printable versionFaculty Senate minutes - November 30, 2006 meeting
At its meeting on Thursday, November 30, 2006, the Thirty-ninth Senate of the Academic Council heard reports but took no actions..
EDWARD D. HARRIS Academic Secretary to the University Minutes, NOV. 30I. Call to OrderAt 3:18 pm a great number of Senators had arrived along with the ex officio members, and Chairperson Sheppard gaveled the meeting to order with these words. "This is our last Senate session of the fall quarter, and I welcome each one of you. I hope you all had a good Thanksgiving."
There was no mention of Big Game, but that surely would come later.
II. Approval of Minutes - (SenD#5897)These, the summary of the November 9, 2006 meeting, had been distributed to the senators by e-mail and are available for reading at http://facultysenate.stanford.edu. Professor Sheppard heard no requests for changes or additions, and the minutes were accepted as submitted.
III. Action CalendarThis was empty today.
IV. Standing ReportsA. Memorial Resolution - William van Bogaert Robertson (1914-2006) SenD#5757
Professor Phil Sunshine was brought forward to present a memorial statement (the first one of the year) in honor of Professor William van Bogaert Robertson. He began, "Chairperson Sheppard, Dr. Harris, senators, and guests…. Dr. William van Bogaert Robertson passed away in Tiburon, California, on the 7th of May of this year at the age of 91. He had been professor of Biochemistry and director of research in the Department of Pediatrics from 1960 to 1979.
"Robby was born in New York City on September 15th, 1914, and received his undergraduate master's degree in engineering from Stephens Institute of Technology in Hoboken, New Jersey, in 1934. and subsequently earned his doctorate of chemistry at the Albert Ludwig University in Freiburg, Germany. He worked as a research chemist at Massachusetts General Hospital for several years, then at the National Cancer Institute in Bethesda, Maryland, and in the Department of Medicine at the University of Chicago.
"From 1945 to 1961, he was professor of Biochemistry and Experimental Medicine at the University of Vermont, where he first met Dr. Norman Kretchmer. After Dr. Kretchmer joined the faculty at Stanford here in 1959, he recruited Robby to join the department to develop the research laboratories at the Children's Hospital at Stanford. Robby's interests in research were mucopolysaccharide metabolism, calcium and phosphorus metabolism, and the role of vitamin C in collagen biosynthesis synthesis and wound healing.
"During the time he was at Stanford he was a visiting professor at the University del Valle in Cali, Colombia in 1967, and at the University of Saigon in Vietnam, where he worked with faculty there to establish curriculum planning and development.
"After he left Stanford, he worked as program director for the National Science Foundation in Washington, D.C. He retired from that institute at the age of 73. He moved to Monterey, California, worked at the Marine Advanced Technology Education Project as an advisor. Robby was an avid and very competent downhill skier. He continued to be a dedicated sailor and fisherman even until his late 80s. He was a kind, thoughtful, and compassionate human being to all of us who knew him. Madame Chair, I have the honor to lay before the Senate of the Academic Council a statement in memory of the late William van Bogaert Robertson, Professor of Pediatrics."
Professor Sheppard thanked Professor Sunshine, and the Senators stood for the traditional moment of silence in respect.
B. Steering Committee
"Ted, Trish, and I had a productive lunch with students from the ASSU: Elizabeth Heng - ASSU president, Hershey Avula - the undergraduate student Senate Chair, Theo Milonopoulos - ASSU representative-at-large, Adam Beberg - Graduate Student Council representative, and Patrick Fitzgerald from the Daily to talk about issues that they saw were pressing for both undergraduate and graduate students at Stanford. They mentioned the Thanksgiving week closure decision, the timing of sign-up for classes, what is a 'dead week' in terms of classes, and student housing for students staying on campus at term or holiday breaks. We also talked about promoting and supporting more diversity of faculty, heard their concerns about health insurance for dependents of graduate students, orientation for graduate students, and issues around residential education. It was a full menu. I was particularly struck that they feel strongly about these issues, and that they're willing to work to put together proposals on how we might move forward on these important things.
"Finally, I'll report that we convened a meeting of the Executive Committee of the Planning and Policy Board. As you may know, this is a board that's formed by the current chair of the Faculty Senate and past chairs and other selected faculty. I'll read from the PPB charter. 'The Planning and Policy Board, a committee of the Senate, is a keeper of the faculty's vision for the University, guiding its implementation, analyzing broad issues that merit faculty attention, arranging means for addressing those issues, and setting priorities among them.' The Executive Committee met this week, and included Tom Wasow, Rob Polhemus, Eric Roberts, myself, and Ted Harris. And among the issues that we discussed were plotting the trajectory of our students after graduation, the possible accelerated 'vocationalism' of undergraduate education, the role of athletics, graduate student funding, and residential education. We discussed whether one or more of these issues might be meaningful enough for us to undertake significant work for the Senate, with the caveat that the topic(s) should not only be interesting, but be something that really could be implemented and effect change in the University. Please don't infer that we did not think any of those topics were interesting, but at this point we didn't find any of them compelling enough with sufficient critical mass to warrant mobilizing the effort for a major study. We may be wrong, of course, so if any of you think that there's some item we may have missed that you think it's worth a group taking a look at over the year, please let me know."
There were no questions for the Steering Committee, and still no mention of Big Game coming up in two days.
C. Committee on Committees
The chair announced that CoC will have their first meeting on December 14th.
D. President's Report
President Hennessy said, "I have a short announcement I'd like to make, Madam Chair. Over the past year, I've been meeting with a number of our colleagues from the humanities disciplines to ask ways in which we might provide additional assistance to support their research and scholarship. We live in a time when the challenges in the world we live in will make the study of humanities more important than they've ever been. At the same time it must be recognized that our colleagues in the humanities do not have some of the financial resources that are available either to our colleagues in the professional schools or those with access to external funding agencies. In those meetings it became clear to me that some additional flexible funds allocated to our colleagues in humanities would be extremely beneficial for their research activities. Therefore we are announcing today a five-year pilot program to ensure that every tenured and tenure track faculty member in the humanities has available a minimum of $5,000 of discretionary funding available for their research support every year. This will be an automatically allocated sum of money needing no application. It will be administered by the office of dean of Humanities & Sciences, and Dean Long is joining me in helping to provide some of the resources to fund this program. This funding will be in addition to the funding we already supply through the Presidential Junior Faculty Research Grants program to help our junior colleagues across the University. I think this will help some of our colleagues in the humanities who struggle for simple things such as finding the money to attend a conference or to get access to restricted materials. We'll be starting this program immediately and sending the money out shortly."
The senators, particularly those in the humanities, were quite overwhelmed by this early holiday present, so much so that no one asked the President for his comments about the upcoming Big Game. He was given heart-felt thanks for his report!
Provost's Report
Professor Sheppard asked, "Provost Etchemendy, do you have a report, or any announcements?" The Provost answered, "I don't. He spent all the money!"
In response to a request for questions to the Provost, Professor Fernald initiated a reprise of a discussion at the November 9th meeting of the Senate. " Yeah, at the last senate meeting, we talked about this golf course". Although disavowing that he wanted to harp on the issue, he spoke of asking his colleagues about "…what do you think about this, building a golf course, and their responses ranged from being alarmed to aghast that this could happen." He added that "I think it really looks bad for Stanford to be building a golf course at a time when we are raising money for other things, at a time when there are other needs. And I took the time to look at Google and discovered that there are ten golf courses within two miles of campus, one of which is on the Marguerite line. I think the golf people who want to take golf lessons could get on this free transportation with their clubs and go to this golf course and the University could pay their fees and with the difference between what it costs to build this golf practice range and what this would cost, they could buy each member of the golf team a Prius!"
Provost Etchemendy was ready with an answer. "So, Russ, you're wrong, first of all. This is specifically a practice area for the golf team, and it also produces another area for use by classes for students. Those courses you mention are not available for those uses. The courses are used by golfers who play the nine holes or 18 holes.
"As for as the money, it's being funded completely by a donation that would not come to the University for any other reason. And the water for irrigation - it is non-potable water from our lakes west of route 280. So I'm sorry if you don't feel that the golf team or the golf classes are high priority. I think many people would say that about many parts of the University from the outside. In fact, golf is a high priority in certain parts of the University."
The discourse continued, as the differences between playing golf and practicing golf and taking golf classes in Physical Education were dissected out, and the senators were made aware that the demand among students for the chance to take golf classes was very high. One rumor circulated that playing golf (and practicing it) was a requisite for obtaining the MBA. The Provost adroitly separated himself from the genus 'golfer' by this comment: "Currently what we have for the students who sign up for golf is an extremely popular course. Most students don't actually get the opportunity to take golf. And those that do, do not even get onto a golf course or anything that approximates a course. They get to practice a little bit on the driving range. They get to practice a little bit on a putting field, putting whatever-you-call-it… green."
Despite this athletic discussion, it was interesting that not one word about Big Game was yet forthcoming from anyone.
Chair Sheppard recognized Dean Long. "Is this a golf question?" Dean Long responded. "It's a follow-up on the general issue, which relates to athletics and fund-raising. I just wanted to echo in agreement what the Provost has said about donors who really have a very specific goal. Let's say that they really want to give for an athletic facility. The upside to that is that while many are always going to be like that, it is also an entry for people who originally are completely determined that they were not going to do anything except athletics, and we are able to match them with a good athletic facility or other fund-raising goal, and through that, and through our good stewardship of it, they then, in future years, actually do get involved and engaged with the community and in the future do give for other things. The golf course, like the art museum and a lot of other things, is actually part of community outreach as well. It makes our alumni community and others feel like they are part of Stanford. So I think you have to look at the big picture."
Provost Etchemendy added, "Sharon, let me follow up on that theme, because that's a good point. If we were to do what Russ suggests and shut down the main golf course for a certain period of time during the week to allow golf rec classes to use it, then that would upset a number of our donors who happen to be golfers. And believe me... it would upset them a lot! And so that might generate unintended, bad consequences."
At that point, Professor Sheppard pulled forth a report from Registrar Printup, about the flier on the desks that proclaimed that Stanford should beat Yale! What it referred to is the availability for students to evaluate their courses on-line. Yale and Dartmouth, using a similar system, had up to 80% of students participating.
Printup spoke. "What I'm about to say really applies to course evaluations in H&S, Engineering, Earth Sciences, and Education. Law, Business, and Medicine have separate course evaluation systems. This quarter, for the first time, course evaluations in those four schools that I mentioned are going to be done online. Students will get into that system through AXESS. I do want to assure students that the information is not being stored in AXESS in any way, we're only using AXESS to verify that you are a student at Stanford University and these are the courses you are taking, and therefore these are the course evaluations you should fill out. The information is actually stored on servers that are not Stanford servers. Even I do not have access to any individual students' course evaluation responses.
"The colorful little flier is just an ad that was in the Daily about this. There's some information on the back. There are copies of these available, many hundreds of thousands of these available in the department offices, if faculty members want to pass this out, so that students will know how to get into the system. E-mails about this will be sent to faculty who are teaching this quarter. In that e-mail will be a link to this FAQ sheet, which will give faculty information about how this is all going to work."
Referring to the other pamphlet on the senators' desks, the Registrar noted, "The AXESS for faculty brochure, this send out every quarter about grading, but it's been updated with information about how you will be viewing the results of the course evaluations in AXESS. If all goes well, the system will be open for a period of two weeks, starting next week, Monday, for students to complete evaluations. The results will be available to faculty on December 22nd, which is just two days after the evaluation process should be completed.
"I have been assisted greatly in this effort by four of the associate deans from the four schools. If you have any questions, ask me or send me an e-mail about the whole process. The response rate is always an issue. Students who complete all of the evaluations will be able to see their grades as faculty submit them. For those students who do not complete all of the evaluations, their grades will be held back from their eyes until after the new year. So if they want to see their grades right away, they should fill out the evaluations.
"I must add that Dartmouth, which also withholds grades from students who do not complete evaluations, also withholds the results from faculty members who do not submit their grades!" As laughter died down, the Registrar added "We're not going to do that…yet."
Professor Sheppard cut in to add, "And, Roger, I think you said that the students have the option of checking a box that says, 'I decline to fill this out.' The Registrar nodded agreement and said, "…there may be a reason, a very small course, for example, why a student would not want to evaluate the course. We picked this idea up from both Yale and Dartmouth. At those two schools very few students declined to evaluate. And they have response rates in the 80 to 90 percent range. And that's why we want to beat Yale. We want a response rate that's higher than Yale's."
Professor Anderson asked, "What was the response rate in the pilot programs done last year?" Mentioning that the overall response rate was in the 50% range, Printup added, "That's why we have taken this additional step of withholding grades as sort of a bit of a stick, to get students to complete them. We have a carrot. We're doing a random drawing of iTunes for students who do complete all the evaluations. I think all of us who have been working on this project recognize that we need to do what we can to get into the 80, 90 percent response rate for this to be a successful system. But based on the experience at other schools, I think we can do that."
In response to a concern by one of the graduate students who had taught in a course that was in the pilot evaluation last year that anonymity for students was possibly breached, the Registrar assured all present that this would not happen.
V. Other ReportsA. Graduate Student Diversity (SenD#5889)
Professor Sheppard introduced "…our fellow senator, the newly appointed Associate Vice Provost for Graduate Education, Gail Mahood, who's going to be presenting the report on graduate student diversity, particularly relevant as we approach the recruiting season. I'd also like to introduce a number of graduate student guests:
Courtney Bonam - Black Graduate Students' Association
Linda Tran - Asian American Graduate Students' Association
Micaela Diaz-Sanchez - Chicano-Latino Graduate Student Association
Nanibaa' Garrison and Matt Anderson - Stanford Native American Graduate Students
Faith Kazmi - Dean for the Women's Center
Professor Mahood introduced some of those with whom she had worked on putting this report together: Pat Cook, Ann George, and Joanna Chi. She was also pleased to note that VPGE Patty Gumport was present.
"I'm going to present some data on trends in admissions over the last 20 years, focusing on 1985, 1995, and 2005. The total number of applicants, admits, and enrollees in all of our graduate programs have increased systematically. The proportion admitted has declined. The yield has increased, indicating our competitiveness. So everything we have here is the sign of a burgeoning graduate program, one that's increasingly selective and attractive to applicants. First, let's look at the numbers for women graduate students.
"Women, on average, are a little bit less likely than men to be admitted. If we look at the numbers or the chances of being admitted in the programs that admit a large number of students, there is about a one-in-six chance of a woman being admitted. And, of course, in the professional schools of law, business, and medicine, chances of being admitted (for both genders) are quite a bit lower than that. Once admitted there is a rising yield of both men and women electing to enroll." She went on to discuss a breakdown of the numbers of women applying to individual departments and schools, those admitted, and those enrolled. There was a variation across the University among schools that had improved numbers of women graduate students and those whose numbers were falling. The ranges were from 30% and falling, to more than 60%. Her conclusion was that "…the picture for women, then, is one that I think is a positive one in which that some schools and departments are doing better than others, particularly Education. But, in general, it's a generally positive one."
As for under-represented minority (URM) graduate students, the situation is less positive. Drawing on the Provost's Graduate Diversity Action Council Report of June 2005 chaired by Professors Al Camarillo and John Rickford she noted:
The total number of URM graduate students had not increased significantly over the last decade
For some ethnic groups the numbers had declined
Under-represented minorities were a declining proportion of Ph.D. students
The data were particularly striking when one compared the breakdown of the make-up of the undergraduate and graduate populations in 2005:
Undergrads Graduate
(%) students (%)
Native Americans 2.1 0.3
Black/African
Americans 10.5 2.6
Hispanic 11.2 4.6
Asian/Pacific
islander 24.2 10.9
White 40.5 33.6
International 6.1 37.9
Unknown/mixed 5.4 10.2
While the undergraduate population is not widely disparate from the general population, it is clear, said Professor Mahood, "…that we are not educating the next generation of faculty members from URM groups at a rate that would even replace ourselves, let alone do what I think we should be doing, which is contribute to a pool of Ph.D.-educated minorities to staff, industry, government, and other universities."
Professor Mahood went on to show details of the trends of minority graduate students admitted and newly enrolled in each school and many departments. These details, too much for presentation here, would be shared by Professor Mahood, and interested individuals should contact her directly. Her data showed that the eight large departments from the School of Engineering constitute nearly 40% of our graduate student population. "So," she noted, "…when you start actually talking about the underrepresented minority problem at Stanford in terms of trying to increase the numbers, it's really a problem that has to be solved in Engineering. That's where it has to be solved first."
Several professors noted that whereas Engineering has many masters degree students, there are almost no M.A. or M.S. degree candidates in H & S departments, and although there are very few Ph.D. candidates in these areas, twenty years ago there were none. It was agreed that a major component of the problem of enrolling more URM graduate students is that so few apply, and the applicant numbers are not increasing, except in the professional schools where, ironically, the competition for being admitted is so much greater. Professor Mahood pointed out that other "mismatches" exist. For example, "…minority candidates apply to the humanities and social sciences where there is limited funding for graduate students, and they apply in very small numbers to natural sciences and engineering, where the largest numbers of graduate students are supported."
Compared with national trends, said Mahood, "…there has been an increase in the proportion of under-represented minority groups in the graduate population in nearly all fields. In contrast, at Stanford, there has been a decrease in nearly all fields. These mirror declines at our peer institutions. In 1994 Stanford had higher proportions of URM enrolled compared with peer institutions, but in 2000 we had the same proportions as did our peers." She pointed out a number of reasons for this, including budget woes at Stanford, complacency that the "problem had been solved," the ambiguity of Proposition 209 and other universities' legal cases regarding affirmative action.
The important task now, said Professor Mahood, is addressing and solving the problem. This year, she noted, "…we are replacing Graduate Diversity Admit Weekend by two new events as well as working earlier in the admit process to get applicants thinking about us sooner, and doubling the number of prospective students that we fund to visit the campus. A Biosciences Preview Day held on October 20, 2006 was highly successful for the 14 who attended. On February 23, 2007, there will be a Graduate Recruitment and Diversity Day (G-RADD) at which ~100 H&S, Engineering, and Earth Sciences admits and prospective admits will be on campus for a highly visible recruitment. In addition, there are $500 travel grants available, and there is no pre-set limit on the number available. A pilot version of the Arthur Walker program of seminars designed to increase the representation of domestic minority groups, women and first-generation college attendees within the natural sciences and engineering will be held on campus.
"As for the future, we must attack the under-representation of some groups as a research problem to be studied and solved, examining whether our recruiting efforts are being directed in the most fruitful directions, what the factors are that make students decide to come here, factors affecting retention of URM, how to identify 'diamonds in the rough'?"
Professor Mahood then addressed the strategies for increasing numbers of women and URMs in graduate programs. "The main thing we need to do is we need to encourage our own undergraduates and all the undergraduates we run into to apply to Ph.D. programs. Hundreds are applying to professional schools, while only handfuls are applying to Engineering and H & S. I did a little calculation that if African Americans applied in the sort of same proportion to Ph.D. programs that women did, we'd have five times as many African Americans in Ph.D. programs than we do right now."
Mahood was enthusiastic about using a multi-faceted yardstick of evaluating candidates, "The Distance Traveled" that would interpret the scholastic record taking into account:
Parental income, education and occupation
Pre-college education
Hours per week of work needed
Cultural barriers
Geographic location where applicant was raised
Prior experiences with any type of prejudice
Impact of stereotype threat
Special family circumstances.
She shared an eight-page document with Senators on suggestions for graduate admissions procedures that may increase the identification of viable applicants from under-represented groups. In addition, she urged that we at Stanford "…fine-tune our graduate admission processes, reducing reliance on GRE scores, assessing 'Distance Traveled', and projecting to the future: what impact could this applicant have on society after earning a degree here? We must encourage our own undergraduates to apply to Ph.D. programs and give them good reasons for doing so, and point out to them that they can actually be paid to be students."
The importance of solving this problem is a national one. Our nation's prosperity is based upon a well-educated workforce, she pointed out, and we are losing that race.
Professor Mahood finished with part of a statement that Gerhard Casper made on October 4th, 1995. "He gave a statement about affirmative action that I think still stands as the most intellectually rigorous and honest defense of affirmative action, at least as it's practiced at Stanford, that has ever been written. And in it, he said '…it's the responsibility of educational institutions such as Stanford to find and educate those who can become the leaders of the future in a multiethnic and multiracial society. Alas, our society is quite color-conscious, and we therefore cannot yet afford to be colorblind.' And he went on to finish, 'It is Stanford's very characteristic quality that it's never been one-dimensional, and yet it's been able, especially over the last four decades, to become one of the world's most selected institutions. Our capacity to pursue many excellences will remain undiminished as long as we continue to get the balance right and to not waiver in our commitment to quality.' I hope that you'll agree with me that Gerhard captured in that statement one of the characteristics that is unique to Stanford. And I hope that you'll also agree with me that it's our job as faculty and staff leaders to work hard to get that balance right, to create an educational legacy that's not one-dimensional, and to produce academic grandchildren who will go out in the larger world and society and have an impact there."
Professor Mahood finished there, and received abundant and sustained applause for her report.
Questions and Discussion
Professor Brandeau started off, pointing out that in her Department of Management Science and Engineering, seven of the thirty faculty are women, so that the lack of women on the faculty could not be a logical reason for women not applying in that particular field.
In response to Professor Cook's question as to why not fully fund any minority student that could be admitted to H&S, President Hennessy said, "We cannot commit to support students from just one ethnic group. You can't do it legally. If we could commit to support all Ph.D. applicants admitted, then we can certainly support among those all of the minority students. I think the most interesting thing about the data, Gail, is that the students aren't applying, and they aren't applying to the largest graduate programs in some key parts. And if you look at our faculty hiring, roughly, two-thirds of the faculty we hire are in medicine, science, and engineering, because there's more turnover in those disciplines, there has been more growth in the Medical School, for example. So although they represent only about 50% of the faculty of the University, they actually represent more like 60, 65% of the faculty openings." Speaking of money, it was mentioned that one of the reasons that the School of Education had better recruitment numbers than many schools was that it had a strong loan forgiveness program for graduate students.
In response to a question about whether she had looked at other variables, including sexual orientation, issues of class, as factors determining choices of applicants, Professor Mahood answered, "I haven't looked at the issue of sexual orientation at all. And looking at the issue of class is harder to do for the graduate level because we don't have the financial aid kinds of information that makes it much easier to do it at the undergraduate level. So the answer is, no, I haven't done that."
Professor Cyert had a question and a comment. "My question is maybe pessimistic, but I wonder if you not just centered on enrollment, but if you actually look at the rates at which we award degrees, and whether that matches the enrollment." The answer was "No, not yet." Professor Cyert's comment was that aggressive recruitment of applicants for the biosciences program had produced good results, and it is worth having all programs do it.
Professor Mahood said, "I think one of the things we need to do is make better use of our diversity officers in that regard. They know what it takes to make it here. And they have every reason to make sure that those students that they want you to talk to and visit with are highly encouraged to enroll. What is scary is to think about where we would be if we didn't have them doing what they've been doing!
Professor Jerry Harris commented "…that the competition for the talented students in these populations is not just from our peer universities. We also have severe competition from top-tier state universities, such as Universities of Texas, Michigan, and the like."
Professor Mahood agreed, and again urged faculty and diversity officers to attempt to identify the "diamonds in the rough", the kid that didn't go to MIT, but went to some other sort of second-tier school, but yet still can make it at Stanford. I think that's an important thing we need to do to figure out how to increase the number of underrepresented minorities and women.
VI. Unfinished and New Business.There was none of each, and…not one word about Big Game had been spoken.
VII. AdjournmentThis happened by acclaim at 4:50 and the senators moved upstairs to Executive Session.
VIII. ADDENDUM …Of note, on Saturday evening, Professor Sheppard was pleased to join the entire University in congratulating the Cardinal for a noble effort against Cal that afternoon, and expressed the conviction that…next year, the Axe would be ours!
Respectfully submitted, Edward D. Harris, Jr. M.D. Academic Secretary to the University