AN ACADEMIC ADVENTURE
by Charles Schwartz
Professor of Physics
University of California
Berkeley, CA 94720
March 4, 1991
In 1977 I invented a teaching device called
the "minute paper." This is not a mechanical device but a
teacher's device, and it has turned out to be quite useful to many
teachers. Let me start by telling you how this invention came about,
although this part of the story is not really essential to the main
adventure I wish to relate.
During the late 1960's I developed an interest
in the humane and political aspects of my field and, as a result of my
activities in this realm, some students asked me to give a seminar on
this subject. I agreed, with some trepidation, and was rewarded by a
student turnout many times larger than what had been expected. The
course that I constructed was titled, "Physics in the American System,"
and it later became defined as, "A critical study of the political,
social and economic forces that shape the work of physicists and
scientists generally."
When I sought to have this experimental class
accepted as a regular catalogue course in the Physics Department (for 1
unit, graded Pass/Not Pass) I had to go through a formal review and
approval by a committee of my faculty peers. This was no simple matter:
this course was not about technical physics, which everyone was
comfortable with; it would deal with politically controversial subjects
involving physics, and that made many of my colleagues
uncomfortable. I will skip most of what transpired, except to
report that at one point the objection was raised: How will you know
that students actually attend this class and earn the academic credit
to be awarded? I understood that this question was the frustrated
contortion of someone who was upset by the political implications of
this situation but could not admit to such worries. Rather than argue
the silliness of his point, I chose simply to submit: "All right,
I'll take attendance."
Stewing over this episode afterwards, I tried
to see if there was some way to make something constructive out of this
ridiculous requirement of taking attendance in a class at the great
University of California, Berkeley. What emerged was the idea of the
minute paper. Here it is, as specified under "Required Course
Work" in the class handout for 1977:
"Each student shall hand in a minute
paper at the end of each lecture, answering the two questions:
What was the most significant thing I learned today?
What question is left uppermost in my mind after this lecture?
(These will not be graded.)"
I had the students write their name on the
paper; and I promised that, after checking off the attendance, I would
remove this identification from all the pages before reading what they
had written. The bureaucratic requirement was satisfied and a
wealth of educational bonuses flowed forth. I, the teacher, got some
marvelous feedback, to which I could respond at the very next class.
Students who were uncomfortable about speaking up in class could
express their questions and their ideas more freely. Students could
disagree with the teacher in a non-threatening way. I would
occasionally read portions of the students' minute papers back to the
class, so that students could appreciate the diversity of views held by
their peers, and this sometimes led to further illuminating discussion.
Many students who were reluctant to say much, or anything at all, in
their minute papers at the beginning of the semester were able to break
through these barriers as the weeks went by. The length of the minute
papers - and their analytical complexity - grew noticeably over
time; and some students would hang on well past the advertised one
minute to ponder and compose their minute papers. The minute papers
clearly became an important part of the students' learning process.
As a teacher, I found it an exciting
discovery. I often hurried back to my office after class, anxious to
read what the students had written about that day's lecture.
Occasionally, I would tell some colleague about this idea, but I don't
remember getting much of a reaction. I did not imagine that this was a
truly novel invention: the idea was so simple and natural that, so I
thought, surely many other teachers had done something like this before.
Some time later I was interviewed by the
university's Teaching Innovation and Evaluation Services and told them
about the minute paper idea. From time to time that campus office would
circulate a series of publications containing useful teaching ideas for
faculty members; and I noticed that my minute paper had become one of
their featured suggestions.
In 1986 I received a reprint of an article
published that year in the Journal of Higher Education, "Improving
Faculty Teaching", by Robert C. Wilson, who was Chief of Research on
Teaching Improvement and Evaluation at UC Berkeley; and the minute
paper was featured in this article as a new and beneficial idea. This
article was widely distributed on campus by the administration. The
copy I received was signed "With best wishes, Bob Wilson" and so I
called the author to find out more about the apparent success of my
invention. He told me that in his travels and lectures he had quoted
the story of the minute paper many times; and he said, "Teachers all
over the world are grateful to you for it."
This was gratifying news. Rather than
resting satisfied with this situation, however, I decided to use this
new information to undertake an experiment that would probe the
workings of the university's value system. This is where the
adventure starts.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Berkeley: Department of Physics
October 20, 1986
Professor John H. Reynolds, Chairman
Department of Physics
Dear John;
Recently, the leadership of the University's
faculty and administration have been giving renewed attention
-- with much publicity both on and off campus -- to
improving undergraduate education. Prompted by this, I wish to
undertake a particular experiment intended to test the sincerity of
this professed commitment.
I ask that you present, through the regular
channels, a request for a merit increase in recognition of my creative
achievements in undergraduate teaching, as detailed below. Please
note that I am not here referring to "excellence in classroom
teaching", as that is regularly assessed in evaluating faculty members'
performance; nor am I referring to previously noted "innovative
efforts" within the traditional professional courses. The
achievements listed below, while they span a period of more than a
decade, have not previously been considered in my reviews. Items
1. and 2. concern new courses which are interdepartmental and
interdisciplinary and have an integrative character. [The underlined
words are things that are emphasized in the Elberg Report and the
Smelser Report, now under intense discussion.] Items 3. and 4.
concern inventions of mine in teaching technique, which have very broad
applicability.
1. ...
2. ...
3. The "Minute Paper" ...
4. ...
All my past experience with the merit review
system on this campus says that there can be no advancement without
adequate productivity in the standard-professional category of
RESEARCH. The case I am presenting here is entirely based upon
the separate category of TEACHING. The claim I make is that these
four items represent unique creative innovations, each one meeting the
"indispensible qualification" of "superior intellectual
attainment" which is at the heart of our review and appraisal
system for faculty members. Thus, as I said at the outset, this
request is a kind of test: to see if the academic establishment here is
really serious about encouraging -- i.e., rewarding
-- meritorious achievements in teaching.
Sincerely yours,
Charles Schwartz
Professor of Physics
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What happened next got very complicated and I
don't want to go into the details. In short: my Chairman was not
supportive; I presented the case on my own; a great deal of additional
material was assembled for review by the Dean and the Budget Committee,
who would pass judgment on the case; and in the Spring of 1987 this
request for a merit increase was turned down.
The letter from the Dean to my Chairman, which
reported the negative outcome, contained the following evaluation of my
claimed "creative achievements in undergraduate teaching", which
included the minute paper: "All of this activity is useful and
appreciated by students, but as you say, it has not been 'all that
remarkable.'"
I sought a reconsideration of the case,
requested copies or summaries of documents from their files,
found a number of inconsistencies and errors in their evaluation, and
submitted a formal appeal containing a long and detailed analysis of
the case. In July 1988 this too was turned down.
At that point it seemed hopeless for me
to pursue the case any further. However, it turned out that the
minute paper was, all on its own, becoming more and more popular among
teachers and experts on college teaching. Early in 1990 I learned
that the minute paper was a star recommendation in a big report on
college teaching that came out of a special project at Harvard
University ["The Harvard Assessment Seminars", First Report
1990.] The New York Times even ran a feature story on this
report, and there was my minute paper on page one, above the fold!
I wrote again to the Dean, pointed out this
new evidence, noted that it contradicted their earlier assessment that
the minute paper was "not all that remarkable", and I asked that my
request for a merit increase in salary be reconsidered. The Dean's
reply, a few months later, concluded as follows, "Since your request
for advancement to Step VI was denied for absence of a research record
that shows 'great scholarly distinction,' the new evidence does not
change the case."
Now here is where this adventure really starts
to get interesting. I'll let the letters speak for themselves.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
University of California, Berkeley
Department of Physics
August 1, 1990
Professor Thomas Sloane, Chair
Committee on Budget and Interdepartmental Relations
Berkeley Division of the Academic Senate
Berkeley Campus
Dear Professor Sloane;
I request a meeting with the Budget Committee
for the purpose of discussing details and issues relating to my most
recent (unsuccessful) request for a merit increase, to Professor Step
VI. This request, initiated in the Fall of 1986, has been twice
appealed and thrice denied - most recently in Dean Chew's July 10,
1990, letter to me.
It appears to me that there are serious
inconsistencies between the established principles of the University
and the facts of this case, on the one hand, and the conclusions
reached by the Budget Committee, on the other hand. I believe
that a face-to-face dialogue is needed to resolve these.
This request may be uncommon, so let me cite
some authoritative bases:
STANDING ORDER of the REGENTS 103.2
"Any member of the Academic Senate shall have the
privilege of a hearing by the appropriate committee or committees of
the Academic Senate on any matter relating to personal, departmental,
or University welfare."
The Committee on Privilege and Tenure usually
takes faculty grievances. However, in cases of personnel review
that Committee "is not empowered to re-evaluate the academic
qualifications or professional competence of the complainant."
(Quotation from Senate By-Law 113 A.1.b, now renumbered 335.B.2)
Clearly these questions will arise, and so I must direct my request for
a hearing to the Budget Committee as "the appropriate committee" in
this case.
Sincerely yours,
Charles Schwartz
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Academic Senate, Berkeley
October 9, 1990
Dear Professor Schwartz:
I write in response to your correspondence of
August 1, 1990, to Professor Sloane, Chair of the Committee on Budget
and Interdepartmental Relations. I apologize for the delay in
responding to your request for a hearing by the Budget Committee.
It is my responsibility to inform you that the
Budget Committee does not meet or correspond with faculty members
regarding promotion decisions. While it is true that the Standing
Order of the Regents 103.2 provides for the privilege of a Senate
Committee hearing on matters relating to personal, departmental, or
University welfare, the appropriate committee for review of promotional
decisions is the Privilege and Tenure Committee.
Should you wish to pursue your case for
promotion, I encourage you to work within the established University
channels of appeal by contacting Paul Buford Price, your Department
Chair, Divisional Dean Chew and Provost Christ.
Sincerely,
Arnold L. Leiman, Chair
Berkeley Division
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
October 30, 1990
Dear Professor Sloane;
On August 1, 1990, I wrote to you requesting a
meeting with the Budget Committee for the purpose of discussing details
and issues related to my most recent request for a merit
increase. In that letter I quoted Standing Order of the Regents
103.2 and Senate By-Law 335.B.2 to support the view that my request for
this discussion must be granted.
On October 9, 1990, Professor Arnold Leiman,
Chair of the Berkeley Division, responded to my letter. He made
three points:
1) "the Budget Committee does not meet or correspond with faculty
members regarding promotion decisions."
2) "the appropriate committee for review of promotional decisions is
the Privilege and Tenure Committee."
3) "I encourage you to work within the established University channels
of appeal by contacting...your Department Chair, Divisional Dean..and
Provost..."
Points 1 and 2 appear to be in direct
contradiction with the Regents Standing Order and the Senate By-Law,
which I quoted earlier. I refuse to participate in a game of
Catch 22 by filing a grievance with the Privilege and Tenure Committee
when the rules state that they will not consider precisely the
questions I wish to raise.
Concerning point 3, I had previously exhausted
contacts with my Departmental Chair and Divisional Dean in earlier
phases of this case; and following receipt of Leiman's letter I did
arrange a meeting with the Provost of the College of Letters and
Science. That discussion served to reinforce my belief that a meeting
with the Budget Committee is the intelligent way to deal with the
issues involved.
Therefore, I renew my request for a meeting
with your committee.
Sincerely yours,
Charles Schwartz
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
December 14, 1990
Dear Professor Schwartz,
I write to reply to your October 30th letter
to Chair Sloane, which renews your request to meet with the Budget
Committee.
As you know, the process for reviewing faculty
for promotion or merit increase is defined by policies set forth in the
Academic Personnel Manual (APM). Those policies were developed by the
Office of the President in consultation with the Academic Senate and
incorporate principles of shared governance. It is the
interpretation of this Division and the Chancellor's Office that APM
policy 220-80 limits Academic Senate and administrative review of a
departmental recommendation to the written record. Accordingly,
it is my responsibility to inform you again that the Budget Committee
does not meet with individual faculty about personnel matters.
If you believe this interpretation or the
provisions of APM 220-80 to be in conflict with Standing Order 103.2,
may I suggest that you raise the matter with the Systemwide Academic
Senate (Chair Carlton Bovell) or with the Office of the President
(Associate Vice President Calvin Moore).
Sincerely,
Arnold L. Leiman
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
December 20, 1990
Dear Professor Sloane;
This is a continuation of our previous
three-sided correspondence (Schwartz to Sloane, Leiman to Schwartz) in
the hope that we may find an intelligent resolution of the
contradictions already noted. After a critical review of Professor
Leiman's latest letter to me (dated December 14), I shall present two
requests to the Budget Committee - one old and one new.
First, a brief review of the situation.
On August 1, 1990, I asked to meet with the Budget Committee to discuss
my case for a merit increase, citing the Standing Order of the Regents
103.2 as the basic University rule: "Any member of the Academic
Senate shall have the privilege of a hearing by the appropriate
committee or committees of the Academic Senate on any matter relating
to personal, departmental, or University welfare." In his October
9 reply, Leiman - writing as the Chair of the Berkeley Division
of the Academic Senate - directed me to the Privilege and Tenure
Committee and also to campus administrative officers as the appropriate
channels for my concern. In my October 30 letter to you, I
reported that I had exhausted consultation with the administrative
officers and I also pointed again to the portion of Senate By-Laws that
explicitly forbid the Privilege and Tenure Committee from considering
the very issues I wish to discuss with the Budget Committee; I then
repeated my request to meet with your committee.
Now I turn to Leiman's letter of December 14.
Point #1. Leiman makes no further mention of the Privilege and Tenure
Committee. Thus, it appears that he now agrees with my previous claims
about their inappropriateness. By a similar token, he also
appears to agree that I have exhausted administrative channels on this
campus.
Point #2. The issue is now clearly focused on the contradiction between
SOR 103.2 and the insistence by Leiman that "the Budget
Committee does not meet with individual faculty about personnel
matters." To support this position he states: "It is the
interpretation of this Division and the Chancellor's Office that APM
[Academic Personnel Manual] policy 220-80 limits Academic Senate and
administrative review of a departmental recommendation to the written
record." For brevity, I shall refer to this sentence as "the
rationale".
Point #3. There is nothing I know of in any written policy that
prevents the Budget Committee from granting the meeting I have
requested. It is simply the practice that they choose not to do so.
Thus, they could choose to do so (and, as I have repeatedly argued, SOR
103.2 requires them to do so.) As Leiman says in the rationale,
"It is the interpretation ..." , and this interpretation may be
reconsidered and revised, for good cause.
Point #4. Again quoting from the rationale, "It is the
interpretation of this Division and the Chancellor's Office..."
Thus, this is a local campus matter which can therefore be changed at
the local campus level. Therefore, Leiman's suggestion that I take any
disagreement concerning this interpretation up with the Systemwide
Academic Senate or with the Office of the President of the University
appears to be illogical. [Of course, one can also view this suggestion
of his as an invitation to a bureaucratic wild goose chase.]
Point #5. Leiman further states, concerning the primacy of the APM,
"These policies were developed by the Office of the President in
consultation with the Academic Senate and incorporate principles of
shared governance." Shared governance in the university is a fine
thing, analogous to the separation of powers established in the
Constitution for the executive and legislative branches of our federal
government. But there is more in the Constitution: the Bill of
Rights is there to provide guarantees of protection for the individual
citizen against the possible tyrannies of any portion of the
government. This is where SOR 103.2 comes into the definition of
university governance: it guarantees each individual faculty member
some possibility of just treatment by the institutional bodies which
have power over him/her.
Point #6. Regardless of how one may interpret the APM, it is
unquestionably a policy document of, by and for the
administration. It governs the conduct of departmental chairs,
deans, provosts and chancellors in the procedures for appointments and
promotions of faculty. The Academic Senate (through the Budget
Committee) is recognized in the APM as performing review and advisory
functions for the administration as a part of this process. The APM
does not (and should not) tell the Academic Senate how to do its
business.
Concluding this critical review: there is
nothing in Leiman's letter which stands up, under logical analysis, in
significant opposition to the clear and fundamental mandate of SOR 103.2
At the close of my previous letter to you I
invoked the concept of an "intelligent way to deal with the issues,"
and I still cling to the hope and expectation that intelligent
collegial discourse shall prevail over entrenched habits and
bureaucratic manipulations. Indeed, I believe the reputation of this
university and the credibility of the Academic Senate require such a
priority. Unfortunately, the letters I have received in this matter
from Professor Leiman lean heavily in the opposite direction.
Therefore, I ask that you and the Budget
Committee give direct and considered attention to my two requests, as
follows:
A. I ask to meet with the Budget Committee, as previously requested, to
discuss my particular case.
B. I ask to meet with the Budget Committee to discuss your policies and
practices concerning the possibility that requests of type A be granted.
Sincerely yours,
Charles Schwartz
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
March 1, 1991
Dear Professor Schwartz:
I am writing in response to your letter of
December 20th asking that you meet with the Budget Committee to discuss
your case for promotion as well as the policies and practices of the
Committee as they relate to the request you have made.
As I have earlier informed you, the Budget
Committee does not meet with individual faculty members to discuss
their personnel matters. It continues to be the interpretation of
this Division as well as the Chancellor's Office that Academic Senate
and administrative review of a departmental recommendation is limited
to the written record.
I, again, suggest you pursue the avenues for
addressing your concerns that were outlined in my letters of October 9
and December 14, 1990.
Sincerely,
Arnold L. Leiman
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, it looks like my experiment has come to
a dead end. I should try to summarize what I have learned.
When students' homework papers or examinations
are graded, they may come to me and discuss any questions or
disagreements about how their work was evaluated; and I am obliged to
correct any errors I may have made. Members of the university's
non-academic staff are routinely evaluated by their supervisors in the
following manner: a written evaluation is given to the employee, who
may then sit down with the supervisor to discuss this and to air any
disagreements that may arise. In both of these situations we see
the basic ideals of the academic community at work: the search for
truth by a free and open exchange of ideas, with disagreements to be
resolved by rational dialogue.
When it comes to the evaluation of faculty
members, however, we find that these fundamental principles have been
discarded. In their place we find a rigid bureaucratic system
that, at its core, does not allow for dialogue; and we find that the
faculty leaders in charge of this system can easily dispense with
rationality in the defense of their own habits and prerogatives.
In this morning's newspaper there is a story
about the President of Stanford University, Donald Kennedy, who is
trying to bring about some reforms that will reduce the emphasis on
research publications and increase the reward for good teaching by his
faculty members. Good luck, President Kennedy.