March 11 2013 Minutes

Commended Students list

•  Announce lists together – intensive and rotation
• Should we change way that teachers allocate points?

·         Should we continue to make it all about effort?

o   Notes of praise v. commended students list

o   Don’t want to take away academic recognition

§  History of program: replace honor roll, wanted to make a culture of success (public acknowledgement of student academic success)

§  Don’t want to make it an “A for effort” thing?

·         Can we make faculty take it more seriously

·         Make it mandatory for the faculty

·         Should it be private or public

o   Not enough academic recognition

o   Is having 40 names read aloud at once diminish value of list?

·         Do we need to normalize how we’re commending people: what makes someone “commendable?”

·         Should not be for the sake of spreading academic recognition (don’t recommend students who were commended last semester)

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.