THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY
The University Faculty Senate
Tuesday, December 3, 2002, 1:30 PM in
112 Kern Graduate Building
[In the case of severe weather conditions or other emergencies, please call the Senate Office at (814) 863-0221 to determine if a Senate meeting has been postponed or canceled. This may be done after business office hours by calling the Senate Office number and a voice mail message can be heard concerning the status of any meeting.]
A. MINUTES OF THE PRECEDING MEETING -
Minutes of the September 10 and October 22, 2002 Meetings in The Senate Record 36:1 & 2
B. COMMUNICATIONS TO THE SENATE - Senate Curriculum Report (Blue Sheets) of
19, 2002 [www.psu.edu/ufs/bluex.html] -- Appendix "A"
-- Appendix "A"
C. REPORT OF SENATE COUNCIL - Meeting of November 19, 2002
D. ANNOUNCEMENTS BY THE CHAIR -
E. COMMENTS BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNIVERSITY -
F. FORENSIC BUSINESS –
G. UNFINISHED BUSINESS –
H. LEGISLATIVE REPORTS –
Admissions, Records, Scheduling and Student Aid
Revision of Senate Policy 14-10: Limitations to Enrollment as a
Nondegree Student -- Appendix "B"
Curricular Affairs/Undergraduate Education
Revision of Senate Policy 59-00: Requirements for the Minor -- Appendix "C"
I. ADVISORY/CONSULTATIVE REPORTS –
J. INFORMATIONAL REPORTS –
Changes to the Faculty Exit Process and Presentation of the
Faculty Exit Study [10 minute presentation and discussion] -- Appendix "D"
Status of University Park Construction Projects [Presentation
and 10 minute discussion] -- Appendix "E"
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,
January 28, 2003, at 1:30 PM in Room 112 Kern Building.
The University Faculty Senate
101 Kern Graduate Building
University Park, PA 16802
(814) 863-1202 – phone (814) 865-5789 – fax
Date: November 22, 2002
To: John W. Moore, Chair, University Faculty Senate
From: Shelley M. Stoffels, Chair, Senate Committee on Curricular Affairs
The Senate Curriculum Report dated November 19, 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 email@example.com, on or before December 19, 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).
AND STUDENT AID<
[Implementation Date: Summer 2003]
In 1987, Senate Policy 14-00 was revised to include a new policy (Policy 14-10) which governed limitations to enrollment as a nondegree student. At the time the new policy 14-10 was written, four notes were added, two of which dealt with exceptions to the new policy. One of those exceptions (note d) allowed a student who was dropped from the University as a result of policy 14-10 to still enroll in Independent Learning courses. It should be noted, however, that the approval of this new policy occurred prior to the creation of the World Campus.
The members of the Senate Committee on Admissions, Records, Scheduling, and Student Aid see no sound pedagogical reason to distinguish between courses normally offered via traditional “Resident Instruction” and courses offered by Distance Education (either Independent Learning or the World Campus). In fact, students who are in degree programs often use courses taken through Distance Education. In essence then, we are advocating the belief that a Penn State course is a Penn State course, irrespective of the course delivery mode.
Senate Policy 14-10 should be revised by deleting note d from the policy. The deleted section is indicated below by the overstrikes.
Proposed Revision to Senate Policy 14-10:
Limitations to Enrollment as a Nondegree Student
1. A student classified as nondegree conditional is permitted to complete a maximum of 40 credits in this status. If the student has not reduced his or her grade-point deficiency sufficiently to qualify for reinstatement and re-enrollment to a degree program (as defined by Section 54-82) by the completion of these 40 credits, the student can then no longer enroll in credit courses.
2. A student in degree candidacy status who has changed to nondegree regular status may continue to take courses for credit (see Section 14-00). A former degree candidate who has accumulated 40 or more credits as a nondegree regular student and has a grade-point deficiency of 18 or more shall then no longer be allowed to enroll in credit courses.
Note a: As a result of this action, the student is dropped from the University and re-enrollment can only be considered under the academic renewal policy (see Senate Policy 15-50).
Note b: This action shall not apply to a student who has earned more than a 2.00 average in the most recently completed semester.
Note c: Students in nondegree status who intend to change their status to degree candidacy are referred to Section 82-40, Cumulative Grade-Point Average Requirements for graduation.
Note d: Students
who have been dropped from the University by this action may still enroll
in Independent Learning (correspondence) courses.
SENATE COMMITTEE ON ADMISSIONS, RECORDS, SCHEDULING AND STUDENT AID
Edward W. Bittner
Mark A. Casteel, Chair
Milton W. Cole
Geoffrey J. Harford
Christopher J. Lynch
Gene P. Petriello
John J. Romano
Thomas A. Seybert
Carol A. Smith, Vice-Chair
Richard A. Wade
J. James Wager
[Implementation Date: Spring Semester, 2003]
In 1981 the University Faculty Senate authorized the offering of academic minors. Over time, the number of approved minor programs and the number of students electing to pursue academic minors has increased. It is clear that faculty and students feel minors add to the student's academic credentials and enhance their undergraduate experience. As an aid to students in their academic programming, it is desirable that the purpose of minors and how they complement other programming approaches to attaining academic specialization and credentials be clearly identified.
Since the time academic minors were first authorized by the University Faculty Senate, a number of issues have arisen relating to their design and implementation. Principal among these issues are: the number of credits required for the minor, whether the minor is available to students from majors in other colleges, whether courses required for a minor are to include 'hidden prerequisites', and what the grading requirements for courses in a minor should be. These four issues are addressed individually below.
Issue 1: Credits required for a minor.
A minor is a supplemental academic program, and should not include requirements that match or exceed those of primary academic specializations such as majors, concurrent degrees or sequential degrees. It is recommended that the minimum number of credits required for a minor be established at 18 credits, and the total number of required credits normally not exceed 21 credits. Additionally, the minor must require at least 6 credits of course work at the 400-level, but ordinarily should not contain more than half of the course requirements at the 400-level.
Any program proposing a new minor or changing an existing minor such that more than 21 total credits will be required, or more than half of the requirements will be at the 400 level, must include a written justification explaining why the requirements for the minor must exceed the generally accepted parameters for a minor.
It is recognized that in some cases a minor may require more than 21 credits and could contain more than half of the course work at the 400-level. However, the requirement of 18 to 21 credits for a minor represents more than a normal full-time semester credit load. This number of credits also represents more than one-fourth of the upper division course work required for most majors. Therefore, the 18 to 21-credit requirement seems an appropriate expectation for a supplemental academic program.
The courses required for a minor should allow for their scheduling over the student's entire academic career. Requiring a disproportionate number of 400 level courses implies the student would be scheduling these courses during the last four semesters. This could discourage students from selecting the minor, as this is the time period they will be focusing on the course work in their major specialization.
Issue 2: Availability of the minor to students from many colleges.
As a supplemental program in a student's academic plan, a minor is intended to broaden programming opportunities for students not only from within the offering college, but from colleges and majors outside the offering college. For a minor to serve the broadest group of students, its requirements need to be accessible and not excessive. In preparing descriptions and course requirements for minors, departments and colleges should be mindful of requirements that restrict access to students from particular majors or a single college.
Narrowly defined minors with restrictive entry, either by design or by circumstance, do not serve the total population of students who might be interested in pursuing the minor. If a department or college proposes to offer a minor that has access limited to a specific college or major, they should submit a justification explaining why the minor needs to be restrictive
Proposals for new minors should list all prerequisite courses for the prescribed courses in the minor. It is recommended that departments not use a prerequisite course into which enrollment is limited to only certain students. Although it may not always be possible, it is desirable to have prerequisite courses for upper level courses in the minor included as part of the minor requirements.
For a minor to serve the greatest number of students, prerequisite courses and required courses need to be open for enrollment by all interested students. Programs should limit as much as possible the number of prerequisite courses needed before courses in the minor can be scheduled. If the prerequisite courses are not included as requirements for the minor, the actual number of credits required to complete the minor could become excessive.
Issue 4: Grading requirements for courses in a minor.
Grades earned for all courses in a minor should be at the 'C' level or higher.
The University recognizes the completion of a minor by the awarding of a certificate and entering the minor on the student’s official transcript. As officially constituted academic programs, minors represent both breath and depth of study in an academic area. To earn the minor certificate, students should be expected to earn grades of 'C' or higher in all courses in the minor.
Policy 59-00 Requirements for the Minor currently reads:
A minor is defined as a specialization of at least 18 credits that supplements a major. A minor program may consist of course work in a single area or from several disciplines, with at least 6 credits at the 400-level.
Departmental grade requirements for the minor shall conform at least to the minimum requirements for the major. In the case of minor programs where there is no corresponding major, minimum requirements for the minor must be established following the normal procedures for curriculum approval.
The Senate Committees on Curricular Affairs and Undergraduate Education recommend that Policy
59-00 be modified to read:
A minor is defined as an academic program of at least 18 credits that supplements a major. A minor program may consist of course work in a single area or from several disciplines, with at least six but ordinarily not more than half of the credits at the 400-course level. Total requirements are to be specified and generally limited to 18 to 21 credits. Entrance to some minors may require the completion of a number of prerequisites including courses, portfolios, auditions, or other forms of documentation that are not included in the total requirements for the minor. All courses for the minor require a grade of 'C' or above.
SENATE COMMITTEE ON CURRICULAR AFFAIRS
Phyllis F. Adams
Lauren M. Applegate
Laurie Powers Breakey
Douglas K. Brown
Barton W. Browning
Garry L. Burkle
Robert G. Crane
Roger A. Egolf
Christopher J. Falzone
Gary J. Fosmire
George W. Franz
Brandon B. Hunt
Robert A. Novack
Mary Beth Oliver
Judy Ozment Payne, Vice-Chair
Howard G. Sachs
Richard J. Simons, Jr.
Summer J. Spangler
Shelley M. Stoffels, Chair
Rodney L. Troester
SUBCOMMITTEE ON MINORS
Garry Burkle, Chair
Judith Ozment Payne
SENATE COMMITTEE ON UNDERGRADUATE EDUCATION
Cheryl L. Achterberg
Richard I. Ammon
Laura M. Beck
Thomas E. Boothby
John P. Cancro
Paul F. Clark
Peter D. Georgopulos
Robert S. Hill
Janis E. Jacobs
Richard P. Kennedy
John H. Kramer
Amy E. Locke
Nancy S. Love
Laura L. Pauley, Chair
Robert D. Ricketts, Vice-Chair
David W. Russell
Dennis C. Scanlon
Julia B. Simon
James A. Strauss
Eric R. White
Changes to the Faculty Exit Process and Presentation of the Faculty Exit Study
For the past five years, the Office of the Provost has coordinated an annual effort to offer every tenured and tenure-track faculty member leaving the University the opportunity to participate in an exit survey by completing a questionnaire and/or an interview, a process that culminates at year’s end with a report of the survey results. This is done in conjunction with, and with the help of, each academic dean at Penn State. It is an effort to better understand the experiences of faculty members at Penn State and to respond to faculty concerns.
The study uses two mechanisms, faculty interviews and a questionnaire, to compile the information in the report. Faculty exit interview officers, appointed by their respective colleges, conduct the interviews, and write and submit individual interview reports to the Dean of the unit, who in turn forwards the information to the office of the Vice Provost for Academic Affairs. Questionnaires are sent by the college to the exiting faculty member, administered confidentially, and then returned by the exiting faculty member to the Vice Provost’s office. The results of all questionnaires collected during that year are tabulated centrally and anonymously. Exiting faculty members may choose to participate in either, both, or neither process. Approximately, 60 percent of exiting faculty members participate in this process.
After five years of experience with the exit interview/questionnaire process, several Penn State faculty constituencies raised concerns and suggestions for improvement. In response, the 2001-2002 Senate Committee on Faculty Affairs was charged with reviewing the process and making recommendations for improvement, if necessary.
The Senate Committee on Faculty Affairs requested from the Vice Provost’s office a summary of results from the exit interview/questionnaire process, and in response a summary for the period 1997-2002 was prepared by Michael Dooris (attached). The Subcommittee on Faculty Development reviewed the faculty exit process and met with the Vice Provost for Academic Affairs, the Director of Planning Research and Assessment, and Professor Judd Arnold, a longtime Faculty Exit Interviewer. In addition, the Vice Provost sent the Faculty Exit questionnaire to all University equity commissions for feedback and suggestions. The following information summarizes our findings and recommendations.
The five-year summary shows that 230 faculty members participated in interviews and 189 completed and returned questionnaires. In general, faculty members leaving the University expressed satisfaction with their Penn State experience. Respondents were relatively satisfied with faculty benefits but often unhappy with salaries. Survey responses suggested the need for better rewards for teaching, better methods for evaluating faculty performance, clarification of the P&T process, and better mentoring of junior faculty. The two largest groups of faculty members leaving Penn State are those who leave for “more attractive positions” and those who “retire.” Not surprisingly, these groups differed in their responses to some questions. Those differences are described in the report, as are some apparent differences between males vs. females and University Park vs. campus college faculty members.
After examining the materials provided to the committee, we recommended in March 2002 that the following actions be taken by the Vice Provost for Academic Affairs to improve the questionnaire and the interview process.
Requested Additions to the Faculty Exit Questionnaire
1. A question, with a place for comment, asking if the Penn State's benefits program had any impact on the individual's decision to leave.
2. A question, with a place for comment, asking what it would have taken to keep the individual at Penn State.
3. A question with a place for comment: "Are you satisfied with the University's efforts on behalf of racial/ethnic and gender diversity?"
4. A question with a place for comment: "Overall, did you feel you were treated fairly by the university, college, and/or department? What should have been done differently?"
Requested Additional Actions
1. That the Exit Interviewer's letter, if there is one, be sent simultaneously to both the Dean and the Vice Provost (with the provision that the Dean’s copy shall be omitted at the request of the interviewee).
2. That we would like the Vice Provost's office to obtain the Exit Interview response rates from the units at the college and equivalent levels to reveal possible areas of low response and share that information with the Faculty Affairs Committee.
Vice Provost's Response
The Vice Provost for Academic Affairs responded favorably to all requests. The appropriate documents have been changed, accordingly, and future exit studies will be based upon the revised questionnaire and procedures.
Related Appendix: "Faculty Exit Study: 1997-98 through 2001-02." A summary of results from the exit interview process, prepared by the Office of the Vice Provost for Academic Affairs and the Center for Quality and Planning,
Copies of the revised Faculty Exit questionnaire can be obtained by contacting Mike Dooris firstname.lastname@example.org.
Discussion and Conclusion
The Senate Committee on Faculty Affairs believes that these changes greatly improve the Faculty Exit Interview process. A process such as this will never be perfect. An institution cannot require its departing employees to give it feedback when they depart. However, these changes should help assure departing faculty that their opinions are valued and improve their willingness to provide honest feedback.
Detailed information concerning these topics may be accessed at the following URL locations:
Center for Quality & Planning: http://www.psu.edu/president/cqi/planning_research/reports/index.htm
Vice Provost for Academic Affairs: http://www.psu.edu/oldmain/vprov/
Susan M. Abmayr
Mohamad A. Ansari
Thomas W. Benson
Leonard J. Berkowitz
Michael J. Cardamone
Richard A. Carlson
Roy B. Clariana
Elizabeth J. Corwin
Robert P. Crum
Mary I. Frecker
Margaret B. Goldman
David J. Green
Sallie M. McCorkle (Vice-Chair)
Arthur C. Miller
Jamie M. Myers
Katherine C. Pearson
Kim C. Steiner (Chair)
Mila C. Su
Joan S. Thomson
Tramble T. Turner
SUGGESTED QUESTIONS FOR EXIT INTERVIEWS FOR FACULTY WHO ARE RETIRING
(Faculty members who are retiring to take positions elsewhere will be asked the questions listed for that group of faculty as well.)
1) Why did you decide to retire?
2) What are the major changes you have seen at Penn State, and how do you evaluate them?
3) How do you assess your last years at Penn State, and your level of satisfaction as opposed to your earlier years?
4) Do you feel Penn State is moving in the right direction? Are there any pitfalls that you would suggest we need to avoid?
5) What advice would you have for us to enable us to become a better institution?
6) Do you expect to keep some connection with Penn State after retirement? What might Penn State (including your campus, department and college) do to help you to keep your ties with the institution?
7) How effective was the retirement advice you received?
SUGGESTED QUESTIONS FOR EXIT INTERVIEWS FOR FACULTY WHO ARE LEAVING FOR OTHER POSITIONS OR REASONS
1) If you are leaving for another position, did you seek that position or were you approached first?
2) Were you generally satisfied with your experience at Penn State? If not, did you express the areas of your dissatisfaction to your administrative supervisors before seeking other opportunities or making the decision to leave?
3) How would you compare the level and number of assignments given to you--in such areas as service, teaching, and advising--to those of your colleagues?
4) How would you compare the level of support and opportunities given to you--e.g., mentoring, research support, collaborative opportunities--to those of your colleagues?
5) Is there anything that we could have done that would have persuaded you to stay?
6) If you are leaving because of spousal dissatisfaction with professional opportunities or quality of life, is there more that Penn State could have done to address those issues?
7) What changes do you perceive are occurring in the direction of Penn State, your college, and department/division?
8) How competitive is Penn State, especially in your discipline?
9) What advice do you have for us to enable us to become a better institution?
SUGGESTED QUESTIONS FOR EXIT INTERVIEWS WITH FACULTY DENIED TENURE OR ADVISED OUT
1) Explore reasons. Are there things that could have been done differently, such as better advice or more support along the way?
2) Did you receive any mentoring? If so, what type of mentoring and how effective was it? Did you take full advantage of the mentoring that was offered to you? Do you wish that you had received more mentoring than you did?
3) Did you do everything you could have done to bring concerns or difficulties you were having to the attention of those who might have been able to help you address them? If teaching was a concern, did you seek help from your colleagues, or from the Center for Excellence in Learning and Teaching, formerly known as the Instructional Development Program? If publication was an issue, did you seek advice from others in your field, and if so, were they helpful in giving it?
4) What advice would you have for other faculty members beginning on the tenure track?
5) Were the expectations for a positive tenure decision made clear to you, and were they the basis for final evaluation?
6) Did you meet your own expectations for yourself, and if not, why not? Do you feel we expected too much from you, and if so, in what areas?
7) How would you compare the level and number of assignments given to you in your time at Penn State--in such areas as service, teaching, and advising--to those of your department colleagues on the tenure track? To those of your colleagues already tenured?
8) How would you compare the level of support and opportunities given to you--e.g., in mentoring, research support, and collaborative opportunities--to those of your colleagues in your department and in your college on the tenure track? To those of your colleagues already tenured?
9) Overall, did you feel you were treated fairly by Penn State? If not, what should have been done differently?
10) What advice would you have for us to enable us to become a better institution?
The following individuals were the Exit Interview Officers as of July 2, 2002
James F. Smith, Jr.
College of Agricultural Sciences
William B. Devlin
Maxwell W. Hunter
Athleen J. Stere
College of Arts and Architecture
Robert R. Hewitt
Penn State Beaver
John A. Ciciarelli
Penn State Berks
Arthur R. Hill
Smeal College of Business Administration
Paul H. Rigby
College of Communications
Richard L. Barton
Penn State Delaware County
Wayne J. McMullen
Dickinson School of Law
Thomas M. Place
Penn State DuBois
John A. Johnson
College of Earth and Mineral Sciences
Michael A. Arthur
College of Education
Robert F. Nicely, Jr.
College of Engineering
Robert J. Heinsohn
Gordon E. Robinson
Penn State Erie, The Behrend College
Ralph L. Eckert
Penn State Fayette
Sandra R. Smith
Penn State Great Valley
Robert M. Hartman
Penn State Hazleton
College of Health and Human Development
Stanley P. Mayers, Jr.
Hershey Medical Center
David M. Leaman
M. Judith Tevethia
School of Information Sciences and Technology
Larry D. Spence
Penn State Lehigh Valley
Peter J. Behrens
College of the Liberal Arts
Judd B. Arnold
John H. Riew
Penn State McKeesport
Lee A. Vercoe
James B. Stewart
Penn State Mont Alto
Penn State New Kensington
Eberly College of Science
William D. Taylor
Penn State Shenango
Penn State Wilkes-Barre
Thomas A. Seybert
Penn State Worthington Scranton
Richard J. Ravizza
Penn State York
This informational report provides an overview of construction projects at the University Park Campus. It is presented as the first part of a two-part Status of Construction Report. The presentation will cover the following:
West Campus Housing
Career Services Building
Bathgate Storm Water Detention
Eisenhower Parking Deck Expansion
Life Sciences Building
Pasquerilla Spiritual Center
EastView Terrace Housing
Nittany Parking Deck
School of Architecture
and Landscape Architecture
East Parking Deck Chiller Plant
The second half of this report will be presented in the spring and will cover non-University Park locations.
The Office of Physical Plant web site address noting construction progress is www.opp.psu.edu/cnst/cnst.htm.
SENATE COMMITTEE ON UNIVERSITY PLANNING
P. Richard Althouse
William Anderson, Jr.
Christopher T. Baker
Anthony J. Baratta, Chair
John P. Boehmer
Dan T. Brinker
Eric B. Cowden
Gordon F. De Jong
Peter B. Everett
William M. Frank
Roger L. Geiger
Daniel R. Hagen
Judith E. Hupcey
Robert N. Pangborn
Paula J. Romano
William A. Rowe, Vice-Chair
Louise E. Sandmeyer
Gary C. Schultz
Timothy W. Simpson
Edward C. Smith
Gregory R. Ziegler
THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY
The University Faculty Senate
MINUTES OF SENATE COUNCIL
Tuesday, November 19, 2002 1:30 PM 102 Kern Graduate Building
C. D. Baggett
R. L. Burgess
W. R. Curtis
W. T. DeCastro
C. D. Eckhardt
R. A. Erickson
J. R. Esposito
D. H. Evensen
D. S. Gouran
E. A. Hanley
S. A. Marsico
J. W. Moore
J. S. Nichols
J. L. Pytel
P. P. Rebane
W. A. Richards
A. W. Scaroni
S. W. Stace
B. B. Tormey
V. R. Price
S. C. Youtz
C. J. Bise
P. C. Jurs
A. E. Leure-duPree
R. L. McCarty
G. B. Spanier
J. C. Spychalski
Chair John Moore called the meeting to order at 1:40 PM on Tuesday, November 19, 2002, in Room 102 Kern Graduate Building. It was noted that, in the minutes from the meeting of October 8, the vote on the proposal from the Smeal College of Business Administration with regard to the merger of two departments to form a new department did not indicate there were dissenting votes. It was moved and seconded (Tormey/DeCastro) that the minutes of the October 8, 2002 Senate Council meeting be approved as distributed with this revision.
The next meeting of FAC is scheduled for January 14, 2003. Any items for discussion at FAC may be submitted to a Senate Officer or one of the three elected members: Wayne Curtis, Elizabeth Hanley and Peter Rebane.
The Senate Officers visited Penn State Erie, The Behrend College on October 28, Penn State Beaver and Penn State Shenango on October 29, and the College of Medicine on November 5. On November 14 and 15, the Officers visited Penn State Worthington Scranton and Penn State Wilkes-Barre respectively. This concludes the fall visits. The Senate Office is scheduling visits to units at University Park for the spring semester. Once these visits are arranged, the dates will be posted on the Senate’s web site (WWW.PSU.EDU/UFS).
Dr. Moore reminded Councilors that the elected members of Senate Council serve as the Nominating Committee to create a slate of nominees for Chair-Elect and Secretary of the Senate and an elected member of the Faculty Advisory Committee. John Nichols will chair the Nominating Committee and the first meeting is January 14, 2003, 11:30 a.m. (location to be announced). Councilors are encouraged to seek nominations and the names of Senators interested in running for office from their College Caucuses and colleagues.
Dr. Erickson commented on the results of the gubernatorial election and that Penn State administration will seek to make the case to Governor-elect Rendell of Penn State’s significant needs. The new governor is expected to make his fiscal year budget presentation in 2003. The University anticipates that FY 2003-04 will be another challenging and difficult budget year.
Provost Erickson invited Vice Provost for Enrollment Management and Administration, John Romano to give a brief enrollment report for Fall 2002. The enrollment for all campuses exceeded 83,000 with 6,000 enrollments at the Pennsylvania College of Technology. Overall, the University Park enrollment is 41,445, an increase of 600 students from last year. Approximately 80 percent of students enrolled at Penn State are from Pennsylvania. There are 8,127 students enrolled in upper-division courses at the Campus Colleges, up from 4,727 in 1997. Full-time student enrollment is increasing while part-time enrollment is decreasing. Although there are some enrollment declines at individual campuses, overall, campus enrollments are up.
Minority student enrollment University-wide fall 2002 is 9,352 representing 11.3 percent of total student enrollment compared to 5,837 enrollments in 1993 or eight percent of total enrollments. Vice Provost Terrell Jones noted that there are increasing numbers of minority students enrolled at the campuses.
International enrollments are mostly graduate students and totaled 3,439. The Graduate School saw an increase of 200 degree and 130 non-degree enrollments; Dr. Romano noted that these increases are most likely related to the economy. In response to a question, Vice Provost Romano noted that World Campus and Independent Learning enrollments are not part of the “official” head count.
Dr. Caroline Eckhardt, the liaison to the Graduate Council, reported on the October 16, 2002 Graduate Council meeting. The summary of the meeting is attached.
Curricular Affairs/Undergraduate Education – “Revision of Senate Policy 59-00: Requirements for the Minor.” This report was placed on the agenda on a Pytel/DeCastro motion. Committee Chairs Shelley Stoffels and Laura Pauley agreed to change the wording of simultaneous degrees to concurrent degrees. Both chairs also agreed to re-format the report and revise the definition of a minor as follows: “A minor is defined as an academic program of at least 18 credits that supplements a major.”
Libraries – “Payroll Deduction for Library Fines and Fees.” This report was withdrawn from the agenda pending further consultation. It is anticipated that this report will be placed on the January 14, 2003 Senate Council agenda.
University Planning – “Status of University Park Construction Projects.” This annual report was placed on the agenda on a Gouran/DeCastro motion. Bill Anderson and Steve Maruszewski will give this presentation. Mr. Anderson was asked to provide square footage detail on the new IST building as well as the Office of Physical Plant new construction URL for inclusion in the Agenda www.opp.psu.edu/cnst/cnst.htm Ten-minutes will be allotted for presentation followed by 10 minutes of discussion.
The agenda was approved on a Gouran/DeCastro motion.
ESTABLISHMENT, REORGANIZATION OR DISCONTINUATION OF ACADEMIC ORGANIZATIONAL UNITS
Proposal to change the name of the Department of Adult Education, Instructional Systems, and Workforce Education and Development to the Department of Learning and Performance Systems.
The chair of the Senate Committee on Curricular Affairs, Shelley Stoffels, reported that committee members requested evidence of consultation outside the College of Education. Department Head Kyle Peck requested letters of consultation and support from the College of Health and Human Development, the Smeal College of Business Administration and the School of Information Sciences and Technology. Dr. Stoffels noted that, while the Curricular Affairs Committee did not review and vote on these consultations, she believes that they were sufficient to address committee members’ concerns.
The chair of the Senate Committee on Faculty Affairs, Kim Steiner, reported that by unanimous vote, Committee members supported the proposal.
The chair of the Senate Committee on Undergraduate Education, Laura Pauley, reported that committee members unanimously supported the proposal. Dr. Pauley noted that some members found the current title of the department to be more descriptive (although longer and unwieldy) than the proposed title. However, the Committee respected the judgment and wishes of the department.
Dennis Gouran moved and Jean Landa Pytel seconded the following motion:
In accordance with our duties as prescribed in the Bylaws, Article II, Section 1(d), it is the advice of Senate Council that proposal to change name of the Department of Adult Education, Instructional Systems, and Workforce Education and Development to the Department of Learning and Performance Systems be implemented as described in the documents we have received. The motion was defeated.
On a Tormey/Esposito motion, Senate Council took the following action:
In accordance with our duties as prescribed in the Bylaws, Article II, Section 1(d), it is the advice of Senate Council that we do not have adequate information to evaluate the proposal to change the name of the Department of Adult Education, Instructional Systems, and Workforce Education and Development to the Department of Learning and Performance Systems and, therefore, request the following clarification(s) before completing our evaluation.
· Need to recognize the disciplinary areas of workforce development and adult education in the title of the department, both are important and growing fields.
· Need greater clarity on the meaning of “Learning and Performance Systems.”
· Was benchmark data collected on how other Universities name similar departments?
· Are there campus colleges where these programs are offered, have they been consulted about the proposed name?
· Are the student enrollment numbers appearing on the Academic Reorganization form accurate?
· Representatives from the College of Education (dean, department head) should be present at the January 14, 2003 Senate Council meeting to respond to questions.
There was one negative vote on this motion.
The action of Senate Council will be communicated to Provost Erickson.
There was no New Business.
Senate Chair Moore thanked Council for their attendance and participation, and accepted a DeCastro/Burgess motion to adjourn the meeting at 2:55 PM.
Susan C. Youtz
THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY
The University Faculty Senate
101 Kern Graduate Building
Date: November 22, 2002
From: Susan C. Youtz, Executive Secretary
To: All Senators and Committee Members
Please note the scheduled time and location of your committee. If you are unable to attend, notify the Senate Office prior to Senate Day -- if possible.
MONDAY, DECEMBER 2, 2002 7:00 PM
Officers' and Chairs' Meeting 102 Kern Building
Commonwealth Caucus Penn State Room, NLI
(Speaker, Janis Jacobs, Vice Provost for Undergraduate Education and
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 3, 2002 7:30 AM
Intercollegiate Athletics 233 HUB/Robeson Cultural Center
Faculty Affairs 129A HUB/Robeson Cultural Center
Outreach Activities 502 Keller Building
Admissions, Records, Scheduling and
Computing and Information Systems 114 Kern Building
Curricular Affairs 102 Kern Building
Intra-University Relations 325 HUB/Robeson Cultural Center
Research 106 HUB/Robeson Cultural Center
Undergraduate Education 330 HUB/Robeson Cultural Center
University Planning 322 HUB/Robeson Cultural Center
Faculty Benefits 101 Kern Building
Libraries 510A Paterno Library
Student Life 107 HUB/Robeson Cultural Center
There will be a Commonwealth Caucus meeting at 11:30 AM on Tuesday,
December 3, 2002, in the Alumni Lounge of the NLI. At approximately
12:15 Noon, a buffet luncheon will be served.
The Pennsylvania State University
The University Faculty Senate
101 Kern Building (814) 863-0221
Date: November 22, 2002
To: Commonwealth Caucus Senators (This includes all elected Senators from
Campuses, Colleges, and Locations Other Than University Park)
From: Salvatore Marsico and Irwin Richman
MONDAY, DECEMBER 2, 2002
8:30 PM – PENN STATE ROOM, NLI
JANIS JACOBS, VICE PROVOST FOR UNDERGRADUATE EDUCATION AND INTERNATIONAL PROGRAMS
The Caucus will meet at 11:30 AM on Tuesday, December 3, 2002, in the Alumni Lounge of the NLI. A buffet luncheon will be served at approximately 12:15 PM.
The tentative Agenda includes:
Call to Order
Announcements and Reports from co-chairs of the caucus (Richman)
Reports from Committee Chairs
Other Items of Concern/New BusinessReorganization of the University UpdateAdjournment and Lunch