Faculty Beat is Laughing at 6-7
Faculty discussed updates to the residential college model implementation effort. A new minor for Environmental Humanities will allow students to graduate with an interdisciplinary minor, and a 3/3 program with Washington University in St. Louis will provide a graduate degree in Engineering after a six-year program. Faculty also debated distribution requirement changes, passing six out of seven motions including an amendment that allows students to fulfill a group requirement with only 2.67 units.
A Residential College Involves Not Just On-Campus Students
The Residential College Implementation Committee was tasked by Vice President for Student Life Karnell McConnell-Black, with developing a suitable residential college model for Reed that intentionally integrates academic, social, and residential experiences. The committee explained that part of the goal of the model is to create a holistic educational experience that strengthens student belonging, retention, and persistent graduation rate. The model will “function as a connective structure that brings together curriculum, advising, co-curricular opportunities, mentorship, and community engagement.”
The plan involves what the committee called a Pathway Model. In this model, each year of a student’s four years at Reed will revolve around identified milestones: HUM 110 and exploration of interests in the first year; continued exploration and interest based housing in the second year; peer mentorship, research, and study abroad opportunities in the third year; and thesis and alumni engagement in the fourth year. The committee explained that alumni engagement with fourth year students would benefit both the students and the college. Students receive support from those who have similar experiences to them, and alumni strengthen their relationship with the college.
“Within the residential college framework, the pathway model serves as a shared map—helping students, faculty, and staff align academic and co-curricular experiences more intentionally. Importantly, the committee is recommending that this model build on Reed’s existing strengths and roll out in intentional phases over multiple years, with a strong emphasis on assessment, data transparency, and continuous improvement.”
Throughout the meeting, the committee stressed that the process is not only about retention and graduation. It is also about protecting vulnerable student populations, particularly those who are “slipping through the cracks” of existing systems.
The committee intends to slowly implement the residential college program in intentional phases over multiple years. They stressed the importance of data and transparency alongside faculty input in refining the model.
Kris Anderson, Professor of Psychology, asked for clarification on what exactly a residential college model is. The Committee responded that it is considering a rebranding of the process because the model impacts students who live on and off-campus. Improving the residential experience was the first charge that the committee received, but the initiative would consider the entire student body. McConnell-Black then highlighted the importance of thinking about integratedness in this model, and stressed that the model has been implemented at Yale and Harvard.
New Environmental Humanities Minor!!
The Committee of Academic Policy and Planning (CAPP) raised the addition of a new Environmental Humanities minor, which was approved unanimously by the faculty. Proposed by Kristin Scheible, Professor of Religion, and Sarah Wagner-McCoy, Professor of English, students who wish to minor in Environmental Humanities must take five courses tagged as Environmental Arts and Humanities in SOLAR. These five courses must come from at least two separate departments. This minor will be overseen by a standing faculty committee, a process similar to the minor in Film and Media Studies.
When asked why they chose the word “department” instead of “subject” in asserting the requirement for diverse course selection, Scheible responded that they felt that the word “department” aligned more with the interdisciplinary intent of the minor.
3/3 Bachelors & Masters Program with WashU
The faculty also unanimously approved a new collaborative program with Washington University in St. Louis. Unlike the 3/2 program (where Reedies can receive a bachelor’s in their chosen field at Reed in three years, then a bachelor’s degree in Engineering at a partnered institution), the 3/3 program allows students to receive a bachelor’s degree at Reed, then go on to get a master’s in Engineering or a related field at WashU.
Kyle Ormsby, Professor of Mathematics, noted that despite the interest in the existing 3/2 program, there are not many followthroughs. He wondered what makes this 3/3 program different and more accessible than the 3/2. Jennifer Heath, Professor of Physics, responded that the 3/3 builds on the 3/2 program. She explained that there have recently been a lot of students interested in the 3/2, with three students applying to partnered institution Columbia University this year and thirteen interested in Columbia next year. Though the numbers are expected to decrease, the 3/3 would make more space for students interested in pursuing Engineering. Jason Mahrer of the Registrar added that unlike the 3/2, the 3/3 results in a graduate degree.
Distribution Requirements Changes Debated
The committee brought forth the following seven motions concerning the draft of the updated distribution requirements for discussion and approval, which were initially presented in December, but reissued due to complaints regarding clarity.
Motion one proposed a change in the draft’s language to remove an explicit articulation of the petition possibilities for students with disabilities that may significantly impose language acquisition. The motion was passed.
Motion two involved a proposed edit to the draft’s language regarding the recently approved ability for international students with non-English language proficiency to petition the Administrative Community for the replacement of a language requirement with an additional unit from a subject in Arts, Humanities, Literature, or Philosophy. Although the motion was concerned with the semantics of the language used to communicate this new petition opportunity (which itself was approved in December), discussion ensued regarding both the specific verbiage of the exemption as well as discourse regarding whether it should have been approved to begin with. Some expressed concern for bilingual students who are from majority English speaking countries, while others, as Nicole James from the Chemistry Department pointed out, were confused about the inclusion of this specific exemption in the draft, since technically, “any student can apply for any exemption” if they think themselves eligible for one. Faculty also expressed discontent with the evolution of the policy, as some thought assessment was to be on the grounds of “cultur[al experience]”, rather than language proficiency. Kristen Scheible expressed worries regarding the courses that were chosen as adequate substitutes for the language credit, skeptical of the seemingly random choices. It was clarified that this exemption is targeted toward people who have done high-level academic work in both a non-native and native language, and the reason for this specific circumstance’s inclusion in the faculty code is so that when this situation arises, there is an official understanding of how it is to be handled. Sameer ud Dowla Khan, Professor of Linguistics, advocated for the removal of the draft exemption opportunity from the faculty code and instead suggested that it be installed in the language on the petition document, but others voiced concern that it made the information less accessible and more obscure. The discussion then turned to how the Admissions Committee (AdCom) would go about assessing proficiency for the exemption in the first place, as secondary school transcripts often do not always contain enough information. A vote on calling the question was proposed but not passed. After a brief period of continued discussion, motion two was tabled.
A vote took place to extend the meeting for fifteen minutes. The motion was not passed.
Motion three proposed the removal of the second part of guideline two for group requirements, namely the explanation of exceptions for subject classifications for courses, as Group 1 courses are now separated into two subgroups. Motion three was passed.
Motion four proposed to strike the second part of guideline three, related to the cross-listing of courses, in order to simplify the process of using cross-listed courses for group requirements. Cross-listed courses should accomplish the requirements of all the categories they are in, and thus should count for group requirements towards any of the subjects they are cross-listed in. It was noted that this will only work if cross-listing is taken seriously. Motion four was passed.
Motion five proposed more detail in the language around the minimum and maximum allowances for subjects that can be used towards group requirements. Peter Ksander, Professor of Theatre spotted a typo, a motion was proposed and passed to fix it, and motion five was passed.
Motion six proposed a rewording of the humanities requirement to remove confusion about units and courses, and was passed.
Motion seven, which was dubbed the six-seven motion, earning some laughter from attending faculty, codified the preexisting allowance of transfer credits in the range of 2.67-3 to be used for group requirements in the distribution requirement rules. Darrell Schroeter, Professor of Physics, expressed concern that this would incentivize students to fulfill their group requirements at other institutions, as he has noticed more and more students choosing to do so over their summers. The motion was passed, and the meeting adjourned.