Newspapers / Salem College Student Newspaper / Feb. 24, 1978, edition 1 / Page 2
Part of Salem College Student Newspaper / About this page
This page has errors
The date, title, or page description is wrong
This page has harmful content
This page contains sensitive or offensive material
91b8 Guest Editorial ^Notc It is Our Turn’ We would like to express appreciation for our inclusion in last Saturday morning’s combined task force meeting. We commend the task forces in their preparation of reports. It is obvious that much time, dedication and research was involved in the reports presented at the meeting. Particularly impressive was the way in which the entire faculty seemed to have worked together for constructive purposes. One might logically ask, “What next?’’ The work has been done (although many faculty have expressed a desire to perpetuate their committees), and the recommendations have been presented and directed for action to specific individuals or committees. Student input has not been nonexistent, but it would be unfortunate if students were not given an opportunity to comment on the finished work of the task forces. Tentatively, student-task force meetings have been planned for the discussion of those topics which may directly concern students. Attendance at such meetings would indicate student interest in Salem’s future. We urge students to participate in any of the opportunities presented. The faculty and administration have demonstrated the depth of their committment to Salem. Now it is our turn. Jane Dittmann Summaries of Committees Anne Beidleman Task Forces Cont’d. from one that 30 per cent is an appropriate section of the student body not requiring direct supervision during January. A strong sentiment that the January Program must be strengthened ^ was evident in the comments of many faculty members. Dr. Jack Bevan, who devised the 4-1-4 program, and was a guest lecturer at another task force meeting, commented on the impact of the January program on curriculum planning, and the significance of experiential learning in the month-long program. Bevan suggested the idea of planning the January Program with an overall theme in mind. He indicated that his promotes a community spirit and is an interesting option to explore. Dr. Byers, representing the Task Force on Curriculum, explained that the group’s suggested “core curriculum” is designed for more consistency in terms of the liberal arts concept. Many factors influenced the formulation of the “core curriculum,” including an awareness of the importance of the Continuing Education Program and an assessment of students as “career oriented.” The “core curriculum” was discussed in terms of the adequacy of preparation for the science or music major, with minimal math and language requirements. Support was indicated for the requirement of a laboratory science, although the; reduced physical education requirement prompted differing opinions. Miss Woodward indicated that the physical education requirement designated by the task force might close the program to students who are unsure of themselves in that area. “When we think about governance, we all want non interference.” With this statement. Dr. HiU, began her presentation of the report of the Task Force on Governance. The group devised two charts which present a plan or organization for administration, staff, faculty and student-faculty committees. The proposed organization “allows for autonomy, and provides for joint sharing of responsibility,” according to Dr. Hill. Since one of the proposed charts suggests that faculty serve on Board of Trustees committees. Dr. Lazarus questioned whether the individuals would have voting privileges. The final report was presented by Dean Sandresky, who represented the Task Force on Long Range Planning. In examining the intended enrollment increases. Dr. Chase suggested that enrollment could be expanded further by allowing selected Juniors and Seniors to live off-campus. Because the report indicates the inevitability of tuition" increases, it was suggested that students be advised honestly that fees will increase in relation to the increasing cost of living. The length and depth of the report made it impossible to- cover all aspects in the time allotted, but Dean Sandresky invited the faculty and students present to discuss the report at length on another occasion. CURRICULUM TASK FORCE Dr. Byers - chairman Mrs. Edwards Dr. Kurtz Mr. Mangum Dr. Thompson The Curriculum Task Force proposed that all basic distribution requirements be included in a “core curriculum.” The core curriculum would include courses designed to give students a common background in “the alternative methods by which scientists, social scientists and humanists approach problems and the modes of thought by which they apprehend the world.” The proposed curriculum would emphasize fields of history, English, social sciences, humanities, and natural sciences. Proficiency levels would be required for foreign language and mathematics. The physical education requirement would include two terms of physical education courses. Students over the age of 35 would be exempt from this requirement. Proposals relating to the January Term included the recommendation that remedial work and foreign language programs be offered, and that independent study programs and internships be open only to sophomores, juniors, and seniors. The committee also set forth proposals regarding career preparation, interdisciplinary programs and continuing education programs. TASK FORCE ON ADVISING Dr. Kelly - chairman Dr. Ackenbom Dianne Dailey Dr. Flory Ms. Garcia Dr. Gossett Dean Johnson The Task Force on Advising recommended that “all full-time faculty members participate in the advising program”; “a weekly time period be set aside for advising” (where the adviser would be available to his advisees during an established day and time); and “folders containing academic information for each advisee including a copy of the student’s permanent test record, test scores, academic planning guide, mid-term deficiencies, and adviser notes on conferences” be given to each adviser. The Adviser Committee devised a tentative schedule for advisers to follow. They recommendeti that advisers meet with their advisees at specific times during each semester (for instance, during registration). The committee recognized special problems that students encounter each year. Advisers will guide freshmen on course decisions and on assessing their academic strengths and weaknesses. Sophomores will receive aid in choosing a major and devising scholastic goals. Advisers who have juniors and seniors as advisees will stress graduate school and career opportunities, and departments will meet with their majors once per semester. TASK FORCE ON EVALUATION Dr. Nelson ~ chairman Dr. Chase Dr. Dudley Dr. McKnight Dr. Pubantz Faculty The Task Force on Evaluation recommended that faculty members be evaluated on “instructional effectiveness” through “colleague ratings,” “self-evaluation,” “alumni ratings,” and student evaluations. Professors will be rated on “instructional content,” “communication of content,” “instructional methodology,” and “personal relations-rapport with students.” The data gained from faculty evaluation will be used by professors as personal information “for self- improvement purposes.” The material will also be used to determine “promotion, termination, tenure (and) merit salary increases.” The task force also recommended that “all faculty obtain evaluations annually” and “each faculty member (be) required to examine the file once a year.. Cont’d. on three 'I, :■ - ' rxf ■m snxtmNT T5o i~h
Salem College Student Newspaper
Standardized title groups preceding, succeeding, and alternate titles together.
Feb. 24, 1978, edition 1
2
Click "Submit" to request a review of this page. NCDHC staff will check .
0 / 75