The Provost's Office: An Informal History
Chapter Two: Academic Matters and Degrees
Advising
On February 9, 1960, the Faculty
Senate undertook a study "of the underlying purposes and objectives of the system
of academic advising, and of the extent to which the present system of academic
advising is meeting these objectives." The Student Affairs Committee of the
Senate, with additional representatives from schools not represented on that
committee, undertook the study. The report of this committee is found in the
May 10, 1960, Senate minutes. This report said that the adviser should be more
than a scheduler and that the student must feel that he or she can discuss any
or all problems with their adviser. Personal problems that are too difficult
for the adviser to handle should be referred to the Counseling Service. It was
pointed out that there was a lack of administrative appreciation of the time
involved, a lack of administrative interest in good advising, and the sheer
numbers of students assigned may be basic to the problem. Among the many recommendations
was a system of preregistration, which did get adopted. A general academic program
for students who did not choose a major upon admission to the schools was also
suggested. A General College was proposed by the committee, but this was changed
by the Senate to a general program in each school. This came into being very
much later for all colleges while Poulton was Chancellor in response to his
study of a General College. It was also proposed to extend the drop date for
courses to five weeks after the beginning of the semester. "Advising should
be recognized as a part of the work load and should be recognized as important
by the administration." This was accepted by the administration. It was also
suggested that some graduate students might be used as advisers. I don't know
that this was ever done in a formal way, but a few TAs were used as advisers.
This was a comprehensive study and while some parts were implemented, others
were not. While some suggestions helped with procedures, it did not solve the
advising problems and it had little impact, for most of the faculty did not
really believe that advising was important enough to give it equal standing
in their activities. The department heads who were the key administrators thought
like their faculty so that this function did not get recognized at salary increase
time. Central administrators continued to worry and were very willing to make
it a more important part of the reward structure.
On June 12, 1961, Chancellor Caldwell
sent a memorandum to deans of schools on the improvement of faculty advising.
This four-page memo had five sections.
1. The Importance of Advising.
In this section the Chancellor said that advising should be recognized as
having importance equivalent to that of teaching and research. Kelly, Hart
and I agreed with this statement and we each preached that sermon while we
were Provosts.
2. Adviser, Student Contact. This emphasized that there should be
several contacts with the freshman student during the first semester. Many
advisers still do not follow this practice. He said that the number of advisees
per faculty member should be limited to 25. This maximum number was not implemented
in most units and would not be implemented in departments with large numbers
of majors. Several departments adopted the practice of having all majors advised
by one or two or at least very few faculty instead of having all of the faculty
in the department advising their student majors. These departments made advising
essentially a full time job for these advisers, but most continued to teach
at least one course per semester.
3. Resources of the Adviser. Mention was made of the Advisers'
Handbook which was prepared at that time by Student Affairs.
4. Adviser Functions and Responsibilities. Caldwell said that the
adviser should establish himself as a faculty friend, or at least one who
is willing to be a friend. He stated, "Further, he must feel definite responsibility
for making sure that his charges at least have the information which will
help them avoid various pitfalls in the College academic situation. For example,
the unpromising student should have his course load reduced early before he
gets into trouble. Students in difficulty should be encouraged to repeat courses
when they are needed for solid footing in a program of studies.
5. Briefing sessions by departments or schools should be held on advising
problems. This was sage advice, but this policy never really got used
by most of the departments and schools so that the sage advice never really
got to the faculty. As time went on, it was forgotten, except by those really
good advisers. Some schools and especially SALS, did have conferences on advising
frequently and invited the campus community to attend. One major workshop
held by SALS was in 1966 was the subject: "The Proper Role of Faculty in Student
Advising."
In 1972 the Senate also had another
major study of advising. This report was submitted to the Chancellor on February
6, 1973. The Senate recommended that coordinators of advising be established
in each department. This person would assign, train and supervise advisers in
the unit. The coordinator would assist students who wished to transfer to that
department or to another department. This was especially designed to help the
phantom majors (students who were enrolled in one major, wished to be in another
major, but whose record was not good enough to transfer) who frequently were
not eligible to transfer to the program of their choice. Students who were unhappy
with their adviser could request a new adviser through this individual. The
Senate recommended: "(1) The advisee first consults with a new adviser of his
choice to determine whether or not the adviser would accept him as an advisee;
(2) The new adviser recommends the change in writing to the department head
or other officials responsible for advising assignments." This was adopted and
solved a very serious problem, for the practice in many departments had been
to keep the same adviser in the major until graduation. In some cases students
and advisers had serious conflicts. This also assured an orderly transfer of
student records to the new adviser. It was suggested that in the second or third
semester before graduation, the student should be given written notice of the
graduation requirements satisfied and those still lacking. One recommendation
that was adopted read as follows:
The student has the primary responsibility
for planning his or her program and meeting graduation requirements. This
in no way relieves the advisers of their responsibility to keep current with
curriculum and course developments and to counsel students on advisable course
programs. Advisers are expected to take the time to explore thoroughly various
alternatives that are open to students and to advise them of the consequences
of various actions. While an adviser does not have the authority to block
an advisee's preregistration or Drop/Add forms by refusing to sign the forms,
the adviser does have an obligation to indicate approval or disapproval of
the action taken on the appropriate forms.
Most of the Faculty Senate's recommendations
were adopted and implemented after much debate among the school deans, the associate
deans and the Faculty Senate. These recommendations have been very helpful and
continue so today. After the automated degree audit was developed by Registration
and Records, the information including what requirements were completed and
which were lacking was given to the students as a part of the grade reports
at the end of each semester. The computer did help and the automated degree
audit worked very well for those programs which had an interested faculty member
who kept this device up-to-date. It soon became useless in those units where
no one in the department assumed the responsibility to keep the automated degree
audit current for their degree programs.
After I became Provost and through
the efforts of Dr. Downs, we established the Coordinating Committee for Undergraduate
Advising in 1975. The Associate Dean for Academic Affairs represented each school
and the committee had representatives from units in Student Affairs. This has
been a very useful group and it has helped us to avoid many problems. Dr. Downs
called the group together and handled the agenda.
In the Faculty Senate minutes of
October 21, 1986, there is a reminder that all senators should attend the Provost's
Forum. This was to hear and to discuss the Report of the Commission on Advising,
chaired by Ed Glazener. "John Riddle will moderate discussion following a three-part
report: (1) short-term strategies; (2) long-term strategies; and (3) strategies
for evaluating effective advising." This Commission provided the most extensive
study of advising at NCSU that I have found in the files. Chancellor Poulton
wrote: "The Commission on Advising is to be congratulated for having completed
an excellent report that surveys the views of the various constituents involved
in the advising process, that examines current and desirable practices, and
that identifies a variety of strategies for making improvements. I recognize
and sincerely appreciate the time and wisdom contributed by each Commission
member to improving one of the most significant elements of our undergraduate
program. I will be discussing the Commission's report and recommendations with
the Dean's Council during the next several weeks and will be better prepared
to respond to the details of the report at a later date." He went on to describe
how and to whom the report would be distributed.
On October 7, 1987, Chancellor Poulton
wrote to the School Deans and stated: Upon the recommendation of the Commission
on Advising and after consultation with the Provost and the Council of Deans,
I request that you work with your department heads and faculties to establish
guidelines for undergraduate academic advising in your school subject to the
following stipulations:
1. Submit to the Provost before
the end of the 1987-88 academic year a school-wide plan for undergraduate
academic advising.
2. Include as a part of the plan provisions for the following:
a. Regular training sessions
for advisors,
b. Departmental or school advising booklets for students,
c. Schedules and procedures that allow adequate access by advisees
to advisors,
d. Departmental or school users guides to automated degree audits
for their use as an advising tool,
e. Mechanisms for advisees to use as input into the evaluation of
the effectiveness of advising in order that effective advising can be recognized
and rewarded,
f. Annual review of departmental advising procedures and advising assignments
in order that the advising process at the departmental level can be made
more effective.
3. Provide the Provost at the
end of the 1988-89 academic year and annually thereafter an assessment and
progress report on the implementation of the school-wide plan for undergraduate
academic advising.
The University Administration
concurs with the Commission on Advising regarding the vital role of advising
in the total educational experience of the undergraduate students at NCSU.
Therefore I call upon the school deans, the academic department heads, and
the faculty advisers to study the report of the Commission and to take the
steps outlined above and any others that can improve the effectiveness of
academic advising and enhance the educational experience of our undergraduates.
At the end of the 1987-88 academic
year I did not have school plans from all of the schools, and at the end of
the 1988-89 year I did not have all of the assessment and progress reports called
for. At this time there seemed to be less interest and there were other University
matters of great importance, including severe budget reductions, which took
so much of my attention and that of the school deans. The resignation of Chancellor
Poulton, and my announced and pending retirement in 1990 may have made the efforts
of lesser importance to many on campus. The most important recommendation of
the Commission was that each school have a carefully thought-out plan for undergraduate
advising and that these plans be systematically reviewed and revised as appropriate.
While each school developed a plan, the School of Design was the last to report,
which was just before I retired in 1990. We had to ask a few schools for their
reports more than once. Others had theirs in and made the earlier associated
reports as scheduled. The Deans and I were all caught up in the fever of the
budget crunch cuts and other matters, and my staff was inundated with added
functions and activities of that time too, so the plans really were not reviewed
as carefully by us as they should have been and were not revised by units systematically.
I think that they continued to fall through the cracks under Hart, too.
There were a number of other very
important recommendations in the 1989 report on academic advising. These included
telephonic registration, which was subsequently implemented. With this development
the recommendations for preregistration and Change Day became unnecessary. Dr.
Downs and the Associate Deans of the Schools worked to develop school-level
user guides for the Automated Degree Audit programs and they worked continuously
with the staff of Registration and Records to identify problems and make improvements
in the system. They were unable to use the degree audit forms as a means to
notify students of new academic regulations, to enforce course-load limits and
to carry the names of all advisers. The Official Bulletin was used to
announce all notices regarding advising matters as recommended, but although
these matters were sent to the Technician each set of editors had their
own criteria regarding the worthiness for publishing such announcements. So
some were published and even more were not. A number of schools and departments
did develop the school-wide or departmental advising handbooks. Not all did.
Another important recommendation that did not get implemented widely was the
one called Front-Loading of Advising. This was a very important proposed strategy
of the Commission. It was recommended that in departments where the advising
loads were particularly heavy (more than 30 per adviser), schools should allocate
positions and/or funds to hire full time advisers for students in the lower
division. Advanced graduate students could also be used for this purpose. These
special advisers could be available at freshman orientation and during Summer
School when some advisers were not on campus and were unavailable to students.
Full-time advisers would insure consistency and accuracy in advising, as in
the University Undesignated Program, in the University Transition Program and
in several departments. The emphasis on excellent freshman advising has been
expanded to those freshmen enrolled in the Undergraduate Studies Freshmen Experience
course. I indicated to all in the academic community that advising was a part
of instruction and that the instructional position lines that hired other faculty
members could be used for this purpose. I understand that a very few programs
did hire full time staff or assigned staff on a full time basis to this function,
but not many did.
In December of 1988, the Chancellor
and I met with all of the department heads and the associate deans for academic
affairs and in the absence of the department head, the departmental coordinator
of advising. We presented to them a proposal from the student leadership. Their
recommendations were:
1) More requirements should
be set for advisers. Upon hiring a new faculty member who has the potential
to be an adviser, the importance of their role should be strongly emphasized.
2) Each department should carry the responsibility of outlining their
advising system, making sure that advisers adhere to this policy and continually
emphasizing the importance of this facet of their job.
3) The administration should also continually emphasize the role of advising
on campus. It needs to be clear to an adviser that their performance in this
capacity will be a factor in consideration for pay raises, tenure et cetera.
4) Students need to be better informed of their responsibilities and of
procedures for complaints or praise regarding their advisers.
5) A system of student evaluations for advisers should be implemented campus-wide.
(This had been suggested earlier and was being done in some departments.)
6) Establishing a central advising center on campus is a system that should
be considered. This center would not take advising away from the faculty.
Instead, it would allow students who are uncertain about their major to talk
with an informed and unbiased person.
7) A campus-wide peer advising system should be implemented. If coordinated
correctly, this will allow for students to get advice from upperclassmen so
that they will be better prepared when meeting with advisors.
In 1988, Dr. Rebecca Leonard and
Dr. William Grant were engaged by the Provost's Office to spearhead an effort
during the 1988-89 academic year aimed at improving undergraduate advising on
campus. They were to spend about one-third time each on the project. The end
product of this effort was to be the development of an advising workshop which
would be offered through colleges and departments to all faculty members who
were or were likely to become advisers. One important feature of such a workshop
was to be a component dealing with advising African-American students. They
started by meeting with the associate deans for academic affairs in the various
colleges for the purpose of explaining their project and getting a feel for
the advising systems within the colleges. Additional meetings were held with
other pertinent groups, including the Coordinating Committee for Undergraduate
Advising, the African-American Coordinators group, and the African-American
Student Affairs staff. With the aid of the staff in the Academic Skills Program
they also conducted an ERIC search for the most recent research on academic
advising which yielded numerous journal articles of interest. Plans were made
to conduct a telephone survey of students with respect to their views of the
nature and quality of advising on campus. One of the reasons for this effort
so soon after the commission report was that so many said they needed help in
training and providing information to improve advisers in their schools. The
idea was that Leonard and Grant would train a few persons and these would then
train other advisers. On May 1, 1990, Dr. Leonard and Dr. Grant reported that
they had presented the workshop "Effective Advising: Making a Difference" in
each of the Colleges, except in the School of Design, which did not invite them.
The workshop was presented to all of the current advisers in all the other colleges
except CALS and CHASS where it was presented to the coordinators of advising
who were to present it to the advisers in the departments. They said, "We think
that the most valuable part of each training was the interaction which took
place among the workshop participants. Each college has received a copy of the
videotape and the instructions on how to conduct the workshop so that they may
involve additional advisers if they wish. We enjoyed participating in this project
and hope that our contribution has increased the awareness among faculty of
the importance of effective advising, and has clarified the role that the University
and each college may have in improving the quality of advising for students
at North Carolina State University." The tapes had comments about the importance
of advising from Chancellor Monteith and me. These workshops got the process
started, and the first round of secondary workshops were held. But as in so
many other cases the interest in getting the training and workshop down to all
of the new advisers has continued in a very limited way. There were articles
and letters in the Technician that said here we are on another study
and that nothing in advising gets improved. This assertion, while not entirely
true, does indicate that the advising of individual students was very erratic
and continued to be poor in some instances. The advice was available but simply
was not always used or continuously disseminated adequately to the advisers.
Of course almost all of this information was available to all advisers in the
current issue of the Adviser's Handbook.
At its meeting on April 10, 1990,
the Faculty Senate passed a resolution on undergraduate advising. It reads as
follows:
Whereas NCSU professes to the
importance of quality undergraduate advising, and Whereas The Faculty Senate
is concerned that the current faculty incentives and rewards systems can give
little consideration to the quality of undergraduate advising, and
Whereas Advising is a key component of academic success on this campus, and
Whereas Many undergraduate students experience academic and other difficulties
whose negative effects could be lessened if advising were stronger, and
Whereas Such difficulties contribute to a less-than-satisfactory freshman-year
experience for some freshmen, and are a factor in causing unsatisfactory graduation
rates, and
Whereas The final report of the NCSU Commission on Advising (12/19/86) as
well as the position paper attached to the present resolution, provide additional
background information and rational for this resolution: therefore
Resolved That the Faculty Senate commends the Chancellor, Provost, and college
deans for their recent efforts to promote effective undergraduate advising,
and that it urges them to continue and to strengthen these efforts, with strong,
public emphasis on the importance of advising and with appropriate allocation
of resources, and
Further Resolved That good advising in the freshman year be made a very high
priority, and
Finally Resolved That serious study be made of the faculty rewards system,
to the end that the department heads will evaluate advising fairly and will
properly reward responsible advising.
This resolution and its background
supporting paper can be found on pages 277-279 of the Faculty Senate Minutes
of 1989-90.
As is evident, there is great interest
in and support for excellent undergraduate advising. Everyone says it is important.
Then why doesn't it work better? I believe that the answers can be found in
the studies and reports and recommendations already made at NCSU. We have done
many things to aid advisers and to improve the advising system. I don't know
how poor advising would be if we had not done those things. The issue is not
that there are no good advisers, for there are many dedicated and very good
advisers in every department and in every school/college at NCSU. There are
also advisers who are poor and others who don't really place it in a high priority
among their duties. Few units reward it properly.
Good advising seems to have about
as many definitions as there are advisers. It ranges from simply a perception
that it involves only scheduling, to neglecting scheduling so as to make the
student responsible for their own schedules. For most students good advising
involves both mentoring and scheduling. Advisers should know the advisees well
enough to help them select free electives which will enrich their education
and prepare them for lifelong learning, and to help them select restricted electives
which will enable the students to build a background that will be most helpful
in their careers. At times I believe that advising, with all of the perceived
problems of that day, was best under Dean Shirley. At that time we did not have
many departments with huge numbers of students per adviser. Enrollment growth
has been very uneven by field since 1960 and faculty seem to prefer to advise
their own departmental majors or at least students who will major in their schools/colleges.
Even so, advising has been a very uneven skill and students can get a good or
a poor adviser in any field, except for those with only a few major students
or with only one or two super advisers for all of these majors. Not all of the
departmental major advisers are great, but the departments with few majors will
not tolerate very long a poor adviser, for they want more, not fewer students.
It is in these departments, too that there is most often a faculty member (sometimes
two or more in larger programs) who has gained experience and may advise all
of the majors. These always have appropriately reduced teaching loads. As time
went on we had, in many programs, more students than the faculty felt that they
could handle or wanted, yet they all continued to advise students. It seemed
to me that advising was probably best, with some exceptions, in those areas
where there were too few students. Their attitude was we had better try to keep
the students that we have if we are to continue to be employed. Advising seemed
especially important in Textiles, Forest Resources, and in Agriculture. As a
faculty member in a department without a major I wanted contact with students,
and became a very good adviser. I know because Dr. Glazener would not let advisers
get new freshmen to advise if they were not good advisers. He was in the fortunate
circumstance of having a large number of professors funded from organized research
or extension who wanted student contact and who taught few or no classes. Too,
in those departments in schools where there were large numbers of students,
the concept of research was becoming an increasingly important component of
responsibility and was rewarded more and more for promotion and tenure, and
advising became of lesser importance in the rewards given.
After I joined Dr. Kelly in the
Provost's Office, we recognized that the advising function was viewed as a less
important function than before. To try to counteract this we described advising
as an important component of the teaching function and made it important enough
so that the preparers of promotion forms had to address the quality of advising.
As Provost I even turned down a few promotions that suggested that the faculty
member was a poor adviser. Of course most descriptions on the forms sounded
as if the advisers were at least satisfactory. Also, to emphasize the importance
of advising, we made numbers of majors an important component of the formula
which I used as a guideline for allocation or retention of vacant faculty positions.
These efforts may have helped some but not very much, for the faculty in a department
have to consider a function to be very important or it will not be reflected
adequately in the reward and promotion recommendations.
Departments devised a number of
ways to handle advising. A number of departments developed a few faculty whose
total or major responsibility was the advising of undergraduate majors. A small
sample of these great advisers in departments with very large numbers of majors
would include Hatch in Computer Science, Blessis in Civil Engineering, Seely
in Chemical Engineering, Easter in Electrical Engineering, and Harkema, Grant
and Miller in Pre-Medicine and Zoology. In most departments with large numbers
of majors, there was a tendency to divide the numbers of majors up so that everyone
had approximately the same number of advisees. This was called leveling the
workload, being fair or treating everyone the same. Many of these faculty were
great advisers, but there were always a number who disliked the function and
who treated this as a necessary evil that they had to do. I remember one engineering
student who was having problems and who came to see me as Provost. As a junior
he said that he didn't even know who was his faculty adviser. He thought he
didn't have one. I called the departmental secretary to find out who was handling
his advising. She said that she was his adviser and was advising a number of
other students in that department too. She was doing the scheduling in a wonderful
way and probably better than many faculty could; however, she had too much other
work to do and the professional mentoring part was neglected, and this was what
this student needed. In an education department a secretary did both excellent
mentoring and advising. This secretary came to complain to me about her work
load and the need for more secretarial help in her department. In both of these
cases students had little contact with faculty, except in the classroom, and
I believe that advising contact with faculty is necessary. Today I wish that
I had given the departments an additional secretary so that these wonderful
caring people would have had the time to advise, and I believe that they would
have been excellent. Of course I would have taken a faculty position away from
the departments at the same time. I did continue to make certain that the deans
were reminded that we were allocating faculty positions for the purpose of advising
as well as for other functions.
Except for the three Colleges of
ALS, Forestry and Textiles, where freshmen advising seemed to almost always
be good, the major was generally advised in a much better way than were the
new freshmen, especially if the freshman did not know what field they wished
for a major. I talked with my colleagues in other universities and found systems
which hired full time advisers and others who had faculty who advised a few
freshmen students for an extra supplement to their earnings. In the later case
it seemed that the desire to earn a small amount of income was the driving force,
and in the former it seemed that some of the advisers had difficulty, or did
not take the time to know all of the programs of the university and did not
know the options among the great variety of courses, especially among sciences
and math options, that students should select. For in no system do the students
going into the humanities and those going into the sciences and applied sciences
take the same course sequences in math and the sciences. None of these systems
seemed to work as well as the dedicated faculty member who wished to advise
students. All probably worked better than the faculty member who was forced
to advise students or who only did it because it was required. Our approach
was to try to get this function treated by the faculty, the department heads,
and the deans as on par in value with research and classroom teaching. It never
worked, for the faculty simply did not really believe that they got positions
for this function or that it really was as important for promotion, tenure and
salary increases.
Advisers also lost some clout and
contact with advisees when we changed the practice of requiring the adviser's
signature on changes made on Change Day. Students were on their own to enter
their own classes into the registration procedure. This had to be done for the
other system was archaic, cumbersome and couldn't handle the numbers of changes
for the students to be registered. However, this enabled students to make more
mistakes. Although each department had to have a representative at the coliseum
to help students, there was no way that they could be familiar with all of the
individual student's needs. If this change had not been made we would have to
add more than two days for Change Day. Today even with telephonic registration,
the assistance of the adviser is sometimes not accepted by the student. We began
to have more students signing up for classes without proper prerequisites or
lacking the proper preparation from high school.
From looking at the 20 or more classes
with the largest numbers of freshmen who flunked, we learned a number of things.
For example, in certain humanities and social sciences classes, freshmen who
had not completed composition would likely fail. For Chemistry 101 you needed
to be ready to take calculus, not because that level of math was used in freshman
chemistry, but at this level you had enough experience to be able to handle
word problems. Psychology seemed for most students to need sophomore level maturity.
In a number of classes, required attendance seemed necessary for freshmen. During
the first semester there should be few if any freshmen in those 20 to 30 classes
that flunk the most freshmen. A mechanism is needed to ensure that students
don't get into classes until the required prerequisites are mastered. PAMS began
a process to bump students from those classes in that school if the students
did not have the proper prerequisites. I believe if this process were followed
everywhere that the success of freshmen would be enhanced. The reasons why freshmen
don't succeed in certain other classes have not been determined. Perhaps in
some there may have been the wrong teacher in the class. There are teachers
who have difficulty teaching inexperienced students and at the same time they
may be excellent in teaching upper level undergraduates. I recall one time that
the Department of Chemistry decided that all faculty should, from time to time,
teach the introductory sections. One year the regular upper-class teachers who
had never taught the freshmen were assigned to teach Chemistry 101. In theory
this may be a good idea, but in practice it was a disaster. At midterm about
two-thirds of the students received pink slips showing that they were at the
D or NC levels. That experiment got changed quickly. No one outside of the department
knew about this change until those pink slips arrived. That caused a campus
uproar not only from the students, but also from all of the faculty in departments
whose students were taking Chemistry 101. I had calls from all of the school
deans except Design and Liberal Arts. Dean Menius called to say that I should
not get upset for the problem was already resolved. Other Departments such as
History have all of their faculty teaching at both the 200 course level and
the upper levels. It seems to work well here for most classes, but there are
a few teachers in that department and some other departments who aren't very
effective teachers of freshman. Yet on an overall basis these same departments
provide many of our best freshman teachers. I know that we looked at the credentials
of the freshmen and of the sophomores in a few humanities classes that flunked
a large number of freshmen. In almost every case we found that the sophomores
passed, but the freshmen failed. Their credentials upon entering NCSU as freshmen
were the same. I think that this difference was due largely to the increased
ability of the sophomores to read and write. These sophomores had passed English
111 and English 112. So I believe that composition is needed as a prerequisite
for some humanities and social science courses and even for sections of courses
taught by certain faculty. There was certainly something that the sophomore
had gained during their first year at NCSU that enabled them to handle these
courses satisfactorily.
Another very important component
is scheduling courses. As all good advisers know, it is important to avoid certain
mixes of courses. Too many killer courses at once can do in all but the very
best students. This is also true for the student taking too many hours or too
many courses. One serious problem we found among students who failed a course
was the desire to make up for the lost time by taking an extra course the next
semester when they really should have reduced the number of courses taken by
at least one.
Of course there is much better advising
of graduate students, for there is a clear reward. The faculty member usually
adds to his publication list through work of graduate students in the adviser's
projects. It is sort of like having a high level technician who, by the time
they finish, also thinks and plans and does almost as well as the faculty member.
It also adds to the adviser's list of publications through the common practice
of the adviser's being a junior co-author upon the publication of the thesis.
As a result graduate students are almost fought over when the crop is scarce.
The major problem is that there is a great temptation for faculty to keep the
graduate student in the indentured status longer than is necessary.
I still believe that Dr. Glazener's
practice of not giving advisees to poor advisers is the proper strategy. There
needs to be some mechanism to make certain that the number of advisees is reasonable
for those faculty who also teach regular loads and participate in scholarly
activity. The awards given by many schools that came after the Glazener Commission
report were nice, but they could not compensate for the lack of reward at the
salary increase and promotion times. For that is what is really viewed as important
to faculty. As Caldwell said, "this will require the faculty to view advising
as the equivalent in value of teaching and research."
Maybe the new approach by Stiles
will find a way to make this function truly effective for many more students.
His stated goals are to increase persistence, increase retention and the graduation
rates, have a higher degree of completion of courses and movement towards graduation,
and to enhance academic self-image and motivation through improved advising.
Courses
and Curricula
The first all University Courses
and Curricula Committee was appointed by Dean Shirley and met at the lunch hour
on Friday, March 16, 1956. The tradition of meeting at the lunch hour has persisted
until today. The first committee consisted of a faculty member (selected by
the school dean) from each school and a member of the Faculty Senate. Duties
included:
1. The committee is to make
recommendations to the Dean for transmittal to the Chancellor.
2. All course and curricula
changes proposed by all schools will be presented to the Committee for study
and recommendations.
3. The Committee will attempt
to formalize currently-accepted curricular policies as the basis for making
their decisions.
4. Where curricular policies
are missing or where controversy arises in the Committee, the policy matter
will be referred to the Senate for recommendations on policy. Such policies
will be approved by the administration, and then become a guide to the Curriculum
Committee.
At the time that Shirley became
Dean, the minimum requirement for a degree was 138 semester hours. Entrance
deficiencies and other freshman courses were to be taken before other courses
could be scheduled. Twenty four hours in the humanities and the social sciences
were to be included in all curricula and technical courses such as accounting
would not count as satisfying these requirements. There was a pre-freshman English
course. If a student made a B or better, then they were placed out of the first
and second semesters of composition. Freshmen and sophomores could get eight
hours of credit towards graduation for Military Science and Tactics courses
and if these courses were taken for four years, then 12 hours could count towards
graduation. Four hours of Physical Education were required, but Hygiene counted
towards the Physical Education requirement.
When Shirley first became Dean of
the Faculty he encouraged the development of honors programs. When the first
survey came in, although Textiles and Forestry responded positively, there really
were no honors programs on campus. By 1971 there were very strong honors programs
in SALS, Engineering, Forest Resources and PAMS. These activities had died down
somewhat in Textiles. Most of the programs included special sections of courses,
honors courses, special topics courses, special projects and seminars, and participation
in research by undergraduate students. Provosts continued to encourage the development
and nourishment of honors programs. Long before I retired all of the schools
came to have them except Design. Over the years the honors programs flourished
and floundered with varied interest in and participation by students. It seemed
that each school needed to have an interested faculty member or some other person
responsible for such programs who pushed them and constantly made the students
aware of them for these programs to be successful. A notation of participation
in honors programs has been included in the graduation programs since the early
sixties. Students were also recognized in their departmental or school graduation
exercises and asked to stand at the general exercises.
On April 11, 1957, the University
Courses and Curriculum Committee (henceforth called CCC) came up with a form
for course proposals. The memo from Shirley stated: "In order to facilitate
its consideration of new courses or changes in courses already approved, the
CCC requests that all recommendations be submitted in uniform fashion. Nine
copies were requested for each action." The memo also stated that should additional
information be desired the request would be made of the school committee through
the school representative on the CCC. The form has been modified many times
as the complexity of our programs has increased, and the number of members of
the committee has grown, thus the required number of copies of the form has
also increased. Over the years the membership came to be selected by the Committee
on Committees and to include an additional member from University Studies and
from each of the schools with large undergraduate enrollments. Members were
expected to provide liaison with their school's curriculum committee. By this
time curriculum committees now existed in all of the schools.
A form called the "Permanent Record
of Courses" was developed by the General Administration in 1956 which required
submission to that office. Information needed was: course number, section number,
course title, instructor, rank, credit hours, contact hours by lecture and lab,
number of students, number of student credits, days class meets, hours class
meets, building and room class meets and seating capacity of room. Oh, it would
have been nice to have had a computer in those days. When I joined Provost Kelly
in 1967 we were no longer submitting this information to the UNC system.
I also noted for the first time
a request for a degree called Liberal Science. There was correspondence about
it with the UNC General Administration, but I could find no correspondence saying
that the degree was approved or disapproved at that time. It was to be offered
by the School of General Studies and would consist of 120 hours with 60 hours
in the sciences, mathematics, and allied fields, 30 hours of basic training
in the humanities and social sciences and 30 hours of concentration in a non-technological
area. Specimen curricula included, Economics and Technology (Electrical Engineering),
Economics and Technology (Physics), Humanities and Engineering (Mechanical),
and Humanities and Science (Physics). The request was sent by UNC's Provost
Whyburn to a committee of representatives from the three campuses of the UNC
System. This was called the All-University Committee on New Programs. It would
not be long before undergraduate degree programs would not go through such a
committee; however, graduate degrees continued to be reviewed by a similar committee.
Of course all degree proposals would go to the Trustees and to the Board of
Higher Education for approval. The curriculum was developed by faculty at NCSU,
but the committee was not identified other than from the School of General Studies.
It was evident that someone from Math (Cell) and Physics (not clear) was also
at work here. There was much interest in getting degrees in the disciplines
represented by the School of General Studies as was evident from several reports
to the Visiting Committee of the Trustees in the late fifties and early sixties.
This was a very strong interest of Shirley's and he spent much effort on obtaining
these degrees.
The first new course requests turned
down by the Dean of the Faculty were approved by the Chancellor when the Dean
of the School of Agriculture appealed to the Chancellor. They were approved
by the Chancellor for one year only and were to be resubmitted to the Courses
and Curriculum Committee.
In 1958 Shirley wrote to Caldwell
saying:
The report of the Course and Curriculum
Committee, which has just come to me appears to put us all in a very nice
dilemma. If the College Course and Curriculum Committee thinks it is impossible
to have uniform standards except by developing a uniformly high-quality faculty,
and if the Faculty Senate feels that we cannot have any uniform academic requirements
for membership in the faculty at various ranks, and if both agree that no
amount of administrative review can contribute anything in these vital areasÑthen
we are truly whipped before we start.
If these are true (and they may
well be), we should face up to the fact that because of the diverse nature
of its responsibility, State College can never be anything more than a friendly
collection of completely autonomous departments, and we should certainly do
away with all schools and all our administrative officials coming between
the Chancellor and the Department Heads.
If you think this is coming, I
should like to be on record as recommending that we institute a Department
of the History of Science, to which I can be assigned to go back to teaching
anything and everything I desire in any way that I want to.
The duties of the Course and Curriculum
Committee described earlier have continued for many years. In time recommendations
were forwarded to the Chancellor for approval only when there was a new policy,
a new degree proposed, a degree was to be dropped, or a name change was recommended
for a degree. Items of policy came to be studied, and proposals were made on
academic policy by this committee. Proposals to make changes in policy were
referred to the Faculty Senate and to the Administrative Council or by the Provost
to each of the school deans or associate deans for academic affairs. During
Chancellor Poulton's tenure they were referred to the Council of Deans and to
the Council of Associate Deans for Academic Affairs. Matters of procedure always
came to be referred to the Council of Associate Deans after this Council was
established. Prior to that time they were referred to the deans. It is the associate
deans who oversee the operation of academic matters in each school/college and
who can best devise operational strategies and avoid traps, pitfalls, cumbersome
and even unworkable solutions. We had a number of such proposals over the years.
Anything which changed the current methods of computerization were referred
to the appropriate group in Student Affairs (most often Registration and Records)
and to Administrative Computing Services (also called Administrative Data Processing).
This latter was necessary to determine if we could do the task within our data
base, or could we establish the necessary data base, and how long would it take
to revise existing programs or to write the programs if they did not already
exist.
On July 27, 1960, approval was obtained
to drop the word Engineering from the degree in Physics. This was a major breakthrough
for us, for prior to this time degrees in the sciences and mathematics here
had to be labeled with an applied adjective. Soon Chemistry would drop the Agricultural
and Mathematics, the Engineering prefixes too.
In a letter to President Friday
of February 2, 1960, Chancellor Caldwell said we would put to rest at this time
our request for degrees in Liberal Arts. There was some encouragement from President
Friday for such degrees at a later time. Caldwell agreed at this time, however,
not to get the faculty "in heat". On March 20, 1962, Caldwell forwarded a request
from Cahill to President Friday for a B.S. in Liberal Arts. This called for
B.S. degrees in Economics, English, History, Political Science and Sociology.
The B.S. degree was approved by the Board of Higher Education on May 22, 1962.
The Chairman of that Board said he was disappointed that the College didn't
go further and request the Bachelor of Arts degree. That was a surprise, for
we had wanted to do so for years but had been held back because of the BOT of
UNC's desire to avoid duplication with UNC at Chapel Hill. On June 28, 1962,
President Friday recommended to the Board of Trustees that "At State College,
the extension of our undergraduate program to include a limited expansion with
an Arts degree to accommodate the commuter demand." On February 1, 1963, Friday
wrote Caldwell that the Board of Trustees had reversed itself and that we could
have the BA degree. In 1963 Caldwell wrote in a letter to Shirley at Delaware
that the Board of Trustees has adopted the Pearsall Committee report which included
that the curriculum at State College be broadened to include duplicating work
for the Bachelor of Arts degree. In June the request for specific degrees was
approved by the BOT, and on September 10, 1963, Caldwell wrote Cahill that the
Board of Higher Education approved the degrees as well as the name change from
the School of General Studies to the School of Liberal Arts (SLA). Degrees were
in English, Economics, History, Political Science, Psychology and Sociology.
In 1964 new BA degrees were approved for Geology (in PSAM) and Philosophy, and
a B.S. degree in Philosophy was approved at the same time.
In 1960 Chancellor Caldwell raised
the issue of a common first year at NCSC. Caldwell felt that a freshman needed
a year in which to select a major. Dean Kamphoefner wrote back and indicated
this was needed for only the slow, retarded and mediocre students. He also said
that this subject comes up over and over here with the conclusion that the idea
is not workable here. Caldwell responded, "So, it would be entirely erroneous,
and I do not accept for one minute the assumption that my desire is to serve
in this respect only the slow student. Nothing could be farther from the truth,
and I do not wish to discuss it on those terms." Needless to say the schools
were not in favor. The idea of a (freshman college) common first year continued
to come up at intervals for many years and several times during Kelly's and
my terms. The schools were always opposed in general. Humanities and Social
Sciences were generally in favor. Later during Monteith's term as Dean, Engineering
became in favor of an undergraduate college; however in 1960 they were much
against the idea. This subject was also discussed in this Chapter under Advising.
Caldwell was concerned about whether
we had too many courses. He said in a memorandum to Shirley and Peterson in
1961, "A careful reading of our most recent general catalog reveals that our
course offerings at State College continue to grow in number and proliferate
at an alarming rate." Shirley and Peterson wrote to the Deans and asked that
they, "Prune our individual course offerings to eliminate all obsolescent or
unnecessary courses and to re-evaluate strengths and weaknesses of our current
curricula." There was also appointed a special committee to make recommendations
on a review of courses. In 1962 the committee wrote to all departments and asked
them to review their courses. They quoted a paragraph of Caldwell's in their
memo. He said:
It appears to me that we could
probably reduce our total offerings from one quarter to one-half without impairing
the quality of our educational effort. Certainly we should eliminate all courses
for which recent enrollments have been small or nonexistent and should not
continue to carry courses on the books unless they are both needed and active.
But these criteria are of less importance than those of instructional merit.
I have no doubt that as our instruction properly moves away from the narrow,
transient and superficial to what is fundamental and lasting, we will strengthen
the whole character of the College.
The Department of Economics responded
and I quote a part that I liked best. "It should be observed that there is a
curious assumption implicit in the argument that there may be a proliferation
of courses: that all knowledgeÑnow and in the futureÑis known;
that, therefore, there can be only so many courses in each discipline. This
kind of thinking is in no small degree the reflection of a point of view that
is inherited from the early nineteenth century, when classical physics and classical
economics were believed by many to have achieved completeness." Arguments like
this make administrators feel that they belong among the antiques, and they
really put you on the defensive. The numbers of courses continued to grow at
this time, for our enrollments were growing and we were rapidly adding new faculty
with different specialties. At this time we were also adding a number of new
graduate and undergraduate degree programs. One of the things that did come
out of this was our course numbering system. The 100-299 courses were to be
for beginning undergraduates; 300-499 for advanced undergraduates; 500-599 for
graduate students and advanced undergraduates; and 600-699 were courses for
graduate students only. For identification tutorial courses, seminars and special
topics were to be numbered _90 to _99. In 1965 when the ROTC program became
optional, all curricula were required to reduce the number of hours for graduation
by four.
In 1961 the Chancellor appointed
a committee consisting of Dean Shirley, as Chairman, with Dr. R. C. Bullock,
Chairman of the Faculty Senate's Educational Policy Committee, Professor Dame
Hamby, Chairman of the Courses and Curriculum Committee, and Mr. Fred Linsey,
Chairman of the Student Government Committee on Academic Affairs. This committee
was instructed "toward a clarification of and definition of the institutional
policy on courses and curricula." A number of hearings were held, but I did
not see a final report.
In 1963 the School of Engineering
proposed its first degree which would not be designed for accreditation. This
was Engineering Operations. The degree was approved and was later dropped in
the 1980s because of small enrollments and the college did not want to continue
to provide a non-accredited program. Over the years the program had become almost
identical to the B.S. in Industrial Engineering.
On April 20, 1964, Provost Kelly
approved the awarding of dual degrees. He said. "Multiple degrees may be granted,
if requested, provided the requirements for each degree are met." This became
a valuable addition, and as the years proceeded dual and even triple degrees
have been earned more and more frequently.
In a memorandum of December 16,
1964, Dr. Kelly discussed unauthorized contact hours. He said "I don't believe
it profitable to ask how these discrepancies developed for they probably go
back a number of years. I believe it is clear, though, that it is essential
to scheduling, cataloging and determining student loads that some control over
the contact hours is required." Guidelines for determination of course credit
ratings and appropriate contact hours were established on April 1, 1965. They
were as follows:
1) One credit hour should approximate
to a student input of 3 hours for the average student.
2) One contact hour lecture
or recitation is interpreted to incorporate presentation of subject matter,
theory and/or principles beyond prerequisites for the particular course and
would involve 2 hours of student preparation. This constitutes the equivalent
of 1 credit hour.
3) Laboratory hours were to
be for two or three hours of contact for one hour of credit. If the laboratory
was for two hours then there should be one hour of external preparation or
activity. Three hour laboratories would require no external activity.
Differentiated lecture and laboratory
contact hours were to be noted in the catalog listings. It was noted that the
catalog and the schedule of courses for registration would no longer accept
hours which differed from those on the approved listing of courses.
The Courses and Curriculum Committee
also reviewed and recommended for approval all undergraduate courses and curricula,
all minors, honors programs and non-degree certificate programs. We also had
course numbers in the 290-490 course number series that may be used as experimental
courses. The Associate Provost for Academic Affairs made certain that such courses
came before the committee after they were taught twice to assure that they were
dropped or reviewed and got into the record as approved courses.
Several additional matters came
to be referred to this committee over the years. At a CCC meeting on April 4,
1959, there was a recommendation to the Dean to approve a long list of courses
to be added or to be dropped. The committee also raised several objections about
the curriculum of the School of Design. These included: the absence of the College
requirement of 12 hours of free electives (a requirement still included in all
curricula); the large number of credits required each semester when the College
and the CCC were encouraging a reduction in required credit hours; and the committee
viewed with alarm the tendency to include the teaching of courses in the School
of Design whose content were essentially those of the areas taught by the humanities
and social sciences disciplines. The concern of course duplication among departments
and schools and the existence of courses whose contents are the responsibility
of different departments and schools, continue to be areas of responsibility
of this committee. This is an important and sensitive matter for course duplication
can waste resources. At the same time most courses utilize knowledge from the
basic disciplines. For example, it is impossible to teach molecular biology
without using chemistry or to teach engineering without using math. So this
committee helps to resolve potential conflicts in these areas.
It is evident in the degree proposals
of this period that there was always a strong group of faculty who were interested
in expanding NCSC's degree offerings and who pushed for most degrees that were
proposed. New degree proposals were also reviewed by the appropriate school
committees as well as the CCC. On August 2, 1966, procedures for new degree
proposals were described. The affected faculty in a department would prepare
a proposal which would go to the department head, then to the school dean who
would present the proposal to the school curriculum committee. Then the proposal
would be sent to the Dean of the Faculty who would send the proposal to the
CCC. If approval was to be granted on campus then the Dean of the Faculty would
prepare or have prepared the proposal for the Chancellor to send to the President
who would take it to the Board of Trustees and then to the BHE. The Chancellor
would frequently meet with the Executive Committee of the Trustees to describe
the new proposal. The Executive Committee essentially made almost all of the
decisions of the BOT at this time. The procedure changed somewhat after the
Board of Governors came in to being for the University System then prepared
a more precise format for the presentation of new degree proposals. On our campus
after approval of the Provost and Chancellor, and after Chancellor Poulton came,
the Provost took executive briefs of the proposals to the Personnel and Programs
Committee of the NCSU Trustees. He then made certain that the proposals were
in the proper format and contained all of the proper information for the Chancellor
to send to the President and in the appropriate number of copies. Dr. Downs
did this for undergraduate proposals and the Dean of the Graduate School for
graduate degree proposals. A copy always went to the Vice President for Academic
Affairs of the BOG. This assured that a proposal would not be lost in the system
for that person handled matters of degrees for the BOG. In all cases we would
have had appropriate discussion with those preparing the proposals and would
have had informal conversations with the Vice President. This usually resulted
in our having few proposals turned down. In some cases we did not send forward
proposals which would not be welcomed at that time by the BOG. At others times
we cautioned the faculty not to send us a proposal at that time for it would
not be approved at the central level. This saved a lot of time but did not always
avoid frustrations.
On May 16, 1968, the Provost developed
an extensive set of guidelines for developing and revising undergraduate courses
and curricula. These were covered in an eight page memorandum that will not
be repeated here. In 1970 Provost Kelly reinforced his intent to have a faculty
courses and curriculum committee in each school. It was noted in that year that
a couple of schools still had such committees made up entirely of administrators.
Provost Kelly had been much concerned
with and had encouraged the introduction of more Black courses into our offerings.
Several faculty in the History Department sent to Dean Cahill a signed letter
of protest for him to send to Dr. Kelly allegedly because unnamed persons in
the administration were interfering into the matters which were under the control
of the faculty. This is described in more detail in Chapter IV under Issues
Related to Race. Of course we later also tried to get women's courses developed.
At first these came more readily than the Black courses. Shortly after I became
Provost, Caldwell and I had a discussion about the paucity of our offerings
of non-western courses. After reflection he writes to Dean Tilman and me:
I have a profound feeling we need
to step up our offerings in literature more aggressively beyond American and
English. It might be better not to tie the move to the possible forbidding
umbrella of 'foreign languages'. Indeed, maybe we could sacrifice some of
our offerings in English and American literature in that larger and, therefore,
flexible faculty of the English Department. But these options may encounter
departmental jealousies. I'm writing this to you two hoping you can look at
the possibilities without prematurely stirring up the population. The burden
of it is: lets offer more non-English language literature! Who and how become
toughies.
We did work with Dean Tilman and
later Dean Toole on the idea of more non-western courses including literature,
and a number were developed in both of these departments and in all of the other
departments of humanities and social sciences. We also did not stir up the population!
Another concern from Shirley's tenure
until today has been the matter of too many hours required for graduation for
a four year curriculum. I found in the catalogs of 1960 that many curricula
had 140 or more hours required for graduation. Some required as many as 160
hours. To reduce the hours required became an issue under Kelly. He accomplished
much on this front and got the numbers down to the high 120s and low 130s in
all of the curricula except those with a summer practicum. The School of Liberal
Arts required only 124 hours except for those students who also sought teacher
certification. Under my term as Provost we had to try very hard not to let the
numbers increase and were generally successful. In a few cases, for accreditation
reasons, an additional course was added especially in one or two engineering
curricula. We tried to hold the line during my years, but there was some slippage.
In January of 1978, we made another effort to keep the number of hours required
in a curriculum down. At this time we required that graduation credit for English
111 be counted as a requirement in all curricula. At that time it did not count
in the School of Engineering's curricula so we had to let them all add three
hours to each degree program. We added that "no school or department is authorized
to increase the number of required hours in any curriculum over the present
maximum of 130 without a specific justification of the need to do so and with
careful review by the University Courses and Curriculum Committee and this office."
The problem of keeping curricula current without adding additional courses is
difficult. At times it seems that revision of a course adds more to the course
without deleting a similar quantity of covered subject matter and there is a
request soon to add another course. I was convinced, based on the mix and difficulty
of the courses in the curricula, that most of the so called four-year curricula
at NCSU were really four and one-half to five-year curricula. This is evidenced
by the small proportion of our students who graduate in four years. This has
been a concern of all Chancellors and Provosts. It has also been a concern of
the BOG and its staff. More recently it has become a concern even of the Legislature.
At one time we had an ad hoc committee chaired by Dean Monteith who headed up
a committee to study graduation rates at NCSU. It was what we called the "Graduate
Quicker Committee." At Chancellor Poulton's request this committee did not make
a formal report in 1987 although we did discuss it findings widely. Its findings
were:
1. The percentage of the cohort
which graduates in five years has not changed significantly in the last twenty
years.
2. The percentage of the cohort
which graduates in four years has steadily declined over the past twelve years,
and remained relatively stable for the last four cohorts.
3. The increase in enrollment
in the co-op programs over the last twelve years is a significant factor in
the decline of four-year graduation rates.
4. Credit hour requirements
for the baccalaureate degrees have not changed significantly in the last ten
years.
5. For continuing students
phantom majors are truly phantom, hence, not a contributing factor to extending
the time to graduate.
6. The transfers from one degree
program to another within the first two semesters is not a contributing factor
in the time required to complete degree requirements.
7. transfer within NCSU after
two semesters can be a contributing factor in the time required to complete
degree requirements.
8. Poor freshman performance
(D or NC in two or more courses) is a contributing factor for approximately
one-third of the students enrolled in Engineering, PAMS, Design, Forestry,
and Textiles who do not graduate in four years.
9. Reduced load after the freshman
year is a contributing factor. Poor freshman performance for many students
appears to motivate them to take a reduced load.
10. Freshman performance of
students in Engineering and PAMS con-tributes to their withdrawal or suspension.
One of the things this committee
found was that many students who fail to graduate entered NCSU with the same
records that those who eventually did graduate. They also found that many students
who leave us leave for reasons other than the lack of academic success. We have
a number of non-flunk-out drop-outs. Many leave us and transfer to other institutions.
The chief and most important finding was that students who get disenchanted
with NCSU or who get behind academically early in their first semester leave
NCSU. To wait until midterm of the first semester to find out about a particular
freshman, in either of the two previous situations, is too late. The committee
also recommended that we institute attendance requirements in 100 and 200 level
courses. This committee and the subsequent discussions led to the creation too
of the Dean of Undergraduate Studies position and program which was intended
to devise strategies and activities to prevent or to lessen this serious problem.
So our primary concern at first
tended to turn to reasons, not only why so many of our students don't graduate
in four years, but also why they don't graduate from NCSU. This had always been
a far more important subject and one of far more worry and concern to me than
the four year graduation rate. We have come to understand a number of reasons
why students don't graduate in four years. The first is that we have almost
no four-year curricula although we call all of our baccalaureate degrees four-year
degrees. Other reasons include the creation of the optional minor and the increasing
number of students who seek a minor. Another factor is the increasing number
of students who seek dual degrees. Both of these factors cause students to stay
in school longer, but they prepare them better for their first job and their
subsequent careers. At the time that I was Provost we had a very large number
of students involved in Cooperative Education (co-op) programs. At one time
we had more or almost as many students involved in co-op programs as the combined
enrollments in the co-op of the other public institutions in North Carolina.
We have a number of programs with internship requirements in addition to those
expected of all students in teacher education. These usually come after a student
has taken certain courses in the major. We have a very large number of students
who work and who work a large number of hours per week. A major reason is that
we have a very large number of adult students or other students, who for one
or more or for all of their semesters, enroll on a part-time basis. I knew some
students who went part-time except for their last year. They may have finished
ten years after taking their first course at NCSU. The students working at jobs
full-time have no intention of trying to graduate in four years and do not intend
to be full-time students. This is the largest unserved group of the population
in our area of the State who wish and need an education at the baccalaureate
level. Our requirements and expectations of high levels of performance in the
first level courses of math, sciences, humanities, social sciences and composition
cause us to enroll many students in compensatory courses. We have found that
students not yet prepared to take calculus are not ready to enroll and rarely
succeed in chemistry. This was not a matter of the level of math required to
solve problems in chemistry, but it was a matter of the ability to solve word
problems. We have a number of students who have done well after taking a non-credit
reading course. We found that if a student appeared to be on the borderline
for admission, that it was wise to have that student begin by taking a smaller
load. This is also true of a student who had to repeat courses because of failure
or who needed to go to tutoring programs or review sessions frequently. Another
factor was that many of the full time students registered for a full load, but
by the end of the drop-add period many of the students were enrolled for fewer
hours than the average needed in their curriculum to finish in a four year period.
Another problem was that a large number of students, (in one semester of 1982
there were 800), who registered for composition, chemistry, math or other freshmen
courses, who did not have the proper prerequisites. We began to devise strategies
to avoid this. It was not possible to avoid this problem entirely for we did
not have prerequisites built into our computerized course and registration system.
PAMS, English and the Academic Skills programs all devised strategies to control
this problem for students in their freshman courses. Students who registered
for courses without the proper prerequisites were destined for failure. Sometimes
they seemed to do it intentionally for prerequisites were known by all students.
I believe they did this at times because they had taken the course in high school
and believed they did not need to take the prerequisite course at NCSU.
In 1965 Provost Kelly wrote a
policy on minimum class size. It reads:
Normally, the minimum class size
for an undergraduate class on our campus is ten students; for a graduate class,
five students. This policy applies during the summer sessions as well as for
all classes during the academic year. If there are compelling reasons to hold
classes for a smaller number of students, written requests should be initiated
by the department head for approval by the dean of the respective school and
the Dean of the Faculty or the Dean of the Graduate School.
After I became Provost our summer
school budget was not adequate so we could not afford to teach so many small
classes. We had to increase the numbers of enrolled students from 5 to 10 for
graduate students and from 10 to 12 for undergraduate students in the summer
sessions.
We began to encourage all departments
to have special topics, research and seminar courses at the undergraduate as
well as at the graduate levels, for these included the independent study and
the research opportunities for undergraduates. In these we did not expect the
enrollment to be at the five and ten student levels. They could be for only
one or two students. In 1977 there was a legislative inquiry concerning the
number of classes with small enrollments or of classes with fewer than ten students.
We sent our report to Dr. Dawson of UNC because he was compiling the report
for the 16 campuses. Omitting the 290, 490, 590 and 690 series of courses we
reported that we taught 2732 course sections during the Spring Semester of 1977.
Of these, 125 undergraduate and 137 graduate courses had ten or fewer students.
It added in my report: "We hope that the persons who are to receive the data
which you are compiling are made aware of its complexity and of the many problems
involved in its interpretation." In our report, which consisted of 11 pages
double spaced, we had to show the department, the course number, the section
number, and we had to give a reason why each class was taught. This was a much
more difficult task than it would be today because the computer could do all
the work except to give reasons. I never heard anything from the report so I
always assumed that it satisfied the curiosity of some legislator, and very
likely one who might not want to give you the resources needed to provide for
quality education but one who had no qualms about taking up hours of time that
could have been spent on projects of at least some educational value.
In 1971 and 1972 the Chancellor
continued to ask the Provost to reduce the number of new courses approved. Caldwell
wanted us to say that we would not approve any new courses unless one was dropped,
and later Chancellor Poulton made the same request. We were also concerned about
adequate revision of our courses and curricula. When we did a study, it showed
that there were courses and curricula that had not gone before the committee
in many years, and significant revisions of courses were supposed to come before
the committee. We based that assumption on the fact that after many years all
faculty should have made significant revisions in their courses. We came up
with the requirement of curricula and course reviews at periodic intervals.
I had hoped that this would result in dropping a number of courses that were
in the records. It did not. The number of courses in the record has been a concern
of every chief academic officer here at NCSU. We always seemed to add a large
number of new courses and to drop only a few. We thought of another way that
was endorsed by CCC and the Administrative Board of the Graduate School to reduce
courses. This was to require that all courses not taught within a four year
period be dropped from the records. Exceptions could be made with adequate justification.
This caused a significant deletion of courses from the records on the first
cycle and a lesser number of dropped courses in later years. Cycles were oriented
with the publication of the catalogs. Even in the first cycle which included
all those courses not taught in four or more years we added more new courses
than we dropped.
The UNC system also instituted a
systematic review of all degree programs. They took a look at all degree programs
in a specific field at each of the campuses offering degrees in that field.
Today the system is still involved in these reviews, however, not all degree
programs have been reviewed yet. One of the plans was for a periodic review,
but we all learned that if reviews are thorough it takes substantially more
time than was originally envisioned. Causal reviews take a lot of time too and
are generally wasted effort. These reviews are usually coordinated through the
Provost's and the Graduate Dean's Offices. Occasionally it seemed that our units
and the BOG reviewers sometimes forgot. It did insist that the Provost get a
copy of all materials used in responses in undergraduate programs. The Graduate
School Dean did this too. If there were both undergraduate degree programs and
graduate programs in the field, both were reviewed simultaneously. I wished
to have the privilege of being present at any discussions between members of
our campus and the staff of the general administration who were conducting the
review. This worked most of the time, but not all of the time. In 1988 the UNC
System took a hard look at the requirements for teacher education certification
and the associated degrees programs on all campuses. They took a hard stand
on the number of hours that could be required for a BA or a B.S. degree in these
areas. While each campus could come up with a plan for requirements they must
meet the limitation on hour requirements. On our campus we had very few problems
except in Agricultural Education, Technical Education and other similar areas
where there was not a defined major in an academic discipline.
After the program for systematic
review of curricula leading to degrees or tracks that were the equivalent to
degrees began, there was a great concern about the programs with small enrollments.
These had to be justified if they were to be retained. It became very easy to
drop a degree program and we dropped several that had few undergraduates majors
and in other cases we merged degrees (for example Soils and Crop Science to
Agronomy). These requests were handled quickly by the system and an approval
could be received by return mail from the BOG staff. These were then only reported
by the staff to the BOG. Every one was anxious to see some degrees dropped,
but the dropped curricula occurred slowly in comparison to the proposals for
new degrees. We had few degree proposals at the undergraduate level that were
not approved. I am certain that this in part was because we clearly understood
our mission and understood what the view of the BOG staff was of our mission.
For this reason it was very difficult to get new degrees that were under-enrolled
at other campuses approved for our campus. They were even more difficult if
they were in humanities or social sciences. Some members of the BOG felt that
we should not offer degrees except in the professional and science fields. They
sometimes expressed their concerns to the press, and seemed to disagree with
the decision in the sixties, when the campuses at Wilmington, Charlotte and
Asheville were added and all campuses would have degrees in the basic disciplines,
in computer science and in business. So it was a great surprise to me to learn
that, while Hart was Provost and we had submitted a new long range plan to the
BOG, a degree in Religious Studies had been approved for NCSU. We had a superlative
faculty who persisted in pushing, and we had developed and taught almost all
of the courses needed for a major. These courses were popular with students
and enrollment was good in them, even as elective courses for students in other
majors.
In 1978 we approved a certificate
program in Political Science which may have been a model for the minors developed
later. We began to have certificate programs for students not interested in
pursuing degrees in a field. These were almost always for adults who were working
full time who wished to gain new expertise to improve skills in their present
jobs or who wished to gain sufficient new knowledge to enable them to change
fields. Most already had an undergraduate or even a graduate degree. Several
such certificate programs were developed by departments by putting together
a specified group of courses which would give the student a professional competency.
Some of the most popular were in political science and public administration
where governmental employees were the primary student clientele, and in computer
science where the students came from all fields. They were somewhat like a minor
for non-degree students who did not want or need a degree. They gave the student
some visible evidence to show their employers or prospective employers that
they had completed a specific educational program.
In 1978 an associate and friend
of Chancellor Thomas, Iredell Jenkins, from the University of Alabama came to
NCSU for a year. He studied the curricula at NCSU and looked at the courses
which could be used in the various schools to satisfy general education requirements.
His study was entitled: "Is there something missing in the education of students
at NCSU?" He made a number of reports, talks, and led a discussion at a Provost's
Forum. His basic findings were that a student from NCSU could obtain an excellent
education from the perspective of the major and general education. He also found
that it was possible to graduate in most of the curricula with a very poor general
education with respect to the humanities and social science requirements. Some
curricula required only so many hours in the humanities and so many in the social
sciences. His feeling was that we gave the student too much choice in many curricula
and that we allowed too much flexibility in these general education requirements.
Our math and science requirements in the general education requirements were
considered to meet the basic needs for an educated person and were better than
those required at most other universities. We had the first major Provost's
Forum on the Core Curriculum on November 21, 1979. One of the things done by
Dr. Downs and the CCC at about this time was to examine the courses that could
meet social science and humanities requirements in the schools and to make certain
that the electives in the humanities and social sciences did not include professional
and skill courses. This was a big improvement. Later in 1984 Dean Toole and
I appointed a special committee in SHASS and asked them to come up with recommendations
of courses in their fields that they thought would be those best for an educated
person. We asked them to solicit views of SHASS faculty, the University faculty,
and other interested parties as to the appropriate roles and functions of the
Humanities and Social Science disciplines on the NCSU campus with regard to
general education at the University, undergraduate major programs, graduate
programs, faculty research and professional development and extension. We also
asked them to give us recommendations on the advancement and further development
of SHASS at NCSU. In an early preliminary report, it was said that the Commission
was established because the Visiting Team from the Southern Association of Colleges
and Schools had expressed concerns about the quality of SHASS. This was not
a recommendation of the Visiting Team and it wasn't even mentioned in any way
in the report. On January 17, 1985, Poulton sent out a memorandum on campus
to correct this view. The accreditation team pointed out, as we knew and had
discussed with them, that some faculty had mixed views of the role of SHASS
at NCSU. Some faculty had expressed their concerns about the growth of SHASS
in faculty, students and degrees. This growth was primarily in the Business
and Accounting degree programs. Others did not feel that we should offer degrees
in the humanities and social science fields. The SHASS study was a good and
necessary first step, for it began a lengthy look at undergraduate education
at NCSU by the Provost's Office, but it did not resolve problems. This group
held a Provost's Forum to report their findings. We then appointed a special
committee of faculty representing all schools, the Senate, and the Courses and
Curriculum Committee to advise us about our general education requirements.
After two years of work they made a report, however there was a bare majority
of the members who agreed with the committee's final recommendations. Naturally
we had a minority report too. This group's report and findings were discussed
with the faculty at another Provost's Forum. This committee did make significant
contributions, but their recommendations were not acceptable to the faculty
in most of the schools. We then appointed a Commission on General Education
requirements. I attended many of the meetings of the commission over the first
two year period, however, they were far from reaching a consensus when I retired.
After about four or five years of hearings, debate, compromise, and a tremendous
number of hours and a tremendous amount of work, they made recommendations which
were accepted in large measure during Hart's tenure as Provost. These are now
in the process of being implemented. Some will require new resources and will
be implemented as resources become available. Of particular importance this
committee is now a standing committee. Dr. Downs said, "I truly believe that
curriculum reform was the most important thing that I was responsible for in
all of my years in the Provost's office. As far as I can tell, it is still working."
The Council on Undergraduate Education
receives all proposals for changes in the general education requirements and
evaluates their subsequent effectiveness. The CCC has the responsibility of
seeing that the approved changes are implemented.
In 1989 we had 96 Baccalaureate
programs (22 BA, 67 B.S., and 7 Bachelor of-degrees), 8 Professional degree
programs (Engineering and DVM), 107 Masters programs (6 MA, 60 MS, 41 Master
of-degrees), and 48 other Doctoral programs (6 Education Doctorates, 42 Ph.
D.). We also had 1661 undergraduate courses on the books, 32 DVM courses and
1658 other graduate courses.
Upon recommendation of the Academics
Committee of the Student Senate, the University Courses and Curriculum Committee
recommended guidelines for the development of undergraduate minors. Those guidelines
became policy in December, 1985. The guidelines include: "a minor shall be optional
for any student; a student's minor shall not be in the same discipline as the
major; a typical minor requires at least 15 credit hours of departmental or
inter-departmental course work; successful completion of a minor will be recognized
on a student's transcript." As of 1989 some 55 minors had been approved. Many
of these were departmental, some were interdepartmental such as linguistics
and journalism. In addition there were a number of interdisciplinary minors,
such as African-American studies, art studies, environmental science, international
studies and women's studies. Two of the first minors approved were computer
programming and business management. This was not a surprise because students
in all majors sought courses from those two areas and the concerned faculty
wanted to direct students into those courses which would be of greatest benefit
to them. These have the most student minors too. This was a significant development
in the education of our students, and is but one of several ways that student
suggestions have contributed to the improvement of education at NCSU.
The Associate Provost coordinates
credit hours generated by cross-listed courses for the affected departments
and maintains a listing of all undergraduate courses that governs the schedule
of courses for the CCC. Changes in undergraduate general education requirements
go to the CCC. Over the years courses proposed to be used to meet General Education
requirements are reviewed, recommended and sent to the Provost by this committee.
This University Courses and Curriculum
Committee has always been one with a very large workload. The alternate years
when the Undergraduate Catalog is to be published brings the greatest quantity
of business before the committee. Of all the committees at NCSU, I considered
this to be the most important one. Its accomplishments have been of great help
to the Provosts and have enabled them to carry out their responsibilities. The
CCC members at NCSU have all helped to provide the vital faculty role that is
so important for quality in our educational enterprise.
Graduate
School
In 1974 when I became Provost the
Chancellor assigned responsibility for the Graduate School to the Provost. Prior
to that time it reported directly to the Chancellor. I will not include Graduate
School matters prior to 1974 in this section except for those which involved
the Provost. Chancellor Caldwell indicated that he felt this change in relationship
was essential to the functioning of academic programs, however, he waited until
the retirement of both Provost Kelly and Dean Walter Peterson before making
the change. Dr. James Peeler (Associate Dean of the Graduate School who became
Acting Dean of the Graduate School on Dean Peterson's retirement), and I had
worked very closely for many years to accomplish functions of coordination.
The change in line of authority went very smoothly. The title was also changed
by Caldwell to Vice Provost and Dean of the Graduate School. The addition of
Vice Provost to the title was not for prestige or a sign of rank, but it was
so those on campus would see the new relationship to the Provost.
Soon after his arrival at NCSC in
1960, Chancellor Caldwell indicated, "The Dean of the Graduate School in the
exercise of his responsibilities with respect to instruction and research must
defer to the primary responsibility of the Dean of the Faculty for faculty development,
faculty assignment, budget and space." I believe that Caldwell used Peterson
as a confidant and probably relied more on Peterson's advice than on anyone
else's. This may have been another reason why Kelly and Peterson did not work
together as well as was desired.
I will mention a few items related
to the Graduate School that involved the Dean of the Faculty in the early years
and a small but incomplete group of items of interest to the graduate education
at NCSC.
Prior to 1948 there were individuals
who earned their Ph. D. degrees at NCSU, but they were awarded from UNC-CH.
In 1948 NCSC awarded its first doctoral degrees since before the consolidation
of the UNC System. In 1955 the title of the person responsible for graduate
work on our campus was changed from Associate Dean, which reported to the UNC
administration, to Dean of the Graduate School, which still reported to the
UNC administration. On March 12, 1957, a letter was received stating that there
was one Graduate School in the Consolidated University which reported to the
Vice President for Graduate Studies and Research at the UNC offices in Chapel
Hill. On February 12, 1958, this matter was clarified further to indicate that
the Dean would clear with the Chancellor all matters involving graduate study
that "are local in nature". The Dean was also to consult with the Chancellor
on matters of University graduate policy. Then the Graduate Dean was to deal
directly with the Vice President for Graduate Studies and Research "in order
to expedite the business of our All-University Graduate School". At this time
all proposed graduate degree programs were sent to a committee appointed by
the VP and which represented all three campuses. This practice continues today
with the committee representatives coming from all campuses of the UNC system
with graduate programs. Beginning in 1959 there were a number of new doctoral
degrees recommended and approved. The process of approval was very similar to
those described for undergraduate degrees discussed earlier, except that proposals
prior to 1974 went to the Dean of the Graduate School and then to the Administrative
Board of the Graduate School. When we were a part of the All-University Graduate
School, the Dean of the Graduate School sent the proposals after consultation
with the Chancellor, directly to the VP at UNC. It was soon after Caldwell came
that the process changed and the Graduate Dean submitted all requests through
Caldwell. Of course after approval by the President and the BOT, the proposals
had to be approved by the Board of Higher Education. After 1974 all degree proposals
and policies were forwarded to the Provost for concurrence before they went
to the Chancellor in a similar way to that described earlier for undergraduate
degree proposals. So that process will not be repeated here.
In 1957 a note to files indicated
that the Dean of the Faculty was to be notified when a graduate course was to
be dropped. By the time I became Assistant Provost this practice was discontinued
because the Provost no longer kept a duplicate record of the listing of graduate
courses. When I became Assistant Provost in 1967 I requested and received a
copy of the minutes of the Graduate Board because information on new courses
and degrees were recorded there. I have no idea why these minutes had not been
requested earlier. In 1960 Chancellor Caldwell, as did Bostian, continued occasionally
to send proposals for graduate degrees to UNC without sending a copy to the
Dean of the Faculty. When I joined the Provost's staff in 1967, I kept up with
these matters and kept Provost Kelly informed so we did know what was happening
in graduate work and policies. However, prior to 1974, sometimes we received
copies of correspondence of the Chancellor requesting graduate degrees and sometimes
we did not. I do not recall ever hearing Dr. Kelly say that he had complained
to the Chancellor about not receiving copies.
I know that we had graduate assistants
for many years and before World War II, but the first mention that I found of
Graduate Research Assistantships was in a memo from the Dean of the Graduate
School to the Chancellor. The Dean of the Faculty received a copy. James Bethel,
Acting Dean of the Graduate School, established the precedent that all graduate
assistantship appointments would go through the Graduate School. They also would
go by the Business Office and by the Office of Dean of the Faculty. This same
memorandum of December 29, 1958, stated that all graduate appointments would
also be processed and approved by the Graduate School. It was at this time that
all requests for associate and full professor appointments or promotions to
the rank of associate professor were to be accompanied by a "Request for Appointment
to Graduate Faculty" form which went to the Dean of the Graduate School. Most
of these practices continue today. The exception is that some faculty members
are not required to have membership in the graduate faculty. We stopped requiring
this for everyone after I became Provost for there were many areas that did
not have graduate courses or graduate degree programs. Many extension faculty
also did not participate in graduate programs. Requests for membership in the
Graduate Faculty are now sent directly to the Graduate School at any time and
do not accompany the promotion materials, but the Dean of the Graduate School
continues to review and make recommendations on all promotions and tenure proposals
sent from the schools/colleges.
We have always believed that we
could not get some graduate programs at NCSC/NCSU because of objections by academic
units at Chapel Hill. There was a proposal for a master's program in Management
Science in 1958. It was clear from correspondence that this degree proposal
was objected to by the School of Business Administration at UNC on the grounds
that it was "contrary to the principle of consolidation". In 1962 there was
a clarification that six hours of off-campus extension courses could apply towards
a master's degree. It was of interest to me to note that none of the correspondence
from the Extension Division to the Graduate Dean, to the Chancellor, or to the
VP of UNC, and in the reverse direction showed copies to Dean Kelly although
the Extension Division reported to him!
It was in 1965 that I found the
first setting of graduate stipends for assistantship holders by the Dean of
the Faculty. He said: "As a step toward increasing the attractiveness of our
teaching assistantships and thereby increasing the quality of our undergraduate
teaching, the new stipend range will be $2,700- $3,600 for half-time assistants."
There was no mention of research assistantship stipend levels. I found no copy
of this memo to Dean Peterson. During the later years of Kelly's tenure we began
to ask the Graduate Dean about every two years to study the level of the Graduate
Assistants' (Research and Teaching) stipend levels. This request might occur
more frequently if anyone in the schools/colleges felt that the levels were
too low for them to be competitive. The Graduate School did this study by reviewing
with the schools and departments their needs and looking at national stipend
levels offered by competing universities. The Graduate School Dean made a recommendation
to the Provost. When Dr. Kelly was Provost these stipends were set at varying
levels based on years of experience as a graduate assistant. The first department
to request that we permit a change was Chemistry. It was emphasized that they
could not compete for better graduate students at the lower levels and that
they wished to use a single rate that would enable them to compete for new graduate
students nationally. It was then that we began to set maximum and eventually
minimum stipend levels. To avoid having to make so many exceptions to the maximum
rate, we began to let units approve stipends at rates of 10% over the maximum
for currently enrolled exceptional assistants and for exceptional new prospects.
Some schools set much lower maximum stipends for all assistants. As a result
stipends paid by schools and even by departments soon became very different.
This flexibility seemed to work well for the different units. While it did not
increase the total funds available, it did let units determine whether they
needed to pay higher levels to be competitive. I still believe the level was
also determined, especially in a few departments, by the need for TAs. The departments
or schools were certainly better able to make these determinations of what the
stipend should be, within the resources available, than were the Provost and
the Graduate Dean. We also set the stipend levels for interns and residents
in the Veterinary College. In this case there was a desire to have pay levels
set on the basis of years of experience. We upgraded this scale almost every
year to enable the Vet College to remain competitive with other Colleges of
Veterinary Medicine.
In 1972 the Legislature established
the practice of "Tuition Remission." Prior to this time all graduate assistantship
holders appointed for a service of one-fourth or more paid in-state tuition
rates. This new approach provided a precise dollar value that could be used
to reduce the out-of state rates to in-state rates of tuition for out-of-state
graduate students. Since we were growing rapidly in our graduate programs, we
had to ask the Legislature each year through BOG for an increase in our tuition
remission funds. This factor caused units to be very conservative (more than
they needed to be) in their recruitment efforts, and most units felt that they
lost outstanding students. Also established at this time were stringent residency
requirements for out-of-State students who were independent and who wished to
become North Carolina residents. The departments and schools had to "encourage
strongly" graduate students to become residents to make Tuition Remission funds
available for new out-of-state students. I believe that this matter was a result
of the politicians wanting to reduce out-of-state enrollments because of the
activities of a number of out-of state students at UNC-CH during the late 1960s
and the early 1970s. The Legislators also said that it was to stop paying for
the costs of educating out-of-state students.
There were a few other collaborative
efforts between the Graduate Dean and the Provost. In 1972, assistantships which
were to be continued for a graduate student whose GPA fell under 3.0 had to
be approved by the Provost. I asked Dr. Peeler later why we were continuing
this practice. He indicated that it was started to discourage departments from
making such requests unless there were really very extenuating circumstances,
and it was believed that if the Provost had to approve the action fewer requests
would be made. He wished for the practice to be continued. I never recall the
Provost's turning a request down when the department, the school and the Graduate
School recommended approval. We discontinued this approval after Dr. Debra Stewart
became Dean of the Graduate School. I don't believe that the numbers of exceptions
requested increased.
Three Graduate Deans have reported
to the Provosts. These were Vivian T. Stannett, Jasper D. Memory and Debra W.
Stewart. Shortly after Stannett became Dean, I requested that he develop a mechanism
for the review of existing graduate programs at NCSU. This did not come into
being during his tenure, but a procedure was developed and implemented under
Memory. The Chancellor and I had agreed that Stannett could spend approximately
one-half of his time on his research because he had a number of grants, post-doctorates
and graduate students. We also agreed that he would remain as Dean for only
one five-year term so that he could return to full time faculty status well
before he would retire. It was during his tenure that we were able to add Augustus
Witherspoon to the staff on a one-half time basis. Although he assisted Stannett
and Peeler on a number of projects, his major responsibility was to help the
University's graduate programs in the recruitment of African-American graduate
students. He was also to undertake studies that might indicate to us how we
could help these students succeed academically and how to make certain that
their studies culminated in the degrees sought. We soon learned that the retention
and success of these students did not differ significantly from those of other
graduate students, however, the recruitment was much more difficult. Dr. Witherspoon
developed one of the nations most successful networks with contacts at the predominately
black colleges and universities and at the major universities and colleges that
had significant numbers of African-American undergraduate students enrolled.
When he joined the Provost's staff he was replaced by Dr. Thoyd Melton who continues
to use and enhance this network.
When Dean Stannett returned to the
faculty Dr. Peeler again served as Interim Dean of the Graduate School. After
Memory was selected, Dr. Peeler decided to return to teaching in the Department
of Economics and Business. Raymond Fornes from Physics and Debra Stewart from
Political Science and Public Administration were selected as Assistant Deans
of the Graduate School. Both were part-time.
Others who have served as Assistant
or Associate Deans of the Graduate School are, D. A. Emery from Crop Science,
E. M. Crawford from Sociology and Anthropology, M. F. King from English and
R. S. Sowell from Biological and Agricultural Engineering.
After the Graduate School began
to report to the Provost and on-campus reviews were in place, the BOG also started
a system of program reviews. Those that involved graduate programs involved
primarily the Graduate Dean but the Provost was also included in all of the
on-campus meetings and received all the documentation for review. Many more
NCSU reviews than BOG reviews of graduate programs have been conducted.
While the Provosts received minutes
of the Administrative Board of the Graduate School's meetings, they did not
become involved in most matters except those that involved a policy change or
for the adding or dropping of graduate degree programs. Policy matters were
always discussed at the Deans' Council meetings after review of the written
policy proposals by the other school/college deans. When necessary they were
also approved by the Chancellor. The Provost reported newly proposed or dropped
programs but rarely policy changes to the NCSU Trustees' Personnel and Programs
Committee. The Graduate School Deans always prepared the material which had
to be forwarded to the UNC System in the appropriate format and with the needed
number of copies. These were sent to the Provosts for review of the final documentation
with the draft memoranda to be used later by the Chancellor. In almost all cases
either the Graduate Dean or I would have discussions with the Vice President
for Academic Affairs of the UNC System as the proposals were being developed.
In a few cases we did learn that a particular proposal would not be received
favorably. So several problems were avoided without creating a fuss. I always
was kept abreast of the development of proposals and any problems that I recognized
were ironed out before or during the Administrative Board of the Graduate School's
review and study of the proposals. Upon my formal recommendation and the Chancellor's
concurrence the Chancellor's Office forwarded the proposed programs to the BOG
staff with the appropriate number of copies. This was also the practice followed
by Stewart and Hart.
In 1985, the Southern Association
of Colleges and Schools passed a resolution on the educational background and
requirements of those who taught undergraduate students at colleges and universities.
These regulations were revised in 1986, however, we had to implement the new
regulations. "Each institution employing graduate teaching assistants must provide
a published set of guidelines for institution-wide graduate assistantship administration,
including appointment criteria, remuneration, rights and responsibilities, evaluation
and reappointment." These were established by a memorandum of June 17, 1987,
to School Deans and Associate Deans from Dean Stewart and me. This really caused
us very little problem except in the Departments of English and Computer Science.
The only requirement that caused us a problem was that the TA must have completed
18 graduate semester hours in their teaching field or hold the master's degree
in that field. We used a number of TAs to teach composition and computer languages
and only offered a master's degrees in those fields at that time. We were able
to have many of those who did not have 18 hours of graduate course work in the
field teach the remedial courses in composition. We already had hired a large
number of persons with master's degrees who were lecturers to teach composition.
In Computer Science we had used exceptional undergraduates and those working
on a master's degree to teach introductory computer languages. We found that
for these courses we could hardly afford to hire Ph.D. holders, and the students
were superior teachers. These issues were argued at a number of meetings and
we did adjust and adapt. There was such a shortage of the so-called qualified
in Computer Science that all colleges had to do as we did and the Southern Association
accepted this practice as a reasonable rationale for using teachers with less
than the specified requirements. Today we offer the Ph.D. in Computer Science
and have no difficulty in meeting the standards set forth. Those institutions
who depended on TAs to teach their freshmen and sophomores had a much more difficult
adjustment problem.
Another issue that constantly arose
was the number of TAs that taught undergraduate students. In 1988 we were required
to report how many TAs we had teaching lecture sections. With only a very few
exceptions most of these TAs taught remedial or compensatory courses. Almost
all were in the Math Education program and in the English, Computer Science
and Mathematics departments. Another constant complaint was the number of TAs
who were foreigners whom the students couldn't understand because of their poor
use of English. Out of 871 TAs on campus 213 were foreign. Of these only 35
taught lecture sections. Twenty three of these were in the Department of Mathematics,
six in Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, four in Economics and one each
in Electrical and Computer Engineering and Statistics. Each was an experienced
student and the departments thought their language proficiency was adequate
before placing then in a lecture situation. It is true that a few did have accents.
Most foreign TAs were involved in laboratory sections (where there were more
with language problems than elsewhere), grading papers and tests and assisting
in review sessions for classes. The Graduate School did establish a mechanism
for sending TAs through a spoken English language program to assure their competency
in English.
While Poulton was Chancellor, because
of the relationship between graduate student support and grants and contracts
which we were obtaining in increasing numbers and value, he felt that there
should be a formal working relationship between the Research Office and the
Graduate School. So he had the Graduate School report to both the Provost and
the Vice Chancellor for Research. This relationship is described further in
Chapter 1 in the section labeled Functions. There has always been a close relationship
between the Research Office and the Graduate School, because the first grants
and contracts were processed through the Graduate School. Dr. Frank Guthrie,
as an Assistant Dean for Research of the Graduate School, developed our first
Research Office. This later became the Research Office which was filled by H.
F. Robinson as NCSU's first Administrative Dean for Research.
This is a very inadequate coverage
of the Graduate School at NCSU because it really covers only an abbreviated
list of activities of that school. Graduate Education has been such an important
part of our development as a University. We did have graduate programs before
consolidation and I have mentioned only a very small group of activities since
1955. It is my sincere hope that someone will undertake the job to write the
complete history of the Graduate School.
Grading
Systems and Scholarship
At the time that Shirley became
Dean of the Faculty we had an A, B, C, D, F grading system. | 
