
hours vary across majors. Section V surveys the financial concerns that will inevitably arise from
any calendar changes and considers how those concerns might be addressed.
II. Definitions and Equivalents
1. Course Credits and Carnegie Units
A Carnegie unit, semester unit, or semester hour (each term is in use) is based on an instructional
hour, defined as 50 instructional minutes.1 Alternatively, it can be represented as 50 instructional
minutes per week over 15 weeks. In the U.S. a typical, one-semester undergraduate course
comprises 3 Carnegie units, semester units, or semester hours, equivalent to 2250 instructional
minutes, per semester. This report adopts the usage, Carnegie units (Cu), expressed in instructional
minutes (im).
Saint Mary’s College currently structures its academic requirements in terms of semester and
January Term course credits. A typical one-semester course at SMC meets for 60 minutes (MFW) or
90 minutes (TTH/MF) per session. During the Fall 2011 term, MWF classes met 42 times and
TTH/MF classes met 28 times, for a total of 2520 instructional minutes or the equivalent of 3.36
Carnegie units.
1
NB: “instructional minute” entails contact with student(s) that is employed in instruction; thus, e.g., examination
periods or unsupervised laboratory work (mandatory writing or language labs) do not ordinarily tally among a
course’s instructional minutes.
2
Fall and Spring terms are currently of different lengths. A recent calendar change resulted in the
addition of a week to the Fall, 2011, term with no corresponding increase to the Spring 2012 term.2
Over the Spring term, 2012, MWF classes will meet 38 times for a total of 2280 instructional
minutes and TTH/MF classes will meet 26 times for a total of 2340 minutes. So, the classes range
from the equivalent of 3.04 Carnegie units to 3.12 Carnegie units.
In all cases Saint Mary’s College asserts that a one-semester SMC undergraduate course is
equivalent to 3.5 Carnegie units. Were that assumed equivalence accurate, students would receive
2625 instructional minutes in each course of a Fall or Spring term.
January term, as it is presently configured, totals 2400 instructional minutes, or the equivalent of
3.2 Carnegie units (150 instructional minutes per day for 4 days a week and 4 weeks per term). Vice
Provost Carp requested at the March 22 Faculty Senate meeting that each January term class meet
for an additional five minutes. This would add 80 instructional minutes to the term and bring the
correct rate of exchange to approximately 3.3 Carnegie units for each January term course.
But Saint Mary’s College asserts that a January term course is the equivalent of 4 Carnegie units. If
that were true, students would receive 3000 instructional minutes in any January term course.
Over the course of a four-year, 36-credit college career, the difference in instructional minutes
(between claimed and actual equivalence) totals between three and four 3-Carnegie-unit courses.
2. Instructional Minutes and Teaching Loads
Additionally, the faculty teaching load defined in the Handbook significantly overstates the actual
teaching load undertaken by most undergraduate faculty. A full-time teaching load as defined in the
Handbook consists of 21–22 Carnegie units annually. At the current rate of exchange among
semester credits, January Term credits and Carnegie units, this requirement implies either 6
courses per year (equivalent to 3.5 Carnegie units per course) or 5 courses per year (at 3.5 Carnegie
units per course) and a January Term course (equivalent to 4 Carnegie units). The implied number
of instructional minutes ranges from 15,750 to 16,500. Depending on Fall, Spring and January
Term teaching responsibilities, however, actual instructional minutes range from 14,400 to 14,640.
This implies an annual teaching load deficit, in Carnegie unit terms, of between 0.6 Cu and 0.8 Cu for
most full-time undergraduate members of the faculty (see Table 2, below).
Calculations supporting the discussion above are presented in Table 1 and Table 2.
Table 1 . Nominal Course Values in Carnegie Units and Instructional Minutes3
1 SMC semester course
credit (scc)
1 SMC Jan Term
course credit (jcc)
(cf. Undergraduate
Course Catalog, 201112, p. 41)
(cf. Undergraduate
Course Catalog, 201112, p. 41)
6
SMC
scc
5 SMC scc
+ 1 SMC
jcc
SMC Board of
Trustees:
full-time
teaching load
(Handbook
2.11.1.3)
36
SMC
courses:
32
scc
(3.5Cu)
+
4 jcc
(4.0Cu)
2
Although the Senate voted to extend the Spring, 2013, term by an additional week, Provost Dobkin subsequently
reverted to the original calendar for financial reasons, pending the outcome of the Senate’s calendar discussion.
3
1 Carnegie semester hour/unit (Cu) = 750 instructional minutes (im): 1 Cu = 750 im, or 1 Cu = 50
instructional minutes (im)/week x 15 weeks; 3 Cu = 150 instructional minutes (im)/week x 15 weeks =
2250im; 15 instructional weeks = 75 instructional days; 3Cu course @50im/meeting = 45 instructional
meetings; 3Cu course @75im/meeting = 30 instructional meetings; 4Cu course @100im/meeting = 30
instructional meetings .
3
3.5 Cu
2,625 im
4.0 Cu
3,000 im
21 Cu
15,
750
im
21.5 Cu
16, 125im
21 – 22 Cu
15,750 –
16,500 im
128Cu
96,000im
Table 2. Most Recent Actual SMC Course Values in Carnegie Units and Instructional
Minutes
2011 Fall
term
scc
2012 Jan term
jcc
MWF = (42 x
60im) =
2520im
TTH = (28 x
90im) =
2520im
16 x 150im =
2400 im
3.36Cu
2012 Spring
term
scc
3 x Fall 2011
scc
2 x Fall 2011
scc
3 x Fall 2011
scc
3 x Spring
2012 scc
1 x Jan 2012
jcc
1 x Jan 2012
jcc
3 x Spring
2012 scc
2 x Spring
2012 scc
MWF = (38 x
60im) =
2280im
TTH = (26 x
90im) =
2340im
3 x Fall scc =
7560im
2 x Fall scc =
5040im
3 x Fall scc =
7560im
3 x Spring scc =
6840im –
7020im
1 x jcc = 2400
– 2480im
1 x jcc = 2400
– 2480im
3 x Spring scc
= 6480 –
7020im
2 x Spring scc
= 4560 –
4680im
3.2 Cu
3.04–3.12Cu
19.2–19.44Cu
18.56–19.39Cu
19.28–19.63Cu
2520im
2400im
2280–2340im
14,400–
14,580im
13,920–
14,540
14,520–
14,720
32 x 3.36 =
107.52
4 x 3.2 = 12.8
32 x (3.04–
3.12) = 97.2899.84
To summarize, we face three problems:



Overstatement of the value of a Saint Mary’s College course credit, in terms of
instructional minutes;
Disparity in instructional minutes among Fall, January and Spring terms;
Understatement of a full-time teaching load at Saint Mary’s College, in terms of
instructional minutes.
A fourth problem, disparity in instructional minutes required to complete a degree across majors, is
discussed in Section IV, below. It bears mention at this juncture, because (as appears in Section IV)
students’ actual, four-year programs may fall significantly short of the new, minimum federal
standards or of the College’s declared 128 Cu (32 x 3.5 Cu courses + 4 x 4.0 Cu courses) minimum
requirement for the baccalaureate, and correction of either state of affairs carries calendar
implications.
The first and third problems are not, per se, calendar problems: all else equal, the College might
define SMC course credits down to their actual Carnegie values, or it might increase instructional
minutes per class meeting so that actual instructional minutes justify the College’s claim that each
SMC course credit is equivalent to 3.5 Cu (2625 im). Again, the College might define the full-time
4
teaching load down to 19–20 Cu per academic year, or it might—by increasing the instructional
minutes per SMC course—raise actual teaching loads to the nominal Handbook standard.
3. Adjustments to the Status Quo Ante?
In fact, however, all else is not equal. Were the College to define the nominal value of courses down
to their actual Carnegie equivalents, it would simply render transparent those deficiencies that
must still be corrected. As Table 2 shows, a student who repeated the Fall 2011–January 2012–
Spring 2012 pattern of courses over four years would earn 116.48 Cu through the 36-course SMC
undergraduate program, well below the recently adopted federal standard (120 Cu) and far below
Saint Mary’s claimed 128 Cu. (A student who repeated the more typical SMC pattern of 3.12 Cu [39meeting or 26-meeting] Fall and Spring courses and 3.2 Cu January-term courses would earn the
equivalent of 112.64 Cu through the 36-course undergraduate program).
Alternatively, were the College to raise instructional minutes per class meeting so as to render each
nominal 3.5 Cu course equal to 2625 im, then over the 13 instructional weeks of the traditional SMC
Fall or Spring term, for example, each MWF class would meet 67 im and each T TH class 101 im
(202 im/week). Again, to raise each traditional January term course to 4.0 Cu = 3000im, each of the
traditional 16 meetings must comprise 187im (3 1/8 hours); preserving the 150im (2 ½ hour)
instructional period would require meeting daily—5 days—through the four-week term
(suspending observance of the Martin Luther King Holiday, or meeting one Saturday, or making
some other ad hoc adjustment).
Lengthening the class meeting by 7 or 11 minutes may, or may not, generate difficulties in daily
scheduling (for example: sequential scheduling, allowing ten-minute passing periods, permits six
67-minute—instead of seven 60-minute—MWF class slots between 8:00am and 4:00pm). The
more serious consideration, however, is whether lengthening meetings in mechanical fashion
serves students’ instructional interests. It is a nice question, for example, whether increasing
January-term meetings to 3+ hours is more likely to intensify learning or merely to intensify fatigue.
Again, are students likely to be better served by tacking 7 or 11 minutes to what must remain—by
“feel” or habit—an hour or hour-and-a half class, or by collecting those instructional minutes,
respectively, into 5 or 3 additional class meetings?
As Vice Provost Carp’s analysis has shown, increasing the Fall and Spring terms to 14 instructional
weeks, while keeping (in particular) the Spring-term calendar within traditional bounds (namely,
fitting it between a week-long January- to Spring-term break and Memorial Day) is infeasible. A 14week instructional term provides 42 MWF and 28 TTH/MF course-meetings; a four-year pattern of
14-week 4-1-4 instruction yields a 36-course, 120.3 Cu undergraduate program (without alteration
in the traditional January term). On the pattern adopted for Fall, 2011, the 14-week term can be
accommodated in any autumn by fixing the start of classes in the last week of August. But anyone
who consults the calendar will note: New Years falls on a Monday in 2013 (on a Wednesday in
2014; a Thursday in 2015 . . .), so that a 4-week January term must end February 1, 2013, and—
after the ensuing, week-long break (February 2–10, 2013)—there remain (exclusive of Holy Week,
the traditional recess) exactly 42 Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays and exactly 28 Tuesdays and
Thursdays between Monday, February 11, 2013 (inclusive) and Monday, May 27, 2013, Memorial
Day (exclusive). The resulting calendar allows for no examination period, unless commencement
be postponed a week, to June 1, 2013.4 Like results, of course, obtain for 2014, 2015 . . . et seq.
4
The obvious adjustments—shorten the January–Spring-term break, shorten the Easter Recess—have been
anticipated and suggested by Vice Provost Carp; they do not seem to have attracted much support among the faculty.
5
Accordingly, any adjustment to the status quo that (1) preserves the January term, (2) allows for
commencement on Memorial Day weekend, (3) equalizes Fall-tem and Spring-term courses, and (4)
produces a (minimum) 120 Cu undergraduate program—that is, any minimal adjustment to SMC’s
traditional 4-1-4 calendar—must postulatet 8 Fall- and Spring-term courses totaling 39 (MWF) or
26 (TTH/MF) meetings and a January-term course comprising 16–20 meetings, totaling yearly to a
minimum of 22,500 im. The required total could be achieved in a number of ways, for example: 9
courses each of c. 2500 im, organized as 8 long-term courses meeting either 65 im three times per
week or 100 im twice per week over 13 instructional weeks, together with 1 January-term course
meeting 150 im four times each week over a 4-week instructional term.5
A near minimal adjustment to the status quo—namely, one that achieves a yearly minimum
22,500 im between the last week of August and Memorial Day by (1) extending the 42 or
28, MWF or TTH/MF, Fall-term calendar to the Spring-term while (2) reducing the Januaryterm to a three-week (12–15 meetings) calendar—could be arranged, e.g., for AY 2013–14
(and thereafter as an on-going pattern) as follows:
Fall term, 2013
Monday, August 26
Classes begin
Monday, September 2
Labor Day Holiday
Saturday, January 25–
Sunday, February 2
Spring Recess
12 x 195 im (3¼ hours) meetings or 14 x 170im (2 hr
50 min) meetings = minimum 2340 im
Monday–Thursday,
October 7–10
Mid-term exam period
Spring term, 2014
Friday, October 11
Mid-term Break Day
Monday, February 3
Classes begin
Monday–Friday ,
March 17–21
Mid-term exam period
Wednesday–Sunday,
November 28–December 1
Thanksgiving Recess
Friday, December 6
Fall classes end
Monday–Friday,
December 9–13
Tuesday, April 15–
Monday April 21
Easter Recess
Final Examinations
Friday, May 16
Classes end
Saturday, December 14, 2013–
Sunday, January 5, 2014
Christmas Holiday
Monday–Friday,
May 19–23
Final Examinations
4 x 42- or 28-meeting courses, 60im or 90im/ meeting
= minimum 10,080im
Saturday, May 24
Commencement
January term, 2014
Monday, January 6
Classes begin
Monday, January 20
MLK Day Holiday
Friday, January 24
Classes end
4 x 42- or 28-meeting courses, 60im or 90im/ meeting
= minimum 10,080im
8 x 2520im courses + 1 x 2340 im course = minimum
22,500 im x 4 years = 90,000 im or 120 Cu
As the complement to these minimal or near-minimal adjustments, students in the upper-division
might be required—as a matter of an ordinary, full-time instructional program (and so, without
additional tuition charges)—to undertake a fifth course in Fall or Spring of the Junior year and a
fifth course in Fall or Spring of the Senior year. The total minimum undergraduate program would
thus total 126–7 Cu (and, given that most students are involved either with required partial credit
5
Actual instructional minutes would run (from rounding) 22,680–23,200 im (30.2–30.9 Cu) per year , for a
minimum undergraduate program of from 120.8–123.6 Cu.
6
courses, a credited laboratory, lower-division language instruction, or . . . etc.), the total required
undergraduate program could be accurately described as c. 128 Cu.
In order to address the problems cited above comprehensively, however, an alternative calendar—
as opposed to adjustment of the traditional calendar—would be in prospect.
III. Alternative Calendars
1. Basic Alternatives
Perhaps the most perspicuous way to present alternatives to the current 4–1–4 calendar-cumcourse credit system would be to reconstruct what AY 2011–12 and subsequent years’ calendars
might look like had they been articulated on the assumptions (1) that most courses would comprise
2250im = 3Cu, conducted (2) over a standard 15-week (equivalently, 75 instructional-day) term. A
January (or Intercession) term might A be preserved or B be retired in favor of an enhanced
Summer Term. This mode of analysis supposes the significant constraint that Alternative A be
fitted, as is traditional at SMC—roughly—between Labor Day and Memorial Day.6 But for the most
part, the constraint can be honored only in the breach: for calendar years 2011, 2012 and 2013, e.g.,
the 75th weekday after Labor Day (excluding Thanksgiving Thursday–Friday only) falls,
respectively, on December 21, December 19, and December 18. And for the calendar years 2012,
2013, and 2014, the 75th weekday7 falls, respectively, on May 24, June 4, and June 3. Given 3 Cu
courses over 15-week terms, then, Alternative A is workable only by shortening January term, so as
to lengthen the Spring term, while beginning the Fall term before Labor Day. Academic Years
2011–12, 2012–13, and 2013–14, articulated in 15-week Fall and Spring terms (each with a 16th
exam week) around an intervening January term, would go approximately as follows below.
Note on the Collegiate Seminar
50im are, transparently, insufficient time to inaugurate and develop a conversational inquiry. A
solution might make the Seminar a 4 Cu [3000im] class, at 200im/week over 15 weeks, [100im]
twice/weekly. Should Seminar I shape up as a quasi-practicum/lecture, it might be scheduled as
3Cu (2 or 3 days/week) or as 4Cu by double periods or 4 days/week. Whatever is decided, the
Carnegie system would accommodate the decision more flexibly than the course-credit system.
2. Alternatives that Preserve the January Term
Table 3. Alternative A
Alternative (A) supposes a rough parallelism to USF’s long-standing Cu-based calendar (which comprises an
Intersession or January term): USF commences the AY in the third week of August, so as to end instruction in the
second week of May and hold Spring commencement in the third (cf. attached “University of San Francisco
Academic Calendar 2010–2015”).
6
7
Allowing for the traditional January commitments—excluding a full, 4-week January Term and nine-day January–
Spring Term recess—and excluding the five weekdays of Holy Week and Memorial Day.
7
(A) FALL 20118
Term
20124
20134
(A) SPRING Term
20124
20134 20144
Classes begin
M 8/22
M 9/5
M 8/20
M 9/3
M 8/19
M 9/2
Classes begin
Mid-term exam period
M–F,
10/17–
21
M–F,
10/15–
19
M–TH,
10/14–
18
none
M
1/30
M–F,
3/19–
23
3/31–
4/9
M 2/4
M–F,
3/18–
22
3/23–
4/1
none
none
Labor
Day
holiday
Mid-term
exam period
Mid-term
recess
Thanksgiving
Recess
Last day of
Fall
term
classes
Final exam
period
TH–S,
11/24–
27
F 12/9
W–S,
11/21–
25
M–TH,
12/10–
14
12/16–
1/3
12/15–
1/6
(A)
JANUARY
Term9
2012
Classes begin
MLK Day
Last day of
Jan
Term
classes
January–
Spring term
recess
Last day of Spring term
classes
W-S,
11/27–
12/1
Final exam period
F 12/6
Commencement
F 5/24
F 5/18
F 12/7
M–TH,
12/12–
15
Christmas
Recess
Easter Recess
M 2/3
M–F,
3/31–
4/4
4/12–
4/22
F 5/23
M–TH,
5/21–
24
T–F,
5/28–
31*
S 6/1
T–F,
5/27–
30**
S 5/31
S 5/26
M–TH,
12/9–
12/12
12/13–
1/5
*Memorial Day recess
5/25–27
** Memorial Day recess
5/24–26
2013
2014
(A) Summer Term
2012
2013
2014
T 1/4
M 1/16
M 1/7
M 1/21
M 1/6
M 1/20
Classes begin
T 6/5
W 6/5
W 6/4
F 1/20
F 1/25
F 1/24
S
1/21–
Su
1/29
S
1/26–
Su 2/3
S
1/25–
Su 2/2
.
8
Fall term: provides in each case for 45 x 50im meetings/course or 30 x 75im meetings/course; Spring: provides 44
x 50im meetings/course, 30 x 75im meetings.
9
Provides 14 instructional days/meetings @ 160im/meeting (2:40 clock hours) = 3Cu.
8
Table 4. A 3-Week Jan Term (in Cu and im)
3Cu course over 3 weeks = 15 meetings x 150im/meeting = 5 days
instruction/week and 150im (2:30 clock hours)/day, OR
= 12 meetings x 180im)/meeting + 1 90im meeting = 4
days instruction/week and 180im (3:00 clock hours/day) + 1 x 90im (1:30
clock hours) meeting; etc.
2Cu course over 3 weeks = 15 meetings x 100im/meeting = 5 days
instruction/week and 100 im (1:40 clock hours)/day OR
= 12 meetings x 125im/meeting = 4 days
instruction/week and 125 im (2:05 clock hours)/day, etc.
Table 5 and Table 6 show the present schedule and a corresponding Carnegie-based schedule for semester-length classes.
Table 5. Three Meetings/Week—Class Scheduling, 8:00AM–4:00PM , via (a) Carnegie hours and (b) clock hours:
Period1
(a)
(b)
8:00–
8:50
class
8:00–
9:00
class
8:50–
9:00
passing
9:00–
9:10
passing
Period
2
9:00–
9:50
class
9:10–
10:10
class
9:50–
10:00
passing
10:10–
10:20
passing
Period
3
10:00–
10:50
class
10:20–
11:20
class
10:50–
11:00
passing
11:20–
11:30
passing
Period
4
11:00–
11:50
class
11:30–
12:30
class
11:50–
12:00
passing
12:30–
12:40
passing
Period
5
12:00–
12:50
class
12:40–
1:40
class
12:50–
1:00
passing
1:40–
1:50
passing
Period
6
1:00–
1:50
class
1:50–
2:50
class
1:50–
2:00
passing
2:50–
3:00
passing
Period
7
2:00–
2:50
class
3:00–
4:00
class
2:50–
3:00
passing
Table 6. Two Meetings/Week—Class Scheduling, 8:00AM–4:00PM , via (a) Carnegie hours and (b) clock hours:
Period
8
3:00–
3:50
class
Period 1
(a)
(b)
8:00–
9:15
class
8:00–
9:30
class
Period 2
9:15–
9:30
passing
9:30–
9:40
passing
9:30–
10:45
class
9:40–
11:10
class
Period 3
10:45–
11:00
passing
11:10–
11:20
passing
11:00–
12:15
class
11:20–
12:50
class
Period 4
12:15–
12:30
passing
12:50–1:00
passing
12:30–
1:15
class
1:00–2:30
class
Period 5
1:15–
1:30
passing
2:30–
2:40
passing
1:30–
2:45
class
2:40–
4:10
class
Period 6
2:45–
3:00
passing
3:00–
4:15
class
10
A
As a minimal adjustment to present practice, A, one could propose adopting a “real” 3 Cu standard
Fall/Spring course (as opposed to the current, merely nominal 3.5 Cu course), calendared as follows:
Table 7. Alternative A
(A) FALL Term
2011
2012
Classes begin
Mid-term
exam
period
Mid-term recess
W 9/7
M 10/24–F
10/28
S 10/29–M
10/31
W 11/23–SU
11/27
F 12/9
W 9/5
M 10/22–F
10/26
S 10/27–T
10/30
W 11/21–SU
11/25
F 12/7
M–TH,
12/12–
12/15
12/17–1/2
M–TH,
12/10–13
Final exam period
12/14–1/6
Commencement
Thanksgiving
Recess
Last day of Fall
term classes
Final exam period
Christmas Recess
(A)
Term
JANUARY 2012
Classes begin
MLK Day
Last day of
Term classes
January–Spring
term recess
2013 (A) SPRING Term
2012
2013
Classes begin
M 2/6
M 2/11
Mid-term exam period
M–F,
3/19–23
M–F, 4/8–
12
S 3/30–T
4/10
S 3/23–T
4/2
F 5/11
F 5/17
M 5/14–
TH 5/17
M–TH,
5/20–23
S 5/19
S 5/25
Etc.10
Easter Recess
Last day of Spring
term classes
2013
2014 (A) Summer Term
2012
2013
T 1/3
M 1/16
M 1/7
M 1/21
Etc.
M 6/4
M 6/3
F 1/27
F 2/1
S
1/28–SU
2/5
S
2/2–SU
2/10
Classes begin
2014
Etc.
2014
Etc.
Jan
The January term courses would be taught as 3 Cu (2250im) courses, meeting 15 x 150im (1½ hours) over
four weeks.
Fall and Spring courses would be undervalued at 60im or 90im/meeting, for 38 or 25 meetings over 13
instructional weeks, but the undervaluation would be on the order of 30im/2250im or 1.3%, and thus
(arguably) negligible.
A The same principle, A, suggests intensifying instruction during the long terms by scheduling 3Cu courses
at 4 x 50im/week or 2 x 100im/week. 11 Under these arrangements, 12-week long terms and a 4-week
January term could accommodate (standard) 3 Cu courses as follows:12
10
The patterns of this variation are essentially those of the present calendar.
There is, of course, nothing intrinsically compelling about the 200im/week standard; like the Carnegie standard 150im/week, it
represents a convenient denominator. Nor is there anything intrinsically repellant about it—provided, that is, one agrees that the
instructional pace it suggests is not such as to outrun students’ capacities for sound preparation, or coherent synthesis, of learning
materials. Accordingly, (A) could be recalculated to accommodate a 14-week term; the results would be a bit “messy”—at 14
weeks, a 3 Cu course would require a “rounded”55-minute “hour”—but we all own calculators now!
11
11
Table 8. Alternative A
(A) FALL Term13
2011
2012
2013
(A) SPRING Term
2012
2013
2014
Classes begin
M 9/12
M 9/10
M 9/9
Classes begin
M 2/13
M 2/11
Mid-term exam period
M–F,
10/24–28
M 10/22–
10/26
M 10/21–
F 10/25
Mid-term
period
M–F,
4/8–12
S 10/20–
T 10/23
S 10/27–
T 10/30
S 10/26–
T 10/29
Easter Recess
M–F,
3/26–
30
S 3/31–
T4/10
W 11/21–
SU 11/25
W 11/21–
SU 11/25
W 11/27–
SU 12/1
M 2/10
M–F,
3/24–
28
S
4/14–
W 4/23
F 5/9
Mid-term recess
Thanksgiving Recess
Last day of Fall term
classes
Final exam period
F 5/11
Last day of Spring
classes
Final exam period
F 12/2
F 11/30
F 12/6
M–TH,
12/5–12/8
M 12/3–
TH 12/6
M 12/9–
TH 12/12
12/9–1/8
12/7–1/6
12/13–1/5
2013
2014
(A)
Term
Classes begin
Christmas Recess
(A)
Term14
exam
F5/10
M
5/14–
TH
5/17
S 5/19
Commencement
JANUARY 2012
Classes begin
M 1/9
M 1/7
M 1/6
MLK Day
M 1/16
M 1/21
M 1/20
Last day of Jan Term
classes
F 2/3
F 2/1
F 1/31
January–Spring term
recess
S 2/4–SU
2/10
S 2/2–SU
2/10
S 2/1–SU
2/9
S
3/23–
W 4/3
Summer 2012
M 6/4
M
5/13–
TH
5/16
S 5/18
M
5/12–
TH
5/15
S 5/17
2013
2014
M 6/3
M 6/2
3. The Alternative of Discontinuing the January Term
B. A still more radical alternative, B, would be a return (for the first time since AY 1969–70) to the 2-semester
calendar, comprising 15 instructional weeks, and populated by 1, 2, 3 . . . Cu courses articulated in 50, 75,
100im . . . et seq. “hours.”
Table 9. Alternative B
B FALL Term
2011
2012
Classes begin
M 8/22
M 8/22
Labor Day holiday
M 9/5
M 9/3
Mid-term
period
M–F,
14
exam
Mid-term recess
S
10/10–
10/15–T
M–F,
12
2013
Etc.15
10/8–
B SPRING Term
2012
2013
Classes begin
M 1/9
M 1/7
M–F,
2/20–24
M–F, 3/4–
8
S 3/31–T
4/10
S 3/23–T
4/2
Mid-term
period
Easter Recess
exam
2014
Etc.
S–T, 10/13–
Nevertheless, if (a dubious proposition) SMC disposes of classroom inventory sufficient to accommodate 4-day/week
classes, it remains the case that the 12-week term approaches the periodicities of a trimester system: it is liable to
criticism on the ground that it gives up the (relatively) leisurely pace of a semester system without apparent,
compensating educational gains.
12
13
Supposes 45 x 50im or 23 x 100im class meetings or over 11–12 (11¼) weeks.
14
Supposes 16 x 150im class meetings over four weeks = 3.06 Cu.
15
Again, the emerging pattern probably requires no further elaboration.
12
10/18
16
Thanksgiving
Recess
W 11/23–SU
11/27
TH–SU,
11/22–25
Last day of Fall
classes
Final exam period
F 12/9
F 12/7
M 12/12–
TH 12/15
M–TH, 12/9–
13
Christmas Recess
12/16–1/8
12/14–1/6
B
SUMMER 2012
Term
Classes begin
M 5/1417
2013
Last day, Spring
classes
Final exam period
W 5/216
W 5/1
M–TH,
5/7–10
M–TH,
5/6–9
Commencement
S 5/12
S 5/11
2014
M 5/13
4. Consequences of Adopting Alternative Calendars & Course Valuations
The task force was charged to anticipate the consequences of adopting alternative calendars built around
courses with real Carnegie-unit values.
Preliminaries:
For AY 2011–2012, undergraduate instruction at Saint Mary’s College comprises  505 sections of  261
distinct Fall-term courses valued at 1.0 SMC course credits (3.5 Carnegie units),18  99 distinct January-term
courses valued at 1.0 January course credit (4.0 Carnegie units), and  524 sections19 of  268 distinct Springterm courses valued at 1.0 SMC course credit (3.5 Carnegie units).20 Among the Fall-term and Spring-term
courses in point there are definable groups that merit some preliminary discussion:
A. A number of course/sections valued at 1.0 SMC cc (3.5 Cu) meet 4 hours (240 minutes)/week, on a
four-day (e.g., lower-division Modern Language courses; CHEM 008 and 104) or two-day (e.g., Integral
Program seminars) schedule.
B. A number of courses/sections valued at 1.0 SMC cc (3.5 Cu) meet three days/week 90 minutes/day
(270 minutes/week)(e.g., lower-division Integral Program Language tutorials, cross-listed as lowerdivision Greek) or two days at the equivalent of 270 minutes/week.21
C. Some lower-division courses meeting 3 hours/week with attached laboratories value the laboratory
component at .25 SMC course credit (SMC cc), but most such laboratory courses (and all in the upper
division) do not assign unit-value to the laboratory component (either the laboratory is simply
incorporated in the 1.0cc course—e.g., BIOL 105 Lecture [T TH 9:10–10:40] and Laboratory [T 5:00–
9:00PM]—or a separate laboratory section is valued at 0.0 SMC cc).
16
TH–F, 5/3–4 could function as reading days.
17
A mid-May start invites articulation of a robust, 12-week Summer Term that could be organized along the lines of the Spring
and Fall terms supposed under (A) above.
18
The number 505 includes, e.g., 78 sections of Collegiate Seminar 020, 110, 122 or 123; 28 sections of English 004; 14 sections
of Theology and Religious Studies 097, etc.
19
Again, the number 524 includes 75 sections of Collegiate Seminars, 32 of ENGL 005, 15 of TRS 097, etc.
Source is the Registrar’s “raw” lists of Fall-term, January-term, and Spring-term courses—including everything: internships,
independent study, etc.; the enumerated groups of courses treated above have been culled by inspection, may accordingly present
adventitious errors, and should be regarded as (very close) estimates.
20
21
Integral Laboratories, including the Music Tutorial, meet 6 hours/week, but are credited partially as practica.
13
(a) Laboratories attached to 1.0 cc courses vary from 2.0 hours/week to 4 hours/week; 3–4 hours is
the norm among the physical sciences.
(b) Apart from custom, there seems to be no compelling reason—especially in light of new policy re:
students’ access to multiple 0.25 courses—not to assign cc or Carnegie unit (Cu) value to
laboratories.
Although valued at 1.0 SMC cc or 3.5 Cu, for the Fall term, 2011, courses in groups A. and B. represent,
respectively, 4.4–5.04 Cu and for the Spring term, 4.00–4.68 Cu (exclusive of attached laboratories in the
cases of the 4-day CHEM courses).22
D. Were laboratory instruction counted at half-value, then by way of illustration, for the Fall term,
2011, and Spring term, 2012, laboratory sections scheduled once-weekly, after the first week of
classes, would meet (depending on the day of the week) from 11 to 14 times, and would be (half)
valued in Cu as follows:
Fall term 2011
duration
4 hrs




3 hrs




2 hrs




day
M
T
W
TH
F
M
T
W
TH
F
M
T
W
TH
F
meetings
14
14
13
12
12
14
14
13
12
12
14
14
13
12
12
Spring term 2012
Cu/2
2.24
2.24
2.08
1.92
1.92
1.68
1.68
1.56
1.32
1.32
1.12
1.12
1.04
0.96
0.96
duration
4 hrs




3 hrs




2 hrs




day
M
T
W
TH
F
M
T
W
TH
F
M
T
W
TH
F
meetings
12
13
13
13
13
12
13
13
13
13
12
13
13
13
13
Cu/2
1.92
2.08
2.08
2.08
2.08
1.32
1.56
1.56
1.56
1.56
0.96
1.04
1.04
1.04
1.04
Were they counted at one-third value, then for the Fall term, 2011 and Spring term 2012:
Fall term, 2011
Spring term, 2012
duration
day
meetings
Cu/3
duration
day
meetings
Cu/3
4 hrs
M
14
1.49
4 hrs
M
12
1.28

T
14
1.49

T
13
1.39

W
13
1.39

W
13
1.39

TH
12
1.28

TH
13
1.39

F
12
1.28

F
13
1.39
22
Given the lengthened Fall, 2011 calendar, classes meeting MTWF for one hour met 57 times or (57 x 60)/750 = 4.56Cu; those
meeting MWTHF for one hour met 55 times or (55 x 60)/750 = 4.4 Cu; courses meeting MWF for 90 minutes met 42 times or
(42 x 90)/750 = 5.04 Cu; those meeting MTH for 2 hours met 28 times or (28 x 120)/750 = 4.48 Cu. For the (shorter) Spring
2012 term, classes meeting MWTHF or MTWF for one hour will meet 51 times or (51 x 60)/750 = 4.08 Cu; those meeting MTH
for 2 hours will meet 25 times or (25 x 120)/750 = 4.0Cu; those meeting MWF for 90 minutes will meet 38 times or (cont.) (n. 5,
cont.) (90 x 38)/750 = 4.56 Cu; those meeting TTH for 3 hours (half of which counts as practicum) will meet 26 times or [(26 x
90) + (26 x 90/3)]/750 = 4.16 Cu.
14
3 hrs
M
14
1.12
3 hrs
M
12
0.96

T
14
1.12

T
13
1.04

W
13
1.04

W
13
1.04

TH
12
0.96

TH
13
1.04

F
12
0.96

F
13
1.04
2 hrs
M
14
0.75
2 hrs
M
12
0.64

T
14
0.75

T
13
0.69

W
13
0.69

W
13
0.69

TH
12
0.64

TH
13
0.69

F
12
0.64

F
13
0.69
Added to any Fall-term or Spring-term course valued at 1.0 SMC cc, credited laboratory instruction at any of
the levels shown above would raise the course’s equivalent Carnegie value above 3.5 Cu.23
E. A number of undergraduates (Performing Arts majors and minors24) earn the majority of their
major credit through cumulating 0.25 and 0.50 course credits whose Cu equivalents are unclear.
UEPC guidelines (a) distinguish between “academic” 0.25 and 0.5 cc courses (incorporating 32.5 and
65 hours, respectively, of combined instructional and out-of-class study) and “activity” 0.25 and 0.5 cc
courses (incorporating, respectively, 13–26 and 26–39 hours of instruction), while the
Undergraduate Catalog (under “Academic Requirements” at “Courses”) defines these courses,
without further qualification, as the equivalents (respectively) of 1.0 Cu (750 minutes of instruction)
and 2.0 Cu (1500 minutes of instruction). Clarification on classification and conversion of the PERFA
partial cc sections (c. 100 PERFA partial credit sections were offered/are being offered during AY
201) will be required before these sections and their instructors can be factored into the estimates
begun below.
For the Fall and Spring terms, 2011–2012, the following groups of courses (Groups A and B incontestably;
Group C arguably) represent real Carnegie-unit values higher (in most cases, +1 Cu higher) than the 3.5 Cu
claimed, nominally, by the College:
Fall, 2011
Spring 2012
Group A
33 sections
33 sections
Group B
12 sections
9 sections
Group C
 27 sections
29 sections
Total Sections
72 sections
71 sections
The properly educational reasons for the enhanced or intensified instruction offered through these courses—
experimental work, the pedagogy of language instruction, the laying of foundations, etc.—must continue to be
imperative no matter the calendar or system of course valuation under which they may be offered; they are,
that is, intrinsically “high unit value” undertakings, and they are, in that character, “constants” of the
undergraduate curriculum.
Again, since the nominal, full-time SMC program at present is 14 Cu/long term (4cc x 3.5Cu) and 4.0
Cu/January term, or 32 Cu/year; since, moreover, a substantial number of undergraduates’ (all those taking
23
Any 2011 Fall term SMC cc would, minimally, equate to 4.0 Cu; any 2012 Spring term SMC cc would, minimally, equate to
3.68 Cu.
24
By Fact Book count, for the Fall term, 2011, 31 and, presumably, a like number for the Spring term, 2012.
15
any laboratory science, lower-division Integral students, all those taking a lower-division foreign language
course . . .) programs exceed 14 Cu in any given semester; it seems reasonable (for purposes of estimation), to
assume that under any calendar, A- or B-type, adjusted to real Carnegie-unit courses, Saint Mary’s
undergraduates’ programs will average 15 Cu, or four to five courses/long term and one 3-Cu course/
January term, that is, 31–33 Cu/year. Given the range of Carnegie unit values represented—as
educationally driven constants—in Groups A–C, it would seem reasonable to postulate 18 Cu as the upper
limit of a full-time semester program and 12 Cu (four 3-Cu courses or their equivalent) as the lower limit.
These limits are conformable with common practice at the undergraduate level.
Estimates:
As a first cut, let us estimate the further aggregate instruction that would have been required in the Fall, 2011
term, the January, 2012 term and in the present, Spring, 2012 term had SMC actually delivered, or were SMC
actually delivering, the Carnegie units nominally involved.
For the Fall, 2011, term, 72 sections over-delivered (so to speak): nominally and uniformly valued at 3.5 Cu
or, in the aggregate,  252 Cu, their actual Carnegie value was 334 Cu. 25 The remaining 433 sections were
also nominally and uniformly valued at 3.5 Cu or, in the aggregate, 1515 Cu, but were actually and uniformly
equal to 3.36 Cu, and in the aggregate to 1455Cu.
During January term, 2012,  99 courses nominally and uniformly valued at 4.0 Cu were taught— in the
aggregate, 396 Cu; their actual Cu value, (150im x 16)/750im = 3.2 Cu, aggregated to  316 Cu.
During the present, Spring 2012, term 71 sections of 524 are (so to speak) over-delivering: nominally and
uniformly valued at 3.5 Cu, aggregating to 248 Cu, their actual Cu value aggregates to  295 Cu.26 The
remaining 453 sections are nominally and uniformly valued at 3.5 Cu, or in the aggregate  1585 Cu, but are
each actually equal (depending on how travel days and holidays impact their weekly schedule) to 3.04–3.12
Cu or, in the aggregate, 1377–1413 Cu.27
By comparison, then, to the claims expressed in uniform, nominal 3.5Cu course credits, for AY 2011–12 the
College will have met and exceeded its claims in 143 of  1128 course sections, by an aggregate of 129 Cu,
and “under-delivered” on its claims in 985 Fall and Spring course sections and in  99 January term course
sections, by an aggregate of 312–348Cu. In no course section offered during AY 2011–12 will the College
have simply delivered 3.5Cu of instruction. In order to raise all 1.0 SMC cc courses to their declared Carnegieunit value for AY 2011-12, the College would have to add 312–348Cu to its instructional load, an increase of
8–9%. If, then, we accept (a) that the number of sections offered during AY 2011–12 was/is adequate for the
undergraduate student body, (b) that the number of undergraduates will remain nearly constant, and (c) that
the FTE undergraduate faculty have been/are fully and appropriately employed, we might infer from the
required increase in the instructional load that an increase of 8-9% in the FTE undergraduate faculty would be
in order: that is an increase of 15–17 FTE undergraduate faculty.28 The inference would, however, be
erroneous:
(i) for AY 2011–12 faculty are underemployed in one respect: full-time (6-course) SMC
schedules entail between 18.56 Cu (at the low end) and 19.63 Cu (at the high end),29 suggesting
For the Fall term, 2011, Groups A and B courses’ actual Cu values were calculated as explained in n. 5 above; Group C—
lecture and laboratory—courses’ actual Cu value was calculated by the formula: [(class im x meetings) + (lab im/3)]/750.
25
For the Spring term, 2012, Groups A and B courses’ actual Cu values were calculated as explained in n. 5 above; Group C—
lecture and laboratory—courses’ actual Cu value was calculated by the formula: [(class im x meetings) + (lab im/3)]/750.
26
27
See Table 2, above.
28
That is, at the lowest estimate,  312 Cu  21 Cu/FTE; at the highest,  348 Cu  20 Cu/FTE.
Faculty teaching in A – C groups, are being compensated during AY 2011–12 for nominal (some number of which, and
perhaps all, are also real) instructional overloads.
29
16
that some reduction in the required additional FTE faculty could be achieved by normalizing
teaching loads;30
(ii) in theory (that is, as a purely mathematical exercise?), 60Cu of instruction (17–19% of the
shortfall; the load of c. 3 additional FTE faculty) could be supplied by increasing actual January
term instruction to the equivalent of 4.0 Cu (3000 im): that is, 3.125 clock hours/day (187 im)
x 16 days of instruction or 2.5 clock hours/day (150 im) x 20 days of instruction;
By way of a first conclusion: treated as aggregate “undelivered” im/Carnegie hours, discrepancies
between nominal and actual SMC instruction/teaching load amount to a “deficit” of 8%, and suggest
an increase on the order of 15 undergraduate FTE (even if teaching loads for existing undergraduate
faculty are “normalized” re: the Trustees’ Handbook definition). These estimates, however, ignore the
question of distributing the required, increased instruction to undergraduates through course sections
articulated in a practicable calendar.
Re: A We have argued above that any practicable calendar that would retain the January Term and retain
roughly the bounds of Saint Mary’s traditional academic year must be calculated for 3.0 Cu January term
courses (at the maximum). Assuming that the College retains the January term as a requirement, no net
increase in the number January offerings would be entailed by a Fall term–January term–Spring term calendar
(provided the undergraduate student body remains stable). During the Fall 2011 and Spring 2012 terms, a
combined 880 sections of nominal 3.5 Cu courses were offered. Converted to 3.0 Cu courses, they would
have lost one-seventh of the nominal credit they had conferred: 880/7 or 125 additional 3.0 Cu sections must
be offered yearly to equal the aggregate, nominal course credit proposed for undergraduates in AY 2011–12
(courses equal to the teaching load of 20 FTE undergraduate faculty). This estimate jibes with the results of
the “first cut” above.
Under a Carnegie unit system built to distribute instruction principally through the 3.0 Cu course (articulated
as any variant of the A calendars discussed in Section III, above) and assuming an average student program
equivalent to 15.0 Cu/long term and 3.0 Cu/January term, a normal undergraduate faculty teaching load
would likely equal 21 Cu/year, distributed as 3 Fall sections (9 Cu), a January term section (3 Cu), and 3 Spring
sections (9 Cu). However, apart from a firm count of present undergraduate faculty FTE, no firm estimate of
the undergraduate faculty FTE required to deliver instruction distributed “calendar A” fashion should be
ventured.
Re: B Assuming the College retires the January term, a full-time undergraduate program of 32 Cu per year
would be distributed as 12–18, averaging 15, Cu/semester. Setting aside the constant represented by “highvalue” courses of groups A–C, the aggregate Cu formerly delivered during the January term would be divided
between the Fall and Spring semesters, yielding the equivalent of c. 490 3-Cu sections/semester, without an
increase in the teaching load. These courses would face an aggregate demand (assuming an average class size
of 20) of  12,500 enrollments, with a capacity (under the same assumption) of  9,800, requiring space for an
additional 2,700 enrollments or 135 sections/semester, or an increase (over the A options) of  155
sections/year (or  22 undergraduate FTE faculty).
Under the “calendar B” option, a normal undergraduate faculty teaching load of 20–21 Cu would, likely, be
distributed as three courses (Fall or Spring semester) and four courses in the reciprocal semester, with
adjustments for teaching in A–C groups or in the Summer session. Again, apart from a firm count of present
undergraduate faculty FTE, no firm estimate of the total undergraduate faculty FTE required to deliver
instruction distributed in “calendar B” fashion should be ventured.
IV. Differences in Carnegie Units Earned Across Majors
Recall the following equivalents:
30
The number of FTE faculty is, but the number of FTE undergraduate faculty is not, reported in the Fact Book; absent FTE
figures for the Fall and Spring terms, no meaningful estimate can be ventured.
17
1 Carnegie semester hour/semester unit (Cu) = 750 instructional minutes (im): 1 Cu = 750 im;
1 Carnegie semester hour/semester unit (Cu) = 50 instructional minutes (im)/week x 15 weeks;
3 Carnegie semester hour/semester units (Cu) = 150 instructional minutes (im)/week x 15 weeks =
2250im.
We calculate the difference between the claimed Carnegie units in a degree program requiring the minimum
number of credits and the actual number of Carnegie units delivered below.
Table 10. Difference Between Claimed and Actual Carnegie Units Delivered in a “Minimum”
Program
SMC claims (as the minimum degree program):
We actually deliver (as the minimum program): 31
32 x Spring/Fall 3.5Cu courses = 112Cu
4 x Jan Term 4.0Cu courses = 16Cu
128Cu
32 x 2520im S/F courses = 80,640im = 107.52Cu
4 x 2480im JT courses = 9,920im = 13.23Cu
120.75Cu
Depending upon their choice of major, students will graduate with a broad range of Carnegie units. We
present several examples below, each of which identifies courses that majors typically take.
Philosophy
The program below represents a “typical” philosophy major with no AP credit upon entry. The student needs
a year of SMC foreign language study and takes additional PHIL electives instead of a minor.
We claim:
5 x Area A, B (Math), C credits (cc)
17.5 Cu
1 x Area B (Lab: CHEM 8) =1.25 cc
4.375
2 x Intermed. French (French 2 – 4) cc
7.0
2 x TRELS cc
7.0
2 x English Comp. cc
7.0
4 x Collegiate Seminar cc
14.0
4 x Jan Term cc [4.0Cu each]
16.0
14 x PHIL cc
49.0
2 x elective cc
7.0
128.875Cu
Given the actual im values of our courses (and
allowing 0.33: 1 for labs), we actually deliver:
5 x 2520im = 12,600im/750
=
16.8 Cu
1 x (56 x 60im + 13 x 80im)/750
5.87
2 x (56 x 60im)/750
8.96
2 x (42 x 60im)/750
6.72
2 x (42 x 60im)/750
6.72
4 x (42 x 60im or 28 x 90im)/750
13.44
4 x (16 x 155im)/750
13.23
14 x (42 x 60im or 28 x 90im)/750
47.04
2 x (42 x 60im or 28 x 90im)/750
6.72
125.50 Cu
Chemistry
The student below majors in Physical Chemistry, takes calculus, “double-dips” for Area B requirements, and
meets language proficiency at entry.
We claim:
4 x Area A & C credits (cc)
14.0 Cu
2 x TRELS cc
7.0
2 x English Comp. cc
7.0
4 x Collegiate Seminar cc
14.0
4 x Jan Term cc [4.0Cu each]
16.0
2 x electives [1 cc each]
7.0
MATH 27, 38–39 = [1 cc each]
10.5
CHEM 8-9(lab), 10-11(lab) [2.5 cc]
8.75
PHYS 1–2 (lab), 3–4 (lab) [2.5cc]
8.75
CHEM 89 [.25cc]
0.875
Given the actual im values and 0.33: 1 for lab im) we
actually deliver:
Electives, Areas A & C, TRELS, Comp,
Jan Term, Seminar = (18 x 2520)/750
60.48 Cu
MATH 27, 38-39 [(2520 + 6720im)/750] 12.32
CHEM 8-9, 10-11 [6720 + 2240im)/750] 11.95
PHYS 1-2, 3-4 [(2 x 3360 + 1680)/750] 11.20
CHEM 89 [2520/750]
3.36
106, 144, 115 [(7560 + 3360im)/750] 14.56
104, 108, 118 [(10080+3360im)/750] 17.92
130, 110, 111, 197 [10080/750]
13.44
31
Calculation of actual Carnegie unit values infra supposes the temporary calendar “fix” endorsed by the Senate through 2013,
rendering Fall- and Spring-term courses commensurable at 3.36Cu for each nominal 3.5 cc course; MWTHF, MTWF and
courses with attached labs are evaluated proportionally, as indicated.
18
CHEM 106, 114, 115 [1 cc each]
10.5
CHEM 104, 108, 118 [1 cc each]
10.5
CHEM 130, 110, 111, 197 [1 cc each] 14.0
128.875 Cu
145.23 Cu
Integral Program
We claim:
29 x INTEG requirements [1 cc each]
101.5 Cu
4 x Jan Term cc
16.0
3 x electives [1 cc each]
10.5
128.0 Cu
Given the actual values (in instructional minutes, and
crediting 0.33: 1 for lab im), setting aside the fact that
INTEG instruction continues in exam week, we
deliver:
Frosh – Senior Seminar [(8 x 3360)/750]
35.84
Cu
Frosh – Soph Lang. & Math [90im x 42
meetings = 3780im/course x 8 =
30240; 30240/750 =
40.32
Jr. – Sr. Math & Lang. [(8 x 2520)/750]
26.88
Frosh Lab, Soph. Music, Jr. & Sr. Labs
[(360im x 28 meetings)/3 =
3360im/course x 5 courses)
22.40
Electives [(3 x 2520)/750]
10.08
135.52 Cu
Communication
We assume this Communication major requires a year and a half of foreign language study.
We claim:
We deliver:
5 x Area A, B, & C cc
7.5 Cu
1 x Area B (Lab: CHEM 8) =1.25 cc 4.375
2 x TRELS cc
7
2 x English Comp cc
7
2 x French (2-3)
7
4 x Collegiate Seminar cc
14.0
4 x Jan Term cc (4.0 Cu each)
16.0
7 x Comm cc
24.5
4 x Comm elective cc
14
5 x True Comm elective
17.5
128.875 Cu
5 x Area A, B, & C cc
16.8
1 x Area B (Lab: CHEM 8) =1.25 cc
5.87
2 x TRELS cc
6.72
2 x English Comp cc
6.72
2 x French (2-3)
8.96
4 x Collegiate Seminar cc
13.44
4 x Jan Term cc (4.0 Cu each)
13.23
7 x Comm cc
23.52
4 x Comm elective cc
13.44
5 x True Comm elective
16.8
124.5 Cu Actual
4.375 Cu Difference (36 Courses)
English
The “typical” English major below has a “Creative Writing” emphasis and needs a year of foreign language
study.
We claim:
We deliver:
5 x Area A, B, & C cc
17.5
1 x Area B (Lab: CHEM 8) =1.25 cc
4.375
2 x TRELS cc
7
2 x English Comp cc
7
2 x French (2 -3)
7
4 x Collegiate Seminar cc
14
4 x Jan Term cc (4.0 Cu each)
16.0
2 x LD (19-29)
7
4 x Eng cc
14
4 x Eng elective cc
14
2 x Eng (25-102)
7
2 x Eng 26 (.25)
1.75
5 x Area A, B, & C cc
16.8
1 x Area B (Lab: CHEM 8) =1.25 cc 5.87
2 x TRELS cc
6.72
2 x English Comp cc
6.72
2 x French (2-3)
8.96
4 x Collegiate Seminar cc
13.44
4 x Jan Term cc (4.0 Cu each)
13.23
2 x LD (19-29)
6.72
4 x Eng elective cc
13.44
4 x Eng elective cc
13.44
2 x Eng (25-102)
6.72
2 x Eng 26 (.25)
1.693
19
4 x True Eng elective
14
130.625Cu
4 x True Eng elective
13.44
127.193Cu Actual
3.432Cu Difference (36 Courses)
Psychology
The courses below are “typical” for a Psychology major with a “General Psychology” emphasis who needs a
year of foreign language study.
We claim:
5 x Area A, B, & C cc
17.5
1 x Area B (Lab: CHEM 8) =1.25 cc
4.375
2 x TRELS cc
7
2 x English Comp cc
7
2 x French (2 -3)
7
4 x Collegiate Seminar cc
14
4 x Jan Term cc (4.0 Cu each)
16
9 x Psych cc
31.5
5 x Psych a of c/elective cc
17.5
2 x True Psy elective
7
128.875 Cu
We deliver:
5 x Area A, B, & C cc
16.8
1 x Area B (Lab: CHEM 8) =1.25 cc 5.87
2 x TRELS cc
6.72
2 x English Comp cc
6.72
2 x French (2-3)
8.96
4 x Collegiate Seminar cc
13.44
4 x Jan Term cc (4.0 Cu each)
13.23
9 x Psych cc
30.44
5 x Psych a of c/elective cc
16.8
2 x True Psych elective
6.72
125.70 Cu Actual
3.175 Cu Difference (36 Courses)
Sociology
The program below is “typical” for a Sociology major who needs a year of foreign language study.
We claim:
5 x Area A, B, & C cc
17.5
1 x Area B (Lab: CHEM 8) =1.25 cc
4.375
2 x TRELS cc
7
2 x English Comp cc
7
2 x French (2 -3)
7
4 x Collegiate Seminar cc
14
4 x Jan Term cc (4.0 Cu each)
16
7 x Soc cc
24.5
6 x Soc elective cc
21
3 x True Soc elective
10.5
128.875 Cu
We deliver:
5 x Area A, B, & C cc1
6.8
1 x Area B (Lab: CHEM 8) =1.25 cc 5.87
2 x TRELS cc
6.72
2 x English Comp cc
6.72
2 x French (2-3)
8.96
4 x Collegiate Seminar cc
13.44
4 x Jan Term cc (4.0 Cu each)
13.23
7 x Soc cc
23.52
6 x Soc elective cc
20.16
3 x True Soc elective
10.08
125.60 Cu Actual
3.275 Cu Difference (36 Courses)
Spanish
The program below identifies courses taken by a “typical” Spanish Major. This student chooses Option A
(instead of Option B, for students aspiring to Graduate School), starts with Intermediate Spanish 10, thus
satisfying the foreign language study requirement upon entry.
We claim:
5 x Area A, B, & C cc1
7.5
1 x Area B (Lab: CHEM 8) =1.25 cc 4.375
2 x TRELS cc
7
2 x English Comp cc
7
4 x Collegiate Seminar cc
14
4 x Jan Term cc (4.0 Cu each)
16
2 x Spa LD (10-11) cc
7
9 x Spa UD cc
31.5
2 (Span Conv & Capstone) .25
1.75
6.5 x True elective
22.75
128.875 Cu
We deliver:
5 x Area A, B, & C cc
16.8
1 x Area B (Lab: CHEM 8) =1.25 cc 5.87
2 x TRELS cc
6.72
2 x English Comp cc
6.72
4 x Collegiate Seminar cc
13.44
4 x Jan Term cc (4.0 Cu each)
13.23
2 x Spa LD (10-11) cc
8.96
9 x Spa UD cc
30.24
2 (Span Conv & Capstone) .25
1.68
6.5 x True elective
21.84
125.500 Cu Actual
20
3.375 Cu Difference (36 Courses)
Transfer Students
Transfer students experience wide variation in the number of Carnegie units earned upon graduation, again
depending upon their choice of major. We provide some examples below.
Transfer: Communication
A “representative” transfer student majoring in Communication will, like all transfer students, receive a
waiver for one Collegiate Seminar and one January term. In the example below, the student’s former
institution operated on a quarter system. As a result, her courses were allotted a .77 semester credit value.
Unlike the other majors featured here, this student would need 3 foreign language courses instead of 2; she
would fulfill the Diversity requirement without ‘double-dipping.’ Unlike non-transfer students, she will have
completed 39 courses for her degree. These particularities complicate comparisons of her program of study
with those of the majors described above.
We claim:
We deliver:
3 x Area A & B cc
10.5
1 x Area B (Lab: BIOL 42) =1.25 cc 4.375
1.77 x Area C cc
6.125
2 x TRELS cc
7
1.54 x English Comp cc
5.39
3 x French (1-2-3)
10.5
3 x Collegiate Seminar cc
10.5
2 x Diversity (Anthro 1 & Soc 00E) 7
3 x Jan Term cc (4.0 Cu each)
12.0
7 x Comm cc (1 Capstone*)
24.5
4 x Comm elective cc
14
6 x Transfer Credits (.66 each)
13.86
1 x Transfer Credits (.58)
2.03
127.78 Cu
3 x Area A & B cc
10.08
1 x Area B (Lab: BIOL 42) =1.25 cc 5.87
1.77 x Area C cc
5.88
2 x TRELS cc
6.72
1.54 x English Comp cc
5.174
3 x French (1-2-3)
13.44
3 x Collegiate Seminar cc
10.08
2 x Diversity (Anthro 1 & Soc 00E) 6.72
3 x Jan Term cc (4.0 Cu each)
9.921
7 x Comm cc (1 Capstone*)
23.52
4 x Comm elective cc
13.44
6 x Transfer Credits (.66 each)
13.305
1 x Transfer Credits (.58)
1.948
125.797 Cu Actual
1.983 Cu Difference (39 Courses)
Transfer: English
A typical transfer student majoring in English, will have one Collegiate Seminar requirement and one January
Term requirement waived. Characteristically, 3 Cu courses completed at this student’s former institution
were attributed .90 value. Unlike all non-transfer students represented here, this student needs to take 3
foreign language courses instead of 2 and to complete 41 courses for the degree.
We claim:
We deliver:
2 x Area A (.90 TC)
6.3
2 x Area B (.90 & 1.20 TC)
8.137
2 x Area C cc (1 as .90 TC)
6.65
2 x TRELS cc
7
2 x English Comp cc (.90 TC) 6.3
3 x Spanish (1 as TC for .90) 10.15
2 x Collegiate Seminar cc
7
1 x Diversity (Anthro .90 TC) 3.15
2 x Jan Term cc (4.0 Cu each) 8.0
9 x Engl cc (1 as 0.90 TC)
31.15
4 x Engl elective cc
14
7 x Transfer Credits (.90 each) 16.28
1 x Transfer Credits (1.20)
4.2
2 x Area A (.90 TC)
5.806
2 x Area B (.90 & 1.20 TC)
8.659
2 x Area C cc (1 as .90 TC)
6.384
2 x TRELS cc
6.72
2 x English Comp cc (.90 TC) 6.048
3 x Spanish (1 as TC for .90) 13
2 x Collegiate Seminar cc
6.72
1 x Diversity (Anthro .90 TC ) 3.024
2 x Jan Term cc (4.0 Cu each) 6.614
9 x Engl cc (1 as 0.90 TC)
29.904
4 x Engl elective cc
13.44
7 x Transfer Credits (.90 each) 15.628
1 x Transfer Credits (1.20)
4.032
21
132.317 Cu
125.979 Cu Actual
6.338 Cu Difference (41 Courses)
Transfer: Psychology
This transfer student majoring in Psychology below meets the foreign language proficiency requirement upon
matriculation. This student will take 40 courses instead of the usual 36 to graduate.
We claim:
2 x Area A (1.5 & .90 TC)
8.4
2 x Area B (1 as .90 TC)
6.65
2 x Area C cc (.90 TC)
6.3
2 x TRELS cc
7
2 x English Comp cc (.90 TC) 6.3
2 x Collegiate Seminar cc
7
1 x Diversity (Anthro .90 TC ) 3.15
2 x Jan Term cc (4.0 Cu each) 8.0
11 x Psych cc (1 as 0.90 TC) 38.15
4 x Psych elective cc
14
7 x Transfer Credits (.90 each) 13.86
1 x Transfer Credits (1.20)
4.2
We deliver:
2 x Area A (1.5 & .90 TC)
8.064
2 x Area B (1 as .90 TC)
6.384
2 x Area C cc (.90 TC)
6.048
2 x TRELS cc
6.72
2 x English Comp cc (.90 TC) 6.048
2 x Collegiate Seminar cc
6.72
1 x Diversity (Anthro .90 TC ) 3.024
2 x Jan Term cc (4.0 Cu each) 6.614
11 x Psych cc (1 as 0.90 TC) 36.624
4 x Psych elective cc
13.44
7 x Transfer Credits (.90 each) 13.305
1 x Transfer Credits (1.20)
4.032
117.023 Cu Actual
5.687 Cu Difference (40 Courses)
122.710 Cu
Transfer: Sociology
The transfer student below has a Sociology major and a Communications minor. As is the case with all
transfer students, one requirement for Collegiate Seminar and one for Jan Term are waived. Somewhat
mystically, bona fide courses completed at this student’s former institution were attributed .87 value. Unlike
all the other non-transfer students, this student needs 3 foreign language courses instead of 2. Unlike nontransfer students, this student will need to complete 40 courses to receive his degree.
We claim:
2 x Area A (1 at .87 TC)
6.75
2 x Area B (1 at 1.20, 1 at 1.16 TC)
2 x Area C cc (1 at .87 TC)
6.75
2 x TRELS cc
7
2 x English Comp cc (.87 TC)
6.09
3 x Japanese (1-2-3)
10.5
3 x Collegiate Seminar cc
10.5
1 x Diversity (Anthro .87 TC )
3.045
3 x Jan Term cc (4.0 Cu each)
12
7 x Soc cc (1 as 1.20 & 2 as 0.87 TC) 24.29
6 x Soc elective cc
21
6 x Comm Minor
21
2 x Transfer Credits (1. 16 & .87)
7
144.185 Cu
8.26
We deliver:
2 x Area A (1 at .87 TC)
6.22
2 x Area B (1 at 1.20, 1 at 1.16 TC)
11.08
2 x Area C cc (1 at .87 TC)
6.48
2 x TRELS cc
6.72
2 x English Comp cc (.87 TC)
5.84
3 x Japanese (1-2-3)
13
3 x Collegiate Seminar cc
10.08
1 x Diversity (Anthro .87 TC )
2.923
3 x Jan Term cc (4.0 Cu each)
9.921
7 x Soc cc (1 as 1.20 & 2 as 0.87 TC) 23.31
6 x Soc elective cc
20.16
6 x Comm Minor
20.1
2 x Transfer Credits (1. 16 & .87)
6.72
142.554 Cu Actual
1.631 Cu Difference (40 Courses)
Conclusions
Inconsistencies abound: Integral and Physical Chemistry deliver more Carnegie units than 3.5 times the
number of SMC course-credits required for the degree. This is simply due to the fact that many of their
courses (especially the ones with a laboratory component) meet more than 3 hours a week.
Many other disciplines deliver fewer Carnegie units than 3.5 times the number of SMC course-credits required
for the degree. Typically, the number of Carnegie units under-delivered amounts to a full course. Hence, most
students in the majors represented here graduate with approximately a one-course educational deficit; that is,
they graduate with a shortfall in actual im/Cu compared to nominal im/Cu amounting to a full course.
22
Without Modern Languages, which features lower-division courses meeting four days a week, and without the
Foreign Language Proficiency Requirement, which ensures that the bulk of SMC students take two to three
courses meeting four days a week, the deficit would be significantly greater. Without the hard sciences and
the hard-science requirement, the deficit (that is, the shortfall in actual im/Cu compared to nominal im/Cu)
would be greater still.
While some courses in Modern Languages, Integral, and hard sciences effectively mask discrepancies in terms
of units allotted (16 for 4) and actual Carnegie units earned (13.23 for 4), all January Term courses singularly,
disproportionately, contribute to them. For the four January Term courses required for graduation, the
difference between units allotted and Carnegie units earned is 2.77 Cu, i.e. 77% of the units a full course would
secure.
It is somewhat ironic that the disciplines most in tune with Carnegie unit stipulations, i.e. Integral, the hard
sciences, and Modern Languages, are aberrations in the SMC curriculum. They honor the spirit of the Carnegie
unit just as they violate the spirit of the stipulations of the unit currency currently honored at SMC. To wit, a
student taking a lower-division foreign language course might thank the institution for gifting her an extra
hour of instruction per week. Another student in the same course might curse the institution for withholding
the extra credit to which the extra hour of labor per week may entitle her. Disciplinary incommensurability
notwithstanding, only a uniform system, such as the one that the Carnegie unit constitutes, might remedy the
inconsistencies highlighted by the contradicting interpretations of the two fictitious students.
If she were intellectually consistent, after completing each January term course, the first of the two students
would begrudge the institution for not having provided her with more instructional hours than the credits
allotted for each January term course implicitly promise. Cognitive consonance would likewise compel the
second of the two students to thank the institution for granting her more units for each January term she
completed than the number of hours of actual instruction in the course(s) warranted.
Inconsistencies also abound with respect to Transfer Students. Though they typically graduate with four or
five more courses than their counterparts who obtained their degree from the school at which they took their
first college course, they fall even shorter in terms of the relationship between Carnegie Units attributed by
the institution from which they earned their degree and the courses they actually completed at all the
institutions they attended. Characteristically, they are allotted the equivalent of two courses fewer in terms of
Carnegie units. Of course, for them as for their mono-institutional counterparts, the more lower-division
courses they take in the department of Modern Languages, the more hard-science courses they take, and the
fewer January term courses they take, the lesser the deficit.
V. Administrative Analysis
In reviewing the options for aligning the academic calendar with WASC and federal guidelines, it became clear
that most (if not all) of the feasible options would require:
1) increased instructional hours on the part of existing faculty and/or;
2) the hiring of additional faculty.
If the College selects the first option, faculty will respond in one of two ways. Either they will reallocate time
away from scholarship and service and towards teaching, or they will attempt to meet the increased teaching
requirement without reducing the time spent on scholarship and service. In the latter case, quality will suffer
across all three activities.
If the College decides to compensate faculty for the additional teaching time, or to hire new faculty, the
challenge will be in identifying a source of funding. The College cannot pass through additional faculty salary
23
costs to students in the form of higher tuition, since the Trustees have explicitly rejected raising tuition by
more than a small percentage over the next several years.32
We assume that the primary goal of the College is to continue to provide students with an excellent education.
Consequently, sacrificing the quality of faculty teaching is not an option. However, promotion, tenure and
active participation in the SMC community require continued service and scholarship. Therefore, sacrificing
quality in these areas is equally unacceptable.
We face a challenge that is common to many organizations: that of maintaining quality in the face of increasing
costs and stable revenues. The CTF was not limited to any particular scope with respect to the calendar
problem. Moreover, we were eager to avoid the problems that may occur when those responsible for solution
design fail to consider implementation issues. Consequently, we undertook a rudimentary analysis of the cost
structure of the College, to determine if there are any opportunities to increase efficiency while continuing to
deliver a high quality education to our students.
One model of how costs are determined in higher education institutions is that colleges determine what they
can afford, in light of tuition and other revenues, and budget their costs accordingly. In other words, higher
revenues lead to higher costs. In another model, colleges treat certain quality metrics, such as student-tofaculty ratios, as binding constraints. As the cost of satisfying those constraints increases, revenues must
increase.
Over the past ten years, administrative and instructional expenses have comprised the bulk (between 79
percent and 81 percent) of costs at Saint Mary’s College. Consequently, we looked to these categories in an
effort to determine how these expenses have changed through time, relative to one another, to student
enrollments, and to tuition revenues.
Unfortunately, coherent financial information for the College is difficult to access. In particular, we found it
difficult to disaggregate the summary data we located in the Fact Books to isolate administrative salaries,
faculty salaries and associated expenses. Therefore, we began by tracking faculty and administrative
employee numbers over the last eight to ten years in an effort to assess, in general terms, how the faculty and
administrative ranks have either increased or decreased.
Before we present our preliminary findings, we wish to note that the data are not complete, due to gaps in
Faculty Handbook publication, conflicting data in different issues of the Fact Book, and frequent changes to the
organizational structure of the College through time. The charts below represent our best effort to generate
meaningful comparisons.
Figure 1 presents growth in faculty and administrative employment from 2001 to 2009.
Figure 1. Percent Growth in Faculty and Administration (2001 to 2009)
32
President Obama has also indicated that his administration will address the issue of skyrocketing college tuition
charges in the near future. Clearly, college tuition represents one of the most important issues in higher education today.
24
Source: SMC Faculty Handbooks and SMC Fact Books
Note that the chart above records growth in full-time faculty only. Full-time faculty employment increased
from 182 to 202 during the period. During the same period, part time faculty decreased by 29 percent.
Total faculty employed, either part-time or full-time, decreased by 14 percent during the period.
In general, as an organization grows, we expect administrative employment (and costs) to rise more slowly
than direct employment (i.e. faculty). Yet between 2001 and 2009, the number of SMC administrators grew
from 102 to 121, or by 19 percent.33
The growth in full-time faculty and administrators can be interpreted in several ways. The first is that more
faculty and administrators are required to serve increasing numbers of students. Yet between 2001 and
2009 enrollment decreased by 16 percent. Another way to interpret this growth is that it resulted in an
increase the quality of education delivered to a stable student population. The increase in full-time faculty, as
noted above, resulted partly from a significant decrease in part-time faculty. Some might suggest that relying
on full-time tenure-track faculty to teach students could enhance the quality of instruction, although there are
strong arguments against this position as well. If expanded full-time faculty ranks result in an increase in
courses offered, educational quality might be enhanced as well. The growth in administrators (assistant
directors and above only) cannot be as easily tied to educational quality enhancement. Moreover, the fact that
growth in senior administrative employment outstripped faculty as well as student enrollment growth is
troubling.
Despite problems in accessing detailed financial data, we were able to identify certain line items in the annual
Statement of Activities that give some indication of the growth in faculty and administrative costs through
time. Figure 2 presents a comparison of these principal components of College expense.
Figure 2. Inflation-Adjusted Growth in Instructional Expense and Administrative Expense (20012009)
Sources: SMC Factbooks and
CPI Index from the 2010
Economic Report of the
President
As the chart above indicates,
instructional expenses
increased by 19 percent in real
terms between 2001 and 2009, while administrative costs rose by 32 percent during the same period.34 It is
33
The term “administrator” refers to employees with the following titles: Vice Provost, Vice President, Dean, Associate Dean,
Assistant Dean, Director, Associate Director, Assistant Director. We excluded staff, coordinators, officers, and managers from
our calculations due to lack of data.
34
Instructional expenses refer to the line items “academic” or “instructional” expenses in the Statement of Activities.
Administrative expenses include administration or institutional support, information technology, student services, and academic
support.
25
unclear how much of the increase in administrative expense is due to rising salaries and how much is due to
an increase in the number of individuals employed. Nonetheless, we find the rate of growth surprising.
We mentioned earlier that enrollments have declined between 2001 and 2009, largely due to program closures. 35
Figure 3 compares the decline in enrollment to the change in tuition revenue, defines as tuition payments less
unsponsored financial aid.
Figure 3. Enrollment and Inflation-Adjusted Tuition Revenue Growth (2001 to 2009)
Interestingly, the College is receiving more net tuition revenue (26 percent more) from fewer students. This is
at least partly due to rising tuition rates. Since tuition represents the College’s primary source of revenue
(70% to 75%), we analyzed the impact of rising faculty and administrative costs on students. Figure 4
presents those results.36
Figure 4. Inflation-Adjusted Expenses per Student (2001 to 2009)
35
We should note, however, that TUG enrollments decreased by 5 percent during the period.
36
“1” refers to 2001, while “2” refers to 2009.
26
In 2001, instructional expense per student was 20 percent higher than administrative expense per student. By
2009, the gap had narrowed to 6 percent. In other words, administrative costs per student rose more quickly
than faculty costs.
Finally, it may be helpful to examine ratios of faculty and administrators to students.
Figure 5. Faculty/Student and Administrator/Student Ratios (2001 and 2009)
In 2001, there were 20
students for each full-time
faculty member. In 2009, that
ratio decreased to 16 students
per full-time faculty member.
This analysis supports the
argument that increases in faculty employment enhanced educational quality by reducing average class size.
Yet, it is not apparent to us how the decrease from 37 full-time students per senior administrator in 2001 to
26 students per senior administrator in 2009 contributed to educational quality.
We note that this issue is not specific to Saint Mary’s College. In fact, academic journals and higher education
periodicals frequently identify and analyze the problem. We don’t doubt that our peer institutions have
experienced the same increase in senior administration employment and expense. The fact that the problem
is widespread does not absolve us from the responsibility to address and attempt to solve it. From our
perspective, the rapid increase in administrative employment has had unintended and negative consequences
for faculty and, indirectly, for students.
First, because senior administrators at Saint Mary’s are creative, industrious and hard-working individuals,
they devote enormous energy to their individual areas of expertise. In an effort to involve faculty in these
endeavors, they establish initiatives, task forces, and committees in which faculty are exhorted to participate.
27
Rather than saving faculty time by hiring administrators to perform functions so that faculty don’t have to,
faculty time is increasingly devoted to participation in initiatives designed by these administrators, an
unintended and negative consequence. As a further consequence, the ability of faculty to participate in the
governance of the College is reduced, because these initiatives are administration-driven. The result is a
faculty overloaded with committee service, meetings, and administrative reporting duties that take time and
attention away from the classroom, research and students. The frequent need to offer faculty course releases
in order to compensate for service is an obvious indication of how the explosive increase in service
requirements has begun to drive faculty allocation of time, to the detriment of students.
Finally, we note the disturbing tendency to create administrative positions and functions without a careful
analysis, not just of the benefits of additional administrators but of the (costs) benefits foregone by choosing
to allocate funds to those functions at the expense of other worthy initiatives.37
The College’s administration has recently emphasized the need to explain the “value proposition” of a Saint
Mary’s College education to prospective students and their parents. Just as donors are reluctant to donate to
non-profit organizations that divert significant funds away from their beneficiaries and towards bloated
administrative functions, we are concerned that prospective students would be dismayed to learn how much
of their tuition pays for operations that are only tangentially related to their education.
Because the CTF is proposing a significant change to the way that our students earn educational credits,
perhaps it is time to explore ways to increase the educational return on their enormous investment in the
College.
Respectfully submitted,
Kara Boatman
S. A. Cortright
Claude Rheal-Malary
37
Montini Fellow Dr. Richard Yanikoski offered some interesting insights in this regard in his campus visit last fall.
28