At its 11 April meeting the conservatory faculty discussed offering programs for Master of Music degrees, considered various ways to vote on the proposal, and finally postponed a vote on the issue until its May meeting. The conservatory educational policy committee (EPC) introduced a motion that, if passed, will allow conservatory divisions to propose masters' programs for graduates of other institutions--"discrete" programs. (The conservatory now offers integrated masters' programs to its own undergraduates in conducting, opera theater, and music education and one discrete program in historical performance.)
Among those speaking against the motion was associate professor of music theory William Rothstein, who said it would strain the resources of his division. "At other top-notch conservatories and schools of music, at least one-third of graduate students enter with deficiencies in [music] theory," he said. At Oberlin he expects that "outstanding performers" would be admitted and have to take remedial courses, "and we don't have proper staffing for our courses now." Associate professor of accompanying Philip Highfill answered that the conservatory would accept only qualified students for the program and would steer outstanding performers who were not academically qualified to the artist-diploma program. Professor of musicology Sylvan Suskin, noting that the masters' program would have to meet academic standards set by the National Association of Schools of Music, asked how remedial courses would fit into students' schedules; wouldn't students coming in with deficiencies need more than two years to complete work for the degree? Highfill replied that student schedules would allow one remedial course a semester, and professor of viola Jeffrey Irvine said students at other schools generally complete the master degree in two years. Oberlin "could provide a stimulating program," Irvine said, and graduate students would bring a "wealth of different experiences" to the conservatory.
Concern for faculty members who were interested in the question but not present led to a proposal for polling by paper ballot outside the meeting. Some faculty members objected to that proposal because people would be voting who were not present for the discussion, others because it would set a bad precedent. Those in favor noted that professional engagements kept some faculty members from attending the meeting. In a vote the proposal for an outside ballot failed, with 14 in favor and 22 opposed. Some faculty members then suggested holding a special meeting, but they could find no suitable date. Voting on the question of whether divisions may propose masters' programs is now scheduled for the first half hour of the May meeting.
Earlier in the meeting the faculty postponed voting on an EPC proposal for revising division-review procedures. The meeting began with a song: "Happy Birthday," sung to Suskin.
The general faculty at its 18 April meeting voted to reconstitute and change the name of its computer committee. What is now the educational technology committee will include nonvoting and voting members: the director of computing, the director of libraries or his or her designate, and representatives from the two divisional deans' offices, all ex officio and without vote; eight faculty members--two from each of the College of Arts and Sciences divisions and two from the conservatory; and two students.
Associate professor of computer science Robert Geitz, chair of the ad hoc committee on directions for educational technology, presented the three-part motion to change the computer committee. Associate professor of chemistry Robert Thompson proposed a substitute motion that, while still including eight faculty members on the committee, would have mandated only one from each of the three divisions and the conservatory. His substitute motion failed by a vote of 16 to 29, but one provision of it became part of the legislation: while the original motion had not specified the nonvoting status of the ex officio members, an amendment to that effect passed by voice vote. Two other proposed amendments failed: by a 13 to 26 vote, the faculty chose not to mandate including a computer science faculty member on the committee, and by voice vote it chose not to include three rather than two students.
