Provisional Minutes of September 29 meeting

Attendance:
Faculty: Mr. Dade, Ms. Griffin, Mr. Harris, Mrs. Gacka, Mrs. Thompson, Mr. Weiskopf, Ms. Agar
Student: Cecile Murray, Hannah, Hunter, Paui Sankfor, Sam Mintzer, Michael Marabito, Nate Baker, Chip Herman

Discussion:
Reminding the senate of the new blog and the ability to write as authors.
Motion to work out a concrete proposal reflecting our discussion.
*Mr. Peters bursts through the door with a concerned expression upon his face*
Mr. Walton not aware of PE potential revisions.
To be worked out later.

Ideas for revision of Cum Laude
Larger initial pool of candidates
Determined by the initial committee
Then goes to faculty meeting to vote on the final choices.
Faculty might look at top 25% of class
Would raise objections if necessary
Then go to the cum laude committee for final review.
Nominations
Begin with class list and nominate those who the faculty think are good candidates.
Then confirm that they are in the top percentage of the class.
Some reservations throughout the senate about nominations
Teachers choosing their favorite students.
May not necessarily reflect academic achievements.
Possibly email list of top percentage to faculty initially.
This way the faculty would have time to reflect upon the candidates and send any response indicating concern.
Discussion leaning towards a smaller committee that would make the final decision
Would have access to all information without fear of too much breach of confidentiality.

Current System
Junior Year
Committee  20% to faculty evaluation  10% are inducted
Senior Year
10% already inducted
Committee  next 20% to faculty evaluation  10% are inducted

Problems:
Distinctions between straight GPA get down to the thousandths. GPA becomes almost arbitrary.
Problems with ranking. Too subjective teacher by teacher.
Some teachers simply don’t know the top candidates well enough to feel comfortable ranking them.

Proposed systems:
25-30%  Committee which can rank those students
Must be able to make a final decision because of the confidentiality aspect.
Problems:
Comfortability issue being bumped from above the cutoff point because someone else, who didn’t make the initial cut, had to be moved up.

Committee  top next 20% of senior class  faculty nominations  committee for final review.

Minutes compiled by Senator Herman

Provisional Minutes, 9/22/09

In Attendance: B. Dade; S. Gacka; A. Thompson; R. Maurer; J. Griffin; I.Todaro; H. Moeller; J. Agar; B. Senkfor; S. Mintzer; M. Marabito; C. Hermann; N. Baker; H. Kerman; S. Feldman; C. Murray; C. Harris.

1.PE Requirement Updates

Senator Hermann reports that the Ohio State Requirements for Physical Education is only 3600 minutes of physical education.

After these 3600 minutes, the department’s philosophy of remaining physically active is the only factor.

Senators Marabito & Mintzer report that they checked with Coach Walton, who was under the impression that the state still required PE classes through 10th grade. Coach McClintock is reported to also support the idea of PE electives, provided that they are sufficiently demanding.

Since Hawken’s requirements are higher than the state requirements in other academic areas, it was noted that it makes sense that we would hold students to a higher standard than the state requirement in this area as well.

Proposal: Sen. Kerman & Sen. Baker will write a proposal to eliminate the PE requirement in the sophomore year, and to recommend the diversification of PE electives.


2. Cum Laude Selection Process

Senate Chair Harris opened by noting that in our student culture, there seems to be a resistance to recognizing student achievement even by the students who are recognized. This seems like a larger problem than the Cum Laude selection process.

Sen. Murray pointed out that this also taps into a broader cultural phenomenon where it’s not cool to be really smart – or, it is, as long as you don’t really care. Being singled out for Cum Laude proves that you’re smart and you care.

We discussed the shortcomings of the current selection process, which amounts to 'rubber-stamping' of the numerical list of students with the highest GPAs. We also began to consider other possible selection models, such as the one suggested by Mr. Peters, wherein a small committee pre-screens candidates and presents a short list to the full faculty.

A lively discussion ensued, but sadly, this conversation had to be tabled for our next session.

Faculty Senators for 09-10

Julie Agar
Russ Maurer
Sue Gacka
Steve Weiskopf
Julia Griffin
Anne Thompson
Tracy Stockard
Brendan Dade
Sue Berlin

Cris Harris, Chair