THE
T H E S E N A T E R E C O R D
Volume 38-----February 1, 2005-----Number 4
The Senate Record is the official publication of the University Faculty Senate of The Pennsylvania State University, as provided for in Article I, Section 9 of the Standing Rules of the Senate, and contained in the Constitution, Bylaws, and Standing Rules of the University Faculty Senate, The Pennsylvania State University, 2004-2005.
The
publication is issued by the Senate Office, 101 Kern Graduate Building, University
Park, PA 16802 (telephone 814-863-0221). The Senate Record is
distributed to all libraries across
Except for items specified in the applicable Standing Rules, decisions on the responsibility for inclusion of matters in the publication are those of the Chair of the University Faculty Senate.
When existing communication channels seem inappropriate, senators are encouraged to submit brief letters relevant to the Senate's function as a legislative, advisory, and forensic body to the Chair for possible inclusion in The Senate Record.
Reports that have appeared in the Agenda for the meeting are not included in The Senate Record unless they have been changed substantially during the meeting, or are considered to be of major importance. Remarks and discussions are abbreviated in most instances. A complete transcript and tape of the meeting is on file. Individuals with questions may contact Dr. Susan C. Youtz, Executive Secretary, University Faculty Senate.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. Final Agenda for February 1, 2005 Pages ii-iii
II. Minutes and Summaries of Remarks Pages 1-22
III. Appendices
A. Corrected Copy—Senate Committee on Undergraduate Appendix I
Education, Revision
of Policies 51-50 and 60-00
B. Attendance Appendix
II
FINAL AGENDA FOR FEBRUARY 1, 2005
A. MINUTES OF THE PRECEDING MEETING Page 1
Minutes of the December 7, 2004, meeting in The Senate Record 38:3
[www.senate.psu.edu/record/index.html]
B. COMMUNICATIONS TO THE SENATE Page 1
Senate Committee on Curricular Affairs
Senate Curriculum Report of January 18, 2005
[www.senate.psu.edu/curriculum_resources/bluesheet/bluex.html]
Implementation of Revised Bachelor of Arts Degree Requirements
Implementation
of
Cultures Requirement
Senate Calendar for 2005-2006
C. REPORT OF SENATE COUNCIL – Meeting of January 18, 2005 Page 1
D. ANNOUNCEMENTS BY THE CHAIR Pages 1-3
E. COMMENTS BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNIVERSITY Pages 3-9
Undergraduate Education Pages 10-20
Special Forensic Session on the General Education Health
and Physical Activity Requirement (GHA)
G. UNFINISHED BUSINESS Page 20
Committees and Rules Page 20
Revision to Standing Rules Article I, Section 11 (b, d, e)
Undergraduate Education Pages 20-21
Revision of Policies 51-50 and 60-00
I. ADVISORY/CONSULTATIVE REPORTS Page 21
Admissions, Records, Scheduling, and Student Aid
Financial Aid Report Page 21
Reserved Spaces Program Pages 21-22
University Faculty Census Report for 2005-2006 Page 22
K. NEW LEGISLATIVE BUSINESS Page 22
L. COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE Page 22
M. ADJOURNMENT Page 22
NOTE: The next regular meeting of the University Faculty Senate will be held on
Tuesday, March 15, 2005, at
1:30 p.m. in room 112
The University Faculty Senate met on
Tuesday, February 1, 2005, at 1:30 p.m. in room 112
Chair Steiner: We have a short meeting today, I think, so life looks pretty good right now. I want to remind you to please turn off you cell phones and pagers.
MINUTES OF THE PRECEDING MEETING
Chair Steiner: The first agenda item is minutes of the preceding meeting. The December 7, 2004, Senate Record, containing a full transcription of the proceedings, was sent to all University Libraries and is posted on the Faculty Senate Web site. Are there any corrections or additions to this document? May I have a motion to accept?
Senators: So moved.
Chair Steiner: Seconded?
Chair Steiner: All in favor of accepting the minutes of December 7, 2004, please say, “aye.”
Senators: Aye.
Chair Steiner: Opposed, “nay?” The ayes have it. The motion carries; the minutes have been approved.
Chair Steiner: Agenda Item B, Communication to the Senate: the Senate Curriculum Report of January 18, 2005, is posted on the University Faculty Senate Web page.
The Senate calendar for the next academic year has been prepared and is included near the front of the Agenda. Also near the front of the Agenda is a memo from Doug Brown, Chair of Curricular Affairs, describing the implementation of the revised Bachelor of Arts Degree requirements, and another memo from Doug describing the implementation of the new United States Cultures and International Cultures requirement.
Chair Steiner: Agenda Item C is the report from Senate Council. The minutes of the Senate Council meeting of January 18 are included in today’s Agenda.
Chair Steiner: Agenda Item D is announcements by the Chair, and I have just a few comments.
As I am sure you know, at its January meeting, the Board of Trustees voted to adopt a Memorandum of Understanding approved just the week before by the Dickinson Board of Governors. This Memorandum of Understanding sets the University on a course toward a dual-campus law school. You may share with me some sense of satisfaction in the outcome represented by these votes; satisfaction on behalf of the University, President Spanier, Provost Erickson, and Vice President Schultz. I think they deserve congratulations for successfully resolving this extremely difficult issue.
The Senate, of course, was not
involved in these negotiations. I have given Council a complete description of
our activities in this matter, and you can read that account in the November 23
Council minutes. The short description of those activities is that we were
actively preparing to develop a Senate position addressing faculty issues in
the event that negotiations with the Board of Governors failed. The other
officers and I met with the
As most of you know, it has been
many years since our students were required to have an advisor’s signature for
registration. In fact, an advisor’s signature is still required for very little
that a typical student does at this University. Self-advising has become
increasingly common and in fact increasingly easy. Students can easily register
for courses and get answers to most of their questions by logging into eLion,
which, by the way, is a
We are all painfully aware that diminishing state support has shifted more and more of the financial burden of higher education to students. This was the subject of one of President Spanier’s special addresses to the Senate last year. Many of us were the first persons in our families to attend college. We know the transformative power of education, and we know how important it is for young men and women to have access to our universities. That is why I asked Admissions, Records, Scheduling and Student Aid Committee to sponsor today’s report on financial aid and the costs of a university degree, and the sobering implications of these data for questions of affordability and access to higher education.
The Council of Commonwealth Student
Governments (CCSG) is working with student organizations from other
Commonwealth universities to organize a rally calling for increased state
support of higher education. This rally will be held on the steps of the
On the Senate home page you will
find a link to a preliminary report entitled, “Academic Integrity in
Intercollegiate Athletics: Principles, Rules, and Best Practices” by the
Coalition on Intercollegiate Athletics. Past Senate Chair John Nichols is our
representative to this group (in fact, I think he was one of the founding
members of the group) and he attended a meeting at
I am sure that President Spanier will bring this up as well, but I would like to personally encourage your support of the 33rd Annual Dance Marathon, which will occur in two and one-half weeks. I must admit that I personally have never been to THON, but my wife and I pledge to each student who asks, and every year several students manage to find our neighborhood somehow. Over its history, this even has raised more than $40 million for the Four Diamonds Fund, which assists cancer patients at the Penn State Children’s Hospital. It is the largest student-run philanthropy in the world.
I want to remind you again that the Nominating Committee of Council, chaired by Chris Bise, and the Committee on Committees and Rules (CC&R) Nominating Committee, seek nominations for the Officers of the Senate, which is the responsibility of the Council Nominating Committee; and for members of the Faculty Advisory Committee to the President; and three extra-Senatorial Committees. Those nominations are the responsibility of CC&R Nominating Committee. This process is still open; I think probably for another two weeks or so, so please talk with your unit colleagues and caucus members to identify senators and faculty members to nominate for these positions.
Finally, my last remark: I regret to pass on the message that Candace Spigelman, a faculty member at Penn State Berks, passed away unexpectedly on December 17. Candace had been a senator since 2003 and served on the Undergraduate Education Committee and the Writing Subcommittee.
COMMENTS BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE
UNIVERSITY
Chair Steiner: Agenda Item E is comments by the President of the University. President Spanier is with us today and I would like to invite him to come up and make a few comments.
President
Spanier: Thank you very much. I will begin by commenting on the Dance
Marathon, which is coming up very quickly. Let me do a show of hands. How many
of you have been to THON? That is fabulous. For those of you who have not
visited Dance Marathon, in recent years since it has been in Rec Hall, I really
do encourage you to stop by and take a look at it any time of the day or night
on Dance Marathon weekend. I try to spend as much time there as possible myself
and it is a very, very impressive event. The logistics of it, the volunteer
effort—about ten thousand students volunteer in one way or another. The amount
of money they raise, and just the spirit behind it is quite remarkable. As you
may know, the students from Dance Marathon have provided the lead gift for the
new children’s hospital at the
Well in the news, the governor
announced that he would be delaying slightly the release of the State budget,
of his budget proposal, because he plans to be in
I have been out of town the last few
days. I also noticed in the news there was a scathing indictment of my presidency
by a sports columnist, who often writes very strong and unfriendly things. It
was read to me over the phone, while I was out of town. So I am going to have
to go back and reread it. I understand the cause of his denouncing me was my answer
to a member of the Board of Trustees, in a public session, about what I thought
about the arms race in intercollegiate athletics, the great spending that is
taking place at some universities nationally. Among the things I said, was that
it was our philosophy at
I also want to thank the Faculty Senate leadership. We have been speaking to them at every one of our meetings, giving updates on the situation with the Dickinson School of Law. I am very pleased that almost all the stars have aligned at this point: the Board of Governors of the Law School, the Board of Trustees of the University, and the Cumberland County Redevelopment Authority, which is involved because they are the entity that would be a conduit for matching money that would come from the governor for refurbishment of the facilities in Carlisle. We are still in discussions with the governor, bringing his part of it to closure. Meanwhile, one of the reasons I was out of town is that I have started the process for privately raising the $10 million that we hope to raise as part of that matching plan.
I want to thank all of you, on behalf of all of your colleagues around the University for your role in making such a smooth transition in our new I.D. system. Moving to I.D. numbers away from social security numbers is part of our process to provide a little more protection to faculty, staff and students, and insulate ourselves a little better against identity theft and some of the other things that are out there. It was amazing how compliant the faculty were in getting their grades in very early. So I am thinking every year we should invent some crisis, which requires everybody to get their grades in a very timely way because we had wonderful turnaround this year.
I want to raise just two issues
briefly. We continue to struggle a bit at
I do not think there is another
university that has done as much programming around Martin Luther King Day as
It is a federal holiday; of course,
at
The last thing I want to bring you
up-to-date on a little bit, when we have had a few minutes to think about
something other than the
Our goal by the March Board of Trustees
meeting is to have figured it all out, and to make some announcements about
changes in all different areas of the University that will look forward for the
next ten years or beyond, and to think about how we might function a little better.
It is a good thing for a University to do, and as complex as we are, and given
the challenges for us that are out there, I think these are things that are
worth talking about. Certainly, from time to time we take a fresh look at the
overall academic support services at the University, and that is an area that
we will look at. We are very mindful of the important and growing role of
continuing education in this state for adult learners, and the importance for
In the area of University Relations (communication, public relations, publications, advertising), we are also looking at how we do business there. I hope you give me a little license for putting it this way. For protecting Penn State’s brand name; for getting our message out there in an increasingly competitive environment; for dealing with what we see as a tremendous proliferation of publications; and web sites of varying quality; to see if we can bring everything up to a certain level of quality and have necessary coordination in that area.
We have been listening to your Faculty Senate leadership, which does this wonderful thing of going around and visiting campuses, and listening what the faculty has to say and giving us some feedback. Clearly what we are hearing from the campuses overlaps substantially with what we are feeling in the administration. That is, we have a certain degree of curricular drift we might call it, or a lack of curricular coherence that has developed, for some good reasons in many cases. There is a positive side to this; it is all not necessarily a negative side. We want to look at how we are doing business, how we are organized, and how the Senate gets involved in looking at the whole business of the curriculum.
We also have to face up to the
continuing difficulty that the
I mentioned the increasing
competition we have from other colleges and universities.
Chair Steiner: March 15.
President Spanier: I do not know if we will be ready then, because I think we want to give our Board of Trustees the first shot at the discussion. I think that is a few days after March 15. So I do not know; it might be the following Faculty Senate meeting. Somewhere along the way, I will ask for at least one-half hour on the Agenda. I will give a whole presentation on what we are thinking; how we got from here to there; what all the different variables are; and what the specifics would be. We will also try to be mindful of any of the things we might be doing that would be important for the Senate to take up as well. We are talking mostly at this point about administrative structural things. Of course, anything that gets into the curriculum we would ask for support of, and maybe appoint a faculty committee to delve into some of those issues after we get the structural things looked at. So I hope that I did not confuse you too much, but if you start picking up rumors about it, or you hear things around the edges because we are going to involve more and more people in these discussions, we do not want you to think there is something afoot that you were totally unaware of. So, I am happy to open it up for questions and comments now.
Tramble
T. Turner, Abington: President Spanier, to ask you a question about some opportunities
for Penn State, please bear with me while I read a brief excerpt from the
January 19 Philadelphia Inquirer editorial,
which you have seen. “Almost two-thirds of Americans are overweight or obese,
and more than half get too little physical activity. In 2001 the Surgeon General,
David Satcher, declared obesity a serious public health problem.” Later in the
editorial it reads, “Only one state,
President
Spanier: What an interesting way to pose that question. I think I have an
idea where you are headed with that. I think that editorial sounds like it is
focused on the K-12 system, and what they are doing with physical education and
athletics in the public schools. I think it is unfortunate that those programs
are being cut back in some schools. I also think it is unfortunate that they
are cutting back the programs in art, music and some other areas as well. There
are a lot of things in the K-12 educational system, like going to the cafeteria
for lunch at a certain time, recess, and going to required assemblies; which we
do not carry forward to the university. We assume that by the time people get
to the university, they are able to construct a profile of their activities and
experiences that do not have to come as a result of a mandate from the university.
It is no secret that I am supportive of
The data I see, and I get the data
regularly, is that
I think requiring them to take one credit of golf or racquetball is not the way to go with that. I think the change that we made when we last revised the General Education curriculum was a very good one. We allowed part of that requirement to be fulfilled with broader courses in nutrition, how the body works, or other things that seem a little more academic to me, and still promoted health and wellness. I do not happen to believe that we need the GHA requirement as it is constituted right now. I would like to see those courses taken out of General Education and put on an elective basis. You could still take them and have them count towards graduation maybe if you met all of your requirements; or, I would like to see those kinds of courses maybe administered on a self-support basis by our recreational folks, but I think given that we are trying so hard to keep the General Education credits within a certain zone, and not increase the number or credits for graduation, this is an area where maybe it is a time for a change. We cannot force everybody to be healthy, but I think we are doing a pretty good job without needing that requirement here at the University.
I know you are going to talk about this more. By the way, we do not have any intention of taking any tenured faculty member where this is what they do, and saying we do not have that requirement anymore, so we are removing your tenure, or we are forcing you to do this or that. That is not going to happen. This should not be seen as a human resources or employment issue for tenured or tenure-track faculty members. We are very mindful of that. So if there is any reaction to that issue, I think I can give you some assurance that is not what that is about. In time there may be some retirements. There will be some turnover. Maybe a campus or college would choose to use that position differently if fewer of those courses were being taught. This is not a cost savings thing. There is no intention of removing lots of money from Health and Human Development or Kinesiology. For that matter, I think we have a fabulous department of Kinesiology. We do not plan on slashing the budget of that department because of this discussion either. I really hope you can look at it in the terms of academic merits of an issue like this.
Chair
Steiner: Any other questions for the president? Graham, I just have to tell
you I have a son who lives in
President Spanier: Well, I should not have brought that up, but it was on my mind.
Chair Steiner: Any more comments or questions for the president? Graham, thank you very much.
Chair Steiner: Agenda Item F is forensic business, and we have business under this Agenda item today. The Committee on Undergraduate Education is sponsoring a forensic session on the General Education Health and Physical Activity requirement as we were just talking about.
Now, before I bring Art Miller up to introduce this discussion, I want to say a few words about how we got here, because I have heard some comments about this. Coming into the fall, we had an upcoming report from the Undergraduate Education Committee that had been drafted by a special ad hoc committee to look at the implementation of the Senate’s last legislation on the GHA requirement. That was the sub-committee that was chaired by Barton Browning and charged by Chris Bise. That sub-committee was just charged just to look at the implementation of that requirement. Just as we have been looking at the implementation of other General Education requirements from time to time, including most recently, the First-Year Seminar. This year we are looking at the Writing Across the Curriculum requirement, and I am sure we will be looking at other General Education requirements in the future.
As Art and I looked at that report
coming to the Senate, it was our collective opinion that this report dealt
solely with the implementation of the requirement. It had nothing to do with
the requirement itself, and that when we presented it on the floor of the
Senate, that we should just talk about the implementation—that the requirement
was not part of the charge; it should not be part of the final report, nor
explicitly or even implicitly, part of the discussion. However, that said,
coming into the fall, and coming into the presentation of that report, I knew
that these events might lead us to the point that we are at right now, because
I knew the discussion of the implementation of the GHA requirement might very
well precipitate discussion about the requirement itself. I mean, people
discuss what they want to discuss, and it seemed fairly natural that might come
up. You may recall, however, that the delivery of the report in October at the
Before the decision to have a forensic session, I heard suggestions that the Senate leadership was colluding to silence any opposition to the GHA requirement, and after the decision was made I heard suggestions that we were colluding to do away with the GHA requirement. Now, the truth of the matter is, if I or anyone else in the Senate leadership tried to do either of those things, it would complicate my job, and I do not feel like making my job any more complicated than it is. It is easy to believe that special interests are behind decisions like this. That seems like a natural and simple explanation. But the real explanation is even simpler than that—even simple-minded. In my experience, and certainly while I have been Chair, decisions have been based on a basic notion of fairness to the competing interests within the Senate, and certainly there are competing interests within the Senate. I view my role in this job as being an agent for your will, really, an agent for the will of the Senate. If there is any leadership part to do this job, it is in bringing important issues to the attention of the Senate and its committees, and then in drawing out whatever it is that is the Senate’s will on the matter. So that is how we got to this point. I wanted to say those things for the benefit of people who might not understand. I was in the Commonwealth Caucus meeting this morning and I drafted these comment before that, but I felt there certainly were people who do not understand.
With that, I would like to ask Committee Chair Art Miller to come forward and introduce the forensic discussion.
SENATE COMMITTEE ON UNDERGRADUATE EDUCATION
Special
Forensic Session on the
General
Education Health and Physical Activity Requirement (GHA)
Arthur C. Miller, Chair Undergraduate Education
Art Miller: Thank you, Kim. At committee meetings we have been discussing this at the last couple of sessions we have had. What we wanted to do was get input from the Faculty Senate. I would like to pose two questions basically on the merit of keeping the GHA requirements and the merit of eliminating the requirements. What I would also like to do is stay away from any anecdotal comments. It is really looking at the merits both academically—whether we should have it or whether we should not have it. What we are going to do is go back to the Undergraduate Education Committee, and discuss further the input we get from the Faculty Senate today. Our next committee meeting on March 15 will have this item on the Agenda again.
Chair Steiner: Thank you, Art. If you would all turn to Appendix C in the Agenda. There are two specific questions posed with some sub-questions under those. The questions are:
What are the educational merits of maintaining the GHA requirements?
What are the educational merits of eliminating the GHA requirements?
Then there are some guiding questions under each of those. Once I call on you, you can say just about anything you want. I hope people will confine their comments to those specific issues, because if we are going to be talking about a General Education requirement, whether it is GHA or something else, these to me and to Art and his committee are really the important questions we need to be asking.
I want to remind you that a forensic session is for the purpose of exchanging ideas among senators; however, there is a provision in the By-Laws for non-senators to ask for the privilege of the floor. I have had two requests for that privilege, and I will be calling on those two non-senators sometime during the course of this discussion. Those are the only non-senators who are entitled to speak in this forensic discussion. Senate Council has set aside thirty minutes for this discussion.
Nancy
Wyatt,
Chair
Steiner: Thank you,
Robert
Ricketts,
Cara-Lynne
Schengrund,
Joanna
Floros,
Christopher
Bise, College of Earth & Mineral Sciences: Thank you, Kim. Thank you
very much for providing the background in this issue. Last year when I charged
that committee it was one of my agenda items, basically because I served on a
committee looking at General Education ten years ago. If you recall, we dropped
the whole General Education requirement by one credit. That one credit was
taken from the combination of the health and physical activity from four to
three credits. We looked at combining this area such that you could take three
credits and a health education course. So I figured, just like any other
General Education area should be examined to see how well it is addressing the
issues brought by the Senate, that this would be the one issue I would like to
look at this year, much like we looked at First-Year Seminars, and so forth.
What drove that was every night you go home, you watch the TV, you read the
newspapers, and they talk about as you are hearing now, health and wellness,
onset of juvenile diabetes, and so forth being a problem. The Center for Disease Control says that physical activity among
Pennsylvanians of all age groups under 65 has decreased over the past ten
years. In fact, if you look at leisure activities among all age groups under 65,
you find it is 25 percent or less who spent any form of leisure activity within
a month prior to the survey. So I thought this was a timely issue to take a
look at, and see how well it was being addressed. I was not asked by anybody to
bring it up; I had an interest in it admittedly, and to see how well things
were. I think the question now we have to ask is, how is health education
valued by the
Chair Steiner: I do not want to interrupt anybody, their train of thought, what they want to say next, but there are six bullets under these two questions, and we talked about one bullet so far. So let us think about what else needs to be said.
Jean
Landa Pytel,
Peter Rebane, Abington: I will try to stick to the bullets, Kim. It is true, as the President said, we have a tremendous voluntary recreation program, and people are involved in all kinds of sports. Unfortunately, it is those people who do not take part that perhaps we can motivate by having this requirement and reaching them. I look at the other bullets here. What are the educational benefits of this particular physical education requirement? Well I am not so sure how I can measure what a couple of courses on drugs, health, reproduction, and so on will do for a student five or ten years down the line. However, neither can I measure what a student who sits in my class in Western Civilization really benefits from it, if they sit there and do not learn anything from it.
Turning to the second page, there is an interesting question. It reads, “Justification for eliminating the GHA requirement must be predicated on the argument that there are better uses for these three credits in our curricula.” I would like somebody to stand up and tell me what three credits are better. Three credits in arts, three credits in electrical engineering, three credits in the use of Windows? I really do not know. Dr. Pytel raised the issue about we should have some more knowledge of technology. Well, there will be those who argue that if you sit in front of the computer you are less mobile, less active, more susceptible to heart attacks, Carpal Tunnel Syndrome, and other things. I guess I would rather see my child be forced to take some kind of program on drugs, health, and so on. So unless I am convinced that there are three other credits that are a better substitute for the GHA requirement, I think that this is a better choice than either dropping the three credits and then having a poor students graduate, albeit in better psychological shape with three credits less, or with some other course we dream up. I strongly urge we look at those issues before we eventually decide on it. Thank you.
Chair Steiner: Thank you, Peter. I am going to take a diversion now and call on John Pfau, instructor in Kinesiology, who has asked for the privilege of the floor. John, do you still wish to make a comment?
John
Pfau,
So you know who I am. Who am I
representing today besides myself? I am representing a very large group of people.
All of those faculty members, who have devoted part of their professional lives
since 1919, teaching educationally-oriented physical activity experiences here
on this campus. The John Lucas’s, the Janet Atwood’s, the Jim Thompson’s, the
Joe Harvey’s, and many, many more. Health Science and Physical Activity has had
a very glorious past.
What are the merits of General Education, the GHA requirement? Merits having worth: educational, of or about learning. The requirement that was designed and passed in this room back in 1999 was designed to give students various gateways into the world of health and wellness. Our courses have merit. This group of scholars certified them as having merit. Along with that change in the requirement when we went from one credit of health and three required credits of physical education to three credits of Health Science and Physical Activity, there was a very, very strenuous review process. All of our courses were rewritten; they had to meet certain criteria, and this body certified that criteria.
The
General Education Bulletin reminds us that the purpose of General Education
is to encourage students to experiment, explore, to take academic risk, to
discover things they did not know, and to learn how to do things they had not
done before. It is very hard to meet those goals by moving three credits back
into a majors program. Do we deliver the programs that we said we were going to
deliver? Yes, we do. Bob mentioned our SRTE ratings of 6.0 on a 7 point scale.
A cynic in the room might think we pandered the students with easy classes. We
do not, and that would be really underestimating the quality of our faculty,
and the quality of the
Research, you have heard some data here today. The active and physically fit not only have better organic functioning, they live longer and enjoy better health. College students who are engaged in fitness and activity programs are happier, more opportunistic, more self-confident, less hostile, less anxious, have higher self-confidence, sleep better, can concentrate longer, and are more physiologically resilient. We can produce the data to backup those statements.
John Pfau: What are the educational merits of eliminating the GHA requirement? I have a little trouble in even saying that. I saw a great movie when I was a kid. It had to do with Bernadette of Lourdes, and I think Loretta Young played the part. As the movie ended and the picture faded to black, there was a voiceover and it said, “For those who believe, no explanation is necessary. For those who don’t believe, no explanation is possible.” I think what we are talking about today is a little bit of that kind of situation. I believe in General Education. I believe that human beings are more than bundles of cognitive mathematical intelligences running around the world. For me there is no argument to eliminate the requirement, but I might be biased. Some voices on campus would have us leave things to chance. I think the things that this requirement represents are too important to be left to chance. We do, as Bob mentioned, have very good recreational facilities, but they are recreational. Kinesiologists manipulate physical activity experiences to create certain end-states. In this case, they are educational end-states. I do not see anyone suggesting that our libraries, museums, and concert halls be used to fulfill the humanities requirements, just leaving it to chance.
Chair Steiner: John, I think we have probably reached the limit.
John Pfau: Can I just wrap this up in one final comment?
Chair Steiner: Yes, you can.
John Pfau: I have great faith in this body to make the right decision, and if we do choose to move forward with this requirement, I would ask that you invite us in. Please stop talking about us and start talking to us. We are not perfect. Help us make things better and deliver the kind of program that you want us to deliver. Thank you.
Chair Steiner: Okay, let’s go to the back row.
Robert
Zambanini, Berks: I am a rather new senator. I would like to give you a
younger perspective on things here. I was listening and trying to come up with
some counterpoints to the bullet items as you requested. I have six of them.
First, I think we all know it is going to help if the requirement is kept. So I
do not explain anything further on that. Secondly, it also educates on the
physical side. For example, martial arts is an art. We learn more about it. I
am getting a little bit of a belly, so if I take the right kind of class maybe
I can find out the right way to get rid of it. Thirdly, it gives diversity. It
is a different kind of class. It is not like a usual class where you walk into
a classroom. You can actually put on hiking equipment, go travel 30 miles, and
climb a cliff. It is different. It is a different type of education. We are
saying, “Maybe we do not need this.” Why not get rid of a humanity requirement?
Do you know what I mean? If we are going to get rid of a gym requirement, I do
not see the point. Fourth, it is fun. The students like it. I have only been
advising for two years. They all like it. Every student I have advised says,
“Yeah, I took that one class. It was really fun. I am looking forward to part
two.” Fifth, it is flexible. It gives the students flexibility. Let us say a
student has 11 credits. They need to do really well in two of them, their entry
to major requirements, they need one more credit. What better way to give them
a little sense of relaxation then to take the extra credit as gym? Lastly,
there is a bullet item about what are the benefits of removing the requirement.
It sounds like, with all due respect to senator Pytel, we need the three
credits to use elsewhere, as if to say we do not have time for it. Maybe that
is why
Chair Steiner: Thank you Robert. Professor Singh, you are next.
Harjit
Sigh,
Chair Steiner: Thank you. Okay, Tram, I think you have had your hand up the longest. Let us all think about whether we are going in new directions with our discussion.
Tramble
Turner: Given the Chair’s emphasis on the desire to identify the will of
the Senate; I would note that the will of the Senate was expressed in that
compromise when we went from four to three credits. I also would like to pick
up on Jean Landa Pytel’s comments. She raised a very, very important issue: that,
in fact, those of us—I served along with Chris Bise—those of us who spent 22
months on the revision of General Education, among other measures, met with students
not once, not for one month, but often. There were surveys that another former
senator, John Cahir, mailed out to alumni. That is part of why the whole
process took 22 months. Jean Landa Pytel raised the question, “Do we know what
has been the outcome of these courses?” It is a great, valid question, and it
is increasingly being asked in all areas. It has become a part of Middle States
Accreditation. In her field, engineering, one of the great innovations in ABET
accreditation is more emphasis on outcomes. I humbly submit that probably Undergraduate
Education has jumped ahead of the game. There has been no survey of outcomes.
Art, perhaps in the ongoing discussions, your committee could take up the
question of doing an alumni survey, since we have had these requirements in
place for quite awhile. We will have more evidence in terms of asking or
answering the question, “What is the merit of keeping the requirement?” You
will have more feedback. I do think it is incredibly important to note that
various units in the University have unusual pressures. Engineering to keep
certification—engineering at
Art Miller: Let me say, I do not think the Undergraduate Education Committee is jumping the gun. What we are trying to do is get input so we can go back and better discussion.
Leonard
Berkowitz,
Chair Steiner: Thank you, Len. Barton Browning, you are next.
Barton Browning, College of the Liberal Arts: I have a slightly different take, and that involves the designation for the course as activity courses, health and activity courses. Well, the courses we have are not merely activity courses. These are courses where students actually learn skills. Sometimes coming from their backgrounds, they would never have a chance to learn to ski, to golf, to fly fish, to do yoga. These are real opportunities for students that they might not be afforded otherwise. One of the problems, I think, in looking at the physical activity, physical skills part of the requirement, is that people question whether physical activities are worth academic credits. I think we might want to look at another part of our General Education requirements, the General Arts requirements. As you know in the General Arts requirements, you may take either a course on theater history, art history or you may, in fact, take a course in painting, in drawing and other physical activities, physical skills that you learn through that requirement. So if we are being consistent, across General Education, I think the GHA requirement certainly has as much place as the GA requirement.
Chair Steiner: Thanks, Barton. Ingrid, I have you next on the list.
Ingrid
Blood,
Chair Steiner. Thank you, Ingrid. Howard Sachs, in the back.
Howard
Sachs,
My second comment is, I do not want to see this degenerate into what occurred at another institution that I worked at: a full employment discussion. I would like to suggest that there are other courses that perhaps could be double counted. I teach two GN courses. One of them is Human Anatomy the other is Human Physiology. I think I could conduct a reasonably persuasive argument that those courses could not only count for GN but for GHA. So I would like to see us keep an open mind about where this is going, and not try to kick it out to try to save credits. Thanks.
Chair Steiner: Thanks, Howard. I have some other people that have raised their hand. Dennis you are next and we are going to have to think about our time limit pretty soon.
Dennis Gouran, College of the Liberal Arts: Such spirited defense in the face of a non-assault is rare, it seems to me in the annals of this body. We have heard one person speak in favor of the possibility of either revising or eliminating that.
Chair Steiner: I am still trying to get a sense of where this discussion is going, Dennis.
Dennis Gouran: Unless there are a lot of people who are opposed to the existing requirement in General Education, who are not representative of this body, it seems to me that the Committee on Undergraduate Education has gotten its answer. I do not know if we need to prolong the discussion. (applause)
Chair Steiner: Let me ask this, does anyone else want to speak in the face of that? Speak now or forever hold your peace. We will not be coming back to this for another two years. Thanks, Art.
None.
Chair Steiner: Agenda Item H. The first Legislative Report comes from the Senate Committee on Committee and Rules and appears on today’s Agenda as Appendix D, entitled, “Revision to Standing Rules Article I, Section 11 (b, d, e,).” Pam Hufnagel, Chair of the committee will present the report.
SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMITTEES AND RULES
Revision
to Standing Rules, Article I, Section 11, (b, d, e)
Pamela P. Hufnagel, Chair Committee on Committees and Rules
Pamela Hufnagel: Good afternoon. This revision will simply write into the Constitution the possibility for on-line voting. As you know, we have been voting on-line for a couple of years. The only changes here are: the ballots will be e-mailed to you (the ballot can still be mailed if that is a necessity); the number of tellers drops from five to three because all the tellers need to do in an electronic vote is to watch the results and say there they are. Are there any questions on this report?
Chair Steiner: If there is no discussion, we are going to vote. This report has been brought to the floor by committee and does not need a second. All those in favor of this legislation, please say, “aye.”
Senators: Aye.
Chair Steiner: Opposed, “nay?” The ayes have it. The motion passes. The Senate has approved this legislation. Thank you, Chair Hufnagel.
Our next Legislative Report comes from the Senate Committee on Undergraduate Education and appears on today’s Agenda as Appendix E entitled, “Revision of Policies 51-50 and 60-00.”Art Miller, Chair, is back to present this report.
SENATE COMMITTEE ON UNDERGRADUATE EDUCATION
Revision
of Policies 51-50 and 60-00
Arthur C. Miller, Chair Undergraduate Education
Art Miller: What the policy addresses is students who were moving from an associate to a baccalaureate degree, and from a baccalaureate to an associate degree. Basically, their cumulative grade-point average (GPA) was starting anew as they would start that next degree. What was getting caught was if a student was doing a baccalaureate degree, and then re-enrolling in a sequential degree, the policy indicated that the cumulative grade-point would start with a new degree. What that means is, if you had an undergraduate degree with 120 credits, then you did a sequential degree and you only needed 15 credits to perform that, your cumulative grade point average for that second degree would be based upon those 15 credits. We thought that is not a very good indication of your overall GPA. What this legislation is saying is, those students who are getting an associate degree to an associate degree or a baccalaureate degree to a baccalaureate degree, their GPA will be computed using the grades earned in all courses take at the University. So that is the purpose of this legislation.
Chair Steiner: Any discussion on this legislation?
Art Miller. I have one editorial change where we said “second,” and it should be “subsequent.” You can actually get more than a second degree. You can have many degrees. So there is an editorial change that will change it from “second” to “subsequent.”
Chair Steiner: Did everyone understand that editorial change? This report has been brought to the floor by the committee and does not need a second. Are we ready to vote? All those in favor of this legislation, please say, “aye.”
Senators: Aye.
Chair Steiner: Opposed, “nay?” The ayes have it. The motion passes. The Senate has approved this legislation.
None.
Chair Steiner: That brings us to Agenda
Item J, Informational Reports. We have three reports on today’s Agenda. The
last report in the Agenda is the report entitled, “University Travel Task Force
Report.” Unfortunately, Catherine Shannon, who is the lead person on this
report, is ill with the flu, and we were asked to postpone this report until
the March meeting.
ADMISSIONS, RECORDS, SCHEDULING, AND STUDENT AID
Financial
Aid Report, Appendix F. This report was presented by Anna Griswold, Assistant
Vice Provost for Enrollment Management and Student Aid, and Donald E. Heller,
Associate Professor and Senior Research Associate in the Center for the Study
of Higher Education. The report focused on the challenges facing students in
financing an education here at
http://www.senate.psu.edu/agenda/feb01-05agn/app_f.pdf
Reserved Spaces Program, Appendix G. This yearly report provides data on the three categories of “reserved spaces” for eligible freshmen at the University Park Campus. Some examples of students participating in this program are ROTC scholarship students, Educational Opportunity/CAMP students, Approved Athletes, and Blue Bad members. In fall 2004, 248 of 340 allotted spaces were used.
University Faculty Census Report for 2005-2006, Appendix H. Dawn Blasko, Chair of the Election Commission gave a summary of the report that lists the total Senate seats for 2005-2006. She commented that a revised census report would appear on the March 15 Senate Agenda.
None.
COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE
GOOD OF THE UNIVERSITY
Chair Steiner: Are there any comments?
Chair Steiner: May I have a motion to adjourn?
Senators: So moved.
Chair Steiner: All in favor, please say, “aye.”
Senators: Aye.
Chair Steiner: Motion carries. The February 1, 2005, meeting of the University Faculty Senate was adjourned at 3:40 p.m.
Please note the next meeting of the
University Faculty Senate will be on March 15, 2005, at 1:30 p.m. in room 112
CORRECTED COPY
SENATE COMMITTEE ON UNDERGRADUATE EDUCATON
Revision of Policies 51-50 and 60-00
Cumulative Grade-Point Averages and Completing More
Than One Undergraduate Major Program (Sequential or Concurrent Majors)
(Legislative)
Effective Following Implementation by the President
Background
Policy
51-50 addresses the computation of a student’s cumulative grade-point average.
The policy prior to 2000 reset the grade point-average to zero for students who
moved from a baccalaureate to an associate degree program, but did not address
those who moved from associate to baccalaureate program. The legislation that was passed by the Senate
in February 2000 intended that the Cumulative Grade-Point Average for the new
or subsequent degrees would start anew (i.e., the GPA for both changes, an
associate to baccalaureate degree and from a baccalaureate to an associate
degree).
At that
time, re-enrollment to baccalaureate programs was common for students who had
completed an associate degree program, but, the sequential degree as we know it
today (Policy 60-20, which was changed in 2002) was not available. When Policy 60-20 was approved, there was
never any intention that the Cumulative Grade-Point average for a subsequent
baccalaureate degree or for a subsequent associate degree would start
anew. The intention of Policy 51-50.2
was that the Cumulative Grade-Point average would start anew for students who
re-enroll in a baccalaureate program after completing a Penn State associate
degree program or vice versa.
Therefore,
to make clear the intent of Policy 51-50, 51.50.3 has been changed to “a
student who is completing more than one undergraduate major program, either a
sequential or concurrent degree, (baccalaureate to baccalaureate or associate
to associate) the GPA will be computed using the grades earned in all courses
taken at the University.”
Rationale
The way
the current Policy 51-20.2 is stated, a student could manipulate a concurrent
program by graduating and then immediately re-enrolling for a sequential
degree program with only a few courses remaining for the sequential major. The student can then get an unrealistic GPA
for the sequential major that is based only on a few courses. That is a misinterpretation of the intent of
Policy 61-20.
Recommendation
Senate
Policies 51-50 and 60-00 should be revised as follows:
51-50 Cumulative Grade-Point Average
A student's cumulative grade-point average is the weighted mean value of all grade points (see Section 51-30) earned either by enrollment or examinations in courses at the University, except for the following: (Note: the words student and undergraduate student are used to designate a baccalaureate or associate degree candidate, a provisional student, or a nondegree student.)
- a baccalaureate degree candidate who has completed 800-level courses-- cumulative grade-point average will be based on all courses completed, other than 800-level;
a baccalaureate degree or an associate degree graduate who is re-enrolled to a sequential degree program in accordance with Section 60-20-cumulative grade-point average for this program will be computed using only the grades earned in courses taken after re-enrollment to the second degree program;
2. a student who has been approved for academic renewal—cumulative grade-point average will be computed in accordance with Senate Policy 58-60. (Note: A student who is changing from a baccalaureate degree program to an associate degree program, may petition for a special case of academic renewal without four years in absentia from the university.
- (now
#2)
a student who has been approved for academic renewal-cumulative grade-point average will be computed in accordance with Senate Policy 58-60.
3. The cumulative GPA for a baccalaureate degree graduate who is re-enrolling in an associate degree program or an associate degree graduate who is re-enrolling in a baccalaureate degree program will be computed using only the grades earned in courses taken after re-enrollment. The cumulative GPA for a student who is completing more than one undergraduate major program, either a sequential or concurrent degree, (baccalaureate to baccalaureate or associate to associate) will be computed using the grades earned in all courses taken at the university.
*(Moved to #2) Note: A student
who is changing from a baccalaureate degree program to an associate degree
program, may petition for a special case of academic renewal without four years
in absentia from the university.
60-00 Completing More
Than One Undergraduate Major Program (Concurrent Majors and Sequential Majors)(Sequential or
Concurrent Majors)
At the baccalaureate or associate
degree level, students may be approved for admission to more than one major
under the Concurrent Majors Program or the Sequential Majors Sequential
or Concurrent Majors Program. A
Sequential Majors Program is one in which a student has graduated and then
re-enrolls for another major. A
Concurrent Majors Program is one in which students take courses to concurrently
meet the requirements of at least two majors, with graduation for all majors in
the program occurring during the same semester. A Sequential Majors Program
is one in which a student has graduated and then re-enrolls for another major.
Any student requesting more than one major program shall, for each major, meet the same acceptance standards and graduation requirements as met by all other students. Colleges and departments may identify and should publish any combinations of majors that would not be approved for more than one major program. In general, an undergraduate student may not combine a general major with a departmental major within the same college.
60-10: Concurrent Majors Program
- A candidate receiving approval may complete more than one major concurrently. The majors must be all at the baccalaureate level or all at the associate degree level.
- Approval for admission to each major must be obtained from the colleges and departments offering the majors. The approval document should include the list of courses that will satisfy the requirements for each of the majors.
- Whenever possible and with approval from the departments and colleges involved, courses may be used to meet the requirements of more than one major.
- Each major for which the candidate has been approved will be listed on the candidate’s degree audit and transcript at the time of admission to that major. A separate Degree Audit will be generated for each major. For the purpose of enrollment and record keeping, each major will be treated equally.
- Upon the completion of the Concurrent Majors Program, a candidate shall receive a diploma for each major.
- A Concurrent Majors Program may be listed and described in official University publications if entrance and graduation requirements have been identified and approved by the academic units involved.
- At the time of entry to major, not more than one of the candidate’s majors may be under administrative enrollment control.
- Exceptions to any part of the policy require the approval of all deans and departments involved.
60-20:
Sequential Majors Program
- Upon
completion of the requirements for one majorgraduation from a baccalaureate or associate degree major at theand graduation, a candidatereceiving approval for the second majormay apply for re-enrollment (See Section 58-20) in another undergraduatebaccalaureatedegree major.after receiving a baccalaureate degree, or an associate degree major after receiving an associate degree. - Approval for admission to the second major must be obtained from the college and department offering the major. The approval document should include the list of courses that will satisfy the requirements for the second major. The student will have access to an adviser in the Sequential major.
- Only the second major will be listed on the student’s degree audit.
- Restrictions
may apply to admission to a
sequentialmajor that is under enrollment control. Such restrictions should be specified by the department and college that offer the major. - Upon completion of the second major, a candidate shall receive a second diploma.
- Exceptions to any part of the policy require the approval of the dean and department offering the second major.
SENATE COMMITTEE ON UNDERGRADUATE EDUCATION
Cheryl L. Achterberg
Thomas E. Boothby
Robin Bower
Richard A. Carlson
James M. Donovan
Caroline D. Eckhardt
Gary J. Fosmire
Cheryl A. Gallagher
Janis E. Jacobs
Jeffrey B. Kranzel
Mark A. Levin
Nancy S. Love
Arthur C. Miller, Chair
Justin E. Patchcoski
Laura L. Pauley
A. David Salvia
Dhushy Sathianathan
John L. Selzer
Patience L. Simmonds
James A. Strauss
John B. Urenko
Beverly J. Vandiver
Eric R. White
Sara M. Yerger
Gregory R. Ziegler, Vice Chair