Feel free to use this space to discuss the topics and ideas raised at the January 31 meeting, or any other faculty business. You may post anonymously if you wish.
One notecard was left at the meeting, signed by Ben Marlin:
OK, I went to the Art and Science presentation. I don’t recall numbers – could someone post their PowerPoint? I seem to recall numbers that were [not] all that statistically significant, but maybe I’m wrong.
I thought Art and Science talked to the people who did not come, not our students.
Thanks to all of you who spoke from both the head and the heart at today’s meeting. I’m still not sure why it’s not clear that the 12/3 could be harmful/hurtful. We are willing to work hard, innovate, re-tool our curriculum, and acccomplish this and other initiatives while doing our regular work over the next year or so. I’m just not clear why 1/4 of the courses we teach (and students take) need to be in the 3-week format or why we need to speed up what is already an intensive semester (going from14 or 15 weeks to 12) in order to make this 3-week space happen twice every year.
I would like to reiterate the points that I made in faculty meeting, re: the 12/3 calendar and the Early College. We need to keep the following in mind:
–Many ECG students rely on the county-provided bus service, with arrival on campus at 9:00 AM and departure at 3:45 PM.
–ECG students cannot participate in study abroad or away programs as part of their regular course load.
–They need a certain amount of flexibility so that they can continue to participate in extracurricular activities that are important to their growth, e.g., team sports and competitive clubs.
–They will want course options that are transferable to other four-year colleges.
The Early College is a vital and vibrant part of our community. I urge us to make sure that our partnership remains strong. However we move forward, me must accommodate their needs in order to keep them a part of our community.
In reply to Ben – I think that part of the projection was not provided as a written document. I do have a report from November 27, 2016, about when they began making public presentations on campus includes a reference to these numbers:
These numbers are echoed with not much more detail in the summary document (“Position and Pricing Study”) that we got last spring. I can share that if you want it. The projections come from the prospective students’ responses to hypothetical colleges that include various components, including collaborative learning, relative to their responses to colleges that include business-as-usual alternatives.
So it was talking to prospective students only, and not current students? Also, all I see are predictions based on vague description, no statistics/rigorous research at all. I vaguely recall seeing something along the lines of statistics kinds of data, so I wanted to clarify/followup on Ben’s thing.
Secondly, to piggyback rather than reply directly – what I don’t see, and don’t recall seeing, is anything that says ’12/3 is an essential part of what you have to do in order to survive’. It seems disingenuous to say that A&S marketing research justifies the part of the plan that is clearly the most harmful to faculty morale, and seems to have a high potential to be harmful to students, when it doesn’t mention it.