Can we talk?	By Kevin Fitzsimons
	Left, President Kirwan is joined on the panel by, left to right, Any Day Now creator Nancy Miller, stars Annie Potts and Lorraine Toussaint, and former executive producer Sheldon Pinchuk, during th Feb. 23 "Can We Talk? Confronting Our Differences Together," forum on race relations. Kirwan urged participants and audience members to continue the dialogue in their individual University units as part of helping to nurture a campus environment that is welcoming to all.
Right, Vice Provost for Minority Affairs Mac Stewart makes a point during the discussion.

Committees examine calendar, curriculum

It's been about 10 years since Ohio State implemented a new General Education Curriculum (GEC) and last thoroughly explored the possibility of shifting its calendar to semesters. The University now is taking another look at both items in response to a call for such a review in the Academic Plan.

A group of faculty governance leaders, in consultation with Arts and Sciences Executive Dean Alan Goodridge, has appointed two ad hoc committees to review the undergraduate curriculum and the issues related to time to degree and converting the quarter calendar to semesters.

The Ad Hoc Calendar Review Committee is due to report its recommendations by April 30 to the University Senate Steering Committee, which will then route the recommendation through appropriate governance channels and to the Senate floor for a vote. The Ad Hoc Committee to Review the Undergraduate Curriculum, whose deliberations will be affected by the outcome of the calendar review, is not due to issue a final report until spring 2002.

"We have appointed these committees at the behest of the president," said Susan Fisher, secretary of University Senate and professor of entomology and veterinary biosciences. "The goal is to have a thoroughly disinterested discussion and a dispassionate examination of the facts. We chose committee members without knowing how they are inclined to lean on each issue."

President Brit Kirwan asked the Senate to appoint Universitywide committees after the October release of the Academic Plan, which lists improvement to the organization and delivery of instruction as a facilitating action for the plan. Kirwan and other senior administrators have said in several public discussions of the Academic Plan that a shift to semesters would better align Ohio State with other institutions for study abroad, distance education, transfer and faculty/student exchange purposes, and that a revamped GEC would create a core curriculum that more smoothly crosses the University's colleges.

Fisher emphasized that neither committee's existence should suggest that a calendar shift or GEC redesign are "a done deal -- this is just an investigation. É We will, to the best of our abilities, examine these issues and make a decision consonant with the best interests of the University."

The five-member group that appointed the committees will work as a coordinating council between the two panels. Those five members are Fisher; Goodridge; Larry Anderson, chair of the Steering Committee; Stephen Reed, chair of Faculty Council; and Edward Adelson, chair-elect of Faculty Council.

Semesters vs. quarters

Ohio State has operated on a quarter calendar since 1922. A feasibility study in 1992 determined that Ohio State should not pursue a shift to semesters at that time because the new GEC was still being implemented and the University was not linked by a complete computer network. Also considered obstacles at the time were a divided faculty, a split between undergraduate and graduate student opinions (graduate students favored a conversion), and a poor fiscal climate in which to take on the costs associated with a calendar change.

The feasibility study resulted from a 1991 report from an Ad Hoc Calendar Committee that had reviewed the calendar, considered advantages and disadvantages of alternative calendars, and initiated broad campuswide discussion of the issues.

The Ad Hoc Calendar Review Committee convened this year faces a similar charge. It is expected to:

• Identify the issues related to a calendar conversion from quarters to semesters;

• Review the processes undertaken at comparable universities that have recently made such a change, and study those universities that have recently considered such a conversion but decided to remain on the quarter system;

• Seek input from the Ohio State community, as appropriate, to assess the attitudes and preferences of students, faculty, staff and administration toward calendar conversion;

• Identify the major areas of cost and benefit accompanying calendar conversion at Ohio State, including financial, human and program elements; and

• Coordinate closely with the Ad Hoc Undergraduate Curriculum Review Committee throughout deliberations and report its recommendations to the Steering Committee by April 30.

Though semester institutions outnumber quarter institutions nationally, Committee Chair Grady Chism notes several high-caliber schools have remained on the quarter system, including the universities of Washington, Chicago and California, Davis, as well as Stanford and Northwestern. In the Big Ten, the University of Minnesota currently is undergoing a conversion to semesters.

Chism, professor of food science and technology, has formed four subcommittees within the calendar committee. They will examine the effects of conversion on students; faculty issues such as teaching loads and research ramifications; the economics of a calendar change; and how best to disseminate findings to campus and collect opinions.

Assembling information and disseminating it to the University community is a major undertaking for the committee, Chism said. Committee members are scheduling meetings with any faculty, staff or student groups interested in discussion of the proposed calendar change over the next several weeks and plan to run a daylong public forum on April 3 at the Faculty Club. Following the dissemination, opinion on a number of the important issues will be sampled through the OSU Poll.

Chism noted the issues to examine range from student retention to pedagogical concerns to the drive for curriculum reform. He said the outcome of the calendar review will have a dramatic effect on the panel reviewing the GEC.

Undergraduate curriculum

Ohio State launched its revised undergraduate curriculum in autumn 1990, claiming a national leadership role in curriculum reform at the time and creating a more structured and goal-oriented general education. The GEC includes classes that deal with the basic skills of communication and analysis as well as subjects in the humanities, the arts, social sciences and natural sciences -- and is separate from requirements of a student's major. The GEC replaced the old system of Basic Education Requirements, and resulted from a five-year review, proposal, redesign and implementation process.

The committee convened this year is starting by gathering data from all top 20 institutions as well as Ohio State's benchmark universities to ascertain what their GEC or equivalent curricula are, as well as data concerning what factors affect time to degree. The committee also has begun its discussion about what curricular obligations a University of Ohio State's type has toward its undergraduates, said Marilyn Blackwell, chair of the committee and professor of Germanic languages and literatures.

Blackwell said she suspects the committee will revise, at least in part and in keeping with current professional literature on the subject, the definition of an educated person developed in 1987 by a committee reviewing the undergraduate curriculum at that time.

The charge to the current Ad Hoc Committee to Review the Undergraduate Curriculum is to:

• Study factors which may affect retention of students to the baccalaureate degree and which may influence the time to reach that degree;

• Consider the strengths and weaknesses of the present GEC and prepare suggested modifications that are appropriate to a core curriculum at Ohio State; and

• Report progress semi-annually to the Steering Committee and present a final report by June 1, 2002.

This committee, too, has subcommittees. One group will examine the undergraduate curriculum in the context of GECs at Ohio State's benchmark universities as well as at other top 20 institutions, and the other will explore the various factors that influence the time to degree for undergraduates. Blackwell said a number of items already have been identified that can affect a student's time to graduation, including when students select their majors and whether they change them; whether students work during school, drop out for a quarter or more, or maintain a full 15-hour load each quarter; and the length of the major, among many others.

"We are at the beginning of what is going to be a long process," Blackwell said. "We are trying to identify all the various issues that come into play. We know we need to keep all these issues at the forefront of our deliberations and not discuss either the GEC or time to degree in a vacuum if we are going to provide our undergraduates with the best possible education."

Reports from the early 1990s review of the calendar are on the Web at http://senate.ohio-state.edu/. Information on the current GEC requirements is on the Web at http://www-afa.adm.ohio-state.edu/Bulletin/5web/5GEC.html. Additional information will appear on the Web at the start of spring quarter.

Officials urge employees to be aware of rising health care costs

Nationally, health care costs are increasing steeply, fueled by a variety of factors -- aging populations, development of expensive new drugs, increased use of costly technologies -- and Ohio State is not immune to the trend.

"We've done a good job of controlling increases during the past decade, and we will continue to approach the issue with creativity and flexibility, but the rapid and sharp increases in costs during the past year have forced us to make some changes," said Larry M. Lewellen, associate vice president for human resources.

Benefits costs for employees enrolled in any of the University's health care benefits plans will be increasing next fiscal year. The Office of Human Resources will release exact figures later in March, but estimates place premium increases in the range of 30 percent. Office and emergency room visit fees and other out-of-pocket expenses also will be increasing.

Open Enrollment Overview booklets detailing changes will be mailed directly to faculty and staff prior to the 30-day open enrollment period, which begins April 1, and Human Resources will be hosting benefits forums throughout April. An article about the changes will be in the March 29 onCampus.

The University's employer contribution will remain at 85 percent of the cost of the University PrimeCare plan, which means Ohio State will absorb 85 percent of the increases for that plan, Lewellen said. PrimeCare is the University's largest managed health care plan.

National issue

"Most notably, what has happened over the last seven to eight years is the way that health care is financed and delivered has undergone a change," said Jefferson B. Walters, executive director of OSU Managed Health Care Systems.

In 1993, 48 percent of employed Americans received health care through a traditional plan and 52 percent were in managed health care, Walters said. In the year 2000, 92 percent of Americans had health care through a managed plan and 8 percent through a traditional plan.

"One would think that health care expenses would be under control, but that's not the case," Walters said. "Around the country, we are facing the largest health care cost increase in over a decade. Most experts agree that the trend will continue for another five years, at least."

Walters identified several major trends affecting the University's health care plans, including:

• New drug development: Responsible for 58 percent of the increased costs for the prescription drug plan.

• Older-than-average employee population.

• Increased emergency room usage.

• A rise in consumerism: Faculty and staff are better educated about health care, have higher expectations and use the system more frequently.

• Introduction of new technologies.

• Governmental legislation regarding health care reform.

• Hospitals and doctors who contract with the University are charging higher fees.

Compared to other institutions and area employers, Ohio State has kept pace with keeping costs down, said Judith V. Kadja, director of benefits and wellness services for human resources.

Kadja pointed out several areas where Ohio State's programs excel: low co-payments that have not changed since 1989; most in-network services covered at 100 percent; coverage for many services, such as infertility and hearing aids, that most plans elsewhere won't cover; and a Faculty and Staff Wellness Program.

OSU's response

"What we really need to do is move through the deficit this year and look at a long-term strategy to make our plans cost-effective and high quality, and to ensure that we meet the needs of our people in all 88 counties in Ohio," Kadja said.

A Health Plan Evaluation Committee was formed last spring to study the current systems and make recommendations for changes. The 25-member committee, chaired by Stephen L. Wilson, associate professor of allied medicine, is comprised of faculty and staff members from a cross-section of key University units and organizations. The committee assisted with short-term recommendations, reflected in the 2001 benefits changes, and is providing input for long-term recommendations. The Office of Human Resources also collected feedback through surveys and forums with faculty and staff held this winter.

"I commend them and their efforts toward developing a long-term plan," Lewellen said. "This is a critical issue and certainly has a personal effect on all of us."

The University is considering options to lessen the impact of these costs on faculty and staff at lower salary levels for the 2002 fiscal year.

Ohio State must perform a budgetary balancing act for all faculty and staff, Lewellen said, because funds for benefits and salaries come out of the same budget pool.

"This is expected to be a tight year for the University's general funds budget. Our work is cut out for us to find the right balance between salaries and benefits that will provide the best advantage to our faculty and staff," Lewellen said.