Curriculum changes to be announced this week

This week, Dean of the Faculty Jon Chenette announced to the faculty the rationale for the reductions to the curriculum suggested by his office. Though details about course offerings for the 2010-2011 academic year are still being finalized, there are several initiatives that the College hopes will help it utilize its academic resources more wisely as the curriculum inevitably shrinks.

"This year, the process of consulting with chairs and directors about their requests took longer than usual, occupying much of October and ending only today," wrote Chenette in an e-mailed statement. "We knew we would need to turn down more requests than usual, and we wanted to be as well-informed as possible before making our decisions."

Though departments submit staffing plans at this time every year, this year's process has taken more time because of the reductions in the faculty budget that the College is pursuing for next year. According to Chenette, departments and programs requested 50 more course sections than are currently being offered during this academic year. "On average that means only one more course per department or program beyond what they have this year, but overall it adds up," said Chenette. The curriculum was reduced by about 60 sections for the 2009-2010 academic year, and Chenette estimates that it will have to be reduced by about 70 more for next year.

As Chenette explained in his Nov. 10 e-mail, the Office of the Dean of the Faculty finished responding to department chairs and program directors who had requested new faculty contracts and contract renewals for existing faculty members. Chairs and directors requested about 75 new faculty contracts, including an approximately equal number of requests for the renewal of contracts set to expire in 2010 and contracts for new faculty to be hired.

"Some departments and programs will still have decisions to make, which could take a few weeks," wrote Chenette. "The details of next year's curriculum and who will staff it will continue to evolve over the coming months, as faculty members' opportunities and commitments change. We should have the basics settled, though, by the end of this semester."

By the end of the week, Chenette plans to send an all-campus e-mail about his responses to staffing plans.

Process of decision-making

After submitting their staffing plans, the chairs and directors of all departments and programs met individually with Chenette and Associate Dean of the Faculty Marianne Begemann to go over their staffing requests. In several cases, Chenette presented shifts to the plan that he would make to the department chairs, who then had the opportunity to go back and consider his suggestions.

Departments with a significant number of adjunct faculty whose contracts are expiring will face the greatest number of course reductions as well as a decrease in the total number of faculty. "There are places where no reductions can take place because everyone is tenured or tenure-track. In those cases, we may need to ask some departments to provide more multidisciplinary staffing or contribute more freshman writing seminars after we've finished the initial responses to the staffing plans," said Chenette.

Department faculty do have a significant say in how any suggested reductions are distributed within the department, and Chenette explained that his ideal discussion might involve a compromise over the suggestions. For example, after hearing the suggestion to reduce its course offerings by one 300-level course in order to avoid the need for a new adjunct professor, one department proposed instead to cut one section of its introductory course, preferring larger class sizes at the 100-level to fewer seminar courses. This solution ultimately achieved the same staffing goal. "While I personally would have made a different choice—I would have said, ‘I think a year without that 300-level course would be okay'—and I would rather have smaller 100-level sections, their judgment was different," he said.

The preservation of introductory level courses, is a chief priority for both Chenette and Registrar Dan Giannini. "I'm more concerned with the level of the courses. I want to make sure that there are enough courses at the 100-level because that's the intro to the department. They cut out a few senior seminars that normally enroll 4 or 5 students, it's not a big issue," said Giannini. Giannini explained that ideally, reductions to the curriculum should not prevent a student from choosing a major and that they should affect the fewest number of students possible.

Chenette explained that feedback from departments and programs is essential to the process. "I'm perfectly willing to listen to alternative ideas that people have," he said. "We spend a half hour with most of the chairs and directors, and they've been living their curriculum for decades, so ultimately I know they understand better and may want to suggest something else."

Majors Committees and Student Voice

Chenette also stressed that student voice is important in making decisions about the curriculum. "Students' voices are heard in different ways. I think they're not heard enough, but one way they are heard is that we do pay attention to enrollment pressures," he said.
Chenette admitted, however, that the final enrollment numbers in given course sections are not an entirely reliable way to make student opinions heard, though. "That's not a perfect thing because we don't have total flexibility to cut the size of a department or increase the size of a department on the spur of the moment, and students make different decisions one year versus another year," he said. "So there is that unpredictability in the nature of the kind of curriculum Vassar offers."

To address this difficulty, Vassar Student Association (VSA) Vice President for Academics Stephanie Damon-Moore '11 is working to make sure students' opinions on the curriculum reach the administration by emphasizing the role of majors committees. Though she said that these might not be the appropriate venue for students to suggest which courses should be cut, she hopes that the committees will be a liaison between department chairs and their students.

"One of the reasons, and I would say the primary reason, I've been working so hard right now on majors committees is that I want majors committees to be where communication happens in the departments between department chairs, faculty and students," said Damon-Moore. "If you announce all the changes to the entire campus, you're going to have a lot of pointed fingers and useless conversations that don't benefit anybody."

The History Majors Committee is often regarded as one of the most active and successful in its organization. Damon-Moore noted their event planning for majors and prospective majors as an example of the role that the committee plays. "The role of the majors committee is to serve as a liaison between the students and the faculty, so if concerns are brought up, we would address them to the faculty. So far this year we haven't had many concerns," said History Department Intern and Chair of the History Majors Committee Morandi Hurst '10.

In some cases majors committees have taken an active role in engaging with curricular changes. Last year the English Majors Committee hosted a meeting after the announcement that two adjunct faculty members' contracts would not be renewed.
According to Chair of the English Majors Committee Mally Anderson '10, after changes are announced this year, "We'll host a meeting for people to ask questions but also discuss ways to make their opinions about faculty and curriculum changes heard and have a chance to collaborate with fellow English students in taking a stance."

Though Damon-Moore was hesitant to say that the role of committees should be to make suggestions to their departments as to how to cut or restructure, Chenette suggested that majors committees should have a large role in responding to the changes. "I will be especially vigilant in asking chairs and directors to work with their majors committees in those places where there are choices," he said. "It can't be that the students vote on their favorite teacher and that's what we do, but thoughtful input on how a particular person meets curricular need is very useful to the process."

At the Nov. 1 meeting of the VSA Council, Damon-Moore introduced a memorandum recommending that all departments have majors committees, which was sent out to all department chairs, Chenette and Dean of Planning and Academic Affairs Rachel Kitzinger. "Majors committees should also be a channel of communication from department chairs and program directors to students who are engaged with the department," it states. "At any time, but particularly in the current economic climate, it is imperative that students are well informed and provided with as much information as possible regarding their department."

Previous Cuts

Since last year, the College has become accustomed to the idea of cuts to the curriculum. The curriculum shrank by roughly 60 course sections for the 2009-2010 academic year, which did affect some departments more than others. Last year, many students and alumnae/i reacted to the news that the contracts of two adjunct English professors' contracts would not be renewed and a few departments, like the Computer Science Department, experienced a significant cut in the number of sections it could offer relative to its size.

The department was cut by two courses—six sections—after Associate Professor of Computer Science Tom Ellman became Director of the Media Studies Program. "One of the conditions the Computer Science Department requested when agreeing to release this person to the Media Studies Program was that the Computer Science courses normally taught by that person would be taught by visitors," said Chair of the Computer Science Department Jenny Walter, "At the time, the faculty member became the director of Media Studies, [Former Dean of the Faculty] Sharp agreed to hire adjuncts to teach the courses that were normally taught by the new Director of Media Studies. However, during the financial crisis last year, Dean Chenette decided not to honor the agreement and did not provide adjuncts to teach those courses."

"With two other faculty members on sabbatical during 2009-2010, the lack of adjuncts caused a 33 percent reduction in the number of courses normally taught by the Computer Science Department, the highest percentage of course reductions among any other department or program on campus," said Walter.

According to Chenette, "Enrollments in recent years suggested to us that they could offer almost the same curriculum with fewer sections of multi-section courses."

Walter disagreed with the use of course enrollment as justification for these decisions because, she said, the enrollments in the department fluctuate greatly and are presently on the rise.

Indeed, Chenette recognized that the department's courses experienced much higher enrollment than they had in the past few years. "This fall, they are enrolling a larger total number of students in 8 course sections than they did last fall in 12 sections. Average enrollments in Computer Science courses appear to have increased dramatically since last year, and we are likely to need to add sections back for 2010-11 in response," Chenette wrote in an e-mailed statement. According to Walter, this is good news for the department. Computer Science will be able to hire three adjunct faculty members,, replacing one faculty member who will be on sabbatical, to teach courses that would otherwise be cut.

The disparity between the past enrollments of the department and the current enrollments in its sections demonstrates the difficulty of predicting the popularity of courses. The Computer Science Department's diminished staffing, which was in part a result of the department's connection with a multidisciplinary program, also embodies a discussion that has been surfacing at the College as to how to staff the courses of multi- and interdisciplinary courses, which do not house a group of faculty of their own.

Cross-Listing Courses

To alleviate the strain of curricular reductions on both departments and programs, many areas are endeavoring to cross-list as many courses as possible, increasing the variety of courses in both multidisciplinary programs and professors' home departments. "I have made a concerted effort to cross-list more courses," said Associate Professor of History and Director of Women's Studies Lydia Murdoch. Murdoch is also a participating faculty member in the Victorian Studies and Urban Studies Programs. For the Women's Studies Program's spring course offerings, Murdoch cross-listed five courses for the first time, so rather than simply counting towards the Women's Studies major as approved courses, these five courses are now formally recognized as Women's Studies courses. However, she also stressed that each program approaches cross-listing differently.

Ellman also addressed the difficulties of getting faculty to teach in multidisciplinary programs and the importance of cross-listing. "Departments become less willing to lend faculty to programs, so directors like me have to work harder to find people to staff their courses. Fortunately, in Media Studies we've been able to staff the courses we need to teach," he wrote in an e-mailed statement.

"It's hard for a small department to give up one of its members to teach in a multidisciplinary program because we have so few faculty members," said Walter. "I know the Computer Science Department would like to have more multidisciplinary connections if we could be sure that the department did not experience reductions in course offerings as a result."

One reason for cross-listing more courses is the possibility of a resistance within departments to release faculty members to teach courses in a multidisciplinary program, though Giannini explained that this was not actually major concern. "If we offer a program in media studies or international studies or whatever, you've made a commitment to the department and to the students that you're going to offer the courses necessary," said Giannini.

"Cross-listing doesn't really create additional seats. It's a way of advertising courses to different constituencies," said Giannini. "Let's say you have a relatively small department, relatively small number of majors in the department, and you were offering a course that could benefit majors in another department, then it makes perfect sense to offer the course and to cross-list the course with another department or two."

According to Associate Dean of Planning and Academic Affairs Tom Porcello, multidisciplinary programs rely partially on cross-listed courses, but they also rely on courses housed within departments. "I think the multidisciplinary programs are concerned mainly about two things," he said. "One is, will we be able to continue to get faculty released by their departments to teach the courses that originate in the multidisciplinary programs? And second, what are departments ultimately going to decide about what courses they're no longer going to teach, or teach as frequently? That could make it hard for multidisciplinary programs to know whether the courses that they rely on from departments are going to be offered regularly enough or are going to disappear from the catalog."

Porcello was involved in the creation of the Media Studies Program at Vassar and explained that when the program first started, there was pressure to make sure that the new program would not expand the curriculum, so it has relied on courses already offered by the College since its inception. The only practical difference he saw between cross-listed courses and approved courses is that a certain percentage of seats are saved for majors from each department or program when the course is cross-listed.

More than preserving programs, cross-listing some courses simply makes sense. "It's been largely a very autonomous culture here where individual departments and individual faculty members decide what they want to teach and don't necessarily have that high of an awareness that there are similar things being taught in another department or in a multidisciplinary program," said Chenette. "I think this is part of a bigger need at the College for more conversation about what each other are doing and more awareness of the fact that we're all in this together."

"Cross-listing is something that happens a little bit at random based on who's thinking about it and who's working toward it, so there are a lot of courses that are cross-listed and that make a lot of sense and that people benefit from," said Damon-Moore. "There are a lot of courses that could be cross-listed and aren't, either because people genuinely have an objection to them being cross-listed, or—and I think this happens more—because nobody's sitting down and thinking, ‘what could I cross-list this with?'"

Though thematically a cross-listing might make sense, in order to cross-list a course all departments and programs involved must agree that the course would be beneficial to their majors, which sometimes conflicts with the practical requirements. For example, any course cross-listed with the History Department must be taught by a trained historian, which often means a History Department faculty member.

Walter said that cross-listing courses was preferable to having faculty leave the already small Computer Science Department to teach in multidisciplinary programs. "That's hard because, for the department, you have to give up a person or a half of a person or a third of a person," she said. "I guess our department has a commitment to the Media Studies Program because of what Professor Ellman has done, and I know we'd like to have more multidisciplinary connections if we just had more people to teach the courses that also need to be taught."

She continued to say that the Computer Science Department would be cross-listing more courses in the future, but there are disciplinary considerations for each cross-listed course. "In the future I think we're going to be reaching out and there's going to be a lot more interconnection between our department and what we teach in other areas that aren't in the sciences," she said, "but you've got to make sure that you keep it rigorous enough that both types of students who are taking it actually benefit and get enough out of it."

Schedule of Classes and Team Teaching

As the College looks to make cuts across the curriculum, it has also seen the need to use its curricular resources wisely, namely, how team teaching and shifts in the weekly schedule of classes might help alleviate pressures in some departments. The Office of the Dean of the Faculty as well as the Committee on Curricular Policies (CCP) have been exploring both issues in recent meetings. Though changes to the schedule are unlikely to come soon, both Chenette and Giannini expressed hope that they would be able to tackle conflicts with 50-minute morning sections of foreign language classes that frequently conflict with two 75-minute course periods.

"Change is not something people do easily. When you look at moving courses into areas that reduce conflicts you're talking either early-morning, late afternoon or Friday, none of which students or faculty are particularly fond of," said Giannini. Besides the 50-minute sections, CCP also recognized the difficulty that the College has scheduling lab classes.

One proposal to add an extra lab section is to move the period on Wednesday afternoons—a time in which courses are otherwise not allowed to be scheduled—to Friday afternoons, though Chenette worried that this would be an unpopular change. "The other, I think, would be a less hard sell—trying to align the 75-minute long classes so that they start at the same time in the morning rather than having 75-minute classes that overlap with two different hour-long class times. There we would actually lose some class sections time slots, but we would have fewer conflicts between classes," said Chenette.

Chenette and the CCP have also been reviewing proposals for team-taught courses, in which two faculty from different academic backgrounds collaborate to teach a course, more carefully this year. "We're applying some pressure for people to articulate why is it really important to team teach. And CCP is also taking up this issue," said Chenette. He added that a subcommittee of CCP is "working on the rationales for team teaching that justify putting two teaching load equivalencies into one course and then considering whether we should have a process of approval of team teaching just to make sure that we do it thoughtfully and carefully."

Giannini explained the importance of perspective over the entirety of the College's curricular resources as decisions are made. "When you're looking to make decisions that use the resources that the College has as economically as possible, you try to look at everything—what are we doing that's efficient, what are we doing that's maybe not so efficient that we can do differently. Team teaching, number of sections, enrollment, all of those things go into those decisions," said Giannini.