Task force looks into faculty course loads

Juliana Kiyan Senior Editor

Can Vassar College commit equally to both teaching and research? This fundamental question of Vassar identity is at the crux of ongoing discussions about the faculty’s current teaching policy and whether it should be revised.

For approximately the past 20 years, the standard teaching arrangement for Vassar faculty members has been to teach three classes one semester and two classes the other, known as a 3:2 system. A task force comprised of a dozen professors from various departments and members of the Dean of Faculty Office is now looking at the implications of changing to a 2:2 system, in which faculty would teach two classes per semester.

Dean of Faculty Ronald Sharp said, “Serious discussions about going to 2:2 have already occurred, and the task force is rolling up its sleeves and asking whether we could actually do this. How could we actually make these changes in such a way that we could do this, how soon would we do this, and what kind of price tag could it have?”

A number of factors prompted the discussion of moving to a 2:2 policy at a dean’s faculty retreat in 1998, and it has continued under the Dean of Faculty Office and the task force.

During the past decade, several of Vassar’s peer institutions such as Williams, Wellesley, Amherst, and Smith colleges have instituted a 2:2 teaching load. Sharp said a 2:2 system would in part make Vassar a more competitive employer among small liberal arts colleges. Other colleges such as Carleton, Swarthmore, and Hamilton have not elected to make similar policy changes.

Professor of Hispanic Studies Lizabeth Paravisini-Gebert, a member of the 2:2 task force, said in an e-mailed statement, “Our teaching load impacts negatively on our faculty recruitment and retention efforts, since it makes working conditions at Vassar less desirable than at the comparable institutions against which we compete for faculty and students.” Paravisini-Gebert considered the feelings of members of the task force to reflect broad support for 2:2 among the faculty at large.

Another impetus to move to 2:2 is to allow faculty members more time to commit to advising students and academic research.

Currently, faculty members who have significant commitments outside the classroom, such as serving as the chair of a department or on certain faculty committees, are granted a reduction in the number of courses they must teach in a given year. Sharp said that this “very liberal” course release policy would be re-evaluated upon a move to 2:2, to determine whether faculty could maintain these commitments and not have to use course release.

Over this semester, Sharp and members of the task force have met bi-weekly to discuss the trade-offs of a 2:2 system, ways in which it could be implemented, and its costs. They have spoken with department chairs and directors of multidisciplinary programs to hear their concerns and explore options that would, according to Sharp, “not compromise the education of the students.”

However, some faculty members and students have raised concerns over what kind of impact switching to 2:2 could have on the College. They have urged that the College take into account possible negative effects such as larger class sizes, reducing the number of under-enrolled courses, an increase in the number faculty members, and a reduction in course offerings, especially in the multidisciplinary programs.

Another point that has been raised is that discussions about 2:2 seem to lie more in how, rather than if, it will go forward. Associate Professor of Sociology and Director of the Urban Studies program Leonard Nevarez said, “My sense is that they’re still at an early calculation phase, even though they seem very interested in making this happen.”

While Nevarez said he would personally support a switch, he felt that the details need to be worked out. “The multidisciplinary programs and faculty have no sense when this is going through, if it is going through,” he said. “There really hasn’t been the kind of official venue in which faculty has had the ability to discuss this in an open manner.”

Professor of Psychology and Director of the Science, Technology, and Society program Janet Gray has met with other directors of multidisciplinary programs to discuss the possible ramifications of going to a 2:2 system. In an e-mailed statement, Gray said, “We are not trying to stand in the way of moving forward with this, rather we want to be sure the concerns of the programs are fully aired in the process of making the decision.”

Gray said that the directors have cited concerns over what a “substantial reduction in sections will do to the curricular offerings in the programs and our commitment to our students who have elected to major or complete correlates in the programs.”

According to the Registrar, multidisciplinary majors accounted for 14.55 percent of 708 majors in the 2005-2006 academic year.

Nevarez noted, “I wouldn’t say it’s so much a conflict among faculty, it’s just a question of deliberation and dialogue to follow through. A lot of faculty are anxious to have that dialogue now.”

Sharp and Paravisini-Gebert acknowledged that questions about the multidisciplinary questions are still on the table. Sharp noted, “We said at the outset that we would not go to 2:2 if it negatively impacted multidisciplinary programs…They are at the heart of Vassar and we are not going to compromise them.”

Sharp addressed concerns about new hires to supplement the reduced number of classes per professor. He said, “If we added any [new faculty], it would be a very modest number and we have no idea what that might be.” Paravisini-Gebert said that the hiring of additional faculty ultimately falls to the Board of Trustees, who will examine its effect on the budget.

According to Sharp, if a plan for 2:2 is finalized, the earliest conceivable time it could become standard policy would be the 2008-2009 academic year. He said it could potentially be phased in gradually.

The plan would have to be endorsed by Sharp, President Hill, and the Board of Trustees. In an e-mailed statement, Hill emphasized that the discussions about 2:2 are still in the exploratory phase. “There are pluses and minuses in going to 2:2, and we are trying to identify all of these factors as we consider such a change,” said Hill. “Lots more discussions will be taking place on this as we continue the planning process.”

While a change to a 2:2 policy has infiltrated conversations among the faculty, few students are aware of what 2:2 is and how it would affect them.
VSA President Abel McDonnell ’07 said, “We need a debate that includes student involvement. If we do decide to go to 2:2, it should be a decision reached after thorough debate and, ideally, a broad consensus on campus that this is the right thing to do.”

Sharp highlighted the benefits that a 2:2 policy could provide for the Vassar education: “My driving reason is that we’re trying to have our cake and eat it at Vassar…[2:2] helps make possible the implementation of that ideal, the ideal we hold to of developing a faculty which is deeply committed to both teaching and scholarship.”