Members Present::
The signup sheet from this meeting has disappeared, so this is a tentative
list:
Javad Abbasian (ChBE),
Paul Anderson (CAEE),
Mark Anastasio (BME),
Patti Bach (Psyc)
Howard Chapman (Kent),
Warren Edelstein (AMat),
Ali Emadi (ECE),
Joyce Hopkins (Psyc),
Andy Howard (BCPS),
Nasrin Khalili (Stuart),
Bob Krawczyk (Arch),
Judith Lederman (MSEd),
Art Lubin (AMat),
Boris Pervan (MMAE),
Dietmar Rempfer (MMAE),
David Rudstein (Kent),
Jack Snapper (Hum),
David Venerus (ChBE),
Catherine Wetzel (Arch),
Chris White (BCPS),
Members Absent (again, this is tentative):
Dale Fahnstrom (ID), William Grimshaw (SocSci), Xian-He Sun (CS)
Visitors: Thomas Anderson (Stuart), Alan Cramb (Provost), Mary Anne Smith (Counsel)
Call to Order: Christopher White, Chair of the UniFC, called the meeting to order around 12:35pm.
David Venerus (ChBE) has assembled a Sabbatical Leaves Committee, consisting of himself as chair, Braja Mandal (BCPS), and Eun-Jeong Lee (Psyc). After a brief discussion this roster was approved by acclamation.
Jack Snapper (Hum) asked what should happen if a faculty member applies for leave and then changes his or her mind: Mary Anne said that the chair can decide how to handle that. Chris asked whether there would be a limit on the number of times a faculty member could apply for family leave: the answer is that the only limit is on the Tenure Clock provision, as provided for in the document. Alan noted that the goal is to limit pressure on female faculty members and to portray IIT as a caring institution. A Council member asked whether an IIT married couple could apply for leave simultaneously: the answer was yes. Mary Anne noted that the provisions of the Family Policy are considered an employment benefit. Joyce Hopkins (Psyc) asked whether faculty members could apply for leave in order to deal with a child's illness: Mary Anne replied that that is handled through the personal-leave policy, elsewhere in the employee benefits package. Art Lubin (AMat) asked whether the Provost could estimate the cost of the change in the benefit; Alan said it doesn't matter. Mary Anne noted that the primary cost is for hiring adjuncts for the semester of the leave; Alan said that adjuncts are not the only way to manage these situations. Jack suggested that a certain amount of ambiguity in the policy is actually useful in handling unusual cases. After further discussion, Chris recommended that Council members discuss the proposed policy with their Academic Units and come back to the December meeting prepared for a vote.
Tuition and fees have increased by 14.9%, while costs associated with faculty salaries are up 9.9%, and benefits, for some reason are up by 21.9%. Operations and maintenance are up 26.7%, mostly because of increases in fuel costs. The total number of student "heads" is up 2.5% and the number of credit hours is up by 4.5%. International enrollment is 39.3%, up 2.5%. Architecture and Stuart have experienced the largest growth in enrollment. SAT scores have slipped a bit, but ACT scores are steady. TOEFL scores have declined steadily over several years.
The endowment is down $42.3M as of May—before the market began to crash. Investment categories have been redesigned, so it is difficult to compare past years to the current year. Grants are up a little, but private gifts have fallen significantly. The faculty and staff raise pools are uncertain: they will depend on financial performance and on the strategic importance of various programs. The University anticipates a tuition rate increase of 6.75% in the upcoming year and 6% per year thereafter. A Council member noted that IBIS no longer exists—the undergraduate business program is now part of the Stuart School.
The question of whether TAs should be allowed to grade exams is more complex. The faculty strongly support the idea that the faculty must be responsible for the content of exams and the grading mechanisms for them. However, Joyce Hopkins and other UniFC members asserted that it is useful experience for teaching assistants, particularly graduate teaching assistants, to participate in grading exams. Joyce asked whether the concern over privacy per se extended to preventing graduate TAs from seeing student papers; Mary Anne said no: the concern is over visibility of students' papers and grades to other enrolled students. Provost Cramb noted that he has always graded his exams himself, and two Council members said that different disciplines may have different grading requirements and different demands placed on the faculty, based on course enrollment and the kinds of questions being asked. Jack Snapper noted that Russell's memo, which discouraged grading by TAs, should apply to non-IIT students who are hired as graders; Russell has responded that such a hired grader is functioning as an adjunct and is exempt. The consensus at the Council was that if faculty members allow TAs to take part in grading exams, they should do so with close supervision of the process and should provide the TAs with a detailed answer key.
Council members asked whether it needs to act on this issue. Mary Anne encouraged discussion of the issue at the Academic Unit level. David Venerus asked whether a friendly reminder about this from the Provost might be useful; Alan said he had heard about Russell's memo from Mike Gosz and had simply forwarded it to the Armour chairs in his capacity as acting Armour dean. The Council discussed at length the specifics of these questions. Alan noted that a statement from the Faculty Council about this question could potentially be an endorsement of Russell's original statement. Chris said Council members would take this issue to their Academic Units and return for a discussion and potential endorsement.
Jack Snapper said the Undergraduate Studies Committee probably cannot take a stand on the problem of faculty workloads, and suggested that some of these problems could be resolved by increased reliance on and adequate resources in the Writing Center. Chris asked whether there is a general feeling the Undergraduate Studies Committee that "C" courses entail increased workloads. Jack said the UGSC has never considered that question. Joyce Hopkins noted that not all faculty who teach "C" courses are as conscientious as Suzanne has been in dealing with writing. Snapper noted that architecture studio courses are designated "C" because they involve presenting projects.
Judy Lederman noted that by the time professors like Suzanne see these students, many are already missing a critical piece of their K-12 education. Alan asked who is letting the students down: he said it's not the university itself, but the individual faculty members. Jack Snapper said that when faculty members get assigned to teach "C" courses they do try to get the students to write, but the resources are insufficient: it should not be the Electrical Engineering professor's job to address insufficiencies in the students' communication skills. Alan disagreed: he said that this is part of the professor's job. Chris asked whether there should be enrollment limits in "C" courses. Javad noted the writing burden varies considerably from one "C" course to another, so the problem should be addressed at a departmental level. Suzanne agreed in theory, but reiterated that students show up for her classes unprepared. David Venerus noted that students are unprepared in other areas as well, including mathematics. Joyce said this issue is important, and asked whether an ad hoc subcommittee might be assembled to deal with the Communications requirement and the problems of the Writing Center. Javad asid that if we could assess the students' shortcomings, we should be able to identify solutions.
Council members noted that many courses are listed in the University Catalog with the Communications ("C") designation without any particular scrutiny on the suitability of that designation. Some members said that they moved into teaching a particular course and then discovered that the course had a "C" designation, and were uncertain of how to incorporate that emphasis on communication in their syllabi. Laboratory science classes, for example, often have "C" designations, presumably because students are expected to write lab reports. Whether that is an appropriate use of the "C" designation is unclear. The Council launched an extended discussion of who should make these "C" designations, and how those should affect students' General Education requirements. Javad asked how "C" designations are decided on currently: Chris replied that the Academic Units themselves make those decisions now. Chris suggested that we begin by dealing with the problem of how courses are designed as Communications-intensive, and then make sure that they are taught as is prescribed; then we can address the Writing Center issues and the problem of faculty time burdens. Jack said he would bring these problems back to the UGSC.
Adjournment: The meeting adjourned by acclamation at 1:55pm.