December COGS meeting

Hello everyone.

COGS had its final meeting of the semester. Here’s what happened:

Curriculum Revisions
COGS voted on new changes to the curriculum:

• There will be 4 established areas/concentrations of study (Urban, Gender, Globalization, Inequality)
• There will be 1 required foundation per area + 2 elective courses in that specialization
• Everyone must complete one area of study in order to qualify to take the comp

Discussion about this came up:

• This plan will be effective for incoming 2009 students, there is some question about everyone who is still in courses and what the implications of this new system are. These details will be worked out later, but they assured me that there would be no ill effects for students caught in the transition.
• Questions were raised about the interaction of these specializations with methods courses. Some faculty would like to see methods courses specialized for the concentrations.
• The most obvious: HOW DOES INEQUALITY COVER “EVERYTHING ELSE”? Frankly, according to COGS, it probably can’t. Which means you’re likely to have to choose the “inequality” area for a wide variety of things. On the plus side for Conflict/ Violence folks, Gordana and Steve are pursuing a 5th specialization that would be interdisciplinary and overlap with the CJ department (something that seems to already happen naturally… more on this in the Spring). This whole inequality thing will likely be a ongoing debate.

Other Changes to Courses

• There are plans on the table to get rid of the proseminar class for new students, replacing it with an elective + a bi-weekly, hour long, 1 credit course, that introduces new students to the department, faculty, etc. I think this one has a lot of support from faculty (and students? feedback on this one please!).
  
• Also on the chopping block: the Master’s Paper course. The idea is to fold the paper requirement into an advanced methods course. I brought up that this might prevent students from taking a variety of methods courses if there was a significantly large paper to write at the end of any advanced methods course. Feedback here too please.

Comps
Reading Lists

• In the future (most likely September), COGS will require you to complete one of your comps in 1 of the 4 concentrations. You can do two concentration-focused comps, but you MUST do one.
• The department has formed subcommittees (seriously, they have!) to create Comps lists in each area of specialization. When you indicate that you wish to complete a comp, the department will give you a list of required readings that amount to about half of one reading list. You are free to fill in the remainder of the specialization comp as you like, with your committee. The goal here is to move students away from highly specific exam topics to more broadly recognizable ones.
• For your second comp, you have more leeway to make choices with your committee, though you will still be discouraged from a narrowly focused comp.
• FOR THOSE ABOUT TO START A COMP NOW: As of January 1, 2009, you must acquire COGS approval (i.e. Matt Hunt’s approval) for your comps. What you need to do: send the title/area of your comp to Matt Hunt (you can/should do this prior to making a list). Also include the committee members and a short paragraph to describe/ justify your focus as comp-worthy.

Advising
There have been some concerns in the past about the lack of advising students receive. Ideas proposed for remedying this:

• Option 1- Student “Roundup”: The idea here is that each faculty member takes responsibility for reporting the progress of 3 students. Faculty members would report on a standardized set of concerns (passing coursework, progressing at the right pace, knows who Habermas is, etc. etc.). Matt Hunt and Michael Handel want to have a quantitative component to this and are trying to figure out how to make a database. Other faculty members want qualitative elements. Following this annual spring roundup, students would receive a written notice about faculty perceptions of their progress.
• Option 2- Instructors Report: Here, all faculty teaching grad courses would write memos about the progress of each student they are teaching. Everyone pointed out the flaws with this one- too much work, students not in coursework get nothing, can’t always tell progress from one class.
  
• Other Idea to improve advising (and I think this will likely occur): Each spring, students who do not have an established adviser can choose to switch or request a new one. This way there will be oversight into making sure that students who don’t like/know they adviser can have th opportunity to find someone else.

Random Things

• There will now be a February deadline for Master’s students deciding whether or not they wish to continue on the to Ph.D program. In the past this happens at the end of the spring semester. COGS want to move this deadline up to allow this decision to influence funding decisions.
• There was a debate about eliminating the Master’s requirement for Ph.D program admission. In other words, new students with only a B.A. would be admitted directly to the Ph.D program, not just the Master’s. This is still under discussion (certain students may not apply with this type of system…) but it looks like most of COGS wants to do away with the 2-tiered system of admission and just lump everyone into the Ph.D program without making Master’s/Ph.D distinctions.

That’s all for now. Please leave comments about anything above and Chris and I will take it back to COGS.

Thanks and Happy Holidays,

Amy

COGS November Meeting

Hello,

These are the notes from the COGS meeting we had in November.  There are a number of things that we would really like your feedback on, so if you have a moment please read through and send us any comments, questions, or ideas.

Cheers,

–[COGS]

————————————————————————–

Administrative/Logistical things to be aware of:

1) For the entire university:

a. At a “State of the University” address, Falcone discussed how fellowships will continue for students despite some university restructuring (so breathe easier, money will be still available for our awards).

b. “Excellence” fellowships will continue as well. These fellowships are given to students with outstanding credentials to convince them to come to NEU. This won’t really affect anyone who is already attending school here.

c. The university is embattled with trying to create new programs while maintaining funding for existing programs (including us).  If this affects us in the future, we’ll let you know immediately.

d. There is talk of creating a university-wide “graduate school” that would unite all of us from every discipline in our misery. We will keep you posted as this debate unfolds.

2) In the department:

a. Graduate course start times have to be at either 4:30pm or 6:30pm; there is very little flexibility (maybe a half hour or so, but that is it). I know some of us wanted to have courses earlier in the day – doesn’t look like that is possible.

b. Steve Vallas and the faculty are continuing efforts to Re-vision the department. There is widespread support for solidifying the “Clusters” of subdisciplines (e.g. Urban, Gender, Inequality, and Globalization).

c. The application process Soc/Anth uses has been in the process of becoming fully “automated” (e.g. digital). Letters of recommendation will now be submitted online. This doesn’t affect anyone who is already in the program.

————————————————————————–

COMPS!!!

1) The Comps Process and Reading Lists:

a. In the comps process, the department wants more oversight by COGS and less power vested solely in the committee. What this really means is that until a permanent system can be put into place, starting at the beginning of the year reading lists will be approved not by your committee but by COGS (via Matt Hunt). The purpose of this is to ensure that we get a solid grounding in contemporary sociology; the department is trying to cut back on the number of “niche comps” that are too narrowly focused.

b. A longer term solution is that comps approval will be vested in the Clusters. If you have a topic that is outside the scope of our 4 subdisciplines, then COGS (as representative of the total department) will retain approval authority.

c. There is also talk that within the Clusters, ‘foundational reading lists’ in the subdiscipline may be used in part to inform comps lists. There is a bit of debate going on about whether comps are meant to build a foundation for a dissertation or a foundation for knowledge. One idea was to have one comp on foundational knowledge and then have the second one be open. Another idea was to have two foundational knowledge comps that students can petition out of one of them to do more niche-focused work. If you have suggestions or opinions about this, please let us know. As this debate continues, we’ll keep you informed.

2) Comps Questions/Writing Prompts:

a. There is also a debate about whether the questions asked for our comps should either inform the reading list, or if there should be a reading list and then a pop question should be made from the list. If you have ideas or comments, please let us know.

3) Comps Library:

a. In an effort to make everything easier for everyone, we’re in the process of building a Comps Library – from both NEU students and from those in other universities – that will be available both as a bound hardcopy and as a digital archive. This will make constructing comps lists easier for the time being.

————————————————————————–

Advising - we know finding and keeping an active adviser who is familiar with your research interests is somewhat difficult. We are going to push a few things that may help that:

1) COGS is discussing having an adviser sign-off sheet that would ensure that our advisers meet with us and ensure the we are progressing in a good direction one a semester.

2) COGS wants to formalize the adviser request process – at the end of the academic year, each student may be asked to submit some standardized form for “who is your adviser”, or alternatively “I want to switch and I’ve already received permission”.

3) In addressing ‘content’ mismatches between advisers and students, hopefully the new hires will address this to a certain degree. That is why your participation in the hiring process is incredibly important. Other than that, we have brought this problem to the attention of COGS, hopefully in the next meeting we can devote more time to this issue.

4) Incoming students will be assigned a temporary adviser to help them get acclimated to the department and the various Clusters. We need to push using this resource as an informal cultural practice so that students have an easier time finding someone who can direct their studies throughout the entirety of their program instead of just in the last few years.

————————————————————————–

Completing dissertations:

1) It is taking many students far too long to finish their dissertations. Some students are taking too long to complete their comps, which should be done by the end of one year after coursework. This will be more strongly enforced, though how was not mentioned.

2) We discussed how we feel the expectations for our dissertations are ambiguous. Although there was some talk that this might be indicative of “an advising failure”, COGS was receptive and wanted to know more. At what stage area people stalling out at? How serious is this? What forms of guidance would be helpful once the comps process is completed?

————————————————————————–

Courses:

1) Enrollment has become a problem in some of our graduate courses. There is a discussion about feeding Urban Studies students into our ranks in classes to increase the number of students (and therefore keep some courses from being canceled).

A New Beginning

Greetings friends, and welcome to the new blog.

It’s a new semester and we’ve got new things going on.  Amy and I sat down, and based on the feedback from the survey we have scheduled a number of career development talks.  From learning how to write and submit a journal article to learning how to own your dissertations and comps, we have a lot of good things in store.

Upcoming events and calendar mark-offs are available under the ‘Calendar’ tab up above the picture.  Topics and the presenters’ names are listed there too.  If you haven’t seen the menu options yet, take a look.  Someone will be by shortly to take your order, so look quickly.

Also, in teaming up with the Graduate Sociology Society (GSS), we are sponsoring the second annual ‘Boston Area Sociology Graduate Student Conference’.  Last year was a wild success… a lot of hard work, but incredibly neat.  If you’d like to be part of the planning committee, please contact Brett (bl_nc1@yahoo.com).  As things progress in planning, I’m sure there will plenty of ways in which everyone can get involved, even for those of us with minimal time to dedicate.

The COGS Board hasnt’ met yet, but as soon as it does we’ll be sure to stay in touch.  Although we will try to not ’survey you to death’, I will give this warning.  I will be sending out a small questionnaire about your issues and concerns for this semester.  It will be your chance to tell us what you want from your department.

Let us know if you have any comments or questions, and please feel free to approach Amy or me with anything, anytime… unless it is about something obscenely biological.  And keep your eyes peeled on this blog, I’ll be posting things weekly – jokes and important information alike.

Word.

–[christopher]

Careful, TAs!

You never know what kind of shit your students will pull.

CMB

Student takes his “C” to federal court

Judge dismisses suit against UMass

In his lawsuit, Brian Marquis contended the university violated his civil rights and contractual rights. (STEPHEN ROSE FOR THE BOSTON GLOBE)

By Jonathan Saltzman, Globe Staff  | October 4, 2007

Plenty of college students grumble when they get a mediocre grade and feel that they deserved better. When Brian Marquis got a C instead of an A-minus at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst, he made a federal case of it.

Literally.

Marquis, a 51-year-old paralegal seeking bachelor’s degrees in legal studies and sociology, filed a 15-count lawsuit in US District Court in Springfield in January after a teaching assistant graded a political philosophy class on a curve and turned Marquis’s A-minus into a C. Marquis contends that the university violated his civil rights and contractual rights and intentionally inflicted “emotional distress.”

Last week, after a brief hearing with Marquis and a university lawyer, District Court Judge Michael A. Ponsor dismissed the suit. But Marquis said this week he is considering appealing to the US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.

“This is not something I relish,” he said from the W.E.B. Du Bois Library on campus. “This is not an issue of me walking into court and saying, ‘I don’t like the way this professor grades this paper,’ which is purely their academic prerogative. This is an issue where the empirical data was quite clear and convincing to any reasonable mind that my performance was well within a higher range.”

Phillip Bricker, chairman of the philosophy department and one of eight defendants in the suit, said it had already caused enough damage. “I think suing over a grade is somewhat absurd,” he said. “It ended up just wasting a lot of people’s time and money.”

In an era when the courts are asked to decide who owns a record-setting home run ball and who is to blame when a cup of hot coffee from a fast-food restaurant scalds a person, it seems perhaps only modestly surprising that a grade dispute leads to litigation.

But Catharine Porter, the UMass-Amherst ombudsman and a defendant in the suit, said that Marquis’s complaint was the only one she was aware of over a disputed grade in 30 years at the university. He got the C in a class called “Problems in Social Thought,” which explored the works of theorists such as Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and Karl Marx.

“If every student that didn’t like his or her grade started to do this, we’d have to hire, I don’t know, 25,000 attorneys,” Porter said.

Ada Meloy – general counsel for the American Council on Education, which represents more than 1,600 college and university presidents – said such suits are rare and almost never successful. Generally, the complaints reflect an unrealistic fear that a single grade can torpedo academic or professional goals, she said.

Marquis – who salts his comments with “strike that” – acknowledged he was alarmed the C might lower his grade point average and make him less attractive to a law school.

The C has rendered his transcript a “dismal record of non-achievement,” his suit said. Marquis, who enrolled at UMass-Amherst in spring 2006, said he has roughly a B-plus average.

His chief adversary in the suit was Jeremy Cushing, a graduate student in philosophy and teaching assistant who is about half his age. He did not respond to interview requests.

At the start of the semester last fall, Marquis said, Cushing told the class that students would take three tests, each worth 25 percent of the final grade, for a total of 75 percent. Four papers, each worth 5 percent, would comprise 20 percent of the grade. Class participation would decide the rest.

Based on that formula, Marquis figured he scored a 92.5 percent, or an A-minus. But when the Lanesborough resident checked his grade online in early January, he saw a C and e-mailed Cushing to complain.

Cushing wrote back that he graded the students more stringently on the third exam because they had had a full semester to learn how to write for a philosophy class. As a result, Cushing wrote, Marquis got an 84 for the class. But the students’ numerical scores struck Cushing as too high, so he graded everyone on a curve before assigning letter grades. Marquis ended up with a C.

“As I am entering grades, I consider whether or not they seem fair,” he wrote Marquis. “. . . I thought your grade was a good reflection of your work.”

Marquis e-mailed Porter, the ombudsman. But she said faculty have their own grading scales and that one professor might view an 84 as an A-minus, while another might view it as a C.

“I urge you to accept this grade and continue on with your course work, as there are no grounds for an academic grievance,” she wrote.

Less than three weeks later, Marquis filed suit.

Peter Michelson, a lawyer for the university, urged Judge Ponsor to dismiss it, saying Marquis had failed to present a single legitimate legal claim.

He also focused on public policy, asking, “Does the court really want to put itself in the business of reviewing, under some constitutional or federal statutory doctrine, the propriety of the grades which a student has received?”

Ponsor gave his answer last Wednesday from the bench: No.

Leave a Comment!

Hey, if you check out this blog, please let us know what you think about it. is a dumb idea, or do you like being able to check in here, leave messages, and leave anonymous posts? let your COGS reps know. when it asks you for your name, just say “anonymous.” And just make up an email address: perhaps “anonymous@yahoo.com.” THANKS!