Penn State University Home

 

THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY

The University Faculty Senate

AGENDA

Tuesday, March 25, 2003, 1:30 p.m.
112 Kern Graduate Building

[In the case of severe weather conditions or other emergencies, please call the Senate Office at (814) 863-0221 to determine if a Senate meeting has been postponed or canceled. This may be done after business office hours by calling the Senate Office number and a voice mail message can be heard concerning the status of any meeting.]

A. MINUTES OF THE PRECEDING MEETING - Minutes of the January 28/February 25, 2003 Meetings in The Senate Record 36:4/36:5

B. COMMUNICATIONS TO THE SENATE

Senate Curriculum Report (Blue Sheets) of March 11, 2003 - Appendix A

Report to the University Planning Committee

Subcommittee to Review the Circleville Property RFP - Appendix B

C. REPORT OF SENATE COUNCIL - Meeting of March 4, 2003

D. ANNOUNCEMENTS BY THE CHAIR

E. COMMENTS BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNIVERSITY

F. FORENSIC BUSINESS

G. UNFINISHED BUSINESS

H. LEGISLATIVE REPORTS

Committees and Rules

Formatting and Delivering Senate Reports - Appendix C

I. ADVISORY/CONSULTATIVE REPORTS

Student Life

Classroom Disruption: Rights and Responsibilities - Appendix D

J. INFORMATIONAL REPORTS

Admissions, Records, Scheduling and Student Aid

Report on eLion Faculty Grade Submission - Appendix E
[5-minute presentation and discussion]

Summary of Petitions for Waiver of the Twelve-Credit Limit for Non-degree Conditional Students - Appendix F
[5-minute presentation and discussion]

Committees and Rules

Nominating Report - 2003-2004 - Appendix G

Faculty Rights and Responsibilities
Standing Joint Committee on Tenure
University Promotion and Tenure Review Committee

Election Commission

Roster of Senators by Voting Units for 2003-04 - Appendix H

Faculty Affairs

Promotion and Tenure Summary 2001-02 - Appendix I
[5-minute presentation and discussion]

Faculty Benefits and Intra-University Relations

Report on Faculty Salaries, Academic Year 2002-03 - Appendix J
[7-minute presentation and 20-minute discussion]

Intercollegiate Athletics

Annual Report of Academic Eligibility and Athletic Scholarships for 2002-03 - Appendix K
[10-minute presentation and discussion]

Senate Council

Update on the Grand Destiny Campaign - Appendix L
[10-minute presentation and 5-minute discussion]

Senate Council Nominating Committee Report - 2003-04

Senate Officers - Appendix M

Chair-Elect and Secretary of the Senate
Faculty Advisory Committee to the President

Undergraduate Education

Annual Grade Distribution Report - Appendix N
[10-minute discussion]

Summary of Student Petitions by College, Unit, or Location - Appendix O
[5-minute discussion]

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, April 22, 2003, at 1:30 p.m. in Room 112 Kern Graduate Building.

Appendix A

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: March 11, 2003

To: John W. Moore, Chair, University Faculty Senate

From: Shelley M. Stoffels, Chair, Senate Committee on Curricular Affairs


The Senate Curriculum Report dated March 11, 2003, 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 April 10, 2003.

The Senate Curriculum Report is available on the web. It can be accessed at http://www.psu.edu/ufs/bluex.html.

Appendix B

Report to the Senate University Planning Committee
from the
Subcommittee to Review the Circleville Property RFP
February 25, 2003

Four subcommittee members met with Dan Sieminski on Tuesday, February 17, to discuss various questions relating to the draft RFP on Purchase and Development of the Circleville Property. Mr. Sieminski sent the draft to members prior to the meeting, and several committee members submitted questions in advance to be addressed during the meeting. Two additional subcommittee members who could not attend the meeting received the first draft of this report and contributed suggestions for its final content.

Mr. Sieminski reviewed in detail a number of changes that have already been made to the
RFP since its distribution to the committee. These included, most notably, a modification to one of the objectives and a reorganization of the Evaluation Criteria into two major categories, each with several subcategories. The latter changes have addressed some of the subcommittee members' early concerns with the proposal.

In addition, Mr. Sieminski agreed to consider:

It is recommended that attaching conservation easements to the deed for the land be considered to better address the long-term environmental objectives envisioned for the parcel and to insure that these contingencies would last into perpetuity. The RFP should encourage respondents to consider proposing that such easements be attached to the deed, consistent with the manner in which they intend to address environmental and conservation aspects in their development plans.

The subcommittee also urges that the University Faculty Senate, as well as the central administration, continue to encourage the development of "internal" proposals and to stress that these need not involve purchase of the land, since the land is already owned by the University. Although University officials have expressed their intention to sell the parcel, both because it will make possible the purchase of land more suitable for the College of Agricultural Sciences' purposes and because the University is not interested in developing the land itself, the RFP does communicate an interest in creative, environmentally sound and community-oriented solutions. We presume, however, that alternative proposals coming from within (outside of the RFP process) will be considered until the commitment to sell to one of the RFP respondents is finalized. The proposed timeline affords almost six months (13 weeks, from now until the proposal deadline of May 30 for external responses, plus 8 to 10 weeks beyond that before a decision is made to recommend sale and a contract is executed with the selected respondent) for internal proposals to be organized, developed and advanced for consideration.

SUBCOMMITTEE TO REVIEW THE CIRCLEVILLE PROPERTY RFP
John Boehmer
Dan Brinker
Peter Everett
Dan Hagen
Chris Johnstone
Rob Pangborn, subcommittee chair

Appendix C

SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMITTEES AND RULES

Formatting and Delivering Senate Reports

(Legislative)
Implementation: Fall 2003

Introduction

The Senate currently receives informational reports in written or oral form. Review of data from the last six Senate years (1996-97/2001-2002) indicates that the Senate received a total of 319 reports, of which 148 were non-mandated informational reports and 59 were mandated informational reports. Thus, sixty-five percent of the reports given to the Senate in this six-year period were either informational or mandated reports.

Among the current concerns with the presentation of informational reports to the Senate are the redundant oral presentation of information that is presented in written reports, the lack of adherence to time limits, and the presentation of reports that fail to further the educational interests of the University. Time spent in Senate meetings on informational reports could, in many cases, be used more profitably to discuss and debate issues of greater immediate and long-range importance to members of the Senate.

Rationale

Information regarding the origin, formatting and delivering informational reports is presented in the March 26, 1985 legislation on the Format of Senate Reports, a 1992 document on Guidelines for Oral Informational Reports (unknown origin), and an undated checklist for the preparation of reports (unknown origin). In addition, a February 13, 2002 correspondence written by Dennis S. Gouran to the Senate Self-Study Committee at the request of Senate Chair John S. Nichols makes several suggestions concerning informational reports. The goal of this report is to consolidate the available guidelines and suggestions for informational reports and make recommendations in order to streamline Senate meetings and to provide more time for substantive debate and discussion.

Recommendations

a) Oral Informational Reports. The practice of permitting Senate committees to sponsor oral informational reports will be discontinued. Committees will be permitted to sponsor written reports, as described in recommendations (b) and (c) below. By considering only written reports, Senate Council can better evaluate the readiness and appropriateness of reports prior to placing them on the Senate Agenda.

The Senate Council may sponsor reports from University administrators.

b) Mandated Reports. Written copies of mandated reports will be placed in the Senate Agenda, but neither presented nor summarized orally at Senate meetings. These reports are routine, and if prepared well, are self-explanatory. Senate Council will allot time at the Senate meetings for reactions to the mandated reports and for sponsors to respond to such reactions. Presenters must adhere to time limits.

c) Non-Mandated Informational Reports. Sponsors of the non-mandated informational reports must clearly articulate a specific purpose for taking Senate meeting time. Printed copies of the non-mandated reports will be placed in the Senate Agenda, but presenters will neither present nor review the contents of such reports at Senate meetings, unless Senate Council determines that an oral presentation is warranted. Senate Council will allot time at the Senate meetings for reactions to the non-mandated reports and for sponsors to respond to such reactions. Presenters must adhere to time limits.

d) Adopt the following Checklist for the Preparation of Reports.

CHECK LIST FOR THE PREPARATION OF REPORTS

The purpose of the checklist is to aid Senate Office staff and Committee Chairs in preparing written reports in a format that can be reviewed and acted upon expeditiously.

Format of Reports

LEGISLATIVE REPORTS

1. Introduction: Define the issues that require the legislative action and provide the historical context, if appropriate.
2. Discussion and Rationale: Identify the issues over which the Senate has authority, discuss the reasons for the proposal, and identify its consequences. Where applicable, costs of implementation should be included.
3. Recommendations: Move the specific action that the Senate can implement. This section should be brief and specific, so that it is very clear what the Senate is voting on.
4. Effective Date: Recommend the date of implementation.
5. Ending: List the committee members proposing legislation.

ADVISORY AND CONSULTATIVE REPORTS

1. Introduction: Define the issues germane to the faculty's interest.
2. Discussion: Discuss why the proposed action needs to be taken. Where applicable, costs of implementation should be included.
3. Advisory Proposal: Specify the actions the Senate would like to implement. This section should be brief and specific, so that it is very clear what the Senate is voting on.
4. Ending: List the committee members preparing the report.

INFORMATIONAL REPORTS (MANDATED AND NON-MANDATED)

1. Introduction: Define the issues germane to the faculty's interest, and state the reason why the report is necessary.
2. Information: Present the data or other information as needed.
3. Discussion and Conclusion: State the implications for the faculty.
5. Ending: List the committee members preparing the report.

Delegation of Duties

Senate Office

The Executive Secretary of the Senate will ensure that each report conforms to the checklist. Reports found not to conform will be brought to the attention of the Senate Chair who will discuss the issue with the Committee Chair.

Senate Chair

The Chair shall review reports prior to meetings of the Senate Council to ensure that they are properly organized. At meetings of the Council, the Chair's task is to guide the conversation and to seek consensus.

Executive Secretary

During Senate Council's discussion of a report, suggestions for changes in a report are often made. If Senate Council votes to approve a report for a Senate meeting with changes, it is the responsibility of the Executive Secretary to verify that the changes are included in the final report.

Timetable

The timetable for report deadlines will be added to this checklist on a yearly basis.

SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMITTEES AND RULES
Deborah F. Atwater
Christopher J. Bise
Melvin Blumberg
Lynn A. Carpenter
Joseph J. Cecere
Peter Deines
Joanna Floros, Vice-Chair
Pamela P. Hufnagel
J. Daniel Marshall
John W. Moore
John S. Nichols
Andrew B. Romberger
Stephen M. Smith
Valerie N. Stratton, Chair

Appendix D

SENATE COMMITTEE ON STUDENT LIFE

Classroom Disruption: Rights and Responsibilities

(Advisory/Consultative)

Introduction

At an institution as complex as Penn State, faculty often do not know what rights and responsibilities they have with regard to maintaining civility in the classroom. Likewise, they do not know what rights and responsibilities their students have, and students, too, are often not well informed about what the limits of their behavior are.

The issue of what to do with classroom disruptions has been referred repeatedly to the Student Life Committee over the past ten years. In April 2000, Student Life presented an informational report to the Senate on "Incivility in the Classroom," which laid out some of the difficulties in defining the problem and suggested an agenda for further exploring the prevalence of classroom incidents at Penn State. In Spring 2002, the Student Life communicated with college deans at all locations, asking for their perceptions of the situation and asking if they had formulated a policy statement. In general, few specific incidents had been brought to the attention of administrators, but many indicated that faculty perceived the situation as problematic. Some departments and campuses had formulated clear statements of expectations; most had not.

After communicating with the Office of Judicial Affairs, the Student Life Committee concluded that policies were already in place sufficient to deal with the most severe cases of classroom disruption, in which students actively prevented faculty from conducting the class or harassed them. For the less severe cases, we agreed that definitions of incivility could reasonably differ from class to class and teacher to teacher, and so no new policy could satisfy all situations. This, the Committee felt, was a matter of classroom management, in which faculty could set reasonable standards for behavior and expect them to be enforced by their department or campus. However, students have a right to know these standards and to be treated with respect when a difference occurs between themselves and a faculty member.

Therefore, the Student Life Committee agreed not to propose new policies and procedures in this area but rather to publicize in this document the existing rules governing classroom behavior and suggest means of clarifying them to students. We also felt that the existing rules, as adapted appropriately to fit the needs and structures of departments and campuses, should be made available to all newly-hired and part-time faculty by their department head, Director of Academic Affairs, or equivalent, as part of the orientation and mentoring process.

What is Classroom Disruption?

One standard source on the topic characterizes classroom disruption as "behaviors that any reasonable person would view as substantially or repeatedly interfering with class conduct."[1] Another defines the term in a broad, generic sense as "behavior that persistently or grossly interferes with academic and administrative activities on campus."[2] A model statement on the topic, published in the Spring 2000 issue of Synthesis: Law and Policy in Higher Education, stresses that "The primary responsibility for managing the classroom environment rests with the faculty." Examples of behavior that a teacher might reasonably prohibit, this statement said, might include smoking in the classroom, persistently speaking without being called upon, refusing to be seated, and disrupting the class by repeatedly leaving and entering the room without authorization.

The Penn State Office of Judicial Affairs, based on its handling of such situations in the past, has listed the following as "obvious examples of disruptive behavior":

Threatening the instructor and others with physical violence
Disorientated or erratic behavior
Constant sleeping or talking
Consistently entering class late
Shouting at classmates
Providing distractions to others
Reading a newspaper
Using cell phones

In another example, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, in the case of Salehpour v. University of Tennessee, et al. (1998), held that "conduct by the student, in class or out of it, which for any reason-whether it stems from time, place, or type of behavior-materially disrupts class work or involves substantial disorder or invasion of the rights of others is, of course, not immunized by the constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech." To be sure, the court held, students do have a right to engage in the vigorous expression of ideas, some of which may be offensive but are nevertheless protected. However, the court concluded, "where the expression appears to have no intellectual content or even discernible purpose, and amounts to nothing more than expression of a personal proclivity designed to disrupt the educational process, such expression is not protected." Rather, it is outweighed by a compelling interest of faculty "to educate in an environment that is free of purposeless distractions and is conducive to teaching."[3]

The consensus, then, is that classroom disruption involves activities that are personal in nature, are not associated with the free exchange of ideas encouraged in the classroom, have no clear educational purpose, and would be considered by most faculty and students as distracting or annoying.

What is Penn State's Policy on Classroom Disruption?

Penn State's "Code of Conduct" defines forbidden actions that are "inconsistent with the essential values of the University community." Section 9 refers in part to

Obstruction or disruption of classes . . . . Disruption is defined as an action or combination of actions by one or more individuals that unreasonably interferes with, hinders, obstructs, or prevents the operation of the University or infringes on the rights of others to freely participate in its programs and services.[4]

The "Penn State Principles," formulated to communicate the intent of the Code of Conduct, asks all members of the University community to endorse the following statement: "I will exercise personal responsibility for my actions and I will make sure that my actions do not interfere with the academic and social environment of the University." [5]

The model statement published in Synthesis: Law and Policy in Higher Education, based on procedures in place at many universities, states:

Students who engage in any prohibited or unlawful acts that result in disruption of a class may be directed by the faculty member to leave the class for the remainder of the class period. Longer suspensions from a class, or dismissal on disciplinary grounds, must be preceded by a disciplinary conference or hearing . . . [6]

Penn State's current rules and procedures are consistent with this model statement. In the "Preamble" to the Student Guide to General University Policies and Rules 2002-2003, published annually by the Office of Student Affairs and made available to all Penn State students, one of the rights of the institution is to "set reasonable standards of conduct in order to safeguard the educational process."[7] Judicial Affairs' "Policy Statement on Free Expression and Disruption" holds that the University protects and promotes the free exchange of ideas and peaceful, non-obstructive expressions of dissent, so long as they do not interfere with its functions, including regularly scheduled course meetings in classrooms. However, University officials have the responsibility to "restrain or prohibit behavior that threatens the purposes . . . of the University," this statement concludes.[8]

The Senate's advisory/consultative report "Toward a More Vibrant Learning Culture at Penn State" (approved in April 2000) called for faculty to reinforce a set of common expectations for student behavior, the first of which was to "Maintain an atmosphere of academic integrity, respect and civility." The report added, "Respect for teachers and fellow students and civility in voice and word is necessary."

However, faculty do not have the right to bar students from the classroom permanently. Such an act is akin to a disciplinary act of "Interim Expulsion," and while students do not have the right to disrupt classes, similarly faculty do not have the right to deprive them of their educational opportunity without following set institutional procedures. Cases of threatened violence or harassment, however, are infractions of the Code of Conduct and should be dealt with through the Judicial Affairs officer at the location where the infraction occurred. In such cases, students may be barred from the classroom pending an expedited institutional review.

A Model Statement on How to Handle Classroom Disruption

The following statement is based on current recommendations of the Office of Judicial Affairs, as well as the Student Life Committee's survey of existing policy statements, such as the Behrend College statement "Faculty Rights Regarding Classroom Behavior"[9] and the English Department's "Procedures for Addressing Plagiarism, Academic Dishonesty, and Problematic Behavior." It is designed as a guide to understanding existing Penn State policies and procedures for dealing with inappropriate classroom behavior.

To safeguard the educational process and maintain an atmosphere of civility in the classroom, faculty are encouraged to abide by the following guidelines:

1. Set Clear Standards of Behavior

Setting clear standards of behavior at the beginning of a course is a powerful deterrent to inappropriate behavior. In their syllabi, faculty members should state their expectations for classroom behavior and define inappropriate actions. Obvious examples of such actions include sleeping or talking in class, shouting at classmates, or reading a newspaper. If a faculty member feels that eating in class, using cell phones, spitting smokeless tobacco, or any other such behavior is inappropriate, this should be explained in the syllabus. In addition, if an academic penalty is to be imposed as a result of prohibited actions (e.g., being late or not participating fully in group projects), this should be clearly indicated on the syllabus.

2. Confront Inappropriate Behavior

When students behave inappropriately, the behavior should be pointed out as quickly as possible while treating the student with respect and courtesy. Ideally, the correction should be done in private. However, some problems require immediate attention, i.e. students talking among themselves and disrupting class. When confronting the student in public, the faculty member should identify the inappropriate behavior, request that it should not be repeated, and explain that it is disruptive to the rest of the class. In doing so, the faculty member must treat the student with respect to help keep the situation from escalating and avoiding further disruption.

3. If the Behavior Continues, Remove the Student from Class

Faculty have the right to request that students leave a class provided that their actions are obviously distracting and not conducive to an educational environment. After doing so, meet with the student privately to explain the inappropriateness of his or her behavior, and ask that it cease immediately. Explain that if the behavior continues, you may file a complaint with the Office of Judicial Affairs. This may be followed up with a written statement repeating this message.

In the case of simple inappropriate behavior, faculty do not have the right to bar the student from additional class meetings without institutional reviews being afforded to the student. In no case can a student be permanently expelled from a class without appropriate institutional reviews. Faculty should also not tell students to drop a course against their will.

In the case of a serious disruption of the learning environment (i.e. fighting, unbalanced behavior, threats of violence, harassment), however, Campus Safety officials should be contacted for immediate dispatch to the class. Students engaged in such behavior will not be permitted to return to class until institutional procedures are completed. Campus Safety officials will notify the department chair and Judicial Affairs officer (or local equivalents) in such a case.

4. If the Behavior Still Is Not Stopped, File a Complaint with the Judicial Affairs Officer

The department head (or equivalent at campus locations) as well as the Judicial Affairs officer should be notified when this occurs. Disruptions of this nature are a violation of the University Code of Conduct and should be handled through Judicial Affairs proceedings coordinated by the local representative of the Student Affairs Office who, if the student is found responsible, will determine an appropriate sanction. Sanctions may include moving the student to another section of the course or administrative removal from the course.

Should a faculty member wish to discuss how best to respond to a student's behavior in class, he/she is encouraged to contact the location's judicial officer, as well as the campus or departmental person who is responsible for mediating faculty/student disagreements.

Recommendation

In order to help faculty and students better understand Penn State policies on classroom disruptions, the Senate Committee on Student Life recommends that all Penn State faculty and students receive copies of the following two documents: 1) the Office of Judicial Affairs' "Policy Statement on Free Expression and Disruption" http://www.sa.psu.edu/ja/free.html and 2) the procedures for dealing with inappropriate classroom behavior outlined in this report under the following headings:

1. Set clear standards of behavior
2. Confront inappropriate behavior
3. If the behavior continues, remove the student from the class
4. If the behavior still continues, file a complaint with the Judicial Affairs Officer

These documents should be made available to all current faculty and students and subsequently given to all matriculating students and all newly hired faculty during the orientation and mentoring process.

____________
1 Gary Pavela, "Responding to disruptive students: A case study," College Administration Publications September 11, 2000. Available: http://www.collegepubs.com/ref/SFX000911.shtml.

2 Gerald Amada. Coping with the Disruptive Student: A Practical Model. Asheville, NC: College Administration Publications, 1994.

3 1998 FED App. 0318P (6th Cir.) Available: http://www.law.emory.edu/6circuit/aug98/98a0318p.06.html.

4 Available: http://www.sa.psu.edu/ja/policyexerpts.html#conduct.

5 Available: http://www.psu.edu/ur/principles.pdf.

6 Quoted in Pavela 2000.

7 Available: http://www.sa.psu.edu/ja/PoliciesRules.pdf.

8 Available: http://www.sa.psu.edu/ja/free.html

9 As given in that college’s Part-Time Faculty Handbook (revised August 22, 2002). Available: http://www.pserie.psu.edu/faculty/academics/PTFacultyHandbook.pdf.

SENATE COMMITTEE ON STUDENT LIFE
William W. Asbury
Arthur W. Carter
James M. Donovan
Bill Ellis, Chair
Charles R. Enis
Andrzej J. Gapinski
Timothy N. Gray
Wallace H. Greene
Andrew K. Masters
Dale A. Holen
Gwenn E. McCollum
Irwin Richman, Vice-Chair
Kristin Seabright
Kristin Sommese
Jennifer Tingo
Bridget Van Osten
Alexandros N. Vgontzas

Appendix E

SENATE COMMITTEE ON ADMISSIONS, RECORDS,
SCHEDULING AND STUDENT AID

Report on eLion Faculty Grade Submission

(Informational)

Background

Over the past several years, a convergence of two technologies has led to an effort to reengineer the University's process of collecting and recording end-of-semester grades. First, the printing, distribution, completion, collection, and scanning of more than 13,000 printed grade rosters from 24 campuses and 160 academic departments have yielded increasing levels of unreliability. This unreliability resulted in a crisis situation at the end of Spring Semester 2002.

Second, the emergence of the Web, along with its many inherent advantages, is something that Penn State needs to capitalize on. Penn State is well-positioned to deliver reliable, secure applications through the Web. In particular, this reengineering project has led to the further development of eLion faculty applications.

The eLion Faculty Grade Entry application was first used during Summer Session 2001. This initial usage was limited to an invited group of 18 faculty from several campuses and colleges, teaching both small and large sections. At the end of Fall Semester 2001, more than 100 faculty used this service. Based on feedback from the faculty, the system was modified to further improve functionality. During Spring Semester 2002, 433 instructors from 16 campuses graded 1,313 sections (8% of total grades) using this eLion service.

Starting with Fall Semester 2002, the use of scanning technology to record all undergraduate and graduate grades was eliminated. Grades were recorded using online technologies, with specific emphasis on fully utilizing the Web. Grade collection also continued to be available for faculty utilizing the grading services of University Testing Services.

Overview

The Penn State grade collection system for all undergraduate and graduate courses provides for three options:

1. eLion. Starting with Fall 2002, faculty were encouraged to record their end-of-semester grades using the eLion Grade Entry application. To use this service, faculty had to (1) be identified as the instructor of record for the course (this is the same identification necessary for a faculty member to obtain a class list through eLion or ANGEL); (2) possess an active Penn State Access Account (userID and password); and (3) possess a SecurID token. There were no special hardware or software requirements when connecting to the Web. Faculty using eLion realized the following advantages:

a. Grades could be recorded immediately following the end date of the course. The instructor received an e-mail reminder when the course-grading period was open.
b. After entering grades, the instructor could return to enter additional grades, make revisions, or review previously entered grades.
c. Grades were immediately available to the student, eliminating the need for faculty to mail postcards or to post grades at their office or to handle e-mail and telephone inquiries from students regarding their grades.
d. No paper rosters were required, and no documents needed to be returned to the Registrar's office. The grade audit trail was captured electronically.
e. Grades could be submitted during the hours of 7:30 a.m. to midnight from any computer connected to the Internet. (eLion was scheduled to be unavailable December 24 and 25.)
f. Faculty received an e-mail confirmation of submitted grades.
g. After grade entry, faculty could view recorded grades and print a Grade Review Report for their files.

2. Grade Recording by Staff. Academic department staff members at the University Park campus were empowered to record grades on behalf of the faculty using the Integrated Student Information System (ISIS). These staff joined the staff in the Registrar's office and the campus registrars who have always been empowered to receive and record faculty grades into the ISIS system. All authorized staff members were required to have a SecurID token to record grades on behalf of the faculty. As part of this implementation, new ISIS capabilities were developed including:

a. Screen ARICR - produce grade roster
b. Screen ARUCF - grade entry
c. Screen ARICQ - grading status. This provided real-time information about the number of grades expected and recorded, with information summarized by campus, college, department, course, or section.

3. University Testing Services. Faculty using the examination scoring services of University Testing Services (UTS) could continue to have their final grades computed and transmitted electronically to the Registrar's office.

SecurID Token

Since conducting business over the Web has many inherent advantages, Penn State plans to take advantage of all of the built-in benefits and capabilities offered through Web technologies. Over time there will be many services for faculty that will be delivered over the Web. The first available service is the eLion Grade Entry application.

Conducting business over the Web does introduce a new challenge-insuring that University records are secure and that unauthorized entry is prevented. Penn State has adopted an approach to Internet security that is commonly referred to as "two-factor authentication." The first factor consists of "what you know"-the Penn State Access Account (UserID and password). The second factor is "what you have"-the SecurID token.

Provost Erickson extended financial support to each college in the acquisition of SecurID tokens for all faculty. The Provost funded 2/3 of the cost of these tokens; the college was required to pay the remaining $25 cost. These tokens have an operational life of 4.5 years. Other technologies are being developed that will be available before the SecurID tokens expire. These new technologies will be less expensive and are anticipated to provide even greater levels of security in the future.

Education and Training

From the very start of this implementation, it was recognized that to be successful, thousands of Penn State faculty and staff would need to clearly understand the upcoming change and the implications this change would have on the grade submission procedures. The following points provide a summary of the communication efforts since mid-summer 2002 to notify the University community and to provide opportunities for hands-on experience with the new technologies:

The Results

At the conclusion of the grade collection cycle for Fall Semester 2002, 353,515 grades were received from faculty. The distribution of these grades by source of recording was:

Entry Source Number of Grades Percent of Total Grades
eLion
297,712
84%
Staff Recording
28,966
8%
UTS
26,837
8%
Total
353,515
100%

Some specific observations about the receipt of grades for Fall 2002:

Next Steps

As the new process was monitored in a real-time mode during the grade reporting period last semester, two particular issues became common themes. They were:

1. The system use of the NG grade symbol. One of the announced benefits of using the eLion Faculty Grade Entry application was the elimination of the requirement to grade all students at one sitting. For example, faculty were encouraged to first record grades for graduating students and then to record grades for all other students. When grades were recorded for some students, the computer system automatically assigned a NG (no grade) symbol to all remaining students. This resulted in concern from those students that the instructor had no intention of assigning a grade, which of course was not true. The Registrar's office has already changed the system to simply leave these grades blank.

2. Confusion surrounding grading of some independent study courses. Courses numbered 296, 496, and 596 are classified as independent study. These creative learning experiences are supervised on an individual basis. Students may not register for these courses without prior approval of the faculty member.

While the eLion grading application did not introduce any change to the registration process of independent study courses, the new grading practice did expose an inappropriate administrative practice that resulted in grading-related confusion from involved faculty.

In some academic units, a single independent study section was offered for instruction. As multiple faculty would approve students, the students would all be registered into this single section. In like manner, all involved faculty were assigned as instructors of record for the single section. The correct procedure is to create one independent study section for each instructor who has approved students for independent study registration.

The resulting confusion was that as each of the involved instructors examined their grade roster, they saw names of students that they had not approved. This resulted in questions about why the student was registered for this course; some instructors assigned an F grade to these "non-approved" students. Another problem was that as instructors entered grades for their own students, every other "instructor of record" received an e-mail notification of the change of grades, adding to the confusion.

The Registrar's office has contacted all involved academic units regarding the correct process of offering independent study courses. The course offerings and student registrations for the current spring semester have been corrected.

While this first large-scale implementation of these enhanced grade collection procedures was a success, the Registrar's office is continuing to examine opportunities to further improve these services. In particular:

SENATE COMMITTEE ON ADMISSIONS, RECORDS, SCHEDULING AND STUDENT AID
Edward W. Bittner
Stephen Browne
Mark A. Casteel, Chair
Milton W. Cole
Anna Griswold
Geoffrey J. Harford
Luen-Chau Li
Christopher J. Lynch
Paul Neiheisel
Gene P. Petriello
John J. Romano
Thomas A. Seybert
Carol A. Smith, Vice-Chair
Richard A. Wade
J. James Wager

Appendix F

SENATE COMMITTEE ON ADMISSIONS, RECORDS,
SCHEDULING AND STUDENT AID

Summary of Petitions for Waiver of the Twelve-Credit Limit
for Non-degree Conditional Students

(Informational)

Students who have been dropped for poor scholarship are commonly called non-degree conditional students. These students are limited to twelve (12) credits per semester/session while working to improve their cumulative average for reinstatement to degree candidacy. Exceptions to the twelve-credit limitation may be requested of the Senate Committee on Admissions, Records, Scheduling and Student Aid. Exceptions might include: difficulty scheduling courses to stay in sequence for the student's program; or, the student has shown evidence of improved academic performance.

A summary of the actions of these petitions follows:

For the Period Submitted Granted Denied
08/01/99 - 08/31/00
29
26
3
09/01/00 - 07/31/01
13
10
3
08/01/01 - 08/31/02
12
11
1

A detailed breakdown by college, unit or location follows this report for your information.


SENATE COMMITTEE ON ADMISSIONS, RECORDS, SCHEDULING AND STUDENT AID
Edward W. Bittner
Stephen Browne
Mark A. Casteel, Chair
Milton W. Cole
Anna Griswold
Geoffrey J. Harford
Steven D. Koeber
Luen-Chan Li
Christopher J. Lynch
Paul Neiheisel
John J. Romano
Thomas A. Seybert
Carol A. Smith, Vice-Chair
Richard A. Wade
J. James Wager

Summary of Twelve-Credit Limit Petitions

2000-01

2001-02
College or Unit Approved Denied Approved Approved
Agricultural Sciences 1 0 0 0
Abington 2 1 0 0
Beaver 1 0 0 0
Berks-Lehigh Valley 2 0 4 0
Division of Undergraduate Studies 0 0 2 0
Eberly College of Science 0 0 1 0
Health & Human Development 3 0 2 0
Liberal Arts 0 2 0 1
Smeal College of Business Adm. 1 0 1 0
York 0 0 1 0

Appendix G

THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY

University Faculty Senate

Senate Committee on Committees and Rules

Nominating Report - 2003-2004

Standing Joint Committee on Tenure
(Two [2] to be elected - one [1] member and one [1] alternate) Three-year term.

Richard Kopley, Associate Professor of English, Commonwealth College, DuBois Campus

Gordon DeJong, Distinguished Professor of Sociology and Demography, College of the Liberal Arts, University Park

Jill Findeis, Professor of Agricultural, Environmental, and Regional Economics and Demography, College of Agricultural Sciences, University Park

Keith Burkhart, Associate Professor of Medicine, College of Medicine, Hershey


University Promotion and Tenure Review Committee
(Four [4] to be elected) Two-year term.

David Passmore, Professor of Education, College of Education, University Park

Lourdes Diaz Soto, Professor of Education and Applied Linguistics, College of Education, University Park

Jose Ventura, Professor of Industrial and Manufacturing Engineering, College of Engineering, University Park

Lyle Long, Professor of Aerospace Engineering, College of Engineering, University Park

Richard Barshinger, Professor of Mathematics, Commonwealth College, Worthington Scranton Campus

Michael Cardamone, Professor of Physics, Penn State Harrisburg, Schuylkill Campus


Faculty Rights and Responsibilities

Faculty - University Park
(Three [3] to be elected - two [2] members and one [1] alternate) Three-year term.

Gita Talmage, Associate Professor of Mechanical Engineering, College of Engineering, University Park

Marilyn Page, Assistant Professor of Education, College of Education, University Park

Joan Thomson, Professor of Agricultural Communications, College of Agricultural Sciences, University Park

Robert Frieden, Pioneers Chair in Cable Telecommunications and Professor of Telecommunications, College of Communications, University Park

Michael Bernhard, Associate Professor of Political Science, College of the Liberal Arts, University Park

Paul Cohen, Distinguished Professor of Industrial Engineering, College of Engineering, University Park


Faculty Other Than University Park
(One [1] to be elected - one alternate) Three-year term.

Patricia Hinchey, Associate Professor of Education, Commonwealth College, Worthington Scranton Campus

Norbert Mayr, Associate Professor of History, Commonwealth College, Worthington Scranton Campus

John McWilliams, Associate Professor of History, Commonwealth College, DuBois Campus


Deans
(Two [2] to be elected - one [1] member and one [1] alternate) Three-year term.

Douglas Anderson, Dean, College of Communications, University Park

David Wormley, Dean, College of Engineering, University Park

Raymond Coward, Dean, College of Health and Human Development, University Park

William Cale, Dean and CEO, Altoona College

SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMITTEES AND RULES
Deborah F. Atwater
Christopher J. Bise
Melvin Blumberg
Lynn A. Carpenter
Joseph J. Cecere
Peter Deines
Joanna Floros, Vice-Chair
Pamela P. Hufnagel
J. Daniel Marshall
John W. Moore
John S. Nichols
Andrew B. Romberger
Stephen M. Smith
Valerie N. Stratton, Chair

Appendix H

ROSTER OF SENATORS BY VOTING UNITS: 2003-2004

ABINGTON COLLEGE

SENATORS (6)

Term Expires 2004
Smith, James F.
  Term Expires 2006
Rebane, P. Peter
Term Expires 2005
Payne, Judy Ozment
Schmiedekamp, Ann
  Term Expires 2007
Alcock, James
Turner, Tramble T.

 

Representative on the Senate Council: James F. Smith

ALTOONA COLLEGE

SENATORS (7)

Term Expires 2004
Brown, Douglas K.
  Term Expires 2006
Su, Mila C.
Tormey, Brian B.
Term Expires 2005
Brunsden, Victor W.
  Term Expires 2007
Costantino, Roselyn
Osagie, Sylvester
Wiens-Tuers, Barbara A.

 

Representative on the Senate Council: Mila C. Su

BEHREND COLLEGE

SENATORS (10)

Term Expires 2004
Barney, Paul E., Jr.
Blasko, Dawn G.
Burchard, Charles L.
Troester, Rodney L.
  Term Expires 2006
Becker, Paul E.
Irwin, Zachary T.
McCarty, Ronald L.
Simmonds, Patience L.
Term Expires 2005
Gray, Robert
  Term Expires 2007
Khalilollahi, Amir

Representative on the Senate Council: Ronald L. McCarty

BERKS-LEHIGH VALLEY COLLEGE
Penn State Berks

SENATORS (5)

Term Expires 2004
None
  Term Expires 2006
Ansari, Mohamad A.
Zervanos, Stamatis M.
Term Expires 2005
Milakofsky, Louis
  Term Expires 2007
Romberger, Andrew B. Spigelman, Candace

 

Representative on the Senate Council: Louis Milakofsky

 

Penn State Lehigh Valley

SENATORS (1)

Term Expires 2004
Egolf, Roger A.
  Term Expires 2006
None
Term Expires 2005
None
  Term Expires 2007
None

Representative on the Senate Council: Louis Milakofsky

CAPITAL COLLEGE
Penn State Harrisburg

SENATORS (8)

Term Expires 2004
Cecere, Joseph J.
Ray, Gautam
Sachs, Howard G.
  Term Expires 2006
Mara, Cynthia M.
Term Expires 2005
Richards, Winston A.
  Term Expires 2007
Blumberg, Melvin
DuPont-Morales, Toni
Wilson, Matthew

 

Representative on the Senate Council: No Results

Penn State Schuylkill

SENATORS (3)

Term Expires 2004
None
  Term Expires 2006
Urenko, John B.
Term Expires 2005
None
 

Term Expires 2007
Cardamone, Michael
Vickers, Anita


Representative on the Senate Council: No Results

COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES

SENATORS (17)

Term Expires 2004
Adams, Phyllis F.
Hagen, Daniel R.
Smith, Stephen M.
Thomson, Joan S.
  Term Expires 2006
Barbato, Guy F.
Hilton, James W.
Petersen, Gary W.
Yoder, Edgar P.
Term Expires 2005
Holcomb, E. Jay
Kephart, Kenneth B.
Ziegler, Gregory R.
 

Term Expires 2007
Baggett, Connie D.
Cox-Foster, Diana
Roth, Gregory W.
Steiner, Kim C.
Wheeler, Eileen F.
Yahner, Richard H.

 

Representative on the Senate Council: Connie Baggett

COLLEGE OF ARTS AND ARCHITECTURE

SENATORS (9)

Term Expires 2004
Brinker, Dan. T. (replacing D. Willis)
Curran, Brian A.
  Term Expires 2006
Kunze, Donald E.
Sommese, Kristin Breslin Szczygiel, Bonj
Term Expires 2005
DeCastro, W. Travis
Kennedy, Richard R.
 

Term Expires 2007
Gorby, Christine L.
McCorkle, Sallie M.

 

Representative on the Senate Council: No Results

COLLEGE OF COMMUNICATIONS

SENATORS (3)

Term Expires 2004
Calvert, Clay
  Term Expires 2006
Oliver, Mary Beth
Term Expires 2005
Berner, R. Thomas
 

Term Expires 2007
None

Representative on the Senate Council: Jacqueline R. Esposito

COLLEGE OF EARTH & MINERAL SCIENCES

SENATORS (8)

Term Expires 2004
Deines, Peter
Green, David J.
  Term Expires 2006
Lee, Sukyoung
Scaroni, Alan W.
Term Expires 2005
Bise, Christopher J.
Macdonald, Digby D.
 

Term Expires 2007
Engelder, Terry
Hellmann, John R.

Representative on the Senate Council: Alan W. Scaroni

COLLEGE OF EDUCATION

SENATORS (8)

Term Expires 2004
Marshall, J. Daniel
Watkins, Marley W.
  Term Expires 2006
Evensen, Dorothy H.
Semali, Ladislaus M.
Term Expires 2005
Geiger, Roger L.
 

Term Expires 2007
Farmer, Edgar I.
Myers, Jamie M.
Vandiver, Beverly J.

 

Representative on the Senate Council: No Results

COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING

SENATORS (25)

Term Expires 2004
Carpenter, Lynn A.
Jonson, Michael L.
Pietrucha, Martin T.
Sathianathan, Dhushy
  Term Expires 2006
Atchley, Anthony A.
Catchen, Gary L.
Mason, John M.
Pangborn, Robert N.
Simpson, Timothy W.
Smith, Edward C.
Stoffels, Shelley M.
Term Expires 2005
Boothby, Thomas E.
Coraor, Lee D.
Curtis, Wayne R.
Frecker, Mary I.
Harris, Norman (replacing P. Tikalsky)
Pauley, Laura L.
Werner, Douglas H.
 

Term Expires 2007
Baratta, Anthony J.
Harmonosky, Catherine
Lau, Andrew
Miller, Arthur C.
Pytel, Jean Landa
Smith, Nadine
Voigt, Robert

Representative on the Senate Council: No Results

COLLEGE OF HEALTH & HUMAN DEVELOPMENT

SENATORS (15)

Term Expires 2004
Hanley, Elizabeth A.
Slobounov, Semyon (Sam) Sternad, Dagmar
  Term Expires 2006
Challis, John H.
Corwin, Elizabeth J.
Cranage, David A.
Mattila, Anna S.

Term Expires 2005
Burgess, Robert L.
Fosmire, Gary J.
Hupcey, Judith E.
Ricketts, Bob D.

 

Term Expires 2007
Frank, Thomas A.
Hutchinson, Susan L.
Shea, Dennis G.
Smith, Carol A.

 

Representative on the Senate Council: Robert L. Burgess

COLLEGE OF MEDICINE

SENATORS (33)

Term Expires 2004
Ambrose, Anthony
Bollard, Edward R., Jr.
Goldman, Margaret B.
Greene, Wallace H.
High, Kane M.
Simons, Richard J., Jr.
  Term Expires 2006
Burkhart, Keith K.
Chorney, Michael J.
Davis, Dwight
Floros, Joanna
Lynch, Christopher J.
Meyers, Craig M.
Schengrund, Cara-Lynne
Verner, Keith
Vgontzas, Alexandros N.
Term Expires 2005
Boehmer, John P.
Eslinger, Paul J.
Marshall, Wayne K.
Romano, Paula J.
Vary, Thomas C.
 

Term Expires 2007
No Results

 

Representative on the Senate Council: No Results

COLLEGE OF THE LIBERAL ARTS

SENATORS (23)

Term Expires 2004
Atwater, Deborah F.
Clark, Paul F.
De Jong, Gordon F.
Harvey, Irene E.
  Term Expires 2006
Benson, Thomas W.
Eckhardt, Caroline D.
Love, Nancy S.
Mengisteab, Kidane
Moses, Wilson J.
Simon, Julia B.
Term Expires 2005
Browne, Stephen
Browning, Barton W.
Carlson, Richard A.
Clark-Evans, Christine
Johnstone, Christopher L.(replacing M. Bernhard)
Tachibana, Reiko
 

Term Expires 2007
Gonzalez-Perez, Anibal
Gouran, Dennis S.
Monicat, Benedicte
Moore, John W.
Osagie, Iyunolu
Selzer, John L.
Welch, Susan

Representative on the Senate Council: Dennis S. Gouran

COMMONWEALTH COLLEGE
Penn State Beaver

SENATORS (2)

Term Expires 2004
Mookerjee, Rajen
  Term Expires 2006
Wijekumar, Kay
Term Expires 2005
None
 

Term Expires 2007
None

 

Penn State Delaware County

SENATORS (4)

Term Expires 2004
None
  Term Expires 2006
Georgopulos, Peter D.
Horwitz, Alan L.
Term Expires 2005
Wyatt, Nancy Term
 

Term Expires 2007
Franz, George W.

 

Penn State DuBois

SENATORS (3)

Term Expires 2004
None
  Term Expires 2006
May, James E.
Term Expires 2005
Breakey, Laurie Powers
 

Term Expires 2007
Hufnagel, Pamela P.

 

Penn State Fayette

SENATORS (3)

Term Expires 2004
None
  Term Expires 2006
Gapinski, Andrzej J.
Term Expires 2005
Maxwell, Kevin R.
 

Term Expires 2007
Adams, Fred

 

Penn State Hazleton

SENATORS (3)

Term Expires 2004
Ellis, Bill
Richards, David R.
  Term Expires 2006
Jago, Deidre E.
Term Expires 2005
None
 

Term Expires 2007
None

 

Penn State McKeesport

SENATORS (2)

 

Term Expires 2004
Walters, Robert A.
  Term Expires 2006
None
Term Expires 2005
Bittner, Edward W.
 

Term Expires 2007
None

 

Penn State Mont Alto

SENATORS (3)

Term Expires 2004
None
  Term Expires 2006
Glumac, Thomas E.
Term Expires 2005
Mueller, Al
 

Term Expires 2007
Donovan, James M.

 

Penn State New Kensington

SENATORS (2)

Term Expires 2004
None
  Term Expires 2006
Cancro, John P.
Term Expires 2005
None
 

Term Expires 2007
Bridges, K. Robert

 

Penn State Shenango

SENATORS (2)

Term Expires 2004
Elder, James T.
  Term Expires 2006
None
Term Expires 2005
Perrine, Joy M.
 

Term Expires 2007
None

 

Penn State Wilkes-Barre

SENATORS (2)

Term Expires 2004
Marsico, Salvatore A.
  Term Expires 2006
Seybert, Thomas A.
Term Expires 2005
None
 

Term Expires 2007
None

 

Penn State Worthington Scranton

SENATORS (3)

Term Expires 2004
Holen, Dale A.
  Term Expires 2006
None
Term Expires 2005
None
 

Term Expires 2007
Barnes, David E.
Barshinger, Richard N.

 

Penn State York

SENATORS (3)

Term Expires 2004
None
  Term Expires 2006
Casteel, Mark A.
Term Expires 2005
Russell, David W.
 

Term Expires 2007
Berkowitz, Leonard J.

 

Senate Council Representative for the Commonwealth College: No Results

EBERLY COLLEGE OF SCIENCE

SENATORS (15)

Term Expires 2004
Fisher, Charles R.
Gilmour, David S.
Laguna, Pablo
Li, Luen-Chau
Nistor, Victor
  Term Expires 2006
Cole, Milton W.
Falzone, Christopher J.
Jurs, Peter C.
Schaeffer, Stephen W.
Wade, Richard A.
Term Expires 2005
Abmayr, Susan M.
Berlyand, Leonid V.
Pugh, Frank
Strauss, James A.
 

Term Expires 2007
Cameron, Craig

 

Representative on the Senate Council: Peter C. Jurs

MILITARY SCIENCES

SENATORS (1)

Term Expires 2004
None
  Term Expires 2006
None
Term Expires 2005
None
 

Term Expires 2007
No Results

 

Representative on the Senate Council: Jacqueline R. Esposito

PENN STATE GREAT VALLEY

SENATORS (2)

Term Expires 2004
None
  Term Expires 2006
None
Term Expires 2005
Koul, Ravinder
 

Term Expires 2007
No Results

Representative on the Senate Council: Jacqueline R. Esposito

SCHOOL OF INFORMATION SCIENCES & TECHNOLOGY

SENATORS (1)

Term Expires 2004
Chu, Chao-Hsien Term
  Term Expires 2006
None
Term Expires 2005
None
 

Term Expires 2007
None

Representative on the Senate Council: Jacqueline R. Esposito

SMEAL COLLEGE OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

SENATORS (6)

Term Expires 2004
Enis, Charles R.
Novack, Robert A.
  Term Expires 2006
Bhargava, Hemant K.
Spychalski, John C.
Term Expires 2005
Thomchick, Evelyn A.
 

Term Expires 2007
Stevens, John M.

 

Representative on the Senate Council: John C. Spychalski

THE DICKINSON SCHOOL OF LAW

SENATORS (2)

Term Expires 2004
None
  Term Expires 2006
None
Term Expires 2005
Mootz, Francis J.
 

Term Expires 2007
Kane, Eileen


Representative on the Senate Council: Jacqueline R. Esposito

UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES

SENATORS (3)

Term Expires 2004
Esposito, Jacqueline R.
  Term Expires 2006
Cheney, Debora
Term Expires 2005
Bazirjian, Rosann
 

Term Expires 2007
None

 

Representative on the Senate Council: Jacqueline R. Esposito

RETIRED FACULTY SENATORS

SENATORS (2)

Term Expires 2004
Arnold, Judd B.
  Term Expires 2006
Heinsohn, Robert J.
Term Expires 2005
None
 

Term Expires 2007
None

ROSTER OF EX OFFICIO AND APPOINTED SENATORS: 2003-2004

Ex Officio Senators: (7)

Rodney A. Erickson, Executive Vice President/Provost of the University
Janis E. Jacobs, Vice Provost for Undergraduate Education and International Programs
David H. Monk, Chair, Academic Leadership Council
Eva J. Pell, Vice President for Research/Dean of the Graduate School
Graham B. Spanier, President of the University
J. James Wager, University Registrar
Eric R. White, Executive Director, Division of Undergraduate Studies

Appointed Senators: (17)

Cheryl L. Achterberg
P. Richard Althouse
Patricia A. Book
William G. Cale, Jr.
Arthur W. Carter
Jeremy Cohen
Diane M. Disney
Madlyn L. Hanes
John T. Harwood
W. Terrell Jones
Stephen J. MacCarthy
John J. Romano
Louise E. Sandmeyer
Robert Secor
Craig D. Weidemann
Billie S. Willits
Vice President of Student Affairs

ROSTER OF UNDERGRADUATE STUDENT SENATORS: 2003-2004

SENATORS (2)

No Results
Gene P. Petriello
Rafael Scarnati
No Results
No Results
Scott Rhoads
Leigh C. St. Clair
Melissa Repko
Mark A. Levin
Colleen Stimpson
No Results
Katie Slagle
Valerie A. Earnshaw
Erica L. Schwartz
No Results
No Results
Brad Hoagland
Sean Freeman
  Abington College
Altoona College
Behrend College
Berks-Lehigh Valley College
Capital College
College of Agricultural Sciences
College of Arts and Architecture
College of Communications
College of Earth & Mineral Sciences
College of Education
College of Engineering
Health & Human Development
College of the Liberal Arts
Commonwealth College
Division of Undergraduate Studies
Eberly College of Science
School of Information Sciences & Technology
Smeal College of Business Administration

 

ROSTER OF GRADUATE STUDENT SENATORS: 2003-2004

Christopher T. Baker
Kristy Wagner
No Results
Stacy Wessel
  University Park
College of Medicine
The Dickinson School of Law
Great Valley

3-10-03


Appendix I

SENATE COMMITTEE ON FACULTY AFFAIRS

Promotion and Tenure Summary - 2001-02

(Informational)


TENURE

Dossiers for the award of tenure for 73 candidates were forwarded by the deans to the 2001-02 University Promotion and Tenure Review Committee. The University Committee recommended 72 faculty members for tenure, and the President approved tenure in 71 cases. Twenty-two of the cases approved were for early tenure.

PROMOTION TO PROFESSOR

Dossiers for promotion to the rank of professor for 63 candidates were forwarded by the deans to the University Committee. The University Committee recommended 61 faculty members for promotion, and the President approved promotion for all 61 candidates. Note that there were no promotions this year to the rank of senior scientist or librarian.

PROMOTION TO ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR AND SENIOR RESEARCH ASSOCIATE

Dossiers for promotion to the rank of associate professor and senior research associate for 71 candidates were forwarded by the deans to the University Committee. The University Committee recommended 70 faculty members for promotion, and the President approved promotion for all 71 candidates. Note that there were no promotions this year to the rank of associate librarian.

TRACKING COHORTS ENTERING THE TENURE-TRACK THROUGH SEVEN YEARS: COHORTS ENTERING FROM 1990 THROUGH 1995

Preceding the tenure and promotion charts for 2001-2002 is a chart presenting a six-year composite for faculty entering the tenure ranks from 1990 through 1995. It shows how many of each cohort remained and were tenured by their eighth year at Penn State. The charts show that, on the average, 55% of the entering group as a whole ended up receiving tenure. That does not mean that 55% of the group being considered for tenure in their decision year received tenure; it means that for our six most recent cohorts, 55% of all faculty who began with us in provisional status remained with us and were granted tenure at the end of seven years or earlier. The average percentage for women faculty members over that period was 47% (but 57% for the most recent cohort), and for minorities, 59% (but 67% for the most recent cohort). These data describe what has happened in terms of promotion and tenure; the data do not explain why individual decisions were made or why differences exist in the promotion and tenure profiles of various demographic groups.

SENATE COMMITTEE ON FACULTY AFFAIRS
Susan M. Abmayr
Mohamad A. Ansari
Judd B. Arnold
Kultegin Aydin
Thomas W. Benson
Leonard J. Berkowitz
Clay Calvert
Michael J. Cardamone
Richard A. Carlson
Debora Cheney
Roy B. Clariana
Elizabeth J. Corwin
Robert P. Crum
Dwight Davis
Mary I. Frecker
Margaret B. Goldman
David J. Green
Amir Khalilollahi
Sallie M. McCorkle, Vice-Chair
Arthur C. Miller
Jamie M. Myers
Katherine C. Pearson
Robert Secor
Kim C. Steiner, Chair
Mila C. Su
Joan S. Thomson
Tramble T. Turner

THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY
TENURE DECISIONS 2001-2002


REVIEW YEAR TWO THREE FOUR FIVE SIX
TOTAL NUMBER OF CASES REVIEWED:
116
5
112
13
53
CONTINUATION RECOMMENDED BY

CAMPUS COMMITTEE ONLY:

0
0
0
0
1

CAMPUS CEO ONLY:

0
0
0
0
0

CAMPUS COMMITTEE & CEO:

40
2
18
2
15

TOTAL REVIEWS STATED AT CAMPUS:

40
2
18
2
16

DEPARTMENT COMMITTEE ONLY:

0
0
1
0
1

DEPARTMENT HEAD ONLY:

2
0
0
0
2

DEPARTMENT COMMITTEE & DEPARTMENT HEAD:

102
5
100
12
48

COLLEGE COMMITTEE ONLY:

0
1
0
0
1

COLLEGE DEAN ONLY:

55
0
25
1
1

COLLEGE COMMITTEE & DEAN:

46
4
74
11
48

TOTAL FORWARDED:

2
3
7
11
50

UNIVERSITY COMMITTEE:

1
3
7
11
50

FINAL UNIVERSITY DECISION:

1
3
7
11
49

 

*** NOTE*** USE OF THE COLLEGE COMMITTEE IS NOT MANDATED IN PROVISIONAL REVIEWS BEFORE THE SIXTH YEAR. IT WAS NOT USED IN 55 OF THE SECOND YEAR REVIEWS OR IN 28 OF THE FOURTH YEAR REVIEWS OR IN 1 OF THE FIFTH YEAR REVIEWS.

***NOTE *** PROVISIONAL REVIEWS BEFORE THE SIXTH YEAR WOULD BE FORWARDED TO THE UNIVERSITY COMMITTEE ONLY WHEN EARLY TENURE IS BEING RECOMMENDED.

 

THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY
TENURE DECISIONS 2001-2002

SECOND YEAR TENURE TOTAL MEN WOMEN MINORITY
TOTAL NUMBER OF CASES REVIEWED:
116
68
48
20
CONTINUATION RECOMMENDED BY

CAMPUS COMMITTEE ONLY:

0
0
0
0

CAMPUS CEO ONLY:

0
0
0
0

CAMPUS COMMITTEE & CEO:

40
24
16
3

TOTAL REVIEWS STATED AT CAMPUS:

40
24
16
3

DEPARTMENT COMMITTEE ONLY:

0
0
0
0

DEPARTMENT HEAD ONLY:

2
1
1
1

DEPARTMENT COMMITTEE & DEPARTMENT HEAD:

102
61
41
18

COLLEGE COMMITTEE ONLY:

0
0
0
0

COLLEGE DEAN ONLY:

55
33
22
11

COLLEGE COMMITTEE & DEAN:

46
27
19
8

TOTAL FORWARDED FOR EARLY TENURE:

2
2
0
0

UNIVERSITY COMMITTEE:

1
1
0
0

FINAL UNIVERSITY DECISION:

1
1
0
0

THIRD YEAR TENURE TOTAL MEN WOMEN MINORITY
TOTAL NUMBER OF CASES REVIEWED:
5
3
2
1
CONTINUATION RECOMMENDED BY

CAMPUS COMMITTEE ONLY:

0
0
0
0

CAMPUS CEO ONLY:

0
0
0
0

CAMPUS COMMITTEE & CEO:

2
0
2
0

TOTAL REVIEWS STATED AT CAMPUS:

2
0
2
0

DEPARTMENT COMMITTEE ONLY:

0
0
0
0

DEPARTMENT HEAD ONLY:

0
0
0
0

DEPARTMENT COMMITTEE & DEPARTMENT HEAD:

5
3
2
1

COLLEGE COMMITTEE ONLY:

1
1
0
0

COLLEGE DEAN ONLY:

0
0
0
0

COLLEGE COMMITTEE & DEAN:

4
2
2
1

TOTAL FORWARDED FOR EARLY TENURE:

3
2
1
1

UNIVERSITY COMMITTEE:

3
2
1
1

FINAL UNIVERSITY DECISION:

3
2
1
1

 

THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY
TENURE DECISIONS 2001-2002

FOURTH YEAR TENURE TOTAL MEN WOMEN MINORITY
TOTAL NUMBER OF CASES REVIEWED:
112
66
46
24
CONTINUATION RECOMMENDED BY

CAMPUS COMMITTEE ONLY:

0
0
0
0

CAMPUS CEO ONLY:

0
0
0
0

CAMPUS COMMITTEE & CEO:

18
11
7
1

TOTAL REVIEWS STATED AT CAMPUS:

18
11
7
1

DEPARTMENT COMMITTEE ONLY:

1
1
0
0

DEPARTMENT HEAD ONLY:

0
0
0
0

DEPARTMENT COMMITTEE & DEPARTMENT HEAD:

100
58
42
23

COLLEGE COMMITTEE ONLY:

0
0
0
0

COLLEGE DEAN ONLY:

25
17
8
7

COLLEGE COMMITTEE & DEAN:

74
42
32
16

TOTAL FORWARDED FOR EARLY TENURE:

7
4
3
2

UNIVERSITY COMMITTEE:

7
4
3
2

FINAL UNIVERSITY DECISION:

7
4
3
2

FIFTH YEAR TENURE TOTAL MEN WOMEN MINORITY
TOTAL NUMBER OF CASES REVIEWED:

13
10
3
2
CONTINUATION RECOMMENDED BY

CAMPUS COMMITTEE ONLY:

0
0
0
0

CAMPUS CEO ONLY:

0
0
0
0

CAMPUS COMMITTEE & CEO:

2
2
0
0

TOTAL REVIEWS STATED AT CAMPUS:

2
2
0
0

DEPARTMENT COMMITTEE ONLY:

0
0
0
0

DEPARTMENT HEAD ONLY:

0
0
0
0

DEPARTMENT COMMITTEE & DEPARTMENT HEAD:

12
10
2
2

COLLEGE COMMITTEE ONLY:

0
0
0
0

COLLEGE DEAN ONLY:

1
1
0
0

COLLEGE COMMITTEE & DEAN:

11
9
2
2

TOTAL FORWARDED FOR EARLY TENURE:

11
9
2
2

UNIVERSITY COMMITTEE:

11
9
2
2

FINAL UNIVERSITY DECISION:

11
9
2
2

 

THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY
TENURE DECISIONS 2001-2002

SIX YEAR TENURE TOTAL MEN WOMEN MINORITY
TOTAL NUMBER OF CASES REVIEWED:
53
37
16
15
CONTINUATION RECOMMENDED BY

CAMPUS COMMITTEE ONLY:

1
1
0
1

CAMPUS CEO ONLY:

0
0
0
0

CAMPUS COMMITTEE & CEO:

15
11
4
2

TOTAL REVIEWS STATED AT CAMPUS:

16
12
4
3

DEPARTMENT COMMITTEE ONLY:

1
0
1
0

DEPARTMENT HEAD ONLY:

2
2
0
2

DEPARTMENT COMMITTEE & DEPARTMENT HEAD:

48
34
14
12

COLLEGE COMMITTEE ONLY:

1
1
0
0

COLLEGE DEAN ONLY:

1
0
1
0

COLLEGE COMMITTEE & DEAN:

48
35
13
14

TOTAL FORWARDED:

50
36
14
14

UNIVERSITY COMMITTEE:

50
36
14
14

FINAL UNIVERSITY DECISION:

49
35
14
14

*** NOTE *** USE OF THE COLLEGE COMMITTEE IS NOT MANDATED IN PROVISIONAL REVIEWS BEFORE THE SIXTH YEAR. IT WAS NOT USED IN 55 OF THE SECOND YEAR REVIEWS OR IN 28 OF THE FOURTH YEAR REVIEWS OR IN 1 OF THE FIFTH YEAR REVIEWS.

*** NOTE *** PROVISIONAL REVIEWS BEFORE THE SIXTH YEAR WOULD BE FORWARDED TO THE UNIVERSITY COMMITTEE ONLY WHEN EARLY TENURE IS BEING RECOMMENDED.

 

THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY
TENURE DECISIONS 2001-2002

PROMOTION TO ASSOCIATE
PROFESSOR
ASSOCIATE
LIBRARIAN
SR. RESEARCH
ASSOCIATE

PROFESSOR
LIBRARIAN SR.
SCIENTIST
TOTAL NUMBER OF CASES REWIEWED:
69
0
3
68
0
0
CONTINUATION RECOMMENDED BY

CAMPUS COMMITTEE ONLY:

0
0
0
0
0
0

CAMPUS CEO ONLY:

0
0
0
0
0
0

CAMPUS COMMITTEE & CEO:

17
0
0
10
0
0

TOTAL REVIEWS STATED AT CAMPUS:

17
0
0
10
0
0

DEPARTMENT COMMITTEE ONLY:

0
0
0
1
0
0

DEPARTMENT HEAD ONLY:

2
0
0
1
0
0

DEPARTMENT COMMITTEE & DEPARTMENT HEAD:

67
0
3
65
0
0

COLLEGE COMMITTEE ONLY:

1
0
0
1
0
0

COLLEGE DEAN ONLY:

3
0
0
2
0
0

COLLEGE COMMITTEE & DEAN:

65
0
3
61
0
0

TOTAL FORWARDED:

68
0
3
63
0
0

UNIVERSITY COMMITTEE:

67
0
3
61
0
0

FINAL UNIVERSITY DECISION:

68
0
3
61
0
0

 

THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY
TENURE DECISIONS 2001-2002

PROMOTION TO ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR TOTAL MEN WOMEN MINORITY
TOTAL NUMBER OF CASES REWIEWED:
69
50
19
18
CONTINUATION RECOMMENDED BY

CAMPUS COMMITTEE ONLY:

0
0
0
0

CAMPUS CEO ONLY:

0
0
0
0

CAMPUS COMMITTEE & CEO:

17
13
4
2

TOTAL REVIEWS STATED AT CAMPUS:

17
13
4
2

DEPARTMENT COMMITTEE ONLY:

0
0
0
0

DEPARTMENT HEAD ONLY:

2
2
0
2

DEPARTMENT COMMITTEE & DEPARTMENT HEAD:

67
48
19
16

COLLEGE COMMITTEE ONLY:

1
1
0
0

COLLEGE DEAN ONLY:

3
2
1
0

COLLEGE COMMITTEE & DEAN:

65
47
18
18

TOTAL FORWARDED:

68
49
19
18

UNIVERSITY COMMITTEE:

67
48
19
17

FINAL UNIVERSITY DECISION:

68
49
19
18

PROMOTION TO PROFESSOR TOTAL MEN WOMEN MINORITY
TOTAL NUMBER OF CASES REWIEWED:
68
57
11
7
CONTINUATION RECOMMENDED BY

CAMPUS COMMITTEE ONLY:

0
0
0
0

CAMPUS CEO ONLY:

0
0
0
0

CAMPUS COMMITTEE & CEO:

10
9
1
0

TOTAL REVIEWS STATED AT CAMPUS:

10
9
1
0

DEPARTMENT COMMITTEE ONLY:

1
1
0
0

DEPARTMENT HEAD ONLY:

1
0
1
0

DEPARTMENT COMMITTEE & DEPARTMENT HEAD:

65
56
9
7

COLLEGE COMMITTEE ONLY:

1
0
1
0

COLLEGE DEAN ONLY:

2
2
0
1

COLLEGE COMMITTEE & DEAN:

61
53
8
6

TOTAL FORWARDED:

63
55
8
7

UNIVERSITY COMMITTEE

:
61
53
8
7

FINAL UNIVERSITY DECISION:

61
53
8
7

 

THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY
TENURE DECISIONS 2001-2002

PROMOTION TO ASSOCIATE LIBRARIAN TOTAL MEN WOMEN MINORITY
TOTAL NUMBER OF CASES REWIEWED:
0
0
0
0
CONTINUATION RECOMMENDED BY

CAMPUS COMMITTEE ONLY:

0
0
0
0

CAMPUS CEO ONLY:

0
0
0
0

CAMPUS COMMITTEE & CEO:

0
0
0
0

TOTAL REVIEWS STATED AT CAMPUS:

0
0
0
0

DEPARTMENT COMMITTEE ONLY:

0
0
0
0

DEPARTMENT HEAD ONLY:

0
0
0
0

DEPARTMENT COMMITTEE & DEPARTMENT HEAD:

0
0
0
0

COLLEGE COMMITTEE ONLY:

0
0
0
0

COLLEGE DEAN ONLY:

0
0
0
0

COLLEGE COMMITTEE & DEAN:

0
0
0
0

TOTAL FORWARDED:

0
0
0
0

UNIVERSITY COMMITTEE:

0
0
0
0

FINAL UNIVERSITY DECISION:

0
0
0
0

PROMOTION TO LIBRARIAN TOTAL MEN WOMEN MINORITY
TOTAL NUMBER OF CASES REWIEWED:
0
0
0
0
CONTINUATION RECOMMENDED BY
CAMPUS COMMITTEE ONLY:
0
0
0
0

CAMPUS CEO ONLY:

0
0
0
0

CAMPUS COMMITTEE & CEO:

0
0
0
0

TOTAL REVIEWS STATED AT CAMPUS:

0
0
0
0

DEPARTMENT COMMITTEE ONLY:

0
0
0
0

DEPARTMENT HEAD ONLY:

0
0
0
0

DEPARTMENT COMMITTEE & DEPARTMENT HEAD:

0
0
0
0

COLLEGE COMMITTEE ONLY:

0
0
0
0

COLLEGE DEAN ONLY:

0
0
0
0

COLLEGE COMMITTEE & DEAN:

0
0
0
0

TOTAL FORWARDED:

0
0
0
0

UNIVERSITY COMMITTEE:

0
0
0
0

FINAL UNIVERSITY DECISION:

0
0
0
0

 

THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY
TENURE DECISIONS 2001-2002

PROMOTION TO SENIOR RESEARCH ASSOCIATE TOTAL MEN WOMEN MINORITY
TOTAL NUMBER OF CASES REWIEWED:
3
3
0
0
CONTINUATION RECOMMENDED BY

CAMPUS COMMITTEE ONLY:

0
0
0
0

CAMPUS CEO ONLY:

0
0
0
0

CAMPUS COMMITTEE & CEO:

0
0
0
0

TOTAL REVIEWS STATED AT CAMPUS:

0
0
0
0

DEPARTMENT COMMITTEE ONLY:

0
0
0
0

DEPARTMENT HEAD ONLY:

0
0
0
0

DEPARTMENT COMMITTEE & DEPARTMENT HEAD:

3
3
0
0

COLLEGE COMMITTEE ONLY:

0
0
0
0

COLLEGE DEAN ONLY:

0
0
0
0

COLLEGE COMMITTEE & DEAN:

3
3
0
0

TOTAL FORWARDED:

3
3
0
0

UNIVERSITY COMMITTEE:

3
3
0
0

FINAL UNIVERSITY DECISION:

3
3
0
0

PROMOTION TO SCIENTIST TOTAL MEN WOMEN MINORITY
TOTAL NUMBER OF CASES REWIEWED:
0
0
0
0
CONTINUATION RECOMMENDED BY

CAMPUS COMMITTEE ONLY:

0
0
0
0

CAMPUS CEO ONLY:

0
0
0
0

CAMPUS COMMITTEE & CEO:

0
0
0
0

TOTAL REVIEWS STATED AT CAMPUS:

0
0
0
0

DEPARTMENT COMMITTEE ONLY:

0
0
0
0

DEPARTMENT HEAD ONLY:

0
0
0
0

DEPARTMENT COMMITTEE & DEPARTMENT HEAD:

0
0
0
0

COLLEGE COMMITTEE ONLY:

0
0
0
0

COLLEGE DEAN ONLY:

0
0
0
0

COLLEGE COMMITTEE & DEAN:

0
0
0
0

TOTAL FORWARDED:

0
0
0
0

UNIVERSITY COMMITTEE:

0
0
0
0

FINAL UNIVERSITY DECISION:

0
0
0
0

 

Appendix J

SENATE COMMITTEE ON FACULTY BENEFITS
and
SENATE COMMITTEE ON INTRA-UNIVERSITY RELATIONS

Report on Faculty Salaries, AY2002-2003

(Informational)

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

· Median Salaries. For standing appointments, median salaries by college range from $132,012 to $68,382 for Professors, from $103,165 to $55,570 for Associate Professors, from $98,514 to $48,249 for Assistant Professors, and from $55,701 to $40,770 for Instructors. Data on fixed term appointments for Assistant Professors show a high median salary of $58,257 and a low median salary of $37,000, while median salaries by college range from $59,447 to $28,995 for fixed term Instructors.

· Salary Ranges. The interquartile range (the difference between the values at the third and first quartile) shows wide variation across units and ranks. The largest interquartile ranges for professors are found in the Smeal College of Business, the Eberly College of Science, and the College of Liberal Arts, where ranges equal $33,000 to $47,000. In general, interquartile ranges are higher at University Park colleges. Interquartile ranges for faculty at other ranks are smaller than those for professors, usually between $5,000 and $15,000.

· Salary Competitiveness and Growth. In the late 1990s salaries at Penn State slowly fell behind other institutions as salary growth rates were below peer institutions. Last year, Penn State salary increases exceeded those at comparable institutions. While salaries at Penn State appear to be reasonably competitive, the University has lost ground since 1995-96. Salaries in certain disciplines appear to be less competitive than the overall average suggests. A continuation of recent increases, with appropriate adjustments for certain disciplines, will be necessary for Penn State to continue to attract and retain high quality faculty members.

· Salary Compression. Salary compression can refer to narrowing of salary differences between faculty at the same rank who have different job tenures or to differences in salaries between faculty at different ranks. This report considers the latter comparison. Penn State's ratio of Assistant Professor and Associate Professor to salaries of Professors is consistent with that of comparator institutions.

· Cost of Living and Campus Locations. The current data available on cost-of-living adjustments do not allow us to make appropriate adjustments for all Penn State campuses and colleges. Where we can make those adjustments, they result in little impact in changing the relative ranking of University salaries compared to other institutions. The data do show substantial differences in salaries and the distribution of faculty by rank, especially at the level of professor. However, there are other factors that do need to be considered in analyzing salary differences.

· Gender. While all the appropriate adjustments for salary cannot be made, there do not appear to be major differences in salaries by gender within each rank of faculty. However, there are still major differences in the ratio of the number of male to female faculty, especially as the focus moves from assistant professor to full professors.

INTRODUCTION

The Senate charges the Faculty Benefits Committee with monitoring faculty salaries at Penn State, both internally among units of the University and externally among its peers in higher education. The analyses of Penn State salaries are usually presented in two reports in alternate years. The report on Penn State salaries relative to salaries at peer institutions (called the External Report) was last completed in the spring of 2002. The analysis of salaries within the University (called the Internal Report) is presented here.

The report represents a collaborative effort between the Senate and the Office of the Provost, with technical assistance from the Office of Planning and Institutional Assessment. This year, the Faculty Benefits Committee also collaborated with the Intra-University Relations Committee in developing the report. The Faculty Benefits Committee also tried to continue to make progress in meeting the recommendations on salary reports voted upon by the Faculty Senate on March 27, 2001.

It is important to remember that while the comparisons of salary across ranks, colleges, locations, and gender use the best sources of data available to the Committees, these data cannot be adjusted for important factors that can help explain differences in salaries, including cost of living, market forces, disciplinary differences across colleges, discrimination, fringe benefit and other non-monetary compensation differences, time in rank differences, and many other factors. Where possible, we have provided information that can help make such adjustments. These data can be used to initiate a discussion about important salary issues such as competitiveness and equity, rather than to draw definitive conclusions about these issues.

The complete set of tables upon which we base our comments is provided in Appendix C of this report. These tables include data that are typically part of both Internal and External Salary Reports. A comment on the data sources is provided in Appendix A. Appendix B provides some details on cost of living comparisons across Penn State locations. It is important to note that these data represent salary data for faculty only. Some basic data on salaries for executive/administrative/managerial categories for colleges, academic support units, and administrative support units are provided in the Stairs/Rhoades Report prepared by the University Budget Office, which can be found at (http://www.budget.psu.edu/publicaccount/stairsRhodesInfo.asp)

OBSERVATIONS

For this report, the Committee on Faculty Benefits has prepared 15 tables. It might be helpful to think of Tables 1-10 as primarily external in focus; they place Penn State faculty salaries in the context of national comparators. Tables 11-14 are primarily internal; they provide comparisons of colleges within Penn State, male-female salary comparisons and address matters of distribution and central tendency with calculations that cannot be applied to data from the various external sources. Table 15 provides information on salaries at the College of Medicine. The complete tables are provided as an appendix for anyone to view. In this section, we summarize some observations based primarily on the internal data.

Median Salaries by Rank and College. Median salaries of Penn State faculty by rank are presented by location (Table 11) and then for University Park colleges (Table 12). These tables also show the number of faculty in each rank, the salary at the first and third quartile, and the mean years in rank. Figures A through C provide plots showing the median and interquartile ranges (the difference in salary at the 25th and 75th percentiles) for faculty by rank and college.

In standing appointments, median salaries for Professors range from a high of $132,012 in the Smeal College of Business Administration to a low of $68,382 in the Altoona College. Median salaries for Associate Professors range from $103,165 (Smeal) to $55,570 (Arts and Architecture). Median salaries for Assistant Professors range from $98,514 (Smeal) to $48,249 (Arts and Architecture). Median salaries for Instructors range from a high of $55,701 (Behrend College) to a low of $40,770 (Health and Human Development). Data on fixed term appointments for Assistant Professors show a high median salary of $58,257 (Commonwealth College) and a low median salary of $37,000 in Arts and Architecture (data on Fixed Term Professors and Associate Professors are rare for most colleges). The highest median salary for fixed term Instructors is $59,447 (Smeal), while the lowest median salary for fixed term Instructors is found in Education at $28,995.

Time in rank, disciplinary norms, market forces, and other factors appear to contribute to explaining the differences both internally and externally. In other words, the apparent variability in Penn State median salaries is much reduced when these factors are considered. For example, for University Park colleges, Table 1 indicates that the salary ratio of the University Park colleges to AAUDE comparison colleges range from a low of 91 percent to a high of 104 percent.

Salary Ranges by Rank and College. Variation of salaries within a college and rank is another area of concern for some faculty members. Previous reports have tried to present those data in a variety of formats, including standard deviations, coefficient of variations, skewness, and kurtosis coefficients. Table 11 provides data on the salaries at the first and third quartiles (the 25th and 75th percentile, when salaries are ranked from highest and lowest). In other words, in a unit with 100 professors, the Q1 data would be the salary of the 25th person from the bottom, the median would be the 50th, and the Q3 figure would be the salary of the person 75th from the bottom.

The interquartile range (the difference between the values at the third and first quartile) shows wide variation across units and ranks (see the box plots in Figures A-C). The


AB: Abington College
AL: Altoona College
BD: Behrend College
BL: Berks-Lehigh Valley College
CC: Commonwealth College
CA: Capital College
GV: Great Valley
DL: The Dickinson School of Law
IS: School of Information Sciences and Technology
SC: Eberly College of Science

  AG: College of Agriculture Sciences
AA: College of Arts and Architecture
BA: Smeal College of Business Administration
CM: College of Communications
EM: College of Earth and Mineral Sciences
ED: College of Education
EN: College of Engineering
HH: College of Health and Human Development
LA: College of the Liberal Arts

largest interquartile ranges for professors are found in the Smeal College of Business, the Eberly College of Science, and the College of Liberal Arts. In general, these ranges are higher at University Park colleges. The highest interquartile ranges for non-University Park locations are found at the Behrend College and the Berks-Lehigh Valley College.

Interquartile ranges for faculty are other ranks are smaller than those for professors, usually between $5,000 and $15,000. The one exception to this is for the rank of Associate Professor in the Smeal College of Business, where the interquartile range is more than $64,000.

ISSUES

In prior years a number of issues have been raised as part of Faculty Salary Reports or in other reports to Faculty Senate. In the Recommendations of March 27th, 2001, the Senate encouraged Salary Reports to include a supplemental analysis of one or more issues of concern to faculty, with specific comparisons to be revisited approximately every six years. This year, we present an overview of several of the common issues that have been addressed in previous reports, laying the foundation for future analyses to highlight one or more of these issues on a rotating basis.

Salary Compression. The University Faculty Senate in recent years has expressed interest in questions of faculty salary progression, compression, and/or inversion. A complete analysis of those issues could entail a separate and major undertaking. Nonetheless, this report does provide some insight into those matters.

Salary compression has two common definitions and measures. To some salary compression means "the narrowing over time of the pay differentials between people in the same job". In the case of faculty salaries, this would emphasize salary differences within a rank when persons are separated by job tenure or years-in-rank. This analysis is called "within class analysis". Others consider salary compression to mean the narrowing of pay differentials "between people in different (usually adjacent) jobs in an organizational hierarchy". In terms of faculty salaries, this would refer to differences in salaries across ranks. This type of salary compression is typically measured by "rank ratio analysis", examining the ratio of salaries of assistant and associate professors to salaries of full professors (Lawther, 1989; Bereman and Lengnick-Hall, 1994). The Committee on Faculty Benefits last presented a detailed within class analysis in 1999. The rank ratio analysis is a standard part of the tables presented in past reports and is used in this report.

The Committee on Faculty Benefits is unaware of an accepted standard for the relative rank ratios of assistant, associate, and professor salaries. However, Table 2 in the Appendix C presents those ratios for AAUDE and Penn State-University Park colleges. Figure D summarizes the average rank ratios from Table 2. The AAUDE data might serve as a normative comparison for Penn State-UP. Using AAUDE data, assistant professors' salaries average around 61% (range of 54 to 74) and associate professors' salaries average near 72% (range of 65 to 76) of the salaries earned by professors. These ratios are 61% (range of 54 to 74) and 73% (range of 62-82) at Penn State-UP for assistant and associate professors, respectively. Table 2 displays 22 separate AAUDE/Penn State-UP comparisons for assistant and associate professors across colleges. Of these 22 comparisons, Penn State-UP ratios exceed AAUDE ratios on 10 occasions (average absolute deviation of 3.9%), equal AAUDE ratios on 4 occasions, and lag AAUDE ratios on 8 occasions (average absolute deviation of 3.25%).

The rank ratios for faculty at non-University Park campuses show a similar pattern to those at University Park colleges (Table 11). Rank ratios for Assistant Professor salaries range from 61% to 71% of professor salaries. Associate professor salaries as a ratio of professor salaries range from 73% to 85%. As a basis of comparison, the rank ratio in the Pennsylvania State System of Higher Education institutions for Associate Professors is 80% and for Assistant Professors is 65% (Table 9).

Table 11 also provides a different way of analyzing these matters, across locations, by addressing questions such as: How often does the upper quartile of a lower rank earn more than the median for a higher rank? For standing faculty, as shown in Table 11, this situation occurs seven times (excluding "other faculty" from the count, because that group is such a catch-all, heterogeneous cohort). The third quartile for University Park assistant professors is $66,946, while the median (or second quartile) for associate professors is $66,276. Some of these situations appear related to time-in-rank. For example, the third quartile for instructors at Behrend averages $64,368 versus the median for assistant professors at $54,495, but the time-in-rank averages are 18 years and 4 years, respectively.

The Committee recognizes that these data are somewhat limited, and is cautious about generalizing too freely. However, in brief, the picture tends to suggest that Penn State's profile is consistent with that of comparator institutions. Altogether, these comparisons do not appear to reflect systemic differences in the salary ratios of assistant and associate professors. The largest AAUDE/Penn State-UP discrepancies were related to Penn State-UP professor salaries that were lower than AAUDE averages for their college. For example, assistant and associate professors of Communications at Penn State-UP earn 64% and 79% of professors. Table 1 indicates that salaries for Penn State-UP professors of Communications average 91% of their AAUDE colleagues. Thus, it appears that the ratio differences can be attributed to a relative depression of the average professor salary in that college compared to the AAUDE college average.

Competitiveness and Growth of Penn State Salaries. An important and ongoing concern for the Senate and the University administration has been Penn State's ability to maintain competitive position in terms of faculty salaries. Again, the Committee is hesitant to make strong generalizations, especially because there are important by-discipline and by-location aspects to this question. But in many respects, Penn State has been only moderately competitive, and has lost some ground, over the past decade or so, although it has recovered slightly in the past one to two years. As shown in Table 4 and illustrated in Figure E, for the 22 AAUDE institutions for which five years of salary increase data are available, Penn State's compound increase ranks it at 15th of 22. Table 6 shows that, among 11 Big Ten universities, University Park in 2001-02 ranked third for professor salaries, seventh for associate professor salaries, sixth for assistant professor salaries, and sixth for instructor salaries.

A more pertinent comparison may be found in Table 1, which indicates that Penn State-UP salaries range from 91% to 106% of AAUDE averages for comparable ranks within colleges. These comparisons indicate that some colleges favorably compete across all ranks (e.g., Earth and Mineral Science, Health and Human Development), some are disadvantaged across all ranks (e.g., Arts and Architecture and Education), and others demonstrate mixed pictures across ranks (e.g., Communications). Given these more nuanced data, it seems that Penn State has achieved competitive salaries in some areas but lags in others. An admittedly arbitrary categorization of the 33 Penn State-UP to AAUDE salary ratio comparisons found in Figure F follows:

Figure F
Summary of Ratio of Penn State-University Park Average Salaries to
AAUDE Average Salaries by College and Rank

Range
Number of
College/Rank
Comparisons
<. 90
0
.90-.94
11
.95-1.05
21
>1.05
1

Nevertheless, it is important to note that there are now six instances where University Park salaries are nearly 10 percent below those of faculty at peer institutions. Just six years ago, this was true of just 1 college by rank combination. Overall, Penn State's salaries by rank and discipline are and have been at best only moderately competitive with those of AAU peers. For the 33 college-by-rank combinations shown in Tables 1-3, Penn State's salaries are equal to or greater than the AAUDE average for 13 of 33 possible cases in the most recent year; this represents some slippage from six years ago, when Penn State equaled or exceeded the AAUDE average for 17 of 33 cases.

Cumulative salary increases by rank at UP colleges have ranged from 18 percent to 45 percent from 1995-96 to 2001-02 (Table 3). In four of the ten possible comparisons at the Professor level, Penn State-UP salary increases have exceeded the AAUDE average. For Assistant and Associate Professor ranks, only 3 Penn State colleges exceeded the average cumulative increase at comparator AAUDE institutions. The most significant shortfalls (exceeding an 8 percent gap over the 6 year period) are in Agricultural Sciences (Professor), Arts and Architecture (Associate Professor and Professor), Business Administration (Assistant Professor), Education (Professor), Engineering (Professor), and Science (Professor).

Tables 8 and 9 demonstrate that Penn State's campus colleges are spread across the range in terms of competitive position by rank in relation to comparator campuses. However, these comparisons are based on total salaries without regard for relative differences among colleges. Keeping that in mind, the data from Table 8 seems to show Penn State salaries in a favorable light. Penn State-Capital has the highest salaries for the IIA institutions listed, except at the instructor level. Penn-State Behrend has the highest salaries among all the IIB institutions listed at each rank. And, the Penn State Commonwealth College has higher salaries than the other III institutions listed. Even at those Penn State colleges where salaries are lower than these, Penn State salaries appear at least comparable to the averages at Big Ten campuses. The one exception might be Penn State-Altoona, where Professor salaries rank below all other IIB campuses except one.

The data from Table 9, however, offer a less positive view of salaries at Penn State campus colleges. Table 9 compares Penn State salaries to those at other Pennsylvania institutions. Salaries at the Pennsylvania State System of Higher Education (SSHE) are often used as a basis of comparison. At the Professor, Associate Professor, and Assistant Professor levels, the SSHE average is typically greater than salaries at almost all Penn State campus colleges. Only at the instructor level are salaries at Penn State above the SSHE average.

Because of the reorganization of the Penn State system, salary growth at each college from 1995-96 until the present cannot be computed. However, previous Senate reports do allow us to make comparisons of the cumulative increase in median salary from 1998 to 2002 for selected locations. These rates are computed from data in Table 11 of our report and data from Appendix 2 of the 1999 Faculty Salary Report. Figure G shows cumulative salary increases by rank at University Park and other Penn State colleges. Cumulative increases in median salary have ranged from 11 to 21 percent at the rank of professor, 4 to 22 percent at the rank of associate professor, 18 to 42 percent at the rank of assistant professor, and 12 to 24 percent at the rank of instructor.

In summary, salaries at Penn State, on the whole, appear to be competitive to salaries at comparator Big Ten and AAUDE institutions, although by comparison to salaries at the SSHE, Penn State salaries appear less competitive. In the late 1990s, however, salaries at Penn State appeared to be slowly falling behind those at other institutions as salary growth rates have lagged behind the comparator institutions. In addition, salaries and salary growth in certain disciplines appear to be even less competitive than the overall average suggests. The most recent data indicates that for the first time in several years, Penn State salary increases at University Park exceeded the AAUDE average. In addition, salary increases at other Penn State campus locations last year exceeded the SSHE average. A continuation of such a pattern will be necessary, with appropriate adjustments for those disciplines and campuses that show the greatest shortfalls, for Penn State to continue to attract and retain high quality faculty members,

Geographic Cost-of-Living and Campus Equity Considerations. Faculty Senate conversations in the past year or two have raised questions about the possible impact of cost-of-living differences and other issues of equity, both in comparing Penn State salaries to peer institutions and in comparing salaries across Penn State locations. Table 7a provides all the available cost of living indices for Pennsylvania for the quarters that correspond to the 2001-02 academic year from ACCRA, formerly the American Chambers of Commerce Research Association. Table 7b provides parallel data on immediate or proximate geographic locations for Big Ten flagship campuses. We provide these varied cost-of-living data as our best response to the request of our Faculty Senate colleagues. However, we emphasize that this information should be used conservatively. Furthermore, given the lack of current data available for responsible cost-of-living adjustments across most of Penn State's locations, we do not try to make those adjustments here.

ACCRA provides timely and meaningful data for geographic cost-of-living analyses. However, ACCRA indices should be interpreted cautiously, because coverage, level, timing, and so forth differ considerably among and within metro areas. For example, the large geographic region encompassed by the Philadelphia area includes areas as diverse as Bucks County, center-city Philadelphia, and portions of New Jersey and Delaware. The cost-of-living index cannot adequately and precisely reflect actual pricing differentials among these specific locations. The ACCRA website provides information about method and data sources at http://www.accra.org.

An alternative and more detailed review of cost-of-living adjustments, including a list of estimated adjustors for Penn State campus locations -- based upon 1997 estimates -- is provided in Appendix B.

Tables 6 and 7 present Penn State-University Park and Big Ten salary data both in absolute dollars and with an adjustment for cost-of-living by location (Table 7b's third-quarter indexes are used for this purpose). This adjustment has little impact for Penn State. Central Pennsylvania is close to the norm -- that is, close to an index value of 1.00 -- so Penn State's overall position by rank is almost unchanged (the only exception is for associate professors, for whom Penn State drops from sixth to seventh). However, factoring in cost-of-living has a greater impact for some other institutions. For example, the University of Minnesota-Twin Cities drops from the top half in the rankings for professors, associate professors, and assistant professors, to last place.

In the absence of other adjustments, it may still be useful to compare salaries across the Penn State locations using the data from Table 9 and 11. Figure H illustrates salary differences across Penn State colleges by rank. At the instructor level, Penn State-Behrend stands out with a much higher salary and the lowest percentage of total faculty in this rank. Other data of note include the low salaries for Penn State-University Park instructors, the high percentage of faculty who are instructors in Penn State-Commonwealth College, and the high average time in rank at Penn State-Berks.

At the assistant professor rank, Penn State-Behrend and Penn State-University Park are above the University average, while other colleges are below. Penn State-Altoona has the lowest average salary among assistant professors. Sixty percent of Penn State-Berks faculty are assistant professors, and the average time in rank among assistant professors at Penn State-Abington is 14 years.

Among associate professors, Penn State-Behrend and Penn State-University Park are joined by Penn State-Capital above the University average, while other colleges are below. The other four colleges listed have average salaries $5,500 to $7,500 below the University average for Associate professors. There are not major differences across the colleges by time in rank among associate professors. The colleges other than University Park fall into two groups with respect to percentage of the faculty holding this rank. Penn State-Berks, Penn State-Altoona, and Penn State-Commonwealth have approximately one-fifth of their faculty in this rank, while Penn State-Abington and Penn State-Capital have almost twice as high a percentage in this rank.

The substantial differences in salary and percentage of the faculty in rank show up at the rank of professor. Penn State-University Park has almost 40 percent of its faculty in this rank, while no other college has more than 13 percent. Salaries of professors at the colleges other than University Park range from $7,000-$31,000 below the University average. It is important to note that salaries vary among the colleges at University Park, too. For example, the average salaries of professors in Arts and Architecture at Penn State-University Park fall almost $25,000 below the University average.

In summary, the current data available on cost-of-living adjustments do not allow us to make appropriate adjustments for all Penn State campuses and colleges. Where we can make those adjustments for Penn State-University Park, they result in little impact in changing the relative ranking of University salaries compared to other institutions. While adjustments cannot be made across Penn State's campuses and colleges, the raw data do show substantial differences in the distribution of faculty by rank and the salaries of faculty within rank across the colleges, especially at the level of professor. In some cases, cost-of-living and time-in-rank adjustments would even increase these differences. However, there are other factors that do need to be considered in analyzing salary differences.

Gender. The issue of salary comparisons by gender is another question that has been raised often in Faculty Senate discussions. Tables 13 and 14 summarize data on faculty salaries by gender across Penn State colleges.

A review of the number of males and females with standing appointments indicates that in most colleges there are more men than women in the ranks of instructor, assistant professor, associate professor, and professor. At University Park, the Commonwealth College, Berks-Lehigh Valley, Capital, and the College of Law, the percentage of women tends to decrease as you move from Assistant Professor to Professor. A notable exception to this is found in the College of Health and Human Development which has approximately equal numbers of men and women with standing appointments at the assistant and associate professor levels and approximately 40% women at the rank of professor. Women account for less than ten percent of the total number of professors in six of the Colleges at University Park, and for 25% or less in four others.

Data from the National Science Foundation (2002) indicate that the percentage of doctorates awarded to females in the United States rose from 41.8 percent in 1998 to 43.9 percent in 2001. The percentage of Penn State standing appointment assistant professors who are female last fall was 37.4 percent. This ranged from a low of 22 percent at Penn State-Behrend to a high of 50 percent at the Dickinson School of Law. While the distribution of male and female faculty at Penn State are not out of line with the NSF data, in many areas Penn State colleges do appear to lag somewhat behind the growth in the number of female doctorates awarded.

Table 13 provides 22 comparisons by location and rank between male and female salaries. Figure I summarizes these data. Twenty comparisons cannot be made because there are insufficient numbers of male and/or female faculty in a cell to compute an average. Given the distorting influence of outliers, medians seem to be the best metric to use in comparisons. Using medians, 20 of 22 comparisons (91%) favor males. However, 15 of 22 comparisons also show that males had more years in rank. Across these 22 comparisons, females average 5.2 years in rank and males average 8.3. Males have 30% or more time in rank than females for 14 of the 22 comparisons.

When considering individual cases, differences are as large as 13 years (Assistant Professors at Penn State-Abington). In that case, male assistant professors with 20 years time in rank earn, on average, $1323 more than female professors with 7 years in rank. Thus, these male-female salary differences across campuses seem to be at least partially explained by years in rank.

The comparison of male-female salaries at Penn State-University Park colleges in Table 14 show 14 of 36 (39%) of female-male comparisons at fixed and standing appointments were in favor of females. Among standing faculty only, there are several anomalies. For example, male associate professors with 9 years of rank average $19,753 more than female associate professors with 6 years of rank in the Smeal College of Business. In contrast, male professors with 10 years in rank average $13,734 less than female professors with 7 years in rank in the College of Health and Human Development. When these two outliers were excluded: the average male professor makes $1,903 more than the average female professor and has 3.3 more years in rank; the average male associate professor makes $259 more than the average female associate professor and has 0.9 more years in rank; and the average male assistant professor makes $1090 more than the average female assistant professor and has 0.8 more years in rank. Thus, these male-female salary differences across colleges seem to be at least partially explained by years in rank.

In summary, while all the appropriate adjustments for salary cannot be made, there do not appear to be major differences in salaries by gender within each rank of faculty. However, there are still major differences in the ratio of the number of male to female faculty, especially as the focus moves from assistant professor to full professors Even at the assistant professor level, a smaller percentage of Penn State faculty are female compared to the distribution of total doctorates awarded from 1998 to 2001.

Librarians at Penn State. Differences in data available for faculty members who are librarians require slightly different approaches to this information. Tables 10, 12 and 14 provide data on librarian salaries at Penn State and other institutions (It should be noted that the data in Table 10 are unadjusted compensation dollars which do not account for differences length of appointment or other factors, while data in Tables 12 and 14 are standardized to a 9 month appointment).

By comparison to the Association of Research Libraries (ARL) data, Penn State librarians are compensated at a level above the ARL average at each rank. Penn State Librarian, Associate Librarian, and Assistant Librarian salaries are significantly lower than salaries for faculty at comparable ranks in University Park colleges.

College of Medicine. There has been a long-standing interest in the Faculty Senate in being able to provide data on faculty in the College of Medicine comparable to that which is provided on other Penn State faculty. Unfortunately, differences in data and information systems have typically prevented such data from being presented. When data has been presented, questions have been raised regarding the accuracy of those data. Since data from the Office of Planning and Institutional Assessment was not believed to be complete and accurate for the College of Medicine, this year the Committee on Faculty Benefits requested that the College of Medicine generate their own salary information and provide it to the Committee, providing them with examples of the types of data we would be providing on other Penn State colleges.

Table 15 shows data on faculty salaries that were provided by Penn State's College of Medicine. These data are based upon data collected for the College of Medicine's participation in the American Association of Medical Colleges (AAMC) annual salary survey. The AAMC report is based on compensation attributable to teaching, patient care, and research for approximately 60,000 full-time faculty at most of the 125 fully accredited medical schools in the United States.

It is extremely difficult to compare faculty compensation of academic health center faculty with compensation of colleagues in other colleges and disciplines. In brief, academic health center faculty:

Also, many physicians do not have a base salary (paid via educational dollars) that accounts for more than a small portion of their time. Some researchers may fund 90 to 100 percent of their salary from extramural research funds; there is not a base salary that is reflective of real income. Academic health centers also typically have a large portion of their teaching delivered by non-remunerated faculty. In fact, Penn State's College of Medicine has over 1,000 faculty members with Penn State academic appointments who teach students and residents, but are not monetarily compensated for their educational services.

Table 15 provides percentiles for Penn State College of Medicine faculty salaries with respect to the appropriate AAMC comparator set. For example, salaries of Penn State's standing professors are at the 66th percentile of the AAMC group. According to Table 15, standing faculty (both PhD and MD) salaries range from the 48th to the 66th percentile of the AAMC. Non-standing faculty exhibit a wider range, with PhD faculty ranging from the 40th to the 64th percentile and MD faculty ranging form the 43rd to the 54th percentile.

The College of Medicine was also able to provide the subcommittee with some detailed data on average salaries of faculty within selected disciplines. These data are shown in Figure J. They indicate that salaries of faculty within these disciplines range from the 26th to the 70th percentile in comparison to AAMC peer institutions.

In response to requests for additional data from the College of Medicine, the subcommittee was told that information on mean years in rank, salary quartiles, and median salaries exceeded the statistical capabilities of the College and that data on salaries by gender would be forthcoming in the College of Medicine's own gender equity study in the future.

REFERENCES
Bereman, N. and Lengnick-Hall, M. (1994). Pay Compression at Public Universities: The Business School Experience. Public Personnel Management, 23(3): 469-480.

Lawther, W. (1989). Ways to Monitor (and Solve) the Pay-Compression Problem. Personnel, 66(3): 84-87.

SENATE COMMITTEE ON FACULTY BENEFITS
Keith K. Burkhart
Gary L. Catchen
Michael Dooris
Elizabeth A. Hanley
Robert J. Heinsohn
Deidre E. Jago, Chair
Kathleen L. Lodwick
Cynthia Mara
Sandra J. Savignon
Cara-Lynne Schengrund
Dennis G. Shea, Vice-Chair
Patience L. Simmonds
Marley W. Watkins
Billie S. Willits

SENATE COMMITTEE ON INTRA-UNIVERSITY RELATIONS
Rosann Bazirjian
Dawn G. Blasko, Vice-Chair
Robert H. Bonneau
K. Robert Bridges
Lance Cole
Cheng Dong
Fred G. Fedok
E. Jay Holcomb
Ali R. Hurson
Zachary T. Irwin
Billie Jo Jones
Carl R. Lovitt II
Kidane Mengisteab
Craig M. Meyers
Al Mueller
Victor Nistor
David R. Richards, Chair
Michael C. Ritter
James F. Smith
Macklin E. Stanley
Robert A. Walters
Mark L. Wardell
Barbara A. Wiens-Tuers
Nancy I. Williams
Stamatis M. Zervanos

COMMITTEE ON FACULTY BENEFITS, SALARY SUBCOMMITTEE
Michael Dooris
Cara-Lynne Schengrund
Dennis Shea, Chair
Marley Watkins

COMMITTEE ON INTRA-UNIVERSITY RELATIONS, SALARY SUBCOMMITTEE
Rosann Bazirjian
Robert H. Bonneau
Fred G. Fedok
Eileen M. Kane
Kidane Mengisteab
Al Mueller
Victor Nistor
Robert A. Walters, Chair



Appendix A
DATA SOURCES

In addition to data drawn from Penn State's human resources databases, this report reflects information from four inter-institutional data exchanges.

AAUDE (Association of American Universities Data Exchange). AAUDE is a group of 60 public and private research universities that exchange data on a variety of topics according to carefully developed conventions. For many purposes, AAUDE is an excellent source of inter-institutional salary information. There is high comparability in terms of the type of institutions within the pool; the reporting conventions have been carefully developed over a period of many years; and the participating universities are rigorous in following those definitions. Also, the AAUDE electronic database allows manipulation of salary information by discipline, so it is possible to construct disciplinary groupings that mimic Penn State's college structure. There are, of course, limits to the AAUDE information. In any given year, only about half the members submit faculty salary data; there is a confidentiality agreement; and only flagship campuses are included. (The members of the AAUDE are listed in Table 5).

AAUP (American Association of University Professors). As the product of a national survey, AAUP annually publishes average salaries by rank and by campus. Advantages to the AAUP results are that they are readily available (the Office of Planning and Institutional Assessment purchases the database each Spring); they essentially cover all colleges and universities in the U.S.; and the AAUP information permits comparisons of Penn State's campus colleges with campuses such as Minnesota-Duluth and Illinois-Chicago. (2000-01 was the first year in which Penn State's campus college data were broken out individually for units such as Penn State-Altoona, Penn State-Behrend, and so forth. Previous AAUP reports collapsed Penn State's information into three clusters, based upon campus type.) Limitations to the AAUP information are that it contains only institutional averages by rank, and it must be used as compiled and published by the AAUP. Disciplinary analysis of the AAUP data is not possible.

ARL (Association of Research Libraries). ARL conducts an annual inter-institutional data exchange in which Penn State's University Libraries participate. Universities differ considerably in the way they classify librarians, especially in terms of academic versus staff appointments and the number and titles of ranks. While, whenever feasible, the Committee on Faculty Benefits includes Penn State librarian data with data for other faculty, this is not always possible (for example, the AAUDE convention excludes librarians). The ARL exchange is an excellent source of comparable, well-defined, multi-institution salary information that is specific to academic librarians.

AAMC (Association of American Medical Colleges). This is the first year that the Faculty Senate faculty salary report includes AAMC data. The AAMC conducts an inter-institutional exchange for university medical faculty; Penn State's College of Medicine participates in that study. The other exchanges listed above do not include colleges of medicine, largely because it is virtually impossible to accurately compare salaries for medical school faculty with those of other faculty. Medical school salaries are uniquely structured to reflect the mix of clinical and academic responsibilities. The Committee on Faculty Benefits believes that the AAMC exchange is the best available source of meaningful Penn State and benchmark data on salaries for medical school faculty members.



Appendix B
Cost of Living Adjustments

Introduction. An initial draft of this report was developed by Robert H. Bonneau, Ph.D. for the Subcommittee on Salary Equity in the Committee on Intra-University Relations. That document was subsequently revised by that Subcommittee and the Subcommittee on Faculty Salaries in the Committee on Faculty Benefits. The cost of living report was intended to be part of the initial report on salary equity provided to the Senate by the Intra-University Relations Subcommittee on Salary Equity. That report was incorporated into the Faculty Salary Report as the two subcommittees worked together.


Sources of Information and Findings. There are a variety of sources from which information on the cost of living in Pennsylvania can be obtained. Initial searches on the web revealed several sources of information regarding cost-of-living comparisons between cities/towns within Pennsylvania. The first source, realtor.com, is the official site of the National Association of Realtors and provides these comparisons by using The Salary Calculator® (http://www.homefair.com/homefair/calc/salcalc.html). The second primary source of web-based information for cost-of living is Monster moving.com (http://www.monstermoving.com/). The third source is known as ACCRA, formerly the American Chambers of Commerce Research Association.

The ACCRA website provides information about method and data sources at http://www.accra.org. The other two sources provide no detailed information on their data or methods. Realtor.com states that the "information used to create The Salary Calculator® is obtained from a full spectrum of sources that we [Realtor.com] believe to be reliable. Realtor.com makes no warranty, express or implied, as to the accuracy of the data."According to the Monstermoving.com web site, the "cost of living information has been compiled using figures from auto insurance prices, housing costs, property tax information, state and local income taxes, and utility costs. This information is proprietary data from 2001 and is owned exclusively by Monstermoving.com. These figures are updated annually. Combined with the cost of living index and sales tax information, these figures make up the data sources for the cost of living comparison. The cost of living index is based upon an equation that includes the following: A dual spouse family with $50,000 income, 2 children, a 2,000 square foot house and 1 car. It is made up of housing costs, property taxes, state and local income taxes, sales tax, utilities and auto insurance costs. Monstermoving strives to gather data as specific to the city or town as possible. In some cases, 'city' data is based upon Metropolitan Statistical Areas, which can vary in physical size and diversity. Household income or housing cost figures may seem particularly high or low because they represent an average over a diverse and possibly far-reaching Metropolitan Statistical Area." The latter two sources offer wildly varying estimates of cost of living in Pennsylvania cities. For example, Realtor.com data indicates that Erie costs are 5 percent below the cost of living in University Park. Meanwhile, Monstermoving.com indicates the cost of living is 12 percent higher in Erie than in University Park. Because of the lack of detail on the methods used by these sources and their questionable estimates, we rely in our report on the ACCRA data.

ACCRA provides timely and meaningful data for geographic cost-of-living analyses. However, ACCRA indices should be interpreted cautiously, because coverage, level, timing, and so forth differ considerably among and within metro areas. For example, the large geographic region encompassed by the Philadelphia area includes areas as diverse as Bucks County, center-city Philadelphia, and portions of New Jersey and Delaware. The cost-of-living index cannot adequately and precisely reflect actual pricing differentials among these specific locations. Unfortunately, the ACCRA data do not provide comprehensive information on all Pennsylvania locations

A more exhaustive search of the web for cost of living comparisons for sites within Pennsylvania revealed a report that was published in July 2000 entitled, "Differences in the Cost of Living Across Pennsylvania's 67 Counties". This report, prepared by James A. Kurre, Ph.D., Pennsylvania State University School of Business, Penn State Erie, was sponsored by a grant from the Center for Rural Pennsylvania, a legislative agency of the Pennsylvania General Assembly. The Center for Rural Pennsylvania is a bipartisan, bicameral legislative agency that serves as a resource of rural policy within the Pennsylvania General Assembly. It was created under Act 16, the Rural Revitalization Act, to promote and sustain the vitality of Pennsylvania's rural and small communities. Contact information for this Center is:

Center for Rural Pennsylvania
200 North Third Street, Suite 600
Harrisburg, PA 17101
Telephone; 717-787-9555
Fax: 717-772-3587
website: www.ruralpa.org

This study developed spatial cost of living estimates for each of the 67 counties in Pennsylvania for 1997. In addition to the overall cost of living, this study generated indexes for each of the six component subindices: groceries, housing, utilities, transportation, health care, and miscellaneous goods and services. These indexes allowed identification of high and low cost locations in the state and permitted measurement of the extent to which some areas are more expensive than others. Although the major focus of this study was to compare costs in urban counties with those in rural counties, the data presented does allow one to compare the cost of living in each of Pennsylvania's 67 counties. The subindices listed above tended to follow the spatial pattern of the overall cost of living. All of the subindices were positively correlated with the overall cost of living. Within the subindices, housing and groceries tended to most closely follow the overall pattern, with miscellaneous goods and health care being less closely related. The entire 87-page report from this study can be downloaded from the web (http://www.ruralpa.org/clr2000.pdf) and provides detailed information on how the cost of living values were determined for each country.

The unit of measure for the cost of living in the above report is an index with a value of 100.0 being the average of 321 urban areas in North America. The source of the data based on these 321 areas was the American Chamber of Commerce Researchers Association (ACCRA) participating in the study. This ACCRA data was based on the standard of living of a mid-management executive household. This standard reflects a higher than average standard of living, so the estimates cannot claim to represent the costs faced by an average consumer in any given county. Single consumers, childless couples, and those with higher or lower incomes than the mid-management family would presumably buy a different mix of goods and services than that family, and thus would experience somewhat different costs than those that are reported here. It is important to note that even though no single model can account for all the factors that affect cost of living, the numbers presented in this report should serve as useful guides to differences in the cost of living across Pennsylvania's counties. This study also found that the determinants of cost of living have not changed dramatically since a previous study that was based on 1989 data.

Listed below are the Penn State University campus locations and the counties that have been assigned to each campus for the purpose of this report. The county assigned to each of the campus locations is simply based on the geographical location of the campus itself. It is recognized that, in some cases, the cost of living indexes for neighboring counties may also play a factor in the actual cost of living for a given faculty member depending on where the faculty member resides, shops, etc. The cost of living values for such neighboring counties can be accessed at the above web site.

CAMPUS COUNTY
Abington Montgomery
Altoona Blair
Berks Berks
Beaver Beaver
Delaware Delaware
DuBois Clearfield
Erie, Behrend College Erie
Fayette Fayette
Harrisburg Dauphin
Hazleton Luzerne
Lehigh Valley Lehigh
McKeesport Allegheny
Mont Alto Franklin
New Kensington Westmoreland
Schuylkill Schuylkill
Shenango Mercer
University Park Centre
Wilkes-Barre Luzerne
Worthington Scranton Lackawanna
York York

College of Medicine, Hershey Dauphin
Dickinson School of Law, Carlisle Cumberland
Great Valley School of Graduate
Professional Studies, Malvern Chester
Pennsylvania College of Technology,
Williamsport Lycoming

CAMPUS
Abington
Altoona
Berks
Beaver
Delaware
DuBois
Erie, Behrend College
Fayette
Harrisburg
Hazleton
Lehigh Valley
McKeesport
Mont Alto
New Kensington
Schuylkill
Shenango
University Park
Wilkes-Barre
Worthington Scranton
York
College of Medicine, Hershey
Dickinson School of Law, Carlisle
Great Valley School of Grad. Prof. Studies, Malvern
Pennsylvania College of Technology, Williamsport

COUNTY
Montgomery
Blair
Berks
Beaver
Delaware
Clearfield
Erie
Fayette
Dauphin
Luzerne
Lehigh
Allegheny
Franklin
Westmoreland
Schuylkill
Mercer
Centre
Luzerne
Lackawanna
York
Dauphin
Cumberland
Chester
Lycoming


Listed in the following table (page 5) are the campuses, county of their location, and index values for the overall cost of living (Total). Also listed are the indexes for each of the six component subindices: (groceries, housing, utilities, transportation, health care, and miscellaneous goods and services). Overall, the use of the information in "Differences in the Cost of Living Across Pennsylvania's 67 Counties" provides a relatively up-to-date, well-defined analysis of the cost-of living for each area in Pennsylvania where a Penn State University campus is located. Since no cost-of living data can be applied to a broad range of individuals, the data provided below should be used only as a guide for assessing salary equity within the Penn State system and is only one of many factors on which achieving equity should be based.

Table B-1

Campus County Total Groceries Housing Utilities Transportation Health Care Miscellaneous
Abington Montgomery 105.0 102.4 109.0 123.1 107.0 121.8 106.8
Altoona Blair 100.6 101.0 100.9 121.0 98.0 95.1 98.7
Berks Berks 102.0 101.3 103.1 121.5 101.3 101.3 101.1
Beaver Beaver 101.0 101.1 102.3 121.1 100.7 96.4 98.5
Delaware Delaware 108.4 102.6 115.3 122.1 108.5 107.1 102.0
DuBois Clearfield 100.4 100.9 97.5 120.9 96.9 93.7 99.1
Erie, Behrend College Erie 101.0 101.2 101.2 121.3 100.2 97.1 99.6
Fayette Fayette 100.5 101.0 97.8 121.0 96.8 93.7 98.7
Harrisburg Dauphin 101.5 101.2 104.0 121.3 101.9 102.1 100.7
Hazleton Luzerne 100.4 101.2 99.9 121.3 99.5 97.7 99.0
Lehigh Valley Lehigh 103.1 101.5 105.0 121.4 103.9 102.8 101.4
McKeesport Allegheny 104.6 102.9 109.5 123.9 105.2 108.2 101.3
Mont Alto Franklin 101.2 101.0 101.3 121.0 98.4 96.6 99.7
New Kensington Westmoreland 100.9 101.3 101.5 121.5 101.2 98.8 99.8
Schuylkill Schuylkill 100.0 101.0 98.7 121.0 98.4 95.3 98.9
Shenango Mercer 100.6 101.0 100.9 120.9 98.3 94.6 99.2
University Park Centre 101.1 101.0 102.9 121.0 100.4 95.5 99.4
Wilkes-Barre Luzerne 100.4 101.2 99.9 121.3 99.5 97.7 99.0
Worthington Scranton Lackawanna 100.7 101.2 100.6 121.1 101.6 97.4 99.3
York York 102.1 101.3 103.3 121.5 101.6 99.4 101.5
College of Medicine, Hershey Dauphin 101.5 101.2 104.0 121.3 101.9 102.1 100.7
Dickinson School of Law, Carlisle Cumberland 101.7 101.2 104.3 121.2 101.2 102.0 101.6
Great Valley School of
Graduate Professional
Studies, Malvern
Chester 103.1 101.6 104.9 122.1 104.4 118.2 105.7
Pennsylvania College of
Technology, Williamsport
Lycoming 100.1 100.9 99.3 120.9 99.4 94.7 99.4

Appendix C
Salary Tables

Table 1:
Table 2:
Table 3:
Table 4:
Table 5:
Table 6:
Table 7:
Table 7a:
Table 7b:
Table 8:
Table 9:
Table 10:
Table 11:
Table 12:
Table 13:
Table 14:
Table 15:

Average Salaries by College and Rank, University Park
Salary Progression/Compression Analysis (Rank Ratio), University Park
Salary Growth by College and Rank, University Park
Faculty Salary Increases, Penn State and AAUDE Institutions
List of AAUDE Institutions
Average Faculty Salaries at Big Ten Institutions, Main Campuses
Average Faculty Salaries at Big Ten Institutions Adjusted for Cost of Living
Available Pennsylvania Cost of Living Indices
Available Big Ten Cost of Living Indices
Average Faculty Salaries at Big Ten Institutions, All Campuses
Faculty Salaries at Penn State Colleges and Other Pennsylvania Universities
Association of Research Libraries Salary Analysis of Big Ten Universities
Median and Quartile Salaries at Penn State by Location
Median and Quartile Salaries at University Park Colleges
Salaries by Gender at Penn State Locations
Salaries by Gender at University Park Colleges
Salaries at the College of Medicine

Click to view the Salary Tables

Appendix K

SENATE COMMITTEE ON INTERCOLLEGIATE ATHLETICS

Annual Report of Academic Eligibility and Athletic Scholarships for 2002-03

(Informational)


INTRODUCTION

Each year the Senate Committee on Intercollegiate Athletics is mandated to provide a report of NCAA activities to the Senate. This report focuses on academic eligibility 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. In addition, information is provided on overall academic performance, academic All Big-Ten honorees, and the distribution of athletes across majors at Penn State.

1. Total Number of Athletes Screened for Eligibility (Fall 02 & Spring 03) 1702

2. Total Number of Athletes Not Approved for Participation (Fall 02 & Spring 03) 44

3. Total Number of Exceptions to Normal Progress Rule (Fall 02 & Spring 03) 52

4. Total Number of Scholarship Athletes (Academic year 2002 & 03) 504

5. Comparison of Data for Annual Report:


 
1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03
Athletes Screened
1628
1585
1788
1534
1598
1647
1635
1575
1702
Athletes Not Approved
39
58
45
43
47
54
46
45
44
Exceptions to Normal Progress
30
34
38
30
35
28
38
44
52
5th year Exceptions                
57
Scholarship Athletes
410
471
470
475
490
498
502
532
504

SENATE COMMITTEE ON INTERCOLLEGIATE ATHLETICS
James B. Anderson
William W. Asbury
Timothy M. Curley
Laurence M. Demers
James T. Elder
Robert Gray
Kane M. High
Janis E. Jacobs
Diana Kenepp
R. Scott Kretchmar
Mark A. Levin
Douglas McCullough
Gary W. Petersen
Martin T. Pietrucha, Chair
John J. Romano
Stephen W. Schaeffer
Susan Delaney-Scheetz
Sandra R. Smith, Vice-Chair
Thomas C. Vary
Jerry Wright
Edgar P. Yoder
Susan C. Youtz

 

 

Appendix L

SENATE COUNCIL

Update on the Grand Destiny Campaign

(Informational)

In this PowerPoint presentation, Rodney P. Kirsch, Vice President for Development and Alumni Relations, will update the Faculty Senate on the status of the Grand Destiny Campaign through December 2002. Mr. Kirsch will focus his comments on how the campaign is enhancing educational efforts of the University.

SENATE COUNCIL
Connie D. Baggett
Christopher J. Bise
Melvin Blumberg
Robert L. Burgess
Wayne R. Curtis
W. Travis DeCastro
Caroline D. Eckhardt
Rodney A. Erickson
Jacqueline R. Esposito
Dorothy H. Evensen
Dennis S. Gouran
Elizabeth A. Hanley
Peter C. Jurs
Alphonse Leure-duPree
Salvatore A. Marsico
Ronald L. McCarty
Louis Milakofsky
John W. Moore, Chair
John S. Nichols
Jean Landa Pytel
P. Peter Rebane
Winston A. Richards
Alan W. Scaroni
Graham B. Spanier
John C. Spychalski
Stephen W. Stace
Brian B. Tormey

Academic Performance Overview, 2001-2002

  1. Second highest graduation rate (82%) for Penn State since NCAA began data collection and publication of rates in 1990.

  2. Highest graduation rate of any Division I-A public institution in the country.

  3. Tied for 8th among all Division I schools nationally.

  4. A 93% overall graduation rate, since start of data collection. (Includes individuals who returned to get degrees after the 6-year window for measurement of graduation rates closed.)

  5. Spring Semester 2002

  6. 351/665 -GPA 3.0 or above - 52%
    141 of those 351 - GPA 3.5 or above - 21%

  7. Fall Semester 2002

    390/724 -GPA 3.0 or above - 54%

  8. Led Big-Ten for sixth consecutive year in Academic All-Conference honorees (209)

  9. Selected in March 2002, as one of only 10 NCAA Division 1-A institutions for College Sports Honor Roll for academic and athletic achievement.

  10. Nine Verizon Academic All-Americans. Ties record for Penn State set in 1998-99.

Academic All-Big Ten Honorees

Penn State
Ohio State
Indiana
Minnesota
Michigan
Iowa
Michigan State
Northwestern
Illinois
Purdue
209
194
184
156
151
139
139
125
124
118

 

Student-Athlete Majors

Penn State University 2003

College of Arts & Architecture (13)
AAART
ARBFA
BARCH
INART
LARCH
4
1
1
5
2
College of Agriculture (19)
AG
ANBIO
ANSCI
FD SC
FORSC
HORT
LSCPE
W P
9
2
3
1
1
1
1
1
Smeal College of Business (125)
BA
ACCIB
ACCTG
ACTSC
B LOG
BLGIB
BA EC
BECIB
FIN
FINIB
MGMT
MGTIB
45
1
5
2
5
1
3
2
10
2
15
2
MKTG
MKTIB
MS&IS
MSIB
OISM
R EST
12
1
8
2
4
5
Collge of Communications (65)
COMM
AD PR
FILM
JOURN
MEDIA
TELCM
31
7
2
13
3
9
College of Education (50)
ED
EKED
HIED
REHAB
SECED
27
14
1
3
5
College of Earth & Mineral Sci. (5)
EM SC
GEOG
GEOSC
MATSE
1
2
1
1
College of Engineering (55)
ENGR
AE
AERSP
CE
CHE
CMPEN
CMPSC
EE
ENGAE
IE
ME
24
3
1
1
2
3
2
6
4
3
6
College of Health & Human Dev. (153)
HHD
BB H
CSD
HPA
HDFS
HR&IM
KINES
NURS
NUTR
RPM
44
1
2
1
9
9
47
1
5
34
School of Inf. Sci. & Tech. (13)
INFST
IST
4
9
College of Liberal Arts (111)
LA
AAAS
ANTH
AOJ
CAS
CLJ
EC
ENGL
HIST
INTPL
LAS
LIR
35
1
1
4
1
15
5
3
5
1
3
4
PLSC
PSY
SOC
SPCOM
7
20
4
2
College of Science (19)
SCIEN
BIOL
CHEM
MATH
PM
SOC
SCBUS
STAT
8
2
1
1
1
4
1
1

 

All Student-Athletes
By College

ARTS & ARCHITECTURE

13

AG

19

BA

125

COMM

65

ED

50

EMS

5

ENGR

55

IST

13

HHD

153

LA

111

SCIENCE

19

DUS

114

GRADUATE SCHOOL

4

TOTAL

746

Appendix M

THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY

University Faculty Senate

Report of Nominating Committee for 2003-2004


The Nominating Committee consisting of the elected representatives of Senate Council was convened on January 14, 2003. The following list of nominees will be transmitted to the Chair of the University Faculty Senate prior to the March 4, 2003, Senate Council meeting for subsequent distribution with the Agenda for the March 25, 2003, meeting of the University Faculty Senate. Additional nominations may be made from the floor of the Senate on March 25, 2003.

SENATE OFFICERS

CHAIR-ELECT OF THE SENATE

Melvin Blumberg, Professor of Management, Penn State Harrisburg

Kim Steiner, Professor of Forest Biology, College of Agricultural Sciences, University Park

SECRETARY OF THE SENATE

Sallie McCorkle, Associate Professor of Art and Women Studies, College of Arts and Architecture, University Park

Jamie Myers, Associate Professor of Education, College of Education, University Park

FACULTY ADVISORY COMMITTEE TO THE PRESIDENT

(One [1] to be elected - term to expire in 2006)

Travis DeCastro, Associate Professor of Theatre and Head, Bachelor of Fine Arts Degree Program in Stage Management, College of Arts and Architecture, University Park

Renata Engel, Professor of Engineering Science and Mechanics, College of Engineering, and Director, Schreyer Institute for Innovation in Learning, University Park

Harvey Manbeck, Distinguished Professor of Agricultural Engineering, College of Agricultural Sciences, University Park

NOMINATING COMMITTEE
Connie Baggett
Robert Burgess
Travis DeCastro
Jacqueline Esposito
Dorothy Evensen
Dennis Gouran
Peter Jurs
Alphonse Leure-duPree
Salvatore Marsico
Ronald McCarty
Louis Milakofsky
John Nichols, Chair
Jean Landa Pytel
Winston Richards
Alan Scaroni
John Spychalski
Stephen Stace
Brian Tormey

Appendix N

SENATE COMMITTEEE ON UNDERGRADUATE EDUCATION

Annual Grade Distribution Report

(Informational)

Introduction

In March of 1987, the Senate passed legislation requiring that the Committee for Undergraduate Education conduct an annual review of grade distribution data for baccalaureate students. Furthermore, this legislation required that the Committee on Undergraduate Education report to the Senate whenever meaningful changes in the distribution patterns appear. The Committee on Undergraduate Education reports that meaningful changes in the distribution patterns have appeared since 1987 and this pattern is in the form of grade inflation as the term is defined in a number of national studies.

The attached tables show data that have been provided by the Registrar's Office for each spring semester from 1975 to 2002, with detailed data for spring semester 2002. 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 2002. Table 2 presents a summary of grade distribution for resident instruction for the spring semester 2002 at all locations for all courses for all colleges except the College of Medicine and the Dickinson School of Law. Table 3 presents the grade point averages and Dean's list summary by college for the spring semester 2002. Semester GPAs from five and ten years ago are also listed for comparison. Table 4 presents an all-University distribution of semester grade point averages for baccalaureate students. In order to examine the trends across the 28 reported years, Figure 1 plots the GPA across the university for all courses numbered 0 through 499 in spring semester from 1975 to 2002.

Figure 1. All university spring semester grade point average for courses 0-499 from 1975 to 2002.

Present increase in GPA compared with past such events

Figure 1 shows a modest downward trend through 1987. This early trend is followed by a significant upward slope beginning about fifteen years ago. One possible explanation for this trend is grade inflation, which is a serious concern that has been widely discussed in higher education. In this discussion, the committee chooses to define "grade inflation" as the increase in GPA that does not reflect improved student performance. If the increase in students' grades is due to improved student performance, the committee would consider the phrase "improved student performance" to be appropriate. Because the committee is uncertain about the driver behind the upward slope in GPA at PSU since 1987, we will refer to this trend as the increase in GPA over time.

We first observe that Table 1 includes the percentage of students who withdrew from the semester and late dropped courses. The grade percentages listed, therefore, include all students enrolled in courses on the tenth day of the semester. By tabulating percentages in this way, the effect of implementing a more liberal late drop criterion beginning in 1990 is removed from individual data columns. The semester and cumulative GPAs however, may be influenced by the implementation of a change in the late drop policy since the performance of students who late dropped the course is not included in the GPA calculation.

The trends in Figure 1 are seen when the data are broken into smaller units (Figure 2). For example, we see that each college has set its grading norm to different levels depending on various historical standards used by the colleges but the increase in GPA appears to be global in this example.

Figure 2. GPA trends for spring terms and semesters dating back to 1980 and broken down by units (i.e., here the breakdown is by some colleges at University Park). Data are taken from the University Faculty Senate agenda for all years in which a grade distribution report was presented to the Senate.

The increase in GPA over time can be better understood if the data are subdivided according to grades awarded at the A-level, B-level, C-level and so on. When looking at A-grades since 1975 two periods may be identified. The time from 1975 through 1987 marks a period of stability in the award of A-grades. Starting in 1988 and continuing through the spring of 2002, the percentage of A-grades awarded to PSU 0-499 Resident Instruction Courses has increased more than 10% (Figure 3). This period of instability in the award of grades at Penn State is characterized by an increase in GPA over time.

Figure 3. Percentage of A and A- grades awarded in resident instruction courses numbered 1 through 499 University wide in the spring terms or semesters starting in 1975 (see Table 1). Data represent a percentage of all students registered on or near the 10th day of class. Unlike spring GPA (Figure 1), introduction of the late drop rule and the time of late drop do not impact data on percentages of A and A- grades.

In order to place the present GPA trend in perspective, we refer to the data published in the March 4, 1975 University Faculty Senate Agenda. During the Vietnam War era, grade inflation was a national problem. Between 1963 and 1973, the percentage of A-grades awarded by Penn State more than doubled (Figure 4). The University Faculty Senate judged this phenomenon so severe that some action was necessary. Consequently, on March 4, 1975, the recommendation was put forth that, "there are collegial and departmental responsibilities in establishing and maintaining the standards upon which grades were assigned". This report was followed by a period of stability in grade distribution. On March 31, 1987, the University Faculty Senate congratulated itself by declaring that there has been "stability of grade distributions for the past eleven years".

The present increase in GPA over time differs from the Vietnam War-era trend in two regards. First, it is not as severe. Second, during the former era the A-grades and the C-grades exchanged places whereas presently the increase in A-grades is at the expense of both the B-grades and the C-grades.

Figure 4. Percentage of A & A-, B+ & B & B-, and C+ & C grades awarded in resident instruction courses numbered 1 through 499 University wide in the spring terms or semesters starting in 1963.


Possible causes for an increase in GPA over the past 15 years

There are several factors that may have contributed to improved student performance as implied by the increase in GPA over the past 15 years. First, there have been several university initiatives to increase learning and improve teaching. These include the efforts of the Teaching and Learning Consortium, the Center for Excellence in Learning and Teaching, the creation of the Schreyer Institute, Royer Center, and the Center for Educational Technology Services. Second, the University Faculty Senate has also played an active role in enhancing the educational experience for our students by the adoption of Writing Across the Curriculum, the Vibrant Learning Environment principles, legislation on enhancing General Education courses with active learning, and implementing First-Year Seminars aimed at developing good scholarship habits early. Each of these efforts may have contributed to enhancing student learning that is appropriately reflected in the increase in GPA over time. One of the principles of the Writing Across the Curriculum Program is that students revise their work, enabling them to re-write their papers to contain greater clarity and organization. This practice results in better papers and student performance and certainly has a concomitant impact on the increase in GPA over time.

The committee recognizes that with the diverse teaching styles, course content, grading criteria, and course expectations, it is difficult to distinguish between improved student performance and grade inflation. For example, what does each of the grades mean? That is, some professors grade on a curve. Others choose to grade according to the mastery of criteria where students revise their work until it meets or approximates established criteria. Secondly, grades come from courses diverse in content and concept, such as art, music, and math. In math, students may be graded according to the number of problems solved correctly, whereas students in art may be graded on rigorous critiques in which the principles of design are applied to their work. Music education majors, learning to play an instrument that is not their major, might be graded on their progress. Again, these grades-art, music and math, and all others--are lumped together and must have an impact on the overall university GPA. Thirdly, curves and criteria can change. Is a grade in a course where grades were determined by a curve in one given semester equal to a similar grade in another semester? That is, would an 85 this semester, for example, equal an 85 in a previous semester? Or might a student receiving an 85 based on the curve have more correct answers than an 85 in a previous semester? Grades are relative and influenced by the particular students, instructor, and expectations in a course. There is no attempt across the university to remove these factors, nor should there be.

Figure 5. Percentage of A and A- grades awarded in resident instruction courses number 1 through 499 University wide in the spring terms or semesters starting in 1975 (see Table 1). Also shown are other benchmarks for best practices in teaching and learning at Penn State.

One of the ways to test whether university teaching and learning initiatives served as the driver for increase in GPA over time is to plot the implementation dates along with the grade trends. The March 4, 1975 Senate agenda listed 12 possible drivers for grade inflation, some of which can be dismissed as phenomena dating from another era. Others can't be so easily dismissed. Nevertheless, we look for institutional changes that might be at the root of the present grade inflation trend. It is notable that benchmarks for best practices in teaching and learning such as the initiation of the University Scholars program (1980 - now the Schreyer Honor's College) and the Instructional Development Program (1981 - then CELT and now the Schreyer Institute) were implemented without triggering an increase in GPA over time (Figure 5). Other institutes for enhancing Penn State's teaching and learning post-date the onset of increase in GPA. We also note that during the fall of 1987 the SRTE was implemented. Subsequent to the implementation of the SRTE there has never been a year during which there was a reduction in the number of A-grades awarded. From 1987 the number of A-grades awarded has increased more than 10 percentage points from the period of relative stability prior to 1987.

It is very difficult to say exactly what is driving the present increase in GPA over time and why. Because the onset of the increasing GPA is closely tied to the implementation of the SRTE we could argue that the SRTE has had the effect of providing an incentive for the faculty to improve their teaching skills and that improvement is manifested by better grades. Another possibility is that the increase in GPA over time is a consequence of easier grading by faculty seeking higher SRTE scores. We could also argue that there was a delayed benefit from initiating such teaching and learning institutes as the University Scholars Program and the Instructional Development Program. The effect of these trends continued throughout the 1990s as other teaching and learning endeavors came on line as well. However, mean and median SAT scores of incoming students do not support the argument that GPA is increasing because the Penn State student is better prepared than ever before when entering the university (Figure 6).

Figure 6. Mean total SAT score for university-wide admissions by year.

National Trends

The January 30, 2003 Chronicle of Higher Education reports that a scholar at Duke University is trying to highlight the scope of the 'grade inflation' problem by compiling a database of average grade-point averages over time (see gradeinflation.com). He reports that "every school that I can find data (on GPA) shows grade inflation". The Chronicle paraphrases the scholar who notes that the latest wave of grade inflation started around the same time that colleges began operating more like a business treating students like customers who bring revenue. "Today, students and parents demand high grades, and professors are reluctant to buck the trend" adds the Chronicle.

It is interesting to note that grade distribution trends on the national scene are very much like those at Penn State (Figure 7). In fact, in viewing the national data PSU faculty can take some pride in the knowledge that they have behaved with slightly more restraint in awarding high grades than the national average over a period starting in 1987. If these data are centered on 1975, Penn State really shines as an institution of relative grade stability.

Figure 7. National trends in GPA centered on 1987.

Side effects of increased GPA over time

One side effect of increase in GPA over time is that it changes the meaning of GPA relative to some set of standards. It becomes difficult to compare student performance in different years. One mechanism for preserving a standard from one year to the next is to normalize transcripts by calculating rank in class. The question then becomes what academic unit should be used as the normalizing unit. To illustrate the problem of identifying the appropriate academic unit, we have plotted grade distribution trends for some of the colleges at PSU (Figure 2). We conclude that rank cannot be compared when data come from more than one college. Therefore, each of the colleges must calculate its rank separately. In some instances, colleges with larger departments using different grading standards may defer to a smaller academic unit to normalize by rank.

Conclusion

Increase in GPA over time, for better or for worse, is a fact at Penn State dating back to at least 1987. Based on present trends, any prediction for grade distributions at Penn State (next year for example) must assume that the recent increase in GPA will continue. If left unchecked, the present increase in GPA at PSU will end in the extreme situation in which all students are awarded A & A- grades. This vision of PSU's future is illustrated by plotting the percentage of A & A- grades over time for three fictitious units at Penn State: Units A, B, & C (Figure 8).


Figure 8. Prediction for future grade distributions if the present increase in GPA is left unchecked. Prediction based on recent trends among units as seen in Figure 2.

The University-student relationship

There are a number of forces that may continue to contribute to the increase in GPA over time as shown in Figure 8. For example, there are pressures to populate classes as well as larger academic units. Those classes and units that are perceived as being more difficult by virtue of a higher standard (i.e., awarding fewer A & A- grades) are going to be less popular, particularly in this age when there is so much pressure on students to win the highest possible grades. In such an environment, administrators might feel compelled to see that better grades are awarded as a matter of competing for students when other institutions seem to be awarding grades with less rigor.

A vision for the future

At present, the University community through the University Faculty Senate has an opportunity to reconsider a vision for grade distributions across the institution. In principle, the University could take the lead in reversing a national trend. There are several visions that should be considered in searching for guidelines leading to the establishment and maintenance of standards within the Penn State system. Four visions for future standards at Penn State all share one characteristic (Figure 9). They all return the Penn State grade distributions to some sort of long-term stability where grades will have the same meaning from one year to the next. Standards will have been set and maintained when a vision for Penn State's future is achieved. There are other visions as well, but each leads to a greater disparity between the grading practices of the colleges and the committee strongly recommends that the University avoid any plan that drives the colleges further apart in their grading practices.

Figure 9: Four visions for setting the future standards in distribution of grades at Penn State.


Committee Recommendations:

1. Grades continue to be assigned solely on the basis of the instructor's judgment as to the student's scholastic attainment as long as the assignment is consistent with university, college, division, and department standards.

2. The President of the University in conjunction with the Deans and Department/Division Heads actively encourages faculty and undergraduate program heads as they work to define, implement, and maintain the standards they deem most appropriate for achieving a vision like one of those depicted in Figure 9.

3. Units actively monitor grade changes over time, take the action necessary to fully understand the reasons for changes, and remedy the situation when it becomes apparent that standards are being compromised and the vision for the institutional standards is not being achieved.


SENATE COMMITTEE ON UNDERGRADUATE EDUCATION
Cheryl L. Achterberg
Richard I. Ammon
Laura M. Beck
Thomas E. Boothby
John P. Cancro
Paul F. Clark
Terry Engelder
Cheryl Gallagher
Peter D. Georgopulos
Robert S. Hill
Janis E. Jacobs
Richard R. Kennedy
John H. Kramer
Amy E. Locke
Nancy S. Love
Laura L. Pauley, Chair
Robert D. Ricketts, Vice-Chair
David W. Russell
Dhushy Sathianathan
Dennis C. Scanlon
Julia B. Simon
James A. Strauss
D. Joshua Troxell
Eric R. White
Susan C. Youtz

                    Table 1
Percentage of Grades Awarded in 0 - 499 Resident Instruction Courses
Comparison Spring Term/ Semester 1975 -2002
Spring
Terms A A- B+ B B- C+ C D F W LD AVE. GPA
1975 29.8 33.1 20.4 5.7 3.7 2.3 2.86
1976(a) 28.0 32.6 20.1 5.8 3.0 4.1 2.86
1977 28.3 32.2 20.1 5.7 2.7 5.5 2.87
1978 28.6 33.5 21.8 6.1 2.7 6.0 2.85
1979 28.0 34.2 22.2 6.3 2.6 5.6 2.84
1980 29.0 34.1 21.8 6.1 2.8 4.9 2.86
1981 28.1 33.8 22.3 6.3 3.0 5.2 2.83
1982 28.6 33.8 21.9 6.5 3.2 4.9 2.83
1983 28.9 33.4 21.9 6.5 3.0 5.0 2.84
Spring
Semesters A A- B+ B B- C+ C D F W LD AVE. GPA
1984(b) 28.2 33.1 21.4 6.7 4.1 5.1 2.80
1985 28.3 32.6 21.4 6.8 4.1 5.5 2.80
1986 29.2 32.8 21.3 6.7 4.1 5.1 2.81
1987 28.6 33.1 21.1 6.8 4.1 5.1 2.80
1988(c) 19.0 9.8 9.6 16.4 8.0 7.0 13.3 6.3 4.0 5.2 2.82
1989 18.8 10.6 10.2 15.8 8.5 7.6 12.7 6.0 3.9 5.1 2.84
1990(d) 18.8 10.6 10.1 15.3 8.4 7.2 12.1 5.7 3.4 1.5 5.8 2.87
1991 18.9 10.7 10.2 15.1 8.3 7.3 12.3 5.4 3.4 1.8 5.7 2.87
1992 19.3 10.8 10.2 15.1 8.5 7.2 12.1 5.4 3.5 1.7 5.3 2.88
1993 20.0 10.9 10.1 14.8 8.3 7.1 11.9 5.5 3.7 1.8 5.3 2.88
1994 20.8 11.1 9.9 14.5 8.1 6.9 11.6 5.2 3.6 2.1 5.2 2.91
1995 21.5 11.0 10.2 14.3 8.0 6.6 11.2 5.1 3.7 2.1 5.0 2.92
1996 21.9 11.3 10.3 13.8 7.9 6.6 10.9 5.2 3.9 2.1 5.0 2.92
1997 22.6 11.5 10.1 13.4 7.7 6.4 10.8 4.9 4.0 2.0 5.4 2.94
1998 23.2 11.8 10.3 13.6 7.8 6.4 10.2 4.7 3.9 1.9 5.0 2.96
1999 23.9 11.8 10.4 13.7 7.4 6.2 10.1 4.6 3.9 2.0 4.9 2.97
2000 24.9 12.1 10.3 13.3 7.4 6.0 9.8 4.4 4.0 2.0 4.8 2.99
2001 25.8 12.2 10.4 13.2 7.4 5.8 9.6 4.2 3.7 1.9 4.7 3.02
2002 26.4 12.6 10.5 13.1 7.3 5.7 9.1 4.2 3.7 1.9 4.7 3.04
(a) - 8 week drop rule in effect      
(b) - 10 week late drop rule in effect    
(c) - plus/minus grading began    
(d) - 12 week, 16 credit late drop rule in effect
             
W - includes WP, WN, WF, W prior to 1990  
LD - includes WP, WN, WF starting 1990  
             
             
Source:  Office of the University Registrar  
Reports - SRRP091, VPAR1011A & B  
Revised 12/3/02 CAG (added Ave. GPA column)
Table 2
Summary of Grade Distribution for Resident Instruction
Spring Semester 2002 (6/21/02)
(All Locations - All Courses for All Colleges -  Except College of Medicine and Dickinson School of Law)
NG
A
A-
B+
B
B-
C+
C
D
F
R
DF
AU
P
W
LD
Total
0-399 not UP
496
27119
12898
11233
15300
8906
7292
12566
6198
6124
0
598
58
0
3021
6143
117952
0-399 UP
272
31844
16263
13400
16333
9065
7266
10803
5154
3730
5
229
81
0
1857
6133
122435
Total 0-399
768
58963
29161
24633
31633
17971
14558
23369
11352
9854
5
827
139
0
4878
12276
240387
%
0.3%
24.5%
12.1%
10.2%
13.2%
7.5%
6.1%
9.7%
4.7%
4.1%
0.0%
0.3%
0.1%
0.0%
2.0%
5.1%
400 not UP
91
4936
2001
1463
1617
823
537
724
214
217
4
208
9
0
175
316
13335
400 UP
138
14301
6285
5013
5531
2825
1916
2781
841
765
10
258
66
0
523
1272
42525
Total 400
229
19237
8286
6476
7148
3648
2453
3505
1055
982
14
466
75
0
698
1588
55860
%
0.4%
34.4%
14.8%
11.6%
12.8%
6.5%
4.4%
6.3%
1.9%
1.8%
0.0%
0.8%
0.1%
0.0%
1.2%
2.8%
500 not UP
13
2338
869
391
249
87
27
39
6
9
54
57
1
0
35
23
4198
500 UP
88
5838
1631
972
704
178
34
76
16
24
279
256
180
331
49
292
10948
Total 500
101
8176
2500
1363
953
265
61
115
22
33
333
313
181
331
84
315
15146
%
0.7%
54.0%
16.5%
9.0%
6.3%
1.7%
0.4%
0.8%
0.1%
0.2%
2.2%
2.1%
1.2%
2.2%
0.6%
2.1%
0-499 not UP
587
32055
14899
12696
16917
9729
7829
13290
6412
6341
4
806
67
0
3196
6459
131287
0-499 UP
410
46145
22548
18413
21864
11890
9182
13584
5995
4495
15
487
147
0
2380
7405
164960
Total 0-499
997
78200
37447
31109
38781
21619
17011
26874
12407
10836
19
1293
214
0
5576
13864
296247
%
0.3%
26.4%
12.6%
10.5%
13.1%
7.3%
5.7%
9.1%
4.2%
3.7%
0.0%
0.4%
0.1%
0.0%
1.9%
4.7%
800 not UP
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Grade Points
4
3.67
3.33
3
2.67
2.33
2
1
0
Totals
164576
77394
63581
78515
43503
34083
53863
24836
21705
GP*Totals
658304
284036
211725
235545
116153
79413
 
24836
0
221494
GP*Tot 399
235852
107021
82028
94899
47983
33920
46738
11352
0
2.98
659792
52790
GP* Tot 400
76948
30409.6
21565
21444
9740.2
5715.5
7010
1055
0
3.29
173887
13488
GP* Tot 500
32704
9175
4538.8
2859
707.55
142.13
230
22
0
3.74
50378
274284
GP* Tot 499
312800
137430
103593
116343
57723
39636
53748
12407
0
3.04
833680

Table 2 (Continued)
Summary of Grade Distribution for Resident Instruction
Spring Semester 2002 (6/21/02)
(All Locations - All Courses for All Colleges -  Except College of Medicine and Dickinson School of Law)
NG
A
A-
B+
B
B-
C+
C
D
F
R
DF
AU
P
W
LD
Total
Total 0-399
Level Courses
Dist by %
0.3%
24.5%
12.1%
10.2%
13.2%
7.5%
6.1%
9.7%
4.7%
4.1%
0.0%
0.3%
0.1%
0.0%
2.0%
5.1%
100.0%
Dist by Count
768
58963
29161
24633
31633
17971
14558
23369
11352
9854
5
827
139
0
4878
12276
240387
GPA = 2.86
Total 400
Level Courses
Dist by %
0.4%
34.4%
14.8%
11.6%
12.8%
6.5%
4.4%
6.3%
1.9%
1.8%
0.0%
0.8%
0.1%
0.0%
1.2%
2.8%
100.0%
Dist by Count
229
19237
8286
6476
7148
3648
2453
3505
1055
982
14
466
75
0
698
1588
55860
GPA = 3.19
Total Courses
Level 0-499
Dist by %
0.3%
26.4%
12.6%
10.5%
13.1%
7.3%
5.7%
9.1%
4.2%
3.7%
0.0%
0.4%
0.1%
0.0%
1.9%
4.7%
100.0%
Dist by Count
997
78200
37447
31109
38781
21619
17011
26874
12407
10836
19
1293
214
0
5576
13864
296247
GPA = 2.92
Total 500
Level Courses
Dist by %
0.7%
54.0%
16.5%
9.0%
6.3%
1.7%
0.4%
0.8%
0.1%
0.2%
2.2%
2.1%
1.2%
2.2%
0.6%
2.1%
100.0%
Dist by Count
101
8176
2500
1363
953
265
61
115
22
33
333
313
181
331
84
315
15146
GPA = 3.69
Source:  Office of the University Registrar
Reports:  SRRP091, VPAR1011A & B 10/15/02 CAG

 

Table 3
Grade Point Averages and Dean's List
Summary by College
Spring Semester 2002
I.  Baccalaureate Degree Number on Total % on Sem GPA Cum GPA Sem GPA Sem GPA
    Academic Unit Dean's List Enrollment Dean's List 2002 2002 1997 1992
             
Arts & Architecture 548 1632 33.6% 3.17 3.10 2.99 2.89
Abington 206 908 22.7% 3.04 2.78 n/a n/a
Agricultural Sciences 349 1790 19.5% 2.86 2.85 2.72 2.68
Altoona 159 629 25.3% 2.99 2.95 n/a n/a
Business Administration 1631 6221 26.2% 3.03 3.03 2.95 2.92
Behrend 560 2231 25.1% 2.99 2.94 2.84 2.89
Berks-Lehigh 114 519 22.0% 3.04 2.94 n/a n/a
Capital 524 1808 29.0% 3.17 3.02 3.12 3.06
Commonwealth College 444 1918 23.1% 3.08 2.96 n/a n/a
Communications 992 3134 31.7% 3.08 3.05 2.90 2.84
Earth & Mineral Sciences 216 835 25.9% 2.83 2.82 2.91 2.79
Education 1457 3065 47.5% 3.36 3.33 3.21 3.14
Engineering 1732 7006 24.7% 2.97 2.93 2.88 2.80
Health & Human Development 1239 4272 29.0% 2.97 3.04 3.00 2.96
Inter college 5 8 62.5% 3.08 2.97 n/a n/a
Info, Science & Tech 510 1574 32.4% 3.54 3.56 n/a n/a
Liberal Arts 1749 5615 31.1% 3.17 3.10 2.96 2.88
Science 928 2896 32.0% 3.05 3.01 3.01 2.92
DUS 1111 5670 19.6% 3.10 3.15 2.55 2.63
Total 14474 51731 28.0% 3.04 3.02 2.92 2.88
II.  Associate Degree Number on Total % on Sem GPA Cum GPA Sem GPA Sem GPA
      Academic Unit Dean's List Enrollment Dean's List 2002 2002 1997 1992
             
Abington 5 153 3.3% 2.80 2.87 n/a n/a
Agricultural Sciences 20 133 15.0% 2.78 2.71 2.55 2.50
Altoona 24 231 10.4% 2.65 2.77 n/a n/a
Business Administration 0 13 0.0% 3.14 3.28 2.85 2.70
Behrend 4 74 5.4% 2.67 2.84 2.82 n/a
Berks-Lehigh 8 123 6.5% 2.47 2.68 n/a n/a
Capital 22 150 14.7% 2.88 2.96 n/a n/a
Commonwealth College 200 1515 13.2% 2.76 2.86 n/a n/a
Engineering 108 679 15.9% 2.96 2.93 2.83 2.80
Health & Human Development 30 328 9.1% 2.89 2.97 3.00 2.93
Info, Science & Tech 124 603 20.6% 3.04 3.06 n/a n/a
Liberal Arts 2 22 9.1% 3.12 3.02 2.52 2.64
Total 547 4024 13.6% 2.84 2.91 2.71 2.78
III. Provisional Students Number on Total % on Sem GPA Cum GPA Sem GPA Sem GPA
Dean's List Enrollment Dean's List 2002 2002 1997 1992
           
Provisional 64 779 1.7% 2.33 2.43 2.21 2.29
Nondegree 97 3781 2.1% 2.54 2.19 2.67 2.66
Total 161 4560 3.5% 2.48 2.22 2.44 2.47
Source:  Office of the University Registrar
Reports:  SRRP121, VPAR1074A, AIDAE, SRRP091, VPAR1011I,J & K
Revised 1/24/03 CAG (chged Cum GPA to Sem GPA 1997/1992 columns)

 

Table 4
All University Distribution of Semester Grade Point Averages
for Baccalaureate Students
Spring
Semesters Below 1.00   1.00 - 1.99   2.00 - 2.99   3.00 - 3.99   4.00   Total
1992
   Students 1,000 3,975 16,706 18,936 1,407       42,024
    % 2.4% 9.5% 39.8% 45.1% 3.3%
1993
   Students 1,319 4,035 15,777 18,765 1,395       41,291
    % 3.2% 9.8% 38.2% 45.4% 3.4%
1994
   Students 1,296 3,752 15,214 18,561 1,498       40,321
    % 3.2% 9.3% 37.7% 46.0% 3.7%
1995
   Students 1,478 3,666 14,953 19,130 1,584       40,811
    % 3.6% 9.0% 36.6% 46.9% 3.9%
1996
   Students 1,671 4,136 15,705 20,788 1,688       43,988
    % 3.8% 9.4% 35.7% 47.3% 3.8%
1997
   Students 1,852 4,262 15,912 21,861 1,932       45,819
    % 4.0% 9.3% 34.7% 47.7% 4.2%
1998
   Students 1,940 4,071 15,880 23,728 2,206 47,825
    % 4.1% 8.5% 33.2% 49.6% 4.6%
1999
    Students 1,811 4,318 16,149 24,832 2,284 49,394
     % 3.7% 8.7% 32.7% 50.3% 4.6%
2000
    Students 2156 3998 15,869 25,034 2513 49570
     % 4.4% 8.1% 32.0% 50.5% 5.1%
2001
Students 1934 3893 15,564 26,403 2710 50504
     % 3.8% 7.7% 30.8% 52.3% 5.4%
2002
Students 1519 3791 15,370 27,971 2906 51,557
     % 3.0% 7.40% 29.8% 54.3% 5.6%
Source:  Office of the University Registrar
Report:  SYSIF117 10/15/02 CAG

 

Appendix O

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. The types of petitions are listed in Table 1 and their sources by colleges and campuses are listed in Table 2.

The petition provides an opportunity for the students 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 L. Achterberg
Richard I. Ammon
Laura M. Beck
Thomas E. Boothby
John P. Cancro
Paul F. Clark
Terry Engelder
Cheryl Gallagher
Peter D. Georgopulos
Robert S. Hill
Janis E. Jacobs
Richard R. Kennedy
John H. Kramer
Amy E. Locke
Nancy S. Love
Laura L. Pauley, Chair
Robert D. Ricketts, Vice-Chair
David W. Russell
Dhushy Sathianathan
Dennis C. Scanlon
Julia B. Simon
James A. Strauss
D. Joshua Troxell
Eric R. White
Susan C. Youtz

The Pennsylvania State University
University Faculty Senate
101 Kern Graduate Building
University Park, PA 16802
Telephone: (814) 863-0221 - Fax: (814) 863-6012

MINUTES OF SENATE COUNCIL
Tuesday, March 4, 2003 - 1:30 p.m.
102 Kern Graduate Building


Members Present: C. D. Baggett, C. J. Bise, M. Blumberg, R. L. Burgess, W. R. Curtis, W. T. DeCastro, R. A. Erickson, J. R. Esposito, D. H. Evensen, D. S. Gouran, E. A. Hanley, P. C. Jurs, S. A. Marsico, L. Milakofsky, D. G. Mills, J. W. Moore, J. S. Nichols, J. L. Pytel, W. A. Richards, A. W. Scaroni, J. C. Spychalski, S. W. Stace, B. B. Tormey, S. C. Youtz

Members Accounted For: C. D. Eckhardt, A. Leure-duPree, R. L. McCarty, G. B. Spanier

Members Absent: P. P. Rebane

Guests: W. Ellis, J. Jacobs, D. Jago, T. Jones, S. Kretchmar, L. Pauley, D. Richards, J. Romano, R. Secor, D. Shea, K. Steiner, V. Stratton


CALL TO ORDER

Chair John Moore called the meeting to order at 1:35 p.m. on Tuesday, March 4, in 102 Kern Graduate Building.

MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF FEBRUARY 11, 2003

The minutes of the February 11, 2003 meeting were approved as presented on a Spychalski/Esposito motion.

ANNOUNCEMENTS AND REMARKS

Chair Moore announced that the Faculty Advisory Committee met on March 4. The following items were discussed: FY04 Budget Outlook; Faculty Roles in a Student-Centered University; Dean/Vice President Search Updates; Honors Programs at the Campus Colleges; Generating Revenue from Textbook Contracts; Intellectual Property (Undergraduate Involvement in Research); Recertification Update; and Academic Titles: Affiliate and Adjunct. The next meeting of the Faculty Advisory Committee to the President is scheduled for April 8, 2003. Any items for discussion at FAC may be submitted to a Senate Officer or one of the three elected members: Wayne Curtis, Elizabeth Hanley and Peter Rebane.

The Senate Officers visited the College of Education on February 18, the Graduate School on February 19-20, and the College of Earth and Mineral Sciences on March 3. Upcoming visits are: Division of Undergraduate Studies and Schreyer Honors College, March 24; and the College of Agricultural Sciences, March 31.

Provost Erickson reported that Governor Edward Rendell presented his budget to the General Assembly today and that Penn State is faced with a five percent or approximately $16 million cut in funding for the 2003-2004 year. The Provost noted that the University has experienced four cuts in state funding over the past 18 months. He said that this difficult financial picture would present hardships for students and their families because the short-fall will, in part, be made up through tuition increases. The University will be working with the governor and the legislature over the next few months to identify solutions to lessen the impact on the University. Provost Erickson also pointed out that the 10 percent budget cuts facing state agencies such as the Departments of Agriculture, Transportation and Health will have implications for the University because there will be less discretionary revenue for these departments to support faculty research and other projects. In response to a question, Provost Erickson noted that other states around the country are facing similar or more severe higher education cuts.

REPORT OF THE GRADUATE COUNCIL

Caroline Eckhardt was not in attendance at the Council meeting.

AGENDA ITEMS FOR MARCH 25, 2003

Legislative Reports

Committees and Rules - "Formatting and Delivering Informational Reports" - This report was placed on the Agenda on an Esposito/DeCastro motion. Committee chair Valerie Stratton responded to a comment from Councilor Pytel about including a statement in the Format of Reports section to the costing of legislative and advisory and consultative reports as appropriate. Chair Stratton will follow up with her committee on this recommendation.

Advisory and Consultative

Student Life - "Classroom Disruption: Rights and Responsibilities" - This report was placed on the Agenda on a Burgess/DeCastro motion. Committee chair Ellis was encouraged to place a statement in the recommendation on how often policy statements should be distributed to faculty and/or students. There was considerable discussion about whether or not this report should more appropriately be informational rather than advisory and consultative. It was noted by several Councilors that the report references existing University policies and, as such, should be an informational report. Chair Moore observed that the administrators in charge of Student Affairs and Undergraduate Education could collaborate on the dissemination of this information to students and faculty. With a vote of 12 ayes and 4 nays, the report was forwarded for placement on the Agenda.

Informational Reports

Admissions, Records, Scheduling and Student Aid - "Report on eLion Faculty Grade Submission" - This report was placed on the Agenda on an Esposito/Milakofsky motion. Committee chair Mark Casteel will introduce University Registrar James Wager, who will stand for questions. Council allocated five minutes for presentation and discussion.

Admissions, Records, Scheduling and Student Aid - "Summary of Petitions for Waiver of the Twelve-Credit Limit for Non-degree Conditional Students" - This annual report was placed on the Agenda on a Burgess/Curtis motion. Committee Chair Casteel will stand for questions. Council allocated five minutes for presentation and discussion.

Committees and Rules - "Nominating Report - 2003-2004 - Faculty Rights and Responsibilities, Standing Joint Committee on Tenure, University Promotion and Tenure Review Committee" - This report was placed on the Agenda on a Jurs/Burgess motion. Vice Provost Secor expressed concern about the need for broad-based college representation on the University Promotion and Tenure Review committee. He was especially concerned that there were two nominees from Education and two from Engineering. Committee Chair Stratton addressed the process that the committee used to seek nominations. Councilor Jurs noted that the issue of representativeness could be included in CC&R's charge next year and that the committee should take into account the carryover members. Councilors were encouraged to seek additional faculty nominations from such areas as Arts & Architecture, Agricultural Sciences, and the Humanities. Nominations may be made from the floor at the March 25, 2003 Senate meeting. Councilors were reminded to have the approval of the person whose name was being placed in nomination.

Election Commission - "Roster of Senators by Voting Units for 2003-04" - This report was placed on the Agenda on a Jurs/Pytel motion with no discussion.

Faculty Affairs - "Promotion and Tenure Summary 2001-2002" - This mandated report was placed on the Agenda on a Burgess/Evensen motion. Committee Chair Kim Steiner will present the report. Council allocated five minutes for presentation and discussion.

Faculty Benefits and Intra-University Relations - "Report on Faculty Salaries, Academic Year 2002-03" - This report was placed on the Agenda on an Esposito/Pytel motion. Councilors offered suggestions for editorial changes and placement of tables in the Agenda. Councilor Esposito noted that the Libraries continue to be segregated in salary reports. She encouraged the committee to find alternative ways to integrate the Libraries faculty salaries into future reports. Council supported the request by Faculty Benefits vice-chair Shea for a seven-minute PowerPoint presentation and 20 minutes for discussion.

Intercollegiate Athletics - "Annual Report of Academic Eligibility and Athletic Scholarships for 2002-03" - This report was placed on the Agenda on a Scaroni/DeCastro motion. Committee member and Penn State faculty representative to the NCAA, Scott Kretchmar, will present the report. Professor Kretchmar noted there were no anomalies or untoward trends in the report. He
briefly commented on the addition of a chart showing the majors of student-athletes for 2003. Council allocated ten minutes for presentation and discussion.

Senate Council - "Update on the Grand Destiny Campaign" - This report was placed on the Agenda on a Pytel/Esposito motion. Councilors suggested that the focus of this presentation be on the academic aspects related to the Grand Destiny Campaign. Council allocated ten minutes for presentation and five minutes for discussion.

Senate Council Nominating Committee Report - 2003-2004 - "Senate Officers - Chair-Elect and Secretary of the Senate, Faculty Advisory Committee to the President" - This report was placed on the Agenda on a DeCastro/Esposito motion with no discussion.

Undergraduate Education - "Annual Grade Distribution Report" - This report was placed on the Agenda on a Jurs/Pytel motion. Committee Chair Laura Pauley will stand for questions. Council allocated ten minutes for discussion.

Undergraduate Education - "Summary of Student Petitions by College, Unit, or Location" - This annual report was placed on the Agenda on a Pytel/Milakofsky motion. Chair Pauley will stand for questions. Five minutes were allotted for discussion.

APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA FOR MARCH 25, 2003

The Agenda was approved on a Curtis/Esposito motion.

ACTION ITEMS

REVISION OF THE DuBOIS CAMPUS CONSTITUTION

The Unit Constitution subcommittee, chaired by Secretary Blumberg, met on February 20, 2003 to review the revision on how committees are charged at the DuBois Campus. The subcommittee accepted the revision and Senate Council recommended approval. This action will be communicated to the chair of the faculty organization at the DuBois Campus.

COMMITTEES AND RULES ELECTION

The following senators were elected to CC&R for 2003-2004: Joseph Cecere, Travis DeCastro, Joanna Floros, George Franz, and Robert Pangborn.

NEW BUSINESS

There was no new business.

ADJOURNMENT

Senate Chair Moore thanked Council members for their attendance and participation and accepted a motion to adjourn the meeting at 3:15 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Susan C. Youtz
Executive Secretary

The Pennsylvania State University
University Faculty Senate
101 Kern Graduate Building
University Park, PA 16802
Telephone: (814) 863-0221 - Fax: (814) 863-6012

DATE: March 6, 2003

TO: Senate Council Members

FROM: Caroline D. Eckhardt, Senate Liaison to the Graduate Council


The Graduate Council met on Wednesday, February 19, 2003, at 3:30 p.m. in Room 102 Kern Graduate Building, with Dean Eva Pell chairing the meeting. Complete minutes are available from Mary Hosband in the Graduate School (meh1@psu.edu).

REPORTS OF STANDING COMMITTEES

Carla Mulford, Chair, Committee on Committees and Procedures, presented "Changes to Membership and Charge of the Committee on Graduate Student and Faculty Issues," including the addition of several members to the Committee on Graduate Student and Faculty Issues. The changes were approved unanimously.

Carol Smith, representing the Committee on Academic Standards, presented the revised "Statement of Policies, Procedures, and Guidelines for Post-Baccalaureate Credit Certificate Programs," highlighting the revision that for a certificate to carry the designation "graduate," at least half of the required credits must be at the 500 level, with exceptions to be made on a case-by-case basis by the Graduate Council Committee on Programs and Courses. The revised policy statement was adopted unanimously.

Dr. Smith also presented changes proposed to "Appendix I, Code of Conduct," which included a definition of a student and a delineation of the procedures for adjudication and the imposing of sanctions by the Office of Judicial Affairs. The proposed changes were approved unanimously.

Michael Verderame, Co-Chair, Committee on Graduate Research, reported on plans for the Graduate Exhibition. He added that judges in all areas are still needed and encouraged Council members to volunteer and to publicize the need for wide representation for judges.

Michael Eracleous, Co-Chair, Graduate Student and Faculty Issues, reported on the faculty workshop held on February 13 on international opportunities in graduate education. The Committee also discussed ideas for future faculty and graduate student workshops, including the possibility of offering a grant-writing workshop each academic year.

Mark Wardell, Chair, Committee on Programs and Courses, presented the following program proposals:

(a) Proposal to offer the Master of Science in Information Sciences and Technology
(b) Proposal to change the name of the graduate program in Educational Administration to Educational Leadership

Proposal (b) was approved without discussion. After discussion of the reasons for limiting its size and limiting the number of transfer credits, proposal (a) was also approved.

Resat Bayer, representing the Graduate Student Association, reported that the GSA will hold elections on March 4 for officers, representatives to Graduate Council, and other University committees. He added the Vice President is currently also the acting President (following Ms. Ozgurt Tuncelli's resignation as President).

SPECIAL REPORTS

Faculty Senate Self-Study Committee Report - Dr. John Nichols and Dr. Robert Secor

Dr. Nichols distributed a draft organizational chart to the Graduate Council. He reported a perceived need for better coordination and communication between the Faculty Senate and the Graduate Council. He noted that the Senate had benchmarked with several other institutions and that faculty governance is more fragmented at Penn State compared to some of these institutions, and that graduate education does not have as strong voice in the University as undergraduate education. He indicated there appeared to be some misunderstanding regarding what the Faculty Senate was proposing with regard to reorganization when the original proposal had come to Graduate Council.

Dr. Nichols explained that the Faculty Senate is not proposing any change in the delegated authority given to the Graduate Council, but rather is suggesting ways to improve collaboration and communication between the two groups. Several recommendations are being made to accomplish this:

Dr. Nichols remarked that the Faculty Senate would not go forward with its recommendations without Graduate Council approval. He noted that the chairs of the Graduate Council, Undergraduate Council, and Council on Academics/Resources would become members of the Senate Executive Committee.

In discussion, a question was raised about the number of senators to be elected under the reorganization. Dr. Nichols responded that senators will still be elected by the colleges, but the ratio of senators to faculty within the college would change, i.e., from 1 in 25 to as much as 1 in 40. He added the number of administrators and student representatives would not change. If Council members became senators, there would be some effect on the Senate membership. It was noted that some Council members are already members of the Faculty Senate. Therefore, the feeling was that the two bodies might not be as disjointed as it might appear. Dr. Nichols indicated, however, that the recommendations would formalize the relationship between the two bodies. In addition, it was noted that Dr. Pell currently is a member of the Senate Committee on Research, and she currently brings graduate education issues to that group.

Concern was raised with regard to the belief of the self-study committee that there is lack of communication and coordination between Graduate Council and the Faculty Senate or the lack of a voice within the University. There was also concern about reducing the number of college representatives because each represents the issues of his/her constituencies, i.e., the Senate should encourage the widest possible faculty representation.

It was noted that streamlining the committees might increase efficiency. However, it was also noted that the Faculty Senate (because of its charge) is focused away from graduate education. The real issue might be why so many faculty are unwilling to run for election to the Faculty Senate. Dr. Nichols noted that one of the changes being proposed is to reduce the term from four years to two years, which might address that issue. In addition, several other changes were being proposed, including limiting the number of meetings per year and limiting the duration of each meeting.

It was recommended that the Senate share with Graduate Council any information on benchmarking with other institutions that has prompted the recommended changes in structure. The comment was made that Graduate Council membership is considered being a good citizen (members see policies being made, action being taken), whereas Faculty Senate membership may be viewed more as a political activity.

In response to a question regarding the delegation of authority to Dickinson Law School and the College of Medicine, Dr. Nichols responded that each has authority over local matters, but also has representatives on the various Faculty Senate committees.

The Senate representatives were asked to provide the Graduate Council with the overall proposal to reorganize the Faculty Senate. Dr. Nichols indicated he would do so, as soon as it is completed.

It was noted that Council did not appear to object to the idea of the Council Chair serving on the Senate Executive Committee. However, the proposal to have Council members serve as Senators seems too indefinite to be certain about its implications for Council. It was noted that Graduate Council members may not necessarily want to be Faculty Senators (requiring attendance at additional meetings each year). It was also noted that, currently, several Council members serve as ex officio members on Senate committees. This pattern might be continued (providing voting privileges), rather than all Council members serving as Senators.

Dr. Pell recommended that the Graduate Council hold a forensic session at the March meeting to discuss the proposed reorganization of the Faculty Senate as presented. She indicated that Council needs to determine what the benefits or disadvantages might be to the Senate's proposal and what would be the level of Graduate Council participation in Senate activities. She reminded Council that the Faculty Senate would be open to a variety of permutations to the proposal presented.

There being no further discussion, Graduate Council adjourned at 5:00 p.m.

The Pennsylvania State University
University Faculty Senate
101 Kern Graduate Building
University Park, PA 16802
Telephone: (814) 863-0221 - Fax: (814) 863-6012

DATE: March 11, 2003

TO: All Senators and Committee Members

FROM: Susan C. Youtz, Executive Secretary


Please note the scheduled time and location of your committee. If you are unable to attend, notify the Senate Office prior to Senate Day, if possible.

Monday, March 24, 2003

7:00 p.m.

Officers and Chairs Meeting - 102 Kern Graduate Building

NOTE: Commonwealth Caucus will not meet Monday evening.

Tuesday, March 25, 2003

7:30 a.m.

Intercollegiate Athletics - 233 HUB/Robeson Cultural Center

8:00 a.m.

Faculty Affairs - 129A HUB/Robeson Cultural Center

Outreach Activities - 502 Keller Building

8:30 a.m.

Admissions, Records, Scheduling and Student Aid - 203 Shields Building

Curricular Affairs - 102 Kern Graduate Building

Committees and Rules - 16 HUB/Robeson Cultural Center

Intra-University Relations - 325 HUB/Robeson Cultural Center

Research - 106 HUB/Robeson Cultural Center

Undergraduate Education - 330 HUB/Robeson Cultural Center

University Planning - 322 HUB/Robeson Cultural Center

9:00 a.m.

Faculty Benefits - 114 Kern Graduate Building

Libraries - 510A Paterno Library

Student Life - 107 HUB/Robeson Cultural Center

9:30 a.m.

Computing and Information Systems - 201 Kern Graduate Building

1:30 p.m.

University Faculty Senate - 112 Kern Graduate Building


There will be a Commonwealth Caucus meeting at 11:30 a.m. on Tuesday, March 25, 2003, in Ballroom AB (note location change) of the Nittany Lion Inn. A buffet luncheon will be served at approximately 12:15 p.m.

The Pennsylvania State University
University Faculty Senate
101 Kern Graduate Building
University Park, PA 16802
Telephone: (814) 863-0221 - Fax: (814) 863-6012

Date: March 11, 2003

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

From: Salvatore Marsico and Irwin Richman

TUESDAY, MARCH 25, 2003 - 11:30 a.m.
BALLROOM AB
NITTANY LION INN

(Note location change to Ballroom AB)
A buffet luncheon will be served at 12:15 p.m.

The tentative Agenda includes:

I. Call to Order

II. Announcements and Reports from Co-chairs of the Caucus

III. Reports from Committee Chairs

IV. Senate Chair-Elect Candidates:

Melvin Blumberg, Professor of Management, Penn State Harrisburg
Kim Steiner, Professor of Forest Biology, College of Agricultural Sciences, University Park

V. Senate Secretary Candidates:

Sallie McCorkle, Associate Professor of Art and Women's Studies, College of Arts and Architecture, University Park
Jamie Myers, Associate Professor of Education, College of Education, University Park

VI. Other Items of Concern/New Business

VII. Adjournment and Lunch