Penn State University Home  

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

August 13, 2002                                   August 27, 2002                       September 10, 2002

 

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.

 

Salary Tables

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

 

SENATE COMMITTEE ON FACULTY RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES

 

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.

 

SENATE COMMITTEE ON FACULTY RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES

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

 

 

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:

 

 

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

 

 

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:

 

 violations and sanctions   43%

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

 

 

 

 

Table 2

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Summary of Grade Distribution for Resident Instruction

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Spring Semester 2001 (6/22/01)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(All Locations - All Courses for All Colleges -  Except College of Medicine and Dickinson School of Law)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

NG

A

A-

B+

B

B-

C+

C

D

F

R

DF

AU

P

W

LD

Total

 

Total 0-399

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Level Courses

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dist by %

0.4%

24.1%

11.7%

10.1%

13.2%

7.6%

6.2%

10.3%

4.8%

4.2%

0.0%

0.3%

0.0%

0.0%

2.1%

5.1%

100.0%

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dist by Count

862

57461

27894

24153

31420

18092

14686

24543

11359

9982

1

779

116

0

4933

12256

238537

 

GPA = 2.96

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Total 400

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Level Courses

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dist by %

0.7%

33.2%

14.5%

11.5%

13.4%

6.7%

4.5%

6.7%

2.0%

1.6%

0.0%

0.7%

0.2%

0.0%

1.2%

3.0%

100.0%

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dist by Count

413

18395

8046

6356

7416

3689

2508

3716

1120

909

19

393

97

0

652

1680

55409

 

GPA = 3.27

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Total Courses

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Level 0-499

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dist by %

0.4%

25.8%

12.2%

10.4%

13.2%

7.4%

5.8%

9.6%

4.2%

3.7%

0.0%

0.4%

0.1%

0.0%

1.9%

4.7%

100.0%

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dist by Count

1275

75856

35940

30509

38836

21781

17194

28259

12479

10891

20

1172

213

0

5585

13936

293946

 

GPA = 3.02

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Total 500

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Level Courses

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dist by %

0.7%

54.1%

17.3%

7.9%

5.9%

1.5%

0.4%

0.4%

0.1%

0.2%

3.4%

2.3%

1.3%

1.5%

0.6%

2.3%

100.0%

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dist by Count

97

7716

2473

1121

841

217

52

55

20

31

483

335

192

217

88

328

14266

 

GPA = 3.75

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Source:  Office of the University Registrar

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


TABLE 3

GRADE POINT AVERAGES AND DEAN'S LIST

Summary by College

Spring Semester 2001

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Number on

Total

% on

Semester

Cum

I.  Baccalaureate Degree

Dean's List

Enrollment

Dean's List

GPA

GPA

 

Academic Unit

 

 

 

 

 

Arts & Architecture

 

516

1758

29.4%

3.09

3.05

Abington

 

 

148

810

18.3%

2.92

2.74

Agricultural Sciences

 

391

1955

20.0%

2.85

2.83

Altoona

 

 

155

561

27.6%

3.02

2.99

Business Administration

1798

7120

25.3%

3.01

3.01

Behrend

 

 

502

2277

22.0%

2.97

2.93

Berks-Lehigh

 

 

111

431

25.8%

3.04

2.94

Capital

 

 

510

2041

25.0%

3.11

3.00

Commonwealth College

376

1589

23.7%

3.10

2.96

Communications

 

 

829

2993

27.7%

3.04

3.01

Earth & Mineral Sciences

213

832

25.6%

2.98

2.90

Education

 

 

1429

3080

46.4%

3.34

3.30

Engineering

 

 

1603

6836

23.4%

2.97

3.04

Health & Human Development

1242

4446

27.9%

3.05

2.95

Inter college

 

 

6

7

85.7%

3.52

3.52

Info, Science & Tech

 

243

883

27.5%

3.09

3.03

Liberal Arts

 

 

1595

5512

28.9%

3.03

3.00

Science

 

 

873

2959

29.5%

3.09

3.15

DUS

 

 

 

762

4551

16.7%

2.76

2.72

 

Total

 

 

13302

50641

26.3%

3.02

3.00

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

II.  Associate Degree

Number on

Total

% on

Semester

Cum

 

Academic Unit

Dean's List

Enrollment

Dean's List

GPA

GPA

Abington

 

 

5

137

3.6%

2.65

2.88

Agricultural Sciences

 

17

125

13.6%

2.65

2.66

Altoona

 

 

26

226

11.5%

2.74

2.89

Business Administration

1

12

8.3%

2.97

3.00

Behrend

 

 

7

73

9.6%

2.56

2.80

Berks-Lehigh

 

 

19

127

15.0%

2.69

2.83

Capital

 

 

23

164

14.0%

2.83

2.85

Commonwealth College

258

1584

16.3%

2.83

2.93

Engineering

 

 

106

751

14.1%

2.91

2.95

Health & Human Development

22

302

7.3%

2.83

2.92

Info, Science & Tech

 

142

550

25.8%

3.08

3.07

Liberal Arts

 

 

0

18

0.0%

2.85

3.04

 

Total

 

 

626

4069

15.4%

2.86

2.93

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

TABLE 3  (Continued)

GRADE POINT AVERAGES AND DEAN'S LIST

Summary by College

Spring Semester 2001

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Number on

Total

% on

Semester

Cum

III. Provisional Students

 

Dean's List

Enrollment

Dean's List

GPA

GPA

Provisional

 

 

51

1163

1.3%

2.56

2.19

Nondegree

 

 

103

4052

2.0%

2.3

2.42

 

Total

 

 

154

5215

3.0%

2.48

2.22

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Source:  Office of the University Registrar

 

 

 

 

Reports:  SRRP 121,VPAR 107A, AIDAE; ARRP 091, VPAR 1011 I,J,K

 

 

6/01 GLH

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 4

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

All University Distribution of Semester Grade Point Averages

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

For Baccalaureate Students

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Spring

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Semesters

Below 1.00

 

1.00 - 1.99

 

2.00 - 2.99

 

3.00 - 3.99

 

4.00

 

Total

1992

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   Students

1,000

 

3,975

 

16,706

 

18,936

 

1,407

 

      42,024

    %

2.4%

 

9.5%

 

39.8%

 

45.1%

 

3.3%

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1993

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   Students

1,319

 

4,035

 

15,777

 

18,765

 

1,395

 

      41,291

    %

3.2%

 

9.8%

 

38.2%

 

45.4%

 

3.4%

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1994

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   Students

1,296

 

3,752

 

15,214

 

18,561

 

1,498

 

      40,321

    %

3.2%

 

9.3%

 

37.7%

 

46.0%

 

3.7%

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1995

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   Students

1,478

 

3,666

 

14,953

 

19,130

 

1,584

 

      40,811

    %

3.6%

 

9.0%

 

36.6%

 

46.9%

 

3.9%

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1996

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   Students

1,671

 

4,136

 

15,705

 

20,788

 

1,688

 

      43,988

    %

3.8%

 

9.4%

 

35.7%

 

47.3%

 

3.8%

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1997

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   Students

1,852

 

4,262

 

15,912

 

21,861

 

1,932

 

      45,819

    %

4.0%

 

9.3%

 

34.7%

 

47.7%

 

4.2%

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1998

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   Students

1,940

 

4,071

 

15,880

 

23,728

 

2,206

 

47,825

    %

4.1%

 

8.5%

 

33.2%

 

49.6%

 

4.6%

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1999

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Students

1,811

 

4,318

 

16,149

 

24,832

 

2,284

 

49,394

     %

3.7%

 

8.7%

 

32.7%

 

50.3%

 

4.6%

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2000

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Students

2156

 

3998

 

15,869

 

25,034

 

2513

 

49570

     %

4.4%

 

8.1%

 

32.0%

 

50.5%

 

5.1%

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2001

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Students

1934

 

3893

 

15,564

 

26,403

 

2710

 

50504

     %

3.8%

 

7.7%

 

30.8%

 

52.3%

 

5.4%

 

 

THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY

The University Faculty Senate

MINUTES OF SENATE COUNCIL

Tuesday, March 12, 2002     1:30 PM   102 Kern Graduate Building

 


MEMBERS PRESENT

J. W. Bagby

C. D. Baggett

R. L. Burgess

W. R. Curtis

W. T. DeCastro

R. Diehl

C. D. Eckhardt

R. A. Erickson

D. S. Gouran

E. A. Hanley

D. E. Jago

S. A. Marsico

R. L. McCarty

L. Milakofsky

J. W. Moore

J. M. Myers

J. S. Nichols

W. A. Richards

A. W. Scaroni

C. L. Schengrund

L. L. Snavely

S. W. Stace

B. B. Tormey

 

B. Hockenberry

V. R. Price

S. C. Youtz

 

ACCOUNTED FOR

G. F. De Jong

A. E. Leure-duPree

P. P. Rebane

G. B. Spanier

 

GUESTS

J. Cahir

B. Ellis

G. Franz

T. Jones

B. MacEwan

A. McGregor

L. Pauley

J. Rambeau

J. Romano

A. Romberger

R. Secor

S. Slobounov


 

Chair John Nichols called the meeting to order at 1:35 PM on Tuesday, March 12, 2002, in Room 102 Kern Graduate Building.  It was moved and seconded (Gouran/DeCastro) that the minutes of the February 12, 2002 Senate Council meeting be approved as distributed. 

 

ANNOUNCEMENTS AND REMARKS

 

Dr. Nichols announced that the Faculty Advisory Committee met that morning and discussed the following topics: HUB late night; budget hearings; calendar; General Education recertification update; dean searches; honorary baccalaureate degrees, future of the office of Undergraduate Education; cooperation among CIC faculty senates.  The next FAC meeting is scheduled for April 9.  If Senators have topics they would like discussed, contact one of the Senate Officers or Gordon De Jong, Betz Hanley, or Peter Rebane.

 

President Spanier intends to meet soon with others in the administration to discuss the calendar proposal and will present his preliminary conclusions to FAC no later than

April 9 and he will announce his decision no later than the April 23 Senate meeting.

 

The chair announced that, in order to further cooperation with other CIC faculty governance bodies, he and Executive Secretary Youtz will be visiting the University of Minnesota on March 27-29 where they will attend its Senate meeting and the faculty advisory committee meeting with Minnesota President Mark Yudof.  Minnesota’s faculty governance leader, Joe Massey, visited the Penn State Senate in December.

 

Dr. Nichols noted the recent death of Dr. Robert Price, associate professor emeritus of philosophy, with more than 10 years of service to the Senate.  Dr. Youtz sent a sympathy note to his widow and family.

 

The Penn State West Hockey Team, managed by Senator Ed Bittner, McKeesport Campus, won its first (in 28 years) West Penn College Hockey Association championship, defeating Slippery Rock University in back to back games.

 

Provost Erickson commented on the recent House and Senate Appropriations hearings held two weeks ago in Harrisburg.  He noted that the University is working hard to minimize the effect of the budget cuts in meetings with General Assembly leadership.  Even so, there is growing concern about the implications of the cuts, especially with the Agricultural Research and Cooperative Extension line-item that has no tuition to off-set reductions in revenue.  Also, there is growing concern about the proposed budget cuts for students and their families.  Dr. Erickson noted that the Tuition Task Force continues to meet and that, within the next two months, a set of tuition concepts will be presented to the Board of Trustees and the Faculty Senate.

 

In the area of enrollment management, Dr. Erickson noted that undergraduate applications are up slightly and that the University is close to meeting its overall targets for colleges and campuses.  He commented that the previous gap and decline in minority student applications seems to be improving.

 

The Diversity Plan Evaluation Teams are nearing the completion of the review of 34 diversity plan up-dates.  Drs. Erickson and Jones are meeting with each of the budget executives to review the feedback from the teams and will soon have the plans and best practices posted on the web.

 

Dr. Erickson updated Senate Council on several dean searches.  The Dickinson School of Law Dean will soon be named.  The College of Earth and Mineral Sciences search is moving along and Dr. Erickson is meeting with the search committee next week.  In the Penn State Erie search, no offer was made.  The search committee may be reconstituted; Dr. John Burke has agreed to continue in the capacity of interim provost and dean. In the Office of Undergraduate Education some of the elements related to teaching and learning will be restructured to further strengthen and enhance the office.

 

REPORT OF THE GRADUATE COUNCIL

 

Dr. Caroline Eckhardt, the liaison to the Graduate Council, reported on the Graduate Council meeting of February 20, 2002.  Dr. Eckhardt noted the improved health insurance coverage for graduate students effective fall 2002.  There will also be coverage for spouses and dependents similar to what faculty and staff have now. 

 

ACTION ITEMS

 

Dr. Nichols requested a re-ordering of the agenda to move the action items to the beginning of the agenda.

 

Consideration of the Senate Calendar for 2002-03.  Dr. Nichols announced that the proposed calendar is a result of a review of the University calendar and the religious calendar.  On a Tormey/Scaroni motion, the 2002-03 calendar was approved.

 

The following Senators were elected to serve on the Committee on Committees and Rules for 2002-03.  They are:  Deborah Atwater (LA); Lynn Carpenter (ENGR); Peter Deines (EMS/one year); Pamela Hufnagel (CWC); John Marshall (ED); Andrew Romberger (Berks-LVC). The next greatest vote recipient to fill the expired term of Jean Pytel was Stephen Smith (AG SCI/one year).

 

Election of University Ombudsman.  Dr. Nichols asked if there were any nominees from the floor for the position of University Ombudsman.  There were none.  Dr. David P. Gold, current University Ombudsman, was contacted and agreed to run for a second four-year term.  On a Richards/Scaroni motion, Senate Council voted to have Dr. Gold serve an additional four-year term as University Ombudsman.

 

AGENDA ITEMS FOR MARCH 26, 2002

 

Legislative Reports

 

Undergraduate Education – “Revision of Senate Policy 65-00 Schreyer Honors College.”  The report was placed on the agenda on a Gouran/Tormey motion.  Dr. Pauley responded to questions from Councilor Myers regarding the role of the Senate in the establishment of Schreyer Honors College review and advisory committees.  It was noted there is a lack of clarity in how the advisory/review committees would be appointed.  Dr. Pauley was asked to expand the rationale section in the category of Review and Advisory Committees.

 

Undergraduate Education – “Revision of Senate Policy 42-27: Class Attendance.”  This report was placed on the agenda on a Gouran/Tormey motion.  Dr. Pauley was asked to make the intention of the legislation clearer and to clarify if a faculty member could ask for documentation of absence.  It was noted that some faculty have attendance policies while others do not.  Dr. Cahir observed that University Health Services had concerns about the volume of excuses and paperwork being requested from their offices. Councilors requested that the last sentence of the policy should be made more precise.

 
Advisory/Consultative Reports

 

Faculty Affairs – “Incorporating the UniSCOPE Model into the Rainbow Dividers.”  The report was placed on the agenda on a Scaroni/Baggett motion. Dr. Romberger announced some editorial revisions and acknowledged the need for a change in wording in HR-23 to correspond with this report.  The report will include the website link for the UniSCOPE report and fully write out the acronym.

 

Informational Reports

 

Computing and Information Systems – “Technology Classrooms at University Park.”  The report was placed on the agenda on a DeCastro/Tormey motion and returned to committee for a discussion of technology classrooms at all Penn State locations.

 

Computing and Information Systems -- “Institutional Licensed Software Distribution Program (ILSD).”  The report was placed on the agenda on a Scaroni/Tormey motion and several editorial changes were recommended.  Dr. Slobounov will stand for questions, there will be no formal report presentation. 

 

Committees and Rules Nominating Report - 2002-03 – “Faculty Rights and Responsibilities, Standing Joint Committee on Tenure, University Promotion and Tenure Review Committee.”  The report was placed on the agenda on a Tormey/Baggett motion.

 

Election Commission – “Roster of Senators by Voting Units for 2002-03.”  The report was placed on the agenda on a Myers/Scaroni motion.

 

Faculty Benefits – “Faculty Salaries Report, External Comparison.”  The report was placed on the agenda on a Baggett/Marsico motion.  Dr. McGregor was asked to add a brief clarifying statement in the Table 2 narrative to improve the understanding of the meaning of the table. 

 

Faculty Rights and Responsibilities – “Annual Report for 2000-01.”  The report was placed on the agenda on a Milakofsky/DeCastro motion.  Dr. James Rambeau will present this Senate Council sponsored report. 

 

Intercollegiate Athletics – “Annual Report of Academic Eligibility and Athletic Scholarships 2000-01.”  The report was placed on the agenda on a Scaroni/Myers motion.

 

Research – “Report on University Research.”  The report was placed on the agenda on a

Baggett/Tormey motion.  Dr. Pell will be in attendance to respond to questions.

 

Senate Council Nominating Committee Report - 2002-03.  “Senate Officers – Chair-Elect and Secretary of the Senate, Faculty Advisory Committee to the President.”  The report was placed on the agenda on a Milakofsky/Scaroni motion.  It was noted by Chair Nichols that nominations could be made from the floor.

 

Student Life – “Student Use of Web vs. Printed Material.”  The report was placed on the agenda on a Richards/Myers motion.  Nichola Gutgold will stand for questions.

 

Undergraduate Education – “Grade Distribution Report.”  The report was placed on the agenda on a Gouran/Tormey motion.

 

APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA FOR MARCH 26, 2002

 

On a Gouran/Tormey motion, the Senate Agenda was approved.  

 

NEW BUSINESS

 

There was no new business.

 

ADJOURNMENT

 

Senate Chair Nichols thanked Council for their attention to their duties and adjourned the meeting at 3:20 P.M.

 

Respectfully submitted,

 

Susan C. Youtz

Executive Secretary

 

THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY

The University Faculty Senate

101 Kern Graduate Building

University Park, PA  16802

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

 

 

Date:   March 12, 2002

 

To:      Members, Senate Council

 

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

 

Re:  Summary of the Graduate Council Meeting of February 20, 2002

 

The Graduate Council met on Wednesday, February 20, 2002, at 3:30 PM in Room 102 Kern Graduate Building with Dean Eva Pell chairing the meeting. 

 

1.  COMMUNICATIONS AND REMARKS

 

Dean Pell reported that graduate applications are up by 2000 for the coming academic year; though the increase in applications is not unique to Penn State, this is an opportunity for us to recruit top quality students.

 

Dean Pell also reported that an improved health insurance coverage for graduate students will be implemented this fall, providing coverage for spouses and dependents similar to what faculty and staff have now, i.e., 80% for the individual and 70% for dependents.  Also, new graduate student housing west of Atherton Street will be available next fall; Robert Mitchell will be invited to an upcoming Graduate Council meeting to present a report on TA training; and the Alumni Society has provided the Graduate School an endowment for Alumni Dissertation Fellowships in the amount of $5000 in top-up funding.

 

2.  REPORTS OF STANDING COMMITTEES

 

Susan McHale, Chair, Committee on Academic Standards, presented a Graduate School recommendation to raise the number of credits associated with a half-time graduate assistantship from 8-11 to 9-12 credits, to be consistent with the Budget Office's definition of a full-time student and with Federal reporting guidelines.  This informational item had been reviewed by the Budget Office, the University Provost, and the Academic Leadership Council.  Also, the Academic Standards Committee is working on a "Statement of Policies, Procedures, and Guidelines for Post-Baccalaureate Credit Certificate Programs."

 

David Spector, Co-Chair, Committee on Graduate Research, provided an update on plans for the Graduate Exhibition.

 

Stephen Smith, Chair, Committee on Graduate Student and Faculty Issues, reported that the Committee will be working on planning the faculty and student workshops hosted by the Graduate School and invited suggestions.  He also described plans for Graduate School Visitation Day (April 13), a regional recruitment effort geared toward undergraduates who are juniors or younger.

 

Mark Wardell, Chair, Committee on Programs and Courses, presented the following proposals: (1) Program Drop: Doctor of Education in Art Education; (2) Program Drop: Master of Environmental Pollution Control at Great Valley; (3) Program Change: Master of Health Administration in Health Policy and Administration; (4) New Integrated Undergraduate-Graduate Degree Programs: B.A. in Music/M.A. in Musicology; B.A. in Music/M.A. in Music Theory and History; B.A. in Music/M.A. in Music Theory; B.M. in Performance/M.A. in Musicology; B.M. in Performance/M.A. in Music Theory and History; B.M. in Performance/M.A. in Music Theory.  All proposals were approved unanimously.

 

The Graduate Council adjourned at 4:15 PM.

 

THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY

The University Faculty Senate

 Inter-office Correspondence

101 Kern Graduate Building

814-863-0221

 

Date:       March 15, 2002

 

From:      Susan C. Youtz, Executive Secretary

 

To:          All Senators and Committee Personnel

 

 

 

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

 

 

    MONDAY, MARCH 25, 2002                    7:00 PM

Officers' and Chairs' Meeting                                 Faculty Staff Club, NLI

                                                                                 8:00 PM

 

    Commonwealth Caucus                                         Alumni Lounge, NLI

 

     TUESDAY, MARCH 26, 2002                    7:30 AM

     Intercollegiate Athletics                                         330 HUB/Robeson Cultural Center

                                                                                 8:00 AM

     Faculty Affairs                                                       106 HUB/Robeson Cultural Center

     Outreach Activities                                                502 Keller Building

     Student Life                                                          301 HUB/Robeson Cultural Center

                                                                                 8:30 AM

     Admissions, Records, Scheduling and

Student Aid                                                      203 Shields Building

   Curricular Affairs                                                    102 Kern Building

   Committees and Rules                                            CANCELLED

 

     Intra-University Relations                                      233 HUB/Robeson Cultural Center

     Research                                                               129 129 AB HUB/Robeson Cultural Center 

Undergraduate Education                                      Alumni Lounge, NLI

     University Planning                                                322 HUB/Robeson Cultural Center

                                                                                 9:00 AM

     Faculty Benefits                                                     101-A Kern Building

     Libraries                                                               CANCELLED

                                                                                 9:30 AM

     Computing and Information Systems                      201 Kern Building

                                                                                 1:30 PM

     University Faculty Senate                                        112 Kern Building

There will be a Commonwealth Caucus meeting at 11:00 AM on TUESDAY, MARCH 26, 2002, it the Alumni Lounge of the NLI.  At approximately 12:00 Noon, a buffet luncheon will be served.

 

The Pennsylvania State University

The University Faculty Senate

101 Kern Building (814) 863-0221

Fax:  (814) 863-6012

Date:March 15, 2002

 

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

     Campuses, Colleges, and Locations Other Than University Park)

 

From:                                                               Salvatore Marsico and Irwin Richman

 

  MONDAY, MARCH 25, 2002

 

8:00 PM – ALUMNI LOUNGE, NLI

 

GUEST SPEAKER:

JOHN ROMANO, VICE PROVOST FOR ENROLLMENT MANAGEMENT AND ADMINISTRATION

 

TUESDAY, MARCH 26, 2002 -- 11:00 AM --

ALUMNI LOUNGE, nli

 

     The Caucus will meet at 11:00 AM on Tuesday, March 26, 2002, in the Alumni Lounge of the NLI.  A buffet luncheon will be served at noon.

 

     The tentative Agenda includes:

 

Call to Order

 

Announcements and Reports from co-chairs of the caucus

        (Richman & Marsico)

 

Reports from Committee Chairs

 

        JoAnn Chirico – Drop/Add

 

Hare System (attached)

 

Introduction of Candidates for Chair-Elect of the Senate

 

                        Christopher Bise – College of Earth and Mineral Sciences - UP

        Deidre Jago – College of Health and Human Development –

       Penn State Hazleton

        Jamie Myers – College of Education - UP

 

               Other Items of Concern/New Business

 

                           Adjournment and Lunch



[1] Available: http://www.sa.psu.edu/sara/pulse/88-Web.PDF

[2] Available: http://www.sa.psu.edu/sara/pulse/91StudentConduct.PDF

[3] Available: http://www.psu.edu/ufs/mar27agn.html