 |
THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE
UNIVERSITY
The University Faculty
Senate
AGENDA
Tuesday, March 26, 2002, at
1:30 PM in
112 Kern Graduate Building
[In
the case of severe weather conditions or other emergencies, you may call the
Senate Office at (814) 863-0221 to inquire if a Senate meeting has been
postponed or canceled. This may be done
after normal office hours by calling the same number and a voice mail
announcement can be heard concerning the status of any meeting. You may also leave a message at that time.]
A. MINUTES
OF THE PRECEDING MEETING -
Minutes
of the February 26, 2002, Meeting in The Senate Record 35:5
B.
COMMUNICATIONS
TO THE SENATE - Senate Curriculum Report (Blue Sheets) of March 12, 2002
Senate Calendar for 2002-03
C. REPORT OF SENATE COUNCIL - Meeting of March 12, 2002
D. ANNOUNCEMENTS BY THE CHAIR -
E. COMMENTS
BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNIVERSITY -
F.
FORENSIC
BUSINESS –
G.
UNFINISHED
BUSINESS –
Committees
and Rules
Revision
of Bylaws, Article III, new Section 7 – Election to the
Senate
– Excessive Absences
H.
LEGISLATIVE
REPORTS –
Undergraduate Education
Revision of Senate Policy 65-00 Schreyer Honors College
Revision of Senate Policy 42-27: Class Attendance
I.
ADVISORY/CONSULTATIVE
REPORTS -
Faculty Affairs
Incorporating the UniSCOPE Model into HR-23
J.
INFORMATIONAL
REPORTS –
Computing and Information Systems
Institutional Licensed Software Distribution Program (ILSD)
Committees and Rules Nominating Report - 2002-03
Faculty Rights and Responsibilities
Standing Joint Committee on Tenure
University Promotion and Tenure Review Committee
Election Commission
Roster of Senators by Voting Units for 2002-03
Faculty Benefits
Faculty Salaries Report, External Comparison
Faculty Rights and Responsibilities
Annual Report for 2000-01
Intercollegiate Athletics
Annual Report of Academic Eligibility and Athletic Scholarships 2000-01
Research
Report on University Research
Senate Council Nominating Committee Report - 2002-03
Senate Officers – Chair-Elect and Secretary of the Senate
Faculty Advisory Committee to the President
Student Life
Student Use of Web vs. Printed Material
Undergraduate Education
Grade Distribution Report
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 23, 2002, at 1:30 PM in Room 112
Kern Building.
THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY
The University Faculty Senate
101 Kern Graduate Building
University Park, PA 16802
(814) 863-1202 – phone (814) 865-5789 – fax
Date: March 14, 2002
To: John S. Nichols, Chair, University Faculty Senate
From: Louis F. Geschwindner, Chair, Senate Committee on Curricular Affairs
The Senate Curriculum Report dated March 12,
2002, has been circulated throughout the University. Objections to any of the items in the report must be submitted to
the University Curriculum Coordinator at the Senate Office, 101 Kern Graduate Building,
e-mail ID sfw2@psu.edu, on or before April
11, 2002.
The Senate Curriculum Report is available on the web. It can be accessed via the Faculty Senate home page (URL http://www.psu.edu/ufs). An electronic mailing list is used to notify individuals of its publication. Please contact the Curriculum Coordinator at the e-mail ID indicated above if you would like to be added to the notification list.
THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY
University Faculty Senate
Senate Calendar
2002-2003
REPORTS DUE SENATE COUNCIL SENATE
September 24, 2002 October 8, 2002 October 22, 2002
November 5, 2002 November 19, 2002 December 3, 2002
December 13, 2002 January 14, 2003 January 28, 2003
January 31, 2003 February 11, 2003 February 25, 2003
February 27, 2003 March 4, 2003 March 25, 2003
March 28, 2003 April 8, 2003 April 22, 2003
SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMITTEES AND RULES
Revision of
Bylaws, Article III, new Section 7
Election
to the Senate -- Excessive Absences
(Legislative)
[Implementation:
Upon Approval by the President]
INTRODUCTION
A voting unit may replace an elected Senator with three or more unexcused absences from full Senate meetings or assigned committee meetings per academic year. An excused absence is defined as one due to health related reasons or as a short-term conflicting University or professional commitment such as teaching, research, or public service responsibilities that prevent the elected Senator from attending Senate meetings. The Senate Office will provide each voting unit with an attendance record at the end of each semester.
RATIONALE
Voting units often express concern that some of their elected Senators are not fulfilling their Senate responsibility because of frequent absences from Senate meetings. Voting units elect Senators to ensure representation and input on all matters pertaining to the educational interests of the University. Elected Senators with unexcused absences are, therefore, unable to fully represent their voting units.
Current Senate Bylaws (Article III, Section 5) makes provisions for the elected Senator engaged in professional activities and, therefore, is unable to fulfill Senate responsibilities to resign from the Senate.
Section 5
An elected Senator who is engaged in any type
of professional activity
making it impossible to carry out Senate
responsibilities for a period
exceeding three (3) consecutive months,
excluding June, July and August,
may resign if he or she wishes, but otherwise
shall be replaced by an
alternate to fill the period of time that the
Senator will be absent from
the Senate.
Article III, Section 6 of the Bylaws describes the process for a voting unit to identify a replacement Senator either by naming an alternate or conducting a special election.
Section 6
In case an elected faculty Senator is unable to
complete the elected term,
the University Faculty of the Senator’s voting unit
shall identify a replace-
ment in the following manner: In addition to
identifying an elected Senator
for each vacant seat, regular Senate elections shall
identify at least the highest
ranking alternate, that is, the candidate receiving
the highest number of votes of
those not elected.
If more than one alternate is identified, the alternates’ names
should be submitted in order of rank, based on the
number of votes. The names
of the winner(s) and all of the alternate(s) shall
be reported directly to the Senate
Office.
First choice for replacement is to be the highest-ranking alternate, as
identified in the most recent regular Senate
election; if the highest ranking alternate
is not available, then the choice will move to all
remaining alternates, in order of their
rank by vote.
If no alternates are available from the most recent Senate election to
identify a new elected Senator, the voting unit
shall hold a special election to identify
a new elected Senator, who will complete the
unfinished term. This same procedure
shall be followed in the replacement of committee
members elected at-large by the
Senate.
The proposed legislation is designed to provide the voting unit with the authority to replace a unit Senator. Further, the voting unit is responsible for assuring that faculty who stand for election to the Senate are made aware of their responsibilities for participation in and attendance at Senate and Senate committee meetings.
RECOMMENDATION
The Committee on Committees and Rules recommends the following changes to the Senate Bylaws:
Section 7
Senate voting units have the authority to replace a unit
Senator who has three or more unexcused absences in any given academic
year. A voting unit should adhere to
the procedures outlined in University
Faculty Senate Bylaws, Article III, Section 6 for identifying a
replacement Senator.
Section 7 8
All elections of the Senate shall be supervised by an Elections Commission consisting of the Secretary of the Senate and four (4) other elected faculty Senators selected by the Committee on Committees and Rules.
SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMITTEES AND RULES
Joseph J. Cecere
Dwight Davis
Terry Engelder
Joanna Floros
Sabih I. Hayek
Deidre E. Jago
Arthur C. Miller
John W. Moore
John S. Nichols
Jean Landa Pytel, Chair
Cara-Lynne Schengrund
Stephen M. Smith
Valerie N. Stratton, Vice-Chair
UNIVERSITY FACULTY SENATE MEETINGS 2000-2001
7 full Senate meetings
Total number of Senators = 260
Distribution:
217 Elected
22 Appointed/Ex Officio
21 Students
24 Senators had 7 absences
15 Senators had 6 absences
14 Senators had 5 absences
23 Senators had 4 absences
In the 2000-2001 Senate year, 76 Senators had four to seven absences.
************************************************************************
UNIVERSITY FACULTY SENATE MEETINGS 2001-2002
3 full Senate meetings
(attendance not taken 9-11-01)
Total number of Senators = 265
Distribution:
222 Elected
22 Appointed/Ex Officio
21 Students
37 Senators had 3 absences
27 Senators had 2 absences
At mid-year, 64 Senators had two or three absences.
NOTE: 22 of the 64 Senators with two or three absences in 2001-2002 are the same Senators with six or seven absences in the 2000-2001 academic year.
SENATE
COMMITTEE ON UNDERGRADUATE EDUCATION
Revision
of Senate Policy 65-00 Schreyer Honors College
(Legislative)
[Implementation
Date: Fall semester, 2002]
Background:
The
University Scholars Program was founded by Faculty Senate legislation at Penn
State in 1980. Dr. Paul Axt acted as
the champion for the program. Its
intent was to create one unified honors program for the entire university and
to increase the quality and profile of Penn State students. More specifically, it was hoped that the USP
would attract stronger students to attend Penn State.
Building
on the nationally renowned USP, The Schreyer Honors College was founded in
September 1997. Small modifications to
the original Senate legislation were made in 1998 to reflect a name change from
the University Scholars Program to the Schreyer Honors College. However, a more comprehensive set of changes
are needed in the legislation to reflect current practice, clarify the
relationship the SHC has with other academic units, and to reflect Penn State’s
style manual for English usage.
We respectfully request that the Faculty Senate
consider the following changes as recommended by the Undergraduate Committee of
the Faculty Senate.
Rationale:
Changes in the following sections of 65-00 are
proposed: 1) Eligibility for Admission
and Retention, 2) Participation, 3) Honors Credit, 4) Recognition and 5) Review
and Advisory Committees. The rationale
for each follow below.
Eligibility
for Admission and Retention - Penn
State’s style manual recommends the use of “first year student” to replace
“freshmen” whenever possible. Adding
“by the dean” clarifies how admission occurs.
The Honors College is no longer identified by a “The” preceding the
college name. Rather the SHC uses a
lower case, “the.” Defining “regular
participation” more explicitly is a helpful clarification of existing practice.
Participation - Departments, academic colleges and schools, and DUS
currently make all advising assignments; they are not made by the Honors
College. Most academic units assign
incoming Scholars to faculty advisers when students know their intended major. Undeclared students are often assigned to
professional advisers.
In recent years, the comprehensive
examination has been used infrequently as an alternative to thesis completion
in cases of student health crises or other emergencies; it is not used by any
department as a usual alternative to a research or creative thesis. The research experience is considered
central to an honors educational experience.
Deleting the comprehensive examination from the policy allows it to
remain an exception to the usual policy but does not encourage new departmental
honors programs to consider it as a regular alternative to a thesis.
Honors Credit - These proposed changes update the legislation to
reflect current practice and to clarify which experiences are reflected with
honors designations on the transcript. For example, although the current policy
implies differently, 500-level courses are not marked with an H on the
student’s transcript. Similarly, Penn State has used the term “honors option”
rather than “honors supplement” for more than 10 years. “M” denotes honors
writing-intensive courses; “T” denotes honors first-year seminars; “U” denotes
honors courses that fulfill the multicultural or international competency
requirement.
Scholars are “forgiven” 3 honors credits
for each semester of study abroad and six honors credits for each year
abroad. The most recent change in this
practice – from five to six honors credits for a year abroad – was approved by
the SHC Faculty Advisory Committee in 1998. 400-level courses have been counted
toward the honors credit requirements of first- and second-year Scholars for
more than ten years, although this practice was not authorized in the original
legislation.
Recognition – No change
except to adjust “The” to “the.”
Review and Advisory Committee
- The proposed changes clarify that the
Senate will review the Schreyer Honors College in the same way as the Senate
reviews other colleges. This section
was unchanged when the College was created, except to substitute the new name;
the existing language reflects the College’s former status as a program.
Note: Since
1980, all but three departmental honors programs have either been eliminated or
are operated seamlessly with the Schreyer Honors College. With respect for these pre-existing honors
programs: Economics permits seniors to
enter its departmental honors program whereas the SHC does not admit students
with fewer than four semesters remaining.
Engineering science students may receive honors notations on their
diplomas if they complete a thesis, even if they are not Schreyer Scholars.
English also submits nominations to the Honors College for students with fewer
than four semesters remaining.
Recommendation:
Senate
Policy 65-00 Schreyer Honors College should be revised to read as follows:
65-00 Schreyer Honors College
Proposed
changes to the existing policy are in bold-face; proposed deletions are struck
through.
1.
Eligibility for Admission and Retention
2.
Participation
3.
Honors Courses Credit
4.
Recognition
5.
Review and Advisory Committees
1. Eligibility for Admission and Retention
Entering freshmen first year students with
excellent records in secondary school and evidence of aptitude for high
academic achievement and students with a record of outstanding academic achievement
at the end of their freshman first or sophomore year may be
admitted by the dean of to The the Schreyer Honors
College.
To remain in The the Schreyer Honors College, a
student must give evidence of regular participation (i.e. completion of
SHC-approved honors credit) and must maintain a distinguished grade-point
average.
2. Participation
A student in The the Schreyer Honors College shall
be assigned an honors adviser who is approved by the student's academic
college and, where possible, is a regular faculty member in
a department of the student's major interests. The honors adviser shall develop
with the student a program of study appropriate to the student. For students in The the
Schreyer Honors College, any requirement for graduation other than the total
number of credits and those that are external (non-University) in origin may be
waived by the faculty of the major.
However, it is the responsibility of the honors adviser to make certain
the intents of both General Education and major requirements are
satisfied. A course chosen for either
purpose while a student is in the program college will satisfy
the corresponding graduation requirement if a student leaves the program
college. Successful completion and defense of an honors thesis is
required. Up to 6 credits of honors course work may be devoted to thesis
preparation. At the option of the major department, the passing of a
comprehensive examination administered by the faculty of the department may be
required instead of or in addition to the thesis.
3. Honors Courses Credit
Honors credit can be earned in three ways: by taking an honors
course, completing an honors option, or through honors independent study. An
honors course designation is given to specially designated sections of a
regular course, a course specially designed for students in The Schreyer Honors
College, an honors supplement course (see [b] below), independent study for a
student in the college and 500 level courses taken by a student in the college.
Courses of these types shall be marked with an H, or other honors suffix
(e.g., M, T, or U) on the student's transcript. A course in which a
Schreyer Honors College student is enrolled becomes an honors-supplement
option course for that student if the student and the instructor make
special arrangements at the beginning of the semester for significant
alternative work.
Schreyer scholars may also fulfill their honors credit
requirements by taking 500-level courses and by studying abroad, although these
experiences are not marked with an h on the transcript. First- and second-year scholars may also
fulfill their honors credit requirements by taking 400-level courses.
4. Recognition
Participation in The the Schreyer Honors College
and graduation as a Schreyer Scholar shall be recognized on all official
records and at commencement and other appropriate occasions.
5. Review and Advisory Committees
The Senate Committees on Undergraduate Education and Curricular
Affairs shall provide regular review of The the Schreyer Honors
College insofar as the Senate reviews all other undergraduate programs. The Dean of the Schreyer Honors College
shall sit as an ex-officio member of the Senate Committee on Undergraduate
Education. The Dean of The the
Schreyer Honors College is advised by a faculty advisory committee, a
student council, and an external advisory board, in addition to senior
administration. shall appoint faculty and student advisory committees,
in consultation with appropriate department heads, campus executive
officers, college deans. , and the
director of the Division of Undergraduate Studies.
Note: This academic policy was changed to University Scholars
Program from Departmental Honors Programs by Senate action on April 1, 1980. It
should be further noted that the title, "University Scholars Program"
was changed to "Schreyer Honors College" by Senate Council action on
January 20, 1998. Departmental and college honors programs in effect at that
time in 1980 and continuing uninterrupted may continue in accordance
with the departmental regulations and procedures then in effect. For this
information, check with the departments that have departmental honors programs.
These departments in 2001 are accounting, art history, astronomy, computer
science and engineering, economics, engineering science, and
English. , history, mathematics, philosophy, physics and psychology.
SENATE COMMITTEE ON UNDERGRADUATE EDUCATION
Cheryl Achterberg
Richard I. Ammon
Theresa A. Balog
Dawn G. Blasko
Thomas E. Boothby
Richard J. Bord
Stephen Brown
John J. Cahir
Paul F. Clark
Peter D. Georgopulos
Gary L. Hile
Robert S. Hill
Richard R.
Kennedy
James L.
McDonel
Laura L.
Pauley, Chair
Paul A.
Ricciardi
Robert D.
Ricketts, V-Chair
David W.
Russell
Dennis C.
Scanlon
Thomas A.
Seybert
Terry R.
Shirley, Jr.
Teiko
Tachibana
D. Joshua
Troxell
Eric R.
White
SENATE COMMITTEE ON
UNDERGRADUATE EDUCATION
Revision
Senate Policy 42-27: Class Attendance
(Legislative)
[Implementation Date: Fall 2002]
Background:
Certainly, students get sick, become injured, have family emergencies, need to attend job interviews, etc. It is also certain that excuses of questionable legitimacy are offered at times. To reduce negative interactions and interference with the quality of learning, it seems appropriate to ask students and faculty to consider strategies that would minimize the possibility of problems. Faculty could anticipate student absences and have a reasonable plan in place to deal with them, one that is not perceived as being punitive for the students. Since it is impractical and sometimes not possible for students to obtain official validation for the reason of their absence, relations would be greatly enhanced if faculty moved away from the expectation of official validation for absences. The educational process would be best served if faculty would simply trust that students have legitimate reasons for missing evaluative events. On the other hand, it is expected that students only ask for accommodation to make up an evaluative event if they had a legitimate reason for their brief absence. Abuses of this trust should be sanctioned. For absences of more than one week, validation for the reason of the absence may be required.
Individual students and student governing bodies are expected to be supportive of any policy that seeks to enhance the learning-teaching process. Student governing bodies need to take responsibility for educating students about the process of seeking and getting accommodation for absences.
Rationale:
Senate Policy 42-27 states “Instructors should provide, within reason, opportunity to make up work for students who miss class for regularly scheduled, University-approved curricular and extracurricular activities (such as Martin Luther King Day of Service, field trips, debate trips, choir trips, and athletic contests).” That same policy also states: “Instructors also should provide, within reason, opportunity to make up work for students who are obliged to miss classes for other legitimate reasons.” But no guidelines are given. The lack of guidelines for handling such absences often results in anger and frustration for both faculty and students and may also contribute to an atmosphere of mistrust. In particular, the process of determining the legitimacy of the reasons for absences is frequently cumbersome and leads to negative situations that inhibit the quality of learning and teaching for both students and faculty. Thus, this proposed policy is designed to reduce negative situations for both faculty and students.
Recommendation:
Senate Policy 42-27 of the Academic Policies and Procedures for Undergraduate Students should be modified as shown below:
42-27 Class Attendance
The faculty, staff, and other resources of the University are furnished for the education of students who attend the University. A class schedule is provided for students and faculty so that a reasonably orderly arrangement for instruction is facilitated. The fact that classes are scheduled is evidence that the faculty believes class instruction is important. Therefore, class attendance is important for the benefit of students.
Accordingly, it is the policy of the University that class attendance by students be encouraged and that all instructors organize and conduct their courses with this policy in mind. A student should attend every class for which the student is scheduled and should be held responsible for all work covered in the courses taken. In each case, the instructor should decide when the class absence constitutes a danger to the student's scholastic attainment and should make this fact known to the student at once. A student whose irregular attendance causes him or her, in the judgment of the instructor, to become deficient scholastically, may run the risk of receiving a failing grade or receiving a lower grade than the student might have secured had the student been in regular attendance.
Instructors should provide, within reason, opportunity to make up work for students who miss class for regularly scheduled, University-approved curricular and extracurricular activities (such as Martin Luther King Day of Service, field trips, debate trips, choir trips, and athletic contests). However, if such scheduled trips are considered by the instructor to be hurting the student's scholastic performance, the instructor should present such evidence for necessary action to the head of the department in which the course is
offered and to the dean of the college in which the student is enrolled or to the Division of Undergraduate Studies if the student is enrolled in that division.
Instructors also should provide, within reason, opportunity
to make up work for students who are obliged to miss classes for other
legitimate but unavoidable reasons.
Legitimate, unavoidable reasons are those such as illness, injury,
family emergency. If an evaluative
event will be missed due to an unavoidable absence, the student should contact
the instructor as soon as the unavoidable absence is known to discuss ways to
make up the work. An instructor might
not consider an unavoidable absence legitimate if the student does not contact
the instructor before the evaluative event.
Students will be held responsible for using only legitimate, unavoidable
reasons for requesting a make-up in the event of a missed class or evaluative
event. Requests for missing class or an
evaluative event due to reasons that are based on false claims may be
considered violations of the policy on Academic Integrity (Policy 49-20).
SENATE COMMITTEE ON UNDERGRADUATE EDUCATION
Cheryl Achterberg
Richard I. Ammon
Theresa A. Balog
Dawn G. Blasko
Thomas E. Boothby
Richard J. Bord
Stephen Browne
John J. Cahir
Paul F. Clark
Peter D. Georgopulos
Gary L. Hile
Robert S. Hill
Richard R. Kennedy
James L. McDonel
Laura L. Pauley, Chair
Paul A. Ricciardi
Robert D. Ricketts, V-Chair
David W. Russell
Dennis C. Scanlon
Thomas A. Seybert
Terry R. Shirley, Jr.
Teiko Tachibana
D. Joshua Troxell
Eric R. White
Senate committee on Faculty Affairs
Incorporating the UniSCOPE Model into HR-23
(Advisory and Consultative)
Background:
In September 2000 all then current Senators received a report entitled UniSCOPE 2000: A Multidimensional Model of Scholarship for the 21st Century. It is still available online at http://www.cas.psu.edu/docs/CASPROF/keystone21/uniscope/pdf/Uniscope2000.pdf.
UniSCOPE stands for University Scholarship and Criteria for Outreach Performance and Evaluation. A small group of faculty and administrators formed a learning community to engage in a dialogue about “recognizing and documenting outreach scholarship in the University.” They decided to use the University’s promotion and tenure system as a broad guide and “quickly learned that outreach scholarship cannot be examined in isolation…” The group expanded its work to consider the full range of scholarship as presented in the Carnegie Commission (Boyer) report. (UniSCOPE 2000, page viii)
Drew Hyman, chair of the UniSCOPE 2000 Learning Community, addressed the full Faculty Senate in January 2001. (Senate Record of January 30, 2000 located on the web at http://www.psu.edu/ufs/janrec3.html) The thrust of the report was to present a model that “conceptualizes each of the three mission areas of the University – teaching, research, and service – as a continuum of scholarship. UniSCOPE recognizes that discovery, integration, application, and education are inherent in the three missions and views outreach scholarship as an integral component of each.”
One of the recommendations of the UniSCOPE report was to “Revise the promotion and tenure dossier, ‘the Rainbow Dividers’, to reflect expanded lists as suggested in the report.” The Senate Committee on Faculty Affairs has reviewed the Rainbow Divider sheets pertaining to the three criteria (missions of the University) used to make promotion and tenure decisions, and presents its recommendations for incorporating the UniSCOPE model into these sheets. In addition, it is necessary to change the titles of these three criteria in HR-23 to be consistent with the recommended changes in the Rainbow Dividers.
Recommendations:
The Committee on Faculty Affairs recommends the following:
1. Renaming the 3 criteria in Section II of HR-23 to reflect the scholarship inherent in each (The complete HR-23 document can be found on the web at http://guru.psu.edu/policies/OHR/hr23.html), and
2. Changing each of the Rainbow Dividers as shown below.
In every case a strike out is a deletion of the old wording. The recommended change is in bold type.
HR-23
II. CRITERIA FOR PROMOTION AND TENURE
RELATIONSHIP OF MISSION AND STRUCTURE TO CRITERIA:
Promotion and tenure decisions are based on the academic judgments of faculty and academic administrators. The general criteria or principles outlined here must be applied to promotion and tenure decisions in light of a detailed knowledge of the specific goals of an academic program or organizational unit (e.g., department, college, and the University Libraries) and the specific qualities and competencies of the individual. The University's complex organization and multiple missions make these academic judgments vital, since no one set of criteria can apply equally to all faculty members in all programs. Likewise, such diversity within the University entails promotion and tenure arrangements specifically tailored to the mission and organizational structure of its various academic units (e.g., department, college, and University Libraries).
ACADEMIC EXCELLENCE:
Recognizing the University's manifold responsibilities, however, should not diminish the central importance of teaching and scholarly activity, both understood in their broadest sense, in the academic decision-making process. In tenure and promotion decisions, as in other areas of choice, the University best serves itself and society by affirming the primacy of academic excellence in all of its functions.
EXPECTATIONS AND STANDARDS OF EACH UNIT:
An important part of the whole tenure and review process for faculty members is that all parties to the process share common expectations and understandings. Since general statements of principles will be broad and inclusive, each academic unit may develop its own specific expectations and standards as the operational basis for tenure and promotion recommendations. Knowledge concerning these expectations and standards should be generally available, especially to newly appointed faculty members.
Candidates may include either a narrative statement at the
front of the dossier that indicates their sense of their teaching ability
and effectiveness scholarship of
teaching and learning, research, creative accomplishments and
scholarship scholarship of research
and creative accomplishments, and service to the University and the
public service and the scholarship
of service to the University, society, and the profession, or separate
statements in the relevant sections of the dossier describing the same items.
The review process for tenure and promotion is concerned with the academic and professional merits of particular candidates, judged in reference to all alternative candidates, including prospective faculty members. Tenure and promotion standards, therefore, cannot be fixed and absolute, but will reflect to some extent the varying competitive positions of the University in attracting faculty. Accordingly, evaluations will be influenced by such considerations of relative standing. Likewise, progressively more exacting scrutiny will take place as the faculty member advances in academic rank.
CHANGING NEEDS AND PRIORITIES:
Although the tenure and promotion process is geared, narrowly and properly, to evaluating individual performance, the changing needs and priorities of the institution may also affect the decision to grant tenure or award promotion. Both equity and the long-range interests of the institution, however, require directing primary attention to University needs and priorities at the time of appointment and careful intermediate and longer range academic personnel planning.
GENERAL CRITERIA:
The raison d'etre of the University is the discovery,
synthesis, transmission, and application of knowledge. In light of these
several goals, research and scholarship scholarship of research and creative accomplishments, teaching
scholarship of teaching and learning
and service service and the
scholarship of service are the central criteria for the evaluation of
faculty.
Promotion and tenure decisions shall be based on these three criteria, which must be applied in light of the mission of the academic unit and the professional responsibilities carried by the faculty member. The criteria have purposely been made general in the expectation of further definition and elaboration by each academic unit.
1.Teaching Ability and
Effectiveness The Scholarship of
Teaching and Learning - ability to convey subject matter to students;
demonstrated competence in teaching and capacity for growth and improvement; ability
to maintain academic standards, and to stimulate the interests of students in
the field; effectiveness of counseling, advising and service to students.
2.Research or Creative
Accomplishment and Scholarship The
Scholarship of Research and Creative Accomplishments - competence, usually
demonstrated through publication, exhibition, performance, or presentation of
scholarly papers, to carry out research or creative work of high quality and
scholarly significance and the ability to train students in research methods
and practice; evidence of thorough understanding of the field; maintenance of
high levels of academic performance; recognized reputation in the subject
matter field; evidence of continued professional growth and active contribution
to professional organizations.
3.Service to the University,
the Public, and the Profession Service
and the Scholarship of Service to the University, Society, and the Profession
- participation in the University, college, departmental, and unit affairs;
competence in extending specialized knowledge to the University and to the
public.
Promotion and tenure decisions shall be based on recognized performance and achievement in each of the several areas, as appropriate to the particular responsibilities assigned to the faculty member. The presumption is that a positive tenure decision for an assistant professor is sufficient to warrant promotion to associate professor. In an exceptional case, a decision can be made to tenure but not to promote; however, the burden would be on the committee(s) or administrator(s) who wish to separate promotion from a positive tenure decision to show why promotion is not warranted.
The Rainbow Dividers
Teaching Ability and Effectiveness The
Scholarship of Teaching and Learning
· List of courses taught in resident instruction, each term or semester from ____ to ____, with enrollments in each course
· List of courses and workshops taught in support of outreach-based instruction including continuing and distance education, international programs, cooperative extension programs, and clinical assignments from ____ to _____.
· List of advising responsibilities for the period
· Concise compilation of results of student evaluation from multiple sources documented evaluation of candidate’s programs, activities, and skills in relating to clientele .
· If student comments from such sources as students evaluations, formal interviews, or exit surveys are reviewed, the findings should be presented by a summary statement that conveys the students’ sense of strengths and weaknesses.
· Faculty input concerning the evaluation of teaching effectiveness, including any statements from colleagues who have visited the candidate’s classroom and evaluated his or her teaching, or who are in good position to evaluate outreach-based instruction or advising
· Peer review shall consider a range of teaching activities including, but not limited to, the development of materials such as case studies and class assignments, course or teaching portfolios, advising, research collaboration, and graduate student mentoring in the section
· Any statements from administrators which attest to the candidate’s teaching and advising effectiveness
· Other evidence of resident and/or outreach-based teaching and advising effectiveness (e.g., performance of students in subsequent courses, tangible results and benefits derived by clientele; recipient or teaching awards)
· Supervision of graduate and undergraduate dissertations, theses, projects, monographs, performances, productions, and exhibitions required for degrees; types of degrees and years granted
· List of case studies and materials, class materials, course portfolios, and teaching portfolios developed.
· Membership on graduate degree candidates’ committees
Research, Creative Accomplishments, and Scholarship The Scholarship of Research and Creative
Accomplishments
· Research and/or scholarly publications
Listed in standard bibliographic
form with the earliest most recent date first; citations
should include beginning and ending page numbers or total number of pages,
where appropriate; for multiple-authored works, the contributions of the
candidate should be clearly indicated (e.g., principal author, supervised
person who authored the work etc.). These publications should be listed as
follows:
1. Articles published in refereed journals (include only articles in refereed journals in the section)
2. Books
3. Parts of books
4. Book reviews
5. Articles published in nonrefereed journals
6. Articles in in-house organs
7. Research reports to sponsor
8. Manuscripts accepted for publication (substantiated by letter of acceptance)
9. Manuscripts submitted for publication, with an indication of where submitted and when
10. Manuscripts in progress
11. Cooperative extension service bulletins and circulars
· Creative Accomplishments
Exhibition, installation, production, or publication of original works of architecture, dance, design, electronic media, film, journalism, landscape architecture, literature, music, theatre, and visual art
Performance of original dance, literary, musical, visual arts, or theatrical works or works from traditional and contemporary repertories of the performing arts
· Papers presented at technical and professional meetings (meeting and paper titles, listed chronologically in standard bibliographic form); indication about whether the candidate was the presenter
· Record of participation in, and description of, seminars and workshops (short description of activity, with titles, dates, sponsor, etc.); indication of role in seminar or workshop, e.g., student, invited participant etc.
· Description of outreach or other activities in which there was significant use of candidate’s expertise (consulting, journal editor, reviewer for refereed journals, peer reviewer of grants, speaking engagements, services to government agencies, professional and industrial associations, educational institutions, etc.)
· Funded projects, grants, commissions, and contracts (date, title, where submitted, amount):
1 Completed
2 In progress
3 Proposed
· Other evidence of research or creative accomplishments as appropriate (patents, licenses, new product development new art forms, citation index analysis, etc.)
· Record of pursuit of advanced degrees and/or further academic studies
· Record of membership in professional and learned societies
· Description of new courses and/or programs developed
· Description of new computer software programs developed
· Description of new methods of teaching established courses and/or programs
· List of honors or awards for scholarship or professional activity
· List of grants and contracts for improvement of instruction, with an indication of the candidate’s role in preparing and administering the grants and contracts
· Applications of research scholarship in the field including new applications developed and tested; new or enhanced systems and procedures demonstrated or evaluated for government agencies, professional and industrial associations, educational institutions, etc.
· Technology transferred or adapted in the field
· Technical assistance provided
· Other evidence of impact in society of research scholarship and creative accomplishments
Service to the University,
the Public, and the Profession Service and the Scholarship of Service
to the University, Society, and the Profession
·
Service to the University
1. Record of committee work at campus, college, department and University levels
2.
Participation in campus and/or University-wide governance bodies and
related activities
3. Record of administrative support work (college representative etc.)
4. Record of contributions to the University’s programs to enhance equal opportunity and cultural diversity
5. Assistance
to student organizations
6. Other
·
Outreach service Service to Society as a representative to the University (limit the
list to those activities that use the candidate’s professional expertise)
1. Participation in community affairs
2. Service to
governmental agencies at the international, Federal, state, or and local levels
3. Service to business and industry
4. Service to public and private organizations
5. Service to citizen/client groups.
6. Testifying as an expert witness.
7. Other (e.g., participation in task forces, authorities, meetings, etc. of public, nonprofit, or private organizations based on the faculty member’s expertise, and as part of workload.)
·
Service to the disciplines
and to the profession
1. Organizing conferences, service on conference committees
2. Membership and active participation in professional and learned societies (e.g., offices held, committee work, and other responsibilities)
Promotion,
Tenure, Absences and Leaves Subcommittee
Susan M. Abmayr
Syed Saad Andaleeb
Kultegin Aydin
James M. Donovan
Margaret B. Goldman
David J. Green
Andrew B. Romberger, Subcommittee Chair
Robert Secor
Kim C. Steiner
Joan S. Thomson
SENATE COMMITTEE ON FACULTY AFFAIRS
Susan M. Abmayr
Syed Saad Andaleeb
Kultegin Aydin
Melvin Blumberg
Clay Calvert
Richard A. Carlson
Lynn A Carpenter
Roy B. Clariana
Cheng Dong
James M. Donovan
Charles R. Enis
Jacqueline P. Esposito
Dorothy H. Evensen
Mary I. Frecker
Margaret B. Goldman, V-Chair
David J. Green
Janis Jacobs
W. Larry Kenney
Sallie M. McCorkle
Howard P. Medoff
Katherine C. Pearson
Andrew B. Romberger
Robert Secor
Kim C. Steiner
Mila C. Su
Joan S. Thomson
Vasundara V. Varadan, Chair
SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMPUTING AND INFORMATION SYSTEMS
Institutional
Licensed Software Distribution Program (ILSD)
(Informational)
What
is ILSD?
As the use of computer software expands on campus, and the cost attendant to individuals and the University increases, it is important to take advantage of the combined buying power of an institution the size of Penn State. The Institutional Licensed Software Distribution (ILSD) serves this function for UNIX software. As such, faculty and staff need to be aware of this program in order to maximize cost savings and the number of packages offered.
The ILSD program supports the licensing of the UNIX operating system and UNIX platform high performance computing and advanced visualization software packages to Penn State on a cost recovery basis. Currently, ILSD supports 18 different programs serving approximately 2000 licenses to 102 administrative areas of Penn State from departments, to research centers, to Colleges, to non-UP locations like Penn State Abington, Penn State Berks/Lehigh Valley, and the Hershey Medical School. Among the packages currently supported by ILSD are operating systems from Compaq, IBM, SGI, and Sun; numerical libraries like IMSL; finite element packages such as Abaqus and Patran; high end visualization packages like Mathematica, Matlab, and Tecplot; statistical packages such as SAS and S-Plus; and recently the LabView suite of instrumentation control and analyses packages. LabView, along with Tecplot and Mathematica are examples of packages where the ILSD program supports the UNIX portion of the site license and while the more widely recognized Microcomputer Order Center (MOC) supports the Windows and Mac versions.
What
makes ILSD successful?
ILSD is administered by the Unix Systems and Technical Solutions Group (USTS) within the Center for Academic Computing (CAC). From the vendors’ point of view, ILSD significantly reduces the number of administrative and technical contacts with Penn State thereby simplifying their relationship with us. From Penn State’s point of view, ILSD leverages numbers and builds consortia to reduce the cost of software purchases and maintenance to the lowest possible levels.
Besides
lower cost, what is the advantage of ILSD?
USTS and others from areas within CAC also provide library, distribution, licensing, and technical support for the various operating systems and software licensed under the program. In addition these staff along with other selected Penn State faculty and staff members provide the primary interface between the software vendors and Penn State. As an official contact with the vendor, there individuals can describe software problems to the vendor, file official “bug” reports, obtain OS/software patches, and receive trouble shooting assistance. The vendors appreciate this because they are dealing with a few, experienced Penn State people. For the Penn State faculty or staff member, this local contact can provide for more timely problem resolution, often without having to consult the vendor, and is especially helpful for the user who is in a department that cannot support their own professional IT support staff.
By ensuring lower costs and “upgrade protection,” ILSD can provide the individual research with access to the most current version of software necessary to accomplish his/her research. Because licenses are generally available to all Penn Staters, the demand of a few large users makes software available to everyone at Penn State.
What
is the monetary value of ILSD?
Measuring the success of ILSD based only on the University’s return on investment (ROI) reveals a substantial savings. Using the Sun ScholarPAC program as a model, the initial cost to Penn State is approximately $25,000, including OS upgrades and the development suite. In addition, ScholarPAC members currently receive a 50% discount on system hardware maintenance. At this price, the University can offer a membership in this site license at the cost of $50/workstation compared to the almost $3,000 cost which an individual could obtain. Although some larger user within the University might be able to approach such savings, the ILSD program allows for the faculty and staff in smaller units to also take advantage of these savings. Total savings to the University of the ILSD is conservatively estimated to be at least $2,000,000/years.
How
is new software added to the ILSD program?
When deciding on a new package, the input of faculty members and the judgment of the USTS Group and others are combined to determine whether a business case can be made to justify the license when a two- or three-year cost recovery interval is considered. In some cases this requires coordinating with a number of different Penn State units who might have interest in the license. Even if the initial interest level is low, but there is a good possibility for an eventual return on investment, the University will provide “venture capital” to purchase the package. The cost will be paid back when demand for the package reaches predicted levels.
Why
do I have to pay a fee every year for ILSD software?
Software made available through the ILSD program is distributed on a subscription basis. The small cost incurred every year is used to defray the overall cost of the software. This fee provides the advantage to the individual and department of a much smaller overall cost, ongoing local support, and continual upgrades and patches. Additional information regarding ILSD and the specific licensed software can be found at the ILSD Web site: http://cac.psu.edu/ilsd/.
The committee acknowledges the contribution of Jim Leous, Manager, UNIX Systems and Technical Solutions Group, Advanced Information Technologies, Center for Academic Computing in preparing this report.
SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMPUTING AND INFORMATION SYSTEMS
Anthony Ambrose
Paul E. Barney, Jr.
Edward R. Bollard,
Ali Borhan
Vicotr W. Brunsden
Lee D. Coraor, Vice-Chair
John T. Harwood
Robert D. Minard
Dawn Noga
Joy M. Perrine
David R. Richards
Dhushy Sathianathan
Semyon (Sam) Slobounov, Chair
John B. Urenko
Russell S. Vaught
Sunny M. Webb
THE
PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY
THE
UNIVERSITY FACULTY SENATE
SENATE
COMMITTEE ON COMMITTEES AND RULES
NOMINATING
REPORT - 2002-2003
STANDING JOINT COMMITTEE ON TENURE - (Three [3] to be elected; one [1] member and two
[2] alternates) Three-year term
Osama Awadelkarim, Professor of Engineering Science
and Mechanics, College of Engineering, UP
David
Miller, Professor of Physics, Hazleton Campus
Judith
Ozment Payne, Associate Professor of Chemistry, Abington College
Cara-Lynne
Schengrund, Professor of Biochemistry, College of Medicine, Hershey
Medical
Center
Martin Trethewey, Professor
of Mechanical Engineering, College of Engineering, UP
Gabriella
Varga, Distinguished Professor of Animal Science, College of Agricultural
Sciences,
UP
UNIVERSITY PROMOTION AND TENURE REVIEW
COMMITTEE - (Three [3] to be elected)
Two-year term
Linda
Caldwell, Professor of Recreation and Park Management, College of Health and
Human
Development, UP
Richard
Carlson, Professor of Psychology, College of the Liberal Arts, UP
Phyllis Cole, Professor of
English, Women Studies and American Studies, Delaware Campus
Renee
Diehl, Professor of Physics, Eberly College of Science, UP
Mary Katherine Howett,
Professor of Microbiology, College of Medicine, Hershey Medical Center
Jose Ventura, Professor of
Industrial and Manufacturing Engineering, College of Engineering, UP
FACULTY RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES -
FACULTY - UNIVERSITY PARK (Three [3] to be elected; one member and two
alternates) Three-year term
S.
Diane Brannon, Professor of Health Policy and Administration, College of Health
and Human Development, UP
Paul
Cohen, Distinguished Professor of Industrial and Manufacturing Engineering,
College of Engineering, UP
Dorothy
Evensen, Associate Professor of Education Policy Studies, College of Education,
UP
Peggy
Johnson, Associate Professor of Civil Engineering, College of Engineering, UP
Robert Melton, Professor of
Aerospace Engineering, College of Engineering, UP
Loanne Snavely, Associate
Librarian, Head of Instructional Programs, University Libraries, UP
FACULTY - OTHER THAN
UNIVERSITY PARK (Two [2] to be
elected; one member and one alternate) Three-year term
Sohail
Anwar, Associate Professor of Engineering, Altoona College
Richard
Barshinger, Professor of Mathematics, Worthington Scranton Campus
Annette
Caruso, Assistant Professor of Health Education, Abington College
Patricia Hinchey, Associate
Professor of Education, Commonwealth College, Worthington Scranton Campus
Sandra
Smith, Associate Professor of Exercise and Sport Science, Fayette Campus
DEANS - (Two [2] to be elected; one member and one
alternate) Three-year terms
Diane
Disney, Commonwealth College
Madlyn
Hanes, Penn State Harrisburg
Darrell
Kirch, College of Medicine
Daniel
Larson, Eberly College of Science
COMMITTEE
ON COMMITTEES AND RULES
Joseph
J. Cecere
Dwight
Davis
Terry
Engelder
Joanna
Floros
Sabih
I. Hayek
Deidre
E. Jago
Arthur
C. Miller
John
W. Moore
John
S. Nichols
Jean
Landa Pytel, Chair
Cara-Lynne
Schengrund
Stephen
M. Smith
Valerie
N. Stratton, V-Chair
SENATE COMMITTEE ON FACULTY BENEFITS
Faculty Salaries Report, External
Comparison
(Informational)
INTRODUCTION
The Senate charges the Faculty Benefits Committee to prepare an annual Faculty Salaries Report. The report focuses on internal or external comparisons in alternating years. This year the report emphasizes comparisons of Penn State faculty salaries with those externally at other universities. While the comparisons to other universities use the best available sources of data, these data cannot always be appropriately adjusted for such important and relevant factors as fringe benefit differences, differences in time in rank across Penn State colleges and other universities, and differences in the relative size of colleges across universities. For example, comparing overall average salaries at a university with a large business college and small liberal arts college to a university with a small business college and a large liberal arts college might be misleading. Where the Committee has been able to make such adjustments, these have been noted. However, faculty and administrators should use these data to initiate a discussion about important salary issues such as competitiveness and equity, rather than to draw definitive conclusions about these issues.
Data and tables were provided by the Center for Quality and Planning, Louise Sandmeyer, Executive Director. In particular, the assistance of Michael Dooris is greatly appreciated.
DISCUSSION
The University participates in three institutional faculty salary data exchanges. Penn State faculty salaries can be compared to data from each of these two sources.
1. Association of American Universities Data Exchange (AAUDE) is a group of 64 universities that share salary data. We usually compare to the 32 public universities in the group. In any particular year, 20 to 30 of the public institutions release salary information. These institutions include the Big Ten universities and other large state universities. This year data was available from 22 public institutions: Colorado, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Iowa State, Kansas, Maryland, Michigan, Michigan State, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Carolina, Ohio State, Oregon, Penn State, Pittsburgh, Purdue, Texas, Virginia, Washington, and Wisconsin. Reported faculty salaries are averaged across this group of universities for each college and rank. The shared salary data only includes the primary campus location and excludes administrators, including department heads. All AAUDE schools agree to follow a standard conversion of 0.818 (9/11) for full year to 9-month salaries for data exchange purposes. This adjustment is only used for the faculty in Agricultural Sciences at Penn State who are on twelve-month salary. The AAUDE does not collect data for librarians and colleges of medicine. At other institutions, librarians may be part of academic colleges or may be staff positions. Moreover, the number of rank levels for library faculty is not consistent across institutions. Thus it is not possible to compare PSU library faculty with data from other universities in the AAUDE. For colleges of medicine, clinical and academic responsibilities cannot be clearly distinguished at all universities. Also, the College of Medicine may not be at the primary campus location (as is the case for Penn State’s Hershey Medical Center) and AAUDE only considers the main campus. Faculties within the College of Medicine are not reported here. This committee is working with the appropriate administrative offices and hopes to include College of Medicine faculty in the Spring 2003 report to the Senate.
2. American Association of University Professors (AAUP) reports average faculty salaries by rank at each campus location for all universities nationally. AAUP does not report average salaries for each college; it only reports averages across the entire campus locations. Administrators, including department heads, are not included in the data. The AAUP data includes salaries for library faculty but not for faculty in the colleges of medicine. All AAUP data also applies the standard conversion of 0.818 for full year appointment salaries to 9-month salaries for comparison purposes.
3. Association of Research Libraries (ARL). The University participates in a data exchange coordinated through ARL. As noted above, librarian appointment types vary across universities, so the ARL survey is the best source of comparable, well-defined multi-institutional data on salaries for academic librarians.
Table 1 compares the Penn State (University Park campus only) average salaries to the average AAUDE salaries in three different years. This can reveal a change in the competitiveness of Penn State salaries compared to the group. A drop in ratio from 1995-1996 to 2000-2001 indicates that the present PSU salaries are less competitive than five years ago. The ratio of University Park salaries to AAUDE average salaries that is less than one indicates that Penn State salaries are below the average in the AAUDE. A ratio that is greater than one indicates that Penn State salaries are competitive with the average in the AAUDE. For example, all ranks in the College of Arts and Architecture continue to be below the AAUDE average. Several of the College specific ratios of average PSU salaries at University Park to those of peer institutions declined. However, the College of Liberal Arts Assistant Professor rank has improved its competitive position since 1995-1996. In 21 of 33 categories, PSU average salaries are less than the AAUDE averages. This difference ranges from 1 to 8 percent. The Colleges of Agricultural Sciences, Business Administration, Education, and Engineering still show average salaries lower than AAUDE averages, while the Colleges of Communications, Earth and Mineral Sciences, and Liberal Arts show average salaries that are higher than the AAUDE averages. Based on the data, PSU is less competitive by salary than was the case five years ago, but an improving trend is revealed in the last year. However, we recognize that competitiveness of universities may include non-salary factors.
Table 2 calculates the percentage of average full professor salaries earned (on average) by assistant and associate professors in each college. This may indicate that salary differentials by rank exist. This committee has decided not to study this important issue this year, but to include it in next year’s internal review. A report on average salaries in AAUDE and Penn State average salaries by College, rank, and gender will be presented to the Senate in Spring 2003. This table indicates that the Penn State Colleges of Liberal Arts and Science may have equity issues at the Associate level in comparison to other AAUDE institutions.
Table 3 shows the cumulative percentage changes in salaries over one, five and ten years. Penn State cumulative salary changes from the 1990-91 academic year until the 2000-01 academic year are lower than those of AAUDE universities in 20 of the 30 categories for which data are available. Similarly, from the 1995-96 period Penn State cumulative salary changes are lower than AAUDE salary changes in 24 of the 32 categories for which data are available. To the extent these data reflect the competitiveness of Penn State salaries, the University appears to be losing ground to other institutions, though additional data would be necessary to draw that conclusion as noted in our introduction. The one-year salary changes, where Penn State salary changes exceed those for 19 of 33 categories indicate some attempt to redress this problem is being made, at least to some extent.
Over the ten-year period salary changes among faculty at all three ranks in the College of Business Administration, Arts and Architecture, Education and Engineering lagged behind those at their AAUDE peers. Salary changes at two or more ranks exceeded salary changes at AAUDE peer institutions only among faculty in the Colleges of Liberal Arts and Health and Human Development. These patterns are similar for the five-year salary changes. In the most recent data one-year period, faculty salary changes in the Colleges of Business Administration and Engineering continue to lag behind those at AAUDE at two out of three rank levels.
Table 4 shows the university wide faculty salaries over the five-year period from 1996 to 2001. Out of 22 AAUDE institutions, PSU ranks 17th over the five year period. However, in 2000-2001 PSU ranked 11th. Administrators, including department heads, are not included in the data. The faculty salary increases are determined using only the salaries of faculty who were employed at Penn State for the academic years involved.
Increase in salary due to promotion is not included in the data. The tabulated values give the average salary increase observed by individual faculty and the data is free from distortion due to retirement or resignation and the addition of new faculty.
Table 5 identifies the public and private institutions that are members of AAUDE.
Table 6 compares Penn State average faculty salaries by rank to salaries at other Big Ten institutions and includes Librarians where these data are available. Penn State’s average salary ranks fifth among the Big Ten for Full Professors, eighth for Associate Professors, ninth for Assistant Professors and sixth for Instructors. By comparison to the committee’s report in 2000, Penn State has moved up one ranking for Associate Professors and Instructors, dropped one ranking for Full Professors, and maintained its ranking for Assistant Professors. By comparison to the average salary at the median Big Ten institution, Penn State’s average salary is 1 percent higher at the Full Professor level, 1 percent lower at the Associate Professor level, 3 percent lower at the Assistant Professor level, and 19 percent lower at the Instructor level.
Table 7 shows the same comparison as Table 6 with a Cost of Living Adjustment included. Please see footnote for the source of the Cost of Living data. The committee recognizes that this adjustment is a rough estimate as no single source exists which accurately assesses the cost of living in a particular area of a particular state. Available data indicates that cost of living is not responsible for the salary differences.
Table 8 lists the average faculty salaries at each type of campus location for Big Ten universities having multiple (satellite) campuses. Eight Big Ten universities (Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio State, Penn State, Purdue, and Wisconsin) have multiple campuses. The campuses are described as Type I: doctoral-level degrees granted; Type IIA: master degrees granted; Type IIB: general baccalaureate degrees granted; Type III: two year institutions. For this report, the classification of each campus was based on the current plans for that location and may not reflect current degree offerings. The designation of each campus may also change as the university plan evolves. Overall, however, a comparison of like campuses at non-UP or satellite campuses demonstrates a favorable competitiveness ranking.
Table 9 compares Penn State locations by rank with other universities in Pennsylvania. As in Table 8 average Penn State faculty salaries appear to compare favorably against those colleges in Pennsylvania that have similar campus designations. Tables 8 and 9also reveal that Penn State faculty, at some satellite campuses receive higher remuneration than faculty of equivalent ranks at University Park (Associate, Assistant, Instructor). One explanation for this observation may be a difference in time in rank at non-UP campuses. Future salary reports may try to analyze this observation in greater detail.
Table 10 compares librarian data by number of positions, total salary, and average salary. Data is drawn from the Association of Research Libraries (ARL). Librarian appointment types vary across universities, so the ARL survey is the best source of comparable, well-defined multi-institutional data on salaries for academic librarians.
This data demonstrates that Penn State’s main campus is compared with five Big Ten universities who have reported. The committee notes that law and medical libraries are not included in the data. Though Penn State tends to have fewer positions than most other reporting institutions, at the Full and Assistant Librarian rank PSU has the highest average salaries of the universities that reported average salaries. At the Associate Librarian rank, Penn State is less competitive, ranking in the middle of the reporting institutions.
The committee explored the feasibility of including more detailed comparison of average salaries within each unit or discipline of the various colleges. While we recognize that College- and university-wide averages may not accurately reflect the salary situation in each unit of the university, we feel that only the College or the units within that College can generate discipline specific data if such data are desired. The institution-wide data sources (AAUDE, AAUP, ARL) used in this report draw upon carefully developed reporting conventions and definitions. Various disciplines may or may not participate in parallel, well-structured data-sharing processes. In addition, only the faculty within a specific unit can identify true “peer institutions” for their disciplines. As discipline specific salary information sharing organizations are identified to the committee by faculty within the given discipline, the committee may be able to include such data in future salary comparison reports.
CONCLUSIONS
A comparison of UP salaries from five and ten years ago to those at other universities demonstrates a possible loss of competitiveness. The one-year analysis, however, demonstrates improvement that hopefully can be maintained. A few Colleges, as detailed above, have mean faculty salaries that are significantly below 5% or more below the mean. The Senate encourages the Deans of these schools and administration to investigate the reasons for these discrepancies. A few Big Ten Universities consistently have mean salaries above those at UP in all ranks. Differences in salary are not explained by cost of living variations. Salaries at comparable satellite campuses both in the Big Ten and in Pennsylvania appear to be competitive. Overall, the administration has placed a budgetary emphasis on faculty salaries. This report provides evidence that this stance may be warranted.
SENATE COMMITTEE ON FACULTY BENEFITS
Michael H. Bernhard
Keith K. Burkhart, Chair
John Dawson
Alan V. Derickson
Jacob De Rooy
Michael Dooris
Annette K. McGregor, Vice-Chair
Dennis G. Shea
Patience L. Simmonds
Sandra R. Smith
Mark Strikman
Billie S. Willits
Annual Report for
2000-2001
(Informational)
I am pleased to present the report of the Senate Committee on Faculty Rights and Responsibilities to you today.
During the 2000-2001 academic year, the committee dealt with four cases, two less than in the previous year. Two of these cases involved promotion and/or tenure denial; the other two concerned disputes between individual faculty and their administrators.
I note that the number of cases coming to the committee has declined sharply in the last decade. The committee wants to express its appreciation to Vice Provost Robert Secor; in the last decade he has done the university a wonderful service with his promotion and tenure workshops and his willingness to assist the committee in various ways.
The two petitions concerning denial of promotion and/or tenure both alleged procedural irregularities. In both cases, the committee did not find significant procedural irregularities and recommended to the Vice Provost that no corrective action needed to be taken.
The two other cases considered by the committee involved disputes between faculty members and their administrators. One involved issues of academic freedom, professional ethics, and procedural fairness. The committee found that, for contractual reasons, it could not recommend any action. The other case revisited alleged concerns about professional ethics, procedural fairness, and retaliation, and the committee, which had made a good faith effort to resolve the case earlier, was unable, in the absence of significant new information, to offer additional recommendations to those it had offered earlier.
I wish to thank the other members of the committee who have expended considerable time and effort in considering these varied cases. Their thoughtful involvement in these cases for the Faculty Rights and Responsibilities Committee has served the University.
Nancy Eaton
Renata Engel
Gary Fosmire
Linda Itzoe
Margaret Lyday
Eva Pell
James Rambeau, Chair
Robert Steele
Valerie Stratton
SENATE COMMITTEE ON INTERCOLLEGIATE ATHLETICS
Annual Report of
Academic Eligibility and Athletic Scholarships for 2000-01
(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.
1. Total Number of Athletes Screened for Eligibility (Fall 01 & Spring 02) 1575
2. Total Number of Athletes Not Approved for Participation (Fall 01 & Spring 02) 45
3. Total Number of Exceptions to Normal Progress Rule (Fall 01 & Spring 02) 44
4. Total Number of Scholarship Athletes (Academic year 2001 & 02) 532
5. Comparison of Data for Annual Report:
|
|
1994-95 |
1995-96 |
1996-97 |
1997-98 |
1998-99 |
1999-00 |
2000-01 |
2001-02 |
|
Athletes Screened |
1628 |
1585 |
1788 |
1534 |
1598 |
1647 |
1635 |
1575 |
|
Athletes Not Approved |
39 |
58 |
45 |
43 |
47 |
54 |
46 |
45 |
|
Exceptions to Normal Progress |
30 |
34 |
38 |
30 |
35 |
28 |
38 |
44 |
|
Scholarship Athletes |
410 |
471 |
470 |
475 |
490 |
498 |
502 |
532 |
Additional
Academic Statistics
Penn State
University
Academic All Conference
A. Academic All-Conference
|
|
Fall |
Winter |
Spring |
Total |
|
Penn State University |
60 |
47 |
99 |
206 |
|
Indiana University |
50 |
31 |
93 |
174 |
|
Ohio State University |
42 |
30 |
98 |
170 |
|
University Wisconsin |
41 |
21 |
98 |
160 |
|
University Minnesota |
42 |
38 |
75 |
155 |
|
University Michigan |
44 |
30 |
73 |
147 |
|
Iowa University |
43 |
41 |
49 |
133 |
|
Michigan State University |
44 |
34 |
49 |
127 |
|
University Illinois |
38 |
35 |
46 |
119 |
|
Purdue University |
30 |
24 |
58 |
112 |
|
Northwestern University |
46 |
23 |
38 |
107 |
B. GTE Academic All American
4 2000-2001 academic year (partial total)
11 1999-2000 academic year
NCAA GRADUATION RATE RANKINGS, BIG TEN CONFERENCE
CLASS OF 1994-1995
ALL STUDENTS(94-95) |
ALL STUDENTS (4 CLASS AVERAGE) |
STUDENT-ATHLETES (94-95) |
STUDENT-ATHLETES(4 CLASS AVERAGE) |
||||
|
Institution |
% |
Institution |
% |
Institution |
% |
Institution |
% |
|
Northwestern |
92 |
Northwestern |
91 |
Northwestern |
90 |
Northwestern |
92 |
|
Michigan |
82 |
Michigan |
82 |
Penn State |
75 |
Penn State |
77 |
|
Penn State |
80 |
Penn State |
80 |
Iowa |
74 |
Iowa |
73 |
|
Illinois |
76 |
Illinois |
76 |
Wisconsin |
74 |
Purdue |
70 |
|
Wisconsin |
76 |
Wisconsin |
74 |
Illinois |
72 |
Indiana |
68 |
|
Michigan State |
66 |
Indiana |
67 |
Michigan |
71 |
Michigan |
68 |
|
Indiana |
65 |
Michigan State |
65 |
Purdue |
67 |
Illinois |
64 |
|
Purdue |
64 |
Purdue |
64 |
Indiana |
63 |
Wisconsis |
64 |
|
Iowa |
63 |
Iowa |
63 |
Michigan State |
62 |
Michigan State |
62 |
|
Ohio State |
55 |
Ohio State |
56 |
Ohio State |
62 |
Minnesota |
57 |
|
Minnesota |
50 |
Minnesota |
50 |
Minnesota |
56 |
Ohio State |
55 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Division I Institutions |
56 |
Division I Institutions |
56 |
Division I Institutions |
58 |
Division I Institutions |
58 |
DIVISION IA FOOTBALL INSTITUTIONS
STUDENT-ATHLETE GRADUATION RATE
CLASS OF 1994-1995
Duke 90%
Northwestern 90%
Stanford 86%
University of Virginia 84%
Boston College 83%
Syracuse 81%
Rice 76%
Penn State 75%
Tulane 75%
ACADEMIC ALL-AMERICANS
Year Number
1992
1
1993
3
1994
7
1995
7
1996
4
1997
7
1998
4
1999 11
2000 5
2001 8
Total 57
Since 1965 the Total Number of Academic All-Americans
= 93
BIG TEN ACADEMIC ALL CONFERENCE
2000-2001 Academic Year
Penn State – 225
Ohio State – 222
Indiana – 187
Michigan – 164
Wisconsin – 161
Minnesota – 148
Iowa – 142
Illinois – 135
Michigan State – 128
Purdue – 121
Northwestern - 105
BIG TEN ACADEMIC ALL-CONFERENCE
Year Number
1992-1993
129
1993-1994
157
1994-1995
174
1995-1996
166
1996-1997
195
1997-1998
179
1998-1999
223
1999-2000
206
2000-2001
225
Total Number of Big Ten Academic All-Conference =
1,654
SENATE COMMITTEE ON INTERCOLLEGIATE ATHLETICS
James B. Anderson
William W. Asbury
John J. Cahir
Linda L. Caldwell, V-Chair
Timothy M. Curley
Laurence M. Demers
James T. Elder
Elizabeth A. Hanley
Terry P. Harrison
Kane M. High
Diana L. Kenepp
R. Scott Kretchmar
Harvey B. Manbeck
Andrew K. Masters
Michelle H. McCarney
Douglas McCullough
Murry R. Nelson, Chair
Ellen L. Perry
Martin T. Pietrucha
John J. Romano
Thomas C. Vary
Jerry Wright
SENATE COMMITTEE ON RESEARCH
Report on University Research
(Informational)
Research and Development (R&D) expenditures at Penn State continue to grow, reaching $472 million at the end of the 2000-2001 fiscal year. This represented growth of 7% from the previous year. NSF ranks the Science and Engineering R&D expenditures each year and latest data published for year 2000 place Penn State University 11th nationwide amongst public and private institutions. NSF ranks the data by fields and subfields. These data can be accessed at http://www.nsf.gov/sbe/srs/srs02402/start.htm. As an overview of the highlights, PSU ranked third in Engineering with Chemical Engineering, Mechanical Engineering, and Electrical Engineering ranking third, fourth and fifth, respectively. Metallurgical and Material Science is nested in this data set, and PSU is number one in this subfield. Penn State ranked 15th in Physical Sciences, placing fifth in Chemistry. Penn State ranked 38th in Life Sciences while coming in eighth in the Agricultural subfield. Penn State was third in Psychology and 18th in Social Sciences, with a ranking of tenth for the subfield of Sociology.
Penn State enjoys the rank of 11th in total R&D expenditures because of the diversity of its research portfolio, with funding balanced across an array of agencies, and broad participation across colleges. It is clear, however, that to maintain our preeminence we will need to strengthen our efforts in the life sciences. The University recognizes that need and has made significant internal investments to accomplish the necessary gains. This past year we broke ground on a $42.5 million Life Sciences Building that will create space for collaborative research in neurosciences, cell and developmental biology, toxicology, and plant biology. In addition Wartik Laboratory will be largely dedicated as a genomics, proteomics, and bioinformatics center. The University created the Life Sciences Consortium in 1995. Since that time, the University has been proceeding toward the completion of a recycling exercise that will provide the consortium with an annual budget in excess of $5 million. The recent legislation governing the distribution of Tobacco Settlement funds in the State of Pennsylvania will make available to the University approximately $7 million per year for at least the next four years. In addition, we will have access to significant funds through the Life Sciences Greenhouse for Central Pennsylvania, also funded by the Tobacco Settlement Funds. Thus, in the next four years alone, we see an investment of more than $100 million in life science research at Penn State University. We believe that this investment will spark a dramatic acceleration in life sciences research at the University Park and Hershey campuses.
Over the last five years there has been a definition of some new initiatives and reorganization and coalescence of on going interdisciplinary research activities viz. Life Sciences, Material Sciences, Environmental Studies, Social Sciences and Children, Youth, and Families. These activities represent a significant element of the University’s research portfolio, agenda and vision with collective R&D expenditures of $189 million. While the magnitude of the activities varies with the initiative, it is clear that each of the initiatives enjoys the participation of many colleges, and in each case a different college(s) plays a dominant role.
A copy of the Annual Report of Research Activity can be obtained at the following web site:www.research.psu.edu/pu/annual.shtml.
SENATE COMMITTEE ON RESEARCH
Guy F. Barbato, Chair
Steven P. Dear
Renee D. Diehl
Christine Clark-Evans
Charles R. Fisher
Sally L. Flowers
David S. Gilmour
Brandon B. Hunt
Ernest W. Johnson
Robert A. Killoren, Jr.
Joan M. Lakoski, V-Chair
Digby D. Macdonald
Rajen Mookerjee
Alfred Mueller
Mary Beth Oliver
Eva J. Pell
B. Franklin Pugh
Gary W. Rogers
Evelyn A. Thomchick
Jennifer Tingo
Gary W. Weber
Susan Welch
Douglas H. Werner
THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY
The University Faculty Senate
REPORT OF NOMINATING COMMITTEE
FOR 2002-2003
The Nominating Committee consisting of the elected representatives of Senate Council was convened on January 15, 2002. The following list of nominees will be transmitted to the Chair of the University Faculty Senate prior to the March 12, 2002, Senate Council meeting for subsequent distribution with the Agenda for the March 26, 2002, meeting of the University Faculty Senate. Additional nominations may be made from the floor of the Senate on March 26, 2002.
SENATE
OFFICERS
CHAIR-ELECT OF
THE SENATE
Christopher J. Bise, Professor of Mining Engineering/Deike Chair in Mining Engineering, College of Earth and Mineral Sciences, University Park
Deidre E. Jago, Assistant Professor of Kinesiology, College of Health and Human Development, Hazleton Campus
Jamie M. Myers, Associate Professor of Education, College of Education, University Park
SECRETARY OF THE SENATE
Melvin Blumberg, Professor of Management, Capital College, Harrisburg
Salvatore A. Marsico, Assistant Professor of Engineering, Commonwealth College, Wilkes-Barre Campus
FACULTY ADVISORY COMMITTEE TO THE
PRESIDENT
(One [1] to be elected – term to expire in 2005)
Mark A. Casteel, Associate Professor of Psychology, College of the Liberal Arts, York Campus
Wayne R. Curtis, Professor of Chemical Engineering, College of Engineering,
University Park
NOMINATING COMMITTEE
John W. Bagby
Connie D. Baggett
Robert L. Burgess
Wayne R. Curtis
W. Travis DeCastro
Renee Diehl
Dennis Gouran
Alphonse E. Leure-duPree
Salvatore A. Marsico
Ronald L. McCarty
Louis Milakofsky
Jamie M. Myers
Winston A. Richards
Alan W. Scaroni
Cara-Lynne Schengrund, Chair
Loanne L. Snavely
Steven W. Stace
Brian B. Tormey
SENATE COMMITTEE ON STUDENT LIFE
Student
Use of Web vs. Printed Materials
(Informational)
BACKGROUND
Within the past five years
there has been a shift within organizations to provide more and more
information on the World Wide Web. This
has unquestionably led to savings for the University, as this information can
now be made available to every Penn State Student on an as-needed basis, with
minimal printing costs. But in some
cases, this has resulted in less access to important documents for students. The Student Life Committee endeavored to
find out how students go about getting information at Penn State, in the face
of this shift in publishing. First, it
sought to determine how students preferred to access Penn State information,
through the Internet, through print media, or orally. Second, it looked for what Penn State Services were most actively
accessed, as well as those less frequently used. Finally, we considered implications of this shift, particularly
those that could present a potential disadvantage to students.
STUDENTS' USE OF THE
INTERNET
To determine how easy
students found using the Internet to find Penn State Information, the Student
Life Committee reviewed the results of the October 2001 Pulse Survey (#88: Web
Services).[1] Dr. Betty L. Moore, Director and Senior
Research Analyst at Student Affairs, conducted the survey to determine if there
were different rates of usage among different subgroups of students (men vs.
women, upper class students vs. underclass students, etc.). The November 2001 Pulse Survey (#92: Student
Conduct Policies and Procedures)[2]
was also reviewed to see what information relating to Penn State Policies they
actually did access. This information
was supplemented with an interview with Dr. Betty Moore, Director of Research
and Assessment, Student Affairs Department, Penn State. In addition, the Student Life Committee
conducted its own informal survey to find out where students prefer to get
information.
The Web Services Pulse Survey was intended to obtain feedback from
students about their general experience online and their current use of
Web-based services. It found that very
few Penn State students (less than 1%) had never used the Internet. A fifth
(20%) had been using the Internet from 1 to 4 years, nearly three-quarters
(71%) from 5 to 8 years, and about a tenth (8%) 9 years or more. They were especially satisfied with online
services giving them access to course materials, and compared to six months
ago, significantly more students (58%) spent time printing these off. This sharp increase in printing off course
materials was surprising, Dr. Moore commented.
A large number of students (47%) also reported doing more class work
online. Significantly more women than
of the men reported spending more time online doing class work and printing off
course material than they did six months ago.
On average, students reported spending significant amounts of time
doing online work
for classes 6.35
hrs/wk.
surfing the
Internet 6.16
hrs/wk.
doing e-mail 4.91
hrs/wk.
This compares with 1.03 hours hrs/wk. communicating with faculty. The most time-consuming use of web services
for students, however, was instant messaging (11.06 hours per week).
Students’ preference for
using the Internet was confirmed by an informal poll conducted by the Student
Life Committee. Students at University
Park, and at several other campus locations were asked where they looked for
information they needed about Penn State: On the Web, from printed materials
such as Blue Book, brochures, etc., or through personal contact with another
person (staff, faculty, friends). The
results showed a strong preference for use of the Web:
Web:
65.7%
Print
20.7 %
Personal
13.6%
(N= 942)
Still, slightly more than a third of students surveyed preferred
non-Internet communication, either through traditional print or through
personalized service. While Penn State
seems justified in its move to virtual publication of materials, in the short
run it will need to provide backup means of communication for this large
minority.
WHAT SERVICES DO STUDENTS ACTUALLY USE?
In addition to course materials, students reported that it was
relatively easy to use certain online services. The most commonly used was eLion (used "frequently" by
69% of students). Three quarters of
those polled said it was easy to use this service to register for classes, and
about the same number found it easy to check one's degree audit.
Other online resources used by a majority of students included
- the Penn State
Home Page (66%)
- the
Faculty/Staff directory (62%)
- course
descriptions (53%).
On the other hand, many fewer students (24%) had used LIAS, the Penn State Library information services page,
a fact that surprised Dr. Moore.
The Pulse “Student Conduct
Policies and Sanctions” survey was intended to determine student awareness of
important rules that govern their conduct on and off campus. As noted in Student Life’s Report, “Code of
Conduct and Disciplinary Procedures” (March 2001),[3]
The Student Guide to General University Policies and Rules, including
the Penn State “Code of Conduct,” is no longer published in hard copy for every
student but is made available electronically through links from the Student
Services home page. (Print copies are
still made available during Orientation and at student request.) An abstract of the Code of Conduct, titled
“Statement of Principles,” was written in Summer 2001 and made widely available
in hard copy.
The Pulse survey showed that
these policies remained largely unread and poorly understood by students. Few students reported that they had gone
online to access the Student Guide to Policies and Rules and other
relevant documents:
- Student Guide to Policies and Rules 12%
- Code of Conduct 9%
- Other University policies 13%
While nearly two-thirds of
students indicated familiarity with the new academic integrity policies, only
27% were aware of the Code of Conduct.
Despite widespread distribution, still fewer (19%) knew about the Statement
of Principles, and fewer yet knew about the Student Guide (14%). When asked about specific policies and
procedures followed by the Judicial
Affairs Office when students are accused of violations, only between 17% and
10% were familiar with such information, indicating that the move to web
publishing continues to be ineffective in educating students in this area.
ROOM FOR IMPROVEMENT
In the “Web Services” survey, the element students most commonly
mentioned as an obstacle to use of online services mentioned by students was
the computer fee (24%). Other commonly
mentioned obstacles included
- problems
relating to access to the system:
access to computers on campus , (17%), linking from off campus
(15%), linking on campus (11%)
- concern for
confidentiality (17%)
- distrust of
computers: preferring personalized
service (16%) feeling that computers are not useful (11%)
Significantly more minority students reported that such concerns act as
obstacles to their using online services.
Similarly, students not interested in proposed expansions of online
services cited preference for human contact, lack of trust, and need for
interaction. This result is supported
by the Committee’s informal survey, which showed that a strong minority of
students (34.3%) preferred to use print and oral sources to online sources when
trying to obtain important University-related information.
The “Student Conduct Policies” survey asked students what they felt
would be the most effective means of increasing awareness of Code of Conduct
regulations. Most students (54%)
thought that e-mail announcements would be the best medium for publicizing such
topics. However, various print-based
media garnered a strong minority of responses:
- newspaper
articles summarizing
violations and
sanctions 43%
- posters or
flyers 30%
- letters to the
editor 29%
- newspaper
advertisements 29%
Only 5% felt that improving the Judicial Affairs website would make a
difference.
CONCLUSIONS
The Web has fast become a
tool of choice for Penn State students, and the Pulse surveys suggest that a large
majority are satisfied with the web based services, particularly those provided
for advising and for downloading course materials and doing assignments for
classes. Asked whether she felt that
the web would continue to be a
valuable source for students, Dr. Moore
agreed, but added, “Personally, I believe that online information and course
materials will 'augment' and not 'replace' classroom instruction.” Still, it’s clear that the Web has staying
power as a source of information for Penn State students, when they know they
need that information.
On the other hand, this
report suggests that if students don’t think they need to know the information
or if they do not know that it is available, they are not likely to seek it
out. Library information services still
appear to be underutilized, and important Penn State principles and policies
remain poorly understood. Informing
students about what information is available on-line may be a way to increase
effective use of the Internet. But
although a web site is a practical way of making important information readily
available, it is not likely in itself to raise consciousness if students have
no practical reason to visit the site.
Also, while most students are familiar and comfortable with the Web, we cannot
expect such means of communication to reach every student, particularly every
minority student.
The Senate’s new academic
integrity policy, which required faculty to provide students with guidelines in
hard copy as part of their course syllabi, has worked well in making most
students aware of their responsibilities in this area. Student comments suggest that similar
print-media strategies, combined with e-mail messages, would ensure that more
students will become aware of other important Penn State policies.
SENATE COMMITTEE ON STUDENT LIFE
William W. Asbury
Arthur W. Carter
Mackenzie L. De Vos
Bill Ellis, Chair
Andrzej J. Gapinski
Wallace H. Greene
Nichola Gutgold, V-Chair
Karen Johnson
Jeffrey S. Mayer
Nicholas J. Pazdziorko
Irwin Richman
Robyn A. Ricketts
Jose A. Ventura
SENATE COMMITTEE ON UNDERGRADUATE EDUCATION
Grade Distribution Report
(Informational)
In March 1987, the Senate passed legislation requiring an annual review of grade distribution data for baccalaureate students. The attached tables show data that has been provided by the Registrar's Office for each spring semester from 1975 to 2001, with detailed data for spring semester 2001.
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 2001. Table 2 presents a summary of grade distribution for resident instruction for the spring semester 2001 at all locations for all courses for all colleges except the College of Medicine. Table 3 is the grade point averages and Dean’s list summary by college for the spring semester 2001. Table 4 presents an all-University distribution of semester grade point averages for baccalaureate students.
In order to examine the trends across the 27 reported years, Figure 1 plots the average GPA across the university for all courses numbered 0 through 499 in spring semester from 1975 to 2001. The plot shows a relatively flat line with a modest upward slope beginning about ten years ago. One possible explanation for this trend is grade inflation, which is a serious concern that has been widely discussed in higher education. However, it is very difficult to conclude that this trend over the last decade at Penn State is due to grade inflation, because of several additional factors that may have contributed to the increase in GPA. These include rising entrance requirements and a university grading policy that has implemented a much more liberal late drop criterion beginning in 1990 (see Table 1). There have also 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. In the last ten years University Faculty Senate has also played an active role in enhancing the educational experience for our students by the adoption of 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. All of these efforts may have contributed to improving student learning that is appropriately reflected in rising GPAs.
Senate Committee on Undergraduate Education
Cheryl Achterberg
Richard I. Ammon
Theresa A. Balog
Dawn G. Blasko
Thomas E. Boothby
Richard J. Bord
Stephen Browne
John J. Cahir
Paul F. Clark
Peter D. Georgopulos
Gary L. Hile
Robert S. Hill
Richard R. Kennedy
Laura L. Pauley, Chair
Paul A. Ricciardi
Robert D. Ricketts, V-Chair
David W. Russell
Dennis C. Scanlon
Thomas A. Seybert
Terry R. Shirley, Jr
Reiko Tachibana
Joshua Troxell
Eric R. White
|
|
|
|
|
TABLE 1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Percentage of
Grades Awarded in 0 - 499 Resident Instruction Courses |
||||||||||
|
|
|
|
Comparison Spring Term/ Semester 1975
-2001 |
|
|
||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Spring |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Terms |
A |
A- |
B+ |
B |
B- |
C+ |
C |
D |
F |
W |
LD |
|
1975 |
29.8 |
|
|
33.1 |
|
|
20.4 |
5.7 |
3.7 |
2.3 |
|
|
1976(a) |
28.0 |
|
|
32.6 |
|
|
20.1 |
5.8 |
3.0 |
4.1 |
|
|
1977 |
28.3 |
|
|
32.2 |
|
|
20.1 |
5.7 |
2.7 |
5.5 |
|
|
1978 |
28.6 |
|
|
33.5 |
|
|
21.8 |
6.1 |
2.7 |
6.0 |
|
|
1979 |
28.0 |
|
|
34.2 |
|
|
22.2 |
6.3 |
2.6 |
5.6 |
|
|
1980 |
29.0 |
|
|
34.1 |
|
|
21.8 |
6.1 |
2.8 |
4.9 |
|
|
1981 |
28.1 |
|
|
33.8 |
|
|
22.3 |
6.3 |
3.0 |
5.2 |
|
|
1982 |
28.6 |
|
|
33.8 |
|
|
21.9 |
6.5 |
3.2 |
4.9 |
|
|
1983 |
28.9 |
|
|
33.4 |
|
|
21.9 |
6.5 |
3.0 |
5.0 |
|
|
Spring |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Semesters |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1984(b) |
28.2 |
|
|
33.1 |
|
|
21.4 |
6.7 |
4.1 |
5.1 |
|
|
1985 |
28.3 |
|
|
32.6 |
|
|
21.4 |
6.8 |
4.1 |
5.5 |
|
|
1986 |
29.2 |
|
|
32.8 |
|
|
21.3 |
6.7 |
4.1 |
5.1 |
|
|
1987 |
28.6 |
|
|
33.1 |
|
|
21.1 |
6.8 |
4.1 |
5.1 |
|
|
1988(c) |
19.0 |
9.8 |
9.6 |
16.4 |
8.0 |
7.0 |
13.3 |
6.3 |
4.0 |
5.2 |
|
|
1989 |
18.8 |
10.6 |
10.2 |
15.8 |
8.5 |
7.6 |
12.7 |
6.0 |
3.9 |
5.1 |
|
|
1990(d) |
18.8 |
10.6 |
10.1 |
15.3 |
8.4 |
7.2 |
12.1 |
5.7 |
3.4 |
1.5 |
5.8 |
|
1991 |
18.9 |
10.7 |
10.2 |
15.1 |
8.3 |
7.3 |
12.3 |
5.4 |
3.4 |
1.8 |
5.7 |
|
1992 |
19.3 |
10.8 |
10.2 |
15.1 |
8.5 |
7.2 |
12.1 |
5.4 |
3.5 |
1.7 |
5.3 |
|
1993 |
20.0 |
10.9 |
10.1 |
14.8 |
8.3 |
7.1 |
11.9 |
5.5 |
3.7 |
1.8 |
5.3 |
|
1994 |
20.8 |
11.1 |
9.9 |
14.5 |
8.1 |
6.9 |
11.6 |
5.2 |
3.6 |
2.1 |
5.2 |
|
1995 |
21.5 |
11.0 |
10.2 |
14.3 |
8.0 |
6.6 |
11.2 |
5.1 |
3.7 |
2.1 |
5.0 |
|
1996 |
21.9 |
11.3 |
10.3 |
13.8 |
7.9 |
6.6 |
10.9 |
5.2 |
3.9 |
2.1 |
5.0 |
|
1997 |
22.6 |
11.5 |
10.1 |
13.4 |
7.7 |
6.4 |
10.8 |
4.9 |
4.0 |
2.0 |
5.4 |
|
1998 |
23.2 |
11.8 |
10.3 |
13.6 |
7.8 |
6.4 |
10.2 |
4.7 |
3.9 |
1.9 |
5.0 |
|
1999 |
23.9 |
11.8 |
10.4 |
13.7 |
7.4 |
6.2 |
10.1 |
4.6 |
3.9 |
2.0 |
4.9 |
|
2000 |
24.9 |
12.1 |
10.3 |
13.3 |
7.4 |
6.0 |
9.8 |
4.4 |
4.0 |
2.0 |
4.8 |
|
2001 |
25.8 |
12.2 |
10.4 |
13.2 |
7.4 |
5.8 |
9.6 |
4.2 |
3.7 |
1.9 |
4.7 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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 |
|
|
|
|
||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
