Newsletter Table of Contents | CAT home

Survey Results of Botstein Visit

At the spring 2001 Faculty Institute, Dr. Leon Botstein, president of Bard College, gave a keynote address.  Following Dr. Botstein's presentation, faculty joined small breakout sessions to consider a variety of questions such as :

How do we convey the notion that liberal arts education is more of a beginning than an ending of an individual's education?

How do we balance the frequently competing interests of a professional or even pre-professional education with those of a liberal arts and science education?

If courses are bricks in building an education, what are essential campus activities outside the courses that form the mortar, especially those that involve faculty and students informally?

(The complete list of questions is also available.)

Later in the spring semester, the Coordinating Committee of the University Academic Assembly administered a survey to gather data from faculty regarding University Academic Assembly in general and Dr. Botstein's presentation in particular.  The results of the survey are presented below:

Faculty Survey Results, March 2001
(47 completed surveys)

Spring 2001 Faculty Institute,
Xavier University of Louisiana

An afternoon with Dr. Leon Botstein, President of Bard College

Rate the relevance of Dr. Botstein's presentation to issues and opportunities that exist at Xavier University?

Which of the following topics addressed by Dr. Botstein have most relevance to Xavier? (Choose all that apply.)

What topic(s) presented by Dr. Botstein call(s) for more discussion?  (Choose all that apply.)

Comments (assume sic):

It seems to me that the University's emphasis has lately been on training students to get into medical school, not on how to think independently & develop high-level analytical skills.  These areas are important not only to enable our students to become valuable members of society, but so they can practice medicine (or other scientific career) effectively & holistically.  What good is a doctor if she/he cannot write a paragraph?

Because it's so central for out graduates to pursue leadership positions.

Issue of pre-profession education vs. liberal arts education needs more discussion.  This could impact the core. Also, validity or required minors should be reviewed.

Comments (assume sic):

Core curriculum needs revision.

Stimulated thinking about a foundation preparation for life skills for an educated person, which also allows adequate development of specialty area.

We seem to be over-stressing pre-professional training, so students don't see value in core courses.

The core at Xavier is not suited for all majors. Perhaps we need less hours for some majors, or a greater variety of choices. The core should have more meaning than just be a hoop students need to jump through.

We need desperately to look into the core curriculum to see if it is too unwieldy and ready for revision.

Comments (assume sic):

If XU means what it says about internationalizing the curriculum, it is important to investigate how disciplines can contribute collectively to this process.  More generally, the benefits of an interdisciplinary learning environment are invaluable.

As a university, we do not understand fully what interdisciplinary courses are, or how to meaningful conduct them.

Comments (assume sic):

Cooperative learning allows students to have a chance to work together for a common goal. This is how many organizations function. Students can see faculty working together this provides a good model for learning.

I liked the idea that the same constructs can be taught using different courses (e.g., the teaching of critical thinking skills).

Comments (assume sic):

Interdisciplinary learning.  Never identified a systematic way to implement interdisciplinary teaching/learning. 

Dr. Botstein's students are white (mostly) and prosperous (mostly).  He was clever and amusing, but much of what he said was not relevant to XU. It was a waste of time.

These would offer a way to implement the way in which he considers liberal arts education to be valuable.

His point about the humanities as critical to the potential for students to achieve. That is, that people need practical training to succeed, but that in order to achieve the highest degree of success, a person requires and must have grounding in the humanities. The truth is, we do not emphasize enough that organic side of skills our students need to realize their full potential.

The importance seems under-emphasized currently.

The faculty seem to remain interested and engaged for just that one day. There is rarely an on-going dialog, follow-up, or conclusion.

My 3 choices are somewhat related. By developing a handful of powerful, creative, and sound interdisciplinary courses, we may be able to improve or enrich the core curriculum and increase students' understanding of a liberal arts education.

I disagreed with Dr. Botstein.

Was the format followed (i.e., Dr. Botstein's presentation, breakout sessions, reports from breakout sessions, summary comments by Dr. Botstein) effective?

Which format do you prefer for University Academic Assemblies?

Please state your likes and dislikes pertaining to University Academic Assembly programs, formats, use of faculty time, etc.

Comments (assume sic):

Likes

So far that variety of approaches has been good, particularly for letting us get to know faculty in other disciplines of the university.

Opportunities for intellectual interaction.

The breakout sessions that are provided with or without a speaker allow faculty from various areas to work together. These experiences have been very positive at Xavier.

The Assembly meets infrequently and keeps it to an hour each time. This is good. Less often is better.

I like getting together as a faculty, but dislike the fact this we seldom get to know each other.

I would like a variety of the above approaches with a guest speaker every year or two, a panel discussion of XU and area faculty, and a theme-driven discussion either via breakout sessions or open discussions. Acad. Assembly should minimize committee reports and maximize the discussion of committee work and results.

I prefer sessions that are directly related to improvements in teaching. A group in Minneapolis -- 21^st Century Learning Systems -- teaches accelerative learning methods. A second use of time is problem solving; something specific with a direct relationship to students' interest and/or faculty.

I would like a preview of relevant points of the UAA program before the meeting via electronic media.

Dislikes

Do not open a topic unless speaker knows all of the background.

Content frequency of such programs (without comparable results).

In this age of active learning, why are most meetings & programs the typical "lecture"? There is an abundance of research that shows that people retain very little from sitting and listening to a lecture format.  Do we have to sit and listen to some of these presentations?  Can't some of the information be sent via email and other technology?

Too long. Too often.

Dislike the fact that we don't use a mike, many times important items are misses due to not being able to hear.

Some items could be taken care of via email.

Eliminate reports, send them by email and let faculty discuss issues that interest them.

Too big.  The university has gotten to large for the VPAA to govern. This responsibility ought to be delegated to smaller working committees that publish the agendas so that interested faculty can attend as non-voting members.

Committee reports could be distributed via email instead of presented at UAA. It's disheartening to see so many empty seats at UAA: full faculty attendance seems to be a thing of the past. Perhaps the coordinating committee (if it doesn't do so already) could focus on 1 or 2 issues, themes, challenges, etc. that face Xavier and could be considered in various ways (e.g., speakers, breakout sessions, etc.) throughout the academic year (naturally, some end-product or goal would be important to have before the UAA).

While I am grateful for the efficient manner in which these meetings have been on recently, I question why we all need to be in the same room to hear reports from committees, etc. These informational items can be effectively communicated by other means. Academic Assembly should be for the discussion of issues relevant to the entire faculty so that we can make decisions on them.

"Informational-only" reports are a waste of time and energy and cut into time that could be spent discussing issues.

Far too many "reports" are given- much of this information could be provided via email. UAA meetings should be for the purpose of conducting business.

90% of what transpires in academic assemblies could be transacted via email. Bringing faculty together to discuss an important issue has some value; bringing them together for informational presentation has little value, and can be very trying at 5 pm.

I'm not interested in philosophical naval contemplation or listening to elitist blathering.

There are always too many agenda items. As a consequence, not enough time is available to discuss important issues. Additionally, too much "verbiage" rambling. Speakers need to get to the point via a direct route.

At least 90% of Assemblies' agendas are informational, therefore can be transmitted by email or mail. We do not need to have meetings to hear information; only issues/discussions require meetings. We do not need a speaker at every Faculty Institute.

Too long. Most of agenda could be discussed/distributed/complied by e-mail only.

Newsletter Table of Contents | CAT home