xt79s46h4b0h https://exploreuk.uky.edu/dips/xt79s46h4b0h/data/mets.xml University of Kentucky. University Senate University of Kentucky. Faculty Senate Kentucky University of Kentucky. University Senate University of Kentucky. Faculty Senate 1976-11-08 minutes 2004ua061 English Property rights reside with the University of Kentucky. The University of Kentucky holds the copyright for materials created in the course of business by University of Kentucky employees. Copyright for all other materials has not been assigned to the University of Kentucky. For information about permission to reproduce or publish, please contact the Special Collections Research Center. University of Kentucky. University Senate (Faculty Senate) records Minutes (Records) Universities and colleges -- Faculty University of Kentucky University Senate (Faculty Senate) meeting minutes, November 8, 1976 text University of Kentucky University Senate (Faculty Senate) meeting minutes, November 8, 1976 1976 1976-11-08 2020 true xt79s46h4b0h section xt79s46h4b0h . , ”7-7-..-sz. , s-wubmvm'ﬂflﬂﬂv""’"",?‘7"_”"""‘7"'j|w_u-. . . . »‘v'thm'u- mm». -'--

Minutes of the University Senate, November 8, 1976 4099

MINUTES OF THE UNIVERSITY SENATE , NOVEMBER 8, 1976

The University Senate met in regular session at 3: 00 p .m. , Monday ,
November 8 , 1976 , in the Court Room of the Law Building. Chairman Malcolm
Jewell presided. Members absent: Gerald G. Ashdown*, Michael A. Baer*,
Harry H. Bailey*, Charles E. Barnhart, Joanne Bell*, Robert P. Belin,
Norman F. Billups, Harold R. Binkley*, A. Edward Blackhurst*, Jack C.
Blanton*, Wilbur C. Blount*, Thomas 0. Blues*, Peter P. Bosomworth’l‘,
Russell H. Brannon*, Barbara Brandon, C. Frank Buck, Joseph T. Burch*,
Donald B. Clapp, D. Kay Clawson*, Glenn B. Collins, Ronda S . Connaway*,
Bill Crosby, Donald P. Cross*, Nancy Daly, Guy M. Davenport*, George
W. Denemark*, Ronald C. Dillehay*, Anthony Eardley, Fred Edmonds*,
Calvin B. Ernst*, James E. Funk*, R. Fletcher Gabbard*, Art Gallaher*,
Claudine Gartner*, Joseph J. Gruber*, Merlin Hackbart*, Mark Hall, Joseph
Hamburg, Thomas Hansbrough, Beth Hicks*, Raymond R. Hornback, Alfred
S . L. Hu, Eugene Huff*, Charles W. Hultman*, Donald W. Ivey*, Raymon
D. Johnson, David T. Kao*, Theodore A. Kotchen*, Richard S. Levine,
Samuel Lippincott*, William E. Lyons, Donald L. Madden, James R. Marsden,
Kenneth M. Martin*, Levis D. McCullers*, Susan A. McEvoy, L. Randolph
McGee*, Marion E. McKenna*, Bill Miracle, James T. Moore, Jacqueline
A. Noonan*, Terry Norris, Elbert W. Ockerman*, James R. Ogletree*, Edward
O'Hara, Leonard V. Packett, David Peck*, William Peters*, Steve Petry,

Paul M. Pinney*, Betty Powers*, Anna K. Reed, Daniel R. Reedy*, Stanley

R. Saxe*, Rudoph Schrils*, Gerard E. Silberstein*, Otis A. Singletary*,

John T. Smith*, J. Truman Stevens*, Emilie Steinhauer*, Harold H. Traurig*,
S. Sidney Ulmer, Harwin L. Voss*, John N. Walker*, M. Stanley Wall, John
Wanat*,Richard L. Warren*, Kennard W. Wellons, Paul A. Willis, Ralph

F. Wiseman*, Fred Zechman.

The minutes of the regular meeting of October ll, 1976 , were accepted
as circulated with the correction on page 4, fifth paragraph that should read:
"A question was raised about why it was necessary to specify that chairmen
were n__ot excluded from service on the Board." The word "not" was missing it
from the original minutes .

The Chairman reported to the Senate as follows:

Since the last meeting when I indicated that we needed a parliamen-
tarian , Bob Bostrom has indicated that he would be Willing to
serve in that capacity and will be our parliamentarian for the rest
of the academic year .

We have nearly completed the process of setting up an 31. hoc
committee to study the summer school, and that should be underway

SOOIl .

We have launched a process which you might be interested in
hearing about, because it may have some effect on your departments.
The Rules of the Senate provide, as some of you may recall, that

Minutes of the University Senate, November 8, 1976-Cont.

if a course has not been taught in class,by extension or

by correspondence within four years , the Registrar shall
notify the Senate Council of this by a list of courses that

have not been taught for four years. The Council will

ask the colleges to justify the continued existence of these
courses and if the Council is satisfied that it is reasonable

to keep these things going untaught or that they are about

to be taught, the course will be continued. The Senate
Council has the power to abolish these courses. This procedure
was last engaged in in 1971 when I believe not very many
courses were eliminated, because the departments so often
requested continuation of the courses . We are going to

try it again. The Registrar has provided me with a list

of 336 courses which are on the list and have not been taught
for four years. Occasionally they have been offered and
nobody took them. I think the sense of the rule is that

they not only have to be offered but have to be taken.

We will soon be sending out to colleges a list of these courses.
There may be some very good reasons why these courses

are being held in limbo. If we find out at the end of this
procedure that everybody has such good, persuasive reasons
for keeping courses on the books that we end up without
having dropped any significant number, then I think we

may want to consider the whole procedure; but at least

it's worth trying again to see if some of these courses are
outdated .

You will be delighted to know that the Senate today will
not consider the issue of discrimination in admissions.
It was the feeling of the Senate Council that we deserved
a month off from this topic , and we will not deal with it
until December when we will come back with one last draft.

The Senate Council has , at my suggestion, done a little
thinking about the purgation rule . If you have ideas about
the rule , you might direct them to the Rules Committee.
Basically, I think what we are concerned with is that a
number of senators miss a great many sessions of the Senate
but very carefully call in their excuse every time which
keeps the secretary's office busy handling 40 to 50 telephone
calls the second Monday of every month indicating that
someone cannot come. If people are doing this extensively,
it does not seem to accomplish very much. In any case ,
we think it's time to take one more look at the purgation
rule.

Finally , on a more pleasant note, in accord with a long
established tradition, following the final 1976 meeting of
the Senate on Monday, December 13 at 5: 00 p.m. in the
Alumni House , we will have the annual December party
of the Senate in which you are invited.

7.. ,-'..-..-, lug-‘1, p-—--m1ns::egfnay>-~w~,—g»”~"""'~~~~-~- , - - '-‘"" "“"!'v v‘""" ' """""'" ' "

Minutes of the University Senate, November 8, 1976 Cont

Dr . Jewell recognized Professor Paul Oberst. On behalf of the Senate
Councﬂ Professor Oberst presented a motion to adopt proposed addition to
the Senate Rules (1, 3.21) concerning procedure for review of graduate programs.

This was circulated to members of the University Senate under date of October
5 , 1976, and reads as follows:

I, 3.21 (c) Review of Programs

It (the Graduate Council) shall review all graduate programs
and suggest measures designed to maintain acceptable levels
of academic quality. In pursuit of this charge , the Graduate
Council may recommend appropriate actions to the Graduate
Dean. For the purposes of this section, such recommendations
may include (1) suspension of programs for a maximum
of two years, (2) lifting of suspensions, and (3) termination
of programs in accordance with the procedures specified
below.

All recommendations by the Graduate Council and decision
by the Graduate Dean relative to suspension of programs,
or lifting of suspensions, shall be communicated to the
Chairman of the Senate Council. No later than the second
year of any program suspension, the Graduate Council
shall review the suspension and recommend to the Graduate
Dean the reinstatement or termination of the program.

A decision to suspend a program on academic grounds
may be appealed by the Director of Graduate Studies in
the program. The appeal in all such cases shall be made,
including justification, to the Vice President for Academic
Affairs for review. The Vice President for Academic Affairs
shall appoint a committee of graduate faculty members including
a member of the Senate Council to review the case . In making
the appointment, he shall consult with the Vice President
for the Medical Center for those programs based in departments
in the Medical Center. They shall limit their review to
the materials submitted and procedures followed by the
Graduate Council.

The Vice President for Academic Affairs shall discuss
the recommendation of the Appeals Committee with the Graduate
Dean and Chairman of the Senate Council (and the Vice
President for the Medical Center for those programs based
in departments in the Medical Center) and recommend final
action to the President.

Any recommendation by the Graduate Council to the
Graduate Dean to terminate a program, whether or not
previously suspended, shall also be communicated to the
Chairman of the Senate Council. If the Graduate Dean approves

Minutes of the University Senate, November 8, 1976— Cont

a recommendation to terminate a graduate program on academic i
grounds , he shall submit a recommendation for termination to I
the Graduate Faculty for review. If the Graduate Faculty concurs , i

it shall forward its recommendations through the Senate Council am
to the University Senate, which shall have the final authority (“Ia ‘
for recommending such termination to the President."

Chairman Jewell made the following comments concerning the proposal:

of this proposal. There are in the Rules of the Senate and Governing

regulations at the present time no clear statements of principle

or procedure for suspending or terminating graduate programs,

but we are entering a period when graduate programs are subject

to review by the University and ultimately by the Council on

Public Higher Education. From time to time it may be necessary

to stop graduate programs or to suspend them , pending improvement. «a
it

The Senate Council suggested that I review the background ‘I
x
\

Suspension or termination of such a program might occur for
strictly financial or administrative reasons , and it is not the t
province of the Senate to take administrative actions. Therefore ,
this statement is designed to deal with review of graduate programs
for academic reasons. The question we faced in trying to solve
this problem concerns the need for sorting out the respective [
responsibilities of the Senate and the graduate faculty , of the L
Senate Council and the Graduate Council, and the Graduate ‘
Dean.
I
I

The Senate Council proposed to the Graduate Council that
something ought to be done about this . The Graduate Council
had recommended to the Graduate Dean some time ago that several

graduate programs be suspended. The Senate Council raised
questions about the reasons and authority for it, and the duration l
of suspensions. It was agreed that we should get the question 6%
clarified and not have doubts about who could do what and what
consequences , implications and appeals or reversals of decisions
might be possible. A joint committee of the two bodies was :
set up and met for sometime. It came up with a report which ‘
outlined the problem and possible solution. After I became 1
Chairman in January , I worked on a compromise. Dr . Ulmer , (
who had chaired that committee, worked on a draft, the Senate I
Council worked on a draft, the Graduate Council worked on I
a draft. During the spring we sent drafts back and forth to \

try to work out some sort of agreement how to handle this.
In the fall we worked out the last remaining uncertainties of
language .

The draft before you was approved by the Senate Council Ab
and the Graduate Council, and was acceptable to the Graduate
Dean. There seemed to be no disagreement, in the case of termina—
tion of a graduate program , that the termination should be ultimately

. ., -- ra:—.--er—,——»~~-wvnwmxnm-""‘"VT"'~~I"""”"'T'*~-- ' ' ' """“" """"'""'" " ""M .. ' ‘

Minutes of the University Senate, November 8, 1976 — Cont

l
l approved by the Senate. In the case of suspending
i a program, there were several areas of uncertainty.
‘ One was how long a suspension could last. The Senate
a.“ Council felt a suspension should not be for more than
a two years; because , if a program were in limbo and
, not taking in graduate students for a period of more
‘ than two years , it would be very difficult to get it started
I again. We felt that a suspension that lasted for three
I or four years was for all practical purposes a termination.
The second question was whether a program once suspended
1 could be suspended a second or third time. We felt
I it should be suspended only once , and then it should
‘ be either reactivated or terminated. The Graduate ‘
Council agreed with these provisions. Then the question 1
l was who should suspend such a program. What we ‘
, are providing in this document is that the Graduate ‘
”Q Council reviews a program and makes a recommendation
l

to the Graduate Dean regarding suspension. The actual
* suspension is an administrative action taken following ; ‘
a review by the Graduate Council with notice to the ‘ :
Senate Council and with the possibility of appeal.
I If the Director of the Graduate Program involved feels
that for some reason there has not been adequate opportunity
L for him to be heard or something has happened in the
program in the intervening months so that it should
not be suspended, he should be able to institute an
appeal. We have set up an appeals process, and it
is summarized in the third and fourth paragraphs.
I
I

We feel this is not an area where there now exists
‘ a clear delineation of authority with regard to suspending i
l and terminating programs , particularly suspending i ‘31
6:“ them. It is not that we are changing some clearly established

patterns——we are trying to establish a pattern which

will make sense and minimize the chances of conflict

between the faculty, the Graduate faculty, the University _
( Senate , and their respective councils. The Governing }
‘ Regulations currently provide that the Senate determines
r the broad academic planning of the University; it approves .:
‘ all new programs; but it has no management or administrative
l functions. The Graduate faculty has jurisdiction over
i all programs leading to graduate degrees within limits . i.
I set by the Governing Regulations of the Senate Rules. ' I

It reports to the Senate; it can act through the Graduate :
[ Council. The Graduate Council gets its authority , according .

A“ to the Governing Regulations, from the Dean of the

I
l
(

Graduate School, the Graduate faculty and the Senate.
The Graduate Dean has authority under the Governlng
Regulations for planning, guidance , and review of

:; .,.<-:,:.- z; r;+- ,: y:;:;;.:::. .. .._. . 2 A —

Minutes of the University Senate, November 8, 1976 - Cont.

all graduate instruction. The Senate Rules provide that the

Graduate Council shall consider all preposed new graduate

programs and in addition shall review all graduate programs.
Presumably in this authority is the authority to make recommendations
if it is not satisfied with the graduate programs in existence.

It is the feelingof the Senate Council that it would be highly
desirable if we could get this compromise adopted without
a great many changes in wording because this wording has
been worked out so carefully. If the Senate is fundamentally
dissatisfied with this language , it ought to be sent back somewhere
for another try with perhaps advice and suggestions; but
it would be a very difficult thing to rewrite on the floor of
the Senate. We also have a very strong feeling that it is important
to get something in the Senate Rules that we can use as a
guideline in the future. It is more important to get something
in that will make sense , is workable , and reflects the responsibility
of the various groups involved than to simply go along with
the present procedure where nobody knows who has responsi—
bility for doing What .

A Senator asked where the words suspension and termination were defined.

Dr. Jewell stated that the words suspension and termination were not defined,
but the meaning of suspension was that new students would not be admitted
into the program. The meaning of termination was that no new students

would be admitted to the program, and the Graduate program would cease
to operate.

A Senator asked if the program were reactivated would it have to go to
the Council on Public Higher Education.

Professor Smith remarked that according to the Senate Rules that if the
program no longer existed, that degree could be terminated . If one wanted
to put it in ten years later, it would be a new program.

Dr. Lienhard made a motion that the Senate authorize the Council that

if the proposal were passed, to add footnotes explaining suspension and
termination .

Dr. Jewell stated that on behalf of the Council the amendment could be
accepted. He suggested that perhaps the appropriate place to put it would
be in the "Glossary of Terms" in the back of the Senate Rules.

Dr. Weil asked whether, if a program were terminated, the faculty member
involved would lose his membership in the Graduate Faculty.

Dr. Royster replied that it would depend on whether there was a master's
program. The doctor's program can be terminated without terminating the
master's program; therefore , there would still be graduate courses taught

Minutes of the University Senate, November 8, 1976 — Cont

mum-q... ..y..,.,._ .,.,._, .,........... ....-. i.

.__.‘.. -.-mea— w-nwnm-gmm saw—m .. ...v 4 ~.-.m~..~_.. ~ . ., . .

in the program .

Dean Stewart suggested that the Graduate Council develop a list of

criteria that would be available so that Deans could look at their own units
and review them internally .

There were no further comments or amendments , and the Senate voted
to approve the proposal.

Dr. Jewell recognized Professor Paul Oberst. On behalf of the Senate
Council Professor Oberst presented a motion to adopt proposed addition
to the Senate Rules (V , 3.3) establishing procedures for scholastic probation,
academic suspension, and reinstatement in the Graduate School. This
was circulated to members of the University Senate under date of October
25, 1976, and read as follows:

"When graduate students have completed 12 or more
semester hours of graduate course work with an
average of less than 3.0, they will be placed on
academic probation.

A student will have one semester to remove the scho-
lastic probation by attaining a cumulative 3.0 average
in graduate course work. If the probation is not re—
moved, the student will be dismissed from the Gradu-
ate School.

A student who has been dismissed from Graduate
School for these reasons may reapply for admission
to Graduate School after two semesters or one semes-
ter and the eight week summer term.

Exceptions to this policy can be made only by the
Graduate Dean."

The Senate Council recommends that it take effect for students starting
work on a graduate degree in the Spring 1977 semester and thereafter.

Dr. Jewell made the following remarks concerning the proposal:

This is the proposal that you may recall was adopted by the Graduate
faculty last May and submitted to the Senate. There have been a couple
of very minor changes in wording and one substantive change which
occured since that time. The substantive change involves the question
of what kinds of courses shall be used in calculating a grade point average .
The draft as it is before you refers to graduate courses. Courses which
carry graduate credit are to be used in making this calculation and in
determining whether a student can get off probation by bringing his grade
point average up . The Committee on Admissions and Academic
Standards was concerned about the fact that the Graduate School

Minutes of the University Senate, November 8, 1976 — Cont

currently does not calculate grade point averages for graduate
courses alone , but for all courses and recommended dropping
the word graduate course in that first paragraph. The Rules
of the Graduate School now provide that in order to graduate

a student must have a "B” average in all of his courses and
also in all courses that carry graduate credit. The Council
has determined the Registrar's office can compute the grade
point average for graduate courses only.

A Senator asked for clarification of graduate courses . Dr . Jewell
replied that graduate course work would be work that carries graduate credit
500 , 600 , 700 level and 400 courses for work taken outside the student's
major.

A Senator asked a question dealing with the third paragraph. What would
happen if a student had been dismissed and reapplied, who decides his readmission?
Dean Royster stated that the readmission procedure would be the same as
the admissions procedure. It would go to the Graduate program involved.

Dr. Weil asked if being dismissed from Graduate School also meant being
dismissed from being a graduate student. Dean Royster applied in the affirmative.

There was no further discussion and the motion carried.

The final item on the agenda concerning scholastic probation, academic
suspension and reinstatement in the College of Law did not have the required
tenday circulation.

Motion was made to suspend the tenday circulation rule to take up the
proposal, and the motion passed.

Dr. Jewell recognized Professor Paul Oberst. On behalf of the Senate
Council Professor Oberst presented a motion to adopt proposed revision of
the Senate Rules (V, 3.21) concerning scholastic probation, academic suspension,
and reinstatement of the College of Law. This was circulated to members
of the University Senate under date of October 25 , 1976, and reads as follows:

V, 3.21

b . For Students Who Enter ﬁg College o_f Law in th_e Fall Term
o_f 1976 g Thereafter

1. Academic Requirements and Exclusion {gr Poor Scholarship
All students in the College of Law must maintain a satisfac-
tory cumulative grade-point average , and failure to do so
will result in the student being dropped from the College
for poor scholarship. Any student who receives a grade-

point average below 1.0 for his or her first semester of law

Minutes of the University Senate, November 8, 1976 — Cont

rum-“a.“ “rm.” 31...: ,.,..........».,,.,- ..

.. _ > 7‘7.-.“ h > ‘ 9n__«mmzﬂti,ﬂ,,.w.,w,....~.~.-.n~~...._~,.. . -

study may be dropped by the Dean on recommendation of the
Law Faculty Academic Status Committee for poor scholarship .
Any student who fails to achieve a 2 .0 cumulative grade-
point average at the end of the first two semesters will
automatically be dropped for poor scholarship. In addition,

any student whose cumulative average falls below 2 .0 at the
end of any subsequent semester will also be dropped from

the College .

Any student who receives a grade of E in a required course
must reregister for the course and complete all require—
ments therefor . When a course is retaken for credit, both
the initial and subsequent grade will be reflected on the
student's record and counted in the computation of class
standing, subject to part 2 (b) below.

Readmission

a. Any student dropped for poor scholarship may petition
the Law Faculty Academic Status Committee for read—
mission. A recommendation to the Dean for readmission
is within the discretion of the Committee; however , in
most cases , the following policies will guide the Committee:
a student dropped after the first semester will be required
to petition the full Faculty for readmission; in the case of
students dropped at the end of the second semester, a stu-
dent With a cumulative grade average of 1.9 and above will
normally be readmitted, a student with a cumulative aver—
age of 1.7 to 1.89 may be readmitted but will be carefully
scrutinized, and a student with a cumulative average below
1.7 will normally not be readmitted; any student dropped
at the end of the third semester or thereafter will be sub—
ject to case-by-case analysis.

b . Any student readmitted after being dropped at the end of
the second semester must make material progress toward
raising his or her cumulative grade-point average to 2.0.
Such student must raise his or her cumulative average

to 2.0 by the end of the fourth semester. In addition to

the foregoing academic standards for readmission, the
Committee may impose additional academic standards in
individual cases , and in any case may impose other rea—
sonable conditions of readmission including, but not
limited to , the repetition of courses , limitation of outside
work, specification of schedule of study (including
specification of particular courses and limitation of hours) ,
and the limitation of extracurricular activities. Failure

to comply with the requirements and conditions of
readmission will result in the student being dropped from
the College a second time in which case he or she will not

Minutes of the University Senate, November 8, 1976 — Cont
be readmitted without approval of the University Senate ‘
Council upon the recommendation of the Dean following ‘
action by the full Law Faculty. Any student aggrieved M‘ 19‘.
at any time by recommendation of the Academic Status 1 "‘
Committee may petition the full Law Faculty for review. AP?
c. For purposes of the above rules , a student who is re-
quired by the Academic Status Committee to repeat four— Ma
teen (14) or more hours of the freshman curriculum in [- Ma
his or her third and fourth semester will be considered a 1;:
as enrolled in his or her first and second semesters. ‘ Ma
d. A student who has once been dropped for poor scholar— ‘ Ma
ship and who fails to have a 2.0 cumulative average at
the end of the semester or summer session in which he I. Ma
or she completes his 87th hour of course work will not Ma
be allowed to graduate from the College of Law. Such m Ma
student will not be allowed to enroll in additional hours ‘ Ma
of course work in an attempt to achieve a 2 .0 cumula- Ma
tive average . { ”a
‘ Ju
Dr. Jewell stated that the Senate needed to make a decision about when the proposal [ JU
would take effect if adopted. The Law School recommended that it be in the Fall of 1976. I J”
The Committee and the Council recommended it be the Spring of 1977. J”
Amendment was made and seconded that the rule would take effect for students entering l
in the Fall of 1976 and thereafter. The amendment passed. 1
i
After further discussion, the proposal was approved as amended. 6% g
/ . ' Jr
The Senate adjourned at 4: 00 p.m. \ Tc
Martha M. Ferguson 9"
Recording Secretary

‘W._ .1 h .— Taryn-W MW .~»mmm-z¢nnn~~_m_ _"~""-O~""IV..'T‘ ., . .v—‘rnzv'vh “rm-u.- 1mg. n.9,...” ........ .

UNIVERSITY CALENDAR

L .
W 1980 1980 Four—Week lntersession
April 1 Tuesday ~ Deadline for applying for admission or readmission to any

1980 summer term for all categories of undergraduate applicants
wishing to be included in April Advising Conferences

May 12 Monday — Beginning of College of Pharmacy lS—Week Summer Semester :
. May 12 Monday — Registration i
‘ May 13 Tuesday — Class work begins 1
3 May 16 Friday - Last day to change from audit to credit 5
May 16 Friday — Last day to enter an organized class for the Four—Week
Intersession ﬂ
‘ May 23 Friday — Last day to change from pass—fail to credit or from credit to
pass—fail
, May 23 Friday — Last day to change from credit to audit
May 23 Friday — Last day to drop a course without a grade
«EA May 26 Monday — Memorial Day — Academic Holiday t
‘ May 27 Tuesday — Last day to pay registration fees in order to avoid 1
E cancellation of registration
I May 27 Tuesday — Last day to withdraw from a class before finals
‘ May 27 Tuesday — Last day to withdraw from the University and receive any
refund
I June 1 Sunday — Deadline for applying for admission or readmission to 1980
Fall Semester for all categories of undergraduate applicants wishing
to be included in the Summer Advising Conferences
i June 9 Monday — End of Four—Week Intersession 3
June 9 Monday — Final Examinations :
1 June 12 Thursday - All grades due in Registrar's Office by 4:00 p.m. E
lg ’ SUMMARY 9: TEACHING DAYS, 1980 FOUR-WEEK INTERSESSION 1
‘ Mon. Tues. Wed. Thurs. Fri Sat. Teaching Days
6“ May 2 3 3 3 3 3 May 1 7
June 2 1 1 l 1 1 June 7
Totals 4 4 4 4 4 4 24

1980

April 1

June'l

June 11
June 12
June 16
June 16

June 23

June 23
June 23
June 25

June 26

July

July 4
July 11
July 11

July 24
August 7
August 7
August 11
August 23

June

July

August
Totals

UNIVERSITY CALENDAR

1980 Eight-Week Summer Session

Tuesday — Deadline for applying for admission or readmission to
any 1980 summer term for all categories of undergraduate applicants
wishing to be included in April Advising Conferences
Sunday — Deadline for applying for admission or readmission to 1980
Fall Semester for all categories of undergraduate applicants wishing
to be included in the Summer Advising Conferences
Wednesday — Registration
Thursday — Class work begins
Monday ~ Last day to change from audit to credit
Monday — Last day to enter an organized class for the 1980 Eight-
Week Summer Session
Monday — Last day to change from pass—fail to credit or from credit
to pass—fail
Monday — Last day to change from credit to audit
Monday — Last day to drop a course without a grade
Wednesday — Last day to pay registration fees in order to avoid
cancellation of registration
Thursday - Last day for filing an application for an August degree
in College Dean's Office

— Summer Advising Conference for new freshmen, Community
College transfers, advanced standing (transfer) students, auditors,
non—degree, and readmission students enrolling in the 1980 Fall
Semester
Friday — Independence Day — Academic Holiday

Friday — Last day to withdraw from the University and receive any refund‘

Friday — Last day to pay thesis/dissertation fees for an August degree
in Billings and Collections Office

Thursday — Last day to withdraw from a class before finals

Thursday — End of Eight— —Week Summer Session

Thursday — Final Examinations

Monday — All grades due in Registrar's Office by 9:00 a.m.

Saturday — End of lS—Week College of Pharmacy Summer Semester

SUMMARY OF TEACHING DAYS, 1980 EIGHT-WEEK SUMMER SESSION

Mon. Tuesé/ Wed. Thurs. Fri. Sat. Teaching Days
3 2 2 3 3 3 June 16
4 5, 5 5 3 4 July 26
l 1 l l 1 1 August 6
8 8 8 9 7 8 R

lL—|

rn rn rA rn M

('ﬁ (h (A

222

a c U o z z

9.,“ x m... “.2. _ ......m.......,.r .-
WW.¢_-_-*,, ~~~mmnwt1=mm"""'ﬁ?! """""""" ~wW~ , ' ~ v

5009
f ’The University Calendar forthe acadenﬂc year 1979-80 has been.approved
I by the Senate Council, circulated to the faculty, and is hereby made a record in

these rninutes.
4% UNIVERSITY CALENDAR
' l

‘L‘ 1979 FallSennester

1 1979
l June 1 Friday — Deadline for applying for admission or readmission to 1979 i
, Fall Semester for all categories of undergraduate applicants wishing
’ to be included in Summer Advising Conferences i
( August 27, 28 Monday and Tuesday — Registration for non—advance registered students,
1 and drop—add
1 August 29 Wednesday — Clas