September 12, 2005
In attendance: Oren Chein (CST), Richard Deeg (CLA), Rob Drennen (FSB), Jane Evans (Tyler, and President of the Faculty), Mary Anne Gaffney (FSB), Eli Goldblatt (CLA), Peter Jones (Vice Provost for Undergraduate Affairs), Bernie Newman (SSA), Jon Nyquist (CST), Dan Tompkins (Chair), Karen Turner (SCT)Guests: Ruth Ost (Honors), Chris Dennis (Vice Provost’s for Undergraduate Affairs office)
1. The meeting was convened by Dan Tompkins at 3:10
2. Chris Dennis introduced an item that will need to be discussed at a future meeting, concerning waivers for the requirement to fulfill foreign language requirements. He noted that about 200-250 students annually seek such waivers, but are met with confusing form to fill out and (sometimes)incorrect information from advisors. The protocol for granting such waivers was drafted after consultations with interested faculty, especially faculty teaching foreign languages. The protocol will divide the languages into three groups and four categories, depending on the degree of difficulty of the language and whether the languages are taught on a regular basis at Temple. He noted some difficulties that will need to be worked out in the draft protocol.
3. Peter Jones then made a short presentation on the history of the Honors proposal, which had been presented in outline form to the EPPC on January 31, 2005. He noted that the proposal sprang from consultations with the Honors Oversight Committee, Honors students, Mike Leeds, Cathy Hirsh-Pasek, Rich Goslyn, schools with strong honors programs, and was presented in outline form to the EPPC, FSSC, Faculty Senate, Associate Deans and the Council of Deans. The changes to the original proposal especially came after discussions with faculty in Fox, the Psychology Department, and other programs in CLA where there are already numbers of Honors students.
a. His goal in reforming the University Honors program, especially for the upper-level and transfer student, was to remain flexible so as not to emasculate strong departmental Honors Programs. The second goal was to bring the Honors Program into the national norm by instituting a research methods/practice course and a thesis. Students would now be expected to take six upper-division Honors classes, not necessarily all in the major. The goal was to give the students a sense of belonging to an intra-University program and provide a catalyst for the intellectual life of Temple. Later in the meeting, Deeg asked if all the college programs were going to be asked to conform to the University Honors model, and the answer was ‘yes’.
b. Jones understood that there was profound concern on the part of Fox that the 3.6 entrance and exit gpa would penalize Fox students, since the professors in that school have been making a concerted effort to stem grade inflation, meaning that fewer students are earning “A”s than in other schools. He was willing to try to make the exception for Fox by appealing to the President.Orin Chein asked for clarification about the type of research to be included in the research course (answer: anything discipline-specific) and the level of thesis (answer: not looking for original work necessarily, but for work that the student has self-defined and worked closely with a facultyadvisor).
Karen Turner asked how specific the research methods course was envisioned to be, and the answer was, it could be specific or encompass ‘the social sciences’ (e.g.). But the thesis was intended to be done with an advisor in the major. Departments are not being forced to ‘create’ an Honors Program, but Jones would like this option available for all upper-level students. To questions about numbers of students involved from Mary Anne Gaffney, Jones admitted that he is not sure how many students will avail themselves of the opportunity. The committee then began to discuss the nature of the upper-level Honors classes, and Jones encouraged the committee to think of interdisciplinary courses that will appeal to students of several majors. This interdisciplinary nature of the classes appealed to many on the committee; we also noted it as a way that small departments could offer upper-level Honors classes and have them fill, although several people noted the increased demands on the faculty in terms of the workload, especially in light of the implementation of General Education. Jon Nyquist noted that the lack of prerequisites would hinder greatly the teaching of such classes in the sciences and math. We also briefly discussed the problem of ‘free’ electives and whether there were slots for students to chose classes outside the major, or even college.
The practical issues of money was next discussed: why the money was attached to a particular faculty member and what the procedures were for obtaining the funds. Jones remindedthe group that the proposal allowed non-Presidential faculty to be named Honors Professors, and that money issues might have to keep them in mind. The timetable appeared to be problematic to committee members. While we were sympathetic to the need to get the proposal to the Academic Affairs Committee in time for the September meeting, it appeared that the EPPC had not had enough time to digest the document, and that there were some concerns that needed to be worked out. The current Honors program will be grandfathered to all students who were brought in under the current program.
Jones, Dennis, and Ost then left the room so the faculty could discuss the proposal. The following concerns were voiced:
- The timetable (immediate acceptance of a complicated and important document) was rushed. While most of the committee was very much in favor of the overall reorganization and strengthening of the Honors Program, given the implications of the program for Temple, we need to think more carefully about the questions of the entrance and exit gpa and money. It was ultimately decided that the document needed more discussion, and so a meeting was scheduled for the 19th. In the meantime, we will have email exchanges to see what we can hammer out.
- The issue of the gpa was discussed the longest. Fox has had long experience with an Honors Program, and they noted that under the new entrance and exit required, they would lose 2/3 or more of their students. The crunch comes when the School tries to hold the line on grade inflation, and so gpas are falling in Fox. Keeping a high gpa might encourage ‘course shopping’ as students looked for easier classes, not necessarily classes that would lead them to the interdisciplinary model that was so interesting to the EPPC. Other solutions were aired, including taking (and keeping) only the top 5% or 10% of students from each college (the problem being that we are not at all certain how many students that would bring into Honors).
- Staffing, and problems associated with it, was briefly discussed. There was a consensus among committee members that simply placing Honors students in non-Honors classes and giving them more ‘homework’ is unacceptable to both faculty and students, as negating the very social and intellectual goals of the proposed reforms. We also decided that this problem is insolvable, as we are not certain how many students will enter the Program, nor how many will chose to do a thesis.
- The issue of money and how to get the money to the undergrads, where it will have maximum effect, was also briefly discussed.
- Finally, there is a concern for support of students in disciplines that seem not to be particularly addressed by the document, especially those in the sciences. There may have to be alternatives for them to do Honors work.
Respectfully submitted, Jane Evans
