Penn State University Home  

 

 

 

 

 

 

THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY

 

The University Faculty Senate

 

AGENDA

 

Tuesday, January 30, 2001, 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 December 5, 2000, Meeting in The Senate Record 34:3

 

B.     COMMUNICATIONS TO THE SENATE - Senate Curriculum Report (Blue Sheets)

                                                                        of January 16, 2001

C.  REPORT OF SENATE COUNCIL - Meeting of January 16, 2001                                       

D.  ANNOUNCEMENTS BY THE CHAIR -

E.  COMMENTS BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNIVERSITY -

 

F.      FORENSIC BUSINESS -

 

G.     UNFINISHED BUSINESS –

 

        Committees and Rules

 

            Revision of Constitution, Article II, Section 1 (Membership)                                            

 

H.     LEGISLATIVE REPORTS –

           

        Committees and Rules

 

            Revision to Bylaws, Article III, Section 4                                                                       

 

I.        ADVISORY/CONSULTATIVE REPORTS –

 

Faculty Affairs

 

      Report on the Impact on Faculty Development of Hiring

      Faculty off the Tenure Track                                                                                        

 

      Recommendations for Emeritus/Retired Faculty                                                             

 

University Planning

 

      Recommendation for Developing an Ecologically Sustainable University                          

 

J.     INFORMATIONAL REPORTS -

     

      Admissions, Records, Scheduling and Student Aid

 

            Reserved Spaces Program                                                                                            

 

      Faculty Affairs

 

            UniSCOPE 2000 Presentation                                                                                       

 

      Senate Council

 

            University Faculty Census Report – 2001-2002                                                              

 

      Undergraduate Education

 

            Summary of Student Petitions by College, Unit or Location                                             

 

            1999-2000 First-Year Seminars: The Inaugural Year in Review                                       

 

            Non-Returning Students Report, Spring 1998 to Fall 1998                                                

 

      University Planning

 

            Long-term Debt and Debt Service of the University                                                      

 

            A Grand Destiny, The Penn State Campaign, Rodney Kirsch, Vice President for

            Development and Alumni Relations                                                                               

 

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,

           February 27, 2001, at 1:30 PM in Room 112 Kern Building.

 

            The Informational Report entitled “A Grand Destiny, The Penn State Campaign” will

            be presented as the first informational report (under J.) on the floor of the Senate.

 

 

 

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:   January 19, 2001

 

To:      Cara-Lynne Schengrund, Chair, University Faculty Senate

 

From:  Louis F. Geschwindner, Chair, Senate Committee on Curricular Affairs

 

 

            The Senate Curriculum Report, dated January 16, 2001, 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 February 15, 2001.

 

            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).  Since the Report is available on the web, printed copies are not distributed to the University community.  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 COMMITTEES AND RULES

 

Revision of Constitution, Article II, Section 1 (Membership)

 

(Legislative)

 

(Implementation Date: Upon approval by the President)

Recommendation

The Senate Committee on Committees and Rules proposes the following change to the Constitution, Article II, Section 1:

 

Article II

Section 1

Membership

For the purpose of defining the electorate of the Senate, the term University Faculty shall mean all persons who are not candidates for degrees at Penn State, who hold full time academic appointments, and who fall into one of the following categories: those holding professorial, research (excluding noncontinuing research appointees), or librarian titles and those who are full-time instructors, senior lecturers and lecturers, or assistant librarians.

Rationale

This rule has often been violated in the past, most often when people have sought graduate degrees in Higher Education. That, however, should not be a rationale, but support for the rationale, namely that the requirement is not necessary. The fear is that Senators will be guilty of a conflict of interest, but that is often the nature of whole committees such as Faculty Affairs and Faculty Benefits. The addition of the Dickinson School of Law to Penn State has allowed professors in a number of fields to desire and pursue law degrees. They should not be penalized for this. Since Senators are asked by the Senate to disclose such degree pursuit, it would be simple for the voting units to request such information and for the electorate to make their own decisions bearing this information in mind if they wish.

 

COMMITTEE ON COMMITTEES AND RULES

Mark A. Casteel, Vice-Chair

Joseph J. Cecere

Dwight Davis

Terry Engelder

Sabih I. Hayek

Deidre E. Jago, Chair

John R. Lippert

Arthur C. Miller

John W. Moore

Murry R. Nelson

John S. Nichols

Jean Landa Pytel

Dennis C. Scanlon

Cara-Lynne Schengrund

 

 

SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMITTEES AND RULES

Revision to Bylaws, Article III, Section 4

(Legislative)

 

[Implementation Date:  Upon Passage by the Senate]

 

INTRODUCTION

As the University Faculty Senate becomes more complex, it is sometimes necessary to introduce added information in the Constitution, Bylaws and Standing Rules of the University Faculty Senate.  Therefore, the proposed change in the Bylaws is offered to assure that election results are forwarded to the Senate Office in a timely manner. 

PROPOSED

 

Proposed Amendment to Article III, Section 4 of the Bylaws:

 

The proposed changes are in caps:

 

“The names of the newly elected and newly appointed Senators to serve during the following year shall be reported TO THE SENATE OFFICE BY THE FIRST FRIDAY IN FEBRUARY IN ORDER TO BE REPORTED to the Senate at the last regular meeting of the academic year.”

RATIONALE

 

 Despite memos from the Senate Office encouraging these elections to be held and results reported, there are units that overlook these requests and the Senate agenda is then printed with gaps where the listing of new Senators is given. This is both embarrassing to the Senate and to the units, and seems unnecessary.  By printing clear guidelines in the Bylaws, units can plan precisely when they need to meet to address the election procedures. There are and will be no penalty, of course, for failure to comply in time, but it is hoped that this will make Senate procedures run more smoothly.

 

SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMITTEES AND RULES

Mark A. Casteel, Vice-Chair

Joseph J. Cecere

Dwight Davis

Terry Engelder

Sabih I. Hayek

Deidre E. Jago, Chair

John R. Lippert

Arthur C. Miller

John W. Moore

Murry R. Nelson

John S. Nichols

Jean Landa Pytel

Dennis C. Scanlon

Cara-Lynne Schengrund

 

COMMITTEE ON FACULTY AFFAIRS

 

Report on the Impact on Faculty Development of Hiring Faculty off the Tenure Track

 

(Advisory/Consultative)

 

[Implementation:  Upon Approval by the President]

 

INTRODUCTION

 

Concern has been growing at Penn State over the potential negative effects of hiring faculty off the tenure track in either full-time (fixed term-I/ FT-I) or part-time (fixed term-II/ FT-II) positions.  As a result, Intra-University Relations was charged with determining the extent to which FT-I and FT-II faculty are utilized at Penn State and Faculty Affairs was charged with determining how this affects faculty development and the academic climate.  In the fall of 1999, the Senate Committee on Faculty Affairs conducted a limited pilot survey related to this issue.  A comprehensive University-wide survey was beyond the resources of Faculty Affairs.  The pilot study was a preliminary assessment to allow this issue to be brought forward for further consideration and discussion.  The study was completed in the spring of 2000.  Attachment 1 is a summary of the compiled results.

 

RECOMMENDATIONS

 

Based in part on the results of this study, the Committee on Faculty Affairs is making the following recommendations.

1.)        Individual units should evaluate trends in the use of their fixed term faculty with the goal of defining how to balance meeting the needs of new programs, research, enrollment, and budget constraints with the need to maintain the academic environment and its standards.  The Provost should develop a means to oversee the trends across the University for a perspective on their impact on the educational and academic environment of the University as a whole.

2.)        In its strategic plan, each academic unit should describe its goals for hiring faculty off the tenure track in either full-time (FT-I) or part-time (FT-II) positions. The plan should describe how the different kinds of faculty help achieve or contribute to the unit’s goals and objectives.

3.)        Whenever a faculty member is hired, whether on or off the tenure track, the letter of offer should include the new hire’s responsibility to the unit and the unit’s responsibility to the new hire.  In an effort to promote inclusiveness, the expectation is that the new hire and other faculty in the unit will understand how the new appointment is relevant to the unit’s strategic plan.  Adequate resources should be allocated to support newly hired faculty in accordance with his/her qualifications, experience, and expected contribution to the unit.

4.)        Each unit should establish guidelines to promote achievement of fixed-term faculty.  The expectation is that, for appropriate appointments, this will include ways to promote faculty development, ways to reward and recognize achievement, and guidelines for promotion under appropriate circumstances.

5.)        Whenever a faculty member is hired off the tenure track, whether FT-I or FT-II, University policies and guidelines are pertinent to the position should be communicated to the new faculty member.  These policies and guidelines are HR-05, HR-36, HR-61, HR-21, HR-24, HR-40 and Administrative Guidelines for HR-23 (Section 5E).  Policies relating to benefits are in Attachment 2.

6.)        The Senate Committee on Intra-University Relations should continue to provide periodic informational reports to the Senate on the use and numbers of faculty on and off the tenure track at various locations.  Future reports should include data from the College of Medicine and the College of Law which were omitted from the last report.

 

BACKGROUND

Nationwide incremental changes have been occurring in faculty hiring over the last twenty-five years.  The trends have been to hire more full-time faculty off the tenure track and to replace full-time faculty with part-time positions.  The United States Education Department published a report documenting the increased use of part-time faculty (Part-Timers Continue to Replace Full-Timers on College Faculties. Chronicle Higher Ed, A18:1/28/2000).  A report of data compiled by the Coalition on the Academic Workforce confirms the significant use of nontenure-track faculty who receive lower pay and fewer benefits than their tenure track peers (Study Shows Colleges’ Heavy Reliance on Their Part-Time Instructors. Chronicle Higher Ed., A12:12/1/2000).  Although some institutions have converted positions from part-time to full-time, the new positions were not on the tenure track (How a University Created 95 Faculty Slots and Scaled Back its Use of Part-Timers. Chronicle Higher Ed: A18,10/22/1999).  Such positions have inherent problems, especially in the sciences (Soft Money’s Hard Realities.  Science 289: 2024, 2000).    

 

Discussions among the Faculty Affairs Committee members led to the development of a different questionnaire for each group - tenure track faculty, faculty administrators and faculty not on the tenure track (without regard to full-time or part-time status).  This pilot study included ten locations – Abington, Altoona, Berks, Capital College, Carlisle, Erie, Great Valley, Hershey, Mont Alto, and University Park.  For the survey of faculty not on the tenure track, 24 responses were received from University Park and 37 from other locations for a total of 61 responses.  For the tenure track survey, 64 responses were received from University Park and 50 from other locations for a total of 114.  For the faculty administrators, 15 responses were received from University Park and 23 from other locations for a total of 38 responses. The total number of responses was 213.  The percent of returned questionnaires is unknown.  Attachment 1 is a summary of compiled results.

 

RATIONALE

 The impact of faculty not pursuing tenure on the professional development of tenure track faculty and on the academic climate is highly variable throughout the University.  Some units have no non-tenure track positions while others have significant numbers.  From this pilot study we conclude that hiring faculty off the tenure track often gives the unit needed flexibility to address short-term problems.  This has the positive effect of allowing expansion and contraction of faculty based on enrollment and new course requirements.  In addition, these individuals often relieve the teaching obligations of tenure track and research faculty.  The positions have budgetary advantages because they reduce personnel and research costs.  These positions can also bring professional relevance to the classroom for those who have significant careers outside the classroom.  In many cases these faculty have contributed significantly but too often they are under-valued, under-committed to the University and have an overall negative effect.  

 

However, use of FT-I and FT-II faculty often creates a two-tier faculty with two cultures that can adversely affect morale – especially the morale of some non tenure-track faculty.  In some units the turnover and degree of commitment of faculty hired off the tenure track are perceived to have an adverse effect on continuity for students, courses and the curriculum so that academic quality might be compromised.  The Faculty Affairs Committee believes that the recommendations we have put forward will foster a positive environment for non-tenure track faculty where they will be embraced as valued colleagues and their professional development will be encouraged.

 

SENATE COMMITTEE ON FACULTY AFFAIRS

Shelton S. Alexander

Seyed Saad Andaleeb

Kultegin Aydin

Ingrid Blood

Melvin Blumberg

Clay Calvert

Lynn A. Carpenter

Renee D. Diehl

James M. Donovan

Jacqueline R. Esposito

Dorothy H. Evenson

Veronique M. Foti

Margaret B. Goldman

Elizabeth Hanley

Ravinder Koul

Robert LaPorte

Sallie M. McCorkle

Louis Milakofsky, Chair

Victor Romero

William A. Rowe

Robert Secor

Jeffery M. Sharp

Stephen W. Stace

Kim Steiner

Valerie N. Stratton, V-Chair

 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON FACULTY DEVELOPMENT

Syed Saad Andaleeb

Ingrid Blood

Jacqueline P. Esposito

Veronique M. Foti

Margaret B. Goldman, Chair

Elizabeth Hanley

Valerie N. Stratton

 

ATTACHMENT 1

SUMMARY OF THE RESULTS OF THE THREE SURVEYS

 

The following is a summary of the responses to the pilot study.  The percent responses to questions is given to get a sense of the magnitude of positive answers and is not meant to imply that the survey can be subject to rigorous statistical analysis.  That was not the intent of the Committee on Faculty Affairs.

 

SURVEY OF FACULTY HIRED OFF THE TENURE TRACK

In the responses to the pilot survey, the majority of non-tenure track faculty were not actively seeking another position (78%) and were supported by departmental funds (85%).  Reasons for choosing such a position varied, but for 43% this was the only option available.  Twenty-four percent at UP versus 6% at other locations wanted to focus on teaching while 25% overall took a position off the tenure track because it was compatible with other responsibilities.  Outside UP, 20% took the position because they lacked a Ph.D. degree.  Some (14%) felt there was no advantage in such a position.  UP faculty felt the advantage was less pressure and fewer responsibilities (33%) or the ability to devote more time to teaching (18%).  Non-UP faculty cited advantages as the lack of a need to publish (20%), a more flexible schedule (13%) and more time devoted to teaching and students (13%).  UP faculty thought the major disadvantages were the perceived lower status (35%) and less competitive salary (15%).  Faculty at other campuses were concerned about their lower salary (33%) and lower benefits (15%), their lack of job security (30%), their lower status and perceived lack of respect (27%), their lack of support funds and staff (21%) and the lack of opportunities for promotion and tenure (15%).

Faculty who are not on the tenure track are evaluated (88%) but sometimes only by students (19%).  They also have the opportunity to participate in professional development seminars (89%), and have adequate academic support (90%) and office space (72%) compared to their colleagues.  However, there are problems because only half felt they were adequately recognized and valued.  Although the faculty who responded to the survey participate in curriculum development (73%), they do not advise student organizations (70%), and neither participate actively in faculty governance (74%) nor in departmental governance (55%).  Forty-one per cent feel constrained in expressing their opinions in academic matters so that academic freedom may be undermined.

 

SURVEY OF TENURE TRACK FACULTY

The group felt policies toward them could be improved by better communication of University policies, improvement in pay and benefits with increased use of multi-year contracts, establishment of a reward and recognition system and establishment of uniformity and clarity in evaluation.

The survey of tenure track faculty showed that half felt they saw a shift to hiring more full-time faculty off the tenure track and half felt their courses and teaching had been affected.  At UP the majority of respondents (73%) saw no shift to hiring more part-time faculty.  At other locations half the respondents saw a shift and often this was to meet the needs of increased enrollment and sometimes as a response to new programs.  Tenure track faculty (79%) felt the use of faculty hired off the tenure track solved some problems such as helping teaching, meeting short-term needs without having to make a commitment, saving money and aiding research.  They enable flexibility and accommodation of special situations.  Tenure track faculty (77%) felt the use of faculty hired off the tenure track creates problems as well.  Non-tenure track faculty are often treated as second-class citizens, they are often undervalued and exploited and they can be less committed to the department, the University and to teaching.  The overall consequences are negative.

 

Tenure track faculty felt that policies could be improved by developing official guidelines that would include standards for hiring and retention of faculty not on the tenure track.  The responsibilities of each of these faculty members within the unit need to be defined clearly and the units need to develop a more inclusive approach to these faculty members.  Various suggestions were made to address the perceived negative effect of these positions.  They included developing more uniform salary and rewards as a disincentive for hiring off the tenure track, limiting the number of these positions or providing better opportunities for conversion to the tenure track or to multi-year contracts.

 

SURVEY OF FACULTY ADMINISTRATORS

Faculty administrators surveyed (73%) are using more full-time faculty not on the tenure track (FT-I) because of increases in enrollment, scarcity of Ph.D.’s in certain fields, research needs, clinical needs, and the need for special courses.  They (49%) are using more part-time faculty (FT-II) as well.  Part-time faculty are used because of course demands resulting from increased enrollment and because some hires only want to work part-time.  The respondents (46%) felt that the use of faculty not on the tenure track sometimes affected the mission of the department/college and sometimes affected relations within the department and between departments (31%).  Their use impacts the departmental budget (66%).  Half the respondents felt the use of these faculty affected how courses were taught (47%), curriculum planning (47%), and faculty development (39%).  For the group that was sampled, the use of FT-I and FT-II faculty appears to have had less of an impact at UP than at other locations in the following areas:  faculty and peer evaluation  (13% UP vs. 56% elsewhere); faculty advising and mentoring (15% UP vs. 61% elsewhere); faculty committee work (20% UP vs. 57% elsewhere); faculty retention (no effect UP vs. 30% elsewhere).


ATTACHMENT 2

REPORT ON BENEFITS AVAILABLE TO FACULTY H IRED OFF THE TENURE TRACK IN FULL-TIME (FIXED TERM I) AND PART-TIME (FIXED TERM II) APPOINTMENTS

The following report was approved by the Senate Committee on Faculty Benefits, Spring 2000.

           

             All Penn State faculty are classified either as "regular" or "non‑regular" employees.  A regular faculty employee is one appointed under the sub‑classification heading of "Academic" or "Academic Administrator" in a full-time position that exists for at least 6 months.  The only exception is that persons on an academic appointment designated as "Visiting" are classified as non‑regular employees.   A non‑regular faculty employee is anyone granted a Fixed Term II or Visiting academic appointment, OR who fills a position that will exist for less than 6 months, OR who is working on less than a full‑time work schedule, OR whose position title includes the words "part‑time".  Full-time faculty members on the tenure track have a Standing appointment.  Full-time faculty members on not on the tenure track have a Standing Appointment, a Fixed term I single-year appointment or have a Fixed term I- Multi-year appointment.  Faculty members, who are not on the tenure track and are part-time, receive a Fixed Term II appointment.

 

            By these definitions, a faculty member appointed as Standing, Fixed Term Multi‑Year or Fixed Term I is considered a regular employee and thus is covered by all policies applicable to the University's employee benefits plans, educational privileges for employees and eligible dependents, plus Workers' Compensation and Unemployment Compensation programs.  With respect to benefits, two provisions are different for Fixed Term I appointments relative to Standing appointments.  The first is that only Standing Appointment tenure track faculty may apply for sabbatical leave.  The second concerns the option for having a 9‑month (36 week) salary paid in 12 installments instead of 9.   Fixed Term I faculty classified as "exempt" with no summer duties cannot receive 9/12ths of their annual salary each month during the first 2 years of their employment and thus are paid only during the months worked.  Any person appointed on a "non‑exempt" basis will only receive a paycheck while working, not in 12ths.

 

            The benefits available to part-time faculty are considerably different from those of full-time faculty.  Major differences that apply to Fixed Term II or Part‑Time faculty are itemized here.

 

      1.  University‑sponsored healthcare plans (PPO, POS plans, HMOs, etc.) are available to these faculty once they complete 24 months of University service and have taught at least 15 credits in each 12 month period.   Once qualified, Fixed Term II faculty must continue to meet these criteria.   Monthly costs will vary by healthcare plan and are equal to the full‑time employee cost plus one-half of the employer cost.

 

      2.   Fixed Term II or Part‑Time faculty are not eligible for participation in University‑sponsored dental or vision plans, the Long‑Term Disability insurance plan, the Voluntary Accidental Death and Dismemberment plan, and or the University‑sponsored Life Insurance plan, and/or the Flexible Benefits Reimbursement Accounts.

 

      3.  Benefits-eligible Fixed Term II or Part‑Time faculty may utilize the Employee Assistance Program, and may elect to have the cost of their medical coverage deducted on a pre-taxed basis.

 

      4.   Participation in a University retirement plan is mandatory once the employee has reached 750 hours worked in one calendar year; continuation in subsequent years is required but no minimum number of hours worked is specified to remain in the plan.

 

      5.   Fixed Term II and Part‑Time faculty are covered by Workers' Compensation and Unemployment Compensation Insurance to the extent allowed under State regulations.  For details of these coverages, the employee should contact the Human Resources representative in their College.

 

      6.   All Fixed Term II and Part‑Time faculty may also elect to participate in a University-sponsored tax‑deferred annuity (TDA) plan.   Deductions are based on a percentage of salary (up to legal limits) but may be taken only if sufficient salary remains to cover required deductions (e.g. taxes, fees).   Previously TDA participation was limited to those part-time employees enrolled in a University retirement plan.

 

      7.   Educational privileges for self and eligible dependents are available for those appointed on a full time Fixed Term II or full time Visiting Faculty appointment for at least 1 semester or summer session if their appointment covers both the beginning and end of the semester or summer session.

 

      8.   Faculty are eligible for participation in the Federal Family and Medical Leave Act program if they have worked for the University for at least 12 months and at least 1,250 hours during the 12‑month period immediately prior to the leave.

 

 

SENATE COMMITTEE ON FACULTY BENEFITS (1999-2000)

Keith Burkhart

James May      

Timothy Ovaert

Laura Pauley, Vice-Chair

Allen Phillips, Chair

Lawrence Sinoway

Gerhard Strasser

Jose Ventura

Anita Vickers

Billie Willits

J. Randall Woolridge

 

COMMITTEE ON FACULTY AFFAIRS

 

Recommendations for Emeritus/Retired Faculty

 

(Advisory/Consultative)

 

[Implementation Date: Upon Approval by the President]

 

INTRODUCTION

 

In the 1999-2000 academic year, the Committee on Faculty Affairs began discussing issues related to emeritus faculty.  Based on casual observations and recent articles dealing with nation-wide concerns, we were aware of some dissatisfactions with respect to the degree of involvement retirees have with the University.  There is limited University-wide effort to maintain relationships with retired faculty or to utilize their valuable expertise.  One notable exception is the Provost's Emeritus Faculty Teaching Scholars program.  Under this program, funding is made available to the academic unit for use by the emeritus faculty member to support his/her teaching, research, and outreach activities.  Recently, the University of Iowa conducted an extensive study to explore how the University might better serve their emeritus faculty and how the emeritus faculty might better serve the University.  No such study has ever occurred at Penn State, and no surveys of retired faculty have been conducted.

 

Thus, the Committee on Faculty Affairs decided to conduct a survey of retired faculty to assess the degree of satisfaction among Penn State retirees.  The survey included questions to determine retirees' use and awareness of available benefits, areas of satisfaction and dissatisfaction, and degree of involvement with the university since retirement (See Attachment A).  The survey was sent to a random sample of 300 retirees, both emeritus and non-emeritus, from all locations.  A total of 170 usable surveys were returned.

RECOMMENDATIONS

 

Based in part on the results of the survey, the Committee on Faculty Affairs recommends the following:

 

  1. Departments, colleges, and campuses should be encouraged to make more use of qualified emeritus and other retired faculty.  They may substitute for faculty who are on leave or attending conferences, or teach introductory or specialty courses when needed.  They may serve on thesis and dissertation committees when appropriate.  Some incentives to support their teaching, research, or outreach-related activities should be offered when retired faculty members teach a regular course or take on substantial instructional responsibilities.
  1. Departments and/or colleges should make retired faculty aware of opportunities to mentor students and faculty at all levels.
  1. Retired faculty who are active in research, teaching, or University service should be provided office space on campus within their home college when feasible.  Departmental/ college support, such as secretarial services, supplies, travel stipends, software, parking, etc., should be encouraged as appropriate to the retiree's contribution to the program.  Whenever possible, lab space should be provided for retirees who maintain an active research program that contributes to the field and the department's mission. 
  1. Retired faculty should be encouraged by their departments, colleges, and campuses to remain involved in departmental and collegiate activities.  This may be accomplished through newsletters, email announcements, invitations to department/campus events, use of retirees on committees and in other service capacities as needed, such as contacting potential donors in fund-raising efforts.  Deans should be made aware of how department/division heads are engaging retired faculty.
  1. The Office of Human Resources should designate an Employee Benefits officer to be responsible for retired faculty and staff issues.  This person should ensure that faculty at all University locations have equal access to information and problem resolution concerning all retirement benefits.
  1. The Joint Committee on Insurance and Benefits should continue to consider extending medical insurance for retirees to include some amount of vision and dental insurance, and should explore the availability of a deductible policy that could provide long-term care or coverage for catastrophic events at a reasonable cost.
  1. The Senate Committee on Committees and Rules should propose the establishment of representation of emeritus faculty in the University Faculty Senate by having a voting member elected from and by emeritus faculty.
  1. The University should consider establishing or extending the equivalent of senior-citizen discounts for University-sponsored activities and events.
  1. Periodic surveys of retired faculty should be conducted by the Senate Committee on Faculty Affairs to monitor the success of any steps taken by the University and to identify other areas of satisfaction and dissatisfaction within other samples and in other time periods. 

BACKGROUND

 

Retirement is different for academics than for many other professions.  While in most careers retirement is seen as a time to leave that work behind and relax or go on to something else, the career of being a university faculty member is much more tied to a person's identity and intrinsic interests; it is more of an avocation than a vocation.  Additionally, the ultimate goal and focus of academics - wisdom - is something that comes only with experience and age, just about when the average faculty member retires.  Indeed, many faculty are reluctant to retire, and since the repeal of a mandatory retirement age, more faculty are staying on the job beyond the age of 65 or older.

 

Recent articles in The Chronicle of Higher Education have addressed this issue.  Nation-wide, nearly one-third of full-time faculty are 55 or older due to a surge of hiring in the 60s and 70s.   Within the next ten years, this large block of faculty will be reaching the traditional age of retirement.  Two problems will develop for universities at that time.  If many of those faculty retire, universities will be losing a valuable resource.  Those faculty include some of the best teachers and mentors; they provide a connection between alumni and the institution; and they have the experience, wisdom and institutional memory needed by younger faculty to avoid reinventing the wheel.  On the other hand, if those faculty don't retire, universities lose the opportunity to hire new blood, change program foci, diversify the faculty and hire specialists in modern areas.  Many of the faculty who don't retire at 65 or 70 are at top research universities and are the most productive in research areas.  To quote one article from the Chronicle (Magner, 2000), "Universities don't want these faculty to go away.  They would just like them to stop getting paid."

 

Another reason faculty may not want to retire is the poor treatment they receive after retirement.  As another article in the Chronicle (Parini, 2000) points out, there is no merit in emeritus in most colleges.  Once retired, faculty are forgotten about and cut off from their life work. 

 

Detailed results of our survey are attached.  Attachment B presents a summary of the demographics of the respondents; Attachment C shows the extent of usage and awareness of the various benefits available for retirees; and Attachment D gives the percentages of respondents who supported the recommendations from the University of Iowa report.  Overall, the results indicate that the observations made above are true for Penn State retirees.  There are many dissatisfactions among Penn State retirees.  One open-ended question asked respondents to identify specific satisfactions and dissatisfactions with respect to support from or involvement with the university since retirement.  Far more dissatisfactions were reported than satisfactions, with higher rates of dissatisfactions at non-UP locations.  The satisfactions identified included having office space, use of department facilities, health insurance, computer access account, teaching opportunities, athletic facilities, and being informed and involved with department activities.  But it was a minority of the respondents who reported these benefits.  Far more respondents reported dissatisfactions including lack of parking (primarily at UP), lack of vision and dental insurance, not being permitted to teach, and lack of involvement or contact with the department.  Many comments dealt with feeling ignored and rejected.  One respondent said his use of facilities to continue research was questioned by University attorneys.  Another said the Engineering library asked that he not use the facility.  Two references were made to other universities with which the respondents had better experiences in terms of being encouraged to stay involved and with respect to medical coverage.  Several felt that retirees represent a vast pool of expertise not being used by the University.

 

The survey asked for suggestions for ways to improve the relationship between the University and retired faculty.  Many of the suggestions, of course, related to the dissatisfactions described above.  The suggestions included: make occasional parking cheaper and easier; add vision and dental insurance; allow half-time contracts for emeritus faculty as Iowa and Texas do; give discounts for events at Eisenhower, Schwab, etc.; send the Intercom to all retirees who want it.  Many suggestions related to the issue of contact and involvement: have departments make more effort to include retirees; give occasional acknowledgments of services; show retirees more respect; give retirees faculty voting power.  The most strongly supported recommendations from the University of Iowa study were to make more use of retirees for teaching, to provide office space and other support, to urge departments to make retirees more welcome to participate in departmental activities, to have a liaison in the Employee Benefits office to assist retirees with questions and problems, and to conduct periodic surveys of the retired faculty.  One respondent simply said, "Do something!"

 

RATIONALE

 

The recommendations being made are direct responses to the comments and suggestions made by the respondents to our survey.  More opportunities for greater involvement in teaching, research, and service, and a more welcoming atmosphere are clearly desired by the retirees.  With respect to health benefits and retirement information, greater consistency across the system is needed, and a designated Employee Benefits officer could help ensure this occurs.  Vision and dental insurance may currently be too expensive to provide, but this was a clearly expressed need by the retirees and should be explored on an on-going basis.  Senate representation for emeritus faculty was suggested and would provide some voice in University affairs from an important and experienced group.

 

The primary goal of these recommendations is to help bring the University to a position where it is better serving the retirees and the retirees are better serving the University.  Retirement need not be a cause of losing the expertise of senior faculty.  The survey results strongly indicate the desire for such changes among the retirees, other universities have already implemented such measures, and these suggestions are simply decent things to do.  Indeed, the establishment of the Emeritus Teaching Scholars program represents a recognition by the University of the valuable resource which retired faculty are.  However, this is just a beginning.  We believe that the University must continue to move in the direction of these recommendations for the ultimate benefit of all involved.

 

 

References

 

     Magner, D.K. (March 17, 2000). The imminent surge in retirements. The Chronicle of Higher Education, pp A18-20.

 

     Parini, J. (May 12, 2000). Living up to the meaning of 'emeritus.' The Chronicle of Higher Education, p A68.

 

SENATE  COMMITTEE ON FACULTY AFFAIRS

Shelton S. Alexander                           

Syed Saad Andaleeb                                       

Kultegin Aydin                         

Ingrid Blood                                        

Melvin Blumberg                                 

Clay Calvert                                        

Lynn A. Carpenter                               

Renee D. Diehl                        

James M. Donovan                              

Jackie R. Esposito                                           

Dorothy H. Evensen                            

Veronique M. Foti                               

Margaret B. Goldman                          

Elizabeth Hanley

Ravinder Koul

Robert La Porte

Sallie M. McCorkle

Louis Milakofsky, Chair

Victor Romero

William A. Rowe

Robert Secor

Jeffery M. Sharp

Stephen W. Stace

Kim Steiner

Valerie N. Stratton, V-Chair

 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON FACULTY DEVELOPMENT

Syed Saad Andaleeb

Ingrid Blood

Jackie R. Esposito

Veronique M. Foti

Margaret B. Goldman, Chair

Elizabeth Hanley

Valerie N. Stratton

 

 

RETIRED  FACULTY  SURVEY

 

 

This survey is being conducted by the Faculty Affairs Committee at The Pennsylvania State University. The purpose of the survey is to assess how the university might support retired faculty and how retired faculty might serve the university. The survey is confidential. Please take a few minutes to respond to the following questions. Upon completion, please return the survey using the postage paid envelope.

 

Please indicate which of the following University benefits you use, you don't use but are aware of, or you don't use because you were not aware of them:

 

Benefits for all retired faculty:

 

USE         AWARE OF, BUT     NOT AWARE OF,

                DON'T USE              DON'T USE            

 

 o              o                     o                  PSU ID card

 

 o              o                     o                  Library privileges

 

 o              o                     o                  Computer access account

 

 o              o                     o                  "True PSU" long-distance telephone service

 

 o              o                     o                  Use of athletic facilities

 

 o              o                     o                  Tuition reduction benefits

 

 o              o                     o                  Member of Faculty-Staff Club

 

 o              o                     o                  Member of Retired Faculty-Staff Club

 

 

Benefits for Emeritus faculty:

 

 o              o                     o                  Parking permit

 

 o              o                     o                  Listing in Faculty-Staff Directory

 

 o              o                     o                  Receive the Intercom (also available after 25 years service)

 

 

What other benefits/privileges do you receive through your college/division/department

(e.g., office/lab space, announcements, secretarial help, etc.)?

 

 

                                                                                                                                                           

The following recommendations were made by a recent task force at the University of Iowa which explored issues related to Emeritus/Retired Faculty.  Please indicate which of the following recommendations you feel Penn State should institute.

 

SHOULD   SHOULD

    DO         NOT DO

 

   o          o     1. Form a corps of retired faculty to serve on committees, meet with

                            prospective students, assist with freshman orientation, etc.

 

   o          o     2. Allow emeritus faculty to mentor new faculty members and

                            departmental/divisional heads.

 

   o          o     3. Use retired faculty for instruction when regular faculty are on leave,

                            to fill in on dissertation committees.

 

 o         o     4. Provide office/lab space, facilitate funding applications, etc. to support

    retired faculty who are teaching and/or conducting research

 

   o          o     5. Urge departments and colleges to welcome retired faculty to participate

                            in departmental and college activities.

 

   o          o     6. Encourage retired faculty to mentor faculty members contemplating

                            retirement.

 

   o          o     7. Have retired faculty encourage and assist faculty approaching

                            retirement to save and donate to the University Archives papers that

                            have historical significance for the university.

 

   o          o     8. Establish an ongoing emeritus council which will share responsibility

                            for emeritus affairs with an administrative office.

 

   o          o     9. Appoint a member of the Employee Benefits office as liaison for

                            retired faculty and staff for assisting with benefits questions and

    problems.

 

   o          o  10. Conduct periodic surveys of retired faculty to gather additional ideas

                            on ways they and the university can better serve each other, and to

                            explore the extent of retirees' interest in maintaining a close relationship

                            with the university.

 

 

Overall, how satisfied are you with the support and degree of involvement you have with the university and/or your department/division?

 

                        1                      2                      3                      4                      5

                      very             somewhat        neutral           somewhat           very

                  unsatisfied      unsatisfied                               satisfied           satisfied

 

 

When planning to retire, did you receive enough information with respect to retirement issues such as pension, benefits, department status, etc.?  Explain.

 

In what ways have you been involved with university/department/division activities since you retired?

 

Please identify any specific satisfactions or dissatisfactions you have with respect to support from or involvement with the university since you have retired.

 

Do you have any additional suggestions for ways to improve the relationship between the university and retired/emeritus faculty?

 

Year you retired ___________                        Emeritus?    yes  o         no  o

 

Number of years at Penn State ______         Rank at retirement ___________________

 

Current age ________                                    Sex   M ___   F ___

 

College/Department/Campus ___________________________________________

 

Thank you

 

 

Summary of Demographics of Respondents

 

Of the surveys returned, 56% were emeritus faculty from UP, 17% were non-emeritus from UP, 14% were emeritus from non-UP locations, and 13% were non-emeritus from non-UP locations.  Of the 170 respondents, only 19 were female.  The table below gives average years at Penn State, average years since retiring, and average ratings of satisfaction with support and degree of involvement since retirement (a five point rating scale was used with 1 indicating "very unsatisfied" and 5 "very satisfied").

 

 

             Emeritus

        Non-Emeritus

      UP

  non-UP

      UP

  non-UP

Years at PSU

     30.20

    26.00

    29.60

    24.80

Years since retiring

       7.50

      5.90

    10.10

    10.00

Satisfaction with degree

of involvement (5 point scale)

       3.40

 

      3.33

 

      3.25

 

      2.80

 

 

 

TABLE 1

 

  PERCENTAGE OF RESPONDENTS WHO USE, DON'T USE BUT ARE AWARE OF, OR ARE UNAWARE OF AVAILABLE BENEFITS

 

 

          USE

    DON'T USE

  UNAWARE OF

    UP

NON-UP

    UP

NON-UP

    UP

NON-UP

PSU ID

    69

    30

    22

    26

     9

    43

LIBRARY

    54

    48

    38

    26

     6

    26

COMPUTER ACCESS

    56

    37

    31

    20

    11

    43

TRUE PSU

     8

     9

    11

    13

    76

    78

ATHLETIC FACILITIES

    29

     9

    62

    47

     7

    44

REDUCED TUITION

     7

     9

    76

    65

    13

    26

FAC/STAFF CLUB

    12

     2

    59

    39

    25

    59

RETIREES CLUB

    20

     4

    49

    24

    29

    72

PARKING*

    40

 

    36

 

    22

 

PSU DIRECTORY*

    67

    46

    15

     8

    32

    46

INTERCOM**

    72

    49

     6

    11

    19

    29

 

* Emeritus only                         **Emeritus or 25 years of service

TABLE 2

 

PERCENTAGE OF RESPONDENTS WHO SUPPORT RECOMMENDATIONS FROM UNIVERSITY OF IOWA REPORT - SEPARATED ACCORDING TO LOCATION

AND EMERITUS STATUS

 

 

    LOCATION

     STATUS

   UP

NON-UP

 EMER

  NON- 

  EMER

1. Form corps of retirees for    

    service activities

   44

   63

  48

   51

2. Allow emeritus faculty to

    mentor new faculty

   49

   65

  59

   39

3. Use retired faculty as

    substitute instructors

   72

   80

  79

   65

4. Provide office space and other

    support

   83

   87

  90

   71

5. Urge departments to welcome

    retirees in activities

   80

   80

  85

   71

6. Have retirees mentor faculty

    contemplating retirement

   67

   67

  68

   67

7. Have retirees assist in saving

    information in University Archives

   69

   72

  64

   82

8. Establish emeritus council to

    work with admin. office

   58

   61

  67

   39

9. Have liaison in Employee

    Benefits to aid retirees

   82

   91

  86

   82

10. Conduct periodic surveys of

    retired faculty

   82

   89

  86

   78

 

 

SENATE COMMITTEE ON UNIVERSITY PLANNING

 

Recommendation for Developing an Ecologically Sustainable University

 

(Advisory and Consultative)

 

[Implementation Date: Upon Approval by the President]

 

BACKGROUND

 

            In September 1998, a group of Penn State faculty, staff and students released The Penn State Indicators Report.   This report did something that had never before been done--it examined Penn State through the lens of sustainability to evaluate whether the University was moving toward or away from sustainable practices.    This analysis relied on thirty-four sustainability indicators in areas such as energy, food, water, waste, transportation, buildings, and decision-making. 

 

            The 1998 Indicators Report attracted both local and national attention and in late 1999 the "Indicators" group created Penn State's Green Destiny Council, a faculty-staff-student association committed to promoting ecological responsibility at Penn State.  The Green Destiny Council believes that institutions of higher education can be leverage points in the transition to a sustainable society in so far as they model sustainable practices and foster ecological literacy. 

 

            In April 2000, the Green Destiny Council released Indicators 2000, an update of the original 1998 Indicators Report (http://www.bio.psu.edu/Greendestiny/indicators.shtml).   The new report cites some improvements at Penn State but makes it clear that there is still a considerable sustainability deficit at our university.    The Report suggests that the time has come to join Penn State's individual environmental initiatives into a comprehensive Ecological Mission.   

 

            What would an Ecological Mission look like for Penn State?  Simply stated, it would define the pre-conditions for genuine sustainability at Penn State.  For example, in the area of energy use, an essential precondition for long-term sustainability is the significant reduction in university's reliance on fossil fuels.  The unrestrained use of fossil fuels throughout the world causes air pollution, acid precipitation, chronic health problems, and, very likely, climate change.  American universities, like Penn State, are in a position to set an example to students, business and society in general of ecological responsibility by articulating an ecological mission which includes a commitment to reduce fossil fuel dependence.  Indeed, leading the way on this important effort is intimately related to the mission of a great university.  In fact it is paramount that we, the University, set an example for our students on being ecologically sustainable. 

 

            Another precondition for genuine sustainability is the adoption of practices that dramatically reduce waste.  At present, Penn State continually receives products from distant sources, consumes these products, and then funnels enormous quantities of waste to distant landfills.  Instead Penn State needs, as a component of its long-term ecological mission, the clear intent to minimize solid, liquid and hazardous wastes.    

            A comprehensive ecological mission for Penn State would also include long-term targets in the realms of water conservation, land stewardship, low-impact transportation, sustainable food production, and "green" building construction.

 

            Of course, all of us in the Penn State community recognize that there will be up-front costs involved in doing such things as reducing dependence on fossil fuels, promoting zero-waste technologies, and constructing "green" buildings, but we also know that waste is expensive and that up-front investments in sustainable practices might pay off over the long-term, especially if environmental and social costs were calculated and educational benefits were tallied.  

 

            Another major result of the University adopting a policy and actions in regards to sustainability is the impact on students.  Indeed, some would say that this is the most important outcome.  If the University sets an example of sustainability it would be a powerful role model for our students and greatly multiply the effects of the undertaking.  Graduates having experienced living in such an environment while attending Penn State will carry this orientation with them throughout their lives and influence other individuals and organizations.

RATIONALE

 

            There is a need for Penn State to develop long term goals in regards to ecological sustainability and to incorporate them into the University’s Strategic Plan.  These goals would encourage all sectors of the University to explore resource-use options that are more conserving, healthful, and efficient.  It is our sincere hope that the Faculty Senate will endorse the recommendation listed below which supports the Green Destiny Council's general ecological mission policy statement.  By doing so, we will set an example for our students and society on how to meet the many environmental challenges of today and in the future.  Supporting ecological sustainability will not only promote environmental improvements within the University and Pennsylvania, but also economic health.  As Senator Gaylord Nelson put it, “the environment is the economy.”  By adopting a strong position on these issues, our University will stand out as a leader on this front.  This leadership role will attract students, faculty and funding for the University in addition to enhancing Pennsylvania’s reputation with regard to environmental stewardship.

RECOMMENDATION

 

The Faculty Senate hereby recommends that Penn State incorporate, to the fullest extent possible, the following LONG-TERM GOALS into all future University Strategic Plans.

           

SENATE COMMITTEE ON UNIVERSITY PLANNING

P. Richard Althouse

William J. Anderson, Jr.

Anthony J. Baratta, V-Chair

Michael J. Cardamone

David Chao

Peter Deines, Chair

Peter B. Everett

William M. Frank

Daniel R. Hagen

Ali R. Hurson

Ernest W. Johnson

Daniel G. Kiefer

Rodney Kirsch

Robert N. Pangborn

Louise E. Sandmeyer

Michael C. Saunders

Gary C. Schultz

Marley W. Watkins

Beno Weiss

Daniel E. Willis

 

SENATE COMMITTEE ON ADMISSIONS, RECORDS,

SCHEDULING AND STUDENT AID

Reserved Spaces Program

(Informational Report)

            "Reserved Spaces" represent spaces at the University Park Campus reserved for eligible freshmen with special needs that cannot be met at non-University Park locations.  These spaces are generally for students whose predicted GPA's are below the cutoffs for regular fall admissions for University Park.

 

            In nearly all cases, students admitted at the University Park Campus through the Reserved Spaces Program meet the basic admission standards of the University.  In some instances, it is not possible to calculate a predicted GPA (there were 4 such cases in 2000).  This is sometimes the issue for an international student.  There are, on occasion, special circumstances that warrant dropping below the 2.00 minimum predicted GPA, although there were no cases of this in 2000 admissions.

 

            A large number of the reserved spaces (50% in 2000) are for specially talented students in such areas as athletics, the arts and the Blue Band.  Most of these students contribute uniquely both to the educational and cultural life of the entire University Park community.  Spaces are also reserved for veterans, those entering under the Educational Opportunity Program (EOP) and those entering the recently instituted College Assistance Migrant Program (CAMP).  These three groups, along with Arts and Architecture talent admits, are Senate approved.  Two other general classifications account for the remaining students admitted through the Reserved Spaces Program.  "Other Academic" admissions involve students granted entrance by the Office of Undergraduate Admissions' Admissions Review Committee, and students on ROTC scholarships.  Administrative admissions include athletes, members of the Blue Band, and a few additional administrative spaces.

 

            The first table contains data giving a profile of admissions through the Reserved Spaces Program for six of the years since the program began in 1984.  During this time, the approved maximum for the program has been reduced and the number actually admitted each year through the program has been below the approved limit.  In 2000, 5.81% of the entering fall semester freshman class at University Park was admitted through the Reserved Spaces Program.  This is a substantial reduction from 1984, both in absolute number and percentage of new freshmen.  The second table provides a distribution by category over the same six years. Thethird table indicates the distribution of admissions through the Reserved Spaces by admission category (predicted GPA) for each general classification.

 

            The last table displays the approved limits for Fall 2001 by specific category.  These limits are the same as those for 2000.

 

SENATE COMMITTEE ON ADMISSIONS, RECORDS SCHEDULING AND STUDENT AID

                 

Deborah F. Atwater

Kevin R. Cheesbrough

JoAnn Chirico, Chair

Lynn E. Drafall

Peter Georgopulos, Vice Chair

Anna Griswold

Geoffrey J. Harford

Terry P. Harrison

Amanda Hudnall

Victor Nistor

P. Peter Rebane

John J. Romano

J. James Wager

Roger P. Ware

 

SENATE COMMITTEE ON FACULTY AFFAIRS

 

UniSCOPE 2000 Presentation

(Informational)

 

            As distributed at the September 12 Senate meeting, the UniSCOPE Learning Community has developed a “multidimensional model of scholarship for the 21st century.”  This report recognizes the three missions of the University – teaching, research, and service – as a continuum of scholarship.  The UniSCOPE model serves as a basis for identifying, assessing, and rewarding the types of scholarship in the University.

 

After the December Senate meeting, the Faculty Affairs Committee will review the UniSCOPE report, examine its implications in the promotion and tenure process, and report to the Faculty Senate.  For your information and access, the URL of the UniSCOPE report is:  http://www.cas.psu.edu/docs/CASPROF/keystone21/uniscope/default.htm

 

SENATE COMMITTEE ON FACULTY AFFAIRS

Shelton S. Alexander

Syed S. Andaleeb

Kultegin Aydin

Ingrid M. Blood

Melvin Blumberg

Clay Calvert

Lynn A. Carpenter

Renee D. Diehl

James M. Donovan

Jacqueline P. Esposito

Dorothy H. Evensen

Veronique M. Foti

Margaret B. Goldman

Elizabeth A. Hanley

Ravinder Koul

Robert LaPorte

Sallie M. McCorkle

Louis Milakofsky, Chair

Victor Romero

William A. Rowe

Robert Secor

Jeffery M. Sharp

Stephen W. Stace

Kim C. Steiner

Valerie N. Stratton, V-Chair

 

The Pennsylvania State University

The University Faculty Senate

Birch Cottage (814) 863-0221

Fax:  (814) 863-6012

 

Date:                                                               January 16, 2001

 

To:                                                                  The University Faculty Senate - For Your Information

 

From:                                                              John W. Moore, Chair, Election Commission

 

 

The 2001-2002 Census of the faculty for the University Faculty Senate was conducted in the following manner.

 

Using an information base provided by the Office of Administrative Systems, a Senate census data base was created which included all personnel falling within the definition of the electorate of the University Faculty Senate as defined in Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution of the University Faculty Senate.  This electorate includes all persons who are not candidates for degrees at Penn State, who hold full-time appointments as of 10/30/00, and who fall into one of the following categories:  those holding professorial or librarian titles; those who are full-time instructors, senior lecturers and lecturers or assistant librarians; and those holding research rank (excluding non-continuing).  These lists were sent to Deans and Directors of Academic Affairs of the various voting units for verification.  For the Military Sciences, the list was compiled by the Coordinator of the Combined Departments of the Military Sciences at University Park.  Military Sciences faculty at other locations were counted with that voting unit.  For Librarians, the list was compiled by the Dean of the University Libraries.  The Commonwealth College Librarians were counted with their voting unit.

 

Both a copy of the verified list together with a letter informing the academic voting unit of the number of its electorate and the number of Senate seats to be filled were sent to each Dean and Director of Academic Affairs as well as to the Coordinator of the Military Sciences and the Dean of University Libraries.  A copy of the memo was sent to each Senate Council representative.

 

The total membership of the 2001-2002 University Faculty Senate will be 265.  This total will include 222 elected faculty Senators, 22 appointed and ex officio Senators, and 21 student Senators.  The student Senators will include: one (1) undergraduate from each of the ten (10) colleges at University Park; one (1) from each of the following locations--Abington, Altoona, Berks-Lehigh Valley, Penn State Erie-The Behrend College, Capital College, College of Medicine, Commonwealth College, The Dickinson School of Law, Division of Undergraduate Studies, the Graduate School, and Great Valley School of Graduate Professional Studies.

ELECTION COMMISSION


     


Christopher Bise

Edward Bittner

Barton Browning

Robert Burgess

Peter Deines

Jacob DeRooy

Louis Geschwindner

Deidre Jago

Peter Jurs

John Moore, Chair

 

 

UNIVERSITY FACULTY SENATE OFFICE

Faculty Census Report - 2001/2002

For the Purpose of Election of Senators (As of November 1, 2000)

 

                                                                         2000-01          2 0 0 1  -  2 0 0 2                 2001-02

 

 

 

 

 

 

ACADEMIC VOTING UNITS

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Abington

    98     5

61

    34

 

     2

    97     5

   -

Agricultural Sciences

  284   14

278

      8

    10

 

  296   15

   +1

Altoona

  118     6

 94

    28

 

     4

  126     6

   -

Arts & Architecture

  164     8

149

    14

      1

 

  164     8

   -

Behrend College

  173     9      

103    

    72

      2

     4

  181     9    

   -

Berks-Lehigh Valley

  100     5

 76

    27

 

     4

  107     5

   -

Business Administration

  144     7

116

    30

      4

 

  150     7

   -

Capital College

  195   10

168

    37

 

     5

  210   10

   -

Commonwealth College

  584   29

344

  238

 

   22

  604   30     

   +1

Communications

    56     3

  40

    15

 

 

    55     3

   -

Dickinson School of Law

    39     2

29

      6

      

      6

    41     2    

   -

Earth & Mineral Sciences

  152     8

139

    14

      8

 

  161    8

   -

Education

  133     7

118

    14

      

 

  132    7

   -

Engineering

  469   23

281

      9    

  190

 

  480   24

   +1

Great Valley

    36     2

32     

      7 

 

     1

    40     2 

   -

Health & Human Development

  265   13

176

    91

      7

 

  274   14

   +1

Institute of Sciences & Technology

      5    1

9

      1

      

      

    10    1

   -

Liberal Arts

  429   21

359

    74

10

 

  443   22

   +1

Libraries

    45     2

 

 

 

   52

    52     3

   +1

Medicine

  544   27

485

    13

      2

     3

  503   25

   -2

Military Sciences

    28     1

13

      8

 

 

    21     1

   -

Science

  288   14

230

    63

      5

 

  298   15

   +1

TOTAL

4349 217

3300

  803

239

  103

4445 222

   +5


2

 

Faculty Census Report - 2001/2002

 

For the Purpose of Election of Senators (As of November 1, 2000)

 

 

                                                                         2000-01          2 0 0 1  -  2 0 0 2   2001-2002

 

 

 

 

 

LOCATIONS OF THE

COMMONWEALTH COLLEGE

 

 

 

 

 

Beaver

    37       

    21

    15

     2

    38       

Delaware

    67        

    47

    21

     2

    70       

DuBois

    47       

    33

    14

     2

    49       

Fayette

    50       

    26

    24

     2

    52       

Hazleton

    53      

    30

    26

     2

    58       

McKeesport

    38      

    22

    13

     1

    36       

Mont Alto

    63      

    26

    34

     2

    62       

New Kensington

    35      

    25

    12

     2

    39       

Shenango Valley

    34      

    19

    13

     2

    34       

Wilkes-Barre

    40      

    25

    15

     2

    42       

Worthington Scranton

    59     

    37

    26

     2

    65       

York

    61

    33

    25

     1

    59

Subtotal

  584

  344

  238

    22

   604       

 

SENATE COMMITTEE ON UNDERGRADUATE EDUCATION

 

Summary of Student Petitions by College, Unit or Location

 

(Informational)

 

        The Senate through its committees has permitted students to petition for exceptions to the Senate academic rules found in the Academic Policies, Rules and Procedures for Students.  Implementation and exceptions to these policies are the responsibility of the Senate Committee on Undergraduate Education unless otherwise assigned to another standing committee.

 

        The committee regularly reports to the Senate on the type and number of student petition actions.  This report provides a summary of petitions over the last two years and their sources by colleges and campuses.

 

        The petition provides an opportunity for the student to receive consideration on extenuating circumstances affecting his/her progress.  It is composed of a petition letter and transcript from the student, supporting documents from advisors, instructors, physicians or other appropriate personnel and a review statement by the student’s dean or campus executive officer.  The final decision by the committee represents an effort to weigh the personal circumstances of the individual while maintaining the academic standards of the University.

 

SENATE COMMITTEE ON UNDERGRADUATE EDUCATION

Cheryl Achterberg 

Richard L. Ammon

Theresa A. Balog   

Richard J. Bord     

John J. Cahir         

William J. Campbell                                         

Paul F. Clark         

Rebecca L. Corwin                                         

Cheng Dong          

M. Margaret Galligan                                       

David J. Green

Lynn Hendrickson

Gary L. Hile

Larry J. Kuhns

Jamie M. Myers, Chair

Laura L. Pauley

Robert D. Ricketts, V-Chair

Thomas A. Seybert

Carol A. Smith

Jane S. Sutton

Eric R. White

Jenny Zhang

 

SENATE COMMITTEE ON UNDERGRADUATE EDUCATION

Summary of Student Petitions by Types

 

For The Period 08/01/98 – 07/31/99

 

 

                                                                  Submitted       Granted       Denied

 

                                                                       Drop/Add     754           608      146

 

                                                                       Withdraw      572           508        64

 

               Miscellaneous:

               Corrected Grades        31                   31                   0

               Other                          20                   18                   2

 

                                                                       Totals     1,377              1,165   212

 

 

For The Period 08/01/99 – 07/31/00

                                                                  Submitted       Granted       Denied

 

                                                                       Drop/Add     840           613      227

 

                                                                       Withdraw      561           424      137

 

               Late Registration        286                 284                    2

 

               Miscellaneous:

               Corrected Grades        46                   45                   1

               Other                          24                   24                   0

 

                                                                       Totals     1,757              1,390   367

 

                             

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submitted

 

Submitted

 

% Increase

 

Granted

Denied

 

 

 

1998-99

 

1999-00

 

in Petitions

 

 

 

Abington College

 

72

 

88

 

22%

 

48

40

Agricultural Sciences

 

43

 

61

 

42%

 

46

15

Altoona College

 

79

 

81

 

3%

 

60

21

Arts & Architecture

 

46

 

53

 

15%

 

44

9

Beaver Campus

 

7

 

7

 

0%

 

5

2

Behrend College

 

49

 

54

 

10%

 

41

13

Berks Campus

 

38

 

35

 

-8%

 

29

6

Business Administration

120

 

191

 

59%

 

158

33

Capital College

 

31

 

39

 

26%

 

31

8

Commonwealth College

0

 

2

 

--'

 

2

0

Communications

 

73

 

90

 

23%

 

80

10

Delaware County

 

13

 

23

 

77%

 

21

2

Div. Of Undergraduate Studies

103

 

113

 

10%

 

86

27

DuBois Campus

 

10

 

15

 

50%

 

13

2

Earth & Mineral Sciences

43

 

46

 

7%

 

41

5

Education

 

 

48

 

42

 

-13%

 

37

5

Engineering

 

95

 

152

 

60%

 

121

31

Fayette Campus

 

19

 

15

 

-21%

 

14

1

Hazleton Campus

 

8

 

15

 

88%

 

11

4

Health & Human Development

111

 

154

 

39%

 

138

16

Information Sci. & Tech.

0

 

1

 

--'

 

1

0

Lehigh Valley

 

4

 

6

 

50%

 

4

2

Liberal Arts

 

113

 

212

 

88%

 

168

44

McKeesport Campus

 

22

 

25

 

14%

 

15

10

Mont Alto Campus

 

12

 

16

 

33%

 

12

4

New Kensington Campus

17

 

15

 

-12%

 

9

6

Registrar's

Representative

28

 

34

 

21%

 

23

11

Schuylkill

 

 

20

 

36

 

80%

 

31

5

Science

 

 

91

 

59

 

-35%

 

41

18

Shenango

 

8

 

10

 

25%

 

7

3

Wilkes-Barre Campus

 

11

 

17

 

55%

 

13

4

Worthington Scranton Campus

18

 

20

 

11%

 

18

2

York Campus

 

25

 

30

 

20%

 

22

8

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Totals

 

 

1377

 

1757

 

28%

 

1390

367

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SENATE COMMITTEE ON UNDERGRADUATE EDUCATION

 

1999 – 2000 First-Year Seminars:  The Inaugural Year In Review

 

(Informational)

 

On December 2, 1997, The University Faculty Senate adopted a new general education program to take effect in Summer, 1999.  In November 1997, the University Faculty Senate and the Office of Undergraduate Education jointly charged a General Education Assessment Interest Group (a faculty-oriented and administratively supported group) to take on the important task of helping to oversee the assessment of general education at Penn State.  The group identified the First-Year Seminars as its first task.

 

A key element of the legislation required every first-year student (baccalaureate degree) to complete a First-Year Seminar with the following objectives:

1)      “Engage students in learning and orient them to the scholarly community from the outset of their undergraduate studies in a way that will bridge to later experiences in their chosen majors.”

2)      “Facilitate student’s adjustment to the high expectations, demanding workload, increased academic liberties and other aspects of the transition to college life.”

 

While courses designed to achieve these objectives may have many forms, each First-Year Seminar has certain principles of implementation:   They have academic content, are offered for academic credit, and are taught by regular faculty who has at least three years of teaching experience at Penn State.

 

At the end of the 1999-00 academic year, 10,484 first-time freshmen successfully completed a FYS.  Of those 1999 – 00 first-time freshmen who returned as sophomores, 93% had successfully completed FYS.  Two hundred thirty eight First-Year Seminars were offered and 764 sections were available (see Attachment 1).  The successful outcome of the First-Year Seminars’ inaugural year can be attributed to the many faculty and administrators who were actively involved in the creation, planning and implementation of the numerous diverse First-Year Seminar courses.  Students had the opportunity to be actively engaged in a broad array of multidisciplinary First-Year Seminar courses.

 

The Office of Undergraduate Education is continuing to enhance a comprehensive First-Year Seminar web site (http://www.psu.edu/oue/gened/), which provides faculty, students and others with valuable FYS information.  Additional information concerning First-Year Seminars may be found in the Guide to Curricular Procedures (http://www.psu.edu/ufs/). 

 

Senate Committee on Undergraduate Education

Cheryl Achterberg                      

Richard L. Ammon                                          

Theresa A. Balog                                             

Dawn G. Blasko                                              

Richard J. Bord                          

Ali Borhan                                  

John J. Cahir                              

William J. Campbell                                         

Paul F. Clark                                                               

Rebecca L. Corwin                                         

Cheng Dong                                                                

N. Margaret Galligan                  

David J. Green

Lynn Hendrickson

Gary L. Hile

Larry J. Kuhns

Jamie M. Myers, Chair

Laura L. Pauley

Robert D. Ricketts, V-Chair

Thomas A. Seybert

Carol A. Smith

Jane S. Sutton

Eric R. White

Jenny Zhang

       General Education Assessment Interest Group

Christopher J. Bise                      Thomas A Litzinger

Ingrid M. Blood, Chair                Marie J. Secor

Lynn A. Carpenter                       Patrick T. Terenzini

Tineke J. Cunning                        Tramble T. Turner

Michael J. Dooris

 

           


1999 – 2000 First-Year Seminars:  The Inaugural Year In Review

 

 

OVERVIEW

 

  • 10,484 first-time freshmen successfully completed a First-Year Seminar (FYS).

 

  • 238 First-Year Seminar courses were offered.

 

  • 764 sections were available last year.

 

  • Over 93% of the total returning first-time freshmen (summer & fall 1999 admits) successfully completed a First-Year Seminar (figure 1).

 

  • This compares to the 1998-99 completion rate of 12.2% before the First-Year Seminar became mandatory.

 

  • First-Year Seminar class size in 1999–00 primarily ranged from14 to 25.

 

  • The majority of 1999-00 First-Year Seminar courses (81%) were offered for one credit, and 8% were offered for two credits and 11% for three credits.

 

 

FOCUS GROUPS

 

Faculty

o       Two faculty focus groups met in October  (mid-semester) and in December 1999 during fall semester finals week.

 

o       The focus groups were comprised of nineteen faculty members from ten colleges across four campus locations.  Thirteen male and six female faculty members with one to 36 years of teaching experience. 

 

o       The faculty taught FYSs that varied in credit ranging from one to three credits and were taught in their entirety for a five, seven or fifteen week duration and from orientation and study skills specific FYS courses to content driven FYS courses

 

o       Some faculty taught college specific FYSs which had common syllabi and utilized college specific course materials while others created their own FYS courses.  Technology was used in a number of ways ranging from using e-mail as a means of communicating beyond the classroom, to threaded discussions and researching information on the World Wide Web.

 

Outcomes

 

·          The vast majority of faculty expressed a need for continuing opportunities to be creative with the content and structure of their individual FYS while, at the same time, insuring that certain common objectives (i.e. addressing adjustment and orientation to university topics) are included and addressed across all FYSs.

 

·          Several faculty suggested instituting an activity that will highlight the achievements of the FYS.  For example, FYS poster session(s) or a FYS best practices conference, which would allow FYS students to “showcase” their FYS group projects, activities, etc. and the University can, in turn, acknowledge the accomplishments of the FYS students and faculty.

 

·          Almost all the faculty expressed a desire to teach a FYS again. Comments included, “…having taught graduate courses the last several years, I had forgotten the level of enthusiasm freshmen bring to the class.  It was nice” to …”they challenged me in a different way and I learned things about myself and them that I found helpful in my teaching.  I want to do it again.” 

 

Students

           

o       Six colleges from four campus locations collected data by conducting FYS student focus groups and/or student written assessment activities during the fall and spring semesters, 1999 - 2000.

 

o       Over 500 first-year freshmen FYS students who were completing their first or second semester of studies (and were enrolled in a FYS) participated in FYS focus groups or completed FYS written assessments.

 

Outcomes

 

·          The majority found the First-Year Seminar to be helpful or very helpful with their transition to college and orientation to the University.

 

·          The small class size provided opportunities for many interactive opportunities including in-class discussion, ability to stop in to see FYS faculty member and/or e-mail (and get responses) more readily.

 

·          The opportunity to collaborate with class members was viewed as a positive by the majority of focus group participants.

 

·          Top student responses given when asked what the most important things learned in their FYS included:  time management skills, academic ‘content,’  career knowledge of majors/field, and enhancement of library and Internet/computer skills.

 

·          The large majority of students felt the FYS did meet their needs and should continue to be offered.

 

·          Compressed FYS courses (those courses offered for 5 weeks/ 3 hours per week; or 7 weeks/2hours per week) were the least appealing to students – the students (who had completed compressed FYS courses) felt there was too much in too short a time period.

 

·          Some students felt the FYS course met their needs and should be completed during a student’s first semester because of the importance and relevance of the FYS content.

 

·          Upperclassmen’s involvement in the FYS courses through class visits, serving as teaching assistants, peer mentors etc. was seen as a valuable addition to the FYS class experience.

 

·          For those students who had administrators, other faculty, staff and/or student affairs personnel come into their FYS classes, the activity was viewed as a positive experience that complemented the course.

 

·          Suggested that students should be more informed prior to enrollment in an FYS about the many FYS courses available to them.

 

·          Suggested that library visits and library overviews in the FYS classes should be provided earlier in the semester.

 

 

2000-01 First-Year Seminar Update

 

·        Twenty-one First-Year Seminars were offered during Summer, 2000.

·        Four hundred eighty six First-Year Seminar class sections are being offered Fall semester 2000.

 

 

Plans for Continuing Assessment of FYS

 

·        Begin to monitor the First-Year Seminar enrollment activities of first time freshmen associate degree students.

·        Collaboratively work with the colleges to insure that a process and procedure is put in place for handing situations in which a student does not complete a FYS during his/her freshmen year.

·        Continue to actively engage all colleges at all locations (which provide FYS) to be involved in the FYS assessment process.

·        Systematically monitor, at the college level, student learning and progress.

·        Gather data on which faculty are teaching FYS (at the time they teach a FYS) beginning Fall 2000.

·        Continue to improve a comprehensive First-Year Seminar web site (http://www.psu.edu/oue/gened/) that is maintained by the Office of Undergraduate Education and which provides faculty, students and others with valuable FYS information.

·        Facilitate increasing communications on FYS between locations, colleges and faculty

·        Compare retention of students who failed to complete an FYS of those who did complete one successfully.

·        Continue to collect data over time on 1999-00 first-time freshmen cohort (that successfully completed a FYS) from their freshmen year to graduation.

 

 

 

 

 


 

 


SENATE COMMITTEE ON UNDERGRADUATE EDUCATION

Non-Returning Students Report, Spring 1998 to Fall 1998

(Informational)

            The Office of the University Registrar, Enrollment Management and Administration, provides University and College administrative officers with regular reports on the number of non-returning students.  Data for these reports are gathered through a survey of non-returning students.  The Committee on Undergraduate Education reviewed the most recent report, and while no major crisis is apparent in the loss of students who begin their higher education at Penn State, the Committee believed that the factors identified should be shared.  

            The number of students leaving Penn State is modest and distributed across all locations.  The number of non-returning students across all locations in 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, and 1999 has remained at 6% of the total undergraduate spring semester enrollment that increased from 47,412 in 1994 to 55,247 in 1999.  No matter what efforts are made by various University units to retain students, some number will not complete their higher education at Penn State.  Still, the survey of non-returning students to determine their reasons for leaving supports the continual planning and assessment of Penn State’s educational efforts.

The number one reason reported for not returning is finding comparable education elsewhere.  The non-returning students report enrolling in regional schools suggesting that they leave for geographic preferences rather than academic competition with peer institutions.  The regional schools identified also have lower tuition rates, and financing is reported as the second most important factor at the University Park location and third factor at other locations.  The lack of availability of courses and majors is the second greatest factor at campus locations than University Park.  Of the majors listed by students leaving Penn State, Elementary Education and Business have administrative controls that limit the number of students in the major at University Park.  Some locations besides University Park offer the four-year general Business degree that might fill students needs if they are advised of that option.  The University Advising Council continually monitors advising quality and availability that is listed as a factor for not returning. To help with the geographic distribution of advising information to all locations, the University Advising Council has an excellent web site at http://www.psu.edu/dus/uac/ .  Students and faculty can find University wide contacts to answer their advising questions.

            By April 2001, all University Deans will receive a new 2000-2001 report on non-returning students.  This report will help units consider how their academic programs might meet the needs of more students.  The Faculty Senate Committee on Undergraduate Education will review this report and examine trends over the past five years in factors that account for students leaving Penn State.  If significant new trends are noted, the committee may report again in the Fall 2001 semester.

SENATE COMMITTEE ON UNDERGRADUATE EDUCATION

Cheryl Achterberg

Richard L. Ammon

Theresa A. Balog

Dawn G. Blasko

Richard J. Bord

Ali Borhan

John J. Cahir

William J. Campbell

Paul F. Clark

Rebecca L. Corwin

Cheng Dong

N. Margaret Galligan

David J. Green

Lynn Hendrickson

Gary L. Hile

Larry J. Kuhns

Jamie Myers, Chair

Laura L. Pauley

Robert D. Ricketts, Vice-Chair

Thomas A. Seybert

Carol A. Smith

Jane S. Sutton

Eric R. White

Jenny Zhang

 

Non-Returning Students Report

Spring 1998 to Fall 1998

 

 

 

Enrollment Management and Administration

Office of the University Registrar

 

 

April 1999