Year 2000 Computer/Microprocessor Problem

Information Technology Fee Allocation

Flexible and Creative Approaches in Regard to Curricular Approval,
Course Delivery, and Course Substitution (Recommendation #5)

Annual Report of Academic Eligibility and Athletic Scholarships for
1997-98

Grade Distribution Report

K.NEW LEGISLATIVE BUSINESS -

THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY

The University Faculty Senate

Birch Cottage

University Park, PA 16802

(814) 863-0221 – phone (814) 863-6012 – fax

E-mail address: http://www.psu.edu/ufs/

Date: February 19, 1999

From: Peter Deines, Chair, Senate Committee on Curricular Affairs

To: Leonard J. Berkowitz, Chair, University Faculty Senate

SENATE COMMITTEE ON UNDERGRADUATE EDUCATION

The suggested revision would continue to provide for college control of entrance to majors, but would indicate the candidate shall receive a separate diploma for each major for which the requirements have been successfully completed. The revision will continue to specify that the academic record will list the majors for which the candidate has gained entrance and has successfully completed the requirements. All records and administrative records will continue to reflect the student’s primary major. The student will be counted as enrolled in the college of the primary major for all administrative purposes. However, the number of graduates of a college will change.

As presently written:

60-40 Multiple Major Programs

A candidate receiving approval may complete multiple majors but shall receive only one diploma for that primary major designated by the candidate. The final academic record shall indicate the completion of the requirements for the additional majors.

60-40 Multiple Major Programs

A candidate receiving approval from the colleges involved may gain entrance to more than one major. The candidate successfully completing the requirements for multiple majors shall receive a separate diploma for each major for which requirements have been completed. The final academic record shall indicate the completion of the requirements for each major.

There has been a real problem for students and advisers to understand why, when a student has completed requirements for more than one major, the diploma only shows one major. If a student is admitted to a major and completes the requirements, it is unfair and may even be illegal to deny the granting of a diploma.

Under the revised version of 60-40, colleges will continue to control eligibility for multiple majors. The implementation of the multiple diplomas to match multiple majors has been carefully investigated by the University Registrar and found to be by far the least cost and administratively the most cost-effective approach. The University Registrar is now able to provide separate diplomas for multiple majors. This change is considered appropriate and has administrative support.

Cheryl Achterberg
Steven F. Arnold, Vice Chair
Rebecca Beatty
James Brasseur
John J. Cahir
Dennis D. Calvin
Joseph Cecere
Paul F. Clark
James P. Crawford
Terry Engelder
Thomas A. Frank
M. Margaret Galligan
Gary L. Hile
David Kayal
William C. Lasher
Janet A. May
Kenneth P. McGraw
Arthur C. Miller, Chair
David J. Myers
Deanna Puryear
Eric R. White
Robert Zelis

SENATE COMMITTEE ON FACULTY AFFAIRS

(Advisory/Consultative)

RATIONALE

There is currently no provision in HR-23 or the Guidelines for withdrawing a promotion dossier once it has been submitted to the first peer committee for review. HR-23 says that when both the department committee and the department head are negative in a promotion case, the dossier then moves on directly to the dean (the involvement of the college committee is not required in such cases). Nonetheless, it has been the practice of some departments not to send promotion dossiers forward to the college if they are not supported within the department. In some, perhaps most, instances, it may well be in the candidate's interest for a department not to send on to the dean a promotion dossier that has been assessed negatively by both the department committee and the department head, but in other instances a candidate may feel that he or she wants the review to move on to the dean. The Senate Committee on Faculty Affairs thus recommends that the statement below be added to the Administrative Guidelines for HR-23, after the section titled Nomination Process for Promotion (V.C). Reviews of sixth-year candidates for both tenure and promotion will go forward to the college, whatever the outcome of those reviews.

(A terminology section in the beginning of the Guidelines states that throughout the document the terms "department review" or "department head" refer to department or school or division reviews or administrators, as applicable.)

RECOMMENDATION

The Senate Committee on Faculty Affairs recommends the insertion of the following passage (highlighted in bold) in section V (Review Procedures) of the Administrative Guidelines for HR-23.

V. REVIEW PROCEDURES

A. Review Schedule

B. Participants in the Review Process

C. Nomination Process for Promotion

SENATE COMMITTEE ON FACULTY AFFAIRS

Syed Saad Andaleeb
Albert A. Anderson
James J. Beatty
Christopher J. Bise
Melvin Blumberg
Joseph L. Cavinato
Wayne R. Curtis
Travis DeCastro
Renee D. Diehl
James M. Donovan
Dorothy H. Evensen
Margaret B. Goldman
Elizabeth A. Hanley
Sabih I. Hayek
Charles W. Hill
Philip A. Klein
Louis Milakofsky
John S. Nichols
Effy Oz
Amy L. Paster
Victor Romero
Dennis C. Scanlon
Cara-Lynne Schengrund, Chair
Robert Secor
Valerie N. Stratton
Tramble T. Turner, Vice-Chair
J. Randall Woolridge

SENATE COMMITTEE ON FACULTY BENEFITS

(Advisory and Consultative)

INTRODUCTION

The Report of the Task Force on the Future of Benefits introduced at the September 15, 1998 Faculty Senate meeting was referred to the Senate Committee on Faculty Benefits for response and implementation recommendations. At the October, December, and February meetings of the committee, the report underwent an extensive review. Dr. Billie Willits, Assistant Vice-President for Human Resources, attended committee meetings to discuss issues raised by committee members in understanding the report and the direction of health benefits.

The Faculty Benefits Committee decided to issue two advisory and consultative reports, this being the first. For the March 2 Faculty Senate meeting, the Faculty Benefits Committee recommends support for the large measure of items in the Task Force Report, some of which are specifically mentioned below because the Committee felt the need for clarification or modification on the particular matter. Faculty Benefits wishes to move recommended matters forward to the Senate floor for comment from the entire body of representatives, then, if accepted, on to the President for determinations about implementation by the Office of Human Resources.

A second advisory and consultative report, to be delivered at the March 30 Senate meeting, will focus on the most difficult issue the Committee encountered in its review: the phase-in of increased contributions for the HMO medical plans, and the levels of contribution for all medical plans. This issue will be examined in full and the Committee's recommendation presented in that second report.

RECOMMENDATIONS

The Faculty Senate embraces a large share of the recommendations detailed in the report issued by the Commission on the Future of Benefits, jointly formed by President Graham Spanier and Senate Chair Louis Geschwindner, Jr. In those instances where the Senate Committee on Faculty Benefits has opinions that differ from the report, we offer the following recommendations:

In summary, the Faculty Senate advises the President to move forward with the recommendations in the Report of the Task Force on the Future of Benefits, with the modifications indicated above. We request any action related to contribution strategies for medical plans be delayed until a recommendation is forwarded from the March 30, 1999 Faculty Senate meeting.

SENATE COMMITTEE ON FACULTY BENEFITS

Keith Burkhart
Thomas Daubert
Gregory Farber
Charles Gunderman
Jamie Myers, Vice-Chair
Mary Nicholson
Timothy Ovaert
Allen Phillips, Chair
Gerhard Strasser
Donna Testa
Anita Vickers

COMPUTING AND INFORMATION SYSTEMS

(Informational)

INTRODUCTION

The Faculty Senate Committee on Computing & Information Systems meeting of December 8, 1998 included a report on University-wide efforts to address the Y2K Problem by Kenneth Blythe, Senior Director, Office of Administrative Systems. During the next several months, Mr. Blythe will coordinate and communicate Penn State efforts to address this problem. The C&IS Committee is distributing this information to the Faculty Senate and providing the forum for Senators to ask questions of Mr. Blythe.

OVERVIEW

The Penn State Year 2000 Website includes detailed information on the University’s approach to this problem. There are five parts to the plan:

• cooperation and review of plans with over 5,000 external business partners, such as Allegheny Power, Bell-Atlantic, etc.
• review of university mission-linked systems, such as registration, financial, fundraising, ticket sales, and central environmental and safety control systems
• WAN (wide-area network) and LAN (local-area network) systems review
• desktop systems, including recommendations for hardware fixes, software solutions, and replacement of old machines. PSU is negotiating with Microsoft and similar major vendors for site licenses for software solutions
• develop procedures to insure the efficacy of university research. Individual researchers are liable for any damages or claims that could be made by individuals or organizations that use the ideas, objects, or mechanisms developed from research results. Since there are embedded microprocessors in so many devices used by researchers that could affect experimental conditions or results, researchers must conduct an audit of these devices, and in some cases repair or replace them.

WEB RESOURCES

"Countdown to Year 2000 at Penn State" -- (URL - http://www.psu.edu/Year2000/)

"Year 2000 and Your PC: Where the Tire Hits the Road" --

(URL - http://ftp.cac.psu.edu/pub/year2000/PSU-NSTL/pcy2k.htm)

PSU CIS WHITE PAPERS [attached to this report]

"The Year 2000 Problem and the Penn State Researcher"

"Desktop ‘Personal’ Computer Preparation for the Year 2000"

SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMPUTING & INFORMATION SYSTEMS

Thomas W. Abendroth
Morad Askari
J. Gary Augustson
Jennifer A. Belzner
David P. Christy, Chair
Robert G. Crane, Vice-Chair
Richard F. Dempsey
Fred G. Fedok
Terry P. Harrison
George A. Lesieutre
B. Tracy Nixon
Terry J. Peavler
Lawrence I. Sinoway
Semyon Slobounov
John B. Urenko
Jose A. Ventura

COMPUTING AND INFORMATION SYSTEMS

(Informational)

The Information Technology Fee provides a broad range of services to students. These services range from Workstation Clusters at every location to Internet Access and
subscriptions to electronic databases and materials. It replaced the Computer Fee, which
was first imposed in the Fall 1992, Semester. All Penn State students have access to information technology. Access Accounts, which provide full Internet access and other services, are pre-assigned to every registered student and remain active until six months after graduation. Over 90% of students at all locations make use of their Access Account. In addition, students have access to computers, training and other assistance, and a wide range of computer based materiel. A $90 Information Technology Fee for full time students generates $10,920,600 during the Fall and Spring Semesters. An additional $732,768 is expected during the two Summer Sessions. The Information Technology Fee total for the Academic Year is estimated to be $11,653,368. The increase is expected to amount to an increase of $2,552,803 over the Computer Fee collected in previous years.

The allocation of the Information Technology Fee is proportional to the actual fees
collected during the Academic Year. Final allocations made during the Spring Semester,
1999, will reflect that actual Fee collected at each location. All locations share in certain central services provided by Computer and Information Systems and University Libraries. These include electronic mail, dialup lines, curriculum and classroom support, electronic databases and publications, and other services provided on an equal basis to all students regardless of location. A pro rata allocation of these central services is made to fee groups (i.e., colleges, campuses).

Of the total Fees collected, 44% benefit all students regardless of location. These are
infrastructure costs and are similar to those provided by peer institutions to their students.
The following briefly describes each of the Central Services. Table 1 shows the allocation
of these funds. It compares the allocation for this year with the Computer Fee last year.

The University Libraries will use the Information Technology Fee to support information
systems that directly affect students. These include support for hardware and software,
library instruction labs and classrooms, public workstations, subscriptions or licenses to
electronic databases and publications, and hardware and software maintenance.

These facilities provide a wide variety of services that benefit all students at all locations. Only units within Computer and Information Systems that provide services directly to
students as a primary mission are funded with the Fee, which supplements allocations of
non-Fee funds in some cases.

• Center for Academic Computing: The Center for Academic Computing (CAC) provides a wide variety of services including data communications, administration of computer accounts (e.g., Access Account), and other aspects of providing services to students at all locations.

• Library Computing Facilities: All students benefit from the services that Library Computing Systems provide the University Libraries. This includes access to all the services of LIAS and plus other on-line library services.

• Courseware Development: The Center for Academic Computing’s Educational Technology Services group provides a wide range of services that are focused upon changing the curriculum to make effective use of technology in teaching and learning. The Information Technology Fee augments General Funds that provide the bulk of this support.

• Student Access to Computing Resources: The Access Account provides every student with the opportunity to use modern information technology. Services provided by the Fee include unlimited use of electronic mail, modems to connect computers from residences, and space for personal World Wide Web pages. Most students report that they value these services and desire an increase in the level of support, especially modems and space for Web Pages. In addition to growth, there is a need to provide for the latest high-speed modem connections, which are considerably more expensive to operate.

• Center for Academic Computing Consulting and Training: The Information Technology Fee augments the University General Fund to provide additional staff and telephone lines for the CAC’s User Services group. Increased services and demand for consulting have occurred over the last few years as the number of students who use their Access Account approaches 100%.

• Technology Classrooms: CAC’s role has been to develop prototypes for instructional classroom configurations. The bulk of the funding for the creation of technology classrooms is in the Classroom Improvement Budget.

• Access for Disabled Students: Information Technology Fee funds supplement other funds to provide for access to disabled students at all locations. A number of devices are provided including speech synthesis, Braille printers, and special monitors.

The Information Technology Fee is broken down by Fee Group. Except for the
Berks-Lehigh Valley College, the Capital College, and the Commonwealth College, Fee Groups are also single locations. This permits the return of Fees to each Fee Group in the form of Central Services and Location Specific Services. The Location Specific allocation will increase by approximately $1,493,265, which is 58% of increase in fees generated this year vs. last year’s Computer Fee. A pro rata share of the Central Services cost is subtracted from the total Information Technology Fee collected from students in each Fee Group. The remaining amount is allocated for services to students whose location is within that Fee Group. Table 2 is a summary of the Information Technology Fees estimated for each Fee Group for the 1998/99 Academic Year, the Central Services Allocation, and the Location Specific funds returned to the Fee Group. Most of the Location Specific funds are used to provide Workstation Clusters (Microcomputer Labs) for student use. University Park has multiple colleges and the CAC provides central computer clusters for all students. Individual UP Colleges will receive allocations of $750,000 for this Academic Year for college-specific applications. This is a $210,000 increase over the previous year.

SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMPUTING & INFORMATION SYSTEMS

Thomas W. Abendroth
Morad Askari
J. Gary Augustson
Jennifer A. Belzner
David P. Christy, Chair
Robert G. Crane, Vice-Chair
Richard F. Dempsey
Fred G. Fedok
Terry P. Harrison
George A. Lesieutre
B. Tracy Nixon
Terry J. Peavler
Lawrence I. Sinoway
Semyon Slobounov
John B. Urenko
Jose A. Ventura

GENERAL EDUCATION IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE

Flexible and Creative Approaches in regard to Curricular Approval, Course Delivery, and Course Substitution (Recommendation #5)

I. Introduction

1. On December 2, 1997, the Senate passed the following legislation proposed by the Special Committee on General Education.

   "Recommendation #5. Develop policies, procedures, and guidelines for the general education curriculum and its attendant requirements that will stimulate creative collaborative approaches, both in terms of curriculum development and delivery and in the ways students may meet the spirit of the requirements."

   This Recommendation was designed to achieve Objective III of the Report:

   "Objective III. Encourage a curricular approval process that is more flexible and less bureaucratic, offers opportunity for interpretation and experimentation, stimulates integration and collaboration, and preserves portability of courses and mobility among the disciplines."

   In part, Recommendation #10 also addresses the course approval process:

   "Recommendation #10: …This shall include making necessary revisions to the Guide to Curricular Procedures; examination and refinement, as warranted, of the faculty committee/subcommittee organization for course approvals; study of the process used for submission of, and action on, course proposals…."

   This Informational Report will address the recommendations for creative and collaborative approaches in regard to course development, course delivery, course substitution, and the course approval process found in Recommendations #5 and #10.

   B. The Senate Legislation of December 2, 1997 asks the Senate to adopt flexible approaches in five areas:

   1. Facilitating creative and collaborative approaches;
   2. Improving the course substitution process;
   3. Preserving portability and mobility;
   4. Enhancing the role of advising; and
   5. Streamlining the course approval process.

   The goal of Recommendation #5 is to open up general education to the spirit of creativity, collaboration, and flexibility. Why is flexibility in general education so important? At the current moment, many students view general education as little more that a complicated checklist to be completed. Few see it as the encouragement to explore and to experiment which it is intended to be. Many faculty find the process of creating new general education courses to be forbidding. Advisers hesitate to suggest to students that they can fulfill the general education requirements by taking courses not on the approved list.

   The guidelines for implementation appearing in the Final Report and Recommendations of the Special Committee on General Education suggest that students be allowed to substitute another university course for one found on the approved list, provided that certain conditions are met. These guidelines also emphasize that students may satisfy the spirit of general education in a broad range of valid ways by stressing what a student can creatively do within general education rather than emphasizing what a particular academic unit does not permit.

   The guidelines for implementing the Report of the Special Committee also seek to encourage faculty to propose new general education courses by assuring them that the course approval process will be streamlined, flexible, simple, and quick in response time.

   In addition, the guidelines for implementing the Report of the Special Committee enhance the role of advisers by encouraging them to help students to participate fully in the range of options available in the general education curriculum.

   II. Implementation of Recommendation #5.

   A. To stimulate creative and collaborative approaches, the Implementation Committee believes that the following objectives apply:

   1. Preserve the ability of different locations to seek approval for and to offer courses
      that take advantage of their particular resources and faculty interests, yet are
      portable among locations;

   2. Encourage innovative and novel approaches in teaching and learning that include
      active learning components;

   3. Encourage collaborative and cross-disciplinary course offerings and linkages that
      may cut across the distribution requirements;

   4. Ensure that consistent academic standards and rigor are applied and maintained;

   5. Preserve the portability of general education courses when students
      Move among colleges, campuses, and majors;

   6. Make it possible for students to take another university course and use it to satisfy a general education requirement, provided that the conditions detailed below in B.1-5 are met;
   7. Make it easier for students to substitute courses and to have those substitutions
      readily approved and easily recorded;

   8. Recognize a broad range of valid ways in which students might satisfy the spirit of general education;
   9. Emphasize what a student can creatively do within general education rather than
      stress what is not permitted by an academic unit;

   10. Adopt an attitude of flexibility and accommodation when students encounter
       minor incompatibilities between courses required and courses taken. While
       general education seeks to give students experience in a wide range of
       epistemologies and subject matter, it also wants to encourage students to pursue
       what interests them. Reasonable substitutions are, therefore, to be encouraged.

   11. Encourage the advising system to allow students to participate fully in the range
       Of options available within the general education curriculum.

       B. In pursuance of these objectives, each of the five areas mentioned above in I. B. requires separate implementation.

       1. Facilitation of Creative and Collaborative Approaches

       The Implementation Committee urges the Chair of the University Faculty Senate to ask the appropriate Senate Committees, including Faculty Affairs and Undergraduate Education, to:

       1. Determine what impediments in perception as well as in policy and procedures now exist that make it difficult for faculty to collaborate in course design and instruction, e.g., policies concerning teaching loads, resource allocation, the course approval process, and the funding methodology for general education;
       2. Prepare an informational report recommending whatever changes will be required to eliminate existing impediments and to facilitate the pursuit and adoption of creative and collaborative approaches.

       2. Preserving Portability and Mobility

       The ability of students to move easily among the different colleges, locations, and departments in this large geographically dispersed university depends on their confidence that approved general education courses taken in one location will be fully accepted by another. Their mobility must not be compromised by impediments in the portability of general education courses. The Implementation Committee urges the Chair of the University Faculty Senate to ask the appropriate Senate committees to adopt policies which will preserve the portability of courses as discussed below.

       1. A course accepted in fulfillment of a general education requirement at one location will be accepted in fulfillment of that requirement by other locations. Every effort should be made to avoid disadvantaging students who change majors or locations by making them take extra general education courses, if incompatibilities in courses or requirements should occur.

       2. In the spirit of preserving portability of courses and mobility across disciplines and encouraging student experimentation, students should be able to select from the entire university-wide approved general education curriculum, as available at their locations.

       3. However, restrictions specifically dictated by accrediting boards for certain disciplines or degree-specific requirements may be imposed. Specific general education degree requirements may also, in some cases, prohibit course substitution. Students should consult with their advisers about these matters.

       4. Substitutions to allow students to go even beyond the university-wide general education curriculum are dealt with in Item 3 below.

       3. Course Substitution Process

       The Implementation Committee urges the Chair of the University Faculty Senate to ask the appropriate Senate committees to put into effect the following course substitution policy:

       While preserving portability and academic consistency, the general education course substitution policy is designed to possess sufficient flexibility to encourage students to take another course if it meets the following guidelines. However, as mentioned above in 2.c., specific general education degree requirements established by a college, department, or major program may in some cases, prohibit certain course substitutions. Students should consult with their advisers to find out if any such restrictions apply to their particular degree programs.

       The course to be substituted:

       a. Must be at a level equal to or higher than the course being replaced;

       1. Should possess the required active learning elements--if the substitution is for a Knowledge Domains course. These active learning elements are to identified on the course substitution form;

       2. Must be within the same category of General Education--Comunications, Quantification, Arts, Humanities, Social and Behavioral Sciences, Natural Science, and Health and Physical Activity--as the course being replaced;
       3. Must have available a syllabus or course outline which will enable students and advisers to decide if the course is appropriate to use as a substitute. The syllabus, outline, or other documentation must show that the course meets the spirit of the requirement as determined by the adviser and the dean’s representative and that the course fulfills the required active learning elements. Students who wish to substitute courses must assume responsibility for providing the adviser and the dean’s representative with reliable course outlines. To this end, departments are encouraged to clearly specify what active learning elements are included in all course descriptions.

       Courses that meet these criteria will be approved for individual students according to the established procedures for course substitutions.

       4. Role of Advising

       The successful implementation of Items 2 and 3 above will largely rest with academic advisers throughout the university.

       Crucial to the ability of advisers to implement these changes in the content and spirit of general education will be a well-thought out program of workshops or other programs designed to explain the innovations set forth above.

       1. The Chair of the University Faculty Senate is encouraged to ask the appropriate Senate committees, the Vice Provost and Dean for Undergraduate Education, and the University Advising Council to establish workshops or other informational means to make sure that these changes are well understood by all advisers and that effective ways of implementing them are adopted by all colleges.

       2. The Chair of the University Faculty Senate is encouraged to ask the appropriate Senate committees, the Vice Provost and Dean for Undergraduate Education, the University Advising Council, and other appropriate bodies to review advising materials and processes to help ensure that students see this phase of their Penn State education primarily as an opportunity to experiment and to explore and not solely as a checklist to be completed.

       5. Course Approval Process

       The Implementation Committee acknowledges that various colleges as well as the Senate Committee on Curricular Affairs are actively improving the course approval process in ways that will make it streamlined, flexible, simple, and quick in response time and that will encourage innovation, creativity, and collaboration among faculty in separate administrative units. The committee sees these changes as part of an ongoing process in which SCCA and the various colleges will work together to encourage faculty to propose new general education courses without their being required to eliminate existing courses to make room for new ones.

       For implementation:

       1. The Chair of the University Faculty Senate is encouraged to ask the appropriate Senate committees to encourage the various colleges to make information about these improvements available on the WEB as soon as possible.

       2. The Chair of the University Faculty Senate is encouraged to ask SCCA to prepare an informational report that will explain the nature of these streamlined improvements in the course approval process that it is now making and the ways in which those reforms will achieve the goals adopted by the Senate in Recommendations #5 and #10 above and in Objective III of the Special Report.

   General Education Implementation Committee

   Frank Ahern
   John Bagby, Chair
   Ingrid Blood
   George Bugyi
   Peter Deines
   Donald Fahnline
   Gary Fosmire
   John Moore, Vice Chair
   Dennis Scanlon
   James Smith

   SENATE COMMITTEE ON INTERCOLLEGIATE ATHLETICS

   Annual Report of Academic Eligibility and Athletic Scholarships for 1997-98

   (Informational)

   INTRODUCTION

   Each year the Senate Committee on Intercollegiate Athletics is mandated to provide reports of NCAA activities to the Senate. One report usually addresses NCAA eligibility numbers and the other, later in the academic year, offers insights gained from recently passed NCAA legislation. This report focuses on the former and is reasonably self-explanatory. Please note that, as always, a number of athletes are counted twice if their sports overlap two seasons or if they compete in more than one sport. The latest graduation data are also included with comparisons to other Big Ten universities.

   1. Total Number of Athletes Screened for Eligibility (Fall 97 & Spring 98)

   1997-98 - 1534

   2. Total Number of Athletes Not Approved for Participation (Fall 97 & Spring 98)

   1997-98 - 43

   3. Total Number of Exceptions to Normal Progress Rule (Fall 97 & Spring 98)

   1997-98 - 30

   4. Total Number of Scholarship Athletes (Academic year 1997-98)

   1997-98 - 475

   5. Comparison of Data for Annual Report

   	1993-94	1994-95	1995-96	1996-97	1997-98
   Athletes Screened	1514	1628	1584	1788	1534
   Athletes Not Approved	39	39	58	45	43
   Exceptions to Normal Progress	33	30	34	38	30
   Scholarship Athletes	427	410	471	470	475

   SENATE COMMITTEE ON INTERCOLLEGIATE ATHLETICS

   William A. Asbury
   K. Robert Bridges
   John J. Cahir
   Lee D. Coraor
   John J. Coyle
   Timothy M. Curley
   Laurence M. Demers
   James T. Elder
   Tracy A. Frost
   Diana L. Kenepp
   Harvey B. Manbeck, Vice-Chair
   Douglas McCullough
   Ellen L. Perry
   John J. Romano
   Timothy Smaby
   Sandra R. Smith
   Christine A. White
   Thomas S. Whittam
   Jerry Wright
   Charles E. Yesalis, Chair

   NCAA GRADUATION RATE RANKINGS, BIG TEN INSTITUTIONS

   CLASS OF 1991*

   ALL STUDENTS (1991)		ALL STUDENTS (4-Year Average)		ALL Scholarship-ATHLETES (1991)		ALL Scholarship-ATHLETES (4-Year Average)
   Institution	%	Institution	%	Institution	%	Institution	%
   1. Northwestern	90	1. Northwestern	90	1. Northwestern	85	1. Northwestern	85
   2. Michigan	82	2. Michigan	84	2. Penn State*	76	2. Penn State*	79
   3. Penn State	81	3. Penn State	79	3. Indiana	73	3. Illinois	72
   4. Illinois	77	4. Illinois	78	4. Iowa	72	4. Michigan	72
   5. Wisconsin	73	5. Wisconsin	73	5. Purdue	70	5. Iowa	69
   6. Indiana	67	6. Purdue	69	6. Michigan	68	6. Michigan State	67
   7. Michigan State	66	7. Indiana	69	7. Michigan State	67	7. Indiana	67
   8. Purdue	64	8. Michigan State	68	8. Illinois	64	8. Purdue	64
   9. Iowa	62	9. Iowa	62	9. Wisconsin	60	9. Wisconsin	60
   10. Ohio State	57	10. Ohio State	58	10. Ohio State	54	10. Ohio State	58
   11. Minnesota	52	11. Minnesota	51	11. Minnesota	48	11. Minnesota	53

   *Entering Class

   SENATE COMMITTEE ON UNDERGRADUATE EDUCATION

   Grade Distribution Report

   (Informational)

   In March 1987, the Senate passed legislation requiring an annual review of grade distribution data for baccalaureate students. The attached tables show data that has been provided by the Registrar’s Office for each spring semester from 1975 to 1998, with detailed data for spring semester 1998.

   Table 1 presents the percentage of grades awarded in courses numbered 0 through 499 in resident instruction courses for the spring term/semester 1975 to 1998. Several conclusions can be interpreted from the data. First, there is an increase in the total number of F, W, and LD grades given as shown in Figure 1 (the figures are not part of the original data supplied by the Registrar’s Office but included in the report to help interpret the data). The increases are distinct for particular time periods. There is a plateau from 1975 to 1983, then, when the 10 week late drop rule went into effect beginning 1984, there is a second plateau from 1984 to 1989, and with the 12 week, 16 credits late drop rule in effect beginning in 1990, there is a third plateau, all showing an increase in grades given as F, W, and LD. The averages change for those three periods of time went from 7.8,9.2 to 10.9, respectively.

   Figures 2 and 3 illustrate plots of GPA for the 24 years of available data. In computing the GPA, Figure 2 includes the students who received W and LD grades in the total number of students. Figure 3 presents the data by subtracting the number of W and LD grades from the total number of students graded. Neither figpresentation but rather presents the extremes of the data.

   Table 2 presents a summary of grade distribution for resident instruction for the spring semester 1998 at all locations for all courses for all colleges except the College of Medicine. Table 3 is the grade point averages and Dean’s list summary by college for the spring semester 1998. And finally Table 4 presents an all-University distribution of semester grade point averages for baccalaureate students.

   Senate Committee on Undergraduate Education

   Cheryl Achterberg
   Steven F. Arnold, Vice Chair
   Rebecca Beatty
   James G. Brasseur
   George J. Bugyi
   John J. Cahir
   Dennis Calvin
   Joseph Cecere
   Paul Clark
   James P. Crawford
   Terry Engelder
   Thomas A. Frank
   M. Margaret Galligan
   Gary L. Hile
   David Kayal
   William C. Lasher
   Janet A. May
   Kenneth P. McGraw
   Arthur C. Miller, Chair
   David J. Myers
   Deanna Puryear
   Eric R. White
   Robert Zelis

   THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY

   The University Faculty Senate

   MINUTES OF SENATE COUNCIL

   Tuesday, February 16, 1999 1:30 PM 101 Kern Graduate Building

   MEMBERS PRESENT

   J. W. Bagby
   L. J. Berkowitz
   J. A. Brighton
   M. E. Broyles
   L. A. Carpenter
   S. de Hart
   P. Deines
   D. E. Fahnline
   G. W. Franz
   L. C. Friend
   L. F. Geschwindner
   D. S. Gouran
   D. E. Jago
   P. C. Jurs
   D. L. Kerstetter
   P. A. Klein
   C. Schengrund (for
   A. Leure-duPree)
   V. Lunetta
   L. P. Miller
   M. R. Nelson
   I. Richman
   P. P. Rebane
   A. B. Romberger
   A. W. Scaroni
   G. Bugyi
   B. Hockenberry
   V. Price
   ACCOUNTED FOR
   G. B. Spanier
   C. Strauss
   B. Tormey
   GUESTS
   S. Arnold
   J. Cahir
   D. Christy
   J. Coyle
   T. Cunning
   T. Jones
   J. Moore
   A. Phillips
   J. Romano
   R. Secor

   Chair Berkowitz called the meeting to order at 1:32 PM on Tuesday, February 16, 1999, in Room 101 Kern Graduate Building. The minutes of the January 19, 1999 meeting were approved as distributed on a Jurs/Jago motion.

   ANNOUNCEMENTS AND REMARKS

   Chair Berkowitz announced that the Faculty Advisory Committee (FAC) met this morning, February 16, and discussed the following items: The Campaign for Penn State, School of Information Sciences and Technology; Enrollment Management; Phi Beta Kappa Membership at Locations Other Than University Park; Promotion and Tenure; Naming Policy; and Prerequisite Checking. The next meeting of FAC is scheduled for Tuesday, March 16.

   The Senate Officers visited the College of Agricultural Sciences on February 9 and the College of Education on February 10. They will be visiting the Division of Undergraduate Studies on February 18 and on April 8 the College of Arts & Architecture. These dates/locations are posted on the Senate's web page.

   Dr. Berkowitz next informed Council that we are moving into the interview stage of the Provost search and an enhanced version of the FAC will be involved in that. This will constitute the faculty involvement in the search. The first of the interviews will be this afternoon at 4:00 PM.

   Senate Secretary Fahnline addressed the handout entitled Roster of Senators by Voting Units: 1999-2000. This is a working document and the Councilors were asked to check it for completeness and accuracy.

   Executive Secretary Bugyi reported on the plans to move the Senate Office from Birch Cottage to 101 Kern Building. He explained the need for the move and those details that are now available. The Provost is assisting in making sure that the new facilities will be everything needed for the Senate Office to continue serving the University community. The move is scheduled for the summer of 2000.

   REPORT OF THE GRADUATE COUNCIL

   Philip Klein reported on the Graduate Council meeting of January 20, 1999. A copy of Professor Klein's report is attached to these minutes.

   AGENDA ITEMS FOR MARCH 2, 1999

   Legislative Reports

   Undergraduate Education -- "Revision to Senate Policy 60-40 Multiple Major Programs." Steve Arnold spoke to the report and stated that students are being shortchanged by not receiving two diplomas when they complete multiple major programs and this report addresses the problem by changing this Senate Policy. Council asked for a clarification between Dual Degrees and Multiple Majors. Dr. Arnold explained that Dual Degrees are structured programs, such as linked programs in Engineering and Liberal Arts, whereas the Multiple Majors do not have a predetermined structure. Discussion turned to whether both colleges involved in the Multiple Majors must approve both degrees. Professor Arnold stated that this was the intent of the legislation. This report was put on the Senate Agenda on a Jurs/ Romberger motion.

   Advisory/Consultative Reports

   Faculty Affairs -- "Addition to the Administrative Guidelines for HR-23 -- Withdrawal of Promotion Dossier." Cara-Lynne Schengrund noted that this report allows a candidate to withdraw his/her dossier if the department committee and the department head do not support a promotion. After some questions concerning whether this should also be done if either the department committee or the department head does not give support, Dr. Schengrund added that her committee voted that only if both entities voted no should this option be granted. A Jurs/ Carpenter motion was passed by Council to accept this report.

   Faculty Benefits -- "Response to July 1998 Report of the Task Force on the Future of Benefits." Allen Phillips shared with Council that the Faculty Benefits Committee reviewed this Task Force report and decided to bring the four recommendations in this report forward to the Senate. There will be one additional issue that the committee will bring forward in the future--the cost increase for the HMO. Questions were asked concerning the need for an ongoing monitoring of the cost structure of the HMO. George Franz pointed out that the Joint Committee on Insurance and Benefits monitors the HMO quarterly. This report was passed on a Jurs/Richman motion.

   Informational Reports

   Computing and Information Systems -- "Year 2000 Computer/Microprocessor Problem." David Christy spoke to this report and noted that Kenneth Blythe, from the Office of Administrative Systems, will be at the Senate meeting to address any questions. He also indicated that the committee chose to consider the five levels at which the issues concerning Y2K accrued. Council discussed the PSU CIS White Papers and a Rebane/Jurs motion was passed to include these two papers with the report for the Senate Agenda.

   There are two main points in this report that are important. The first is that it is apparent that faculty will have to cooperate with local computing personnel to make sure that their desk-top computers are Y2K ready. Much of this is already happening. The second has to do with those researchers that might be liable for any damages as a result of his/her research which may be incorrect because the computer they were working on was not Y2K ready. This will require researchers to conduct audits of the technology that they employ to ensure these devices are ready. This report was passed for the Senate Agenda with a Scaroni/Carpenter motion.

   Computing and Information Systems -- "Information Technology Fee Allocation." Professor Christy indicated that this is an annual mandated report. His committee reviewed a larger document from the Center for Academic Computing and has extracted this four-page report. He stated that this report explains how these fees are being used. A Gouran/Broyles motion was passed to accept this report.

   General Education Implementation Committee -- "Flexible and Creative Approaches in Regard to Curricular Approval, Course Delivery, and Course Substitution (Recommendation #5)." John Bagby and John Moore represented the committee and asked if there were any questions from Council. Without questions, Council passed a Jurs/Scaroni motion.

   Intercollegiate Athletics -- "Annual Report of Academic Eligibility and Athletic Scholarships for 1997-98." John Coyle distributed an update to this report and indicated that the data in this annual report was very similar to last year's report. He discussed how the NCAA policies governed eligibility, and asked if there were any questions. He also discussed the exception to the Normal Progress rule. Council asked for some editorial changes, and the report was passed on a Jurs/Romberger motion.

   Undergraduate Education -- "Grade Distribution Report." Dr. Arnold introduced this report and stated that the committee is looking into the issue of grade inflation as a separate matter. This issue will be presented in a forthcoming report. Council suggested editorial changes and also questioned the numbers in Table 3. A Jurs/Geschwindner motion was passed to place this report on the Agenda.

   APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA FOR MARCH 2, 1999

   Chair Berkowitz declared the above, passed reports as the Senate Agenda for March 2, 1999.

   ACTION ITEMS

   Next Council addressed the proposal to rename the 'School of Theatre Arts' to the 'School of Theatre.' Without discussion, Council passed the following Jurs/Romberger motion:

   In accordance with our duties as prescribed in Bylaws, Article II, Section 1(d), it is the advice of Senate Council that the proposal from the College of Arts and Architecture to change the name of the 'School of Theatre Arts' to the 'School of Theatre' be implemented as described in the documents we have received.

   Finally, Dennis Gouran, Chair of the Senate Council Nominating Committee, presented his committee's report on the slate of nominees for Senate Officers, FAC and the Committee on Committees and Rules. The voting for the Senate Officers and FAC will take place in the General Election of the Senate, and the voting for CC&R will take place at the next Council meeting.

   NEW BUSINESS

   There was no New Business for Council to consider.

   ADJOURNMENT

   Senate Chair Berkowitz thanked Council for their attention to the Council Agenda and adjourned the meeting at 2:46 PM.

   Respectfully submitted,
   George J. Bugyi
   Executive Secretary

   THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY

   The University Faculty Senate

   Birch Cottage

   University Park, PA 16802

   (814) 863-0221 – phone (814) 863-6012 – fax

   E-mail address: http://www.psu.edu/ufs/

   Date: February 4, 1999

   To: Members, Senate Council

   From: Philip A. Klein, Graduate Council Representative

   The Graduate Council met on Wednesday, January 20, 1999.

   Among the announcements which would be of interest to the Senate Council were:

   The Graduate School has made a request for "enhancement Funding" to assist in more adequately funding student aid for underrepresented minority students.

   There is a pilot study underway to investigate the potential for implementing electronic theses and dissertations. The pilot study approach is being used in a number of CIC graduate schools, focussing on procedures to be followed and public relations aspects..

   The Dean reminded the Council of the Graduate Research Exhibition to be held March 26^th and 27^th.

   Among committee reports, I call the following to your attention:

   The Committee on Academic Standards is considering the offering of 500-level courses via the World Campus.

   The Committee on Fellowships and Awards is developing a system following a system currently used in the College of the Liberal Arts whereby the selection of fellowship awardees each year would be decentralized. A subcommittee of the Awards Committee would allocate funds to the colleges and perhaps develop guidelines as well, and the actual awarding of fellowships would be determined within each college.

   The Committee on Graduate Student and Faculty Affairs continues to discuss University Health Insurance in place for graduate students and to consider what changes ought to be considered.

   A special presentation was made by Dr. Diane Enerson, Director of the
   Center for Excellence in Learning and Teaching (CELT). She led an extensive discussion on how CELT helps new graduate students and new faculty develop into good teachers. CELT offers a variety of courses and other programs to assist in these endeavors. The discussion included helping faculty prepare to teach adult learners, how one can evaluate the impact of efforts such as those at CELT and, more generally, how we can improve teaching, etc.

   The Pennsylvania State University

   The University Faculty Senate

   Birch Cottage (814) 863-0221

   Fax: (814) 863-6012

   Date: February 19, 1999

   To: Commonwealth Caucus Senators (This includes all elected Senators from
   Campuses, Colleges, and Locations Other Than University Park)

   From: Deidre Jago and Andrew Romberger

   MONDAY, MARCH 1, 19997:00 PM

   Officers' and Chairs' Meeting Alumni Lounge, NLI

   MONDAY, MARCH 1, 19998:00 PM

   Commonwealth Caucus MEETING CANCELLED

   TUESDAY, MARCH 2, 19997:30 AM

   Intercollegiate AthleticsHUB GALLERY LOUNGE

   8:00 AM

   Curricular Affairs101 Kern Building

   Outreach Activities502 Keller Building

   Student LifePaul Robeson Cultural
   Center

   8:30 AM

   Admissions, Records, Scheduling and
   Student Aid203 Shields

   Committees and Rules227 HUB

   Intra-University Relations305 HUB

   Research 114 Kern Building

   Undergraduate Education307 HUB

   University PlanningDonovan Rm., 204 HUB

   9:00 AM

   Faculty Affairs404 Old Main

   Libraries E510 Paterno Library

   9:30 AM

   Computing and Information Systems101-A Kern Building

   Faculty BenefitsBirch Cottage

   1:30 PM

   The Caucus will meet at 11:00 AM on Tuesday, March 2, 1999, in the Alumni Lounge of the Nittany Lion Inn. A buffet luncheon will be served at noon.

   The Pennsylvania State University

   The University Faculty Senate

   Birch Cottage (814) 863-0221

   Fax: (814) 863-6012

   Date: February 19, 1999

   To: Commonwealth Caucus Senators (This includes all elected Senators from

   Campuses, Colleges, and Locations Other Than University Park)

   From: Deidre Jago and Andrew Romberger

   NO MONDAY NIGHT MEETING THIS MONTH

   TUESDAY, MARCH 2, 1999 -- 11:00 AM -- ALUMNI LOUNGE, NLI

   The Caucus will meet at 11:00 AM on Tuesday, March 2, 1999, in the Alumni Lounge of the Nittany Lion Inn. A buffet luncheon will be served at noon.

   The tentative Agenda includes:

   Call to Order

   Announcements and reports from co-chairs

   Nominations and ELECTION of Caucus Co-chairs

   Discussion of Agenda Items

   Reports from Senate Committees

   Adjournment and Lunch