 |
THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY
The University Faculty
Senate
AGENDA
Tuesday, April 23, 2002, at
1:30 PM in
112 Kern Graduate Building
[In the case of severe weather conditions or other
emergencies, you may call the Senate Office at (814) 863-0221 to inquire if a
Senate meeting has been postponed or canceled.
This may be done after normal office hours by calling the same number
and a voice mail announcement can be heard concerning the status of any
meeting. You may also leave a message
at that time.]
A. MINUTES
OF THE PRECEDING MEETING -
Minutes
of the March 26, 2002, Meeting in The Senate Record 35:6
B.
COMMUNICATIONS
TO THE SENATE - Senate Curriculum Report (Blue Sheets)
C. REPORT OF SENATE COUNCIL - Meeting of April 9, 2002
D. ANNOUNCEMENTS BY THE CHAIR -
E. COMMENTS
BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNIVERSITY -
F.
FORENSIC
BUSINESS –
G.
UNFINISHED
BUSINESS –
H.
LEGISLATIVE
REPORTS –
Undergraduate Education
Revision of Senate Policy 60-00: Multiple Majors and Degrees
I.
ADVISORY/CONSULTATIVE
REPORTS -
J.
INFORMATIONAL
REPORTS –
Senate Council
Tuition Task Force, Rodney A. Erickson, Executive Vice President/Provost of the University
Admissions, Records,
Scheduling and Student Aid
Time to Graduation Report
Senate Council
Statement by Penn State President Graham Spanier on the
Penn State Calendar
Senate Self Study Committee
Interim Report
University Planning
Construction
Projects – 2001-02
Report of Senate Elections
Senate Council
Senate Committee on Committees and Rules
University Promotion and Tenure Review Committee
Standing
Joint Committee on Tenure
Faculty Rights and Responsibilities
Faculty Advisory Committee to the
President
Senate Secretary for 2002-03
Senate Chair-Elect for 2002-03
Comments by Outgoing Chair
Nichols
Installation
of Officers
Comments by Incoming Chair
Moore
K.
NEW LEGISLATIVE BUSINESS -
L.
COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE GOOD OF THE UNIVERSITY -
-----------------
Note:
The next regular meeting of the University Faculty Senate will be held
on Tuesday,
September 10, 2002, at 1:30 PM in Room
112 Kern Building.
THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY
The University Faculty Senate
101 Kern Graduate Building
University Park, PA 16802
(814) 863-1202 – phone (814) 865-5789 – fax
Date: April 10, 2002
To: John S. Nichols, Chair, University Faculty Senate
From: Louis F. Geschwindner, Chair, Senate Committee on Curricular Affairs
The Senate Curriculum Report dated April 9,
2002, has been circulated throughout the University. Objections to any of the items in the report must be submitted to
the University Curriculum Coordinator at the Senate Office, 101 Kern Graduate
Building, e-mail ID sfw2@psu.edu, on or
before May 9, 2002.
The Senate Curriculum Report is available on the web. It can be accessed via the Faculty Senate home page (URL http://www.psu.edu/ufs). An electronic mailing list is used to notify individuals of its publication. Please contact the Curriculum Coordinator at the e-mail ID indicated above if you would like to be added to the notification list.
SENATE COMMITTEE ON UNDERGRADUATE EDUCATION
Revision
of Senate Policy 60-00: Multiple Majors
and Degrees
(Legislative)
[Implementation Date: Fall 2002]
Background
The terms currently used for multiple majors and degrees are: dual degrees, simultaneous degrees, sequential degrees, and multiple majors. Faculty and students find these terms very confusing because of the difficulty in discerning the differences in requirements from the titles. The recent change in Policy 60-40, whereby students who have completed the requirements for multiple majors shall receive a separate diploma for each major, blurs the present difference between multiple majors and simultaneous degrees.
The awarding of separate diplomas for each major creates the appearance of multiple degrees to the casual observer, to those who do not understand the difference, and to anyone who does not refer back to a student’s official academic record, the transcript. However, the current reality and the manner in which degrees and majors are viewed by society and students need to be acknowledged. Our society and our students do not make a distinction between a degree and a major. University graduates describe their baccalaureate as a degree (BA, BS, BFA, etc.) in a specific major. In fact, a number of institutions and some Penn State departments have incorporated the name of the major into the name of the degree. It appears therefore that it is no longer useful to try to make a distinction between a degree and a major when referring to multiple major or degree programs.
Rationale
Because of changes in common usage, the time has come to eliminate the distinction between multiple majors and multiple degrees. Since every graduation requirement in the University is tied to a major, it would be reasonable to refer to the programs proposed here for Policy 60-00 as “Multiple Majors Programs”.
The possibility of being able to fulfill the requirements of more than one major while at Penn State will meet the needs of many students, especially in this era of rapid change, teamwork and job mobility. Enabling a reasonable, easily understood, and flexible way of satisfying the requirements for more than one major will help Penn State to recruit and retain good students. Departments and colleges are encouraged to exercise their flexibility to make exceptions and substitutions in order to meet the educational needs of students without violating the spirit of the requirements for the majors involved.
Clear descriptions of the various options for multiple majors, the differences among them, and distinctive titles are needed. The following suggested Policy 60-00 for Multiple Majors Programs proposes to use the following terms: Concurrent Majors Program and Sequential Majors Program.
As presently written:
60-00 Dual-Degree Programs, Simultaneous Degree Programs, and Multiple Majors
Dual-Degree Programs, Simultaneous Degree Programs, and Multiple Majors
60-20 Simultaneous Degree Programs
60-40 Multiple Major Programs
Dual-Degree Programs, Simultaneous Degree Programs, and Multiple Majors
Dual-degree programs are those with program entrance requirements and graduation requirements that have been pre-approved by the Senate and published. The Liberal Arts-Engineering program is an example of such programs. Those candidates seeking other combinations may request to be enrolled in either simultaneous degrees or multiple majors. However, a candidate may not combine a general major or degree with a departmental major or degree within the same college.
Any student requesting a combined program shall, for each major, meet the same acceptance standards and graduation requirements as met by all other students in that major.
60-20 Simultaneous Degree Programs
1. A candidate receiving approval may complete no more than two simultaneous
degrees and shall receive one diploma for each degree.
2. A candidate for simultaneous baccalaureate degrees must earn at least 30 credits
more than the number of credits required for the degree with the lower total credit
requirement. For associate degrees, at least 15 more credits are required.
60-40 Multiple Major Programs
A candidate receiving approval from the colleges involved may gain entrance to more than one major. The candidate successfully completing the requirements for multiple majors shall receive a separate diploma for each major for which requirements have been completed. The final academic record shall indicate the completion of the requirements for each major
61-00 Sequential Degree Programs
A graduate of the University desiring to acquire a second baccalaureate degree or a second associate degree shall be required to re-enroll with advanced standing under the policies of Section 58-00. If approved for a sequential degree, the candidate shall be required to fulfill the major, college, and University requirements for that degree. A second baccalaureate degree shall require at least 30 baccalaureate credits more than those required for the first degree. For a second associate degree, at least 15 additional credits shall be required.
Recommendation
The current Senate Policy 60-00, “Senate Approved Dual-Degree Programs, Simultaneous Degree Programs, and Multiple Majors,” and Senate Policy 61-00, “Sequential Degree Programs,” should be replaced with the following:
Proposed Policy 60-00: Completing More Than One Undergraduate Major Program (Concurrent Majors and Sequential Majors)
At the baccalaureate or associate degree level, students may be approved for admission to more than one major under the Concurrent Majors Program or the Sequential Majors Program. A Concurrent Majors Program is one in which students take courses to concurrently meet the requirements of at least two majors, with graduation for all majors in the program occurring during the same semester. A Sequential Majors Program is one in which a student has graduated and then re-enrolls for another major.
Any student requesting more than one major program shall, for each major, meet the same acceptance standards and graduation requirements as met by all other students. Colleges and departments may identify and should publish any combinations of majors that would not be approved for more than one major program. In general, an undergraduate student may not combine a general major with a departmental major within the same college.
Proposed 60-10: Concurrent Majors Program
- A candidate receiving approval may complete more than one major concurrently. The majors must be all at the baccalaureate level or all at the associate degree level.
- Approval for admission to each major must be obtained from the colleges and departments offering the majors. The approval document should include the list of courses that will satisfy the requirements for each of the majors.
- Whenever possible and with approval from the departments and colleges involved, courses may be used to meet the requirements of more than one major.
- Each major for which the candidate has been approved will be listed on the candidate’s degree audit and transcript at the time of admission to that major. A separate Degree Audit will be generated for each major. For the purpose of enrollment and record keeping, each major will be treated equally.
- Upon the completion of the Concurrent Majors Program, a candidate shall receive a diploma for each major.
- A Concurrent Majors Program may be listed and described in official University publications if entrance and graduation requirements have been identified and approved by the academic units involved.
- At the time of entry to major, not more than one of the candidate’s majors may be under administrative enrollment control.
- Exceptions to any part of the policy require the approval of all deans and departments involved.
Proposed 60-20: Sequential Majors Program
- Upon completion of the requirements for one major at the Pennsylvania State University and graduation, a candidate receiving approval may re-enroll in another baccalaureate degree major after receiving a baccalaureate degree or an associate degree major after receiving an associate degree for a sequential major.
- Approval for admission to the second major must be obtained from the college and department offering the major. The approval document should include the list of courses that will satisfy the requirements for the second major.
- Only the second major will be listed on the student’s degree audit.
- Restrictions may apply to admission to a sequential major that is under enrollment control. Such restrictions should be specified by the department and college that offer the major.
- Upon completion of the second major, a candidate shall receive a second diploma.
- Exceptions to any part of the policy require the approval of the dean and department offering the second major.
Cheryl Achterberg Richard R. Kennedy
Richard I. Ammon James L. McDonel
Theresa A. Balog
Dawn G. Blasko
Thomas E. Boothby Robert D. Ricketts, V-Chair
Richard J. Bord
Stephen Browne
John J. Cahir
Paul F. Clark
Peter D. Georgopulos Teiko Tachibana
Gary L. Hile
Robert S. Hill
SENATE COUNCIL
Tuition Task Force
(Informational)
In July, 2001, President Spanier appointed a Tuition Task Force to consider realistic projections of a range of tuition increase options that may be necessary over the next five years to support the continued competitiveness of the University as a premier institution. Dr. Rodney A. Erickson, Executive Vice President and Provost, chaired the Task Force.
At the April 23, 2002 meeting, Dr. Erickson will share the conclusions
and recommendations of the Tuition Task Force with the Faculty Senate in
advance of a similar presentation to the University’s Board of Trustees on May
10, 2002. His remarks will focus on
comparisons with peer institutions, funding needs of the University, five-year
budget projections and tuition requirements, possible tuition models, and
recommendations regarding Penn State’s tuition strategy for the next several
years.
SENATE COUNCIL
John W. Bagby
Connie D. Baggett
Robert L. Burgess
Wayne R. Curtis
W. Travis DeCastro
Gordon F. De Jong
Renee Diehl
Caroline D. Eckhardt
Rodney A. Erickson
Dennis Gouran
Elizabeth A. Hanley
Deidre E. Jago
Alphonse E. Leure-duPree
Salvatore A. Marsico
Ronald L. McCarty
Louis Milakofsky
John W. Moore
Jamie M. Myers
John S. Nichols, Chair
P. Peter Rebane
Winston A. Richards
Alan W. Scaroni
Cara-Lynne Schengrund
Loanne L. Snavely
Graham B. Spanier
Steven W. Stace
Brian B. Tormey
SENATE COMMITTEE ON ADMISSIONS, RECORDS,
SCHEDULING, AND STUDENT AID
Time To Graduation Report
(Informational)
Overview
ARSSA has been asked to investigate the graduation patterns of undergraduate students. In response to this question, the Office of the University Registrar has completed a time to degree study for the Spring 1999, 2000, and 2001 semesters.
The general trends in graduation rates of students enrolled in four-year undergraduate programs are:
· 77% (189) of Penn State four-year undergraduate programs require between 120 and 129 credits. Of those students, whose total credits completed do not exceed the program credit requirement by more than three credits, 86% graduate within four years.
· Another 18% (44) of Penn State four-year undergraduate programs require between 130 and 139 credits. Of those students, whose total credits completed do not exceed the program credit requirement by more than three credits, 84% graduate within four years.
· An additional 5% (10) of Penn State four-year undergraduate programs (all International Business majors) require 145 credits. Of those students, whose total credits completed do not exceed the program credit requirement by more than three credits, 25% graduate within four years.
This report summarizes the factors that seem most salient in distinguishing among the three time periods of graduation: within four years, five years, and more than five years. Variables related to student circumstances and choices seem to be the pertinent factors in influencing time-to-graduation.
Methodology
The study examined students who graduated from a four-year baccalaureate degree program. Graduates from five-year baccalaureate degree programs were excluded from the study. Only students who were originally admitted as freshmen, regardless of which Penn State campus first enrolled, were included. All students admitted to the University as an advance standing student were excluded from the study.
The original cohort was identified by a match of these two conditions (spring graduate from a four-year program, and originally admitted as a freshman). The student’s transcript was then examined for the first enrolled semester, all subsequent semester enrollments, along with all intervening semesters of non-enrollment resulting from withdrawal, leave of absence, and “no-shows”. This data file then was used to conduct the analysis presented in this report.
A significant number of freshmen begin during the summer session. If these students graduated four years (8 semesters) later, they are counted in the “five year” cohort. Students who enrolled in one or more summer sessions after their initial enrollment are counted in the four-year cohort if they graduated in eight semesters.
To better understand the specific factors that influence these graduation issues, the study actually adopted three time frames:
· Students that graduated within 4 years
- Students that required 5 years
- Students that required more than 5 years
It is important to clarify that not all spring graduates were studied. Students were excluded from the study if they were enrolled in a five-year baccalaureate degree program or if they entered the University in any admission category other than freshman. The number of baccalaureate degree graduates and the number of students studied during these three Spring semesters were:
|
|
Spring 1999 |
Spring 2000 |
Spring 2001 |
Three Semester Total |
|
4 Year Baccalaureate Degree Graduates |
5,863 |
6,090 |
6,430 |
18,383 |
|
Number of students studied |
4,598 |
4,648 |
5,189 |
14,435 |
Overall Findings
Of those students in the study, the three-year average of time to graduation distributes as follows:
- 64% within 4 years from time of admission
- 28% more than 4 years, but within 5 years from time of admission
- 8% required more than 5 years
Students that graduate within 4 years tend to:
- Use fewer late drop credits and have a lower incidence of academic withdrawal.
- Change majors less and have a lower tendency of completing multiple majors.
- Enroll for sufficient credits each semester required to make normal progress and generally do not earn many more credits than are necessary to complete the program.
- Have few semesters of non-enrollment and are good students (not likely to be dropped, and have a higher tendency to achieve dean’s list status).
- Start at the University Park campus.
- Be a traditional age student.
- Enroll in fewer semesters in DUS.
Students that graduate after 5 years tend to:
- Use a higher number of late drop credits and have a higher incidence of academic withdrawal.
- Demonstrate a significantly higher tendency of changing majors.
- Enroll part-time or enroll in insufficient number of credits to maintain normal progress.
- Be academically weaker (less likely to be on the dean’s list and more likely to have been academically dropped).
- Start at a location other than University Park.
- Be an adult learner.
- Enroll in more semesters in DUS.
Factors Related to
Time-to-Graduation
|
|
4 Year
Graduation |
5 Year
Graduation |
5+ Year
Graduation |
|
Total Number of Graduates Studied (Spring 1999, 2000, and
2001) |
14,435 |
||
|
Total Graduates per Category |
9,308 |
4,075 |
1,052 |
|
Percent of Study Total |
64% |
28% |
8% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
The following factors identify the time-to-graduation
rates for each of the three time frames.
The percentages that follow are the percent of students from the
cohort number at the top of the chart.
For example, Factor 1: Of the 9,308 students that graduated in 4
years, 68% used one or more late drop
credits. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1. Late Drop
Credits Used |
68% |
91% |
93% |
|
2. Part-time
Semesters Attempted |
11% |
50% |
77% |
|
3. Change of major |
12% |
28% |
54% |
|
4. Enrolled in DUS |
19% |
26% |
36% |
|
5. Semesters
started as Full-time, but ended as Part-time |
4% |
26% |
56% |
|
6. Semesters
Withdrawn |
2% |
11% |
34% |
|
7. Completed
Multiple majors |
2% |
5% |
3% |
|
8. Academic Drop |
0% |
1% |
11% |
|
9. Semesters of
non-Enrollment |
9% |
15% |
62% |
|
10. Campus of Admission Not University Park |
37% |
56% |
68% |
|
11.
Typically enroll in 1/8 of the program’s credit requirements each semester. |
100% |
99% |
95% |
|
12. Achieved Dean's List |
79% |
59% |
49% |
|
13. Credits Completed External to Penn State |
41% |
29% |
38% |
|
14. Traditional Age Student |
67% |
29% |
4% |
|
15. Adult Learner |
13% |
14% |
73% |
|
16. Enroll in one or more Summer Sessions |
67% |
71% |
79% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
The
following data is limited to Spring 2001 |
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|
17. Total Credits
Completed Within 3 Credits of the Requirement |
|
|
|
|
a)
Programs requiring between 120-129 credits |
86% |
11% |
3% |
|
b) Programs requiring between
130-139 credits |
84% |
13% |
3% |
|
c)
Programs requiring 145 |
25% |
73% |
2% |
|
18. Total Credits
Completed Exceeded 3 Credits of Requirement |
|
|
|
|
a)
Programs requiring between 120-129 credits |
57% |
32% |
11% |
|
b) Programs requiring between 130-139
credits |
29% |
56% |
15% |
|
c)
Programs requiring 145 |
18% |
70% |
12% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
SENATE COMMITTEE ON
ADMISSIONS, RECORDS,
SCHEDULING, AND STUDENT AID
Deborah Atwater
Edward W. Bittner
Ingrid M. Blood
JoAnn Chirico, Chair
Peter Deines
Anna Griswold
Geoffery J. Harford
Luen-Chau Li
Victor Nistor
Molly A. Powell
Ronald W. Propst
P. Peter Rebane
John J. Romano
Carol A. Smith, Vice-Chair
J. James Wager
Statement by Penn State President
Graham Spanier
on the Penn State Calendar
The
University’s academic year calendar has been a concern and a source of
discussion for faculty and students for several years. Two years of discussion culminated in a
February 26, 2002 University Faculty
Senate recommendation suggesting a change to a somewhat shortened, simplified
calendar. Faculty need a calendar that
is adaptable to their approach to teaching and learning. Students expect a high-quality educational
experience within a calendar format that accommodates their summer job
schedules, internship placements, co-op experiences, and an occasional break in
the schedule of classes to study, see their families, and refresh themselves. I
am most appreciative of the hard work and good thinking of the special Senate
Committee, and I am grateful for the interest of USG and for the scores of
emails I received from faculty and students.
Issues
of concern to me have been widespread absences and class interruptions after
Labor Day, before Thanksgiving, and both before and after the current break in
the fall semester, as well as a general sense that the start of the fall
semester is so early that it results in disruption of summer internships and
student work, faculty hiring and orientation, family activities, and proper
preparation of facilities between the summer and fall terms. In addition, our early start date is a
competitive disadvantage in student recruitment at many of our campuses. Comparisons with other universities show
that the class attendance issue may be related to Penn State’s scheduled number
of class days being the greatest in the Big Ten and a full week longer each
semester than those of the University of Pittsburgh, Temple University, and the
State System of Higher Education.
The
special Faculty Senate Committee, along with other senate committees, has
worked thoughtfully to arrive at its recommendations. In addition to addressing the situation related to breaks, they
noted the desirability of a calendar that would be responsive to the
substantially changed teaching and learning strategies employed in many
courses. They consulted widely and
brought useful focus to a complex issue.
Of special value was their emphasis on some fundamental principles,
including:
· The
University calendar should provide flexibility in serving the academic
interests and needs of
students
and faculty.
· The
calendar should provide appropriate time for examinations and other assessment
activities as
part of
the fall and spring semesters and each summer session.
· There should be an appropriate break during each
semester.
· A
post-Labor Day start is highly desirable
· The fall semester should end before the traditional December
holiday season.
· Arrival
day (UP) should occur on a Saturday.
· Commencement
(UP) should occur on a Saturday.
· There
should be provision for orientation time at the beginning of each semester.
These principles are useful, and I
have taken them carefully into account in my decision for a new calendar. I add to them only a few considerations:
· The
calendar should be straightforward, stable, and predictable, such that plans
can be made by all interested persons, within and outside the University, for
up to several years in advance, without needless uncertainty or recourse to
complex formulas and listings.
· The
calendar should be forward-looking, toward new methods of course delivery and
teaching, including greater use of on-line techniques and new approaches to
partial or intermittent residency. After much discussion and thought, I have
concluded that a simplified calendar best promotes flexibility. Simplification does not convey rigidity, nor
does rigidity about such matters as seat-time convey quality.
· The
calendar must be observed. Callers,
visitors, parents and friends of students and those with whom we do business
should find us open and fully functioning when we say that we are. Students should be expected to always attend
class except as provided for in University policy. Similarly, faculty should be expected to conduct all scheduled
classes.
· The
University calendar applies to all campuses, save The Dickinson School of Law,
Penn State Great Valley, the College of Medicine and the Pennsylvania College
of Technology, but modest excursions to allow for locally important conditions
can certainly be approved when circumstances warrant.
In addition, the Special Senate
Committee noted two other principles:
· The
fall and spring semesters should be as symmetrical (i.e., equal in length) as
possible.
· National
holidays should be recognized if possible.
All calendar deliberations
immediately introduce the necessity to accept trade-offs, notably because there
are simply not enough days in the fall to meet all conditions. In the case of holidays, the only way we can
accommodate many of the calendar constraints is to hold classes on certain days
that other organizations might indeed observe as holidays. Further, benchmarking shows us that many
fine universities do not observe a symmetric fall-spring calendar. If we are to meet the principles discussed
above, a perfectly symmetrical calendar is not possible.
Accordingly, the Penn State calendar for the upcoming years, beginning in Fall 2003, will have the following properties:
· Each fall semester will span 16 weeks,
including 14 weeks of classes, one 5-day week of finals and assessment
activities, and 5 days without classes.
During the assessment period, final exams will be scheduled for Monday
through Thursday. Friday will normally
be a conflict make-up day for those classes that schedule final examinations.
· The
five days without classes include Labor Day and the Wednesday, Thursday, and
Friday of Thanksgiving week. In
addition, the Friday at the end of the sixth week will be a study day, thus
creating a three-day class break in the fall calendar. The University will be open on this day so
that faculty and students will have the opportunity to take full advantage of
university facilities and academic opportunities.
·
To balance class offerings and laboratories, so that there are an equal
number of Mondays through Fridays, the first day of classes, a Tuesday, will
offer a Friday schedule. This one-day
trade has worked well at other institutions where it has been used and, given
that many lab and discussion sections are regularly scheduled on Tuesdays, the
day swap may create an improved introduction to many classes in which the
Tuesday sections might not ordinarily meet during the first week.
· Over the rest of the decade, classes begin
as early as August 30 or as late as September 5, but never earlier than the
week before Labor Day. Looking at the
decade ahead,
in 2003, 2006,
2007, 2008, 2012, and 2013, classes start the day after Labor Day; the other
years classes would start the Tuesday before Labor Day.
· The fall commencement ceremony is on
Saturday, the day after the last day of finals, falling between December 17 and
22, except that on December 22, 2006, undergraduate commencements would be on
Friday evening.
· No
alteration in the length of class times is anticipated, nor will any change be
introduced for spring semester calendars.
Thus, Penn State's academic year will consist of 145 class days and 10
assessment/exam days, which is very close to the average for the Big Ten, and
4-5 days more than the University of Pittsburgh, Temple University and the
State System of Higher Education.
· It is desirable to have an orientation period for new students
that, at the University Park campus, is somewhat increased in scope. Consequently, it is recommended that the
arrival time frame for new students at University Park be between noon on
Friday and noon on Saturday. This will
allow formal orientation activities to begin following lunch on Saturday. This will provide for significantly
increased continuity in our programming for new students.
· Exam/assessment periods will be available
for the principal summer session. This
can be achieved by a combination of strategies, and the Registrar will be asked
to develop a plan that does not unduly lengthen the summer session.
With any calendar, there are always
matters that require special attention.
Several are discussed below, and I invite readers to bring to the
attention of John Cahir (jjc2@psu.edu) or Susan
Youtz (scy1@psu.edu) any relevant questions that are not addressed here.
· Classes
on days before and after breaks.
All deans and department heads are reminded that faculty will be
expected to meet all scheduled classes.
Any exceptions must be approved by the dean of the college offering the
course or his or her designee; a report of such exceptions will be reviewed by
the Provost’s Office. Moreover,
students are urged to avoid asking faculty members to cancel classes. Classes
will be held when scheduled. Only by
doing this can we be honest with ourselves and with the students and preserve
the integrity of the new calendar.
· Arrival
Day at University Park. On those
years when classes begin on the day after Labor Day, Arrival Day for new
students could conflict with football traffic.
On such years, arrival will be distributed between Thursday and
Friday. Those responsible for the
logistics and planning for arrival and orientation should begin planning for
2003 immediately.
· Campus
College calendars. Modest
departures from the standard University calendar can be considered, but must be
approved by the Provost.
· Alternative
assessments. Active and
collaborative learning, on-line modules, research activities, and group
presentations are increasingly part of a Penn State education. This calendar encourages those practices,
and faculty should begin plans to adapt their courses to the new calendar.
SENATE SELF STUDY COMMITTEE
Interim Report
(Informational)
INTRODUCTION
The University Faculty Senate Self Study Committee met for the first time on
December 3, 2001. Since then, the committee has met on eight occasions and invited the following individuals/groups to meet with the Committee: the current and three former chairs of the Senate; four chairs of Undergraduate Education; three members of the 1991 Special Committee charged to Review the Senate; the former Executive Secretary of the Senate; and current Senate Committee Chairs
The Self Study Committee has reviewed similar self-studies from the Senate at Ohio State and the University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign.
Following are the topic areas currently under consideration by the Senate Self Study Committee.
- Number of Senate Meetings
- Review 1:20 Ratio of Faculty Representation
- Restructuring Senate Committees (combining, deleting, adding)
- Formalizing Subcommittee Structure
- Communicating the Work of the Senate
- Term Limits
- Managing Informational Reports
- Limit Length of Senate Meetings
- Function and Responsibilities of Senate Council
- Procedures for Appointment of Committee Chairs/Vice-Chairs
The Senate Self Study Committee invites feedback and reaction to the topics under consideration and other areas not in the above list. Please direct comments to committee chair George Franz at DE-DAA@PSU.EDU.
SENATE SELF STUDY COMMITTEE
Mark A. Casteel
George W. Franz, Chair
Amy K. Glasmeier
Harvey B. Manbeck
John W. Moore
Jean Landa Pytel
Robert Secor
Valerie N. Stratton
Susan C. Youtz
SENATE COMMITTEE ON UNIVERSITY PLANNING
Construction Projects – 2001-02
(Informational)
Twice a year, Bill Anderson, Assistant Vice President for Physical Plant, presents an overview of construction projects to the Faculty Senate. The spring presentation is devoted to projects at Campus Colleges. The fall presentation is devoted to projects at University Park. Below is a list of projects that are included in this spring’s review:
Recently Completed Projects:
· Junker Center, Penn State Erie, The Behrend College
· Smith Interfaith Chapel and Belltower, Penn State Erie, The Behrend College
· Perkins Student Union Addition, Penn State Berks
· Safeguard Scientifics Building, Penn State Great Valley
· Lares Building Addition, Penn State Abington
· Eberly Building Renovation, Penn State Fayette
Projects under Construction:
· Student Union Building, Penn State McKeesport
· Harrisburg Housing, Penn State Harrisburg
· Extramural Research Facility, Penn State Milton S. Hershey Medical Center
· Franco Building Addition, Penn State Berks
Projects in Design:
· Research and Economic Development Building (REDC), Penn State Erie, The Behrend College
· Administration Building, Penn State Beaver
· Classroom Building, Penn State Altoona
· Library and Performing Arts Center, Penn State York
In addition, a preview list of projects that will be reviewed at the fall meeting will be given.
SENATE COMMITTEE ON UNIVERSITY PLANNING
P. Richard Althouse
William J. Anderson
Anthony J. Baratta, Chair
John P. Boehmer
Michael J. Cardamone
Eric C. Cowden
Gordon F. De Jong
Peter B. Everett
Joseph Ferenchick
William M. Frank
Daniel R. Hagen
Ali R. Hurson
Rodney Kirsch
Karen H. Morin
Robert N. Pangborn
Paula J. Romano
William A. Rowe, V-Chair
Louise E. Sandmeyer
Gary C. Schultz
Paul J. Tikalsky
Daniel E. Willis
Gregory R. Ziegler
THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY
The University Faculty Senate
MINUTES OF SENATE COUNCIL
Tuesday, April 9, 2002 1:30 PM 102 Kern Graduate Building