General Assembly
Minutes from February 22nd, 2006
Download Word File: Minutes 02/22/06
General Assembly Meeting
February 22nd, 2006
Johnson 200
Notes by Kenna Cottrill
Matt Kuzio welcomed everyone to the official student forum. The General Assembly is a place for students to bring up issues and policy change. The General Assembly recognizes that the student body is one of many forums that form the community. This is a forum for students to work with other students and administrators.
Kara introduced Dean Eric Frank to discuss departmental processes and curriculum development.
Dean Frank expressed how happy he was to be at the GA. He said he would be willing to come back at any time, for this issue or any other issue. Today, he wants to answer questions about how departments are formed, how departmental structure evolves, and how decisions are made to hire faculty. He will discuss these issues and then open up to questions.
He approached hiring faculty first. The decision to hire faculty is first related to budget. The number of faculty is related to the budgetary constraints. There is not an infinite number of faculty that can be hired. Faculty are hired in a cohort, and they go through the mentorship, ranks, tenure and promotion process together. Departments and tenure review must look at all those going through the system as cohort.
Last year, Oxy hired 14 faculty, which in his opinion is too large. In 3 years, there is major review. In 6 years, there is a tenure review. Hiring staff drains time and money resources. This year, Oxy is looking at hiring 7-8 faculty, which Dean Frank thinks is a good number. These are tenure track, permanent faculty. It provides the opportunity to acculturate to Oxy students and to their own professional careers.
The budgetary process is complex. It begins in the Fall and ends in March when the Board of Trustees approve the budget. On March 7, administration will tell the Board of Trustees how many faculty will be hired for next year, based on the budget the administration receives.
The decision to allocate the faculty in departments begins after number of faculty that will be hired is determined. The Faculty Planning Committee (FPC), which includes the Dean of College, Associate Deans of College (4)—Arts and Humanities, Science, Social Science, and Core—other members are elected members of faculty council (7), an Affirmative Action Chair, President’s Special Appointment for Campus Climate and Affairs, makes the decisions about allocation of faculty. The FPC takes proposals from departments for new faculty, which are submitted on February 1. The FPC reviews these proposals after February and then starts really working on proposals after budget is set in March. The request for proposals is announced in September. All proposal formats are the same, with the same questions regarding the relationship to curriculum, mission, the number of students in the program, statistics from the Registrar regarding advising.
This year, the FPC received mid-teens number of proposals. They will prioritize and make recommendations to Dean Frank about how to proceed. Dean Frank will go to the departments in June to develop job descriptions and search committee.
Oxy has been incredibly successful this year in attracting talented faculty.
FPC also responsible for faculty planning, that is, how faculty should be organized or how it should organize self. The FPC takes proposals for educational or curricular innovations. For example, if faculty wanted North Pole Studies, they could create a proposal for this major. FPC gives the proposal to a subcommittee—Curriculum Committee—who discuss the pros and cons of proposal, make a recommendation to FPC, which would make a recommendation to faculty. He noted that this is how new departments are formed.
It is rare to form a new department; it’s more likely that departments modify themselves given the needs of students, the changing relationships faculty have to their fields and to the academy. But if there is a new department, the whole faculty should scrutinize the proposal, which is where the campus is now with Critical Theories and Social Justice.
Also, there are conflicting desires of different parts of community for change. He clarified that if it is not conflicting desires, then different temporal senses. Students have a necessary and understandable desire to see change quickly because they are only here 4 years, and they might want to see change in 2-3 years, depending on their year and desire to participate in the change. But the faculty, especially those who make Oxy their career, are here for 30 years (although he’s not trying to paint faculty with a broad brush)—some faculty want change quickly or more slowly because they can see past 4 years. Then there are also members of administration who want change quickly or more slowly, or can see it as a generational thing—what’s good for college over a 50-75 year period? For example, the decision to build new residence hall, partly came because it was determined that a new residence hall would serve the college immediately and would last for 100 year period.
Thus, Dean Frank summarize, decisions are made with different temporal and budget issues involved. Decisions made with process related to the budget or FPC processes. The decision-making process is not “willy nilly.” One person does not make any decision on her/his own, but rather it should be collaborative decision-making process. This is the necessary nature of the decentralized governing system in American higher ed; it is sometimes messy with frayed edges. He noted that people are “control freaks” should not go into higher ed. He said it was important to shepherd the process to a satisfactory conclusion.
Matt Kuzio asked if Dean Frank could talk about how students can be more involved in the collective decision-making process.
Dean Frank held the question for one more comment. What’s interesting about liberal arts colleges is that they are never done; they are always in evolution. He would never say “We are going assess this and then fix it. When we fix it, we’re moving on.” The institution evolves, as history and student interests evolve. It’s our [administrators & faculty] job to construct a place that is good for students at any time. Administrators must be aware that a liberal arts college is always a work in progress—all parts of college should have power to guide direction of institution.
He then returned to Matt’s question saying that this is an area that we need to work on. Dean Frank did not think there is currently a clear mechanism for student input on curricular decision-making through FPC—this is a flaw. This needs to be seriously considered.
Dean Frank also noted that he has been here for 20 years, and he is proud that students are so interested and involved in discussing curricular issues. This is the most intensity students have shown about wanting to be involved and want to understand the issues. Since there is not a long tradition of student involvement in curriculum decisions, now the weak link in communication has been revealed.
For instance, last week when students came to faculty meeting, students didn’t know, and Dean Frank was only vaguely aware of, the process for students to attend faculty meetings. There should be a mechanism for students to take advantage of being at faculty meeting and communicate about curricular involvement. There needs to be formal way to communicate student perspectives.
Kara Abelson asked who students would go to now.
Dean Frank said that students could begin conversations with him, which he would then take to FPC. He would recommend that students talk to FPC about being involved. It’s necessary to erect a mechanism on a more procedurally established basis. This must be done within a timeframe and students need to know what the process and timeline is.
What happens now is that students and faculty sometimes come to FPC at a time of year when “No” is the only answer. So students need to know the exact timeline of the decision-making process. Students, faculty, and administration need to talk it through together and establish a procedural relationship.
There is a tension between students, faculty, and administration because of the beliefs of what are the “super dire” needs of particular departments. If there is a waiting list of 500 students for intro course, it’s a numbers problem and we need to address faculty need. If only addressed faculty need that way (Darwinian way), and only put resources where there is a demonstrated need of numbers, we would end of up with three departments. Then all other departments would stay static. It’s also a matter of balancing other needs because there is student demand and the faculty position does not exist yet. Or strategically adding a faculty because it will enhance other departments in other ways. This is sort of what the FPC process looks like.
Rozell Hodges asked who a student would talk to when they feel more than one professor needs to teach a class? He took a physics class and wanted to have a choice in the faculty who taught the class.
Don Johnson elaborated on this. In a General Physics, there was a large drop out because there was a conflict with teaching and learning styles.
Dean Frank said he would answer this question in general. He drew this diagram on the board:
This is the reporting structure. First students should go to the instructor when there is a concern, then go to the Associate Dean, if students are not satisfied, then they should go to the Dean of College. The Associate Dean should communicate with Dean of the College. Students should feel free to come see Dean of the College. This reporting structure tries to manage the institutional structure that can be messy.
In this particular, case, with unsatisfying physics course, students should have communicated dissatisfaction first with instructors—through the evaluation forms at the end of the semester which college takes very seriously. If a student drops the class before the evaluations, then go to Assoc Deans. Dean Frank expressed that he is not patient with courses that deliver an unsatisfying educational experience to students. However, sometimes it’s not easy for Frank to change courses so that students are satisfied. This where the time issue becomes more sensitive. Frank may not be able to make a change depending on status of faculty. Second, Oxy needs to face this issue; needs to look at how it deliver it’s educational experience to students. The current system, with discrete courses existing apart from modeling and mentoring from other faculty and from a complete educational experience, is not a good system. The educational experience access should not only be through discrete course where a faculty member rules like a Caesar. It is important to know what the educational experience is when the students are going through it.
Hobie Thompson had 2 questions. First, regarding class evaluations. He knows that the biggest suggestion from seniors is to get the evaluations on-line, so other students can get recommendations, like “rate my professor” rather than just asking people on campus. Second, regarding the Classics department. He heard there were enough students, and faculty, but the registrar said if we have a Classics Department, then there will not be enough students in ECLS.
Dean Frank addressed the first question first. Class evaluations are used primarily so that students can communicate to faculty and department and for use in mentoring, promoting, and renewing contract. They are “funny hybrid documents.” They are used to mentor because they are a neutral document to help faculty be better. They are also an evaluation tool used by the department and administration to evaluate performance of individual faculty. They can profoundly affect promotion, tenure, and renewal. They are not meant to be used to let the rest of student body know if this course is good or not. Dean Frnak acknowledged that students may know of other colleges where they can buy a booklet with courses evaluated. Oxy doesn’t have that—it’s a cultural question that Oxy has never had that. It’s internal with students Some faculty members do internal evaluations informally for their own development throughout the semester. But the sense of successful or unsuccessful courses is done word of mouth. There should be more room for students to write comments on the evaluation forms. This is often the most valuable information from students. It is sometimes in great detail and very instructive.
With regards to the Classics Department, there is a group of students who would like to see the college have a Classics Departments. Classics teaches Greek and Latin language, reading, and literature. Sometimes Classics also has 1-2 related fields, like archaeology. Right now, there is 1 faculty member who teaches full time Greek and Latin literature who was hired last year. How do you make a department with one person? The department would be formed as outlined before—faculty make a proposal to FPC. Classics proposal would also have to say that 3 people would have to be hired, which could be allocated elsewhere. This is unlike CTSJ, which does not ask for new faculty hires, but rather consolidation, which will hopefully will go up for a vote at the Faculty Meeting this week. It has nothing to do with the registrar. The registrar thing came into this because registrar has a professional standard that says courses cannot be cross-listed. If there are more cross listing, then students could meet requirements less bureaucratically. It is also a scheduling nightmare to cross list—catalog would get larger.
Teresa Perez was concerned about CTSJ proposal, and feels that the college needs to make up for taking away from anthropology. How can students instigate a process to fill a different position that’s not being met?
Dean Frank told the students that there is currently nothing in place. Students can give their perspective informally. There is also an issue of equity—Dean Frank has to determine the needs of students and individual departments. Sometimes those needs are communicated because there are students who are clear in public places about what you would like to have. But other departments have needs but students won’t take public lead roles. Those students and departments have to have their needs addressed as well. Dean Frank must balance needs of all departments. Student can go to faculty meeting, go see Dean Frank. He also mentioned that he must do some “forensic investigation of hidden needs.” He acknowledged that there is no formal mechanism to express needs.
Rachel Johnson said she had three questions. First, regarding a statement Dean Frank had made about hoping or believing the new major will be brought to a vote this week.
Dean Frank noted that this vote is in hands of faculty. He hopes there will be a vote tomorrow, but it is not up to him to bring it to a vote.
Rachel Johnson followed with her two other questions. Second, Dean Frank mentioned that course evaluations deal with tenure and promotion. If we are dealing with a tenured professor who is not very good, how is that dealt with? Third, Dean Frank mentioned that one faculty member would not be enough for a Classic Department, but in Women’s Studies, what is being done with interim chair?
Dean Frank addressed the second question about accountability with tenured faculty, which is a real tough issue. He explained that the tenure system is set up so that when a professor get tenure, they are subject to evaluation, but the consequences of bad evaluations over time are clearly less critical to livelihood than bad evaluations pre-tenure. In order to fire faculty, there must be cause—legal breach recognized in State of CA. Teaching badly is not “cause”. How does Dean of the College make faculty member accountable for poor educational experience in classroom? There are some consequences, but they are not very big, such as monetary (smaller raises), public embarrassment, but not “you have to leave.” Dean Frank tries to have faculty come talk to him, tells them that bad evaluations are “unacceptable.” But more than that, nothing can be done.
Rachel clarified that these actions can be taken through course evaluations. Dean Frank agreed that the conversation would start with course evaluations. Rachel noted that in one of her courses, nothing was done about bad/inadequate teaching, from her standpoint. Dean Frank also noted that in personnel issues, there are standards, rules, and clear contractual laws around confidentiality—so some things that just cannot be talked about.
With regards to Rachel’s third question, this is of particular interest to Dean Frank. There is money set aside money in budget to hire a WSGS chair. There is money to hire a chair, and that is next thing that is specifically going to be focused on. WSGS is a particular interest of Frank, totally dedicated to reinvigoration of department. It must be done incrementally because the faculty has to sort through outcome of CTSJ first, before WSGS can be determined. CTSJ faculty have contributed to WSGS. This must go through a process that takes time and input. Students have his that he is focused on it.
Finn Keough asked Dean Frank to address what is happening in DWA from his perspective.
Dean Frank preferred not to address specific cases, but rather really want to talk about procedures. In departments that have pressure because of numbers and thus curricular issues, the administration is totally aware of these and will absolutely address the issues. However, this must go through the predetermined process, which is a collaborative process between faculty, departments, FPC, and Dean of College. FPC will take up needs of DWA for the future. DWA has submitted a plan for the future that will be considered after March 7. Whether FPC does everything in the proposal or sends proposal back for more clarification is part of evolutionary process. Administration knows what issues of DWA are. There are other needs as well that the community doesn’t know about because levels of communication and representation of needs that are different between various departments.
DWA has active student and faculty body that represent their needs to Frank. Other departments don’t have this same activity but still do good work and need Frank’s resources. It is his job to balance needs over time. The students have his word that he is aware and will do best to address those needs and issues as well. He doesn’t want to get into environment where we are feuding with each other.
One of the issues that community needs to know is that, for variety of complex issues, finances in 1990’s weren’t so good, but now in and projected future, finances are “rosy”—what we are doing now is making up for the leaner time. Students are feeling that pressure and the administration is able to address the pressures now. Addressing those issues needs to be done systematically and cannot be done all at once. The college cannot absorb all the new hires.
Don Johnson had several comments. First, he thanked Dean Frank for supporting SSAP (Scientific Scholars Achievement Program) in terms of finances this semester and starting salaries. Second, for MSI, students don’t know they are getting a grade for their participation. The course load has been difficult in past versus now, which affects grades as a first year, and could affect scholarships.
Dean Frank clarified that some MSI students don’t know they are getting a grade that will count and that this has been a burden for some students.
Don used himself as an example. He didn’t know how the grade would be given or how it would appear on transcript. He found out 2 weeks in to the program from RA’s. Dean Frank said that he could address that question.
Don’s third concern revolved around pre-med students. There is still some selectivity regarding how a student’s financial background, particularly how much money a student has to spend on tests like Kaplan, MCAT. These are realities that people have to face when looking at dreams. Don’s fourth comment was that he did not appreciate the administration dancing around issues or not being real with students. Don wants administrators to tell me what you feel on comment, don’t go “political” on me. “I prefer for you to be real with me.” The decisions of the administration are affecting everyone’s life in this room.
Dean Frank been made aware of issue of the cost of professional school tests (Like MCAT) and the administration needs to address it to support accessibility. He knows that pre-med students feel they are in an issue of equity. Dean Frank thinks Oxy need to address support mechanisms of students outside the classroom, and that it needs to be reformed, for all tests—Kaplan, GRE, MCAT, etc. Administration has already decided to review it systematically for next year.
Regarding the fourth comment, Dean Frank was not sure if Don was referring to him or other members, but for Frank, he always try to be as straight and direct and factual with every student. Some issues he may not be able to address because of confidentiality. He will tell students if he knows something or if he doesn’t, or if what he knows is ambiguous—which has happened tonight because that is where Oxy is at. Some things are not in Dean Frank’s hands. Dean Frank speaks honestly and directly with everyone he interacts with. He hopes he’s done it for 2 decades. At this stage, he doesn’t know if Don is speaking about him or other administrators.
Matt noted the time and encouraged students to continue conversations after the meeting. He recognized that people have other commitments.
Dean Frank encouraged students to come see him if they have any questions.
Matt asked if a student committee should be formed. Dean Frank said that a student committee should absolutely be formed to begin discussion of mechanism of how student issues get brought to Dean Frank.