March 13, 2012
1. Call to Order
Chair Hans Kellner called the meeting to order at 3 p.m. and welcomed everyone.
2. Remarks from the Chair
Chair Kellner stated that a number of things have taken place since the fall meeting in October. One thing that was discussed at the last faculty meeting was faculty reports from members of the Academic Science Program Task Force and the Committee on Academic Program Review. He stated that both programs are on the website. We have the metrics that were suggested for discussion from the Academic Program Review Committee and I suggest that you discuss those.
Chair Kellner stated that the other is the Academic Science Program Task Force and if you print out the lengthy review, print out the first seven pages, you will get the vertical and horizontal graph and you will be able to see what that situation looks like.
Announcements and Comments
Chair Kellner announced that there is a green brick nomination, which is an NC State award for outstanding contributions to sustainability. These nominations end today, but if you have any ideas about someone whom you think is exceptionally sustainable , Walt Robinson (asked to stand) is the person to contact.
Chair Kellner stated that the next one has to do with the topic of the “QEP Critical and Creative Thinking” project that we are setting off upon. There is a webinar that’s called Critical Thinking, Designing and Structuring Strategies to Promote Critical Thought, which is a three-part work shop that will be held on Tuesdays, April 3, April 10, and May 1 from 3-4:30p.m. It is expensive and I gather the Provost is picking up the tab. Those who are interested in pursuing this should contact Hans Kellner or Pat Spakes (asked to stand) who is overseeing much of the accreditation work with Karen Helm.
Chair Kellner announced that there is a birthday party with ice cream and cake on April 2 at 1:30 p.m. to be followed immediately thereafter by the Harrelson Lecture in Stewart Theatre at 3 p.m. The Harrelson Lecturer will be Mr. Chris Hughes, Co-founder of Facebook and he will talk about the changing media landscape that has been brought in by Facebook.
As you know from the agenda we will be hearing from the two candidates for Chair Elect later today and I hope that we will be able to get video of their comments on the web as quick as possible. Immediately after this event or as quickly as we can, the election ballots will be sent out to the general faculty, and it’s time to encourage people to get out the vote. Yes, we will be nagging them relentlessly about it if they haven’t voted, but there will be information on the ballots with some biographical comments and statements. There are basically four layers to the elections; first the Chair-elect, college by college voting for the Faculty Senate, the 603 Hearing Panel, and the 604-607 Grievance Committee. In some cases there will be not enough candidates for the slots called for. In the relatively rare cases there will be write-in slots. In other cases there will be as many candidates as there are slots. In as many cases as we could find there are competitive elections.
The importance of the elections lower on the ballot, i.e., the Hearing Panel and the 604-607 Committee, they don’t impact people very often, but if you read the bylaws and read the regulations you will realize how important it is for these panels and committees to be filled up with people who are properly trained and ready and able to participate. When a faculty member is in trouble these things become important, so I just want to make the point that extra effort has to be made to recruit and fill these panels with good people.
A number of topics have come up in the Faculty Senate since last we talked. BORST was a big topic of conversation and trying to make sure that there would be ongoing close consultation with the faculty regarding the implementation of changes in business operations. We have passed several resolutions with the most important one probably, calling for looking into parental leave benefits for graduate students and there have been many other things that have come up along the way.
Chair Kellner explained the format of the meeting. The Chair-elect candidates will speak after the approval of the minutes. After the Chair-elect candidates have spoken and after there has been a question and answer, we will, table by table, have small group discussions written down in blue books dealing with questions about critical and creative thinking. At the end of about twenty minutes we will have reports from the tables and then we will have an open discussion.
3. Approval of the Minutes of the October 4, 2011 General Faculty Meeting
Secretary Sawyers asked for approval of the minutes. The motion passed unanimously to approve the minutes as submitted.
4. Remarks by Chancellor Woodson
Chancellor Woodson reminded the faculty that the university has kicked off a 125 year birthday celebration and the formal side of that will be birthday cake on April 2, which is a great thing for NC State.
Chancellor Woodson stated that it was great to see on the front page of today’s newspaper, recognition that our university has been recognized as one of five nationally with the President’s Award on student-based community service. This is out of more than 1400 other universities nominated with five hundred of them receiving an honorable mention and only five were elected to receive the President’s award with NC State being one of those. I think it’s not only a reflection of the commitment of our students which is absolutely true, but it’s also the commitment of our faculty and staff to give students meaningful community service opportunities and many cases that tie in directly with the curriculum that they are studying so it’s a great tribute to NC State and it was great to be on the front page.
Chancellor Woodson stated that NC State received a NIH training grant for an initiative for maximizing student development. This is a training grant focused on bringing underserved populations into the sciences. Trudy Mckay and others are very involved in this.
We had an Engineering Research Center site visit last week during spring break in Electrical and Computer Engineering. This would be one of seven that was site visited and two to three will be funded. It is a great chance for us to bring another Engineering Research Center to NC State.
Recently, our faculty, staff, and students joined in with the law enforcement and environmental health and safety group for the Polar Plunge where they raised more than $50,000 to benefit North Carolina Special Olympics, which is another example of community based service.
Chancellor Woodson stated that it’s not just basketball teams that compete in regional competition, the Jenkins MBA Team got pumped up for the corporate growth private equity and merger acquisition case study competition. Go pack! This is the ACG Cup and they beat Duke, Wake Forest, and UNC Chapel Hill in this national competition and brought home the prize, so our MBA programs did a great job with the students.
Chancellor Woodson stated that a week or so ago we celebrated SKEMA which is a Business School from France that is located on Centennial Campus, and each semester it brings close to 200 French and international students to campus and it has proven to be an outstanding partnership with NC State well beyond the College of Management.
Questions and Comments
Walt Robinson inquired about the University Scholars Program.
Chancellor Woodson stated that from his perspective it’s a great way to identify great ways to retain key talent. We went out and sought a gift and received a $3million contribution to start this program.
5. Remarks from the Provost
Provost Arden followed up on the Chancellor’s comments on the University Scholars Program. As the Chancellor said it is an opportunity to identify and reward high achieving young faculty. This will be targeted at tenure / tenure-track faculty in the second term of their probationary appointment as an Assistant Professor, at all Associate Professors, and at Full Professors in their first three years of appointment, so we are trying to target early to mid career tenure/tenure-track faculty. I think it is really important to identify and recognize these individuals and I think it will play an important role in helping us retain key talent here at the university. So I give a lot of kudos to the Chancellor for soliciting and receiving a very significant gift from the donors that will enable us to kick off the program. I hope to get this program started this coming academic year. A memo went out today from my office which talks a little bit about the nomination process. We are trying to have college level nomination processes that will then go to a university advisory committee which will advise the Chancellor and I and we will make the final decisions from there. We will try and have it such that each college will be able to nominate a certain proportion of their tenure/tenure -track faculty and then the university committee will make the final recommendations, so the call that went out today was for the deans to start putting together an internal nomination process inside of the colleges and also to nominate an individual to serve on the university level committee.
When we are a little further down the road, perhaps in three or four more weeks, I’ll send out another memo that will talk about timelines for submission of those nominations and give colleges guidance on the exact number of nominations that they can submit. I think this is going to be a great program and I’m very excited about it.
Provost Arden stated that the Academic Science Task Force Report is now available and being sent out and made public and will also be on his website. I think it’s very important to have a look at this task force report. I want to give a lot of kudos to Dr. Overton who lead this task force and all of the members who served with her. There is some really great thinking in there. I’m going to leave that open for at least two or three weeks of comment period, so please have a chance to read that task force report and send me directly or by the website, your comments or input before I make my recommendation to the Chancellor.
Provost Arden reported that the Faculty Excellence Hiring Program is well under way. We are attempting to hire 39 excellent academic leaders in 12 interdisciplinary clusters. So far, I have approved four of those search committees. It’s going to be one search committee for each of those 12 clusters. Each search committee will be led by a lead dean and by a cluster coordinator, so we are well under way and I’m very optimistic that we will have the first of those hires, I hope this fall.
NC State’s 2020 enrollment plan is now available and approved and will be sent out this week. The plan will detail our current objectives which have changed significantly from our previous enrollment plan. Our previous enrollment plan had us growing to around 40,000 students by 2017 and we are backing off of that, going to more like 37,000 students by 2020 and it also includes the very significant change in the character of the institution going from about 25% graduate students to about 33% graduate students over that period of time.
The last thing I want to mention is in addition to the discussion that we are having today on critical and creative thinking which is our QEP, our SACS reaffirmation process is well under way. We have assigned responsibility for the writing of the almost 90 compliance reports that are necessary. The QEP is an exciting opportunity to do something significant within our undergraduate curriculum and that is to infuse critical and creative thinking throughout the curriculum and it really is a major step in aligning the reaffirmation process with our strategic plan. If you will remember that under the strategic plan that was approved last year the number one goal in our strategic plan is student success and so I think this aligns very closely with our strategic plan.
Provost Arden stated that there will be a kickoff event for our critical and creative thinking QEP in the afternoon of April 12 from 2 to 4:30 p.m. at the McKimmon Center. Please come if you can, we are looking forward to a really robust discussion as we are this afternoon.
Thank you very much.
Question – Are the awards to be allocated across colleges based on the number of faculty in each college?
Provost Arden responded not exactly, I wanted to give the university level committee a little bit of flexibility. So it is likely that we have the capacity to make up to 20 awards per year and when you do the math 20 awards per year, each award is a commitment of $10,000 for five years or $50,000, so each round of awards is sort of a commitment over a five-year period of a million dollars.
We wanted to give the committee a little bit of flexibility, because in any one year there may be, for example, three extraordinary candidates from one college and two from another larger college. I would say in general the awards will roughly follow the proportions for the nominations, but not exactly.
Question about the use of the gift.
At the moment the gift is for current use, meaning that it would be expended over a period of time, but clearly as we move into our campaign, one of our principle objectives of that campaign is raising endowment toward student success, so we will be looking at multiple opportunities with this particular donor and other donors to move toward endowment. We do have another foundation that is also looking at putting money into endowment and building endowment specifically or similar or related purposes, so I think there are a lot of opportunities here to gain momentum with this current use gift that moves to endowment in the long term.
Will non tenure track faculty be considered for the awards?
Not immediately, and that doesn’t mean that we wouldn’t roll them out later. We have some extraordinary non tenure-track faculty on campus that make major contributions to the university. At the moment, if we go back to many of the initiatives that we are rolling out they are targeted at tenure/tenure-track and the reason for that is as identified in our strategic plan, while we have grown our undergraduate population significantly and our graduate population significantly we have only grown our tenure-track population by a couple percent in fifteen years, so we have to reverse that trend and that’s a significant part of our strategic plan. Does that mean that non tenure track faculty will be left out of the equation? No, but I think in all honesty, we are going to have to tip the balance a little bit for a while so that we can retain and recruit tenure track faculty to move the needle there for a few years.
6. Chair-Elect Candidates
Remarks by Helmut Hergeth
Good afternoon, and thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today.
I am Helmut Hergeth, and I am one of your candidates for Chair Elect of the Faculty.
I bleed red, State Red, ever since I first came here as an exchange student. And it got worse since I joined the faculty of the College of Textiles in 1991.
I value learning, be it learning with a teacher, or learning through conducting research. When I grew up, my family always told me to learn something, because “nobody can take away anything you learned”.
Believe it or not, I enjoy serving on committees, especially on university committees and on the Faculty Senate, because it helps me learn a lot about the university and the wide range of topics and constituents we serve.
And I believe that learning through research and learning through teaching are the essence of the university, and thus faculty are the core of this institution.
As such, I feel very strongly about the need for faculty to be well represented in all decisions related to academics or to the strategic direction of the university. This is relevant at the university level as well as at the college and departmental levels.
And while we all can easily agree that it is relevant, it requires faculty participation in university governance, and that in turn requires recognizing and rewarding faculty participation. Measure what’s important!
We all know about our budget crisis. Max Fritsch said, “A crisis is a productive state; you simply have to get rid of its aftertaste of catastrophe.” So, how do we avoid that aftertaste?
Budget cuts mean tighter belts, and tighter belts, in our cases, mean an increased “hidden workload”.
Traditionally, faculty dedicate some time to develop new directions of research, time to develop new expertise for the university… Thinking time, interactive time, and of course time for university governance.
However, this important faculty activity easily falls victim to added “hidden workload”, i.e., to those tightened belts. Colleagues in all colleges avoid faculty governance because “we don’t have the time”, and we don’t see it recognized in Reappointment, Promotion, and Tenure decisions.
This is something we must address; we must allow faculty to have time to participate in university governance, time to shape the direction of the university.
We also need to keep an eye
- on trends in enrollment, faculty loads, and hiring;
- on the balance of research, teaching,
- and revenue generation and distribution.
I readily admit, there are plenty of things I do not know yet about university governance, but I am eager to learn and I am not afraid to ask for your help and support and input. So when I ask for your support and for your vote today, please know that there will be many more requests for your insight and input in the future.
Remarks by David Zonderman
Good Afternoon Everybody,
Let me begin by commenting, that I think sort of looking around here the turnout today says something about faculty governance right now. I would say it’s a bit of good news bad news , a bit of glass half empty, glass half full. I know you didn’t come out to hear me but as you know in the next hour of this meeting we are going to discuss truly a critical issue, the concept of critical thinking which may indeed transform the way we do “business” here; the way we teach, the way we run our curriculum and I see a broad turnout yet, not a very deep turnout. We have a faculty of more than 2,000 at this university and obviously we don’t have anywhere near that number here in the room today, so that to me raises a fundamental question. What is it about involvement, turnout, faculty caring about faculty governance, and I think what challenges me to take a run at this job is the idea that I think within the next few years we are going to face even more challenges, both monetary and intellectual to the future of this university and yet at the same time, I will echo what Helmut said, we have more and more colleagues that look at governance as either unnecessary or an inconvenience or a bother or something else, and that’ s not a good situation because the deeper the challenges become, the fewer and fewer faculty participate in the process and in effect, things will be done for us or to us that we might not always like and that is not intended to criticize other decision makers here, it’s to say that is what will happen. At some point decisions will have to be made and if faculty advocate the role that they should be taking, then other people will step us and say fine, you voted by your silence, we will now do X or Y. So that then leaves me to the fundamental question, how do we try to engage more of our colleagues in governance and in the very crucial economic and intellectual decisions we face in the coming years. I want to suggest three things that are all fairly broad base.
1) I think we as faculty together need to clarify more specifically what exactly are the powers that are vested in us in this university, particularly what I would consider the core issues of faculty’s prerogative, and that is curriculums, academic hiring, tenure promotion and strategic planning over the core mission of the university which is teaching, research, and engagement. And, I think we need to clarify both what our actual power is and where we can also exercise informal power. What folks in the 19th century use to call moral suasion. Where can we take the bully pulpit and speak as faculty even if we may not have an official role even if a decision has to be made ultimately by our Board of Trustees, where can we as faculty speak.
2) I think that once we really clarify the sources of power and prerogative , we have to exercise that power and prerogative to the maximum and it does begin at the department level, it’s at the college level, and it’s at the university level. And, I think what we need to do is a kind of two part process. We as faculty need to demand that substantive issues always be put on the table for us to engage with, but then we as faculty, and again I’m kind of preaching to the choir today because you have all shown up, but I’m kind of preaching more to the ninety plus percent of our colleagues who are not here today. We also, the rest of that faculty needs to in effect come to the table and engage with the issues. It’s got to be both, we have to say we want these issues on the table for us to grapple with, but then we have to be willing to put the time and effort into grappling with it.
3) The third point I’ll make is specifically about the Faculty Senate, this position as Chair of the Faculty, but one of the roles is Chair of the Faculty Senate specifically, and again I’m not just saying this because Hans is in the room, but I think Hans has made great progress with the Senate, especially in making the meetings as substantive as possible. I really have been, in some ways pleasantly surprise after being told by some of my colleagues that if you go on the Senate, you know the snacks are nice, but you are going to sit there for an hour or two and nothing will get done and you will get incredibly board. I have to say in most cases that has not been true. In most cases, almost in every meeting we have had some very substantive discussions about questions like tuition policy enrollment, registration and records, strategic planning, a number of different issues have come up just within the past six months or so and I expect many more the rest of this semester and next year as well as in the coming years.
So, I want to continue that process, I want to make sure that in every meeting the Faculty Senate addresses one or two substantive core important issues that affect the way the faculty and the university function in the coming years and I want to encourage folks to come to us, to in effect give us presentations to promote engaged, deep discussion, not just a report of something that has already been done and decided. I want to be proactive as much as possible.
In closing, I want to reiterate what I just said, that I see one of my core mission is trying to reengage colleagues across this whole university in the process of decision making because decisions are going to get more difficult, but also more important in the next few years and we as faculty have to be more engaged, but the way to get more people involved is to give them something substantive to do and then in turn hold our your hand and say “you have been given something substantive to do, please help me roll up your sleeves and get involved.” So that is my message to you today. Thank you.
7. “Critical and Creative Thinking” QEP for the upcoming SACS Reaffirmation Process
Chair Kellner stated that the remainder of the meeting has to do with the Quality Enhancement Project. As you know the university has chosen the topic “Critical and Creative Thinking” and the instructions in the big SACS reaffirmation book are interesting, it talks about consensus. Consensus is required from the various constituent groups of the university and a number of other things I think you could probably fill them in on your own. One of the things it says is that at an early stage of discussion, ambiguity is to be expected and we can do a good job with that.
Chair Kellner explained the format is for the next 20 minutes we are going to work in small groups. I’m going to distribute blue books to each table and you will choose a recorder and then you will discuss whatever topic is in the slip in your blue book. These will deal with the three core principle topics that have been agreed upon by the current existing QEP Committee. What is critical thinking? What are the learning outcomes for critical thinking? How do we measure these learning outcomes? You will discuss the topic that is assigned to your table. You will record these and at the end of about twenty minutes we will have reports from each table.
After the passage of twenty minutes, Chair Kellner asked that someone from each table report on the topic that was assigned to the group.
Table 1: David Aspnes-One of the main points we bought up was the importance of failure and that the students don’t get enough of that. The idea is not that they are not learning by it, but that they need the flexibility to fail. We tend to be too conservative in what we do as faculty and this includes the type of research we do but that in turn conditioned by funding agencies which tend to support more sure things in speculative work .
What we’d like to do is to put students in situations where they can fail in a controlled manner and learn that way. And, by so doing, they expand the horizon and they repeat what they read in text books and are given problems that are consistent with what they expect, then they aren’t learning all that much and I can certainly testify to that from my own experience.
Table 2: Our table was looking at Topic 2 and what would be the learning outcomes of students that are engaged in creative and critical thinking. After a lot of discussion we came up with three items.
1) Students need to learn how to critique their own thinking and to be able to evaluate what it is that they are doing, why they are doing it and come up with ideas.
2) They also need to be able to apply the knowledge that they have obtained to a new situation, to be able to move out of their comfort zone, take what information they have already obtained and be able to apply that to where they are.
3) They need to be able to put things into their own words, to be able to express themselves to be able to address any situation.
Table 3: Rodney Waschka – What is critical thinking? What is creative thinking?
Critical thinking includes reasoned evaluation of substantive claims. It involves evidence evaluation and judgments about connections, arguments, and circumstance.
Creative thinking develops non wrote novel or original ideas that could challenge or change prior understandings. Creative thinking links to critical thinking and a significant body of knowledge.
Table 4: Jonathan Okcho – Our table focused on outcomes but before we could get to outcomes we also had to figure out what are the signs of critical thinking and we listed them as write a good paper, go beyond the superficial, to be articulate. The example was given for engineering students that they need to create a mathematical solution but they can also express in word, so regardless students need to be able to explain causes and create a narrative . Two other things we wanted to be able to see in terms of outcomes were an ability to question assumptions and to do that by analyzing data information, evidence and images, and be willing to engage in ambiguity .
We also thought about some strategies like how could we achieve these outcomes. We need smaller classes, many more smaller classes on this campus. We need to really put the money into doing that. We need to give more assignments that don’t have answers, where they can’t find problems sets in books, where they can’t find sources where they are confronted with the ambiguity and uncertainty to find their way and to work their way through the material. We need lots of money for one small class, first semester for every student in this university and then you could see it in a sustained way. Every semester they would be in a class with fifteen kids forced to deal with the issues you think are important and then by the time they got out we could be more certain of the outcome.
Table 5: Roby Sawyers – We rather liked some of the definitions of creative and critical thinking that are already out their rather than reinventing the wheel:
Creative thinking involves searching for meaningful new connections by generating many unusual, original, and varied possibilities as well as details that expand or enrich possibilities.
Critical thinking involves examining possibilities carefully, fairly, and constructively, focusing your thoughts and actions by organizing and analyzing possibilities, refining and developing the most promising possibilities, ranking or prioritizing options and choosing certain options.
We also talked about what critical and creative thinking are not. We agreed that critical and creative thinking is not exceptional. It is not limited by discipline or tied to discipline. It does not require necessarily a change in what we teach or necessarily a change in the way we teach a particular discipline. Creativity comes out of naïve questions and that was really the most important point for us is those naïve questions that come from students often early on in a course or early on in a discipline are really the ways to drive home the need for critical thinking and creative thinking.
Table 6: Tim Hatcher – Our group talked about a lot of things that have already been discussed. A couple of things that were unique that came out of our group, one had to do with how some of our disciplines are going to really need to fundamentally think about the way we teach,. You know this idea of unscrewing the top of our students and pouring the knowledge in is really going to have to shift to more of allowing that student to have some responsibility in their own learning and that gets into the creative and critical thinking piece. The critical thinking, we decided that part of that needed to be ones ability to question the status quo and that then becomes tied to a lot of the definitions that I have already heard .
A couple of other things that we discussed is the relationship between our learners and us as faculty becomes different when we are talking about critical and creative thinking and often times we want to separate the two. I think if we are really serious about having critical and creative thinking as an outcome we need to approach from a standpoint of the learner and the facilitator of knowledge being seen as a team and not trying to separate us from the knowledge that the student is gaining.
We thought that the shifting of critical and creative, that we might have to come up with a new term because there are some disciplines that would say critical and creative are two different things, so we may be in a position to come up with a new way of thinking about this and come up with a new paradigm.
Table 7: Nathaniel Isaacson – The first thing we talked about was gauging the level of questions that students are asking. Are they asking questions about how do I do this, how do I get to the answer or are they asking questions like, is this the best way to get to the answer? Also, the way the teacher responds in engaging students. Are you simply showing them the process or are you forcing them to show you that they know the process themselves and to teach one another the process?
We all seem to feel that this doesn’t really gauge outcomes , but that forcing people to work outside their discipline is a good way to get to critical thinking, because they don’t have a lot of the assumptions that you have working within a discipline. In many ways a lot of those naïve questions are really good because naïve questions often really are sort of critical and creative questions that people don’t think to ask when they are within a discipline.
Measuring students being engaged in original research is something that we were saying is really difficult to do but seems really critical to gauging their own critical thinking where at least research that is original to them. We did try to remind ourselves that even on a multiple choice exam you can formulate questions for students to apply their knowledge to new situations and I think our discussion sort of ended up spending a lot of time in the realization that this takes a whole lot of work on the part of the teacher and there is no way around it. A lot of that ends up being testing and we felt that one of the best ways to do that is oral examinations, which are clearly the most time intensive form of testing of all.
In the end we came to the copout that if I don’t have enough time to individually assess every one of you, can I put you into groups and get you to assess one another.
Table 8: Chris Tonelli – We had question number 3, how do we know that things are improving in this regard? One would be that they can identify problems, that they can evaluate resources with which to solve those problems. While they are solving those problems they are comfortable experimenting and failing. They are comfortable with ambiguity during that process. They are willing to consider different and other people’s ideas. They also have a desire to think this way. We talked about getting the students to buy into this, that if we are going to put a lot of energy into creating situations where this happens, are they going to be involved. Working independently is another characteristic that we thought we would see if things are improving. Many of these things require resources like smaller class size. One thing we heard I believe in the Senate about what students want for this topic was more community based services.
Chris Anson commented that there seems to be a lot of emphasis in the QEP as it’s developing now on students and student outcomes and I think we ought to also think about how we can focus on faculty and faculty development, the two need to go together. I don’t know if we want to think about that as faculty teaching outcomes, but there is so much stuff going on nationally right now in retooling the way that we think about teaching and learning. There was a massive gift given to Harvard University to rethink the delivery of instruction away from plug and shrug lecture mode toward much more active learning and these things have been in the air for years. The folks on active learning have been here for thirty years and it still hasn’t taken hold fully in our institutions so, I think we have got to put a lot more emphasis on how we achieve these outcomes through new methods of course delivery.
There is this thing going on called flipping, course delivery reversing is what I call it where instead of lecturing in classrooms you put the lectures on line. When the students come to class everything they do is active. There is an accountability measure of some sort whether they’ve looked at the lectures, but you don’t waste class time just talking at them. And, those kinds of things are happening at MIT, they are happening at Harvard, they are happening at other institutions in terms of completely retooling and rethinking the way that we teach rather than just constantly assuming that everything needs to fall on the students.
Henry Schaffer followed up by stating that it’s not only happening at Harvard and at MIT that it’s also happening at NC State.
A motion passed to adjourn the meeting at 4:45 p.m.