|
UNIVERSITY OF
CALIFORNIA, SANTA CRUZ |
AS/SCM/259 |
Minutes
Regular Meeting of the Santa Cruz Division
February 23, 2000
A regular meeting of the Santa Cruz Division of the Academic Senate was held on Wednesday, February 23, 2000 in Classroom Unit II with Parliamentarian David Kaun and Secretary David Koo present, Chair Roger Anderson called the meeting to order at 3:08 p.m.
Professor Joel Yellin moved approval of the Minutes of the October 27, 1999 Meeting (AS/SCM/257). The motion was seconded and adopted by unanimous voice vote. Professor Yellin then moved to table the Minutes of the December 3, 1999 Special Meeting (AS/SCM/258) until the Spring Quarter meeting. The motion was seconded and adopted by unanimous voice vote.
The projected addition for campus enrollment next year is approximately 700 students. Managing resources for this rapid growth will be a challenge. Concerns include getting sufficient per student funding to manage undergraduate and graduate programs; getting capital funding sufficient to build buildings, laboratories and offices needed for growth; and getting sufficient student housing. System-wide, UC is expecting to hire an estimated 7,000 faculty in the next ten years. The problems of faculty housing and providing start-up packages will affect the university's ability to maintain quality. Although the governor's budget for UC is quite generous, the report of the state legislative analyst offers a negative critique.
Other issues concerning the Senate are the Santa Clara Valley Regional Center and the Budget Initiatives process. Campus Provost John Simpson has set up an academic planning task force, composed of faculty and charged to define the academic planning framework for the Center. Senate input into the Initiatives process is through the Committee on Planning and Budget (CPB) and through Senate representation on the Campus Academic Planning Committee (CAPC).
There are several important administrative recruitments now underway. National searches are for the Vice Chancellor of Research, Dean of Engineering, Dean of Humanities, and Dean of University Extension. Internal searches are for Dean of Graduate Studies and Vice Provost of Academic Affairs, to which Professor Faye Crosby was recently appointed.
Planning for the UC Merced campus is progressing and UCSC Professor Geoffrey Mason has been appointed as Chair of the recently constituted UC Merced Committee on Academic Personnel.
Veteran's Day will now be recognized as an official UC holiday. It will occur either on November 11th or on a Friday or Monday if it falls on a weekend.
The systemwide Academic Senate is discussing a possible community service requirement for graduation.
Chair Anderson announced that after the CALL for today's meeting was printed and distributed, the Committee on Rules, Jurisdiction, and Elections (RJ&E) issued an opinion that the vote taken at the Special Meeting on 3 December 1999 on the referral of the main motion to CEP and the Graduate Council is inconclusive and thus remains unfinished business. CEP's legislation appearing in today's CALL is strictly speaking a substitute motion for the main motion that was on the floor at the Special Meeting. In order for CEP's legislation to be considered legitimately today, Professor George Brown will be making a motion that will provide a procedural fix for this parliamentary difficulty.
The State budget subcommittee on education is considering UC's budget in Sacramento today. This year the Governor's ongoing budget proposes a 7.5 percent increase in UC's basic budget and an additional 1 percent to fund new seed and research initiatives. The legislative analyst (an independent, nonpartisan analyst) was, however, particularly tough on certain aspects of the proposed UC budget. If accepted, the analyst's recommendations would cut nearly half the funding needed for next year's expected increase in students; cut back COLA's for faculty and staff; cut out K-12 teacher preparation altogether in the UC budget; and decrease significantly the budget for buildings and a variety of year-round operations. The budget process is still in its early stages. The Chancellor is optimistic that the Governor will stand behind his budget and that the State Senate will support the Governor's budget, including the UC portion.
The Chancellor stated that she took no position on the agenda issue of evaluations and that it was a faculty decision, but emphasized the importance and context of the debate. The Millennium Committee report articulated its first and foremost defining principle of UCSC as being an outstanding research university with excellent graduate and undergraduate education. The national press has focused on UCSC's debate on student assessment because few institutions of higher education have engaged in any discussion of the purposes of evaluation. The manner in which UCSC faculty have taken on this issue of undergraduate education is distinctive and for which the Chancellor is proud of the faculty. The intense dialog on student assessment on the campus for the past year indicates UCSC's uncommon commitment to undergraduate education. The research opportunities, residential environment, and close interaction with faculty are also very important parts of this commitment.
Psychology Professor Faye Crosby will serve as the inaugural Vice Provost of Academic Affairs. Professors William Ladusaw and Gary Glatzmaier chair the Santa Clara Valley Regional Center Academic Planning Task Force. Vice Chancellor Tom Vani and Dean David Kliger chair the search for Dean of University Extension. Professor Tyler Stovall and Dean Martin Chemers chair the search for the Dean of Humanities. Professors Eli Silver and John Vesecky chair the search for the Dean of Engineering. Professor Joseph Miller and Vice Chancellor Ronald Suduiko chair the search for the Vice Chancellor of Research. Professor David Belanger chairs the search for Dean of Graduate Studies. All of these committees were constituted with representation composed primarily of faculty recommended by Committee on Committees or appointed by the EVC. Although the committees may not have representation of every relevant constituency, faculty are encouraged to participate by providing their input on qualifications to search committee members and by involvement in the interview process.
EVC Simpson emphasized that his role in the evaluation debate was only as a faculty member and not as part of the administration. As such, he expressed his hope that UCSC will continue to lead the national conversation in higher education on student performance evaluations.
3. Report of Representatives to the Assembly (none)
Chair Anderson stated that the Assembly did not meet this quarter.
4. Special Orders: Annual Reports
a.
Graduate Council
(AS/SCP/1261)
Former Graduate Council Chair
Donald Brenneis presented the 1998-99 annual report, which was received without
comment.
5. Reports of Special Committees (none)
6. Reports of Standing Committees
a. Committee on Educational Policy (CEP): Proposed Amendments to the Regulations on Grading at UCSC (AS/SCP/1258)
CEP Chair George Brown began presentation of the Amendments by explaining the unusual parliamentary situation the Senate is in regarding this legislation. The Special Meeting of December 3, 1999 was called by a group of Senators who proposed legislation calling for the replacement of the current student assessment system with a system of letter grades. During that meeting, a subsidiary motion was introduced to refer the main motion to CEP and to the Graduate Council. The motion to refer appeared at the time to carry by a margin of one vote. In the subsequent months, CEP prepared substitute legislation for debate at today's meeting, as appears in the CALL. Last week, in response to a formal inquiry from several faculty, the Committee on Rules, Jurisdiction and Elections found that the December 3rd vote to refer to CEP and the Graduate Council was "inconclusive". As a consequence, CEP, at this time, now has no motion to which it must respond. However, in the interest of facilitating a debate and disposing of the matter first presented at the December meeting, CEP Chair Brown made the following proposal.
The Academic Senate suspend the rules and in so doing entertain the following motions:
1.
To reintroduce the
main motion of December 3rd as modified by the proposers.
2.
To formally divide
the question of December 3rd into two parts: a) the part addressing
conventional letter grades and b) that part addressing narrative evaluations.
3.
To postpone
definitely to the Spring Quarter meeting of the Academic Senate the second part
(b) of the divided question.
4.
To substitute the
CEP amendment (AS/SCP/1258) for the first part (a) of the divided question.
Responding to an objection from the floor by Professor Kevin Karplus, CEP Chair Brown added:
5.
The substituted
amendment (AS/SCP/1258) can be freely amended.
The objection was withdrawn. The motion to suspend the rules was seconded and then passed by unanimous consent.
CEP Chair Brown presented the committee's legislation. Chair Brown said if this legislation is adopted in its proposed form, CEP will devise, for consideration in Spring Quarter, alternative proposals for a supplementary narrative evaluation system that addresses faculty concerns.
The legislation now being proposed includes the following new features.
· It sets a limit of no more than 25% of courses taken on a Pass/No Pass basis that may be applied toward graduation by undergraduate students enrolling in the Fall of 2001 or later.
· The grade "No Pass" will be recorded on transcripts
· A grade point average will be calculated on a quarterly, cumulative basis.
· For courses taken on a Pass/No Pass basis, a passing grade remains at the level of C.
· It introduces the modifiers of plus and minus for grades A, B and C.
Following this introduction and one Senator's argument in favor of the substituted legislation, Professor Kevin Karplus announced his intention to offer four amendments together. Professor Joel Yellin made the point of order that only one motion may be considered at a time. The Chair ruled that the point of order was well taken, and the amendments should be presented separately. One amendment (#2) carried and three (#1, #3, #4) were defeated.
Motion to Amend #1:
The grade "No Pass" remains a no record and will not be recorded on student transcripts.
The motion to amend #1 was seconded and, without debate, defeated by a show of hands.
Motion to Amend #2:
For courses taken on a Pass/No Pass basis, a passing
grade will be at the level of C minus.
Professor
Karplus introduced amendment #2 by explaining that approximately half of the UC
campuses, including all the northern ones, have the level of passing work at C
minus, not C.
The motion to amend #2 was seconded and, without debate, after an inconclusive show of hands, was adopted by a rising vote: 104 in favor, 80 opposed.
Motion to Amend #3:
Introduction of modifiers plus and
minus for grade D.
Professor Karplus explained that the following amendment #3 was needed to provide a slightly larger amount of information in the GPA.
The motion to amend #3 was seconded and, without debate, defeated by a show of hands.
Motion to Amend #4:
Set a limit of no more than 33% of
courses taken on a Pass/No Pass basis that may be applied toward graduation by
undergraduate students.
Professor Karplus stated that all the UC campuses, except UC San Diego, allowed 33% of courses, not the CEP proposed 25%, to be taken Pass/No Pass.
The motion to amend #4 was seconded and debated.
Speaking for the motion to amend #4: Speaking against the motion to amend #4:
Chris Connery Lincoln Taiz
George Brown (for CEP)
Given the possibility that narrative evaluations will remain on this campus, allowing one third of courses to be graded Pass/No Pass is reasonable and a thorough evaluation of student's work can be done.
Setting the limit at 25%, and aligning UCSC with the more stringent campuses, such as UC San Diego, would counteract the long history of the press depicting UCSC as having low standards. It will result in attention given to the high standards for which we are now striving. Allowing students to opt for one-third of their courses graded on a Pass/No Pass basis, with the potential of not having narrative evaluations in some or all of these classes, would represent too large a fraction of course work remaining in effect ungraded.
The motion to amend #4 was defeated by a show of hands.
CEP Chair Brown responded to the Chair's request for clarification of the impact of the motion to amend #2 that carried. It is allowable within systemwide Bylaws 778 and 780 that the level of work which qualifies for a Pass is at a C minus level. The reason CEP put the threshold at C and not C minus is that the State mandates a 2.0 grade point average as a graduation standard. Work at a C minus level contributes 1.7 grade points to a GPA. Therefore, it is possible for students to average a 1.7 GPA level, pass all courses, and yet not be able to graduate, because the GPA is below the statewide mandated graduation requirement.
Debate resumed on the amended main motion.
Speaking for the motion: Speaking
against the motion:
Jordan Benjamin * Juan Caballero*
Margo Hendricks ** Peter Euben
Robert Ludwig Daniel Press
Geoffrey Pullum Peter Scott
Anthony Tromba
Martha Zuniga***
* Students given Privilege of the Floor
** Spoke after a point of order, a motion and vote to approve letting her speak before the student speakers
*** Spoke before the approved amendment
Points made for the motion:
Grades are the common currency of most modern universities. Criteria for some awards and fellowships require a GPA (e.g. pre-doctoral fellowships from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute and the Gates Millennium Scholarships for minority students). Some programs require selecting students in the top percentiles (e.g. top 10 percent for the "fast track" program of the Federal government). Both GPA's and selection of students in the top percentiles are difficult and time consuming to extract from a stack of evaluations. UCSC must have the ability to calculate GPA’s for those agencies that require them. Not having the ability to calculate a GPA puts UCSC students at a disadvantage. Mandatory letter grades provide all students the opportunity to be competitive with their peers at other institutions. Mandatory grades will help students who have not chosen to receive letter grades under the current system, but who may later find they need a GPA to fulfill educational and career goals. More and more students are choosing grades. In large classes, the evaluations are already often divided into separate categories that resemble grades. If grades can be extracted from evaluations, then we are already grading them, but using a perverse, verbose notation for the grade that no one else can understand; if grades cannot be extracted from evaluations, then current attempts to do so by UCSC are dishonest. Mandatory grades will counter the perception that UCSC does not have academic standards. Times have changed from the early years of UCSC, when its idealism and innovations in education made it the first choice of the best and brightest students, to the current period when UCSC is, according to U.S. News and World Report, ranked last among the UC campuses. The Pass/No Pass method of grading allows slackers to hide. The lack of ability to calculate a GPA will affect the number and diversity of incoming students of color and different socio-economic backgrounds because of limitations on the kind of financial aid for which they can apply. The collective experience and wisdom of present faculty are equal to as many as 2,000 person years and thus sufficient to make a decision and vote today without waiting for future surveys and analysis. The modifiers plus and minus provide a greater level of refinement for assessing students.
Points made against the motion:
The institution of mandatory conventional grades will change the nature and importance of the narrative evaluation system and imposes a certain vision of pedagogy and education on those who prefer to teach without grades. Without a systematic analysis of the effects of mandatory grades versus narrative evaluations, there is no way to know the effect of such a change, so that to date, evidence presented against evaluations or for grades has been largely anecdotal. Compared to evaluations, mandatory grades do not represent as honest an assessment of the multidimensional activities of a student's work or of possible diverse performance levels by a student in different parts of a course. The current system provides for a letter grade option, so if students are discovering after the fact that they need a GPA, then this is an advising problem and should be addressed as such. If there is a constitutional ban on deriving a GPA from narratives, then deal with the constitution. If a GPA is difficult to calculate from narratives, then resources should be allocated to pay people to do it when necessary.
The question on the main motion;
CEP legislation (AS/SCP/1258) with the
approved amendment (#2) to institute C minus as the minimum passing grade
was called and seconded. Professor Joel Yellin then moved that the vote on the main motion CEP legislation (AS/SCP/1258) as amended, be taken paper ballot. The motion for a paper ballot was seconded and approved by a show of hands.
Chair Anderson appointed Professors Lincoln Taiz, Joel Yellin, Barbara Rogoff, and William Ladusaw as tellers for the vote. Senators were instructed about filling out the paper ballots. The ballots were distributed and collected. On behalf of the tellers, Professor Joel Yellin reported the results:
Number of votes cast: 231
Number needed for adoption (majority): 116
Votes for the motion: 154
Votes against the motion: 77
The amended main motion was thus carried.
b. Committee on Committees (COC)
The Chair requested, and received by unanimous consent, approval for consideration of one item from COC that was not in the CALL. COC Chair Karen McNally then moved approval of the following nominations:
· Committee on Career Advising - Mary Silver (Chair), Robert Levinson, Nicole Paiement, and Marta Morello-Frosch. The appointment of Herman Gray was approved in Fall Quarter. Membership of the committee is now complete.
· Graduate Council - Richard Terdiman substitutes for Karen Bassi in Winter Quarter.
· Committee on Library - Manny Ares and Quentin Williams for Fall and Winter Quarters.
The nominations were approved by a show of hands.
c. Graduate Council
Chair David Belanger presented the Graduate Council report (AS/SCP/1260). As part of the larger campus discussion of how student performance should be evaluated, the Graduate Council has had extensive discussion of the possibility of changing the assessment system used for graduate student course work at UCSC. The Graduate Council's conclusion is that there is no reason at this time to make substantive changes in the assessment system for graduate students. The Graduate Council stands ready to make such changes in the wording of existing regulations that may become necessary if changes are introduced in the assessment system used for undergraduates. The Graduate Council may also make technical adjustments in present wording to make the regulations consistent.
Professor Kevin Karplus noted that some students are both graduates and undergraduates in the Engineering MS/BS program and that the Graduate Council will need to make a ruling on how such students are to be assessed.
d. Committee on Planning and Budget
Vice
Chair Robert Meister presented the CPB report (AS/SCP/1262). Among seven major
concerns regarding the Santa Clara Valley Regional Center, the most fundamental
is that its planning should not be allowed to erode the financial base of
planning for this campus. Besides development of a framework for proceeding
with academic planning, CPB advocates a set of budgetary and financial
benchmarks that would ensure the Regional Center 1) provides educational
programs that meet the same high standards as those on campus and 2) avoids
erosion of resources available for instruction on this campus. A report on
procedures for approving programs will be presented by CPB at the next Senate
meeting.
7. Report of the Student Union Assembly Chair
Chair Kirti Srivastava stated her concern that the students were not given more opportunity and time to express their views during the debate on grades. She also reported that UCSC is sponsoring a Student of Color Conference this weekend, which will bring together 300 students from all the UC campuses. SUA decided to sponsor the conference because of the poor retention rates on this campus. Faculty are encouraged to participate.
8. Report of the Graduate Student Association President
Designate
Aradhna Tripati reported on the continued problem of housing for graduate
students. UCSC graduate students pay 60
to 80 percent of their monthly stipend for rent. This problem has a negative effect on recruitment, retention,
quality of life and hence research of students. A proposal has gone forward to
raise Graduate Student Researcher (GSR) pay by a few hundred dollars a
month. Faculty are urged to support the
proposal and attempt to implement it.
The impact on grants is relatively small compared to the positive impact
that it will have on graduate students, both current and prospective. Housing subsidies for first year students
would also positively effect recruitment.
However, funds for this have not been identified. Faculty are also
encouraged to support future proposals for subsidized graduate student housing.
Those faculty who can afford the costs should pay GSRs at 100 percent time over
the summer months to reduce the debt of their graduate students.
9. Petitions of Students: (none)
10. Unfinished Business: (none)
11. University and Faculty Welfare: (none)
12. New Business: (none)
Chair Anderson adjourned the meeting at 5:20 pm.
ATTEST:
David Koo
Secretary
March 29, 2000
Recording Secretary: Mary-Beth Harhen