Provost Pauly Caves, Rescinds 8:00 a.m. Class Mandate

Below is an e-mail, sent to various University offices by Anne Deahl, a staffer in the office of Provost John Pauly.

It’s inconceivable that she had the authority to do this by herself, so Pauly is obviously hiding behind one of his employees.

The Backstory

We blogged on this issue back in February. Provost John Pauly required that all departments increase the number of classes offered at 8:00 a.m. We showed that plenty of empty rooms were available at 9:00 a.m. (or 9:30 a.m. Tuesday-Thursday).

Pauly and the Registrar (Georgia McRae) surreptitiously briefed various administrators on the issue, disputing our analysis. Of course, neither Pauly nor McRae bothered to share their claims with us — obviously knowing that they could not withstand the scrutiny we would give them.

We found out about this, and did a new analysis dealing with all the issues they raised. We found empty classrooms to be plentiful at 9:00 a.m. (9:30 a.m on Tuesday-Thursday) and at 1:00 p.m. (12:30 p.m. on Tuesday-Thursday).

Pauly promised to raise the issue with McRae, and to respond to our new analysis, but failed to do so.

The E-Mail

Colleagues,

This is a follow-up to my previous email and subsequent discussion at CAPS regarding the revision of the Course Scheduling policy. I have discussed this critical issue at length with the registrar, vice provosts and the provost. We have heard your comments and taken into consideration all of the needs expressed, as well as each college’s unique scheduling issues.

Upon further review, given your feedback, we have determined that the proposal many of you recently requested to maintain the 9% maximum in each time block and eliminate the 7% requirement at 8am is a viable solution.

Some background here may prove helpful. Several years ago when this 9% metric was our guideline, we did not strictly enforce this as a policy, nor did we require courses to be offered in approved time blocks. As classroom capacity became a concern two years ago, the guidelines became policy. There had also been a provost initiative at the time to more evenly spread courses throughout the day and the week to benefit students. Given these factors, we implemented a scheduling policy that included required 8am courses, and was conservative, to ensure adequate classroom space to meet our current and potential future needs for growth.

Having considered your input over the past year, we realize that while teaching more 8am sections does help distribute courses more evenly throughout the week, this may not outweigh the challenges it presents to both faculty and students. Your willingness to work within the 9%, and to work together in schedule-building, both within and across colleges has allowed for greater efficiency in scheduling as well. Eliminating an 8am teaching requirement will, however, mean some flexibility on your part and we would ask your continued collaboration and the following:

1. There is a limited number of particular types of classrooms available in each time block; therefore, staff in the Office of the Registrar may come to you at times and ask that a course be moved into another time block, or, if this is not an option, then it could mean that the class will be assigned into a classroom that does not meet 100% of the pedagogical needs of the instructor. We would ask your forbearance and accommodation during these times.

2. When there are ADA issues that must be addressed, we may need to move more than just that one class, as has been our practice in the last year, to accommodate those needs. As more of our classrooms become accessible, we expect this issue to diminish over time.

3. Your understanding that these recommendations continue to be predicated on several assumptions:

a. The total number of course sections will remain relatively consistent (i.e., no college/school designs major structural course changes that would reduce class size, but double the number of sections needed, etc.)

b. We will retain the current inventory of General Pool Classrooms (121), or its equivalent.

c. Some colleges/schools will continue to teach some courses at the 8:00am hour by choice, as they did prior to the implementation of the 8:00am requirement.

d. Your continued cooperation to work across colleges/departments to maximize the use of each time block.

With this change and your help, the Office of the Registrar will make every effort to keep the commitments made earlier:

1. Priority in scheduling a classroom is given to faculty who have a specific piece of equipment/software installed in a classroom that is needed for a particular class.

2. Priority in scheduling classrooms in the building in which a college/school/department resides is given to the faculty in those colleges/schools/departments.

3. Priority in scheduling a classroom within the same building is given to faculty who teach back-to-back classes.

4. Priority in scheduling a classroom that meets the enrollment and pedagogical needs of the class.

5. The University’s commitment to follow the ADA regulations and move those classes with students/faculty with ADA issues to an appropriate classroom.

Knowing many of you are beginning work on your fall 2011 schedules, we will implement this policy now and you may follow it for fall 2011 schedule building. It is our hope that this change will be amenable to you and meet as many of your needs as we can reasonably meet. Please share with me any comments or questions you might have.

Thank you.

Anne Deahl

Associate Vice Provost for Academic Support Programs and Retention
Marquette University
Zilber Hall 454 C
P.O. Box 1881
Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53201-1881

It’s easy to understand why campus scuttlebutt holds that Pauly will occupy the Provost’s office for only a “decent interval” before being given the axe. The most important piece of baggage he has is his central role in the attempt to hire a lesbian dean candidate who was outspoken in her opposition to Catholic teaching on sexuality.

The current fiasco goes beyond showing bad judgment in pushing a policy that was both unneeded and anathema to the vast majority of students and faculty. Pauly defended the policy with bogus data, and when challenged stonewalled for six months.

Our initial suspicion was that Pauly was simply bamboozled by Registrar Georgia McRae, and would relent in the face of good information. But instead, we found that Pauly was responsible, and was rigidly attached to the policy.

Provost John Pauly Stonewalls On Use of Bogus Data to Support 8:00 a.m. Class Mandate

Back in February, we learned that Provost John Pauly and Registrar Georgia McRae were demanding that more classes be offered at 8:00 a.m.

Since neither students nor faculty like 8:00 a.m. classes, this was not good news.

But, we wondered, was there any need to demand more 8:00 a.m. classes, or was this the sort of bureaucratic silliness that is very common at Marquette.

With a little research, we found that there were plenty of empty classrooms at 9:00 a.m. So why force anybody to take an 8:00 a.m. class when 9:00 a.m classrooms (and presumably rooms at other times) were readily available?

Our blog post got some serious attention from the Provost Pauly, who had staffer Anne Deahl research the issue. Georgia McRae insisted that all the 25 classrooms was had identified in preliminary data we had given to the Arts & Sciences Dean were really in use.

(In reality, we had found 44 free classrooms at MWF 9:00 a.m., and 34 free classrooms at TTh 9:30.)

This claim was not shared with us, but was surreptitiously shared with administrators (including department chairs) around the University, complete with an elaborate PowerPoint presentation. In effect, they were claiming that “McAdams is wrong,” without ever giving us a chance to respond.

A Second Cut at the Data

Of course, we found out about this, and asked Pauly for the data that supposedly refuted our data.

He gave us a response, which we posted, claiming that (1.) some of the rooms we had counted as “open” were labs, (2.) some had fixed seats, (3.) some are occupied only one day a week due to discussion sections, (4.) some are scheduled by departments, and not by the Registrar, and (5.) two lack acceptable video equipment.

Knowing this analysis was bogus, we did a new one, that took into account the issues Pauly raised.

We found that Pauly’s claims were simply baseless.

Our data are found in a spreadsheet here.

We identified available classrooms as follows:

• MWF 9:00 a.m. – 39
• MWF 1:00 p.m. - 48
• TTh 9:30 a.m. - 19
• TTh 12:30 p.m. - 21

We did not survey literally every building where a class might be held, but only the ones with the largest number of classrooms. Thus the actual number of available classrooms is almost certainly a bit larger.

And quite obviously, there are lots of classrooms available at times we did not survey.

With only two partial exceptions, the classrooms we listed as “available” are scheduled by the Registrar, and not by any department. Only one is a “lab,” and it is configured so it could easily be used as a classroom if not in use as a lab (Cudahy 145). Further, all except three have video equipment. A large number have movable seats.

Unfortunately, our post on this was quickly overshadowed by the brouhaha over the attempt to hire lesbian Dean candidate Jodi O’Brien.

Asking Pauly For an Explanation

We wrote Pauly for an explanation of his assertion that Marquette was short on classrooms, and he put us off – at first reasonably. He wrote us on 4 May 2010, for example, explaining that Georgia McRae was tied up and that it would be “next week” before anything would be available.

We heard nothing for several weeks.

Then, in response to another prod from us, he wrote on 28 August saying:

Georgia tells me that she has, in fact, completed her classroom study and plans to share it with Anne Deahl and me next week. As soon as we look at the data, we’ll be able to answer your question.

We have still heard nothing.

It’s Been Pauly and Not McRae All Along

Pauly, while failing to provide any data showing a shortage of classrooms, did explain why he thinks that a mandate for 8:00 a.m. classes is necessary. In a 28 August e-mail he asserted:

My only position on all this has been clear from the beginning. The course schedule was getting bunched up at certain times of day in ways that were making it harder for the registrar to accommodate all courses and for students to design the schedules they needed. This has happened at many, many universities. Rather than spend money on just adding general classrooms every year or two, we needed to work harder to live with the classroom pool we currently have and spend new money on classrooms that better fit the new pedagogies faculty want to use.

I asked Georgia to reexamine this issue this summer because I wanted to know whether we are meeting those goals in a reasonable way. If faculty and deans agree to other ways to meet the goal that students might find acceptable—e.g., more evening classes and fewer 8 a.m. classes—then I am happy to consider the alternatives.

Pauly, in fact, is pretending that his initial claims of a classroom shortage are correct, while flatly refusing to deal with the actual data.

But notice the threat: we might consider letting faculty and students off the hook for 8:00 a.m. classes if they will accept night classes instead.

Pauly’s claim that “we needed to work harder to live with the classroom pool we currently have” is close to bizarre. In fact, we have been living with the classroom pool we currently have quite nicely, with several dozen empty rooms at 9:00 a.m. (MWF) and 9:30 a.m. (TTh) and 1:00 p.m. (MWF) and 12:30 p.m. (TTh).

Pauly fired off another quick e-mail to us on 28 August, saying:

One quick point. Our freshman classes have increased the last few years. We have been aiming for about 1950 freshmen the last three years. Fall 2010 will likely end up between 1940 and 1950.

In spite of the claim that “our freshman classes have increased the last few years,” the enrollment at Marquette has increased only 2.6 percent between 2006 and 2010. And most of this increase happened before we found dozens of empty classrooms last spring.

In fact, Freshman enrollment actually declined a bit between 2008 and 2010.

It’s a Bureaucratic Thing

It’s obvious why Pauly and Georgia McRae will not deal with the issue of the empty classrooms.

Pauly cooked up the kind of “initiative” that bureaucrats love. It sounds so nice to say we are rationalizing things. That we are “fully utilizing our resources.”

Bureaucrats enamored with some pet initiative are unlikely to ask hard questions about whether the initiative is really needed.

Regardless of whether the issue is “diversity” or a soft drink monopoly or “outcomes assessment,” bureaucrats can convince themselves that it’s a great idea. And if they are isolated from faculty and students (which most bureaucrats at Marquette are) they can get away with being entirely heedless of the effect their initiatives have.

Most of the time, they face only minor grumbling. Most of the time, asymmetries of information mean that people will accept their claims — even if not happily.

But what happens if somebody (say, a faculty blogger) takes up the issue? What happens if just a bit of research shows the claims of a “need” for the initiative to be bogus.

The bureaucrat is likely to hunker down, stonewall, and hope the issue will go away.

The fact that Pauly finds himself in that position does not speak well for him.

University Officials Produce Bogus Data to Support Diktat on 8:00 a.m. Classes

The recent demand from the Registrar that more classes be offered at 8:00 a.m. was received by faculty with a decided lack of enthusiasm. It was obvious to all of us that there is no shortage of classrooms during the more desirable hours. To know this, one only needs to do what faculty regularly do (but university bureaucrats don’t) and walk down the halls of any academic building.

To be a little more systematic, we analyzed the availability of classrooms in seven buildings (Physics, Chemistry, Biology, Lalumiere, Engineering, Business and Math/Computer Science) during the 9:00 a.m hour on Monday, Wednesday and Friday and the 9:30 a.m. time slot on Tuesday and Thursday.

This is for the current (Spring) semester.

(Why not more buildings and more class times? We didn’t want to squander scarce research assistant time proving the obvious.)

We found 44 free classrooms at MWF 9:00 a.m., and 34 free classrooms at TTh 9:30.

Our post got a fair amount of attention among university officials, and the Registrar produced an elaborate PowerPoint presentation rebutting out post, which was shown to deans and department chairs.

The presentation was not shown to us, rather we learned out it third hand. We accosted Provost John Pauly about it, and he kindly sent us an e-mail explaining the response he and the Registrar made. We’ll quote it entire.

Below is an excerpt of the memo my office sent to the deans. Feel free to use as you like.

We examined the usage data for 41 classrooms. Professor McAdams had specified 25 classrooms where he thought there might be a problem; for our assessment we also added an additional 16 in Cudahy, to make sure we understood the full scale of the issue.

Here is the breakdown of what we found:

• Nine of the 41 classrooms are restricted or are laboratories, and thus not part of the common pool available for scheduling by the registrar.
• Twelve of the 41 are in fact being used, having a course scheduled or a discussion/quiz section at least one day per week.
• Of the remaining 20 classrooms, eleven (four of the 11 on MWF and 11 of the 11 on TTH at the times cited), are unused due to their characteristics. Three have capacity under 20 (most classrooms of that sort are typically used for graduate courses later in the day); five are large (70+) but have fixed layout and furniture that most faculty now find unacceptable, except for large lectures. One is large (60+) but even with its movable desks is not a classroom preferred by most faculty for average size classes. One room is not smart and one is very limited smart, and neither has proved very acceptable to most faculty.

Of the 41 classrooms cited, we found nine not being fully used in the timeslots mentioned. But only five of these are available in those timeslots on TTH, and seven on MWF. Given the size of the classroom pool, there is not enough capacity there to allow a significant variation from the scheduling grid.

As everyone knows, classroom scheduling is not an exact science, and each choice we make involves a trade-off between competing priorities. Our overarching goals are to meet faculty’s pedagogical needs, maximize use of available classrooms, and offer courses evenly enough throughout the day so that students can more effectively schedule required courses. To the extent possible, we have also tried to allow a small number of classrooms to remain “restricted” to accommodate use by the colleges or departments.

The classroom scheduling system uses the following purposeful priorities to guide classroom assignments:

• Allow faculty to express preferences with regard to the type of classroom they need, given their chosen teaching pedagogy. This involves not only smart classroom requests, but needs for certain room formats, such as movable desks/tables and chairs, etc.
  
• Give college faculty some priority in the assignment of classrooms in their building (e.g., business courses get scheduled first in all of the classrooms in their building, then other courses are filled-in for the remaining times).
  
• Allow for any faculty who teach back-to-back courses to be scheduled in the same building.
  
• Ensure some classrooms are reserved each term for changes that need to be made with regard to ADA compliance and last-minute changes to class size.
  
• Accommodate course formats that, by their nature, result in a vacant classroom one or more days a week, including:
  
  
  
  • Discussion or quiz sections that are not coordinated with those of other departments may use a room only one day a week, resulting in an empty room the other day(s) of the week.
    
  • Four-credit language courses that meet four days a week, leaving a room vacant the fifth day.
    
  • Large lecture courses that have been modified so that they meet two days per week rather than three (with an associated lab), leaving the classroom vacant the third day of the week.

This is a slightly more elaborated version of the information Georgia McRae provided you. Hope this helps you understand the parameters that affect how the registrar schedules classrooms. The registrar and provost’s office are continuing to work with deans to make the classroom scheduling grid manageable for faculty.

Best wishes!

John Pauly, Provost

We frankly did not believe these assertions, and asked Provost Pauly and Registrar McRae for the raw data that underlay the claims above, but our request was ignored.

A New Analysis

Faced with the issues raised by the McRae/Pauly analysis, we did our own new analysis. This time, we use the classroom scheduling data in Checkmarq to confirm that classrooms we classify as “available” were in fact available for all three (MWF) or two (TTh) days of the week. We also added the 1:00 p.m. MWF hour, and the 12:30 TTh timeslot.

We still limit our analysis to the seven buildings listed above.

Our data are found in a spreadsheet here.

We identified available classrooms as follows:

• MWF 9:00 a.m. – 39
• MWF 1:00 p.m. - 48
• TTh 9:30 a.m. - 19
• TTh 12:30 p.m. - 21

With only two partial exceptions, the classrooms we listed as “available” are scheduled by the Registrar, and not by any department. Only one is a “lab,” and it is configured so it could easily be used as a classroom if not in use as a lab (Cudahy 145). Further, all except three have video equipment. A large number have movable seats.

And note that this is for this Spring semester. The diktat on 8:00 a.m. classes will create even more empty classrooms at 9:00 a.m., 1:00 p.m. and presumably other times too.

Now let’s review the statements we got from Provost Pauly.

We examined the usage data for 41 classrooms. Professor McAdams had specified 25 classrooms where he thought there might be a problem; for our assessment we also added an additional 16 in Cudahy, to make sure we understood the full scale of the issue.

Actually, we identified a total of 78 classrooms that appeared to be available at the 9:00 a.m. or 9:30 a.m hours. Apparently the number 41 came from partial data we supplied to the Dean of Arts and Sciences under time pressure before all the data were available.

Of the 41 classrooms cited, we found nine not being fully used in the timeslots mentioned. But only five of these are available in those timeslots on TTH, and seven on MWF. Given the size of the classroom pool, there is not enough capacity there to allow a significant variation from the scheduling grid.

This is a rather bizarre assertion. Since Pauly has failed to identify the 32 classrooms that he thinks are being “fully utilized” it’s difficult to know what he means by this, but there are vastly more than nine classrooms available in the timeslots we analyzed.

Nine of the 41 classrooms are restricted or are laboratories, and thus not part of the common pool available for scheduling by the registrar.

Again, the failure to identify which classrooms these are makes it hard to know what he’s talking about, but none of the classrooms in our new analysis is a lab (again, with one partial exception). All (with two minor exceptions) are assigned by the Registrar.

But note the irrelevance of the “scheduled by the Registrar” claim. If a particular classroom is scheduled by a particular department, that department should have the option of using it for a class that might otherwise meet at 8:00 a.m. An empty classroom is an empty classroom. Also, there will be no increase in classrooms controlled by departments this fall. So why won’t what has worked this spring work in the fall too?

Allow faculty to express preferences with regard to the type of classroom they need, given their chosen teaching pedagogy. This involves not only smart classroom requests, but needs for certain room formats, such as movable desks/tables and chairs, etc.

Likewise:

Give college faculty some priority in the assignment of classrooms in their building (e.g., business courses get scheduled first in all of the classrooms in their building, then other courses are filled-in for the remaining times).

It’s interesting that the Registrar is willing to accommodate faculty desires for movable chairs, or to teach in their own building but not desires to avoid 8:00 a.m. classes.

Perhaps faculty who want movable chairs or especially want to teach in their own buildings should be given the option of having what they want during an 8:00 a.m class, or a bit less than they want some other time. But in fact, there is no shortage of rooms in any of the buildings in our survey, and no shortage of rooms with movable chairs.

Twelve of the 41 are in fact being used, having a course scheduled or a discussion/quiz section at least one day per week.

In the first place, this is untrue – or at least irrelevant since our new analysis shows numerous classrooms available all week.

But note the bizarre logic here. A discussion or quiz section is allowed to be scheduled one day a week, pushing a class that meets three (or two) times a week to 8:00 a.m.! Why not put the discussion/quiz section at 8:00 a.m.? In reality, of course, there are plenty of classrooms available at later hours.

Finally, we have this:

Our overarching goals are to meet faculty’s pedagogical needs, maximize use of available classrooms, and offer courses evenly enough throughout the day so that students can more effectively schedule required courses.

The implication here is that the Registrar needs to protect the students from academic departments, which will (left to their own devices) oppress students by preventing them from taking classes at 8:00 a.m.

But departments have every incentive to accommodate student needs. Students don’t like 8:00 a.m. classes, as enrollments in these classes show. Departments have an incentive to increase their enrollments by offering classes when students want to take them, and by spreading classes throughout the day so that (for example) majors have no difficulty taking the classes they need to complete the major.

Bogus Data

What we have here is bogus data to support a policy that university officials somehow want, but which students and faculty don’t want.

Why would they do this?

Why are they so attached to a policy that faculty dislike, students dislike, and the data don’t support?

What we appear to have here, as with so much that happens at Marquette, is another of the sort of bureaucratic pathologies that we political scientists tell our classes about. The most revealing sentence in Pauly’s e-mail is the following:

Given the size of the classroom pool, there is not enough capacity there to allow a significant variation from the scheduling grid.

Note the reference to “the scheduling grid.” The Registrar’s software is based on a “grid,” and she and Pauly are attached to “the grid” regardless of what faculty and students think the schedule should look like.

This is known as “goal displacement:” Bureaucrats lose sight of their real goal, and become attached to the procedure they are using to (supposedly) promote the goal. When the procedure comes to conflict with the goal, the bureaucrats cling to the procedure and lose sight of the goal.

This is particularly disappointing in the case of Pauly, who has gotten high marks from the faculty. We have toyed with the idea that he has “gone native” in an administration which is dominated by the “business side” of the university to the detriment of the “academic side.”

In fact, we think this is mostly the result of inattention on his part. A Provost, who certainly has a lot of other things to worry about, has depended on the work of his staff which in turn has been based on information gotten from the Registrar. On this particular issue, he needs to be more assertive.

Most Recent Developments

We sent a copy of an earlier version of this data to both Registrar McRae and Provost Pauly this past Thursday, asking them to identify any mistakes they think should be corrected. We reached Provost Pauly this morning, and he forwarded our data to Registrar Georgia McRae, who promised to get around to reviewing it next week.

We will continue to report on this issue.

Developing . . . .

Diktat on 8:00 a.m. Classes: Registrar Responds

We recently blogged about the demand from the Registrar’s office that more 8:00 a.m. classes must be offered at Marquette.

We noted how silly the mandate seems. Neither faculty nor students like 8:00 a.m. classes. Not only are there plenty of classrooms available at 9:00 a.m., individual departments, colleges and programs have every incentive to accommodate students who need to take a class at 8:00 a.m.

We asked Registrar Georgia McRae to explain the rationale for the policy, and she kindly sent us this statement.

Thank you for your inquiries. I understand how you and others might be confused when you see empty classrooms. Please know that I am doing research in response to your questions and will keep the provost and the deans apprised of my findings.

Second, I would like to clarify that the Course Scheduling Policy is a University policy, not a Registrar policy. The Office of the Registrar does not make academic policy, but is often charged with implementation of approved policies that pertain to its responsibilities, such as scheduling classrooms.

The following are key underlying concepts guiding the course scheduling policy and its implementation:

1. To ensure that our scheduling is student-centric: that is, more courses needed to be spread throughout the day so that students are not faced with time conflicts for needed classes.
2. We do not have an unlimited number of classrooms at the appropriate size, with the appropriate seating and with the appropriate technology during each time block of the day. This policy attempts to distribute these classrooms in an equitable way across all colleges.
3. With increased enrollment, we needed to find a way to gain classroom space, without building more classrooms. There are no resources budgeted for new classrooms in the near future.
4. To give us some flexibility to move a class, without undue hardship on other faculty, when the enrollment outgrows the room capacity, or when we encounter ADA issues. That is, if we have a few classrooms available in each time block, then we have the option to move just the one class that needs to be moved, rather than encounter a domino effect of moving 3-5 classes in order to accomplish our need.

I hope this helps you to understand that there were many considerations that went into the policy and that it was not done in haste, without considerable thought before approval and implementation.

Unfortunately, much of this isn’t really compelling. For example, enrollments. Hard economic times have produced hard times for recruiting a new Freshman class. The Freshman class that Marquette is recruiting for this coming fall appears to be about as large as the one that entered in the fall of 2009, but only at the expense of a greater “discount” of tuition (disguised as larger scholarship grants). There is no reason to think that enrollments will increase. We are, in fact, hoping they don’t decrease.

As for avoiding student conflicts: it’s boneheaded policy to try and force somebody to do something they have every incentive to do anyway. Where a real need for an 8:00 a.m. section exists, deans and department chairs have every incentive to accommodate students. But the reality is that students just don’t like 8:00 a.m. classes, and enrollments are miserable.

As for the claim that “We do not have an unlimited number of classrooms at the appropriate size, with the appropriate seating and with the appropriate technology,” the survey done by our research assistants shows that the empty classrooms were often medium-sized or large.

For example, for Cudahy (for which we have detailed statistics), looking at the classrooms that are available all day on Monday, Wednesday and Friday we find one with a capacity of 41 students, and two with a capacity of 44 each. Looking at the classrooms that are free all day on Tuesday and Thursday, we find one with a capacity of 44, one with a capacity of 41, one with a capacity of 39, and one with a capacity of 24. These are not little seminar rooms.

As for technology: not all classrooms have the latest video technology, but instructors, without any exception that we know of, get assigned to a room with the technology when they want it. And given that virtually every classroom on campus is handicapped accessible, we have trouble seeing how issues created by the need to accommodate disabilities could be causing great problems.

What we have here is yet another example of bureaucrats (and Registrar Georgia McRae may not be the one at fault) implementing something that seems like a good idea to them, all the while remaining oblivious to the actual consequences “on the ground.”

Misbegotten Scheme From the Registrar: Offer More 8:00 a.m. Classes

In Political Science, we learned about this last Friday, February 12.

Marquette’s Registrar is demanding that more classes be offered at 8:00 a.m. This generated about as much enthusiasm as one would expect. Not only do most faculty not want to teach 8:00 a.m. classes, but most students don’t want to take 8:00 a.m. classes. When political science has offered multiple sections of a given course (say, Introduction to American Politics) the 8:00 a.m. section has always had a poor enrollment.

The question then becomes: why would the Registrar want to do this? It might seem that offering classes evenly spread across the day would be a better use of facilities. But is there a shortage of classrooms at other hours?

We sent two research assistants out to check on the availability of classrooms at the 9:00 a.m. hour for Monday-Wednesday-Friday classes, and for the 9:30-10:45 time slot for Tuesday-Thursday classes.

The research assistants went to the Physics building (1st and 2nd floors), Chemistry (basement and 1st floor), Biology (1st floor), Lalumiere (floors 1-3), Engineering (floors 1 and 2), and Business (floors 2-4).

This wasn’t every building with classrooms, but it probably covers the majority of classrooms on campus.

The results:

Wednesday survey: 46 classrooms occupied and 37 empty

Tuesday survey: 44 classrooms occupied and 25 empty.

These data are subject to a small margin of error. Perhaps our RAs didn’t count some class (or empty classroom) behind a closed door that had no glass panel allowing one to look in. But our RAs quite simply saw many empty classrooms. In principle, classrooms may be in use only one day a week for a discussion section. But are Tuesday or Wednesday less likely to have these than other days?

Why the Registrar thinks we need more 8:00 a.m. classes when we currently have so many vacant 9:00 a.m. classrooms is a mystery.

A separate analysis for Cudahy Hall used the Class Facility Usage sheets from the University database.

It showed:

Tuesday-Thursday: 9:30 classes -- vacant classrooms (7), occupied classrooms (7)

Monday,Wednesday,Friday 9:00 classes -- vacant classrooms (9), occupied classrooms (5)

Of course, the Registrar should know all this. Indeed, it would be a stunning example of incompetence if the Office of the Registrar didn’t know exactly how classrooms are utilized.

There are, of course, instances where an 8:00 a.m. class is dandy. If students in a particular program literally have to take a particular class during a particular semester, putting it at 8:00 a.m. is a fine way to reduce conflicts with other classes, since so few are offered at that hour. And where multiple sections of a class are offered, it may be good to provide an option for students who are “jammed up” with other classes and work schedules in the middle of the day.

But academic departments, schools and programs have plenty of incentive to accommodate student needs and preferences. And indeed, they are likely to be much better informed about student needs and potential scheduling problems than the Registrar’s Office.

So just what is going on here?

[Update - Feb. 23, 2010]

Arts and Sciences Dean Jeanne Hossenlopp replied to our inquiry with the following statement:

There have been a few issues that have come up this year with respect to course scheduling. For some departments, the challenge is offering enough 8 am courses. For others, scheduling discussion sections or graduate courses may be the more pressing concern. We are working with the Registrar to address these issues and the discussion continues. As you know, in Arts and Sciences we have a particular challenge given the number of courses that we offer and we are trying to find an effective way to balance things at the college, rather than solely at the department level. We need to look more carefully at a variety of data including classroom capacities, “smart” classroom requests versus availability, and look for patterns in cancellations. We are still gathering data that will be useful in mapping out how to optimize the constraints in classroom scheduling.

Huh?

We still don’t know what the perceived problem was.

Why did the Registrar think there needed to be more 8:00 a.m. classes?

As for the need to “look more carefully at a variety of data:” shouldn’t the Registrar have looked at the data before she started demanding more 8:00 a.m. classes?

We have a call in to Marquette Registrar Georgia McRae. Perhaps she will tell us what the issue is.

[Developing . . . ]