San Francisco Foghorn

              The St. Ignatius Institute : A Closer Look
by Steven Spinali
The Saint Ignatius Institute, surely
the most controversial development
in the University of San Francisco
curriculum in some time, has recently
been the center of attention - not
only for students of the Hilltop — but
also nationally. Articles in The
National Catholic Reporter.
America, and, of course. The
Foghorn have heralded a fascination
for an academic  program  which
embodies tne °'d trad*1'011 oi Jesuit
tradition with      heavy       doses
of traditionalist theology, classical
philosophy and the Great Books.
Because of the Institute's seeming
popularity (it now boasts apprixi-
mately 160 members), a number of
people have registered curiosity as to
the nature of the program itself and
the type of person who would be
willing to enroll in it.
The type of person who would join
the Saint Ignatius Institute would
need       to be a     very highly
motivated student, indeed. In fact, all
of the Institute students interviewed
for this article agreed unanimously
that the curriculum is very
challenging, time-consuming, and, at
times, quite difficult.
"Sure, the Institute is difficult," one
student admitted, "but it's worth it,
all in all. . . I'm a pre-Med student, so
you can imagine how much work I
put into school."
Another student agreed. "Some
people have dropped out of the S.I.
Institute because it was too
demanding, but most of the students
in the progam really enjoy the work.
It's a pretty motivated bunch of
people..."
Just how demanding is it? The
Institute program consists of eighty
units — all in mandatory subjects -
which, by nature of its extensiveness ,
leaves only five subjects outside of the
SII for an average liberal arts student
to take. Pre-med, pre-dental. and
science  majors,  with   their  major
requirements, cannot take any other
courses but SII subjects. Interestingly, though, most Institute
students willingly harvest the chaff
with the wheat.
"1 won't be able to take many other
subjects besides these (the SII
offerings)." one girl stated. "I feel sort
of limited, and there are some courses
that other teachers offer that I'd
really like to take, but that's life."
Some other students felt no
limitation whatsoever, arguing that
the Institute presented "a fairly wide
spectrum of subjects." The criticism,
however, has not centered around the
variety of subjects, but rather at the
conservative orientation of some of
the SII courses.
All of the Saint Ignatius Institute
students interviewed agreed that their
academic program was very conservative and traditionalist. Leaning back
to the old traditions of Jesuit education, the average SII pupil will
Continued on page 10
jlan 3francteca Jfogfyorn
Volume 73 Number 4
I'niversity of San Francisco
April 28,1978
Committee   Offers Proposals
by Angela McNulty
In the Fall 1977 semester the USF
Faculty Association established the
Committee on Grading Practices.
The Committee, headed by Dr. S.J.
Huxley, sought to recommend possible solutions to the ills of the grading system currently used at USF.
Just this last week, in its final official
meeting this year, the Committee
formulated a summary report of its
activities and proposals.
The Committee hoped to specifically alleviate differential grading
standards among faculty and to curb
the current trend in grade inflation.
In a 1975 study performed by the
University Senate it was determined
that the current grading system was
most useful in determining student
capabilities in the area of their
specialty. The study revealed that
Graduate Schools frown on the use of
the pass/fail or credit/no credit
options.
Due to the nationwide increase in
the average campus GPA and the corresponding steep decline in the average scores on the Scholastic Aptitude
Test,    employers   and    Graduate
Schools are sceptical of college
grading standards. Both have
resorted to, and rely on, their own
tests of ability. Interviews and
references become increasingly .
ciritical determinants of success.
Evaluating the different   grading
-*'andards among the various profes
sors here at USF was the second
subject of the Committee's attention.
Dr. Huxley felt that if the professor's
standards could not be equalized ■
then in all fairness the student should
at least be aware of the varying
standards.
The Committee surveyed both the
Dr. Huxley is chairman ofthe committee on grading practices.
Senate Allocates Activities Fees
by Brian O'Connor
The ASUSF budget sessions for
various clubs on campus ran from
Monday through Thursday of this
week. This was the culmination of
many hours of cooperative work
between the organizations and the
members of the student government.
The completion of this process
determined where and how the entire
ASUSF funds (your student activity
fee) will be spent next year.
From all the club's proposed
budgets submitted to him, student
body president Aaron Lee gave his
recommended budget to the Senate
last Tuesday, April 18.
Initial  negative  reaction  to  what
some members thought were the
inadequacies of this budget led to the
drawing up of "Budget Recommendation B," a counter-proposal to
the President's. The seven people
involved in this second budget were
Michael J. Kane, David A. Cruz,
Fred Schleup, Joe Schunk, Ava
McWashington, Edward Day, and
John G. Sheehan.
Among the objections
that make up the body of this
recommendation: the inadequate
allocations for such organizations as
ISA, College Player's, KUSF, RPC.
and Medusa's; no allocations for the
ASUSF general fund, the Legal
Office  for Student Trauma,   CAB,
and the Non-Residents Commuter
Council; and the recommendation
that such organizations as Delta
Sigma Pi, Tri Beta, Embers, and
Alpha Sigma Nu should not have
budgets. Senator McWashington in
particular said she was "very upset"
with the original budget.
Each budget session lasted from
6:00 to 11:30. Each club had 15
minutes to argue for their proposed
budget, and then another 15 for
questions and debate. After this, the
budget was voted on.
Details of the new budget were
unavailable at press time; the full
facts of the budget sessions will
appear in our next issue.
faculty and the students. Correspondence and discussions were held
with other Bay Area Schools.
Meetings with representatives of the
Registrar's office, the Computer
Center, and ASUSF were held to
hammer out the resultant committee
proposals.
Ouestionnaires were returned by
129 faculty members (51 percent) and
775 students (26 percent of the undergraduates).
"The most encouraging aspect of
the surveys, however, was the fact
that the responses of both groups
paralleled each other in favoring by
60 to 70 percent the changes recommended in this report," stated Dr.
Huxley.
On the basis of their findings, the
Committee recommends that a
"Grades and Evaluations Report" be
published each semester. This Report
should include the following
information:
1) the number of students in the
class;
2) the percentage of grades
awarded (A, B-,B+...W);
3) the resultant GPA based on this
distribution (excluding the I's and
W's); and
4) the mean score for each question
from the student evaluations of the
faculty member.
The information would pertain to
each course, section, and faculty
member based on the data from the
previous semester.
lt is hoped that grade inflation will
be curbed by this reform. Ideally,
disparities in grading standards will
be reduced as grade distributions
become a matter of public record,
according to the report.
Students will have accurate
information upon which to base their
course selection with the timely
release of these reports. The members
of the Committee feel this will
eliminate reliance upon rumor.
The Committee further recommends that in addition to the official
Continued on page 10