Agenda for ESA Meeting 10/21/2015:
- Approve minutes from meeting 9/18/2015
- Reports from Committees and Student Representatives
Discussion:
- Comprehensive Exam: Mario asked students to submit responses to a survey as the committee considers possible changes to the exam.
- DSC Task Force on Governance: A newly-formed task force devoted to issues of student disenfranchisement in program and GC committees.
- Disbursement of funds from alumni fundraising appeal: Last year’s fundraising appeal raised $1450 to be distributed to English students for research and conference travel. Discussion was started last year about the process of disbursing these funds.
- Executive committee student members: Continuation of discussion about the changes to the ESA bylaws wherein it was clarified that four students, including the ESA co-chairs, serve on the executive committee.
- MLA: Continuation of discussion about expectations for program support at MLA.
Minutes:
Present:
Meira Levinson
Esther Bernstein
Christina Katopodis
Jason Nielsen
Alec Magnet
Michael Druffel
Sean Molloy
Erin Andersen
Stefano Morello
Sean Kennedy
Committee Reports
Friday Forum:
The Friday Forum committee will meet on Mon. Oct. 26. There are 13 proposals for only 5-6 slots this spring, so we will consider some of them for next fall if we can’t fit them in to this spring.
Placement:
(present: Alec Magnet)
We are currently finalizing a survey that asks students about their thoughts about the current initiatives/structures in place in our program for preparing students to go on the job market successfully. This survey is aimed at not only those who have been and/or are on the job market, but also those who will be going on the market in the (near) future.
To facilitate this process of job market preparation, we plan on creating a resources webpage on the ESA site and are soliciting both feedback and materials for how to best organize this page. We would also like to use the survey as an opportunity to assess the current state of English program structures and what students feel are areas of improvement that faculty should address. We’re finalizing the Google form and should be sending out the survey sometime in the next few days. It’d be great if you could tell people to keep an eye out for the email.
The ESA webpage will be the next step after this survey and we will need to reach out to the appropriate committee members to further discuss the logistics of this.
Library:
(present: Christina Katopodis)
The GC English Librarians have sorted and organized the donated and purchased books in the back room. We’ve tidied up the space for student use and Lauren has added a lovely check-out notebook so students can begin checking out books manually. We have not yet found a digital system that works on all phones, computers, etc. We hope to meet soon and develop such a system for checking out books. Alec has designed a beautiful stamp to mark the books as part of our library and we believe we will be able to create the stamp for $40, which is within the $50 budget allotted to us by the ESA last meeting, so we should be able to purchase ink as well. Alicia Andrzejewski has been working on helping us design bookmarks that we can insert into the library books to help remind students to return the books back to the library when they are done. The library has been declared on twitter, Facebook, and email as “sort of” open. We will officially open the library to students (and hope to have some sort of launch party) once a digital catalogue is in place and all the books are stamped and bookmarked.
Recruitment:
(present: Christina Katopodis)
The Recruitment Committee hosted a successful Open House for prospective students. We advertised across local campuses with a beautiful flyer made by Alicia. At the event, we provided printed packets of sample statements of purpose and offered prospective students advice about the application process. One of the Recruitment Committee’s goals, handed down from faculty, is to increase the diversity of our student body. We have not yet met separately from faculty to discuss student body goals, but hope to do so this semester. We are working closely with Nancy Yousef and Carrie Hintz and we do not expect much activity again until the spring when we will be fielding questions from and hosting admitted and wait-listed students.
Curriculum:
(present: Sean Molloy & Erin Andersen)
Mario explained that our main focus will be considering the form of the comps. (He tabled the “distinction” question until we sort out larger concerns.)
We then discussed options and goals. The possible assessment forms we discussed were:
- A timed, prompted exam close to the current form, maybe with some tweaking.
- A new timed-writing, prompted question exam, perhaps one based on a fixed, required reading list of 50 or so faculty-chosen books. [Comp Lit uses some fixed, separate book lists for exams in each specialty.]
- Two substantial “qualifying” formal papers, likely growing from coursework. [Philosophy does this now: a 20 pager in year two and a 30 pager in year three. They are submitted in rough draft and then final draft. Failing papers can be revised and resubmitted; or, students may choose new topics.]
- A written exam with an added oral exam.
- Prompted essay responses in a two-week take home exam.
- In-class final exams at the end of required courses. (History does this with two required courses and two exams.)
- A portfolio, including possibly a digital portfolio.
All these forms could be assessed blindly or not, and by one or two readers. All could include include constraints requiring breadth– a goal of our comps.
Two student groups last year urged Mario to consider the portfolio option, raising various concerns with the existing model. The committee looked at those letters. We considered the goals of the exam. (The last comps assessment in 2008-09 cited overall goals as preparation for teaching at CUNY and assessing the “basic foundation of knowledge and skill” expected of college literature teachers.) We agreed that the department values assessing critical theory skills and close reading skills. Mario said he’d send out a poll to students and faculty.
Why Erin and Sean Like Portfolios: As writing students and teachers, we strongly favor eliminating timed writing tests in favor of more authentic assessments of real academic work produced through a deep, recursive thinking, creating and writing process. We think digital portfolios could be one way to open up the assessment to digital scholarship and publishing, collaboration, writing in all our specialties and interests, and creative writing. Portfolios could potentially include conference proposals, teaching workshops, scholarly papers, collaborative writing, digital projects, creative writing or any other form of intellectual work– as well as reflective writing about all that work. Plus, we worry that timed exams tend to pointlessly stigmatize learning disabled students in our program.
Elections:
Since the previous meeting, we opened nominations for the new Editorial Committee and contacted nominated students. The deadline to accept/decline Editorial Committee nominations passed on Monday night, and although we had a fairly large number of nominees, only 3 people accepted the nomination (9 declined outright, 7 did not respond).
We are ready to move forward to hold an election for the committee. However, that would mean holding an election with half as many candidates as there are spots on the committee (which as originally envisioned as having up to 6 students). We would like to invite discussion in today’s meeting about whether it would be better to proceed with a smaller committee or delay forming this committee until the full ESA elections in the spring. We also welcome other ideas/suggestions, if neither of those options seems advisable.
Another update: this semester the GC is terminating its subscription to Opinio, the survey-taking software that has in the past been used to conduct elections. We have been advised by the IT department to switch to Survey Monkey, but are open to suggestions if people know of better free options.
Faculty Membership:
The bulk of discussion in the first faculty committee meeting was about the possibility of hiring someone from one of the colleges to do 18th century. Some names were suggested (people who have taught a class at the GC in the past few years and gotten great feedback), but there was concern about hiring someone too soon due to concern that existing faculty would lose students/classes, or that there would be too much overlap. So the decision is being put on hold. There was a similar though shorter conversation about hiring someone in Latino studies.
Discussions:
- A concern was voiced about the focus on diversity during recruitment. Questions raised were whether the definition currently used (African-American and Latino/a) is not broad or effective enough, and whether the focus and implementation reflects current students’ vision of diversity in the program.
- Much discussion about the comps:
- current format of the test does not allow proper accommodation for learning disabilities
- both students and faculty have pointed out that if the format changes, the exam should definitely not be too difficult – changes should help, not harm
- still need to hear more student voices in this conversation – possible suggestions: another (shorter?) survey via the listserv; a casual event hosted by the ESA and a written short survey made available then; short surveys carried into classrooms in the GC (which would make setting aside time for answering simpler)
- Outgrowth of that discussion: should the ESA consider hosting regular informal gatherings? To promote community and to facilitate more participation in conversations such as these.
- Suggestion of hosting a panel presenting various forms of assessment and their pedagogical benefits and disadvantages (possible Friday Forum? or an event at a different time?)
- Elections: Decision to go ahead with forming the editorial committee with the three students who have accepted their nominations.
- DSC Task Force on Governance: Sean Kennedy is a co-chair of this newly formed task force, which has the support of the DSC Steering Committee. Formed to address ongoing conflicts in many programs between student and faculty ideas of student governance.
- Disbursement of funds from alumni appeal: Last year’s tentative decision confirmed: ESA Co-Chairs will facilitate disbursement this year and the process will be re-evaluated in the spring. Procedure will follow that of Student Affairs, in that students will submit proof of acceptance at a conference or confirmation of admission to archives etc., and funds will be given on a first-come, first-served basis. The ESA will wait until Student Affairs has already made award announcements, and will prioritize students who have never received funds from Student Affairs.
- The rationale for that was that since Student Affairs is first-come, first-served, the same students each semester might get funds from both sources if the process and timing is exactly the same. In addition, some students apply year after year and don’t get funds, and become ineligible for Student Affairs funds when they’ve been in the program longer than six years. The ESA’s goal is to support students in conference and research that will help them towards job market success, and so will prioritize students closer to that stage and no longer eligible for funds from other sources.
- An announcement about how and where to submit applications for Fall 2015 will be coming shortly.
- Executive committee student members: Points raised include:
- Even when ESA co-chairs asked or were invited to attend Executive Committee meetings, there were always four student votes, never six.
- ESA bylaws predate English program bylaws, so the question was raised about why the ESA changed our bylaws to reflect the program’s instead of pressuring the program to change theirs.
- But the conversation should be less about precedence and more about the benefits of having six voting student members on the committee.
- Ultimately, most agree that the balance of students to faculty on the committee is good the way it is now, with four voting students in the room, including the ESA Co-chairs.
- MLA: The Placement committee will collect data on what students expect in terms of program support at MLA.
Students are invited to share any and all thoughts about these ongoing conversations via email to appropriate committees, email to the ESA Co-Chairs, or email to the ESA-L listserv (where a conversation among all students can happen).
If you are not signed up for the ESA-L listserv, please do sign up!
