description:
Editorial Blow your mind on LRC The long awaited Learning Resource Center is open. But now that we know it, what do we do? Sigh, and say Oh, what a beautiful building The multi-purpose center is intended to emphasize indepen dent study. But a building alone will not bring about a new direction in education. Contemporary learning relies on three component parts the facilities, the fac ulty and staff and the students. The LRC provides the facilities a traditional library, an educational cur riculum library, a multi-purpose lecture hall and audio-visual materials, which in themselves are a new approach to learn ing. The audio-centers offer great possi bilities for self-instruction and individual study. Projectors are set up in several visual areas for films and film strips and hopefully, in the near future, video equipment and closed circuit television will be installed to further expand the use of multi-media learning. But as stu dents, we will not only be able to listen and watch, we will also be able to pro duce our own tapes, films and film strips. In order to help us do this the LRC is staffed with people who know how to make use of the facilities. Edmund Przybylski, director of the LRC, is avail able to help explore the many possi bilities of the building. Sister Virginia McDermot, who is now studying mass communications at University of Ken tucky, will join the English faculty in the fall and convert Communications I into a study of the theory and use of mass media and audio-visual materials. She will also be available in the center to assist students and faculty with indepen dent projects and a course in the film and film making will be offered. In the meantime. Sister Sharon Rose will be on sabbatical studying mass commu nications at Northwestern and Sister Pa tricia Haley will be studying for a docto rate in the field. Contemporary education is not a pas sive process and the Learning Resource Center is not a passive building. What this means is that we as Mundelein stu dents will have to take an active, inde pendent and explorative approach to our education. If we choose only to sit and daydream over the lake, the beautiful building and 3 million might as well drift out there, too. The Learning Re source Center is ours, so let's use it and learn. skyscraper Vol. XXXIX Mundelein College, Chicago, III., 60626, April 18, 1969 No. 13 Senate passes S-U grade option includes electives, basic studies by Diane Buczek The long-debated satisfactory/ unsatisfactory grade option was passed at the Faculty Senate meeting on Tuesday by a vote of 39 to 10. Grades of satisfactory and unsatisfac tory will replace the present pass/fail system with a grade of S representing letter grades of C and above and U those below C . Neither grade will affect the grade point average, but the S grade will carry 3 hours of credit, while a grade of U will require the student to take the course again. The S/U option may also be exercised when the course is repeated. Safeguard against Abuse To alleviate the many objections raised against it, the proposal includes certain safeguards to prevent abuse of the system and the student: 1. The option must be applied for through the student's advisor on a form which will remind her of the dis advantage of S/U grades in the eyes of graduate schools and prospective employers. 2. The S/U option can be exercised in any elective and up to eight Basic Studies courses. 3. The S/U grade cannot be altered to a letter grade. 4. The student must have a GPA of 1.00 to exercise the option. The process of drawing up the propos al emphasized finding ways to overcome the weaknesses and abuses inherent in the S/U system. Explanatory notes and '-.a rationale for the proposal distributed by the Academic Affairs Committee em phasized the stimulus to student-faculty interaction as a major asset of the sys tem. Retains Personalism Cathy Stieber, chairman of the student committee, said that competition for let ter grades often destroys the student's freedom to approach the teacher. S/U grades would remove the student's fear of mathematical evaluation so that both individual contact and personally explicit evaluation of the student would be in duced. Mrs. Betty Matula, chairman of the faculty committee, sees this interaction in terms of an attempt to retain person alism within a system. Her view of the proposed system, like Miss Stieber's, em phasizes its experimental character. She suggests the possibility that the limited S/U option is not an end in itself, but the first step in a change to a complete ly ungraded system. Mrs. Matula points out that realistical ly an ungraded system is far off. for it demands an extensive counselling net work and a smaller faculty to student ratio. However, the end result of even small scale experimentation would en rich the academic experience as empha sis shifts from maintenance of stability to an exploration of possibilities by fac ulty and students alike. Opposed by Grad Schools Mrs. Sarah Solotaroff, a faculty com mittee member, opposed the proposal because of practical considerations. Her practical concern for the reactions of graduate schools to an S/U system was shared by Miss Alta Hefley, chemistry department, who wrote to 30 universities asking for their response to the system. With over two-thirds responding, they were overwhelmingly against an S/U system on any large scale, although will ing to accept such grades in a few elec tives. They objected to the inability of such grades to indicate the ability of the student under consideration. This would force increased reliance on tests like the Graduate Record Exam and more letters of recommendation. Deans also express concern that the learning experience would suffer from a lack of competition and the adequate acknowledgement of better work. Sister Joan Therese Scanlan, education department, conducted a similar survey of industries that hire college graduates. While many were lenient and said that S/U grades would make no difference in their considerations, they indicated that they, too, would prefer the letter grades, noting that if such a system be came generally accepted, industry would have to devise other methods of evalu ating prospective employees. Object on Principle The major objections on principle seem to be based not so much on this specific proposal as to the implications of S/U grades and the possibility of their leading to an ungraded system. Mrs. Solotaroff feels that an expanded system would blur distinctions. Replying to student objections to these distinctions, she asks, Why don't stu dents want to know how they stand in relation to each other? They have the peculiar idea that removal of grades and the further removal of competition will give rise to free-flowing relations be tween faculty and students. If greater student-teacher involvement means feel ing freer, then the whole question of edu cation is thrown into doubt. The educa tional process cannot be a democratic one, for a natural hierarchy exists be tween the informed and those who wish to be, she added. To the claim that letter grades are ar bitrary, she answers that students are not really attacking the grading system, but implying that the teachers are in competent. Moms, pops 'take ten1 at weekend Show business in the 1930's, correlated with the 60's. is the theme of Take Ten, Mundelein's 10th annual revue, April 25 and 26. Prospectively the greatest show ever, according to Judy Weber, assis tant producer, it will be the highpoint of parents weekend. James O'Reilly, artist in residence. Saint Joseph's College, East Chicago, Ind.. and director at the University of Chicago's Court Theater, is directing the production for the second year. Large Cast One hundred fifty girls, and Steve Tit- ra, Steve Groshek, Tom Youngholm, and Gary Fedota make up the cast of chorus singers and company actors. Chris Rus- sick, sophomore, is the student producer. Other members of the student staff are Judy Weber, assistant producer, Betsy Buckley, secretary to O'Reilly, Gail Nor- ris, treasurer, Pam Muick, stage man ager. Giselle Riba, choreographer. Anne Avise, publicity, Kathy Downey, patrons and advertising, and Linda Devine and Betsy Buckley, tickets. Mary Lynn Nor- ris designed the program cover and is in charge of artwork. The senior skit, directed by Laura Garvey, is nightclubs in the 30's. Teri Nowicki and the juniors are reviewing radio; sophomores, directed by Chrys Boettger, are taking vaudeville; and movies, the theme of the freshman skit, is directed by Karen Icenogle. The music of the production will be provided by Sharon Breitenbeck and Gretchen Klein on the piano, Steve Titra, guitar and banjo, Herb Moss, on the drums, Kally Macken, flute, and Sue Halloran. trumpet. Parents Weekend Planned by both the colllge and the students, the second annual Parent Look-in, April 26 and 27, offers parents a wide range of activities, many of which will occur in the new Learning Resource Center. After registering on Saturday, April 26, parents may attend a panel discussion of Catholic Education, Student Power. Mundelein and Its Goals, and Ecumenism and Change in the Church. Participating in the discussion are Dr. Russel Barta, Sister Patricia Ha ley. Daniel Cahill, and Sherry Finneran. After touring the campus, parents may meet with their daughters, for cocktails in McCormick Lounge, and dinner in the Scholasticate. Saturday's events con clude with Take Ten, the tenth annual all-college revue, scheduled for 8:30 in the College Theater. If they wish, par ents may attend Mass on campus Sun day, and have brunch in Lewis Center afterwards.
title:
1969-04-18 (1)
publisher:
Women and Leadership Archives http://www.luc.edu/wla
creator:
Mundelein College
description:
Student newspaper for Mundelein College
subject:
Newspapers
subject:
Religious communities--Sisters of Charity of the Blessed Virgin Mary
subject:
Students
subject:
Universities and colleges
subject:
Women's education
relation:
Mundelein College Records
type:
Text
language:
English
rights:
This image is issued by the Women and Leadership Archives. Use of the image requires written permission from the Director of the Women and Leadership Archives. It may not be sold or redistributed, copied or distributed as a photograph, electronic file, or any other media. The image should not be significantly altered through conventional or electronic means. Images altered beyond standard cropping and resizing require further negotiation with the Director. The user is responsible for all issues of copyright. Please Credit: Women and Leadership Archives, Loyola University Chicago. wlarchives@luc.edu
coverage:
Chicago, Illinois
coverage:
Mundelein College
