The Council of the Senate, 10.25.

11

Report of Committee on MAPH/MAPSS

Mr. Rosenbaum began by referencing the work of a committee, chaired by Theo van den Hout,
which had been discussing faculty quality of life issues across the University. One of the major

8
 The Council of the Senate, 10.25.11
concerns raised by faculty within the Humanities and Social Sciences Divisions had been the
relative balance between Ph.D., master’s degree, and undergraduate students. These issues were
so specific and acute as to warrant the creation of its own separate faculty committee, chaired by
Mr. Wellbery. Mr. Rosenbaum then invited Mr. Wellbery to summarize the deliberations that had
taken place within this committee.
Mr. Wellbery noted that the committee’s report had been presented to Mr. Rosenbaum, and an
executive version would appear on the Provost’s Office website shortly. He clarified that the
committee had been charged to assess the impact on the faculty of the Master of Arts Program in
the Humanities (MAPH) and the Master of Arts Program in the Social Sciences (MAPSS), in the
context of the ongoing work of the faculty quality of life committee. The general finding of the
MAPH/MAPSS committee was that in terms of both size and the quality of students, these
programs had become a source of considerable and unacceptable strain for a significant
subpopulation of the faculty in those two Divisions. The report also emphasizes that both MAPH
and MAPSS play an absolutely essential role in the culture and graduate life of the University,
and many benefits flow from these two programs. Nonetheless, the committee concluded that the
expansion of these programs (especially in the context of last year’s significant increase in the
size of the MAPSS program) has caused serious stress among the faculty serving those programs.
This strain was not simply due to quantitative factors (such as the number of M.A. students taught
in classes, advised on theses, counseled during office hours, and supported by letters of
recommendation), but also qualitative concerns. While some faculty members highlighted the
positive contributions of MAPH/MAPSS students in the classroom, a consistent leitmotif was the
difficulty felt by faculty in reconciling the conflicting pressures of the needs of an ill-prepared
subset of M.A. students with the normal expectations of graduate level programs at the University
of Chicago. This kind of tension or frustration has also been replicated on a more individual level
in the context of thesis advising.
Mr. Wellbery continued that a further source of faculty dissatisfaction was the disproportionate
distribution of labor across and within departments, causing some individual faculty members to
carry an inordinately large load. This was related to a number of factors, including a tendency for
some M.A. students to avoid courses that required special linguistic or other forms of deep
preparation, and to gravitate towards offerings that were topically familiar or were more local in
nature. He also cited earlier feelings of faculty dissatisfaction with the admissions process, which
has led some to adopt a skeptical view of its intellectual legitimacy. However, he also noted that
this situation was in the midst of being addressed.
Mr. Wellbery concluded that these findings were informed by the results of a broad-based survey
that had been conducted on a departmental basis, as well as the direct experiences of committee
members. He expressed confidence that the report represented some reasonable mirror of the
impact of MAPH/MAPSS on the texture of faculty life. He also noted that in view of the major
finding that these programs had crossed the limit of acceptable strain on the faculty, the
committee unanimously recommended a reduction in the size of these programs. Recognizing
that this would have financial consequences for the Humanities and Social Sciences Divisions, the
committee has suggested the initiation of a conversation with University administration regarding
alternative funding sources. One potential topic within such a discussion may involve a very
small expansion in the size of the undergraduate population, which would allow for an adjustment
in the balance between quality and quantity that would be appropriate for the MAPH/MAPSS
programs.
Mr. Goldsmith questioned whether the committee discussed the possibility of establishing a
separate faculty for M.A. students, similar to the autonomous master’s degree programs that exist
within the Physical Sciences Division. Mr. Wellbery responded by outlining his understanding of
the ethos of MAPH/MAPSS, which was rooted in providing opportunities for student
involvement with the University’s faculty, rather than with specialized instructors.

9
 The Council of the Senate, 10.25.11
Mr. Lincoln inquired about the optimal size of such programs. Mr. Wellbery indicated that the
report called attention to the fact that previous Directors of MAPH recommended a program size
of 75-100 students. The current target within MAPH is 125 students, although this year it
dropped below this level due to an enrollment of 116 students. The Director of the MAPSS
program has estimated an ideal number of students to be approximately 180, whereas its current
enrollment is 220.
Mr. Markell asked for additional clarification regarding Mr. Wellbery’s earlier remarks about
ongoing improvements to the admissions process associated with these programs. Mr. Wellbery
noted that the Deans of both Divisions had been extremely cooperative and that productive
discussions regarding the report’s findings had taken place. In addition to the major conclusions
identified in the report, its findings also included a number of more localized recommendations.
One such suggestion was to change the admissions procedures, and in response the Dean of the
Humanities Division had already revised the requirement for departments to recommend a certain
minimum number of students for admission.
Ms. Zorach offered a comment about the full committee report as compared with the executive
summary. She recalled that some of the committee’s deliberations had involved sensitive issues.
In view of that, the committee felt that the full report might be too sensitive to make available
publicly. Mr. Rosenbaum clarified that the executive summary would incorporate the vast
majority of the report’s findings.
Dr. Meltzer expressed appreciation that the financial consequences of the programs had been
considered, and asked about additional costs that might arise if the size of the College was
increased. He also questioned whether any other alternatives had been considered, including
reductions in the size of the faculty. Mr. Wellbery responded that the committee did not consider
it their task to solve the financial problem, but rather to identify possibilities and initiate
discussion of potential options. He recalled that in departmental surveys and conversations with
faculty colleagues, it seemed to the committee that the impact associated with a small increase in
the number of undergraduates would be less onerous than the current situation, and also that the
faculty was more prepared to absorb the additional work generated under that type of scenario.
He also observed that this alternative would not be likely to create as problematic of a distribution
of additional burden on a subset of the faculty, and confirmed that through the committee’s report,
the Deans had been made aware of the voice of the faculty on the issue of disproportionate
divisions of labor. Ms. Wedeen observed that the issue of teaching burden was impacted by
quality considerations as well as quantitative adjustments, and therefore might not be fully
addressed through the recommendation involving the size of the College.
Ms. Shissler then mentioned that advanced graduate seminars used to contain a preponderance of
Ph.D. students, and the nature of the coursework had been established to be consistent with their
capabilities and requirements. However, in recent years the balance has shifted, due in part to the
expansion of the M.A. programs but also because of the shrinkage of Ph.D. cohorts, which has
resulted in profound changes to the intellectual agenda of advanced classes. Therefore, the issue
of increased burden was not simply a matter relating to the increased number of M.A. students,
but also their relative proportion within the student population. She also commented that the
College pays for Teaching Assistants when the number of undergraduates enrolled in a course
reaches a threshold level, but this is not an option that applies to increased enrollments of M.A.
students. Mr. Wellbery said he did not recall that the committee discussed the question of
funding for Teaching Assistants for M.A. students. He characterized Ms. Shissler’s remark as an
interesting addendum, and indicated that it served as a demonstration of another form of
imbalance.
Mr. Glaeser encouraged that more precision be employed with regard to identifying the ideal
number of M.A. students, as the programs had already expanded way past the limit of being able
to ensure that appropriate standards of quality were being met. He noted that others would agree

10
 The Council of the Senate, 10.25.11
with him that there are wonderful M.A. students enrolled in our programs, and they represent a
vital and important aspect of the University. Many of these students are in the process of re-
credentialing themselves in preparation for further graduate study, and are often able to prove
their suitability for enrollment in one of our Ph.D. programs. However, this can only occur to the
degree that our graduate level instruction is offered at an appropriate level of quality. He
recommended the adoption of a rigorous approach to determining the ideal size of the MAPH and
MAPSS programs.

Mr. Amit then offered a point of information regarding the M.A. program within the Statistics
Department, noting that it is entirely taught by faculty and involves an M.A. paper requirement.
As there were some similarities with the MAPH and MAPSS programs, he commented that
faculty sentiments regarding these issues extended beyond the Humanities and Social Sciences
Divisions.

Mr. Nirenberg noted that the revenue from MAPH and MAPSS is used to support the two
Divisions, but if the size of the College was increase, the additional monies would be dispersed
according to different criteria. He asked how this might affect fully-funded graduate student
positions. Mr. Rosenbaum replied that if there a decision to pursue this path was made, it would
be his responsibility to sequester the additional funds and apply them to this purpose.

Mr. Zimmer thanked Mr. Wellbery for his presentation, and expressed appreciation for the
committee’s report and its identification of important issues. He referenced his own discussions
with academic departments in the Humanities and Social Sciences Divisions, and confirmed that
these were indeed matters of constant concern. He stated that there were both strengths and
weaknesses associated with the existing divisional and College structure, and one of its
deficiencies was the challenge of implementing the right balance. He expressed his belief that
this could be accomplished, and indicated that it would fall to Mr. Rosenbaum to make these
accommodations. He noted that this might involve the need to implement a different type of
budgetary arrangement, although it would not necessarily have to be a permanent adjustment.

Mr. Zimmer then spoke to Dr. Meltzer’s earlier point regarding the size of the faculty, reminding
Councilors that a systematic ongoing increase in the size of the faculty has been underway, in
recognition of the need for additional instructional resources as well as in service of the
robustness of the University’s research environment. He also remarked that it should not be
beyond the capabilities of this group to address these issues.

11