The University Faculty Senate met on Tuesday, September 16,
2003, at 1:30 p.m. in Room 112 Kern Graduate Building with Christopher J.
Bise, Chair, presiding. There were
230 Senators who signed the roster.
Chair
Bise: Welcome to another academic
year of the University Faculty Senate.
MINUTES OF THE PRECEDING MEETING
| |
We will
begin our meeting today with Agenda Item A, minutes from the preceding
meeting. This is |
the April
22, 2003, Senate Record providing a full transcription of the proceedings
that was sent to all University Libraries and is posted on the Faculty Senate
web page. Are there any corrections or additions to this
document? May I hear a motion to accept?
Senators: So moved.
Chair
Bise: Second?
Senators: Second.
Chair
Bise: All in favor of accepting
the minutes of April 22, 2003, please say aye.
Senators: Aye.
Chair
Bise: Opposed? Nay? The ayes have it. The motion carries, and the minutes of the April 22, 2003, meeting
have been approved.
COMMUNICATIONS TO THE SENATE
Agenda Item B, Communications to
the Senate. The Senate Curriculum
Report, which consists of the blue sheets of September 2, 2003, has been provided.
This document is posted on the University Faculty Senate’s web page.
REPORT OF SENATE COUNCIL
Agenda Item C, Report of Senate
Council. The minutes of the September
2, 2003, meeting is enclosed in today’s agenda.
COMMENTS BY THE CHAIR
Agenda Item D, Announcements by
the Chair. I refer you once again
to the minutes of Senate Council at the end of your agenda. Included in the
minutes are topics that have been discussed by the Faculty Advisory Committee
with the President at recent meetings, along with information on campus visits
planned for this fall. I encourage
you to visit the Faculty Senate website frequently at www.psu.edu/ufs
to view meeting dates, committee rosters, curricular information and other
helpful information.
I would like to take a few minutes
to share with you my vision for the upcoming academic year. At the outset, I wish to express my deepest
appreciation to you for your support in selecting me as the Senate Chair for
the 2003-04 academic year. It is truly an honor, and I look forward to working
with each and every one of you as we strive to enhance Penn State’s reputation
as a quality institution.
Whoever came
up with the adage, “If you want a job done right, give it to a busy person,”
must have had a Penn State Faculty Senator in mind. I have been thinking about Senate service
for many months now, and about why we do it. As I look around this room, I
see a group of outstanding educators, many whom I have known since I was a
graduate student … (Yes, I know, a scary thought) … who volunteer their time
and energy to this organization. Individuals who put a great deal of time
and energy into their own teaching, research, and service, and still find
the time to serve in the Senate. I have come to the conclusion that we do
it because of our love for Penn State, our love for our professional affiliations,
and our desire to make this University even better than it was when we began
our careers. My predecessor, John Moore, often used the term “Citizen of the
University” to describe a member of the Faculty Senate; I think it is a fitting
description. There comes a time, in the development stages of outstanding
faculty members, when they become less focused on their own reputations, and
more focused on enhancing the group’s reputation. I can think of few organizations
on this campus that can provide as much opportunity to accomplish that objective
than the University Faculty Senate. Further, one does not have to read many
issues of the “Chronicle of Higher Education” to realize that our Senate is
something special.
At the same time, I have been thinking
about why Penn State is such a great institution. I originally came here to spend two years in
pursuit of a Master’s degree, only to stay here for 29 years. We often cite
many statistics that we feel separate Penn State from its peer institutions.
However, the one number that I find overwhelming is 85,000. That is
the number of people who, last year, wanted to have their credentials evaluated
for acceptance to Penn State; that number is probably more than any other
institution in the United States! Always, when I travel and someone asks me
what I do for a living, I get a favorable reaction when I say, “I teach at
Penn State,” even from those individuals who never attended here! Reactions
range from “Penn State has such a great reputation in academics and sports”
to “I had a Penn Stater as a boss / colleague / employee. He / she was great
and really loyal to the school!” In fact, while I was on vacation last month,
I took a day to visit my former mine superintendent, who retired to Florida
a few years back; he mentioned to me that every time he wears the Penn State
golfing shirt that I had given him, people come up and start a conversation
about Penn State. Even though he must always say that he never attended here,
he confided in me that he is always proud to follow it up with mention of
the fact that he has a friend teaching here.
So why do 85,000 people want to apply
here annually? Why do tens of thousands of alumni have such a loyalty to this
university, and why does the general public hold Penn State in such high regard?
I would like to think that it is because of Penn State’s reputation for QUALITY.
The Faculty Senate plays such a vital role when it comes to projecting the
university’s QUALITY image. In an era when higher education is under such
close scrutiny by the general public, Penn State’s image as a QUALITY institution
is something we should guard jealously.
I would like us to keep this in mind
as we deliberate on issues or write legislation: How does this activity or
action enhance Penn State’s reputation as a QUALITY institution?
Now, with regard to what the Faculty
Senate will face this coming year, I am often asked, “What is your agenda?”
To the consternation of some, I have said that, “I have no agenda!”
I would rather look at the upcoming year in terms of four goals. I’ve already
mentioned one goal: to make sure that what we do is in keeping with the goal
of enhancing Penn State’s reputation as a QUALITY university. That focus embraces
all other parameters, such as being student centered and cost effective.
A second
goal of mine is to expand communication efforts. As you are well aware, I
intend to continue the practice that was started by John Moore last year of
sending an electronic Senate Newsletter to the faculty prior to our Senate
meetings so that everyone has an idea of the issues we are addressing. I would
also like to see members of Senate Council request time to speak at their
individual college meetings about Senate issues. The Senate Office, in collaboration
with the Provost’s Office and Information Technology Services, is developing
an on-line curriculum proposal review and approval process; there is no doubt
in my mind that the successful implementation of this process will enhance
curricular communications and will provide a mechanism to the problem many
of us have seen with regard to “Curricular Drift.”
We are also
hearing from our campus visits that there is a growing concern about the lack
of “Disciplinary Unity,” resulting from the reorganization of the campuses.
This is an issue that we should be addressing in our committees and caucuses.
Since good communication requires good
listening, I hope that we can recognize that trait as we deliberate this year.
In fact, I desire to become a good sounding board for your ideas. Whether
or not I agree with your positions, I promise you that I will try my best
to work with you in pursuit of successful outcomes. As I mentioned, I have
known many of you from as far back as my graduate-student days. One incident
where I received good advice that benefited me was when I received advice
from a current Senator. This incident occurred when, as a Ph.D. candidate,
I took a course on “Advanced Technical Writing,” which was taught by Carrie
Eckhardt. I am very proud of the fact that by listening and following her
good advice, I transformed a term paper, which I wrote for her class, into
my first refereed publication. On the other hand, at approximately the
same time, Bart Browning tried to convince me that squash was a much
more challenging game than racquetball, and that I should switch to playing
it. Looking back, Bart may have provided accurate and compelling information,
but I decided not to follow his advice. To me, at that time, playing squash
was like hitting a wad of wet tissue paper with a flyswatter! Oh well, I tend
to think that my ability to listen and act on good advice has increased as
a result of my years in the Senate.
Next is General Education. It seems to me that everyone has an opinion
on the topic. I am reminded of a story I once heard about two professors at
the Sorbonne who were arrested during the height of the French Revolution
for crimes against society. As they were being led to the guillotine, their
executioner asked them if they would like to make a statement before being
beheaded. At that opportunity, one of the professors said that he would like
to take some time to comment on the Sorbonne’s recently implemented General
Education Program. Upon hearing that, the other professor quickly jumped to
his feet and pleaded, “Kill me, now!” I guess the more things change, the
more things remain the same!
Seriously, we already have committees
assessing the implementation of several of the Gen Ed recommendations from
five years ago, such as the First-Year Seminar, and we are initiating a review
of the Health and Physical Activity component. Bart Browning has graciously
accepted the position of Chair of the Committee; Bart, I assure you that I
will take your suggestions more seriously than I did twenty-five years ago!
Finally, my fourth goal is for us to
judge the results that we achieve this year as being both significant and
satisfying. While we are at it, let
us enjoy our efforts in the process! Again,
I am looking forward to working with each and every one of you this year.
Thank you.
COMMENTS BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNIVERSITY
Agenda Item E is
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:
Thank you Chris. I appreciate those enlightening comments of
yours. I had no idea Carrie and Bart
were so old. (laughter) I am going to be very brief in my remarks here
right now because I am going to have a chance to take up more of your time
later in the discussion today. I do
want to pick up where Chris left off and say a few words about governance
at this university. Like Chris, everywhere
I go I hear great things about Penn State, but among the things I hear most
often is the great regard that people have for the governance at this university—certainly
the model that we have with our Board of Trustees, but also the model of faculty
governance. It works as well here
as it does anywhere in the country, and frankly, I cannot imagine any other
institution having a better model of faculty governance than we have at Penn
State. Even through the summer, Rod
Erickson and I have the opportunity to meet monthly with the Faculty Advisory
Council. Chris and his colleagues, some who are at the table and others, are
among those who participate, and that is very beneficial for us.
We are able to have a very candid exchange of unfolding issues and
topics at the university. These folks work very hard on your behalf and spend
many hours doing this, and we do appreciate it very much. I wish the Faculty
Senate a very good year and I think this year has been off to a great start.
We are precisely two weeks into the academic calendar. The move-in
went very well on all of our campuses despite the changed schedule and other
conflicts that arose along with that. We have what we think is a record enrollment
this year. The official numbers will not become available for a few weeks,
but we anticipate that they will be approaching 84,000 students when all is
said and done. As expected, we have some modest shifts in enrollment within
that overall category because of what is happening nationally in this country.
We may expect in the final numbers to see a decline in the numbers of international
students. At the same time, we have
what we think will be a very significant enrollment increase among graduate
students at Penn State. Unlike undergraduate students, who are more of a top-down
business where we kind of admit them at the top, so to speak, and exercise
some control over them, graduate enrollments are from the bottom up. Where
we end up with graduate enrollments is pretty much the sum of the number of
students that each of you enrolls in your department. We learn some of that
a little later than you may learn it, and clearly, overall, there have been
some significant increases in graduate enrollments. I am sure, in part, this
is due to the economy and availability of jobs. There are some very talented people out there.
We are more than a few weeks into this fiscal year, into this budget year,
and we do not yet have an appropriation from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. I hope none of you are noticing that. We do
notice it in Old Main, but we have constructed our budget in a way that you
should be able to go about doing your jobs without noticing that very much.
We do expect that we will get an appropriation and that it will be smaller
than the appropriation we received this past year, which, as you know, was
also smaller than the appropriation the year before. Penn State is doing very
well. Nevertheless, there is an irony in all of this in that Friday I need
to present to our Board of Trustees our preliminary budget proposal for the
2004-2005 academic year and ask for their approval to move forward and meet
the request that has already been presented to us by the commonwealth for
us to send our budget forward. It is an interesting exercise accomplishing
that when you do not have your appropriation for this year yet and might not
receive it for a while. Apart from
some nuances like that, I think we are off to an excellent start at the university
this year. In my comments later in
the program, I plan to talk about some of the more long-term challenges that
are ahead of us, and I look forward to making that presentation along with
having a pretty open discussion with you about some of the issues I raise
after my presentation. For now, do
you have any questions about other topics at the university or any of the
other things I have just mentioned in the last couple of minutes?
Chair Bise: Are there any questions for President Spanier?
I remind you to stand and wait for the microphone before you give your
name and unit. (No questions.) Thank you very much President Spanier.
As we begin
our discussion of reports, I would remind you to please stand and identify
yourself and the unit you represent before addressing the Senate.
FORENSIC BUSINESS
None.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
None.
LEGISLATIVE REPORTS
None.
ADVISORY/CONSULTATIVE REPORTS
Agenda Item
I, Advisory/Consultative Reports, we have one Advisory/Consultative Report
from the Senate Committee on Faculty Affairs.
It appears on today’s agenda as Appendix B and is entitled Student
Rating of Teaching Effectiveness (SRTE) Procedures. Sallie McCorkle, Chair
of Faculty Affairs, will introduce this report. Leonard Berkowitz, last year’s
Chair of the subcommittee on Promotion, Tenure, and Appointments and Leaves,
will join Sallie at the podium to make additional comments and to respond
to questions. Also, Bob Secor, Vice
Provost of Academic Affairs, will be available for questions. Sallie.
Sallie
McCorkle: Thanks Chris. For about
a year and a half, Faculty Affairs has been looking at the issue of SRTEs,
and this report, which you are viewing, is a product of last year’s committee. Because of that, I have asked Len Berkowitz
to stand for questions and give you additional information, as he was the
one in charge of the initial draft of the report.
Leonard
Berkowitz: Thank you Sallie. Two
years ago, the Senate Committee on Faculty Affairs asked Bob Secor to conduct
a survey of SRTE use. He did so in the summer of 2002. Last year’s committee on Faculty Affairs got those results and considered
what needed to be done to make things better as a result of that survey and
those results. Most of the changes we are recommending are minor. Some simply
bring policy into line with practice, and a couple are based on the reorganization
of the university. If you will turn to the second page, you will see where
the recommendations begin. There is one minor change. There is a sentence
that was mistakenly omitted when being transferred from the original to the
proposal. You will notice that the current version of that section has a sentence
three lines down in A that says, “Surveys shall also be conducted when requested
by the faculty member.” That sentence was inadvertently omitted from the final
version. This sentence needs to be included, so if you will take a look at
recommendation A, which is the third line down after the word college, the
previously omitted sentence should be inserted at that point. With that, Mr.
Chairman, the Senate Committee on Faculty Affairs moves these recommendations
and I will answer any questions at this time.
Chair
Bise: O.K., are there any questions?
Brian
Tormey, Altoona: In section three,
under recommendation one, I am a little bit troubled by this recommendation
because, while it may match current practice, I am not really sure that it
clarifies the intent. It seems to me that while we, on one hand, leave an
opportunity for each of the colleges to indicate their own preferential guidelines
in terms of implementation, we are, on the other hand, in the same part of
the recommendation I am referring to, part three, recommending that all sections
of all courses be evaluated. This
leaves it kind of a bit of a muddle to me, I think. I like the language in the original document
that said rather specifically that units should refrain from having every
course evaluated every time it is taught. If the committee would accept this
as an amendment or as kind of a parenthetical statement, then perhaps in that
section three, I would like to suggest that as a friendly amendment.
Leonard
Berkowitz: I am sorry; the amendment
cannot be accepted because it is not consistent with what the committee came
forward with. Let me give a little background and then, if you wish to put
that forward as an amendment, that can be done formally. Here is the reason for the change. When the
SRTE legislation was first proposed, we were told by experts in the field
that students took this kind of survey less seriously if every course was
done every time. It has now been some 18 years since that was done. In reviewing
more recent expert advice, that no longer seems to be in consensus of the
experts. That, in line with the fact that many units, in fact something like
80 percent of the units at Penn State, now think it is important to evaluate
every course every time. We thought
it was not a good idea to have policy and practice in conflict with each other.
In trying to compromise between what you are saying, practice and what we
thought was reasonable and letting some people have some say in their own
lives, we came up with this new version, which says first for provisional
faculty--those faculty on tenure track who have not yet received tenure--we
think it is important to have every course evaluated every time to get as
much information as we can. Approximately
80% of units are doing that anyway. Then we wanted to get away from a problem
that occurred because of the reorganization. When we proposed this and it
was implemented in the late 1980s, all faculties were members of university-wide
departments, and so it made sense to say that those departments determined
how often the SRTE was used for their faculty. Given the reorganization, we
now have faculty on campuses that are part of the old departments, part of
the new units, and then, of course, all of the new faculties are part of the
new units. As a result, we have a situation where, at my campus, we have something
like 68-70 faculty. We have 55 different schedules that must be followed,
so we said, “let’s take a count of the organization and say let the colleges
decide, aside from the original faculty, how frequently this should be used.”
That is our substitute for what was there before. It no longer makes sense
to say units should refrain from having every course evaluated every time
it is taught since the evidence no longer supports that claim.
We are not mandating that it be done every time.
The recommendation comes from some of the experts who say it is good
to have it done every time, but we are not going to mandate it. So that is where we stood.
Robert
Secor: I just want to add a couple
of reasons, first verifying that what Len said is in line with our policy. Our practice shows that, more and more, we
are evaluating every course, every time, and there are colleges that require
it, so that 80% of us do it anyway. There
are two other reasons, maybe three, in addition to the ones that Len suggested.
One is that to take something seriously you have to be willing to evaluate
it. Over the years, we have been told that we do not take teaching as seriously
as we take research. The way to take teaching seriously is to have some data
that we can respond to and that is particularly shown, not only in the P&T
process, but in annual evaluations and the salary increments, salary raises.
And if you are not saying that the department head has information that if
only one course is being evaluated during the year instead of four, or two
instead of five, it just makes it difficult for the person who wants to take
teaching into consideration in making an evaluation and a salary increase
to have all of the information they need because you want to know how they
did across the board. The second reason, and maybe the most important, is
our students. Over the years, the
culture has changed to the point where every student feels they have the right
to say what they want about how the course went or the recommendation they
have to make to the teacher, and what they want people who are evaluating
the teacher to know about the way they taught that course. If only two out
of the five sections are being evaluated, then knowing that someone else who
took the course at a different time has already made that evaluation does
not satisfy those other three sections.
I think the culture has changed to a point where we are saying units should
have their own description as to what they want.
We are not mandating it, as Len said, but for all these reasons, we
think it is really a good idea to evaluate every section of every course every
time it is taught.
Brian
Tormey: I still think my comments
are valid. I am referring to part three only. What I am suggesting is that
this new policy on one hand, as Bob has indicated, suggests that we ought
to have every section of every course evaluated every time, but we are not
really ready to say that. My feeling
is that we need to clarify our intentions and either if that is what we are
ready to say, or in fact, rather than leave it up to local administrative
implementation interpretations, we have the policy specify what we really
mean and intend. So, I do make this as a formal amendment indicating that
in section number three, following the end of the next to the last sentence,
as part of that sentence, the last phrase “it is recommended that all sections
of all courses shall be evaluated” that we include the parenthetical addition
“units shall refrain from having every course evaluated every time,” and we
could add “in every section every time it is taught.”
Thank you.
Chair
Bise: We have a formal amendment
to this document; do I hear a second?
Senator: Second.
Chair
Bise: I hear a second. Further discussion?
Leonard
Berkowitz: May I make one small
comment? I’m not going to comment on the content, since
I have already done so. I would, however, like to point out that if we do
that, we have contradicted ourselves in those two sentences. The sentence
before it says we recommend you do it and the new sentence says we recommend
you do not do it. So, I think we should
have one or the other, but I do not think we ought to have both. I recommend, obviously, that you vote against
the amendment.
Chair
Bise: Any other comment? We have a motion for amendment; it has been
moved and seconded. All in favor of
the amendment to the document signify by saying aye.
Senators: Aye
Chair Bise: Opposed?
Senators: Nay.
Chair
Bise: The nays carry. The amendment is defeated. Any other questions?
Rajen
Mookerjee, Beaver Campus: During your discussions, I wondered whether
you talked about making retrospective evaluations an integral part of this
process. It means one thing to evaluate during the semester,
but it is another thing to pick students out of your list randomly over the
year and send them questionnaires. At
our campus we have done that very successfully when we put people up for tenure
and promotion. I wondered if you have
talked about that at all and what your feelings are on that.
Leonard
Berkowitz: I will address that
in two ways. The first answer is simple and short, and the answer is no because,
in this case, what we were concentrating on are SRTE procedures. The second
point is a little longer, and perhaps Bob would like to address it, and that
is that the Promotion and Tenure procedures do call for additional student
information and leave it up to units how to do that, and many do exactly what
you say. That is why it is not part of this legislation.
Chair
Bise: Any other questions?
Roger
Egolf, Berks-Lehigh Valley: One thing it does not specifically state,
and it is something that I think should be included, is exactly what the meaning
is supposed to be here. For people who have a tenure home in one college and
a location at another college, we need to specify which set of guidelines
is being followed? This says that
for all other faculty at each college must develop clear and specific guidelines. It does not specify whether it is their tenure
home college or their location college.
Leonard
Berkowitz: It is their location
home. We were trying to clear up that problem, and thank you for pointing
that out.
Roger
Egolf: It should be included somehow
with the wording of the statement.
Leonard Berkowitz: All right, and remember we are not writing
wording here, we are making a recommendation to the vice provost who writes
the guidelines and he can verify that was our intent and make sure that is
clear when he re-writes the guidelines. Thank
you.
Chair Bise: Anybody else?
Dennis Shea, Health and Human
Development: I want to draw attention
to your recommendations five and six on the Section B items. Having gone through a review of these not too
long ago, one thing that impressed me was how few of those Section B items
really apply to active and collaborative learning. Your recommendation suggests
that units choose those items and review them.
It does not suggest that new B Items be generated or the units follow
a certain cycle in order to review those items and update them on a regular
basis. I wondered if that was something you discussed, and if it was rejected,
or whether it was something that really should be part of these recommendations.
Leonard Berkowitz: You have hit upon something that was, in fact,
part of the reason for that section. I thought we would make that explicit
because there are new ways that things are taught. If you look at the explanation
just above recommendation five, we cite that specifically. The question then
comes up of whether there are enough items within the whole pool that cover
this new way of teaching? I have not reviewed that at this point. Bob, could
you please address the possibility of adding to the B Section, that is to
the pool, if there are items that are not there and how a unit would go about
adding to the pool and saying, “Here are some things we would like to put
into that section, but they are not even in the pool.”
Robert
Secor: Just let us know if you
want them in the pool and we will get them in the pool.
Leonard Berkowitz: That was my supposition, but I wanted to make
sure it was on the record. That was what we tried to do in the beginning,
fifteen years ago.
Chair
Bise: Any other questions?
Peter
Rebane, Abington: I wanted to
go back for just a second to the question that Brian raised. I understand
that the way this is written is an attempt to seek a conciliatory mediation
between requiring all courses to be reviewed, yet giving some independence
to the local unit. In that case, I just wanted you to comment for the Record
on the last sentence on page three in that proposal, quote, “College guidelines
would be reviewed by the office of the Provost to be sure they are consistent
with these principles.”
I just wanted to make absolutely certain that if a particular
college does not choose to interpret the guidelines to mean that every course,
every section, every semester, has to be evaluated, that the Provost office
understands that. I want to make it absolutely certain, maybe Bob could speak
to that issue, that if a unit decides to go with less frequent evaluations
for reasons that may be very good, they should not feel hindered in doing
so by that particular last sentence. I do not know if one should propose removing
or amending that, but at least getting on the record that it is not meant
to be an intimidating statement. Thank
you.
Leonard
Berkowitz: Let us do this two
ways. One, let me clarify what these principles are, and second, let us ask
Bob to put it on the Record that he is not going to disapprove those
that do not live up to that recommendation. The principles we are talking
about are 11. a. (1) at the bottom of page two, “Where possible, evaluations
should be conducted over a period of years and in a variety of courses,” and
the last point “Faculty being reviewed for promotion, even when it is not
coupled with a tenure review, should be able to demonstrate their teaching
achievements in part through student evaluations that have been done over
time and in a variety of courses.” Those
are the principles we are talking about.
Bob would you please tell us for the record that units are not going
to have to do every course, every semester?
Robert
Secor: (Inaudible)
James Alcock, Abington: In speaking about evaluation, you have used
SRTE and evaluation sort of synonymously.
Leonard Berkowitz: No, not synonymously. SRTEs are one piece of teaching evaluations.
That is all they are.
James Alcock: But is it possible to have alternative forms
of evaluation of teaching rather than simple SRTEs which some of us dislike?
Leonard
Berkowitz: There are additional
forms. Bob, would you like to address
whether there could be substitutes for them?
Robert
Secor: There was Senate legislation
when we last looked at it and we said that we would put on file, in Renata’s
office, a couple of other student evaluation forms. These are national forms
that have been used for people who think this particular form is a problem.
I do not think they have been used very much, if at all. They are there for people who feel that the
problem is not with their teacher, but with the form.
Leonard
Berkowitz: But that is not going
to be up to the individual faculty; it will be up to units, is that correct? You better look at that legislation.
Robert Secor: I will look at it, but I do believe that faculty
can choose. What is mandated is that the SRTE or an equivalent form be used,
and faculty can choose that other form.
Chair Bise: Any other questions?
Bonj Szczygiel, Arts & Architecture:
I think this is more of a clarification than anything else, but I am
assuming that the SRTE officially refers to the scan sheet, the quantitative
analysis. At the bottom of page three, number three, there is just a brief
comment about student comments. I am wondering if there is further discussion
about the role of student comments elsewhere since it is not being addressed
here.
Leonard Berkowitz: Almost all units in addition to or in conjunction
with handing out the scan sheet SRTE use some format which allows students
to make written comments about faculty members. Sometimes it is as simple
as a three-question format similar to something that used to be used.
It is similar to something that used to be used and sometimes is another
form. What we found was when this was being used, those comments were being
summarized, and Bob can speak to this in more detail as to specifically how
this is done for Promotion and Tenure purposes. What we were worried about
is in the survey that we got back, some units say, “We let the faculty member
summarize what the student said about him or her.” and that made no sense.
So, we are simply trying to regularize that.
Robert Secor: As a matter
of fact Len, before you got on the committee the summer before we did the
survey, that was a trigger point for me being asked to do the survey because
some people on the Faculty Affairs Committee were concerned about how those
student comments were being presented. There was some concern that it was
a staff person, secretarial person, who was choosing comments and putting
them in the file. One of the things our committee felt pretty strongly about
was that this should be a faculty person who was going to be involved in what
it is that is truly representative and captures the flavor of the teacher.
Bonj Szczygiel: I understand
that paragraph, and I understand what you are getting at with it. My question is, is there any suggested use
for those qualitative sheets? For example, I can think of one instance in
my department where the faculty probably would have preferred not to have
student-written comments at the time that they were being made part of this
permanent file. We have all had situations where you can almost predict that
the students might not have had a good experience. Not that their comments
would not be valuable at that point in time. If our department head insists,
what are the faculty’s rights?
Robert Secor: We are looking
at the SRTEs and the conflicts of Tenure and Promotion.
Our guidelines say that there must be one other form besides simply
the machine graded SRTEs and one recommendation is that students have a chance
to comment and that those comments be summarized and we are addressing how
they be summarized. Your own college
or campus guidelines would indicate what it is you are doing to evaluate student
reaction. And if one of those is to get written comments in each class, then
that is something that you are bound to do and a faculty member cannot say,
“I do not want anybody commenting on my class; all I want are the machine
grades.” That would not be an issue.
Travis DeCastro, Arts and Architecture:
I keep hearing that you can change the list of questions, but not
having seen the pool, I have no idea what I would change it with. It might
be useful if you could share the pool with the Senate so we might take a look
at it. Also, the other methods of evaluation in the arts—it is different teaching
art than teaching something else.
Leonard Berkowitz: We can
do that at some point in the future. We will look for a way to communicate
to everyone how to get hold of the list of questions in the pool and who will
actually bring that to the Senate if you like. But it is purely informational,
of course.
Peter Deines, Earth and Mineral Sciences:
This is a question to Bob. Since you said that the process of looking
at this more closely arose after the fact that the staff was involved in the
selection of student comments, here it says presently that administrative
or college delegate, in your mind, staff is excluded here, right? Administrative
would mean faculty.
Robert Secor: Or it
could be the department head; it could be the associate department head; or
faculty, chair of Faculty Committee.
Peter Deines: So this means no staff. Thanks.
Jim May, DuBois Campus Commonwealth College: My colleagues at
my campus, and often when I am gathered in groups, complain about the ordering
of the questions, which this does not address. So, you are initially hit with
overall, and then you move into specific inquiries where the student is sort
of thinking it through. And some people feel that often the overall responses
are lower than the student’s estimation of later questions, and that they
would generally do better if the students sought through more specific questions
before deciding the overall. Was there some discussion in this group about
changing the order of the questioning?
Leonard Berkowitz: Yes, in fact, our concern is not so much
whether it would be higher or lower, but whether you would you get a more
valid response if students were thinking in specific terms rather than giving
their gut reactions. The initial version of our report had that reversal of
the A and B sections, which is what you are talking about as a specific recommendation.
What we get concerned about is whether it would have an impact on what would
happen. So, we have asked Renata Engel to conduct a test to see whether it
would have any impact before we actually say, “Go do it.” That is being done
and Renata can address it if you like. In fact, you will see that specific
idea in the conclusion of the report. Thank you very much.
Chair Bise: A question over here.
Roselyn Costantino, Altoona: I am a new senator, so I
was not in on the original discussions with this, but one of the things that
I have heard many times from the people at our campus has to do with the statistics
of the SRTE. For those who teach small classes and classes that are required,
as opposed to other kinds of classes, naturally, there is some kind of fallout
in your SRTEs. But, at other institutions, often what they will do is to throw
out the highest and lowest, which really affects students in a small class.
If you have a class of fifteen students and one student says this is my chance
for revenge, and gives you ones and all the others are in the five to seven
ranges, it is disproportionate. It does not make itself up as it might in
a class of 30 or 60 or 300. I was wondering if that aspect of it had been
addressed at all.
Leonard Berkowitz: Not directly. We do have rules about what
percentage of people must respond and those kinds of things to try to take
care of the statistical problem. We have not addressed a question about very
small classes that I know of. We certainly can do that.
Louis Milakofsky, Berks-Lehigh Valley: Under the section
for all other faculty, and I am referring to the student comments line, does
that mean that if this legislation passes, then the college recommends all
SRTEs? Normally, in practicality, the student comments are gathered at the
same time as the SRTEs. So, are they required also every time, every course,
every section?
Leonard Berkowitz: That would be up to your college to decide.
And even if they were, that would not necessarily mean that it would be required
for some administrator to summarize them each time.
Louis Milakofsky, Berks-Lehigh Valley: So, it only applies
to those under the tenure track or promotion.
Leonard Berkowitz: That is correct.
Paul Becker, Erie: I do not mean to sound sarcastic, but could
you clarify to whom this advice is being given and whether or not that person
has the authority to change the SRTEs. That is not clear in the report.
Leonard Berkowitz: This advice, like all advice in the Constitution
of the Senate, formally goes to the office of the president, and the president
then assigns it to the appropriate administrator. In practical terms, it goes
to Bob Secor, who served on the sub-committee and is right here, and so here
is everything we are assigned.
Jeff Corbets, Student Senator, College of Engineering: I am
concerned that this report suggests that SRTEs are for tenure and promotion
only. I was wondering if there was a consideration by the committee that SRTEs
be distributed in every course, every section, and each semester to be reviewed
and not necessarily included in the faculty dossier, thereby allowing the
faculty to improve their course so that when it is going to be included they
have improved, and have higher SRTE scores.
Leonard Berkowitz: Thank you. Yes, that is precisely what we
were talking about in the very beginning. On the top of page 3, number 2 refers
to tenure track faculties who have not yet gotten tenure. But, number 3 refers
to all other faculty. Here we are saying it ought to be used there as well,
but the college should decide how frequently, with the idea still being that
you ought to get fairly frequent reviews and we even like the idea that it
be done every course, every time, but we are not going to mandate it. So yes,
this covers exactly what you are talking about, and it covers it for two purposes.
One is the improvement purpose you are talking about. This particular format
was designed for personnel evaluation purposes and it is used every year in
conjunction with HR 40, which is an annual evaluation of faculty.
Howard Sachs, Harrisburg: I think this has been an enormously
helpful discussion, Len and Bob, and I would ask particularly Bob to figure
out a way to disseminate some of the results of this discussion out to the
faculty as a whole. I have heard things here today—I did not know that there
was a pool of questions; I do not know about the procedures in my college.
I could not personally give you the procedures for my college, so I just think
it would be very helpful to the faculty as a whole if you did a briefing sheet
about the SRTEs. Then you could just put it on the website or something, but
disseminate it.
Bob Secor: I would be happy to do that and I am going to work
with Renata because she oversees the developmental part of SRTEs as well,
and we will get something out to the faculty.
Chair Bise:
I will be happy to include this information in the Senate Newsletter.
Chair Bise: Anybody else?
Chair Bise: O.K. Since the proposal 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 Faculty Affairs
entitled Student Rating of Teaching Effectiveness, SRTE Procedures, Please
say aye.
Senators: Aye.
Chair Bise: Opposed, say nay.
Senators: Nay.
Chair Bise: The ayes have it. The motion passes. The Senate
has approved the proposal from the Senate Committee on Faculty Affairs entitled
“Student Rating of Teaching Effectiveness, SRTE Procedures.” The report will
now be sent to the president for his approval and subsequent implementation.
INFORMATIONAL REPORTS
FACULTY RIGHTS AND
RESPONSIBILITIES
Annual
Report for 2001-2002 and 2002-2003. This report was presented by Committee
Chair, Renata Engel.
JOINT COMMITTEE ON
INSURANCE AND BENEFITS
Annual Report, June 30, 2003.
This report was presented by Committee Chair, George Franz.
SENATE COUNCIL
Presentation by Graham B. Spanier, Penn State President
Thank you for this opportunity
to launch a dialog about issues important to the future of Penn State. I hope,
from time to time, through such presentations, to outline challenges meriting
the serious attention of the faculty, staff, administration, and trustees
of Penn State.
The first topic I wish
to tackle, the focus of my presentation today, concerns the changing demography
of Pennsylvania and its consequences for higher education. As a demographer myself, I have always felt
that such analyses can be both enlightening and important in planning for
the future of nearly every enterprise in America, and education is no exception.
I have selected several major trends
to feature in this analysis of what will influence higher education in Pennsylvania
in the next decade. They are:
·
The slow population growth forecast for Pennsylvania;
·
The shrinking pool of high school graduates;
·
The Commonwealth’s aging population profile;
·
The modest population diversity in the Commonwealth;
·
The increasing proportion of women attending college and the concomitant decrease
in men;
·
Changing family structures and their influence on our students and employees;
and
·
The effects of the brain drain in Pennsylvania.
SLIDE
#2 -- Worth of a Degree: Lifetime Earning Power
First, we might ask why is higher
education so highly valued in our society today? We cherish an educated citizenry and the associated contributions
to human development, cultural advancement, and the quality of life. But from a strictly economic viewpoint, lifetime
earning power of an individual increases substantially with each academic
degree earned -- roughly a million more with a baccalaureate degree and about
$3 million more with a doctorate.
Education is often seen as the great
fault line that determines who can be part of the American dream. The more
you learn, the more you earn. In 1950,
80 percent of jobs were classified as “unskilled.” Now, an estimated 85 percent of jobs are classified
as “skilled,” requiring education beyond high school.
SLIDE #3 -- Picture of Old Main
Penn State is among the leaders
nationally in virtually every measure of progress in higher education, including
the number and quality of applications for admission, the quality and productivity
of the faculty, the modernization of the physical plant, philanthropy of alumni
and other donors, developments in information technology, advances in the
curriculum, and the scope of funded research. It is appropriate to begin by asking how this
prominence translates into our popularity with prospective students, a key
indicator.
SLIDE #4 -- Applications for Admissions
Applications for admission at all
levels have climbed dramatically during the past decade. And this past year,
we recorded the highest number of applications in our history, with 86,000
students applying, making Penn State perhaps the most popular university in
the nation.
SLIDE #5 -- Fall Semester Enrollment Total University
As applications from qualified students
increased dramatically between 1992 and 1998, enrollments rose by about 10,000
students. However, our enrollment has risen only 2.9 percent since then --
by design, part of our plan to increase overall University enrollments only
modestly.
SLIDE #6 -- Minority Enrollment Total University
We have also attracted more students
of color to Penn State. Overall, University minority enrollment has grown
by about 50 percent since 1994.
SLIDE # 7 -- Minority Enrollment at University Park
In the 1970s, about 35 percent of
Pennsylvania’s population was 18 years old or younger. This decreased to 25 percent in 2000. By 2010,
it will drop a tad more. Houston, we have a pipeline problem.
Pennsylvania colleges and universities
will face a new round of enrollment challenges after 2008, when the modern
day peak year for college-bound high school graduates will pass. I hasten
to add, however, that this trend is of lesser concern to the viability of
Penn State, where our popularity with out-of-state students is strong and
growing and where the overall admissions activity I cited earlier provides
us some security. However, some of
our campuses may be particularly vulnerable to the profound demographic shifts
that affect their region.
SLIDE #11 -- Percent Change in H.S. Graduation by County, 2004-2013
There are some potentially
serious implications for campuses in areas of the state that will be particularly
hard hit by these demographic shifts.
In northeastern Pennsylvania,
for example, the Wilkes-Barre campus’ service area expects to experience a
decline of 18 percent in high school graduates. On the other hand, the Reading
area (where Penn State Berks is located) projects a 22 percent increase in
high school graduates between 2004 and 2013.
Overall, the Commonwealth College
will be recruiting from a projected pool that will have 7 percent fewer high
school graduates in the areas served most directly by its campuses.
I have no interest whatsoever in closing any of our campuses in the
face of this declining regional applicant pool, so we will need to work especially
hard to ensure the viability and ongoing health of all of our campuses.
SLIDE # 12 --Slow Growth Characterizes Pennsylvania
Although
Pennsylvania is ranked 6th in the nation in population, we rank
next to last in growth. This slow growth will have important implications
for the Commonwealth in terms of tax revenues and state funding.
This
past decade was the only decade of the 20th century in which every
state gained population. However, the entire northeast only saw a 6 percent
increase. The West and the South were the fastest growing areas with a 20
percent and 17 percent growth rate respectively.
Between
1999 and 2025, Pennsylvania is expected to grow annually by little more than
one-third of 1 percent, and that growth will not be occurring in our population
of youth.
That
means completion among universities for 18-year-olds will be more intense
than ever, and the pressure to attract non-traditional students will increase
dramatically. At all of Penn State's campuses, we will need to pay increased
attention to adult learners.
SLIDE #13 -- Competition for Out-of-State Students Heats Up
Pennsylvania has 146 degree granting institutions. Only 16
of them attract the majority of their students from outside the state, and
many of these are near the state borders. Although more than 80 percent of
Penn State’s undergraduate students are Pennsylvanians, we nevertheless attract
increasing numbers of out-of-state students as our national stature continues
to grow.
Given the stagnant demographics of Pennsylvania, competition
for in-state students can only be expected to intensify. Schools will invest
more in out-of-state recruitment as well.
At the same time, as the number of in-state high school graduates
declines in the coming years, we will likely witness a shift in the mission
of many of our fellow institutions. They will ignore, revise, and possibly
jeopardize their historic missions in attempts to find new students and new
sources of revenue. Some will venture into distance education or new professional
programs. Many will try to be more like Penn State and will define us as a
competitor, trying to be more things to more people.
Penn State will not stray from its historic mission nor will
we jeopardize our fundamental values. We are responsive to important educational
trends but wary of chasing quick fixes.
SLIDE #14 -- Penn State Reputation is Top in the State
While some
schools have occasionally complained about Penn State’s scope, presence, and
brand name appeal, many of them are now actually venturing into educational
programs that were once predominantly Penn State’s domain. We are not troubled by such shifts.
The Penn State brand name and our early entry into markets
have reinforced our position as a leader. Our surveys of Pennsylvania citizens
show that year after year, we remain the most well-known and highly regarded
university in the state.
What this does mean, though, is that the rhetoric surrounding
higher education could very well become contentious. I hope this can be avoided.
It also could mean some institutional mergers. And sadly, it could
mean that some schools will be forced to close their doors.
SLIDE
#15--Proportion of Senior Citizens Growing
At the same time the proportion of Pennsylvania youth is declining,
the proportion of senior citizens is on the rise, largely due to the aging
of the Baby Boomers. In 2011, the first Baby Boomers will turn 65, and within
17 years, 70 million will follow suit in the U.S.
In 1970, 11 percent of Pennsylvania’s population was 65 years
or older, ranking us 14th nationally. By 2025, that figure will
almost double to 21 percent. Currently, Pennsylvania ranks second in the nation
in the percent of its population who are elderly.
Across the country, senior citizens will become a dominant
force. This gerontological drift could have a great effect on the public support
- or more precisely the lack of it --we receive in the future. Will older
individuals, who vote at much higher rates and have strong lobbies, support
the education of the state's youth?
Higher education will likely continue to find itself on the
short end of the stick when it comes to state funding priorities, especially
when the competition is health care and other important needs of the elderly.
So, let us talk about the future elderly. The Baby Boomers.
SLIDE #16 –The Graying of Our Faculty
Many Baby Boomers have delayed life stages -- from marrying
to having children -- and there is little reason to expect that they won’t
do the same with retirement. A 33 percent increase is forecast in the number
of people in the national workforce who will be between the ages of 65 and
74 years old. In fact, many faculty members are delaying retirement.
SLIDE
# 17 – Faculty Age Distribution for Penn State
Looking at the actual age distribution of our faculty for
2002, we are pretty much in step with national forecasts of an aging professorate.
Reasons for this aging trend include massive hiring in the 1960s, low faculty
turnover, good health care, poor stock market performance, and, as I mentioned,
a decline in the rate of retirement.
SLIDE #18 -- Nation's Growing Diversity Not Reflected in Pennsylvania
Let me turn now to the important topic of diversity.
National demographic projections suggest that about 65 percent
of the growth in population through the year 2020 will be in ethnic minority
groups, particularly Hispanics and Asian populations. But as with age, this population change will not be uniformly distributed
across the country. In fact, three-fifths of the projected 65 percent increase
in minority populations will take place in just three states: Florida, California,
and Texas. A portion of this population growth will be fueled by immigration.
Pennsylvania, however, will remain significantly white. In
2010, our population is expected to be 82 percent white, 10.5 percent African
American, 4.5 percent Hispanic, 2.8 percent Asian, and only .2 percent Native
American.
SLIDE
#19 – U.S. and Pennsylvania White and Hispanic Population to 2025
By the year 2025, the U.S. population
is expected to be 19 percent Hispanic. By 2025, Pennsylvania’s Hispanic population,
which is currently less than 5 percent of our population, is expected to only
reach 7 percent.
Eighty percent of students attend college in the state from
which they graduated high school, so it’s going to be pretty tough to try
to provide our students with an educational experience that mirrors the nation’s
diversity if we don’t have that diverse pool to draw from within our own state.
SLIDE
#20 – Pennsylvania’s Hispanic Growth
In
the southeast region of the state, however, we will see very strong growth
in Hispanics. The region surrounding our Berks and Lehigh Valley campuses,
for example, will see their percentages of Hispanics more than double by 2025.
These changes certainly have major implications
for K-12 education in this region. But they also have implications for Penn
State -- not only for teaching and learning, but also for the way we recruit
students. For example, siblings of Hispanic college students are more likely
to attend the same institutions as their brothers or sisters. However, in
general, they are less likely to move any great distance
away from their families.
SLIDE # 21-- Penn State Minority Faculty Growth
Stepping up the recruitment of minority
faculty will be an even bigger priority. We have increased our efforts at
the recruitment and retention of faculty of color in recent years and we’ve
seen some positive results.
SLIDE # 22 -- Penn State Female Faculty Growth
More and more women are attending college. Having sufficient
role models is important.
Here at Penn State, our female faculty ranks have continued
to grow, reaching nearly 1,700 last fall.
The hiring of female faculty members is growing even more important
as our campuses also experience a gender shift among our student population.
SLIDE #23 -- The Majority of College Students are Women
In fact, the majority of college students are women,
who now make up more than 56 percent of the undergraduate population on U.S.
campuses.
Nationally, for every 100 men who earn bachelor’s degrees,
133 women do the same. By 2020, the
gap is expected to widen to 156 women per 100 men earning degrees. This raises a range of questions for educators
and policy makers.
In Pennsylvania, 55 percent of those enrolled in higher
education institutions are female. This
imbalance has yet to hit Penn State, where males outnumber females by about
8 percentage points, due to our historically heavy male enrollment in disciplines
such as engineering, earth and mineral sciences, and agriculture. But this is changing.
SLIDE #24 -- Changing Family Structure
In the area of family structure, there are a number of demographic
shifts that have an impact on our students, affecting everything from their
access to college to the financial aid they need, to additional student services
that must be provided.
These changes -- which include everything from increased divorce
rates and the rise of single-parent households to lower fertility rates to
remarriage and the growth of unmarried couple households -- have greatly impacted
our student population.
As an example, from 1970 to 2000, the proportion of married-couple
families with children under age 18 declined from 40 percent of all U.S. households
to 24 percent and fertility rates have dropped substantially.
More relevant is that today’s students arrive at the University with
a broader array of personal and familial challenges.
Their demands on our health care facilities and our counseling services,
for example, have increased dramatically.
Among all women who had children in 2000, 31 percent were
unmarried mothers--who have the highest poverty rate. Poverty is a huge deterrent
to attending college, but ironically, education is the key to addressing poverty.
So there is quite a disconnect here.
As you know, living arrangements, economic and social environments,
and types of neighborhoods contribute substantially to the development of
our youth. All of the changes I am mentioning are having an effect on the
students who will be arriving at our doorstep.
Most will require
financial assistance and more will have jobs to help them pay for their college
education. Working students come with their own set of challenges -- among
them the challenge of persisting in college as well as taking longer to earn
their degree.
SLIDE # 25 --Penn State Image
In addition, as a workplace, Penn State is offering
more services to its employees who also are experiencing stress from life
changes. We have instituted a number of family-friendly policies to deal with
the increasing complexities brought on by these shifts in family structure.
We have created an Employee Special Assistance Fund, which provides
financial support for faculty and staff facing a wide range of personal or
family needs. We also have the Employee Assistance Program, a Family Medical
Leave policy, a Vacation Donation Program, childcare access, and a series
of work/life programs.
SLIDE # 26 -- Median
Age at First Marriage
A trend that is likely to impact donor giving is the rising
age at first marriage. In 1970, the median age at first marriage was 21 for
women and 23 for men. By 2000, the median age had risen to 25 for women and
27 for men. By marrying later in life, men and women are meeting their future
marriage partners less often in college, and more often in the work place.
SLIDE #27 -- Grand Destiny Campaign
During the Grand Destiny Campaign, many of our largest gifts
came from couples who met each other at Penn State. In the future, this will less often be the
case, and we will have to work much harder to convince a couple loyal to two
different alma maters to bless Penn State with their philanthropy.
Another
consideration for our fundraisers is the fact that men tend to marry women
who are, on average, three years younger. Now add in the fact that women are
living 8 to 10 years longer than men, and you can see the changing landscape
for university philanthropy.
SLIDE
#28 – Pennsylvania’s Economy Feeling the Effects of Brain Drain
Another serious challenge we face is the “brain drain”
-- the out-migration of young people -- that continues as a significant
negative trend for the Commonwealth as well as for Penn State. The state is
losing more young workers than we are gaining from other states. Simply put,
too many of our graduates are not staying within Pennsylvania
-- due to the lack of jobs. The state needs to focus on attracting
the right businesses to the Commonwealth and place a greater emphasis on educating
its workforce. And we need to help find incentives to get our graduates to
stay.
SLIDE
#29 – Number of Undergrads Receiving Financial Aid
Financial aid is a critical component in getting students
into college and creating the workforce needed for economic growth. At Penn
State, the average debt carried by our students is $18,000, and at least 77
percent of our aid recipients have some form of loans.
We note the rise over the years in the number of undergraduates
at Penn State who receive some form of financial aid, including scholarship
and grant dollars as well.
Such debt is a major disincentive for many lower-income
students, and it could hurt our ability to attract students who need a Penn
State education.
SLIDE #30 -- Dollar Amount of Aid Provided
The dollar amount of aid provided to Penn State undergraduates
since 1992 has grown substantially, reaching nearly $406 million in 2002.
This is aid from all sources, but the steep increase you see in this graph
is mostly due to rising loan aid. Of the $406 million in 2001-2002, Penn State
provided our students with more than $51 million in financial aid.
SUMMARY
I have summarized several major demographic trends that are
having and will continue to have a tremendous impact on higher education in
Pennsylvania and across the country.
SLIDE # 31 – Pennsylvania’s Demographic Trends
We
have really only scratched the surface regarding the implications for higher
education of these demographic trends. I
hope I have given you a glimpse, however, of some of the unique challenges
and opportunities we face in the decade ahead. These trends and the interrelationships
among the trends will impact whom you will be teaching and how you will teach
them; whom you will work with; and what resources will exist for all of us
to use in doing our work.
In short, these demographics tell our future -- and it is a future
filled with enormous challenge. Thank you and now I’d like to open this
up for discussion.
President Spanier responded to questions in the following
topic areas:
- Legislative
interest in the proportion of in-state and out-of-state students at Penn
State.
- Utilization
of Grand Destiny funds targeted for scholarships to increase diversity.
- Penn
State’s role in stimulating Pennsylvania’s economy.
- Student
debt burden and implications for the number of credits in four-year degree
programs (length-of-time to degree).
- Opportunities
for study abroad experiences for students and research exchange opportunities
for faculty.
- Loan
debt and loan forgiveness programs. Need
for additional scholarship support to offset rising tuition.
- Campuses
with residence halls attracting out-of-state students. Building new residence hall at campuses
that do not have them.
NEW LEGISLATIVE BUSINESS
None
COMMENTS
AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE GOOD OF THE UNIVERSITY
None
ADJOURNMENT
The September 16, 2003, meeting
of the University Faculty Senate was adjourned at 3:25 p.m.
The next
meeting of the University Faculty Senate will be on October 28, 2003.
