The most extensive curriculum change in Otterbein's history since the semester conversion will soon be brought before University Senate. A proposal to change the standard credit hours from four to three is slated to be voted on at 4 p.m. Wednesday.
The proposal has divided the voting members of Senate because of its potential far-reaching and long-term impacts on Otterbein's academic well-being and financial stability.
Proponents of the plan urge that the change will allow students to be more flexible with their scheduling and that it leads to more students in low-enrollment classes.
In addition to changing the credit hours per class, the proposal states that the change would bring Otterbein to a "system that is predominant in American Education."
Wendy Sherman Heckler, associate vice president for academic affairs and dean of University Programs said that low-enrolled classes cost the university and a three-credit model may allow students to take those classes as electives.
Heckler also pointed to savings in faculty lines as a result of the proposal.
"Every six classes taught by a part-time person counts as one person and that’s how you add them all together. So if the full-time people are teaching more of those, you need fewer of these," Heckler said.
The proposal also states that as a result of the reduction per class, full-time tenure-track faculty would be required to teach 21 workload credits while non-tenure track faculty would be required to teach 24. The proposal states that the change would save the university $750,000 annually with a reduction of 30 part-time faculty.
Senators opposing the proposal have expressed doubt about cost-savings.
The proposal states that "many" in a Spring 2016 meeting of Arts and Sciences meeting questioned if the move to three credit hours would effect a cost-savings, although a professional studies meeting was "positive."
Nathaniel Tagg, department chair of Physics, said in an email that the proposal in its current form is incomplete. He stated that the claim that the change would save the university money on instructional costs is unsupported.
"This part of the proposal was not reviewed by any committee. The calculations done by myself and others in the faculty indicate that the numbers in the proposal are incorrect and may actually cost the university money in the long run," Tagg said.
The proposal to the Curriculum Committee gathered 16 votes for and three votes against which sent the proposal to Senate. A straw poll of attending student government members at a Sept. 8 meeting gathered 18 votes for, nine votes against and one abstention.
