UGCC Final Report

UNDERGRADUTE CURRICULUM COMMITTEE FINAL REPORT • MAY 2009

Phyllis Bryn-Julson Michael Formanek Michael Kannen Sharon Levy Robert Muckenfuss Hollis Robbins Andrew Talle Keng-Yuen Tseng Jenny Beck (Scribe) Paul Mathews (Chair) Mellasenah Y. Morris (Ex officio)

Chair of the Voice Department • Member of the DMA Committee Jazz Faculty • Member of the Undergraduate Committee Chair of Chamber Music • Member of the Undergraduate Committee Music Theory Faculty • Member of the DMA Committee • Alumna Vocal Coaching Faculty • Chair of the Faculty Assembly • Alumnus Humanities Faculty • Chair of the Undergraduate Committee • JHU Alumna Chair of the Musicology Department • Member of the Academic Council Yong Siew Toh Music Conservatory Chair in Strings at the Peabody Conservatory Academic Program Coordinator • Alumna Music Theory Faculty • Interim Associate Dean of Academic Affairs • Alumnus Dean of the Conservatory and Deputy Director of the Institute • Alumna

THE PEABODY CONSERVATORY OF THE JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY 1 EAST MOUNT VERNON PLACE BALTIMORE, MD 21202

© 2009 The Peabody Institute of the Johns Hopkins University

UGCC FINAL REPORT • DRAFT: 2009.05.19

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The UGCC would like to thank the following people for their assistance: • • • • • • • •

James Dobson, Conservatory Registrar Sam Brannon, work study-student in the Office of Academic Affairs for his research on peer institutions which began in the summer of 2008 Caitlin Vincent, Tatiana Trono and Jeremiah Ricketson, work-study students in Academic Affairs who provided similar logistical support Eileen Soskin, Gary Louie, Marian Hahn and Carolee Stewart, authors of the 1998 Curriculum Report Barbara Lambert and Elizabeth Bellamy in the Dean's Office Katsura Kurita, Associate Dean for Student Affairs Brian Barone and OASIS The faculty, staff, and students of the Peabody Conservatory

CONTENTS i

Executive Summary

1

Part I: Introduction & Charge

1

— The Immediate Context

2

— Curriculum: Time and Credit

3

— The Charge

7

— Time for Study and Practice

10

Part II: Findings & Recommendations

38

Part III: Curricular Tables

39

— The Undergraduate Core

39

— An Overview of Degree Changes

65

Notes

70

Abbreviations

71

Bibliography

74

Appendix A: Benchmark Comparisons

78

Appendix B: Informal Survey of Faculty and Undergraduates

Page ii

UGCC FINAL REPORT • DRAFT: 2009.05.19

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Undergraduate Curriculum Committee (UGCC) was empanelled by the Dean of the Conservatory in August 2008 and was charged to conduct a thorough overview of each undergraduate curriculum currently offered and to present recommendations for curricular revisions/improvements to the Academic Council for ratification.

Accordingly, the UGCC makes the following 23 recommendations to streamline and restructure the current curriculum in support of a more efficient use of the limited time available to Peabody undergraduates, and with the threefold goal of focused musical training, a rigorous educational program, and demonstrated performance and leadership abilities.

1.

Upon ratification by the Academic Council and with the concurrent review by NASM, the recommendations of the UGCC should become high-priority action items. The Associate Dean for Academic Affairs should be tasked with implementing the action items with the advice and consent of the Undergraduate Committee. The Academic Council should require a report in each semester until the recommendations are implemented. Action items may only be abandoned or significantly altered with the consent of the Academic Council. (p. 10)

2.

Direct the Undergraduate Committee to liaise with the Director of Financial Aid and the chairs of academic departments to consider the benchmarks for satisfactory academic progress (p. 10)

3.

Direct the Undergraduate Committee to Consider a Policy to Allow Students to repeat a class once, space permitting, for an improved grade. (p. 12)

4.

Allow the Offices of Academic Affairs and Student Affairs to advise freshmen and sophomore students on the schedule and the curriculum until the students complete their 209 jury. (p. 12)

5.

The 109, 209 and 309 juries (including the 309 recital) should be reduced from 2 credits each to 1 credit each. (p. 14)

6.

The 209 jury, while still graded for the actual performance, should include a broader consideration of the student's overall record and result in a more detailed recommendation for future achievement. (p. 15)

7.

The Composition and Computer Music Departments should adopt the equivalent of a 209 jury. (p. 16)

8.

The Humanities curriculum should be condensed and restructured. (p. 16)

9.

With the exception of Voice majors, the study of foreign language should no longer be a requirement for undergraduates. Foreign language classes should be offered as electives. (p. 20)

10.

Recognizing the recent streamlining of inter-divisional registration (IDR) procedures, the Conservatory should create more scheduling opportunities for students to take classes at Homewood. Peabody students and faculty must be made aware of the opportunities that already exist. (p. 21)

11.

The Music Theory Department should compress its current curriculum into five semesters plus a one-semester elective. (p. 22)

12.

Music Theory should implement and staff a parallel theory track for students needing remediation. (p. 23)

13.

Convene a working group of selected members from Musicology and other departments to assess the Music History curriculum and recommend alternatives to increase credit hours and contact time to better meet the needs of the students. (p. 24)

14.

For most majors, Basic Conducting should be an elective, not a requirement. (p. 24)

15.

Appoint the UGCC to work with representatives from the Ensembles Office, the Concert Office, the Opera Department, and the Conservatory Dean's Staff to address the logistical problems of space and scheduling and to address the teaching mission of the large ensembles and their role in recruitment, admissions and retention. Put all parties on a short reporting schedule for implementing changes in the 2010-2011 school year. (p. 25) Page iii

UGCC FINAL REPORT • DRAFT: 2009.05.19

16.

Increase the overall number of electives offered, with special attention for career-oriented courses. For some majors, classes currently taken as requirements might be offered as electives. (p. 27)

17.

The distinction between music electives and electives should be eliminated. (p. 30)

18.

The Associate Dean of Academic Affairs should coordinate courses that are not associated with an extant department, including such offerings as The Business of Music, Arts Administration, and Anatomy and Injury Prevention. (p. 31)

19.

Any change to the requirements of undergraduate degree programs should require the approval of both the Undergraduate Committee and the Academic Council. (p. 31)

20.

The Conservatory should grant provisional authorization for departments to prepare "minors" or "concentrations."

Such concentrations should begin with the extant model for the Liberal Arts concentration and should require the approval of the Undergraduate Committee and the Academic Council. (p. 32)

21.

The Conservatory should institute and monitor a process to forge appropriate linkages between the Musicology, Music Theory and Humanities curricula. (p. 33)

22.

The Conservatory should conduct a review of writing requirements and writing instruction across the undergraduate curriculum. The review should be conducted by a faculty committee appointed by the Faculty Assembly, include the chairs of academic departments, and seek the advice of the University's Vice Provost for Undergraduate Education. (p. 34)

23.

All departments should prepare and submit a report about how they meet the guidelines for NASM and MSCHE. The reports should be submitted to the Associate Dean of academic affairs by the end of the 2009-2010 school year for presentation to the Academic Council in the fall of 2011. (p. 36)

Page iv

UGCC FINAL REPORT • DRAFT: 2009.05.19

PART ONE • INTRODUCTION & CHARGE The Immediate Context The UGCC conducted its work following a short period of unprecedented change. The 2008-2009 school year began with a new Dean of the Conservatory, a new Associate Dean for Student Affairs, and a new interim Associate Dean for Academic Affairs. During the course of the 2008-2009 school year, Peabody saw the mid-year departure of the Associate Dean of External Relations. These positions were held by people with long histories at Peabody: Emily Frank had been in Student Affairs for over twenty years. The re-staffing of these senior positions fell to the Director of the Institute, who was then beginning his third full year and was in fact the third executive in five years.1 In 2003 the Institute launched a comprehensive review process called the Peabody Change Team. The Change Team made some bold revisions to the organization of the staff and leadership, but was derailed by the changing priorities of successive executives. The current director, Jeffrey Sharkey, began his tenure with a directed review and revision of the Conservatory admissions process. Following these changes, Director Sharkey implemented a new overview of the Institute called the Strategic Planning Initiative to begin in the 2008-2009 school year. An overview of the curriculum was to play a key part of Strategic Planning. The Conservatory, as a school of the Johns Hopkins University, was obliged to complete sections of a Periodic Review Report (PRR) for the Middle States Commission on Higher Education (MSCHE), by March 2009.2 The incomplete work of the Change Team, the new priorities of the Strategic Planning Initiative, and the concurrent assessment of MSCHE has made the work of the UGCC a high priority for the Conservatory.

A Short History of Recent Curricular Revision at Peabody After a long period of relative stability, the undergraduate curriculum changed dramatically between the 1984-1985 and the 1985-1986 school years. A list of the substantive changes follows: • • • • • • •

Credits were awarded for ensembles and chamber music for the first time.

Credits were awarded for attending the Thursday Noon Concert Series.

The number of credits awarded for lessons rose from 2 to 3 each semester and departmental seminars were instituted.

The number of credits awarded for juries was reduced from 4 each semester to 2 each semester.

The classroom Music Theory requirement was reduced from four years to three years.

A year of Orchestration was added.

Four credits were trimmed from the Liberal Arts curriculum.

As a result of these changes, students actually took fewer classes in 1985-86, but the number of credits increased. The B.M. in orchestral instruments ballooned from 122 credits to 147 credits. As a result of giving credits for ensembles, performance credits, formerly 26% of the total curriculum became 37% of the total curriculum. There were comparatively few changes to the curriculum in the intervening twenty-five years, but the effect of the minor changes tilted the balance decisively in the direction of credits for performance. In the 2008-2009 school year, performing credits comprise 41% of the curriculum.

In 1998, the Council of Chairs appointed a faculty committee consisting of Eileen Soskin, Gary Louie, Marian Hahn and Carolee Stewart to review the undergraduate curriculum. None of the recommendations were ever enacted by the Council of Chairs. The reasons for the inaction were never clear. It was a bitter experience for everyone involved in the process.

Largely due to the persistence of Eileen Soskin, then Associate Dean, many ideas in the 1998 report were revisited between 2003 and 2008 through the standing committees of the Faculty Assembly. Addressing the reforms individually proved more successful, and the progressive agenda was aided by fortuitous timing: during a two-year antagonistic exchange with NASM following a deferred renewal of accreditation in 2004, the Conservatory addressed some of NASM's concerns by creating the Liberal Arts concentration, approving the five-year B.M./M.M program, and starting a two-year project to revise the Humanities curriculum However, subsequent attempts at global curricular change met even less success than the 1998 effort: a 2004 subcommittee of the Undergraduate Committee issued no final report, and a 2005 subcommittee of the Academic Council ultimately became indistinguishable from the 2004-2006 effort to revise the Humanities curriculum. This last project involved an external review and over eighteen months of discovery and discussion. Despite adding no more than two credits to the B.M., the new Humanities curriculum, which was offered for the first time in the 2006-2007 school year, was the most substantive change to the undergraduate curriculum in twenty-five years.

Page 1

UGCC FINAL REPORT • DRAFT: 2009.05.19

Curriculum: Time and Credit A study of a curriculum inevitably becomes a calculation of credits. The accreditation guidelines of NASM and MSCHE, as well as the expectations of the Maryland Higher Education Commission (MHEC) as stipulated in the Code of Maryland Regulations (COMAR), recommend or mandate a fixed instructional time for discrete objectives. Instructional time is measured by credit; completion of learning objectives is measured by satisfactory grades which are recorded as credits.

Tuition is calculated by credits attempted and instructors are compensated by credits taught. Credit is the currency of the educational exchange between the institution and the student.

In the United States, the definition of credit has been relatively stable for over a century: a credit hour is 50 minutes of instructional time with an accompanying 1-3 hours of preparation time.3 COMAR defines credit as "the certification of a student's successful completion of a unit of a course of study leading to a formal award granted by an institution approved to offer a collegiate degree, such as an associate or higher degree," noting that credit "does not include credit that may be awarded for remedial education."4 COMAR further specifies that one credit signifies a minimum of 15 sessions of actual class time, 50 minutes each; a minimum of 30 sessions of "laboratory or studio time" of 50 minutes each; or a minimum of 45 hours of supervised "instructional situations such as practica, internships, and cooperative education placements."5 NASM defines one credit as, "at least three hours of work each week, on average, for a period of fifteen to sixteen weeks," noting that each credit also assumes "two hours of preparation for each week of the term." Thus, at Peabody, a three-credit Music Theory class assumes three fifty-minute class sessions and six hours of studying; a two-credit Music History class assumes two sessions and four hours of studying. Ensembles are largely regarded as laboratory courses, for which one credit is awarded for 2-3 fifty-minute sessions each week. However, NASM also allows that ensemble credits can reflect the amount of expected student preparation or a relationship to other credit requirements. Peabody grants two credits for ensembles and has done so since 1985. Finally, regarding lessons, NASM suggests, "one credit hour be given for each three hours per week of practice, plus the necessary individual instruction, with a maximum of six credits per term allowed for the major subject in music performance," but notes that the credits should entail the equivalent of a final exam. Peabody has been granting the maximum number of credits, but has done so by separating the "final exam" (i.e., a jury for 2 credits) from the lesson for 4 credits.6 The UGCC has struggled to evaluate the amount of time students spend on the curricular tasks of the B.M. The comments of the students and faculty, reprinted below in Appendix B (p. 78), make clear that many students and many colleagues believe the students are overloaded. It is equally clear that the academic credit is an imperfect measure of time spent on each task.

Few expect students to spend six hours a week studying for a three-hour class. However, most studio faculty would prefer that their students practice more than the 12 hours each week for which they receive credit, and many faculty already suspect their students do practice more. In short, the credit hours do not reflect the student hours.

In many meetings, while struggling to reconcile the inconsistency between credit time and clock time, the UGCC has been tempted to completely disregard credits and seek more accurate measures of student time. However, such a decision would have profound consequences. Peabody is among a community of music schools. Peabody is obligated to assess its students by means held in common with other schools to allow for transfer between schools and progression to higher degrees at other schools. Moreover, unlike some peer institutions, Peabody is a school within a larger institution and must operate within the framework of JHU. There is no legitimate substitute for the credit system in North America. The ETCS system that is slowly taking hold in Europe as a result of the Bologna Declaration is interesting to consider, but is still comparatively recent and hardly universal; the UK does not use the ETCS for its conservatories. 7 NASM accredits on a model of 120 credits for the B.M. degree, and many member institutions offer degrees for 120 credits; indeed many schools actually include a sentence in their catalog indicating that beyond their curricular requirements, students are required to take electives until they achieve 120 credits. The UGCC has tried to reconcile the difference between the B.M. in voice at the University of Illinois (134 credits) and the B.M. in voice at Peabody (173) or the B.M. in violin at Florida State (120 credits) as opposed Peabody (147 credits). The difference between these varying scales is clear: Peabody, like most of its self-identified peer schools, requires considerably more classes. The rather imposing number of credits for the Peabody B.M. is a problem that arose in 1985 when Peabody started awarding credits for ensembles and more credits for lessons. In the intervening years, the problem has continued to grow as departments added more specialty requirements.

An earlier enthusiasm to cut credits eventually matured into the more reasonable effort to scale the elements of the degree as much as possible. Cutting credits would mean either devaluing critical aspects of the degree – such as lessons and ensembles – or cutting classes that are either required as part of accreditation standards or desired by the students as revealed in the

Page 2

UGCC FINAL REPORT • DRAFT: 2009.05.19

UGCC survey. It is to be hoped that modest re-scaling of some curricular areas, coupled with the insertion of some elective choices and some advising, will help the student manage time on an individual basis.

The Charge The UGCC has responded to its charge by way of the recommendations presented the next section. Other tenets of the charge are addressed in the following summary of our data collection and review.

1.

Re-visit the Purpose/Mission of the Conservatory

The Peabody Institute characterizes itself in a mission statement, a vision statement, and a statement of educational philosophy. These testaments were revised and thoroughly reviewed by the Peabody Change Team, 2003 – 2006.

The Mission of the Peabody Institute Through comprehensive excellent education, The Peabody Institute nurtures talent and creativity; provides aspiring musicians from diverse backgrounds with the skills to sustain professional careers; fosters lifelong involvement in music and dance; and prepares students in artistic performance at the highest level, providing inspiration and enlightenment to regional, national and international communities.8 Peabody Institute Vision Statement • • • • • • •

Peabody is among the finest music schools in the world, dedicated to comprehensive education and excellence, while preparing students to become engaged members of society.

Peabody is a place where the most gifted students desire to come to study with distinguished faculty.

Peabody is dedicated to attracting and sustaining a diverse student body, faculty, and staff.

Peabody is a place that provides lifelong music and dance opportunities through instruction, performance, and outreach to regional, national and international communities.

Peabody serves its students through individual and collaborative instruction in a caring and compassionate environment.

Peabody has the finest, state of the art facilities and operates in a secure financial environment.

Peabody achieves its goals through a valued, dedicated staff and leadership.9

Educational Philosophy Peabody students go on to occupy the top echelons of the music profession worldwide. However, because they engage in broader, humanistic courses, they also are able to play important roles in society, not just on the concert stage. The Institute’s students and graduates are music entrepreneurs who have a dynamic presence in society where they are advocates not just for themselves, but also for the importance and relevance of music and art in contemporary culture.

The Peabody's philosophy reflects its founder’s vision to bring together a community of artists, scholars, and teachers to train future artists, scholars and teachers: Philosophy #1: Peabody believes in liberal arts for musicians.

The Institute challenges its students to aspire to their highest potential as artists and as human beings. It seeks to promote a respect for music as a discipline of the mind and spirit, a joyful affirmation of life, and a passionate commitment to an ideal. By connecting its students with the great traditions of the past, Peabody gives them the key with which to unlock the future. The Peabody trains its students to manage their own careers and to create their own professional and artistic opportunities in the world.

Philosophy #2: Peabody does not promote cutthroat competition.

The Institute believes that excellence is achieved through a community with other artists, not isolation. Unlike other leading conservatories where students are routinely pitted against one another in competition, the Peabody’s faculty cultivates a student’s individual talents through collaboration.10 Page 3

UGCC FINAL REPORT • DRAFT: 2009.05.19

Peabody's accrediting agencies, MSCHE and NASM as well as the State of Maryland, publish guidelines for mission statements. MSCHE's guidelines are summarized as Standard One, reading in part, "The institution’s stated goals, consistent with the aspirations and expectations of higher education, clearly specify how the institution will fulfill its mission."11 As required by MSCHE, the Peabody mission statement is congruent with the JHU mission statement: The mission of the Johns Hopkins University is to educate its students and cultivate their capacity for life-long learning, to foster independent and original research, and to bring the benefits of discovery to the world.12 Peabody explained the new mission statement in its 2004 self-study for MSCHE13 and MSCHE responded, "It is the conclusion of the team that the Peabody Institute meets the standard." 14 NASM's guidelines for mission statements are found in Section II A: Purposes of the Institution and Music Unit.15 COMAR's guidelines are consistent are more specific, but ultimately apply to the University as a whole. 16 Considering the various constraints for the mission statement and the considerable work preceding the formation of the UGCC, the UGCC finds the mission statement appropriate. While the UGCC makes no formal recommendation to change the mission statement, the Conservatory should include the mission and vision statement in the Catalog.

2.

Conduct a thorough overview of each undergraduate curriculum currently offered

The UGCC review of the current curriculum began with the specific details of each major and gradually progressed to the core requirements. Members of the committee took assignments to ask each department if the curricula, as listed in the 20082009 catalog, reflected the work of the department. Much of this work was done by email or submitted to the curriculum as a report; many of these emails and reports appear in the minutes or in the committee's work papers. The larger issues of Humanities, Music Theory, Musicology and Ensembles were addressed in a less linear, less decisive fashion, and indeed the work in these areas will continue through the final approval of the Academic Council and into the following year. All four of these areas are in the curious position of teaching all of the students and yet having no undergraduate majors of their own.

In an effort to conduct a broader discovery away from curricular tables and syllabi, the UGCC created a survey for undergraduate students and a parallel survey for faculty. The parallel surveys asked similar questions so that the UGCC could compare the varying responses of students and faculty on key issues. This approach was modeled after National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) and the National Survey of Faculty Engagement (NSFE).

While this data is interesting to consider and undoubtedly influenced some of the recommendations, the surveys are ultimately informal assessments and were conducted without any methodological rigor. Most of the student respondents and all of the faculty respondents volunteered their participation, which means they came to the survey with a predisposition to share their ideas. Moreover, the smaller sample of faculty makes for a rougher scaling of data with more unexpected spikes.

One or two dissenting answers – from a faculty of outspoken artists – can disrupt the presentation of faculty responses as a Gaussian distribution (i.e., a "bell curve") and greatly increase a standard deviation.

The student survey elicited 111 respondents, and their information was collected in three stages: 1.

2.

3.

Rollout Stage: 20 students completed the survey at the Town Hall Meeting on 18 November 2008.

Paper Stage: 23 students completed the survey between 19 November and 1 February 2009. Many of Online Stage: 68 students completed the survey on line between 13 January and 1 February 2009. Because many of the paper-based surveys were completed by freshmen, the URL for the online survey was only sent to sophomores, juniors, and seniors. While the data from upperclassmen is undoubtedly richer, it may have inadvertently skewed the data to ignore changes to the freshman experience over the last two years.

The faulty survey was completed by 45 members of the faculty in two stages: 1.

2.

29 faculty members completed the paper-based survey between 2 December 2008 and 1 February 2009 16 faculty members completed the online version between 20 January 2008 and 1 February 2009.

The surveys are referenced throughout the recommendations. The complete surveys are found in Appendix B (p. 78).

However, the UGCC asks the reader to be always mindful that the surveys are informal and unscientific. As a result, all names and specific classes referenced by the students have been redacted.

Page 4

UGCC FINAL REPORT • DRAFT: 2009.05.19

The findings of our overview and our recommendations are found in Part II.

3.

Review Curricular Documents From Peer Institutions and From Our Accreditation Agencies

4.

Review the most recent external assessments of our curriculum as presented by the NASM team, NASM Commission, and external consultants

While curricular change has been slow, earlier efforts have provided a wealth of information. Of particular importance are the voluminous working papers that Eileen Soskin left on her computer when she left the Conservatory. The documentation from the dual accreditation processes of NASM and MSCHE was also a valuable source of information.

Following the example of the 1998 Curriculum Report, the UGCC compared its undergraduate curriculum to a number of peer institutions: • • • • • • • • • •

The Cincinnati College Conservatory of Music The Cleveland Institute of Music The Eastman School of Music at the University of Rochester The Jacobs School of Music at Indiana University The Juilliard School The Manhattan School of Music Mannes College of the New School for Social Research The New England Conservatory of Music The Oberlin Conservatory of Music The Shepherd School of Music at Rice University

For each of these schools, the UGCC compared the curricula for orchestral instruments, voice and piano. The UGCC also compiled the thirty-year review of the Peabody curriculum. These documents are collected in Appendix A (p. 74).

5.

Give consideration to the infrastructure that implements the curriculum, including physical plant, faculty resources, size of the student body, and scheduling demands of curricular activities

The Peabody campus is a city block of nine buildings totaling 427,982 square feet: Conservatory Building, The George Peabody Library, Leakin Hall, the New Academic Building, the two Peabody Residence Halls, Shapiro House, and the two houses forming the Centre Street Annex. There are 41 classrooms, 52 studios, 57 practice rooms, 4 performance halls, and 3 recording studios.

In the 2003 NASM Self-Report, Peabody noted a growth in the student population from 601 in 1992-1993 to 648 in 20022003, noting, "It is safe to say that Peabody has found the upper limit of a sustainable population, and will remain this size for the foreseeable future."17 However, following the subsequent renovation, Peabody's student population increased again. In the fall semester 2008, Peabody had 667 students: 333 undergraduate and 337 graduate students.

The Arthur Friedheim Library houses the music collection for the Peabody Conservatory, comprising in excess of 125,000 volumes. Peabody students also have access to the Johns Hopkins Sheridan Libraries collection, which contains over 2.6 million books and more than 30,000 print and electronic journal subscriptions, over 600,000 e-books, over 7,000 videos and DVDs. Peabody's physical plan and resources are comparable to peer institutions, scaled for equivalent student bodies. Persistent concerns about space and the course schedule remain to be resolved. The concurrent work of the Dean's Space Audit Committee will address some of the concerns about teaching and performance spaces. The schedule will be adjusted to reflect the curriculum changes contained in this report.

Page 5

UGCC FINAL REPORT • DRAFT: 2009.05.19

6.

Communicate with each department on the curriculum for which they are responsible for delivering

7.

Engage in regular dialogue on findings with the Faculty Assembly

Peabody is comprised of 14 departments: Chamber Music, Computer Music and Composition, Guitar, Jazz, Large Ensembles, Liberal Arts, Music Theory, Musicology, Opera, Orchestral Instruments and Organ, Piano, Professional Studies, Strings, and Voice. Each department has been contacted by members of the UGCC on multiple occasions. Four members of the UGCC are chairs of departments; a fifth is a former chair. Two other members hail from other departments, including one UGCC member who teaches in two departments.

The Chair of the Faculty Assembly is a member of the UGCC. During the curricular review, it fell to the Chair to brief the full Assembly. Two memos were sent to the entire faculty requesting feedback, and the entire faculty was invited to participate in the survey.

The Undergraduate Committee is a standing committee of the Faculty Assembly, tasked with advising the faculty and the administration on matters pertaining to "undergraduate curricula; requirements for graduation; examinations, juries and recitals; academic standing; undergraduate admissions, scholarships and awards, and matters of coordination between the various undergraduate programs."18 Three of the nine faculty members on the Undergraduate Committee are also members of the UGCC; the Chair of the Faculty Assembly and the Associate Dean for Academic Affairs also participate in both committees.

8.

Prepare a list of core and area-specific requirements for each degree program

Part II consists of a list of core and area-specific requirements for each degree program. Each program is presented according to NASM 2008 guidelines for preparing curricular tables.19 9.

Address issues related to encouraging opportunities for broadening the mix of academic interests among students to enrich their worldview and increase their level of career preparedness

Recommendations 10, 16, 18 and 20 address the need for more opportunities in the student schedule and more resources for students to explore other areas. Recommendation 10 speaks to the ongoing work to streamline inter-divisional registration, which should allow Peabody students to take more classes at Homewood. Recommendations 16 and 20 should allow for more opportunities on the Peabody campus by allowing for more elective courses and for the creation of academic and musical minors, or concentrations. Finally, Recommendation would allow the Associate Dean for Academic Affairs to regulate non-departmental electives in the role of a de facto chairperson.

10.

Facilitate broad colloquy on final recommendations with the Faculty Assembly

11.

Present recommendations for curricular revisions/improvements to the Academic Council for ratification

A draft of the final report was released to the Faculty on 1 May 2009. The Academic Council voted unanimously to approve the recommendations on 18 May 2009.

12.

Begin implementation of new curricula in Fall 2009

Recommendation 1 speaks to the steps following the approval by the Academic Council.

Page 6

UGCC FINAL REPORT • DRAFT: 2009.05.19

Time for Study and Practice In November 2002, the committee writing the 2003 Self-Study conducted a survey of all students. The survey elicited the responses of 113 undergraduate students.20 The students were asked to rate the performance faculty and the classroom faculty on a scale of 1 to 5. Their answers follow: Satisfied ◄—————————► Dissatisfied Rating One Two Three Four Five PERFORMANCE FACULTY Students 60% 29% 7% 4% —

CLASSROOM FACULTY

Rating Students

Satisfied One 13%

◄—————————► Two Three Four 48% 27% 9%

Dissatisfied Five 3%

As can be seen, 89% of the students rated the performance faculty in the top two quintiles with 60% rating the highest mark followed by a 31-point drop to the second score. The students were clearly thrilled with the performance faculty and in a separate question listed the major teacher as the most common answer to the question, "Why did you choose to come to Peabody?" Responses were moderate and more distributed for the classroom faculty, with 75% of the students raking the classroom faculty in the second and third quintiles.

The UGCC did not ask a similar question on its survey. One of the committee's informal agreements was to direct its attention to the curriculum and to avoid discussions of curricular implementation: the teaching. However, even a cursory examination of the UGCC would lead one to suspect that things haven't changed much: students are still strongly oriented toward their major area and in their comments the students are quick to dismiss any class or teacher who inhibits their pursuit of practice. We did ask students and faculty if classroom studies influence major studies and if classroom studies hinder major studies. The results are telling: Influence Students Faculty

Definitely 44% 54%

Probably 30% 26%

Maybe 17% 15%

Probably Not 8% 3%

Definitely Not 0% 3%

Hindrance Students Faculty

Definitely 32% 14%

Probably 27% 14%

Maybe 17% 14%

Probably Not 18% 25%

Definitely Not 6% 33%

While both faculty and students agree that classroom studies influence major studies, with the faculty by a slightly larger margin, the faculty and students evenly divide on the issue of classroom studies hindering major studies: 59% of the students find classroom studies a hindrance, while a nearly equal 58% of the faculty does not. A preponderance of anecdotal data, both in the student comments and in everyday conversation, would suggest that the students are hindered by the classes – that they otherwise rate highly on other questions – because it impedes their ability to practice.

The conflict between practice and coursework seems to have been exacerbated since 2002 when students were asked to rate the course work and the balance between classes and 54% were above the median for satisfied against only 20% below the median toward dissatisfied:

Rating Students

Satisfied One 14%

◄—————————————► Two Three Four 40% 26% 10%

Dissatisfied Five 10%

Responding to concerns about student time and the amount of required classes, the UGCC did ask directed questions about the amount of time actually spent on tasks and the corresponding estimation of faculty. For each academic area, the UGCC asked students how much time was spent preparing for the class and the faculty was asked how much time they believed the students spent preparing for the class.

Page 7

UGCC FINAL REPORT • DRAFT: 2009.05.19

On average, how many hours per week are spent studying or completing assignments?

Students:

On average, how many hours per week do your undergraduate students spend studying or completing assignments?

Faculty: 50.00%

35.00%

45.00%

30.00% 40.00%

25.00%

35.00% 30.00%

20.00%

25.00%

15.00%

20.00% 15.00%

10.00%

10.00%

5.00% 0.00%

5.00% 0.00%

< 1 hour

1–2 hours

2–3 hours

3–4 hours

4–5 hours

> 5 hours

< 1 hour

1–2 hours

2–3 hours

3–4 hours

4–5 hours

Theory

10.80%

31.50%

30.60%

18.90%

3.60%

4.50%

Theory

4.20%

16.70%

45.80%

16.70%

4.20%

> 5 hours 12.50%

Humanities

10.80%

27.00%

19.80%

18.00%

8.10%

9.00%

Humanities

5.60%

38.90%

16.70%

11.10%

16.70%

11.10%

Musicology

13.50%

27.00%

32.60%

9.00%

6.70%

11.20%

Musicology

0

35.30%

29.40%

11.80%

5.90%

17.60%

As always, the reader must consider the informal nature of the UGCC survey and further consider the imprecise grouping of all Music Theory classes or all Humanities classes, when the content of these classes and the assignments of faculty vary widely. But even conceding these informalities, there is a remarkable concurrence: approximately 57% of the students and 60% of the faculty calculate between 1 and 3 hours of preparation for each class. Not shown here, but easily seen in the complete survey in Appendix B (p. 78), the students answering in the 1-3 hour brackets are also 2-5 times more likely to report earning an A. Based on this informal data, 1-3 hours of preparation per week, per class, seems a fairly normative case for the successful Peabody Undergraduate student.21 Most sophomores and juniors take concurrent Theory, Humanities and Musicology courses. Thus, students are spending 3-9 hours each week preparing for classes in addition to other performance-based classes such as ear-training, keyboard studies, and repertoire studies. In this regard, they are remarkably aligned with many other college students. For the 2008 edition of their annual report, the National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) surveyed 194,858 students, randomly sampled from 722 four-year colleges and universities in the U.S.22 When asked how many hours in a 7-day week they spent preparing for classes, 17% of students said they spent 1-5 hours each week preparing for classes. 26% spent 5-10 hours; 20% spent 11-15 hours; 16% spent 16-20 hours; and the rest spent more than 20 hours each week preparing for classes.23 Thus, 43% of undergraduate students overall are spending approximately as much time preparing for classes as Peabody students spend preparing for Theory, Humanities and Musicology courses.

Conservatory students, however, are unlike other college students. As Joseph Polisi has observed: … an incoming first-time college student in a Bachelor of Music degree program must make certain career and life choices two of three years before a liberal arts major must make the same choices. Although strengthened by accreditation standards during the past twenty-five years, the Bachelor of Music course of study is inevitably a parochial one, focusing on honing performance excellence at the expense of more general studies.24 The "parochial aspect" of undergraduate degree programs at Peabody and among Peabody's peers concerns the amount of practice demanded by individual studio faculty. When asked to estimate the amount of time students are practicing or composing, the faculty respondents to the UGCC survey supplied answers ranging from 3 to 35 hours each week; the average was 15 and the median was 16 hours each week. When asked how much students should practice, the answers ranged from 5-30 hours each week with an average of 19 and a median of 20 hours each week.

To conclude, consider an undergraduate junior performance major at Peabody. Assuming successful completion of all classes in the first two years, the essential degree requirements for a semester at junior level are a class in Music Theory, a class in Musicology, and a Humanities elective. While always mindful of the informal nature of the UGCC survey, the students and the faculty suggest a junior performer – the most represented student in the survey – spends his or her time as follows:

Page 8

UGCC FINAL REPORT • DRAFT: 2009.05.19

Credits

Classes

Hours in Class

Student Reports

Faculty Estimate

Faculty Expectation

Student Hours

4

Lesson

1

—

15

19

16-20

3

Theory III

3

2

2

2

5

2

History of Music

2

2

2

2

4

3

Liberal Arts

3

2

2

2

5

12

RUNNING TOTALS

9

21

25

30-34

To which must be added ensembles…

2

Orchestra

3

UGCC estimates 2 hours

[5]

1

Chamber Music

1

UGCC estimates 3 hours

[4]

15

RUNNING TOTALS

13

39-43

[1]

And any departmental requirements …

0

Studio Class

1

2

Departmental Classes

2

17

RUNNING TOTALS

16

UGCC Estimates 2 hours

[4] 43-47

For the normative case, the undergraduate degree requires approximately 43-47 hours from the student in the typical week.

No week is typical, however, and the strengths and weaknesses of individual students tend to preclude a normative case.

Finally, juries and recitals, as well as ensemble performances and other opportunities or commitments, increase the need to practice at just the time classroom faculty is assigning papers and exams, further distorting a sense of a regular work schedule. Finally, the tuition of the school is such that many students need to work.

Despite these difficulties, the fact remains that Peabody requires between 30 and 60 hours from its students each week. In the recommendations that follow, the UGCC hopes to reorganize these hours to reduce the sense of imbalance reported by so many students.

Page 9

UGCC FINAL REPORT â&#x20AC;˘ DRAFT: 2009.05.19

PART TWO â&#x20AC;˘ FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

Recommendation 1:

Upon ratification by the Academic Council and with the concurrent review by NASM, the recommendations of the UGCC should become high-priority action items. The Associate Dean for Academic Affairs should be tasked with implementing the action items with the advice and consent of the Undergraduate Committee. The Academic Council should require a report in each semester until the recommendations are implemented. Action items may only be abandoned or significantly altered with the consent of the Academic Council.25

The UGCC is an ad-hoc committee assembled by the Dean of the Conservatory. It does not have the statutory authority to enact changes to the Conservatory curriculum. Therefore, enacting the recommendations of the UGCC should become the work of the Undergraduate Committee, department chairpersons, and other stakeholders, coordinated by the Associate Dean of Academic under the authority and with the final approval of the Academic Council.

The Associate Dean and the various stakeholders should give particular attention to the means of transition for current students. As a matter of institutional ethics and NASM Standards, Peabody can only apply a new rule to new students, but must observe the guidelines that were in effect when current students entered the Conservatory.26 A useful model may be found in the work of the Humanities Department, who applied various credit-articulation schemes for students following the 2006 revision of their curriculum.

Recommendation 2 :

Direct the Undergraduate Committee to liaise with the Director of Financial Aid and the chairs of academic departments to consider the benchmarks for satisfactory academic progress.27

On 22 April 2008, the Undergraduate Committee adopted a new benchmark for satisfactory academic progress (SAP). The minimum acceptable GPA was raised from 2.0 to 2.5 and the minimum grade for lessons was raised from C to B-.

2007-2008 Catalog

2008-2009 Catalog

Undergraduate students who maintain a cumulative and current grade point average of at least 2.00 and a grade of at least C in their major area are considered to be in acceptable academic standing.

More stringent academic regulations apply for financial aid and scholarship recipients.28

Undergraduate students who maintain a cumulative and current grade point average of at least 2.50, a grade of at least B- in their major area (lessons, juries, recitals, hearings), and are making appropriate progress through the core curriculum are considered to be in acceptable academic standing.29

One purpose of redefining the benchmark was to accommodate new procedures in Financial Aid. In the past, merit scholarships were given on the basis of aptitude judged during the initial audition and only monitored by the Associate Dean of Academic Affairs and the Undergraduate Committee. New procedures enacted after the 2006-2007 school year bundles merit scholarships and financial aid in a way that is difficult to separate. As a result, the Associate Dean and the Undergraduate Committee no longer have the authority to revoke merit scholarships.

Page 10

UGCC FINAL REPORT • DRAFT: 2009.05.19

2

2

2

2

2

2

[>2]

Mannes

CIM

NEC

MSM

CCM

Eastman

Indiana

Juilliard30

1.67

1.67 Rice

2

Oberlin

2.5 Peabody

A cursory glance at our peer institutions reveals that Peabody's minimally acceptable GPA is 25% higher than its nearest peer and 50% higher than the lowest minimum GPA among peer schools.

It is also noteworthy that the SAP GPA for the JHU ASEN schools is 2.0.31 It may be useful to consider how a GPA might be calculated for a freshman student off to a bad start with a typical schedule: GPA Calculation for the Typical Peabody Freshman Class Credits Grade Credits x Grade = Lesson 4 B4 x 2.67 = Freshman Seminar 5 C5 x 1.67 = Theory 3 C3 x 1.67 = Ear-training 2 C2 x 1.67 = Keyboard 2 C2 x 1.67 = Thursday Noon 0.5 C.5 x 1.67 = Ensemble 2 C2 x 1.67 = 18.5

Quality Points 10.68 8.35 5.01 3.34 3.34 0.84 3.34 34.90

Total Quality Points ÷ Total Credits = GPA 34.895 ÷ 18.5 = 1.89 While a higher SAP GPA may suggest a certain standard of excellence and rigor, it may also suggest an institutionalized pattern of grade inflation. It is worth considering whether the SAP GPA should be lowered. Alternatively, it may be worth considering an "aspirational" 2.5 GPA for students with a lower actual SAP GPA whereby students would only merit a review by the Undergraduate Committee if they fell below the actual SAP GPA. Supplement to the Recommendation On 22 March 2009, the Undergraduate Committee agreed to review the 2.5 SAP GPA benchmark. In the short discussion that followed, members recalled that the current 2.5 SAP GPA was an attempt to mediate the difference between the previous 2.0 SAP GPA and a 3.0 GPA required for continued scholarship.

The Undergraduate Committee was enthusiastic about addressing the 2.5 SAP GPA and suggested a two-tier warning system, not unlike the current system, which has been occasioned by the sudden change this year. Because the current 2.5 SAP GPA benchmark began in the 2008-2009 school year, it only applies to freshmen; all upperclassmen have the lower, 2.0 SAP GPA. As a measure of continuity between these two benchmarks, the Associate Dean for Academic Affairs, at the direction of the Undergraduate Committee, has been sending a "letter of concern" to upperclassmen who have fallen below the 2.5 SAP GPA but are not below the 2.0 SAP benchmark. The letter reads in part: […] Since you currently meet the grade point benchmarks that were in place when you began your program, the Committee decided not to place you on warning for dismissal. At the same time, the Committee wished to express its concern that your term GPA falls below our current standards and asked me to send you a letter informing you of their interest in your progress.

If, after being directed to review the guidelines, the Undergraduate Committee lowers the 2.5 SAP GPA benchmark, the Committee would prefer to continue the practice of sending a "letter of concern" with the appropriate modifications.

Page 11

UGCC FINAL REPORT • DRAFT: 2009.05.19

Recommendation 3:

Direct the Undergraduate Committee to consider a policy to allow students to repeat a class once, space permitting, for an improved grade.32

The JHU ASEN schools have a policy to retake classes for better grades: Students may repeat a course in which they have earned a grade of C+ or lower at Hopkins. The grade for the second attempt of the course, and the associated credits, are recorded on the student’s transcript and are calculated into the GPA. When the new grade is added to the academic record, the old grade is replaced with the letter R, indicating that the course was retaken in a later term. R grades do not affect grade point calculations and do not carry credit toward graduation. Only the grade in the repeated course receives credit and applies to the grade point average, even when the repeated grade is lower than the original grade.

To absolve a grade, the same course must be taken at Hopkins, not another college or university.33 Implicit in this description is the idea that the course can only be repeated one time.34 The UGCC recommends that any language in the catalog expressly state that students may only retake a class once and must retake the class at Peabody.

Following the advice of the Undergraduate Committee, the UGCC further recommends that students taking the class for the first time – especially juniors and seniors – be given priority seating in any class.

While a retake policy is unlikely to affect many students, it may encourage students to retake skills-based classes such as Jazz Improvisation, Ear-training or Keyboard Harmony. In such cases, students could improve their musical skills and their GPA. Supplement to the Recommendation On 21 April 2009, the Undergraduate Committee approved this recommendation for implementation in the 2009-2010 school year, with the provision that the words "space permitting" be added to the final statement of the policy.

Recommendation 4:

Allow the Offices of Academic Affairs and Student Affairs to advise freshmen and sophomore students on the schedule and the curriculum until the students complete their 209 jury. 35

Peabody's official policy on advising is found in the Student Handbook: Academic advising at Peabody is a cooperative enterprise that relies on the student, faculty, Registrar, the Associate Dean for Academic Affairs and their staffs. Students are solely responsible for completing the requirements of their curricula and they should carefully check their own progress toward the degree or diploma each semester. Questions which require special interpretation of academic requirements, performance requirements, or evaluation of transfer credits, for both undergraduates and graduates, should be referred to the Associate Dean for Academic Affairs.36 The 1998 Curriculum Review addressed the issue of undergraduate advising. After a measured review of advising practices, the committee concluded: We believe that all undergraduate students should have two faculty advisors to guide their course of study at Peabody. In many departments, the primary advisor will be the studio teacher; in some departments, the primary advisor will be the department chair; in some departments, the primary advisor may be faculty member appointed by the department chair. Each department must discuss and decide these questions for themselves. Departments may also wish to appoint a secondary advisor or suggest that students choose their own second advisor from among their classroom faculty. This could be done some time during the first year of study at Peabody. Secondary advisors might be appointed by primary advisors. The goal is for all students to have at least two faculty mentors. This suggested system of advising could make Peabody, which has become a larger place in recent years, feel more like a small school again.37 The complexity found in the 1998 curriculum committee's report reflects the underlying conflict of advising at Peabody. As a matter of policy, each student is advised by his or her major teacher. In practice, many studio teachers cannot find the time to study the undergraduate curriculum, given the little time they can devote to advising. However, major teachers insist on retaining the title of advisor because of their truly unique role in shaping the musical development of the student.

Page 12

UGCC FINAL REPORT â&#x20AC;˘ DRAFT: 2009.05.19

Despite the concerns raised by the 1998 report, the official Peabody position on advising meets the requirement posed by accrediting agencies. Peabody described its advising policies in the 2004 JHU Self-Report for MSCHE,38 and the MSCHE Final Report noted that Peabody's "advisement services are optimal."39 Clearly Peabody is within the requirement posed by accreditation standards. However, Peabody's true clients are the students, and the students are not satisfied with advising.

As part of the review of current advising practices, the Undergraduate Committee held a forum with representatives of OASIS â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Peabody's Organization Advocating Student InterestS, which functions as a student government. Many participants felt strongly that there should be a single person on campus whose sole role is to advise students. Current financial conditions preclude the hiring, training, and maintenance of such a staff member. A second idea to come from the conversation was the formation of a core group of students with special insight into the curriculum. Subsequent inquiry has suggested that the faculty does not approve of using students to advise other students. Consider the feedback from the UGCC's surveys, conducted between November 2008 and February 2009:40 How do you/your students find the answers to questions about the curriculum and schedule?

Student Responses

Answers

Total Faculty Responses

78.4% 67.6% 21.6% 7.8% 6.9%

Ask friends Read the catalog and manage Ask the Registrar or Associate Dean for Academic Affairs Ask other teachers Ask my major teacher

60.0% 48.6% 45.7% 28.6% 60.0%

Studio Faculty Responses 50.0% 40.0% 45.0% 20.0% 60.0%

How should Peabody approach the issue of advising?

Student Responses

Answers

Total Faculty Responses

54.5% 30.3% 25.3% 19.2% 15.2%

A staff person who does nothing but advising It should come from the major teacher It should come from the registrar/dean It should come from specially trained students Students should be assigned to other teachers for advising

22.5% 62.5% 50.0% 2.5% 15.0%

Studio Faculty Responses 15.79% 152.63% 73.68% 10.53% 5.26%

Analysis The undergraduate curriculum is not terribly complicated. Over two-thirds of the curriculum allows for little choice: lessons, large ensembles, small ensembles and juries are largely scheduled by the Registrar; the Music Theory classes are sequential; and students chose four of five Music History classes. Moreover, the Humanities requirement is managed by the Humanities department.

On the other hand, the normative Peabody student is actually an exception. Of the 111 students who completed the Undergraduate Curriculum Survey, only 13 students (12% of respondents) began their first semester without either: 1) advanced placement through on-site skills testing, AP testing, and/or transfer credits; 2) remedial coursework to take in addition (or in place of) the stipulated first semester classes; or 3) some combination of advanced placement or remedial coursework. Moreover, given the focus on skills-acquisition that is typical of music study, not all students advance in the timely way that informs the curriculum. Even a cursory glance at a grade report indicates more in-progress (IP) grades than would be typically found at a liberal arts or science college. Even the best music teaching fails to level students in the timely way that is expected from curricular models.

In a developing framework for the future of advising at Peabody, it will be important to separate two key functions of an advisor: 1) the advisor prepares the student for future endeavors such as further study and professional work; and 2) the advisor helps the student navigate the complexity of the curriculum and course schedule. While these two functions are not mutually exclusive, they are sufficiently independent to be performed by two separate people. In short, the cooperative enterprise must be more sharply defined and the duties should be clearly assigned to the correct advising partners.

Students need help managing the individual scheduling situations in which they find themselves, which are often not codified in curricular guidelines. Students also need better advice about the kinds of classes they could take to improve their Page 13

UGCC FINAL REPORT • DRAFT: 2009.05.19

musicianship and broaden their perspectives. Undergraduate students are primarily getting their information about the curriculum from peers and self-study. As a result, certain tendencies have become essentially institutionalized as students adopt the well-worn paths, and the paths of least resistance.

The 2003 Homewood CUE report encouraged divisions to locate more advising functions with teachers.41 However, both the faculty and students agree that other teachers – notably classroom faculty – are a less attractive solution. Moreover, Peabody has no mechanism to assess faculty advising or reward good advising with salary and promotion, as recommended by the CUE report. Neither the students nor the faculty believe students should be advised by other faculty. The Undergraduate Committee has been reluctant to take on an advising role.

Undergraduate students prefer advisement from Conservatory staff with cooperative advising from their major teacher. The faculty – especially the studio faculty – also believes Conservatory staff should participate in advising. The Conservatory Registrar does an enormous amount of advising and the Associate Dean for Academic Affairs also advises students.

However, it seems unlikely two individuals – both managing small staffs and meeting other responsibilities – can manage the advising of all students in the critical periods of orientation and course section.

Recommendation The UGCC recommends that Peabody deploy staff from the Registrar, Academic Affairs, and Student Affairs to monitor and advise students for their first three semesters. The role of Student Affairs would be particularly welcome since students are required to live in the Peabody Residence Halls for their first two years. After the successful completion of the 209 jury, more of the advising duties would shift from Student Affairs to the teaching departments of the Conservatory, in cooperation with the Registrar and Academic Affairs.

The UGCC further recommends that for the duration of staff involvement in advising, the duties of advising should be appended to the job descriptions of the staff who advise students. While this has little bearing on the extant staff, any personnel change should note the role of advising in the general description. For example, the forthcoming announcement for the position of Academic Program Coordinator will include the following: Participate with colleagues in the offices of the Student Affairs and the Registrar to advise undergraduate students in their first two years of study.

Note that this recommendation has dynamic links to a number of other UGCC recommendations, notably: Recommendation 6, which changes the nature of the 209 jury; Recommendation 16, which requests more elective classes; and Recommendation 20, which encourages departments to devise concentrations, or minors.

Supplement to the Recommendation On 24 March 2009, the Undergraduate Committee approved this recommendation for implementation in the 2009-2010 school year.

Recommendation 5:

The 109, 209 and 309 juries (including the 309 recital) should be reduced from 2 credits each to 1 credit each.42

One of the more unusual features of Peabody's curriculum is the awarding of 2 credits for juries and recitals, which amounts to 8 credits of the undergraduate degree. Peabody may be the only school of music to award credit for juries.

The 1998 curriculum committee recommended that the credit for juries and junior recitals be reduced from two credits to one credit. Previously, there was a concern to balance lessons and performance credits with other studies to ensure that students who have trouble with their coursework will not be threatened with loss of scholarship. However, following the implementation of new financial aid procedures and new guidelines for satisfactory academic progress, students are no longer threatened with loss of scholarship. Rather, students who fall below the guidelines are referred to the Undergraduate Committee, where the Conservatory faculty decides the appropriate course of action.

By removing three credits from the total number of credits awarded for lessons, juries, recitals and ensembles, the percentage of total credits awarded in the major area is not significantly disturbed (56-57 credits out of a total of 147 credits for orchestral instruments in the 2008-2009 Catalog).43

Page 14

UGCC FINAL REPORT • DRAFT: 2009.05.19

While Peabody may be awarding jury credits for reasons that are no longer relevant, the credits are in the best interests of the school and the students. The UGCC regards the jury grade and credit as interdependent assessments of student progress. A separate jury grade makes that function particularly clear to students and faculty alike and thus constitutes a best practice of student learning assessment, as mandated by MSCHE Standard 14.

At the end of each year, students and faculty may compare a lesson grade and a jury grade and raise questions about any differences between the formative assessment and the summative assessment. Formative assessment takes place in weekly private lessons: the lessons allow professors to spot-assess student progress and to prescribe exercises to improve performance in advance of summative assessment. Summative assessment occurs in multiple levels. At the smaller level, units of study are assessed and weighted in advance of a semester grade. At a slightly larger level, a jury before a panel of faculty garners a second grade. The Associate Dean's review of student grades at the conclusion of each semester constitutes a second layer of assessment. Any problems are referred to the Undergraduate Committee, constituting a third layer of assessment.

Lesson Grade

Student and faculty comparison of grades

Jury Grade

Assessment

Associate Dean for Academic Affairs' review

Undergraduate Committee's review and possible action

Assessment of Student Learning

The interaction of these two assessment mechanisms is recursive. At the largest level, the annual juries are formative assessments that progress to an ultimate summative assessment and capstone project: a public recital.

The UGCC recommends that the conservatory embrace the role of student juries as an assessment of student learning. Juries should continue to be graded and recorded for credit. However, successful juries and junior recitals should be awarded only one credit. Only the final recital should be awarded two credits. Thus, a successful 309 junior recital should merit one credit, while the 395 recital – as the final recital of the B.M. in Music Education – should merit two credits.

Supplement to the Recommendation On 21 April 2009, the Undergraduate Committee approved this recommendation for implementation in the 2009-2010 school year. The Registrar suggested that the UGCC clarify whether a half-recital, also given the course number 309, be offered for one or two credits.

Recommendation 6:

The 209 jury, while still graded for the actual performance, should include a broader consideration of the student's overall record and result in a more detailed recommendation for future achievement.44

At both MSM45 and Juilliard46 – two peer schools also accredited by MSCHE – the sophomore jury is a midcourse assessment of student progress. Students must pass these promotional or continuation juries to continue in their course of study. At Peabody, the 209 jury is also a promotional jury and already described as an important benchmark in the undergraduate curriculum. The current Peabody Catalog describes it as follows: The purpose of the 209 jury taken at the end of the sophomore year (4th semester or credit hour equivalent) is to assess the student's overall progress and to determine whether or not he or she should be advised to continue in the chosen curriculum.

On the basis of this jury and the student's overall record, the jury committee makes recommendations for the student’s remaining years of undergraduate study. It is in the student's best interests that a careful professional assessment and subsequent recommendation be made.47 Unfortunately, given the non-descript names "Department Examination" and "209 Jury," students and faculty have overlooked or forgotten the significance of the sophomore jury. Particular to the Peabody 209 jury is the idea that the faculty should consider the student's overall record. The UGCC would like to formalize that procedure. In other words, of the three juries, the middle jury should include not only an assessment of the student's actual juried performance, but a consideration of how the student has progressed based on lesson grades, prior jury grades with comments, and audition scores.

Page 15

UGCC FINAL REPORT â&#x20AC;˘ DRAFT: 2009.05.19

By adding a review of grades, the 209 becomes a natural place in a student's curriculum for departments to take on a more active role in the student's advising (as detailed in Recommendation 4). These considerations should be noted by the faculty on an expanded comment sheet to be filed in the student's record.

The UGCC recommends an expanded consideration of the student's overall practice be observed by studio faculty with the assistance of the offices of the Registrar and Academic Affairs.

Supplement to the Recommendation On 21 April 2009, the Undergraduate Committee approved this recommendation for implementation in the 2009-2010 school year. The Conservatory Registrar asked the UGCC and Associate Dean to give due consideration to the collection of records in advance of the 209 jury.

Recommendation 7:

The Composition and Computer Music Departments should adopt the equivalent of a 209 jury.48

As noted in Recommendation 5, a jury complements a lesson grade and provides a more critical assessment of student progress. The Composition and Computer music department should institute the equivalent of a 209 jury to assess student progress in the first two years of study and to recommend areas to improve in the final two years of study.

The mechanics of implementing such a jury do not seem prohibitive. Students would need to enroll in a 209 jury for one semester. In the fall semester 2008, there were approximately 12 composition majors and 11 computer music majors pursuing undergraduate degrees. If these numbers are normative and remain relatively constant, there would be approximately 4 to 6 juries each year.

The pedagogical details of a composition jury should be left to the departments to arrange. The departments would do well to begin with the procedures and criteria used for the admission interview (the audition). As such, student might be required to submit a small portfolio in advance of a May jury. A comparison of admission interview with the grading criteria for senior recitals should make it possible to plot a mid-degree benchmark for undergraduate students. Students should be made aware of the assessment guidelines and consequences well in advance of their 209 jury. Finally, the departments should consider Recommendation 6 about the 209 jury in other areas. Students would be especially well-served by detailed comments and recommendations for future study.

Existing models of composition juries (sometimes called a continuation jury or a portfolio review) are easily found at public universities. Because public universities spend public money, they are often compelled to institute measures to demonstrate student learning assessment. Two particular models worth noting are found at University of Illinois, Urbana-Champagne49 and the University of Georgia.50 Among peer institutions, MSM51 and Juilliard52 conduct sophomore juries for composers.

The UGCC recommends that both the Composition Department and Computer Music Department develop a procedure and assessment criteria for a sophomore jury in time for the class entering in the 2009-2010 school year.

Supplement to the Recommendation On 21 April 2009, the Undergraduate Committee â&#x20AC;&#x201C; including Dr. McGregor Boyle, the Chair of Composition and Computer Music â&#x20AC;&#x201C; approved this recommendation for implementation in the 2009-2010 school year.

Recommendation 8:

The Humanities curriculum should be condensed and restructured.53

The Humanities form an unquestionably important role in the undergraduate curriculum. Indeed, that importance is found atop Peabody's Educational Philosophy statement: "Peabody believes in liberal arts for musicians."54 The Humanities department notes that such study "is essential to Peabody's highest educational goals, uniquely challenging Peabody students to aspire to their highest potential as responsible and productive artists and members of the human community."55 Despite these inarguable ideals, an assessment of the current Humanities curriculum has proven a high-profile task for the UGCC. While always careful to recognize the informal nature of the UGCC surveys and remembering especially the

Page 16

UGCC FINAL REPORT • DRAFT: 2009.05.19

relatively small rate of response among the faculty, it would nevertheless seem that among the three academic departments, Humanities was identified as a particular concern in the UGCC survey: How do you feel about the number of courses required in Humanities?

Students Faculty

Fewer courses 75% 33.3%

More courses 2.9% 25 %

Just right 22.1% 41.7%

Naturally, given the single-minded focus of a conservatory education, the Humanities classes seem to stand apart in the minds of many students. The other academic departments can justify their place in a student's busy life by virtue of nomenclature: Music Theory and Musicology. To be sure, the quality of otherness associated with Humanities is found in many student comments, which may be adumbrated, "we're here to study Music, not Humanities."

In 2004, the Academic Council commissioned an external review of the Liberal Arts curriculum.56 Subsequent review of the report and further discussion resulted in a new Humanities curriculum which was unanimously approved by the Academic Council on 16 November 2005 and the Undergraduate Committee on 13 December 2005. The new Humanities curriculum included two dramatic changes: 1) the institution of a five-credit Humanities seminar for all entering undergraduates; and 2) the institution of distribution requirements: three designated areas from which students must take courses.

Content and Competencies as Defined by Peabody Accreditation Standards The courses designated as Humanities at Peabody are called General Studies by NASM and General Education by MSCHE and COMAR. NASM, while noting that "specific competency expectations are defined by the institution," notes that alumni of B.M. programs should have the following skills: 1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

The ability to think, speak, and write clearly and effectively.

An informed acquaintance with fields of study beyond music such as those in the arts and humanities, the natural and physical sciences, and the social sciences.

A functional awareness of the differences and commonalities regarding work in artistic, scientific, and humanistic domains.

Awareness that multiple disciplinary perspectives and techniques are available to consider all issues and responsibilities including, but not limited to, history, culture, moral and ethical issues, and decision-making.

The ability to identify possibilities and locate information in other fields that have bearing on musical questions and endeavors.57

MSCHE's guidelines are outlined in Standard 12, General Education, and require that students "demonstrate college-level proficiency in general education and essential skills, including at least oral and written communication, scientific and quantitative reasoning, critical analysis and reasoning, and technological competency."58 Noting that the Humanities curriculum should be "should be purposeful, coherent, engaging, and rigorous," MSCHE further expects a curriculum that: • • • •

expresses the educational philosophy of the institution for each undergraduate degree program or cluster of degree programs; incorporates essential knowledge, cognitive abilities, and an understanding of values and ethics; enhances students' intellectual growth; and draws students into new areas of intellectual experience, expanding their cultural and global awareness and sensitivity, and preparing them to make enlightened judgments outside as well as within their academic specialty.59

Finally, the expectations of the State of Maryland, outlined in COMAR Title 13b, are not appreciably different, requiring students to be equipped to: (a) Communicate effectively in oral and written English; (b) Read with comprehension; (c) Reason abstractly and think critically; (d) Understand and interpret numerical data; (e) Understand the scientific method;

Page 17

UGCC FINAL REPORT • DRAFT: 2009.05.19

(f) Recognize and appreciate cultural diversity; (g) Understand the nature and value of the fine and performing arts; and (h) Demonstrate information literacy. 60 Particular to the MSCHE fundamental elements is the need to demonstrate the competencies as appropriate to the discipline."61 NASM qualifies the B.M. as a "professional baccalaureate degree," thus establishing the needs of B.M. alumni as the needs of professional musicians. While both NASM and MSCHE emphasize oral and written communication, NASM notes that students seeking the B.M. need demonstrate only an "informed acquaintance" in the natural and physical sciences and the social sciences, and a "functional awareness" of "differences and commonalities regarding work in artistic, scientific, and humanistic domains."62 Finally, COMAR, MSCHE and NASM include discussions on student facility with technology in the context of their sections on general studies or general education. However, in both cases, the placement of technology seems more one of convenience than of appropriate linkage. Peabody should not necessarily relegate this element of the curriculum to an already taxed Humanities department. For more about oral and written communication, see Recommendation 22; for more about technological literacy, see Recommendation 21.

Time on Task According to NASM, general studies should comprise 25-35% of the curriculum.63 MSCHE notes that a program of sufficient scope should be the equivalent of 30 semester hours for baccalaureate programs.64 COMAR seems by far the most restrictive, requiring "not less than 40 hours."65 Regarding NASM, it should be noted that NASM makes recommendations assuming a degree consisting of 120 credits.66 Thus, NASM recommends a general studies core of 30-42 credits. However, the 2004 Humanities External Review showed that no peer institution has a general studies requirement of 30 credits.67 The UGCC found the same to be true in its 20082009 comparison to peer institutions, found in Appendix A (p. 74). NASM also notes that music courses such as "music history, music literature, or ethnomusicology courses, or courses in acoustics or aesthetics" may be included in the category of Humanities, "if conceived and taught in relation to other realms of human experience." 68 Similarly, peer institutions accredited by MSCHE require less than 30 credits. The general studies requirements for peer schools are as follows: • • •

Juilliard: All students in the B.F.A. and B.M. degree programs are required to complete 24 credits in the Liberal Arts.69 Manhattan School of Music: All students in the undergraduate degree program are required to take 24 credits (voice students, 18) distributed among Humanities Core and Elective classes.70 Mannes College The New School for Music: In accordance with the requirements of New York State, at least 25 percent of the credits in each major are in liberal arts courses.71

Like NASM, MSCHE allows for these skills to be "taught or developed as part of courses in the major," further specifying that "skills and knowledge derived from general education and the major should be integrated because general education and study in depth, together, comprise a quality undergraduate education."72 Finally, noting the need for an "appropriate balance between specialized and more general knowledge," MSCHE further delineates: The institution's ability to demonstrate that its students are able to integrate and apply in different contexts the core knowledge and skills learned in their course work is a critical component of successful undergraduate educational programs.

General education offerings should reflect the particular programs and mission of the institution. However, general education courses should not focus narrowly on those skills, techniques, and procedures specific to a particular occupation or profession. The content of general education within specialized degree programs should be comparable, though not necessarily identical, to traditional academic offerings at the collegiate level or above.73 Finally, while COMAR would seem to require 40 semester hours, it also notes that nonpublic institutions may satisfy the general education requirement with "an integrated and structured general education experience required of all students, adopted by the governing board of the institution, which shall be demonstrated to the Commission at the time of initial approval or reaffirmation of approval, to achieve the goals of general education as defined in §E(1) of this regulation."74 COMAR Title 13B is implemented by the Maryland Higher Education Commission (MHEC), which was only established in 1988. The earliest state agency to perform this function was the Maryland Advisory Council on Higher Education, which was only established in 1963. Peabody has been granting diplomas since 1882 and has clearly demonstrated the achievement of Page 18

UGCC FINAL REPORT • DRAFT: 2009.05.19

these goals. Moreover, our closest peer under the same guidelines is the Maryland Institute College of Art (MICA). MICA's undergraduate curricula list 42 credits of "Liberal Arts Requirements," but 15-18 of those credits relate to Art History or Art Theory, leaving a non-discipline core of 24-27 credits.75 Analysis The current humanities curriculum requires 32 credits for all undergraduate students. Among peer institutions studied, only Rice University requires more credits (39). The average number of credits for non-vocalists is 27 credits; the mean number of credits is 24. It seems clear that given the priority placed on elective coursework, detailed in Recommendation 16, Peabody can lower its requirements while promoting more electives.

A particular concern of undergraduates is the first semester Humanities Seminar (PY.260.115). The five-credit Seminar is described as follows: A team-taught course designed for new Peabody undergraduates. The course introduces students to college-level academic studies. Designed as a text-based, interdisciplinary course, course themes and assignments change from year to year. The course fosters critical thinking through discussion and a range of carefully supervised projects in a small-group setting. Writing and collaborative work are central to the Humanities Seminar.76 The Humanities Seminar serves a number of pedagogical purposes and condenses the 8-10 credits required in the previous curriculum. The division into a large lecture – the only course offering that demands all the students of a single class – and small break-out sections is undeniably appealing to parents and accrediting organizations. On paper, everything about the Seminar seems right. However, the first two years of the Seminar have been difficult. While always acknowledging the unscientific nature of the UGCC survey, the results pertaining to the Seminar are disquieting. Of 71 students rating the Seminar from 1 (bad) to 10 (good), the mean rating was 4.27 with a standard deviation of 2.63, and the median rating was 4.

Only 28% rated this class above a 5. The third offering of the Seminar, in the fall semester 2008, fared better on course evaluations. Nevertheless, it would seem the Seminar is not reaching the students with quite the efficiency and impact that was intended.

A final issue of concern is the amount of classes and their area designations as compared with the staffing issues of the Department. The Humanities curriculum requires courses in three study areas: Language and Literature (LL), Global Perspectives (GP), and Historical/Philosophical Studies (HP). Peabody has only two full-time Liberal Arts professors, in addition to a full-time language professor, and a full-time writing professor. Most of the designated electives are taught by the Liberal Arts professors. As a result, it is difficult to offer enough classes in each of three areas in any given year. For example, in the 2008-2009 school year, there is no class that is only designated GP. Rather, two courses (PY.260.216 Twentieth Century Aesthetics and Politics and PY.260.232 World Film) are designated HP/LL and HP/GP, respectively.

Recommendation The UGCC recommends that the Humanities Seminar be offered for 4 credits instead of 5 credits. The reduction will make the class a bit shorter for students while not too adversely affecting the curriculum. The UGCC also recommends the Humanities faculty give due consideration to splitting the 4 credits into 3 credits of Humanities Seminar and 1 credit of expository writing to be delivered and assessed with a distance-learning modality.

The UGCC further recommends that one three-credit Humanities LL elective be removed from the requirement. A second three-credit Humanities elective should be available for classes in other departments subject to reasonable guidelines to be determined and made clear by the Humanities faculty. For example, it should be possible to take certain classes in Musicology and perhaps even Music Theory if these courses require a certain degree of text-based analysis, critical thinking and writing. The UGCC expects this modest restructuring will allow the Humanities faculty to offer the required distributions of the curriculum on a regular schedule. Finally, Recommendation 9 removes the study of foreign language as a requirement, thus making foreign language a reasonable choice for LL elective credit.

Page 19

UGCC FINAL REPORT â&#x20AC;˘ DRAFT: 2009.05.19

Thus, the recommended Humanities curricula are as follows: Humanities Curriculum Humanities Seminar 2 LL electives 2 GP electives 2 HP electives 1 HE elective 1 "Humanities-approved elective" TOTAL:

Humanities Curriculum for Voice 4 3+3 3+3 3+3 3 3 28

Humanities Seminar Italian 1 French 1 German 1 HP Elective GP Elective TOTAL:

4 3+3 3+3 3+3 3 3 28

Supplement to the Recommendation On 21 April 2009, the Undergraduate Committee approved this recommendation for implementation in the 2009-2010 school year.

Recommendation 9:

With the exception of Voice majors, the study of foreign language should no longer be a requirement for undergraduates. Foreign language classes should be offered as electives.77

The study of foreign language is a hallmark of a liberal education. Language study has always been part of the curriculum at Peabody. However, in recent years there have been several attempts to limit or eliminate requirements for foreign languages in the B.M. As late as 2005, the undergraduate curriculum at Peabody required twelve credits in foreign language. The 2004 external review addressed the language requirements, but went no further than recommending that the requirement be assessed. A faculty response to the external review went further, opining that there should be no language requirement for B.M. students at Peabody with the exception of voice majors.78 In the ensuing discussions at the Academic Council, it was ultimately decided that the foreign language requirement would be reduced to one year, as reflected in the curriculum beginning in the 2006-2007 school year.

MSCHE makes no recommendation about foreign language. NASM does not require the study of foreign language for nonvoice majors, but does note that "Historical and analytical studies in the arts and studies in foreign languages are recommended for all performers."79 The Jacobs School of Music at Indiana, one of the nation's largest universities, is the only peer institution that requires all undergraduate students to study foreign language. All of the independent schools and conservatories have long since discontinued the requirement. Moreover, the nature of language study is changing in the larger educational community.

NSSE's 2008 survey of 194,858 students found that only 41% of graduating seniors had done foreign language coursework.

A 2007 study by the Modern Language Association found that overall enrollments in foreign languages rose by 12.9%.80 However, that same survey found that, with the exception of Italian, the significant growth since 1980 is found in languages not traditionally associated with Western Classical Music: Arabic (over 100% growth); Chinese and Korean (over 30% growth) ; American Sign Language, Italian, Japanese, and Portuguese (over 20% growth) and Spanish (10.3% growth).81 The UGCC recommends that the Conservatory no longer require foreign languages for all students. Rather, foreign language classes should be offered for voice majors and for any other student who chooses to study language as an LL Humanities elective.

Supplement to the Recommendation On 21 April 2009, the Undergraduate Committee approved this recommendation for implementation in the 2009-2010 school year.

Page 20

UGCC FINAL REPORT • DRAFT: 2009.05.19

Recommendation 10:

Recognizing the recent streamlining of Inter-Divisional Registration (IDR) procedures, the Conservatory should create more scheduling opportunities for students to take classes at Homewood. Peabody students and faculty must be made aware of the opportunities that already exist. The Humanities Department should clarify the articulation of credits transferred between the campuses, noting the kinds of classes that may be applied to the Humanities curriculum and the appropriate levels of these classes.82

For some time, Peabody students and faculty have raised concerns about access to courses offered on the Homewood campus. An examination of data provided by William Conley, the Dean of enrollment and academic services for the Homewood campus, revealed the following: • • • • • • •

According to a report run by the ASEN Registrar, there were 3,252 available seats in 376 sections of 223 classes on 4 September 2008 There were 2,092 seats available in 289 sections of 193 classes on 16 October 2008.

All of the available ASEN sections have the Humanities (H) designation. 85 sections of 59 courses were designated Humanities and Social/Behavioral Sciences (HS). One section was designated Humanities and Qualitative/Mathematical Sciences (HQ) and one was designated Humanities and Natural Sciences and Social/Behavioral Sciences (HNS).83 Peabody students submitted 124 IDR requests for 113 sections of 111 classes.

Peabody students were enrolled in 96 sections of 67 classes on 24 October 2008.84 Of the 96 of the Peabody students, 87 were undergraduates; 9 were doctoral students.

77 ASEN students were enrolled in classes or lessons at Peabody as of 24 October 2008.

In sum, 87 of 324 (27%) Peabody undergraduates enrolled in the fall semester 2008 had the wherewithal to register and attend a class at Homewood. Moreover, it would seem that most Peabody students take one or two classes at Homewood. In the UGCC survey of undergraduate students, 46% percent of the students indicated that they had taken one class at Homewood. However, Homewood currently has the capacity for undergraduate Peabody students to take several classes a semester.

Of the students who completed the UGCC survey, 63% indicated they would take a class at Homewood if they had "more time in the schedule to take such classes." When asked about the kinds of electives they prefer, 45% indicated "classes that have nothing do with music, and 43% further specified "classes at Homewood." Of Peabody faculty who completed the survey, 44% indicated that students should be allowed to take classes at Homewood as electives. An overwhelming concern in both groups is the opportunity to take Homewood classes as part of their Humanities requirements. It is hoped that the recommendations of the UGCC will address the scheduling issues faced by Peabody students. As the previously cited data indicates, Homewood has an enormous capacity to accommodate the interests of our students.

Another concern of students and faculty is the processes for IDR. Among surveyed students, 66% indicated they would take a class at Homewood with "easier cross-registration." One student noted that IDR was "far too inconvenient." However, some of the more challenging issues of IDR have already been addressed.

Independent of the research by the UGCC, James Dobson, the Conservatory Registrar, worked with Betsy Paul, the Associate Registrar for ASEN, to streamline the IDR process. The two of them fashioned the following procedure for IDR which was first used for the spring semester 2008: Interdivisional Registration Instructions for ASEN Courses Peabody students may request to enroll in Arts and Sciences or Engineering courses. To increase your success in obtaining the courses you request, please review the following.

All interdivisional registration forms and add/drop/withdrawal forms must be submitted and processed through your HOME division Registrar’s Office.

Submit all paper work to the Peabody Registrar’s Office. This includes all approvals, registrations, adds, drops, audit, credit changes, and withdrawals.

Page 21

UGCC FINAL REPORT • DRAFT: 2009.05.19

Please be aware that you must follow the HOST school’s registration deadlines. These deadlines can be found on the Registrar’s web site: • • •

http://www.jhu.edu/registrar Click on Undergraduate and Graduate Students Click on Important Notices

The Homewood Registrar’s Office will start processing interdivisional course requests on the first Monday in January for the spring semester (January 5, 2009) and on the first Monday in August for the fall semester (August 3, 2009).

All inquiries about interdivisional requests must be addressed at the home division.

A major advantage of this new procedure is that it guarantees that Peabody IDR requests will be processed before the start of classes. Previously, it was unclear when IDR requests were processed and some students believed their IDR requests languished until after the ASEN drop/add period closed.

The UGCC recommends that administrators from both campuses try to schedule classes in a way that is efficient for students from both campuses. The UGCC further recommends that the Humanities department should clarify the articulation of credits transferred between the campuses, noting the kinds of classes that may be applied to the Humanities curriculum and the appropriate levels of these classes.

Recommendation 11:

The Music Theory Department should compress its current curriculum into five semesters plus a one-semester elective.85

The current Music Theory curriculum has not changed appreciably since 1986. The order of the classes changed in 1999 and the details of the courses were clarified in 2007, but there has been no change to the amount or content of the courses since the Conservatory changed from a four-year requirement to a three-year requirement. For the last decennial review by NASM in 2004, the Theory curriculum was described in great detail and was not found wanting. However, while the curriculum has remained constant, the department has changed considerably. Since 1999, seven faculty members have retired and have been replaced with eight new faculty members.86 In a department of eleven, this change has been nothing short of a generational shift. During the same period the enrollment of the Conservatory ballooned from 601 students in 1992-1993,87 to 670 students in the fall of 2008.

During the rapid change of personnel and the influx of students, no appreciable thought was given to the relationship between the increased demands on the new faculty and the old curriculum. One of the more unique features of the Peabody Theory curriculum has always been the idiomatic application by individual teachers. While it has been common to offer multiple sections of the same class for years, it has never been common to use the same syllabus, much less the same textbook for concurrent sections. In the past, the idiosyncrasies of multiple approaches were extolled as a virtue, and any potential ill effects were balanced by the experience of the faculty. Now that the department typically offers five to six sections of the core Theory classes, the idiosyncrasies abound. The varying teaching styles are further complicated by the fact that the increased student population has not been countered with an increase in faculty. As a result, the department has need of more adjuncts. In 1994-1995, the Department had one adjunct: Sharon Levy, then already a Ph.D. in Music Theory and completing her DMA in piano at Peabody; now already one of the senior members of the department. In the 2008-2009 school year, there are six adjuncts, many of them teaching more than one class and only half of them with a terminal degree in hand. Finally, the Department has to contend with staffing the music minor on the Homewood campus, which requires adjuncts for ten sections each year and the Department administers an M.M. program in Music Theory Pedagogy which only began in 1994.

These changes, scarcely noted while progressing, seem dizzying in retrospect. However, the students have identified a lack of unity in the department's multiple sections. Most adjuncts teach Theory I, and that was the lowest-rated class among the Music Theory offerings in the UGCC survey. Moreover, when asked about the content and teaching of Theory classes, students found it wanting: 53% suggested it "should be more uniform and consistent across courses" while only 30% said it "has a good balance of consistency and variety of approach." Nevertheless, music theory is valued by the Peabody Page 22

UGCC FINAL REPORT â&#x20AC;˘ DRAFT: 2009.05.19

community. When asked to comment on number of required classes 78% of the students and 71% the faculty found the requirement to be "just right."

The 1998 curriculum review committee recommended that Music Theory condense its curriculum into five semesters and that students be required to elect a sixth semester from a range of electives. This change would, "give all undergraduates a secure knowledge of diatonic and chromatic harmony, traditional forms, and an introduction to twentieth-century musical techniques, and then allow them to take one course in an area of particular relevance to their field of study or of particular interest to them." [CITE] The UGCC makes the same recommendation. Given the overall effort to allow students more choice in their studies, the ability to take an elective in Music Theory seems appropriate. Moreover, given the dramatic changes in the school and in the department since 1998, this recommendation takes on a special significance. A compressed music theory core, coupled with the new fundamentals track detailed in Recommendation 12, should make for a swifter passage through the core and require less adjuncts. In addressing that goal, the UGCC hopes the Music Theory Department can continue to clarify its curriculum and further unify its approaches to teaching and assessment.

The UGCC recommends a six-semester Music Theory core be compressed to five semesters with an additional one-semester elective.

Supplement to the Recommendation.

On 22 March 2009, the Music Theory approved this recommendation. Dr. Kip Wile, Chair of the Department, requested "the UG theory core be amended to include a five-semester sequence to replace the current six semesters, with the addition of an elective in music theory following the fifth semester."88 On 21 April 2009, the Undergraduate Committee approved this recommendation for implementation in the 2009-2010 school year.

Recommendation 12:

Music Theory should implement and staff a parallel theory track for students needing remediation.89

In 1988, responding to the reduction of the core curriculum from eight semesters to six semesters, the Department devised a new means of remediating students who enter the Conservatory with deficiencies in Music Theory. From that time on, weaker students were put into a remedial "booster" course called Theory Fundamentals, taught by graduate students. In 2004, students who entered the Conservatory with poor ear-training skills were put into yet another remedial class called Eartraining fundamentals. It was around this time that the Ear-training classes for all students reverted to a five-day schedule with 20 minutes on each day.

The net result of these changes was that students who entered the Conservatory with theory deficiencies were saddled with an enormous amount of remedial work to be taken at the same time as the coursework all other students were taking. This presents a considerable difficulty since these students are also first-time college students and adjusting to the rigors of Conservatory training in a new environment. Finally, the heavy course load was especially problematic for voice majors, who carry more credits than any other major. A typical freshman singer enrolls in 23 credits in their first semester. To add the equivalent of 4 credits of remedial work is to add a lot and to expect unreasonable results without providing the space to practice and internalize new skills.

As a result, the UGCC recommends a parallel theory track for student needing remediation with a view to reintegrating the tracks further along in the undergraduate curriculum.

Supplement to the Recommendation.

The Department of Music Theory, working in concert with the Voice Department, voted to enact this recommendation and requested, "a new track for students placed into Fundamentals, in which the first three semesters of the UG theory core will cover Fundamentals sequentially rather than simultaneously with Theory I."90 The new parallel track, which will begin in the 2009-2010 school year, will only apply to the first three semesters. Students in the track will rejoin their peers for the fourth and fifth semester before taking an elective in the sixth semester.91 On 21 April 2009, the Undergraduate Committee approved this recommendation for implementation in the 2009-2010 school year.

Page 23

UGCC FINAL REPORT â&#x20AC;˘ DRAFT: 2009.05.19

Recommendation 13:

Convene a working group of selected members from Musicology and other departments to assess the Music History curriculum and recommend alternatives to increase credit hours and contact time to better meet the needs of the students.

The Musicology Department recently studied the effectiveness the Music History curriculum by studying the results of music history placement exams in August 2007 and August 2008. Students accepted to the graduate program at Peabody must take the placement exam upon matriculating. By comparing the placement results of 24 recent Peabody alumni with 52 recent graduates of other institutions, the Musicology Department was able to assess student learning in their curriculum.92 The collected data was reviewed by the biostatistician Dr. Harold Lehmann, Associate Professor in the Bloomberg School of Public Health. The raw scores for placement indicate that alumni from other schools are scoring as much as 13% higher on Peabody's placement test, graded by Peabody's faculty after being submitted anonymously, than Peabody's own alumni.93 The included data also shows that the Peabody alumni earned B+/Aâ&#x20AC;&#x201C; grades in Music History and that Peabody students on average have higher SAT scores than students from the schools from which the other 52 matriculants previously graduated.

Reflecting on these results, the Musicology Department has argued persuasively that Peabody students need more coursework in Musicology. The current undergraduate curriculum requires students to take 4 classes of 5 offerings: Music History I-IV and Music and Culture. Each of these classes is offered for 2 credits and thus total 8 credits by the end of the degree program.

NASM has no specific requirements for Musicology. They note: "music has a long history, many repertories, multiple connections with cultures, and numerous successful methodologies." However, "the institution is responsible for decisions regarding breadth and depth and for setting proportions among [repertories and methodologies]."94 Among the 11 benchmarked peer institutions, Peabody joins Indiana, Mannes and Cincinnati in requiring the least credits in Musicology; IU and Mannes require related coursework that may overlap the Musicology competencies. The average requirement is 10 credits; the most extensive requirement is the 14-credit requirement of MSM, entailing 8 sequential credits and 6 credits of electives.

Students are enthusiastic about the Musicology curriculum, with 70% asking for "more courses" in the UGCC survey. Given the choice between survey courses and survey courses balanced with seminars, 55% answered "Survey courses serve my needs," and overall, 48% report the curriculum has "a good balance of consistency and variety of approach." Only half of the faculty respondents answered the questions on this part of the survey, but of those who did answer, 42% noted that current requirement is "just right," while 68 % suggested: "Survey courses should be balanced with courses on specific topics (e. g., Beethoven quartets)."

The Musicology Department has proposed increasing each class from 2 credits to 3 credits. The third credit might entail a weekly class session devoted to directed listening. Adding four credits to the requirements would place Peabody among the more demanding schools of our Peers. Moreover, as noted in the introduction and as found in the survey, students are currently doing work for the Music History classes that is more commensurate with a 3-credit class.

The UGCC is open to Musicology's proposal to increase contact time, and a majority would like to see an increased number of credits. Some members have suggested that the Department should make some changes to its current curriculum to redistribute the competencies. Some members have suggested compressing the survey and adding seminar style classes. It has also become clear that any change effected should also apply to the Jazz History classes, which serve that same role in the Jazz curriculum.

Since it is beyond the purview of the UGCC to anticipate the consequences of increasing faculty loads and graduate assistant hours during a time of financial duress, the UGCC recommends that the Academic Council appoint a working group to study the possible solutions and make a recommendation by the middle of the spring semester 2010.

Recommendation 14:

For most majors, Basic Conducting should be an elective, not a requirement.95

NASM makes no specific recommendation about conducting. In its description of components for all programs, conducting is included in a list of musicianship skills:

Page 24

UGCC FINAL REPORT â&#x20AC;˘ DRAFT: 2009.05.19

The content of traditional course work in musicianship such as sight-singing, ear-training, harmony, keyboard harmony, counterpoint, orchestration, conducting, and music literature is important. However, this content can be organized and taught in a variety of ways to produce comprehensive musical competence.96 It is not clear that the inclusion of conducting in the preceding list â&#x20AC;&#x201C; as the eighth term in a sequence of nine terms â&#x20AC;&#x201C; obligates Peabody to offer a separate class in conducting, especially in that it is not coupled with rehearsal skills. Later, in the guidelines for the B.M., NASM indicates: "Rehearsal and conducting skills are required as appropriate to the particular music concentration."97 The particular concentrations are made clear in the subsequent description of majors, where conducting and rehearsal skills are specifically required for degrees in Composition, Sacred Music, Pedagogy, Music Therapy, and Music Education.

Among peer institutions, Peabody is one of 4 schools to require conducting for all majors; 8 schools do not. While conducting is required in the curriculum of many other schools, including many of the schools with executives represented on the NASM board, other musicianship skills such as orchestration and counterpoint are not.

Of the Peabody students who responded to the UGCC survey, 82% found it "important to take conducting." Moreover, students are particularly fond of Dr. Parker's Basic Conducting class and will likely continue to take it as an elective.

However, only 53% of the faculty agreed that conducting was important for their students.

The UGCC recommends that conducting only be required for the following majors: orchestral instruments, organ, and music education. Other majors should be encouraged to take conducting as appropriate to their interests and workloads.

Supplement to the Recommendation On 21 April 2009, the Undergraduate Committee approved this recommendation for implementation in the 2009-2010 school year.

Recommendation 15:

Appoint the UGCC to work with representatives from the Ensembles Office, the Concert Office, the Opera Department, and the Conservatory Dean's Staff to address the logistical problems of space and scheduling and to address the teaching mission of the large ensembles and their role in recruitment, admissions and retention. Put all parties on a short reporting schedule for implementing changes in the 2010-2011 school year.

The large ensembles constitute one of the largest instructional areas of the Conservatory. Every instrumentalist taking lessons is assigned to a large ensemble in every semester. Every vocalist, pianist, organist, guitarist, composer, and computer musician must perform in a large ensemble between four and six semesters. As of April 2009, there are 403 students enrolled in large ensembles; 300 of those students are undergraduates. With the exception of the opera companies, undergraduates form the majority of most large ensembles. Twenty-eight undergraduates are enrolled in more than one large ensemble, including one student who is enrolled in three ensembles.

While it is not the most musical consideration, it is nevertheless true that each ensemble is in effect, a large class. As such, students receive credit for their participation in that class. Peabody grants credits for ensembles as if they were laboratory courses using a formula advanced by NASM: one credit is awarded for three 50-minute recitation periods per week.98 In practice, published schedules for the large ensembles actually show six hours of rehearsals each week. However, each orchestra requires services in only 10 of the 15 weeks in a semester, so the time on task is accounted for by NASM standards.

Finally, Peabody is among 7 of 13 benchmarked peer schools to award 2 credits for ensembles; the other peer schools award 1 credit.

The notion of large ensembles as big classes is also useful for considering the scheduling issues. PCO, PSO, and PWE each contain between 15% and 25% of the undergraduate students. PWE and PCO meet at the same time. PSO meets at the same time as the two choruses. PJO overlaps PSO on two days of the week. Thus in any given rehearsal frame, a significant number of undergraduates are engaged in rehearsal. This creates a number of difficulties for students engaged in multiple ensembles. In recent years a significant number of classes have also been offered in these ensemble time slots.

At a slightly larger level, the concert schedule creates a number of difficulties for the Peabody community. The Ensembles office must balance a dizzying number of issues to plan their year. The Institute as a whole should be encouraged to assess

Page 25

UGCC FINAL REPORT â&#x20AC;˘ DRAFT: 2009.05.19

the benefits and costs of special events, especially since the benefits are hard to quantify, while the costs are largely meted out in wear-and-tear on our students. While it is far beyond the charge of the UGCC and reflects carefully-considered hierarchical structures and personnel data, the UGCC encourages the Institute to examine the reporting structure of the faculty and staff coordinating the ensembles and concerts. Since participation in large ensembles is a requirement in Conservatory curricula, the Dean of the Conservatory should be a stakeholder in discussions about the ensembles.

Ensemble Enrollment: Spring 2009 Ensemble Total Undergraduates Peabody Symphony Orchestra (PSO) 107

60

Peabody Concert Orchestra (PCO) 100

80

Peabody Wind Ensemble (PWE)

71

57

Peabody Singers

40

35

Peabody-Hopkins Chorus

41

37

Peabody Jazz Orchestra (PJO)

25

22

Peabody Opera Theatre 41 18 The role of the large ensembles in the curriculum is one of the most delicate and difficult issues for the Peabody Chamber Opera 13 2 Peabody community. The ensembles faculty is Peabody Improvisation/Multimedia 15 13 charged with operating the ensembles as learning laboratories. The yearly auditions, the rotation of players through the instrumental ensembles, the selection of repertoire with progressing difficulty and the impeccable recordkeeping of the Ensembles office all speak to the dedication of the Ensembles faculty and staff to address the competencies in a manner consistent with Peabody's resources. Over the course of a four-year degree, an instrumentalist will likely spend more time with a conductor than with any other faculty member.

Needs of the Three Large Instrumental Ensembles Instrument Flute Oboe Clarinet Bassoon Horn Sax Trumpet Trombone Bass Trombone Euphonium Tuba Percussion Harp Violin Viola Cello Bass TOTAL

Need 14 12 20 12 17 8 18 10 3 2 5 17 8 76 28 32 19 301

Enrollment of the Three Large Instrumental Ensembles: 2000-2009

140 130 120 110 100 90 80 70 60

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

PCO

104

123

116

116

111

124

111

110

112

100

PSO

84

130

123

127

122

127

119

129

123

107

PWE

70

86

85

89

74

73

76

72

66

72

Given the intense master/apprentice relationship that develops between musicians and major teachers, many members of the studio faculty believe they should play a more-determinate role in the large ensemble experience. Given their own professional experiences, some studio faculty would like to see more variety in the large ensemble program. NASM is clear about the role of ensembles in the curriculum, noting that students should play in ensembles throughout the baccalaureate program to achieve "growth in artistry, technical skills, collaborative competence and knowledge of repertory through regular ensemble experiences." However, NASM also notes that ensembles "should be varied both in size and nature."99

Page 26

UGCC FINAL REPORT â&#x20AC;˘ DRAFT: 2009.05.19

The Ensembles faculty has sought to address this need by soliciting the support of studio faculty. Through much of the fall semester 2008, the Ensembles staff hosted discussions by student groups, led by studio faculty. Finally, the Ensembles faculty has expressed its concern that dividing its principal ensembles into smaller groups would inevitably promote the better players at the expense of players who need more mentoring and experience. Moreover, the sheer size of Peabody's student body and the limitations of space and faculty and staff resources may impede the rotation of repertoire in a curricularly meaningful way. These problems would prove especially difficult for woodwind and brass instrumentalists, who need a vigorous complement of strings for a legitimate orchestral experience.

Recommendation The scheduling issues of the large ensembles are complicated. However, the UGCC would like to participate in meaningful discussions with the Ensembles faculty and staff in pursuit of a regular schedule for the entire Peabody community. It is to be hoped that early success in the shared goal of a regular schedule will open all parties to the more difficult discussion of best practices and outcomes for Peabody students. The Peabody leadership should contribute to these discussions and manage the inevitable disputes without taking sides. It may be useful to consult with orchestral professionals or mutuallyrespected colleagues from peer institutions.

In light of the known complexities and the unimagined complications yet to be revealed, the UGCC recommends a period of discussion and discovery with the mandate of presenting objectives with a timetable of implementation in advance of the 2010-2011 school year.

Recommendation 16:

Increase the overall number of electives offered, with special attention for career-oriented courses. For some majors, classes currently taken as requirements might be offered as electives.100

The UGCC was charged with broadening the mix of academic interests among students to enrich their worldview and increase their level of career preparedness. Because of the fairly rigid structure of music curricula, students can only address these concerns in the careful selection of classes for elective credit. While some majors require 10 elective credits, most majors require as little as 6 or 4 elective credits and some majors require none at all. Moreover, Peabody's elective requirements and offerings are further hindered by the artificial division into electives and music electives (as addressed in Recommendation 17). Finally, the number of electives offered overall is quite small.

The 1998 curriculum committee addressed these very issues, noting in their introduction: An almost completely prescribed course of study is not the only way to ensure an excellent education. An almost completely prescribed course of study is not the way to attract the most creative and interesting students to Peabody.

An almost completely prescribed course of study is not the way to prepare our students for the hectic rate of change in the professional music world. 101 Five years later, the 2003 Self-Report for NASM addressed the rigidity of the undergraduate curriculum noting that the "paucity of classroom electives for undergraduates should be remedied." 102 The State of Maryland has no guidelines that apply: the word elective does not appear in COMAR Title 13B. MSCHE provides no specific guidelines for elective credits. NASM notes that "elective areas of study in undergraduate professional programs comprise 10-15% of the total curriculum..."103 However, that statement refers the reader to Section III.C.2, which notes that "the extent to which a particular curriculum will contain any opportunities for free electives or electives chosen from a specified set to establish course requirements" is "the prerogative of the institution."104 Moreover, speaking specifically to the B.M., NASM advises institutions to provide opportunities for: elective study; a specific emphasis or minor; or elective studies in a specific outside field. 105 In the strictest interpretation, Peabody meets these criteria in that we allow elective study at Peabody, allow for a concentration (i.e., a minor), and allow for elective study at Homewood that leads to the Liberal Arts Concentration.

However, Peabody's compliance with these guidelines hinges on the word opportunity, for while these classes and programs are offered, there has been little consideration of how they may fit into a student's schedule and curriculum.

Page 27

UGCC FINAL REPORT • DRAFT: 2009.05.19

Peabody Students and Faculty on the Subject of Electives The UGGC surveys show a difference in the opinion of students and faculty regarding the optimal number of electives.

Students 39 (40.2%) of 97 responses 55 (56.7% )of 97 responses 3 (3.1%) of 97 responses

Answer Too many electives required Just enough electives Not enough electives

Faculty 6 (22.2%) of 27 responses 11 (40.7%) of 27 responses 10 (37%) of 27 responses

In both groups, the majority answered there are "just enough electives." However, the second most-frequent answer for students was "too many electives," while "not enough electives" was the second most-frequent answer among the faculty (by the narrowest margin possible). The differing opinions may suggest a more fundamental difference between the abstract concept of electives, as perhaps viewed by classroom faculty, and the rather small selection of electives that are actually available to undergraduates on the Peabody campus. Moreover, it may further underscore the confusion created by the difference between electives and music electives. Some members of the faculty may not realize just how few electives Peabody has offered on a regular basis.

Regarding the content of electives, both the students and the faculty showed great enthusiasm for all of the options provided.

Students 56.7% 49.5% 45.4% 43.3% 39.2% 36.1% 25.8%

Answers Profession-oriented classes (music business) Repertoire classes Classes that have nothing to do with music Classes at Homewood Languages Additional theory/musicology classes Music technology classes

Faculty 61.1% 52.8% 52.8% 44.4% 27.8% 38.9% 52.8%

Both faculty and students showed the greatest enthusiasm for profession-oriented classes.

Regarding profession-oriented courses, NASM recommends that B.M. programs should give students the opportunity to gain a basic understanding of the nature of professional work in their major field and acquire the skills necessary to assist in the development and advancement of their careers.106 Peabody already offers four profession-oriented courses: • • • •

360.411: The Music Business: Cash, Contracts, Copyrights 360.415: The Arts Administrator 360.416: Orchestra Management 360.421: The Business of Music

However, four classes for 350 undergraduates is a meager offering. Moreover, because these classes are offered at the fourhundred level, each of these classes may also be taken by graduate students for elective credit. In essence, these four classes serve almost 650 students. At this writing, there are three classes listed in the catalog under General Studies. These three classes have 94 enrolled students; 46 graduate students – including one DMA student – and 48 undergraduate students, including one double-degree student.107 Accordingly, as part of Recommendation 21, Peabody should examine the courses offered at KSAS and determine which classes offered, if any, would assist students in developing career-savvy skills.

Regarding repertoire classes, the students and the faculty had more to say. Among the participants in the survey, 93% of the students and 83% of the faculty want to see advanced courses in the major area of study. Moreover, 70% of the students and 78% of the faculty would like to those advanced courses offered as electives.

Page 28

UGCC FINAL REPORT â&#x20AC;˘ DRAFT: 2009.05.19

Analysis Electives can refer to several kinds of classes. Some electives are specified by department (e.g., voice majors must take Vocal Literature electives) and some electives are specified by kind (e.g., a skills elective, such as Ear-training III). Free electives are hereafter designated by the expression general elective.

Students don't necessarily want more general electives, and the curriculum can hardly accommodate an elective requirement commensurate with 15% of the credits of a B.M. Consider the B.M. in Voice: at 173 credits in the 2008-2009 Catalog, a 15% requirement for general electives would amount to 30 credits.

However, students do want more options in their choice of general electives. And students and faculty agree that there should be a focus on profession-oriented courses. However, the Conservatory is not in a position at this time to invest in more faculty to teach profession-oriented classes. Moreover, at any time, such expenditure should involve a complete cost/benefit analysis and a study of the impact on available teaching spaces.

While not general electives, students can still take more electives if some of the courses that are now required are no longer required but rather encouraged. Reducing the number of requirements in the departments can serve a number of purposes.

In the most likely case, the students will take the classes that were previously required but we can count them as electives instead of requirements. This is admittedly only a matter of semantics, but it would help Peabody demonstrate a regard for the NASM recommendations about electives. In other, specialized cases, it may be appropriate for some students to take alternate classes instead of taking the classes that are currently required. One can imagine appropriate substitutions in the case of students who come to their studies with special abilities that render some courses less necessary. Another possibility might include a student who decides to adopt a minor (pending the outcome of Recommendation 20). In that scenario, a student may present a case to his or her advisor and major teacher to take some classes in the place of other classes while still following the requirements of the degree.

Recommendation The UGCC recommends that departments with extensive requirements for their majors reduce the number of requirements and increase the number of required electives. A complete list of these departmental requirements may be found with the curriculum for each major in Part III. The UGCC further recommends that departments seek opportunities to offer elective courses without unduly interrupting the normal teaching mission of the departments. Such elective courses could take one of two forms. Some elective courses could fulfill the students' interest in taking courses in advanced studies in their major area. While attractive to both students and faculty, the feasibility of such courses must be judged by the number of prospective students available and prepared for specific advanced study. Other courses may be electives of a more general nature designed to appeal to larger groups of Conservatory students. A particular interest of some studio faculty would be a singing class for non-singers.

When the opportunity arises â&#x20AC;&#x201C; and it is to be hoped, before the 2014 decennial reviews of NASM and MSCHE â&#x20AC;&#x201C; the UGCC recommends that the Conservatory increase the offering of profession-oriented classes. Not every profession-oriented class need meet on a regular schedule. NASM's guidelines provide for irregularly scheduled courses, noting: When institutions offer programs and courses for abbreviated time periods, or in independent study, they must ensure that students completing such programs or courses acquire levels of knowledge, competence, and understanding comparable to that expected of students completing work in the standard time period.108 Some innovative thinking and scheduling may provide for a workshop on auditioning, or resume-writing, that can be condensed into several weekends or into a time bracket when members of one orchestra are on break between services (such as when the other orchestra is involved in an opera). Moreover, some Conservatory projects on the horizon, such as a degree in Arts Leadership or a reinvigorated career services center, may provide faculty and opportunities for elective careerbuilding courses.

Independent of these prospects, the UGCC recommends that the work to foster appropriate linkages between the classroom departments (furthered in Recommendation 21) will include some consideration of elective courses at Peabody, on the Homewood campus, and ultimately as distance-learning courses.

Page 29

UGCC FINAL REPORT • DRAFT: 2009.05.19

Recommendation 17:

The distinction between music electives and electives should be eliminated.109

In the introduction to the B.M., the Catalog provides the following definition of an elective: Electives. Unless otherwise specified, the term elective means class elective. Questions about the appropriateness of courses for elective credit can be directed to the Registrar’s Office.110 In the introduction to the M.M., the description is expanded to include: "Ensemble credits cannot be counted as elective credits."111 In the requirements for undergraduate degrees, two additional descriptors are used: general electives and music electives. Neither is explained. If an explanation were required, it would include the following elements: • • • •

Any class not offered by the Humanities Department would qualify as a music elective, since it would likely be taught by music faculty.

Any class offered by the Humanities Department would qualify as an elective but not a music elective.

Most other classes where the principal activity is not playing an instrument or singing would qualify as an elective, including General Studies, Music Theory, Musicology, Repertoire Classes and Jazz Classes (with perhaps the exception of Improvisation). At the risk of being facetious, an elective would seem to involve sitting at a desk.

However, most of the classes from the previous bullet would also qualify as music electives because of the content of the class.

In its Handbook, NASM only uses the expression music elective in discussions of liberal arts degrees with a major in music: presumably to distinguish music-related electives from electives in other divisions of a liberal arts institution.112 For the professional baccalaureate or B.M., NASM only uses the unqualified word elective.

The distinction between elective and music elective at Peabody is largely a distinction drawn by the Registrar and the Associate Dean for Academic Affairs. Too often, it is a decision made during a degree audit: i.e., the decision is made after the student has taken the class. More often than not, it is a decision that is largely based on institutional memory. The same classes are offered with an amazing consistency, and these classes tend to be placed in one category or the other based on the students requirements.

No one currently working in the Peabody administration can remember when or why the distinction between electives and music electives came to be. It is assumed that this distinction arose as a way to delineate classroom electives (reframed general electives) from electives such as minor lessons or playing in the Peabody Camerata. Some have suggested the distinction was inserted to add some academic heft to the degree programs. If so, this safeguard is no longer required. The ensembles are thoroughly and vigorously regulated by the Ensembles Office and the Chamber Music program is running beyond its capacity. Given the current student population, there is simply no room for students to fulfill their elective requirements by taking extra ensembles. Moreover, minor lessons require a per-credit charge; students do not typically fulfill their elective credits with additional lessons. Finally, the B.M. does not require additional academic heft by any standard of accreditation or in comparison with any peer institution. Peabody's B.M. requires 18 credits of Music Theory compared with the average of 17.5 and the median of 15 credits among peers; 8 credits of Music History, compared with the average of 8.7 and the median of 8 among peers; and 32 credits of Humanities compared with the average of 26.5 and the median of 24 among peers. Thus, 58 credits of the degree qualify as electives and music electives (compared with an average of 52.5 and a median of 50 credits among peers). The recommendations of contained in this report, if enacted, would do little to disturb these percentages.

The UGCC recommends that the distinction between music electives and electives should be eliminated. The purpose of this distinction is no longer apparent. Students, faculty, and staff find the language confusing.

Supplement to the Recommendation On 21 April 2009, the Undergraduate Committee approved this recommendation for implementation in the 2009-2010 school year.

Page 30

UGCC FINAL REPORT â&#x20AC;˘ DRAFT: 2009.05.19

Recommendation 18:

The Associate Dean of Academic Affairs should coordinate courses that are not associated with an extant department, including such offerings as The Business of Music, Arts Administration, and Anatomy and Injury Prevention.113

The Conservatory regularly offers a number of elective courses that are not part of the curricular offerings of an established department. These courses are typically taught by adjuncts or by Conservatory faculty taking on a responsibility beyond their typical roles. These "orphan electives" do not present any particular problem at present, but should any problem arise, there is no way to manage a problem without the direct involvement of the Dean and the faculty. More significantly, there is no oversight of these classes and no regular coordination other than what is provided by faculty alternating their offering or schedules. Finally, absent a place at the Council of Chairs or any other forum, there is no mechanism for the teachers of these scattered classes to expand their offering or to study and develop the competencies such courses may have in common with current curricular offerings.

Someday, it may be appropriate or even necessary for the Faculty Assembly through its standing committees to review the offering of such courses and to reshape them into a formal curricular area. Until such time, the UGCC recommends that the Associate Dean of Academic Affairs should coordinate courses that are not associated with an extant department.

Recommendation 19:

Any change to the requirements of undergraduate degree programs should require the approval of both the Undergraduate Committee and the Academic Council.114

The Conservatory faculty, acting through the Faculty Assembly, appoints the Undergraduate Committee. The duties of the Undergraduate Committee are enumerated in the Faculty Constitution: This committee shall oversee undergraduate programs, including the Bachelor of Music and the Performer's Certificate. It shall advise the faculty and the administration on matters including: undergraduate curricula; requirements for graduation; examinations, juries and recitals; academic standing; undergraduate admissions, scholarships and awards, and matters of coordination between the various undergraduate programs [amended 10/89, 3/01]. 115 The Faculty assembly also acknowledges the primacy of the Academic Council on curricular matters in Article VIII: The Academic Council is the principal oversight body recognized by the University in each division. Its primary function is the maintenance and improvement of academic standards, exercised through the approval of appointments, the conduct of regular departmental reviews, study of proposed new degree programs, and consultation on all administrative policies having a potential impact on academic quality [amended 12/97].116 However, the Faculty Constitution does not establish a correct conduct for curricular change. While the Constitution does note that "major policy decisions" of the standing committees "shall be referred to the Council of Chairs for ratification," it does not specify the nature or scope of such policy decisions.117 Even a cursory review of curricular changes over the last ten years indicates a pattern of quick action in the Undergraduate Committee with relatively little oversight of the other standing committees. Some of these changes, such as the change to the Humanities curriculum, the change to the Jazz curriculum, the scheduling of Ear-training on every day of the week, and the institution of the Liberal Arts Concentrations, would have benefited from broader colloquy and the advice and consent of other constituencies. This situation is particularly complicated by the high degree of overturn in the Undergraduate Committee: unlike the DMA Committee which has included a core group of faculty for years, the total composition of the Undergraduate Committee changes rapidly, and the group retains little of its mission-oriented memory. The Academic Council features the Deans of the Conservatory as well as the Dean of the Preparatory, who may be a key resource for any decisions that involve the teaching rooms and performance areas. Moreover, the Academic Council also features the participation of the University's Provost, who may prove a useful resource in matters regarding University policy and MSCHE accreditation.

The UGCC recommends that any future changes to the undergraduate curriculum be referred to the Academic Council for final approval.

Page 31

UGCC FINAL REPORT â&#x20AC;˘ DRAFT: 2009.05.19

Supplement to the Recommendation On 21 April 2009, the Undergraduate Committee approved this recommendation for implementation in the 2009-2010 school year.

Recommendation 20:

The Conservatory should grant provisional authorization for departments to prepare "minors" or "concentrations." Such concentrations should begin with the extant model for the Liberal Arts concentration and require the approval of the Undergraduate Committee and the Academic Council.118

While particular to the United States and Canada, academic minors (or concentrations) have become a part of student life and an efficient way to summarize and document the study of a particular subject.119 Peabody already offers two minors: a JHU Liberal Arts Concentration and a JHU Engineering Concentration. The Liberal Arts Concentrations is described as follows: Bachelor of Music with JHU Liberal Arts Concentration Peabody students wishing to earn a Bachelor of Music with a liberal arts concentration must complete six courses at the Krieger School of Arts and Sciences on the Homewood campus with at least three at the 200 level or higher. At least one of the courses must be an expository writing course or a writing-intensive course.

Language courses at the 100 level in the Krieger School of Arts and Sciences cannot be used to fulfill the requirements for the liberal arts concentration. Music courses offered at the Krieger School of Arts and Sciences cannot be used to fulfill the requirements for the liberal arts concentration.

All students planning a B.M. with a liberal arts concentration must have their proposed program of study approved by the chair of the Humanities Department of the Peabody Conservatory of Music.

The following statement will appear on the transcript of any Peabody student who successfully completes a liberal arts concentration: Liberal Arts concentration completed on the Homewood campus of The Johns Hopkins University. 120 The Homewood concentrations were approved by the Undergraduate Committee on 16 December 2003 and were first offered in the 2004-5 school year. Despite being offered for five years, they have not become known to the Peabody students and faculty. In the UGCC survey, only 22% of the students and 21% of the faculty indicated knowledge of concentrations. It is to be hoped that the new advising system advanced in Recommendation 4 will make these opportunities more apparent to students.

The UGCC survey clearly indicates that the prospect of getting a minor does appeal to both students and faculty. 73% of the students expressed interest in earning a minor and 78% of the faculty said a minor would be appropriate for their undergraduate students. Moreover, the survey collected information about the minors that appeal to students and faculty.

What sorts of music concentrations or minors do interest you?

Students 53.2% 36.4% 33.8% 24.7% 23.4% 20.8% 15.6% 13.0%

Option Chamber Music Conducting Musicology Jazz Composition Music Theory Early Music Music Technology

Page 32

Faculty 73.1% 65.4% 65.4% 0% 65.4% 73.1% 69.2% 61.5%

UGCC FINAL REPORT • DRAFT: 2009.05.19

NASM and MSCHE are uncharacteristically lax on the guidelines for offering minors. NASM seems primarily concerned with the offering of music minors to students who major in other areas.

Minors and areas of emphasis require less time in the subject area and are not designated majors. Normally, course work in an area of emphasis occupies at least 10% of the total curriculum; course work in a minor, at least 12%.121 Peabody's peer institutions offer minors. Cleveland offers a wide range of minors in such fields as: music theory, eurhythmics, composition, audio recording, music history and literature, and any performance area. 122 Cincinnati offers a minor in Electronic Media.123 MSM offers a minor in composition. 124 NEC offers a pedagogy minor. 125 Guidelines and Recommendation A proposal for a new minor should consider the following factors: • • • • • • • • •

Admission to a minor should involve a faculty review of a student's academic record, performance ratings (if applicable) and potential to complete the minor without delaying satisfactory academic progress in the student's major.

A minor should consist of approximately 18 credits of which a majority should be completed at the 200 level or higher.

Departments should consider when in the course of study students should declare a minor.

Departments should give due regard to the types of classes and amount of credits that can be applied to both a major and a minor field.126 Departments should carefully consider the curricular obligations of students pursuing varying majors. In the 2008-2009 Peabody Catalog, there is a difference of 52 credits between the requirements for a B.M. in Guitar and a B.M. in Music Education / Voice.

Departments should give due regard to whether or not credits for a minor can be earned at other institutions.

Departments should assign faculty to advise students on minor requirements.

Studio lessons are the most expensive aspect of a conservatory education. For the 2008-2009 year, one hour minor lessons are $7,650 per year; half-hour minor lessons are $4,670. Minors that require studio lessons will need to be carefully examined and/or subject to limited enrollment. Note also that not all studio faculty take minors.

Minor lessons do not include the price of a recital. Programs should consider the impact of a recital on the heavily strained resources of the Concert Office.

The UGCC recommends that interested departments submit proposals for "minors" or "concentrations." Such concentrations should begin with the extant model for the Liberal Arts concentration. Minors should require the approval of the Undergraduate Committee and the Academic Council.

Recommendation 21:

The Conservatory should institute and monitor a process to forge appropriate linkages between the Musicology, Music Theory and Humanities curricula.

As noted in Recommendation 8, NASM and MSCHE allow institutions to count certain courses from the major area as general studies credits. Both agencies also encourage institutions to foster creative interaction between general studies and classes that support the major. MSCHE notes that "skills and knowledge derived from general education and the major should be integrated because general education and study in depth, together, comprise a quality undergraduate education."127 NASM notes that the "areas of inquiry from general education are directly supportive of various specializations in music."128 Both agencies also expect the interaction between areas to form a kind of learning synergy. MSCHE expects students to apply the skills and abilities developed in general education to the major or concentration. Moreover, the cross-application of these skills should figure into the institutions assessment of student learning.129 NASM expects "synthesis," noting that, "by the end of undergraduate study students must be able to work on musical problems by combining, as appropriate to the issue, their capabilities in performance; aural, verbal, and visual analysis; composition and improvisation; history and repertory; and technology."130 The Humanities, Musicology, and Music Theory Departments should examine their curricula and look for meaningful relationships to support such synthesis. As a start, Musicology and Music Theory should consider the competencies articulated by the area designators and look for analogues in their own curricula. Conversely, the historical progression of

Page 33

UGCC FINAL REPORT â&#x20AC;˘ DRAFT: 2009.05.19

the Music Theory curriculum as well as the broad social concerns of the Musicology curriculum seem well fit to the Historical/Philosophical (HP) designation in Humanities.

The departments should consider content, but they should also consider pedagogical methodology. Student writing is a competency that is developed in the Humanities and Musicology Departments, as well as perhaps the Music Theory Department. Recommendation 21 speaks to the writing competency. Another competency for consideration is the use of technology for research. MSCHE describes technology thus: Several skills, collectively referred to as "information literacy," apply to all disciplines in an institution's curricula.

These skills relate to a studentâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s competency in acquiring and processing information in the search for understanding, whether that information is sought in or through the facilities of a library, through practica, as a result of field experiments, by communications with experts in professional communities, or by other means. Therefore, information literacy is an essential component of any educational program at the graduate or undergraduate levels.131 NASM has less formal standards, but did take Peabody to task on this issue during the 2004 process. Technology was in fact NASM's first item for response, noting: It does not appear that the orientation and computer use listed above necessarily have anything to do with the field of music, either generally or applicable to the area of specialization. The response should explain how the institution assures that all Bachelor of Music students in Performance, Music Education, and Jazz Performance acquire this knowledge about the use of technology in music.132 At present, Humanities is the only department that engages students in technology in an overt way. However, it is clear that some faculty in Musicology and Music Theory are using technology in the classroom and beyond the classroom.

The 2004 External Review of the Humanities Department included recommendations to "create links with the music curriculum."133 In the intervening five years, very little seems to have been done. The UGCC recommends that the Academic Council institute and monitor a process to discover and elaborate the appropriate linkages.

Recommendation 22:

The Conservatory should conduct a review of writing requirements and writing instruction across the undergraduate curriculum. The review should be conducted by a faculty committee appointed by the Faculty Assembly, include the chairs of academic departments, and seek the advice of the University's Vice Provost for Undergraduate Education.134

Student expository writing is a perennial concern in academia. In most colleges, undergraduate students take remedial or orienting writing courses in their first semester and continue to write papers for the duration of their studies. The varying schedules of Peabody undergraduates and the heretofore foreign language requirements have made it difficult both for students write consistently and for faculty to track progress in student writing.

The agencies that accredit Peabody do not make specific recommendations regarding writing. NASM notes that a student with a B.M. degree should have "the ability to think, speak, and write clearly and effectively."135 COMAR is equally imprecise, suggesting that students leave with the ability to "communicate effectively in oral and written English."136 MSCHE insists that schools be able to demonstrate "institutional requirements assuring that, upon degree completion, students are proficient in oral and written communication, scientific and quantitative reasoning, and technological competency appropriate to the discipline."137 Unlike much teaching at Peabody, writing can be viewed in the context of the larger college experience. For the 2008 edition of their annual report, the National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) surveyed 194,858 students, randomly sampled from 722 four-year colleges and universities in the U.S. 138 This survey provides reliable data about undergraduate writing, described as follows:

Page 34

UGCC FINAL REPORT • DRAFT: 2009.05.19

First-year students wrote 92 pages and seniors wrote 146 pages on average during the academic year.

Among seniors, the amount of writing varied considerably by major (Figure 12) [excerpted to the right]. Those majoring in the social sciences and arts and humanities wrote considerably more than many of their peers.

Students studying the physical and biological sciences wrote less.

The amount of writing was positively correlated with engagement, i.e., the more students wrote, the more they engaged in active and collaborative learning, student-faculty interaction, enriching experiences, and deep learning.139

While these statistics may not be appropriate for a conservatory – a school of majors not considered in the NSSE sample – Peabody could extrapolate a clearer picture of best practices by analyzing the data in detail.140 Of particular interest is the finding that more writing is required of students as they progress through their studies: on average, students in the survey wrote 50% more pages as seniors than as freshmen. While this makes intuitive sense, the curricular structures for orchestral instrument majors tend toward fewer requirements in their final years. Left unadvised, as is frequently the case, Peabody undergraduates could easily take elective courses on campus and elsewhere in the final year with very few writing requirements. Still other observations about writing practices in the 2008 NSSE are worth noting. Students who wrote more tended to learn more and retain more of what they learned. Students wrote more when they had closer interactions with supervising faculty. Finally, the NSSE in concert with the Council of Writing Program Administrators (WPA) concluded: "The more importance a faculty member placed on preparing multiple drafts of a paper, the more likely they were to emphasize deep approaches to learning."141 Closer still to Peabody is the example of the Homewood colleges, KSAS and WSE. Undergraduates at these schools have a standard writing requirement, described as follows: A writing-intensive (W) course is one in which students write at least 20 pages of finished writing, distributed over multiple assignments, usually 3 or 4 papers, throughout the semester. Instructors respond to students’ work in written comments or in conference, or both; and students have at least one opportunity to receive their instructor’s feedback on a draft and then revise.142 Students earning a B.A. at Homewood must complete 12 credits (four courses) in writing-intensive courses. Once again, while the UGCC acknowledges that these exact figures may not be appropriate for Peabody students, there are many things to admire about the clarity of this system, including: • • • • •

The designation (by means of the W) of which classes will require intensive writing and how many of such classes are required.

The designation – indeed guarantee – of support for those papers by indicating the instructors role in assessment.

The indication that at least one of the papers will be work-shopped in successive drafts.

The expected number of pages and the expected division of the work into "3 or 4 papers."

The clear indication that the writing is integral to the course, and thus, integral to the assessment of the student's formative and summative assessment: i.e., the writing is not just a means to earn the grade; the writing itself is part of the grade.

Also worth noting is the fact that Homewood tracks students even before they matriculate, on the basis of their verbal SAT score. Peabody already does a fair amount of comparable tracking on the basis of TOEFL scores. It may be worth investigating the current placement and progress of native English speakers to ensure that they are well served.

Peabody's peers do not emphasize writing in catalog descriptions of their curriculum. In the Peabody catalog, the sentence, "Writing is emphasized in liberal arts courses." is arguably the strongest commitment to expository writing for undergraduates in the Catalogs for all of the major US conservatories.143 At Peabody, the Humanities Department has been the only department to promote the importance of writing. The Humanities Department teaches writing within its classes, makes writing a part of its curricular requirements, and manages a student-run writing center for the advantage of all undergraduate students.144 However, competent writing is also required for Page 35

UGCC FINAL REPORT â&#x20AC;˘ DRAFT: 2009.05.19

satisfactory completion of Music History courses. It is worth noting that students who apply for a graduate degree at Peabody must take a Musicology test that consists of answering essay questions. That test, as a measure of preparedness, speaks to the level of writing competence expected of students who complete the Music History curriculum. The teaching objectives of Music Theory leave little room for expansive writing assignments. However, with the approval of Recommendation 11, students will be required to take an elective which would likely involve writing at least one paper.

While the UGCC praises the work done by the Humanities Department to teach, promote and support expository writing, it is nevertheless clear that writing serves student work in more than just Humanities coursework. Accordingly, it would be in the best interest of students if the Musicology Department, and perhaps the Music Theory Department, would collaborate with Humanities to discuss the standards for expository writing and the expectations of Peabody's undergraduate students. In particular, the departments should collaborate on the following issues: Page Length:

As the length of a paper is frequently the first question from students who receive a writing assignment and sometimes the last question faculty want to answer, the departments should develop some guidelines for the amount of writing required for the comparatively small number of classes that require writing.

Process:

The departments should decide when it is appropriate for students to workshop papers in successive drafts and when students should be required to manage these issues on their own.

Short-term Evaluation:

The departments should consider the modalities of evaluating student writing and whether the constituent parts of writing assignments can be abstracted and expressed on a rubric.

Formative Evaluation:

Given the additional support of other areas, the Humanities Department should consider a means for benchmarking student work and re-evaluating writing as a student progresses through the B.M.

Style:

The departments should consider and clearly delineate the hallmarks of academic prose that appropriate for the musical inquiry.

Citation:

While admittedly the most mechanical detail of student writing, there is little question that students could improve their handling of source materials if a school-wide standard and style could be adopted.

Academic Integrity:

A vigorous and unified approach to citation would also clarify the rules about plagiarism.

Finally, the departments should consider the special issues attending writing about music, including the use of standard Italian performing directions (e.g. forte), the standard practices for capitalization and/or italicization of titles (Symphony in D, as opposed to Symphony Fantastique), the use of abbreviations (m. for measure, mm. for measures), and many other conventions found in academic writing about music. These conventions can be determined by examining the style guides for academic journals, or by consulting the books on writing cited in the UGCC's bibliography.

The UGCC recommends that the Humanities Department and the Musicology Department coordinate with the Associate Dean of Academic Affairs and submit a report on these recommendations to the academic council by the end of the 20092010 school year.

Recommendation 23:

All departments should prepare and submit a report about how they meet the guidelines for NASM and MSCHE. The reports should be submitted to the Associate Dean of academic affairs by the end of the 2009-2010 school year for presentation to the Academic Council in the fall of 2011.145

Despite changes in the Department of Education, the trend in higher education is steadily toward accountability and outcomes. Experienced officials at the University have opined that the guidelines for the 2009 PRR have put a greater emphasis on assessing student learning than any prior accreditation measures. The move toward greater accountability and assessment may be complicated by three further variables:

Page 36

UGCC FINAL REPORT • DRAFT: 2009.05.19

• • •

Edgar Roulhac, JHU's Vice Provost for academic services, has just been appointed to a three-year term as a commissioner and member of MSCHE. Members of the PRR Committee are crafting a proposal for a standing university committee on assessment, reporting to the provost and chaired by the Vice Provost for Academic Affairs. Peabody, as a division of the university, will need to participate in that committee.

JHU will soon appoint a new provost who will bring his or her own ideas about assessment. One idea that has been discussed is the appointment of a senior-position "thought leader" to oversee student learning assessment. There are currently 70 higher-education administration jobs advertised in the category of "Assessment, Accreditation, and Compliance."

Accordingly, facing the dual assessments of NASM and MSCHE in 2014, Peabody should begin to benchmark its progress toward sailing through these accreditation processes. The curriculum should already meet the objectives of the accrediting agencies. However, the departments should begin to assess the teaching and assessment practices of their faculty with a view toward determining what steps should be taken in advance of writing self-reports. Each department should prepare a report for the Associate Dean of Academic Affairs, who should then present the reports to the Academic Council in the fall of 2011.

Page 37

UGCC FINAL REPORT • DRAFT: 2009.05.19

PART THREE • UNDERGRADUATE CURRICULA If the 23 Recommendations of Part Two are approved and enacted, most undergraduate degree curricula will have 8 less required credits. Other changes to undergraduate degree programs have been made in direct coordination with departments and are too specific in nature to merit the broad elaboration of a recommendation. The specific changes are reflected in the curricular tables that follow, which follow the format required by NASM. The following conventions are used for the tables:

EXAMPLE

The NASM Study Area MAJOR AREA Major Lesson Departmental Examination Recital Large Ensemble

Credits

100 • 100 xxx • 109–209–309 190 • 495 910 • xxx

32 3 2 16 53

SUPPORTIVE COURSES IN MUSIC Music Theory 1–5 710 • 111–112–211–212–31115 Music Theory 6 / Elective 710 • xxx 3 Musicology: four of five offerings 610 • 311, 312, 313, 314, 5558 26 Course Title/s The bullet separates…

190 • 495

Each year of study is written ONE 4 4 1

TWO 4 4 1

THREE 4 4 1

FOUR 4 4

2

2

2

2

2

2

3

3

3

3

3 2

2

3 2

2

2 2

2

The Number of credits are shown for each semester of study( Fall | Spring )

…the department prefix… …from the course number.

The dash shows sequential courses: 111–112 The comma shows non-sequential courses: 311,312

Page 38

32 3 2 16 53 15 3 8 26

UGCC FINAL REPORT • DRAFT: 2009.05.19

The Undergraduate Core

UG CORE [PROPOSED] 2009–2010

UG CORE 2008–2009

MAJOR AREA Major Lesson Departmental Examination Recital Large Ensemble

100 • 100 xxx • 109–209–309 190 • 495 910 • xxx

SUPPORTIVE COURSES Thursday Noon Recital Series Thursday Noon Alternate Project Ear–training I–II Keyboard Studies I–II Music Theory 1–5 Music Theory 6 / Elective Musicology: four of five offerings

IN MUSIC 530 • 501–502 530 • 503–504 710 • 123–124–223–224 710 • 155–156–255–256 710 • 111–112–211–212–311 710 • xxx 610 • 311, 312, 313, 314, 555

GENERAL STUDIES Humanities Seminar Humanities electives GP Humanities electives HP Humanities electives LL Humanities elective HE Humanities-approved elective

260 • 115 260 • xxx, xxx 260 • xxx, xxx 260 • xxx, xxx 260 • xxx 260 • xxx

4 6 6 6 3 3 28

ELECTIVES Electives

xxx • xxx

3 3

32 1–3 2 8–16 44–53 1 1 8 8 15 3 8 44

TOTAL

MAJOR AREA Major Lesson Departmental Examination Recital Large Ensemble

100 • 100 xxx • 109–209–309 190 • 495 910 • xxx

SUPPORTIVE COURSES Thursday Noon Recital Series Thursday Noon Alternate Project Ear–training I–II Keyboard Studies I–II Music Theory I–III Basic Conducting Musicology: four of five offerings

IN MUSIC 530 • 501–502 530 • 503–504 710 • 123–124–223–224 710 • 155–156–255–256 710 • 111–112–211–212–311 330 • 311 610 • 311, 312, 313, 314, 555

GENERAL STUDIES Humanities Seminar Humanities Foreign Language Humanities electives LL Humanities electives GP Humanities electives HP Humanities elective HE

260 • 115 260 • xxx–xxx 260 • xxx 260 • xxx, xxx 260 • xxx, xxx 260 • xxx

ELECTIVES Electives

xxx • xxx

32 6 2 8–16 48–56 1 1 8 8 18 1 8 45

5 6 3 6 6 6 32

4–10 4–10

TOTAL 118–128

• • • •

129–143

Reflects the difference in credits for juries Reflects the removal of Basic Conducting as a requirement for all degrees Reflects the restructuring of the Humanities curriculum Reflects the standardization of electives and the room for students to take more electives or to elect to practice.

An Overview of Degree Changes

Performance and composition B.M. degrees are divided into four components: • • • •

The Major Area, comprising lessons, ensembles, juries and recitals; Supportive Courses in Music, including Music Theory, Musicology, repertoire studies, and specific musical skills; General Studies; and Electives.

Music Education Degrees substitute Professional Studies for Electives.

Page 39

-6.7%

171 168 168 171 161 188 197 199 190 185 205 194

173 172 177 178 168 198 199 218 207 201 216 206

-2 -4 -9 -7 -7 -10 -2 -19 -17 -16 -11 -12

-1.2% -2.3% -5.1% -3.9% -4.2% -5.1% -1.0% -8.7% -8.2% -8.0% -5.1% -5.8%

54.7 46% 30% 53.3 44% 29% 29.5 25% 16% 45.6 38% 25% 183

192.8

-9.7

-4.9%

All B.M. Degrees AVERAGE

55.9 46% 37% 54.9 46% 36% 28.8 24% 19%

—

—

—

166

176.0

-10.2

-5.8%

All B.M. Degrees MEDIAN

55.0 46% 32% 57.0 48% 33% 28.0 23% 18% 4.8 4% 5% 8.3 7% 7% 1.4 1% 2%

— —

— —

— —

168

173.0 22.3

-10.5 5.4

-5.1% 2.8%

Music Education: Guitar Music Education: Orchestral Instruments Music Education: Piano Music Education: Voice Music Education: Jazz Performance Music Education: Composition Recording Arts: Composition Recording Arts: Guitar Recording Arts: Jazz Performance Recording Arts: Orchestral Instruments Recording Arts: Organ Recording Arts: Piano Education & Recording AVERAGE

Standard Deviation

GENERAL 28 23% 19% 28 23% 20% 28 23% 20% 28 23% 21% 28 23% 19% 28 23% 20% 28 23% 19% 28 23% 20% 28 23% 18% 28 23% 18% 28 23% 17%

57.3 48% 39% 56.5 47% 38% 28.0 23% 19% MAJOR AREA 61 51% 36% 53 44% 32% 47 39% 28% 46 38% 27% 55 46% 34% 55 46% 29% 55 46% 28% 62 52% 31% 57 48% 30% 55 46% 30% 61 51% 30% 49 41% 25%

SUPPORTIVE 52 43% 30% 44 37% 26% 58 48% 35% 67 56% 39% 48 40% 30% 62 52% 33% 55 46% 28% 50 42% 25% 46 38% 24% 43 36% 23% 57 48% 28% 58 48% 30%

GENERAL 31 26% 18% 31 26% 18% 31 26% 18% 31 26% 18% 31 26% 19% 31 26% 16% 28 23% 14% 28 23% 14% 28 23% 15% 28 23% 15% 28 23% 14% 28 23% 14%

Credits

-10.7

%Total

TOTAL

% NASM

% NASM

157.7

SUPPORTIVE 52 43% 35% 53 44% 37% 49 41% 36% 45 38% 34% 59 49% 39% 60 50% 42% 67 56% 45% 48 40% 34% 63 53% 41% 69 58% 45% 57 48% 35%

Credits

147

%Total

%Total

Performance & Composition Education & Recording

% NASM

4%

PROFESSIONAL 27 23% 16% 40 33% 24% 32 27% 19% 27 23% 16% 27 23% 17% 40 33% 21% 59 49% 30% 59 49% 30% 59 49% 31% 59 49% 32% 59 49% 29% 59 49% 30%

Performance & Compositon AVERAGE

MAJOR AREA 62 52% 42% 56 47% 39% 58 48% 42% 55 46% 41% 61 51% 40% 49 41% 34% 49 41% 33% 57 48% 40% 55 46% 36% 55 46% 35% 73 61% 45%

Credits

08-09 157 150 148 145 159 155 173 149 163 163 173

%Total

148 143 138 134 151 143 150 142 152 155 161

Guitar Harpsichord Early Music Instruments Orchestral Instruments Organ Piano Voice Jazz Performance Composition Majors Computer Music – Composition Computer Music – Performance

Credits

ELECTIVES 6 5% 4% 6 5% 4% 3 3% 2% 6 5% 4% 3 3% 2% 6 5% 4% 6 5% 4% 9 8% 6% 6 5% 4% 3 3% 2% 3 3% 2%

DEGREE

TOTALS

% NASM

UGCC FINAL REPORT • DRAFT: 2009.05.19

5.2

4%

21.77

CHANGE 2008-2009 to 2009-2010 Difference -9 -5.7% -7 -4.7% -10 -6.8% -11 -7.6% -8 -5.0% -12 -7.7% -23 -13.3% -7 -4.7% -11 -6.7% -8 -4.9% -12 -6.9%

For each of these components, the first column shows the number of credits required for that component in each major. The second column relates the component as a percentage of the total degree according to NASM's guidelines. NASM calculates the relative weighting of components based on a requirement of 120 credits, noting that for program requirements exceeding 120 credits, the combined percentage of the components will exceed 100%.146 The third column relates the component credits as a percentage of the actual number of credits, which can be found in the Total column.

According to NASM's description of the B.M. in performance or composition, study in the major area of performance should comprise 25-35% of the total curriculum (i.e., the NASM-abstraction of a curriculum of 120 credits). Supportive courses in music should comprise 25-35% of the curriculum. Studies in the major area and supportive courses in music normally total at least 65% of the curriculum.147 In every performance major, Peabody exceeds this guideline by 20% or more. NASM also indicates that general studies should comprise 25-35%. Peabody's majors are currently at 23% of the NASM calculation.

However, since NASM allows institutions to count some Music History courses as General Studies (as noted in Recommendation 8, pp. 16 &f.), and since Peabody's majors so far exceed the requirement for supportive courses in music, Peabody is clearly in compliance.

For Music Education and Recording Arts degrees, NASM groups the major area with supportive courses and expects both components to comprise 50% of the curriculum. General studies should comprise 30-35% of the curriculum and professional education should comprise 15-20%.148 Here again, Peabody's degrees so far outpace the requirements for supportive courses that many can be counted as General Studies. Moreover, unlike the performance degrees, the Music Education degrees are more tightly controlled by the State of Maryland and the covenants of reciprocity with other states. Similarly, Recording Arts degrees are shaped by a consulting arrangement between NASM and the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET).

Page 40

UGCC FINAL REPORT • DRAFT: 2009.05.19

GUITAR

MAJOR AREA Major Lesson Departmental Seminar Departmental Examination Half Recital Recital Chorus Guitar Ensemble Small Ensemble

100 • 100 470 • 545–546 171 • 109–209 171 • 309 190 • 495 910 • 511, 512 950 • 541, 542 950 • 531–532

32 8 3 1 2 8 6 2 62

SUPPORTIVE COURSES IN MUSIC Thursday Noon Recital Series 530 • 501–502 Thursday Noon Alternate Project 530 • 503–504 Ear–training I–II 710 • 123–124–223–224 Keyboard Studies I 710 • 155–156 Guitar Music Skills I–II 530 • 585–586–587–588 Music Theory 1–5 710 • 111–112–211–212–311 Music Theory 6 / Elective 710 • xxx Guitar Literature 530 • 431, 432 Guitar Pedagogy 530 • 637-368 Musicology: four of five offerings 610 • 311, 312, 313, 314, 555 GENERAL STUDIES Humanities Seminar Humanities electives GP Humanities electives HP Humanities electives LL Humanities elective HE Humanities-approved elective ELECTIVES Electives*

260 • 115 260 • xxx, xxx 260 • xxx, xxx 260 • xxx, xxx 260 • xxx 260 • xxx

xxx • xxx

ONE 4 4 1 1 1

TWO 4 4 1 1 1

THREE 4 4 1 1 1 1

2 1

2 1

2 1

½ 2

½ 2

1 3

1 3

FOUR 4 4 1 1

2

1 1 8 4 4 15 3 4 4 8 52

½

4 6 6 6 3 3 28

4

2 2 1 3

2 1

1 1

1 1

½ 2 2 1 3

3 2

3 2

2

2

2 2

2 2

32 8 3 1 2 8 6 2 62 1 1 8 4 4 15 3 4 4 8 52 4

3

3

3

3

3

9

24

28

6 6

3

3

6 6

TOTAL 148

* Strongly Suggested: Lute Tablature and Notation 530 • 431-432

Page 41

17.5 17.5 17.5 18.5

18

20

39

148

UGCC FINAL REPORT • DRAFT: 2009.05.19

HARPSICHORD

MAJOR AREA Major Lesson Departmental Examination Recital Organ Minor Voice Minor* Baroque Ensemble Baltimore Baroque Band

100 • 100 xxx • 109–209–309 190 • 495 010 • 100 010 • 100 950 • 527–528 910 • 527–528

32 3 2 2 2 7 8 56

SUPPORTIVE COURSES IN MUSIC Thursday Noon Recital Series 530 • 501–502 Thursday Noon Alternate Project 530 • 503–504 Ear–training I–II 710 • 123–124–223–224 Keyboard Skills for Piano Majors I–II710 • 211–212 Music Theory 1–5 710 • 111–112–211–212–311 Music Theory 6 / Elective 710 • xxx Continuo I–II 530 • 315–445 Harpsichord Literature 530 • 421–422 Harpsichord Tuning 370 • 492 Baroque Ornamentation 530 • 441–442 Basic Conducting 330 • 311 Musicology: four of five offerings 610 • 311, 312, 313, 314, 555 GENERAL STUDIES Humanities Seminar Humanities electives GP Humanities electives HP Humanities electives LL Humanities elective HE Humanities-approved elective ELECTIVES Electives

260 • 115 260 • xxx, xxx 260 • xxx, xxx 260 • xxx, xxx 260 • xxx 260 • xxx

xxx • xxx

ONE 4 4 1

TWO 4 4 1

THREE 4 4 1

FOUR 4 4 2

1

1 1 8 4 15 3 4 2 2 4 1 8 53

½

4 6 6 6 3 3 28

4

1

1

1

1

½ 2 2 3

½ 2 2 3

1 1 2

1 1 2

1 2

1 2

½

2

2

3

3

2

2

3 3 1

1

2 2 2

2

2 1 2

2

32 3 2 2 2 7 8 56 1 1 8 4 15 3 4 2 2 4 1 8 53 4

3

3

3

3

3

9

24

28

6 6

3

3

3 6

TOTAL 143

* Or other instrument with the permission of the Department.

Page 42

15.5 16.5 16.5 19.5

17

18

40

143

UGCC FINAL REPORT • DRAFT: 2009.05.19

VIOLA DA GAMBA, BAROQUE FLUTE, RECORDER, BAROQUE OBOE, BAROQUE VIOLIN/VIOLA, BAROQUE CELLO, RENAISSANCE LUTE, BAROQUE LUTE, THEORBO

MAJOR AREA Major Lesson Departmental Examination Recital Minor Lesson Baroque Ensemble Early Music Large Ensemble

100 • 100 xxx • 109–209–309 190 • 495 010 • 100 950 • 527–528 910 • 527–528

32 3 2 2 7 12 58

SUPPORTIVE COURSES IN MUSIC Thursday Noon Recital Series 530 • 501–502 Thursday Noon Alternate Project 530 • 503–504 Ear–training I–II 710 • 123–124–223–224 Keyboard Skills for Piano Majors I–II710 • 211–212 Music Theory 1–5 710 • 111–112–211–212–311 Music Theory 6 / Elective 710 • xxx Major Instrument Literature xxx • xxx Baroque Ornamentation 530 • 441–442 Basic Conducting 330 • 311 Musicology: four of five offerings 610 • 311, 312, 313, 314, 555 GENERAL STUDIES Humanities Seminar Humanities electives GP Humanities electives HP Humanities electives LL Humanities elective HE Humanities-approved elective ELECTIVES Electives

260 • 115 260 • xxx, xxx 260 • xxx, xxx 260 • xxx, xxx 260 • xxx 260 • xxx

xxx • xxx

ONE 4 4 1

TWO 4 4 1

THREE 4 4 1

1 2

1 2

1 1 2

½ 2 2 3

½ 2 2 3

FOUR 4 4 2

1

1 1 8 4 15 3 4 4 1 8 49

½

4 6 6 6 3 3 28

4

1 1 2

1 2

1 2

½

2

2

3

3

2

2

3 3 2 2

2

2 1 2

2

32 3 2 2 7 12 58 1 1 8 4 15 3 4 4 1 8 49 4

3

3

3

3

3

9

24

28

3 3

3

3 3

TOTAL 138 VARIATIONS: — for Lute Majors 143 credits Lute Tablature and Notation 530 • 431-432 Continuo I–II 530 • 315–445 No Elective Required — for Viola da Gamba Majors 142 credits Continuo I–II 530 • 315–445 Viola da Gamba Consort 530 • 353–354 [Substitutes for 4 credits of Baroque Ensemble] — for Baroque Cello Majors 142 credits Continuo I–II 530 • 315–445

4 4 -3 4 [4]

4

Page 43

15.5 16.5 17.5 18.5

16

17

37

138

UGCC FINAL REPORT • DRAFT: 2009.05.19

STRINGS, BRASS, WOODWINDS, HARP, PERCUSSION

MAJOR AREA Major Lesson Departmental Examination Recital Large Ensemble Small Ensemble

100 • 100 xxx • 109–209–309 190 • 495 910 • xxx 950 • 531–532

SUPPORTIVE COURSES IN MUSIC Thursday Noon Recital Series 530 • 501–502 Thursday Noon Alternate Project 530 • 503–504 Ear–training I–II 710 • 123–124–223–224 Keyboard Studies I–II 710 • 155–156–255–256 Music Theory 1–5 710 • 111–112–211–212–311 Music Theory 6 / Elective 710 • xxx Basic Conducting 330 • 311 Musicology: four of five offerings 610 • 311, 312, 313, 314, 555 GENERAL STUDIES Humanities Seminar Humanities electives GP Humanities electives HP Humanities electives LL Humanities elective HE Humanities-approved elective

ELECTIVES Electives

ONE 4 4 1

TWO 4 4 1

THREE 4 4 1

FOUR 4 4

2

2

2

2

2

2 1

1 1 8 8 15 3 1 8 45

½

½ ½ 2 2 3

½ 2 2 3

4 6 6 6 3 3 28

4

32 3 2 16 2 55

260 • 115 260 • xxx, xxx 260 • xxx, xxx 260 • xxx, xxx 260 • xxx 260 • xxx

xxx • xxx

2 2 3

2 2 3

2

2 2 1

3 3 2

2

1 2

2

32 3 2 16 2 55 1 1 8 8 15 3 1 8 45 4

3

3

3

3

3

9

24

28

6 6

3

3

6 6

TOTAL 134 VARIATIONS: — for Strings and Percussion: Small Ensemble — for Violin & Viola: Junior Recital [Replaces 309 jury] — for Flute: Piccolo Class [Taken as a required elective]

136 credits 950 • 531–532 134 credits 115, 113 • 309

[2]

134 credits 530 • 463–464

[2]

+2

Page 44

17.5 17.5 16.5 17.5

14

15

36

134

UGCC FINAL REPORT • DRAFT: 2009.05.19

ORGAN

MAJOR AREA Major Lesson Departmental Seminar Departmental Examination Recital Large Ensemble [Chorus] Piano Minor Voice Minor

100 • 100 460 • 545–546 xxx • 109–209–309 190 • 495 910 • xxx 010 • 100 010 • 100

32 8 3 2 12 2 2 61

SUPPORTIVE COURSES IN MUSIC Thursday Noon Recital Series 530 • 501–502 Thursday Noon Alternate Project 530 • 503–504 Ear–training I–II 710 • 123–124–223–224 Keyboard Skills/ Piano Majors I–II 710 • 211–212 Music Theory 1–5 710 • 111–112–211–212–311 Music Theory 6 / Elective 710 • xxx Sight Reading 530 • 111–112 Resources /Church Organist 530 • 425–426 Continuo I: Figured Bass 530.315 Organ Literature 530 • 423–424 Basic Conducting 330 • 311 Musicology: four of five offerings 610 • 311, 312, 313, 314, 555 GENERAL STUDIES Humanities Seminar Humanities electives GP Humanities electives HP Humanities electives LL Humanities elective HE Humanities-approved elective ELECTIVES Electives

260 • 115 260 • xxx, xxx 260 • xxx, xxx 260 • xxx, xxx 260 • xxx 260 • xxx

xxx • xxx

ONE 4 4 1 1 1

TWO 4 4 1 1 1

THREE 4 4 1 1 1

2

2 1

2

2

1

1

FOUR 4 4 1 1 2

1 1 8 4 15 3 4 6 2 6 1 8 59

½

4 6 6 6 3 3 28

4

2

2 1

½

2

2

3

3

2

2

½ 2 2 3

½ 2 2 3

3 3

2 3

3

2

2

3

3

2

1 2

32 8 3 2 12 2 2 61 1 1 8 4 15 3 4 6 2 6 1 8 59 4

3

3

3

3

3

9

24

28

3 3

3

3 3

TOTAL 151

Page 45

18.5 18.5 18.5 19.5

21

20

35

151

UGCC FINAL REPORT • DRAFT: 2009.05.19

PIANO

MAJOR AREA Major Lesson Departmental Examination Recital Large Ensemble [Chorus] Small Ensemble

100 • 100 xxx • 109–209–309 190 • 495 910 • xxx 950 • 531–532

32 3 2 8 4 49

SUPPORTIVE COURSES IN MUSIC Thursday Noon Recital Series 530 • 501–502 Thursday Noon Alternate Project 530 • 503–504 Ear–training I–II 710 • 123–124–223–224 Keyboard Skills for Piano Majors I–IV710 • 211–212–311–312 Music Theory 1–5 710 • 111–112–211–212–311 Music Theory 6 / Elective 710 • xxx Sight Reading 530 • 111–112 Accompanying 530 • 213–214 530 • 411–412–413–414 Keyboard Literature I–IV Piano Pedagogy 530 • 667 Musicology: four of five offerings 610 • 311, 312, 313, 314, 555 GENERAL STUDIES Humanities Seminar Humanities electives GP Humanities electives HP Humanities electives LL Humanities elective HE Humanities-approved elective ELECTIVES Electives*

260 • 115 260 • xxx, xxx 260 • xxx, xxx 260 • xxx, xxx 260 • xxx 260 • xxx

xxx • xxx

ONE 4 4 1

TWO 4 4 1

THREE 4 4 1

2

2 1

FOUR 4 4 2

1 1 8 8 15 3 4 2 8 2 8 60

½

4 6 6 6 3 3 28

4

2

2 1

1

1

½

2

2

3

3

2

2

½ 2 2 3

½ 2 2 3

2 3

2 3

1

1 2

2

2

2

2 2 2

2 2

32 3 2 8 4 49 1 1 8 8 15 3 4 2 8 2 8 60 4

3

3

3

3

3

9

24

28

6 6

3

3

6 6

TOTAL 143 * Recommended Electives include: Second Semester of Piano Pedagogy (530 • 668) Basic Conducting (330 • 311)

Page 46

15.5 15.5 17.5 18.5

19

20

37

143

UGCC FINAL REPORT • DRAFT: 2009.05.19

VOICE MAJOR AREA Major Lesson Vocal Coaching Departmental Examination Recital Departmental Seminar Large Ensemble Opera Performance Electives

100 • 10x 186 • 411–412 xxx • 109–209–309 190 • 495 480 • 545 910 • xxx 910 • 54x

24 4 3 2 1 12 3 49

SUPPORTIVE COURSES IN MUSIC Thursday Noon Recital Series 530 • 501–502 Thursday Noon Alternate Project 530 • 503–504 Ear–training I–II 710 • 123–124–223–224 Keyboard Studies I–II 710 • 155–156–255–256 Music Theory [Intensive] 1–3; 4–5 710 • 111–112–211–212–311 Music Theory 6 / Elective 710 • xxx Singing in English – English Song 530 • 475–476 Singing in Italian – Italian Song 530 • 469–470 Singing in German – German Lieder 530 • 477–481 Singing in French – French Melodiè 530 • 483–480 Acting for Opera 530 • 491 Stage Movement 530 • 391 Opera Literature 560 • 473–474 Musicology: four of five offerings 610 • 311, 312, 313, 314, 555 GENERAL STUDIES Humanities Seminar Italian I German I French I Humanities elective HE Humanities elective GP ELECTIVES Electives*

260 • 115 250 • 111-112 240 • 111-112 230 • 111-112 260 • xxx 260 • xxx

xxx • xxx

ONE 3 3

TWO 3 3

1

1

THREE 3 3 1 1 1

FOUR 3 3 1 1 2 1

2

1 1 8 8 15 3 4 4 4 5 1 1 4 8 67

½

4 6 6 6 3 3 28

4 3

2

2

2

2

2 1

1

1

½

2 2 3

2 2 3

2

2

½ 2 2 3

½ 2 2 3

3 3

2

2 2

2 3

2

2 2

2 2

1 1 2

2

3 3

1 1 8 8 15 3 4 4 4 5 1 1 4 8 67 4 6 6 6

3 3

24 4 3 2 1 12 3 49

3 6

6 28

6 6

3

3

6 6

TOTAL 21.5 19.5 18.5 18.5

150

16

18

* Second year language or Vocal Literature elective strongly recommended VARIATION Early Music Concentration Early Vocal Literature Baroque Ornamentation Historical Diction for Singers Renaissance Ensemble Baroque Ensemble Minus German Lieder Minus French Melodiè Minus Chorus in 3rd year Minus one Opera Performance

157 credits 530 • 543–544 530 • 441–442 530 • 559 950 • 529–530 950 • 527–528 530 • 481 530 • 480 910 • xxx 910 • 54x

4 4 2 6 -2 -2 -4 -1

Page 47

}

Six total semesters of Renaissance and/or Baroque Ensembles

38

150

UGCC FINAL REPORT • DRAFT: 2009.05.19

JAZZ PERFORMANCE

MAJOR AREA Major Lesson Departmental Examination Recital Large Ensemble: PJO Small Ensemble

100 • 100 109–209–309 190 • 495 910 • 537–8 950 • 525–526

SUPPORTIVE COURSES IN MUSIC Thursday Noon Recital Series 530 • 501–502 Thursday Noon Alternate Project 530 • 503–504 Jazz Fundamentals 710 • 127-128 Ear–training I 710 • 123–124 Jazz Ear-training 710 • 263–264 Music Theory 1–2 710 • 111–112 Jazz Theory/Keyboard Lab I–II 710 • 259–260–359–360 Jazz Arranging and Composition 710 • 361–362 Jazz Improvisation I–II 530 • 561, 562, 563, 564 Construct. Listening–Jazz History 530 • 569–570 Musicology: two of five offerings 610 • 311, 312, 313, 314, 555 GENERAL STUDIES Humanities Seminar Humanities electives GP Humanities electives HP Humanities electives LL Humanities elective HE Humanities-approved elective ELECTIVES Electives*

ONE 4 4 1

TWO 4 4 1

THREE 4 4 1

FOUR 4 4

2

2

2

2

2 1

2 1

1 1 4 4 4 6 8 4 8 4 4 48

½

½ ½

½

2

2

2

2

4 6 6 6 3 3 28

4

32 3 2 16 4 57

260 • 115 260 • xxx, xxx 260 • xxx, xxx 260 • xxx, xxx 260 • xxx 260 • xxx

xxx • xxx

9 9

2 2

2 2

3

3 2 2 2

2 1

2 2 2

2 2 2

2 2 1

2 2 2

32 3 2 16 4 57 1 1 4 4 4 6 8 4 8 4 4 48 4

3

3

3

6

3

3

3

24

28 3

3

3

9 6

TOTAL 142 * Recommended Electives include: Introduction to Web Page Design (350 • 465) Music Notation Software (350 • 871) Instrumentation & Arranging (710 • 412)

Page 48

17.5 17.5 16.5 17.5

19

20

16

18

142

UGCC FINAL REPORT • DRAFT: 2009.05.19

COMPOSITION MAJOR AREA Major Lesson Departmental Seminar Departmental Examination Recital Large Ensemble [Chorus] Applied Minor

100 • 100 310 • 545–546 xxx • 209 190 • 495 910 • xxx 010 • 100

SUPPORTIVE COURSES Thursday Noon Recital Series Thursday Noon Alternate Project Ear–training I–II Keyboard Studies I–II Music Theory 1–5 Music Theory 6 / Elective Music Theory: advanced electives Orchestration Basic Conducting Introduction to Computer Music Musicology: four of five offerings

IN MUSIC 530 • 501–502 530 • 503–504 710 • 123–124–223–224 710 • 155–156–255–256 710 • 111–112–211–212–311 710 • xxx 710 • xxx, xxx 710 • 413–414 330 • 311 350 • 463–464 610 • 311, 312, 313, 314, 555

GENERAL STUDIES Humanities Seminar Humanities electives GP Humanities electives HP Humanities electives LL Humanities elective HE Humanities-approved elective

260 • 115 260 • xxx, xxx 260 • xxx, xxx 260 • xxx, xxx 260 • xxx 260 • xxx

ELECTIVES Electives

32 8 1 2 8 4 55

xxx • xxx

ONE 4 4 1 1

TWO 4 4 1 1 1

THREE 4 4 1 1

2

2 1

FOUR 4 4 1 1 2

1 1 8 8 15 3 6 6 1 6 8 63

½

4 6 6 6 3 3 28

4

2 2 3

2

2 1

1

1

½ 2 2 3

½ 2 2 3

½ 2 2 3

3 3

3 2

3 2

3 3 1

3 3

2

2

32 8 1 2 8 4 55 1 1 8 8 15 3 6 6 1 6 8 63 4

3

3

3

3

3

9

24

28

6 6

3

3

6 6

TOTAL 152

Page 49

16.5 15.5 17.5 18.5

19

19

46

152

UGCC FINAL REPORT • DRAFT: 2009.05.19

COMPUTER MUSIC: COMPOSITION

MAJOR AREA Major Lesson Depart. Seminar: Composition Depart. Seminar: Computer Music Departmental Examination Recital Large Ensemble [Chorus]

100 • 100 310 • 545–546 350 • 545–546 xxx • 209 190 • 495 910 • xxx

SUPPORTIVE COURSES Thursday Noon Recital Series Thursday Noon Alternate Project Ear–training I–II Keyboard Studies I–II Music Theory 1–5 Music Theory 6 / Elective Music Theory: advanced electives Orchestration Basic Conducting Introduction to Computer Music Introduction to Programming Studio Techniques Musicology: four of five offerings

IN MUSIC 530 • 501–502 530 • 503–504 710 • 123–124–223–224 710 • 155–156–255–256 710 • 111–112–211–212–311 710 • xxx 710 • xxx, xxx 710 • 413–414 330 • 311 350 • 463–464 350 • 466 350 • 835 610 • 311, 312, 313, 314, 555

GENERAL STUDIES Humanities Seminar Humanities electives GP Humanities electives HP Humanities electives LL Humanities elective HE Humanities-approved elective

260 • 115 260 • xxx, xxx 260 • xxx, xxx 260 • xxx, xxx 260 • xxx 260 • xxx

ELECTIVES Electives

32 8 8 1 2 4 55

xxx • xxx

ONE 4 4 1 1 1 1

TWO 4 4 1 1 1 1 1

THREE 4 4 1 1 1 1

FOUR 4 4 1 1 1 1 2

2

1 1 8 8 15 3 6 6 1 6 3 3 8 69

½

4 6 6 6 3 3 28

4

2 2 3

2

½ 2 2 3

½ 2 2 3

½ 2 2 3

3 3

3

3 3 1

3 3

2

2

3 3 2

3 2

32 8 8 1 2 4 55 1 1 8 8 15 3 6 6 1 6 3 3 8 69 4

3

3

3

3

3

9

24

28

3 3

3

3 3

TOTAL 155

Page 50

17.5 16.5 19.5 20.5

19

19

43

155

UGCC FINAL REPORT • DRAFT: 2009.05.19

COMPUTER MUSIC: PERFORMANCE

MAJOR AREA Major Lesson 100 • 100 Departmental Examination xxx • 109–209–309 Recital 190 • 495 Computer Music Minor 010.100 Departmental Seminar: Computer Music 350 • 545–546 Large Ensemble 910 • xxx Small Ensemble 950 • 531–532 SUPPORTIVE COURSES IN MUSIC Thursday Noon Recital Series 530 • 501–502 Thursday Noon Alternate Project 530 • 503–504 Ear–training I–II 710 • 123–124–223–224 Keyboard Studies I–II 710 • 155–156–255–256 Music Theory 1–5 710 • 111–112–211–212–311 Music Theory 6 / Elective 710 • xxx Basic Conducting 330 • 311 Introduction to Computer Music 350 • 463–464 Introduction to Programming 350 • 466 Studio Techniques 350 • 835 Musicology: four of five offerings 610 • 311, 312, 313, 314, 555 GENERAL STUDIES Humanities Seminar Humanities electives GP Humanities electives HP Humanities electives LL Humanities elective HE Humanities-approved elective ELECTIVES Electives

ONE 4 4 1

TWO 4 4 1

THREE 4 4 1

FOUR 4 4

1

1

1

1

2

2

2

2

1 2 2 1

1 2 2 1

1 1 8 8 15 3 1 6 3 3 8 57

½

½ ½ 2 2 3

½ 2 2 3

4 6 6 6 3 3 28

4

32 3 2 8 8 16 4 73

260 • 115 260 • xxx, xxx 260 • xxx, xxx 260 • xxx, xxx 260 • xxx 260 • xxx

xxx • xxx

2 2 3

2 2 3

1 2 2 1

2 1 2 2 1

3 3 1

3

3 3 2

3 2

2

2

32 3 2 8 8 16 4 73 1 1 8 8 15 3 1 6 3 3 8 57 4

3

3

3

3

3

9

24

28

3 3

3

3 3

TOTAL 161

Page 51

18.5 18.5 20.5 21.5

21

22

39

161

UGCC FINAL REPORT • DRAFT: 2009.05.19

MUSIC EDUCATION: GUITAR

MAJOR AREA Major Lesson Departmental Seminar Departmental Examination Recital Chorus Guitar Ensemble Small Ensemble Voice Minor

100 • 100 470 • 545–546 171 • 109–209 190 • 395 910 • xxx 950 • 541, 542 950 • 531–532 187 • 111

32 8 3 2 8 6 1 1 61

SUPPORTIVE COURSES IN MUSIC Thursday Noon Recital Series 530 • 501–502 Thursday Noon Alternate Project 530 • 503–504 Ear–training I–II 710 • 123–124–223–224 Keyboard Studies I 710 • 155–156 Guitar Music Skills I–II 530 • 585–586–587–588 Music Theory 1–5 710 • 111–112–211–212–311 Music Theory 6 / Elective 710 • xxx Guitar Literature 530 • 431, 432 Guitar Pedagogy 530 • 637–638 Musicology: four of five offerings 610 • 311, 312, 313, 314, 555

1 1 8 4 4 15 3 4 4 8 52

MUSIC EDUCATION Introduction to Music Education Basic Instrumental Pedagogy Conducting the Secondary Ensemble I Conducting the Secondary Ensemble II Vocal/General: Elementary–Secondary Music and Language Music and the Special Student Intern Teaching Intern Teaching Seminar

510 • 112 510 • 213 510 • 237–238 510 • 337 510 • 311–314 510 • 413 510 • 414 510 • 411 510 • 441

1 1 4 2 6 3 3 6 1 27

GENERAL STUDIES Humanities Seminar Introductory Psychology US History Humanities electives

260 • 115 290 • 111 xxx • xxx xxx • xxx

4 3 3 21 31

ONE 4 4 1 1 1

TWO 4 4 1 1 1

THREE 4 4 1 1 1

1

2 1

2 1

FOUR 4 4 1 1 2

1

2 1

2 1 1

1

½ 2 2 1 3

½ 2 2 1 3

½ 2

½ 2

1 3

1 3

3

2

2 2 2

3

2

2 2 2

1 1 2

3 3 6 1

4 3 3 3

3

3

3

29

24

1 1 8 4 4 15 3 4 4 8 52 1 1 4 2 6 3 3 6 1 27

2 2 3 3

32 8 3 2 8 6 1 1 61

9

4 3 3 21 31

TOTAL 171

Page 52

18.5 22.5 22.5 22.5

12

20

171

UGCC FINAL REPORT • DRAFT: 2009.05.19

MUSIC EDUCATION: ORCHESTRAL INSTRUMENTS STRINGS, BRASS, WOODWINDS, HARP, PERCUSSION

MAJOR AREA Major Lesson Departmental Examination Recital Large Ensemble Small Ensemble Applied Minor

100 • 100 xxx • 109–209 190 • 395 910 • xxx 950 • 531–532 xxx • xxx

SUPPORTIVE COURSES IN Thursday Noon Recital Series Thursday Noon Alternate Project Ear–training I–II Keyboard Studies I–II Music Theory 1–5 Music Theory 6 / Elective Musicology: four of five offerings

MUSIC 530 • 501–502 530 • 503–504 710 • 123–124–223–224 710 • 155–156–255–256 710 • 111–112–211–212–311 710 • xxx 610 • 311, 312, 313, 314, 555

MUSIC EDUCATION Introduction to Music Education Class Woodwinds – Brass Class Percussion Conducting I :Choral–Instrumental Conducting II: Choral–Instrumental Methods I: Vocal/General –Instrumental Class Strings Music and Language Instrumentation and Arranging Music and the Special Student Intern Teaching Intern Teaching Seminar

510 • 112 510 • 211–212 510 • 223 510 • 237–238 510 • 337–338 510 • 311–312 510 • 324 510 • 413 710 • 412 510 • 414 510 • 411 510 • 441

1 5 1 4 4 6 3 3 3 3 6 1 40

GENERAL STUDIES Humanities Seminar Introductory Psychology US History Humanities electives

260 • 115 290 • 111 xxx • xxx xxx • xxx

4 3 3 21 31

32 2 2 14 2 1 53 1 1 8 8 15 3 8 44

ONE 4 4 1

TWO 4 4 1

THREE 4 4

2

2

2

2 1 1

2

½

½ ½ 2 2 3

½ 2 2 3

3

2

2

2

3

2 1 2

2 2 3

2 2 3

FOUR 4 4

2 2

2 1

1 1 8 8 15 3 8 44

3 2

1

2

2 3 3 3

2 3

3 3 6 1

4

3

3

3

25

21

1 5 1 4 4 6 3 3 3 3 6 1 40

9 `

4 3 3 21 31

22

168

3 3 3

32 2 2 14 2 1 53

TOTAL 168

Page 53

17.5 21.5 23.5 26.5

11

UGCC FINAL REPORT • DRAFT: 2009.05.19

MUSIC EDUCATION: PIANO

MAJOR AREA Major Lesson Departmental Examination Recital Large Ensemble [Chorus] Small Ensemble

100 • 100 xxx • 109–209–309 190 • 395 910 • xxx 950 • 531–532

32 3 2 8 2 47

SUPPORTIVE COURSES IN MUSIC Thursday Noon Recital Series 530 • 501–502 Thursday Noon Alternate Project 530 • 503–504 Ear–training I–II 710 • 123–124–223–224 Keyboard Skills for Piano Majors I–IV 710 • 211–212–311–312 Music Theory 1–5 710 • 111–112–211–212–311 Music Theory 6 / Elective 710 • xxx Sight Reading 530 • 111–112 Accompanying 530 • 213–214 530 • 411–412–413–414 Keyboard Literature I–IV Musicology: four of five offerings 610 • 311, 312, 313, 314, 555

1 1 8 8 15 3 4 2 8 8 58

MUSIC EDUCATION Introduction to Music Education Basic Instrumental Pedagogy Conducting the Secondary Ensemble I Conducting the Secondary Ensemble II Vocal/General: Elementary–Secondary Music and Language Instrumentation and Arranging Music and the Special Student Piano Pedagogy Intern Teaching Intern Teaching Seminar

510 • 112 510 • 213 510 • 237–238 510 • 337 510 • 311–314 510 • 413 710 • 412 510 • 414 530 • 667 510 • 411 510 • 441

1 1 4 2 6 3 3 3 2 6 1 32

GENERAL STUDIES Humanities Seminar Introductory Psychology US History Humanities electives

260 • 115 290 • 111 xxx • xxx xxx • xxx

4 3 3 21 31

ONE 4 4 1

TWO 4 4 1

THREE 4 4 1

2

2

2 1

½ 2 2 3

½ 2 2 3

FOUR 4 4 2

½

2 1

½

2 2 3

2 2 3

2

2

3 3

1 2

1 2 2

2 2

2 2

2

1 1 2

2 2 3 3

3 3 3

2 6 1

4 3 3 3

3

3

3

25

19

9

32 3 2 8 2 47 1 1 8 8 15 3 4 2 8 8 58 1 1 4 2 6 3 3 3 2 6 1 32 4 3 3 21 31

TOTAL 168

Page 54

17.5 21.5 24.5 24.5

11

25

168

UGCC FINAL REPORT • DRAFT: 2009.05.19

MUSIC EDUCATION: VOICE

MAJOR AREA Major Lesson Vocal Coaching Departmental Examination Recital Large Ensemble Opera Performance Electives

100 • 10x 186 • 411–412 xxx • 109–209–309 190 • 395 910 • xxx 910 • 54x

24 2 3 2 12 3 46

SUPPORTIVE COURSES IN MUSIC Thursday Noon Recital Series 530 • 501–502 Thursday Noon Alternate Project 530 • 503–504 Ear–training I–II 710 • 123–124–223–224 Keyboard Studies I–II 710 • 155–156–255–256 Music Theory 1–5 710 • 111–112–211–212–311 Music Theory 6 / Elective 710 • xxx Singing in English – English/American Song 530 • 475–476 Singing in Italian – Italian Song 530 • 469–470 Singing in German – German Lieder 530 • 477–481 Singing in French – French Melodiè 530 • 483–480 Acting for Opera 530 • 491 Stage Movement 530 • 391 Opera Literature 560 • 473–474 Musicology: four of five offerings 610 • 311, 312, 313, 314, 555

1 1 8 8 15 3 4 4 4 5 1 1 4 8 67

MUSIC EDUCATION Introduction to Music Education Basic Instrumental Pedagogy Conducting the Secondary Ensemble I Conducting the Secondary Ensemble II Vocal/General: Elementary–Secondary Music and Language Music and the Special Student Intern Teaching Intern Teaching Seminar

510 • 112 510 • 213 510 • 237–238 510 • 337 510 • 311–314 510 • 413 510 • 414 510 • 411 510 • 441

1 1 4 2 6 3 3 6 1 27

GENERAL STUDIES Humanities Seminar Introductory Psychology Italian I German I French I Humanities Elective

260 • 115 290 • 111 250 • 111-112 240 • 111-112 230 • 111-112 xxx • xxx

4 3 6 6 6 6 31

ONE 3 3

TWO 3 3

THREE 3 3

1

1

1

FOUR 3 3 1 1 2

2

½

2

2

2 1

2

2 1

1

½

2 2 3

2 2 3

2

2

½ 2 2 3

½ 2 2 3

3 3

2

2 2 3

2 2

1 1 2 2

2

2 2

2

1 1 2

2 2 3 3

3 3 6 1

4 3

3 3 3

3 3

3 6

24 2 3 2 12 3 46 1 1 8 8 15 3 4 4 4 5 1 1 4 8 67 1 1 4 2 6 3 3 6 1 27 4 3 6 6 6 6 31

TOTAL 171

Page 55

21.5 23.5 23.5 23.5

26

22

11

20

171

UGCC FINAL REPORT • DRAFT: 2009.05.19

MUSIC EDUCATION: JAZZ MAJOR AREA Major Lesson Departmental Examination Recital Large Ensemble: PJO Small Ensemble

100 • 100 109–209–309 190 • 495 910 • 537–8 950 • 525–526

SUPPORTIVE COURSES IN Thursday Noon Recital Series Thursday Noon Alternate Project Jazz Fundamentals Ear–training I Jazz Ear-training Music Theory 1–2 Jazz Theory/Keyboard Lab I–II Jazz Arranging and Composition Jazz Improvisation I–II Construct. Listening–Jazz History Musicology: two of five offerings

MUSIC 530 • 501–502 530 • 503–504 710 • 127-128 710 • 123–124 710 • 263–264 710 • 111–112 710 • 259–260–359–360 710 • 361–362 530 • 561, 562, 563, 564 530 • 569–570 610 • 311, 312, 313, 314, 555

MUSIC EDUCATION Introduction to Music Education Basic Instrumental Pedagogy Conducting the Secondary Ensemble I Conducting the Secondary Ensemble II Vocal/General: Elementary–Secondary Music and Language Music and the Special Student Intern Teaching Intern Teaching Seminar

510 • 112 510 • 213 510 • 237–238 510 • 337 510 • 311–314 510 • 413 510 • 414 510 • 411 510 • 441

1 1 4 2 6 3 3 6 1 27

GENERAL STUDIES Humanities Seminar Introductory Psychology US History Humanities electives

260 • 115 290 • 111 xxx • xxx xxx • xxx

4 3 3 21 31

32 3 2 14 4 55 1 1 4 4 4 6 8 4 8 4 4 48

ONE 4 4 1

TWO 4 4 1

THREE 4 4 1

2

2

2

2 1

2 1

½

½ ½

½

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2 2

2 2

3

3 2 2 2 2

FOUR 4 4 2 2 1

2 1

1 1 4 4 4 6 8 4 8 4 4 48

2 2 2 2

1 1 2

1 1 4 2 6 3 3 6 1 27

2 2 3 3

3 3 6 1

4 3 3 3

3

3

3

26

25

32 3 2 14 4 55

9

4 3 3 21 31

TOTAL 161

Page 56

17.5 21.5 20.5 21.5

11

18

161

UGCC FINAL REPORT • DRAFT: 2009.05.19

MUSIC EDUCATION: COMPOSITION MAJOR AREA Major Lesson Departmental Seminar Departmental Examination Recital Large Ensemble [Chorus] Applied Minor

100 • 100 310 • 545–546 xxx • 209 190 • 495 910 • xxx 010 • 100

SUPPORTIVE COURSES IN Thursday Noon Recital Series Thursday Noon Alternate Project Ear–training I–II Keyboard Studies I–II Music Theory 1–5 Music Theory 6 / Elective Music Theory: advanced electives Orchestration Introduction to Computer Music Musicology: four of five offerings

MUSIC 530 • 501–502 530 • 503–504 710 • 123–124–223–224 710 • 155–156–255–256 710 • 111–112–211–212–311 710 • xxx 710 • xxx, xxx 710 • 413–414 350 • 463–464 610 • 311, 312, 313, 314, 555

MUSIC EDUCATION Introduction to Music Education Class Woodwinds – Brass Class Percussion Conducting I :Choral–Instrumental Conducting II: Choral–Instrumental Methods I: Vocal/General –Instrumental Class Strings Music and Language Instrumentation and Arranging Music and the Special Student Intern Teaching Intern Teaching Seminar

510 • 112 510 • 211–212 510 • 223 510 • 237–238 510 • 337–338 510 • 311–312 510 • 324 510 • 413 710 • 412 510 • 414 510 • 411 510 • 441

1 5 1 4 4 6 3 3 3 3 6 1 40

GENERAL STUDIES Humanities Seminar Introductory Psychology US History Humanities electives

260 • 115 290 • 111 xxx • xxx xxx • xxx

4 3 3 21 31

32 8 1 2 8 4 55 1 1 8 8 15 3 6 6 6 8 62

ONE 4 4 1 1

TWO 4 4 1 1 1

THREE 4 4 1 1

2

2 1

FOUR 4 4 1 1 2

½ 2 2 3

2 1

2 1

1

½ 2 2 3

½ 2 2 3

½ 2 2 3

3

3 3 2

2

2

3

2 1 2

3 3 3 3

3

2

1

2

2 3 3 3

2 3

3 3 6 1

4

3

3

3

31

28

1 1 8 8 15 3 6 6 6 8 62 1 5 1 4 4 6 3 3 3 3 6 1 40

9 `

4 3 3 21 31

28

188

3 3 3

32 8 1 2 8 4 55

TOTAL 188

Page 57

16.5 21.5 24.5 26.5

12

UGCC FINAL REPORT • DRAFT: 2009.05.19

MUSIC EDUCATION: CERTIFICATION PROGRAM INSTRUMENTAL MUSIC

MUSIC EDUCATION Human Growth and Development* Class Woodwinds – Brass Class Strings Class Percussion Methods I: Instrumental Music Methods II: Instrumental Music Music and Language Music and the Special Student Intern Teaching

882 • 411 510 • 211–212 510 • 324 510 • 223 510 • 312 510 • 313 510 • 413 510 • 414 510 • 411

5 3 1 3 3 3 3 6 27

ONE 0 3 2 3 1 3 3 3 3 9

12

TWO — — — — — — — — 6 — 6 —

0 5 3 1 3 3 3 3 6 27

MUSIC EDUCATION: CERTIFICATION PROGRAM VOCAL/GENERAL MUSIC

MUSIC EDUCATION Basic Instrumental Pedagogy Vocal/General: Elementary–Secondary Conducting the Secondary Ensemble II Music and Language Music and the Special Student Intern Teaching

510 • 213 510 • 311–314 510 • 337 510 • 413 510 • 414 510 • 411

Page 58

1 6 2 3 3 6 21

ONE 1 3 3 2 3 3 6 15 6

TWO

0

— — — — — —

1 6 2 3 3 6 21

UGCC FINAL REPORT • DRAFT: 2009.05.19

RECORDING ARTS: COMPOSITION MAJOR AREA Major Lesson Departmental Seminar Departmental Examination Recital Large Ensemble [Chorus] Applied Minor

100 • 100 310 • 545–546 xxx • 209 190 • 495 910 • xxx 010 • 100

32 8 1 2 8 4 55

SUPPORTIVE COURSES IN MUSIC Ear–training I–II 710 • 123–124–223–224 Keyboard Studies I–II 710 • 155–156–255–256 Music Theory 1–5 710 • 111–112–211–212–311 Music Theory 6 / Elective 710 • xxx Music Theory: advanced electives 710 • xxx, xxx Orchestration 710 • 413–414 Basic Conducting 330 • 311 Musicology: four of five offerings 610 • 311, 312, 313, 314, 555

ONE 4 4 1 1

TWO 4 4 1 1 1

THREE 4 4 1 1

2

2 1

FOUR 4 4 1 1

FIVE 32 8 1 2 8 4 55

2

8 8 15 3 6 6 1 8 55

2 2 3

2 2 3

2 2 3

2

2 2 3

2 1

1

1

8 8 15 3 6 6 1 8 55

3 3

2

RECORDING ARTS Basic Recording I Basic Recording II Basic Recording III Circuits – Signals & Systems (WSE) Advanced Recording I Intro Electrical and Computer Engineering ECE Laboratory (WSE) Psychoacoustics Acoustical and Audio Measurements Copyrights and Contracts Advanced Recording II Musical Acoustics–Electroacoustics Internship

550 • 111–112 550 • 211-212 550 • 311–312 EN.520 • 213–214 550 • 411–412 EN.520 • 137 EN.520 • 345 550 • 517 550 • 519 360 • 411 550 • 513–514 550 • 515–516 550 • 419

4 4 4 8 6 3 3 3 3 2 6 6 4 56

2

GENERAL STUDIES Calculus I–II (KSAS) Physics/Lab (KSAS) Humanities Electives

AS.110 • 108-109 AS.171 • 101–102 xxx • xxx

8 8 12 28

4

ELECTIVES One Professional Elective*

xxx • xxx

3 3

2

3 3 1 2

3 3 2

2 2

2 2 4

2 4 3

3

3 3 3 3 2 3 3

3 3 4

4 4

8 8 12 28

4 3

3

3

4 4 4 8 6 3 3 3 3 2 6 6 4 56

3

3

3 3

TOTAL 197 * Students choose one advanced elective from Peabody or WSE in consultation with the department.

Page 59

18

18

20

21

25

22

24

25

14

10

197

UGCC FINAL REPORT • DRAFT: 2009.05.19

RECORDING ARTS: GUITAR MAJOR AREA Major Lesson Departmental Seminar Departmental Examination Half Recital Recital Chorus Guitar Ensemble Small Ensemble

100 • 100 470 • 545–546 171 • 109–209 171 • 309 190 • 495 910 • 511, 512 950 • 541, 542 950 • 531–532

SUPPORTIVE COURSES IN Ear–training I–II Keyboard Studies I Guitar Music Skills I–II Music Theory 1–5 Music Theory 6 / Elective Guitar Literature Guitar Pedagogy Musicology: four of five offerings

MUSIC 710 • 123–124–223–224 710 • 155–156 530 • 585–586–587–588 710 • 111–112–211–212–311 710 • xxx 530 • 431, 432 530 • 637-368 610 • 311, 312, 313, 314, 555

RECORDING ARTS Basic Recording I Basic Recording II Basic Recording III Circuits – Signals & Systems (WSE) Advanced Recording I Intro Electrical and Computer Engineering ECE Laboratory (WSE) Psychoacoustics Acoustical and Audio Measurements Copyrights and Contracts Advanced Recording II Musical Acoustics–Electroacoustics Internship

32 8 3 1 2 8 6 2 62

ONE 4 4 1 1 1

TWO 4 4 1 1 1

THREE 4 4 1 1 1 1

2 1

2 1

2 1

2

2

1 3

1 3

FOUR 4 4 1 1

FIVE 32 8 3 1 2 8 6 2 62

2

8 4 4 15 3 4 4 8 50

2 2 1 3

550 • 111–112 550 • 211-212 550 • 311–312 EN.520 • 213–214 550 • 411–412 EN.520 • 137 EN.520 • 345 550 • 517 550 • 519 360 • 411 550 • 513–514 550 • 515–516 550 • 419

4 4 4 8 6 3 3 3 3 2 6 6 4 56

2

GENERAL STUDIES Calculus I–II (KSAS) Physics/Lab (KSAS) Humanities Electives

AS.110 • 108-109 AS.171 • 101–102 xxx • xxx

8 8 12 28

4

ELECTIVES One Professional Elective*

xxx • xxx

3 3

2 2 1 3

2 1

1 1

1 1

8 4 4 15 3 4 4 8 50

3 2

3 2

2

2

2 2

2 2

2 2

2 2 4

2 4 3

3

3 3 3 3 2 3 3

3 3 4

4 4

8 8 12 28

4 3

3

3

4 4 4 8 6 3 3 3 3 2 6 6 4 56

3

3

3 3

TOTAL 199 * Students choose one advanced elective from Peabody or WSE in consultation with the department.

Page 60

19

20

20

21

27

26

20

22

14

10

199

UGCC FINAL REPORT • DRAFT: 2009.05.19

RECORDING ARTS: JAZZ PERFORMANCE MAJOR AREA Major Lesson Departmental Examination Recital Large Ensemble: PJO Small Ensemble

100 • 100 109–209–309 190 • 495 910 • 537–8 950 • 525–526

32 3 2 16 4 57

SUPPORTIVE COURSES IN MUSIC Jazz Fundamentals 710 • 127-128 Ear–training I 710 • 123–124 Jazz Ear-training 710 • 263–264 Music Theory 1–2 710 • 111–112 Jazz Theory/Keyboard Lab I–II 710 • 259–260–359–360 Jazz Arranging and Composition 710 • 361–362 Jazz Improvisation I–II 530 • 561, 562, 563, 564 Construct. Listening–Jazz History 530 • 569–570 Musicology: two of five offerings 610 • 311, 312, 313, 314, 555

4 4 4 6 8 4 8 4 4 46

ONE 4 4 1

TWO 4 4 1

THREE 4 4 1

FOUR 4 4

2

2

2

2 1

2 1

2 2

2 2

3

3

RECORDING ARTS Basic Recording I Basic Recording II Basic Recording III Circuits – Signals & Systems (WSE) Advanced Recording I Intro Electrical and Computer Engineering ECE Laboratory (WSE) Psychoacoustics Acoustical and Audio Measurements Copyrights and Contracts Advanced Recording II Musical Acoustics–Electroacoustics Internship

550 • 111–112 550 • 211-212 550 • 311–312 EN.520 • 213–214 550 • 411–412 EN.520 • 137 EN.520 • 345 550 • 517 550 • 519 360 • 411 550 • 513–514 550 • 515–516 550 • 419

4 4 4 8 6 3 3 3 3 2 6 6 4 56

2

GENERAL STUDIES Calculus I–II (KSAS) Physics/Lab (KSAS) Humanities Electives

AS.110 • 108-109 AS.171 • 101–102 xxx • xxx

8 8 12 28

4

ELECTIVES One Professional Elective*

xxx • xxx

3 3

2

2

2

2

2

2 2 2

2 1

2 2 2

2 2 2

FOUR 32 3 2 16 4 57

2 2 1

4 4 4 6 8 4 8 4 4 46

2 2 2

2 2

2 2 4

2 4 3

3

3 3 3 3 2 3 3

3 3 4

4 4

8 8 12 28

4 3

3

3

4 4 4 8 6 3 3 3 3 2 6 6 4 56

3

3

3 3

TOTAL 190 * Students choose one advanced elective from Peabody or WSE in consultation with the department.

Page 61

19

20

16

17

25

23

22

24

14

10

190

UGCC FINAL REPORT • DRAFT: 2009.05.19

RECORDING ARTS: ORCHESTRAL INSTRUMENTS STRINGS, BRASS, WOODWINDS, HARP, PERCUSSION MAJOR AREA Major Lesson Departmental Examination Recital Large Ensemble Small Ensemble

100 • 100 xxx • 109–209–309 190 • 495 910 • xxx 950 • 531–532

ONE 4 4 1

TWO 4 4 1

THREE 4 4 1

FOUR 4 4

2

2

2

2

2

2 1

8 8 15 3 1 8 43

2 2 3

2 2 3

2 2 3

2 2 3

32 3 2 16 2 55

SUPPORTIVE COURSES IN MUSIC Ear–training I–II 710 • 123–124–223–224 Keyboard Studies I–II 710 • 155–156–255–256 Music Theory 1–5 710 • 111–112–211–212–311 Music Theory 6 / Elective 710 • xxx Basic Conducting 330 • 311 Musicology: four of five offerings 610 • 311, 312, 313, 314, 555

2

FIVE 32 3 2 16 2 55

2 2 1

8 8 15 3 1 8 43

3 3 2

RECORDING ARTS Basic Recording I Basic Recording II Basic Recording III Circuits – Signals & Systems (WSE) Advanced Recording I Intro Electrical and Computer Engineering ECE Laboratory (WSE) Psychoacoustics Acoustical and Audio Measurements Copyrights and Contracts Advanced Recording II Musical Acoustics–Electroacoustics Internship

550 • 111–112 550 • 211-212 550 • 311–312 EN.520 • 213–214 550 • 411–412 EN.520 • 137 EN.520 • 345 550 • 517 550 • 519 360 • 411 550 • 513–514 550 • 515–516 550 • 419

4 4 4 8 6 3 3 3 3 2 6 6 4 56

2

GENERAL STUDIES Calculus I–II (KSAS) Physics/Lab (KSAS) Humanities Electives

AS.110 • 108-109 AS.171 • 101–102 xxx • xxx

8 8 12 28

4

ELECTIVES One Professional Elective*

xxx • xxx

3 3

2

1 2

2

2 2

2 2 4

2 4 3

3

3 3 3 3 2 3 3

3 3 4

4 4

8 8 12 28

4 3

3

3

4 4 4 8 6 3 3 3 3 2 6 6 4 56

3

3

3 3

TOTAL 185 * Students choose one advanced elective from Peabody or WSE in consultation with the department.

VARIATIONS: — for Strings and Percussion: Small Ensemble — for Violin & Viola: Junior Recital [Replaces 309 jury] — for Flute: Piccolo Class [Taken as a required elective]

+2 187 credits 950 • 531–532 185 credits 115, 113 • 309

[2]

[2] 185 credits 530 • 463–464

Page 62

19

20

19

20

23

21

19

20

14

10

185

UGCC FINAL REPORT • DRAFT: 2009.05.19

RECORDING ARTS: ORGAN MAJOR AREA Major Lesson Departmental Seminar Departmental Examination Recital Large Ensemble [Chorus] Piano Minor Voice Minor

100 • 100 460 • 545–546 xxx • 109–209–309 190 • 495 910 • xxx 010 • 100 010 • 100

32 8 3 2 12 2 2 61

SUPPORTIVE COURSES IN MUSIC Ear–training I–II 710 • 123–124–223–224 Keyboard Skills/ Piano Majors I–II 710 • 211–212 Music Theory 1–5 710 • 111–112–211–212–311 Music Theory 6 / Elective 710 • xxx Sight Reading 530 • 111–112 Resources /Church Organist 530 • 425–426 Continuo I: Figured Bass 530.315 Organ Literature 530 • 423–424 Basic Conducting 330 • 311 Musicology: four of five offerings 610 • 311, 312, 313, 314, 555

8 4 15 3 4 6 2 6 1 8 57

ONE 4 4 1 1 1

TWO 4 4 1 1 1

THREE 4 4 1 1 1

2

2 1

2

2

1

1

FOUR 4 4 1 1

FIVE 32 8 3 2 12 2 2 61

2 2

2

2

3

3

2

2

2 2 3

2 1

2 2 3

8 4 15 3 4 6 2 6 1 8 57

3 3

RECORDING ARTS Basic Recording I Basic Recording II Basic Recording III Circuits – Signals & Systems (WSE) Advanced Recording I Intro Electrical and Computer Engineering ECE Laboratory (WSE) Psychoacoustics Acoustical and Audio Measurements Copyrights and Contracts Advanced Recording II Musical Acoustics–Electroacoustics Internship

550 • 111–112 550 • 211-212 550 • 311–312 EN.520 • 213–214 550 • 411–412 EN.520 • 137 EN.520 • 345 550 • 517 550 • 519 360 • 411 550 • 513–514 550 • 515–516 550 • 419

4 4 4 8 6 3 3 3 3 2 6 6 4 56

2

GENERAL STUDIES Calculus I–II (KSAS) Physics/Lab (KSAS) Humanities Electives

AS.110 • 108-109 AS.171 • 101–102 xxx • xxx

8 8 12 28

4

ELECTIVES One Professional Elective*

xxx • xxx

3 3

2 3

3

2

2

3

3

2

1 2

2 2

2 2 4

2 4 3

3

3 3 3 3 2 3 3

3 3 4

4 4

8 8 12 28

4 3

3

3

4 4 4 8 6 3 3 3 3 2 6 6 4 56

3

3

3 3

TOTAL 205 * Students choose one advanced elective from Peabody or WSE in consultation with the department.

Page 63

20

21

21

22

30

26

19

22

14

10

205

UGCC FINAL REPORT • DRAFT: 2009.05.19

RECORDING ARTS: PIANO MAJOR AREA Major Lesson Departmental Examination Recital Large Ensemble [Chorus] Small Ensemble

100 • 100 xxx • 109–209–309 190 • 495 910 • xxx 950 • 531–532

32 3 2 8 4 49

SUPPORTIVE COURSES IN MUSIC Ear–training I–II 710 • 123–124–223–224 Keyboard Skills for Piano Majors I–IV 710 • 211–212–311–312 Music Theory 1–5 710 • 111–112–211–212–311 Music Theory 6 / Elective 710 • xxx Sight Reading 530 • 111–112 Accompanying 530 • 213–214 530 • 411–412–413–414 Keyboard Literature I–IV Piano Pedagogy 530 • 667 Musicology: four of five offerings 610 • 311, 312, 313, 314, 555

ONE 4 4 1

TWO 4 4 1

THREE 4 4 1

2

2 1

2 1

2 3

2

FOUR 4 4

FIVE 32 3 2 8 4 49

2

8 8 15 3 4 2 8 2 8 58

2

2

3

3

2

2

2 2 3

2

2 2 3

1

1

8 8 15 3 4 2 8 2 8 58

3 1

RECORDING ARTS Basic Recording I Basic Recording II Basic Recording III Circuits – Signals & Systems (WSE) Advanced Recording I Intro Electrical and Computer Engineering ECE Laboratory (WSE) Psychoacoustics Acoustical and Audio Measurements Copyrights and Contracts Advanced Recording II Musical Acoustics–Electroacoustics Internship

550 • 111–112 550 • 211-212 550 • 311–312 EN.520 • 213–214 550 • 411–412 EN.520 • 137 EN.520 • 345 550 • 517 550 • 519 360 • 411 550 • 513–514 550 • 515–516 550 • 419

4 4 4 8 6 3 3 3 3 2 6 6 4 56

2

GENERAL STUDIES Calculus I–II (KSAS) Physics/Lab (KSAS) Humanities Electives

AS.110 • 108-109 AS.171 • 101–102 xxx • xxx

8 8 12 28

4

ELECTIVES One Professional Elective*

xxx • xxx

3 3

1 2

2

2

2

2 2 2

2 2

2 2

2 2 4

2 4 3

3

3 3 3 3 2 3 3

3 3 4

4 4

8 8 12 28

4 3

3

3

4 4 4 8 6 3 3 3 3 2 6 6 4 56

3

3

3 3

TOTAL 194 * Students choose one advanced elective from Peabody or WSE in consultation with the department.

Page 64

17

18

20

21

28

26

20

20

14

10

194

UGCC FINAL REPORT • DRAFT: 2009.05.19

NOTES 1 Mellasenah Y. Morris became dean of the Conservatory and deputy director of the Institute in 2008 following the retirement of Wolfgang Justen, who had served as dean since 2004. Katsura Kurita became associate dean for student affairs following the retirement of Emily Frank. Paul Mathews became interim associate dean for academic affairs following the departure of Eileen Soskin. Andrea Trisciuzzi was appointed the Associate Dean for Development and Alumni Relations in March 2009 following the departure of Joyce Ritchie, the Associate Dean for External Relations. Robert Sirota was Director of the Institute from 1995 to 2005; Peter Landgren was interim Director in 2005-2006; Jeffrey Sharkey was appointed Director of the Institute in 2006.

2

"The Periodic Review Report ordinarily is submitted five years after an institution’s self-study and evaluation team visit … The preparation of a PRR, like that of a self-study document, provides opportunities for constructive discussion among the institution’s several constituencies, bringing various points of view to the consideration of recent institutional developments and current institutional issues." Handbook for Periodic Review Reports, 11th ed.

(Philadelphia: Middle States Commission on Higher Education, 2008), 1.

3

For a history of the credit hour and the attending problems, see Jessica M. Shedd. "The History of the Student Credit Hour." New Directions for Higher Education 122 (2003): 5-12. ERIC ED EJ676440.

4

Maryland. Office of the Secretary of State, Division of State Documents. Code of Maryland Regulations, 13B.02.02.03.B.1 [Webpage] http://www.dsd.state.md.us/comar. Hereafter "COMAR" with the title, subtitle and chapter.

5

13B.02.02.16.D

6

National Association of Schools of Music, Handbook 2007-2008, 2nd ed (Reston, VA: National Association of Schools of Music, 2007), 61-2. Hereafter "NASM."

7

Evert Bisschop Boele, Handbook: Implementation and use of Credit Points in Higher Music Education (AEC Publications, 2007) http://www.aecinfo.org/GenericComponents/DownloadView.aspx?ses=15911 (29 March 2009).

8

The Peabody Institute, "Vision and Mission Statement," http://www.peabody.jhu.edu/1701 (29 March 2009).

9

ibid.

10

The Peabody Institute, "Educational Philosophy," http://www.peabody.jhu.edu/513 (29 March 2009).

11

Middle States Commission on Higher Education, Characteristics of Excellence in Higher Education 12th ed. (Philadelphia: Middle States Commission on Higher Education, 2006), 1. Hereafter "CEHE."

12

The Johns Hopkins University, "Mission Statement," http://webapps.jhu.edu/jhuniverse/information_about_hopkins/about_jhu/mission_statement/index.cfm (29 March 2009).

13

The Johns Hopkins University, "Middle States Commission on Higher Education Self-Study Report for the [2004] Accreditation Site Visit. Selected Topic Report: The Challenge of Improving Undergraduate Education in a Research Intensive Environment," January 2004, 107-108. Hereafter, "JHU MSCHE Self-Report."

14

Middle States Commission on Higher Education, "Report to the Faculty, Administration, Trustees, Students of The Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland 21218 by An Evaluation Team Representing the Middle States Commission on Higher Education Prepared After Study of the Institution’s SelfStudy Report and a Visit to the Campus on March 21-24, 2004," (Philadelphia: Middle States Commission on Higher Education, 2004), 23. Hereafter, "MSCHE 2004 Report."

15

NASM, 46-7.

16

13B.02.02.14

17

2003 Self-Report, 5.

18

The Peabody Conservatory, Faculty Constitution, September 2002, Article V.1.

19

National Association of Schools of Music. Instructions for Preparing Curricular Tables in the NASM Format. 2008 ed. Virginia: National Association of Schools of Music, 2008. [Online.] http://nasm.arts-accredit.org/site/docs/MEMBERSHIP%20PROCEDURES/CurricularTables-NASM2008.pdf (28 March 2009).

20

Regrettably, not all of the student comments have been preserved. What remains of the survey can be found in the 2003 Self-Report, 132-137.

21

The differences are also quite interesting to consider, with more faculty than students estimating a work load beyond three hours.

22

Details of the sample found at The National Survey of Student Engagement, "Promoting Engagement for All Students: The Imperative to Look Within— 2008 Results." [Online.] http://nsse.iub.edu/NSSE_2008_Results/docs/withhold/NSSE2008_Results_revised_11-14-2008.pdf, 31 (28 March 2009).NSSE 2008, 31. Hereafter "NSSE 2008."

23

NSSE 2008, 34.

24

Joseph Polisi, The Artist as Citizen (New York: Hal Leonard Corporation, 2005), 32-3.

25

Approved by the UGCC on 9 April 2009.

26

"Institutions shall not impose new or revised degree or program requirements on continuing students. Enrolled students shall have the option to complete the degree or program requirements in effect at the time of their admission into a degree or program." NASM, 63.

27

Approved by the UGCC on 26 March 2009.

28

The Peabody Institute of the Johns Hopkins University, "[Catalog:] Academic Year 2007-8," (Baltimore: The Peabody Institute of the Johns Hopkins University, 2007), 23. Hereafter "Catalog 2007-8."

Page 65

UGCC FINAL REPORT â&#x20AC;˘ DRAFT: 2009.05.19

29

The Peabody Institute of the Johns Hopkins University, "[Catalog:] Academic Year 2008-9," (Baltimore: The Peabody Institute of the Johns Hopkins University, 2007), 23. Hereafter "Catalog."

30 Juilliard does not calculate GPA. However, given their guidelines for satisfactory academic progress, which requires students to "get a B- in lessons and a C- in classes," a Juilliard undergraduate could get a term GPA of 1.95 and remain in compliance.

31 The Johns Hopkins University, "Undergraduate Student Handbook: Krieger School of Arts and Sciences, Whiting School of Engineering, 2008-2009," (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University, 2008), 21. Hereafter, "ASEN." 32

Approved by the UGCC on 26 March 2009.

33

ASEN, 16.

34

Consider: the expression "for the second attempt of the course" is not followed by other ordinal adjectives (third, fourth, etc.) and the change of grade is only described with the terms "new grade" and "old grade."

35

Approved by the UGCC on 26 March 2009.

36

The Peabody Institute of the Johns Hopkins University, "The 2008-2009 Student Handbook," (Baltimore: The Peabody Institute of the Johns Hopkins University, 2008), 11. Hereafter, "Student Handbook."

37

Marian Hahn, Gary Louie, Eileen Soskin and Carolee Stewart, "Report of the Undergraduate Curriculum Review Committee," The Peabody Conservatory Council of Chairs, 15 December 1998, 36. Hereafter, "1998 Report."

38

JHU MSCHE Self-Report, 113.

39

MSCHE 2004 Report, 24.

40

These charts compare the percentage of respondents answering the question who selected that answer. Because the respondents selected multiple answers, the total integers and percentages exceed the number of responses at the top of the column.

41 Johns Hopkins University Commission on Undergraduate Education, "Final Report," January 2004 http://www.jhu.edu/news_info/reports/cue/, 28.

Hereafter, "Cue." 42

Approved by the UGCC on 9 April 2009.

43

Cf. the bottom of the Benchmark Comparison Tables in Appendix A for an accounting of relative weights in the curricula for orchestral instruments, piano, and voice at Peabody and among peer institutions.

44

Approved by the UGCC on 26 March 2009.

45

Manhattan School of Music, 2008-2009 Course Catalog (New York: Manhattan School of Music, 2008), 33. Hereafter MSM.

46

Julliard Faculty Handbook, XV. Appendix B.

47

Catalog, 34-5.

48

Approved by the UGCC on 9 April 2009.

49

http://www.cte.uiuc.edu/assessment/plans/music08.pdf

50

http://www.uga.edu/effectiveness/assess/Plans/musiccompplan.pdf

51

MSM, 65.

52

Julliard Faculty Handbook, XV. Appendix B.

53

Approved by the UGCC on 9 April 2009.

54

http://www.peabody.jhu.edu/513

55

Catalog, 36.

56

The external review was conducted by: Gretchen Breese, New England Conservatory; Roger Brunyate, Peabody Conservatory; Jo Sarzotti, The Juilliard School; Peter Stambler, The University of the Arts; and Ron Walters, Johns Hopkins University.

57

NASM, 82-85.

58

CEHE, 42.

59

CEHE, 47.

60

COMAR, 13B.02.02.16.

61

CEHE, 48; our emphasis.

62

NASM, 83.

63

NASM, 86.

64

CEHE, 48.

65

COMAR, 13B.02.02.16.

66

NASM, 63.

Page 66

UGCC FINAL REPORT โ ข DRAFT: 2009.05.19

67

Humanities External, 6.

68

NASM, 82-3.

69

Julliard, 95

70

MSM, 60.

71

Mannes, 3.

72

CEHE, 47-8.

73

CEHE, 48.

74

13B.02.02.16 ยงE( (b)

75

MICA, "Interdisciplinary Sculpture" http://www.mica.edu/Programs_of_Study/BFA_Degree_Programs/Interdisciplinary_Sculpture/Curriculum.html (6 April 2009).

76

Catalog, 136.

77

Approved by the UGCC on 9 April 2009.

78

Michael Formanek, Julian Gray, Eileen Soskin, and Stephen Stone. "Response to the Report of the External Review Committee on the Liberal Arts Curriculum at the Peabody Conservatory of Music of the Johns Hopkins University, Prepared by the Subcommittee Appointed 13 December 2004 by the Academic Council." The same subcommittee made the same recommendation in a 7 February 2005 memo to the Academic Council.

79

NASM, 86-7.

80

Nelly Furman, David Goldberg, and Natalia Lusin. "Enrollments in Languages Other Than English in United States Institutions of Higher Education, Fall 2006." Modern Language Association Web publication, 13 November 2007, http://www.mla.org/enroll_survey06_fin (6 April 2009), 2.

81

ibid, 7.

82

Unanimously approved by the UGCC on 26 March 2009.

83

"All students are required to earn a minimum number of credits in academic areas outside their majors. The academic areas in the Hopkins curriculum are humanities (H), natural sciences (N), social and behavioral sciences (S), quantitative and mathematical sciences (Q), and engineering (E). Students earn at least 30 credits in courses from areas outside their major area." ASEN, 1.

84 For the purposes of this recommendation, information was pulled for Peabody students who are not in the double degree program. Students in the Bachelors of Recording Arts degree are included in the sample, but are largely represented in the engineering classes.

85

Approved by the UGCC on 9 April 2009.

86

Fred Schock, Nancy Roldan, Tom Benjamin, Lucy Chang, Eileen Soskin, Bruno Amato, Pam Poulin have retired. Paul Mathews, Ken Johansen, Kip Wile, Mark Janello, Courtney Orlando, Steve Stone, Ildar Khannanov and David Smooke were hired. Note that as of this writing, Paul Mathews is not teaching, but serving as interim Associate Dean for academic affairs.

87

2003 Self-Report, 5.

88

Kip Wile <wile@peabody.jhu.edu>, "UG Curriculum." Personal Email (22 March 2009).

89

Approved by the UGCC on 9 April 2009.

90

Kip Wile <wile@peabody.jhu.edu>, "UG Curriculum." Personal Email (22 March 2009).

91

Kip Wile <wile@peabody.jhu.edu>, "Naming Adjustment." Personal Email (3 April 2009).

92

Andrew Talle, "Writing Ability and Knowledge of Music History: A Comparison of Peabody-Trained vs. Non-Peabody Trained MM Students" The Peabody Institute of the Johns Hopkins University, 2009.

93

Peabody alumni scored an average of 3.94 out of 7 (56%) while alumni of other schools scored an average of 4.48 out of 7 (64%). Talle, 1.

94

NASM, 69.

95

Approved by the UGCC on 9 April 2009.

96

NASM, 70

97

NASM, 84.

98

NASM, 62.

99

NASM, 78.

100

Approved by the UGCC on 9 April 2009.

101

1998 Report, 2.

102

Peabody NASM Self-Report, 9.

Page 67

UGCC FINAL REPORT โ ข DRAFT: 2009.05.19

103

NASM, 84.

104

NASM, 63.

105

NASM, 74-5.

106

NASM, 85.

107

As of April 2009: Business of Music, PY.360.421 has 51 students: 31 M.M. or G.P.D. students, 19 B.M. students and 1 double-degree student. Arts Administration, PY.360.416 has 26 students: 1 D.M.A. student (!), 6 M.M. or G.P.D. students and 19 B.M. students. Anatomy for Musicians, PY.360.422, is the most balanced class with 17 students: 8 M.M. or G.P.D. students and 9 B.M. students.

108

NASM, 62.

109

Approved by the UGCC on 9 April 2009.

110

Catalog, 37.

111

Catalog. 75.

112

NASM, 80-1.

113

Approved by the UGCC on 9 April 2009.

114

Approved by the UGCC on 9 April 2009.

115

2002 Faculty Handbook, Appendix B, 3.

116

Ibid, 5.

117

Ibid, 5.

118

Approved by the UGCC on 9 April 2009.

119

The word concentration can be used to mean either minor or major, and NSAM provides for both definitions of the word (NASM 2007-8, 73). Here the word reflects the fact that colleges typically do not award degrees for work done at other colleges, even if they are part of the same university. That is certainly the case at Homewood, and is noted in their Manual: "Official recognition with notation on the academic record is not given for completion of majors or minors at other divisions of the university or at other colleges." ASEN, 19.

120

Catalog, 69. The Engineering Concentration is not materially different from the Liberal Arts Concentration.

121

NASM, 73.

122

CIM, 19.

123

CCM, 23.

124

MSM, 65.

125

NEC, 67.

126

Peabody allows for shared core requirements in the double-degree program with the ASEN schools. Peabody also allows for shared core requirements in such dual graduate degrees as the M.M. in Music Theory Pedagogy and the M.M. in Musicology. Cleveland offers a similarly generous sharing of core requirements in its minors taken with Case Western Reserve University (CIM, 19).

127

CEHE, 47-48.

128

NASM, 84.

129

CEHE, 48.

130

NASM, 85.

131

CEHE, 42.

132

"Response from the Peabody Institute of the Johns Hopkins University to the NASM Commission Action Report of June 30, 2006." Peabody Conservatory, 1 October 2006, 1.

133

Humanities External Review, 10.

134

Approved by the UGCC on 9 April 2009.

135 136 137 138 139 140

NASM, 82.

COMAR 13B.02.02.16 ยงE(1) CEHE, 48.

Details of the sample found at NSSE 2008, 31.

NSSE 2008, 21.

NSSE has made its actual questions and answers available at: www.nsse.iub.edu/pdf/Writing_Questions_2008.pdf.

Page 68

UGCC FINAL REPORT â&#x20AC;˘ DRAFT: 2009.05.19

141 142 143

NSSE 2008, 21.

ASEN, 2.

Catalog, 37.

144

In a supplemental recommendation not presented for service by the Academic Council, a short description about the writing center should appear in the Peabody Catalog. Mannes has a blurb about the Mannes Writing Center, in their catalog, 18.

145

Approved by the UGCC on 9 April 2009.

146

NASM, 63.

147

NASM, 86.

148

NASM, 93.

Page 69

UGCC FINAL REPORT • DRAFT: 2009.05.19

ABBREVIATIONS AEC

Association Européenne des Conservatoires, Académies de Musique et Musikhochschulen: a European cultural and educational network representing the interests of institutions that are concerned with training for the music profession. There are 266 member institutions in 55 countries.

ASEN

The joint administration of KSAS and WSE. The Homewood campus generally administers these two colleges of the University with a single administration for admissions, advising, registration, and other services.

B.M.

The Bachelor of Music degree

CCM

Cincinnati College-Conservatory of Music

CIM CLEA COMAR CUE

The Cleveland Institute of Music Consortium for the Liberal Education of Artists, an organization with the mission "to strengthen the liberal education of college students enrolled in institutions dedicated to the training of performance artists." http://www.clearts.org Code of Maryland Regulations. Title 13b establishes the regulations for higher education in the State of Maryland.

The JHU Commission on Higher Education, which issued its final report in January 2004

ETCS

European Credit Transfer and Accumulation System

FSSE

National Survey of Faculty Engagement

GP GPA

Global Perspectives, one of the three study areas implemented in the 2006-2007 Humanities curriculum.

Grade point average. For Peabody, the GPA is the average of quality points: the products of grades (on a four point scale) multiplied by credits, for all classes that are applied to degree requirements.

HE

Humanities Elective, a course approved by Humanities and a designation implemented in the 2006-2007 Humanities curriculum.

HP

Historical/Philosophical Studies, one of the three study areas implemented in the 2006-2007 Humanities curriculum.

IDR ISIS IU KSAS LL MHEC MSCHE MSM NASM

Interdivisional Registration: Requests for Registration between the nine divisions of JHU. Most Peabody IDR requests involve KSAS or WSE. Integrated Student Information System, a university-wide, web-based student information system.

Indiana University The Zanvyl Krieger School of Arts and Sciences of the Johns Hopkins University Language and Literature, one of the three study areas implemented in the 2006-2007 Humanities curriculum.

Maryland Higher Education Commission The Middle States Committee on Higher Education The Manhattan School of Music National Association of Schools of Music

NEC

The New England Conservatory of Music

NSSE

National Survey of Student Engagement

OASIS

Organization Advocating Student InterestS: a volunteer student group officially recognized by the Peabody administration as an alternative to a traditional student government.

PCO

Peabody Concert Orchestra

PJO

Peabody Jazz Orchestra

PRR

Periodic Review Report: the five year interim report between decennial reviews of the Middle States Committee on Higher Education.

PSO

Peabody Symphony Orchestra

PWE

Peabody Wind Ensemble

SAP

Satisfactory Academic Progress: the benchmarks by which students may remain in good academic standing at the institution. SAP is an important measure for financial aid and visa status.

UGCC WSE

The Undergraduate Curriculum Committee The Whiting School of Engineering of the Johns Hopkins University

Page 70

UGCC FINAL REPORT • DRAFT: 2009.05.19

BIBLIOGRAPHY Accreditation Documents Johns Hopkins University. "Middle States Commission on Higher Education Periodic Review Report." Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University, 1999. Photocopied.

--------. "Middle States Commission on Higher Education Self-Study Report for the [2004] Accreditation Site Visit. Selected Topic Report: The Challenge of Improving Undergraduate Education in a Research Intensive Environment." January 2004. http://www.jhu.edu/news_info/reports/self-study/.

Johns

Hopkins University Homewood Arts Task http://www.jhu.edu/news_info/reports/arts/arts.pdf.

Johns

Hopkins University Commission on http://www.jhu.edu/news_info/reports/cue/.

Undergraduate

Force.

"Final

Education.

Report."

"Final

24

Report."

May

2005.

January

2004.

Middle States Commission on Higher Education. Assessing Student Learning and Institutional Effectiveness: Understanding Middle States Expectations. Philadelphia: Middle States Commission on Higher Education, 2005. Online. http://www.msche.org/publications/Assessment_Expectations051222081842.pdf.

--------. Characteristics of Excellence in Higher Education 12th ed. Philadelphia: Middle States Commission on Higher Education, 2006. Online. http://www.msche.org/publications/CHX06_Aug08080728132708.pdf.

--------. "Report to the Faculty, Administration, Trustees, Students of The Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland 21218 by An Evaluation Team Representing the Middle States Commission on Higher Education Prepared After Study of the Institution’s Self-Study Report and a Visit to the Campus on March 21-24, 2004." Philadelphia: Middle States Commission on Higher Education, 2004. Photocopied.

--------. Student Learning Assessment Options and Resources 2nd ed. Philadelphia: Middle States Commission on Higher Education, 2007. Online. http://www.msche.org/publications/SLA_Book_0808080728085320.pdf.

National Association of Schools of Music. Addendum to the Handbook 2007-2008. [Online.] http://nasm.artsaccredit.org/site/docs/Handbook/Addendum-NASMHandbook2008-2nd.pdf, 28 March 2009.

--------. Handbook 2007-2008, 2nd ed. Reston, VA: National Association of Schools of Music, 2007.

--------.

Instructions for Preparing Curricular Tables in the NASM Format. [Online.] http://nasm.artsaccredit.org/site/docs/MEMBERSHIP%20PROCEDURES/CurricularTables-NASM2008.pdf, 28 March 2009.

The Peabody Institute of the Johns Hopkins University. "NASM Self Study Document." Baltimore: The Peabody Institute of the Johns Hopkins University, 2004. Photocopied.

Official Peabody Documents Johns Hopkins University. "Undergraduate Student Handbook: Krieger School of Arts and Sciences, Whiting School of Engineering, 2008-2009." Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University, 2008.

The Peabody Institute of the Johns Hopkins University. "[Catalog:] Academic Year 2007-8." Baltimore: The Peabody Institute of the Johns Hopkins University, 2007.

The Peabody Institute of the Johns Hopkins University. "[Catalog:] Academic Year 2008-9." Baltimore: The Peabody Institute of the Johns Hopkins University, 2008 The Peabody Institute of the Johns Hopkins University. "The 2008-2009 Student Handbook." Baltimore: The Peabody Institute of the Johns Hopkins University, 2008 Page 71

UGCC FINAL REPORT • DRAFT: 2009.05.19

Peer Institution Catalogs University of Rochester Eastman School of Music. "Undergraduate Academic Policy & Curriculum." http://www.esm.rochester.edu/registrar/policy/ugrad.php, (28 March 2009).

Cleveland Institute of Music. "2008-2009." Cleveland: Cleveland Institute of Music, 2008.

The Curtis Institute of Music. "Catalog 2008–09." Philadelphia: The Curtis Institute of Music, 2008.

Indiana University Jacobs School of Music. "Bulletin 2007-9." Bloomington: Indiana University Bulletin Series, 2007.

The Juilliard School. "Catalog 2008-9." New York: The Juilliard School, 2008.

Manhattan School of Music. "2008-2009 Course Catalog." New York: Manhattan School of Music, 2008.

Mannes College The New School for Music. "Catalog 2008-9." New York: The New School, 2008.

The New England Conservatory. "Bachelor of Music." http://www.newenglandconservatory.edu/degrees/bachelor.html (28 March 2009).

The University of Cincinnati College-Conservatory of Music. Bulletin 2008-9. Cincinnati: University of Cincinnati, 2008.

Peabody Internal Documents Breese Gretchen, Roger Brunyate, Jo Sarzotti, Peter Stambler and Ron Walters. "Report of the External Review Committee: Peabody Liberal Arts Curriculum." Peabody Academic Council of the Johns Hopkins University. 9 December 2004. Photocopied.

Hahn, Marian, Gary Louie, Eileen Soskin and Carolee Stewart. Report of the Undergraduate Curriculum Review Committee.

The Peabody Conservatory Council of Chairs. 15 December 1998. Photocopied.

Formanek, Michael, Julian Gray, Eileen Soskin and Stephen Stone. "Response to the Report of the External Review Committee on the Liberal Arts Curriculum at the Peabody Conservatory of Music of the Johns Hopkins University."

Peabody Academic Council of the Johns Hopkins University. 13 December 2004. Photocopied.

Peabody Academic Council of the Johns Hopkins University. "Minutes: 2005-2009." Photocopied.

Consulting Organizations and Think Tanks Adelman, Clifford. The Bologna Club: What U.S. Higher Education Can Learn from a Decade of European Reconstruction.

[Online.] http://www.ihep.org/assets/files/TheBolognaClub.pdf, 28 March 2009.

--------.

Learning Accountability from Bologna: A Higher Education Policy http://www.ihep.org/assets/files/learningaccountabilityfrombologna.pdf, 28 March 2009.

Primer.

[Online.]

Association of American Colleges & Universities and the Council For Higher Education Accreditation. "New Leadership Student Learning Accountability for and Aa Statement Of Principles, Commitments To Action." [Online.] http://www.chea.org/pdf/2008.01.30_New_Leadership_Statement.pdf, 28 March 2009.

Association Européenne des Conservatoires and the National Association of Schools of Music. "AEC – NASM Statement on the Characteristics for Quality Assurance in the Field of Music. for the 2005 Bergen Meeting for European Ministers of Education in the framework of the Bologna Process." [Online.] http://aecsite.cramgo.nl/DownloadView.aspx?ses=4907, 28 March 2009.

Page 72

UGCC FINAL REPORT • DRAFT: 2009.05.19

Association Européenne des Conservatoires "Mundus Musicalis" Working Group." Final Report. Higher Music Education: A Global Perspective, Eng. ed. [Online.] http://aecsite.cramgo.nl/DownloadView.aspx?ses=11830, 28 March 2009.

--------."Handbook: The International Recognition of Studies and Qualifications in Higher Music Education. [Online.] http://aecsite.cramgo.nl/DownloadView.aspx?ses=11774, 28 March 2009.

The

Consortium for the Liberal Education of Artists. "2004 http://www.clearts.org/III_(a)_Data%26Info.html, 28 March 2009.

Survey

of

CLEA

Schools."

[Online.]

Nelly Furman, David Goldberg, and Natalia Lusin. "Enrollments in Languages Other Than English in United States Institutions of Higher Education, Fall 2006." Modern Language Association Web Publication. 13 November 2007. http://www.mla.org/enroll_survey06_fin.

Huber, Mary Taylor. "Fostering Integrative Learning through the Curriculum." The Integrative Learning Project, The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching and the Association of American Colleges and Universities, 2006. [Online.] http://www.carnegiefoundation.org/elibrary/integrativelearning (March 29, 2009).

The National Survey of Student Engagement. "Promoting Engagement for All Students: The Imperative to Look Within— 2008 Results." [Online.] http://nsse.iub.edu/NSSE_2008_Results/docs/withhold/NSSE2008_Results_revised_11-142008.pdf, 28 March 2009.

--------.

"Experiences That Matter: Enhancing Student Learning and Success."

[Online.] http://nsse.iub.edu/NSSE_2007_Annual_Report/docs/withhold/NSSE_2007_Annual_Report.pdf, 28 March 2009.

Other Sources

The Peabody Institute of the City of Baltimore. The Founder's Letters and the Papers Relating To Its Dedication and Its History. Baltimore: Steam Press of W. K . Boyle, 1868.

Page 73

UGCC FINAL REPORT • DRAFT: 2009.05.19

APPENDIX A: BENCHMARK COMPARISIONS

NASM % Actual %

TOTALCREDITS Performance Major Area General Studies Electives Performance Major Area General Studies Electives

CCM†

CIM*

Eastman

Indiana

Juilliard

MSM

Mannes*

NEC

Oberlin*

Rice*

E

Lessons Jury/Exam Recital Large ensemble Small ensemble Dept. seminar MAJOR AREA Repertoire/Lit. Theory Theory electives Ear-training Eurhythmics/&c.

Keyboard studies Music history Music history/lit. electives Colloqium/Concerts Conducting Music electives Orchestration Pedagogy SUPPORTIVE MUSIC Foreign language Liberal arts prescribed Writing Liberal arts electives GENERAL STUDIES ELECTIVES

Peabody* GENERAL

SUPPORTIVE COURSES IN MUSIC

MAJOR AREA

STRINGS, BRASS, WOODWINDS, HARP, PERCUSSION

Ā

32 6 2 16 4 0 60 0 18 0 8 0 8 8 0 2 1 6 0 0 51 6 20 0 6 32 4

30 0 0 8 8 0 46 6 12 0 8 0 4 8 0 0 0.5 5.5 2.5 4.0 50.5 0 0 6 24 30 3

30 0 0 8 6 1 44 3 14 3 8 4 4 6 3 1 1 4 0 1 52 0 0 3 21 24 0

32 0 0 16 4 0 52 4 13.5 3 6.5 0 8 9 0 1 0 0 0 0 45 0 0 3 21 24 3

48 0 0 16 4 0 68 0 15 3 4 0 8 8 0 0 0 4 0 2 44 8 6 3 3 20 4

40 0 1 16 16 0 73 8 28 0 8 0 4 13 0 1 0 0 0 0 62 0 12 0 12 24 0

28 0 0 8 6 0 42 8 16 4 8 0 4 8 6 0 4 0 0 0 58 0 12 12 0 24 0

32 0 0 16 8 0 56 8 28 0 16 0 4 8 0 2 0 0 0 0 66 0 21.5 1.5 0 23 3

32 0 0 8 2 0 42 0 21 0 0 0 0 2 8 0 0 6 0 0 37 0 5 0 17 22 17

32 0 0 8 6 0 46 0 12 3 4 0 4 7 3 0 0 3 0 0 36 0 0 0 24 24 18

24 0 0 16 6 0 46 1 15 3 10 2 3 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 46 0 36 3 0 39 0

32.7 0.5 0.3 12.4 6.4 0.1 52.3 3.5 17.5 1.7 7.3 0.5 4.6 8.1 1.8 0.6 0.6 2.6 0.2 0.6 49.8 1.3 10.2 2.9 11.6 26.0 4.7

147 130 120 124 136 159 124 148 118 124 131 133 41% 35% 22% 3% 50% 43% 27% 3%

36% 39% 23% 2% 38% 42% 25% 3%

37% 43% 20% 0% 37% 43% 20% 0%

42% 36% 19% 2% 43% 38% 20% 3%

50% 32% 15% 3% 57% 37% 17% 3%

46% 39% 15% 0% 61% 52% 20% 0%

34% 47% 19% 0% 35% 48% 20% 0%

* String curriculum only; winds, brass, and percussion have slightly different requirements † Originally quarter hours; converted to semester hours for comparison.

Page 74

38% 45% 16% 2% 47% 55% 19% 3%

36% 31% 19% 14% 35% 31% 18% 14%

37% 29% 19% 15% 38% 30% 20% 15%

35% 35% 30% 0% 38% 38% 33% 0%

39% 37% 20% 4% 44% 41% 22% 4%

UGCC FINAL REPORT • DRAFT: 2009.05.19

NASM % Actual %

TOTAL CREDITS Performance Major Area General Studies Electives Performance Major Area General Studies Electives

CCM†

CIM

Eastman

Indiana

Juilliard

MSM

Mannes

NEC

Oberlin

Rice

E

Applied major Jury/Exam Recital Large ensemble/Chorus Small ensemble Ensemble Dept. Seminar MAJOR AREA Accompanying Pedagogy Piano Tech. & History Intro to Organ Repertoire/Lit. Piano sight-reading Keyboard skills Theory Theory electives Ear-training Score-reading Eurhythmics/&c.

Music history Music history/lit. electives Colloqium/Concerts Conducting Music electives SUPPORTIVE MUSIC Foreign language Liberal arts prescribed Writing Liberal arts electives GENERAL STUDIES ELECTIVES

Peabody GENERAL

SUPPORTIVE COURSES IN MUSIC

MAJOR AREA

PIANO

Ā

32 6 2 8 4 0 0 52 2 4 0 0 8 4 8 18 0 8 0 0 8 0 2 1 4 67 6 20 0 6 32 4

32 0 0 4 4 0 0 40 4 4 1.5 0.50 4 0 0 12 0 8 0 0 8 0 0 0.5 9.5 52 0 0 6 24 30 6

28 0 0 0 0 8 5 41 0 4 0 0 3 1 0 14 3 8 0 4 8 3 1 1 5 55 0 0 3 21 24 0

32 0 0 2 2 0 0 36 10 4 0 0 9 4 0 13.5 0 6.5 0 0 9 0 1 0 0 57 0 0 3 21 24 3

48 0 0 8 0 0 0 56 4 2 0 0 0 0 0 15 3 4 0 0 8 0 0 0 6 42 8 9 2 10 29 6

40 0 1 8 0 0 10 59 0 0 0 0 12 0 8 28 0 8 0 0 13 0 1 0 0 70 0 12 0 12 24 0

18 0 0 0 4 0 0 22 0 4 0 0 4 2 6 16 4 8 0 0 8 6 0 4 0 62 0 24 0 12 36 2

32 0 0 4 4 0 0 40 0 3 0 0 0 2 6 28 0 16 2 0 8 0 2 0 0 67 0 21.5 1.5 0 23 3

40 0 0 6 1 0 0 47 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 21 0 0 0 0 2 8 0 0 6 42 0 5 0 17 22 7

32 0 0 0 4 0 0 36 4 0 0 0 2 0 4 12 6 4 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 42 0 0 0 24 24 20

24 0 0 16 2 0 0 42 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 3 10 0 2 12 0 0 0 0 42 0 36 3 0 39 0

32.5 0.5 0.3 5.1 2.3 0.7 1.4 42.8 2.2 2.3 0.1 0.0 3.8 1.2 3.4 17.5 1.7 7.3 0.2 0.5 7.6 2.5 0.6 0.6 2.8 54.4 1.3 11.6 1.7 13.4 27.9 4.6

155 128 120 120 133 153 122 133 118 122 123 129.7 34% 43% 21% 3% 43% 56% 27% 3%

31% 41% 23% 5% 33% 43% 25% 5%

34% 46% 20% 0% 34% 46% 20% 0%

30% 48% 20% 3% 30% 48% 20% 3%

† Originally quarter hours; converted to semester hours for comparison.

Page 75

42% 32% 22% 5% 47% 35% 24% 5%

39% 46% 16% 0% 49% 58% 20% 0%

18% 51% 30% 2% 18% 52% 30% 2%

30% 50% 17% 2% 33% 56% 19% 3%

40% 36% 19% 6% 39% 35% 18% 6%

30% 34% 20% 16% 30% 35% 20% 17%

34% 34% 32% 0% 35% 35% 33% 0%

32.8% 41.8% 21.7% 3.7% 35.7% 45.3% 23.3% 3.9%

UGCC FINAL REPORT • DRAFT: 2009.05.19

NASM % Actual %

TOTAL CREDITS Major Area Supporting Music General Studies Electives Major Area Supporting Music General Studies Electives

CCM†

CIM

Eastman

Indiana

Juilliard

MSM

Mannes

NEC

Oberlin

Rice

Applied major Jury/Exam Recital Large ensemble/Chorus Small ensemble/Opera Dept. Seminar MAJOR AREA Singing/Languages Phonetics Diction Pedagogy Vocal coaching Intro to Performing Acting Modern Dance Stage Movement Oratorio Misc. vocal studies Repertoire/Lit. Theory Theory electives Ear-training Eurhythmics/&c.

Keyboard studies Thursday Noon Music history History/Lit. elective Freshman colloqium Music electives Conducting SUPPORTING MUSIC Foreign language Liberal arts prescribed Writing Liberal arts electives GENERAL STUDIES ELECTIVES

Peabody GENERAL

SUPPORTING COURSES IN MUSIC

MAJOR

VOICE

Ā

32 6 2 12 3 1 56 18 0 0 0 4 0 1 0 1 0 0 4 18 0 8 0 8 2 8 0 0 6 1 79 18 14 0 0 32 6

30 0 0 6 0 0 36 0 0 4 4 0 5.33 0 0 0 4 0 4 12 0 8 0 4 0 8 0 0 6 0.67 60 18 0 6 12 36 1.33

28 0 0 6 12 1 47 0 0 4 2 0 0 3 3 0 0 0 3 11 2 8 2 4 0 8 3 1 0 1 55 18 0 3 12 33 0

24 0 0 16 0 0 40 0 0 4 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 15 0 4 0 8 0 8 0 0 3 0 51 24 9 3 0 36 9

32 0 0 12 6 0 50 0 0 6 2 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 4 13.5 3 6.5 0 8 0 9 0 1 0 0 57 24 9 2 0 35 2

40 0 1 0 10 4 55 0 1 16 0 0 1 0 0 4 0 2 12 22 0 12 0 4 0 9 1 1 0 0 85 12 12 0 0 24 0

28 0 0 2 6 1 37 0 2 8 0 0 1 2 0 2 0 0 6 16 0 8 0 4 0 8 6 0 0 0 63 8 12 0 6 26 0

32 0 0 4 0 8 44 0 0 8 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 23 0 16 0 4 0 8 0 2 0 0 65 12 19.5 1.5 0 33 3

24 0 0 8 0 0 32 0 1 8 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 21 0 0 0 2 0 2 8 0 5 0 57 18 3 2 0 23 6

28 0 0 8 0 0 36 0 0 5 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 12 0 4 0 8 0 0 10 0 6 0 51 15 0 0 4 19 18

24 0 0 16 8 0 48 0 0 4 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 15 3 10 2 3 0 12 0 0 0 0 55 18 36 3 0 57 0

29.3 0.5 0.3 8.2 4.1 1.4 43.7 1.6 0.4 6.1 1.3 0.7 0.7 1.1 0.3 0.8 0.4 0.2 4.9 16.2 0.7 7.7 0.4 5.2 0.2 7.3 2.5 0.5 2.4 0.2 61.6 16.8 10.4 1.9 3.1 32.2 4.1

173 133 135 136 144 164 126 145 118 124 160 141.7 32% 46% 18% 3% 47% 66% 27% 5%

27% 45% 27% 1% 30% 50% 30% 1%

35% 41% 24% 0% 39% 46% 28% 0%

29% 38% 26% 7% 33% 43% 30% 8%

† Originally quarter hours; converted to semester hours for comparison.

Page 76

35% 40% 24% 1% 42% 48% 29% 2%

34% 52% 15% 0% 46% 71% 20% 0%

29% 50% 21% 0% 31% 53% 22% 0%

30% 45% 23% 2% 37% 54% 28% 3%

27% 48% 19% 5% 27% 48% 19% 5%

29% 41% 15% 15% 30% 43% 16% 15%

30% 34% 36% 0% 40% 46% 48% 0%

30.7% 43.5% 22.7% 3.1% 36.4% 51.4% 26.8% 3.4%

UGCC FINAL REPORT • DRAFT: 2009.05.19

1984–1985

1985–1986

1991–1993

1995–1997

2005–2007

2008–2009

Applied major Jury/Dept. exam Recital Large ensemble Chamber music MAJOR AREA Major instrument rep./lit.

Theory Ear-training Keyboard studies Thursday Noon Music history Orchestration Conducting Dept. seminar Music electives SUPPORTIVE MUSIC Foreign language Writing skills Liberal arts prescribed Liberal arts electives GENERAL STUDIES ELECTIVES

1978–1979

A 30-Year Review of the Curriculum for Orchestral Instruments at the Peabody Conservatory

16 12 4 0 0 32 2 24 8 4 0 8 0 2 0 6 54 12 6 0 18 36 0

16 12 4 0 0 32 2 24 8 4 0 8 0 2 0 6 54 12 6 0 18 36 0

24 6 2 16 6 54 0 18 8 4 3 8 6 2 6 0 55 12 2 12 6 32 6

32 6 2 16 4 60 0 18 8 4 3 8 6 2 2 0 51 12 4 10 6 32 6

32 6 2 16 4 60 0 18 8 8 3 10 0 2 0 6 55 12 4 10 6 32 4

32 6 2 16 4 60 0 18 8 8 2 8 0 1 0 6 51 12 2 10 6 30 4

32 6 2 16 4 60 0 18 8 8 2 8 0 1 0 6 51 6 0 20 6 32 4

TOTAL CREDITS

122

122

147

149

151

145

147

Major Area Supportive Music General Studies Electives

26% 26% 30% 0%

26% 26% 30% 0%

37% 37% 22% 4%

40% 40% 21% 4%

40% 40% 21% 3%

41% 41% 21% 3%

41% 41% 22% 3%

Page 77

UGCC FINAL REPORT • DRAFT: 2009.05.19

APPENDIX B: THE UGCC SURVEY Undergraduate Curriculum Survey Conducted by the Undergraduate Curriculum Committee 18 November 2008 — 2 February 2009

STUDENT RESULTS

1.

What is your current status?

Freshman 11 9.9%

Sophomore 22 19.8%

Junior 40 36.0%

Senior 34 30.6%

Fifth Year 3 2.7%

Other 1 0.9%

Total 111 100.0%

The student indicated as "other" is a first year M.M. student who completed his or her B.M. at Peabody last year.

2.

What is your major?

Brass

2 1.8%

Composition

5 4.5%

Computer Music

3 2.7%

Guitar

5 4.5%

Jazz

3 2.7%

Music Education

7 6.3%

Organ

1 0.9%

Percussion

7 6.3%

Performance

57 51.4%

Piano

4 3.6%

Recording Arts

2 1.8%

Strings

8 7.2%

Voice

5 4.5%

1 0.9%

No Response

1 0.9%

Winds

One Jazz student also specified Percussion.

3.

When you arrived at Peabody, did any of the following apply to you? (Circle all that apply) Placed in Music Theory Fundamentals • Transferred credits from another school • Transferred AP credits • Advanced placement in (choose) Theory, Keyboard, Ear-training 27 answered 34 answered 19 answered Of these 25answered 22 answered 7 answered 46 answered

advanced placement in Ear-training advanced placement in Keyboard Studies advanced placement in Music Theory 7 students had placement in all three; 7 had placement in Ear-training and Keyboard; 8 had placement in Keyboard and Theory; 1 had placement in Ear-training and Theory AP credits transferred credits from another school had AP and transfers placed in Music Theory Fundamentals

Only 13 students had no advanced placement or review work.

Page 78

UGCC FINAL REPORT • DRAFT: 2009.05.19

MUSIC THEORY 4.

5.

In general, how have your grades been in music theory?

Mostly A's

52 46.8%

Mostly A's, A–/B

2 1.8%

A–/B

34 30.6%

A–/B, B

2 1.8%

B

15 13.5%

B, B–/C

2 1.8%

B–/C

3 2.7%

Less than C

1 0.9%

On average, how many hours per week are spent studying music theory or completing music theory assignments?

Less than 1 hour per week 1–2 hours 1–2 hours, 2–3 hours 2–3 hours 3–4 hours 4–5 hours More than 5 hours per week

6.

12 35 2 32 21 4 5

10.8% 31.5% 1.8% 28.8% 18.9% 3.6% 4.5%

Mostly A's 6 15 1 14 12 1 3

A–/B 3 12

B 5 1 2 4 2 1

14 5 1

B-/C 3 3

Less than C

1

1

On a scale of 1 to 10, please rate your experience in the following classes: Theory I :

|| 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 || • Better in the (choose) fall or spring semester • Have not completed this class

Rating

Number of Students

Percentage of 96 Ratings

1 2 3 4 5 "5-8" 6 "6-7" 7 8 9 10 No Rating No Answer

6 4 10 3 5 2 4 1 9 18 19 15 4 11

6.3% 4.2% 10.4% 3.1% 5.2% 2.1% 3.6% 1.0% 9.4% 18.8% 19.8% 15.6% — —

Number preferring (710.111) 2

Number preferring (710.112) 1 2 2 1 1

2 2

Total:

1

1

2 1 3

7

14

For 96 ratings, the mean rating is 6.5 with a standard deviation of 2.86; the median rating is 8.

Page 79

UGCC FINAL REPORT • DRAFT: 2009.05.19

Theory II:

|| 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 || • Better in the (choose) fall or spring semester • Have not completed this class

Rating

Number of Students

Percentage of 91 Ratings

1 2 "2-10" 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 No Rating No Answer

1 2 1 5 2 11 4 12 16 28 7 2 18

1.1% 2.2% 1.1% 5.5% 2.2% 12.1% 4.4% 13.2% 17.6% 30.8% 7.7% — —

Number preferring (710.211)

Number preferring (710.212)

1

2 1 1 2 4

1 3

2 Total:

5

12

For 91 ratings, the mean rating is 7.15 with a standard deviation of 2.29; the median rating is 8.

Theory III:

|| 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 || • Better in the (choose) fall or spring semester • Have not completed this class

Rating

Number of Students

Percentage of 63 Ratings

Number preferring (710.311)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 No Answer

2 2 0 1 4 7 7 14 16 10 48

3.2% 3.2% 0% 1.6% 6.3% 11.1% 11.1% 22.2% 25.4% 15.9% —

1

Total:

Number preferring (710.312)

2

1

3

1

For 63 ratings, the mean rating is 7.57 with a standard deviation of 2.20; the median rating is 8.

7.

Regarding Ear-training, please circle the statements with which you agree:

There should be more Ear-training 32 28.8% 8.

Less Ear-training 5 4.5%

More rhythm in Ear-training 17 15.3%

Keep it the way it is 57 51.4%

How do you feel about the number of courses required in Music Theory?

Fewer courses 15 13.5%

More courses 8 7.2%

Just right 87 78.4% Page 80

No response 1 0.9%

UGCC FINAL REPORT • DRAFT: 2009.05.19

9.

How do you feel about the content and teaching of the current Music Theory courses?

Should be more uniform and consistent across courses Has a good balance of consistency and variety of approach Should be more varied and diverse from one course to the next No basis for comparison No Response

59 33 5 10 3

53.2% 29.8% 4.5% 9% 2.7%

10. What should the Curriculum Committee consider about the Music Theory curriculum?

See Student Comments (below, p. 101).

HUMANITIES 11. In general, how have your grades been in Humanities classes?

Mostly A's

34 30.6%

Mostly A's, A–/B

1 0.9%

A–/B

B, B–/C

2 1.8%

B–/C

17 15.3%

Less than C

43 38.7% 0

B

17 15.3%

No Humanities / No Answer

7 6.3%

12. On average, how many hours per week are spent studying Humanities or completing Humanities assignments?

Less than 1 hour per week 1–2 hours 2–3 hours 3–4 hours 4–5 hours More than 5 hours per week No Answer

12 30 22 20 9 10 8

10.8% 27.0% 19.8% 18.0% 8.1% 9.0% 7.2%

Mostly A's 5 13 3 7 3 3

A–/B 3 10 14 9 3 4

B 3 5 4 4 1 2

B-/C

Less than C

2 1 1 2 1

Answers between scores rounded up; one student without a completed Humanities class reported studying less than one hour a week.

Page 81

UGCC FINAL REPORT • DRAFT: 2009.05.19

13. On a scale of 1 to 10, please rate your experience in the Humanities Seminar: Number of Students 15 8 5 1 11 11 4 4 7 4 1 40

Rating 1 2 3 3/4 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 N/A

Percentage of 71 Ratings 21.1% 11.3% 7.0% 1.4% 15.5% 15.5% 5.6% 5.6% 9.9% 5.6% 1.4% —

71 students rated the Humanities Seminar. One student rating "5" and one student rating "6" acknowledged that they had not completed the course.

Of the 71 responses, the mean is 4.27 with a standard deviation of 2.63. The median rating is 4.

14. Have you had a chance to take a class on the Homewood campus?

Yes 48 46.1% of 104 responses

No 56 53.8% of 104 responses

No Response 7 6.3% of 111 surveys

15. What would make you more likely to take classes on the Homewood campus? (Circle all that apply) Easier cross-registration • Better selection of classes • More time in the schedule to take such classes A requirement to take classes at Homewood • I would rather not take a class at Homewood

Multiple Answers allowed. 9 students did not respond.

Considering the complete answers of 102 responses: 22 (21.6%) answered 20 (19.6%) answered 10 (9.8%) answered 9 (8.8%) answered 6 (5.9%) answered 6 (5.9%) answered

Easier cross-registration; More time in the schedule to take such classes only "More time in the schedule to take such classes" Easier cross-registration; Better selection of classes; More time in the schedule to take such classes I would rather not take a class at Homewood Easier cross-registration; More time in the schedule to take such classes; A requirement to take classes at Homewood only "Easier cross-registration"

31 other responses combine different elements with written responses; no more than two are alike.

Considering the individual elements of answers: 78 (76.4%) indicated 66 (63.4%) indicated 19 (18.6%) indicated 6 (5.9%) indicated

More time in the schedule to take such classes Easier cross-registration Better selection of classes A requirement to take classes at Homewood Page 82

UGCC FINAL REPORT • DRAFT: 2009.05.19

Additional responses:

• • • • •

"Times they are offered; evening classes at Homewood would be great" "Very difficult to enroll in Homewood classes! Unless limit is 80+ people!!"

"Compatible schedules" "Don't put us through last" "It's far too inconvenient"

16. How do you feel about the number of courses required in Humanities? Fewer courses • More courses • Just right Fewer courses 78 75% of 104 responses

More courses 3 2.9% of 104 responses

Just right 23 22.1% of 104 responses

No response 7 6.3% of 111 surveys

17. How do you feel about the content and teaching of the current Humanities courses?

12 (12.1%) of 99 responses answered 27 (27.3%) of 99 responses answered 24 (24.2%) of 99 responses answered 36 (36.7%) of 99 responses answered 12 (10.8%) of 111 surveys

Should be more uniform and consistent across courses Has a good balance of consistency and variety of approach Should be more varied and diverse from one course to the next No basis for comparison No Answer

18. What should the Curriculum Committee consider about the Humanities curriculum?

See Student Comments (below, p. 112).

MUSICOLOGY 19. In general, how have your grades been in Musicology classes?

24 students (21.6% of 111 surveys) did not answer or answered "Have not completed a Musicology class."

Mostly A's

44 50.6%

"Mostly A's, A–/B"

2 2.3%

A–/B

23 26.4%

"A–/B, B"

1 1.1%

B

11 12.6%

B, B–/C

1 1.1%

B–/C

5 5.7%

Less than C

0 0

20. On average, how many hours per week are spent studying Musicology or completing Musicology assignments?

Less than 1 hour per week 1–2 hours 2–3 hours 3–4 hours 4–5 hours More than 5 hours per week No Answer

89 responses 12 13.5% 24 27.0% 29 32.6% 8 9.0% 6 6.7% 10 11.2% 19 —

Mostly A's 6 12 15 5 4 4

Page 83

A–/B 3 8 9 2 2

B 1 2 6

B-/C 1 1

2 1

3

No Grade Yet 1 1

UGCC FINAL REPORT • DRAFT: 2009.05.19

21. On a scale of 1 to 10, please rate your experience in the following classes: [NB: Because of the consistent staffing of Musicology Classes, the scores for each individual class were adumbrated into a departmental total.]

Music History 1-4; Music & Culture: || 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 || Have not completed this class

Rating 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 N/A

Number of Students 11 10 16 4 19 21 25 36 41 66 309

Percentage of 209 Ratings 5.3% 4.8% 7.7% 1.9% 9.1% 10.0% 12.0% 17.2% 19.6% 31.6% —

For 209 ratings, the mean rating is 7.2 with a standard deviation of 2.7; the median is 8.

22. How do you feel about the fact that the undergraduate Musicology curriculum consists only of survey classes (that is, courses which cover at least one entire century of music history)?

25 students did not answer (22.5% of surveys). Of the 86 students who did respond: 47 (54.7%) answered 23 (26.7%) answered 9 (10.5%) answered 4 (4.7%) mixed answers 3 (3.5%) wrote answers

Survey courses serve my needs Survey courses should be balanced with courses on specific topics (e. g. Beethoven quartets) Undergraduates should only be required to take courses on specific topics.

Mixed Answers

• • • •

Survey courses serve my needs; Survey courses should be balanced with courses on specific topics (e. g. Beethoven quartets) Survey courses serve my needs; Undergraduates can still take other courses anyway Survey courses serve my needs; Undergraduates should only be required to take courses on specific topics Survey courses serve my needs; Undergraduates should only be required to take courses on specific topics; Graduate courses are significantly better than undergraduate classes.

Written Answers

• • • 23.

“I could care less. I only took the classes for the credit.”

“It would be nice to have one course that is focused on one topic, but I think all the music histories should be required. They are important.”

“There should be more choices, specific vs. broad.”

How do you feel about the number of courses required in Musicology? Fewer courses • More courses • Just right Fewer courses 15 15.5% of 97 responses

More courses 68 70.1% of 97 responses

Just right 14 14.4% of 97 responses Page 84

No response 13 11.7% of 111 surveys

UGCC FINAL REPORT • DRAFT: 2009.05.19

24.

How do you feel about the content and teaching of the current Musicology survey courses?

17 (18.3%) of 93 responses answered 45 (48.4%) of 93 responses answered 5 (5.4%) of 93 responses answered 26 (28%) of 93 responses answered 18 (16.2%) of 111 surveys

Should be more uniform and consistent across courses Has a good balance of consistency and variety of approach Should be more varied and diverse from one course to the next No basis for comparison No Answer

25. In general, what should the Curriculum Committee consider about the Musicology curriculum?

See Student Comments (below, p. 112).

GENERAL 26. Have you taken a class that counts as an elective?

Yes 90 90% of 100 responses

No 10 10% of 100 responses

No Response 11 10% of 111 surveys

27. Respond to the amount of electives required by your degree:

Too many electives required 39 40.2% of 97 responses

Just enough electives 55 56.7% of 97 responses

Not enough electives 3 3.1% of 97 responses

No Response 14 12.6% of 111 surveys

28. What kinds of classes would you like to take as an elective? (Circle all that apply) Repertoire classes • Additional theory/musicology classes • Profession-oriented classes (music business) Music technology classes • Classes that have nothing to do with music • Classes at Homewood • Languages

Multiple Answers allowed. 14 students did not respond.

Considering the complete answers of 97 responses: 7 (7.2%) answered 3 (3%) answered 6 (6.1%) answered 3 (3%) answered

Repertoire classes Additional theory/musicology classes Profession-oriented classes (music business) Languages

78 other responses combine different elements with written responses; no more than four are alike.

Page 85

UGCC FINAL REPORT • DRAFT: 2009.05.19

Considering the individual elements of answers: 55 or (56.7%) indicated 48 or (49.5%) indicated 44 or (45.4%) indicated 42 or (43.3%) indicated 38 or (39.2%) indicated 35 or (36.1%) indicated 25 or (25.8%) indicated 1 or (1.0%) indicated 1 or (1.0%) indicated 1 or (1.0%) indicated 1 or (1.0%) indicated

Profession-oriented classes (music business) Repertoire classes Classes that have nothing to do with music Classes at Homewood Languages Additional theory/musicology classes Music technology classes Acting Directing Performance instruction chamber music (since only one credit is needed to complete the undergraduate requirement for winds)

29. Would you like to see more options for advanced courses in your major area of study?

Yes 90 93.1% of 102 responses

No 7 6.9% of 102 responses

No Response 9 8.1% of 111 surveys

30. Should advanced courses in a major area of study be electives or requirements?

Electives 68 70.1% of 102 responses

Requirements 29 29.9% of 97 responses

No Response 14 12.6% of 111 surveys

No 18 18.2% of 99 responses

No Response 12 10.8% of 111 surveys

31. Is it important to take conducting?

Yes 81 81.8% of 99 responses

32. Do you like the Thursday Noon Series?

Multiple answered allowed. 8 students (7.2% of 111 surveys) did not answer. Of the 103 responses: 36 (35%) answered 7 (6.8%) answered 19 (18.4%) answered 18 (17.5%) answered 3 (2.9%) answered 8 (7.8%) answered 2 (1.9%) answered 6 (5.8%) answered 4 (3.9%)answered

• •

Yes No I like the idea, not the programming I don’t like the attendance policy Yes. I like the idea, but not the programming Yes. I don't like the attendance policy No. I like the idea, but not the programming No. I don't like the attendance policy I like the idea, but not the programming. I don't like the attendance policy

47 (45.6%) students had an overall favorable view of Thursday Noon; 8 (7.8%) did not.

28 (27.2%) did not like the programming; 36 (35%) did not like the attendance policy.

Page 86

UGCC FINAL REPORT • DRAFT: 2009.05.19

33. Would you like to see the Thursday Noon replaced with the "alternate project" for both years?

Yes 60 59.4% of 101 responses

No 41 36.9% of 101 responses

No Response 10 9% of 111 surveys

34. Do classroom studies influence your major studies?

Definitely 45 44.1% of 102 responses

Probably 31 30.4% of 102 responses

Maybe 17 16.7% of 102 responses

Probably Not 9 8.8% of 102 responses

Definitely Not 0

Probably Not 19 18.4% of 103 responses

Definitely Not 6 5.8% of 103 responses

—

No Response 9 8.1% of 111 surveys

35. Do classroom studies hinder your major studies?

Definitely 33 32% of 103 responses

Probably 28 27.2% of 103 responses

Maybe 17 16.5% of 103 responses

No Response 8 7.2% of 111 surveys

36. How do you find the answers to questions about the curriculum and schedule?

I read the catalog and manage • I ask my major teacher • I ask other teachers • I ask my friends I ask the Registrar or Associate Dean for Academic Affairs Multiple Answers allowed. 9 students (8.1% of 111 surveys) did not respond.

Considering the complete answers of 102 responses: 22 (21.6%) answered 3 (2.9%) answered 1 (1%) answered 9 (8.8%) answered 8 (7.8%) answered 7 (6.9%) answered 8 (7.8%) answered 9 (8.8%) answered

I read the catalog and manage I ask my major teacher I ask other teachers I ask my friends I ask the Registrar or Associate Dean for Academic Affairs I read the catalog and manage; I ask my friends I read the catalog and manage; I ask the Registrar or Associate Dean for Academic Affairs I read the catalog and manage; I ask my friends; I ask the Registrar or Associate Dean for Academic Affairs

35 other responses combine different elements; no more than four are alike.

Considering the individual elements of answers: 80 (78.4%) indicated 69 (67.6%) indicated 22 (21.6%) indicated 8 (7.8%) indicated 7 (6.9%) indicated

I ask my friends I read the catalog and manage I ask the Registrar or Associate Dean for Academic Affairs I ask other teachers I ask my major teacher

Page 87

UGCC FINAL REPORT • DRAFT: 2009.05.19

37. How should Peabody approach the issue of advising?

It should come from the major teacher • It should come from the registrar/dean • It should come from specially trained students There should be a staff person who does nothing but advising • Students should be assigned to other teachers for advising Multiple Answers allowed. 12 students (10.8% of 111 surveys) did not respond.

Considering the complete answers of 99 responses: 22 (24.2%) answered 15 (15.2%) answered 8 (8.1%) answered 8 (8.1%) answered 8 (8.1%) answered 7 (7.1%) answered 6 (6.5%) answered 5 (5.1%) answered

There should be a staff person who does nothing but advising It should come from the major teacher Students should be assigned to other teachers for advising It should come from the registrar/dean It should come from specially-trained students It should come from the major teacher; There should be a staff person who does nothing but advising It should come from the registrar/dean; There should be a staff person who does nothing but advising There should be a staff person who does nothing but advising; Students should be assigned to other teachers for advising

17 other responses combine different elements; no more than four are alike.

Considering the individual elements of answers: 54 (54.5%) indicated 30 (30.3%) indicated 25 (25.3%) indicated 19 (19.2%) indicated 15 (15.2%) indicated

There should be a staff person who does nothing but advising It should come from the major teacher It should come from the registrar/dean It should come from specially trained students Students should be assigned to other teachers for advising

38. Did you apply for the double-degree program?

Yes, and I was accepted 2 2% of 102 responses

Yes, but I was not accepted 8 7.8% of 102 responses

No 92 90.2% of 102 responses

No Response 9 8.1% of 111 surveys

39. Does the double-degree program interest you?

Yes 38 37.3% of 102 responses

No 64 62.7% of 102 responses

No Response 9 8.1% of 111 surveys

40. Do you know about the Liberal Arts Concentrations offered?

Yes 23 22.3% of 99 responses

No 80 77.7% of 99 responses

No Response 8 7.2% of 111 surveys

41. Does the idea of getting a concentration or minor in a music area interest you?

Yes 72 72.7% of 99 responses

No 27 27.3% of 99 responses

Page 88

No Response 12 10.8% of 111 surveys

UGCC FINAL REPORT • DRAFT: 2009.05.19

42. If so, what sorts of music concentrations or minors do interest you? Select all that apply.

Chamber Music • Composition • Conducting • Early Music • Jazz • Musicology • Music Theory • Music Technology Multiple Answers allowed. 35 students (31.5% of 111 surveys) did not respond.

Considering the complete answers of 76 responses: 10 (13.2%) answered 3 (3.9%) answered 4 (5.2%) answered

Chamber Music Conducting Musicology

41 other responses combine different elements; no more than three are alike.

Considering the individual elements of answers: 41 (53.2%) indicated 28 (36.4%) indicated 26 (33.8%) indicated 19 (24.7%) indicated 18 (23.4%) indicated 16 (20.8%) indicated 12 (15.6%) indicated 10 (13.0%) indicated 2 (2.6%) indicated

Chamber Music Conducting Musicology Jazz Composition Music Theory Early Music Music Technology "Voice" or "vocal"

Other Answers:

• • 43.

"Music Business or Law" "Pedagogy” Final suggestions?

See Student Comments (below, p. 115).

Page 89

UGCC FINAL REPORT â&#x20AC;˘ DRAFT: 2009.05.19

Undergraduate Curriculum Survey Conducted by the Undergraduate Curriculum Committee 18 November 2008 â&#x20AC;&#x201D; 2 February 2009

FACULTY RESULTS

SOME INFORMATION FOR CONTEXT 1.

Are you full time or part time?

Full time 24 52.3% of 45 surveys

2.

No 36 80% of 45 surveys

No Response 1 2.2% of 45 surveys

No 30 66.7% of 45 surveys

No Response 1 2.2% of 45 surveys

Do you serve on any of the standing committees?

Yes 14 31.1% of 45 surveys

4.

No Response 2 4.4% of 45 surveys

Do you teach at another school?

Yes 8 17.8% of 45 surveys

3.

Part time 19 42.2% of 45 surveys

What do you do at Peabody?

1 faculty member (2.2% of 45 surveys) did not respond.

7 (15.9%) of 44 responses 23 (52.3%) of 44 responses 1 (2.3%) of 44 responses 9 (20.5%) of 44 responses 4 (9.1%) of 44 responses

5.

Studio teaching Classroom teaching Ensembles Studio teaching and classroom teaching Studio teaching and Ensembles

If you are a classroom teacher, approximately how many hours do you think students spend on assignments or studying for your courses outside of class each week? (Elaborate at the end, if necessary.)

Hours 1 1.5 1-2 2 2-3 3 3-4 4 4-5 6 No response

If you are a studio or ensembles teacher, approximately how many hours do you think your students spend practicing each week? (Elaborate at the end, if necessary.)

Of 27 Responses 4 (14.8%) 2 (7.4%) 6 (22.2%) 2 (7.4%) 5 (18.5%) 3 (11.1%) 3 (11.1%) 1 (3.7%) 1 (3.7%) 1 (3.7%) 16 (35.5%)

Four faculty members identifying themselves as classroom faculty did not provide a number of hours; one responded "?" and one responded "varies."

3-20 4-5 5-20 8-12 10-25 15-20 studio = 15-20 15-25 21-35 Varies

5 (estimate) 8 10 14+/15+ 20 20 21 21+ not nearly enough

Every studio and ensemble teacher answered. Answers are sufficiently varied as to include them all.

Page 90

UGCC FINAL REPORT • DRAFT: 2009.05.19

6.

If you are a classroom teacher, approximately how many hours should students spend on assignments or studying for your courses outside of class each week?

(Elaborate at the end, if necessary.)

Hours 1 1-2 1.5-3 4 6 7 2 2-3 2-4 2-5 2-6 3 3-4 6-8

Of 29 Responses 1 (3.7%)) 3 (11.1%)) 1 (3.7%)) 1 (3.7%)) 1 (3.7%)) 1 (3.7%)) 2 (7.4%) 3 (11.1%) 1 (3.7%) 1 (3.7%) 1 (3.7%) 5 (18.5%) 3 (11.1%) 1 (3.7%)

If you are a studio or ensembles teacher, approximately how many hours should students spend practicing each week? (Elaborate at the end, if necessary.)

5-8 7+ 12 14 14 15 15-20 15-25 20

All but one of the studio and ensemble faculty answered.

Answers are sufficiently varied as to include them all.

Two faculty members (7.4%) answered "2 hours per credit hour."

Three faculty members identifying themselves as classroom faculty did not answer. One studio faculty member answered "3-5" hours.

Of the 27 classroom faculty who answered questions five and six:

• •

•

20+ 20-28 20-30 21-28+ 24 25+ 25-30 25-30

13 (48%) replied their students spent as much time outside of class as they should.

3 (11%) replied that students should increase their time spent on studying and assignments by approximately 50%, which was the difference of approximately 1 extra hour each week.

11(40.7%) replied that their students should double the amount of time spent on studying and assignments, which is the difference of 1-2 hours each week; one extreme outlier suggested an increase from 4 hours each week to 68 hours each week.

Page 91

UGCC FINAL REPORT • DRAFT: 2009.05.19

MUSIC THEORY 7.

On average, how many hours per week do your undergraduate students spend studying music theory and/or completing music theory assignments?

Less than 1 hour per week 1–2 hours 2–3 hours 3–4 hours 4–5 hours More than 5 hours per week No Answer

• • 8.

1 (4.2%) of 24 responses 4 (16.7%) of 24 responses 11 (45.8%) of 24 responses 4 (16.7%) of 24 responses 1 (4.2%) of 24 responses 3 (12.5%) of 24 responses 21 (46.7% of 45 surveys)

13 of 16 (81.2%) respondents who answered between "less than 1 hour" to "2-3 hours" indicated some kind of classroom teaching.

4 of 5 (80%) respondents who answered between "4-5 hours" and "more than 5 hours" were studio faculty; the fifth respondent did not identify his or her teaching responsibilities.

Regarding Ear-training, please circle the statements with which you agree: There should be more Ear-training There should be more Ear-training; More rhythm in Ear-training More rhythm in Ear-training Keep it the way it is Less Ear-training No Answer

3 (11.5%) of 26 responses 5 (19.2%) of 26 responses 8 (30.8%) of 26 responses 10 (38.5%) of 26 responses 0 of 26 responses 19 (42.2% of 45 surveys)

11 of 13 (84.6%) respondents responding "more rhythm" indicated some degree of studio teaching.

9.

How do you feel about the number of courses required in Music Theory?

Fewer courses 5 20.8% of 24 responses

• • •

More courses 2 8.3 % of 24 responses

Just right 17 70.8% of 24 responses

No response 21 46.7% of 45 surveys

8 of 17 (47.1%) respondents answering "more courses" or "just right" indicated ensembles or studio teaching.

4 of 5 (80%) respondents answering "fewer courses" were studio teachers; the fifth respondent did not identify his or her teaching responsibilities.

The respondents not answering were almost equally divided between studio and classroom.

10. How do you feel about the content and teaching of the current Music Theory courses?

Should be more uniform and consistent across courses Has a good balance of consistency and variety of approach Should be more varied and diverse from one course to the next No basis for comparison No Answer

9 (31%) of 29 responses 6 (20.7%) of 29 responses 0 of 29 responses 14 (48.3%) of 29 responses 16 (35.6% of 45 surveys)

11. What should the Curriculum Committee consider about the Music Theory curriculum?

See Faculty Comments (below, p. 111).

Page 92

UGCC FINAL REPORT • DRAFT: 2009.05.19

HUMANITES 12. On average, how many hours per week do your undergraduate students spend studying Humanities and/or completing Humanities assignments?

Less than 1 hour per week 1–2 hours 2–3 hours 3–4 hours 4–5 hours More than 5 hours per week No Answer

• •

1 (5.6%) of 18 responses 7 (38.9%) of 18 responses 3 (16.7%) of 18 responses 2 (11.1%) of 18 responses 3 (16.7%) of 18 responses 2 (11.1%) of 18 responses 27 (60% of 45 surveys)

7 of 7 responses indicating three or more hours a week were from studio or ensembles faculty.

10 of 11 responses indicating three or less responses were from faculty indicating classroom instruction.

13. How do you feel about the number of courses required in Humanities? Fewer courses • More courses • Just right Fewer courses 8 33.3% of 24 responses

• •

More courses 6 25 % of 24 responses

Just right 10 41.7% of 24 responses

No response 21 46.7% of 45 surveys

6 of 7 responses indicating "more courses" were from classroom faculty; the seventh respondent did not identify his or her teaching responsibilities.

3 of the 8 responses indicating "fewer courses" were exclusively studio faculty; the remaining five were classroom faculty or some mix of classroom and studio/ensembles faculty.

14. How do you feel about the content and teaching of the current Humanities courses?

Should be more uniform and consistent across courses Has a good balance of consistency and variety of approach Should be more varied and diverse from one course to the next No basis for comparison No Answer

2 (7.7%) of 26 responses 5 (19.2%) of 26 responses 1 (3.8%) of 26 responses 18 (69.2%) of 26 responses 19 (42.2% of 45 surveys)

15. What should the Curriculum Committee consider about the Humanities curriculum?

See Faculty Comments (below, p. 101).

MUSICOLOGY 16. On average, how many hours per week do your undergraduate students spend studying Musicology or completing Musicology assignments?

Less than 1 hour per week 1–2 hours 2–3 hours 3–4 hours 4–5 hours More than 5 hours per week No Answer

• •

0 6 (35.3%) of 17 responses 5 (29.4%) of 17 responses 2 (11.8%) of 17 responses 1 (5.9%) of 17 responses 3 (17.6%) of 17 responses 28 (62.2% of 45 surveys)

4 of 6 responses indicating three or more hours a week were from studio or ensembles faculty; one respondent did not identify his or her teaching responsibilities, and one respondent has a mix of classroom and studio teaching.

9 of 11 responses indicating three or less hours a week indicated some degree of classroom teaching.

Page 93

UGCC FINAL REPORT • DRAFT: 2009.05.19

17. How do you feel about the fact that the undergraduate Musicology curriculum consists only of survey classes (that is, courses which cover at least one entire century of music history)?

Survey courses serve students' needs Survey courses should be balanced with courses on specific topics (e. g. Beethoven quartets) Undergraduates should only be required to take courses on specific topics.

No Answer

•

7 (31.8%) of 22 responses 15 (68.2%) of 22 responses 0 23 (51.1% of 45 surveys)

10 of 15 responses indicating survey courses balanced with topics courses were from faculty indicating classroom teaching; 7 of 15 indicated only classroom teaching.

18. How do you feel about the number of courses required in Musicology? Fewer courses • More courses • Just right Fewer courses 6 28.6% of 21 responses

More courses 6 28.6% of 21 responses

Just right 9 42.9% of 21 responses

No response 24 53.3% of 45 surveys

19. How do you feel about the content and teaching of the current Musicology survey courses?

Should be more uniform and consistent across courses Has a good balance of consistency and variety of approach Should be more varied and diverse from one course to the next No basis for comparison No Answer

6 (26.1%) of 23 responses 3 (13%) of 23 responses 0 14 (60.9%) of 23 responses 22 (48.9% of 45 surveys)

20. In general, what should the Curriculum Committee consider about the Musicology curriculum?

See Faculty Comments (below, 105).

GENERAL 21. Respond to the amount of electives required by undergraduate degrees:

Too many electives required Just enough electives Not enough electives No Answer

• • •

6 (22.2%) of 27 responses 11 (40.7%) of 27 responses 10 (37%) of 27 responses 18 (40% of 45 surveys)

5 of 6 responses indicating "too many electives" were from studio and ensembles faculty.

9 of 10 responses indicating "not enough electives" were from faculty indicating some degree of classroom teaching 10 of 11 responses indicating "just enough electives" were from faculty indicating some degree of classroom teaching

Page 94

UGCC FINAL REPORT â&#x20AC;˘ DRAFT: 2009.05.19

22. What kinds of classes should undergraduate students take as an elective? (Circle all that apply) Multiple Answers allowed. 36 responses. The only significant total of the complete answers was 6 people circling all six choices.

Considering the individual elements of answers:

Repertoire classes Additional theory/musicology classes Profession-oriented classes (music business) Music technology classes Classes that have nothing to do with music Classes at Homewood Languages

19 (52.8%) of 36 responses 14 (38.9%) of 36 responses 22 (61.1%) of 36 responses 19 (52.8%) of 36 responses 19 (52.8%) of 36 responses 16 (44.4%) of 36 responses 10 (27.8%) of 36 responses

23. Would you like to see more options for advanced courses in major areas of study?

Yes 30 83.3% of 36 responses

No 6 16.7% of 36 responses

No Response 9 20% of 45 surveys

24. Should advanced courses in a major area of study be electives or requirements?

Electives 29 78.4% of 37 responses

Requirements 8 21.6% of 37 responses

No Response 8 17.8% of 45 surveys

No 16 47.1% of 34 responses

No Response 11 24.4% of 45 surveys

25. Is it important to take conducting?

Yes 18 52.9% of 34 responses

26. Do you like the Thursday Noon Series?

Yes No I like the idea, not the programming I don't like the attendance policy Yes, I don't like the attendance policy No, I like the idea, not the programming, I don't like the attendance policy No answer

â&#x20AC;˘

25 (78.1%) of 32 responses 0 2 (6.3%) of 32 responses 2 (6.3%) of 32 responses 2 (6.3%) of 32 responses 1 (3.1%) of 32 responses 13 (28.9% of 45 surveys)

Overall, 30 of 32 (94%) responses are favorable to the idea of Thursday Noon.

27. Would you like to see the Thursday Noon replaced with the "alternate project" for both years?

Yes 2 7.1% of 28 responses

No 26 92.9% of 28 responses

Page 95

No Response 17 37.8% of 45 surveys

UGCC FINAL REPORT â&#x20AC;˘ DRAFT: 2009.05.19

28. Do classroom studies influence your undergraduate students' major studies?

Definitely 21 53.8% of 39 responses

Probably 10 25.6% of 39 responses

Maybe 6 15.4% of 39 responses

Probably Not 1 2.6% of 39 responses

Definitely Not 1 2.6% of 39 responses

No Response 6 13.3% of 45 surveys

Definitely Not 12 33.3% of 36 responses

No Response 9 20% of 45 surveys

29. Do classroom studies hinder your undergraduate students' major studies?

Definitely 5 13.9% of 36 responses

Probably 5 13.9% of 36 responses

Maybe 5 13.9% of 36 responses

Probably Not 9 25% of 36 responses

30. How do your undergraduate students find the answers to questions about the curriculum and schedule?

35 Total Faculty Responses They ask their friends They read the catalog and manage on their own They ask the Registrar or Associate Dean for Academic Affairs They ask other teachers They ask their major teachers No answer

20 Studio Faculty Responses

21 (60%) 10 (50.0%) 17 (48.6%) 8 (40.0%) 16 (45.7%) 9 (45.0%) 10 (28.6%) 4 (20.0%) 21 (60%) 12 (60.0%) 10 (22.2% of 45 surveys)

31. Who should advise the undergraduate students?

40 Total Faculty Responses New staff person The major teacher The registrar or dean Specially trained undergraduate students Other teachers No answer

19 Studio Faculty Responses

9 (22.5%) 3 (15.79%) 25 (62.5%) 10 (52.63%) 20 (50.0%) 14 (73.68%) 1 (2.5%) 2 (10.53%) 6 (15.0%) 1 (5.26%) 15 (33.3% of 45 surveys)

32. Do you know about the Liberal Arts Concentrations offered?

Yes 9 20.9% of 43 responses

No 34 79.1% of 43 responses

No Response 2 4.4% of 45 surveys

33. Would getting a concentration or minor in a music area be appropriate for your undergraduate students? Yes â&#x20AC;˘ No Yes 29 78.4% of 37 responses

No 8 21.6% of 37 responses

Page 96

No Response 8 17.8% of 45 surveys

UGCC FINAL REPORT â&#x20AC;˘ DRAFT: 2009.05.19

34. If so, what sorts of music concentrations or minors would be appropriate? Select all that apply.

Multiple Answers allowed. 26 responses. The only significant total of the complete answers was 11 people circling all seven choices.

Considering the individual elements of answers: Chamber Music Composition Conducting Early Music Musicology Music Theory Music Technology No answer

19 (73.1%) of 26 responses 17 (65.4%) of 26 responses 17 (65.4%) of 26 responses 18 (69.2%) of 26 responses 17 (65.4%) of 26 responses 19 (73.1%) of 26 responses 16 (61.5%) of 26 responses 19 (42.2% of 45 surveys)

35. Is there anything from your own education that you found particularly effective, which might be somehow adapted for the undergraduate students?

See Faculty Comments (below, p. 113).

36. Is there anything that you, as an individual faculty member, do in your own teaching, which you think might be worth adapting on a large scale for the undergraduate students?

See Faculty Comments (below, p. 114).

37. Final suggestions?

See Faculty Comments (below, p. 115).

Page 97

UGCC FINAL REPORT • DRAFT: 2009.05.19

Undergraduate Curriculum Survey Conducted by the Undergraduate Curriculum Committee 18 November 2008 — 2 February 2009

STUDENT COMMENTS

Answer to Question 10: What should the Curriculum Committee consider about the Music Theory curriculum?

►

[…] is a great guy, but his course material is so far from what we were taught in Theory I and II that it's like a different subject completely. I feel like I'm missing out on my last year of Theory. I've never seen a more convoluted approach to teaching...

►

Too much different information between professors. Students are not leaving classes with the same, or high enough ability.

►

They need to include the study of guitar concertos (with orchestra), especially in late Romantic-20th century music. I am sick of feeling lost in all the violin/oboe strictly orchestral scores.

►

There should be more consistency between teachers of the same course.

►

There are many humanities courses for piano major. Piano major have to take key board literature 1234, Humanities(32credit) and music history 1234. It is too much. We don't have time to practice.

►

Theory is fine...it's humanities that's the problem!

►

Theory I should be more standardized. Perhaps 2 years of survey courses and 1 year of electives?

►

The teachers seem to have different curriculum for teaching theory. This is okay if you can stay with the same teacher to complete all three music theory classes, but that isn't always possible.

►

The teacher's need to COMMUNICATE!!! Each teacher has such a personal and almost biased way of thinking. It seems almost every teacher thinks only his or her way works, which is not the way for the student! We all learn different methods and go at different paces, but are expected to all know the same thing when going on to piano and eartraining. These three departments are so interlinked it is amazing that the teachers never really know who is teaching what and how fast. My last school piano and eartraining were called "theory lab" I like the way Peabody had the hours and credits set up for Piano and eartraining, but it should have a more uniform approach with the theory department

►

The quality and the experience of teachers as teachers not music theory majors. [sic]

►

The ET/SS courses can move a lot faster, as far as I can tell, having completed 3 semesters with […]. Or they could be harder. Its very hard to go to a 25 min. class everyday to learn hardly anything. The rhythm book, by Hall(?), is pointless. By reading rhythms on "ta" I'm not improving my inner pulse and its not helping me read rhythms easier when I'm actually playing music. I don't know ANYONE who has difficulty in this class or spends any outside time studying or practicing.

►

The curriculum is fine, but I think the teachers themselves should be evaluated because I am not doing well because of my teacher.

►

-Teaching abilities/competency -consistent curriculum

►

teach towards the homework and tests. not so random

►

students should be able to test out of the curriculum, or those sections which are demonstrably remedial, at various times throughout the academic year.

Further, being stuck in a subject that is painfully remedial denies the student access to advancement on the basis of that student's individual aptitude. If the student's work demonstrates that the student is intellectually and academically sound in the material, it is intellectually dishonest, in my opinion, to be graded on arbitrary mechanics such as attendance. Should not the grade reflect the competency in the material? Isn't that the assumption permitted to a letter grading system? In theory II, I easily aced assignments and exams with little effort, only to be docked for attendance. Does not the work speak for itself? Why come to class when the professor deliberately took me aside and counseled me to count to 20 before answering? If that's happening, I'm doing nothing more than making the room look crowded.

►

Sometimes there is too much composition. I think will be useful for musician to have more analysis.

►

Some of the teachers currently teaching music theory should definitely be reconsidered. Some are very unorganized, biased, and not good at presenting the information.

►

Screening the teacher better. Some teachers are very inconsistent in subject matter. Push it back a half hour in the morning sessions.

►

Really need consistency. Theory one was awful (the teacher was fired.) For Theory two I had a completely different approach to music than I had ever heard of ([…].) Its hard to make heads or tales of the information Page 98

UGCC FINAL REPORT • DRAFT: 2009.05.19

Re: Ear-Training In addition to more Ear Training, I believe that there should be more rhythm in Ear-training.

During my freshman year, I tested out of Ear Training 1 and was placed in Ear Training 2. Since the course did not fit into my schedule consisting of mostly required classes, I took the year off from ear training and entered Ear Training 2 with other sophomores in my sophomore year. These students were far ahead of me since they had kept up with the program while I had no exposure to it since my senior year of high school. I would have liked to continue my studies in ear training to have more years under my belt and strengthen my skills, but only one course is offered (and does not fit my schedule). To add, I can't seem to understand the easy-going attitude of the ear training faculty. People who have essentially dedicated their lives to music should be able to pick out progressions by ear and learn how to count... consistently... In the classes that I've been in, with […], the students who could identify different harmonic progressions by ear were praised, and those who lacked the skill, while they were never penalized, were never trained enough to obtain it.

►

In my freshman year, I was placed in a Theory Fundamentals Course, which came as quite a surprise after completing the semester. While the first semester (and a large part of the second semester) of Theory I was a review of the information I had learned as a musician throughout middle school and high school, Theory Fundamentals were reminiscent of the very first years of my musical education... in 2nd or 3rd (in Moscow). I am certainly not trying to insult those who did not have a background similar to mine by the time they entered Peabody; I am a bit confused as to which part of the placement exam determined that the skills that had been ingrained in me for more than 10 years were non-existent or poor. While I read all of the material, attended class regularly, and completed all of the assignments -- with flying colors -- I gained nothing from the experience (except for the interaction with a wonderful graduate student of Music Theory Pedagogy -- […]). […] is the greatest addition to Peabody that I've witnessed and has one of the most engaging classes I've ever been in (Theory III). It would we wise to refer to his style of teaching should a more curriculum be necessary to compose.

►

Providing a more consistent outline for the class. I am taking Theory 3 right now, and my colleagues who are in the same class but with other professors have a completely different set of requirements.

►

Please fire […].

►

Perhaps a standard text, more collaboration among theory professors as to important points in curriculum.

►

NO WebCT AT ALL! The Theory 1 class is not consistent with the fundamentals class. Also there should be a way to place out of theory fundamentals.

►

No uniform method of teaching or perception of music theory.

►

My experience w/UG music theory was very positive. In my experience, the faculty are among the most knowledgeable at Peabody, in addition to consistently being among the best teachers. The Committee should not change the curriculum as it is.

►

Music theory should not be restricted to one theory. Music theory should equip students with many different strategies for thinking about music, which will hopefully inform their performance. For any genre or style or era of music, there are many different ways to approach a piece and the courses at Peabody should encourage and facilitate this.

Courses that are required (Theory I-III) should not be taught using one specific and restricted method. […] 's unique brand of theory is very interesting and insightful. But it should be left to the elective level, for students who opt for this type of training.

►

More varied times in the day wen theory is offered.

►

More uniform curriculum between teachers in the same course

►

More oversight of teachers' syllabi

►

More music should be covered in some classes (less compared to others) Certain pieces should be required in class to be analyzed.

►

more ear training synthesis.

►

More consistent courses on each level.

►

Many Theory I teachers are not good.

►

Make sure that, especially in Theory I, the teachers are teaching the same things. Some teachers didn't get as far as others and left their students unprepared for Theory II.

►

Let's say "He does his own thing" is not very nice to hear from a Music Theory III teacher about your Music Theory II teacher and have to relearn the notational system for analysis over again.

►

It is good to have some diversity amongst Theory III teachers, but there needs to be much more consistency amongst the Theory I teachers in order to provide a solid backbone for the Theory II and III. Many students felt that their Theory I teachers insufficiently prepared them for Theory II or III, thus putting them behind other students.

Page 99

UGCC FINAL REPORT • DRAFT: 2009.05.19

►

In my experience, the theory department is in great shape. No complaints.

►

I'm not sure what I was SUPPOSED to learn in Theory. I know I did learn a lot. But the learning objectives could have been more clearly defined and communicated, and then the various classes/teachers would have been more coherent. Actually I feel this way about many of my Peabody courses. I don't always feel like concepts are clearly defined and communicated. I have had a lot of group discussion, critical thinking, paper writing...etc, but I want to feel like I have actually learned something valuable.

I wish more time could be spent actually analyzing works...Its nice to analyze snippets of works or even complete movements every now and then but what is really pertinent to me, as a performer, is my ability to analyze chamber works and works for my instrument. As a cellist, the ability to analyze the 6 bach suites is fundamental to my ability to explore them as thoroughly as I'd like. Although its helpful to understand fugues and sonata form in the keyboard literature, why not explore the 5th Cello Suite Fugue? or perhaps one of the strange sonatas like the two movement C major Beethoven Cello sonata.

►

One of my biggest problems has been learning to reason with things that lie outside the box. I don't feel like I have the proper tools to make educated judgements about repertoire that doesn't always necessarily follow the rules!

The exploration of the development of form over time has been interesting to learn about but I feel that, perhaps due to time constraints, our ability to tread away from the straight and narrow (also centered) path has been very limited. Of course, all the greats broke the rules we learn today, I want to better understand how they did it and why it works

►

I was only in Theory I/II and III, and they were both great! […] and […] are wonderful teachers, and spread out the content perfectly.

►

I was lucky to be able to have one of my favorite teachers at Peabody (Steve Stone) for two years. However, I've heard some horror stories of simply inconsistent teachers being chosen. I would suggest to take not of Dr. Stone, and try to follow his example.

►

I think the Committee should consider combining Ear training with Keyboard studies as a class that works through both subjects. I think piano in addition to theory helps make each individual subject more concrete.

►

I think that the general conservatory population would benefit from maybe a semester of Jazz Music Theory.

►

I think that the biggest factor in my dissatisfaction with my theory experience at Peabody is the randomness of course content going from one professor to another. Theory I-II was wonderful and then I had no idea what I was doing when I took theory III with another professor. Not only did I not know what I was doing, but I was severely dissapointed that I wasn't building on the great foundation I recieved in theory I-II as a transfer student.

►

I had professor […] for Theory I, and he was great! Keep him around!

►

I find it strange that there are 3 years of Music Theory required yet only 2 years of ear training required. Ear Training seems to be a much more universally important class, and music theory seems more based on personal interest in the subject. After learning the basic knowledge in Theory I(which is indeed important), and Theory II's application of that knowledge it doesn't really seem necessary to require a 3rd year of Theory.

►

Have more separate sections of Theory I based on prior knowledge of theory before coming to school. I find my class moves way to slow and I haven't actually done anything I didn't already know all semester.

►

Have a Theory Review, at least one credit, for seniors to help them with their Grad School placement exams From what I have noticed in comparing my theory classes with those of my peers is that the classes have enormous differences in what material is covered and what order it is covered in. I feel like my experience in the second semester of Theory 1 was dramatically different than people studying with other professors. Theory 2 was an absolute mess. My professor did not teach from the syllabus he created, nor was it consistent with other Theory 2 classes.

Theory 3 is wonderful. For the first time in my three years here, my fellow classmates and I are finally studying the same pieces and learning the same material.

►

I guess the biggest problem is that we all cover different material depending on which professors we end up with. In the end some students have a wonderful theory education while most students are left with a patch-work and incomplete understanding.

Here are a few of the my biggest reasons for being disappointed in my studies.

1. I learned "form" on my own time because i did not learn about it in my Theory 2 class (which was supposed to be on the curriculum...or at least was listed on the syllabus) 2. I never learned counterpoint. I was told to buy the book, and although I did read it, my second year teacher never went over it in class 3. My peers in other classes spent an entire semester on counterpoint and writing a fugue. My class spent one week on fugues.

4. Generally, I felt that material was not thoroughly examined. Half of the people in my class eventually stopped showing up because we simply were not being taught anything.

►

Every teachers teach course so differently, they could have some kind of unified plan.

►

Cover more advanced theory which may apply in contemporary pieces, also to give student more practice with common musical terms such as musical forms.

►

Conduct more careful ear-training exams. A lot of placements are obviously inaccurate.

►

Basic theory is often very poorly taught, which seriously slows the progress of higher-level courses.

Page 100

UGCC FINAL REPORT • DRAFT: 2009.05.19

►

All the teachers should use the same books.

We should not have to purchase a $120 book just for one semester (thr2) and not even use it. It was pointless, the stuff was taught in class anyways

►

After doing fairly well (almost all A's) in Peabody Theory Classes, I am still heavily unprepared for Graduate Placement Exams at other schools. I would say the Theory curriculum needs much more improvement, and that there should be much uniformity between courses.

►

A more traditional, straightforward approach towards Music Theory. […] is a truly fantastic teacher. I wish I could of had him for all three theory courses.

►

1. Do not admit anyone who can't describe a "I" chord.

2. Cover music in greater depth; we're not stupid.

3. Less talking, more music.

4. Less handouts, more music.

5. […] should be teaching at a middle school, not a Conservatory! If you have any integrity, you will get rid of him.

(1) Some teachers focus only on chord progressions, while others mostly teach "big picture" stuff (line, shape, style). While both are important, all faculty should remember that students may choose a teacher with the opposite approach next year.

► (2) Keyboard skills would be more useful if we learned how to actually play piano, instead of reviewing theory fundamentals in keyboard 2. I took two years of keyboard and do not possess the skills to accompany students playing Suzuki book 1 pieces.

Answer to Question 18: What should the Curriculum Committee consider about the Humanities curriculum?

►

(1) Language: German is taught well & goes at a good pace. However, language classes should be divided into singers and everyone else (or AT LEAST G/UG). Every language class I've been in has been dominated by singers who already knew the language. They answer everything, and teachers think we all know the material and move on, even though the rest of us are still confused.

(2) Liberal Arts: […] has a good balance between learning & outside work. However […] and especially […] have too high expectations. I have no problem with reading or writing papers, but I take exception to being held to the same standards as Hopkins. We may be as intelligent, but practicing takes precedence over papers any day.

(3) We should have more cross-listed courses (musicology, business).

►

have interesting, engaging classes, have some that are associated with music.

►

Allow more classes to fit into the Humanities category, allowing us to take classes based on REAL interest rather than simply trying to get a credit

►

As entering Peabody as an international student, I was placed in "intro to libral arts" class. To me, there were 2 issues that could be planned out better: first, both students who's been to high school in the states and students who came straight from their country were placed in this class, created huge gap of speaking, listening, and writing ability, which led the experienced students feel the class is too easy, and the non-experienced students feel struggling sometimes. Also, the class did not finish advanced enough to prepare students into other libral arts classes, where they have to be in the same class with native students.

►

Consistency with the Humanities curriculum at Homewood or other schools - not just the cross-registration process, but way Peabody Humanities classes are categorized, expectations with regards to assignments and discussion, etc.

I would love for the Peabody Humanities program to be on par with the classes up at Homewood, for Homewood students to come to Peabody, for Homewood teachers to teach at Peabody (which is happening slowly).

One problem with the Humanities classes is that they are usually over-crowded. Lowering the requirement will solve this, and make the class experience more beneficial - more focused discussion, more peer learning, more interaction with the teachers.

►

Consistency, more broad topics such as American or French Literature.

►

CUT DOWN THE HOMEWORK! It's too much!!

►

[…] offers very engaging courses that are also challenging. Other courses seem to be a bit mundane and have the same laid-back attitude about them as do the students who take humanities courses simply to fulfill a requirement -- and not to gain something out of the experience.

Towards the end of the last semester, I discovered the Liberal Arts concentration. I had no idea what this was, which is a shame because I would have loved to have applied for the program (it is now too late for me to do so since I am a junior). I understand that it is my responsibility to research various academic programs, but I would have definitely appreciated more awareness and guidance from an advisor.

►

Easier cross-registration. So students can enjoy classes of their selection.

►

Fewer requirements – 8 semesters, not 10. Also, I don't like the distribution requirements because I would rather take classes that I want to take. I understand the goal of the different categories is so that we will be more well rounded, but a class where 75% of the people haven't done the reading isn't going to achieve that.

Page 101

UGCC FINAL REPORT • DRAFT: 2009.05.19

►

Humanities at Peabody is a classic case of "trying to be everything to everybody."

1. A conservatory is not responsible for teaching the liberal arts. A conservatory is responsible for players who can shape the world with their music. It is perfectly okay for Peabody to graduate a student who can't write a cohesive essay. I repeat, it is okay. Peabody can't be responsible for well rounded students.

Peabody's responsibility is to produce world-class musicians. Nowhere in the definition of "musician" does it say "can write 5 paragraph essay."

2. NASM shouldn't be deciding our curriculum, we should. NASM is a joke, and costs $1000's of dollars to be members of.

3. The students are genuinely uncommitted to Humanities and the faculty is second-rate.

►

humanities needs to be less time consuming. we are music majors, not majoring in humanities....also, the curriculum expected for international students is ridiculous. It is way too hard for a new international student to write essays when they don't even understand/speak a word of English. ESL classes need to be better!

►

I completed everything but the humanities seminar at other universities

►

I don't think students should ever have to take more than one humanities class at one time. With the humanities requirements as they are, this is a necessity.

►

I feel I wasted too much time on humanities, so I didn't have much time to practice. I was not improve much, maybe they should think about music is our MAJOR, not books.

►

I feel Peabody place too much importance on humanities. The teachers here expect a lot. It's almost as if we are expected to be English majors. They expect us to write well. They grade harshly. But, I don't really care at all for humanities. I am performance major. I don't think Curtis kids worry about all these humanities requirements.

►

I find it 100% unacceptable for Peabody to require me to take classes that; (a) aren't even offered at this campus (U.S. History), and (b) don't fit into my schedule because of other mandatory courses. For my obscene amount of money that I borrow to go here, there should be more variety and options ON campus. Liberal arts at this institution is outrageous. The classes that are offered here are unappealing, and have no practical use in the real world for the most part. Perhaps if humanities faculty would teach in the afternoons and evenings like everyone else, there would be better options for students.

►

I hate the Humanities courses at this school. It is ridiculous the amount of work we need to do. We are not here to write essays we need to PRACTICE. I wouldn't even complain if they were GOOD teachers and INTERESTING classes to take.

►

I love the courses here and I like the teachers. However, the workload is often too much, and I think it's better to do 1-2 hour of humanity class per week. The humanities does somehow improve my playing, but I've been sacrificing my practice time to complete the assignments (reading/essays).

It's be great for us not to have any humanities reading or essay assignments. I think what will be nice is to read and discuss in class.

Moreover, there's too many required credits for us to fulfill that we don't have chances to take music-related courses.

►

I prefer less humanities credits required to graduate.

►

I think it should be made clearer what courses fill what criteria like Globbal perspectives, language, etc. There should also be less requirements if the scheduling stays as it is because it is almost impossible to schedule them in with the peabody schedule.

►

I think most of the Humanities courses' homework takes too much time from my schedule, and it doesn't worthy for spending a huge amount of time for papers and revise them over and over again. It limits them practicing time, too.

►

I think texts can be chosen with more care and attention to real significance. Its a waste of time to read 25 pages in a reader in order to glean just a few (relevant) lines that could've been extracted and deposited into a meaningful lecture. Instead, lets focus on bigger problems and try to anticipate the problems of philosophy so that we can see a larger historical dialogue about these important issues...lets not try to solve these problems all by ourselves, in other words.

Lets gather as much evidence as possible from many sources and then try to forge new paths. Lines of reasoning need to be more challenging.

►

I think that it is good to place emphasis on Humanities in order to give students a more well-rounded education. I believe, however, that there should be fewer requirements & that there should not be so many categories (i.e. HP, & LL, GP, HE). Being someone who has taken most of my humanities classes up at Hopkins, I feel having so many requirements & such strict division of categories makes it a very stressful thing for me. Even if there were not all these requirements, I would still have voluntarily taken all of the classes I am taking, because I plan on pursuing a second degree later after Peabody. I think that there should be less requirements & more freedom in the categories so that students do not feel so pressured. If a student is more interested in a more academically oriented education, then he/she will take it themselves without being forced/required to. At the same time, if a student is only here for their musical students, he/she shouldn't feel pressed to take all these classes to fulfill their requirements. Personally, I fell very pressured because all of my classes are Hopkins classes (some are even upper level/division courses), which means that my workload & the difficulty level of the courses are already much more than a student who fullfills all of his/her humanities requirements with Peabody courses. To make it more fair, I think that there should just be less requirements. The amount of humanities that's taken should be left up to the individual. Also, I feel that there should be a way to make the grading system for humanities seminar more fair, or more specifically, more consistent between the different classes/teachers. This is because some teachers grade harder & require more of their students than others.

►

I would very much like to see more time allowed in the schedule to take courses at Hopkins. I tried to take a course there last semester, and although it was fascinating, between the time being in class and the travel to and from Homewood, it took six hours out of my week, and that didn't include the homework, which added many more hours. With the rest of the Peabody curriculum as it is, there was just not enough time for me to be able to do the class, so I dropped it. I would really really like to take other classes at Hopkins though, especially upper level language classes which are very useful to music students but not offered at Peabody, and it would be great if there was more time in which to take them. Also, from my experience in trying to register for the Hopkins class and then dropping it, I have found it is difficult and very annoying to register for these classes, and if it was made easier that would be a great help to Peabody Page 102

UGCC FINAL REPORT • DRAFT: 2009.05.19 students that want to cross register.

►

Improving the writing skills class. It was an insult to my intelligence.

►

Is there a way to have a high-intensity writing composition course?

►

It is simply too much! It is very difficult to practice, study for theory and music history, and have to worry about humanities. I find humanities classes to be a strain and a burden on my MUSIC education! Additionally I find the classes to be irrelevant and insignificant.

►

I've said it before and I'll say it again-- […] is one of the best things to have ever happened to he Humanities dept. Not only does […] demand a certain level of work and progress from […] students, […] makes it clear WHY these classes are important--not just for musicians, but for people in general. Not all teachers and courses make this clear.

►

Just too many credits required. They took away all of my practice time freshman and sophomore year.

►

Less classes!

►

Less humanities classes. And the ones that we have should be interesting maybe related to music and serious not something that we think that we are wasting time and we could be practicing instead.

►

Less humanities more time to practice. Better transportation would make me more likely to take classes on the Homewood campus.

►

LESS HUMANITIES.. WASTE OF TIME and ENERGY

►

Less requirements, other than a few random facts. I have NOTHING from any of these classes. They are NON making me more rounded--its distracting time that I can not spend on music, which is (hopefully) my career. I simply view humanities as showing for the credit, and as a distraction from my education.

This needs to change NOW.

►

More class variety.

►

More flexibility and variety.

►

More flexibility.

►

Most of the courses offered have very narrow or very esoteric topics that they cover and do not really seem to fit into general arts education. Hartt school offers history of Western Art, that is a good broad topic that will appeal to many students who are interested in what influenced the music that they played.

The Hopkins class offered on this topic doesn't schedule well with some basic required courses at Peabody and might be too intense (I took one) in terms of reading and studying (Hopkins students don't need to practice that much).

There are good courses, but this could be an improvement.

►

My extended interaction with the homewood faculty of various disciplines has been extremely pleasant.

►

no comment

►

Offer more at night time when other classes don't conflict with them. I am a Music E.d major and all of the humanities courses next semester including all of the Hopkins humanities conflict w/music ed. classes for next spring.

►

Offer more options.

►

Require students to take a class at Hopkins. It has a plentiful amount of selections, including a class taught by John Astin. Peabody kids need to get out, and Hopkins kids need to meet Peabody kids. I'm surprised this has not happened yet.

►

Should be less requirements. I'm here to play and I feel that takes away from my practice.

►

Students of Peabody are still technically students of Hopkins and therefore should, by the end of an undergraduate degree, be able to express themselves clearly and effectively in writing. While papers and essays are valuable tools there should be classes offered in music criticism, grant writing, and other practical writing styles geared toward musicians.

►

That Peabody is a music school. It might be more important to have more free time as a freshman where time is needed to establish a working basis with your personal instructor

►

The curriculum committee should seriously consider lowering course requirements in the humanities department. As the curriculum stands now, many students, past and present, are forced to take on large course loads every semester just to fulfill their humanities requirements. This heavy course load results in more homework and less practice time. The only other alternative is to enroll in summer courses at another school to fulfill the requirements. What is the point of spending $45,000 a year at Peabody only to go to another institution in order to get the credits necessary to graduate? I decided to study at a conservatory so that I could spend more time developing as a musician as opposed to doing homework for classes that have nothing to do with my career Page 103

UGCC FINAL REPORT • DRAFT: 2009.05.19 aspirations. If I wanted to take philosophy, aesthetics, or poetry classes, I would've gone to a university where I could really focus on those things, rather than making half-ass attempts at understanding something that has nothing to do with my growth as a musician. While trying to make students more rounded as musicians as well as individuals is a great goal, doing so, to the point of reducing practice time, completely negates the purpose of attending a conservatory.

►

The curriculum itself, I think, is very good and well-balanced. I think the Committee needs to address the QUALITY of teacher and administration of the curriculum, particularly the poor selection of non-Seminar courses. The Committee should also determine whether EACH humanities course offered serves the students, as defined by Peabody's mission statement.

►

The humanities course requirements are simply too much. Students should have more of an option of how many humanities credits to take. It is far too much to have the amount of humanities credits we have to complete in addition to the Music History courses. To my knowledge Peabody has one of the most if not the most rigorous humanities requirements of all conservatories. I feel that this time spent in class takes away from valuable practice time, and more importantly small ensemble and chamber music rehearsal time. I would consider making the Humanities curriculum less intense.

►

The humanities courses are terrible and provide very little use to performers. At Peabody, we have a much steeper, more demanding and time consuming humanities than ANY other conservatory in the nation. No wonder our musicians don't stand up to the kids at Curtis and Juilliard...

I never skip class and I take my school work very seriously, but I honestly wish I could practice instead of writing papers for bogus humanities courses. I write enough papers in my theory class already! At least the theory papers have to do with music, and consider concepts that apply to me as a musician and performer. The humanities program, on the other hand, is a contrived excuse for the school to be able to pass us off as "well-rounded individuals" rather than "world-class performers."

It's a disappointment, really, that somebody higher up thinks that we should be more prepared to discuss textual analysis than win an audition once we graduate. The way the humanities requirement is, that might just be what Peabody students are going to get.

►

The Humanities seminar is a waste of everyone's time. In theory, it's a really nice idea...but it just doesn't work. I was more challenged in my high school courses than I ever was in Humanities Seminar.

The regular Humanities courses are MUCH better than the seminar. I have absolutely no problem with the number of Humanities courses we are required to complete. I do, however, strongly dislike the classification system of "global perspectives" "language literature" etc. This system is flawed because often times there will be 4 GP classes and 1 LL class, but somehow 120 students MUST complete both of these types of classes...it's impossible!!! Plus the classes that are offered are simply uninteresting and do not really further my education or understanding of the world in any way.

As far as Homewood classes go, I would love to take one! However, the voice majors at Peabody are absolutely swamped with credits...I am in 28 credits right now. There is just no way for me to make the time in my schedule it takes to get up Homewood!

►

The Humanities Seminar is erratic and not very beneficial. Needs more structure.

►

The Humanities Seminar was sometimes an interesting class and I appreciated that it was still tailored to music but sometimes it got in the way of my composing/practicing time to be honest.

►

The large seminar class is not productive. More levels of smaller classes will be good.

►

The seminar should not be as long - it would be better if the classes were shorter.

►

There are far, far too many humanities credits.

►

There could be a lot more variety of subjects taught!

►

There is no selections. The humanities department has two to three courses that the student has to choose from and most of the time, only one class fits into the schedule.

►

There should be less humanities requirements!!! Also, all teachers should be re-evaluated for their teaching skills and content.

►

there should be less of them. we are at a conservatory, not a university. we are here to study music, not waste our time with half-baked humanities courses (which they are. the humanities courses here are not intense enough to actually teach much. they are just right to be a non-educational nuisance). despite what i just said about there short-fallings, i don't think that's the problem. the problem is the requirement; i am 100% in favor of lessening the humanities requirement.

►

There should be less requirements for Humanity classes. Some classes are unneccessary, such as Freshman Seminar. Also, for languages, it shouldn't be required for everyone. Maybe singers & vocal accompanists, so they can have smaller but better quality class.

►

There should be me English based humanities courses at Peabody, such as one where the goal of the course is to read and explore classic literature. It seems like most of the topics covered in humanities are so varied and random that it is less effective and meaninful than if we were to just study some time-tested works of art.

►

There should be way less.

►

There should either be more options (Homewood maybe) or less requirements Page 104

UGCC FINAL REPORT • DRAFT: 2009.05.19

►

They should consider immediately lowering the credit requirement. The majority of the papers and assignments required for us to do typically comes from humanities. It's agravating when I spend more time planning a project or paper for a class that I am not even going to think about at the end of the semester. I would rather take a few specific classes unrelated to music that I can specialize in and feel more well rounded from knowledge gained outside of music, rather than feel rushed through a bunch of random credits just so I can graduate.

►

Too many requirements. This limits the opportunity to take classes at the Homewood campus. Also, some classes require a lot of time, which leads to less practicing time.

►

Too much to handle for piano majors. Unlike other majors, we have to complete 2 yrs of kybd skills and four kybd literatures and humanities, history, theory, ensemble requirements. (humanities courses definitely affected my major study and jury when my major teacher decided to challenge me w/more difficult repertoire.)

►

When Humanities courses are keeping us from practicing and spending time on our main focus, our instrument, there is something seriously wrong. There have been semesters where I have hardly had anytime to practice because I'm spending time doing excessive amounts of papers. How does this help me win a job after school?

Answer to Question 25: In general, what should the Curriculum Committee consider about the Musicology curriculum?

►

[…], should be reevaluated. Origation [sic] skills are poor.

►

1. No homework should be assigned in music history classes. We don't have time! In 30 hours, a good teacher can teach the material without needing students to learn outside the classroom. No homework.

2. Make surveys a remedial class, like music theory fundamentals. I know Beethoven wrote in 3 time periods. I know that Steve Reich wrote minimalist music. Give me DETAILS!!! No more surveying, it's useless (to me, at least)

►

Although I have not taken any musicology courses, I like the idea of the survey course, with the option of then taking electives in what interests me the most.

►

Although you don't accept transfer [illegible] from Musicology, there should be placement tests, and maybe [illegible] courses (I studied Music History in my home country for four years).

►

Besides the core Musicology classes, Undergraduates should have the option of taking courses dealing with specific topics (similar to graduate classes).

►

Courses offered on specific subjects would be very interesting, provided there are diverse topics and enough interest to make the classes worthwhile. Also, I think the History of Electroacoustic Music class should count as a Music History requirement.

►

Despite many complaints from other students, the two most intensive courses (I and IV) covered their topics the best. Main problem is that the teacher sometimes was either bored or not that interested in the historical/factual information that he/she was teaching.

►

[…] should be a model for the other teachers. […] history […] class was one of the best i have taken. he knows how to teach history.

►

Have […] teach as many of them as possible. When it comes down to it, it's the teacher. We need more teachers like […]. Also, I think there should only be 2 required semesters for students instead of 4 semesters. It's time consuming and just awful if it's with a bad teacher.

►

I have always wanted to take a class about modern popular music since 1950. […] taught such a class at homewood, it would be great to see it taught here.

►

I have been taking graduate courses in Musicology to gain more knowledge and background before I go out into the real world and hopefully have the opportunity to work with young people. I simply don't trust myself with the amount and depth of information that I gain in the undergraduate courses at Peabody (the same may be said of liberal arts courses) to call myself a well-rounded musician who received an education in one of the best music conservatories in the world.

The graduate courses are absolutely astonishing as are the professors who teach them. It is quite unfortunate that the only contact many undergradutes may have with […] and […] are through one-semester history courses. These people are gems and it is a privilege to attend the institution where they have chosen to share their knowledge, and I think that more effort may be made to expose all undergraduates to these gems.

►

I have only completed one musicology course, and that was Theory II with Professor […]. But it was great! I learned a lot and enjoyed it.

►

i love […]! music history […] is my favorite class!!! :)

►

I think is perfect. […] and […] are amazing first class teachers.

►

I think it is great how it is now, History IV is fantastic. It would be cool to have instrument or composer specific classes, however, I understand that that is not always possible becuase of the sheer amount of musical styles and pieces that all deserve to be studied.

►

I think they are great. There should be more topics to choose from for extra humanitiy courses.

►

I think we can spend less time on each course so that in the end we've studied all the major time periods and the remainder of our requirement can be spent taking courses with more specific aims. A bit more history can be incorporated into theory classes (as it inevitably must be included), and we can spend less Page 105

UGCC FINAL REPORT • DRAFT: 2009.05.19 time studying 14th century motets and move the course along to cover the early baroque by the end. second year history can end with schubert and the early romantics. Third ends with contemporary music. After wagner a lot of things happened, but lets be honest, by adjusting definitions of music and the general aesthetic values, we're just a hop skip and a jump away from spectral music.

Then for those who need their opera fix or lyre fix, they can take a specialized course

►

I would love to focus more on my musicology classes but unfortunately humanities classes interfere with that. I feel the musicology classes are more important than the humanities classes.

►

I've been very happy w/musicology overall--[…] and […] have turned my tastes around from disinterest w/the past to absolute infatuation. My only disappointment w/the dept. was with […] --while […] wonderful […] with a LOT of knowledge, […] was very disorganized with […] teaching and made studying very difficult and stressful.

►

Jazz History should be considered a Music History course. If you have an entire department of the school that grants degrees in Jazz, why would it not appear as an option for a music history course.

►

Less in quantity more in quality.

►

Make […] an elective or procure a much better instructor. A somewhat standardized text would be wonderful. Lectures are good, but for most of the students, these courses are providing a fundamental base of knowledge, and the foundation currently being laid is weak because it is anybody's guess what is to be taught. All the teachers are scholars but are specialized in something other than say a broad subject such as 'music in the 19th century.' While a lot of this information is interesting, it does not provide the student with a solid base whatsoever. It does inspire independent study for the ambitious but I am spending quite a bit of money to be taught; if I knew better I'd just lock myself in a library and create my own core curriculum.

►

more attention to specific repetoire study -- especially in History […].

►

Music History […] is a joke. There's too large of a time period covered, the teaching is all over the map. I got better grades using Wikipedia to study--[…]

WebCT is useless. […] history […] is the best planned (and taught in the school). If all the musicology teachers followed […] lead, we'd have a strong department. History […] forgets that it's a music class. I understand the need to know about the period, but too much time -- and too much of the test grade -is devoted to non-music.

►

Music History as a survey course benefits students because we have a general understanding of important works, composers, political atmosphere, etc. I think it would be nice but completely unnecessary to offer more specific courses.

►

Music History […] (2 credits) should be a 2-credit course! The professor requires WAY too much work outside of class. Professor is "scattered" an needs to take some "Ed" courses.

►

Music History […] has in general been one of the most poorly taught classes at Peabody. The teacher has always had an excellent amount of information and knowledge, but not a very good means of relaying it to the students. I can honestly say that I got very little out of the class. History […] has been well taught by […]. […] has done an outstanding job with History […].

►

Music history […] had a very scattered approach to it. It would have been better had it been taught in a more chronological order.

►

Music History […] was likely the most boring and uninteresting course I've taken here. The instructer [sic] is wise, but is about as compelling as this sheet of paper. Music history […], however, was a joy to take. […] is a fantastic instructer with a wealth of knowledge. Give him a raise.

►

Musicology at Peabody is generally great.

►

Musicology is much more important to me than Music Theory in terms of understanding a piece. I believe it is more important to understand the background of the piece, the time it was written and any political influences, along with what was going on in the composers life at the time. Having completed all four survey classes of music history already after last semester, I am hoping to take some graduate musicology courses that focus on specific topics.

►

Needs to be deeper and more varied. Some teachers only want to hear what they think about the subject, and do not care about other opinions. Pick students they like and do not pay attention to other students. One music history course was designed not considering abilities of iternational students with requirments which were hardly duable for native speakers. I have taken classes at Homewood, but that one particular music history class was unresonably hard and was requiring as many hours of doing homework for it as practising for you major. In the end I have learned the least out of music history classes. I enjoyed the rest of music history classes and I have learned a lot from them.

►

no comment

►

nothing

►

Peabody has a great musicology faculty--I would love to have more choice of musicology classes that would count toward Humanities History credit, after all it is history and it would be useful to us as musicians.

►

Perhaps more even balance of difficulty from class to class. History […] was very difficult. However, […] taught exceptionally well in History […].

Page 106

UGCC FINAL REPORT • DRAFT: 2009.05.19

►

[…] is a brilliant […], but a terrible lecturer and teacher. The students all know that […] is a wealth of information, but […] does not get that across in […]

Music History […] class, and […] class is viewed as a joke by most students. I don't say this to be rude, only to be honest.

►

Specific topics are interesting, but survey courses are a necessity for UG curricula.

►

[…]'s music history one was extremely difficult because […] did not teach the material effectively in class. Instead […] relied on us to do outside reading and there was really no point in coming to class. I tried many times to take notes but […] teaching style is so scatterbrained that my notes ended up looking like a bunch of circles with arrows pointing to names of composers with more arrows pointing to dates. Very poorly taught.

►

The level of focus on commitment of time expected of UGs in the Music History […] course I am presently taking seems excessive. It seems to me that for performance majors Musicology would better serve them if it required less writing and grappling with primary sources and more clear lecturing and "textbook-like" reading present by the proffesor [sic].

►

The only experience I have had with a musicology class thus far is Music History […]. This was really my worst experience in class at Peabody thus far. I felt that the class was run very poorly and the workload FAR exceeded what I thought was fair to ask of kids not pursuing Musicology as a major. I would consider making these courses more participation and discussion intensive as opposed to paper and written work driven. I feel that this would make the class more enjoyable and it would play much more greatly into how most students at a conservatory learn.

►

The teachers usually leave out some composers or don't go in depth with very important composers. This is subjective, but I feel Mahler could have been covered better and in more depth.

►

The times for musicology courses make it very hard to schedule classes at the right time.

►

There should be a wider variety of classes offered.

►

There were too many quiz that we have, almost like 2 weeks and 1 quiz. it too horrible, almost study all day, not good...

►

These classes are useful, but the workload should be lighter.

►

They need to seriously revise and change some courses, especially History […]. There is just too much work in that class. I probably spent hours and hours a day trying to get a decent grade. However, some classes were amazing and incredibly engaging like History[…].

►

Use extra musicology classes for some liberal arts credits.

►

We seriously have to make some changes in how we use technology at Peabody. I feel like we would learn more if professors had better acces and understanding of equipment and technology.

►

While I cannot speak for […], Music History […] and […] were very well-taught and thorough, especially as survey courses. Music History […], however, was not helpful. The teaching was unfocused and scattered. Too much out-of-class work was wasted on irrelevant topics (19th and 20th centuries for example) and writing assignments were given only to justify the use of technology (WebCT and turnitin.com). I would strongly urge the Committee and the appropriate Deans to request from the professor copies of the syllabus and online materials for this course. Past course evaluations might also speak to this disorganization. The Committee should consider whether this course, as it is currently taught, effectively meets the needs of students, and whether this requirement could be altered to fulfill students' needs in a more direct manner (for example, a "writing about music" course, UG music bibliography, or special topics/seminars).

Answer to Question 43: Final suggestions?

►

I would suggest that the opera literature course be required earlier on in the voice degree. I took it earlier than required, and I felt so much more well-informed and prepared for opera than I would have had I waited to take it.

►

There should be a music history major/min that is offered at Peabody.

►

The amount of Humanities classes is just too much and mostly all the classes are not good. I had a terrible experience with Humanities Seminar.

I think we should less humanities classes.

►

[Large Ensemble] is HORRIBLE. It makes me sick to think that I am paying to have six hours of my week sucked out of my schedule and dedicated to performing with an ensemble that is completely unmotivated and demoralized by […]. Also, they need to be more organized and ahead of scheudle with placements and orchestra schedules so that students can plan and have a chance to make the most use of their semester. We should know at the begining what pieces we are in and what ensembles we wiil be in for the semester. Some students have to work and Orchestra makes that almost completely impossible as well as interferes with Homewood classes. I think they should cut back on the concerts and schedule in general, having QUALITY concerts once or twice a semster. We are all very proficient musicians, we don't need to take a month to rehearse a piece for performance. If we do, we shouldn't be here. A morning orchestra schedule would be great.

►

Almost any changes you make will improve the current state of affairs.

►

Advising is very important, maybe meetings with Dobson would be a good idea... also, I think that all voice majors should be required to take an acting class at hopkins.

Page 107

UGCC FINAL REPORT • DRAFT: 2009.05.19

►

It would be really good to have more advising. While my major teacher can talk to me about things, and is really helpful, it sometimes takes time away from the lesson, or my lesson ends up running late, because she wants to give me enough time of actual instruction, and that isn't always fair to her. Also, it's not possible for her to know everything that goes on at Peabody. A lot of what I hear about options offered and how to go about doing things (such as registering for classes at Hopkins) comes from my peers, or I get shuffled around from person to person and no one seems to really know the answer. This is really confusing. As a music education student, I am lucky to have […], who knows me personally and whom I can go to in order to ask questions. But most people here don't have that. It would be nice to have someone designated for advising, to have a one-stop place to go to for questions about classes, majors, preparing for grad school and options for study in general. I have also considered transferring at times, and an adviser would be good to have to consult about things like that in order to help students make the right decision about whether Peabody is right for them.

►

I love my vocal classes. The diction, language, and advanced electives are wonderful. Yes, we have a lot of credits...but we NEED them! Please don't change anything about the voice specific requirements. I know people complain about having a lot of classes, but if we are prioritizing then please please please fix Humanities and Theory. They are absolutely awful.

I used to be very active here at Peabody, but I feel that my efforts were wasted. I was involved with students life, always attended the Town Hall meetings, was in direct contact with deans, etc. Ultimately, I stopped my activities because of a lack of response from the administration. I feel like although a lot of discussion goes on, nothing is ever done. We appreciate that administration listens and I understand that there are many things that we are unaware of, but please...do something for us. Our problems have been falling on deaf ears for too long.

►

I think if more humanities classes were offered in the evenings instead of morning which conflict with theory, ear training, piano, and music ed, than I could finish within four years. But now I have to $1,000 just to take a summer course or 2 to graduate on time without paying $17,000 a year to be here for a fifth year.

►

Peabody should make the Business of Music Class mandatory for all students, regardless of status. It is the most valuable class offered at the school. There should also be mandatory improvisation classes, as many jobs today require the ability to improvise. There should be classes (and maybe even ensembles) that focus on popular music and highlight that there is worth possibly lucrative jobs in that field. In general Peabody should turn out musicians that are capable of surviving in the modern music industry, technically and intellectually, with a desire to enhance and preserve it.

►

More Study Abroad options!!!

►

There is not enough time to practice after all is said and done.

►

less humanities, more ear training, and blind auditions.

►

Scheduling is always very stressful, especially for Freshman who are doing it for the first time. It seems way too difficult to get the answers students need, except from maybe the registar. Still, having the major teachers as advisors doesn't seem to really work as many teachers know little about classes outside of the major requirements.

►

Expand jazz classes.

►

I hope Peabody can base their tuition per credit hour. This school is wonderful, but I cannot simply afford to attend anymore. It has put more of a burden on my future rather than support it.

►

I understand that it is a challenge to add more in-depth courses in liberal arts and musicology to a busy performer's requirements. Perhaps the integration of such information in performing ensembles may be part of the solution, as well as less

►

One thing I really regret is that I couldn't get a minor study with my degree. It would be nice to show with my degree something that makes me a little different than others that graduated with my degree. My transcripts still tell that story, BUT having a minor would have been more profitable.

►

I think that the number of humanities credits required should be reduced. I have been in many classes where the students just drag along without really being interested just because it is a requirement.

►

(1) Humanities courses helped me improve in writing and comprehension, and broaden my knowledge of arts, sciences, and other areas. However, the requirements are too much for the students to handle; they should be reduced and organized better so the students can learn as much but don't have to take 32 credits of humanities. Also, more variety of courses should be offered for students who wish to study more.

(2) What is the reason for requiring 6 elective credits? (2 humanities, 2 music, & 2 any electives--I'm taking a class that I'm not even interested in just to fulfill this requirement)

►

The biggest problem I see is the amount of humanities credits that are required. I fell it should decrease.

►

I feel that if Peabody's goal is to be the best conservatory pushing out the best musicians, there should be more emphasis on our major and less emphasis on elective and humanities courses. Our orchestras are simply not on the level of some other conservatories that we could be very competitive with. I think it would serve most performance majors very well to have fewer requirements and a chance to explore more freely being the best they possibly can be at their instrument.

►

Less Humanities, or at least more choices.

More musicology choices. Such as: for music history, maybe a possibility of taking something specific such as operas in verdi rather than music history 1 Humanities seminar is a waste of time -- did not learn anything.

Page 108

UGCC FINAL REPORT • DRAFT: 2009.05.19 Theory teachers need to be uniform in their material.

►

A music history course for each instrument would be really cool. I would love a guitar history class that studies a specific repertoire or composer.

The humanities/credit requirements needs to change. I'm sick of feeling like I'm wasting my time and education.

The music business class is outstanding and should be a requirement. […] and […] should get more recognition and teach more. They are great. I wish they had more classes like it, or a music bus. minor.

►

I really believe Peabody needs to begin turning to the world of commercial music. We've entered a period of time where classical music as we know it is drastically changing, thanks to everything from the economy from the pop music ring in young composers ears. The music business class is a great start, but I would like to see more--classes and ensembles with a focus in studio work, music technology/composition courses with an emphasis on commercial/functional music, using DAWs and MIDI to compose commercial music, perhaps classes in musicology to talk about how pop music came to overtake the common listener. I do believe that not only will this prepare musicians for what would actually be a much more realistic career, but will also help composers better understand what popular (not necessarily pop) music has become, and how to better assimilate it--or reject it completely.

►

This is a conservatory! Let's make it one. Some teachers need to be cognizant that the work load can be intrusive.

►

Best of luck to you, there are a lot of politics involved when it comes to designing a better curriculum. I ask that you think of the students first. We and the faculty both know that there's not a whole lot of money to be made in music so when a faculty member is outraged that so and so class just became an elective or worse, dropped, remind them of the Institute's purpose, and that is to teach us. If they don't believe in this, then they don't belong in academia. The conservatory's not playing like a team, and no business, organization, sports team, society or nation for that matter is successful with out being on the same page, to offer us the best education possible.

►

Peabody needs much improvement as far as how the Humanities Courses are delivered. They are often managed in a way that isn't very helpful to students in pursuing their major concentration. History […] needs to be improved. In general, more time is needed for students to practice - this is something I didn't really have at Peabody, and something that ultimately greatly hindered my instrumental studies here.

►

It'll be great for PSO to have 2 three-hour rehearsals per week, just like PCO. With 3 rehearsals I find it hard to find time to practice. If PSO can rehearse on Monday and Wednesday only, I'll be able to practice on Friday afternoon. Moreover, school will be able to schedule special activities (masterclass--etc.) occassionally on Friday.

►

Re-work the entire undergrad composition program.

At least two years of harmony, ctp, advanced keyboard skills for composers that stress score reading. There must be a way to make a required class for composers/conductors that would cover this kind of thing. Right now Peabody's approach is too adhoc. This could be in addition to theory. Oh, and please give composers 4 years of at least a 1/2 minor lesson. Paying for 3 years of hour-long piano lessons (to ensure that I get a degree AND have some musical skill) is a joke.

►

The orchestra takes too much time out of our practicing time, and I didn't learn much from rehearsals.

►

I feel that each student should be assign to either a staff member or a faculty member who is very involved in the academic studies as advisor. Because most major teachers are busy concentrating on making sure their student learns well and improve enough in the major instrument. Most major instrument faculty member do not have the knowledge about academic study courses.

►

PLEASE make there be less requirements in the institute. There is NOT enough time for students to practice and learn their major. It is ridiculous that in these precious years that we have to try and master our art as much as we can, we must sit here and write essays about stupid, irrelevant subjects that have nothing to do with us. I do not mind taking classes that will help me become a better musician like ear-training and keyboard skills, etc. I hope the administration realizes why the overall performing level cannot compare to superior schools, because we do not have enough time to really polish.

►

Our first priority is our major--that is, practicing for most of us. Just as English majors spend many hours a night reading and writing, we spend many hours practicing. All teachers--theory, musicology, and humanities--should remember that when they decide on their workload.

►

I am still waiting to hear back regarding my acceptance into the double-degree program.

►

Could more basis classes (i.e. intro to economics) be offered at a more convenient time for Peabody students?

►

There definantly needs to be an on-campus advisor, who knows the system inside-out. I don't think any teacher really knows what requirements we need, nor to they really care! The catalog is confusing, especially with classes offered bi-anually. NO REQUIRED class for graduation should be offered bi-annually PERIOD! It makes scheduling very difficult and confusing. It also makes early graduation very difficult. Bi-annual scheduling also makes for HUGE class sizes because courses such as German Lieder and Opera Lit are offered to grad students, but required for undergraduates.

►

Chamber music should be [illegible] much more credits. As member of percussion group I spend every week more than 10h on rehearsals, some practicing chamber music parts takes also time. Orchestra rehearsals take 6 hours every week, but I also have to practice for my lessons. When I want to memorize all of these requirements, and keep up with classroom assignments, I have to sleep about 5 hours a day. Curriculum is too big. One more thing -- If I audition for job, nobody will care about how good Humanities papers I can write. I feel like I have to fight against classes when I want to practice that much time I need.K

►

Advising should NOT come from major teacher!!!

Students who are trying to get a minor through Homewood should be able to sign-up for classes more easily.

Page 109

UGCC FINAL REPORT • DRAFT: 2009.05.19 Pianists and voice UGs have too many credit requirements that it hinders performance preparation. It should be more flexible and more around music relatied courses for performance majors.

Transfer students should be able to sign-up for classes more easily. We are in isis as "transfer fresh, or sophomore" automatically even when we are junior/seniors. And this hinders greatly to sign-up for required classes!! And professors almost never let you in late after classes are full the first sign-up day.

And more summer courses should be offered for Peabody required courses.

►

It would be nice to have a jazz (improvisation) course for non-majors.

►

Too much humanities, and orchestra rehearsal too much time, we still to study. We don't have time to practice, so everyone level are low. should change, it.

►

I have had so many frustrating interactions with people in this institution's administration that it makes me absolutely furious. The odds of me, as a future educator, recommending Peabody to anyone are slim. Nobody in the upper-level administration seems to care about anything except money and making Peabody look good. The scheduling for education majors is a nightmare that I wouldn't wish on anyone. The fact that I've been paying $40 thousand dollars a year and can't take the classes here that Peabody themselves say I have to take is unbelievable. The entire system needs a huge overhaul. The faculty is good for the most part, but everything else is not in good shape.

►

The more humanities credits are required, the worse we sound. I'm not paying $40,000 per year to write 20 page papers on topics I don't care about simply because it's part of my required humanities distribution. Peabody is lucky that I want to pay that much to lock myself in a practice room by myself for 4 hours a day. LET ME DO THAT.

►

Cut down the homework, it's too much for us. We need more time to practice our major instruments.

►

The amount of humanities courses needs to be cut. There are too many. This is the one music conservatory that requires the most humanities credits. I come to study music not music with a minor/concentration in humanities. Some humanities courses seem pointless and I will never apply what I learned from the courses to my every day life as a musician.

►

The only issues are with the humanities requirements, mostly for singers. We already have to take so many other courses I wish we could have less humanities requirements or requirements that are more applicable to our major. The offering of the humanities department is actually very low and very inappropriate.

My other concern is with chorus. As a singer, I have to use my voice in average 4 hours a day. And chorus singing is very strenuous on my vocal chords [sic] and requires the most outside work of all my classes. I wish the chorus requirement would be lowered to 2 years instead of 3 or that opera chorus be considered an ensemble credit. As for a lot of us chorus is not what we are leading our careers towards. And as you go along in the years of undergrad your implication with the opera department increase. And it is just too much singing--I wish it could be one or the other--

►

There are way too many humanities and liberal arts requirements for the performance major. Most of these classes require an unrealistic amount of reading and writing. This kind of work takes up a lot of time that needs to be better spend practicing. Also with the great number of required credits the student has to start immediately and sufficiently planning their courses for all 4 years to make sure he can fit it all in. This really screws over any transfer students, making it almost impossible to graduate on time. And if Peabody is going to require so many humanities, there should at least be SOME interesting classes offered here.

Most of my humanities classes I've taken at Hopkins because I don't want to settle for something very boring or random, like "[…] " or "[…]." Also the classes here tend to basically be writing improvement classes, with a focus on something lame. The Hopkins classes are more interesting but they are also a lot tougher and require more time, plus the time taken waiting for the shuttle both ways and the 15 minute shuttle ride both ways.

I don't think cramming in Humanities down our throats is going to make me smarter, a better writer, or make my transcript look better. I really just really would like more time to practice.

Page 110

UGCC FINAL REPORT • DRAFT: 2009.05.19

Undergraduate Curriculum Survey Conducted by the Undergraduate Curriculum Committee 18 November 2008 — 2 February 2009

FACULTY COMMENTS

Answer to Question 11: What should the Curriculum Committee consider about the Music Theory curriculum?

►

A standard curriculum should be established and followed ACROSS THE BOARD. Theory teachers should teach at more or less the same pace and using the same text/materials. Also, the counterpoint portion of Theory II ("Baroque Styles") should be shortened and incorporated into a longer curriculum which continues the harmony portion of Theory I into the sophomore year.

►

The curriculum is typical for independent conservatories in the U.S. It is suited to the needs of performing musicians.

►

I do not have enough detailed knowledge of the theory curriculum to make any specific recommendations.

►

Don't know what's going on in some ET classes.

I feel there should be 5 semesters of core Theory plus an elective, rather than 6 core. The students could then take a specialized course that would really interest them.

►

Is the curriculum sequential? Theory I, II, and III should not all be the same course. Outcomes assessment--how well do students perform on a graduate level entrance exam at the end of their third year of theory?

►

reduce and compress the material into a five semester curriculum

►

Combining keyboard and theory?

Seems different teachers require different things at the same level so the transition isn't always smooth.

►

Some of the theory courses are VERY demanding and create huge stress for students. It seems, for example, important for a sophomore to understand fugue structure & be able to create entrances. But compose a whole fugue? Write an entire suite? This is composition, not theory.

►

More keyboard harmony skills needed, leading toward keyboard improvisation.

►

Some of my students seem to be clueless about harmony, especially when someone is playing with them. Is this an ear-training issue, or a theory one?

►

Allowing students to place out of intro classes in order to take more advanced classes.

►

consult with music theory faculty

►

Emphasis should be on Solfegio, counterpoint and harmony. It is time to consider a fixed do system for conservatory students. This is essential for performance oriented students.

►

Listen to individual departments requests.

►

I am not in a knowledgeable position to judge.

One problem for contractual faculty is that we do not know very much about the rest of the student's courses.

►

- integrate theory and ear-training - minimum standards of admission - rudiments as prerequisites - exit exams (cf. our own GRT placement exam) - incorporate Jazz theory into mainstream theory track

►

Perhaps compressing it, but really it is pretty good.

►

Do not make wholesale changes because of complaints or concerns about one or two people or classes.

►

The theory dept. should work together with keyboard, ear-training, and perhaps musicology to eliminate redundancies, ensure a certain cohesiveness, and concentrate on what is of practical value to performing and composing musicians. Consider making the 6th semester an elective course.

►

My theory students tell me that most weeks they spend 1-2 hours but that when projects are due they spend 15-20 and that the average therefore is 3-4 hours per Page 111

UGCC FINAL REPORT • DRAFT: 2009.05.19 week.

The ear training program here is exceptionally good.

Answer to Question 15: What should the Curriculum Committee consider about the Humanities curriculum?

►

This has been carefully thought out, and in any case it is largely mandated by Middle States and NASM.

►

There seems to be a perennial shortage of humanities classes. Perhaps the curriculum committee could look into the possibility of making certain musicology courses also count towards humanities credit. This might be more likely to happen if we were to move away from our current "survey-only" approach in the undergraduate music history curriculum. A writing-intensive, discussion based undergraduate proseminar on a special topic in music history could certainly fulfill the pedagogical aims of a humanities course.

►

The Homewood connection is valuable. One non-native language should be required.

►

The Freshman Seminar, which was implemented without full knowledge of the faculty, should be reevaluated.

►

The freshman seminar should be shorter. There should be more options for the students to take other classes that will meet humanities requirements. Perhaps a greater emphasis of taking courses at Homewood.

►

more tie in with music courses so there is integration between humanities & music courses e.g., perhpas literature & historical aspects of a period and the music that developed/evolved.

►

Many of our students will not go on in careers in performance. Many will stay in the arts, and so abilities in writing and in understanding culture in general are crucial.

►

Many complaints about.

►

I would favor more foreign language courses, and fewer reading/discussion/writing courses. My feeling is that most music students can and will read what interests them, and pursue a general education on their own terms, in their own time.

►

I have no experience w/the humanities curriculum.

►

Encourage students to take Humanities courses on the Homewood campus. The 5 credit humanities course required of freshman should be looked at carefully.

If liberal arts electives are taught on the Peabody campus, they should be offered at times that do not conflict w/required courses in the major.

►

Does the language requirement fall into this category? Think it should be eliminated, if so.

►

Difficult for foreign students. Often too easy &/or boring for nationals.

►

consult with humanities faculty; send more students to Homewood; work to co-ordinate Peabody's offerings with Homewood Humanities offerings

►

Again, up to the departments would like fewer hours per class and more choices.

►

A variety of good courses available to Peabody students every semester.

►

The committee should look at other institutions including universities like Indiana to see possibilities and alternatives. Some of our students should take a class or two at Hopkins.

Answer to Question 20: In general, what should the Curriculum Committee consider about the Musicology curriculum?

►

There are some courses that are way too much work.

►

The requirement should be reduced to 3 semesters. There should be more options for students wanting to study specific topics.

►

Teaching level and amount of work seems VERY varied.

►

Special topics classes (i.e., grad courses) should be open to interested upperclassmen. Maybe they already are...

Page 112

UGCC FINAL REPORT • DRAFT: 2009.05.19

►

Some goals of musicology and humanities overlap (general writing and persuasive abilities, research skills, historical thinking) and perhaps the departments could be more coordinated. Cross-listing? Writing requirement met by either department?

►

Should allow courses in specific areas to count as in the 3rd yr. Me and the department determine what is best for their students.

►

Needs more emphasis on style.

►

Most of our students don't know that much music, esp. outside of their major instrument, so survey courses are need to give a broad overview. Courses that are specific to the major (piano, voice, etc.) should perhaps be allowed to replace general musicology surveys. Advanced courses for electives in more specific topics are a good idea.

►

If we are to continue with the four-course survey system, I think that we need to make an effort to achieve greater consistency across the four courses. As it is, I am concerned that our students have some difficulty piecing together the "complete picture" after they finish their four-semester sequence. Personally, I would like to see a required, Grout-based, two or three semester survey replace our current four-semester sequence. If two semesters, the course would need to meet three times per week and be counted as a three credit course both semesters for a total of six credits. Students would then complete additional courses (probably two additional two credit courses) in musicology by choosing from an array of courses on specific topics.

►

I have no experience w/the musicology curriculum. I do believe, however, that survey courses should go hand in hand w/the theory curriculum to allow students to make connections between historical and aesthetic/theoretical trends.

►

I have heard that the level of difficulty varies quite a lot from teacher to teacher..but this is only hearsay.

►

consult with musicology faculty; increase credit hours per course from 2 to 3; require 4 semester survey plus upper division elective

►

Can the same content be taught in fewer semesters?

►

At Peabody, UG musicology has always been a bare minimum construction: in recent years four two-credit courses. Given constraints, a survey of western music is in order. Should students want to take more specific, "concentrated" courses, they can "elect" a graduate musicology seminar (as many do now).

►

application to interpretation and performance

►

Allowing students to place out of intro classes in order to take more advanced classes.

►

Again, it seems pretty good.

►

Again, I do not have any knowledge of this aspect of cirriculum.

►

Teach courses that relate to the reality of performance. Emphasis should be spent on composers and important works.

Answer to Question 35: Is there anything from your own education that you found particularly effective, which might be somehow adapted for the undergraduate students?

►

The study of baroque music--I can't even get my students to play with harpsichord because it is made so difficult, and then can only even use on for degree recitals. I think this is pathetic and short-sighted.

I was expected to practice huge amounts of time. I think nothing replaces time spent with one's instrument at a young age.

►

Study habits! Accountability! Punctuality! Honesty! Responsibility!

►

Principles of sensitive intonation/different theories of intonation (e.g. Kirnberger scale, Paganini scale, tempered intonation, etc.)

►

No--all important

►

more opportunities to write and reveiw concerts, i.e. a student newspaper (even an online version)

►

More listening to performances of recordings

►

More integrated approach to required music theory/musicology so it can be more easily applied to repertoire. Very few students bridge the "academic"/"performance" gap--the should be seen as one and the same. Can they pass out of freshman theory?

►

In the very quickly changing world of the music business, students MUST have at least two areas of expertise. For instance performance and music theory or history, etc. ALL performance majors should be required to have a double major.

Page 113

UGCC FINAL REPORT • DRAFT: 2009.05.19

►

I would like to see more interdepartmental collaboration. I would also like to see students have more encouragement ad time in their schedules for students' exploring areas outside their major including areas such as early music, technology, and jazz. Many schools in Britain and Europe now require all instrumentalists to spend some time doing something in early music, usually involving an early version/relative of their major instrument. Students who are versatile are much better prepared to decide what they want to do and are generally more successful at piecing together a career. In today's uncertain economic climate we owe it to students to give them the best preparation possible for the real world, where only a handful of our graduates will become soloists or land well-paid, full-time orchestral positions.

►

I pursued a double major in performance and music theory; the resulting perspectives have been invaluable throughout my career.

►

I had far more performance opportunities - and was not even at a Conservatory.

►

I attended a top liberal arts college. I had excellent advising when I was there, so I would like to see a good advising system created at Peabody.

►

Greater emphasis on specialized study and less on survey.

►

Fixed Do* Solfege (advanced)* Counterpoint Harmony* Classes from the old Curtis/New School curriculum* Variety and choices (including Hopkins) of classes other than music to fill out curriculum

►

Eurhythmics

►

Better audio/visual equipment in classrooms. No projectors or other permanent A/V equipment is in classrooms. Having to request this from A/V service makes for difficult planning.

►

All of my music theory and history courses (those that I took as an undergraduate and those that I taught as a graduate student) met for THREE HOURS each week. In some music history courses, the three hour schedule would take the format of two lectures each week followed by a weekly discussion section, led either by the instructor or a graduate assistant. Moving to a format like this in our music history survey courses, especially if we were to reduce the survey component of our curriculum to a two- or three-semester sequence, would be highly desirable. Two, one-hour class meetings per week can make things feel very rushed.

►

A strong emphasis on history and literature electives as well as a more integrated approach to counterpoint and harmony in the general theory curriculum.

►

A great deal of my education was self-education, particularly in history, languages, and the humanities. We should keep in mind that ultimately it is the students who educate themselves. We just provide opportunities to learn. The brightest, most motivated students need perhaps more freedom to choose what they learn.

►

2 private lessons per week ALL students should be required to take a writing class at Homewood

►

1. Orchestra at 4pm, so more time for earlier practice and classes.

2. Broad encouragement to attend masterclasses of all faculty and instruments.

3. Assigned time for practice rooms. Performance majors: 2 hrs/day. Others 1 hr/day. The person who did the scheduling was revered by all and it was WORTH IT knowing you would have that room for 2 hours between classes.

►

- required non-idiomatic improvisation - required CONTEMPORARY AMERICAN rep.

►

Partnerships with BSO and other professional organizations in the area.

I was a member of the Civic orchestra of the Chicago Symphony. It was very valuable.

Answer to Question 36: Is there anything that you, as an individual faculty member, do in your own teaching, which you think might be worth adapting on a large scale for the undergraduate students?

►

Takes too long to explain here.

►

Advising -- due to the nature of my class I have the luxury of discussing the need to identify students ways of learning and being and the value of helping students recognize their areas of strength OTHER than performing (writing, organizing, creating, speaking, etc). I always find the undergrads hungry for feedback and support i this regard, as they realize they need to branch out and develop other skills but are not sure where to turn. I don't expect every applied teacher to have the background to advise in these ways but do feel the students need someone who gets to know them in a broader way and can offer "career counseling" earlier and guide them into electives/minors in areas in which they can excel.

►

Some might benefit from taking Introduction to Music Education. It wouldn't hurt them to REALLY understand what music education in public schools really is at all levels and how importantly it contributes to developing musicians' fundamental skill acquisition and, ultimately to academic building.

Page 114

UGCC FINAL REPORT • DRAFT: 2009.05.19

►

Provide on campus yoga instruction, Feldenkrais (if we do not still have it), access to body workers in various disciplines, other exercise clasees (Pilates? Tae Kwon Do?) and possible nutrition/self care classes. Our bodies are our instruments and students have very little idea how to take care of themselves. They need guidance and heightened awareness: for example, someone should speak on the serious health ramifications of ongoing sleep deprivation to all collegeconservatory students.

►

Pedagogy Talking about community concerts/workshop presentation Communication skills Baroque performance practice for modern players

►

My students can get all the materials for class in electronic format. It is very useful for students who have obligations that prevent their getting to the library. It is also cost effective. It is hoped that Peabody can maintain and broaden the use of internet technologies.

►

Make EVERYTHING applicable.

►

In my teaching I look for opportunities to help students think about the future: where they would like to go and how they might get there. I help them become acquainted with sources of information and help here at Peabody. I want to help students present themselves professionally. This is why I work with them to help them learn to speak clearly and effectively to an audience. I also believe that students will have to create their own careers, so I give students opportunities to create activities and projects. My goal is to have active, not passive students.

►

I work very hard to find performance opportunities for students outside of Peabody. This certainly would not work on too large a scale.

►

I teach voice minor lessons. Many string and wind instrument teachers see the value in their students studying voice, but the cost for Peabody students to take an elective minor instrument lesson is ridiculously expensive. The Hopkins students I teach pay far less. I know Peabody loses money providing minor lessons for JHU students, but it a great PR service, very appreciated by them.

If more Conservatory students could take elective minor lessons at a less prohibitive cost, it would be great.

►

I try as much as possible to connect what we are studying to the students' daily work of practicing their instrument.

►

I set standards and hold the students to them.

►

I really try to make students use their theory and musicology as tools to enhance their musicality and help them toward the point where they can teach themselves.

►

After the senior recital, I recommend that we address pedagogy (an NASM requirement--or it was). I this, I coach the student as a teacher.

Answer to Question 37: Final suggestions?

►

The survey does not ask a question specifically about do we "require" TO many credits. That seems to be A big question about our UG program.

I'd like to see the survey courses be as efficient as possible, fewer required credits and a little more flexibility in electives.

►

I'm really big on at least two areas of expertise, especially for performance majors. The performance field is shrinking and Peabody isn't doing any favors to our performance majors unless we force them into a double major.

►

Peabody academic curriculum seems very heavy compared to other institutions I have experienced. There are some great offerings--but too many required and this definitely impacts practice time.

I'd like to see a more streamlined link with Hopkins. Our students can only register once JHU students have decided on courses. They often don't know their schedules and this makes getting chamber music times scheduled at Peabody harder.

Are we preparing them to be versatile 21st century musicians. Europeans colleges put more emphasis on broader performance skills--community presentation, improvisation, communication, contemporary music. Also PEDAGOGY--they will almost all teach at some point if they stay in performance. These intstitutions don't have liberal arts requirements so have more curricular space.

►

As long as we profess to be a conservatory, emphasis needs to be on the students ability to practice. Throughout the years we have talked about well roundedness etc. Students need to poor their energies into their major intruments.

►

I'm sad the Thursday Noon series is now done by department. I realize this makes scheduling easier but believe it should be a more interesting showcase of our talent and bring in the local community.

►

Orchestra/ensemble placement assignments should be made by the applied faculty of the instruments in question, not by the WE & PSO/PCO conductors. This would assure more practicle [sic] and equitable rotation for the students for a well-rounded education/experience.

►

Make sure students who are accepted who reveal themselves to have significant musical deficiencies, especially in rhythm and notation reading, have a program Page 115

UGCC FINAL REPORT • DRAFT: 2009.05.19 they can turn to which will address these.

►

In order for our students to have more time with their major instrument, I would like to see reduction of outside classroom work.

►

There is nothing here about music career/music business, not even lip service.

I'll talk around curriculum here without getting to it much. But these factors are always in place and should not be ignored.

To me, an overriding issue in undergraduate curriculum at Peabody is student overload. The students and the school are complicit in this.

The curriculum seems to be too much in all but perhaps the straight performance major. But it is hard to tell for sure, because most students often add as much as they can of extra credit study, extra performance inside and outside the school. Many consider the addition musical activity a necessary and valuable part of their training--part of getting their money's worth. Meanwhile, the advent of the cellular phone has allowed skillful schedulers to move closer to constant playing.

For many, study and practice time are absorbed by money-earning work. If this is gigging, it can also add to fatigue. Conductors Orchestra anyone?

Also, at Peabody just about everyone delights in doing more than is necessary. Some of this may arise from fear of our peers nipping at our heels, but usually it is simply the surging well of energy and enthusiasm in students and teachers.

While the extra activity can imperil a student's financial aid and academic standing, there is also danger of physical injury. Some students can play tired for a long time (typically with a pale-gray sound), others cannot. Some arrive at Peabody already worn down and/or injured to some degree. Sometimes fatigue will be heard collectively in a large ensemble of students--conductors also want to contribute 150%.

It must be remembered that some injury is irrevocable. Yes, some musicians can play with permanent injury, but probably not at their full capacity. While prevention is always better than treatment, prevention is usually mentioned in passing, if at all.

To me, NASM is guilty of piling things on. All this makes curriculum writing a Neverland endeavor. If there is a sensible way to address it, I thank you for finding it.

►

Encourage students in performance to get a music ed degree too, so that they are not unemployable upon graduation.

►

If there would be a way to condense classes--the amount of time in classes is frustrating particularly when the student is doing well and doesn't need to absorb the info they already know. Fewer hours in class and more independent work.

►

A variety of exchange programs would be nice. re grad theory -- how useful is it to post course materials online in Russian?

►

1. Contracted faculty have very little knowledge of what goes on at Peabody, outside of their teaching and the requirements for lessons and recitals. a manual and instruction/education on all of the requirements etc would be very helpful. This should be required and the faculty member's time spent paid for. We work in a silo.

2. Studio faculty should have complete control over the ensemble placements and assignments. Too often the ensemble placements interfere with a fair and constructive use of the ensembles for educating the students.

3.Finding and using accompanists for my studio is extremely difficult and frustrating. Pianists should be recruited and required to fulfill a minimum number of hours accompanying. There should be incentives for doing more and consequences for doing less. The requirements set should meet the accompanying needs of the school rather than something arbitrary. There needs to be a system of assigning accompanists to faculty and students. Far too often students and faculty face an exhaustive search, which too often results in someone backing out after making a commitment.

4. Facilities, room assignments etc are very difficult for professional faculty who have busy and changing schedules. Sharing studios and having limited time to count on in your studio is very difficult.

5. Not allowing students to have a key to my studio (as was the former policy) is counterproductive and should be reconsidered.

6. Contracted faculty member's studio facilities ie, acoustics, temperature, humidity etc are terrible! It is very difficult to achieve optimum consistent results with students when there is either no heat , or too much heat, NO humidity, acoustics that are either too dead or too live. Sharing a studio with another faculty member with perhaps different needs makes adjustments problematic.

7. There is no value of current contractual faculty members ideas or suggestions for hiring new faculty or NOT. This, along with the whole picture of how the contractual faculty is left to fend for themselves, doesn't create a cohesive well organized collegial environment for faculty or students.

8. I have been an hourly contracted faculty member at Peabody since 1990 have a fairly large studio of eight students. I was unable to answer most of your questions. I just don't have enough knowledge to answer them. Sad truth.

An hourly paid faculty member who is a busy professional cannot be expected to put in extra unpaid time , or behave as a full time faculty member. I spend so many extra unpaid hours with department recitals etc as it is. I wish there was a more comprehensive educational process for faculty like me to become engaged and more knowledgeable about policy and the full curriculum.It would have to be time that is compensated. It should be something that has value to Peabody and if instituted it would have a strong unifying affect on our school.

►

Why is there nothing here about ensemble requirements? I think this is a more serious issue than anything related to the academic courses.

►

I hope this does not seem too stuffy, but it seems to me that a Conservatory of Music is best defined as an institution DEVOTED TO MUSIC: playing music, Page 116

UGCC FINAL REPORT • DRAFT: 2009.05.19 talking about music, thinking about music. Expressed in different words, the study of music's execution, music's construction and music's context is the heart of a conservatory. This last was Mendelssohn's model in Leipzig and has served American Conservatories to this day. It follows that the dilution of any one of these is the compromising of the original vision and the creation of something else. Perhaps the time has come for the creation of "something else." If so, then it would be for the Curriculum Committee to convince the faculty at large that the standard vision of the Conservatory, one that in America has stood for 150 years, no longer works. Thus my suggestion: if it's going to be "fixed," make sure it is broken first.

►

Peabody can't seem to decide--at least, its student can't--if it wants an academic side or not. Non-music related courses seem neither to be taken seriously nor supported professionally. This is a major disappointment and source of frustration for me.

►

If classroom studies hinder the major field efforts of our undergraduate students, it is only because we have accepted a model that produces hyper-specialized, compartmentalized young people whose "major" leaves them incapable of--OH, never mind. One might well as whether their major "studies," in such an antiintellectual climate, are stunting their development as thinking musicians, making them participants in a cultural project they are poorly equipped to understand.

►

(1) Departments should advise their students.

(2) The master schedule needs lots of work--to many conflicts for students as a result of rearranging classes for individual faculty members.

(3) Students should be encouraged to take liberal arts classes on the Homewood campus. We are not utilizing that resource.

(4) If theory or music history is reduced (fewer required credits) it will be important that the curriculum in the courses be revised so that the content remains but is provided in fewer semesters of study.

►

Please preserve our opportunity to contribute from many angles, perspectives, and specialties to helping to make our students into life-long learners about music and music-making.

The UTILITY of what we offer to practical music-making is our strongest suit in the competitive marketplace.

Peabody curriculum is the product of slow evolution over a long period of time and the creative jostling of individuals & groups of individuals--all entrepreneurs having something to offer our students. Most of this is positive; please be very alert to the possibility of unintended negative consequences of committee action.

►

Any changes should be gradual and approved by the faculty at large. Please share all stages of the process with us.

►

Change a little, but don't lose sight of the need to continue to produce well-rounded educated musicians.

Some of the these questions apply to those teaching Music Theory and Humanities and are therefore left blank here. Perhaps there should have been a button labeled NA?

►

After reviewing the survey, I felt it best to write. I believe that the survey asks only a few questions that I can answer responsibly.

The several questions about hours spent studying cannot be answered without a reference to grades. There is a great difference between what it takes to excel in our classes and what it takes to just get by. A consideration of hours spend studying should be correlated with a consideration of grade distributions.

In my opinion, your committee should take a careful look to assess whether grade inflation is a problem at Peabody. A's are not freely given out on the campuses of prestigious schools and a curriculum is not designed so that more students can become "A students."

I'd think that your committee could come up with some worthwhile data if you tried to assess the patterns of study of our most successful A students. Is our curriculum too burdensome for them? Or do some of these students feel that our curriculum is not challenging enough?

The committee should also consider how many of our students take loads of 25-credits/semester, or more. And how many of our students graduate in fewer than eight semesters? Data that illuminates these questions will provide reliable information--and curricular discussion could be framed around questions of our goals. Do we want to encourage more of our students to take heavier loads and/or graduate after only six or seven semesters of study?

Discussion of these things will be more informative than consideration of the faculty impressions derived from this survey. A survey rooted in faculty reaction to data that your committee might assemble, about the above and other things, might also be of great value. But my opinions, as solicited by the questions on this survey, cannot provide anything of much value to your discussions.

On the other hand, I hope that these comments are of help.

►

No information has been requested regarding music education undergraduate students. They have the added requirement of taking courses mandated by the State of Maryland in addition to meeting Peabody's requirements. Their course load, as a result, tends to be excessively heavy, especially in the junior year.

Music Ed students already often have to spend additional tuition in order to complete courses required by the state (e.g. American History and they often have difficulty scheduling liberal arts courses due to scheduling conflicts; another circumstance which often forces them to pay tuition at other schools to take summer courses or evening courses. Personally, I think putting students in a position to pay additional tuition (on top of $40,000/year) in order to meet the requirements for their degree equates with educational malpractice.

►

I cannot possibly answer these questions [about how much time students spend, or should spend, on their work]. You would have to ask the students how much time they spend. There is such a variety among our students in terms of ability and motivation.

►

This survey is not well constructed (how do I know what students and other faculty think?or how much time students spend on assignments in my or other classes?), and seems to be biased towards making cuts in the academic offerings in the undergrad curriculum. If we are to take Jeff at his word, the impetus to reform the undergrad curriculum seems to be motivated by budgetary concerns rather than pedagogical ones, and if so, this whole excercise is profoundly Page 117

UGCC FINAL REPORT â&#x20AC;˘ DRAFT: 2009.05.19 unethical. There are no questions about the vision of an ideal Peabody curriculum. There are no questions about how the academic faculty perceive the studio requirements as hindering or undermining our students' academic education. Given that many, if not most, of our students will not have a full-time career in music, what should they know/what skills should they have? How can we educate them so that whatever their profession, they will continue to make music a meaningful part of their lives and contribute to the musical lives of their communities?

Page 118