The Moon Room

A Community Forum on Guilford College Faculty Life

Ad Hoc Curriculum Review Committee Notes from April 3, 2015

April 10th, 2015

Ad Hoc General Education Review Committee

4/3/15

Moment of Silence

Reviewed data from CIRP analysis.  Further analysis requested, including disaggregation of CCE and Traditional students, separation of levels of answers for interpretation.

Brief overview of NSSE data – work continuing on this

Review of analysis of Faculty survey results

Identification of “hotspots” of concern

Qualitative summary of satisfaction answers. General call to explore examples of schools who have successfully revised Gen Ed curriculum and schools who have not been successful to identify lessons learned.

Qualitative summary of dissatisfaction answers.

(All data online)

Discussion regarding FYE. We looked at Agnes Scott College website related to successful FYE program. Identified previous FYE programs that focused on leadership training and the idea of bookending the skills at the senior level in a capstone course.  It is clear that the current FYS process/program at Guilford is not working as there is no common syllabus and each faculty who agrees to teach it produces his/her own course.

Discussion regarding next steps and how to move forward with the task of the committee:

  • Continue with data analysis, including adding the Senior Survey and Faculty Survey of Student Engagement (FSSE) data as appropriate.
  • The committee identified several “hotspots” in the curriculum that are clearly evident in the preliminary data:
    • Greatest Concern:
      • FYS/FYE
      • Foreign Language
      • Quantitative Literacy
    • Moderate Concern:
      • Historical Perspectives (writing sequence in general, particularly in the proliferation of Writing 101 courses taught that were not included in the original curricular design as presented in the English 101/102 trend data)
      • Critical Perspectives – most concern in diversity, followed by social justice and then interpersonal
      • IDS – concern that these are not as interdisciplinary as intended, no common outcomes
    • Of Least Concern:
      • Breadth requirements – generally responses were positive in this area
    • Timeline discussed
      • Tasks
        • Finalize report of data
        • Write Report
      • Due date
        • By end of April, to be presented at the last Faculty Meeting of the year
      • Guidelines and Ideas for structure of report
        • Create a short preliminary report to present to Clerks Committee. Ask for feedback to determine if a more robust report is necessary, or if a shorter report fulfills the requirements of this committee’s charter
        • There is clear indication that a revision is warranted
        • Report should suggest a method for revision without prescription – include committee structure and support necessary for success
        • Report should highlight key findings
        • Report should organize around the concerns identified above
        • Explore the necessity of mapping GELOs to curriculum
        • Explore the general education program at peer/aspirant institutions

Next meeting: 4/10/15 @ 12:45

End

Alternate comparison groups for salaries

April 10th, 2015

I’ve heard from several places on campus that we shouldn’t be comparing faculty salaries to AAUP IIB when we look at percentiles for faculty salaries. I think that’s a perfectly reasonable question to raise, although I’m not sure I agree. We want to compare ourselves to institutions like ours when we try to figure out where we are. However, we should be sure we’re changing our peer group because it’s actually a closer peer match, not just so our numbers look better, and if we’re going to consider changing the comparison group for faculty, we should also change it for staff and administrators.

One group that’s been suggested by some is colleges in North Carolina that are four-year private colleges that don’t offer graduate degrees. One problem is that there aren’t many such colleges in the state, so it’s not a large group – less than 20 – and some of them are very unlike Guilford in terms of size, budget, student preparation, and mission. Most are much smaller, have much lower budgets and endowments, and have a significantly lower preparation level for incoming students. However, if we use this group for faculty salary comparisons, our salaries are often in the top half of the list, and in some categories higher. This is a point made by an anonymous commenter to our page for the forum on a salary policy. A later anonymous commenter provided a link to data:

I am not sure where Anonymous at 4:53 is getting their information but looking at the AAUP salary data http://chronicle.com/article/2013-14-AAUP-Faculty-Salary/145679#id=table

Full professors at Guilford are at #6 out of 16 for salary at private baccalaureate institutions in NC

Associate professors at Guilford are at #8 out of 16 for salary at private baccalaureate institutions in NC

Assistant professors at Guilford are #8 out of 16 for salary at private baccalaureate institutions in NC

I did some further research using IPEDS data, which is a government database that collects information from colleges and universities. It is not without its problems in terms of consistency of reporting, but it’s at least a baseline comparison. I tried to look at how much of a priority faculty salaries were at each North Carolina baccalaureate institution in their budget, and this is the comparison I came up with:

Salary Comparison

As you can see, Guilford is at the lower end of North Carolina colleges in terms of percent of overall budget spent on instruction, which seems to me to support the idea that regardless of comparison group, we have prioritized faculty salaries at a lower level than other colleges. If we spent 28-30% of our total budget on faculty salaries instead of 23%, our faculty pay rates would have met the 50th percentile goal compared to AAUP IIB that we’ve put in our strategic plans.

That’s not to say that this would have been possible, or smart, or that staff haven’t also suffered from low pay, but numerically, it is interesting.

 

Alternate administrative structures – Williams College

April 9th, 2015

Anders Selhorst sent me the following as an e-mail, and I asked if I could post it here. He agreed.


In light of the conversation yesterday, I think it might be helpful for faculty and College leadership to look at other models for our College administrative positions. There are other models that not only leverage the talents of senior faculty but also nurture the culture of faculty service for the College but in an administrative function.

I am not sure if I mentioned this to you, but Williams College appoints senior faculty to dean and provost level posts for three year terms–each is released from teaching responsibilities during that time. There are three rotating faculty that serve as part of the nine senior staff, which include the Dean of the College, Dean of the Faculty, and the Provost. Each serving faculty member in such a role does not make a salary above that of a full professor. The Williams College model has helped keep their manager salaries low and overall personnel costs low–which have fallen by 12% over the past 12 years. See the 2:39 minute mark in this video:

This is remarkable especially since our management costs have risen over that same time period. There are also other benefits to this model that senior faculty could more adequately speak to, for which I can not, and I welcome their input.

This alternative management structure not only keeps salaries at a reasonable rate for faculty serving in administrative roles, but it also reinforces faculty leadership of the college. The term limit of three years also allows for regular intervals where new ideas are introduced, provides more sunlight and transparency of the work of administration and the board of trustees, and allows for greater distribution of shared-leadership responsibilities across all senior faculty.

The salary savings created by adopting this model would lead to more money available to provide greater salary money to correct current flaws in the pay-scale across all faculty and staff levels. But, some of this savings could also be targeted for hiring outside consultants for guidance during challenging times, in a temporary capacity. This model seems like a more sustainable model for small liberal arts colleges.

Please advise if you need more details.

Thanks.

Anders

Ad Hoc Committee on Curriculum Review Agenda for Friday, April 10, 2015

April 9th, 2015

Ad Hoc General Education Curriculum Review Committee

Friday, April 10, 12:45 p.m.

Study Abroad/Career Development Conference Room, King Hall

Agenda

 

  1. Moment of silence

 

  1. Approval of notes from last meeting, 4/3/15; note taker for this meeting

 

  1. Further student thoughts on general education from CIRP and NSSE—Rich & Stephanie

 

  1. Update on faculty survey analysis (thematic)—Marc, Rich, Heather

 

  1. Possible data on opinions of gen. ed. courses from student course evaluations–Stephanie

 

  1. Preliminary report draft deadline?

 

  1. Determine next meeting

Approved changes to academic honor code

April 7th, 2015

On Monday, Clerk’s approved two changes to the academic honor code. We elected to follow section 1.400 of the faculty handbook, which says:

Recommendations regarding routine policy coming from College committees shall appear in the Beacon, published weekly during the academic year. Unless challenged within thirty (30) calendar days, excluding holidays and summer recess, by petition of one (1) or more faculty or staff members, the policies will be considered approved and binding upon the College

We will be publishing these in the Beacon, but I wanted to share them here in case you have any questions.

Approved Changes:

Current Honor Code

Standard Sanctions for Academic Honor Code Violations:

First offense: F or zero on the assignment.

Second offense: F in the course, if any, or, if not, a comparable sanction (as determined by the Associate Academic Dean).

Third offense: F in the course and Suspension or Dismissal from Guilford College.

  • NOTE: Instructors may direct specific, even if more severe, penalties for academic honor code violations in any particular course that he or she is teaching or activity / assignment for which they are responsible. Such penalties should be specified in the course syllabus or in some other written form of communication from the instructor to the students in that course or activity.

Proposed Changes (marked in red)

Standard Sanctions for Academic Honor Code Violations:

First offense: F or zero on the assignment.

Second offense: F in the course, if any, or, if not, a comparable sanction (as determined by the Associate Academic Dean). If a student receives a sanction of “F in the course,” the student may not withdraw from this course with a grade of “W” even if the student requests this withdrawal within the withdrawal period.

Third offense: F in the course and [Remove: Suspension or] Dismissal from Guilford College.

  • NOTE: Instructors may specify on the course syllabus that a first offense will result in failure in the course.

Ad Hoc Admission Committee Meeting Minutes, February 19, 2015

April 6th, 2015

Ad Hoc Admission Committee

February 19, 2015 Meeting Minutes

 

Attendees: Barb Boyette, Tom Guthrie, Kami Rowan, Steve Shapiro, Andy Strickler, Wenling Wang (minute recorder)

The committee’s discussion centered on the prospective meeting with Jane and what to talk with her during the meeting. The points raised in our discussion include:

  • Future of this committee
    • We agree that admission and faculty need to work together and the Admission Committee can be a good link between the two groups.
    • Role and charge: We agree that this committee will be a bridge between faculty and admission, but what will be the specific tasks and responsibilities?
    • Membership: Who will be the members in this committee?

Before developing the proposal for a standing admission committee, we’d like to get more information and input from Jane. Hopefully we’ll have more clarity following our meeting with her and our subsequent discussion.

  • As Ad Hoc admission committee, what we’ve done and are doing now for admission
  • Changes occurring in admission, such as integration of CCE and traditional admission process
  • Future direction of the college
    • Task force on adult education
    • Curriculum review
    • New strategic planning efforts
    • “Who we are”: how to distinguish us from others? Focus on 2 or 3 things we can do really well and that’s what Guilford stands for. Andy talked about diversity as an example (you can notice it on campus and it’s also measurable).
    • Retention efforts

 

To summarize, the two most important things we want to talk with Jane include 1) what we’ve done and 2) what we need to know before developing the proposal for a standing admission committee. Steve will make an appointment with Jane and we may also include clerk’s committee in this conversation.

 

 

 

The Moon Room

A Community Forum on Guilford College Faculty Life