WORCESTER POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE Faculty Meeting Minutes November 16, 2006 1. Call to Order The Faculty Meeting of November 16, 2006 was called to order at 3:19 p.m. in Olin 107 by Secretary of the Faculty, Professor Helen G. Vassallo. 2. President’s Remarks President Berkey spoke on the Report of the Board Meeting, the construction in Gateway Park, and the proposed residence hall which is tentatively slated for completion in August 2008. He also described the President’s Vision Statement (which was distributed in draft form to the Chairs of the Governance Committees, the Secretary of the Faculty, and Department Heads) and asked for feedback on this draft. 3. Provost’s Remarks Provost Simpson spoke about the upcoming renovations to Goddard and Salisbury Labs. She mentioned the search for the Associate Dean for the 1st Year Experience, and encouraged faculty to attend discussions with the candidates. Provost Simpson announced that discussions have begun with faculty regarding space use on campus. She encouraged the faculty to contact Jeff Solomon or herself with comments or ideas. Provost Simpson announced the development of a commission to look into the possibility of the formation of schools at WPI. This commission is looking for feedback from the faculty. Lastly, Provost Simpson encouraged everyone to attend the Masque performance of OUR TOWN. 4. Secretary of the Faculty Vassallo asked for a motion to conduct the nominating ballots for one open position on the Committee for Governance. The motion passed. There was a five minute recess for this process. While Parliamentarian Hanlan and Professor Gennert were collecting the ballots, Vassallo asked for approval of the minutes from the meeting of October 5, 2006. The minutes were approved. 5. Committee Reports Professor Mark Richman, for the Committee on Governance, with the agreement of CGSR and CAP, moved approval of the Degree Revocation Policy. (See Addendum 1 attached to the file copy of these minutes.) The motion passed. Professor Jonathan Barnett, for the Committee on Academic Operations, moved on behalf of the Aerospace Engineering Program, changes to the distribution requirements. (See Addendum 2 attached to the file copy of these minutes.) The motion passed. Professor Barnett moved on behalf of the Mechanical Engineering Department, changes to the distribution requirements for the Thermal-Fluids and Aerospace Engineering Concentrations. (See Addendum 3 attached to the file copy of these minutes.) These two motions passed. Professor Barnett moved on behalf of the IMGD major, changes to the distribution requirements for Computer Art and Computer Music. (See Addendum 4 attached to the file copy of these minutes.) These two motions passed. Professor Barnett moved on behalf of the Biology & Biotechnology Department, adoption of new distribution requirements, including the dropping of concentrations. (See Addendum 5 attached to the file copy of these minutes.) The motion passed.
1
Professor Barnett moved on behalf of the Biomedical Engineering Department, the addition of a new course in Biomechanics. (See Addendum 6 attached to the file copy of these minutes.) The motion passed. Professor Barnett moved on behalf of the Mechanical Engineering Department, the addition of three new courses. He stated that under the Rationale, the motion should have stated “It combines material from two courses that are dropped in Motion 3”. Professor Savilonis asked what would happen to existing students, if dropping the degree requirements started in 2007. Professor Gatsonis responded that those cases would be handled on an individual basis. The motion passed. Professor Barnett then moved approval of revised course descriptions and renumbering for ME 4715 to ME 3712, a change in the course level from a senior course to a junior level course. The motion passed. He then moved to drop four ME courses. The motion passed. (See Addendum 7 attached to the file copy of these minutes.) Professor Barnett moved, on behalf of the Electrical and Computer Engineering Department, to change the title and description of ECE 4304. (See Addendum 8 attached to the file copy of these minutes.) The motion passed. Professor Kent Rissmiller, for the Committee on Academic Policy, Professor Barnett, for the Committee on Academic Operations, and Professor Gennert, discussed the proposal for an interdisciplinary major in Robotics Engineering, sponsored by Mechanical Engineering, Electrical and Computer Engineering and Computer Science. This program would use course material from all three departments to satisfy degree requirements. A friendly amendment was offered by Professor Gennert to adjust certain of the distribution requirements. (See attached) Professor Rissmiller described the program as unique among undergraduate programs. The program would require some new faculty would be added as needed and this major would presently have twenty-one associated faculty. After extended discussion, and questions raised from Professors Saeed, Savilonis, Vaz and Ryder, the motion passed. (See Addendum 9 attached to the file copy of these minutes for the original motion and all amendments made from the floor.) Professor Dalin Tang, for the Committee on Graduate Studies and Research, moved to change the BS/MS Degree Requirements, by eliminating the requirement that the MS portion must be fulfilled as a full-time student. Professor Tang urged that should the motion pass, individual departments should pass time requirements as quickly as possible. A lengthy discussion ensued. Professor Tryggvason urged approval. Professors Vernescu, Simpson and Hoffman voiced concern that the MS portion could be continued for an inordinate of time as the motion was presently written. Professor Barnett moved an amendment to the motion to state: “The MS portion of the program must be completed within a three-year period.” Professor Gennert made a friendly amendment to change “three-year period” to “four-year period”. Professor Barnett accepted the friendly amendment. The motion for the amendment “The MS portion of the program must be completed within a four-year period” passed. After a question from Professor Richman, regarding time-frames within departments, the original motion to drop the “full-time” requirement passed. (See Addendum 10 attached to the file copy of these minutes.) Professor Tang moved on behalf of the Electrical and Computer Engineering Department, approval of a new course. Professor Craig wills asked whether this course would have required background. Professor Rick Brown stated that the only required background would be Probability. Professor Brown also made a friendly amendment to include this requirement, ECE 502 in the motion. The motion passed. (See Addendum 11 attached to the file copy of these minutes.) Professor Tang then moved, on behalf of the Computer Science Department, the following four motions: Motion 1. Changes to CS Graduate Theory courses. The motion passed. Motion 2. Changes to CS Algorithms Courses. The motion passed.
2
Motion 3. Changes to the Ph.D. Degree breadth requirements. A brief discussion ensued, with questions by Professors Savilonis, Ryder and Gatsonis. Professor Wills responded to those questions. The motion passed. Motion 4. Changes to the MS Degree core area requirements. The motion passed. (See Addendum 12 attached to the file copy of these minutes.) 6. New Business Professor Gennert invited the faculty members to engage in a discussion on making SAT’s optional for admission of undergraduates at WPI. Professor David Dollenmayer asked if there would be some other mechanism to assess students’ strengths and weaknesses. Kristin Tichenor stated that currently, an essay is required and this requirement will continue. Additionally, she indicated that institutions that have adopted an SAT optional admissions policy continued to receive an SAT from students who apply. Professor Rulf asked that if the SAT were not required, would some other additional material be required. Tichenor responded that there are numerous other possibilities. Including submitting high school work of which the student is especially proud. This results in a range of responses which can give valuable information as to the drive of the respective students. Professor Gennert indicated that presently we require different materials from international students. Professor Gatsonis asked several questions: How many of our competitors are doing this? What will it do to our rankings if we get rid of the hard work of the SAT? Tichenor responded that the SAT is not seen as representative of “hard work” and that of major universities, only the University of Texas has done so. Tichenor added that in those schools which have dropped the SAT requirement for the application process, the average of the submitted SAT scores had risen. Tichenor indicated that the process could actually make WPI more selective and that, at present, WPI would be acting from a position of strength, rather than of weakness. Professor Banks indicated that it is his understanding that the quantitative portion of the SAT is a good predictor of the student’s future success in math courses. Tichenor responded that the data available for general first year success and the SAT indicates no correlation, but that she did not have the data on success in specific courses. Professor Ryder indicated that perhaps the SATs actually being submitted were from better students and that the dropping of the SAT requirement was not a causative factor in the higher SAT scores among those submitted. President Berkey queried as to “Isn’t it true that the SAT scores have to be ultimately submitted, just not as part of the application process?” Tichenor indicated that although the SAT would not be required for the application process, it would be required for matriculation. Thus the data would be available for “submitted” and “non-submitted” SAT scores. Professor Orr indicated that ion his opinion, the community could agree as to why WPI would change its policy, namely to attract higher quality students and improve the applicant pool. He then asked “Will it? Since none of WPI’s competitors are doing it, it could be an interesting and perhaps newsworthy experiment. Could you comment on that? What is the basis for comfort in that direction? Tichenor responded by referring the question to Chris Hardwick, who indicated that the change should be made for the right reasons, not as a publicity move. Tichenor indicated that Hardwick had previously indicated that such a move would have to be discussed thoroughly in the light of what is right for WPI. Holy Cross has made the SAT optional in the application process, on the basis that it is the right move for Holy Cross. It would have to be determined whether such a move is right for WPI. Professor Notarianni indicated that she had originally been opposed to the action, but had changed her mind. It is her opinion that doing so would allow the Institute to view each student more holistically, asking whether the student was right for WPI’s project-based education. Professor Gennert announced that the hour and twenty minute faculty meeting limit had been reached. Lacking a quorum, the meeting could not be extended. Faculty were then invited to discuss this topic informally after the meeting, if they so wished. 7. The meeting was adjourned at 4:40 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Helen G. Vassallo
3
Secretary of the Faculty On File with these minutes:
U
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.
8. 9. 10. 11. 12.
COG, Degree Revocation Policy CAO, Aerospace Engineering Distribution Requirement Changes CAO, ME Distribution Requirement Changes CAO, IMGD Distribution Requirement Changes CAO, BB Distribution Requirement Changes CAO, BE New Course CAO, ME New Courses, Revised Course Description, and Dropping Courses
CAO, ECE Course Title and Description Change CAP, Robotics Engineering Major CGSR, BS/MS Degree Requirements CGSR, ECE New Course CGSR, CS Graduate Course, Algorithm Course, Ph.D. Degree & MS Degree Changes
4
