Faculty Senate Meeting
December 4, 2013
Founder’s
Room, Lovett Hall
Agenda (and Actions Taken)
I. Call to order
II.
Announcements
A.
Update from Benefits Committee on possible
changes in Health Benefits
B.
Update on review of the Linguistics graduate program
C.
Update on new Laboratory Safety Policy
D.
Campus Space Task Force
III.
Presentation and vote on proposals from the Working Group on Grade Inflation
(Tabled until the Spring Semester
2014)
Senators present: David Alexander,
Robert Atherholt, Graham Bader, Kate Beckingham, Carl Caldwell, David Caprette,
Keith Cooper, Scott Cutler, Jerry Dickens, Claire Fanger, Julie Fette, Jeffrey
Fleisher, Jane Grande-Allen, Christopher Hight, Betty Joseph, Rachel Kimbro,
Michael Kohn, Anatoly Kolomeisky, David Leebron, Jonathan Ludwig, Susan
McIntosh, George McLendon, Helena Michie, Luay Nakhleh, Brian Rountree, Stan
Sazykin, David Scott, Laura Segatori, Ruth Lopez Turley, James Weston, Michael
Wolf.
Senators absent: Dawn Finley
and Fred Oswald.
PROCEEDINGS (To listen to an audio tape of this meeting, email senate@rice.edu.)
I. Call to order
Speaker Carl Caldwell called the meeting to order at 12:00 p.m. President
Leebron addressed the group regarding a recent arrest by Rice University Police
involving a bicycle theft. He said that although it would be improper for him
to make statements regarding the issue since it is under external investigation by the Harris County District Attorney's office, he
wished for the senators to know that Rice is fully cooperating with the
investigation and that a serious internal review has occurred. Leebron was
asked by a senator to clarify Rice’s private status. Leebron said that Rice
University, being a private institution, is not subject to public disclosure
laws, and the position Rice is taking regarding the release of information to
the media is appropriate.
II. Announcements
A.
Update from Benefits Committee on possible
changes in Health Benefits
Elaine Britt, Assistant Vice
President, Human Resources, and Janel Edson, Benefits Manager, provided an
update to the senators regarding Rice’s health insurance program and she asked
for their input regarding possible changes. (Presentation slides may be viewed HERE.)
Britt began by explaining the
financial aspects of Rice’s health benefits program. She said that Rice moved
to self-funded health insurance coverage in 2002; Aetna is only paid an
administrative fee. Britt said that that factors which may cause Rice’s health
costs to rise in the future include the state of Texas opting-out of Medicaid expansion
and the average age of the Rice employee being 45.6.
Regarding the Affordable Care
Act (ACA), Britt said that in 2018, a 40% excise tax (“Cadillac Tax”) will be
instituted for programs in excess of the upper limits set by ACA. Britt described
the ACA guidelines as a box: insurance plans which are above the box (greater)
are required to pay a 40% tax, while insurance plans which fall below the box
(inadequate) are not allowed. She said that economists describe health
insurance as “too rich.” When individuals do not have a stake in the costs, they
are not good consumers and are likely to make expensive choices, such as
avoiding generic equivalents for prescription drugs. Rice would be subject to
the 40% tax under its current system. Britt was asked if this tax would be
passed to Rice employees. She said that the answer was not known at this time,
but another option would be to reduce Rice’s coverage so that it falls below
the “Cadillac Tax” limit.
Britt reviewed the modest premium
rate increases over the past 11 years with Aetna. She also presented
information which showed that Rice pays between 62 and 84 percent of the premiums,
depending upon the plan chosen, with employees paying a lower percentage. Britt
said that one way that Rice’s health plans have remained affordable is by managing
health care expenses well. One recommendation made by Britt was for employees
to visit urgent care centers instead of emergency rooms when possible. She
noted that Elite Care in the Rice Village is not an urgent care center, it is
an emergency room, and can thus charge a very high rate. Britt suggested that
faculty and staff download the Aetna app in order to locate appropriate urgent
care centers.
Britt asked the assembled
senators for suggestions regarding health benefits for the next five to ten
years, keeping in mind the diversity in incomes across campus. No specific
requests were made, but Britt was asked to elaborate on possible changes to the
PPO (Preferred Provider Organization) plan. She said that it may be time to
replace the current PPO with a consumer-driven, high deductible (for example,
$1,500) plan that includes a Health Savings Account (HSA). Britt said that
money in the HSA can be carried over from year to year and can be used for
medical expenses after retirement. In general, she said that the idea is that
if it’s your $1,500, you are more
careful spending it—you would ask for the generic prescription, for example,
when faced with a very expensive alternative.
Britt said that she would
provide more information when it is known. Caldwell thanked Britt for her
presentation.
B.
Update
on review of the Linguistics graduate program
Caldwell reported that the administration’s report regarding the
Linguistics Department’s graduate program has been received by the department
and by the Senate’s Executive Committee.
The next step is for the department to submit its response to the
Graduate Council which will convene a subcommittee to review both the
administration’s report and the department’s response. After that step, various
results can occur, including bringing the matter before the full Senate for a
vote. Caldwell said that the Executive Committee has discussed holding that Senate
meeting in executive session (closed to everyone except senators), and possibly
conducting the vote by secret ballot. Caldwell said that these events could
occur in the January or February 2014 meeting.
C.
Update on new Laboratory Safety Policy
William Turner, Assistant
Vice Provost for Research, reminded the group that the report from the Faculty
Senate Working Group on Laboratory Safety included recommendations for action
by the administration. Turner reported that the administration has moved ahead
with several of the recommendations, including development of the “Laboratory
Safety Policy.” Turner identified three of the items in the policy that impact
faculty:
1. The
PI or a designated laboratory representative must conduct laboratory
self-inspections annually. (Currently required by OSHA.)
2. Required
annual safety training for all personnel working in laboratories, including
faculty.
3. PI
is required to ensure that his/her laboratory has a safety plan.
Turner discussed related
University Policies and how they will be coordinated. He then asked if the
senators had any questions; there were none. To view the complete presentation,
please click HERE.
D.
Campus Space Task Force
Caldwell announced that
Kevin Kirby, Vice President for Administration, was present to update the
Senate with information regarding the use of space on campus. Caldwell noted
that the recommendations from the task force are still under discussion. He
encouraged faculty to consider the recommendations being presented as they will
affect everyone.
Kirby explained that a task
force regarding space on campus was formed due to increased difficulty in
meeting academic program needs. Members of the Space Task Force are Barbara
Bryson, Kathy Collins, Vicki Colvin, Pat Dwyer, Carlos Garcia, Kevin Kirby, Lyn
Ragsdale, Bart Sinclair, Jim Smolen, Ned Thomas, and Ken Whitmire. Kirby presented
recommendations regarding Principles/Roles, Research Space, Instructional
Space, and Office Space, shown below.
Principles/Roles Recommendations
-
The
provost owns all space
- Day-to-day
management delegated to deans
-
A
University Space Committee should be formed
-
Space
assignments are:
o
Based
on standards
o
Not
permanent
o
Reviewed
annually
Research Space Recommendations
- Annual
campus-wide ranking of faculty use of lab space
- Review
bottom quartile each year (3-year average)
- Allocate
800-1200 assignable square feet to assistant professors who conduct
experimental research
- Conduct
external review of faculty start-up process
Instructional Space Recommendations
- Must
use standard time blocks
- No
more than 2/3 of department courses can be offered in prime time
- Department
lecture halls or other room that could be used for instruction should be made
available to Registrar in morning
Office Space Recommendations
- Current
situation—difficult to find one office
- Employ
office standards
- Multiple
offices not allowed
o
Requires
annual exception from provost
-
Restrictions
on emeritus faculty offices
o
Private
office requires level of effort = full time faculty member
- Conduct
campus-wide study of office space
During discussion of the proposed recommendations, one senator said
that he hoped that the university would be tolerant of fields whose lab spaces produce
lower revenues per square foot. He also said that announcing restrictions on
the offices for emeriti would likely increase average retirement age, working
against a goal of faculty renewal. To view the full Space Task Force
presentation, please click HERE. To view the report from the task force, please click HERE.
III. Presentation and vote on proposals from
the Working Group on Grade Inflation
Caldwell
introduced Jane Grande-Allen, co-chair of the Senate’s Working Group on Grade
Inflation. Caldwell said that he had received many comments from faculty
regarding the working group’s recommendations. He said that if the Senate is
not ready to vote on the motions, one outcome of today’s meeting could be to
table them until a later date. He noted that tackling the issue of grade
inflation was faculty-driven, not Senate-driven. Caldwell said that the Senate
has made efforts to keep the faculty informed via emails, meetings, and with
the information that has been posted on the Senate wiki space and website.
Grande-Allen greeted the assembled senators and faculty and stated
that even though the information has been available since April 2013, the
working group has received very little feedback until this week. She said that
she was delighted to have the discussion begin.
Grande-Allen said that her co-chair, Evan Siemann, had gathered the data
for most of the slides, but since he was in China, she would make the
presentation. (To view the full slide presentation, please click HERE.)
Grande-Allen explained the motivation to examine grading at Rice. She
said that the first Working Group on Grade Inflation was formed due to requests
made by faculty members during the May 2009 plenary session. The findings of
the first working group included a pattern of increased grades being awarded
over a period of several years and differences in grading between schools at
Rice. Grande-Allen noted that one result of the first working group’s efforts
was a redistribution of how Latin Honors are awarded; instead of the previous university-wide
system, Latin Honors are now awarded by school. Grande-Allen said that the
current Working Group on Grade Inflation was formed due to discussions held in
2012 regarding the fact that in order to achieve top Latin Honors in most
schools, a student’s grade point average (GPA) must be greater than a 4.0.
Grande-Allen
listed the members of the working group and its charge. She said that her
co-chair was originally Rebecca Goetz (Humanities), but after Goetz’s departure
from Rice, Evan Siemann (Natural Sciences) took her place as co-chair, and Julie
Fette joined the working group to represent Humanities faculty.
Co-Chairs: Jane Grande-Allen
(Engineering) and
Evan Siemann (Natural Sciences)
Members: Richard
Stoll (Social Sciences)
Peter Loewen (Shepherd School of Music)
Rebecca Goetz (Humanities) – Spring 2013
Julie Fette (Humanities) – Fall
2013
Joshua
Eyler, ex officio (Center for Teaching Excellence) – Fall 2013
David Tenney, ex officio (Registrar)
Chynna Foucek (Student Association)
Staff Assistant: Sharon Mathews
Charge:
enumerate possible changes in policies and procedures that would work
against grade inflation, and to evaluate the potential costs and benefits of
such changes
Grande-Allen presented information from the Office of the Registrar
regarding Latin Honors which showed that since the 2007-2008 academic year, a
student must have a GPA of greater than 4.0 to achieve summa cum laude. She also
showed Latin Honors information for the 2012-2013 year, the first time that the
school-specific method was used, shown below. Except in the School of
Architecture, a GPA of greater than 4.0 is still required for summa cum laude.
|
School
of
Engineering
|
School
of
Natural
Sciences
|
School
of
Humanities
|
School
of
Social
Sciences
|
School
of Music
|
School
of
Architecture
|
summa
cum laude
|
4.05571
|
4.06982
|
4.04014
|
4.03991
|
4.05672
|
3.79533
|
magna
cum laude
|
3.91967
|
3.94246
|
3.92556
|
3.92474
|
3.98297
|
3.79205
|
cum
laude
|
3.80802
|
3.82419
|
3.81648
|
3.82293
|
3.89619
|
3.65453
|
The next data slide showed that in each of the schools at Rice, the
students in certain majors within schools tend to receive summa cum laude more often than others, perhaps due to professors
who give their students more A+’s.
Grande-Allen then turned to the activities of other universities
regarding grade inflation. She said that although the proposed grade collar (no
more than 50% A’s) at Princeton was very contentious, the faculty at Yale has
approved the following two proposals without controversy:
1.
“Encourage
discussion about grading policies in each department by requiring chairs to
report to the Yale College annually about those policies.”
2. “Distribute
data to the faculty every year on the average grades in every department.”
However, Grande-Allen reported that two other measures
have been tabled by Yale faculty:
3. Convert from
letter grades to 0-100 numerical scale (passing is 60 and above)
4. Establish
non-mandatory guidelines for departments to follow, i.e., a grade collar/
distribution system.
Regarding the use of A+, Grande-Allen presented a chart which shows
that among 30 peer institutions, Rice is one of only six which use the A+ grade
and award more than a 4.0 for it. (Rice awards a 4.33 for A+.) Nine
other universities use the A+ grade, but it has the same value as an A
(4.0). The remaining 14 institutions
researched do not award A+ at all.
Grande-Allen reviewed the steps taken by the working group:
• Spring 2013 Met
with all Deans
• April 17, 2013 Interim report to Faculty Senate
Meeting agenda
emailed to all faculty one week prior to meeting;
preliminary recommendations included in the meeting minutes posted
on the Rice website in early May 2013; data analysis on wiki space.
• Fall 2013 Presentations
to faculty:
Chairs (Engineering, Natural
Sciences, Music)
Town Halls (all schools)
Presentation to Student
Association
• Dec 2013 Report
to Senate
Grande-Allen noted that even though the town halls were well
advertised, they were poorly attended by faculty, with the exception of the meeting
with the Shepherd School of Music faculty, which was very well attended. She
expressed a desire for more discussion. Grande-Allen then presented again the
slides that were first presented in the April 2013 Senate meeting. She noted
that the information which has been available on the wiki site ever since the
April meeting now includes several bullet points of explanation under each
motion. Grande-Allen then presented the motions recommended by the working
group and approved by the Executive Committee for presentation to the Senate.
Motion 1: Each department should develop
guidelines for expectations of the frequency of the grade categories and the
level of student performance expected in order to earn a certain grade, depending
on the type of course and associated assignments. The Senate liaisons for each
school will summarize the guidelines for the Faculty Senate no later than the
last Senate meeting of the Fall 2014 semester.
Caldwell asked for discussion regarding the
motions, sentence by sentence. A senator representing the Humanities summarized
a letter from a department chair in which it was stated that Motion 1 places an
unfair administrative burden on department chairs. The senator reported that
another chair said it would be too difficult to determine a baseline grade. In
addition, students expect to receive high grades; the proposal could affect
instructor evaluations (by students) which are used for faculty promotion and
tenure. The senator said that the motions were premature, and in general, her
constituents were opposed to Motions 1 and 2. Grande-Allen said that the chair
of the Philosophy Department had been emailing her and David Tenney (Registrar)
to ask for the data. Grande-Allen advocated for an accessible way for chairs to
review the grades given in their department, such as a button one could push on
Edgar. Caldwell noted that the role of a department chair is to manage the
department. A faculty member commented that the motion simply requires that
guidelines be developed by the departments; the more specific the guidelines, the
more burdensome the task.
One senator said that the predictive function
in the motion makes it different from the motion passed at Yale. She said that
discussion of grading practices and making expectations known to students is
reasonable; it is the predictive function that makes it problematic. She also
said that a conflict exists between the working group’s recommendation that
grading practices be developed by departments and the SACS (Southern
Association of Colleges and Schools) model for grades to be based on the course
goals stated in the syllabus.
A senator noted that the motion gives
flexibility to departments to develop their own guidelines. The department
could decide that it was appropriate for a five person class, for example to
receive all A’s. Another senator said that factors such as Rice’s pass-fail selection
system and the very late drop deadline play a role in the high grades that
students receive; often the only students who remain in the class are those who
are earning A’s. He also expressed concern that some departments might develop
guidelines that are unfair to students. He asked that the overall grading
system be reviewed.
At this point, Provost McLendon said that most
of the concern he had heard expressed seemed to be with the phrase in the
motion that contains the term “frequency.” He said that faculty recognize that instructors
should set expectations for their students and should hold them to those
expectations.
Moving to the motion’s second sentence, reporting
that the grading discussions have occurred, Caldwell noted that it says that
the Faculty Senate liaisons will gather each department’s information;
it does not say that the Senate will approve the guidelines. Deputy
Speaker James Weston said that although a set of guiding principles could be
developed by each department, they could be described in somewhat “soft” terms.
Grande-Allen was asked what the guidelines documents should look like, and her
reply was that she would see what other universities had produced. She said also
said that a list of discussion points would be provided to the Faculty Senate
liaisons for presentation to their departments.
Motion 2: Deans and Department
Chairs, after each semester, receive reports of the grading patterns in their
school in order to identify courses in which grading patterns were extreme
(only A’s or A+ grades were given, or only very low grades were given). In the
case where only As or A+ grades were given, the department chairs may ask
instructors to provide written justification for why these courses should
continue to have letter grades given, and a plan for better distributing those
grades, otherwise the course may be converted to S/F.
One senator expressed concern that all A’s
were considered extreme by the working group when the working group’s own notes
say that an all-A situation could exist. Another senator recommended that the
motion be split into two parts—the data collection versus the justification.
Caldwell asked that the senators examine the first part of the motion--did they
want this data given to chairs and deans? He also recommended that the word
“extreme” be removed, and the motion be divided into two parts.
A Shepherd School of Music faculty member
stated that there is nothing extreme about all students in a studio or ensemble
class receiving all A’s, as was discussed in the town hall held in the Shepherd
School. A department chair who was present stated that the working group’s
efforts were treating the symptoms, not the causes of grade inflation. In
addition, he said that the motions are putting the department chairs in a
position of surveillance over their faculty members’ grading patterns. The
possible unwelcome consequences for faculty promotion and tenure based on grade
performance patterns was also discussed.
President Leebron stated that the issue being
discussed goes beyond Latin Honors; the university’s credibility is also to be considered;
he did not want the value of a Rice transcript to erode. He said that if every
student in a course gets the same grade, whether all A’s, B’s, or C’s, that is
an indication that the instructor is not doing his job. Leebron said that the
three things being discussed are information, standards, and accountability. He
said that accountability is where the group is torn, and that Rice cannot have
zero accountability. Leebron also discussed the very small versus very large
classes, saying that a course of 10 or fewer students all receiving the same
grade is different from a course of 50 students all receiving the same grade.
He suggested that the motions apply primarily to large courses, with a weaker
recommendation for small courses.
One senator said that while the first sentence
was faculty-driven, the second sentence was heavy-handed and made department chairs
act as police. Another senator asked for better alignment between Motions 1 and
2, and she said that she would provide some suggested language to Grande-Allen.
Caldwell asked that all suggestions be emailed to Grande-Allen.
Provost McLendon described the FWIS (Freshman
Writing-Intensive Seminar) that he is teaching this semester. He said that he
gives his students more than one chance to revise their papers; it is thus
possible that his students could all get A’s after a series of revisions. He
said that grading standards should be included in the course syllabus from the
start; faculty are called upon to communicate to students as to how grades are
determined and what is expected of them. The provost also said that this was
the first school in which he had taught where a student who received an A
contacted him to say that he was disappointed about his grade!
A senator asked if deans and department chairs
are reviewing the grade information currently. The reply was that the Jones
School dean and chairs review the grades systematically, while others schools do
it more informally. A follow-up question was asked; does this motion give
department chairs more authority than they already have? The reply was yes, the
department chairs do not have the authority to insist upon a different grade
distribution when all A’s are given, but they do have the authority to address
the opposite problem—an instructor who gives all F grades.
Motion 3: Effective
with the class of 2018 (matriculating in 2014), a grade of A+ will be worth
4.0, not 4.33, in calculating the GPA.
One senator stated that he would like to keep
the 4.33 A+ as a way to distinguish excellent students. Another senator said
that Rice has always offered the A+. A third senator recalled a suggestion that
was offered by a faculty member in a town hall meeting: the requirement that
faculty members provide written justification for every A+. He said that if the
student deserved an A+, it would be easy to write, but if not, the written
justification could result in a reduction of frivolous A+’s being awarded.
President Leebron stated that he was in favor
of Motion 3, and he gave the senators an example of a student who reported
(incorrectly) on his application for law school that Rice University uses a 4.3
scale. He said that if Rice is giving so many A+’s that students consider 4.3
to be the grade scale, instead of 4.0, we are harming our students.
Following this discussion, there was a motion
to table all five motions from the Working Group until a future Senate meeting.
(Motions 4 and 5, shown below, were presented but not discussed.)
Motion 4: LPAP
courses cannot be counted toward the GPA.
Motion 5: Student ratings of instructor effectiveness
should no longer be reported in promotion and tenure abstracts but should be
replaced by other alternative metrics of effective, quality teaching.
The motion to table was seconded, and the
resulting vote was for approval. The meeting was adjourned at 2:00 p.m.