President Russell K. Osgood called the meeting to order at 4:16 p.m. in ARH 302.
Approval of
Minutes-Russell Osgood
Minutes from the September 20, 2004, meeting were approved with the following changes:
Page 3: Under
Remarks-Jim Swartz, the first announcement should read
"Swartz also acknowledged faculty accomplishments:
1. Professor of French Susan Ireland published Textualizing the Immigrant
Experience in Contemporary Quebec. Edited with Patrice J. Proulx, Westport:
Greenwood Press, Praeger Press, 2003. 256 pages."
Announcement
of Campus Student Peer Mediation Program-Val Vetter, Peace Studies Program Coordinator
Vetter announced
the opening of the Campus Mediation Program, which is part of the Peace Studies
Program. Student peer mediators have been trained and are available to mediate
student-student conflicts. Vetter encouraged faculty to refer students to the
campus mediation program. For more information, please visit:
http://www.grinnell.edu/academic/peacestudies/campusmediation/
or contact LeAnne Jones, RLC, Campus Mediation Program Coordinator.
Update on Admissions-Jim
Sumner, Dean of Admissions
Sumner addressed
six broader issues and activities within the Office of Admission:
1. Goals. Growing the applicant pool, improving the academic quality of the entering class, enrolling ethnically diverse students, protecting and preserving need-blind admission, competing for best students world-wide with the best 20 U.S. colleges, building an intellectually engaged, talented, well-matched and diverse student body, and filling the class.
2. How the Office tries to meet the goals. Involve more faculty in the admission process by hosting group sessions with faculty keynote speakers, bringing more faculty on the road, and having faculty telephone the best admitted students directly; doubling the student prospect pool; expanding markets and breaking into new markets by building its direct mailing list and belonging to an admission consortia (these markets allow the admission staff to have more prospective student contact and visit fewer high schools); expanding alumni volunteers to over 1,000; and forging a series of new relationships with POSSE, QuestBridge, and a dozen or so other community-based urban organizations.
3. Competition. The main competitors with Grinnell are Carleton College, Macalester College, and Oberlin College, respectively, with Washington University increasingly coming into the competition set, and relatively few public flag-ship universities.
4. Financial Aid. Grinnell is currently one of 14 institutions (according to the Atlantic Monthly magazine) that has need-blind admission (admission readers don't know the family's financial situation) and meets the full demonstrated financial need of all admitted U.S. students. About 90% of our student body receives some kind of cash aid, either need-based aid or merit. In assessing what is need, there are three methods: Grinnell College (GC) methodology, FAFSA (or federal) methodology, and the CSS Profile (created and managed by the College Board). The Office currently uses GC methodology, which is less generous than others. The College is considering looking at the other two models.
5. Class comparisons. The last two incoming classes have been more ethnically diverse than in the past. This year, 15% of the incoming class is first generation college students. Grinnell has a better distribution across the socio-economic lines than other comparative schools. Retention is getting better because students are better matched to Grinnell; the test scores and grades of entering students are higher as well.
6. Net Tuition Revenue. While successfully protecting the need-blind and meeting full demonstrated financial need policies, the College has not successfully improved net tuition revenue (subtract scholarships, grants, and cash assistance from tuition and fees paid).
The Office will continue in the direction outlined unless otherwise directed by the Faculty, Trustees, or President.
A question and answer session followed Sumner's remarks.
Is merit aid and faculty calling effectively getting the best students?
Sumner responded that these efforts have paid off in a higher yield (the percentage of admitted candidates who decide to accept an offer of admission).
The press has recently reported that ACT scores seem to indicate a broad lack of college preparation on the part of test takers. Is that trend reflected in Grinnell's student body? Sumner suggested no and noted that the median ACT for Grinnell students is over 30. He added that the professors present probably have a better idea of the preparedness of our entering students.
What is considered a good "match" for Grinnell, other than high test scores and grades?
Readers think of the following when considering a good match for Grinnell: applicants who are intellectually engaged and value the life of the mind greatly as evidenced in their interview, recommendations, essays, school records and test scores.
How does the College maintain both need-based admission and improve net tuition revenue?
The Office has developed a series of recruitment techniques that encourage more prosperous prospective students (as well as others) into the applicant pool. A firewall is then build between admission and financial aid information to allow admission readers to make need-blind decisions.
Have the demographics of the applicant pool shifted in the last five years?
The applicant pool has seen an increase in students of color, geographic shifts (following the national demographic patterns), and a nice increase in applications from Minnesota, which is experiencing a growth in high school graduates, unlike most Midwestern states.
A few professors
stayed after the meeting to ask Sumner other questions.
Proposal on
Honors and Academic Honesty from the Committee on Academic Standing-Jonathan
Chenette, Chair, CAS
Chenette reminded faculty of the motion passed at the May 2004 faculty meeting that there should be a college-wide standard for awarding honors to students found guilty of academic dishonesty. CAS was asked to develop a more specific version of one of the three options for such a standard (option C from the May meeting) and to present a recommendation to the faculty. A discussion ensued about the more elaborate version of option C. Chenette then moved adoption of that option, and the motion was seconded:
Students convicted of academic dishonesty are not eligible for honors, except students who commit only one offense and receive a less-than-normal penalty for the offense.
After brief discussion, Professor of English Paula Smith moved to amend the motion by striking the text after the comma, and the motion to amend was seconded. Further discussion ensued. Finally, the motion to amend was defeated. The original motion passed.
Remarks-Russell
Osgood
No remarks.
Remarks-Jim
Swartz, Dean
No remarks.
Remarks-Wayne
Moyer, Faculty Chair
Moyer announced that the expanded knowledge initiative will be presenting models to faculty. Handouts will be coming. Faculty feedback is needed before the proposal can be finalized.
Announcements
and new business
Free the Planet member Drew Blackman '05 announced that the group recently challenged the school to use 100% post consumer paper in the dorms. Blackman and Assistant Professor of Political Science Dave Ellison wanted to propose that the computers default be set to double-sided printing; he asked if there were any objections from the faculty and clarified that printing single-sided (e.g., letterhead) would still be an available option, but a few preferences would have to be changed for the particular print job. No faculty objected.
Ellison also briefly reminded faculty about the Election Night 2004.
Osgood adjourned the meeting at 5:25 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Shannon C. Harman
Secretary to the Faculty