STMS
1 Are you a science major?
(19%); a non science major?
(64%); undecided (17%).
2. How would you rate your
own motivation and interest
in academics? High (42%);
Medium (53%); Low (5%).
3. How clearly was each
block taught? (rate from 1
down to 5)
Astronomy, D. Barnes: 1)
22%; 2) 22%; 3) 26%; 4) 15%;
5) 11%; 0) 4%.
Nutrition, Wetmore: 1)
14%; 2) 24%; 3) 25%; 4) 18%;
5) 12% 0)7%.
Ecology, Sytron: 1) 11%; 2
23%; 3) 23%; 4) 23%; 5) 14%;
0) 6%.
Drugs, Knight: 1) 11%; 2)
27%; 3) 31%; 4) 16%; 5) 9%;
0)6%.
I Anthropology, K. Barnes:
1) 7%; 2) 15%; 3) 23%; 4)
23%; 5) 27%; 0)5%.
4. At some schools instead
of a general science course
like STMS, they require a
biology or a chemistry course
instead. Is STMS a good alter
native? Yes (75%), No (25%).
5. Was STMS as in
tellectually stimulating as
your other courses? Yes
(20%), No (80%).
6. How much effort did you
put into STMS during the
week? 0 hrs., 6.3%; 1 hr.,
27.0%; 2 hrs., 21.4%; 4 hrs.,
30.2%; 6 hrs., 10.3%; more,
4.8%.
7. What percent of ttie ST
MS assignments did you do?
0-30% (4%), 31-60% (18%), 61-
100% (78%).
Survey
Results
8. How weU did you un
derstand the objectives of the
labs? Very well (18%);
Somewhat (67%); Not at aU
(15%).
9. What portion of your ST
MS Knowledge did you leam
from the labs? 0-20% (64%);
21-50% (32.8%); 51-100%
(3.2%).
10. Do you think that the lab
work should be more oriented
towards understanding the
lecture material? Yes
(79.5%); No (19.7%); Un
decided (.8%).
11. How helpful and
valuable was your discussion
section towards understandin
the material? Very much
(12%); Somewhat (57%); Not
at an (31%).
12. How often on an average
did you skip the discussions
and lectures per week? 0
(43.2%); 1 (28%); 2 (20%); 3
(5.6%); 4(3.2%).
13. Do you think that STMS
will leave you with a basic
knowledge of what science is
about? Yes (62.7%); No
(34.8%); Sort Of (2.5%).
14. Do you think that the
library assignments were a
learning experience? Yes
(15.9%); No (84.1%).
15. Do you know more about
the library now, after using it
in STMS? Yes (54.8%); No
(45.2%).
16. Would you prefer STMS
more, if STMS did more work
in discussion rather than in
lecture? Yes (50.8%); No
(49.2%).
Spring Arts Fest Opens
MAY 1, SUNDAY - Senior Student Art Show, Vardell Gallery,
^ lAftemoon Reception.
MAY 2, MONDAY - Daniel CJieney, Pianist, Saiior recital Var
dell Building, 8:00 p.m.
MAY 3, TUESDAY - Joan Miller, Soprano Guest artst, VardeU
^uilding, 8:00 p.m.
MAY 4, WEDNESDAY - Student Poetiy Reading - VardeU
puilding, 8:00 p.m.
MAY 5, THURSDAY - Faculty/Student Spring Concert - St. An-
jdrews Faculty Trio will present a joint concert with a flute-
{riano trio composed of St. Andrews music majors. The
Fc^gram will include works by Mozart, Telemann, Milhaud,
and Cimerosa. The Faculty Trio includes Dave Wilkins,
\^darinet; Margaret Rehdor, violin; and Louise Leach, piano.
Hie student members are Kathie DeVane and Walter Kunezel,
flute; and Ivy Baker, piano. Vardell Building - 8:00 p.m.
MAY 6, FRIDAY - Kathy Devane, Pianist, Senior recital, Var
dell Building, 8:00 p.m.
may 7, SATURDAY - Arts Fair, Exhibits, demonstrations,
workshops, entertainment, refreshments, dances, crafts,
games, etc. On and around the causewalk. All day and into the
event.
MAY 8, SUNDAY—Faure Requiem. St. Andrews College Choir
and Laurinburg Presbyterian Church Choir, Laurinburg
j^sbyterian Church, 8:00 p.m.
may 8-9, SUNDAY-MONDAY - Three By Three By Three*. As
If To Forget—^by Steve Grissom, Directed by Danny Haley.
Bare Trees—by Susan Russell, Directed by Marsha Coggins.
Final Curtain—by David Miller, Directed by Jane Schwab. Lab
Theatre, Liberal Arts Building, 8:00 p.m.
may 10, TUESDAY - Opera Theatre, Workshop scenes. Selec
ted operas. Liberal Arts Auditorium, 8:00 p.m.
may 11, WEDNESDAY - Premiere of Films*. Created by St.
Andrews Students, Liberal Arts Auditorium. 8:00 p.m.
(For further information: Jack Vaughn, co-ordinator of ARTS
fair. Arthur McDonald, co-ordinator of other events).
TTie results of the survey
showed that students had
mixed attitudes towards ST
MS; of the class 125 students
responded. When asked
whether or not STMS was a
good alternative to the
traditional requirement of one
or two semesters of a specific
science, an overwhelming
number though it was. Fur
thermore, 65.2% felt STMS
would leave tiiem with a basic
knowledge of science. Only
20%, however, felt that STMS
was as intellectually
stimulating as other courses
being taken.
Another aspect examined
was the importance of the ST
MS laboratory, the relevance
of the subject matter treated,
and the students’ attitudes
towards their weekly
laboratory sessions. When
asked if they understood the
objectives and purposes of
their laboratory work, 82% of
those polled said that they un
derstood the objectives either
somewhat or not at all. When
questioned about the amount
of knowledge gained from
their laboratory work in com
parison to the total amount
learned in the whole of STMS,
97% answered that less than
half of their total knowledge
came from lab while 64% of
that group said that they
acquired only about 20% of
their knowledge from lab. A
large majority of those
questioned (80%) said that
lab work dlould be more
closely oriented towards the
work done in the discussion
and lecture.
According to the poll,
discussion groups have some
value, but improvements and
changes seem to be indicated.
Some of the STMS faculty
members lacked sufficient in
terest in the topics to make
discussion interesting and
helpful in learning the
material. Changes could in
clude organizing the
discussion sections in such a
way that they investigate
more specific areas of the
discipline addressed.
Were the STMS library
assignments important? A
large majority (84%) of the
students did not seem to think
so. Most thought that the
assignments were ‘busy
work’. Also, the practice of
making single assignments to
the whole class results in a
substantial number ot stuaen-
ts using the library
simultaneously, especially on
the eve of the assignment
deadline. This would seem to
suggest that each section or
discussion group could be
given an individual assign
ment, perhaps even with
varying deadlines.
Based on the conclusions of
the survey, there seems to be
a definite need for im-
orovements in Selectef^
Topics in Modem Science,
especially in the discussion
sections, the library skills
assignments, and the lab sec
tions. It is also suggested that
the STMS professors should
exhibit more interest in and
motivation toward the
material and the class and to
accept the philosophy behind
STMS. It is hoped that the ST
MS committee will seriously
consider these statistics when
planning the format of STMS
for the following year. The
cooperation of the freshman
class in this survey is ap
preciated.
THE
RED
LION
Now Open
In The College
Union
8-12 P. M-
Professors^ Grade Report
point average (GPA). This fraction represents the
Apologies must be given to total number of grade points
all those not included in this over the number of students
survey. It is recognized that who evaluated that person,
there are many more worthy xhe top five personnel at
personnel to be evaluated, but st. Andrews according to the
there was a severe limit of results are Tom Jones, an
time and staff to compile the Assistant Professor with a
data. An especially sincere 3.71; Dianne Braak, a Voice
apology is given to Coach instructor, with a 3.70; Neal
Floyd Blackwell, who was gushoven. Assistant
overlooked due to a clerical professor of Politics and
Director of SAS, with a 3.69;
William Alexander, Professor
of Philosophy and Religion,
The chart includes the with a 3.68; and Eugene
professor or administrator. Smith, Professor of
their GPA, and a fraction. Education, also with a 3.68.
GPA Frofessor/Adiniiiistrator Fraction
3.68 Alexander, W illiam M 206/56
2.18 Applegate, Arthur L 144/66
3.13 Bames, Donald G 247/79
2.20 Bames, Karen 101/46
3.21 Bayes, Ronald H 154/48
3.28 Bennett, Carl D 141/43
2.35 Betts, M. Dean 146/62
3.70 Braak, Dianne 27/10
2.04 Brown, Cheryl 55/27
3.00 Brown, Linda 3/1
2.19 Bullock, Leslie 147/67
3.69 Bushoven, Comelius 203/55
2.55 Chay, June L 84/33
2.75 Cobb, Barbara H 33/12
2.49 Cobb, Jr., James V 92/37
1.77 Coffman, Rooney L 62/35
2.95 Crawford, Dudley 56/19
2.96 Crossley, Ronald 225/76
2.25 Curtis, Raymond 72/32
1.95 Daughtrey, John P 41/21
2.19 Decker, Rodger W 92/42
3.33 Ford, Brad 90/27
2.52 Fouke, George L 136/54
2.98 Fulcher, J. Rodney 125/42
2.03 Gay, Lacy M 65/32
3.15 Geffert, Cari W 126/40
1.79 Harvin, Harry L 75/42
2.57 Holmes, James D. J. ; 59/23
3.17 Hom, Herbert A 73/23
0.85 Jackson, James H 11/13
2.96 Jones, F. Whitney 160/54
3.71 Jones, Tom 54/14
2.62 Joyner, Charles W 97/37
2.41 Knight, Judith M 130/54
3.50 Leach, Louise 7/2
2.85 Loftus, William 114/40
2.17 Ludlow, Jr., L. Spencer 104/48
2.54 Marks, Martha 104/41
2.03 Marks, Stuart A 71/35
3.35 McDonald, Arthur W 164/49
2.08 McNair, David 75/36
3.12 McLean, David 178/57
2.93 Melton, George 35/29
2.33 Morgan, William 100/43
2.50 Neylans, Catherine 95/38
3.18 Patton, Elbert 35/11
3.37 Paul, Garrett 91/27
2.61 Paxton, Donald 81/31
2.45 Perkinson, Jr., A. P 152/62
3.63 Prust, Richard 272/75
1.49 ReVelle, Jacques C 91/61
2.62 Rogers, Helen 55/21
3.14 Holland, William W 110/35
1.71 Santa-Maria, Maria 135/79
3.06 Schultz, Lawrence 98/32
2.48 Smith, Alvin H 72/29
3.68 Smith, Eugene 125/34
1.82 Smith, Julian 40/22
3.48 Smith, Mark L 94/27
3.60 Somerville, William H 223/62
3.04 Stephens, James F 85/28
2.90 Tauber, Robert C 87/30
2.32 Urie, Robert M 88/38
2.95 Wetmore, David E 236/80
3.09 White, W. D 176/57
2.66 Whitely, Thomas M 93/35
3.00 Wilkins, Alice 3/1
2.18 Wilkins, David 48/22
3.35 Williams, Jo Ann 201/60
2.45 Williams, John E 49/20