Report to the Senate - Saint Mary's College · Web viewReport to the Senate Calendar Task Force...

Report to the SenateCalendar Task Force

April 22, 2012

I. Introduction

At the January 11, 2012 Senate meeting, Senate Chair Tomás Gomez-Arias announced the appointment of a task force. Its charge is to review long-term calendar options permitting compliance with WASC and federal contact-hour requirements and to present a written report to the Senate before the end of the academic year. The task force members are Kara Boatman, Claude Malary and Steve Cortright.

The task force held two sessions, on April 13 and 18, 2012, to appraise faculty of its raison d’ être, to share its preliminary analysis, and to discuss options. The task force herewith presents its preliminary report to the Senate, so that senators may provide feedback. Feedback from the two April sessions and from the members of the Senate will serve to enrich the draft, which will subsequently become the task force’s final report to the Senate, fulfilling its charge, for presentation at the meeting of May 10, 2012.

Including this Introduction (Section I), the report is divided into five main sections. Section II explains how Carnegie units are calculated and how Saint Mary’s College currently defines its instructional periods. Section III presents selected, alternative calendar configurations that would align the College’s practice with federal and WASC guidelines. Section IV explains how contact hours vary across majors. Section V surveys the financial concerns that will inevitably arise from any calendar changes and considers how those concerns might be addressed.

II. Definitions and Equivalents1. Course Credits and Carnegie Units

A Carnegie unit, semester unit, or semester hour (each term is in use) is based on an instructional hour, defined as 50 instructional minutes.1 Alternatively, it can be represented as 50 instructional minutes per week over 15 weeks. In the U.S. a typical, one-semester undergraduate course comprises 3 Carnegie units, semester units, or semester hours, equivalent to 2250 instructional minutes, per semester. This report adopts the usage, Carnegie units (Cu), expressed in instructional minutes (im).

Saint Mary’s College currently structures its academic requirements in terms of semester and January Term course credits. A typical one-semester course at SMC meets for 60 minutes (MFW) or 90 minutes (TTH/MF) per session. During the Fall 2011 term, MWF classes met 42 times and TTH/MF classes met 28 times, for a total of 2520 instructional minutes or the equivalent of 3.36 Carnegie units.

Fall and Spring terms are currently of different lengths. A recent calendar change resulted in the addition of a week to the Fall, 2011, term with no corresponding increase to the Spring 2012 term.2 Over the Spring term, 2012, MWF classes will meet 38 times for a total of 2280 instructional minutes and TTH/MF classes will meet 26 times for a total of 2340 minutes. So, the classes range from the equivalent of 3.04 Carnegie units to 3.12 Carnegie units.

1 NB: “instructional minute” entails contact with student(s) that is employed in instruction; thus, e.g., examination periods or unsupervised laboratory work (mandatory writing or language labs) do not ordinarily tally among a course’s instructional minutes.2 Although the Senate voted to extend the Spring, 2013, term by an additional week, Provost Dobkin subsequently reverted to the original calendar for financial reasons, pending the outcome of the Senate’s calendar discussion.

In all cases Saint Mary’s College asserts that a one-semester SMC undergraduate course is equivalent to 3.5 Carnegie units. Were that assumed equivalence accurate, students would receive 2625 instructional minutes in each course of a Fall or Spring term.

January term, as it is presently configured, totals 2400 instructional minutes, or the equivalent of 3.2 Carnegie units (150 instructional minutes per day for 4 days a week and 4 weeks per term). Vice Provost Carp requested at the March 22 Faculty Senate meeting that each January term class meet for an additional five minutes. This would add 80 instructional minutes to the term and bring the correct rate of exchange to approximately 3.3 Carnegie units for each January term course.

But Saint Mary’s College asserts that a January term course is the equivalent of 4 Carnegie units. If that were true, students would receive 3000 instructional minutes in any January term course.

Over the course of a four-year, 36-credit college career, the difference in instructional minutes (between claimed and actual equivalence) totals between three and four 3-Carnegie-unit courses.

2. Instructional Minutes and Teaching Loads

Additionally, the faculty teaching load defined in the Handbook significantly overstates the actual teaching load undertaken by most undergraduate faculty. A full-time teaching load as defined in the Handbook consists of 21–22 Carnegie units annually. At the current rate of exchange among semester credits, January Term credits and Carnegie units, this requirement implies either 6 courses per year (equivalent to 3.5 Carnegie units per course) or 5 courses per year (at 3.5 Carnegie units per course) and a January Term course (equivalent to 4 Carnegie units). The implied number of instructional minutes ranges from 15,750 to 16,500. Depending on Fall, Spring and January Term teaching responsibilities, however, actual instructional minutes range from 14,400 to 14,640. This implies an annual teaching load deficit, in Carnegie unit terms, of between 0.6 Cu and 0.8 Cu for most full-time undergraduate members of the faculty (see Table 2, below).

Calculations supporting the discussion above are presented in Table 1 and Table 2.

Table 1 . Nominal Course Values in Carnegie Units and Instructional Minutes3

1 SMC semester course credit (scc)

(cf. Undergraduate Course Catalog, 2011-

12, p. 41)

1 SMC Jan Term course credit (jcc)

(cf. Undergraduate Course Catalog, 2011-

12, p. 41)

6 SMC scc

5 SMC scc + 1 SMC

jcc

SMC Board of Trustees: full-time

teaching load (Handbook 2.11.1.3)

36 SMC courses: 32 scc (3.5Cu)+ 4 jcc (4.0Cu)

3.5 Cu 4.0 Cu 21 Cu 21.5 Cu 21 – 22 Cu 128Cu2,625 im 3,000 im 15,

750 im

16, 125im 15,750 – 16,500 im

96,000im

Table 2. Most Recent Actual SMC Course Values in Carnegie Units and Instructional Minutes

2011 Fall term 2012 Jan term 2012 Spring 3 x Fall 2011 2 x Fall 2011 3 x Fall 2011

3 1 Carnegie semester hour/unit (Cu) = 750 instructional minutes (im): 1 Cu = 750 im, or 1 Cu = 50 instructional minutes (im)/week x 15 weeks; 3 Cu = 150 instructional minutes (im)/week x 15 weeks = 2250im; 15 instructional weeks = 75 instructional days; 3Cu course @50im/meeting = 45 instructional meetings; 3Cu course @75im/meeting = 30 instructional meetings; 4Cu course @100im/meeting = 30 instructional meetings .

CONFIDENTIAL DRAFT: FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY

2

scc

jcc

termscc

scc

3 x Spring 2012 scc

scc

1 x Jan 2012 jcc

3 x Spring 2012 scc

scc

1 x Jan 2012 jcc

2 x Spring 2012 scc

MWF = (42 x 60im) = 2520im

TTH = (28 x 90im) = 2520im

16 x 150im = 2400 im

MWF = (38 x 60im) = 2280im

TTH = (26 x 90im) = 2340im

3 x Fall scc = 7560im

3 x Spring scc = 6840im – 7020im


1 x jcc = 2400 – 2480im

3 x Spring scc = 6480 – 7020im


1 x jcc = 2400 – 2480im

2 x Spring scc = 4560 – 4680im

3.36Cu

2520im

3.2 Cu

2400im

3.04–3.12Cu

2280–2340im

19.2–19.44Cu

14,400–14,580im

18.56–19.39Cu

13,920–14,540

19.28–19.63Cu

14,520–14,720

32 x 3.36 = 107.52

4 x 3.2 = 12.8 32 x (3.04–3.12) = 97.28-

99.84

To summarize, we face three problems:

Overstatement of the value of a Saint Mary’s College course credit, in terms of instructional minutes;

Disparity in instructional minutes among Fall, January and Spring terms; Understatement of a full-time teaching load at Saint Mary’s College, in terms of instructional

minutes.

A fourth problem, disparity in instructional minutes required to complete a degree across majors, is discussed in Section IV, below. It bears mention at this juncture, because (as appears in Section IV) students’ actual, four-year programs may fall significantly short of the new, minimum federal standards or of the College’s declared 128 Cu (32 x 3.5 Cu courses + 4 x 4.0 Cu courses) minimum requirement for the baccalaureate, and correction of either state of affairs carries calendar implications.

The first and third problems are not, per se, calendar problems: all else equal, the College might define SMC course credits down to their actual Carnegie values, or it might increase instructional minutes per


3

class meeting so that actual instructional minutes justify the College’s claim that each SMC course credit is equivalent to 3.5 Cu (2625 im). Again, the College might define the full-time teaching load down to 19–20 Cu per academic year, or it might—by increasing the instructional minutes per SMC course—raise actual teaching loads to the nominal Handbook standard.

3. Adjustments to the Status Quo Ante?

In fact, however, all else is not equal. Were the College to define the nominal value of courses down to their actual Carnegie equivalents, it would simply render transparent those deficiencies that must still be corrected. As Table 2 shows, a student who repeated the Fall 2011–January 2012–Spring 2012 pattern of courses over four years would earn 116.48 Cu through the 36-course SMC undergraduate program, well below the recently adopted federal standard (120 Cu) and far below Saint Mary’s claimed 128 Cu. (A student who repeated the more typical SMC pattern of 3.12 Cu [39-meeting or 26-meeting] Fall and Spring courses and 3.2 Cu January-term courses would earn the equivalent of 112.64 Cu through the 36-course undergraduate program).

Alternatively, were the College to raise instructional minutes per class meeting so as to render each nominal 3.5 Cu course equal to 2625 im, then over the 13 instructional weeks of the traditional SMC Fall or Spring term, for example, each MWF class would meet 67 im and each T TH class 101 im (202 im/week). Again, to raise each traditional January term course to 4.0 Cu = 3000im, each of the traditional 16 meetings must comprise 187im (3 1/8 hours); preserving the 150im (2 ½ hour) instructional period would require meeting daily—5 days—through the four-week term (suspending observance of the Martin Luther King Holiday, or meeting one Saturday, or making some other ad hoc adjustment).

Lengthening the class meeting by 7 or 11 minutes may, or may not, generate difficulties in daily scheduling (for example: sequential scheduling, allowing ten-minute passing periods, permits six 67-minute—instead of seven 60-minute—MWF class slots between 8:00am and 4:00pm). The more serious consideration, however, is whether lengthening meetings in mechanical fashion serves students’ instructional interests. It is a nice question, for example, whether increasing January-term meetings to 3+ hours is more likely to intensify learning or merely to intensify fatigue. Again, are students likely to be better served by tacking 7 or 11 minutes to what must remain—by “feel” or habit—an hour or hour-and-a half class, or by collecting those instructional minutes, respectively, into 5 or 3 additional class meetings?

As Vice Provost Carp’s analysis has shown, increasing the Fall and Spring terms to 14 instructional weeks, while keeping (in particular) the Spring-term calendar within traditional bounds (namely, fitting it between a week-long January- to Spring-term break and Memorial Day) is infeasible. A 14-week instructional term provides 42 MWF and 28 TTH/MF course-meetings; a four-year pattern of 14-week 4-1-4 instruction yields a 36-course, 120.3 Cu undergraduate program (without alteration in the traditional January term). On the pattern adopted for Fall, 2011, the 14-week term can be accommodated in any autumn by fixing the start of classes in the last week of August. But anyone who consults the calendar will note: New Years falls on a Monday in 2013 (on a Wednesday in 2014; a Thursday in 2015 . . .), so that a 4-week January term must end February 1, 2013, and—after the ensuing, week-long break (February 2–10, 2013)—there remain (exclusive of Holy Week, the traditional recess) exactly 42 Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays and exactly 28 Tuesdays and Thursdays between Monday, February 11, 2013 (inclusive) and Monday, May 27, 2013, Memorial Day (exclusive). The resulting calendar allows for no examination period, unless commencement be postponed a week, to June 1, 2013.4 Like results, of course, obtain for 2014, 2015 . . . et seq.

4 The obvious adjustments—shorten the January–Spring-term break, shorten the Easter Recess—have been anticipated and suggested by Vice Provost Carp; they do not seem to have attracted much support among the faculty.


4

Accordingly, any adjustment to the status quo that (1) preserves the January term, (2) allows for commencement on Memorial Day weekend, (3) equalizes Fall-tem and Spring-term courses, and (4) produces a (minimum) 120 Cu undergraduate program—that is, any minimal adjustment to SMC’s traditional 4-1-4 calendar—must postulatet 8 Fall- and Spring-term courses totaling 39 (MWF) or 26 (TTH/MF) meetings and a January-term course comprising 16–20 meetings, totaling yearly to a minimum of 22,500 im. The required total could be achieved in a number of ways, for example: 9 courses each of c. 2500 im, organized as 8 long-term courses meeting either 65 im three times per week or 100 im twice per week over 13 instructional weeks, together with 1 January-term course meeting 150 im four times each week over a 4-week instructional term.5

A near minimal adjustment to the status quo—namely, one that achieves a yearly minimum 22,500 im between the last week of August and Memorial Day by (1) extending the 42 or 28, MWF or TTH/MF, Fall-term calendar to the Spring-term while (2) reducing the January-term to a three-week (12–15 meetings) calendar—could be arranged, e.g., for AY 2013–14 (and thereafter as an on-going pattern) as follows:

Fall term, 2013

Monday, August 26 Classes begin

Monday, September 2 Labor Day Holiday

Monday–Thursday,October 7–10 Mid-term exam period

Friday, October 11 Mid-term Break Day

Wednesday–Sunday,November 28–December 1 Thanksgiving Recess

Friday, December 6 Fall classes end

Monday–Friday,December 9–13 Final Examinations

Saturday, December 14, 2013–Sunday, January 5, 2014 Christmas Holiday

4 x 42- or 28-meeting courses, 60im or 90im/ meeting = minimum 10,080im

January term, 2014Monday, January 6 Classes begin

Monday, January 20 MLK Day Holiday

Friday, January 24 Classes end

Saturday, January 25–Sunday, February 2 Spring Recess

12 x 195 im (3¼ hours) meetings or 14 x 170im (2 hr 50 min) meetings = minimum 2340 im

Spring term, 2014Monday, February 3 Classes begin

Monday–Friday ,March 17–21 Mid-term exam period

Tuesday, April 15–Monday April 21 Easter Recess

Friday, May 16 Classes end

Monday–Friday,May 19–23 Final Examinations

Saturday, May 24 Commencement

4 x 42- or 28-meeting courses, 60im or 90im/ meeting = minimum 10,080im

8 x 2520im courses + 1 x 2340 im course = minimum 22,500 im x 4 years = 90,000 im or 120 Cu

As the complement to these minimal or near-minimal adjustments, students in the upper-division might be required—as a matter of an ordinary, full-time instructional program (and so, without additional tuition charges)—to undertake a fifth course in Fall or Spring of the Junior year and a fifth course in Fall or Spring of the Senior year. The total minimum undergraduate program would thus total 126–7 Cu (and, given that most students are involved either with required partial credit courses, a credited laboratory,

5 Actual instructional minutes would run (from rounding) 22,680–23,200 im (30.2–30.9 Cu) per year , for a minimum undergraduate program of from 120.8–123.6 Cu.


5

lower-division language instruction, or . . . etc.), the total required undergraduate program could be accurately described as c. 128 Cu.

In order to address the problems cited above comprehensively, however, an alternative calendar—as opposed to adjustment of the traditional calendar—would be in prospect.

III. Alternative Calendars

1. Basic Alternatives

Perhaps the most perspicuous way to present alternatives to the current 4–1–4 calendar-cum-course credit system would be to reconstruct what AY 2011–12 and subsequent years’ calendars might look like had they been articulated on the assumptions (1) that most courses would comprise 2250im = 3Cu, conducted (2) over a standard 15-week (equivalently, 75 instructional-day) term. A January (or Intercession) term might A be preserved or B be retired in favor of an enhanced Summer Term. This mode of analysis supposes the significant constraint that Alternative A be fitted, as is traditional at SMC—roughly—between Labor Day and Memorial Day.6 But for the most part, the constraint can be honored only in the breach: for calendar years 2011, 2012 and 2013, e.g., the 75th weekday after Labor Day (excluding Thanksgiving Thursday–Friday only) falls, respectively, on December 21, December 19, and December 18. And for the calendar years 2012, 2013, and 2014, the 75 th weekday7 falls, respectively, on May 24, June 4, and June 3. Given 3 Cu courses over 15-week terms, then, Alternative A is workable only by shortening January term, so as to lengthen the Spring term, while beginning the Fall term before Labor Day. Academic Years 2011–12, 2012–13, and 2013–14, articulated in 15-week Fall and Spring terms (each with a 16th exam week) around an intervening January term, would go approximately as follows below.

Note on the Collegiate Seminar50im are, transparently, insufficient time to inaugurate and develop a conversational inquiry. A solution might make the Seminar a 4 Cu [3000im] class, at 200im/week over 15 weeks, [100im] twice/weekly. Should Seminar I shape up as a quasi-practicum/lecture, it might be scheduled as 3Cu (2 or 3 days/week) or as 4Cu by double periods or 4 days/week. Whatever is decided, the Carnegie system would accommodate the decision more flexibly than the course-credit system.

2. Alternatives that Preserve the January Term

Table 3. Alternative A

6 Alternative (A) supposes a rough parallelism to USF’s long-standing Cu-based calendar (which comprises an Intersession or January term): USF commences the AY in the third week of August, so as to end instruction in the second week of May and hold Spring commencement in the third (cf. attached “University of San Francisco Academic Calendar 2010–2015”). 7Allowing for the traditional January commitments—excluding a full, 4-week January Term and nine-day January–Spring Term recess—and excluding the five weekdays of Holy Week and Memorial Day.


6

(A) FALL Term

20118 20124 20134 (A) SPRING Term 20124 20134 20144

8 Fall term: provides in each case for 45 x 50im meetings/course or 30 x 75im meetings/course; Spring: provides 44 x 50im meetings/course, 30 x 75im meetings.


7

Classes begin

Labor Day holidayMid-term exam period

Mid-term recessThanksgiving Recess

Last day of Fall term classesFinal exam period

Christmas Recess

M 8/22M 9/5

M–F,10/17–21

none

TH–S,11/24–27

F 12/9

M–TH,12/12–15

12/16–1/3

M 8/20M 9/3

M–F,10/15–19

none

W–S,11/21–25

F 12/7

M–TH,12/10–14

12/15–1/6

M 8/19M 9/2

M–TH,10/14–18none

W-S,11/27–12/1

F 12/6

M–TH,12/9–12/12

12/13–1/5

Classes beginMid-term exam period

Easter Recess

Last day of Spring term classes

Final exam period

Commencement

*Memorial Day recess 5/25–27** Memorial Day recess 5/24–26

M 1/30M–F,3/19–233/31–4/9

F 5/18

M–TH,5/21–24

S 5/26

M 2/4M–F,3/18–223/23–4/1

F 5/24

T–F,5/28–31*

S 6/1

M 2/3M–F,3/31–4/44/12–4/22F 5/23

T–F,5/27–30**

S 5/31

(A) JANUARY Term9

2012 2013 2014 (A) Summer Term 2012 2013 2014

Classes beginMLK Day

Last day of Jan Term classes

January–Spring term recess

T 1/4M 1/16

F 1/20

S 1/21–Su 1/29

M 1/7M 1/21

F 1/25

S 1/26–Su 2/3

M 1/6M 1/20

F 1/24

S 1/25–Su 2/2

Classes begin T 6/5 W 6/5 W 6/4

9 Provides 14 instructional days/meetings @ 160im/meeting (2:40 clock hours) = 3Cu.


8

.

Table 4. A 3-Week Jan Term (in Cu and im)3Cu course over 3 weeks = 15 meetings x 150im/meeting = 5 days instruction/week and 150im (2:30 clock hours)/day, OR

2Cu course over 3 weeks = 15 meetings x 100im/meeting = 5 days instruction/week and 100 im (1:40 clock hours)/day OR

= 12 meetings x 180im)/meeting + 1 90im meeting = 4 days instruction/week and 180im (3:00 clock hours/day) + 1 x 90im (1:30 clock hours) meeting; etc.

= 12 meetings x 125im/meeting = 4 days instruction/week and 125 im (2:05 clock hours)/day, etc.

Table 5 and Table 6 show the present schedule and a corresponding Carnegie-based schedule for semester-length classes.

Table 5. Three Meetings/Week—Class Scheduling, 8:00AM–4:00PM , via (a) Carnegie hours and (b) clock hours:

Period1

Period 2

Period 3

Period 4

Period 5

Period 6

Period 7

Period 8

(a) 8:00–8:50class

8:50–9:00

passing

9:00–9:50class

9:50–10:00passin

g

10:00–10:50class

10:50–11:00

passing

11:00–11:50class

11:50–12:00passin

g

12:00–12:50class

12:50–1:00

passing

1:00–1:50class

1:50–2:00

passing

2:00–2:50class

2:50–3:00

passing

3:00–3:50class

(b) 8:00–9:00class

9:00–9:10

passing

9:10–10:10class

10:10–10:20passin

g

10:20–11:20class

11:20–11:30

passing

11:30–12:30class

12:30–12:40passin

g

12:40–1:40class

1:40–1:50

passing

1:50–2:50class

2:50–3:00

passing

3:00–4:00class

Table 6. Two Meetings/Week—Class Scheduling, 8:00AM–4:00PM , via (a) Carnegie hours and (b) clock hours:

Period 1 Period 2 Period 3 Period 4 Period 5 Period 6

(a) 8:00–9:15class

9:15–9:30passing

9:30–10:45class

10:45–11:00passing

11:00–12:15class

12:15–12:30passing

12:30–1:15class

1:15–1:30passing

1:30–2:45class

2:45–3:00passing

3:00–4:15class

(b) 8:00–9:30class

9:30–9:40passing

9:40–11:10class

11:10–11:20passing

11:20–12:50class

12:50–1:00passing

1:00–2:30class

2:30–2:40passing

2:40–4:10class


10

A As a minimal adjustment to present practice, A, one could propose adopting a “real” 3 Cu standard Fall/Spring course (as opposed to the current, merely nominal 3.5 Cu course), calendared as follows:


(A) FALL Term

2011 2012 2013 (A) SPRING Term

2012 2013 2014

Classes beginMid-term exam periodMid-term recess

Thanksgiving RecessLast day of Fall term classesFinal exam period

Christmas Recess

W 9/7M 10/24–F 10/28S 10/29–M 10/31W 11/23–SU 11/27F 12/9

M–TH, 12/12–12/1512/17–1/2

W 9/5M 10/22–F 10/26S 10/27–T 10/30W 11/21–SU 11/25F 12/7

M–TH, 12/10–13

12/14–1/6

Etc.10Classes begin

Mid-term exam period

Easter Recess

Last day of Spring term classes

Final exam period

Commencement

M 2/6

M–F, 3/19–23

S 3/30–T 4/10

F 5/11

M 5/14–TH 5/17

S 5/19

M 2/11

M–F, 4/8–12

S 3/23–T 4/2

F 5/17

M–TH, 5/20–23

S 5/25

Etc.

(A) JANUARY Term

2012 2013 2014 (A) Summer Term

2012 2013 2014

Classes beginMLK Day



T 1/3M 1/16

F 1/27

S 1/28–SU 2/5

M 1/7M 1/21

F 2/1

S 2/2–SU 2/10

Etc. Classes begin M 6/4 M 6/3Etc.

The January term courses would be taught as 3 Cu (2250im) courses, meeting 15 x 150im (1½ hours) over four weeks.

Fall and Spring courses would be undervalued at 60im or 90im/meeting, for 38 or 25 meetings over 13 instructional weeks, but the undervaluation would be on the order of 30im/2250im or 1.3%, and thus (arguably) negligible.

10 The patterns of this variation are essentially those of the present calendar.


7

A The same principle, A, suggests intensifying instruction during the long terms by scheduling 3Cu courses at 4 x 50im/week or 2 x 100im/week. 11 Under these arrangements, 12-week long terms and a 4-week January term could accommodate (standard) 3 Cu courses as follows:12


(A) FALL Term13

2011 2012 2013 (A) SPRING Term

2012 2013 2014

Classes begin


Mid-term recess

Thanksgiving Recess

Last day of Fall term classesFinal exam period

Christmas Recess

M 9/12

M–F, 10/24–28

S 10/20–T 10/23

W 11/21–SU 11/25

F 12/2

M–TH, 12/5–12/8

12/9–1/8

M 9/10

M 10/22– 10/26

S 10/27–T 10/30

W 11/21–SU 11/25

F 11/30

M 12/3–TH 12/6

12/7–1/6

M 9/9

M 10/21–F 10/25

S 10/26–T 10/29

W 11/27–SU 12/1

F 12/6

M 12/9–TH 12/12

12/13–1/5

Classes begin


Easter Recess

Last day of Spring classesFinal exam period

Commencement

M 2/13

M–F, 3/26–30S 3/31–T4/10

F 5/11

M 5/14–TH 5/17S 5/19

M 2/11

M–F, 4/8–12

S 3/23–W 4/3

F5/10

M 5/13–TH 5/16S 5/18

M 2/10M–F, 3/24–28S 4/14–W 4/23F 5/9

M 5/12–TH 5/15S 5/17

(A) JANUARY Term14

2012 2013 2014 (A) Summer Term

2012 2013 2014

Classes begin

MLK Day



M 1/9

M 1/16

F 2/3

S 2/4–SU 2/10

M 1/7

M 1/21

F 2/1

S 2/2–SU 2/10

M 1/6

M 1/20

F 1/31

S 2/1–SU 2/9

Classes begin M 6/4 M 6/3 M 6/2

3. The Alternative of Discontinuing the January Term11 There is, of course, nothing intrinsically compelling about the 200im/week standard; like the Carnegie standard 150im/week, it represents a convenient denominator. Nor is there anything intrinsically repellant about it—provided, that is, one agrees that the instructional pace it suggests is not such as to outrun students’ capacities for sound preparation, or coherent synthesis, of learning materials. Accordingly, (A) could be recalculated to accommodate a 14-week term; the results would be a bit “messy”—at 14 weeks, a 3 Cu course would require a “rounded”55-minute “hour”—but we all own calculators now! 12 Nevertheless, if (a dubious proposition) SMC disposes of classroom inventory sufficient to accommodate 4-day/week classes, it remains the case that the 12-week term approaches the periodicities of a trimester system: it is liable to criticism on the ground that it gives up the (relatively) leisurely pace of a semester system without apparent, compensating educational gains.13 Supposes 45 x 50im or 23 x 100im class meetings or over 11–12 (11¼) weeks.14 Supposes 16 x 150im class meetings over four weeks = 3.06 Cu.


8

B. A still more radical alternative, B, would be a return (for the first time since AY 1969–70) to the 2-semester calendar, comprising 15 instructional weeks, and populated by 1, 2, 3 . . . Cu courses articulated in 50, 75, 100im . . . et seq. “hours.”

Table 9. Alternative B

B FALL Term 2011 2012 2013 B SPRING Term 2012 2013 2014Classes begin

Labor Day holiday


Mid-term recess

Thanksgiving Recess

Last day of Fall classesFinal exam period

Christmas Recess

M 8/22

M 9/5

M–F, 10/10–14

S 10/15–T 10/18

W 11/23–SU 11/27

F 12/9

M 12/12–TH 12/15

12/16–1/8

M 8/22

M 9/3

M–F, 10/8–12

S–T, 10/13–16

TH–SU, 11/22–25

F 12/7

M–TH, 12/9–13

12/14–1/6

Etc.15Classes begin


Easter Recess

Last day, Spring classesFinal exam period

Commencement

M 1/9

M–F, 2/20–24

S 3/31–T 4/10

W 5/216

M–TH, 5/7–10

S 5/12

M 1/7

M–F, 3/4–8

S 3/23–T 4/2

W 5/1

M–TH, 5/6–9

S 5/11

Etc.

B SUMMER Term

2012 2013 2014

Classes begin M 5/1417 M 5/13

4. Consequences of Adopting Alternative Calendars & Course ValuationsThe task force was charged to anticipate the consequences of adopting alternative calendars built around courses with real Carnegie-unit values.

Preliminaries: For AY 2011–2012, undergraduate instruction at Saint Mary’s College comprises 505 sections of 261 distinct Fall-term courses valued at 1.0 SMC course credits (3.5 Carnegie units),18 99 distinct January-term courses valued at 1.0 January course credit (4.0 Carnegie units), and 524 sections19 of

15 Again, the emerging pattern probably requires no further elaboration.16 TH–F, 5/3–4 could function as reading days.17 A mid-May start invites articulation of a robust, 12-week Summer Term that could be organized along the lines of the Spring and Fall terms supposed under (A) above. 18 The number 505 includes, e.g., 78 sections of Collegiate Seminar 020, 110, 122 or 123; 28 sections of English 004; 14 sections of Theology and Religious Studies 097, etc.19 Again, the number 524 includes 75 sections of Collegiate Seminars, 32 of ENGL 005, 15 of TRS 097, etc.


9

268 distinct Spring-term courses valued at 1.0 SMC course credit (3.5 Carnegie units).20 Among the Fall-term and Spring-term courses in point there are definable groups that merit some preliminary discussion:

A. A number of course/sections valued at 1.0 SMC cc (3.5 Cu) meet 4 hours (240 minutes)/week, on a four-day (e.g., lower-division Modern Language courses; CHEM 008 and 104) or two-day (e.g., Integral Program seminars) schedule.

B. A number of courses/sections valued at 1.0 SMC cc (3.5 Cu) meet three days/week 90 minutes/day (270 minutes/week)(e.g., lower-division Integral Program Language tutorials, cross-listed as lower-division Greek) or two days at the equivalent of 270 minutes/week.21

C. Some lower-division courses meeting 3 hours/week with attached laboratories value the laboratory component at .25 SMC course credit (SMC cc), but most such laboratory courses (and all in the upper division) do not assign unit-value to the laboratory component (either the laboratory is simply incorporated in the 1.0cc course—e.g., BIOL 105 Lecture [T TH 9:10–10:40] and Laboratory [T 5:00–9:00PM]—or a separate laboratory section is valued at 0.0 SMC cc).

(a) Laboratories attached to 1.0 cc courses vary from 2.0 hours/week to 4 hours/week; 3–4 hours is the norm among the physical sciences.

(b) Apart from custom, there seems to be no compelling reason—especially in light of new policy re: students’ access to multiple 0.25 courses—not to assign cc or Carnegie unit (Cu) value to laboratories.

Although valued at 1.0 SMC cc or 3.5 Cu, for the Fall term, 2011, courses in groups A. and B. represent, respectively, 4.4–5.04 Cu and for the Spring term, 4.00–4.68 Cu (exclusive of attached laboratories in the cases of the 4-day CHEM courses).22

D. Were laboratory instruction counted at half-value, then by way of illustration, for the Fall term, 2011, and Spring term, 2012, laboratory sections scheduled once-weekly, after the first week of classes, would meet (depending on the day of the week) from 11 to 14 times, and would be (half) valued in Cu as follows:

Fall term 2011 Spring term 2012duration day meetings Cu/2 duration day meetings Cu/2

4 hrs M 14 2.24 4 hrs M 12 1.92

T 14 2.24 T 13 2.08

W 13 2.08 W 13 2.08

20 Source is the Registrar’s “raw” lists of Fall-term, January-term, and Spring-term courses—including everything: internships, independent study, etc.; the enumerated groups of courses treated above have been culled by inspection, may accordingly present adventitious errors, and should be regarded as (very close) estimates. 21 Integral Laboratories, including the Music Tutorial, meet 6 hours/week, but are credited partially as practica.22 Given the lengthened Fall, 2011 calendar, classes meeting MTWF for one hour met 57 times or (57 x 60)/750 = 4.56Cu; those meeting MWTHF for one hour met 55 times or (55 x 60)/750 = 4.4 Cu; courses meeting MWF for 90 minutes met 42 times or (42 x 90)/750 = 5.04 Cu; those meeting MTH for 2 hours met 28 times or (28 x 120)/750 = 4.48 Cu. For the (shorter) Spring 2012 term, classes meeting MWTHF or MTWF for one hour will meet 51 times or (51 x 60)/750 = 4.08 Cu; those meeting MTH for 2 hours will meet 25 times or (25 x 120)/750 = 4.0Cu; those meeting MWF for 90 minutes will meet 38 times or (cont.) (n. 5, cont.) (90 x 38)/750 = 4.56 Cu; those meeting TTH for 3 hours (half of which counts as practicum) will meet 26 times or [(26 x 90) + (26 x 90/3)]/750 = 4.16 Cu.


10

TH 12 1.92 TH 13 2.08

F 12 1.92 F 13 2.08

3 hrs M 14 1.68 3 hrs M 12 1.32

T 14 1.68 T 13 1.56

W 13 1.56 W 13 1.56

TH 12 1.32 TH 13 1.56

F 12 1.32 F 13 1.56

2 hrs M 14 1.12 2 hrs M 12 0.96

T 14 1.12 T 13 1.04

W 13 1.04 W 13 1.04

TH 12 0.96 TH 13 1.04

F 12 0.96 F 13 1.04

Were they counted at one-third value, then for the Fall term, 2011 and Spring term 2012:

Fall term, 2011 Spring term, 2012

duration day meetings Cu/3 duration day meetings Cu/3

4 hrs M 14 1.49 4 hrs M 12 1.28

T 14 1.49 T 13 1.39

W 13 1.39 W 13 1.39

TH 12 1.28 TH 13 1.39

F 12 1.28 F 13 1.39

3 hrs M 14 1.12 3 hrs M 12 0.96

T 14 1.12 T 13 1.04

W 13 1.04 W 13 1.04

TH 12 0.96 TH 13 1.04

F 12 0.96 F 13 1.04

2 hrs M 14 0.75 2 hrs M 12 0.64

T 14 0.75 T 13 0.69

W 13 0.69 W 13 0.69


11

TH 12 0.64 TH 13 0.69

F 12 0.64 F 13 0.69

Added to any Fall-term or Spring-term course valued at 1.0 SMC cc, credited laboratory instruction at any of the levels shown above would raise the course’s equivalent Carnegie value above 3.5 Cu.23

E. A number of undergraduates (Performing Arts majors and minors24) earn the majority of their major credit through cumulating 0.25 and 0.50 course credits whose Cu equivalents are unclear. UEPC guidelines (a) distinguish between “academic” 0.25 and 0.5 cc courses (incorporating 32.5 and 65 hours, respectively, of combined instructional and out-of-class study) and “activity” 0.25 and 0.5 cc courses (incorporating, respectively, 13–26 and 26–39 hours of instruction), while the Undergraduate Catalog (under “Academic Requirements” at “Courses”) defines these courses, without further qualification, as the equivalents (respectively) of 1.0 Cu (750 minutes of instruction) and 2.0 Cu (1500 minutes of instruction). Clarification on classification and conversion of the PERFA partial cc sections (c. 100 PERFA partial credit sections were offered/are being offered during AY 201) will be required before these sections and their instructors can be factored into the estimates begun below.

For the Fall and Spring terms, 2011–2012, the following groups of courses (Groups A and B incontestably; Group C arguably) represent real Carnegie-unit values higher (in most cases, +1 Cu higher) than the 3.5 Cu claimed, nominally, by the College:

Group A Group B Group C Total Sections

Fall, 2011 33 sections 12 sections 27 sections 72 sections

Spring 2012 33 sections 9 sections 29 sections 71 sections

The properly educational reasons for the enhanced or intensified instruction offered through these courses—experimental work, the pedagogy of language instruction, the laying of foundations, etc.—must continue to be imperative no matter the calendar or system of course valuation under which they may be offered; they are, that is, intrinsically “high unit value” undertakings, and they are, in that character, “constants” of the undergraduate curriculum.

Again, since the nominal, full-time SMC program at present is 14 Cu/long term (4cc x 3.5Cu) and 4.0 Cu/January term, or 32 Cu/year; since, moreover, a substantial number of undergraduates’ (all those taking any laboratory science, lower-division Integral students, all those taking a lower-division foreign language course . . .) programs exceed 14 Cu in any given semester; it seems reasonable (for purposes of estimation), to assume that under any calendar, A- or B-type, adjusted to real Carnegie-unit courses, Saint Mary’s undergraduates’ programs will average 15 Cu, or four to five courses/long term and one 3-Cu course/ January term, that is, 31–33 Cu/year. Given the range of Carnegie unit values represented—as educationally driven constants—in Groups A–C, it would seem reasonable to postulate 18 Cu as the upper limit of a full-time semester program and 12 Cu (four 3-Cu courses or their equivalent) as the lower limit. These limits are conformable with common practice at the undergraduate level.

Estimates:

23 Any 2011 Fall term SMC cc would, minimally, equate to 4.0 Cu; any 2012 Spring term SMC cc would, minimally, equate to 3.68 Cu.24 By Fact Book count, for the Fall term, 2011, 31 and, presumably, a like number for the Spring term, 2012.


12

As a first cut, let us estimate the further aggregate instruction that would have been required in the Fall, 2011 term, the January, 2012 term and in the present, Spring, 2012 term had SMC actually delivered, or were SMC actually delivering, the Carnegie units nominally involved.

For the Fall, 2011, term, 72 sections over-delivered (so to speak): nominally and uniformly valued at 3.5 Cu or, in the aggregate, 252 Cu, their actual Carnegie value was 334 Cu. 25 The remaining 433 sections were also nominally and uniformly valued at 3.5 Cu or, in the aggregate, 1515 Cu, but were actually and uniformly equal to 3.36 Cu, and in the aggregate to 1455Cu.

During January term, 2012, 99 courses nominally and uniformly valued at 4.0 Cu were taught— in the aggregate, 396 Cu; their actual Cu value, (150im x 16)/750im = 3.2 Cu, aggregated to 316 Cu.

During the present, Spring 2012, term 71 sections of 524 are (so to speak) over-delivering: nominally and uniformly valued at 3.5 Cu, aggregating to 248 Cu, their actual Cu value aggregates to 295 Cu.26 The remaining 453 sections are nominally and uniformly valued at 3.5 Cu, or in the aggregate 1585 Cu, but are each actually equal (depending on how travel days and holidays impact their weekly schedule) to 3.04–3.12 Cu or, in the aggregate, 1377–1413 Cu.27

By comparison, then, to the claims expressed in uniform, nominal 3.5Cu course credits, for AY 2011–12 the College will have met and exceeded its claims in 143 of 1128 course sections, by an aggregate of 129 Cu, and “under-delivered” on its claims in 985 Fall and Spring course sections and in 99 January term course sections, by an aggregate of 312–348Cu. In no course section offered during AY 2011–12 will the College have simply delivered 3.5Cu of instruction. In order to raise all 1.0 SMC cc courses to their declared Carnegie-unit value for AY 2011-12, the College would have to add 312–348Cu to its instructional load, an increase of 8–9%. If, then, we accept (a) that the number of sections offered during AY 2011–12 was/is adequate for the undergraduate student body, (b) that the number of undergraduates will remain nearly constant, and (c) that the FTE undergraduate faculty have been/are fully and appropriately employed, we might infer from the required increase in the instructional load that an increase of 8-9% in the FTE undergraduate faculty would be in order: that is an increase of 15–17 FTE undergraduate faculty.28 The inference would, however, be erroneous:

(i) for AY 2011–12 faculty are underemployed in one respect: full-time (6-course) SMC schedules entail between 18.56 Cu (at the low end) and 19.63 Cu (at the high end),29 suggesting that some reduction in the required additional FTE faculty could be achieved by normalizing teaching loads;30

(ii) in theory (that is, as a purely mathematical exercise?), 60Cu of instruction (17–19% of the shortfall; the load of c. 3 additional FTE faculty) could be supplied by increasing actual January term instruction to the equivalent of 4.0 Cu (3000 im): that is, 3.125 clock

25 For the Fall term, 2011, Groups A and B courses’ actual Cu values were calculated as explained in n. 5 above; Group C—lecture and laboratory—courses’ actual Cu value was calculated by the formula: [(class im x meetings) + (lab im/3)]/750.26 For the Spring term, 2012, Groups A and B courses’ actual Cu values were calculated as explained in n. 5 above; Group C—lecture and laboratory—courses’ actual Cu value was calculated by the formula: [(class im x meetings) + (lab im/3)]/750.27See Table 2, above.28 That is, at the lowest estimate, 312 Cu 21 Cu/FTE; at the highest, 348 Cu 20 Cu/FTE.29 Faculty teaching in A – C groups, are being compensated during AY 2011–12 for nominal (some number of which, and perhaps all, are also real) instructional overloads.30 The number of FTE faculty is, but the number of FTE undergraduate faculty is not, reported in the Fact Book; absent FTE figures for the Fall and Spring terms, no meaningful estimate can be ventured.


13

hours/day (187 im) x 16 days of instruction or 2.5 clock hours/day (150 im) x 20 days of instruction;

By way of a first conclusion: treated as aggregate “undelivered” im/Carnegie hours, discrepancies between nominal and actual SMC instruction/teaching load amount to a “deficit” of 8%, and suggest an increase on the order of 15 undergraduate FTE (even if teaching loads for existing undergraduate faculty are “normalized” re: the Trustees’ Handbook definition). These estimates, however, ignore the question of distributing the required, increased instruction to undergraduates through course sections articulated in a practicable calendar.

Re: A We have argued above that any practicable calendar that would retain the January Term and retain roughly the bounds of Saint Mary’s traditional academic year must be calculated for 3.0 Cu January term courses (at the maximum). Assuming that the College retains the January term as a requirement, no net increase in the number January offerings would be entailed by a Fall term–January term–Spring term calendar (provided the undergraduate student body remains stable). During the Fall 2011 and Spring 2012 terms, a combined 880 sections of nominal 3.5 Cu courses were offered. Converted to 3.0 Cu courses, they would have lost one-seventh of the nominal credit they had conferred: 880/7 or 125 additional 3.0 Cu sections must be offered yearly to equal the aggregate, nominal course credit proposed for undergraduates in AY 2011–12 (courses equal to the teaching load of 20 FTE undergraduate faculty). This estimate jibes with the results of the “first cut” above.

Under a Carnegie unit system built to distribute instruction principally through the 3.0 Cu course (articulated as any variant of the A calendars discussed in Section III, above) and assuming an average student program equivalent to 15.0 Cu/long term and 3.0 Cu/January term, a normal undergraduate faculty teaching load would likely equal 21 Cu/year, distributed as 3 Fall sections (9 Cu), a January term section (3 Cu), and 3 Spring sections (9 Cu). However, apart from a firm count of present undergraduate faculty FTE, no firm estimate of the undergraduate faculty FTE required to deliver instruction distributed “calendar A” fashion should be ventured.

Re: B Assuming the College retires the January term, a full-time undergraduate program of 32 Cu per year would be distributed as 12–18, averaging 15, Cu/semester. Setting aside the constant represented by “high-value” courses of groups A–C, the aggregate Cu formerly delivered during the January term would be divided between the Fall and Spring semesters, yielding the equivalent of c. 490 3-Cu sections/semester, without an increase in the teaching load. These courses would face an aggregate demand (assuming an average class size of 20) of 12,500 enrollments, with a capacity (under the same assumption) of 9,800, requiring space for an additional 2,700 enrollments or 135 sections/semester, or an increase (over the A options) of 155 sections/year (or 22 undergraduate FTE faculty).

Under the “calendar B” option, a normal undergraduate faculty teaching load of 20–21 Cu would, likely, be distributed as three courses (Fall or Spring semester) and four courses in the reciprocal semester, with adjustments for teaching in A–C groups or in the Summer session. Again, apart from a firm count of present undergraduate faculty FTE, no firm estimate of the total undergraduate faculty FTE required to deliver instruction distributed in “calendar B” fashion should be ventured.

IV. Differences in Carnegie Units Earned Across MajorsRecall the following equivalents: 1 Carnegie semester hour/semester unit (Cu) = 750 instructional minutes (im): 1 Cu = 750 im;

1 Carnegie semester hour/semester unit (Cu) = 50 instructional minutes (im)/week x 15 weeks;

3 Carnegie semester hour/semester units (Cu) = 150 instructional minutes (im)/week x 15 weeks =


14

2250im.

We calculate the difference between the claimed Carnegie units in a degree program requiring the minimum number of credits and the actual number of Carnegie units delivered below.

Table 10. Difference Between Claimed and Actual Carnegie Units Delivered in a “Minimum” Program

SMC claims (as the minimum degree program):

32 x Spring/Fall 3.5Cu courses = 112Cu4 x Jan Term 4.0Cu courses = 16Cu 128Cu

We actually deliver (as the minimum program): 31

32 x 2520im S/F courses = 80,640im = 107.52Cu4 x 2480im JT courses = 9,920im = 13.23Cu 120.75Cu

Depending upon their choice of major, students will graduate with a broad range of Carnegie units. We present several examples below, each of which identifies courses that majors typically take.

PhilosophyThe program below represents a “typical” philosophy major with no AP credit upon entry. The student needs a year of SMC foreign language study and takes additional PHIL electives instead of a minor.

We claim: Given the actual im values of our courses (and allowing 0.33: 1 for labs), we actually deliver:

5 x Area A, B (Math), C credits (cc) 17.5 Cu1 x Area B (Lab: CHEM 8) =1.25 cc 4.375 2 x Intermed. French (French 2 – 4) cc 7.0 2 x TRELS cc 7.02 x English Comp. cc 7.04 x Collegiate Seminar cc 14.04 x Jan Term cc [4.0Cu each] 16.014 x PHIL cc 49.02 x elective cc 7.0 128.875Cu

5 x 2520im = 12,600im/750 = 16.8 Cu1 x (56 x 60im + 13 x 80im)/750 5.872 x (56 x 60im)/750 8.962 x (42 x 60im)/750 6.722 x (42 x 60im)/750 6.724 x (42 x 60im or 28 x 90im)/750 13.444 x (16 x 155im)/750 13.2314 x (42 x 60im or 28 x 90im)/750 47.04 2 x (42 x 60im or 28 x 90im)/750 6.72 125.50 Cu

ChemistryThe student below majors in Physical Chemistry, takes calculus, “double-dips” for Area B requirements, and meets language proficiency at entry. We claim: Given the actual im values and 0.33: 1 for lab im) we

actually deliver:

4 x Area A & C credits (cc) 14.0 Cu2 x TRELS cc 7.02 x English Comp. cc 7.04 x Collegiate Seminar cc 14.04 x Jan Term cc [4.0Cu each] 16.02 x electives [1 cc each] 7.0MATH 27, 38–39 = [1 cc each] 10.5CHEM 8-9(lab), 10-11(lab) [2.5 cc] 8.75PHYS 1–2 (lab), 3–4 (lab) [2.5cc] 8.75CHEM 89 [.25cc] 0.875

Electives, Areas A & C, TRELS, Comp,Jan Term, Seminar = (18 x 2520)/750 60.48 CuMATH 27, 38-39 [(2520 + 6720im)/750] 12.32CHEM 8-9, 10-11 [6720 + 2240im)/750] 11.95PHYS 1-2, 3-4 [(2 x 3360 + 1680)/750] 11.20 CHEM 89 [2520/750] 3.36 106, 144, 115 [(7560 + 3360im)/750] 14.56 104, 108, 118 [(10080+3360im)/750] 17.92 130, 110, 111, 197 [10080/750] 13.44 145.23 Cu

31 Calculation of actual Carnegie unit values infra supposes the temporary calendar “fix” endorsed by the Senate through 2013, rendering Fall- and Spring-term courses commensurable at 3.36Cu for each nominal 3.5 cc course; MWTHF, MTWF and courses with attached labs are evaluated proportionally, as indicated.


15

CHEM 106, 114, 115 [1 cc each] 10.5CHEM 104, 108, 118 [1 cc each] 10.5CHEM 130, 110, 111, 197 [1 cc each] 14.0 128.875 Cu

Integral ProgramWe claim: Given the actual values (in instructional minutes, and

crediting 0.33: 1 for lab im), setting aside the fact that INTEG instruction continues in exam week, we deliver:

29 x INTEG requirements [1 cc each] 101.5 Cu 4 x Jan Term cc 16.0 3 x electives [1 cc each] 10.5 128.0 Cu

Frosh – Senior Seminar [(8 x 3360)/750] 35.84 CuFrosh – Soph Lang. & Math [90im x 42 meetings = 3780im/course x 8 = 30240; 30240/750 = 40.32Jr. – Sr. Math & Lang. [(8 x 2520)/750] 26.88 Frosh Lab, Soph. Music, Jr. & Sr. Labs [(360im x 28 meetings)/3 = 3360im/course x 5 courses) 22.40Electives [(3 x 2520)/750] 10.08 135.52 Cu

CommunicationWe assume this Communication major requires a year and a half of foreign language study.

We claim: We deliver:

5 x Area A, B, & C cc 7.5 Cu1 x Area B (Lab: CHEM 8) =1.25 cc 4.3752 x TRELS cc 72 x English Comp cc 72 x French (2-3) 74 x Collegiate Seminar cc 14.04 x Jan Term cc (4.0 Cu each) 16.07 x Comm cc 24.54 x Comm elective cc 145 x True Comm elective 17.5 128.875 Cu

5 x Area A, B, & C cc 16.81 x Area B (Lab: CHEM 8) =1.25 cc 5.872 x TRELS cc 6.722 x English Comp cc 6.722 x French (2-3) 8.964 x Collegiate Seminar cc 13.444 x Jan Term cc (4.0 Cu each) 13.237 x Comm cc 23.524 x Comm elective cc 13.445 x True Comm elective 16.8 124.5 Cu Actual 4.375 Cu Difference (36 Courses)

EnglishThe “typical” English major below has a “Creative Writing” emphasis and needs a year of foreign language study.


5 x Area A, B, & C cc 17.51 x Area B (Lab: CHEM 8) =1.25 cc 4.3752 x TRELS cc 72 x English Comp cc 72 x French (2 -3) 74 x Collegiate Seminar cc 144 x Jan Term cc (4.0 Cu each) 16.02 x LD (19-29) 74 x Eng cc 144 x Eng elective cc 14

5 x Area A, B, & C cc 16.81 x Area B (Lab: CHEM 8) =1.25 cc 5.872 x TRELS cc 6.722 x English Comp cc 6.722 x French (2-3) 8.964 x Collegiate Seminar cc 13.444 x Jan Term cc (4.0 Cu each) 13.232 x LD (19-29) 6.724 x Eng elective cc 13.444 x Eng elective cc 13.44


16

2 x Eng (25-102) 72 x Eng 26 (.25) 1.754 x True Eng elective 14 130.625Cu

2 x Eng (25-102) 6.722 x Eng 26 (.25) 1.6934 x True Eng elective 13.44 127.193Cu Actual 3.432Cu Difference (36 Courses)

PsychologyThe courses below are “typical” for a Psychology major with a “General Psychology” emphasis who needs a year of foreign language study. We claim: We deliver:5 x Area A, B, & C cc 17.51 x Area B (Lab: CHEM 8) =1.25 cc 4.3752 x TRELS cc 72 x English Comp cc 72 x French (2 -3) 74 x Collegiate Seminar cc 144 x Jan Term cc (4.0 Cu each) 169 x Psych cc 31.55 x Psych a of c/elective cc 17.52 x True Psy elective 7 128.875 Cu

5 x Area A, B, & C cc 16.81 x Area B (Lab: CHEM 8) =1.25 cc 5.872 x TRELS cc 6.722 x English Comp cc 6.722 x French (2-3) 8.964 x Collegiate Seminar cc 13.444 x Jan Term cc (4.0 Cu each) 13.239 x Psych cc 30.445 x Psych a of c/elective cc 16.82 x True Psych elective 6.72

125.70 Cu Actual 3.175 Cu Difference (36 Courses)

SociologyThe program below is “typical” for a Sociology major who needs a year of foreign language study.

We claim: We deliver:5 x Area A, B, & C cc 17.51 x Area B (Lab: CHEM 8) =1.25 cc 4.3752 x TRELS cc 72 x English Comp cc 72 x French (2 -3) 74 x Collegiate Seminar cc 144 x Jan Term cc (4.0 Cu each) 167 x Soc cc 24.56 x Soc elective cc 213 x True Soc elective 10.5 128.875 Cu

5 x Area A, B, & C cc1 6.81 x Area B (Lab: CHEM 8) =1.25 cc 5.872 x TRELS cc 6.722 x English Comp cc 6.722 x French (2-3) 8.964 x Collegiate Seminar cc 13.444 x Jan Term cc (4.0 Cu each) 13.237 x Soc cc 23.526 x Soc elective cc 20.163 x True Soc elective 10.08 125.60 Cu Actual

3.275 Cu Difference (36 Courses)

Spanish The program below identifies courses taken by a “typical” Spanish Major. This student chooses Option A (instead of Option B, for students aspiring to Graduate School), starts with Intermediate Spanish 10, thus satisfying the foreign language study requirement upon entry.


5 x Area A, B, & C cc1 7.51 x Area B (Lab: CHEM 8) =1.25 cc 4.3752 x TRELS cc 72 x English Comp cc 74 x Collegiate Seminar cc 14

5 x Area A, B, & C cc 16.81 x Area B (Lab: CHEM 8) =1.25 cc 5.872 x TRELS cc 6.722 x English Comp cc 6.724 x Collegiate Seminar cc 13.44


17

4 x Jan Term cc (4.0 Cu each) 162 x Spa LD (10-11) cc 79 x Spa UD cc 31.52 (Span Conv & Capstone) .25 1.756.5 x True elective 22.75

128.875 Cu

4 x Jan Term cc (4.0 Cu each) 13.232 x Spa LD (10-11) cc 8.969 x Spa UD cc 30.242 (Span Conv & Capstone) .25 1.686.5 x True elective 21.84


Transfer StudentsTransfer students experience wide variation in the number of Carnegie units earned upon graduation, again depending upon their choice of major. We provide some examples below.

Transfer: CommunicationA “representative” transfer student majoring in Communication will, like all transfer students, receive a waiver for one Collegiate Seminar and one January term. In the example below, the student’s former institution operated on a quarter system. As a result, her courses were allotted a .77 semester credit value. Unlike the other majors featured here, this student would need 3 foreign language courses instead of 2; she would fulfill the Diversity requirement without ‘double-dipping.’ Unlike non-transfer students, she will have completed 39 courses for her degree. These particularities complicate comparisons of her program of study with those of the majors described above.


3 x Area A & B cc 10.51 x Area B (Lab: BIOL 42) =1.25 cc 4.3751.77 x Area C cc 6.1252 x TRELS cc 71.54 x English Comp cc 5.393 x French (1-2-3) 10.53 x Collegiate Seminar cc 10.52 x Diversity (Anthro 1 & Soc 00E) 73 x Jan Term cc (4.0 Cu each) 12.07 x Comm cc (1 Capstone*) 24.54 x Comm elective cc 146 x Transfer Credits (.66 each) 13.861 x Transfer Credits (.58) 2.03 127.78 Cu

3 x Area A & B cc 10.081 x Area B (Lab: BIOL 42) =1.25 cc 5.871.77 x Area C cc 5.882 x TRELS cc 6.721.54 x English Comp cc 5.1743 x French (1-2-3) 13.443 x Collegiate Seminar cc 10.082 x Diversity (Anthro 1 & Soc 00E) 6.723 x Jan Term cc (4.0 Cu each) 9.9217 x Comm cc (1 Capstone*) 23.524 x Comm elective cc 13.446 x Transfer Credits (.66 each) 13.3051 x Transfer Credits (.58) 1.948


Transfer: EnglishA typical transfer student majoring in English, will have one Collegiate Seminar requirement and one January Term requirement waived. Characteristically, 3 Cu courses completed at this student’s former institution were attributed .90 value. Unlike all non-transfer students represented here, this student needs to take 3 foreign language courses instead of 2 and to complete 41 courses for the degree.


2 x Area A (.90 TC) 6.32 x Area B (.90 & 1.20 TC) 8.1372 x Area C cc (1 as .90 TC) 6.652 x TRELS cc 7

2 x Area A (.90 TC) 5.8062 x Area B (.90 & 1.20 TC) 8.6592 x Area C cc (1 as .90 TC) 6.3842 x TRELS cc 6.72


18

2 x English Comp cc (.90 TC) 6.33 x Spanish (1 as TC for .90) 10.152 x Collegiate Seminar cc 71 x Diversity (Anthro .90 TC) 3.152 x Jan Term cc (4.0 Cu each) 8.09 x Engl cc (1 as 0.90 TC) 31.154 x Engl elective cc 147 x Transfer Credits (.90 each) 16.281 x Transfer Credits (1.20) 4.2

132.317 Cu

2 x English Comp cc (.90 TC) 6.0483 x Spanish (1 as TC for .90) 132 x Collegiate Seminar cc 6.721 x Diversity (Anthro .90 TC ) 3.0242 x Jan Term cc (4.0 Cu each) 6.6149 x Engl cc (1 as 0.90 TC) 29.9044 x Engl elective cc 13.447 x Transfer Credits (.90 each) 15.6281 x Transfer Credits (1.20) 4.032 125.979 Cu Actual 6.338 Cu Difference (41 Courses)

Transfer: PsychologyThis transfer student majoring in Psychology below meets the foreign language proficiency requirement upon matriculation. This student will take 40 courses instead of the usual 36 to graduate.


2 x Area A (1.5 & .90 TC) 8.42 x Area B (1 as .90 TC) 6.652 x Area C cc (.90 TC) 6.32 x TRELS cc 72 x English Comp cc (.90 TC) 6.32 x Collegiate Seminar cc 71 x Diversity (Anthro .90 TC ) 3.152 x Jan Term cc (4.0 Cu each) 8.011 x Psych cc (1 as 0.90 TC) 38.154 x Psych elective cc 147 x Transfer Credits (.90 each) 13.861 x Transfer Credits (1.20) 4.2 122.710 Cu

2 x Area A (1.5 & .90 TC) 8.0642 x Area B (1 as .90 TC) 6.3842 x Area C cc (.90 TC) 6.0482 x TRELS cc 6.722 x English Comp cc (.90 TC) 6.0482 x Collegiate Seminar cc 6.721 x Diversity (Anthro .90 TC ) 3.0242 x Jan Term cc (4.0 Cu each) 6.61411 x Psych cc (1 as 0.90 TC) 36.6244 x Psych elective cc 13.447 x Transfer Credits (.90 each) 13.3051 x Transfer Credits (1.20) 4.032 117.023 Cu Actual 5.687 Cu Difference (40 Courses)

Transfer: SociologyThe transfer student below has a Sociology major and a Communications minor. As is the case with all transfer students, one requirement for Collegiate Seminar and one for Jan Term are waived. Somewhat mystically, bona fide courses completed at this student’s former institution were attributed .87 value. Unlike all the other non-transfer students, this student needs 3 foreign language courses instead of 2. Unlike non-transfer students, this student will need to complete 40 courses to receive his degree.


2 x Area A (1 at .87 TC) 6.752 x Area B (1 at 1.20, 1 at 1.16 TC) 8.262 x Area C cc (1 at .87 TC) 6.752 x TRELS cc 72 x English Comp cc (.87 TC) 6.093 x Japanese (1-2-3) 10.53 x Collegiate Seminar cc 10.51 x Diversity (Anthro .87 TC ) 3.0453 x Jan Term cc (4.0 Cu each) 127 x Soc cc (1 as 1.20 & 2 as 0.87 TC) 24.296 x Soc elective cc 21

2 x Area A (1 at .87 TC) 6.222 x Area B (1 at 1.20, 1 at 1.16 TC) 11.082 x Area C cc (1 at .87 TC) 6.482 x TRELS cc 6.722 x English Comp cc (.87 TC) 5.843 x Japanese (1-2-3) 133 x Collegiate Seminar cc 10.081 x Diversity (Anthro .87 TC ) 2.9233 x Jan Term cc (4.0 Cu each) 9.9217 x Soc cc (1 as 1.20 & 2 as 0.87 TC) 23.316 x Soc elective cc 20.16


19

6 x Comm Minor 212 x Transfer Credits (1. 16 & .87) 7 144.185 Cu

6 x Comm Minor 20.12 x Transfer Credits (1. 16 & .87) 6.72 142.554 Cu Actual 1.631 Cu Difference (40 Courses)

Conclusions

Inconsistencies abound: Integral and Physical Chemistry deliver more Carnegie units than 3.5 times the number of SMC course-credits required for the degree. This is simply due to the fact that many of their courses (especially the ones with a laboratory component) meet more than 3 hours a week.

Many other disciplines deliver fewer Carnegie units than 3.5 times the number of SMC course-credits required for the degree. Typically, the number of Carnegie units under-delivered amounts to a full course. Hence, most students in the majors represented here graduate with approximately a one-course educational deficit; that is, they graduate with a shortfall in actual im/Cu compared to nominal im/Cu amounting to a full course.

Without Modern Languages, which features lower-division courses meeting four days a week, and without the Foreign Language Proficiency Requirement, which ensures that the bulk of SMC students take two to three courses meeting four days a week, the deficit would be significantly greater. Without the hard sciences and the hard-science requirement, the deficit (that is, the shortfall in actual im/Cu compared to nominal im/Cu) would be greater still.

While some courses in Modern Languages, Integral, and hard sciences effectively mask discrepancies in terms of units allotted (16 for 4) and actual Carnegie units earned (13.23 for 4), all January Term courses singularly, disproportionately, contribute to them. For the four January Term courses required for graduation, the difference between units allotted and Carnegie units earned is 2.77 Cu, i.e. 77% of the units a full course would secure.

It is somewhat ironic that the disciplines most in tune with Carnegie unit stipulations, i.e. Integral, the hard sciences, and Modern Languages, are aberrations in the SMC curriculum. They honor the spirit of the Carnegie unit just as they violate the spirit of the stipulations of the unit currency currently honored at SMC. To wit, a student taking a lower-division foreign language course might thank the institution for gifting her an extra hour of instruction per week. Another student in the same course might curse the institution for withholding the extra credit to which the extra hour of labor per week may entitle her. Disciplinary incommensurability notwithstanding, only a uniform system, such as the one that the Carnegie unit constitutes, might remedy the inconsistencies highlighted by the contradicting interpretations of the two fictitious students.

If she were intellectually consistent, after completing each January term course, the first of the two students would begrudge the institution for not having provided her with more instructional hours than the credits allotted for each January term course implicitly promise. Cognitive consonance would likewise compel the second of the two students to thank the institution for granting her more units for each January term she completed than the number of hours of actual instruction in the course(s) warranted.

Inconsistencies also abound with respect to Transfer Students. Though they typically graduate with four or five more courses than their counterparts who obtained their degree from the school at which they took their first college course, they fall even shorter in terms of the relationship between Carnegie Units attributed by the institution from which they earned their degree and the courses they actually completed at all the institutions they attended. Characteristically, they are allotted the equivalent of two courses fewer in terms of Carnegie units. Of course, for them as for their mono-institutional counterparts, the more lower-division courses they take in the department of Modern Languages, the more hard-science courses they take, and the fewer January term courses they take, the lesser the deficit.


20

V. Administrative Analysis

In reviewing the options for aligning the academic calendar with WASC and federal guidelines, it became clear that most (if not all) of the feasible options would require:

1) increased instructional hours on the part of existing faculty and/or;

2) the hiring of additional faculty.

If the College selects the first option, faculty will respond in one of two ways. Either they will reallocate time away from scholarship and service and towards teaching, or they will attempt to meet the increased teaching requirement without reducing the time spent on scholarship and service. In the latter case, quality will suffer across all three activities.

If the College decides to compensate faculty for the additional teaching time, or to hire new faculty, the challenge will be in identifying a source of funding. The College cannot pass through additional faculty salary costs to students in the form of higher tuition, since the Trustees have explicitly rejected raising tuition by more than a small percentage over the next several years.32

We assume that the primary goal of the College is to continue to provide students with an excellent education. Consequently, sacrificing the quality of faculty teaching is not an option. However, promotion, tenure and active participation in the SMC community require continued service and scholarship. Therefore, sacrificing quality in these areas is equally unacceptable.

We face a challenge that is common to many organizations: that of maintaining quality in the face of increasing costs and stable revenues. The CTF was not limited to any particular scope with respect to the calendar problem. Moreover, we were eager to avoid the problems that may occur when those responsible for solution design fail to consider implementation issues. Consequently, we undertook a rudimentary analysis of the cost structure of the College, to determine if there are any opportunities to increase efficiency while continuing to deliver a high quality education to our students.

One model of how costs are determined in higher education institutions is that colleges determine what they can afford, in light of tuition and other revenues, and budget their costs accordingly. In other words, higher revenues lead to higher costs. In another model, colleges treat certain quality metrics, such as student-to-faculty ratios, as binding constraints. As the cost of satisfying those constraints increases, revenues must increase.

Over the past ten years, administrative and instructional expenses have comprised the bulk (between 79 percent and 81 percent) of costs at Saint Mary’s College. Consequently, we looked to these categories in an effort to determine how these expenses have changed through time, relative to one another, to student enrollments, and to tuition revenues.

Unfortunately, coherent financial information for the College is difficult to access. In particular, we found it difficult to disaggregate the summary data we located in the Fact Books to isolate administrative salaries, faculty salaries and associated expenses. Therefore, we began by tracking faculty and

32 President Obama has also indicated that his administration will address the issue of skyrocketing college tuition charges in the near future. Clearly, college tuition represents one of the most important issues in higher education today.


21

administrative employee numbers over the last eight to ten years in an effort to assess, in general terms, how the faculty and administrative ranks have either increased or decreased.

Before we present our preliminary findings, we wish to note that the data are not complete, due to gaps in Faculty Handbook publication, conflicting data in different issues of the Fact Book, and frequent changes to the organizational structure of the College through time. The charts below represent our best effort to generate meaningful comparisons.

Figure 1 presents growth in faculty and administrative employment from 2001 to 2009.

Figure 1. Percent Growth in Faculty and Administration (2001 to 2009)

Source: SMC

Note that the chart above records growth in full-time faculty only. Full-time faculty employment increased from 182 to 202 during the period. During the same period, part time faculty decreased by 29 percent. Total faculty employed, either part-time or full-time, decreased by 14 percent during the period.

In general, as an organization grows, we expect administrative employment (and costs) to rise more slowly than direct employment (i.e. faculty). Yet between 2001 and 2009, the number of SMC administrators grew from 102 to 121, or by 19 percent.33

The growth in full-time faculty and administrators can be interpreted in several ways. The first is that more faculty and administrators are required to serve increasing numbers of students. Yet between 2001 and 2009 enrollment decreased by 16 percent. Another way to interpret this growth is that it resulted in an increase the quality of education delivered to a stable student population. The increase in full-time faculty, as noted above, resulted partly from a significant decrease in part-time faculty. Some might suggest that relying on full-time tenure-track faculty to teach students could enhance the quality of 33 The term “administrator” refers to employees with the following titles: Vice Provost, Vice President, Dean, Associate Dean, Assistant Dean, Director, Associate Director, Assistant Director. We excluded staff, coordinators, officers, and managers from our calculations due to lack of data.


22

instruction, although there are strong arguments against this position as well. If expanded full-time faculty ranks result in an increase in courses offered, educational quality might be enhanced as well. The growth in administrators (assistant directors and above only) cannot be as easily tied to educational quality enhancement. Moreover, the fact that growth in senior administrative employment outstripped faculty as well as student enrollment growth is troubling.

Despite problems in accessing detailed financial data, we were able to identify certain line items in the annual Statement of Activities that give some indication of the growth in faculty and administrative costs through time. Figure 2 presents a comparison of these principal components of College expense.

Figure 2. Inflation-Adjusted Growth in Instructional Expense and Administrative Expense (2001-2009)

Sources: SMC Factbooks and CPI Index from the 2010 Economic Report of the President

As the chart above indicates, instructional expenses increased by 19 percent in real terms between 2001 and 2009, while administrative costs rose by 32 percent during the same period.34 It is unclear how much of the increase in administrative expense is due to rising salaries and how much is due to an increase in the number of individuals employed. Nonetheless, we find the rate of growth surprising.

We mentioned earlier that enrollments have declined between 2001 and 2009, largely due to program closures.35 Figure 3 compares the decline in enrollment to the change in tuition revenue, defines as tuition payments less unsponsored financial aid.

Figure 3. Enrollment and Inflation-Adjusted Tuition Revenue Growth (2001 to 2009)

34 Instructional expenses refer to the line items “academic” or “instructional” expenses in the Statement of Activities. Administrative expenses include administration or institutional support, information technology, student services, and academic support.35 We should note, however, that TUG enrollments decreased by 5 percent during the period.


23

Interestingly, the College is receiving more net tuition revenue (26 percent more) from fewer students. This is at least partly due to rising tuition rates. Since tuition represents the College’s primary source of revenue (70% to 75%), we analyzed the impact of rising faculty and administrative costs on students. Figure 4 presents those results.36

Figure 4. Inflation-Adjusted Expenses per Student (2001 to 2009)

36 “1” refers to 2001, while “2” refers to 2009.


24

In 2001, instructional expense per student was 20 percent higher than administrative expense per student. By 2009, the gap had narrowed to 6 percent. In other words, administrative costs per student rose more quickly than faculty costs.

Finally, it may be helpful to examine ratios of faculty and administrators to students.

Figure 5. Faculty/Student and Administrator/Student Ratios (2001 and 2009)

In 2001, there were 20 students for each full-time faculty member. In 2009, that ratio decreased to 16 students per full-time faculty member. This analysis supports the argument that increases in faculty employment enhanced educational quality by reducing average class size. Yet, it is not apparent to us how the decrease from 37 full-time students per senior administrator in 2001 to 26 students per senior administrator in 2009 contributed to educational quality.

We note that this issue is not specific to Saint Mary’s College. In fact, academic journals and higher education periodicals frequently identify and analyze the problem. We don’t doubt that our peer institutions have experienced the same increase in senior administration employment and expense. The fact that the problem is widespread does not absolve us from the responsibility to address and attempt to solve it. From our perspective, the rapid increase in administrative employment has had unintended and negative consequences for faculty and, indirectly, for students.

First, because senior administrators at Saint Mary’s are creative, industrious and hard-working individuals, they devote enormous energy to their individual areas of expertise. In an effort to involve faculty in these endeavors, they establish initiatives, task forces, and committees in which faculty are exhorted to participate. Rather than saving faculty time by hiring administrators to perform functions so that faculty don’t have to, faculty time is increasingly devoted to participation in initiatives designed by these administrators, an unintended and negative consequence. As a further consequence, the ability of faculty to participate in the governance of the College is reduced, because these initiatives are administration-driven. The result is a faculty overloaded with committee service, meetings, and


25

administrative reporting duties that take time and attention away from the classroom, research and students. The frequent need to offer faculty course releases in order to compensate for service is an obvious indication of how the explosive increase in service requirements has begun to drive faculty allocation of time, to the detriment of students.

Finally, we note the disturbing tendency to create administrative positions and functions without a careful analysis, not just of the benefits of additional administrators but of the (costs) benefits foregone by choosing to allocate funds to those functions at the expense of other worthy initiatives.37

The College’s administration has recently emphasized the need to explain the “value proposition” of a Saint Mary’s College education to prospective students and their parents. Just as donors are reluctant to donate to non-profit organizations that divert significant funds away from their beneficiaries and towards bloated administrative functions, we are concerned that prospective students would be dismayed to learn how much of their tuition pays for operations that are only tangentially related to their education.

Because the CTF is proposing a significant change to the way that our students earn educational credits, perhaps it is time to explore ways to increase the educational return on their enormous investment in the College.

Respectfully submitted,

Kara Boatman

S. A. Cortright

Claude Rheal-Malary

37 Montini Fellow Dr. Richard Yanikoski offered some interesting insights in this regard in his campus visit last fall.


26

Report to the Senate - Saint Mary's College · Web viewReport to the Senate Calendar Task Force...

Documents

Transcript of Report to the Senate - Saint Mary's College · Web viewReport to the Senate Calendar Task Force...