Call to Order
1/ The meeting was called to order at 3:20 p.m.
Approval of Minutes
2/ It was decided that more detail about discussions should be added to future minutes. The CC minutes of 10/22/97 were not approved. Bill Randall would like to add Roger Paget's comments. The revised minutes will be distributed to CC members prior to the next meeting on 11/12/97.
Subcommittee Issues:
Course Proposal Subcommittee
3/ The Course Proposal Subcommittee recommended the approval of the following courses:
4/ 97.03 F98 Econ 280 Political Economy of Japan (Hart-Landsberg). Add new course. Cross-list with East Asian Studies. No Gen. Ed. relation. Will alternate with Political Economy of South Korea. Bob Owens recommended approval. A brief discussion followed in which it was asked if the class would alternate every other year or every 4 years. Vote to approve unanimous.
5/ 97.12 Sp99 IS 240 Area Study: Ireland (Carlson; faculty member from Trinity College in Dublin). New course for Spring 1999 Ireland OS Program.
6/ 97.13 Sp99 IS 241 Intro. to the Irish Economy (Carlson; faculty member from Trinity College in Dublin). New course for Spring 1999 Ireland OS Program.
7/ 97.14 Sp99 IS 242 Modern Irish Writers (Carlson; faculty member from Trinity College in Dublin). New course for Spring 1999 Ireland OS Program. Bob Owens recommended these three. These courses have not been taught since the College moved to the semester system so they must get the approval of the CC. Vote unanimous.
Writing & Speaking Subcommittee
8/ Jane Atkinson announced that the committee has met twice and that there is no report yet. She and Stephanie Arnold are working on it.
AP Credit for "Calculus BC" Exam with grade of 4 or 5
9/ The Department of Mathematical Sciences is seeking approval from the CC for a change in the formula for the awarding of institutional credit for the AP Calculus exams. Their proposal is that 4 semester hours of institutional credit be granted to those who score 4 or 5 on the Calculus AB exam and that 8 semester hours of institutional credit be granted to those who score 4 or 5 on the Calculus BC exam. Students who take both exams may not receive more than 8 semester hours of credit. The Mathematical and Natural Sciences Division supports this request.
10/ The AB exam equals the first semester of a college calculus class and the BC exam equals a one-year college calculus sequence. Lewis & Clark currently gives 4 sem. credit for a score of 4 or 5 on either the AB or BC Calculus AP exam.
11/ Vote unanimously in favor. A discussion followed. Does this request need full faculty approval? Consensus was no. Bill Randall will add this to his report that he will be giving to the faculty at the 11/5/97 Faculty Meeting. Faculty can ask questions then.
Grade Distribution Discussion
12/ The information that Mervin Brockett's report reveals is that there is a wide distribution of grades across departments. Should we, the CC, take a moral stance on this problem and let the faculty know that this is something that concerns us and we think it should concern them? Does the grade distribution represent a drift to higher or lower GPAs? A current policy with one department in CAS explains to students what an "A" means, what a "B" means, etc. It is a much more detailed version of the current grading policy that is in the catalog where an "A" equals Excellent, "B" equals Above Average, etc. Should the catalog be revised?
13/ The quality of students is up at Lewis & Clark. Two-thirds of the students are above the national average. Should the college recognize honors for 20-30% of the students? Will this change marketing strategies for the college (i.e., graduate schools to recognize the quality of our students)?
14/ Concerns included: grades that are too high; discrepancies in departments; why are grades what they are; grading on a curve; toughest teachers may feel that they need to start giving higher grades. Things to remember: Classes with a large diversity of students have lower averages than upper-level classes that contain mostly majors. Inventing America courses were factored into this information under "Core." Inventing America is the primary freshman teaching course for many humanities departments. Students taking Spanish classes may have a different motivation than students taking Russian or Japanese. It is important for faculty to start talking about these things. Some members of the CC expressed the opinion that they would like to encourage departments to review overall grading policy results and practice.
15/ Several ideas were mentioned about how the faculty might be informed about this situation. Should the awareness start at the deans' level who would pass it on to the chairs? Who will then pass it on to department members? Or should a standard FYI sheet go out to all faculty to encourage discussion about grading? Whichever method is used, the message should be uniform. Bill Randall and Roger Paget will form a subcommittee that will construct a memo to the faculty to be reviewed by the CC at our next meeting.
16/ The issue of use of Incompletes was raised. This is of great concern to the Registrar's office. It seems that some Incompletes are given when a grade of W or F would be more appropriate. In some cases faculty and students do not have a "contract" with one another so that the student does not know what is expected and when it must be completed.
17/ The student representatives were asked how they felt about the grade distribution. The following comments were made: In a math class a "C" may be adequate but in theatre you expect something more. If the college is admitting better students they should be held to a higher standard. Grade inflation is bad. "A"s are given out too easily. The 300 & 400-level courses across departments have a closer distribution and a higher average. One type of course shouldn't be easier than another type--it should be just as difficult to get an "A" in a SOAN course as it is in a chemistry course.
Schedule for Review of General Studies
18/ Bill Randall asked the CC members what type of quantitative and qualitative information they wanted to present to the faculty for the Fall 1998 deadline. This information should include last year's Inventing America report, the writing and speaking report, and enrollment data which includes staffing resources and patterns. John Callahan has a copy of the Inventing America report. It was mentioned that IA is only one piece of the gen. ed. requirements that needs to be covered. Jack Hart said that other areas of gen. ed. are not currently being reviewed.
19/ Tom Schoeneman mentioned that if each area submits a report there will be 8 or 9 components to review and that it could lose coherence. During the preliminary stages it is important to get as many different sources of information as possible. Faculty input should be received by the end of the semester in order to proceed in a timely fashion.
20/ Roger Paget suggested that the CC collect comments from the faculty by Feb. 1998 and that the CC should respond by April 1998. He felt that the CC should solicit contributions from the faculty as early as possible in order to make early decisions about what the CC is going to cover. Perhaps the CC can present a "laundry list" to the faculty. It should be remembered that the CC will have to absorb all the information it receives and then decide what will be covered.
21/ Jack Hart told the CC that David Savage has spoken to the humanities chairs and asked them to think about what kinds of issues are coming up in their discussions. The chairs would like to continue this discussion in upcoming meetings.
22/ David Savage reminded the CC that the purpose of this review is to find out if the college wants to make any changes in the gen. ed. requirements and is based on the resolution passed at the time of adoption.
23/ Bill Randall reiterated that the CC should keep Jane Atkinson's comment that it would be desirable to promote "evolution" rather than "revolution" in mind.
24/ Bill Randall will announce to the faculty on the Nov. 5, 1997, meeting that the CC is starting its planning for the review of the gen. ed. requirements and that the faculty will be asked to submit information.
25/ The CC then discussed ways to collect student information. Should student information be collected in the same manner as the faculty information. How should a representative group of students be selected to participate in the review? How can the CC get thoughtful comments rather than a "check the box" summary from students. Student rep. Eric Johnson felt that a random selection of students should be made rather than the best students.
26/ Bill Randall asked Student rep. Elizabeth Thiel if SAAB would be interested in getting involved with this issue of picking students. Elizabeth will bring the matter up with SAAB.
27/ Meeting adjourned at 5:05 pm.
Approved 11/12/97