MINUTES OF MEETING NUMBER Four
OF THE
sENATE OF mICHIGAN cOLLEGE OF mINING AND tECHNOLOGY
10 November 1959
(Senate Minute pages: 19-30)
The meeting opened at 7:30 p.m., with President Van Pelt presiding.
The roll of members was called, showing all members present except Bahrman, Been, Bourdo, Cox, Crawford, Eddy, Myers, Noblet, Otis, Romig, and Schnelle.
The minutes of meeting number three were approved as distributed.
It was noted that there is a vacancy in Group II, as described in Article III of the Constitution. The General Faculty will consider filling this vacancy at their next meeting.
In the discussion of Proposal No. 1-59, the word "core" was questioned and it was decided that this applies to all curricula offered. Dean Kerekes asked why second year German should count as credit. Prof. Fryxell answered that only the first year German is scientific and and second year German is conceptual.
Prof. Heath thought that the wording prevented the students majoring in physics and chemistry from taking a third year of a foreign language for credit in humanistic social studies if the third year happens to be a different foreign language than their two years of required foreign language.
Dean Kerekes thought that only the first paragraph of the Proposal was needed, plus "except that the first year of a foreign language shall not count as credit in the humanistic social studies."
Prof. Neilson pointed out that originally the Proposal was intended only for those courses not requiring a foreign language.
Prof. Hooker felt that two years of any foreign language are needed to be of any practical value.
Prof. Fryxell felt that the students majoring in physics and chemistry should not be able to receive credit for their foreign language as a required course as well as, and at the same time as, they receive humanistic social studies' credit for the same course.
It was moved by Prof. DelliQuadri and supported by Prof. Bredekamp that Senate Proposal No. 1-59 be approved.
It was moved by Dean Kerekes and supported by Prof. Anderson that Proposal No. 1-59 be tabled and referred to the Committee for further study. Motion carried.
President Van Pelt suggested that the Committee note that the term "humanistic and social studies" in the Proposal is not intended to refer to one department but to the mentioned fields, regardless of the department in which the courses are taught.
Prof. Fryxell also suggested that the field of foreign language be added to the areas of study.
It was moved by Dean Kerekes that Senate Proposal No. 2-59 be approved, but the word "accredited" be inserted between the word "other" and the word "colleges." After discussion the motion was withdrawn.
It was moved by Dean Kerekes and supported by Prof. Fryxell to insert the word "accredited" between the word "other" and the word "colleges."
Prof. Neilson pointed that foreign colleges are difficult to accredit, and the Proposal was meant to include this type of courses.
Prof. Belanger stated that it was his understanding that we now accepted credits only from accredited colleges. Prof. Sermon stated that is generally true, but not in all instances.
Prof. Van Westenberg stated that he felt the Proposal is in general agreement with the present policy and was simply meant to allow twelve hours of unassigned credit to be transferred.
The vote was called for and the motion was defeated.
It was moved by Prof. Swenson and supported by Prof. Weaver that Senate Proposal 2-59 be adopted as stated in the Agenda.
Prof. Sermon asked which department was to be considered the appropriate department.
It was moved by Prof. Bredekamp that the Proposal be tabled and referred to the Committee. There being no support, a vote was taken on the original proposal. It carried unanimously.
The Chairman of the Academic Standards Committee stated he had no report at this time.
Prof. Neilson reported as Chairman of the Curricular Policy Committee as follows:
Three meetings of the Curricular Policy Committee have been called during the current term, on October 19, 26 and November 9. Topics discussed have included:
1. the granting of credit at summer institutes and seminars
2. the number designation of undergraduate courses
3. the problem of credit for both on and off-campus work, and
4. the granting of advanced standing, either with or without credit, for previous attainment in course work offered at M.C.M.&T.
In addition to these topical discussions which led to the recommendations offered below, the Committee has under active consideration such matters as the problem of transference from junior colleges to Michigan Tech and the broad subject of our philosophy of engineering education. It will be clear to all concerned that none of these "problems" stands alone; all must be considered within the framework of our educational philosophy, and this philosophy urgently requires clarification.
(1) Summer Institutes and Seminars
It is foreseen that future summer institutes and seminars held on campus and supported by the College or by other organizations such as the National Science Foundation may lead to difficulty in the granting of credit (if and where desired) and especially if the course or courses are not normally taught in the college curriculum.
There appears to be no existing policy in this regard.
Committee discussion brought out that some departments have a course and credit designation which may take care of unspecified course topics providing of course that the work offered meets acceptable academic standards. These designations are along the lines of "special topics," "recent developments," etc. and several examples may be found in the present catalogue. The Committee agrees that an open credit type of designation would be useful if credit is desired for courses undertaken in institutes and seminars supported on this campus by outside organizations or by the College itself.
Accordingly, the Committee presents as a formal recommendation to the Senate: "That departments be encouraged to institute graduate and undergraduate courses for variable credit (1-5 credits) in topics not ordinarily listed in the College catalogue." This recommendation is designed Senate Proposal No. 1-60.
(2) Designation of Undergraduate Courses
As is well known, there is a definite limitation as to the proportion of 400-level courses to be included in graduate study programs on this campus.
In this connection, faculty members have remarked on several occasions on the need for a clear policy in numbering undergraduate courses. Members of this committee have endeavored to answer the question - "what constitutes a 400 course?" Does the distinction between 300- and 400-series (or between 400- and 500-series, for that matter) necessarily reflect a real difference in difficulty or level of attainment? Several members stated that the number designation appears sometimes to be a device based mainly, or perhaps partly, on third or fourth year scheduling. Others observed that courses are sometimes upgraded or downgraded as the case may be by number changes that appear to be somewhat arbitrary. It is recognized too that some departments base their course numbering system strictly on prerequisite requirements regardless of the year in which a course may be scheduled. On the surface, the latter method would seem to be the one to be preferred but bearing in mind the level of course content.
The main point, insofar as graduate study credit is concerned, is whether or not renumbering of courses from the 300 series to the 400 series is accompanied by a comparable increase in the academic level expected for graduate work.
In any case, there seem to be discrepancies in the numbering of courses at this college. It is felt that any recommendation by this Committee at this time would be both premature and presumptuous but, in the meantime, departmental practices will be examined more fully. If changes in the system of course designation should appear feasible, some recommendation may be made at a later date.
(3) On- and Off-Campus Credit, and
(4) Granting of Advanced Standing for Previous Attainment
These topics are best considered together.
The question of granting credit for work done off-campus is a difficult one. In the first place, it is necessary to define "off-campus work" -- does it mean college course work carried on elsewhere, or is it industrial experience, professional work, summer job experience, or is it something else? There were differences of opinion within our own committee as to the definition of "off-campus" but it was eventually established that the term should apply only to college level work performed at another institution and/or through prior arrangement with this institution.
The Committee recognizes that there are cases when work of a non-college nature may qualify for credit and in order to avoid being unnecessarily restrictive, we have framed a recommendation which will be broad in scope. The policy recommendation is as follows:
"No credit, graduate or undergraduate, or waiver of prerequisites, shall be granted for any off-campus or non-college work toward a degree unless:
1) the work were done under the direction of a member of the College faculty or under the direction of the faculty of another recognized college or
university, and2) the work were planned in advance as part of the student's degree program.
An exception to this policy may be allowed only if a student demonstrates competence in a subject field through examination and to the satisfaction of the department concerned."
This recommendation is designated Senate Proposal No. 2-60.
It is hoped that the last sentence dealing with exceptions to the proposed policy will not be construed as a "loophole" but will be useful in unusual situations that occur from time to time as, for example, in the cases of students from foreign countries who may apply for advanced standing, with or without credit, in courses offered at this institution.
Admittedly, it may be difficult to decide as the legitimacy of many such claims but it should be within the scope of the departments concerned to evaluate them.
It is felt that, until now, the lack of a clear policy or understanding of this matter has worked some injustices on foreign students, in particular.
It was moved by Prof. Bredekamp and supported by Prof. Fryxell that the report be received and the recommendation be considered separately. The motion carried.
It was moved by Prof. Price and supported by Prof. Bredekamp that both recommendations be tabled and put on the Agenda for the next Senate meeting. It was pointed out by Prof. Meese that the first recommendation had been ruled, at meeting number three of the Senate, not to be a Senate function but an operational procedure.
In discussion, Prof. Neilson pointed out that there are plans to hold some Summer Institutes next year, and the people of Michigan Tech should be able to acquire credit for Summer Institutes and Seminars here on campus or elsewhere.
Dean Kerekes stated that the practice of giving credits for undesignated courses not listed in the catalogue has far-reaching implications. There is a danger of too many such courses being offered and credit requested. He urged that we be cautious on this point.
Prof. DelliQuadri suggested that all future Proposals be included in the Agenda for the Senate meeting so that they could be studied previous to the meeting.
The motion to table was carried.
Prof. Work reported for the Instructional Policy Committee as follows:
The following report summarizes the activities of the Instructional Policy Committee since the last Senate meeting.
STUDIES IN PROGRESS
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Report and Recommendation on
Improvement of Instruction through a
Formal Training Program for New Teachers
a. This report and recommendation is concerned with college policy on training new teachers.
b. At present, no formal training in pedagogy is required of faculty members and no college wide program is available to aid those who seek formal training in
classroom techniques, educational philosophy, etc. In some instances, individual departments have carried out a series of seminars to help new teachers get
started.
c. Even when expansion of the faculty were not possible, several new men were appointed each year with no teaching experience and no training in
educational methods. To substantiate the conviction of committee members that some program was needed, a survey was conducted of the faculty to determine
their attitude toward such a program. 168 questionnaires were distributed and 73 were returned. The results are summarized below:
An instructor's effectiveness increases with experience, rapidly the first few terms, then more slowly. A formal training program would be intended to help him reach his peak effectiveness more quickly to minimize the loss to the students in his early classes.
There is no strong feeling that a degree in education should be required of all instructors at Michigan Tech. However, as the poll pointed out, a substantial portion of the faculty feels a need for help in improving their teaching effectiveness. Although experienced professors could gain something from a formal program, it would be of greatest benefit to new teachers.
Therefore, the committee recommends that, in order to improve the quality of instruction, the Senate recommend a college-wide policy that "each year all new teachers be strongly urged and others invited, to participate in a formal program of teacher training which would consist of one meeting per week during the fall term, with sessions devoted to problems of classroom techniques including motivation, pedagogy and methodology, evaluation, and non-teaching duties of the faculty."
The quoted portion is designated Senate Proposal No. 3-60.
Part IV of the report pertains to Senate Proposal 3-59.
It was moved by Prof. Bredekamp and supported by Prof. Belanger that the report be accepted and the recommendation for a Teacher Training Course be put on the Agenda for the next Senate meeting.
Prof. Fryxell reported that after seven meetings of the Faculty Professional Development Committee, Senate Proposal No. 4-59 was formalized as a Program for Sabbatical Leave, including the report which is as follows:
Submitted herewith to the Faculty Senate for its consideration is a proposal for a sabbatical leave policy at Michigan College of Mining and Technology. It has been prepared by the Faculty Professional Development Committee in accord with the charge given this committee at the general meeting of the Faculty Senate on April 15, 1959.
In submitting this recommendation, the Faculty Professional Development Committee wishes to indicate that its intent is to try to prepare a general policy recommendation concerning the entire problem of professional development among the faculty of this college. The present recommendation concerning a sabbatical leave policy is, therefore, to be considered as only one portion of this larger project -- not as an isolated entity in itself but only as a division of a larger whole.
PROGRAM FOR SABBATICAL LEAVE
I. General Policy
The policy of granting sabbatical leaves of absence is intended for the mutual benefit of the institution and the person granted such a leave. Sabbatical leaves shall be granted in recognition of significant service by faculty members for the purpose of making possible a period of creative activity free from other duties and responsibilities, during which the faculty member may further his competence in his profession. It is the policy of the institution to be liberal in interpreting various kinds of activity as appropriate to sabbatical leave; but the granting of such leave will be judged on its own merits.
II. Eligibility
Members of the faculty of Michigan College of Mining and Technology shall be eligible for sabbatical leave. The term faculty as used here shall include all members of the instructional, administrative, and library staffs with academic rank.
III. Types of Leave
A. A faculty member who has served to two years (six quarters) shall be eligible to take one quarter off with full pay.
B. A faculty member who has served for four years (12 quarters) without taking leave shall be eligible to take two quarters off with full pay.
C. A faculty member who has served for six years (18 quarters) without taking leave shall be eligible to take three quarters off with full pay.
D. The accumulation of time off for sabbatical leave, while computed at the rate of one quarter off for each six quarters of service, may be no greater than a total of
three quarters at any one time.
E. The summer quarter shall not be counted in accumulating time for leave, either for three-term or four-term employees.
F. Leaves of absence without pay shall not be counted among the years of service as a basis for sabbatical leave.
G. Any individual receiving sabbatical leave must agree to return to his position for the following year, with such exceptions as the President may permit.
IV. Procedure
Any application for sabbatical leave of absence shall be made to the department head. The applicant must submit a detailed program of study, research, or other projects he proposes to carry on during his period of absence. Decision on the application shall rest jointly with the department head, the Dean of the Faculty, and the President.
V. Remuneration
Faulty members on sabbatical leave of absence shall not accept paid employment involving their teaching at any other institution of learning. They are, however, permitted to receive money from fellowships, grants for study or research, or consultation, without prejudice to the receipt of their salary from this institution.
VI. Departmental Adjustments
Care should be taken that sabbatical leaves are not granted at such times or under such circumstances that the effectiveness of the departmental program will be impaired.
It was moved by Prof. Fryxell and supported by Prof. DelliQuadri that this Proposal be included in the Agenda for the next meeting.
President Van Pelt explained the background of the "Wild Eyed Idea Committee." It should pertain to originality and ingenuity of running this College, and consider any positive ways of improving the College.
Prof. Hooker stated that "imagineering" is an accepted practice in industry and he is in favor of the idea. He suggested that there should be a group to which these ideas should be reported.
Prof. Weaver suggested each member of the Senate be a member of this Committee.
Prof. Van Westenberg pointed out that in his experience if the group exceeded in number more than six or eight, the ideas were torn apart rather than really studied for their value.
Prof. Price suggested that the President appoint a Chairman and set a time for all reports to be in.
It was moved by Prof. Pearce and supported by Prof. Bovard that a Committee with a nucleus of three be appointed to call meetings and to act as a clearing house for other members of the Faculty for any positive ideas.
President Van Pelt appointed Prof. Fryxell as Chairman, and Professors Hooker and Hellman as the other members of the Committee, and instructed them to report the results of this experiment by the end of the winter term.
After the question of a special committee on the academic calendar was brought up, it was moved by Prof. Bredekamp and supported by Prof. Hooker that the subject of the academic calendar be referred to the Instructional Policy Committee.
Prof. Price pointed out that this committee work should get started soon and should deal with general overall academic policy.
Prof. Weaver offered the information that the Final Examination Scheduling Committee appointed by Dean Kerekes is now studying the broad aspects of the academic calendar.
It was moved by Prof. Bredekamp to amend his original motion to read that the members of the Final Examination Scheduling Committee be made a sub-committee of the Instructional Policy Committee. There being no support, no action was taken.
Prof. Bredekamp pointed out that there are many aspects involved in the academic calendar as stated in Part IX - A, B, and C of the Agenda, and therefore a broad, general policy seems to be needed.
The original motion was defeated.
It was moved by Dean Kerekes and supported by Prof. Polkinghorne that the President appoint an Academic Calendar Committee of the General Faculty. It was ruled that this motion was out of order for Senate business.
The President then requested the Committee on Final Examination Scheduling to take on as assigned duties the study of points as stated in Part IX - A, B, and C of the Agenda.
The suggestion of more frequent meetings of the Senate and the possibility of the Senate or its committees meeting every third Tuesday from one to two o'clock was then discussed.
President Van Pelt stated that in consultation with the Faculty Association President, they suggested a schedule whereby the Executive Committee and Faculty Association Council would meet on the first Tuesday of a sequence of three Tuesdays; the Administrative Council and the departments would meet on the second Tuesday, and the Senate or its committees would meet on the third Tuesday of this sequence.
Respectfully submitted,
Harold Meese, Secretary