Minutes
Curriculum Committee
March 9, 2004
Members: James
Swartz (Chair), Gerald Adams, Diane Robertson, Andy Hamilton, Tyler Roberts,
Mark Montgomery, Devan McGranahan, and Lilly Radoshevich
1. The minutes
of the 02/24/04 meeting were approved.
2. New course:
POL 329 was approved
3. The committee
made the following decisions:
a. The Committee will make a recommendation to the Executive Council.
b. When a final proposal has been worked out the committee will poll itself regarding support of the final document. This information will be conveyed to the Executive Council along with the proposal itself.
c. If any members of the committee wish to file a minority report along with our recommendation they may do so. These reports will be forwarded to the Executive Council.
d. At this point in our discussion the definition of "Independent" will be any course numbers 397 or 399 and is 4 credits.
e. The Registrar will produce a data file covering the last six years containing the following elements: term, student name, subject, course number, credits, major of student, and instructor(s).
f. The compensation for "Independents" for now will be set as described below. At this point there no strong rationale for a different rate of compensation for Independents
g. The Dean will do an analysis of the impact such a policy would have had on our sabbatical leaves over the last six years.
h. Each Divisional representative will produce the criteria for evaluating an Independent in light of this proposal.
Introduction
This past fall, the Divisional Representatives from the Curriculum Committee presented to their respective divisions for discussion a list of options regarding compensation for MAPs and Independent studies. According to the reports from those meetings, it appears that, first, there was general support for the "principle of equity" and, second, that there also was support across divisions for realizing this principle through the fourth of the options we presented.
Option #4: Compensate all MAPs and Independents but try to minimize the adverse effect on the curriculum by imposing limits on the number of course release credits that can be accumulated per academic year and/or on how these credits may be used.
We have been trying for a while now to find the time to discuss Option #4 in more depth to see if we might arrive at a position we could, as a Committee, recommend to Executive Council. After we agreed to put it on the agenda for our meeting next week, Gerry asked if I would be willing to put together a memo that drafted an initial proposal for compensating independents along the lines of Option #4. The idea was that this proposal would serve as a starting point for our discussion, that something concrete would help us get down to business. I present this, then, as an effort to articulate a workable position but primarily as a conversation starter rather than a final proposal.
Proposal
For the purposes of this proposal, the term "Independent" refers to 4-Credit "Independent Projects" because I think the only way to get started on this issue is to confine ourselves, at least for the time being, to those independents that are most like MAPs. Further, because most projects proposed by students that can conceivably be considered "advanced" will be proposed as MAPs, I suggest that we consider "Independents" along the lines of "mentored intermediate projects."
There are two basic elements in my proposal. The first concerns the issue of "compensation"-should MAPs and Independents be compensated equally? The second concerns the issue of "limits"-how should we cap the number of MAPs and Independents that can be compensated? I address each of these in turn.
1) I propose that we treat MAPs and Independents equally, that is, that each be counted as 1/6 of a course. I take this position for two reasons. First, there appears to be some question among faculty about the degree to which every MAP is indeed a "capstone" kind of course. In other words, it may be difficult to tell, in practice, what makes something an advanced project and what makes something an intermediate project and according to the faculty I have spoken with who regularly do both, it is not at all clear that one requires more effort on the part of faculty. Second, and perhaps more important, compensating MAPs and Independents equally would help to maintain the College's traditional respect for departmental and divisional autonomy and it would recognize the fact that, as instituted, the MAP policy may well be more suited to the way the Science Division and some Social Studies departments work than to most Humanities departments. Different departments have different curricular priorities and demands. For instance, in order to be able to have a viable major, smaller departments might have to sacrifice breadth of offerings and might therefore find it important to be able to offer intermediate level independents in order to allow some students to get more breadth. Also, some departments, like my own, have a "Senior Seminar" which already functions as a kind of capstone. In fact, in the last two years, three Religious Studies students have presented a version of their Senior Seminar paper at the Midwest Regional Meeting of the American Academy of Religion. Arguably, then, in a small department like mine, there might be good reasons for prioritizing intermediate rather than advanced projects. By compensating MAPs and Independents equally, we will make it possible for departments to decide such matters independently of compensation considerations, allowing them more easily to emphasize mentored work in a way that addresses their particular needs, expectations, and limitations.
2) Without hard figures regarding the effect of course releases on course offerings and/or the College's budget it is difficult to make an informed recommendation on what the cap should be. But let me suggest a cap of two course releases every six years, which would mean that compensation, would be capped after a faculty member taught 12 MAPs/Independents in a six year period. My thinking is this: due to curricular demands faculty in some departments find it difficult to take course-releases one at a time. It may be more feasible, though, to bank course releases so as to take two at a time and attach them to a sabbatical, essentially making it possible to take a full year sabbatical. A cap of 12 MAPs/Independents would accomplish this. We have been concerned about the effect on the number of course offerings all these course releases would have. But if a significant number of faculty used their course releases to extend their sabbaticals and if the College was willing in at least many of these cases to replace the faculty member on sabbatical with a one-year appointment, then the burden on course offerings would be shifted to a burden on the budget. Could we look into what kind of burden this would be and whether it is at all feasible? If so, then it should be noted that this approach has several advantages:
a) It will make it possible for more faculty to actually take the course releases they earn.
b) It gives faculty more time to do research during their sabbatical years
c) Not only will it result in no loss of course offerings; it will in fact add to the number of course offerings in the sense that now, faculty on one-semester sabbatical leaves are not normally replaced. If such a faculty member takes off both semesters and is replaced with a one-year temporary hire, the result will be a net addition of two courses to that department's offerings when compared to what would have resulted with a one-semester sabbatical leave.
d) This approach will be less disruptive than allowing a faculty member a course release every three years.
e) It would help address the kinds of faculty concerns that were particularly evident at the faculty meeting (the last one before break?) in which the strategic planning process was discussed. As some saw it, we were presented with the finding that more mentored work was desirable at the same time we were told that a 2/2 course load was off the table. This approach-essentially one that makes more leave time possible--might offer a way of balancing the effort on mentored projects with faculty concerns about work load.
Let me add two
further elements to this proposal.
1) Presently some
on the faculty and in the administration are justifiably concerned over the
lack of oversight of Independent Studies (of all sorts). One of the clear differences
between MAPs and Independents is that MAP proposals are more thoroughly vetted
by the Dean's office. I suggest Independents be vetted in the same way that
MAPs are.
2) Departments should be encouraged to clearly articulate policies on MAPs/Independents
At present, some faculty complain that they are expected to regularly offer
Independents while it is clear that others are not. This can be particularly
hard on Junior Faculty. However, if each department were to carefully and transparently
set policy for the relative importance of MAPs and independents for its curriculum
and if faculty were getting compensated either way, then some of this kind of
burden would be relieved.