Penn State University Home  




T H E   S E N A T E   R E C O R D


Volume 38-----September 14, 2004-----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, 2004-2005.


The publication is issued by the Senate Office, 101 Kern Graduate Building, University Park, PA 16802 (telephone 814-863-0221). The Senate Record is distributed to all libraries across the Penn State system, and is posted on the Web at 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 that have appeared in the Agenda for the meeting are not included in The Senate Record unless they have been changed substantially during the meeting, or are considered to be of major importance. Remarks and discussions are abbreviated in most instances. A complete transcript and tape of the meeting is on file. Individuals with questions may contact Dr. Susan C. Youtz, Executive Secretary, University Faculty Senate.



I.          Final Agenda for September 14, 2004                                                           Pages ii-iii

II.         Minutes and Summaries of Remarks                                                               Pages 1-18

III.       Appendices

                  A.  Corrected Copy-Senate Committee on Admissions                            Appendix I

                        Records, Scheduling, and Student Aid, Proposal for

                        Revising Senate Policy 42-98 (Armed Services)


                  B.   Attendance                                                                                        Appendix II


                        FINAL AGENDA FOR SEPTEMBER 14, 2004


A.        MINUTES OF THE PRECEDING MEETING                                                 Page 1


            Minutes of the April 27, 2004, meeting in The Senate Record 37:5



B.         COMMUNICATIONS TO THE SENATE                                                      Page 1


            Seating Chart for 2004-2005


            Senate Curriculum Report (Blue Sheets) of August 31, 2004



C.        REPORT OF SENATE COUNCIL - Meeting of August 24, 2004                    Page 1


D.        COMMENTS BY CHAIR KIM STEINER                                                 Pages 1-7


E.         COMMENTS BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNIVERSITY                 Pages 8-11


F.         FORENSIC BUSINESS                                                                                 Page 11


G.        UNFINISHED BUSINESS                                                                             Page 11




                  Admissions, Records, Scheduling, and Student Aid


                        Proposal for Revising Senate Policy 42-98                                    Pages 11-12

                        (Armed Services)


                        Proposal for Revising Senate Policy 56-70                                    Pages 12-13

                        (Leave of Absence)


                  Committees and Rules


                        Amendment to Constitution, Article II, Section 5(c)                              Page 13

                        (Student Representation)


                        Revision to Standing Rules, Article III, Section 5(a)                       Pages 14-16

                        (FR&R Membership)


                        Revision to Bylaws, Article III, Section 7                                              Page 16

                        (Senate Absences)


I.          ADVISORY/CONSULTATIVE REPORTS                                                   Page 16





                  Faculty Rights and Responsibilities


                        Annual Reports for 2003-2004                                                            Page 17


                  Intercollegiate Athletics


                        Annual Report of Academic Eligibility and Athletic                                Page 17

                        Scholarships for 2003-2004


                  Joint Committee on Insurance and Benefits


                        Annual Report for 2003-2004                                                              Page 17




                        Global Outsourcing, Research, and Graduate Education                        Page 17


                  Student Life


                        Managing Classroom Disruption                                                           Page 17


K.        NEW LEGISLATIVE BUSINESS                                                                  Page 17


L.         COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE                       Pages 17-18



M.        ADJOURNMENT                                                                                          Page 18


NOTE:       The next regular meeting of the University Faculty Senate will be held on Tuesday,

                  October 26, 2004, at 1:30 p.m. at Penn State Harrisburg.


            The University Faculty Senate met on Tuesday, September 14, 2004, at 1:30 p.m. in room 112 Kern Graduate Building with Kim C. Steiner, Chair, presiding. There were 234 Senators who signed the roster.




            There was a slide on the screen a few moments ago regarding cell phones. Some of you have cell phones; some of you have pagers; and some of them may still be on. Consider that possibility and turn them off for the benefit of your fellow Senators.


            Will the Senate come to order. Agenda Item A is minutes of the preceding meeting. The April 27, 2004, Senate Record, providing a full transcription of the proceedings, was sent to all University Libraries and is posted on the University Faculty Senate’s web site. Are there any corrections or additions to this document? May I hear a motion to accept?


            Senators: So moved.


            Chair Steiner: Second?


            Chair Steiner: All in favor of accepting minutes of the April 27, 2004, meeting please say, “Aye.”


            Senators: Aye.


            Chair Steiner: Opposed, “Nay.” The ayes have it and the motion carries. The minutes of the April 27, 2004, meeting have been approved.




            Chair Steiner: Agenda Item B, Communications to the Senate: The Senate Curriculum Report of August 31, 2004, is posted on the University Faculty Senate’s Web site.




            Chair Steiner: Agenda Item C, Report of Senate Council meeting of August 24. The minutes from the August 24 meeting of Senate Council are attached to today’s Agenda.




            Chair Steiner: As you know, or may not know, you will find out soon enough that the fall meeting is usually the time when the Senate Chair makes the most extended comments of the year. I have some things to say that are partly personal and other announcements that I need to cover.


            First, I would like to introduce other members of the platform party for the benefit of those who are new to the Senate. On my immediate right is the Senate Parliamentarian, George Franz. George is a Senator from the Delaware County Campus. In fact he is the Director of Academic Affairs at the campus, and he is a former Senate Chair. As Parliamentarian, George sits here in case I get off track. George has assured me he will get my attention in case things are going wrong. George is the one to contact if you have questions about parliamentary procedure.


            To George’s right is Jamie Myers, our Chair-Elect and an associate professor in the College of Education. Jamie is in his 14th year as a member of the Senate. Last year he was Senate Secretary and previously he served as a member of the Committee on Committees and Rules; as a representative of his college to Council; Chair of the Committee on Undergraduate Education; Vice-Chair of Faculty Benefits; and Chair of the Faculty Rights and Privacy Issues Subcommittee of Faculty Affairs.


            To Jamie’s right is Dawn Blasko, the Senate Secretary and an associate professor of Experimental Psychology at Behrend College. Dawn is in her second term as a faculty Senator and has served on the Undergraduate Education Committee and the Intra-University Relations Committee. She also recently completed a term on the extra-senatorial Committee on Faculty Rights and Responsibilities. Dawn chaired the subcommittee that wrote last year’s report on "Curricular Integration Across Locations."


            Finally, on the far end, is the most important person in the Senate, Susan Youtz, who is our Executive Secretary. Susan was previously a faculty member in the School of Nursing, and she was a Senator for eight years before being hired into her current position in 2001. She represented her college on Council for three years, chaired and vice-chaired Curricular Affairs, and chaired Intra-University Relations. Susan and the Senate Chair have separate but slightly overlapping roles. In general, Susan works to keep the Senate running, but another task she works at diligently is to make sure the Chair looks good and better than he probably really is. One of my goals for this year is to make that task not too difficult.


            Your officers have already met together on many occasions since April. We will be seeing much more of one another on our fall road trips. As it turns out, I like the other officers – that is a good start – and I think we shall make a harmonious team. The real test, this being the year 2004, is going to come on November 3, when we will be spending about 12 hours together on a campus visit. That is the day after Tuesday, November 2, and at least one of us is going to be in a deep funk. However, I will try to cheer him up!


            Now, I would like to ask the Senate Office staff to stand. Their names are Patty Poorman, Sherry Walk, Anna Butler, Cherry Lee Fisher, and Kadi Corter. These are the folks who assist you with curriculum proposals; answer questions about preparing student petitions; help in researching Senate policy; and maintain communications among the officers and committee chairs. They often must work under seemingly impossible deadlines and they are among the hardest working people you will find anywhere at the University. I encourage you to stop by the Senate Office, which is across the foyer here in 101 Kern, and introduce yourself.


            Now, the real business of the Senate is done by the standing committees, and especially by the chairs of those committees. I think we have an outstanding set of chairs this year, and I would like them to stand briefly as I call their names so that the Senate may see who they are. Pam Hufnagel, Chair of Committees and Rules; Lynda Goldstein, Chair of Admissions, Records, Scheduling and Student Aid; Lee Coraor, Chair of Computing and Information Systems; Doug Brown, Chair of Curricular Affairs; Tram Turner, Chair of Faculty Affairs; Cara-Lynne Schengrund, Chair of Faculty Benefits; Martin Pietrucha, Chair of Intercollegiate Athletics. I do not see Martin, would Paul Clark, Vice-Chair, please stand. Thank you. Al Mueller, Chair of Intra-University Relations; Dave Cranage, Chair of Libraries; Ladi Semali, Chair of Outreach Activities; Paul Eslinger, Chair of Research; Rich Yahner, Chair of Student Life; Art Miller, Chair of Undergraduate Education; and Dan Hagen, Chair of University Planning. I do not see Dan. Would John Boehmer, Vice-Chair please stand? Thanks, John. Thank you all for agreeing to serve, and thank you in advance for the contributions you will be making to the work of the Senate this year.


            Now I would like to take a moment to revisit something I said as a nominee for the Chair-Elect position, because I am sure you have forgotten it. Nevertheless, I still think it is very important. When I was considering that position, I was in my first term as a Senator and I really had a rather limited perspective on this organization. The thought of running for Chair-Elect was confusing and daunting for me. So, I asked several former chairs their views about the Senate. I heard unanimously that Penn State has an excellent Senate, one of the best certainly among large research universities. These half-dozen or so former chairs offered four reasons why we are good.


            First, because we “keep our eyes on the ball.” The domain of the Senate is spelled out clearly in the Constitution. As interpreted by both the Senate and the administration, our responsibilities and authority are extremely broad. However, they do not cover every cause that some of us might like to take up, and we must continually remind ourselves to focus on what we are elected to do. There is enough business within that to keep us fully occupied without getting into issues for which we have no responsibility and no authority. For example, purely political issues, issues of national policy, and things like that.


            Second, we are good because we periodically tackle big issues.  The Senate is at its best when it wrestles with weighty and consequential matters. I was advised that every Chair should pursue one or two of these.


            Third, we do good work. It is easy to find examples of excellent and even scholarly work taking place within our committees, issued in the form of reports on the Senate floor.  These achievements would not be possible if it were not for the hard work and dedication of individual members of the Senate.


            Finally, we have a healthy, collaborative relationship with the University administration. I am told this is unusual. If it is unusual, then it is probably fragile, and we must all (faculty and administration) take special care to nurture it. Without this partnership, we as a Senate could not accomplish most of the good work that we do and the University would not benefit from our presence.


            So that is what I would like to remind you as you are beginning your committee work for this year. Keep your eyes on the ball, do good work on important matters, and work with the administration – and expect them to work with you – to preserve our healthy relationship.


            Universities are wonderful systems when they are working properly, and a good faculty senate works for the same reason that good universities are successful. To borrow a metaphor popularized by James Duderstedt, former president of the University of Michigan, Penn State is a loose federation of 5,400 academic entrepreneurs. In greater or lesser degrees, we each have freedom to do what pleases us, and what pleases us is interesting, meaningful, productive work. Sooner or later in our careers at Penn State, many of our faculty members find ourselves participating in the Senate. If the University is fortunate, we discover in the Senate yet another outlet for our interests, and we direct some of our entrepreneurial energy toward making the University work better. It is not a zero-sum system; much, perhaps most, of what we do here is not merely a diversion from other productive activities, but rather is truly an addition to the total enterprise of the University.


            Our reward is the same reward that ultimately sustains us in most of what we do – not our salary, but rather the satisfaction that we are engaged in meaningful work and doing things of real consequence. Meaningful work not only gives purpose to the Senate, it also fuels its capacity to fulfill that purpose. However, if Senators do not find satisfaction in the work of the Senate, they should find other venues for their energies.


            With these things in mind, I have stressed in our committee charges the need to address matters of consequence in which tangible achievements are reasonably possible. Without that focus, the time of our members is squandered and our energies are dissipated. Fortunately, we do a pretty good job of not squandering our time and energy. Someone recently told me that Senate reports and legislation often steer University initiatives in ways that cannot always be imagined when the action is taken. What we do in our committees can move the University forward and make it an even better institution, and it is helpful to remind ourselves of that occasionally.


            Last year the Senate approved a report by Intra-University Relations Committee entitled "Curricular Integration Across Locations." This subject was probably the most common topic of discussion during the officers’ visits to campuses and colleges last year. The recommendations of that report are now being addressed through several initiatives. As a follow-up specifically to Recommendation 5, Provost Erickson and I will soon be jointly appointing a Committee on Curricular Integrity. We have not yet finalized the charge, but I can tell you that it will be a more comprehensive response to Recommendation 5 than originally proposed.


            Another topic that generated a good bit of discussion during our University Park visits last spring was the dismissal of a tenured faculty member at Altoona. Among other things, we heard calls for a free-standing policy pertaining to the Standing Joint Committee on Tenure that would spell out its functions and procedures and clarify the idea of “grave misconduct,” one of the justifications for dismissal in HR23. These suggestions seemed to me to have great merit, and I have had encouraged discussions about them with President Spanier and other members of the administration. Accordingly, I have asked the Faculty Affairs Committee to work with Blannie Bowen to develop an advisory/consultative report on this subject.


            SRTEs and other measures of teaching effectiveness have been a recurring, if not quite perennial, topic of Senate attention, most recently last fall in an advisory/consultative report from Faculty Affairs. I suspect this is because we are not quite sure whether we have yet gotten it right, and I know that there is widespread skepticism within the faculty whether SRTEs really are a valid metric of classroom performance. However, we have never asked the most important question, which is whether those who make Promotion and Tenure decisions believe they are given enough information to make fair and rigorous judgments on the teaching criterion. If they do, then I think we can quit fretting about it so much. If they do not, then we must question whether we are rewarding good teaching and sanctioning poor teaching as effectively as we should be, and take measures to get better. In any event, the answer to this question should set us on more solid ground than we are now, and I will soon be appointing a special subcommittee of Faculty Affairs, chaired by Art Miller, to look into this.


            As you know, the Senate Self-Study Report of last year recommended a number of changes in the structure and duties of our standing committees. Most of the recommendations were defeated on a single vote, but the idea of taking a critical look at the Standing Rules for each committee still seems compelling. For example, some prescribed duties may be obsolete, and committees may have taken up other duties through the years that should be formalized. Accordingly, I have asked each committee to review its duties as described in the Standing Rules and to recommend any revisions to the Senate Office by December 10. I have also asked each committee to take stock of the reports that it regularly issues to see if changes are warranted. The next step will be for proposed changes to be vetted through Committees and Rules.


            Finally, I will mention that I have asked Curricular Affairs to perform a descriptive assessment of the current implementation of the Writing Across the Curriculum requirement. As you know, we completed a review of the GI requirement last spring. Another special subcommittee submitted a report on the GHA requirement to the Undergraduate Education Committee just this morning. Yet another committee has completed a report on the First-Year Seminar that will be taken up soon by Undergraduate Education. A special review of the Writing Across the Curriculum requirement by the Writing Subcommittee of Curricular Affairs is now timely, and I thank Peter Deines for bringing this to my attention.


            For additional comments of this nature, I refer you to the minutes of Senate Council at the end of your Agenda. Also included in the minutes are topics that were discussed by the Faculty Advisory Committee to the President at its August meeting, as well as, a list of reports from the April 27 Senate meeting that have been approved for implementation by the President. Domestic partner benefits were also discussed at the August Faculty Advisory Committee meeting. This topic is not listed in the Council report because it was not on the written agenda. If you have a topic that you think should be brought up by the Faculty Advisory Committee to the President, I urge you to pass that suggestion along to one of the members. Members of Faculty Advisory Committee are the Past-Chair, Chris Bise; myself; Chair-Elect Jamie Myers; and three elected persons who are:  Wayne Curtis, Carey Eckhardt, and Mark Casteel.


            Earlier this summer, the University named two new Evan Pugh Professors. Named after Penn State's first president, this award is the highest distinction that the University can bestow upon a faculty member. The award is given to faculty members whose research publications and creative work or both are of the highest quality over a period of time; are acknowledged national and international leaders in their fields as documented by pioneering research or creative accomplishments; are recipients of prestigious awards; and demonstrate excellent teaching skills with undergraduate and graduate students.


            The first new Evan Pugh Professor that I want to recognize today is Anthony Cutler, research professor of art history in the College of Arts and Architecture. Professor Cutler will you please stand?


            Professor Cutler is recognized as a world authority in Byzantine studies. His standing as a scholar was highlighted in his selection as the art history editor of the three-volume Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium. He has led the way in shaping the direction of scholarship in the particular area of Byzantine carved ivories. His scholarship in this area has been truly groundbreaking, and it continues with a forthcoming, two-volume work entitled, Corpus of Byzantine Ivory Carvings. A new area of scholarship for Professor Cutler is his study of gift exchange between Byzantium and Islam. He is using an interdisciplinary approach, involving both art history and anthropology, to decipher the complex history of cultural exchanges between these two societies.


            Professor Cutler has received numerous grants from the National Endowment for the Humanities and other foundations. He is a fellow of the Society of Antiquaries, London; a former member of the Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton University; and was a John Simon Guggenheim Foundation Fellow in 2002. He received the Hawkins Prize in 1992, made Choice's Outstanding Academic Books of 1994; received the Francois Ier medal from the College de France in 1995; and the Humboldt Research Prize in 2001. Professor Cutler is also the recipient of Penn State's Alumni Teaching Award and the Faculty Scholar Medal for Outstanding Achievement.


            Congratulations, Professor Cutler, on your naming as an Evan Pugh Professor. (Applause)


            That is all very impressive, Professor Cutler, but I think you need to take up a real challenge in Byzantine studies and tackle the Faculty Senate!


            I would now like to ask Professor Joanna Floros, Professor of Cellular and Molecular Biology in the College of Medicine, to stand.


            Joanna Floros is a founder and an important contributor to the surfactant protein field. Pulmonary surfactant is a lipoprotein complex that prevents lung collapse and is essential for life. Surfactant deficiency can lead to Respiratory Distress Syndrome in prematurely born infants. Joanna is currently studying the regulation of the surfactant proteins and the role of genetic variation of these proteins in lung disease. She is also studying the role of surfactants in the lung disease associated with cystic fibrosis and the impact of environmental pollution on pulmonary disease susceptibility. During her career she has been the recipient of three prestigious awards from the National Institutes of Health:  the National Research Service Award, New Investigator Research Award, and the prestigious Merit Award. Research under her direction has been funded continuously by NIH since 1985. She has also been a recipient of the Genetech/American Lung Association Career Investigator award and the Penn State University Faculty Scholar Medal for Outstanding Achievement, and she has been listed in Who's Who in the American Thoracic Society since 1996. The majority of her nearly 30 trainees—students, post-doctoral fellows, and clinical fellows—hold academic positions in the United States and abroad. She is currently president of the College of Medicine Faculty Organization and has been a member of the Penn State Faculty Senate since 1993. Joanna has served as member and chair of the Student Life Committee and is an elected member of Committees and Rules, having served as the Vice-Chair for the past two year. Congratulations, Joanna. (Applause)


            The October 26 Senate meeting will take place at Penn State Harrisburg. This is only the third time since 1980 that the Senate as a body will have met at a location away from the University Park campus. Almost half of our Senators are from locations other than University Park. We cannot go tit for tat; University Park has more facilities and it is centrally located. However, an occasional reciprocity seems altogether right, and probably most of us have never been to the Harrisburg campus. Susan and her staff have been working closely with Madlyn Hanes and members of her staff to make this a successful visit. Soon after today’s meeting, you will receive from the Senate Office a full itinerary for the Penn State Harrisburg meeting including directions and lodging information as well as a response checklist confirming your attendance and transportation for the meeting.


            The Senate officers will visit the following campuses during the fall semester: Berks, Lehigh Valley, York, Mont Alto, Behrend, Shenango and Beaver. The dates for the visits appear on the Senate web site.


            This summer, at the July Board of Trustees meeting, the University kicked off a yearlong celebration of its sesquicentennial anniversary. The year ahead will bring a variety of events commemorating the University's 150-year history. Part of the celebration was the production of a historical poster by the department of University Publications. We are pleased to have posters for all Senators. When you leave today's meeting you will find your poster in the back of the auditorium.


            Since we are speaking about publications, I want to let you know that the 2004-2005 Constitution has returned from the printer. They will be mailed by the Senate staff in the next day or two.


            I will conclude my comments with a couple of unhappy announcements. We just received word that Sally Small, who served as Senate Chair in 1975-1976, passed away on August 21 at her home near Reading, PA. Sally was formerly librarian at the Berks campus and from 1967 until her retirement in 1997 was an assistant director of human resources at the University Park campus.


            Also, Thomas Magner, Senate Chair in 1970-1971, died March 24, 2004. Tom was associate dean and professor emeritus of Slavic languages in the College of the Liberal Arts. He retired in 1984. Let us remember the contributions that both made to the Senate and the University with a moment of silence.




            Chair Steiner: Agenda Item E, Comments by the President of the University. President Spanier is with us today. I am pleased to invite him to come forward to make some remarks. President Spanier.


            President Spanier: Thank you, Kim. The change of the Constitution cover from pink to blue parallels the change Penn State made in its school colors about 100 years ago. It is a little late on the Senate booklet, but there is precedent for such a change.


            Chair Steiner: Graham, excuse me for interrupting you. You were doing something at the library open house today. Since you are practiced, could you please repeat that performance?


            President Spanier: Absolutely. Today is library open house day and thousands of Penn State undergraduates are in the library getting oriented and having fabulous tours and are being entertained. Among the entertainment was me doing magic.


            At this point, President Spanier asks the two Evan Pugh recipients to come forward and assist him with a card trick.


            President Spanier: I would like to thank Kim for his excellent remarks and to reiterate something that he said from the faculty leadership side, which I also feel very much strongly about. We really do have the very best functioning University Faculty Senate that I know of in this country. My colleagues at the presidential level also feel that way. I certainly feel that way, from having observed faculty governance at many other universities. This is a wonderful partnership and I know that it will continue. I also want to mention that right before my “State of the University” address, for those of you who will be on the University Park campus, there will be ice cream served in the Chemistry Life Sciences complex. Just before that, we will be dedicating the Chemistry Life Sciences building and the new Shortlidge Mall. This project should be finished about midnight the night before, which is generally the way those things work. We are very, very proud of this advancement in the sciences at Penn State. It is more than a $100 million commitment. It is really a great step forward for Penn State and everyone is welcome to all those activities.


            The “State of the University” address occurs on the same day as Penn State’s September Board of Trustees meeting. At the Board of Trustees meeting this week, we will be reviewing Penn State’s budget situation. Historically, every September, we ask the Board of Trustees to approve our budget submission to the governor and to the legislature for the fiscal year that would begin July 1, 2005. We expect to have a balanced budget this year, tight as it will be. Nevertheless, we feel very good about the ability we have to keep up with faculty salaries, to keep up with rapidly escalating costs of employee benefits, and to continue on our facilities plan. At the September meeting, we will also review our five-year facilities plan with the trustees for all of our campuses. We feel we will be able to put together a budget that will allow Penn State to continue its level of excellence. In order to do that, we will be asking the state legislature to do its fair share in supporting us financially, something it has had difficulty being able to do in recent years. One of the consequences of having our appropriation cut nearly $50 million over the last few years and the difficulty surrounding that is, in order to maintain the level of quality at the University, we have had to continue to raise tuition behind inflationary levels. This is a philosophical policy we have made at Penn State. We have made a decision to raise tuition not one penny more than we have to, but to raise it as much as we have to, to maintain the level of quality. My feeling is once you start eroding the quality of what you do, it puts you in a vicious cycle that is not in the best interest of the University. But, given we have two main sources of income, tuition and legislative appropriation, it inevitably means that we are putting more of the burden on students and their families to come up with higher levels of income.


            Now, I wish that was not so, but on the other hand I don’t feel guilty about it. I think it is what we have to do. What I do feel guilty about is that given the high level of tuition that we have to charge if we are in a situation at any campus, college, or department, where we may not be doing everything we can do and should do to provide our students with a high quality student centered experience. That is the message I want to deliver to you as leaders of the faculty, is that we are doing what we have to do to make ends meet at Penn State. You must keep in mind from a student’s perspective and from the perspective of their families, there is a cost, there is a loan debt, they are burdened financially as high as it has ever been. We do work very hard to put a financial aid package together. I am out there desperately trying to raise more money through our trustee scholarship programs and other fund raising so no student will be turned away. What I hope we can give them in return is really the full attention of or faculty and staff, and not to cut corners on the quality of what we do for them. We should give them a good experience in the classroom; provide good student services in our colleges through our student affairs units; and really make them feel that what they are paying for at Penn State is well worth it. Our student satisfaction survey shows that an overwhelming majority of students feel that way, but not all of them do. I hope that is something that we can collectively continue to work on.


            This year that just concluded, we had the second highest number of applicants to Penn State in our history. Most of the difference between the highest year in our history, which was the year before, and this year can be contributed to the decline in international student applications. This parallels what is happening in universities throughout America and there are some obvious and some not so obvious reasons for that happening. We still continue to be the most popular university in the United States, so I feel good about the level of interest. We continue to look ahead this year to a very good applicant pool. Our enrollments have finally leveled off. Only in a few selective areas around the University should we be feeling any great pressure from an enrollment search. At some of our campuses that are in the more demographically challenged areas of Pennsylvania, enrollments are actually not as strong as they were in the past. If you go back to my comments to the Senate last year, in my two extended sets of remarks and in some things I will try to summarize more briefly in my “State of the University” address on Friday, all of us need to be very mindful of these changing demographics and what perhaps we can all do together to make sure all of the campuses of the University continue to be of great appeal to students across the state and beyond. That is all the topics I wanted to cover today. I would like to now take several minutes to answer any other questions.


            Tramble Turner, Abington:  President Spanier, of the three state-related universities, Temple University, which is near Penn State Delaware County, Great Valley, and Penn State Abington, recently announced its largest enrollment ever and the hiring initiative of 170 new faculty members. Have there been discussions or comparisons of their strategic plan and Penn State’s strategic plan? Also, if you know the difference in their state funding and ours, perhaps you could address that as well.


            President Spanier:  Of the four state-related universities and comparing ourselves as well to the State System of Higher Education, Penn State continues by far to receive the lowest level of funding from the commonwealth on a per student basis. Temple University and the University of Pittsburgh have in recent years finally been able to turn around the long-term enrollment slump that they saw in the mid-to-late 1960’s when they became state-related universities. Before that time they had been wholly private universities. In recent years they have been able to see resurgence in enrollment, which has positioned them well. Of course, Penn State has had a huge enrollment growth going back to the 1960’s and has sustained that right up until about this year. We are now finally leveling off. Temple and Pittsburgh are both advantaged by the right increase they have had in enrollments, as well as their continuing support from the state. We work very had at continuing to point out those differences without trying to whine about it, because I am not certain there is a lot we can do about that. We will again this year carry forward our budget request, put our best foot forward and explain why we believe we merit a higher level of state support. We will not be asking the state for anything outrageous or anything they could not afford to do if they give us a sufficient priority. I work very closely with David Adamany and Mark Nordenberg, President and Chancellor at Temple and Pittsburgh, respectively. We have a great relationship. In fact, in the last couple of years the Pennsylvania Senate has asked that we have a joint appropriations hearing. In the Pennsylvania House they continue with the traditional separate appropriation hearings. I expect that will be the format again this year. We have never stopped making our case. Of course, when we get the Trustee’s approval on Friday for next year’s budget proposal, we will continue to go to work on it once again.


            Eileen Kane, Dickinson:  President Spanier, in view of the recent developments with the law school and possible relocation: would you comment on your current view of efforts to integrate the law school in the absence of any move that might occur to University Park? Also, other University or University Park efforts that might be made either from up here, initiated down there, to integrate the law school further into Penn State, independent of any actual site location?


            President Spanier:  All of those issues are under discussion right now. We are still recovering from what I consider to be an unfortunate set of circumstances, whereby the Board of Governors at the law school did not agree to the two campus proposal. It was very generous and would have represented the largest investment in any academic initiative in the history of this University. For reasons that the majority of the members have, they chose not to go forward with that. Now I think we want to consider with the governors, leaders in the Carlisle area, faculty in the law school, and with members of Penn State’s Board of Trustees what should be our priorities going forward. I am not prepared to give you a substantive response right now, because we are in the mode of letting the dust settle and see what emerges. The whole topic of the future of the law school will continue to be on the front burner.


            Chair Steiner:  Are there any other questions? President Spanier, thank you for meeting with us today.


            As we begin our discussion of reports, I remind you to please stand and identify yourself and the unit you represent before addressing the Senate.










            Chair Steiner:  Agenda Item H, Legislative Reports. We have five Legislative Reports today. The first one is from the Senate Committee on Admissions, Records, Scheduling, and Student Aid and appears on today’s Agenda as Appendix B entitled, “Proposal for Revising Senate Policy 42-98 (Armed Services).” Lynda Goldstein; Chair of Admissions, Records, Scheduling, and Student Aid; will present this report.





Proposal for Revising Senate Policy 42-98 (Armed Services)


Lynda R. Goldstein, Chair Admissions, Records, Scheduling, and Student Aid


            Lynda Goldstein:  Thank you. You have the report before you. It is a rather lengthy one. I will tell you that it came to us from the World Campus and is strongly supported by the Commonwealth College, the College of Health and Human Development, and the College of the Liberal Arts. Penn State currently accepts military service school course credit recommendations made by the American Council on Education (ACE). These come in as transferred general credits on a student’s transcript and academic units determine whether and how to apply those to a student’s degree program. This proposal asks that ACE credit for Military Occupational Specialties (MOS) be treated similarly. These Military Occupational Specialties are five to six years of assessed work performance and skill levels. Generally, the areas are communications, management or information systems. It is parallel to the kind of work experience that students might typically put together a portfolio for and ask for that to be reviewed. These are already reviewed by ACE and already assessed credit. I will answer any questions at this time.


            Chair Steiner:  Are there any questions?


            Winston Richards, Harrisburg:  I notice on the conclusion, the second paragraph from the bottom. You have written, “Position Penn State, particularly non-UP locations, as an attractive Pennsylvania institution for veterans and for the 20,000 members of the Pennsylvania Army National Guard.” Would you please clarify the wording, “particularly non-UP locations?”


            Lynda Goldstein:  If I understand your question correctly, I think you are asking me precisely who these non-UP locations might be.


            Winston Richards:  What bothers me about the wording “particularly non-UP locations,” is that it seems we are attempting to sell them something less. I would like to suggest an editorial change. I ask that you simply strikeout “particularly non-UP locations.” It would read, “Position Penn State as an attractive Pennsylvania institution for veterans and for the 20,000 members of the Pennsylvania Army National Guard.”


            Lynda Goldstein:  I would be happy to do that as part of the rationale, although it is not part of the recommendation for the actual legislation.


            Chair Steiner:  Does everyone understand what was suggested? It is at the bottom of Page 5, second bullet from the bottom. It reads, “Position Penn State, striking out particularly non-UP locations, as an attractive Pennsylvania institution for veterans and for the 20,000 members of the Pennsylvania Army National Guard.” Are there any more questions? This report comes to us from a committee; it has already been moved and seconded. Are we ready to vote? As many as are in favor of the proposal from the Senate Committee on Admissions, Records, Scheduling, and Student Aid entitled, “Proposal for Revising Senate Policy 42-98 (Armed Services)” please signify by saying, “Aye.”


            Senators:  Aye.


            Chair Steiner:  Opposed? The ayes have it. The motion passes. The Senate has approved the proposal from the Senate Committee on Admissions, Records, Scheduling, and Student Aid entitled, “Proposal for Revising Senate Policy 42-98 (Armed Services).” It will be sent to President Spanier for implementation. Thank you, Chair Goldstein.


            Our second Legislative Report also comes from the Senate Committee on Admissions, Records, Scheduling, and Student Aid and appears on today’s Agenda as Appendix C and is entitled, “Proposal for Revising Senate Policy 56-70 (Leave of Absence).” Again, Lynda Goldstein will present this report.





Proposal for Revising Senate Policy 56-70 (Leave of Absence)


Lynda R. Goldstein, Chair Admissions, Records, Scheduling, and Student Aid


            Lynda Goldstein:  Again, you have this one before you and it is brief. I will tell you that the Graduate School was asked to look at this, because its policy is really quite different. It does not have a leave of absence policy, but rather a policy of reinstating students after they have left. Our committee and the legislation that governs undergraduates were seen as far more parallel to how the College of Medicine actually does its business.


            Chair Steiner:  Are there any comments or questions?  This report comes from a committee and has already been moved and seconded. Are we ready to vote? As many as are in favor of the proposal from the Senate Committee on Admissions, Records, Scheduling, and Student Aid entitled, “Proposal for Revising Senate Policy 56-70 (Leave of Absence),” please signify by saying, “Aye.”


            Senators:  Aye.


            Chair Steiner:  Opposed? The ayes have it. The motion passes. The Senate has approved the legislation entitled, “Proposal for Revising Senate Policy 56-70 (Leave of Absence)” from the Senate Committee on Admissions, Records, Scheduling, and Student Aid. It will be sent to President Spanier for implementation. Thank you, Chair Goldstein, and thanks to all of the members of your committee.


            The next three Legislative Reports come from the Senate Committee on Committees and Rules.  The first appears on today’s Agenda as Appendix D entitled, “Amendment to Constitution, Article II, Section 5(c) (Student Representation).” Because this legislative report is a proposed amendment to the Constitution, it will be discussed today and then tabled until the October 26 Senate meeting. Pamela Hufnagel, Chair of the Senate Committee on Committees and Rules, will present this report.




Amendment to Constitution, Article II, Section 5(c) (Student Representation)


Pamela P. Hufnagel, Chair Senate Committee on Committees and Rules


            Pamela Hufnagel:  Thank you. I have invited Senator Bise to join me today because he was instrumental in developing this report. You have the report and our recommendation. The vote to allot ten percent of the number of faculty Senators to students served as the impetus for our discussions. In those discussions, we decided that our overriding principles were getting good student representation, and to develop a policy that would be uncomplicated and easy to use. After much deliberation, which is outlined in the report, we developed this policy. It really is the same as what we have now, except that two students from Undergraduate Student Government will be added. We decided it would be a good idea to add them because they really understand the issues that concern all students, not just individual voting units. They are in frequent contact with Senate leadership and they already sit on committees. So, we think it would be also good for them to be able to also address the full Senate. Those are my introductory remarks. Does anyone have any questions for us?


            Chair Steiner:  Our next Legislative Report also comes from the Senate Committee on Committees and Rules and appears on today’s Agenda as Appendix E, entitled “Revision to Standing Rules, Article III, Section 5(a) (FR&R Membership).” Pam Hufnagel will also present this report.




Revision to Standing Rules, Article III, Section 5(a) (FR&R Membership)


Pamela P. Hufnagel, Chair Senate Committee on Committees and Rules


            Pamela Hufnagel:  Thank you. This report deals with Faculty Rights and Responsibilities (FR&R). Of course, this committee drew a lot of attention this past year because of the faculty issues going on. A suggestion was made to the committee that the word “tenured” should be inserted in front of the words “faculty members” for eligibility on this committee. In addition, as you think about this, over the past five years, which is as far back as records have been maintained, 63 percent of the issues brought to FR&R have involved tenured-related issues. Also, over the past 15 years, which is as far back as records go, everybody who has ever served on this committee actually has been tenured. If you approve this, it is not going to change what has been happening. It will just formalize what has been happening. Those are my introductory remarks and I am ready for questions.


            Fred Adams Jr., Fayette:  What approximately are the proportions of tenured and non-tenured faculty? Also, does this include fixed-term and adjunct faculty in this decision?


            Pamela Hufnagel:  I do not know the percentages of fixed-term and tenured faculty. I doubt that adjuncts would have ever been considered for membership on this committee.


            Fred Adams Jr.  I am talking about the decision process in arbitration and so on that might fall under this committee.


            Pamela Hufnagel:  Do you mean who brings the cases?


            Fred Adams Jr.:  That is correct.


            Pamela Hufnagel:  I am sorry I do not have that information.


            Anthony Ambrose, College of Medicine:  I asked Dr. Youtz about this committee and she did not have the Senate policy, but she does have the HR policy. Although 63 percent of the cases involve tenured individuals, what the policy says is, “The Committee on Faculty Rights and Responsibilities established by the procedures may review petitions from faculty members and administrators involving: 1. any situation in which a faculty members asserts that he or she has suffered a substantial injustice resulting from a violation of academic freedom, professional ethics or procedural fairness.” It does not limit the policy to tenure. Also it talks about cases of alleged discrimination. So there is a lot more to this than tenure. At the College of Medicine, on the Hershey campus, greater than 50 percent of the full-time faculty are not tenured or tenure-track. The fixed-term faculty are indeed the majority. Those faculty are not tenured for a variety of reasons. Some of them may not want to be in the tenure-track and others may not have been offered tenured track. Still more got their appointments in departments which have standing policies of not accepting anyone into tenure-track. Still more have had the experience of being offered tenure-track positions and then when they go to the College of Medicine and are told by their chair, “I was just kidding. You are going to be on fixed-term for two or three years and then go on tenure-track.” This is a clear violation of University policy. It is my opinion that fixed-term faculty members to some extent are already discriminated against. Even though they have not been on this committee, I see no reason to exclude them from it. In fact, I would make a recommendation that this committee make it a policy to include at least one fixed-term member. Thank you.


            Tramble Turner:  Recognizing some of the concerns that were just expressed, and having served as an elected representative of non-tenured lecturers, I would point out that some of the discussions regarding this legislation take into account that tenured individuals may feel more protected to raise questions on behalf of their colleagues, who are in the various positions you are describing. I am simply suggesting that would be one rationale for leaving the wording as is.


            Chair Steiner:  Do we have any other comments or questions about this report?  This report comes from a committee and has already been moved and seconded.  Are we ready to vote?


            At this point in the meeting several Senators questioned Chair Steiner whether the Senate should vote on this legislation at this meeting. After consultation with George Franz, Parliamentarian, it was decided it could be voted on today because it is a revision to Standing Rules.


            Chair Steiner:  I have been informed that we can vote on this today. As many as are in favor of this legislation, please signify by saying, “Aye.”


            Senators:  Aye.


            Chair Steiner:  Opposed?


            Senators:  Nay.


            Chair Steiner:  The ayes have it. The motion passes.


            A Senator:  Excuse me, I am asking for a show of hands.


            Chair Steiner:  A division of the house has been called and ordered. The Chair Elect and the Parliamentarian will serve as tellers. As many as are in favor of this legislation, please raise your right hand. As many as are opposed to the motion, please raise your right hand. The Senate has approved the legislation by a vote of 98 ayes to 78 nays. The ayes have it and the motion is carried. The Senate has approved the legislation from the Senate committee on Committees and Rules entitled, “Revision to Standing Rules, Article III, Section 5(a) (FR&R Membership).”


            Our final Legislative Report also comes from the Senate Committee on Committees and Rules and appears on today’s Agenda as Appendix F, entitled “Revision to Bylaws, Article III, Section 7 (Senate Absences).” Because this Legislative Report is a proposed amendment to the Bylaws, it will be discussed today and then tabled until the October 26 Senate meeting. Pam Hufnagel will also present this report.




Revision to Bylaws, Article III, Section 7 (Senate Absences)


Pamela P. Hufnagel, Chair Senate Committee on Committees and Rules


            Pamela Hufnagel:  Thank you. This report seeks to make a slight modification in what kind of absences will be reported to units and also make a clarification. Right now units have the opportunity to replace a Senator who has three or more unexcused absences, despite the fact that we do not have a way to verify whether they are unexcused or not. The wording would drop “unexcused” and read, “Senate voting units have the authority to replace a unit Senator who has three or more absences.” This does not remove any flexibility that units presently have. A unit could decide that their Senator has a legitimate excuse for missing and if they choose to excuse them and not replace them, it is perfectly in the power to keep a Senator who has missed quite a few meetings. So the first part does not change anything, unless you want it to. The second part is a clarification of what is already the policy. Namely, it is the absences from the afternoon University Faculty Senate meeting that we are referring to. This should help a Senator if he is at a conference and misses his caucus, committee and the full Senate meeting. They will not be charged with three absences and asked by their unit to resign. That is my introduction. Are there any questions?


            Zachary Gates, Dickinson:  I would like to make a recommendation. As it reads now there has not been the clarification that is desired. Perhaps the word “full” in front of University Faculty Senate Meeting should be added. There is some ambiguity, because the morning meetings are University Faculty Senate meetings. However, if we are using the benchmark of this afternoon meeting that is a “full” University Faculty Senate meeting. So I am making recommendation that “full” be part of the wording.


            Pamela Hufnagel:  I do not have a problem with that.


            Chair Steiner:  You are in agreement with the purpose of the recommendation. The question is whether the current wording accurately conveys the meaning intended.


            At this point George Franz informs Chair Steiner that we cannot vote at this time. Chair Steiner asks the committee to take the wording into advisement and give its final discussion at the October 26 meeting.


            Thank you, Chair Hufnagel, and thanks to all members of the Senate Committee on Committees and Rules.





            Chair Steiner:  Agenda Item J, Informational Reports. We have five Informational Reports on today’s Agenda.






            Annual Report for 2003-2004, Appendix G. This report provides a summary of the information on cases heard by the committee in 2003-2004.




            Annual Report of Academic Eligibility and Athletic Scholarships for 2003-2004, Appendix H. Each year the Intercollegiate Athletic Committee is mandated to provide a report of NCAA activities to the Senate. R. Scott Kretchmar, Faculty Athletic Representative to the NCAA, presented the report which summarizes statistics on the eligibility of our student athletes, and provides several indices of their academic performance compared with students at other institutions.




            Annual Report for 2003-2004, Appendix I. George Franz, Chair, gave this annual report summarizing recent and proposed changes in health care coverage.




            Global Outsourcing, Research, and Graduate Education, Appendix J. Eva Pell, Vice President for Research and Dean of the Graduate School, gave a presentation on global outsourcing. For decades the U.S. has been the major player in basic research in the physical sciences, however, there are now indications that in the last few years, European and Asian nations have overtaken us.




            Managing Classroom Disruption, Appendix K. Richard Yahner, Chair presented the report. The report offered four steps that have been found useful by experienced faculty.







            Chair Steiner:  Are there any comments?


            Eric D. Feigelson, College of Science:  A question for Chair Steiner. Does the Faculty Senate participate in the strategic planning going on in the University?

            Chair Steiner:  That is a good question. I am not really sure I know the answer to that. I do know that the Chair of the Senate used to participate on the University Planning committee but I am not sure that committee is constituted the same way that it used to be. Also, I am not currently serving on that committee. Dick, can you help us.


            Richard Althouse:  Inaudible.


            Chair Steiner:  I guess you are saying there is nothing exactly going on right now and you do not know what Rod has planned.


            Richard Althouse:  Inaudible.


            Jamie Myers:  The Faculty Senate did appoint representatives to the review teams for the diversity strategic plans that were just completed.


            Chair Steiner:  The Faculty Senate did appoint people to the review teams for diversity strategic plan that was reviewed this past spring.


            Eric D. Feigelson:  Can I express my thoughts?


            Chair Steiner:  Please do. I have a feeling this is leading somewhere.


            Eric Feigelson:  Please excuse me. I am a new member to the Senate, so my thoughts might be quite naďve in many ways. My thinking is that, insofar as the University activities are focused around the five-year strategic plans that are developed in a hierarchical fashion from small units all the way up to the University; insofar as that guides where money flows and what the priorities are. If the Senate does not have a report every five years that gets folded in through this process, then its concerns as expressed in its forensic sessions, informational reports, advisory sessions, not its legislative activities which are implemented by itself, other concerns may not be as efficiently implemented by not participating in the five-year strategic plan process.


            Chair Steiner:  Thank you. I think that is a very useful comment. Are there any other comments?




            Chair Steiner:  May I have a motion to adjourn?


            Senators:  So moved.


            Chair Steiner:  All in favor, please say, “Aye.”


            Senators:  Aye.


            Chair Steiner:  Motion carries. The September 14, 2004, meeting of the University Faculty Senate was adjourned at 3:37 p.m.


            Please note the next meeting of the University Faculty Senate will be on October 26, 2004, at 1:30 p.m. at Penn State Harrisburg.







Proposal for Revising Senate Policy 42-98 (Armed Services)




Implementation:  Spring 2005




The World Campus submitted to the Senate Committee on Admissions, Records, Scheduling, and Student Aid a proposed revision to Senate policy 42-98 (Educational Experiences in the Armed Services). This proposal was also supported and endorsed by the College of Liberal Arts, the Commonwealth College, and the College of Health and Human Development. The purpose of the proposed revision is to extend policy 42-98, under which credit is accepted for military service school courses, to also include Military Occupational Specialty (MOS).




This  proposal is made jointly by the Commonwealth College, College of Health and Human Development, College of Liberal Arts, and the Penn State World Campus to make Penn State more attractive to members of the armed forces, their family members, and veterans who desire to enroll in academic programs offered by Penn State in residence and online, and to related groups that would be interested in developing arrangement for group enrollments in academic programs with Penn State colleges or the Penn State World Campus, e.g., Pennsylvania Army National Guard, the Department of Defense.


Military Educational Market


The military educational market represents 1.4 million active duty personnel and 1.2 million Guard and Reserve for a total market size of 2.6 million, most of whom have tuition assistance benefits while they are on active duty, as well as Montgomery GI Bill benefits that can be used in advance while on active duty or after enlistment is over.  For the U.S. Army in 2003, for example, there were more than 400,000 active duty enlisted soldiers.  Of those, 163,700 (40%) participated in voluntary post-secondary education programs – 50,300 enlisted soldiers, 88,400 non-commissioned officers, and 25,000 officers -- resulting in $108,219,205 spent by the Army on tuition assistance for degree programs.  Also during 2003, 120,000 of the 350,00 (34%) soldiers in the Army National Guard pursued post-secondary education under military tuition assistance, including approximately 6,800 of the 20,000 Guard members in Pennsylvania.


There are more than 26 million veterans, including 1.28 million veterans in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (or 14% of the civilian population over age 18).  Currently, 1.3 million veterans nationally take advantage of their Montgomery GI Bill benefits each year.  About 56% of all living veterans have completed some college under the Montgomery GI Bill.  The Department of Defense is America's largest "company" as illustrated by the following comparisons found in Table 1.


Table 1.  Comparison of Department of Defense to Leading Companies *


                        Company                     Budget/Revenue           Number of

(in billions)                    Employees


            Department of Defense $371                            2,036,000

            Wal-Mart                                 $227                            1,383,000

            Exxon-Mobil                            $200                               97,900

            GM                                          $181                              365,000

            Ford                                         $160                              354,400


            *Source US Department of Defense


Government agencies, such as the Department of Defense and Health and Human Service, now tie the advancement of employees to their educational attainments, and have established online portals such as “HHS University” to facilitate employees connecting with online educational institutions and degree programs.


Being open to accepting credit for military service school courses, as per Penn State Policy 42-98, creates the possibility of enrollments by veterans in both residential programs and via distance education. Yet, veterans desire to maximize the number of quality credits that can be applied toward a degree or certificate program from military service school courses and Military Occupational Specialty.  To be truly competitive for enrollments by active duty soldiers, National Guard members and government agency employees, as well as veterans, for both residential and distance education offered programs, colleges and universities must be willing to accept credit for both military service school courses and MOSs. 


This is especially the case in the very competitive educational market of today, such as those that exist for non-UP locations. The State System of Higher Education, many private colleges in the Commonwealth (e.g., Gannon, St. Francis, York College) and junior colleges across the state (e.g., Buck County Community College, Harrisburg Community College, Westmoreland County Community College) and distance education providers from within Pennsylvania (e.g., Keystone Education Network) and outside the state (University of Phoenix), accept credit for both military service school courses and MOSs.  According to the 2003-04 SOC guide, University of Pittsburgh at Bradford, Temple University, Penn College of Technology, and Penn State Harrisburg also accept military service school courses and MOSs. Acceptance or non-acceptance of MOSs can be the deciding factor in whether an adult student who is in the military or is a veteran considers Penn State for a residential or online program, or selects another in-state college, university or distance education competitors.


Data compiled by the Penn State Center for Adult Learning Services in January 2004 for the Task Force on Continuing Education at Penn State shows that over the five-year period between 1998 and 2002 there was a steady decline in adult enrollments across all Penn State campus locations overall as well as in both the degree and non-degree categories. For degree seeking adult students the number of enrollments dropped from 1408 in 1998 to 1167 in 2002: a decline of 17%.  For non-degree seeking adult students the number of enrollments dropped from 728 to 502 between 1998 and 2002: a decline of 31%.  The total decline in adult student enrollments at Penn State over the five-year period was 22%.  This is at a time when the adult education market is growing nationally at a rate of 1% per year.  These figures do not include the World Campus adult enrollments, which showed a 99% increase between 1998 and 2002: an 841 to 9206 enrollment increase This is consistent with the online adult education nationwide, which has been growing at about 20% per year. Increased access to the military market will help revitalize adult student enrollments at Penn State.  


The military comprises a highly diverse population.  Table 2 (below), for example, shows the ethnic distribution of the soldier-students participating in eArmyU in 2003.



Table 2.  Ethnicity of eArmyU Soldier-Students in 2003



            Ethnicity                                                                                   %



            White, non-Hispanic                                                                 48.3

            African American                                                                      26.2

            Hispanic                                                                                   11.6

            Asian, Native Hawaiian, Pacific Islander                                      2.4

            Other                                                                                         3.9

            Unkown/Perferred not to respond                                               6.3


            *Source IBM/eArmyU


Increased access to the military market has the potential of further enriching the diversity of the Penn State adult student body.


SOC and ACE Credit Recommendations on Military Service School Courses and MOSs


Several Penn State colleges are working through Penn State World Campus to extend degree and certificate programs to adult learners beyond traditional Penn State campus locations.  Currently, College of Health and Human Development currently has an opportunity to offer the 2HRIM and 2DFSM and the College of Liberal Arts has an opportunity to deliver the 2LAS and 4LAS to active duty soldiers via a World Campus in eArmyU, a U.S. Army initiative that makes fully online degree programs available to active-duty soldiers worldwide.  Similarly, the Army National Guard, the U.S. Marine Corps, and U.S. Coast Guard have expressed interest in these online undergraduate program and others offered by Penn State academic units via the World Campus.  (Please see Appendix A for information on eArmyU.)


In order to offer undergraduate programs to activity duty soldiers, through the SOC Network, Penn State must become a full member of the Servicemembers Opportunity Colleges (SOC).  SOC is a consortium of regionally or nationally accredited colleges and universities established in 1972 by the federal enactment.  SOC members agree to fulfill a civic responsibility to be military friendly by providing quality education for servicemembers who have actively defended and served our country.  SOC member institutions do not “give” college credits to servicemembers, but agree to recognize legitimate college credits based on military training, standardized testing programs, and documented proficiency developed through work experience (i.e., MOS). Colleges and universities that are not members of the SOC Network are a much less attractive alternative to military students.


The American Council on Education (ACE) is charged by SOC with determining credit recommendations for military service school courses and MOSs, as published in A guide to the Evaluation of Educational Experience in the Armed Services.  Credit recommendations for military service school courses and MOSs appear on the AARTS Transcript (Army) or SMART Transcript (Coast Guard, Navy and Marines) of soldiers who submit it at the point of admissions to a college or university.  SOC member institutions agree to consider the application of appropriate credits to degrees.  Penn State currently accepts military service school course credit recommendations made by ACE, applying these as “general credits” on a transcript and allowing academic units to determine whether and how the credits apply to a degree program, as per the process by which transfer credits can be applied toward a degree program.  This proposal seeks to have ACE credit recommendations for MOSs treated congruently.


All soldiers complete a military training (i.e., military service school) in their intended occupational specialty prior to entering that MOS.  While in an MOS, the soldier completes continuing professional development and performance assessments, which are tied to advancement through “skill levels” and promotions in rank.  ACE recommendations on military service school course credit are established by expert evaluation for learning, judged to be equivalent to undergraduate courses (typically courses offered at the lower division by Penn State).


ACE uses teams of subject matter specialists to evaluate and establish the credit recommendations for MOSs.  The subject matter specialists are faculty from regionally accredited institutions selected by ACE to balance the evaluation team, e.g., institution type, geographic region, experience evaluating MOSs.  Team members (three to five per team) review documentation that describe the work responsibilities and performance expectations of soldiers in the occupation being evaluated, and then interview three to five soldiers at each of the grade/skill levels (typically 10 grade/skill levels) of the occupation.  The team uses the information gained from document review and the interviews to develop written descriptions that focus on three main areas:  learning outcomes, assessment measures, and most importantly, academic learning gained.  All of the subject matter specialists on a team must agree on the credit recommendation or the process is repeated again.


MOS credit recommendations typically are in areas such as communications, management and supervisory, and information systems at a particular skill level attained.  In an April 2004 workshop presented by SOC and ACE for informational purposes, Dr. Kathy Snead, SOC Army Project Director, and Cynthia Wilson, ACE Assistant Director for Military Programs, emphasized that credit recommendations are not made for MOSs at the first three grade/skill levels.  It typically takes a soldier five to six years to reach the fourth grade/skill level.  That means the typical soldier-student or veteran would have three to six MOS related credits on their AARTS/SMART transcript.


Benchmarking Data


The following major research institutions use the recommendations found in A Guide to the Evaluation of Educational Experiences in the Armed Services, published by the American Council on Education, as a guide to awarding credit for MOSs.


American University

Brigham Young University

Indiana UniversityBloomington

George Washington University (selected colleges)

Michigan State University

Syracuse University

SUNY – Binghamton

Purdue University, West Lafayette

University of Georgia

University of Massachusetts- Amherst

University of MissouriColumbia

University of Nebraska – Lincoln

University of Oklahoma

University of South CarolinaColumbia

University of Vermont

University of Wisconsin system

Washington State University




Extending Policy 42-98 to also include Military Occupational Specialties will:


Position Penn State as a military friendly education institution.  This will give Penn State a distinct advantage in recruiting students from the military market to both residential and World Campus offerings of undergraduate degree programs, helping to reverse the decline in adult learner enrollments at Penn State.


Make Penn State a more attractive school to the 1.3 million veterans with Montgomery GI Bill benefits and the 1.3 million veterans who reside in Pennsylvania. 


Position Penn State as an attractive Pennsylvania institution for veterans and for the 20,000 members of the Pennsylvania Army National Guard.


Enable Penn State, via the World Campus, to participate in eArmyU at the undergraduate level with 2HRIM, 2LAS, 2DFSM and 4LAS with the potential for additional undergraduate degree program offerings in 2005.

Make it possible for Penn State academic units, via the World Campus, to extend the undergraduate programs offered to soldier-students through eArmyU, as well as other undergraduate degree programs, to other SOC Network branches (Marine Corps, Coast Guard, and Army National Guard).   


Enrich the diversity of the Penn State student body as the military market is extremely diverse.


Make a Penn State education an attractive option for the service members who defend and serve our country.


Modify Policy 42-98 by adding item 2 (as noted below in italics) to the current policy.

42-98 - Educational Experiences in the Armed Services


1.  Formal Military Service School Courses. A veteran or member of the active armed services or the selected reserves who is a student may be granted credit for educational experiences in the armed services under the following conditions:

a.  General credit may be awarded to a student upon certification by the Department of Defense of the formal military service school courses.

b.  Responsibility for the decision as to academic area of application and quantity of credit to be awarded rests with the director of admissions.

c.  Guidelines for this decision are drawn from the most recent edition of A Guide to the Evaluation of Educational Experiences in the Armed Services, published by the American Council on Education.

d.  Use of these general credits in the student's program rests with the department concerned.


2.  Military Occupational Specialty. A veteran or member of the active armed services or the selected reserves who is a student may be granted credit for occupational specialties held in the armed services under the following conditions:

a.  General credit may be awarded to a student upon certification by the Department of Defense of a Military Occupational Specialty.

b.  Responsibility for the decision as to academic area of application and quantity of credit to be awarded rests with the director of admissions.

c.       Guidelines for this decision are drawn from the most recent edition of A Guide to the Evaluation of Educational Experiences in the Armed Services, published by the American Council on Education.

d.      Use of these general credits in the student's program rests with the department concerned.




Stephen Browne

Mark A. Casteel, Chair

Milton W. Cole

Michelle L. Costa

Randall C. Deike

Lynda R. Goldstein

Anibal Gonzalez-Perez

Anna Griswold

Catherine M. Harmonosky

Christopher J. Lynch

Robert A. Malloy

Gene P. Petriello

John J. Romano

Nadine B. Smith

Richard A. Wade, Vice-Chair

J. James Wager

Eileen F. Wheeler

The Following Senators Signed The Roster At The September 14, 2004 Senate Meeting

                 Abdalla, Charles                                                                 Casteel, Mark

                 Adams, Fred                                                                      Catchen, Gary

                 Alcock, James                                                                    Cecere, Joseph

                 Althouse, P. Richard                                                           Challis, John

                 Ambrose, Anthony                                                             Cheney, Debora

                 Anderson, Douglas                                                             Chorney, Michael

                 Ansari, Mohamad                                                               Clark, Paul

                 Atwater, Deborah                                                               Clark-Evans, Christine

                 Bagby, John                                                                       Cohen, Jeremy

                 Baggett, Connie                                                                  Cole, Milton

                 Barnes, David                                                                     Conklin, Martha

                 Barshinger, Richard                                                            Conti, Delia

                 Becker, Paul                                                                       Coraor, Lee

                 Berkowitz, Leonard                                                            Costantino, Roselyn

                 Bernhard, Michael                                                              Cox-Foster, Diana

                 Bise, Christopher                                                                Cranage, David

                 Bittner, Edward                                                                  Curtis, Wayne

                 Blasko, Dawn                                                                     Dansky, Katherine

                 Blood, Ingrid                                                                      Das, Rishi

                 Blumberg, Melvin                                                               Davis, Dwight

                 Boehmer, John                                                                   DeCastro, W. Travis

                 Boland, Donald                                                                  Disney, Diane

                 Boothby, Thomas                                                               Donovan, James

                 Bowen, Blannie                                                                  DuPont-Morales, M. Toni

                 Bower, Robin                                                                     Eckhardt, Caroline

                 Breakey, Laurie                                                                  Egolf, Roger

                 Brewer, Cynthia                                                                 Elder, James

                 Bridges, K. Robert                                                             Empfield, Jaclyn

                 Brinker, Dan                                                                       Engelder, Terry

                 Brittingham-Brant, Margaret                                               Eslinger, Paul

                 Brockman, William                                                             Falzone, Christopher

                 Brown, Douglas                                                                  Farmer, Edgar

                 Browne, Stephen                                                                Feigelson, Eric

                 Browning, Barton                                                               Feldman, Harvey

                 Brunsden, Victor                                                                Fernandez-Jimenez, Juan

                 Cardamone, Michael                                                          Flaherty, Jason

                 Carlson, Richard                                                                 Floros, Joanna

                 Carpenter, Lynn                                                                 Formanek, Edward

                 Carter, Arthur                                                                     Fosmire, Gary


                 Frank, Thomas                                                                   Khalilollahi, Amir

                 Frank, Russell                                                                     Koul, Ravinder

                 Franz, George                                                                    Kovalchick, Christopher

                 Freedman, Debra                                                               Kump, Lee

                 Gapinski, Andrzej                                                               Kunze, Donald

                 Gates, Zachary                                                                   Lau, Andrew

                 Georgopulos, Peter                                                             Le, Binh

                 Glumac, Thomas                                                                 Lee, Sukyoung

                 Goldstein, Lynda                                                                Leto, Dara

                 Gorby, Christine                                                                 Levin, Deborah

                 Gouran, Dennis                                                                   Li, Bing

                 Griswold, Anna                                                                  Love, Nancy

                 Hanes, Madlyn                                                                   Lundegren, Herberta

                 Hannan, John                                                                      Lynch, Christopher

                 Harmonosky, Catherine                                                      MacCarthy, Stephen

                 Harris, Ashley                                                                     Mara, Cynthia

                 Harrison, Terry                                                                   Marker, Anthony

                 Harwood, John                                                                   Marsico, Salvatore

                 Heinsohn, Robert                                                                Mason, John

                 Hellmann, John                                                                   Maxwell, Kevin

                 Hester, Anne                                                                      McCarty, Ronald

                 High, Kane                                                                         McCorkle, Sallie

                 Hilton, James                                                                      McCune, Alexis

                 Hines, Michael                                                                    McDonald, Anita

                 Holcomb, E. Jay                                                                 Mcdonel, James

                 Holen, Dale                                                                        McGinnis, Michael

                 Horwitz, Alan                                                                     Mengisteab, Kidane

                 Hudson, Benjamin                                                              Meyers, Craig

                 Hufnagel, Pamela                                                                Miller, Arthur

                 Hupcey, Judith                                                                    Miller, Gary

                 Irwin, Zachary                                                                    Mockensturm, Eric

                 Jacobs, Janis                                                                      Moore, John

                 Jago, Deidre                                                                       Moses, Wilson

                 Johnson, John                                                                     Mueller, Alfred

                 Johnson, Ernest                                                                  Myers, Jamie

                 Jones, W. Terrell                                                                Namasivayam, Karthik

                 Jurs, Peter                                                                          Naydan, Michael

                 Kamp, Marie                                                                      Nealon, Jeffrey

                 Kane, Eileen                                                                       Oliver, Mary Beth

                 Kennedy, Richard                                                               Osa, Justina

                 Kephart, Kenneth                                                               Osagie, Sylvester

                 Kester, Mark                                                                     Page, B. Richard


                 Pangborn, Robert                                                               Stoffels, Shelley

                 Pauley, Laura                                                                     Strauss, James

                 Peck, Kyle                                                                         Su, Mila

                 Pell, Eva                                                                             Tellep, Andrew

                 Perrine, Joy                                                                        Thomas, Steven

                 Petersen, Gary                                                                    Tikalsky, Paul

                 Pugh, B. Frank                                                                   Tormey, Brian

                 Pytel, Jean Landa                                                               Triponey, Vicky

                 Rebane, P. Peter                                                                Troester, Rodney

                 Richards, Winston                                                              Turner, Tramble

                 Richards, David                                                                  Urenko, John

                 Ricketts, Robert                                                                 Vandiver, Beverly

                 Romberger, Andrew                                                           Vickers, Anita

                 Ropson, Ira                                                                        Wager, J. James

                 Rosson, Mary Beth                                                             Wagner, Kristy

                 Russell, David                                                                     Wake, Warren

                 Sachs, Howard                                                                   Weidemann, Craig

                 Salvia, A. David                                                                 Welch, Susan

                 Sandmeyer, Louise                                                             White, Eric

                 Sathianathan, Dhushy                                                          Wiens-Tuers, Barbara

                 Scaduto, Russell                                                                 Wijekumar, Kay

                 Scaroni, Alan                                                                      Willits, Billie

                 Schaeffer, Stephen                                                              Wilson, Matthew

                 Schengrund, Cara-Lynne                                                    Wyatt, Nancy

                 Schmiedekamp, Ann                                                           Yahner, Richard

                 Selzer, John                                                                        Yerger, Sara

                 Semali, Ladislaus                                                                Yoder, Edgar

                 Shantz, Lisa                                                                        Youmans, Charles

                 Shuler, Patrick                                                                    Zambanini, Robert

                 Simmonds, Patience                                                            Zervanos, Stamatis

                 Simpson, Timothy                                                                                       

                 Singh, Harjit                                                                                               

                 Smith, Nadine                                                                Total Elected:   212

                 Smith, Carol                                                                   Total Ex Officio:  6

                 Smith, James                                                                Total Appointed:  16

                 Smith, Edward                                                TOTAL ATTENDING:  234

                 Sommese, Kristin                                                                                       

                 Spanier, Graham                                                                                         

                 Spector, David                                                                                           

                 Spigelman, Candace                                                                                   

                 Spychalski, John

                 Steiner, Kim