xt7cnp1whf7t https://exploreuk.uky.edu/dips/xt7cnp1whf7t/data/mets.xml University of Kentucky. University Senate University of Kentucky. Faculty Senate Kentucky University of Kentucky. University Senate University of Kentucky. Faculty Senate 1967-10-09  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, October 9, 1967 text University of Kentucky University Senate (Faculty Senate) meeting minutes, October 9, 1967 1967 1967-10-09 2020 true xt7cnp1whf7t section xt7cnp1whf7t 2511 $5
MINUTES OF THE UNIVERSITY SENATE, OCTOBER 9, 1967

E The University Senate met in regular session at 4:00 p.m., Monday, October 9,

1967, in the Court Room of the Law Building. Chairman Sears presided. Members ,

absent: A. D. Albright, Charles E. Barnhart, Harold R. Binkley*, Harry M. i

‘ Bohannan, Peter Bosomworth*, Thomas D. Brower, Lester Bryant, Cecil C. Carpenter,
Gordon J. Christensen, Virgil L. Christian, Jr., David Clark*, Lewis W. Cochran,
Steven Cook*, Emmett R. Costich, Glenwood L. Creech, Marcia Dake, George W.
Denemark, Kurt W. Deuschle, Robert 0. Evans*, Stuart Forth*, James E. Funk,
Michael L. Furcolow, Wesley P. Garrigus, Richard D. Gilliam, Harold D. Gordon*, N
Charles P. Graves*, John W. Greene, Jr., Ward Griffen, Joseph Hamburg, Bobby ,f
Ott Hardin, Ellis Hartford, Thomas L. Hayden*, Charles F. Haywood, Roberta B. 3
Hill*, John L. Howieson, W. M. Insko, Jr.*, Harris Isbell, Raymon D. Johnson, 3
Robert L. Johnson, Robert F. Kerley, Charles T. Lesshafft, Jr., William L. “
Matthews, Jr., M. J. McNamara, Eugene F. Mooney, Alvin L. Morris, Dean H. Morrow,
Paul C. Nagel, James P.1kffsinger, John W. Oswald, James Prestridge*, William

3 R. Proffit, John L. Ragland, J. G. Rodriguez*, Dorothy Salmon*, William A. Seay,

3 Dallas M. Shuffett*, Gerard E. Silberstein*, Joseph V. Swintosky, W. C. Templeton, 1

William J. Tisdall, Lee H. Townsend*, David R. Wekstein*, Raymond A. Wilkie, if

William R. Willard*, D. J. Wood*. "

 

ng

 

The minutes of September ll, 1967 were approved as circulated.

5
1‘
The Secretary, University Senate, read the following letter which had .N
"f
l
I

 

 

clear been received from Mrs. Stanley Zyzniewski: 1%
it?

8 Dear Dr. Ockerman: t€
e .i;
Please understand that I am very much appreciative of the W

Resolution adopted pertinent to Stan's being a member of the W

University Senate. fl

ag,

{udd I can say without reservation that while Stan sometimes felt fl;
Rudd as though he might be regarded as a devil's advocate, his H;
comments at Senate meetings were always directed toward T‘

3r what he evaluated to be to the best interests of a developing {
Schwert. University. :5
gars I also know that one of the nicest bits of news while we were Hi
ars in Finland in 64—65 was that of having been elected to the U}

I
I
Senate. Stan felt it a privilege and responsibility to f:
represent his colleagues and actually considered this I
assignment as one of his priority tasks. 5

I personally very much appreciate the thoughtful note. 1 ;

Sincerely,

 

Celia K. Zyzniewski
May 10
1967

The Secretary, University Senate, presented the proposed University Calendar
for the 1970—71 academic year which had been prepared within the framework of
guidelines set down by the University Senate and circulated to the faculty of
the University under date of September l5, 1967 and recommended its approval.

The Senate approved the 1970—71 University Calendar as circulated.

 

 

  

Minutes of the University Senate, October 9, 1967 (con't)

1970

July 29

August 31

September
September
September

September
September

UNIVERSITY CALENDAR .

1970 Fall Semester

 

Wednesday — Last day to submit all required
documents to Registrar's Office for j
admission to the 1970 Fall Semester

— Sept 1 Monday & Tuesday — Classification, registration,

2
7
8

14

15,

October 22

November

November 26, 27, 28

December

December
December
December
December

September
October
November
December

TOTALS

10

and orientation for students not pre—
registered
Wednesday — Class work begins
Monday — Labor Day — Academic Holiday
Tuesday — Last day to enter an organized class
for the Fall Semester
Monday — Last day to drop a course without a grade
16 Tuesday & Wednesday — Last days for filing applice
tion for a December degree in College
Dean's Office
Thursday — Undergraduate mid—term grades due in
Registrar's Office by 4:00 p.m.
Tuesday — Last day to withdraw from a class before
finals 3
Thursday, Friday, Saturday — Thanksgiving Holidays,
Academic Holidays

 

 

 

11 Friday — Last day to submit all required documents
to Registrar's Office for admission to the 15
Spring Semester .
15 Tuesday — Class work ends
17—23 Thursday through Wednesday — Final examinations
23 Wednesday — End of Fall Semester
28 Monday — A11 grades due in Registrar's Office by
4:00 p.m.
Summary 2f_Teaching Days, Fall Semester, 1970
Mgn_ Tues Wed Thurs Fri Sat_ Tgaghigg'QEXE
3 4 5 4 4 4 September 24
4 4 4 5 5 5 October ” 27
5 4 4 3 3 3 November 22
2 3 3 2 2 2 December 14

 

14 15 16 14 14 14 87

1971
Janu

Janu
Janu

Janu
Jant

Marc

Marc
Marc
Apri

May
May
May
May
May
May

May

JanL
FebI
Marc
Aprj
May

TOT!

 :ion,

[88

1 grade1
applice
a in

before‘

)1idaysi

:uments

3 the 15

ions

:e by

Days

” 27
22
14

_.——-—8"_i‘_

Minutes of the University Senate, October 9, 1967 (con't)

 

 

2513

UNIVERSITY CALENDAR

1971 Spring Semester

 

 

 

 

1971

January 11, 12 Monday & Tuesday — Classification, registration and
orientation for students not pre-registered

January 13 Wednesday — Class work begins

January 19 Tuesday — Last day to enter an organized class for
the Spring Semester

January 25 Monday — Last day to drop a course without a grade

January 25, 26 Monday & Tuesday — Last days for filing application
for a May degree in College Dean's Office

March 4 Thursday — Undergraduate mid—term grades due in
Registrar's Office by 4:00 p.m.

March 13—21 Saturday through Sunday — Spring vacation

March 29 Monday - Last day to withdraw from a class before finals

April 1 Thursday — Last day for out—of—state freshmen to
submit all required documents to Registrar's
Office for admission to the 1971 Fall Semester

May 1 Saturday — End of class work

May 3—8 Monday through Saturday — Final examinations

May 8 Saturday — End of Spring Semester

May 9 Sunday — Baccalaureate—Vesper Services

May 10 Monday — 104th Annual Commencement

May 12 Wednesday — All grades due in Registrar's Office
by 4:00 p.m.

May 17 Monday — Last day to submit all required documents to
Registrar's Office for admission to the 1971
Summer Session

Summary gf_Teaching Days, Spring Semester, 1971
Mon_ Tues Wed Thurs Fri _§a£ Teaching Days

January 2 2 3 3 3 3 January 16

February 4 4 4 4 4 4 February 24

March 4 4 4 3 3 3 March 21

April 4 4 4 5 5 4 April 26

May 0 O O O O 1 May 1

TOTALS 14 14 15 15 15 15 88

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

Minutes of the University Senate, October 9, 1967 (con't)

UNIVERSITY CALENDAR

1971 Summer Session

 

 

 

 

 

1971

June 14, 15 Monday & Tuesday — Registration

June 16 Wednesday — Class work begins

June 21 Monday — Last day to enter an organized class for the
Summer Session

June 28 Monday — Last day to drop a course without a grade

June 28, 29 Monday & Tuesday — Last days for filing applications
for an August degree in College Dean's Office

July 5 Monday — Independence Day — Academic Holiday

July 28 Wednesday — Last day to withdraw from a class before
end of Summer Session

July 30 ' Monday — Last day to submit all required documents to
Registrar's Office for admission to the 1971
Fall Semester

August 11 Wednesday - End of 1971 Summer Session

August 13 Friday — A11 grades due in Registrar's Office by 4:00 p.m.

Summary of Teaching Days, Summer Session 1971
M22. Tues Wed Thurs Fri _§at Teaching Days

June 2 2 3 2 2 2 June 13

July 3 4 4 5 5 5 July 26

August 2 2 2 l 1 1 August 9

TOTALS 7 8 9 8 8 8 48

Dr. Cierley, Chairman of the University Senate Program Committee, announced
that the November meeting of the Senate would contain a report by the Committee
which the Senate had appointed to study the size and composition of the Senate
plus the matter of voting referred to it by the President. Dr. Cierley urged
the Senate to forward to the Program Committee any suggestions for programs
which it would like to have presented at future meetings.

Dean Drennon chaired a panel on student advising consisting of the following
panel members: Dr. Lyman V. Ginger, Dr. J. W. Gladden, Dr. Michael P. McQuillen,
Dr. Stanley Wall and Professor Warren Walton.

Dr. McQuillen, speaking for the faculty of the Medical Center, presented
a brief presentation of their advising system. He stated that the three
levels of advising involved (1) pre-medical and pre—dental counseling; (2)
the initial two years of Medical or Dental School, during which most students
took essentially the same courses; in the Dental School each student, identi—
fied in interview prior to admission by the Admissions Committee, is assignEd a

H.

 \_'_. 3.1!: . 1: ', - ‘ :43 5.9a vavg'g’wp-fpin-Zg.{y-yp ,9 31P:~y~vI-V»...,A‘.=E ‘."_-'-"“-".": 3,») sugar, ”3,, .2»: u. “it". ,an- _
f , .. ..._. - > ‘ .‘ ‘ ‘, _. , . .' .. _ w . 1'. . .

Minutes of the University Senate, October 9, 1967 (con't) if

given advisor, and remains with that advisor for the four years of Dental
School with the option (after six months and anytime thereafter) of l
selecting a new advisor; in the Medical School, the student is not assigned ‘
to a particular advisor, but rather seeks direction from individual instructors
or the office of student services (this office makes use of a pool of advisors
for the year I and II students, as well); and (3) the third and fourth years
of Medical School; presently each student is allowed to select an advisor at b
the end of the second year; no advisor has more than four to six students to

he advise; he meets with them at times and in a manner that seems most appropriate
for the individual student and will, during this year, select with the student is
the pathway the student will follow in his fourth year. Dr. McQuillen

 

s stated that one of the benefits of the change in curriculum (making more

ice elective courses available and changing the grading system) has been to
cause the student to seek more advice to determine exactly how he is doing.

e This has resulted in much more Opportunity for counseling, both by the
counselors and by the Office of Student Services. Finally, a good liason

to with the psychiatric services in Student Health obtains for serious problems

71 at all levels.

00 p.m. Dr. Gladden, in his role, gave particular emphasis to a description of

some of the contradictions, difficulties, and choices that must be made in terms
of the oldest teacher or scholar as advisor. He referred to the ”ideal” as
related by Dr. McQuillen, and the ”real", that of a radical increase over a
decade in the Department of Sociology from 40 majors and some 30 persons to ,
almost 200 majors and 50 or more persons who are directed to them for ;
counseling; he stated that in earlier years four of the faculty in that 3h
department acted as advisors——two for the freshmen and sophomores—-two for

ys the juniors and seniors——and they were able at that time to do a fairly good
job because of the small number of persons they had to counsel. He stated that M
they now have almost twice as many graduate students to counsel and advise. M
The old pattern in that department, which he felt pervaded the College, was M
for those who were willing to advise to do so and the others were free to I
devote their time to research and/or teaching; thus the individuals who
advised had the responsibility of carrying their students through the year.
He stated that the present pattern in the department involved all of the
faculty being assigned a certain number of advisees--between 10 and 20 j
undergraduate majors and 5 to 10 graduate students; that there are four J
formal contacts and there should be many more; that for those really

unced committed to advising there are as many as 8 or 10 contacts. !
ttee i
ate He stated that the new policy of the University requires, through its i
ed merit system, that all faculty personnel conduct research as well as teach ;

and that the younger men are especially under pressure to be productive; i
that they are also likely to have the highest teaching load and to be asked ;
to assume the advisory role as well; that this last, because it carries so :

lowing little recognition has been given the least attention, thus causing the {

illen, faculty member who is most interested in advising having students seek him "
out, since the students know the faculty members who are interested. He
stated that the advisory and the counseling role was too important to be

ed . relegated to the least position in the job description; that the best
advising is done by those who are willing and interested in students, who
teach regularly and know the curriculum, as well as the students, who are

ts interested in the University and who are committed to stay here, who have

i— been here long enough to know the changes that have taken place and the needs

ed a for new change, and whose morale is high; that morale is one of the weak

K

 

  

 

2516 Minutes of the University Senate, October 9, 1967

spots of the advisory system; and that those who are presently advising are not
among the highest in morale. In summary, he stated that the students who do
not have access to the kind of help they need are penalized; the younger
faculty are penalized. They are not sure which they should do and

shortly discover that advising is not that important. The faculty who

are most interested in the students and in the University are penalized,

and consequently the University itself is penalized.

Dean Ginger discussed some of the obstacles which impede good advising.

l. The excessive use of time required. He indicated that all of the advisor's
spare time during the first two weeks of each semester is consumed in the
drop/add process. All of his time for two weeks during pre—registration

in the middle of the semester is consumed in advising. This means that

one month of each semester or two months of each year is used by the instructor
in working with students and if he has a heavy advising load, this consumes
every moment of his spare time.

2. The job of the advisor. Dean Ginger stated that he believed that the

job of the advisor had not been carefully delineated and analyzed for the
advisor. He suggested that the advisor needs to know (1) the mechanical

part of schedule making, (2) all of the details of the curriculum and to

be able to impart this to the student and how to fit it into a logical
sequence, and (3) how to be able to deal with the student's personal problems
where referral to another service agency on campus is required——Medica1 Center,
Psychiatric Services, Counseling Center, etc. Dean Ginger suggested that a
systematic plan should be developed for orienting faculty members into these
three aspects of advising.

3. The student's record and advising. For the first two years of a

student's educational career, his record is in one college and the advising

is done through another college. Dean Ginger explained that even though

the Office of the College of Arts and Sciences has c00perated in every way,

the fact still remains that students are being advised by faculty members

in other colleges, without the record of the student being available. He
stated that there are approximately 1600 students enrolled in the College

of Education this semester whose records are in the College. There are

perhaps 1200 students enrolled in the College of Arts and Sciences who

have indicated that they plan to transfer to Education when they are juniors.
Grades for some of these students have been sent to the College of Education.
There is a third group of students who report to the College of Education for
advisors but who have never indicated to Arts and Sciences that they plan to
transfer. Dealing with three separate and distinct groups of students adds
greatly to the job of the advisor and works to the disadvantage of the student.
On the basis of this information, Dean Ginger suggested that perhaps the Senate
would like to reconsider two questions. 1. What can be done to place advising
in its proper perspective throughout the University? 2. Is any good purpose
served by requiring a student at the freshman or sophomore level to register in
the College of Arts and Sciences if he has already established the fact that he ‘
knows the college to which he expects to transfer? The curriculum for the first
two years would be the same in either case.

b...

mmfiflmFTHrnrnran‘h—am

t]
SE

W}
at

wh
th
nu
so

go

es

 te
ng

in
he
.rstl

 

2517

Minutes of the University Senate, October 9, 1967. (con't)

Dean Walton discussed the necessity of a clear policy commitment on
the role of advising, particularly the faculty—student relationship. He
stated that during his 17 years with the University he had seen nothing
that clearly defined the role of advisor. He gave his definition of
a good advisor as one who looked after the student's best interests,
who became his friend, who helped him learn how to study, to understand
what alternatives he has, to help him make decisions, how to allot his
time. He stated that he felt lack of faculty understanding of what is
expected of them in the advising role was a serious problem; that clearly
defined objectives of the advisory function need to be established and
thoroughly communicated. He stressed the need for the University to
recognize good advising financially when merit ratings are reviewed.

He strongly urged that the University underscore and commit itself to

good advising by making good advising an item on the rating sheet.

He stated that he felt it unfair to ask a new staff member who has a
tenure problem facing him, or a new senior professor who has just come

on campus and does not know the University's idiosyncrasies, immediately
to assume the advisory role. He referred to the large numbers of

students with scores in the upper quarter percentile on the ACT Composite
Score who have flunked out of the University before there was time to
straighten them out; and of studies which had been done on the personality
test-—the conformists and non—conformists—-which showed that some very
bright students who had scored as non—conformists had not lasted long
enough to find out what it was all about; that he saw no way of correcting
these tragedies except through good advising. In summation, he stated
that he hoped the University would describe the role and function of an
advisor and would underscore it with the dollars and cents mark at the
appropriate time.

Dr. Wall discussed some alternatives or possible improvements in the
advisory role which might be considered. He mentioned the plan which was
implemented two years ago whereby some of the faculty who were on ten months'
salary and had been assisting in advising were selected to help in the Summer
Orientation Program and were paid the equivalent of one month's salary.

One alternative which he mentioned as being used by some colleges and
universities was that of a central advising office——where a few people are
trained in the field of advising and counseling-—to which all students are
sent.

An additional approach mentioned was selection of those faculty members
who wish to take advising as an extra assignment for which they are given
additional financial remuneration but in which there would be no evaluation
of advising as a part of the merit evaluation for the total job.

An alternative, which he favored, was that of selecting those faculty
who have an interest and concern for good advising, making this a part of
their total load, establishing a weighted scale to balance advising a certain
number of students with teaching a three or two—hour course, and providing
some scale to recognize good advising on the same level as good teaching or
good research in the merit evaluation review.

Some instruments which Dr. Wall mentioned might add additional impetus to
establishment of such a program were:

 

 

 

 

 

  

2518

Minutes of the University Senate, October 9, 1967 (con't) Mi

1. a workshop, made up of those faculty interested in advising, which , ' nu
would attempt to identify advisory commitment and means of overcoming
the obstacles which have been raised;

an
2. the use being made of the American College Test. He stated that wh
the University is requiring high school graduates to spend upwards th:
of $30,000 a year for completion of the ACT, a requirement for admission ur;
to the University, and he questioned whether the manner in which it is 801
being used by the University (that of looking at the percentile rank a I
for purpose of placement) is worth the $4.50 each student must pay to th:
take the test. He pointed out that there is a great deal of information we

on the card which could be of inestimable benefit in the advising role;

3. the opportunity which is available through the General Studies
Program to help the student plan the first two years at the University,
by using a plan fOrm, a copy of which plan could be given to the student;

4. some type of permanent record card that would move with the student

as he moves from one advisor to the other or from one college to the

other, such card to contain a minimum amount of information but enough to giv
a record of what each advisor has tried to do to help that student.

In summation, he stated that he felt a decision must be made relative
to the system of advising to be followed.

As presiding officer of the panel discussion Dean Drennon added some
remarks to what had been presented. He stated that since assuming his present
role in the College of Arts and Sciences he had become intensely aware that
a good many thousand parents send their sons and daughters to us for us to do
something with them and that many of them are intensely dissatisfied with what
we do or don't do; that sometimes they are misled by what the student tells them
of the advisor's instructions, but that all too often the student relates quite
accurately what the advisor told him. He said he felt that perhaps the deans
were making a mistake in shielding the advisors from the parents; that if the
advisor had to sit with families, many of whom are in tears as they see their
hopes and dreams of a lifetime disintegrate, he would realize the importance
of good advising.

He pointed out what a mistake in advising can do to a student, that of
slowing him down in his educational experience for a semester or year, and
the cost in loss of income. He stated that the College of Arts and Sciences
registers about 3,000 new freshmen in the fall and that at the end of the
first semester 40% of that number are on probation; that all of these students
are not dullards; and of how much disappointment, grief, and waste this represents

He stated further that at the end of the Spring Semester last year they
dropped some 750 students, many of whom had every right to expect that they
could graduate and make a major contribution to our society; that, in addition,
400 were placed on probation; that these figures represent young peOple who
are in serious trouble, whose families have invested thousands of dollars and
a lifetime of dreams and hopes; and that in too many instances the source of
the student's downfall occurred on the advisory level.

 :o giv

It

at
them
ite

(D

Lts
resents

Minutes of the University Senate, October 9, 1967 (con't)

In the question and answer period that followed the Senate raised a
number of questions, one of which was ”What happens now to advising?"

Dean Drennon replied that the panel did not anticipate the total
answer to the problem would evolve from this discussion; that rather
what it hoped to achieve was to make the Senate members more aware of
the nature of the problem, its seriousness; and to instill in them an
urgency to begin preparing the entire University community for making
some concrete commitments; e.g., to see that the advisory role becomes
a matter of institutional priority in terms of money, of what our students
think, and of what the people of this Commonwealth think about the role
we are playing.

The meeting adjourned at 5:15 p.m.

Elbert W. Ockerman
Secretary