Steps to implement the requirement will initially involve the evaluation of those courses deemed eligible to be communication intensive. The syllabi of the courses will be examined to see if the courses provide students the opportunity to interpret and communicate orally, visually, and with writing.

Following the approval of the Faculty Senate to add the motion to the full faculty ballot, a formal presentation must be made to the entire faculty for the implementation of the vote to be effectively started. Additionally, the Faculty Senate stipulated that the requirement, as met by each student, must incorporate a course considered to be writing intensive. This desire for quality in RPI student writing echoes a survey given to RPI alumni some time ago. The results, though complimentary in most areas, indicated that RPI did not fare well in ensuring its students were fully proficient in oral, written, and visual presentation of material.

Faculty wishing to have a course endorsed as communication intensive must present their syllabi to have them evaluated in light of the requirements set out. Overall, the requirements mandate that the course have several significant assignments touching on the areas of oral, written, and visual communication. Professor Lee O’Dell, associate dean of the School of Humanities and Social Sciences, indicated that much of the requirement would most likely be met from within the student’s major.

Since at least one of the required courses must be within a student’s major, and many of the course TAs are not proficient in communication themselves, O’Dell said that “Professors will be grading this work, and should communicate [their] requirements to the Writing Center, so they [the Writing Center] can help the students meet those requirements.” Earlier this year, in a memo to the Faculty Senate Curriculum Committee, Odell stated, “By any measure, the Writing Center is drastically under funded,” and cited several factors at fault, including TA staffing, budgetary constraints, and lack of sophisticated technology. This week, O’Dell said he felt that there had been no progress with the improvement of either the Writing Center or the Advising and Learning Assistance Center, and said “I think the Writing Center has actually gone downhill a little since then.”

Though the RPI administration has yet to take significant action to improve either the Writing Center or the ALAC, O’Dell indicated that progress in this venue might soon follow the recent Faculty Senate vote, and expected that “TAs in the Writing Center would be tied to a specific course and be familiar with its requirements.”

Included also in the Faculty Senate’s ballot was a vote on the elimination of the depth requirements in science and humanities and social sciences. Before the results on this vote were made public, the Faculty Senate voted to invalidate the results of that part of the ballot due to procedural concerns. The motion to invalidate this part of the ballot was made since there was no discussion of the changes to the depth requirements at the general faculty meeting preceding the vote. There was, however, some disagreement over whether or not it was required in this case.

Professor Christoph Steinbruchel, who chairs the Faculty Senate Curriculum Committee, also indicated that his committee is working on the proposal of a formal statement to appear in the catalog called “Core Curriculum Outcomes,” and said that the statement “would highlight what we expect students to get out of particular courses and areas of study at RPI.”

Provost G.P. “Bud” Peterson, following the vote, said “I’m very pleased with the decision...It’s clearly supported by both the faculty and the students. This will help us to ensure that we continue to provide highly-qualified and well-prepared graduates.”