TO THE MEMBERS OF THE ACADEMIC COUNCIL
TWENTY-NINTH SENATE REPORT No. 1
Summary of Actions Taken by the Senate
October 10, 1996
At its first meeting of Thursday, October 10, 1996, the Senate took the
following actions:
1) By unanimous voice vote, conferred baccalaureate degrees on the
candidates recommended by C-AAA and as listed in Senate Document
#4603.
2) By unanimous voice vote, conferred the various advanced degrees
on the candidates recommended by C-GS and listed in Senate
Document #4604.
3) On the recommendation of the Steering Committee, by unanimous
voice vote, adopted the Media Policy for Senate XXIX (the same
as that in effect for the past 12 years) as contained in Senate
Document #4605.
4) By unanimous voice vote, adopted the following resolution:
Be it resolved that the Senate, on recommendation of the Steering
Committee, approves a two-year renewal of Administrative Sessions of the
Steering Committee, to carry out routine business on behalf of the
Senate, as set forth in Article I.3 of Senate Rules and in Senate
Document #4606.
______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
SenD#4612
MINUTES OF THE TWENTY-NINTH SENATE
OF THE ACADEMIC COUNCIL
October 10, 1996
-------------
CALL TO ORDER
-------------
Chair Bratman called the meeting to order at 3:19 p.m. He welcomed all
members of Senate XXIX to the first meeting of the year. In attendance
were 39 voting members, 11 ex officio members, and several guests.
-------------------
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
-------------------
The minutes of the final Senate meeting of Senate XXVIII on June 14,
1996 (SenD#4603) were approved as submitted.
----------------------------------
ACTION CALENDAR: DEGREES CONFERRED
----------------------------------
On the recommendation of the Committee on Academic Appraisal and
Achievement and the Committee on Graduate Studies, the Senate conferred
the baccalaureate and the various advanced degrees on the candidates
listed in Senate Documents #4603 and #4604.
-----------------------------
ACTION CALENDAR: MEDIA POLICY
-----------------------------
At the recommendation of the Steering Committee, and upon unanimous
voice vote, the Senate adopted the media policy that has been in effect
for the past 12 years (SenD#4605). This policy allows up to five guest
seats reserved for members of the outside press if requests are received
up to 48 hours prior to a scheduled meeting. Cameras are not admitted,
except with the prior consent of the Senate; and only Senate members and
special guests identified by the chair will remain when the Senate goes
into executive session. [The Stanford Report and the Stanford Daily
have regularly reserved seats as prescribed in the Senate Charter.]
----------------------------------
REPORT FROM THE STEERING COMMITTEE
----------------------------------
Apologizing for the inevitable length of his report at this first annual
meeting, Chair Bratman drew Senators' attention to the rosters of
Senate, Steering Committee, and Committee on Committees members, as well
as the calendar of Senate meetings, included in agenda packets. He
noted that if there is a need for extra Senate meetings, they will be
held on the intervening Thursdays, and those times should be held open
in so far as possible.
The Chair announced with pleasure that David Abernethy (Political
Science) had agreed to serve as Vice Chair of Senate XXIX. Bratman
noted that this Senate includes 11 members new to Senate service, four
former Senate Chairs (Abernethy, Fetter, Jones, and Kruger) and a new
ex-officio member, Jim Hennessy, Dean of Engineering. Senators
responded with prolonged applause as Stanford's newest Nobel Laureate,
Doug Osheroff (Physics), took his seat, a bit late and embarrassed by
his new lack of anonymity. The Chair congratulated him, on behalf of
his colleagues, for a terrific accomplishment. Bratman also welcomed
the accredited student guests for Senate XXIX, with the right to speak:
Doug Natelson (ASSU Senate Representative), Bill Shen (ASSU President),
and Alane Murdock (Student Representative at Large, not present). He
also welcomed the assigned Daily reporters, Sarah Cameron and Jamie
Taylor (not present).
The Chair introduced Alan Acosta, the new Director of the News Service.
Mr. Acosta commented briefly on the first month in his new position, and
underscored his commitment to assist the faculty in whatever way he can,
"whether that is disseminating information or research that has
resonance with the public or your academic colleagues, or serving as a
resource should you find yourselves in the sometimes unenviable position
of having to deal with the media."
Bratman reminded Senators that relevant Senate documents - past,
present, and future - can be accessed on the Word Wide Web [at
http://sherlock.stanford.edu], though paper copies of Senate packets
will be distributed in advance of each meeting. He also alerted members
to "one of the most important and useful practices of the Senate," the
opportunity for the President and the Provost to make remarks at the
beginning of each Senate meeting, and to take questions from the floor.
If questions might require detailed responses, it has been a courtesy to
provide the question in advance to the President or Provost [and to the
Academic Secretary], he noted. The Chair also expressed the Steering
Committee's intention to continue past practice by scheduling at least
one quarterly Informal Session with the President and the Provost, the
first planned for November 21st.
Drawing attention to the bottom of the printed agenda, Bratman
highlighted several upcoming Senate agenda items. At the October 24th
meeting: the Vice Provost for Undergraduate Education will introduce
the new Director of Undergraduate Advising and report on changes in the
advising system; the new Director of the Language Center will report on
the new language requirement; C-AAA will bring forward new teaching
evaluation forms; and C-US will present its annual report. Among the
remaining Fall Quarter agenda items, he noted an initial discussion of
the Committee of 15's proposed revisions to the student judicial system
(on November 7th); a similar interim report from the CIV task force (on
November 21st); and reports on the Graduate Fellowships Program and the
new Interdisciplinary Program in Comparative Studies in Race and
Ethnicity (dates not yet confirmed). Bratman voiced the Steering
Committee's intention to schedule interesting and important agenda items
in a timely way. He urged Senators to provide input on items they would
like to see on future agendas, by contacting any Steering Committee
member, or sending e-mail to StC29@Forsythe.
Continuing his report, Bratman advised that the Steering Committee had
received an official "Request to Consider" (circulated by Professor
Bruce Lusignan and signed by 69 members of the Academic Council) which,
according to Senate rules, will be brought forward for Senate
discussion. The three issues that were identified - senior
administrator conflict of interest, management of faculty-solicited gift
funds, and development of intellectual property - fall broadly within
the purview of the Committee on Research (and some within the
jurisdiction of the Office of the Provost), "and so we've asked C-Res to
conduct a meeting to which these faculty and interested others will be
invited," he said. This approach has been communicated to the
signatories and it is expected that this matter will be placed on the
Senate agenda when C-Res reports, either later this Fall Quarter or
early in Winter Quarter.
Finally, Bratman reported the Steering Committee's intention to end
Senate meetings not later than 5:15 p.m. "If you'll work hard with me,
we'll be able to do that, so that people don't have to worry that
meetings will run on too long, but they will stay until 5:15," he said,
also urging his colleagues to come a little before 3:15 to talk
informally with each other.
---------------------------------------
REPORT FROM THE COMMITTEE ON COMMITTEES
---------------------------------------
Chair Bratman reminded Senators that with the new time line for CoC
appointments, the 1996/97 faculty appointments to committees were
largely filled through the hard work of last year's CoC. He introduced
Robert Street (Civil Engineering), Chair of CoC XXIX, "which will work
just as hard this year." Complimenting the "wizardry" of the Academic
Secretary in support of a recent urgent request for nominations to the
Editorial Board of the Press, Street expressed the hope that "this will
be a very pleasant job."
-----------------------------------------
REPORT FROM THE PRESIDENT AND THE PROVOST
-----------------------------------------
President Casper had no report (and there were no questions put to him);
he deferred instead to an important announcement from the Provost.
Provost Rice began by reminding Senators that a change in Federal
guidelines will result in the disallowance of the child tuition benefit
from the staff benefits pool, increasing the cost to the University by
$1.9 million per year, as of fiscal year 2000 or academic year 1999.
After several months of review by the deans, the Cabinet, the Budget
Advisory Group, the Committee on Faculty and Staff Benefits, and
ultimately the Board of Trustees, "the University has decided to
continue the benefit unchanged for all current employees, and for any
employee who is on the payroll as of 9/1/98." This two-year period is
meant to ensure certainty about benefits as faculty and staff are being
recruited. "We have decided, however, to discontinue this benefit, at
least in its current form, for new employees hired after 9/1/98," she
stated. The Committee on Faculty and Staff Benefits, chaired by Robert
Flanagan (Graduate School of Business), will be charged to consider the
options for new employees, which may include savings and contributory
programs for tuition, possibly the inclusion of the child tuition
benefit in the flexible benefits program, or indeed, elimination
altogether. The Committee will be asked to report back to the Provost
within six months.
"In considering this benefit," Rice said, "one cannot help but be struck
by the fact that it is of disproportionate benefit, given that it is
only for those who have children." She has heard not only from those
who expect to use the child tuition benefit but from many who will not
benefit from it at all. She acknowledged that the issues and the
solutions are quite complicated, and that several aspects of Stanford's
competitive position in recruiting and retaining faculty and staff must
be considered.
Responding to a question from Professor Chaffee (Communication), Rice
indicated that she does not know whether other universities will also be
changing their tuition benefit, noting that because of Stanford's large
federal research volume, the loss of this benefit will cost Stanford
more than most of our peer institutions. President Casper added that
this is only the most recent hit in a ten-year history of federal
reductions in the support of universities. He emphasized the importance
to Stanford of honoring the faith of its faculty and staff employees who
have been counting on the child tuition benefit, even though it means a
considerable incremental budgetary outlay for the University. Professor
Koseff (Civil Engineering) urged that this benefit be examined in the
context of all employee benefits and that priorities be established.
Rice agreed that this was an extraordinarily important point and that
the C-FSB would be asked to look at this total compensation picture,
including salary and all benefits. Rice clarified that all current
employees and their present and future children are grandfathered under
the existing child tuition benefit, and that recruitment for 9/1/97
faculty hires can go forward as usual but that prospective 9/1/98 hires
will likely be under a new system. Responding to a question from
Professor Boxer (Chemistry), the Provost said that Stanford has received
legal advice that an individual using this benefit after 9/1/98 would
not suffer income tax consequences as a result of the benefit having
been reduced or eliminated for persons hired after that date.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RENEWAL OF ADMINISTRATIVE SESSIONS OF THE STEERING COMMITTEE (SenD#4606)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chair Bratman introduced the Steering Committee's recommendation that
administrative sessions of the Steering Committee on behalf of the
Senate be continued for two additional years. During the initial two-
year trial, this mechanism had proven effective for handling fairly
routine issues that used to come to the full Senate, thereby freeing
Senate time for discussion of matters of more interest and importance.
There were no questions, and the following resolution passed on a
unanimous voice vote:
Be it resolved that the Senate, on recommendation of
the Steering Committee, approves a two-year renewal of
Administrative Sessions of the Steering Committee, to
carry out routine business on behalf of the Senate,
as set forth in Article I.3 of Senate Rules and in
Senate Document #4606.
-----------------------------------------------
REPORT FROM THE PROVOST ON DEPARTMENTAL REVIEWS
-----------------------------------------------
Provost Rice stated that her report responds to the recommendations of
the Planning and Policy Board and the subsequent request of Senate
XXVIII that the Provost report at the beginning of the year concerning
which departmental reviews will be undertaken during that academic year.
"It was the Senate's hope, and it is indeed my hope and that of the
deans, that faculty members with special interests in the departments
that are being reviewed might take the initiative to provide substantive
input to the review," she said. Rice stressed the extraordinary
importance she and the deans attach to the external evaluation of the
health of Stanford's academic departments, noting that such reviews are
now an ongoing process in all major schools. There is no single
"template" set of criteria for a departmental review, because the issues
and approach necessarily vary. Rice added that she would expect to
share with the Planning and Policy Board the kinds of guidelines that
govern these reviews. Rice listed the following departments planned for
review during 1996/97 (the list having been placed at Senators' desks as
well):
Stanford University
DEPARTMENTAL REVIEWS and VISITING COMMITTEES
during 1996/97
SCHOOL OF HUMANITIES AND SCIENCES
Contact: Judith Cain, Assistant Dean
School of Humanities & Sciences
Building 1, Mail Code 2070
Department of English (October 1996)
Department of Psychology (January 1997)
Department of Biological Sciences (April 1997)
Department of History (April 1997)
SCHOOL OF ENGINEERING
Contact: Joseph Goodman, Senior Associate Dean
School of Engineering
Terman 214, Mail Code 4027
Department of Aeronautics & Astronautics (January 1997)
Department of Civil Engineering (1997)
Department of Industrial Engineering &
Engineering Management (1997)
Department of Mechanical Engineering (Spring 1997)
SCHOOL OF MEDICINE
Contact: Marian Knox, Associate Dean for Academic Affairs
School of Medicine
Room M121S, Mail Code 5302
Department of Radiology (Fall 1996)
Department of Anesthesia (Fall 1996)
Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery (1997)
Department of Pediatrics (1997)
Department of Psychiatry & Behavioral Sciences (1997)
Rice noted also that the Dean of Humanities and Sciences might conduct
additional reviews if the administrative workload permits (which Rice
would report to Senate), and that the School of Earth Sciences Advisory
Board will meet in Spring 1997.
There were no questions, and the chair thanked the Provost for her
report.
-------------------------------------------------
ANNUAL REPORT FROM THE COMMITTEE ON UNDERGRADUATE
ADMISSION AND FINANCIAL AID (SenD#4607)
-------------------------------------------------
The Chair welcomed Margaret Brandeau (Industrial Engineering), this
year's Chair of C-UAFA, to present the 1995/96 annual report on behalf
of the committee and of last year's chair, Kristine Samuelson
(Communication) who was out of town. He also indicated that a related
report from James Montoya, Dean of Undergraduate Admission and Financial
Aid, would follow the C-UAFA report.
Brandeau reported that C-UAFA had looked at four main areas during the
course of the year: 1) a much-discussed three-year pilot project for
early early admission of students from the Educational Program for
Gifted Youth (EPGY) begun this past summer; 2) reorganization and
restructuring in the Financial Aid Office; 3) the very successful first
year of admission under Stanford's early decision program (admitting 34%
of the class through this mechanism, and achieving an overall yield rate
of 61%); and 4) diversity in general, and a one-year decline in the
percentage of the class made up of Asian-Americans. In pursuing this
latter topic, C-UAFA observed the difficulty of evaluating the non-
academic credentials of recent immigrants, including an increasing
number of Stanford's Asian-American applicants. The committee
recommended steps such as refining the nonacademic rating scheme,
obtaining a more diverse reader base, and enhanced training for readers.
Professor White (Mathematics) asked for clarification of the percentage
of applicants with a nonacademic rating of 4, to which Dean Montoya
responded that 47% of the roughly 16,000 applicants receive this rating.
Montoya said he welcomes and is implementing C-UAFA's recommendation to
make sure the reading staff has better resources to understand the
recent immigrant experience. In response to a question from Professor
Osheroff (Physics), Montoya said he did not have a separate yield rate
for the portion of the class not admitted through early decision.
Professor Kirst (Education) asked whether Stanford was looking
comprehensively at the impact of the early decision process on
individual students ("What do these students do with the rest of their
senior year once they know they're admitted?") and on secondary schools
generally, since early decision puts a premium on people who decide
where they want to go very early and prepare for it, cutting down the
opportunities for those who may decide later. Montoya responded that he
and his colleagues are discussing these very important issues, and will
cover them in his upcoming report. The Chair thanked Brandeau and the
members of C-UAFA for their report and their work.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
REPORT FROM THE DEAN OF UNDERGRADUATE ADMISSION AND FINANCIAL AID
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Dean James Montoya stated that he would talk about the changing
environment in admission and financial aid; the early decision program;
Stanford's ability to yield the highest-rated applicants; new
initiatives, particularly those involving intellectual vitality; and the
issue of need-blind admissions.
Montoya highlighted eight features of the changing environment in
admissions and financial aid. First, he noted that students are
starting the college search process earlier, many in their sophomore
year of high school, impacting the Admissions Office directly. Second,
parents have higher expectations and are playing a much more influential
role in the decision-making process. Both students and parents have a
growing "consumer" mentality, a third change noted by Montoya, and the
cost of higher education is very much on their minds. Stanford's top
applicants rate the following factors as most important in their choice
of college, he said: 1) academic reputation; 2) access to faculty; 3)
availability of majors; 4) quality of academic facilities; and 5)
personal attention.
Fourth, Montoya pointed out demographic changes over the past decade in
ethnicity of high school graduates in California, in the United States,
and in the Stanford freshman class. He pointed out that the demographic
distribution in California, where we get half of our applicants, is
quite different from that of the U.S. as a whole, requiring, for
example, different recruitment strategies to attract African-American
students from the northeast and the south. A fifth change is the
increasing national debate on affirmative action. Montoya reminded
Senators that C-UAFA's 1994/95 report concluded, "We affirm Stanford's
stated undergraduate selection criteria that both seek and celebrate
diversity. The three ethnic groups currently targeted for undergraduate
admission: African-Americans, Mexican-Americans, and Native Americans,
should continue to be targeted." Montoya reiterated President Casper's
"commitment to support a rich educational environment in which students
learn from one another and our commitment to educate leaders for a
diverse and complex society."
A sixth set of changes is in federal financial aid policies, which from
1992 to 1994 resulted in a 42 percent increase in student loans
nationally, from $14.9 billion to over $21 billion. There is a clear
trend away from creating opportunity for low-income students and toward
increasing affordability and broadening choice for the middle class,
according to a 1995 College Board report. Another change is the
increased use of merit scholarships and tuition leveraging at competitor
institutions. The popular press encourages families to bargain with
financial aid offices, he said, "and they are disappointed to learn that
we do not bargain at Stanford based on a better offer they might get
from another school." The last change Montoya identified is that fewer
high school counselors and busier teachers are having an impact on the
admissions staff.
Turning his attention to the early decision program, Montoya said he
hoped to address some of the questions posed earlier. He identified
non-binding early admission programs, whereby Harvard admitted 60% of
its freshman class, M.I.T. 47%, and the University of Chicago 61%, and
contrasted these to binding early admission programs such as Stanford's
and those of Princeton and Yale, both of which changed from non-binding
to binding this year. Harvard's results in particular received press
coverage, and created a sense of anxiety and pressure. He believes
Stanford handled its program responsibly, consulting with high schools
and attempting to hold the percentage of early admits to roughly 30%.
Montoya said that while "the quality and size of the early decision pool
were both much higher than anticipated, the overall quality of the
regular pool was also extraordinary this year." He stressed that
although early decision represents 34% of the freshman class, it only
represents 22% of all offers of admission, that is, 78% of Stanford's
offers were through the regular admissions process. "Again, I think
that this was a very responsible way of handling our first year," he
remarked.
Montoya spoke next about Stanford's ability to attract the top
applicants. He said our applicant rating system had been in place
"since the days when Fred Hargadon admitted me to Stanford, that's how
old it is." He said this system offers a consistent way of looking at
quality, based on very traditional measures, but added that "I'm much
more excited about identifying intellectual vitality and potential than
I am simply dutiful students." He presented data showing the
achievement levels of students in the five academic rating categories,
also showing an overhead to explain the recentering of SAT scores in
Spring 1995. Montoya pointed out that over the past decade, the
percentage of top-rated students ("ac 1's" and "ac 2's") in the freshman
class has increased from 45.6% to 55.5%, a clear measure of our ability
to attract those students who will be most competitive at other
institutions. "I do not promise these are Stanford's best students,
because perhaps there are others with lower academic ratings who possess
the resourcefulness, intellectual vitality, and creativity not reflected
in these academic ratings," he cautioned.
Several new initiatives were highlighted by Montoya, including the Early
Decision program, the EPGY early notification pilot project, financial
aid reengineering, a faculty involvement program, an alumni admissions
program, the President's Scholar Program, and "Life of the Mind." He
stressed the importance of increased faculty involvement in admissions
and recruitment, because of rising parental and student expectations,
and of the alumni admissions program because it can successfully reach
families outside California who have financial uncertainties and are
less willing to travel.
Montoya described the success of the President's Scholars Program, which
was enhanced in 1995 to provide a $1,500 research grant. The yield for
these top 200 students increased from 29% in 1994 to 39.5% this year.
"These students, who are extremely competitive in terms of options,
clearly like the special attention," he stated. Our major competitor
for these students is Harvard, followed by Yale, M.I.T., and Princeton.
Another program entitled "Life of the Mind" was piloted in Southern
California in Spring 1996, to communicate Stanford's intellectual
offerings to 100 outstanding sophomores, juniors, and their parents and
to increase the number of them that apply. Half were selected based on
PSAT scores and grades, half by the high schools who identified students
"who were helping to set the intellectual tone at their high school."
Follow-up by current Stanford students and southern California alumni is
planned for this group. If successful, the pilot may be expanded to
other cities, Montoya indicated.
"It is clear that Stanford's ability to attract the best and brightest
is tied to our ability to fund the best and brightest," according to
Montoya. He displayed a graph of undergraduate financial aid sources,
stressing that 48% comes from unrestricted Stanford general funds, and a
total of 76% from all internal sources, with only 24% from Federal,
State, and other grants, loans, and awards. Montoya remarked that
almost 100% of Princeton's undergraduate financial aid budget comes from
their endowment income, putting them "in a much better position to
commit to need-blind admissions than other institutions like Stanford
which depend heavily on general operating funds." "The reality is that
very few schools have need-blind admissions these days," he said, noting
that Columbia and Brown have what they call "need-sensitive" programs,
and many small colleges have moved away from need-blind programs. C-UAFA
will focus on financial aid issues such as these during 1996/97, Montoya
concluded, and he expects very productive examination of ways in which
Stanford can be in an even stronger position to maintain need-blind
admissions.
Professor Martin (Graduate School of Business) expressed shock that only
4% of the freshman class was international. Montoya explained that over
10% of the applicant pool is international, but that we have a cap on
financial aid dollars for international students. This is one of the
issues C-UAFA will be looking at, he said. Relevant factors include
Stanford's fixed pool of financial aid funds and the fact that
international students do not qualify for Federal aid. Professor
Abernethy (Political Science) asked whether the wonderful Undergraduate
Research Opportunities program is publicized to and has an impact on
potential applicants. Montoya said URO is described in recruitment and
admissions materials, and, in his opinion, the existence of the URO
program also helps students to focus on whether Stanford is the right
match for them. Montoya showed Senators a brochure handed out at
information meetings listing the research projects undergraduates have
been funded for, adding "I think it's the most exciting piece that we
have."
Professor Efron (Statistics) thanked Montoya for a very clear and
forceful presentation, then asked, "Are we really getting the very best
students?" He said that 15 years ago he'd done a quick study of the
winners of NSF fellowships and found that the most winners went to
Stanford for graduate school, but that Stanford was tenth in terms of
undergraduate institutions that winners came from. Efron said he
suspects things have changed for the better, but challenged Stanford to
do better yet at getting the truly extraordinary students. Montoya
commented that his review of students who win awards indicates that
often they were not the "ac 1's" and "ac 2's" and that what has allowed
them to shine at the national level is the opportunity to work directly
with faculty members. He agreed that Stanford should try to do a better
job still, not only in math and sciences, but in the arts and humanities
too. "But I know that it's going to take more than the Admissions
Office to make that happen. It's going to require the involvement of
the University, and particularly the faculty to engage these students."
Professor Osheroff suggested that if Efron's data had been normalized
for the size of the graduating classes in the sciences and engineering,
Stanford would probably have looked better. "But not anywhere near the
top with Harvard and M.I.T.," Efron replied.
Asked about high school grade inflation by Professor Kirst, Montoya
clarified that Stanford recalculates every student's GPA, eliminating
bonus points and setting the highest possible GPA at 4.0. They look
very carefully at each high school, and often ask for information on
grade distribution in particular courses. Professor Street (Civil
Engineering) observed that the list of factors important to top students
seemed to be in alphabetical order, but Montoya assured him that the
first item, "academic reputation" was indeed number one and that the
list was roughly in priority order. He added that number 6 (not on the
chart) was "extracurricular activities."
Osheroff asked whether the President's Scholars research funds had to go
through URO, observing that freshmen in physics often need summer
stipends to work with faculty, but that he believes stipends are not
permitted by URO. Montoya and Professor Jones (Biological Sciences)
indicated that URO is very flexible and that many students receive
monies to cover living expenses.
Professor White (Mathematics) expressed concern, based on a campus tour
a few years ago and on literature sent to prospective students, that
Stanford was not being presented as a serious academic institution.
Montoya assured him that the present situation is much improved. His
office and C-UAFA have worked on a complete revision of the bulletin
sent to applicants, he said, and though he has no control over the tour
guides, he and others have met with them to stress that the academic
side of Stanford must be presented in campus tours. Professor Saldivar
(Vice Provost for Undergraduate Education) reminded Senators that
Approaching Stanford has also been completely rewritten to focus more
attention on academics. Professor Brauman (Chemistry) confirmed that,
from his personal experience exploring many colleges with his daughter
last year, he believes Stanford does now present itself in an
attractive, intellectual way.
Professor Jones asked whether any of our major competitors such as
Harvard, Princeton, and Yale are starting to offer merit-based aid.
Montoya said these were not discussions he had had, nor likely would
have. He expects that top institutions such as these will take an
approach similar to ours, that is, not offering money, but offering
opportunities that will enhance the undergraduate experience. "We are
losing some students to some very good schools, but not necessarily high
profile institutions, that are offering full scholarships," he said.
Professor Saldivar suggested that it would be a good idea to track the
achievements of enrolled President's Scholars, for example, by comparing
how many receive the President's Award for Academic Excellence in the
Freshman Year. Montoya said that he will be reporting to the Provost at
the end of this year on the yield and the performance of the students in
the President's Scholars Program, as well as on the impact of the
program across the class.
Professor Chaffee (Communication) asked for further information on the
nonacademic rating system, and in particular commented that his own
sense of what a promising student should be doing "is based on what I
did in high schools that were invented by Anglo-Americans....and are not
particularly well suited to Asian and perhaps other cultures." Montoya
said that he has attempted to make the nonacademic rating multi-
dimensional, adding recognition for breadth of activity, depth of
activity, level of accomplishment, and impact, and to recognize that
different cultures approach extracurricular activities in different
ways.
Responding to a question from Professor Polhemus (English), Montoya said
that having more faculty involved in teaching freshman seminars
"absolutely" would make a difference in attracting the best and most
interesting students. Access to "real professors" is an issue brought
up more and more often at information sessions with students and
parents. "The combination of freshman seminars, which they find
attractive at small liberal arts colleges, within a setting of a
research institution is going to be thought of as an opportunity they
just can't turn down," Montoya observed.
Chair Bratman thanked Dean Montoya for a lucid, thoughtful, and thought-
provoking presentation.
--------------
OTHER BUSINESS
--------------
There was no unfinished business, and no new business was introduced.
Following a motion and a second, the Senate adjourned at 5:14 p.m. (on
time, as promised).
Respectfully submitted,
Susan W. Schofield
Academic Secretary to the University