|
TO THE MEMBERS OF SUMMARY OF ACTIONS, JUNE 12
At its meeting on Thursday, June 12, 2003, the Thirty-fifth Senate of the Academic Council heard reports and took the following actions: 1. By unanimous voice vote, conferred baccalaureate degrees on the Spring Quarter candidates listed in Senate Document #5473, as recommended by the Committee on Undergraduate Standards and Policies. 2. By unanimous voice vote, also conferred the various advanced degrees on the Spring Quarter candidates listed in Senate Document #5474, as recommended by the Committee on Graduate Studies. EDWARD D. HARRIS, JR., M.D. Academic Secretary to the University MINUTES, JUNE 12
I. Call to Order Chairman Greely gaveled the meeting to order at 3:18 p.m. and immediately called for approval of the minutes. There were 41 voting members, 13 ex-officios and several guests in attendance. II. Approval of Minutes SenD#5469, the minutes of the Senate meeting on May 29, 2003, were approved as submitted. III. Action Calendar Professor Greely greeted the action calendar with joy. "This is the meeting of the year when we have the largest and, I think, the most joy-bringing action calendar. We confer degrees upon thousands of students!" In short order, SenD#5473, the list of candidates for the baccalaureate degree, and SenD#5474, the list of candidates for advanced degrees submitted by C-USP and C-GS, respectively, were approved by the Senate unanimously, although with the caveats being thrown in by Registrar Printup. He did not want to rain on anyone's commencement plans, but pointed out that five percent of the grades for students had not yet been submitted to him, and that Sunday happiness would be contingent on those appearing in his office. The Chair said, "Just to make the implicit message explicit, any of who you still have grades outstanding, get them in fast, as soon as the meeting is over. There will be no reception until all your grades are in!" IV. Standing Reports A. Memorial Resolution Chairman Greely was pleased to welcome Professor of Economics Ron McKinnon to present a memorial statement in honor of his colleague, Moses Abramovitz. Professor McKinnon spoke. "Moses Abramovitz, William Robertson Coe Professor of American Economic History, Emeritus, died December 1st, 2000 at Stanford University Hospital just one month before reaching his 89th birthday. Known by his family, friends and colleagues as "Moe," Abramovitz was one of the primary builders of the department of economics. He taught at Stanford for almost 30 years, taking leave only during 1962-63 to work as economic advisor to the Secretary General of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development in Paris. He served as chair from 1963 to 1965, and from 1971 to 1974, both critical junctures in the department's history. During his tenure at Stanford and after his retirement in 1976, Moe gained international renown and admiration for his pioneering contributions to the study of long-term economic growth. Moe was born in Brooklyn, New York, to a Romanian Jewish immigrant family. After graduating from Erasmus Hall High School, he entered Harvard College in 1928. Like many of his generation, Moe's interest in economics was stimulated by the experience of the Great Depression. In 1932, he continued his undergraduate studies in the subject at Columbia University, where he received his Ph.D. in 1939. At Columbia, Moe began a lifelong friendship with Milton Friedman. In later years, Moe liked to joke that he had been debating with Freedman for more than 50 years and consistently winning,...except when Milton was present. This anecdote and many others may be found in a charming memoir that Moe completed shortly before his death, "Days Gone By," accessible on Stanford University's Department of Economics Website. Mr. Chairman, it is an honor on behalf of a committee consisting of professors Paul A. David, Gavin Wright and Ronald McKinnon to lay before the Senate of the Academic Council a resolution in memory of the late Moses Abramovitz, William Robertson Coe Professor in the Department of Economics." Chairman Greely thanked Professor McKinnon and his colleagues, and led the Senate in a traditional moment of silence. B. Steering Committee This was Professor Greely's last chance, last opportunity to express himself and share his thoughts with the Senate. He first said, "I'd like to say that for any Senators who always felt nervous having their immediate supervisors here in the form of the deans or the not-so-immediate supervisors in the form of the President and Provost, I am happy to welcome today approximately twenty members of the Board of Trustees, the immediate supervisors of the President and the Provost." Neither the President nor the Provost appeared worried or nervous. "Second," he continued, "the Senate Steering Committee, on June 3rd, ably chaired in my absence by Deborah Gordon, decided unanimously, with the assent of both Ewart Thomas and Hester Gelber, to put off our discussion from last time on possible changes in the General Education Requirements until next fall. Once we realized that the recommended changes weren't to go into effect until the fall of 2004, and that we had a short but full meeting today, it was a very easy decision to dump it on our successors, Tom Wasow as Chair, and Senate XXXVI. "Third, I want to remind all of you that the University Commencement is this coming Sunday morning. You are all invited. In fact, not only are you invited, but elected members of the Faculty Senate are select individuals who have to lead the faculty procession. So show up in your full academic regalia! "Last, you will no doubt be dismayed to learn that I have some closing comments, which may seem to go on for two hours, but I hope will only last for about four minutes. I want to talk about three related items: (1) my biggest disappointment this year in the Senate; (2) my biggest worry about the future of the Senate; and (3) my greatest hope for the future of the Senate. At the first Senate meeting, I laid out a very ambitious list of agenda topics that I hoped we would discuss and accomplish. I think I said that we'd be lucky to cover two-thirds of them, and that is about right. My disappointment is that the one I think is the most important we did not approach. I believe that the most important issue in the next several decades for all research universities, Stanford and others, is going to be how to do interdisciplinary work, both interdisciplinary teaching and interdisciplinary research. The issue is actually much broader than IDPs and goes to some basic questions of academic organization. Perhaps it is because I am from a school without departments, and the other school I know best, the School of Medicine, has many departments where almost everyone is doing molecular biology, whatever their department. "I have a serious question about whether departments as the basic organization of academic life continues to make sense. I didn't find a way to bring it up this year. I certainly hope it will come up in the future, because I think it's a question that all research universities are going to struggle with for some time to come. "I talked about my biggest worry with my wife, whose advice is always right. She said, 'Don't scold the Senate on your last day!' But I can't help it! Attendance for Senate XXXV stunk! There are 55 elected members of the Senate. On average, 35 showed up for each meeting, 64 percent. For three of our 14 meetings to date, we had 30 or fewer elected senators, and our quorum is 28. Most senators showed up for more than two-thirds of meetings. But 15 senators were here for only half or fewer of our meetings. One senator made it to four meetings out of 14. Two were here for three meetings out of 14. And one senator had a dreadful attendance record, arriving at only two meetings out of 14. "I understand that we are all busy. I also understand that 'life happens.' One very diligent senator had family health problems and missed almost all the meetings in spring quarter. That was not her fault, and we understand those things. The Senate needs to have better attendance in order to continue to function. Being elected a senator is a great honor, but it also is a responsibility. My request and recommendation for senators in Senate XXXVI and those following is, if you don't think you can come to two-thirds of the meetings, you really should decline the honor of being on the Senate. If two-thirds of the meetings were a general benchmark that Senators thought they needed to attend in order to fulfill their duties, Senate attendance would be in an acceptable range. "I worry about this particularly because of the discussion we had from the Faculty Senate chair at Berkeley. You will remember that she said that their elected Senate disappeared more than a decade ago because of poor attendance. Berkeley has lost something.... I think this public forum, where any questions can be put to the President, to the Provost, to others in the administration, and to each other, is a very valuable one for the University. I would hate to see us lose that. "Having complained a little bit, having scolded, I do want to pass out three gold stars. There were three with perfect attendance. I'm glad to see all of them are here today. Fifteen for 15 were Pat Burchat from Physics, Pat Jones from Biology, and breaking both the string of Pats and the string of women, from Computer Science...John Hennessy!" There was abundant applause for President Hennessy, who exclaimed, "I beat the Senate chair!" Greely could not resist pointing out that President Hennessy "beat the Academic Secretary (who attended two sessions by conference call), but not the wonderful Laura Brewer, court reporter. Congratulations to you three professors! These are records to emulate for everyone who's going to be in Senate XXXVI. "The last point is my hope for the future. The Senate, as I said at the first meeting, uses itself best when it puts on the agenda topics for discussion that may not lead to a Senate vote because the Senate may not have any jurisdiction over such topics, but that discussion of them may lead to thinking or re-thinking about them in ways that, in the long run, will nudge the University in a better direction. The Senate's opportunity and responsibility is to push the discussion, to focus attention on certain issues for the administration's attention, and to plant seeds that may grow into important changes. "This year, I am most pleased with our creation of the position of having an emeritus representative, ex officio. This will do great things for the Senate and for the relationship between the emeriti and the University. We have done good work by bringing up issues of the Patriot Act, administrative computing, health plans, retirement issues, undergraduate grading, and faculty salary-setting, among other things. "I confess that I can't point to any changes in the University that any of our talk has led to, as yet, but I do think that good things will come from our deliberations. I hope we will continue in Senate XXXVI and in Senate 86 and in Senate 136 to push the agenda, to push questions, ideas, insights about ways in which this great University can become even better. "Well, I said had I three points I wanted to make. Well, as you may have expected, I lied. I actually have a fourth. I need to thank people. I have greatly enjoyed being the Chair of the Faculty Senate this year, especially because of all of the help and all of the work of many other individuals. First are the chairs and the members of the eight Academic Council committees, without whom the Senate could not have performed its function. Second, the steering committee this year: Elizabeth Bernhardt Eamonn Callan Brad Osgood Deborah Gordon Norman Naimark David Palumbo-Liu "This group was great to work with! These are very diverse people with many insights and with a good way of pulling back the reins from time to time on their Chair when necessary, which I greatly appreciated. "Third, I must thank the Academic Secretary and his staff. To be honest, I was more than a little concerned to learn that I would be the first "post-Susan Schofield" Chair of the Senate. Susan had done such a wonderful job as Academic secretary for five years. And in having her replaced by someone whose University experience had largely been in the Medical School, that place across Campus Drive that doesn't necessarily yet capture the full breadth of the University, although I know that Dean Philip Pizzo is working on it, gave me concern. But Ted was a quick learner and has done a tremendous job. And I can tell Tom that he need have no fears about his support from the Academic Secretary next year. Of course, Ted has had superb help from Trish Del Pozzo, and her assistants Priscilla Johnson and Valerie Goss. They really are the glue as well as much of the brains and the muscle that keeps the Senate together. "Fourth, I want to thank the 20 to 30 people who took time to talk with me before the Senate year and during the year about tasks that the Senate might usefully accomplish. I didn't always take your advice, but I always listened to you. And it made a difference in which way we went. "Fifth, I want to thank two people who played a crucial role you might not think of: John Hennessy and John Etchemendy. "The relationship between the President and the Provost, on one hand, and the Senate, on the other, is, and always should be, a little bit prickly. We should be asking them questions, pushing them on points, and not always agreeing with them. For that matter, they should not always take our advice. But they should always listen to us. I've been extremely pleased this year that the President and the Provost have walked very well that fine line and have maintained a completely appropriate relationship to the Faculty Senate. "This President and this Provost understand and take the Senate's role in the University governance seriously and appropriately. We couldn't do a good job without this. I thank them very much. "Finally, my last thanks, and my last paragraph, I want to thank all of you for electing me as Chair of the Senate 35. It has been a lot of fun. I first saw Stanford in March of 1968, and I fell in love with it. To get the chance 35 years later to be Chair of the Senate and to try to influence and help further improve this University has been deeply satisfying. You honored me greatly, and I thank you for it!" There was, at this point, after this four-minute talk, warm and sustained applause. Greely rose several times to the acclaim of the Senators. The Chair asked for questions. Vice Provost Jones raised her hand, with obvious concern expressed on her face and in the timbre of her voice. She began, "I'm actually quite concerned about a project that I've heard you are doing with some colleagues at the Medical School. I know you're interested in, and an expert on, cloning. I also have been given inside information that there is a secret project in full force, with undisclosed amounts of financial support from Cloning Technologies, to generate a bunch of Hank Greely clones to perpetuate your role with the Steering Committee and in the Senate." This was new, and somewhat horrifying news to most of the Senate, but not to all. Dean Pizzo of the Medical School shouted out that the proposal had initially been rejected as being unethical, but that if it succeeded would be declared ethical. President Hennessy noted that the Law School had given its blessing to the project. Professor Jones, puzzled, wondered whether success in this awful idea (after all, they had recently cloned a mule, hadn't they?) would generate a conflict of interest.... Suddenly, from the wings, arrived the clones! Six Greely look-alikes - obviously clones, appeared. They each had white scraggly hair, wore knit sweaters (large), and sported white moustaches. All in attendance were taken aback. The Trustees in attendance were somewhat scandalized. But Chairman Greely adroitly recognized this intrusive bunch as being the Steering Committee for Senate 35. The give-away was his realizing that morning that he had remarkably few awful sweaters in his drawer to choose from. The Clones began to chant a poem (resembling Samuel Taylor Coleridge's Kubla Khan): In Senate, would the Greely clone, A stately new regime decree, Where resolutions and reports On budgets, majors, rules, and sports Would proceed in numbers infinite. So twice the senators, at least, Would be here every time we meet. And in discourse bright with phrases long Would blossom many a well-crossed t Nothing would ever be done wrong We'd work carefully and colorfully If the Greely clones in the Senate did sit. There was abundant applause, but the cheering crescendoed when Professor Greely said, "Well, I'm speechless, and you know how rare that is." Despite the failure of this cloning experiment to go through the Institutional Review Board, Dean Pizzo (always on the side of successful ventures), stated with some pleasure, "The attempt to clone succeeded! Now the marketing and sales campaign for this product can begin." C. Committee on Committees Professor David Kreps, Chair of the CoC for Senate 35, reported, "Senators will recall that in the past few sessions, I've had the pleasure of reporting that the CoC had done its business for the year. But President Hennessy surprised us with a last-minute task, the nature of which I believe he will describe momentarily. I'm pleased to say the committee replied with the usual dispatch and once I push my finger on 'send' on the E-mail, we will again be done." Chairman Greely acknowledged the CoC. "The committee did a fine job this year convincing people to take their important roles on the Senate committees. I'm happy to be able to announce your successors. The Committee on Committees for Senate 36 has been chosen by the Steering Committee for Senate 36. It is to be chaired by Professor Arnetha Ball, who is joined by Al Camarillo, Phyllis Gardner, Andrea Goldsmith, Ed Haertel, David Palumbo-Liu, and Bob Simoni. Good luck to next year's Committee on Committees ....I'm sure Tom Wasow will be calling your numbers often." D. Report of the President and the Provost President's Report. "First," began President Hennessy, "I have the pleasure of introducing Diane Peck, our new Executive Director of Human Resources." Ms. Peck, seated in the back, acknowledged this introduction with a friendly wave and 'hello.' "Diane joins us," continued the President, "after completing her undergraduate degree at a less well-known private university in Southern California that on occasion challenges us on the football field, and which believes that it has a marching band to be proud of. Diane comes from a long line of senior positions in human resources, including a number of California firms, Mervyn's, Office Depot, Safeway, and most recently H.E. Bucks in Texas. We are glad to have her back after a long national search. I think that one of the things we learned is that our practices in human resources are far ahead of many other institutions. We found during our recruitment process a number of people whose policies and programs at their institutions were not yet up to the level of what we were doing here at Stanford. We are privileged to bring Diane back to California and delighted to have her join Stanford. "Second, referring to the announcement from Professor Kreps, I think you all know that we made a decision to establish a committee to examine various issues in labor standards and employee relations on campus. That committee helped settle the hunger fast that a number of our students undertook. The committee will be co-chaired by Diane and a faculty member to be appointed, and will consist of equal numbers of representatives from the administration of the University, faculty, staff, non-management staff, and students. We hope to have that committee operational in the fall and ready to report back to us in the spring. They will look at five topics in particular: * The use and guidelines for temporary employees on campus, * Review of the university's living wage policy, * Availability of educational opportunities for employees, * The use of subcontracting, * Protection of the rights of workers to organize and bargain as a unit. "This will be an extremely time-demanding and consuming committee, and I think they will have a lot of work to do if they're to complete their work by the spring. But we are eager to get that going, which is why I asked the Committee on Committees to try to get us some appropriate nominations of faculty before the close of the school year. "Finally, there are several recent land-use issues that you may have seen in the newspapers recently. One had to do with the zoning in the foothills. This had been pending for quite some time and was recently completed and voted on by the County. The zoning ordinance restricts development in the foothills. The way to think about this is that the zoning ordinance acts in parallel with our agreement with the academic use boundary but doesn't have a defined limit on it. So it can be removed, but only by a majority vote of the Board of Supervisors. "Second, some of you probably saw the announcement of our proposed offer to the City of Palo Alto to allow them to use the Mayfield site, a six-acre vacant lot at the junction of Page Mill and El Camino, currently used for Christmas tree sales and pumpkin patches. It was originally offered during the general use permit negotiation process for use by the Jewish Community Center, which at the height of the dot-com bubble could not find any space, and they were losing their current space due to Palo Alto reopening a school. "We were asked by the city to look for alternative uses for the community of Palo Alto and to also try to address the ongoing housing imbalance. We have recently completed an offer to them. This offer entails leasing that site to the city for a dollar per year for 51 years. We have also agreed that we will build the playing fields on that site at Stanford's expense, costing us $2.5 million. The fields (at the corner of Page Mill Road and El Camino Real) will be named, 'The Stanford/Palo Alto Community Playing Fields.' There will be two competition fields and one practice field. And there will be lighting as well as restrooms and parking for approximately 100 cars. Palo Alto will maintain that facility once we complete its construction. "We will also guarantee the construction of 250 units of new housing. This will primarily be on sites that are currently under commercial lease. In return, Stanford will then receive the right to develop 300,000 square feet of commercial space in the industrial park, both space that we could have built on the Mayfield site as well as space that will be lost when these new residential properties are built. "The result will be actually a net drop in the amount of commercial space that Stanford has built on its lands in Palo Alto. But I think, in the long term, it will allow us to renew the industrial park and continue to keep it as a magnet for the best R & D activities going on in the area. "Finally, we will work with the City while they do the supplemental environmental impact report and we will try to work out some innovative ways to work with transportation in the area. I think this has turned out to be a very good agreement for the city and for Stanford, and we hope to have it in place and start building the fields as soon as possible." Most of the questions and comments that followed were focused, interestingly, on the land use agreement. Professor Rickford was the first to speak. "Mr. President, although those that have been selling Christmas trees and pumpkins may think differently, having used that site for many years, I do want to say that this is an excellent idea, an excellent use of the land, and in a preliminary way, one gets the sense that this is meeting with very positive community support. Since we depend so strongly on good community support for realization of our future plans, I want to commend you and the University." Vice Provost Jones spoke next. "John Rickford took the first part of my statement. Thank you. The second part is a question. Do we have a sense as to whether the housing units will be for students, faculty, or others at this point?" President Hennessy answered, "We don't. We expect that our employees will be eligible. There is some hope that the housing units will be occupied by significant numbers of Stanford people, as well as employees of the Stanford Industrial Park, so that we could reduce commuter transportation in the area. The plan is to build some fraction of these units, roughly 20 percent, as below-market-rate units. One of the difficult challenges that I foresee is that construction in this area is very expensive. Therefore, even if the land value is taken out of the equation, construction is sufficiently expensive that building student units, for example, would become problematic. Currently, we subsidize student residences built on campus. We could not recover the full cost of construction and maintenance purely on the basis of what the students pay as part of their room charge." In response to another query, the President said that it was undecided whether these units would be for sale or rent, or a mix of the two. Professor Gardner, speaking somewhat from the bias of being an athlete's mother, said, "I'm really happy about the decision and I echo the comments that have been made. As a mother of a Babe Ruth player, I can let you know that the community has been struggling because there is only one Babe Ruth baseball field on Stanford lands, and there is a current tussle about whether or not to convert that to some other function. I am very grateful. What kind of playing fields are being planned?" "Soccer fields," answered Hennessy, "Although if the city were to conclude that something else were desirable, we would do that. Our agreement caps the University's contribution to construction to $2.5 million. Therefore, if the city proposes something else that would work better and it could pay for the difference, we will certainly consider it." Chairman Greely asked, "Other questions for the president?" There were none. "Thank you, Mr. President," he continued, "for your final report to the 35th Senate," Provost's Report. Provost Etchemendy began by being grateful. "I'd like to thank all of the faculty who filled out their Quality of Life survey. We had a 50 percent return on that, a pretty good number. It was a difficult survey to fill out, and some people took a lot of time. One person reported that he or she (I don't know which) took four hours to fill it out! Another said 'Gee, you know, nobody will ever look at this!' Not so...be reassured that Pat Jones, the President, and I have already been studying the results, and we will continue to do so. We will analyze the data so that we can determine whether there are differences among assistant professors, different components of the University, women, minorities, and so forth. "Second, I'm glad to announce that Elizabeth Bernhardt, our fellow Senate member and Professor of German Studies, is going to be the Dean of the Lower Row. In 1997 as a result of the task force on Residential Life, chaired by Ramon Saldívar, we tried to generate an intellectual presence on the Row. The Row is where 40 percent of all of our sophomores live ... and it's been pretty much of a faculty-free zone up until now! "Elizabeth has been an advisor in recent years to the language houses and has done a wonderful job. As Dean of the Lower Row she will work with 19 houses. Eventually, we hope to add a Dean of the Upper Row. Congratulations, Elizabeth, and thank you!" This was met with warm applause for Professor Bernhardt from the Senate. The Provost had yet another announcement to make. "A few months ago, I announced that Charles Kruger was going to step down from his position of Vice Provost and Dean of Research and Graduate Policy. We're all grateful to Charles for everything he's done for Stanford for the last 40 years. I know that many of you have heard that Charles is going to be honored with the Cuthbertson Award at Commencement. We are delighted about that, and he is extremely deserving of that prize. "Several months ago, I appointed a search committee chaired by Hans Andersen of the Chemistry Department to make recommendations for his successor. I am very pleased to announce that our next Vice Provost will be Arthur Bienenstock, 'Artie,' as most of us know him. Artie is Professor of Materials Science Engineering and Applied Physics. He came to Stanford in 1967, and since then he has served Stanford in many ways. Currently, he is the director of the Geballe Laboratory for Advanced Materials. He took that position when he returned from Washington, D.C., where he was the Associate Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy in the White House under President Clinton. Prior to that, Artie was the director of the Stanford Synchrotron Radiation Laboratory. He has served as the chair of the Advisory Board, chair of the Planning and Policy Board, and chair of the Committee on Research. I can't imagine anyone who is more knowledgeable about Stanford, about the environment for research, about Washington, and about the politics of research. I wish he could be here to hear the announcement, but as I speak he is on the plane to Washington, D.C." In a question/discussion period with the Provost, Professor Satz spoke first, relaying a concern of a number of faculty. "Is it possible that the new Stanford Director of Human Resources will eliminate TIAA-CREF as a retirement option or make it extremely difficult for people to sign on? Many faculty have TIAA-CREF and are very happy with it." Provost Etchemendy acknowledged that this was a "really good question" and pointed out that [not by chance] the new Director Diane Peck, who had just been introduced was all set to answer this. Ms. Peck began, somewhat plaintively. "Hank promised me that since this was my first time here, you all would be very kind to me!" She also pointed out that she was begging amnesty because, although she graduated from USC, "I hope I have been redeemed by having had the good sense to marry into a Stanford family; my husband and his sister are graduates. And now to the question...as John has mentioned, this whole process started approximately a year ago. And it was a move to put in place a better tool for all of us who were in the retirement plan to be able to manage our retirement accounts, to be able to look at diversification opportunities and the opportunity to borrow from our accounts. It also provided the University with an important tool to better be able to meet its responsibility as a plan sponsor. There are a number of requirements that you have to meet if you have a 403(b) plan. These requirements were difficult to meet under the old system.. Our new plan has been named 'Retirement Manager.' "To do this properly the University had to get all of the vendors to buy in to the plan. We expected TIAA-CREF, Fidelity, and Vanguard to each agree that this was a plan they could participate in. "Recently, however, TIAA-CREF has expressed some concerns about going forward with us. We are working very hard to address the concerns that they have. At the Mayo Clinic, TIAA-CREF has agreed to the same plan that we want to put in place here. Given that they've done this and have had some experience with this, we hope that we can bring them to the table and go forward. I can't tell you where we will end up. But I can assure you that once we have a decision, we will tell you what it is." Perhaps to salve the concerns of the Senators that after her presentation, none of them had any clear idea of what the details of the tension between TIAA-CREF and Stanford were, Ms. Peck agreed to talk offline and privately to faculty, both to educate her about faculty concerns, and to give her a chance to explain the reluctance of TIAA-CREF. Chairman Greely was pleased to recognize Professor Phyllis Gardner for her second comment of the afternoon. She asked the Provost, "About the Quality of Life Survey... do you think 50-percent is a good enough return? Are you worried about ascertainment biases? Perhaps the 50-percent who responded are all disgruntled, or all happy, or biased to one gender or interest group." Vice Provost Jones, an organizer of the Quality of Life survey, took this question. "It was sent out to 1718 faculty; 50 percent of that is a fairly large number. We do know, for example, that women are not overly skewed among the respondents. We have 22 percent women on the faculty and twenty-six percent of the respondents were women. We have not yet looked at rank responses or responses by school or departments." Professor Holloway refocused attention on TIAA-CREF. "Can you tell us what the current status is? If these current negotiations are not successful, does that mean that TIAA-CREF will no longer be an alternative retirement plan? This would, of course, reduce the options significantly for the faculty. Is there some ground between full cooperation or full integration that would be acceptable to Stanford and TIAA-CREF? Or is it possible that we could end up where TIAA-CREF was not an option at all?" Diane Peck reiterated that both sides wanted TIAA-CREF to remain at Stanford, and came back to the deal at the Mayo Clinic which is the same one that Stanford wants, and the one that is in place with Fidelity. She pointed out "... contributions from Mayo physicians to TIAA-CREF in one year went from $42 million to over $100 million. Thus, it became a huge marketing opportunity for them. We think there's great benefit to having them as part of the Stanford community." E. Open Forum Professor Andrea Goldsmith raised her hand. "I have a brief follow-up to your comment about interdisciplinary research. I agree with you, Hank. It is extremely important for Stanford to begin a conversation about the best way to do interdisciplinary research and teaching. So maybe that is something to be considered now with Artie Bienenstock." Not seeing other hands waving, Greely noted that "...from preliminary (and non-binding) conversations with Tom Wasow, next year's Senate Chair, Open Forum will be around for a third year." Then the Open Forum founder, Professor Rickford, asked for the floor. "At the risk of having this be named 'Rickford Forum,' I wanted to just note briefly that this is the last Senate meeting for a number of us, including Professors Bernhardt, Bratman, Callan, Elam, Fraga, Haber, Hanson, Luthy, MaCurdy, Mamlet, Markus, Papanicolaou, Ridgeway, Swain, Vitousek, Wooley and Wright. I wanted to say that before my four-year tour of duty in the Senate I had no idea that this is what people did on Thursday afternoons! I guess I'll have to wait for the new soccer fields to find other things to do on Thursday afternoons. The Senate has been a very valuable learning experience. I think this is the only forum in the University where you talk to people not only outside of your field, but also outside of your school. No one asked me to be a spokesman, but I want to say that it has been a privilege and a pleasure to serve." Chairman Greely was pleased to hear this, and well versed in the rules and regulations of the Senate, added, "I would note that all of you who are ending your terms this year can come back on in [one or] two years, even if you're termed out now. So we may see all of you again, because senators have a way of cycling back through." V. Other Reports Admitting that the clock on the wall was defeating his plan to end the meeting this year at 4:15 so that the Senators could get to the reception with the Trustees, Chairman Greely said apologetically, "I'm now aiming for 4:30. I know it's dangerous to stand between people and a reception. You learn quickly as a lawyer, never stand between people and the bar." That was sort of funny, and there was appreciative laughter. Greely invoked help from the only other lawyer present, Tom Fenner, but the only comment was heard from a back bench, "No more lawyer jokes!" A. Report on Reorganization of Committees to form C-USP AND C-RUM This report was given by Professors Nancy Kollmann, chair of C-RUM, and Ewart Thomas, chair of C-USP. Professor Kollmann spoke. "I'm the chair of the Committee to Review Undergraduate Majors. We are very happy with the division of responsibilities. When the Committee on Undergraduate Studies was split, C-RUM was created in order to review departments and to review IDPs. We've had a full agenda this year, doing six full departments and three IDPs. It was a full year. We felt we could focus very well on the task at hand. To us, it worked very well to have our work based on the issue of curriculum review, which was and is so important." Chairman Greely added that "Professor Thomas called me this afternoon and said that, unexpectedly, he would be unable to make it to the Senate. He authorized me to give his report, which is as follows 'It's worked great, thanks mainly to Lindi Press!' That is the end of his report. Lindi, sitting in the back, looked ebullient, because she staffed both committees. B. Report from the Committee on Undergraduate Admissions and Financial Aid (C-UAFA) The Chair introduced the topic. "This was on my list of things that I wanted the Senate to talk about during the year, namely, how do undergraduate admissions' policies at elite colleges affect ambitious high school students. I was worried about this in part from hearing stories from parents of high school students, colleagues who had high school students, from reading a book by one of our graduates called, "Doing School," and also by the fact that my oldest child started high school this year. This is not something that the Senate or even the University can influence very much. Indeed, one of the more candid members of the steering committee complained that bringing up the topic was self-indulgent, and that may be right. "But, I think it's an important topic and one that I suspect a lot of senators will be interested in. I'll turn things over to Hazel and Robin -- Hazel Markus, the chair of C-UAFA and Robin Mamlet, the Dean for Undergraduate Admissions and Financial Aid. Professor Markus began, "As we started to think about Hank's problem, it became clear that we had to look at the large context of the admissions process. We couldn't just talk about Stanford's impact on ambitious high school students. We want to tell you first what C-UAFA's charge is. We then want to describe the current national backdrop surrounding elite college admissions. We think that's the most important context for understanding what's going on. We also want to discuss Stanford's influence on high schools, and provide some insights into the admission process. And if we have time, we can talk about what we might do for future conversations. "The composition of C-UAFA is eight faculty members from many disciplines looked over by the Vice Provost for Undergraduate Education, as well as the Dean of Admissions and Financial Aid. The national backdrop is a growing tableau. The issue of who gets into Stanford, who makes the decisions and how they are making those decisions has become front-page news, nationally. In fact, it has become a national hysteria, not just a conversation, not just an issue. As a social psychologist, I can tell you that when something comes to the point of hysteria, you need to respond, but that is not so easy to do. "It used to be that college admissions was left to the experts. Now absolutely everyone weighs in. And, they do so continually, at an alarmingly increasing rate. It is very hard to respond to all of these articles, these books that are targeting Stanford. We can't just dismiss them and say to ourselves, 'We know that's not right.' "One of the key factors in producing this mass hysteria is certainly the U.S. News & World Report ranking system. It began in 1983. It ranks colleges based largely on the opinions of college presidents, provosts, and deans. It also takes into account faculty resources and other factors. Now, for parents and their high school students, it is not enough to just be accepted at a top university. It matters whether you're going to number one, or number two, or heaven forbid, number six or more. People are very invested in this, but don't forget, we use the same sort of data. In our department, for example, we are very fond of saying to potential students and faculty that we are the 'number-one ranked department, nationally and we have been number one since the beginning of time.' In any event, it works, and I'm sure some of you do the same in your programs. "Another factor is the books. They are 'tell-all' books that are written by former deans of admissions." It was generally appreciated, after seeing the covers of some of these on the screen, that Dean Mamlet herself could, some day, write such a book....It occurred to her too. Professor Markus pointed out that in the packets distributed to the Senators there were other articles, such as the "...one from the Wall Street Journal that points out that for the Supreme Court, affirmative action isn't just academic; five of the Supreme Court justices and their children, or grandchildren, were themselves legacies benefiting from their parents and grandparents going to the elite colleges, which means that they got an advantage in getting into college. In your packet, as well, is an article about a service in Manhattan in which they tell you that getting your child into the right private school is a 14-year, $300,000 commitment. You need to start very early, at age three. And for a thousand dollars, you can sign up with this service with your three-year-old, and they'll guide you on the way. "Last week, Newsweek's cover story was about America's best high schools. The definition of 'best high schools' was based on the number of AP classes and AP tests that are taken at a particular high school divided by the number of graduating seniors. The school with the highest ratio becomes the best high school. Nowhere in the article does it discuss whether this is a reasonable criterion for determining the best high schools. It only presents the scores and the ranking. At the Gunn High School commencement, for example, it was announced that Gunn was ranked 50 out of 753." Professor Markus then showed an adroitly edited film clip from the recent (undistinguished) movie, "Orange County." It is about a bright high school senior (Sean Brumder) who wants to attend Stanford. His college counselor at his high school in Southern California tells him that he is a "shoo-in" for Stanford and discourages him from applying to any back-up schools. Then his letter arrives...Stanford rejects him! He thunders into the college counselor's office where it shortly becomes evident that this dingbat had sent the wrong transcript under his name. Although Sean was the valedictorian, she had sent the transcript one of a C+ (at best) student rather than his. To make matters worse, the dingbat counselor refused to admit her error. And, you guessed it, the C+ student was accepted at Stanford because she had sent Sean's transcript as his! The rest of the movie? We weren't told...you can rent the video. Professor Markus remarked upon "...the increasingly popular view that college education only counts if it is attained at one of the top 25 colleges or universities. In reality, applications to the U.S. News & World Report colleges among the top 25 has tripled in the last six years. There is also a growing shared sense that a student needs to have a set of 'hooks' to get into these top schools. Not surprisingly, therefore, there are a lot of people out there trying to figure out what those hooks are. "All of us know that there is no single, good measure of academic capacity or of merit. Grades and scores will only get you so far, and perhaps not that far. We need other measures as well. It is clear that there is no real agreement on what should be involved in the compound mixture called 'academic excellence,' although I think, and the committee feels, that we have done a good job in coming up with one. And that's the first document in the materials that were sent out to you today: the Stanford admissions criteria. Since everything that Stanford does related to admissions and financial aid is getting noticed and is scrutinized publicly we've increasingly felt on C-UAFA that we have a responsibility to enter into this national debate in some way, to attempt to voice sanity about all this. We've got to do something to contain the hysteria. We don't have the answers, but I think we're well aware of the problem. And we think that C-UAFA's role in the future may be critical in that. "For starters, because we are increasingly aware that high schools were becoming kind of soul-deadening places where it was all about competition, all about how many AP courses can you take, and very competitive, and that kids were miserable. High school was all about college. To study this better we called together a very interesting panel of high school counselors from throughout the Bay Area to come in and talk to us. They absolutely confirmed the fears we had. The counselors believe that the parents and children in the area are focusing so much on what Stanford wants, what Stanford needs that their lives are made miserable by this, and they feel that the students are made miserable by this. And they would like us to do something." Dean Robin Mamlet took over, having seen the light at the end of the tunnel for her future. "It's nice to have some time before I write my book and make my million bucks! "One significant change over the last ten years has been the growth of an entire for-profit industry that has capitalized on the anxieties of families about whether or not their kids will get into college. It's focused on giving students 'an edge' as they apply to college. Susan Drake, one of the counselors at Gunn High School, said that one student at Gunn has had independent college advising since eighth grade, has taken the SAT 14 times, had two internships and two summer programs, has clocked 300 volunteer hours, and has received lots of editing and writing help. I can tell you, when students are spending all their time on these tasks, they're clearly not doing what we hope for in the Admissions Office, namely, reflecting on who they are, what they care about, how they learn best, and how that's going to fit in with any one particular institution. The important challenge for every student is to find the best match in a college for their skills and goals, as well as their limitations." Dean Mamlet then illustrated the process at Stanford by having the senators look at a great many dots (read, student applicants) on the screen. She developed a metaphor, and urged the senators to "...think of this as sort of an aerial view of a race, a marathon where all of the candidates for admission to Stanford think that they need to position themselves at the top of the pack in order to have any chance of crossing the finish line ahead of their peers." From the hundred or more dots on the screen she isolated approximately fifteen at various places who should be considered as coming from the same high school. Then, drawing a horizontal line across the screen, some dots were above the line, others below it. These positions were set from a community perspective; those above the line would get into Stanford, those below the line would not. This is the community's view. Dean Mamlet pointed out that this "public" definition is a very narrow one, based on grades, test scores, and extracurricular activities (e.g., class president). The Stanford admissions office, however, sees much more in a candidate, using the Faculty Senate's definition of academic excellence as being a mixture of capacity, of scholastic performance as it relates to available opportunities, and promise of future growth. "In other words," continued Dean Mamlet, "we're admitting students not just for the first quarter of their freshman year, but for a four-year span, and eventually for a lifetime. Not surprisingly, the indicators that allow us to assess the student's potential against these criteria are much more complex than those contained in the public definitions. We look carefully at our assessment of a student's intellectual vitality, at the rigor of their high school curriculum, at what kinds of things their teachers and counselors say in their recommendations, what drives the student, and whether, for example, success is viewed by the student as an end product, or simply what happens on the way to studying things that he or she loves and can't put down, or whether a student is a positive force in the classroom, or just showing up each day." This generates a disconnect between what the public believes and what Stanford admissions officers conclude. As a result, some dots move up, others move down below the line that separates those admitted to Stanford and those not admitted. The community is often surprised. It wants to know "...why student J was accepted when Z, P, and G are stronger?" Of course, to protect privacy, the information about why some students move up above the line from their starting place below it and why others drop down is never shared. Professor Markus then asked for questions as time ran out, "Ten minutes!" Greely said decisively. President Hennessy remarked that, "I, unfortunately, despair about our ability to do much about this, because I think while the focus often turns to the question of admissions criteria and getting the edge, in fact, the fundamental problem is the one you started with: there is so much focus on such a small number of schools. The media has made that much worse. There's a famous story of my predecessor, Gerhard Casper, being at a meeting to discuss the U.S. News & World Report ranking system and what was wrong with it. And prior to his speaking, the president of the University of Iowa spoke about the wonderful programs there, including one of the best creative writing programs in the country. And then Gerhard got up and said, that there really are many great colleges and universities. At that point, one of the members of the press intervened to say, 'Well, that doesn't matter. I want my son to go to Stanford or Harvard or Princeton. I don't want him to go to University of Iowa!' I think as long as that perception exists, our ability to affect this will be quite limited." Dean Stipek spoke, agreeing that clarifying for the community the complexity of the criteria is crucial. "It is important that people understand being admitted to Stanford is not just a numbers game, adding up test scores." She also agreed with President Hennessy. "The very counselors who complain about the University either not having clear criteria or having unfair criteria are the same counselors who are telling their students that they must take seven AP classes if they want to get into Stanford, so they, the counselors, can display on their walls and in their brochures how many of their kids were admitted to these so-called elite colleges and universities. They despair at the kind of frenzy and gaming that we have all seen, but they are contributing to it, substantially." Stipek suggested that because AP classes have become test preparation classes now, completely undermining the objectives and spirit of education, "...getting rid of credit for AP tests is a really important step that we can take. We should make it very clear that we don't care about AP tests, but rather, we care about the rigor of the instructional program." She also suggested that Stanford should get the word out to the public that our admissions criteria recognize the importance of passion for learning and that evidence of depth of interests is more important than the breadth of classes taken. Professor Markus reminded the Senate that when David Palumbo-Liu was chairing C-UAFA, "...we started with this very important charge to study the AP Credit policy and to recommend what to do with it. We worked long and hard on this. We heard voices from throughout the University, and we decided that there wasn't a consensus on action, certainly not the action of getting rid of giving credit for AP courses.". Dean Mamlet added that she emphasizes the "depth over breadth" principle very often, particularly in Palo Alto and nearby communities. Her comment "I have never seen a community as stressed out as this one!" evoked self-conscious laughter from the Senators, because, after all, Stanford professors have children in high school too.... Professor Wasow (recently-elected Chair of Senate 36) agreed with John Hennessy, but wondered if, since the U.S. News & World Report survey is such a major factor in contributing to the problem and is so flawed, "...one thing we could do is simply refuse to be part of that system. My own alma mater, which admittedly is not as distinguished an institution, and people aren't as interested in it, has withdrawn from in the U.S. News & World Report survey." President Hennessy was quick to jump on that one. "John, we don't participate. Their data are extracted from a common set of information that we make available. Prior to that, when Gerhard refused to send them the data, they extrapolated the numbers themselves, because they can't leave Stanford out of their rankings. Therefore, we agreed, along with a number of other institutions, to create a common set of data, and put that on the World-wide Web. Now, U.S. News & World Report extracts from the Web the data they want." The President went on to correct the perception that it was just "peer evaluation" that the magazine used to put together their rankings. "That is only 25 percent. But then there are all these things that are just crazy, such as alumni giving, the rate of return on the endowment, graduation rates, predictions of how well a class should do in the future, given the SAT scores...all kinds of crazy things." The Provost and President defended their contributions to this data set, because if Stanford did not cooperate because we thought it was a bogus ranking system, they would get the information anyway and accuse Stanford of being arrogant. It also seems that the program is expanding. By paying $25 on their web site a parent or student can get even more information. And Dean Mamlet said that there soon will be published a "big, fat U.S. News & World Report Ultimate College Guide. " It is, apparently, too great a force to combat. Emeritus Professor Jim Mark praised this wonderful, bird's-eye view and then spoke from the viewpoint of the worm, describing the tensions at his grandson's school, number 24 on that list of U.S. News & World Report. He urged the Dean and others to volunteer to talk at the national conventions that college counselors, just as every other group, must have each year. He also recommended to the Senators a reading of the article from The New Yorker that was included in the packet, in which it was emphasized that colleges are trying to build great classes of freshmen by putting together diverse students with many different interests and skills. This is, in a way, very much like a fine recipe; the ingredients have completely different tastes, many of which one would never eat alone, but the mixture exceeds the simple sum of its parts. Professor Michael Peskin came at the discussion from the statistical side. "How important is it for Stanford and for the perception of the 'community,' that there is indeed an explicit list of admission criteria, and that we should be 100 percent successful at meeting that list? I think that there are so many subjective criteria, both in the admissions process and in what you're trying to do to create a wonderful mix in each matriculating class, that there's a natural randomness in the process that inevitably occurs." Professor Markus and Dean Mamlet agreed. And Professor Markus emphasized that since this is a reality that there are so many different components to class selection in addition to class standing and test grades, that perhaps it is time for Robin to write a "...really powerful book about it!" Dean Joss of the Graduate School of Business, speaking from market theory, agreed with President Hennessy that since "the demand for these few spaces in the entering classes at Stanford and peer institutions just keeps rising, and the supply does not, the problem is only going to get worse." He also brought up new concerns, one of which is the potential for fraud, because of the combination of perceived value and the pressure to succeed. "And second," he continued, "is the difficult challenge of 'knowing' a candidate for admission by reading their application without seeing them in person. I was so concerned about adverse selection and the inability to really tell who coached this process and who wrote this essay that we have found we had to go to interviews to try to find out who the student really is." Dean Mamlet agreed. "Fraud detection is a big problem. There is not a week that goes by that I'm not on the phone with Tom Fenner and the legal office about it. However, to your second point, I don't think that interviews are the answer. Stanford is the first place I've worked where we haven't interviewed, I came here thinking that I would change Stanford's stance on the interview. I've found that I think we have a better process at the undergraduate level without interviews. Research suggests that a 45-minute interview of a student in high school is not a particularly good way to make a decision, because many of our best students are not going to interview well, simply because they are shy and quiet. Remember, we really do use those recommendations from teachers and counselors who see students day in and day out over a period of years. And when we have questions about any discrepancies, we call back the recommenders." Chairman Greely presented to Dean Sharon Long the last word from the floor for the year. She said, "I'd like to conclude by coming back to one of your very earliest slides, one that made note of the false perception that it is only education at the top institutions that counts. In a future discussion, we could perhaps ask how we could contribute to alleviating that, not by failing to brag about how good we are or think we are, but by, perhaps, developing a consortium of not just 25, but 100 or 200 colleges and universities who stand side by side stating what is important about admissions. This might, at least, defuse people's ambitions, as well as make some statement about the way that we and other institutions look at the whole person and planned composition of the whole class for admission each year." Chairman Greely admitted that the Senate had barely scratched the surface of these issues, and amidst applause for Hazel and Robin, urged the 36th Senate to return to the questions and issues surrounding admissions to Stanford and its peer institutions. At this point, the 35th Faculty Senate, indeed, had concluded its work. Symbolic of that, Vice-chair Deborah Gordon (no longer appearing as a Greely clone) said to Hank, "On behalf of the Steering Committee, before we close, I'd like to give you this gavel and thank you for doing such a wonderful job as chair of the Senate." There was hearty and heart-felt applause for his great work, and he responded by banging both gavels simultaneously on the table, declaring (after the proper vote of the quorum), "We are adjourned sine die." Adjournment -- This finally happened at 4:47 p.m. Respectfully submitted,
Edward D. Harris, Jr. M.D. Academic Secretary to the University
|
Stanford Report, July 9, 2003