Penn State University Home  

 

 

THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY

 

T H E   S E N A T E   R E C O R D

 

Volume 34-----SEPTEMBER 12, 2000-----Number 1

 

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 2000-01.

 

The publication is issued by the Senate Office, 101 Kern Graduate Building, University Park, PA  16802 (Telephone 814-863-0221).  The Record is distributed to all Libraries across the Penn State system, and is posted on the Web at http://www.psu.edu/ufs under publications.  Copies are made available to faculty and other University personnel on request.

 

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 which have appeared in the Agenda of the meeting are not included in The Record unless they have been changed substantially during the meeting or are considered to be of major importance.  Remarks and discussion are abbreviated in most instances.  A complete transcript and tape of the meeting is on file.

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

   I.  Final Agenda for September 12, 2000

A.     Summary of Agenda Actions

B.     Minutes and Summaries of Remarks

  II.  Enumeration of Documents

A.    Documents Distributed Prior to September 12, 2000

B.    Attached

Door Handout – Academic Integrity at Penn State

                 Attendance

III. Tentative Agenda for October 24, 2000

FINAL AGENDA FOR SEPTEMBER 12, 2000

 

A.     MINUTES OF THE PRECEDING MEETING -

      Minutes of the April 25, 2000, Meeting in The Senate Record 33:7

B.  COMMUNICATIONS TO THE SENATE - Senate Curriculum Report

                        (Blue Sheets) of August 29, 2000

                        - Seating Chart for 2000-2001

C.  REPORT OF SENATE COUNCIL - Meeting of August 22, 2000

D.  ANNOUNCEMENTS BY THE CHAIR -

E.  COMMENTS BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNIVERSITY -

F.      FORENSIC BUSINESS -

G.     UNFINISHED BUSINESS -

H.  LEGISLATIVE REPORTS

I.        ADVISORY/CONSULTATIVE REPORTS -

J.       INFORMATIONAL REPORTS -

Admissions, Records, Scheduling and Student Aid

      Awards and Scholarships

      Summary of Petitions for Waiver of the Ten-Credit Limit

      For Non-degree Conditional Students

Libraries

      Comparison of PSU Libraries to National Trends

Outreach Activities/Libraries

      University Libraries Resources for Students at a Distance

Undergraduate Education

      Update on the Schreyer Honors College (SHC)

University Planning

      Construction Programs Status Report

K.    NEW LEGISLATIVE BUSINESS –

L.      COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE GOOD OF THE UNIVERSITY –

M. ADJOURNMENT -

SUMMARY OF AGENDA ACTIONS

 

The Senate received six Informational Reports:

 

Admissions, Records, Scheduling and Student Aid - "Awards and Scholarships."  This report compares the total amounts and numbers of awards between the years of 1999-00 and 2000-01.  (See Record, page(s) 8-9 and Agenda Appendix "C.")

 

Admissions, Records, Scheduling and Student Aid - "Summary of Petitions for Waiver of the Ten-Credit Limit for Non-degree Conditional Students."  This report summarizes the results of the ten-credit waivers between the periods of August 1998 to July 1999 and the same months from 1999 and 2000.  (See Record, page(s) 9 and Agenda Appendix "D.")

 

Libraries - "Comparison of PSU Libraries to National Trends."  This report updated the Senate on how the University Libraries compares to other national research libraries and summarizes trends in the allocation of funds over the last 20 years.   (See Record, page(s) 9-17 and Agenda Appendix "E.")

 

Outreach Activities/Libraries - "University Libraries Resources for Students at a Distance.”  This report provides information on and evaluates library resources that support off-campus programs.  (See Record, page(s) 18-20 and Agenda Appendix "F.")

 

Undergraduate Education - "Update on the Schreyer Honors College (SHC)."  This report describes the two-fold purpose of this college, a history of the college, the comprehensive nature of the program and a profile of the typical student.  (See Record, page(s) 20-29 and Agenda Appendix "G.")

 

University Planning - "Construction Programs Status Report."  This report summarizes the status of the Department of General Services and Penn State University’s major construction programs as of August 11, 2000.  (See Record, page(s) 29-30 and Agenda Appendix "H.")

 

The University Faculty Senate met on Tuesday, September 12, 2000, at 1:30 p.m. in Room 112 Kern Graduate Building with Cara-Lynne Schengrund, Chair, presiding.  One hundred and eighty-six Senators signed the roster. 

 

Chair Schengrund:  It is time to begin.  I’d like to welcome everyone back to the Senate and I hope you all are looking forward to a very busy and productive year.

 

MINUTES OF THE PRECEDING MEETING

 

Moving to the minutes of the preceding meeting, The Senate Record, providing a full transcription of the proceedings of the April 25, 2000 meeting, was sent to all University Libraries and posted on the University Faculty Senate's web page.  Are there any corrections or additions to this document?  All those in favor of accepting the minutes, please signify by saying, "aye."

 

Senators:  Aye.

 

Chair Schengrund:  Opposed?  The minutes are accepted.  Thank you.

 

COMMUNICATIONS TO THE SENATE

 

You have received the Senate Curriculum Report for August 29, 2000.  This document is posted on the University Faculty Senate's web page.

 

REPORT OF SENATE COUNCIL

 

Also, you should have received the Report of Senate Council for the meeting of August 22, 2000.  This is an attachment in The Senate Agenda for today's meeting.

 

ANNOUNCEMENTS BY THE CHAIR

 

Chair Schengrund:  The Faculty Advisory Committee had a meeting on June 6, 2000, and topics discussed at that meeting were:  Dean searches; budget update for 2000-01; Hershey promotion and tenure; union relationships; dependence on corporate dollars; academic integrity implementation update; Intellectual Property Task Force Report and recommendations by the Senate Committees on Faculty Affairs and Research; green destiny report; general education (size of undergraduate Gen Ed courses) and faculty representation on the central management group.  We met again on August 22, 2000 and discussed the following items:  Freedom of speech; budget proposal to the Governor; State of the University address; honorary degrees; update on the center for the performing arts; personnel issues; non-tenured, part-time faculty; unionization; computer privacy policy and the network “oath”; and freshman computer ownership follow up. 

 

The next meeting of FAC is scheduled for Tuesday, October 3, 2000.  If you have any items you would like FAC to address, please contact one of the Senate Officers or one of the three elected FAC members and I’d like to ask them to stand when I read their names so that new Senators can become acquainted with them--Peter Deines, Elizabeth Hanley and Gordon De Jong.

 

The Senate Council, at its meeting of August 22, 2000, confirmed the membership of the Subcommittee on External Matters.  This subcommittee represents the Senate in seeking information from officials and agencies external to the university that establish policies and control resources affecting university academic programs.  It is also the Senate Advisory Committee to the University on public and alumni relations, public information, general publications, and private fund-raising.  Murry Nelson, Immediate Past Chair of the Senate, will chair this year’s subcommittee.  Other members of the subcommittee include: Alison Carr-Chellman, Peter Jurs, Larry Kenney, Alphonse Leure-duPree, and Brian Tormey.  Tony Wagner from the Office of Governmental Affairs, is the at-large member.

 

Unit Constitutions – This subcommittee examines any proposed changes submitted by the voting units to their constitutions and advises Senate Council for ratification.  John Moore, as Secretary of the Senate, will chair this subcommittee.  George Bugyi is a member by virtue of his position as Executive Secretary of the Senate.  Dennis Gouran (UP) and Sandy Smith (locations other than UP) have agreed to be members of this subcommittee. 

 

Before moving on to the rest of the Agenda, I would like to take a few minutes to share my thoughts about the University Faculty Senate.  Some of the points that I will mention, I mentioned in my statement that I wrote when nominated for the position of Chair-Elect.  The first thing I’d like to remind you all of, is that the Senate Constitution guarantees that the Senate provides a forum for faculty to discuss not only concerns about academic standards and instructional programs, but also concerns about anything affecting the ability of the faculty to offer students a quality education.  As chair of the Senate, one of the things that I’m asked to do is to attend Encampment.  And I have found that the Encampments that I’ve attended have been very helpful, very useful, and very well done.  This year, the emphasis at encampment was on communication.  Not just what you say, but how you say it, and also how the listener hears what you say.  In a breakout session that I attended, the question of how groups come to a consensus was raised.  This is a very pertinent question for this body, since much of what we do in Senate committees depends upon our reaching a consensus.  We frequently have to give a little, or compromise in order to obtain a report that we can all agree upon.  This takes time, it also requires that we take the time to truly understand the issues and to really listen to what other people are saying.  It’s very easy for someone to say, “We’re going to do it this way”.  It is much more time consuming to meet with a group, discuss the item, and come to a consensus.  However, for shared governance to work, it’s important that everyone is willing to donate the time and to do so in a collegial manner.  There are a number of important items that will come to the Senate this year and I am certain that some of them will require a fair amount of that commodity called time.  In fact, we had a luncheon meeting to discuss the UniSCOPE report which I’ll come back to, and I can see where that will take some time.  However, the items that I was thinking of, included such things as re-visiting some of the intellectual property issues that we discussed last year.  Such as the need to keep faculty updated on the use of technology in teaching.  The problems of curricular alignment, the use of part-time faculty, salary compression issues, benefits, and various aspects of the world campus, to name a few.  I think that shared governance works well at Penn State, and I would hope that all of you will contribute to its continued successful functioning.  And I would make two specific requests, in addition to your being willing to take the time to study topics, and to participate fully in their discussion.  I hope that whenever it’s possible you will stay for the full Senate meeting, since it’s very disconcerting if you have a report coming up to see half of your colleagues leave after the first hour.  And the other one that I have is to ask that you actively participate in the work of the committee to which you have been assigned.  It’s in committee that most of the Senate work is actually carried out, and if your committee work necessitates that you work on things between Senate meetings in order for items to reach the floor of the Senate in a timely manner, I hope that you will do so.  Because this is your chance to really make a difference.  Thank you.

 

Moving on, you all are aware that the Senate Office has moved from Birch Cottage to 101 Kern Graduate Building.  The Senate Officers and the Senate Office Staff would like to invite everyone to an open house to tour the new offices directly after this meeting.  We would also like to thank the university administration for their support in making certain that appropriate funds were available to make the offices a place that the entire university community can be proud of.  So I hope that you’ll take the time, we all hope that you’ll take the time to come to the open house.  101 Kern is right across the commons area and to your right as you leave this room.  If you find that you have to leave this meeting early, and I’m hoping none of you will, the open house will start at 2:00 p.m.  That is not an open invitation for anyone to leave.  I suggested that the doors not open until 3:30 but I got outvoted.

 

Senate Constitutions for 2000-01 were distributed, and Senators should have a copy in their possession.

 

Visits by the Senate Officers to locations other than University Park for the fall have been set.  Our first visit was to Penn State Altoona last Thursday, September 7, 2000.  And if you are interested in seeing what the schedule is for those visits you can look on (WWW.PSU.EDU/UFS) for the schedule for the rest of the visits.

 

The handout that you received at the door today is entitled "Academic Integrity at Penn State:  A Statement by the Council of Academic Deans."  If you remember this was an issue that was brought to the floor of the Senate and finally voted upon at the February 29, 2000 meeting this past winter.  The statement provided by the Council of Academic Deans is in direct support of the advisory and consultative report from the Senate meeting of February 29, 2000, entitled "Report on Improving the Academic Integrity Climate."  This statement was read at a luncheon that was held to sort of kick off the fact that Penn State is interested in having a climate that promotes academic integrity and we’re very happy to have this strong support from the deans because it basically codifies what we were striving for regarding academic integrity at this university.  So we hope you will distribute it within your units and as I’m sure you are all aware each campus has and each college has an academic integrity committee that was formed to organize guidelines for them. 

 

There are two documents that have not been distributed as a door handout, and I’ll ask you to pick those up on your way out.  The first one is the UniSCOPE 2000 report “A Multidimensional Model of Scholarship for the 21st Century.”  And in addition to just asking you to pick it up, I’m also asking that you actually take the time to read it between now and the next Senate meeting so that you have some idea of what is included.  The second one is from the Excellence in Leadership and Management Program that several of you are involved with.  It is entitled "New Development Opportunities for Penn State Leadership for Fall 2000."  The reason we’re not giving you that one as a door handout is that we are trying to limit door handouts to Senate business so we’ll hope that you pick that one up on your way out.

 

COMMENTS BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNIVERSITY

 

Chair Schengrund:  At this point I’d like to ask Dr. Spanier if he’d like to make some comments.  President Spanier is here today, and does have comments.  Let me just remind you to please stand and identify yourself and the unit you represent before addressing the Senate.  Thank you.

 

Graham B. Spanier, President:  Thank you very much.  Think twice if you have any idea about going to the open house during my comments.  They are eager to get there, I know.  I notice in the Senate Agenda today there are reports from several units that are worth mentioning and are just having remarkable success at the university.  There are informational reports in the area of admissions, records, scheduling and student aid, libraries, outreach activities, Schreyer Honors College and construction programs.  These all caught my eye because they happen to be areas where some great things are happening right now.  Just this past weekend you probably know that we dedicated the new addition to Atherton Hall which is for The Schreyer Honors College, and it was a wonderful event.  We dedicated the new Paterno Library which was also a wonderful event.  So we had a very busy last few days.  In that connection you know that I gave my State of the University address on Friday, and thank many of you for being there or listening via satellite.  Because a lot hasn’t happened since then, what I thought I would do this afternoon is just directly open it up for your questions and comments since I kind of had my say Friday afternoon, and didn’t want to begin another round of comments right now.  So if it’s okay with you we’ll just open it up right now.

 

Dennis S. Gouran, College of the Liberal Arts:  This is not in reference to your State of the University Address, but in reference to a document some of us received by email today regarding travel agencies.  And the university position that we will do business now with only two.  This was a matter of some discussion years back and considerable consternation.  I’m curious about what prompted this, who was involved in the decision, and what led those to the conclusion that were involved in the decision, that restricting competition somehow will increase efficiency and reduce costs?

 

President Spanier:  Well, what I think the principle driving force prompting the review has been is a massive change in the travel industry.  The contracts under which we were operating expired.  In fact, they have already expired.  We got an extension of a few months to allow the process to be completed.  But the whole travel industry has changed.  The airlines used to provide a ten percent commission to travel agencies and those commissions have been cut to five percent which has cut out the ability of travel agencies to properly service customers like ours.  We’re the last university in the Big Ten for example, operating under the old kind of travel arrangements.  Also there’s a movement towards people doing their own tickets on-line and services available to facilitate this.  An increasing level of employee complaints about getting the responsiveness they need from travel agencies, and some unwillingness on the part of the airlines that service us to give us their best deals because they had to deal with five difference travel agencies and they wanted us to pick one.  We didn’t think that would go over too well at Penn State to have no choice at all.  So we appointed a committee in consultation with the Faculty Senate so there are representatives from the Faculty Senate, and then university experts who are involved in the process, and then a professional consultant engaged who understands what is happening in the travel industry, and they have been through a process and RFPs and identification of new concepts for the new arrangement.  At Hershey they have their own system there.  We have some campuses that do their travel through the designated agencies at University Park, some do not.  Under the new system that has now been announced, we will still have a choice of two travel agencies.  Those two, as it turns out, currently account for more than 70 percent of Penn State’s current business.  The other three collectively accounted for a very small portion of the business.  But the concepts will change, and one of the features will be the development of an on-line program where faculty members can just go on-line.  Not like you now would do through a commercial service but a very Penn State specific service where they give you low fares, they might arrange hotels for you, deliver the tickets to your office, or have them done electronically.  There will be direct billing to departments, we’ve tried to negotiate this in a way that for people who don’t have their travel fully reimbursed you can still use the service.  You pay for it personally, even though a companion is traveling with you to get the same deals.  So there will be discounts on some, if not all of the airlines that service us that are below the lowest price.  But there are a lot of other changes in the system, which if you had a real strong interest in it, I’m sure Jim Dunlop who’s in charge of Procurement Services for the university would be delighted to come and explain some of the nuances of it because it’s probably pretty hard to capture in just a brief notification.  I’m sure there will be more details coming out.  But that’s a little bit about what motivated it, the process they went through, and the notification that many of you received today.  It’s being done I think, through departments, so some of you perhaps haven’t even seen it yet depending upon how quickly your department has disseminated that information to you.

 

Jamie M. Myers, College of Education:  I only rise to ask this question because no one else had one I guess.  This gives all of you a chance to think for a minute.  I really want to commend the university on its master planning strategy and process.  I haven’t had the opportunity really to review all of the Master Plans for the university and its different locations and centers, but I did see a couple of them a year or so ago and I was quite impressed.  There’s a certain irony though that I think might overtake us and I just wanted to ask for a little bit of understanding of some of the background that I’m sure must be there, but I don’t fully understand.  I believe there are actually some stakes in the ground for an extension of a road called Curtin, that would run out past engineering and the new graduate student housing that’s going to be developed on the site of the golf course out towards Corl Street.  Certainly a much needed addition and renovation provision for grad students, and obviously we need some type of a road through there.  It seems that road is going to be built through our cost, through university funding and it’s important that it’s there.  The irony is that traffic around the university is especially heavy, and I know that many people joke about that it’s only a half an hour in the morning, and a half an hour in the evening but it’s actually extended to a couple hours in the evening when you start moving up North Atherton Street.  I’m curious about the extension of University Drive, and what it’s referred to often as the Eastern Loop and how that’s all bottled up and I think most of that is flowing over university land, and I’m curious if we can build a road right out here very quickly why can’t we build a road more quickly out that direction to alleviate some of this heavy traffic on Park Avenue?

President Spanier:  Well there’s a whole bunch of questions wrapped up in that.  The short answer is if we could just get more people to work until 7-8 at night we wouldn’t have any rush hour.  Actually, what you’ve raised is a very difficult set of issues, especially difficult here because the university despite popular belief to the contrary, the university is truly not in control of most of those variables that you just mentioned.  We operate not only in the borough of State College, but also in several townships around us.  You know Patton, Ferguson, Harris, College and so on, and we have something called a Regional Council of Governments.  But any of these decisions involving roads typically involved the university and anywhere from one to maybe a half a dozen other entities that get into the discussion.  Some of them like the Inner Loop and Outer Loop discussion, have been going on for a long time, and they’re still working through alternatives and different scenarios.  The Pennsylvania Department of Transportation has certain methodologies and analyses and they’re in the act as well.  So in the university’s Master Plan there are a lot of different components to the Master Plan, we look at the landscape and ambience of the university, we look at student traffic patterns, we look at new architecture, new buildings.  But we also look at parking and transportation which are probably the two toughest issues in the mix.  How we move people around and avoid congestion, avoid rush hour traffic jams and all of that.  We clearly have to do something on the west campus.  Because if you cross over to the west campus, cross over Atherton Street, you now have Applied Research Laboratory buildings but we have the new Leonhard Building, we have a new Physical Plant substation there, and we have the new engineering that is shared between engineering and earth and mineral sciences.  Now there will be other buildings over there, and a new graduate housing complex so we have to get a traffic pattern and a roadway and parking that adequately supports that without putting an undo burden further on the borough.  At the same time there will be other changes occurring on the other side of Atherton Street and you will see some changes there.  At the Board of Trustees meeting on Friday we actually showed pictures, and I think they’d be very interesting for all of you to see if you’re interested in that sort of thing.  There’s a little appendage now to Rec Hall and it’s full of trucks, it’s like a huge garage, you almost wouldn’t know it was there unless you specifically noticed it or spent time back there.  That’s going to come off of Rec Hall and to protect that forested area between the Nittany Lion Inn and Rec Hall, there’s now kind of a narrow parking lot behind Rec Hall, there will be a roadway that will be a new critical entrance that goes there and we’ll re-landscape and really have a much more beautiful area in front of the Nittany Lion shrine.  Now we’ve got this big ugly parking lot between Rec Hall and Kern Building and the Nittany Lion shrine and Irwin Hall, and that will all be redone and there will be more of a park like entrance to the university there, and the entrance that’s now at Pollock Road will disappear because the new Information Sciences and Technology Building will be located there.  These are all plans, and there’s lots of pictures and artist renderings that are now quite public and everyone is able to look at them.  So really it is on both sides of Atherton Street that we’ve got to change the roadway, transportation, parking, access plans and these are all being done in conjunction with the municipalities that are involved as well at the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, which you know has ways of studying these things and determining how to minimize the backups.  When these Inner and Outer Loops are done, they already have estimates of the extent to which that will minimize, probably not as much as we’d like it, but there will be some minimization of the backups in that area as well.  But to put all the pieces in place will take quite a number years, I think.  Some you’ll see sooner than others, so that’s some of what I know on the topic.

 

Tramble T. Turner, Penn State Abington:  President Spanier, last night at caucus meeting there was a conversation to say that the Legislative Advocacy Network basically was dismantled at this point and viewed as perhaps not the most effective way to convince the legislature to reassess Penn State funding.  If that indeed is the case, have you and your staff had discussions about alternatives for working with the legislature and lobbying initiatives?  If so, what would those measures be?

 

President Spanier:  Well we are going to disband something that was known as the Legislative Advocacy Network.  In fact, it’s been disbanded for a couple of years.  It was overseen by Helen Caffrey, who for the last two years was on a special assignment dealing with the National Governors Association, so it really hasn’t been up and running.  And the way the Legislative Advocacy Network worked for most of you in here who would not have been involved, is with advisory boards for campuses and other Penn State supporters, we would do these satellite broadcasts and brief them on our budget request and try to get them up-to-date on what we were trying to accomplish and then we would say to them, “look, go out and talk to your legislators.”  We do this for about 1,000 people and about eight of them wrote their legislators.  They were all very impressed and supportive and they loved to have the briefing but do they actually go and knock on their legislator’s door and make a difference?  Maybe to some small extent, but the university resources required to do that are very significant, and we weren’t sure that was the right approach.  So while we have not…and we’ve actually had more success with the legislature using other kinds of advocacy and other approaches and some different uses of my time, I think.  But we are not giving up on legislative advocacy, that’s the point I want to make.  We’re not giving up on legislative advocacy.  We’re just not going to do the Legislative Advocacy Network as we once knew it.  That just didn’t seem to be a very efficient way that was getting us very far.  We are actually going to be working harder than ever this year to make our case to the legislature, and to the governor and to advance Penn State’s agenda, but we need some new methods for getting our message across.  We know we’ve got a great story to tell, we’ve just got to tell it, and hope that people will pay attention to it.

 

Chair Schengrund:  Other questions?  If not, thank you very much.

 

President Spanier:  Thank you very much.  See you all at the open house.

 

FORENSIC BUSINESS

 

None

 

UNFINISHED LEGISLATIVE BUSINESS

 

None

 

LEGISLATIVE REPORTS

 

None

 

ADVISORY/CONSULTATIVE REPORTS

 

None

 

INFORMATIONAL REPORTS

 

Chair Schengrund:  We do have informational reports and the first one is from the Admissions, Records, Scheduling and Student Aid Committee on Awards and Scholarships.  That’s Appendix “C” in your handout and JoAnn Chirico will present that report.

 

SENATE COMMITTEE ON ADMISSIONS, RECORDS, SCHEDULING AND STUDENT AID

 

Awards and Scholarships

 

JoAnn Chirico, Chair, Senate Committee on Admissions, Records, Scheduling and Student Aid

 

JoAnn Chirico, Beaver Campus:   Good afternoon.  The first report coming from ARSSA is Awards and Scholarships.  This is one of our traditional and mandated reports.  It’s I think the most fun you can have in Faculty Senate, giving out close to $200,000 to students.  So this year as the report says we did give out $198,000 and some change to 295 students.  We award this based on academic scholarship first, need second, each student meets both of those criteria.  Then if there are specified criteria in the award we go by that as well.  Are there any questions?

 

Gerhard F. Strasser, College of the Liberal Arts:  What was the rationale for just about doubling the number of students in the Class of 1922, and in the Kunkle Awards?  The actual financial awards were probably cut in half, as I could see.

 

JoAnn Chirico:  For the Class of 1922, that award actually has a $500 limit.  And I believe, and I can double-check this to be sure, that last year when we did it, and I sat on this committee both years that did it over the summer.  We awarded $500 for each semester to the students where we should have really awarded $500 for the year, so that explains that one.  The Kunkle Award, I’m not sure what we did.  Generally, our thinking was to stay around a $1,000 per student when the award allowed for that.  I can’t remember what the rationale was on this Kunkle Award, but it might have been something similar.  The award from the Class of 1922 I remember very clearly, and that’s why that doubled, I could get that figure for you.

 

SENATE COMMITTEE ON ADMISSIONS, RECORDS, SCHEDULING AND STUDENT AID

 

Summary of Petitions for Waiver of the Ten-Credit Limit for Non-Degree Conditional Students

 

JoAnn Chirico, Chair, Senate Committee on Admissions, Records, Scheduling and Student Aid

 

JoAnn Chirico:   The second informational report from ARSSA is a Summary of Petitions for Waiver of the Ten-Credit Limit for Non-Degree Conditional Students.  ARSSA reviews the petitions from non-degree conditional students to increase the amount of credits they are allowed to take per semester.  And last year 29 petitions were submitted to ARSSA, 26 of those were approved, and three were denied.  The breakdown for those is on page two of the report.  Just as a reminder we increased that limit for these students last year--the Faculty Senate did--to 12 credits.

 

Chair Schengrund:  Comments or questions?  If not, thank you.  The next report comes from the Senate Committee on Libraries and Christopher Bise will introduce Nancy Eaton.

 

SENATE COMMITTEE ON LIBRARIES

 

Comparison of PSU Libraries to National Trends

 

Christopher J. Bise, Chair, Senate Committee on Libraries

 

Christopher J. Bise, College of Earth and Mineral Sciences:  Thank you very much, Cara-Lynne, and good afternoon everyone.  As a result of a study initiated by last year’s Senate Committee on Libraries, we have before you in Appendix “E” a report looking at a comparison between the Penn State University Libraries and national trends.  So at this time I’d like to invite Dean Nancy Eaton to come up and make this presentation.

 

Nancy Eaton, Dean, University Libraries:  Thank you.  We’ll see if technology cooperates today.  As Chris said, this is not a comprehensive report on the libraries.  The intent is to focus specifically on what has happened with our budgets, particularly comparing staff and collections over the last 20 years, and this came out of a request from the committee to look at trends particularly in these two areas.  So that is the focus for today’s discussion.  The only objective of these next two slides is to remind you that the University Libraries includes all the libraries at all the campuses.  These statistics are reported to the Association of Research Libraries every year and they are inclusive of everything, except for Penn College because of its separate legal structure.  So regardless of organizational structure, it includes all of the campuses, University Park and all of the other campuses, all of the colleges.  And again, this just highlights the distribution of all of the libraries.  Just to give you an overall sense of the budget, so that these other slides make sense to you, these budgets are comparing from 1978, 1988 and 1998.  At the time these were done in1998, that was the last complete information we had across all these categories, but I can give you a couple of verbal updates as we go through it.  So you can see that salaries made up $15.2 million, materials $11.6 million, other $5.2 million for a total in 1997-98 of $32 million plus for the total library budget.  This is across all budget sources--state funds, private funds, fund raising, fines and fees, income generating accounts.  We report all expenditures regardless of source.  The next three slides show from 1978 to 1988 to 1998, the shift in the percentage of our budget that went to major categories, and this was really the focus of the discussion.  The concern being, did we need to start focusing more on collections and less on staff given inflation, and I think when you see this data, you’ll see that for the last 20 years we’ve been doing that.  The comparison data is the top 120 research libraries in North America--The Association of Research Library members.  So the top bar is for Penn State the bottom is the mean for all of the research libraries in North America, that we compare ourselves with.  The first chart indicates that in 1978 we were spending 59 percent of our total budget on salaries, and we were very low compared to other libraries in serials and operation funds in particular, we were a match in monographs.  So if you use that picture and then go forward to 1988 you’ll see that we started to reallocate so that we were within four percent on salaries by then.  We were starting to look alike in monographs and operating, we were still low in serials compared to other research libraries.  And by 1998 you see that we virtually mirror the national figures.  So over the last 20 years we have done major cost reallocation within the University Libraries budgets from salaries and staff to collections.  If you add up monographs, serials and other materials, you’ll see that we’re within one percentage of the national norm and likewise in the other categories--operating and salaries.  And because we’ve been putting major stress on information technology, our operating is just slightly ahead.  Again, a lot of this is coming from non-state funds.  You had a whole series of graphs in the version that we sent out to you, and I’ve summarized these in two tables which I think are much easier to understand than the others.  Basically, what ARL started doing in 1986 was to follow inflation on an annual basis, and what we’re doing is to compare Penn State again, to the research libraries mean over the period of time with 1986 to 1998.  You’ll see for serials that the unit cost went up 175 percent for the aggregate of research libraries.  Actual dollar expenditures reported only went up 152 percent, and the number of serial titles actually subscribed to by the collective research libraries went down by seven percent.  This is the inflation problem we’ve been describing for years now.  By comparison Penn State…actually our unit costs went up faster because of our particular mix of science, technology, law and medicine but our dollar expenditures actually beat inflation--we went up by 221 percent.  And unlike the other research libraries collectively, we’re actually subscribing now to 11 percent more titles then we did in 1986.  You’ll see a similar picture for monographs.  The ARL mean unit cost increase was 66 percent, actual dollars expended was 33 percent and the number of titles actually purchased by libraries in 1998 as compared to 1986 was 25 percent lower, again, we did much better.  Our unit cost was lower, again because of the particular mix of things that we buy.  Our actual expenditures jumped by 106 percent and this year we’re buying 39 percent more titles on an annual basis then we did in 1986.  So here is quantitative data that really shows the university is doing what it says it’s doing.  It is moving monies into the libraries, and the focus has been on collections, not staff.  Just to give you a sense of where we’re going with electronic information, you can see that we’re a little ahead of the norm in the first three categories--computer files, electronic serials, indexes and reference tools.  We were as of 1998, a little behind in the full text journals starting to come out, but that’s a very fast changing scene and I think you’d see a different picture if we added the most current data.  Currently we have licenses with about 300 or suppliers for about 6,000 electronic journals.  Another question was how successful are we being with fundraising in terms of collections.  So we tracked the increase in our focus on fundraising over those 20 years, and you can see we went from about 12 endowments supporting collections in 1979-80, to about 72 in 1999-00.  I asked for updated information before coming here, and as of this month we now have 97 endowments bringing in about $825,000 a year, and that’s because of the current capital campaign.  And again, you can see if we extended this out, that the line just continues to go up in terms of the support to collections from fund raising.  Another area that we wanted to just get a sense of was, what was happening with demand for service if our staff was in fact dealing with a shrinking percent of our budget.  If you look at increase in full time students nationally there was virtually no increase, but at Penn State there was an eight percent increase and therefore, you can assume generally that our service demand has gone up at the same time our staff has gone down.  To use interlibrary loan is one test of that.  You can see that demand for interlibrary loan within Penn State went up by 77 percent compared to the national figure of 71 percent.  Last year we opened up interlibrary loan to undergraduates, so we expect it to go up even more.  The reason we did that is because collectively we are buying fewer titles as compared to the amount of material being printed.  So access for students is just as important now as it is for faculty.  To look at a couple of examples that underscore what’s happened with staffing.  We compared our full time student equivalent as compared to the number of full time professional staff, and you’ll see we’re near the bottom of the CIC--458 students per full time professional staff member.  That’s very low and what it says to you is that you’re getting very good service with a very small staff.  I’m amazed, frankly, at what the staff’s producing given the student body of 81,000, and the number of locations that we’re covering.  A similar projection here is for technology services.  Media technology support services which use to be AV services is a part of the University Libraries.  We support all of the technology classrooms at University Park and you can see the growth in the numbers of what use to be cart accessible rooms and now permanent full time technology classrooms.  1991-92 we had 29 carts that we moved around between rooms with 15 technicians.  We were projecting this year 89 fully equipped permanent technology rooms, about 49 carts moving around on a schedule basis with only two increase in staff over that period of time.  The numbers as of today are that there are now 115 permanent rooms, the number of carts have gone down to about 30, and as of this budget we hope to add three staff members.  But three staff members compared to that growth tells you that this is going to continue to be a very pressured area and this is an area that supports you every time you teach in a technology classroom.  To just underscore what all of this means when we’ve had budget cuts or when we’ve had to give money back to central in the reallocation process that the university has been using for the last five years, all of our reallocation has come from staff, and you can see the dollar amounts by this chart.  Now we have started to get some new positions back.  We received about $250,000 for new positions at Paterno/Pattee last year in preparation for opening new facilities.  We added several positions at Harrisburg for the new Harrisburg library.  I’ve mentioned that we’re adding three positions for media tech, and we received two positions as part of the freshman seminar program to work with the teaching faculty in integrating library instruction into the freshman seminars, and I’m very happy to see that going the other direction given this history.  So in summary, you have a number of trends that are causing us to look at these four new areas for the library in the future.  One is, to continue to try to find efficiencies within the library to minimize staff needs.  Things like on-line catalogs replacing card catalogs, doing more with technology, and the most recent versions of that being self-service models for interlibrary loan where you can search on-line--actually place your request on-line it goes directly to one of the CIC or Pennsylvania Academic Libraries and the material is delivered through a courier service in two to five days.  That’s the kind of efficiency that we’re trying to use to minimize staffing.  But the other pressures of continued inflation coupled with the amount of material being published which has basically doubled in the last decade, and for science and technology articles, and technical reports it now doubles about every 18 months.  We’re never going to be able to buy everything you need.  We have to have a dual strategy of both local collections very carefully selected and access through external means to get it to you as quickly as possible.  So the other three areas that we’re putting a lot of focus on are new resource sharing models with other research libraries, document delivery systems to get it to you quickly if we don’t own it, and to work nationally with new modes of scholarly communication particularly using networked information and the web.  Those are the results of the data that we compiled for the committee and they felt that it was important that you see this information.  So I’d be happy to stop here and answer any questions.

 

Sabih I. Hayek, College of Engineering:  I understand the statistics about FTE staff from 1987 to 1997.  Currently there are 142.  How many people after 1997?

 

Nancy Eaton:  This was data that we collected for another purpose and I don’t have that figure.

 

Sabih I. Hayek:  You show a reallocation from salaries to acquisitions and serials and all that.  I ask this because I suspect that actually the number of staff was increased.  I used to be a chair of the Committee on Libraries for quite a number of years and we used to plead for more money, but the money that came to you went to basic acquisitions, serials and that sort of thing.  It didn’t go to salaries.  In a sense I suspect the salaries were the same.  The money that you got more and more of was supposed to go to acquisitions therefore, the freedom of reallocation is simply that you got more money for that, and percentage of salaries for the whole budget now is more and I agree with that.  But that’s not really the reallocation.

 

Nancy Eaton:  You’re correct, but what we’re showing here is percentage of budget not actual dollars or actual head count.

 

Sabih I. Hayek:  That’s what I’m saying.  It’s misleading.

 

Nancy Eaton:  But what it does show is, that as we got new money and those new monies were put in to collections rather than positions.

 

Sabih I. Hayek:  Exactly, therefore it did not really reallocate any money that you didn’t have for that.

 

Nancy Eaton:  The numbers that you see here from 1993 to 1999, were actual return of positions to central to meet budget cuts or internal reallocation and where we had to return money.  From 1993 to 1999, I can attest these numbers were positions.

 

Sabih I. Hayek:  I would have preferred to have seen the next years as well.

 

Nancy Eaton:  We can do that.

 

Sabih I. Hayek:  Thank you.

 

Nancy Eaton:  I’d be happy to.

 

William A. Rowe, College of Medicine:  What are we doing to make certain the current journals and periodicals are available to all of the Commonwealth Campuses and not just University Park?

 

Nancy Eaton:  That’s a very important question, and it’s one that we have discussed with the deans.  We have followed a practice that is parallel to the definition of the university.  That we are one university distributed geographically.  With the exception of law and medicine, and even that is changing, we have done centralized licensing so that the databases are available to all students at all campuses and in all libraries.  Law and medicine, because of those particular publishers and their desire to work directly with legal libraries and medical libraries, have been doing their own licensing.  We do get criticism occasionally from faculty here at University Park because we will not do a specialized license that only provides access to one location.  But this is an area that we’ve discussed with the deans, the president and the provost and they have strongly supported the library continuing to view electronic collections in the same way that we have viewed our physical collections.  This is one university and everybody must have access.  We have started to do joint licensing with Hershey Medical Center because we’re getting into interdisciplinary areas where it’s important that all the faculties have access, and in fact I’ll be meeting with Hershey Medical Center senior administrators next week to continue those conversations.  Law continues to be an area that’s both expensive and difficult to deal with in terms of licensing.

 

Murry R. Nelson, College of Education:  Nancy could you extend this about five years in terms of what you anticipate this would look like in terms of trends, and connect that to the Grand Destiny Campaign and what you would hope to get from that?

 

Nancy Eaton:  Oh, what a small question.  Yes, actually I provided some of that information to the Board of Trustees on Thursday prior to the dedication, and I should say I’m very grateful to the president and the provost for having that ability to update the trustees to understand that we still have a lot of work ahead of us in spite of the progress that we’ve made.  That was a good discussion.  Our best projections, and they’re very soft, but they are projections that have been made by a combination of technologists, librarians, publishers, etc., is that probably by the year 2020 about half of our information will continue to be in traditional formats and about half will come to us electronically.  In terms of retrospective we’re converting that to electronic on a very selective basis because it’s very expensive.  And then we’re building in the capability to scan and digitize on demand when we get specific requests because of the cost of digitizing.  It can vary from about 50 cents a page to about $5 a page depending upon how much editing you do.  So retrospective will probably always…the majority of it will be done on demand except where you have something like J-Store where there’s a national effort to digitize a whole collection of back files.  If you assume that right now the mix is that we think we’ll be up to 21 percent this year, that means that we’ve gone down from about 150,000 volumes a year at our peak to about 125,000 volumes this year that we’ll be adding to the physical collections library wide.  That equates to a million volumes every eight years.  That’s currently our collection rate.  Even if you go down to 75,000 you’ve cut our peak in half, you’re talking about a million volumes every 15 years.  So we continue to have space issues and we’re continuing to work on those space issues with the university administration and the trustees.  So I would say over the next 10 to 15 years that we’re probably going to be accessing newer information at the rate of about 50 percent electronic.

 

Semyon Slobounov, College of Health and Human Development:  I refer to Chart 19 talking about technology classrooms.  Are these classrooms allocated in the library territory or around campus?

 

Nancy Eaton:  These are the classrooms that are part of the classroom booking system.  They’re not classrooms that are managed by the colleges.  The library classrooms are specifically designed for library instruction by the library staff and they are intended to be flexible because we need to have them available when you need to bring students in.

 

Semyon Slobounov:  Can you elaborate a little bit the content of this technology classroom?  What is this actually, computers?  And how are you able to maintain the quality of this classroom if the number of technical technicians, personnel that actually maintain and your number of classrooms, is actually extended.

 

Nancy Eaton:  We’re very worried about our ability to maintain the quality.  An example is today when my staff came over to set this up for me and discovered there was no technician for this room and they have been scrambling with the help of your officers to equip this room for today’s presentation because there was no technician in here.  It’s a discussion that I’m having with the president and the provost and John Cahir, the Vice Provost for Undergraduate Education who chairs the committee that oversees the construction of these classrooms.  They vary from fairly straightforward classrooms with just display capability, to very high tech classrooms that require full time technicians.  There’s every variation.

 

Tramble T. Turner:  Dean Eaton, in one of your slides it seemed to draw attention to concern about the ratio of staff to student--the FTE slide.  Given the changes though perhaps in how students do research and the reliance on on-line research do you think to go back to Murry Nelson’s question, a five year trend might be in universities less of a concern and…?

 

Nancy Eaton:  Actually, I think it’s the opposite…

 

Tramble T. Turner:  Okay, could you elaborate on it?

 

Nancy Eaton:  I’ll give you a couple of examples.  If you remember the old “Read All About It” program that Library of Congress had, you would see a television program and at the end they would list books to read.  What that showed was that technology increases reading and we’re finding the same kinds of things with the internet.  The patterns of what we’re being asked to do are changing but the complexity is also changing.  The simple stuff people can do themselves.  They can do the simple searches up to a certain point and then they get to fairly complex information or quality of information assessing the integrity of information.  How to find your sites of integrity on the internet, and they start to flounder and what we’re finding is that we’re being asked to do more instruction, not less.  That we’re actually increasing the amount of support we’re giving by going into classrooms and working with teaching faculty to deliver sections in courses that talk about the current research methodologies, the current search strategies, when do you use traditional means, when do you use on-line means, and that is actually a growing demand.  Likewise, the number of reference questions are going down nationally, but what’s happening is that the complexity of them is going way up and so it’s requiring that we have librarians who are both more technically proficient, and have more in depth subject knowledge to deal with faculty and students to address those issues.  So the mix is changing but the demand is also getting more complex.

 

Gerhard F. Strasser:  Do you foresee a downward trend in the serials acquisition budget?  In other words if I’m thinking of Project NEWS or the IVZ Journal of periodicals on-line virtually, it takes two days to get the articles printed out.  But is that a trend that would ultimately…of course you pay for Project NEWS, it isn’t for free but nonetheless I would assume that there may be a tendency…

 

Nancy Eaton:  Well, we’re hoping.  It’s an area that’s increditably volatile.  The commercial publishers are very nervous about forecasting the future, and are very conservative in the way that they have approached how we could use on-line information.  In fact, they’re probably the biggest problem because they’re protecting their income and you can understand why in a time of this kind of change, but it’s not helpful in terms of what we’re trying to accomplish.  So you see a lot of projects where research libraries are working with academic disciplines, and your own associations to try to come up with new models that really fit higher education and control costs and increase access.  Because the current model certainly does not increase access, it restricts access both in terms of declining number of titles we can buy and in terms of the very stringent licensing requirements that the publishers are asking for.  I mean if they had their way we would license every campus separately and we would pay for 24 licenses.  We don’t do that.  We insist on one license and we’ll pay more given that we have 81,000 students (we want it proportionately), but it’s a very difficult market.  One thing that I might mention is that the Association of American Universities just passed a new set of principles by which they would like to see new modes of scholarly communication evolve so that it works to the benefit of higher education.  That has also been approved by NASULGC, the land grant association.  That set of principles has been distributed to the deans by the provost, he’s asking all the deans to start a conversation with all the faculty around those principles and things that you yourselves can do as faculty members to help support movement back toward not-for-profit options where they are appropriate, in order to both maximize access and minimize cost.  But I would say that for the next ten years it’s going to be a very muddy picture.

 

Dwight Davis, College of Medicine:  I think that this is the year we recommended strongly that students show up with laptops here.  Can you give us some feel for whether or not that has impacted at all on your work in the library with potentially a few more students and maybe a lot more having laptops in their dorms, that they’re using with the need for library resources.

 

Nancy Eaton:  The last figure I saw which was from a student survey that was just distributed is that about 91 percent of students have a personal computer regardless of that requirement.  I mean they are already doing that, but what we find is that they really don’t want to cart it around campus, they still expect to have some public access.  Our strategy is to use as much equipment supplied by other units and other individuals as possible.  We’re developing open architecture so that anybody can come in through any network as long as they have a password authorization in order to move some of that load off.  But what both the Center for Academic Computing and the libraries are finding is that we’re always slightly ahead of the commercial models and so anything that requires high-end equipment or software is still something that we’re likely to supply until the marketplace catches up.  So we will always have a need for specialized hardware, and software and information delivery is one of those special areas.

 

James E. May, DuBois Campus:  Are there as many books and serials in the current Pattee/Paterno Library now as there were a year ago before Paterno was there?  I ask this because I’ve found that repeatedly things are now annexed, that were once available.  So although the library got bigger, much more seems to have been annexed, and there are large areas of the library which are not being used for book storage any more.  It seems as if the library is becoming increasingly a study place, and less of a library.

 

Nancy Eaton:  There are two or three things in play there.  We were so far below standards of seating for students, that one of the priorities for the new library and the renovated Pattee was to restore some seating for students.  And usually the rule of thumb is 20 percent of your student body, and we’re not even close to that now.  So part of the objective when those buildings were designed was to restore seating.  We actually have about the same amount of capacity in terms of volumes in the buildings combined as we had before, because we did put some emphasis on seating.  The problem is that building was designed 15 years ago, and it is just now finished, and we’ve just added another two million volumes.  Part of the strategy in reallocating the collections list because it was over capacity was to when we moved the collections around to put back in some growth space for new materials at the time we moved.  So much of the older material was moved into an annexed situation in order for us to receive new materials in the next few years.  The collections at Penn State have a much higher percentage in storage than any other CIC library.  It’s about 50 percent, so I don’t consider those storage buildings, I consider them extended stacks, and we’re putting a priority on how to get things back and forth quickly, or scan them directly from those sites and do desktop delivery.  It’s a real challenge.

 

Ingrid M. Blood, Associate Vice Provost & Associate Director, Undergraduate Education:  Just an example of where we could collaborate and really work on multiple resources.  We’ve just created a peer tutoring center for technology in the university writing centers, and we were talking to some of the folks in the library.  We know that students are often much better at working with each other than we are as professionals.  We found an excellent situation with the writing center, the math center, supplemental instruction, and now we have a professional who’s creating this peer tutoring, and I think we can stretch our resources.

 

Nancy Eaton:  Thank you.  We’re also working with the graduate college on the electronic thesis and dissertation project.  We work with John Harwood and CAC in terms of faculty development, and courseware development.  We’re partnering anywhere we can on campus to leverage all of our staff because none of us have enough to meet this demand.

 

Chair Schengrund:  Any other questions?  If not, thank you very much.  Our next report will be presented from the Senate Committees on Libraries and Outreach Activities.  Harvey Manbeck, Chair of the Senate Committee on Outreach Activities will introduce Loanne Snavely.

 

SENATE COMMITTEES ON LIBRARIES AND OUTREACH ACTIVITIES

 

University Libraries Resources for Students at a Distance

 

Christopher J. Bise, Chair, Senate Committee on Libraries

Harvey B. Manbeck, Chair, Senate Committee on Outreach Activities

 

Harvey B. Manbeck, College of Agricultural Sciences:  Thank you, Cara.  The informational report that’s in Appendix “F” was prepared jointly by the Senate Committee on Libraries, and the Senate Committee on Outreach Activities last year.  The subcommittee was chaired by Dr. Greg Roth, he’s on sabbatical this year, and that’s why he is not up here introducing the report.  At this time I’d like to invite to the podium Loanne Snavely, who is head of the instructional programs for the University Libraries, and she will present the report.

 

Loanne L. Snavely, University Libraries:  Good afternoon.  Nancy has mentioned some of the things that are in this report.  I’m just going to highlight a few of the things that I think are especially important, and then we’ll take questions.  The idea of one university geographically distributed, is something that has formed many of our decisions as far as collections and services over the years, and that’s been something that’s helped us a great deal in our outreach activities, and in our support of World Campus and distance education students.  So our whole philosophy of what we’re doing has been leading us in this direction to help make as many of our materials as possible accessible to as many of our students in all locations as possible.  The broadest access to the greatest amount of information for all Penn State users is the basic philosophy that’s stated in this report.  We’ve gone largely in the direction or heavily in the direction in the last few years, along with the national trend towards increasing access to electronic indexing and abstracting resources, electronic journals, and full text resources.  Information has been exploding expedientially in both print and electronic forms and it has been a challenge for us to keep those balances and to provide as many materials in all formats as we can.  They don’t overlap completely by a long shot, so we look at what is best used in an electronic format and what might be best used in a print format.  Our remote users can be a student resident, could be a Penn State student at any one of the campuses or faculty as well as a distance learner and a World Campus learner.  We now can authenticate.  Anybody can come in through our University Libraries web page to our LIAS information systems.  And it used to be that you sort of had to be on campus to do that, but you can now do it through any internet provider.  So if our students here might be away for fall break, or they might be traveling abroad or whatever they can come in through their internet account and they will be asked for those resources that require Penn State users only to use them.  They will be asked to authenticate, probably with their access account user ID and their password.  And then they’ll have access to all of those resources that we might have here on a particular campus.  So that’s been a wonderful addition which especially helps our World Campus and our distance users but it’s something that’s available to all of us no matter where we are.  Our LIAS information access system includes so many resources obviously our on-line catalog which provides materials at all of our University Libraries locations.  Our fast track of resources contains over 100 databases.  They are indexing abstracting services on-line, they’re aggregator databases, they’re collections of on-line and full text journals.  Again, all of those resources now are available, and this is something that’s fairly new within the last few months.  So those of you who may have had specialized databases that you wanted to use and you couldn’t get to them before, try them again now because you’ll be prompted for your access account and you will be able to get to them all.  There’s also available access to our Big Ten library catalogs and thousands and thousands of library catalogs throughout the country and across the world through WorldCat and several of the other resources that we have.  We have access not only to our own resources, but to everybody else’s as well and we also provide a gateway to the World Wide Web resources.  A new feature that’s been added fairly recently since this report was written that I wanted to let everybody know about, and which is a real boom to our distance education and World Campus users is a listing on the fast track page called Full Text Electronic Resources and this gives a list of our electronic journals with a link to where they’re located.  So if we have a subscription to an on-line journal individually or through an aggregator you’ll either be taken directly to that journal or you’ll be taken into the aggregator database through which you can access it.  So for the first time over the series of years as we’ve been gaining access to these journals for the first time, we have a centralized place where we can go and find out do we have this journal on-line and where can I get a hold of it.  That’s on the fast track page in the bottom left corner.  It’s called Full Text Electronic Resources.  Another little detail that’s hidden within this, but I wanted to make sure all of you knew about this is that we have a new on-line catalog--an integrated library system coming.  We’re working very hard with that.  It’s called Unicorn software.  It’s available through the SIRSI corporation and we plan to implement it at the end of the spring semester in 2001.  Before that time it will be available for you to take a look at and have a chance to use even though it will provide many new capabilities for us the actual search engine to the on-line catalog will work very similar to what you’ve been used to using so you shouldn’t be encountering large changes in the way that you’re doing your searching but we’ll have a lot more capabilities in a variety of ways that we’ll be able to use with that.  I wanted to talk a little bit about obtaining on-line and full text resources.  When something is full text everybody gets it the same way.  So whether you’re here on campus or whether you might be across the world you can download to your own computer.  You can print it out, you can email it to yourself and those capabilities are available to anybody no matter where they are as long as they are a Penn State student, faculty or staff member.  So our World Campus and distance education students and our students at all locations have those same capabilities.  But what about things that we don’t necessarily own?  One of the new capabilities that Nancy Eaton mentioned was some of the direct access services that we provide through the British Library and through UnCover.  In the report that you have it says this UnCover resources is yet to come but its now been implemented for a couple of weeks.  Students and faculty can actually order their own journals, things that we don’t have they can order them directly through that service.  They can be delivered directly to them or faxed to them including all of you.  A lot of these services benefit all of us.  For books the VEL, the Virtual Electronic Library catalog and PALCIE are both systems that we can all search and we can have materials delivered directly to a Penn State location.  Now that is a service that requires that you pick them up at a Penn State location so they may or may not help our distance education students depending on where they’re located.  What about materials that aren’t in electronic format that we do own?  What if somebody needs a print or a book of something that we do own for our World Campus and distance education students, and for our cooperative extension faculty and staff materials can be supplied directly to them?  Two other things that I wanted to mention one is a series of on-line tutorials and web based modules that help students learn how to use the library, how to search for information and how to go through the research process.  These are available again, to all of our distance students.  We also have an electronic reference service which can be available to anyone at anywhere so our reference and instructional services as well as our collections are available and offered to all of our students.  And what does the future have?  There are several things in the report that speak to what about the future.  One is to continue to balance the growing collections that we have of print and electronic formats.  As Nancy said, we’re looking towards and increasing amount of electronic information that can be delivered to all of our locations and all of our users.  We also need to look to develop policies that recover costs from for-profit institutions such as the University of Phoenix that use the libraries’ extensive resources.  So we’re providing a lot of things that other people want to use and we need to look at cost recovery for certain kinds of things.  And we need to look at our niche in the information market place, and the University Libraries strengths in this market place that are its access to large, well-organized and authoritative databases and services to the users and its staff, and the integrity of its collections and databases.  And the last part of the report is on the costs, and we’re always looking at the costs.  Everything continues to cost more, there’s more of everything and we’re doing our best to work with all of you to identify what is most needed, and how we can access it and get access for everyone.  So I’d be happy to take any questions that you might have.

 

Chair Schengrund:  Are there any questions?  Thank you.

 

Loanne L. Snavely:  Thank you very much.

 

Chair Schengrund:  Our next report will be an Update on the Schreyer Honors College coming from the Senate Committee on Undergraduate Education and Jamie Myers will introduce Dean Achterberg who will actually present the report.

 

SENATE COMMITTEE ON UNDERGRADUATE EDUCATION

 

Update on the Schreyer Honors College (SHC)

 

Jamie Myers, Chair, Senate Committee on Undergraduate Education

 

Jamie M. Myers:  Thank you.  First of all, if a committee member from Undergraduate Education recognizes this umbrella from this morning it was left in the room.  To introduce this report, I’d like to read a couple paragraphs from the legislation that authorized the University Scholars Program in 1980.  Having served on the Senate for a while, it always seems like the faculty are in response to administrative initiatives and reacting and try to say, “wait a minute let’s have some consultation”.  So it’s really enjoyable that the University Scholars Program was initiated by the Faculty Senate.  In September 1977 a subcommittee on honors programs of the standing Committee on Undergraduate Instruction recommended changes in policy in an effort to facilitate the operation of honors programs at the university.  This subcommittee further proposed a creation of a special task force.  The task force chaired by George Franz who is still with us was appointed by President Oswald and Senate Chairman Tom Daubert in October 1977.  The task force report of November 1978 recommended the establishment of university-wide honors program titled, “The University Scholars Program”.  “To include existing honors programs and other college and campus activities that foster academic excellence in undergraduate education.”  I hope it’s with special interest that we hear from Dean Cheryl Achterberg today on the current Schreyer Honors College, and its endeavors and activities and hopefully any questions we might have about how we can continue to support this initiative for our students.

 

Cheryl L. Achterberg, Dean, Schreyer Honors College:  Thank you, Jamie.  My first request is to set up the overhead projector so if you’ll indulge me just a moment.  Thank you for asking me to address this group today and I especially thank everyone who has the patience to wait until 10 to 3:00 p.m. today for this report.  The Schreyer Honors College was founded almost to the day three years ago, September 13, actually in 1997.  We celebrated just Sunday our open house and dedication to the new college.  We had an addition added on to what was then the backside of Atherton Hall.  We have 4,775 square feet of new space.  The architect did a wonderful job designing an addition that is seamless with the original addition.  It houses the administrative offices, a social lounge and two study lounges for Schreyer scholars.  In addition, about 12,500 square feet of Atherton Hall itself was renovated.  This is mostly the common space used by students.  It includes a computer lab, a very large silent study lounge, a programming space, a classroom, a conference room and additional offices.  It represents a first for Penn State and that’s a truly integrated living, learning environment that includes administrative offices as well as study and learning spaces.  You have a slide in your handout that pretty much summarizes the same information you see on this overhead.  It’s a brief summary of the landmarks associated with the University Scholars Program as well as the Schreyer Honors College.  A couple of points I’d like to highlight now.  The program began with 300 students.  The founding director Dr. Paul Axt talked to me recently and shared what I think is this amazing fact.  When the program was started he could find only 75 students with the required minimum SAT that year in the whole of Penn State.  With that SAT being then 1,300.  We now have 1,874 scholars enrolled in the honors college.  I might add that 21 percent of the students that did not get invited into the honors college in the last two years did also matriculate into Penn State.  So I think the presence of an honors program and honors college has indeed fulfilled one of the original ambitions and that was to attract more and better highly qualified and highly motivated students to attend Penn State.  I might also add that 119 of our current scholars attend school at campuses other than University Park.  We have 268 honors advisors active this academic year, and we now have over 4,400 alumni.  In the transition from the University Scholars Program to a college, we went through the strategic planning process that all of you have experienced as well.  Working with faculty, students and external advisory board we came up with a mission and goals statement, a vision for the college and most recently core values.  In essence what we’ve done is extend that original idea about a university scholars program that dwelled or had its initial focus on academic excellence.  Continuing the idea of academic excellence, we extended that mission to also include internationalization or the development of a global perspective as well as the development of social and civic responsibility or leadership.  So these components within the honors college has expanded the kind of programming we do and the expectations that we have for the scholars who are part of that program.  In essence we are trying to develop the leaders together for the 21st Century.  People who have a well developed global perspective, whatever their root discipline might be as well as a highly developed responsibility towards contributing not only to their discipline and local community but the larger sense of society as well.  This core value diagram is still in draft form; we still are seeking input on our depiction here.  We’re hoping this will be self explanatory and that this then will drive much of the programming you will see in the future.  But you can see the heart of this diagram is passionate commitment, and purposeful achievement. That’s really what we are seeking when we select students and that’s what we’re hoping to promote through their college experience here.  The smaller circles encapsulate the areas that we’re hoping every single student participates in during their undergraduate experience, that is research and scholarship.  We want to emphasize creativity, no matter what that major might be.  Development of character with a special emphasis on integrity.  Community as I’ve mentioned before.  Communication skills, teamwork and leadership.  The Schreyer Honors College is, we believe, the most comprehensive honors education offered in the United States today.  There are many different universities that have pieces of what we have to offer.  There are some universities that might claim in one or another area to have more than we do, but there isn’t any other program in the country that has the fully developed and comprehensive package that we offer to students here at Penn State.  You’ve heard a little bit about the residence hall and the addition there at University Park.  There are two designated residence halls for scholars housing that I might add is comprised between 60 and 70 percent scholars and 30 to 40 percent independent students.  There is also honors housing available on some of the other campuses as well.  In terms of course work at University Park here this last year we had 184 different honors courses.  We still require a thesis in order to graduate.  Most honors programs around the country now no longer have that requirement.  We think it is absolutely critical to have a thesis requirement for our honors students to prepare them to think and collect information and organize that information and synthesize that information and write that information to prepare them for their future careers no matter what that career might be.  We have extensive extra curricular activities as I’ve mentioned, and we are by far the nations leader in providing international experiences and opportunities to students.  We awarded almost 1,000 scholarships this last year--987 to be exact.  We also provide a limited amount of research grants to help students cover any out of pocket expenses they might experience in conducting their research.  For the last year, for the first time with some gifts we were able to fund summer research scholarships for 10 students.  This year we were able to increase that number to 15.  This summer for the first time we were also able to provide our very first summer internship scholarships and were able to fund 24 students to do summer internships primarily in Washington, DC and New York City, but also a number of other cities around the country.  Faculty are very much involved in advising in the honors college, setting policy and directing where we should be putting our emphasis in activities, how we should structure our programming and so on.  This is our current list of our faculty advisory committee; we meet once every six weeks or so.  We have a number of subcommittees as well that work on particular projects.  I attend the Senate Committee on Undergraduate Education, and we receive input through that means as well.  We also have faculty fellows who participate, a couple of the faces that I see in the audience today have participated as faculty fellows.  In addition, we also invite fellows.  We try to have at least two visiting fellows per year from other institutions who also provide input and ideas to the honors college.  Many people ask questions about what does a typical honors student look like.  It’s a bit different than what we saw in 1980.  It is very, very competitive to be accepted now into the honors college.  Virtually every single student has a high school GPA above a 4.0.  How does that happen?  Well with advanced placement test scores and honors courses at the high school level and weighted grades.  Many of our students are coming in with a 4.2 or even higher.  Our average SAT score is 1,425 that seems to be holding fairly steady in the last three years here.  It might go up and down one to three points.  Most of them have had at least four years of foreign language before they come.  Many of our students are actually fluent in three or four different languages by the time they graduate from Penn State.  Most come in with AB Calculus or many have BC Calculus as well.  Most all of them have already earned AP credit in English, American History and European History.  Most have had at least two years of science and three or more years in music, drama or debating.  This is not an either/or situation, nearly all of our students come in with all of these characteristics and qualities.  All have had a public service record, all are in the National Honors Society, we’re not looking for that, it is just the kind of students that they are.  Most have served as well in their student governments, many a surprising number have been the student representatives to their local school boards.  They may in addition be varsity athletes or have extensive college credits.  I think we have a record this year, not that we’re looking for such records, but we had a freshman start this year with 80 college credits already under his belt.  Almost all students come in with at least one semester college standing completed.  In terms of our international experiences I know you have a slide in your handout as well, last year we were able to provide 200 travel grants.  A travel grant consists of the direct costs for a student to study or learn abroad, they may conduct research, they may be doing volunteer work.  We define a learning experience abroad very broadly.  It’s our value that international experience is so important that we will encourage students to go for any length of time that they can.  So regardless of major, we’re hoping that all students can find some time in their program to spend abroad.  Our goal is 50 percent of all students that start with us as freshmen have at least one international experience before they graduate.  We’ve already met that goal.  This slide just provides you with some ideas of the types of experiences that students are having.  In some cases, Penn State professors conduct a course where some part or all of that course is actually held abroad.  The London study tour is our longest standing one at 17 years old now, we’d like to see more of these developed.  If any of you would like to teach a course abroad over winter break, spring break or sometime during the summer please let me know.  We also of course accommodate students who are interested in doing individual experiences.  I just provided a few examples of the type of experiences that students are engaged in for the first time this year.  In addition to our regular travel grant we have a new program as part of a gift actually made by Dr. Howard Kulin from Hershey.  His vision was that students spend more intensive time abroad conducting research.  We were able to make five of those awards this year.  They also provide in addition to the travel money, a stipend for room and board while they are doing research abroad.  Now what is our competition, what are we up against and how are we doing?  Before I put the next slide up, which is in rank order the schools that we lose students most often to when we make offers.  The school that we lose the most to by far is Penn.  We lost 28 students to Penn this season.  We lost 21 to Cornell, we lost 15 to Carnegie Mellon, 13 to MIT, 11 to Virginia and 9, and I think this is a peculiarity, to Notre Dame.  Notre Dame usually isn’t that prominent.  Part of the changing environment that we’re up against here is of course finance.  A lot of schools now are literally publishing advertisements in newspapers that say we will match or better any offer you get from any other institution.  Carnegie Mellon is probably the biggest culprit there in terms of our competition.  They offer 100 percent tuition to any student that meets the qualifications that we have for the honors college.  In case you are wondering how do we compete here, what are we competing with, what are our tools.  Our tools are an academic excellence scholarship.  At this point in time it’s worth depending on your majors and so forth about 37 percent of in-state tuition.  So what we are trying to market ourselves with at this point in time is a quality program and that when a parent or family looks at a total sticker price we are still a very good value but it is a very, very competitive environment.  Having said that I’ve divided schools into about three categories here.  Now this isn’t absolutely comprehensive but it is designed to give you an idea of how we measure up.  On the one school that we have simply not been competitive with in attracting students to come to Penn State instead of taking their offer, is Harvard.  If students are invited to attend Harvard they go.  We’re running about head-to-head with these following institutions--Penn, Princeton, Cornell, Brown, and Virginia.  One of the schools that might surprise you here is Maryland and it’s because Maryland is investing a tremendous amount of money in talented students in order to attract them to go there.  University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, it’s about a 50 percent rate that we’re able to compete, and Duke University attracts quite a few as well.  We are in fact beating Carnegie Mellon, even though they are offering these very lucrative scholarships at this point and other schools that are listed in category three we may lose one or two students to those schools each year.  There is a list of at least 50 of them, anybody who is interested, I actually have the data on hand, but I don’t consider any of the schools typically in category three to be strong competitors to us.  It’s really the set that’s in category two.  So with that, I conclude my presentation, but I’d be happy to stand for any questions you might have about the honors college.  Thank you.

 

J. Christopher Carey, College of Medicine:  About what percentage of those students in the last slide presented are Pennsylvania residents compared with out-of-state residents?

 

Cheryl L. Achterberg:  At present about 80 percent of our student body come from the state of Pennsylvania.  We’ve been able to attract some international students of very high calibre.  It’s been quite a challenge for us to attract the out-of-state applicants just do to the competition and price and support.

 

Alison Carr-Chellman, College of Education:  Can you tell me where the Big Ten usually fall?  Are they in that category of other schools?  Most of them are not listed in any of the other categories?

 

Cheryl L. Achterberg:  Right, ironically enough we’re really not competing against the Big Ten for students.  Our draw is primarily the Atlantic seaboard, and the Northeast so almost all of our students come from the 11 nearest states geographically.  We have a handful that come from Texas and California, even every now and then somebody from Michigan.  Most of them are from the Atlantic seaboard.

 

Tramble T. Turner:  In terms of the economic competition and Penn showing up there...do you think that the state subsidies through the PHEEA programs to private institutions like Penn is a factor?  If so, how is that playing out?

 

Cheryl L. Achterberg:  I do not have an analysis of that per se.  In my discussions with families and with students, very, very often we encounter the idea that the size of the scholarship regardless of the out of pocket expenses indicates the value the institution puts on that student.  And in that case, the PHEEA or other support systems there do not factor into that value judgment.

 

Jean Landa Pytel, College of Engineering:  About what percentage of your students also receive entrance scholarships from their colleges?  And then, what sort of the average value scholarships do your students receive on entering Penn State, the whole package?  Because yours then would be only part of that.

 

Cheryl L. Achterberg:  Right.  You come from the College of Engineering, the College of Engineering actually supplies more scholarships to students than any of the other colleges and probably all of the other colleges combined at least for our student cohort.  There are a great number of colleges, the majority of colleges who are able to fund in the realm of five to ten other scholarships, what we describe as top-off scholarships or matching scholarships to the amount that we are able to offer as academic excellence scholarships.  For those students, for example the Eberly College of Science has Braddock Scholarships that brings the scholarship package up to full tuition.  When those kinds of offers are made we definitely attract the strongest possible candidates to come to Penn State.  There really is a correlation between the amount that we’re able to offer that combined package, and the students that we’re able to attract.  But most colleges at this point in time have very few other scholarships to offer.  It is a high priority in the capital campaign.  We are working with all other colleges in order to attract more scholarships to put packages together.  We have a goal that we’re working very hard towards.  I think it’s very, very important for the future particularly as we’re looking at rising tuitions that we absolutely must raise the amount of our base scholarship--the academic excellence scholarship.

 

Gerhard F. Strasser:  Two comments, one hopefully will make you chuckle.  On my meanderings in German research libraries I have frequently described our model and in Germany where education is now about “as democratic as Germans perceive American education to be,” they are bowled over by the idea of having if you wish, elite education within the system so to speak.  In other words, there is no room in Germany for any one of your students.  That said and they admire that because they are grappling with that notion, can an institution nonetheless promote students, within the institution.  And when I then sometimes show a photograph of Atherton Hall and they begin to think that I’m using a six-letter word now, they say, “well, this smacks like Jesuit education in the 17th Century”.  The facility is a compound so to speak, you can actually almost lock it up, students are locked in…  It is amazing what they then start thinking of, but of course, in a positive way.

 

Robert N. Pangborn, College of Engineering:  Cheryl you talked a lot about the input to the program and you talked about the many opportunities that students have.  I wonder if you could comment on the output?  Do the students go off and do great things when they leave us?  Are they more likely to be involved in their community?  Do they give money back to Penn State?  I guess you’re starting to see the second generation now after 20 years.

 

Cheryl L. Achterberg:  Thank you for that question.  When the Schreyer Honors College started no data had been collected up to that point on the performance of students upon graduation.  So we are just in the very beginning stages of collecting follow-up data on our graduates.  What I can report to you is that 85 percent of graduates from this program are enrolled in graduate school within three years of their graduation here at Penn State.  I can also report to you that since 1980, since the founding, 100 percent of those students who applied to medical school got in, 100 percent who applied to law school got in, 100 percent of those students who applied to veterinary school got in.  Cornell recently did a study, this was two years ago the most successful students they had in their veterinary school, which depending who you talk to is rated number one or two or three, and they concluded that the most successful students they have ever had are graduates from what was University Scholars Program, now the Schreyer Honors College.  So they are recruiting scholars here at Penn State in their freshmen year.  They are vying eye-to-eye with Penn for those students.  Most any pre-veterinary student here at Penn State at least enrolled in the honors college has an offer of admission during their sophomore year.  I’m hoping to work more closely with Hershey in the future.  We have made arrangements with Dickinson, and we have a program now going with Dickinson so that they can preferentially recruit students to attend Dickinson with the notion being that we might raise the quality of the students attending the law school there as well.  By virtue of the fact of the kinds of prizes that our students are winning, we are capturing more and more national prizes than ever before.  Most of these prizes are increasing now at the rate of 25 to 50 percent a year.  We have Marshall’s, we have Fulbright’s, we’ve only had one Rhodes Scholar, so far, but we’ll be working on that as well.  We have a lot of students now winning NSF fellowships.  We have them winning awards that no one at Penn State has ever won before, and we think that we’ll be placing them into graduate programs that Penn Staters have never attended before.  For example, the University of Chicago Law School is one of our target schools, that we hope students can routinely apply to, and be accepted from Penn State.  I’ve had feedback from a number of students saying that for example at Northwestern Law School, that they were the only student in their class from a public institution, and that their education here at Penn State was every bit as good, the preparation every bit or better than any other student they were next to in graduate school.  That’s where we’re starting, but our data are small as we are looking at just a couple of years here.

 

Dorothy H. Evensen, College of Education:  You mentioned that community is one of your core values.  I’m wondering if there is any mechanism in place now or maybe in the future to integrate these scholars within the larger community here at Penn State?

 

Cheryl L. Achterberg:  Indeed that’s the case.  Our students last year alone logged over 9,900 community service hours here in State College, and that was to the State College community not University Park per se.  One of the little known facts is that over 50 percent of the tutors on campus providing help to other students regardless of the placement, it might be in the writing center, it might be in any other learning center whatever, over 50 percent of them are university scholars.  The leadership of many of the major organizations, whether it’s in residence hall government, student body government are university scholars.  There’s a huge program for example that picks up the leftover food from the resident halls and distributes that in the community and is completely run and managed by Schreyer’s scholars, a 100 percent.  There is a tremendous amount of integration already in the university community.  You’ll find them in every leadership organization on campus, and I think that holds not only at University Park, but some of the other campuses as well.

 

Elizabeth A. Hanley, College of Health and Human Development:  I’m just wondering are there any students who drop out of the honors program and remain at Penn State or any who just drop out and leave?

 

Cheryl L. Achterberg:  Certainly there are people who drop out.  We try to follow-up on each and every case.  In most cases I have learned that there are particular extenuating circumstances.  I think the selection process is good enough that every single student who’s invited, in fact has the ability to make it.  So when students don’t make it for whatever reason, when you inquire, there are a number of extenuating circumstances.  They vary from a student being diagnosed with cancer, struggling over can I carry a full load, to can I maintain this or not?  To other kinds of family problems, health problems, emotional problems of various sorts, and as we go through it case by case by case, there are almost always extenuating circumstances associated with it.

 

Rebecca L. Corwin, College of Health and Human Development:  Cheryl, I wonder if you could share with us some of your ideas of what’s currently going on, and what your vision might be in addition to having students integrate themselves in the community.  What the vision for Schreyer College is in terms of role modeling if you will, or actually having an influence that you might have on other undergraduate teaching opportunities, this sort of thing?

 

Cheryl L. Achterberg:  Thank you.  We take very seriously as part of our mission that we are, in fact a role model and in affect, a test bed for the university at large.  To experiment with a variety of different innovations whether that’s in a residence hall, or in the classroom or in a community setting, that we hope then can be integrated into the university at large.  Again, we’re just beginning, but I think some of our early freshman seminars have had an impact.  Some of our concern about academic integrity has had an impact.  Some of our active learning and international work, I think the net benefit to the university at large is just beginning to be seen.  I think some of the new strategies that have been experimented with in the college, are things that we want to share and we will be working with other classes and campuses and units to do so.  Certainly, this integrated living, learning environment is an experiment.  It’s a cooperative agreement with Residence Life, Housing and Food Services and the honors college and CAC, and if we can make this all work and pull it off, I think there are some opportunities in other residence halls to develop some similar kinds of communities.  We also are trying very much to engage faculty in our co-curricular programming.  We have for example, started a summer reading program.  We send out a list of titles to all of our incoming freshmen.  We invite them to choose the books they’d like to read, and then we invite faculty who’d like to lead discussion groups about that to sign on as well.  We’ve been holding discussion groups three and four nights a week all this last month, and will continue and beginning next spring, we’ll be doing that with films or videos and again trying to invite more faculty into the residence hall.  Having these informal discussion groups, extending dialogue about substantive issues beyond the classroom, and bringing it into the social fabric of these student’s lives.  So we hope to do more and more activities of that nature.  Inviting many different faculty to interact.

 

Jamie M. Myers:  First of all, I would recommend that in the future when you appoint new members to your faculty advisory committee, that you might consider faculty that are members of the University Senate.  I noticed that only one of your advisory committee members is a Faculty Senator, although a second one just went off the Senate.  And second, could you briefly…are there one or two problems that University Scholars encounter in trying to negotiate the university in their program that we might be able to think about in our own respective divisions and might be able to help?

 

Cheryl L. Achterberg:  I’ll try to pick a couple.  One issue that’s on my plate right now is the fact that so many of our students come in with many college credits already awarded to them.  And there’s always a disjuncture between what is their semester standing here at Penn State by virtue of residence, and what is their semester standing by virtue of credits.  And depending on how that student is looked at they are screened out of lots of opportunities.  For example, the president’s awards, the Pugh Scholars, those kinds of designations, lots of our scholars have lost out on these awards because they come in with a sophomore standing, they finish their freshman year with a 4.0 GPA, and they get no university recognition whatsoever, because they’re classified in some other way.  This designation, this dual sort of identity crops up very, very often and gets in the way of them participating in a whole variety of opportunities.  I think the Senate might be able to help us unravel some of those designations, and the way people are coded and counted.  The same kind of issue impacts on the declaration of a major.  When can students get into a major or start working on major courses or not?  Different programs and different departments have different rules that the students become very, very confused about.  You know, can I start this major, can I take upper division courses or not, when, how.  I would say if there is one thing that impacts our students in many, many different ways, that one issue might be it.

 

Melissa Landis, Student Senator, Commonwealth College:  I was just wondering, because you said there is a significant amount of students that are part of the Schreyer Honors College that do not go to University Park, and you have living arrangements for the ones here and a lot of opportunities, like you said about the novels, the movies, community service.  Now how do you include the students that are not here at University Park in those sort of activities?

 

Cheryl L. Achterberg:  Every campus that has a program for scholars at other locations, we’re trying to encourage those campuses and those sites to develop programming for students at those sites--analogous but not identical to--but taking advantage of the community there.  For example, in Abington, the access to Philadelphia provides opportunities that students here at University Park may not have.  So we’re trying to encourage faculty that work as honors advisors and honors coordinators at each of those sites to develop programming analogous to what we have here at University Park.  Obviously, campuses that do not have a residential facility we can’t match that.  We also make available all of our programming support.  The international travel grants, the summer internships, the summer research grants, students at any location are equally eligible to apply to those and to participate.  In fact, some of our international courses this last year were taught by faculty on other campuses, even some University Park students went to and took at other campuses or other sites.

 

Chair Schengrund:  Are there any other questions?  If not, thank you very much.

 

Cheryl L. Achterberg:  It’s been my pleasure, thank you.

 

Chair Schengrund:  The rest of the meeting should go rather quickly so it would be nice if a few of you could at least stay.  Our next report will be from the Senate Committee on University Planning on Construction Programs Status.  Peter Deines will present this report.

 

SENATE COMMITTEE ON UNIVERSITY PLANNING

 

Construction Programs Status Report

 

Peter Deines, Chair, Senate Committee on University Planning

 

Peter Deines, College of Earth and Mineral Sciences:  Thank you, Cara.  Twice a year, the Senate Committee on University Planning provides you with a report on the status of construction at Penn State.  This is the first occasion, I’ll appear again in April for the second occasion.  The report is Appendix “H”.  I’m not sure I will be able to answer specific questions about your pet construction project but if there are questions that I can address, I will.

 

Semyon Slobounov:  It was kind of rumoured that we will have a new facility that’s for swimming, and that the Natatorium Building will be expanded.  Is there any movement in this direction?  I see that…

 

Peter Deines:  Is it White Building that you’re thinking about?

 

Semyon Slobounov:  No, I’m not talking about White Building, the McCoy Natatorium, that swimming and outdoor pool and indoor pool…

 

Peter Deines:  Yes…

 

Semyon Slobounov:  …is actually the poorest swimming facility in the Big Ten Universities.  A lot of complaining about it.  We all enjoy the swimming outdoors and indoors.  I heard that we have some kind of a plan to expand this facility.  Is there any movement in this direction?

 

Peter Deines:  I’m not aware of it, but we can try to find out.

 

Semyon Slobounov:  Thank you.

 

Chair Schengrund:  Any other questions?  If not, thank you Peter.

 

NEW LEGISLATIVE BUSINESS

 

None

 

COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE GOOD OF THE UNIVERSITY

 

None

 

ADJOURNMENT

 

May I have a motion to adjourn?  The September 12, 2000 meeting of the University Faculty Senate adjourned at 3:34 PM.

 

DOCUMENTS DISTRIBUTED PRIOR TO SEPTEMBER 12, 2000

 

Admissions, Records, Scheduling and Student Aid – Awards and Scholarships  (Informational)

 

Admissions, Records, Scheduling and Student Aid – Summary of Petitions for Waiver of the Ten-Credit Limit for Non-degree Conditional Students (Informational)

 

Libraries – Comparison of PSU Libraries to National Trends  (Informational)

 

Outreach Activities/Libraries – University Libraries Resources for Students at a Distance (Informational)

 

Curricular Affairs - Curriculum Report of August 29, 2000

 

Undergraduate Education – Update on the Schreyer Honors College (Informational)

 

University Planning – Construction Programs Status Report (Informational)

 

THE FOLLOWING SENATORS WERE IN ATTENDANCE AT THE

SEPTEMBER 12, 2000 SENATE MEETING

 

Achterberg, Cheryl L.
Adams, Phyllis F.
Alexander, Shelton S.
Althouse, P. Richard
Ambrose, Anthony
Ammon, Richard I.
Andaleeb, Syed S.
Atkinson, Ann J.
Atwater, Deborah F.
Aydin, Kultegin
Baggett, Connie D.
Balog, Theresa A.
Baratta, Anthony J.
Bardi, John F.
Barnes, David
Barshinger, Richard N.
Beaupied, Aida M.
Berkowitz, Leonard J.
Berland, Kevin J.
Bise, Christopher J.
Bittner, Edward W.
Blasko, Dawn G.
Blood, Ingrid M.
Blumberg, Melvin
Bollard, Edward R., Jr.
Book, Patricia A.
Bord, Richard J.
Borzellino, Joseph E.
Bower, Phillip R.
Bridges, K. Robert
Brown, Douglas K.
Browning, Barton W.
Burchard, Charles
Burkhart, Keith K.
Cahir, John J.
Caldwell, Linda L.
Calvert, Clay
Campbell, William J.
Cardamone, Michael J.
Carey, J. Christopher
Carpenter, Lynn A.
Carter, Arthur W.
Casteel, Mark A.
Cecere, Joseph J.
Chao, David
Cheesbrough, Kevin R.
Chellman, Alison A.
Chirico, JoAnn
Christy, David P.
Clariana, Roy B.
Clark, Paul F.
Coraor, Lee D.
Corwin, Rebecca L.
Crowe, Mary Beth
Crum, Robert P.
Curran, Brian A.
Curtis, Wayne R.
Davis, Dwight
DeCastro, W. Travis
Deines, Peter
Derickson, Alan V.
Diehl, Renee D.
Dong, Chen
Donovan, James M.
Drafall, Lynn Ellen
Dutton, John A.
Eckhardt, Caroline D.
Elder, James T.
Ellis, Todd D.
Esposito, Jacqueline R.
Evensen, Dorothy H.
Fedeli, Marcus A.
Floros, Joanna
Foti, Veronique M.
Frank, William M.
Franz, George W.
Gaffney, Paul P.
Galligan, M. Margaret
Gapinski, Andrzej J.
Garwacki, Joseph
Georgopulos, Peter D.
Geschwindner, Louis F.
Gilmour, David S.
Golden, Lonnie M.
Goldman, Margaret B.
Gouran, Dennis S.
Green, David J.
Greene, Wallace H.
Gutgold, Nichola
Hagen, Daniel R.
Hanley, Elizabeth A.
Harrison, Terry P.
Harvey, Irene E.
Hayek, Sabih I.
Hewitt, Julia C.
High, Kane M.
Holen, Dale A.
Hudnall, Amanda
Hufnagel, Pamela P.
Hunt, Brandon B.
Hurson, Ali R.
Irwin, Zachary T.
Jackson, Thomas N.
Jacobs, Janis
Jago, Deidre E.
Johnson, Ernest W.
Jones, W. Terrell
Kenney, W. Larry
Kiefer, Daniel G.
Koul, Ravinder
Laguna, Pablo
Lakoski, Joan M.
Landis, Melissa
LaPorte, Robert
Leathers, John
Lesieutre, George A.
Lilley, John M
Manbeck, Harvey B.
Marshall, J. Daniel
Marsico, Salvatore A.
May, James E.
Mayer, Jeffrey S.
McCarty, Ronald L.
McCorkle, Sallie M.
Milakofsky, Louis
Minard, Robert D.
Mitchell, Robert B.
Moore, John W.
Morton, Quinn D.
Myers, Jamie M.
Navin, Michael J.
Nelson, Murry R.
Nichols, John S.
Nistor, Victor
Olson, Jon
Ozment, Judy P.
Pangborn, Robert N.
Pauley, Laura L.
Power, Barbara L.
Pytel, Jean Landa
Richards, David R.
Richman, Irwin
Ricketts, Robert D.
Ridley, Sheila E.
Rogers, Gary W.
Romano, John J.
Romberger, Andrew B.
Romero, Victor C.
Rowe, William A.
Sachs, Howard
Scanlon, Dennis C.
Schengrund, Cara-Lynne
Secor, Robert
Seybert, Thomas A.
Sharp, Jeffrey M.
Simmonds, Patience L.
Slobounov, Semyon
Smith, Carol A.
Smith, James F.
Smith, Stephen M.
Smith, Sandra R.
Snavely, Loanne L.
Spanier, Graham B.
Stace, Stephen W.
Steiner, Kim C.
Sternad, Dagmar
Stoffels, Shelly M.
Strasser, Gerhard F.
Stratton, Valerie N.
Su, Mila C.
Sutton, Jane S.
Thomson, Joan S.
Tormey, Brian B.
Traver, Erik B.
Troester, Rodney L.
Turner, Tramble T.
Urenko, John B.
Varadan, Vasundara V.
Ventura, Jose A.
Wager, J. James
Walters, Robert A.
Watkins, Marley W.
Welch, Susan
White, Eric R.
Willis, Daniel E.
Zhang, Jenny

OTHERS ATTENDING
FROM SENATE OFFICE
Bugyi, George J.
Hockenberry, Betsy S.
Price, Vickie R.
Simpson, Linda A.
Walk, Sherry F.

171  Total Elected

    5 Total Ex Officio

10    Total Appointed

186 Total Attending

 

TENTATIVE AGENDA FOR OCTOBER 24, 2000

 

Committees and Rules - Revision of Standing Rules, Article II, Section 6(l) (Legislative)

 

Intercollegiate Athletics – Fan Behavior (Legislative)

 

Faculty Affairs- Report on the Impact on Faculty Development of Hiring Off the Tenure Track (Advisory/Consultative)

 

Faculty Benefits – Changes in Insurance Benefits (Informational)

 

Libraries – Penn State University Libraries: One Library Geographically Dispersed (Informational)

 

University Planning – Budget Presentation for 2001-2002, Rodney Erickson, Executive Vice President/Provost  (Informational)