Faculty Allow Credit Sharing Between Majors and Minors
At this month’s faculty meeting, the Admission Office updated faculty on Early Decision and Early Action application statistics. Hints were dropped about potential changes to incoming first-year preregistration coaching. The faculty voted to bring students new possible major/minor combinations and passed the new Honor Resolution. Lastly, changes to group requirements are potentially on the horizon, with a new system that gives more grace to “0.67” credits than before.
President Audrey Bilger began the meeting by encouraging professors teaching graduating Spring/Fall seniors to RSVP for the celebration dinner on Friday. She then officially endorsed the Soup and Scribble event which took place on Wednesday, December 3, highlighting the effort of kindness. Next week, Bilger will be hosting the end-of-semester faculty reception.
EA and ED Applications rising
Vice President and Dean of Admission & Financial Aid Milyon Trulove presented updates on admission statistics now that the Early Action and Early Decision I deadlines have passed. EA applications are down by 10% compared to last year, mostly due to a reduction in international student applications in line with national trends. However, domestic applications are rising. Compared to last year, this year saw a 60% increase in domestic ED applications, or 80 more students applying ED.
The January 16 deadline for Regular Decision and ED II is fast approaching. Though most ED students apply by the first deadline, the college expects around 400 to 500 more students to apply for Early Decision II. Trulove reported that high school counselors have expressed that the ED II deadline is helpful for students making decisions after their first round of applications. In general, students are staying closer to home this year. Reed is seeing increasing applications from nearby regions and Trulove notes this as a positive change, as students closer to Reed are slightly more likely to attend due to proximity.
Trulove then reminded faculty that the admission statistics will continue to fluctuate, especially considering that most students submit their applications at the last possible moment. More data will come as the admission process continues.
Trulove thanked faculty for their continued effort in recruitment. Faculty engagement is one of the main points Reed promotes. One family expressed that their fall open house visit assured them that Reed will be “perfect” for their child. Trulove also assured faculty that Admission instructs prospective students to focus on listening when they sit in, but not all prospective students listen because “they’re still developing.”
Trulove went on to say that there are an equal amount of domestic applications as about three years ago. The largest variance in population is in international students. Trulove emphasizes that Reed is seeing growth in its most important demographic, Early Decision, as these are “the students who are choosing us first.”
Preregistration coaching will stay, but it will change
Kathy Oleson, Dean of the Faculty, relayed a message on behalf of Title IX and 504 Coordinator Christy Martin and SHARE Director L. Mattson. For the first time, the state of Oregon is trying to align data on sexual misconduct across the state. They encourage faculty to promote the State of Oregon Campus Sexual Misconduct Survey to their students. The survey was sent out to students through email on November 24.
Oleson then invited Kelly Chacón, Professor of Chemistry, onto the podium. Chacón promoted Soup and Scribble again and thanked those who pitched in funding the event. The funding allowed higher quality glitter paint to be available at the event, they said. Chacón is also working with the Center for Teaching and Learning to assemble another gathering.
Hugh Hochman, Professor of French, remarked that Oleson had announced the success of the registration coaching program without elaboration in the October faculty meeting. As faculty were surveyed on their experience of the program, Hochman expressed curiosity about the results of the survey and asked for them to be shared. He mentioned that, anecdotally, he is aware of complaints that the process took more time and commitment from faculty than expected. Oleson replied that the survey results were shared with the Committee on Academic Policy and Planning (CAPP).
Suzy C.P. Renn, Associate Dean of the Faculty and Faculty Clerk of the CAPP, expanded on Oleson’s perspective. Renn had compiled the survey results, and CAPP has not had the time to share them with the faculty as a whole. Renn shed light on future changes to the first-year registration coaching program. Next year, registration counseling will not only take place the week prior to registration time, it will be shortened from a week and a half to four days. CAPP believes that the shortened time frame will concentrate email traffic between professor and student, lessening the workload. All the proposed changes will be revealed in an upcoming memo.
Change to Credit Sharing Between Major and Minor
CAPP announced the proposition of a new course, CHN 323: Daoist Texts. The course was approved unanimously.
Then, the committee raised their motion to amend the current prohibition on “double-dipping” credits between a student’s major and minor. As written in the faculty code section IV.G., prior to the amendment, “Classes taken in the student's major department or, in the case of interdisciplinary majors, in student's major departments cannot be counted towards a minor." This sentence prohibited major/minor combinations where there was a shared required course, as the credit could only count toward either the major or the minor, and not both.
Minors are still relatively new at Reed. The CAPP aimed to find a solution that would prohibit unreasonable major/minor combinations (such as a chemistry major with a minor in chemistry), while allowing students to have the credentials that demonstrated what they learned. Thus, the CAPP proposed to strike the restrictive sentence and replace it with:
“A student may not declare a minor that:
Is offered by the same department or interdisciplinary committee as their major, or,
Shares 3 or more units with the major concentration.”
Kyle Ormsby, Professor of Mathematics, thanked the CAPP for reworking the credit-sharing rules, but expressed concern at the vagueness of the language in the proposed change. Ormsby presented two potential interpretations of the word “shares”: a credit is shared if you are applying the credit for both major and minor, or a credit is shared if it could potentially be applied to both major and minor. Ormsby supported the proposal based on the first interpretation. Jason Maher, staff member of the Registrar, replied that the registrar interprets the word with the first meaning. As for the concern over minor/minor credit sharing, Maher noted that students tend to declare only a single minor, and few minors have overlapping requirements. Confusion arose surrounding the term “major concentration.” Majors often have paths that can involve other departments and the language to describe these paths varies between majors. Some majors have “concentrations,” while others have “allied fields,” “tracks,” or “emphases.” The proposal targets the word “concentration” because it appears as a formal part of the student’s transcript. However, the only way for an anthropology student to have the credentials that show their proficiency in the foreign language used to fulfill their major’s foreign language requirement would be to declare a minor in that language. Some faculty were concerned that removing the word “concentration” would make the policy too strict and rule out too many potential major/minor combinations.
Ormsby highlighted the importance of clarifying the word “share.” Ormsby's ideal for the double-dipping policy would be to strike the word “concentration” from the current proposal and clarify the language of “sharing.” When students will be able to minor in math, Ormsby would like to see that students who have four required math courses in their major are able to put two of those credits to the minor, then acquire the rest of the credits for the minor by taking other math courses. He added that he would like the policy to specify that conflicting courses can be substituted using courses of the same subject and level.
Hugh Hochman, Professor of French, asked for clarification surrounding the History/Literature major and language minors. For Hochman, the question of whether a History/Literature student can minor in French has arisen several times, as the Registrar has refused to apply a student’s French literature course as a credit towards a French minor. Meher responded that students would be able to apply literature courses in a non-English language to their minor.
Steve L. Arkonovich, Professor of Philosophy and a member of the Administrative Committee (AdComm), reminded the faculty that the notion of banning double-dipping was rejected, and AdComm then tried to create a standard for what was allowable double-dipping.
In order to illustrate what major/minor combinations would be possible with the new policy, CAPP’s memo contained a matrix that labeled possible combinations in green, impossible combinations in red, and possible but difficult combinations in yellow. Maher noted that AdComm considered many models, including a universal two-or three-credit overlap max, but the universal restrictions created many red pairings. The intricacies of language surrounding concentrations and majors led them to conceptualize the new policy in terms of majors and minors. Maher stressed that students should be allowed to declare credentials that reflect their coursework.
Nigel Nicholson, Professor of Greek, Latin, and Ancient Mediterranean Studies, noted that physics does not think of itself as physics with an allied field in math. It is impossible to major in physics without taking math courses, but it is possible to major in anthropology without taking French. He argued that Ormsby’s concerns are already addressed in the proposal.
Ormsby submitted an amendment to the proposal, which was not passed. The faculty seemed inclined to table the current proposal and send it back to committee. Maher strongly encouraged faculty to consider the purpose of tabling the amendment. The proposal has been on the faculty floor twice, CAPP twice, and AdComm twice. After further discussion on the language of the proposal, the motion to table was not passed.
Kris G. Anderson, Professor of Psychology, remarked that the allied fields for the psychology major were designed before minors existed. The purpose was to allow students to get exposure to another field at a decent level of depth. She suggested that minors could completely replace allied fields because they provide the same benefit.
Sameer ud Dowla Khan, Professor of Linguistics, brought Ormsby’s initial amendment back to the faculty’s attention. They found Ormsby’s clarification on the word “shares” to be useful. A motion was made to reconsider the amendment, and a second-degree amendment was passed such that the clarification in the amendment was retained while the language specifying the “major concentration” would remain in the original policy. Ormsby’s amendment was passed, and the overall proposal was passed with a single objection. Much applause ensued.
The new policy (with the original wording in strikethrough and Ormsby’s amendment in italics) would read as such:
“A student may elect to complete a minor in fields where a minor has been established. Minors typically require 5 or 6 courses, and represent an identifiable level of achievement within the relevant field. Classes taken in the student's major department or, in the case of interdisciplinary majors, in student's major departments cannot be counted towards a minor. A student may not declare a minor that:
Is offered by the same department or interdisciplinary committee as their major, or,
Shares 3 or more units with the major concentration.
(Here, a unit is considered ‘shared’ between a major concentration and a minor when it is used simultaneously to fulfill both sets of requirements.)”
It’s Time For Course Evaluations
After that exhausting debate, Bilger motioned to extend the meeting for 10 minutes, and the motion was passed with some objections.
Kjersten Whittington, Professor of Sociology and member of the Committee on Advancement and Tenure (CAT) reminded faculty that it is time for course evaluations. The CAT recommends professors to offer time in class for students to fill out the two forms as it improves student response rates. Offering the evaluations in class also allows professors to answer questions about the evaluation process, because, Whittington admits, the evaluations can be confusing.
Distribution Requirements Changes on the Horizon
Renn presented a draft proposal to the faculty floor. The proposal is preliminary and consists of seven motions. Renn expressed that the proposal is amenable to change from faculty comment. The final proposal will be voted on at the next faculty meeting.
Firstly, the proposal will give the responsibility of determining credit substitution for group requirements to Disability and Accessibility Resources. Secondly, international students will need to petition the Registrar directly about substituting Group 1 language requirements. Thirdly, it will involve motions to simplify the current group distribution requirements language by striking unnecessary exceptions and explanations. The new distribution requirements will also require a student to take nine courses over all three groups, and each group must be fulfilled using 2.67 credits.
At this point, the faculty broke down in laughter over “2.67.” A professor was observed moving their hands up and down in the motion associated with the number.
Meg Scharle, Professor of Philosophy, was concerned about the proposal. For Scharle, the proposed changes represent a trend where Reed’s academic policies are becoming articulated in increasingly complex ways. She argued that the language creates more bureaucracy and negatively affects students’ understanding. Renn argued that the language in the new proposal helps students navigate the courses that are offered under each group, and that there is another section detailing exactly how students should transfer credits.
Derek Applewhite, Professor of Biology was confused about the specificity of the “2.67” credit requirement. Often, transfer courses count as 0.67 credits. It would be disadvantageous to round up, Renn argued. If incoming transfer credits were rounded up, students would be incentivized to take a significant number of credits outside of Reed.
Renn clarified that the course specification is to make clear to students that their courses cannot be used to fulfill multiple group requirements at once, and “course” cannot be used as the metric to evaluate the fulfillment of individual group requirements because STEM courses are often 0.5 credit.
Honor Resolution Passes Faculty Vote
Kristin Scheible, Professor of Religion, and student Honor Council members Piper Brandy ‘26, Skyden Canfield ‘26, and Leila Menezes ‘26 presented the draft Honor Resolution to the faculty floor. Scheible noted that many versions of the resolution have been circulated, and the Honor Council has taken everyone’s comments to heart. Scheible stressed that the resolution is not a binding form of governance, it is merely “a finger on the pulse” and a starting point for community conversation, rather than adjudication.
Scheible explained that the Honor Resolution is “extra-canonical.” In other words, it is not a part of any governance documents. Jake Fraser, Professor of German, expressed concern about the perception of the faculty’s vote, asking if agreeing to pass the resolution would mean that the faculty endorses its contents. Scheible responded that the passing of the resolution would not be an explicit endorsement, but rather a nod to the faculty’s dedication to honoring the process of deliberating the Honor Principle. Fraser continued to express hesitation to endorse the document. In response, Scheible stressed that the resolution is not a faculty document, and the passing of the resolution would be the faculty recognizing a starting point for a conversation on honor.
With only one objection, the resolution on the Honor Resolution passed.
Following the discussion on the Honor Resolution, the faculty raised no new business, and the meeting was adjourned. Special thanks to the professors who helped clarify questions about faculty governance policies.