2 thoughts on “Results”

1. Why is it that 63% of eligible participants did not respond? I can hardly imagine a subject more significant to the way they will teach and advise than the proposed general education curriculum. Maybe an electronic vote is not the best way to reach people. The 37% response rate does not meet the standard of a quorum. Has the committee discussed how it will count those who do not respond? Can it be argued that they are abstaining? That seems a difficult case to make since a person has to actively declare that they are abstaining. No response can hardly be considered an active declaration to abstain.

   Reply ↓

   • Thanks for your feedback, Concerned Citizen. You bring up several issues that the General Education Advisory Committee (GERC) believes are of interest to the larger SEU committee–so we will attempt to reply in detail to your comments.

     (1) “Why is it that 63% of eligible participants did not respond? I can hardly imagine a subject more significant to the way they will teach and advise than the proposed general education curriculum.”

     We agree with you that the proposed general education curriculum is vitally important, and if there were a low response rate it could be a concern. Here is a more detailed breakdown of the straw poll response rate. The percentage of people we listed as completing the poll was of those who completed all of the poll. The rate of those who began, but did not finish it, was larger at 48%. This failure of some respondents to finish is not uncommon in online surveys. More importantly, please note that all faculty teaching at all this semester (even, for example, a first-semester adjunct teaching only one course) were included in the poll, as well as a number of staff. The percentage of tenure track faculty who completed the survey was 59%.

     (2) “Maybe an electronic vote is not the best way to reach people. The 37% response rate does not meet the standard of a quorum.”

     While 37% does not represent a majority, please keep in mind that we are discussing the results of a SURVEY–not an official vote. Our intent was to get feedback from the SEU community before conducting the official vote. A response rate of 37% (and of 59% of tenure track faculty) for a survey is significant, and the feedback from the tenure track faculty is reliable to within +/- 6% at the 95% confidence level.

     (3) “Has the committee discussed how it will count those who do not respond? Can it be argued that they are abstaining? That seems a difficult case to make since a person has to actively declare that they are abstaining. No response can hardly be considered an active declaration to abstain.”

     As you might imagine, the General Education Review Committee has had extensive conversations about the upcoming vote on the proposed general education framework. We have also presented our advice to the Faculty Senate, which is ultimately responsible for managing this vote. They have discussed this topic at Faculty Senate meetings on January 29, February 5, and February 26, 2016, and the minutes of those meetings will show the details of those discussions. The Faculty Senate’s decision at its most recent meeting on February 26, 2016 was to hold the vote in the collegium (the body comprised of all faculty teaching at least 2 courses at the time the vote is held). The ballot will be sent out electronically, a means of voting the senate has used with other issues. If a person does not respond, this will be counted as an abstention. The result of the vote will be determined by which option, yes or no, has a simple majority of all people who chose to respond. We encourage people with questions and concerns about the vote to contact their faculty senators.

     Thank you for taking the time to post your questions. We want to remind the SEU community that they can continue to post questions to our web site or contact any GERC member individually.

     The General Education Renewal Committee

     Reply ↓