By Katie Oglesby, Editor-in-Chief
President Bob Iuliano began Thursday’s faculty meeting with reflection on the Ken Burns Film Festival that occurred the previous weekend. He said it was an “incredibly special three days.” He also noted that the student session was impactful for the student body.
Student Experience Survey
The meeting quickly shifted into the formal motion for the Student Experience Survey discussed in the meeting on Feb. 2. The motion was approved. This survey will replace the Common Course Evaluation in fall 2023.
Proposed Curriculum Changes
Iuliano noted that there would be three amendments to the proposed curriculum brought to the floor. They would only require a simple majority to pass.
Associate Professor of Interdisciplinary Studies Ian Isherwood and Associate Professor of Public Policy Dave Powell brought the first amendment forward. This amendment would maintain the current first-year seminar program and require first-year data and first-year writing as separate requirements. First-year seminars would be able to cover either, both, or none of the requirements, but unlike in the Curriculum Review Committee’s (CRC) proposal, they would no longer be required in seminar-form.
Isherwood explained that the amendment responded to concerns over keeping the current program intact, the staffing that the CRC proposal would require, the implementation of it, the impact on understaffed departments, and the increase of faculty workloads these seminars would cause.
This would take the original four seminar (two first-year full-credit seminars, one half-credit sophomore seminar, and one half-credit senior seminar) portion of the proposed curriculum down to three courses.
The amendment also included that the first-year writing requirement would be overseen by the English department, who had already noted during previous meetings that they were disappointed in the CRC proposal for removing this from under their supervision.
A member of the CRC said after this proposal that they were not supporting the amendment, and that they see that the first-year data course must be a seminar.
“[We] see four seminars as a unit to create high-impact, common experiences,” the CRC faculty member said.
They continued that keeping the requirements as two first-year seminars is easier for students and advisors to navigate.
Chairperson and Chemistry Professor Tim Funk said he was concerned that this would be too many courses for the first-year, especially for students with really structured majors.
Chairperson and Associate Professor of Interdisciplinary Studies Vernon Cisney responded to Funk saying that this would not add more to the curriculum, but instead change its shape.
Cisney noted that he hasn’t heard a “satisfactory argument” from the CRC as to whether the proposed first-year seminars would be able to be staffed, saying the required staff would be doubled while the faculty were “actively shrinking.”
A professor involved in the biochemistry and molecular biology (BMB) department noted that this amendment actually allows more flexibility for classes to satisfy multiple credits (in the situation where a student takes a first-year seminar that satisfies both first-year writing and first-year data at the same time) rather than the original proposal that would require two courses.
He also noted that if the faculty want students to have writing and data skills, any class that provides those skill sets should be able to count toward the requirement.
Director of Educational Technology Eric Remy, who is not a voting member, but has taught a first-year seminar chimed in that the first-year seminars in data and writing would make many that don’t count toward those requirements obsolete.
Associate Provost for Academic Assessment, Dean of Natural Sciences, Computer Science, and Mathematics, and member of the CRC expressed concerns with Isherwood and Powell’s amendment. He said he didn’t understand how this amendment would solve the staffing concerns, and was worried that students wouldn’t want to take a course that wouldn’t count toward either of the requirements.
Isherwood commented on the proposal, saying that the answer to the question of who will teach the courses in the proposed curriculum has been, “We’ll implement it and then [we’ll] see.”
He said the amendment would turn staffing back toward departments who may have many professors willing and able to teach these seminars, rather than creating “40 new seminars in the next seven months.”
Adams Professor in Theatre Arts and Associate Professor of Theatre Arts Susan Russell said, “One thing no one has mentioned is how much extra work it is to [teach] a first-year writing seminar.”
She noted that faculty are not paid extra to teach writing-intensive seminars, and the CRC proposal would be asking for extra work from faculty.
She also commented on Glass’s last point about students not wanting to take courses that won’t fulfill requirements, saying that students may take them out of curiosity.
The motion was put to a vote and passed with 68 votes in favor, 57 votes against, and 5 abstentions. Two members were unable to vote, but their vote would not have changed the result.
Chairperson and Professor of English Kathryn Rhett withdrew her amendment on the basis that Isherwood and Powell’s amendment included what she would have proposed.
The third and final amendment was brought to the floor, though would not be voted on until the next meeting.
Chairperson and Professor of Environmental Studies Salma Monani proposed an amendment that would allow the half-credit senior seminar requirement to be met by major capstones that meet the two learning outcomes of college career and integrative reflection.
Monani said that many major seminars include “integrative learning and reflection,” so therefore it would be redundant for some students to take both.
While the CRC model intended for students to take the half-credit courses outside of their major department, Monani said there was no guarantee that students wouldn’t take their half-credit seminar with professors they know on topics they know.
A member of the CRC said that this amendment goes against what they were proposing. They saw the half-credit seminar as something outside of the major and that would be different from a capstone course. It would reflect on experiences outside of the major and beyond the curriculum.
Focus groups with alumni and parents led the CRC to believe that students should have more reflection on their college experience at the end of their time at the College.
The CRC member said a seminar in the student’s major wouldn’t have the “broad focus” they intended. As well, they noted that according to studies, marginalized students tend not to be as involved in “high-impact practices” by their senior year of college, and this half-credit seminar would increase the chances of those students having those experiences.
Discussion on this amendment will continue at the next faculty meeting.
