Introduction and transcription by Dr. Charles B. Teske, Dean of Humanities, The Evergreen State College (at time of this conference)
PLANNING CONFERENCE — February 8—9, 1970 [Tape I. 1, Side A]
Introduction: For a day—and—a—half, the President, Vice Presidents, Deans, and some Directors met in the temporary, prefabricated “Library building” to decide upon the broad outlines of the curriculum to be offered in the early years of The Evergreen State College. The President, Vice Presidents, and Trustees, aided by an advisory board drawn from around the country, had arrived at some definitions of goals and at some firm principles about what Evergreen should not be. But they were waiting for the appointment of the first three academic deans — who would be directly responsible for administering the curriculum—before defining the kinds of programs which would be offered and the conditions of learning and teaching. The academic deans (all of whom were still functioning at other institutions) had first met each other on Saturday, February 7. Now it was time to put something specific inside the frame which had already been drawn.
Not only was there pressure from outside, political and public, to announce how the College would provide educational options for its students; it was imperative to make some firm decisions so that the academic deans—elect could start to recruit the 18 or 19 planning—faculty members who would be working through the academic year 1970—71 before the arrival of the first students in the fall of 1971. What kinds of faculty members would we wish to recruit, and what would we tell them about the work they would be doing? How should the interior spaces of the vast Library Building (still mainly a hole in the ground) be defined to serve the academic program? What could we announce to prospective students?
This conference resulted in the commitment of the College in its early years to the theme—oriented, team—taught, interdisciplinary arrangements later called “Coordinated Studies Programs”, complemented by the offering of individual learning contracts, some of them including internships. In effect, the conference set the guidelines for the main and most distinctive academic features of the college, which have persisted to this day.
During the meetings, aside from some gaps due not to erasures but to simple forgetfulness, an open—reel tape recorder was running unobtrusively in a corner of the room. These tapes have been recovered and copied onto cassettes. The following entries amount to the first draft of a log meant to supplement and explain the audio—document itself. The audio material should be transcribed to a compact disc or DVD format so that the log entries can specify “real time” for those who may be interested to hear what went on at certain points in the discussion
David Barry, Academic Vice—President and Provost, chair:
Opens the meeting, distinguishing between “participants” and“consultant observers” and deals with housekeeping details, including having food brought in so that the conference can continue during the whole first day. He describes this meeting as “the first moment of specific thought on curriculum structure.” [Barry provided a set of questions on paper. Can we find the document in the Provost's files?]
· Bob Barringer [sp?], Director of Computer Services: mentions an editorial in this morning's Sunday Olympian asking when the community will hear something definite about the academic program of Evergreen. What will be the extent of students' contacts with professors? Thus far there has been only “vagueness” in the comments of the President and Vice Presidents. [Do we have a copy of this editorial in our archive of press clippings? If not, we should retrieve it from the Olympian's morgue.]
· Joe Shoben, Executive Vice President responds about urgency..
· President McCann opens the formal discussion by reading a statement. [See text.] This meeting is the beginning of the second of three phases in the planning of the new college — in effect, six months behind schedule (because of the time necessary to recruit the three initial academic deans), but he is still confident that we can get the job done. Stresses the importance of legislative support of a planning year and funding of 18 or 19 planning—faculty positions. His Goal Statement includes: emphasis upon “interdisciplinary problem—areas” only one requirement — 36 units of credit, each equivalent to 5 conventional quarter-hours”; emphasis upon accomplishment rather than accumulations of time”; “seminars rather than conventional “classes”; there will be lectures, but hopes that lectures would not be classes”; “work—study” rather than “vocational curricula”; “absence of requirements,” whether “distribution” or “major”; emphasis on “independent work; grading system will deal only in “Credit-No Credit”; expects each faculty member to be responsible for 18 FTE, or 54 students if the teacher has 1/3 responsibility for each student; descriptive materials must “state very carefully the extent of self—discipline called for” and “present Evergreen accurately; emphasizes the importance of matching students' interests and needs with faculty members' competence and offerings; provide for a “mix of ages” and work with school systems at “identifying young blacks who might be made interested in the college”; use the help of Library and Student Services staffs to generate credit; organize by three areas or divisions — Natural Sciences, Social Sciences, Humanities & Arts; NO DEPARTMENTS; responsibilities for learning and teaching should be set forth in contracts. The participants should take these comments as providing a framework for our discussion.
· Jim Holly, Dean of Library Services: regard students as colleagues from the beginning.
· Coffee Break
· Barry: What shall be the order of the agenda? Had suggested
(1) how to get at the qualifications of the planning—faculty members to be recruited;
(2) what should be the qualifications of the entering students;
(3) what programs will we offer:
(4) what kinds of faculty members will offer them?
· Barringer: Suggests an order of (3), (2), (1), (4), starting with programs.
· Dean (his name, not his title) Clabaugh, Administrative Vice—President: We must look at the “facilities implications” of the programs. [Tape 1.1, Side B] [*Note that in this 1970 meeting, references to people were almost exclusively made as “he,” “men,””guys,” “this man.”]
· Mervyn Cadwallader, Dean of Social Sciences (shortly thereafter, “Dean of Social Sciences and Public Administration): Let's start on the programs.
· Barry: What will be the main points of the programs.
· McCann: Asks Barry for a description of the “spaghetti chart from San Francisco (where a meeting of the National Advisory Board for the college had been held) [Can we find this document in the Provost's or President's papers?] Outlines the sequence beginning with the assumption that the faculty member will be a “preceptor,” combining the functions of advisor and teacher.
· Shoben: we shall need to define what we mean by “program in this meeting; sets forth in ensuing discussion the kinds of issues which need to be addressed.
· McCann and others on the role of “preceptor= teacher/advisor.”
· Barringer: will the seminar leader be the preceptor?
· Donald Humphrey, Dean of Natural Sciences (shortly thereafter, .'Dean of Natural Sciences and Mathematics”): Entering students will not know what they want to do; the first year should be a time to open up a student's world before he defines his goals.
· Charles Teske, Dean of Humanities and Arts: we should avoid “lecture—discussion” classes as the main mode of student—faculty contact but provide an orientation period in the opening weeks filled with lectures and performances for the sake of communication and introduction, during which students can shop around before choosing their preceptors.
· Humphrey: We might take the first 3—to—6 weeks for such finding of preceptors.
· Jim Johnson (sitting in on discussion, to join the College shortly as a computer—systems analyst): Berkeley does something like this.
· Cadwallader: Even after a lengthy orientation, students will tend to pick the wrong tutors, but we still should provide such an orientation.
· McCann: On matching of students and faculty — we can limit the options, the problems to be discussed in the offerings.
· Unknown? —— another voice — Tim Dugan, a student on the original planning committee? Dennis (Curry?), Don Perry?: faculty—student ratio of 1:18 may be the least desirable option; we should provide for more variety.
· Teske: Introduces the term “subcontractor (as a way of providing for contact with other faculty members while maintaining the primary relationship with the preceptor).
· Humphrey: Introduces the term “auto—tutorials,” employing software for work in such areas as mathematics, computer science, writing, and foreign languages, as resources in addition to preceptors and programs.
· Teske: suggests a three—pronged organization of students'time among (1) events (lectures and performances), (2) installations (including resource centers and auto—tutorials), and (3) seminars/individual learning contracts involving the preceptors directly — rather than having departments, which try to do all three things at once.
· Humphrey: broaden out the students' work — not just essays and term papers but also making films, creating plays, etc. — here especially the facilities and service staffs can function as faculty members.
· Shoben: has reservations about relying too much on auto—tutorials.
· Barry: the preceptor=teacher/advisor should be mainly responsible for 18 students but perhaps serve 24 others for whom he is subcontractor; discussion ensues [*Note: Although the term “group contract” was not used in this conference and the concept was not defined until the 1970—71 planning—faculty year, and although the idea of “modular courses” to serve programs and individual contracts was not developed until 1973, this discussion seems to anticipate such variations.]
· Cadwallader: Contributes the term “teaching seminars” and asks how much time the faculty member will spend in each arrangement.
· Barry: the preceptor will be the anchor for the student and the center point for the faculty member's role.
· Cadwallader: Points out that 18 students will be too many for a vital seminar discussions, so the preceptor offering a seminar will have to divide his students into two groups of nine each; there will be serious problems; how much time will be available? Returns to the orientation period and suggests that students should spend lots of time with the preceptor in two groups of nine each before getting involved with other arrangements.
· McCann: We're wrestling here with the dangers of having a student too much involved with one faculty member. But then we may go to the other extreme of chopping up a student's time and a faculty member's time.
· Cadwallader: What are the dangers of having an intense and prolonged relationship between a student and a single faculty member — after a rich orientation and with the possibility of shifts in cases of mismatching? What's wrong with having the student become a disciple?
· McCann: So much of academic red tape has resulted from fear.
· Johnson: What subject matter are we talking about?
· WHO?: Will the preceptors have enough competence to serve 18 students?
· Barry: We're looking to recruit people with deep competence in at least one area but breadth of interests.
· Shoben: We're talking about three activities for the student — (1 ) work with the preceptor, (2) work in a prescribed area of knowledge, (3) work on a learning contract for a project. So there would be 18 students in each of the three activities and the faculty member could be serving as many as 54 students in three different ways.
· McCann: We should have groups of faculty, not loners.
· Cadwallader: (We should be thinking about) COOPERATIVE TEAMS.
· Humphrey: Yes, teams — there will be no danger in having preceptor—student relationships as members of teams for intellectual direction for a year.
· Cadwallader: We might think about programs which would be run for a year or two by 5 or 6 or 4 or 7 broad—gauged faculty members with interdisciplinary interests. The program would become a student—faculty community. The faculty will meet in their own seminars to work on books unfamiliar to some of them. In our experience at San Jose, we can run these at a 20:1, student: faculty ratio.
· Teske: It will be necessary to have much communication among faculty members to know each other's strengths and competencies. The student could also carry on private—reading explorations. We should get out of our little boxes. But the preceptor must be an instructor as well as an advisor. Two people get to know each other by working on a third thing.
· Barry: How do we make people available to each other without overwhelming either students or faculty — and to do it with flexibility?
· Humphrey: Don't worry too much about bookkeeping for a while.
· McCann: Let's follow Merv's and Charlie's ideas, put some flesh on them. What would it be like for a student to work with one theme or problem for a year or two quarters?
· Tim Dugan: The issue of matching will be very important. There must be options for switching if mismatches occur.
· Cadwallader: Only a few will decide to shift. I've worked in such a program for five years.
· Barry: Posits a modal student “26 years old” [*Note: David is being prescient here; through the early 1 980's, the average age of an Evergreener was about 26.] We must come out of this meeting with a sense of options so that we can recruit people, and Jerry [Schillinger, Facilities Planner] will need to know about the programs for facilities..
· Humphrey: The deans will need to know what to tell recruits.
· Cadwallader: Programs are the center.
· Barry: Who will lead off? [significant silence for a few moments]
· Cadwallader: O.K., I'll lead off. [He describes in detail what a program should entail.] There will be, for first—year or first—time students, 5 faculty for 100 students. The program will be two years long: “Crises in Western Civilization,.” He mentions [Alexander] Meiklejohn. Or we could move to “Individual, State, and Freedom,” and then to “Political Ecology.” The 100 students would be divided into 5 seminars. The 5 faculty members would cooperate in devising a 2—year program and develop a community. He thinks of two such teams. He introduces the term “team/theme.~ What draws the counselor and the counselee together is the excitement of working on a common task. The program will teach students to read and write and will use many media. Students and faculty members will keep journals and share them. The program will be “non—disciplinary rather than interdisciplinary.”
· Teske: So we should recruit for the planning faculty “theme captains.” Instead, then, of thinking about departmental structures, these planners would want to recruit people bringing the other strengths they need for the proposed programs.
For the first two years, we might think about having 12, 14, or 15 theme—groupings. The students would choose after a three—week orientation. They could shift teams, infrequently; preceptors, easily. Teske uses the term “coordinated” for the way in which events (lectures and performances) would work into the program.
· Cadwallader: Was thinking about one or at most two 100—student—faculty “theme teams.” Most faculty don't know how to run seminars. We need faculty who will want to learn the art of teaching. [*Note: This issue—of how many interdisciplinary, team—taught programs we should run — remained a point of disagreement among the academic deans—elect. Don Humphrey and I conceived of a way in which such arrangements could become the center of our academic programs in the early years. Merv Cadwallader wanted to have one or two of them and otherwise wouId have been content to organize departments based in special fields. In my previous experience, the inertial momentum of departmental thinking is so strong that it would overwhelm the best—intentioned interdisciplinary collaboration. The recounting of our continuing disagreements — in theory and practice — does not belong in the minutes of this crucial conference. I intend to treat it in my writing of vignettes about early Evergreen. But the disagreement started here.] Barry: How do we find such people?
· Cadwallader: Individualistic faculty will have to give up their usual authority, their sovereignty. Teske: But faculty members are subordinated now to their departments — to the standards of graduate—school research. Our recruits to the planning faculty must not think of themselves as department heads to the manner born but as planners of “two—year task—force arrangements.”
· Barry & Cadwallader: Emphasize “interdisciplinary”
· Shoben: The team captain will serve for one year (Old Westbury) or two years (San Jose) only.
· Barry: It's exciting to teach a theme one time only. And then change.
· Cadwallader: Faculty and students seem to want individual freedom, which can lead to anarchy. What they really want is community. Right now, there is much interest in “communes.” But we must still go for individual responses — get the
students ready for their own investigations.
· Humphrey: Individual research should be communicated to the group.
· McCann: How wouId Don Humphrey see this working in sciences?
· Holly: Think about mixing across areas.
· Humphrey: We can overcome the problems.
· Barry: MuSIC might cause a problem.
· Humphrey: The students would choose, or wouldn't choose, certain themes.
· McCann: Worries about full—time study vs. specific competencies. Discussion.
· Barringer: Computers will be able to help us.
· Cadwallader: How did we do physics before we had computers.
· Barringer: We didn't, really. [Prolonged general laughter.] [*Note: At times, the assemblage produces laughter much louder and longer than the witticism might have warranted. This excess indicates the level of tension in the room — not hostility or antagonism, but tension caused by our awareness of urgency.]
· McCann: You might figure out a theme to get the competencies done.
· Cadwallader: Don't we want to avoid this [such specialization]?
· McCann: We have to allow for such minds.
· Cadwallader: Mentions [James] Conant's interdisciplinary science program at Harvard.
· Humphrey: For a problem—centered approach, the “installations” can do it.
· Barry: How does one prepare to do physics? Can't some of these problems be solved in theme—teams, through seminars and workshops?
· Cadwallader: We're talking about first— and second—year students.
· McCann: We'll have to translate for transfers.
· Tim Dugan: What about skills acquisition and the problem of moving to another school — acceptance of credit?
· Cadwallader: Let's separate the student's preparation from the registrar/credit problem.
· Dennis [?]: Will the individual be able to get transferable equivalencies to go somewhere else?
· McCann: We can't allow that problem to dictate our approach — otherwise we might just copy the catalogues of other institutions.
· Shoben: We can handle the problem by equivalency statements.
· Cadwallader: Refers to Conant, Norman Jacobson's program, Joseph Tussman's program [see Experiment at Berkeley], his own program at San Jose — perhaps our students transferring will drop out from the other schools, but the San Jose students adjusted well to other situations. Equivalence tables work. Our program will have a rich process of continuous evaluation. There can be comprehensive examinations — and projects, autobiographies, portfolios. A statement about the student can be clipped to the transcript [first mention of what came to be Evergreen self—evaluations].
· Dick Nichols, Public Relations [?]: What about availability of programs?
· Barry & McCann: Discussion of the “two cultures — generalists vs. specialists; hard—core specialists in the sciences vs. the more general skills of writing, analysis, the precise use of words in the humanities and social sciences. Would one of the two sides become “second—class citizens”?
· Humphrey: There can also be [narrow] specialists in the arts.
· Teske: We should get a teacher of calculus because the program needs him — and what about foreign languages? Mentions diagram improvised during the meeting about how to address Romanticism, competencies needed. Why do you hire specialists? Because the themes need them. Don't put in specialties just because other schools have them.
· Humphrey: It's possible to build mathematics workshops into programs.
· Cadwallader: Don't be frightened of pseudo—issues.
· Humphrey: It's also possible to set up one—year theme—team options; thinks about 12—to—14 programs operating in a given year.
· Barringer: Goes further with idea of a program on Romanticism, emphasizes integration — individuals do research which they contribute to the program.
· WHO? [sounds like Malcolm Stilson]: Students can bring back results to teach others.
· Teske: Don't pretend about collegiality; mean it — give people the responsibility to bring back something which you—the—teacher and the group need to know. Mentions the projected enrollment of 12,000 students. Each program can be a “college within the College” and a home.
· Humphrey: People should start very early on research~ creative projects, etc
· Cadwallader: Students should give not just reports of research, but should learn by teaching.
· Tim Dugan and Teske: orientation period crucial; plan for at least three weeks. [Break for lunch]
Summarizes where we got to in the morning. Finds support for interdisciplinary theme organization. We have talked about the need for special competencies in the faculty members but have gone beyond such a point. — TO BE CONTINUED