Charge

1. Consider matters of general educational policies relating to instruction that concern more than one college, school or separate academic unit, including, but not limited to:
   1. Grades and Grading Policies
   2. Preliminary and Final Examination Policies
   3. University‐wide Academic Requirements
   4. Academic Calendar
   5. Class Schedule and Hours of Instruction
2. Undertake any other tasks relating to university‐wide educational policy assigned to it by the Faculty Senate or the University Faculty.

Composition

The Committee on Educational Policy consists of nine members of the University Faculty, appointed by the Nominations and Elections Committee, for three‐year staggered terms. Insofar as possible, the Nominations and Elections Committee shall ensure that each of the undergraduate schools and colleges are represented. Two student members (of which at least one shall be an undergraduate) with voting privileges, will be selected annually by the Staffing Committee of the Student Assembly. Reselection of a student for a second term shall be permitted. At the discretion of the Committee Chair, student members of the Committee may, on occasion, be excluded from certain discussions and from voting on certain issues. The Dean and Secretary of the Faculty are ex officio members and are not counted in determining the number that constitutes a quorum nor in establishing the existence of a quorum. The chair shall be selected by the Nominations and Elections Committee.

(Legislation updated 3/14/12)

Where not listed as a member or chair, both the Dean of Faculty and the Associate Dean and Secretary of the Faculty, shall be a ex officio members of each committee of the University Faculty and each committee of the Senate. (Faculty Handbook, Article V Section D Part 7) (Faculty Handbook, Article VI Section A Part 3)

To: Dean De Rosa

From: Rebecca Nelson, Chair

Date: June 12, 2024

Subject: EPC Annual Report

Composition of the Committee

Committee Business

At the request of the Dean of Faculty, we considered the following:

• The proposal to add new Teaching Professor RTE titles.
  • We supported this proposal.
• The proposal to remove INC from transcripts after work completed.
  • We supported this proposal.
• Proposed edits to the Code of Academic Integrity (classroom privacy; recording of lectures and similar).
  • We provided a few proposed edits to the draft word that Steve Jackson presented.
• The Proposal and Resolution in support of discontinuing posting median grades on student transcripts.
  • We supported the resolution to remove course mean grades from transcripts.

We provided brief reports for each proposal, summarizing what we perceived to be the strengths and weaknesses of the proposal and a few recommendations from the committee. These were and the text is pasted in below for reference.

As EPC Chair, I attended the Faculty Senate meeting at which these issues were discussed and briefly presented the committee’s deliberations and findings.

Sent on Nov. 1, 2023

Dear Eve,

Thank you for soliciting the input of the EPC on the issue of the possible removal of INC from transcripts after the grade has been finalized.

The full committee has considered the documents and weighed in. Our overall consensus is that it would be best to remove the INC from Cornell transcripts once the grade has been entered.

Comments in favor of removal of the asterisk/INC:

• We understand that the request for removal of “INC” came from the student body, hinting that the student consensus is that it is not a good thing for them.
• We could not identify a clear purpose for the INC once the grade has been entered.
• Insofar as the INC might conceivably be meant to indicate challenges and potentially highlight student resiliency, we felt that there are other/better means by which this can be conveyed.
  • If a “good” grade was eventually earned by the student, we do not see any advantage to noting the INC in that scenario.
  • If a disappointing grade is recorded, on the other hand, an asterisk/INC could conceivably imply extenuating circumstances beyond the student’s control. But we consider it likely that a major challenge that influenced the student’s transcript would be discussed in recommendation letters and interviews, such that an INC is not a powerful means to communicate useful information.

Thanks for considering our perspectives.

Rebecca for the EPC

Sent on Nov. 1, 2023

Dear Eve,

Thank you for soliciting the input of the EPC on the issue of the proposed Teaching Professor RTE titles.

The full committee has considered the documents and weighed in. We submit to you the following observations and comments.

EPC comments:

• We support the proposal, with preference for the coexist option.
• We suggest that the distinction be based on work status rather than intellectual impact. The Lecturer and Senior Lecturer titles should be reserved for <50% appointments, for short-term or non-PhD hires.

Comments in favor:

• It is difficult to recruit top teaching talent if our title scheme is seen as reflecting a negative culture for the person being recruited.
• Ten of Cornell’s peer universities have implemented this track.

Summary:

• The two-tiered lecturer titles were created in 1973, after research associate and extension associate tracks.  Nearly 400 Cornell faculty currently serve as Lecturers and Senior Lecturers.  Lecturers focus on undergraduate teaching.
• More recently, the three-rank Research Professor, Professor of Practice, and Clinical Professor tracks were established at Cornell.
•  Lecturers lack the term “professor” in their titles and have only two tiers, which projects a sense of the lecturer positions being a notch down from the professorial faculty.  This is (actually or potentially?) not appreciated by the lecturers or by students, parents and donors. The perception issues lead to recruitment and retention problems.
• In a document dated 11 Sept 23, Clarkson and Van Loan suggest the creation of a Teaching Professor track with assistant, associate, and full levels. They note three general implementation options, favoring the idea that these titles supplement (coexist with) the Lecturer titles, with the latter being part-time, short-term and/or more narrowly focused.
• While the document is well structured and argued, the authors note that it is not a full-fledged proposal.

Observations:

• Different units (schools, departments, etc.) vary in the intensity and nature of reliance on RTE v. tenured faculty. This varied exposure and experience may influence our individual perspectives.
• The “professor” title is valued. Teaching faculty at Ithaca College have professorial titles. Some people that have moved from IC to CU have had to drop their valued professorial titles to take jobs at Cornell, which is seen as a loss.

Other comments:

• We are not aware of the financial implications and thus have not considered that issue seriously.
• Some concern was expressed that these titles might be misused by hiring people on the Teaching Professor track when tenure-track appointments might be justified.

Thanks for considering our perspectives,

Rebecca for the EPC

Send Dec. 1, 2023

Dear Eve et al.,

Five of us on the EPC have had a chance to review the materials on the proposal to discontinue posting median grades on student transcripts.

We feel that the weight of evidence is strongly in favor of discontinuing the practice of posting median grades on transcripts.

• Cornell’s “anomalous” position may have been a bold, brave move initially (hats off), but it’s clearly backfired (hats back on);
• We’re now anomalous in a bad way;
• There’s published evidence that the practice has led to negative impacts on students (they oppose it), professors (students avoid tough classes etc) and the university (grade inflation);
• There’s no apparent benefit to the practice;
• Students are against it.

The EPC (at least the minority that has weighed in to date) supports the resolution to discontinue. [If any member wishes to chime in with a contrasting perspective, please do.]

Thanks for soliciting our input.

With best wishes,

Rebecca for the EPC

Last Year

1. Resolution 85, concerning academic work during scheduled breaks. This had been introduced by the EPC in 2011 as an informal “sense of the Senate” resolution. Eve asked the EPC to review the new draft resolution, which sought to formalize this resolution as the “Graded academic coursework during breaks” resolution.
   1. The committee brought forward several recommendations to clarify some points considered to be ambiguous.
   2. One of the suggestions was implemented per Carol Grumbach’s feedback.
   3. Rebecca attended the May 10 Faculty Senate meeting to present these suggestions and gain a deeper understanding of the issues. The discussion was illuminating.
2. Registrar’s request. The EPC met in hybrid format (mostly in person) with Rhonda Kitch, Casey Washburn, and Jonathan Burdick. We discussed the procedure by which classes are scheduled. Rhonda et al. requested our endorsement for a plan to modify the way in which this procedure is described in the Faculty Handbook. We admired the evidence-based nature of the analysis and were pleased to endorse the revision process as proposed.
3. Streamlining academic integrity processes. Eve shared the news that a simplified academic integrity system will be piloted in CIS. The new system is intended to improve faculty engagement with students accused of violations and to ease of tracking cases within and across the university. The system may become a model for other Colleges and Schools. Rebecca passed the news along to the EPC members.

2022-23, 2012-2013, 2011-2012, 2010-2011, 2007-2008, 2005-2006, 2004-2005, Archived 1998-2002