Minutes
Curriculum Committee
March 11, 2003

Members: James Swartz (Chair), Gerald Adams, Diane Robertson, Andy Hamilton, Jerry Lalonde, Mark Montgomery, Courtney Sloger, and Devan McGranahan. Guest: Helen Scott

Agenda:

1. The minutes from the 02/25/03 meeting were approved as corrected.
   
2. After a brief discussion the committee, by a vote of 7 to 1, denied the request from the Biological Chemistry Committee to cross-list BIO 365, 370, 380, and 385 and CHM 330 and 332 as biological chemistry.
   
3. The committee approved POL 355 Government and the Economy as a new course pending receipt from the instructor of answers to the questions listed under item 9 of the course proposal form and approval by the committee via e-mail vote. [The committee via e-mail vote approved POL 355.]
   
4. Consideration of the proposal that courses that have not been taught in the last 4 years will be automatically de-listed from the catalog. The working definition of de-listing means that the course is removed from the catalog until such time as the department chooses to offer it again and at that time it would be listed in the catalog without requiring approval from either the division or curriculum committee.
   Humanities: There was major objection to this proposal from one department that does not want any of their courses removed from the catalog no matter how long ago there were taught. They still have a course that was taught by a faculty member who is no longer at Grinnell. The department in question wants their course list to serve as an advertisement of the hope and aspirations of the department. Some departments do not keep track of how long ago a course was taught.
   Science: The main concern with the proposal was that they have so many alternative year classes coupled with leaves that they felt 4 years was too short a cycle.
   Social Studies: They felt the same as the science division regarding the cycle being too short.
   It was proposed that we use a 5-year cycle. The Registrar will bring the list of courses to the next meeting so that the committee can see what courses would be de-listed under this revised proposal.
   
5. Discussion regarding a proposal to shorten the add period to one week.
   Social Studies: Many felt that a one-week add period would be too short and so an alternate proposal of 10 calendar days was advanced.
   Science: Many felt that a one-week add period was too short. There was no consensus by the division and so they felt that it should remain at 3 weeks. Because of the nature of the classes in the science division they do not have many students adding courses late.
   Humanities. Some felt that a one-week add period would be fine. The music department felt that with the number of one day a week music lessons and the fact that the music instructors are only on campus to conduct their lessons it would be difficult for them to get about 300 student a term enrolled for lessons within a week. They would prefer to have a three-week add period for music lessons. Some felt that two weeks would be better than one week.
   SCC: From a student perspective they would want to keep it as long as possible and so keeping it at three weeks would be their preference. They also believed that one week would be too short.
   The committee, by a vote of 4 to 3, proposed to forward a recommendation to the Committee on Academic Standing that the add period be shortened to seven class days.
   
6. The Dean submitted the following statement and questions for the committee to consider: In thinking about the quandary about Mentored Advanced Projects (MAPs), independent study (I.S.), and related curricular elements, I think that we need to put the issues in a curricular context. MAPs were not initiated to get compensation, but from a faculty belief that our curriculum lacked capstone components. The faculty passed an authorization of experiments with several different models of capstones. MAP is the one that took off with the faculty members. Capstone seminars, disciplinary and interdisciplinary, have been experimented with by a few, but are nowhere near as widespread as MAPs. We also need to recognize that quite a few departments have upper level seminar courses, which serve the purpose of a capstone in the major. The Curriculum Committee carried out an assessment of MAPs, and the committee recommended the MAP with compensation in teaching load as a component.

   Maybe we should begin a discussion of why we have the other I.S. elements and what purpose they serve. Is there a reason to have them? What place do they fill in the curriculum? There needs to be a clear set of reasons for faculty members to spend a lot of time in any curricular element. Then we could turn our attention to deciding if these I.S. elements are effective in fulfilling their curricular purpose. I think that to focus upon compensation without knowing what we are trying to accomplish makes no sense. Faculty time, whether compensated as a part of the teaching load or not, is a very valuable resource, and we should think hard about how we expend that resource. This is a wonderful time to do so.

   1. What are the distinctive attributes of a MAP?
      
      1. Do those attributes distinguish MAPs from other kinds of I.S.?
         
      2. Do MAPs and other forms of I.S. perform different functions?
         
      3. Do we value those functions?
         
   2. What are the distinctive features of the other forms of I.S.?
      
   3. Do we want to expand the availability of opportunities for students to pursue advanced-level, intensive research?
      
   4. Is the faculty director's role the same in both the MAP and other forms of I.S.?
      
      1. If it is, then should we reconsider MAP compensation?
         
   5. Do we want to continue to concentrate resources (teaching credit, research expenses, travel to conferences) on the MAP?
      
      1. If we don't, do we want to spread those resources across all forms of I.S.?
         
      2. Or do we want to reallocate those resources in a completely different area?
         
   6. Do we want to compensate all forms of I.S. and increase the size of our regular courses?
      
      1. How much bigger will those courses be?
         
      2. In the case of faculty taking their teaching credit, which regular courses should they cut? General education courses (tutorial, Humanities, Statistics)? Concentration and other interdisciplinary courses? Advanced level work? Introductory courses?
         
      3. How much bigger will courses be if only MAPs are compensated?
         
   7. Do we want to compensate other forms of I.S.?
      
      1. Do we want to compensate them at a different level than 1/6 of a course?
         
   8. Do we want to stop compensating MAP directors?
      
      1. What effect will this have on independent advanced-level research?
         
      2. What effect will there be if only summer MAPs are compensated?
         
         

      The committee began a general discussion of the questions above. How much independent work are we doing? We need to look at the value to the departments and students of doing independent study. What role does I.S. play in the curriculum? How much should we be doing? What is the purpose of I.S.? The variation of the amount of work done under I.S. varies widely among the faculty who direct them. It is difficulty to describea typical I.S. project. The committee will continue this discussion at our next meeting.
      

Return to Curriculum Committee page