xt7kkw57hh1t https://exploreuk.uky.edu/dips/xt7kkw57hh1t/data/mets.xml University of Kentucky. University Senate University of Kentucky. Faculty Senate Kentucky University of Kentucky. University Senate University of Kentucky. Faculty Senate 1984-04-25  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, April 25, 1984 text University of Kentucky University Senate (Faculty Senate) meeting minutes, April 25, 1984 1984 1984-04-25 2020 true xt7kkw57hh1t section xt7kkw57hh1t LMUVERSHY OF KENTUCKY

LEXINGTON. KENTUCKY 40506-0032

UNIVERSITY SENATE COUNCIL
10 ADMINISTRATION BUILDING

April 17, 1984

Members, University Senate

This is a reminder that there will be a special meeting of the
University Senate on Wednesday, April 25, 1984, at 3:00 p.m. in
the Classroom Building, 106.

AGENDA:

1.

Minutes.

Resolutions

Announcements

Action Item: Proposed addition to University Senate Rules, Section V.,
3.1.2 Quality Point Deficit. (Circulated under date of March 28, 1984)

 

 

Action Item: Proposed addition to University Senate Rules concerning

 

probation and suspension rules, College of Allied Health Professions.
(Circulated under date of 12 April 1984)

Action Item: Proposed addition to University Senate Rules: Probation

 

and Suspension Policy, College of Engineering. (Circulated under date
of 16 April 1984)

Action Item: Proposed addition to University Senate Rules, Section

 

III., 2.0 Procedures for Processing Programs and Changes in Programs,
paragraph 5. (Circulated under date of 29 March and also under date
of 17 April)

 

Action Item: Proposal to change the University grading system. (Cir—

culated under date of 12 April)

Action Item: Proposed change in University Senate Rules, Section IV.,

 

2.2.9, College of Engineering [Admissions standards]. (Circulated
under date of April 13, 1984.

 

Elbert W. Ockerman
Secretary

AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY UNIVERSITY

 

 MINUTES OF THE UNIVERSITY SENATE, APRIL 25, I984

The University Senate met in a called session at 3:00 p.m., Wednesday, April 25,
l984, in Room lO6 of the Classroom Building.

E. Dcuglas Rees, Chairman of the Senate Council, presided.

Members absent: Richard Angelo*, James Bader, Michael Baer, Charles E. Barnhart,
Jack C. Blanton, Thomas 0. Blues*, Peter P. Bosomworth, Thomas W. Brehm*, Joseph T.
Burch, Ellen Burnett, Bradley Canon*, Henry Cole, Clifford J. Cremers*, Donald F.
Diedrich, Gadis J. Dillon*, Richard C. Domek*, Herbert Drennon, Nancy E. Dye,
Anthony Eardley, William Ecton*, Charles Ellinger, Donald G. Ely*, Charles H. Fay,
Nathan Floyd, Wilbur W. Frye, Richard W. Furst*, Art Gallaher, Jr.*, Andrew J. Grimes*,
John Hall, Joseph Hamburg, Willburt Ham*, Marilyn D. Hamann, S. Z. Hasan*, Robert
Hemenway*, Donald Hochstrasser, Raymond R. Hornback, Alfred S. L. Hu*, James Kemp,
Theodore A. Kotchen*, Robert Lawson, Julie Lien, David Lowery, William E. Lyons*,
Edgar Maddox, Kenneth E. Marino, Brad McDearman, Marcus T. McEllistrem, Martin J.
McMahon, Jr., Mary Beth Messmer, H. Brinton Milward*, Daniel N. Nelson, Clayton Omvig,
Mary Anne Owens, Merrill Packer*, Janet Pisaneschi, Jean Pival, David J. Prior,
Robert Rabel, Madhira D. Ram*, Kay Robinson*, Caryl E. Rusbult, Charles Sachatello*,
Edgar Sagan, Timothy Sineath*, Otis A. Singletary*, Jesse E. Sisken, John T. Smith,
Stanford L. Smith, Marcia Stanhope, Phil Taylor, Kenneth Thompson, William C.
Thornbury, Enid S. Walhart*, Marc J. Wallace, David Webster, O'Neil Weeks, Jesse
Weil, Constance Wilson, Alfred D. Winer, Steven Yates*, Scott Yocum

Since the Minutes of the April l9, l984, meeting had not been distributed, the
approval was postponed until the September meeting.

The Chairman made the following announcements:

”This is the last Senate meeting of the year. Pro-
fessor Bostrom of the College of Communications will be
SUCCeeding me as Senate Council Chairman on the sixteenth
of May. Bob Bostrom will have a successor. Professor
Bradley Canon of the Department of Political Science has
been elected by the Senate Council as incoming Chairman—
elect. There will be continuity and experience in this
position in the years ahead.

I want to thank the Senate Council. It has been
exceptionally diligent and capable. We have had several
meetings each month. The attendance has been either lOO%
or very close to that. There are a number of issues for
this coming year, and I think they are already on the
docket.

Last week we heard the General Education Committee
Report. There will be more about that this coming year.
Also there is a scholarship program being assembled under
the leadership of Dr. Donald Sands. This is being done
in order to attract some of the finer students to the
University of Kentucky and that is part of making our se-
lective admissions policy work as well as it should.

*Absence explained

 

 -2-

There is also an ad hoc administrative committee under
the chairmanship of Professor Jean Pival to study faculty
alternatives and they are proceeding to make specific recom-
mendations.

The Committee on Academic Planning and Priorities
under the chairmanship of Professor Jack Hiatt has sub-
mitted a detailed plan for evaluating academic progress.
In the years ahead program priorities and termination and
suspension of programs will become a more important matter
than they have been in the past. The Research Committee
under the chairmanship of Professor Bob Guthrie has pre—
pared a statement entitled 'The Contribution and Impor—
tance of State Supported Universities to the Economic
Growth in Kentucky.‘ I think that is an important state—
ment. It is being reviewed by President Singletary. Also
the Research Committee has set forth a list of further
topics in the research area that deserve discussion dur-
ing this coming year. These and other topics will come
about as a result of the economic and political forces
that are at work at the present time.

I will be writing a thank you note to all the differn
ent committee chairmen but now I want to thank Celinda Todd,
who is the Senate Council Administrative Assistant. She is
really the one who keeps the Senate Council office running
and that is a surprise to no one. I should like to thank
Martha Ferguson who has done a fine job with the Senate
Minutes, and that is not an easy task. Mary Mayhew and Ron
Farrar have been dependable and exemplary as our Sargeants
at Arms. I also thank Professor Blyton who gives me and
the senate assurance that an expert parliamentarian is
always at hand. With that we go to our first action item
on the agenda.”

Chairman Rees recognized Professor Robert Bostrom. Professor Bostrom, on behalf
of the Senate Council, recommended approval of the proposed addition to University
Senate Rules, Section V., 3.l.2, Quality Point Deficit. This proposed addition was
circulated to members of the senate under date of March 28, l984. Professor Bostrom
said the new rule was designed to distinguish college suspension from suspension from
the University and designed to give individual colleges the right to set the quality
point deficit.

Chairman Rees recognized Professor Altenkirch for a presentation.
Professor Altenkirch's remarks follow:

”Freshmen can be placed on probation if they have a
quality point deficit greater than five after the first
semester. Undergraduates in general shall be placed on
probation if they have a quality point deficit greater
than five. If they have more than 90 hours and a GPA
of less than 2.0 they are placed on probation. Undergradu—
ates are subject to suspension if they get an additional
quality point deficit greater than five when they are on
probation. If a student is on probation for three conse-
cutive semesters and demonstrates he cannot do satisfac-

 

 -3-

tory work, he is suspended not only from the college but
from the University. However, the dean can place the
student on scholastic probation if the individual case
justifies it. The proposal would make the suspension from
the college available to the dean but also make the dean
tell the student what he is using to judge satisfactory and
unsatisfactory work.

Basically the first three items on the agenda go
together. The rationale points out the fact that the
colleges can make rules in addition to those of the Uni-
versity as long as the standards are not below those of
the University."

The floor was opened for questions and discussion.

Professor Just wanted to know if a student were suspended from a college, what part
of the University did he/she belong? Professor Altenkirch said the student could belong
to any part except that college. Professor Just felt under those circumstances stu—
dents would be skipping around from college to college and Professor Altenkirch said
that condition existed now.

There were no further questions, and the proposal passed. The addition to the
University Senate Rules, Section V., 3.l.2 reads as follows:

New Rule:

V., 3.l.2 Academic Probation and Suspension
The academic probation and suspension systems
that are used to determine a student's aca-
demic standing University—wide are based on
quality point deficit. The base for deter—
mining the deficit is the number of quality
points which wOuld result from multiplying
the number of hours attempted by two. Defi-
cit is the difference, if any, between this
base and the number of quality points earned.
Individual colleges may establish policies
regarding academic probation and suspension
with regard to a student's academic standing
within the college in addition to the Univer—
sity—wide policies given here. If a college
establishes such a policy, the policy must
be approved by the University Senate, and the
policy shall be made available in writing to
the students. [see this Section 3.l.3 and
3.l.5l

Rationale:

The title change for U§R_V., 3.l.2 from
"Quality Point Deficit” to the proposed ”Aca-
demic Probation and Suspension” depicts more
clearly the nature of the Rule. In addition
it sets forth a principle based on the Govern—
ing Regulations that college faculties can

 

 -4-

adopt academic standards and requirements which
can be no less than those required University-
wide by the Senate Rules and these college stan—
dards and requirements must be approved by the
University Senate and specified in the Senate
Rules.

Implementation Date: Fall Semester, l984.

Chairman Rees recognized Professor Robert Bostrom to present the proposed addition
in University Senate Rules concerning probation and suspension in the College of Allied
Health Professions. This proposed addition had been circulated to members of the senate
under date of April l2, l984. On behalf of the Senate Council, Professor Bostrom recom—
mended approval.

 

The floor was opened for questions and discussion. Mr. Johnson from the College
of Allied Health Professions said the proposal had been discussed sufficiently and
urged the senate's approval. He said the proposal had been worked through two academic
affairs committees. There were no questions and the proposal, which passed unanimously,
reads as follows:

Proposal:

Allied Health professional students are subject to the
general University regulations pertaining to academic
probation and suspension. In addition, the following
standards apply to Allied Health professional students:

Professional Program Probation:

 

A student will be placed on professional program probation when:

l. the semester GPA falls below 2.0 in courses
required by the professional program, or,

a failing grade is earned in any course required
by the professional program.

Removal from Professional Program Probation:

 

A student may satisfy the deficiency warranting probation
and will be removed from professional program probation
when:

in the semester following professional program
probation, a 2.0 or above semester GPA is achieved
in courses required by the professional program, and

a passing grade is earned in any previously failed
course required by the professional program.

Professional Program Suspension:

 

A student will be suspended from the professional program when:

l. a 2.0 semester GPA in courses required by the

 

 _5_

professional program is not earned either at the
end of the probationary semester, or in any subse—
quent semester or,

a course required by the professional program is
failed a second time or,

two courses required by the professional program
are failed,

unless alternative action is recommended by the Program
Director and approved by the Dean.

Rationale:

The proposed statement sets forth the probation and suspen—
sion policy for students in the College of Allied Health
Professions. It is set forth in the Governing Regulations
(VII. A. 4.) that "Within the limits established by the
regulations of the University and the policies and rules

of the University Senate, the faculty of a college shall
determine the educational policies of that college. It
shall make recommendations to the University Senate on such
matters as require the final approval of that body, and it
may make recommendations on other matters to the University
Senate, to the President, or to other administrative offi-
cials. The academic or scholastic requirements of a college
may exceed, but not be lower than, those established for

the University System as a whole by the University Senate

or the Graduate Faculty. Any such differences in standards '
must be approved by the University Senate.”

 

Implementation Date: Fall, l984

NOTE: The proposal will be forwarded to the Rules Committee
for codification.

Chairman Rees recognized Professor Robert Bostrom to present the proposed addi—
tion to University Senate Rules: Probation and Suspension Policy, College of Engineer-
ing. This proposed addition had been circulated to members of the senate under date
of April l6, l984. On behalf of the Senate Council Professor Bostrom recommended
approval.

 

Chairman Rees recognized Dean Bowen from the College of Engineering who requested
that the senate support the proposal. Professor Applegate felt this was allowing
individual colleges to set separate standards in what they felt was needed for a par-
ticular major. Chairman Rees said the Governing Regulations gave the colleges that
right. There was no further discussion, and the proposal, which passed unanimously,
reads as follows:

Proposal:

Proposed Engineering Probation and Academic Suspension Policy

In addition to the University rules on probation and academic
suspension, the following rules apply in the College of Engi—
neering. ,

 

 Difinition:

Engineering standing is defined as the overall grade-point
average for all course work taken while enrolled in the
College of Engineering. Excluded are correspondence courses
and transient work. (The term semester standing refers to
the GPA for a single semester.)

l. A student who fails to achieve an engineering standing
of 2.0 at the end of any semester shall be placed on
academic probation.

A student, regardless of engineering standing, whose
semester standing is less than a 2.0 for two consecu—
tive semesters shall be placed on probation.

A student who, at the end of his first probationary
semester, achieves a semester standing of 2.0 but fails
to bring his engineering standing up to 2.0 will be con-
tinued on probation.

A student who, at the end of a probationary semester,
fails to have achieved a semester standing of 2.0 shall
be dropped from the College of Engineering.

A student who, at the end of his second consecutive
probationary semester, fails to have achieved an engi-
neering standing of 2.0 shall be dropped from the
College of Engineering.

A student who fails to achieve an engineering standing
of l.5 at the end of any semester shall have his/her
record reviewed and may be dropped from the College
without a preliminary probationary semester.

A student who has been dropped a single time for
academic deficiency may be reinstated into the College
of Engineering after an absence of one year. A student
will be reinstated as a first semester probationary
student and subject to final suspension according to
these rules.

The dean may use his discretion in applying these rules
where a particular case justifies less severe action.

Rationale:

The proposed statement sets forth the probation and suspen-
sion policy for the students in the College of Engineering.

It is set forth in the Governing Regulations (VII. A.4) that
“Within the limits established by the regulations of the
University and the policies and rules of the University

Senate, the faculty of a college shall determine the educa—
tional policies of that college. It shall make recommendations
to the University Senate on such matters as require the final

 

 

 -7-

approval of that body, and it may make recommendations on
other matters to the University Senate, to the President,

or to other administrative officials. The academic or
scholastic requirements of a college may exceed, but not

be lower than, those established for the University System
as a whole by the University Senate or the Graduate Faculty.
Any such differences in standards must be approved by the
University Senate.”

Implementation Date: Fall, l984
NOTE: These rules will be codified by the Rules Committee.

Chairman Rees recognized Professor Robert Bostrom to present the proposed addition
to University Senate Rules, Section III., 2.0 Procedures for Processing Programs and
Changes in Program , paragraph 5. This proposed addition had been circulated to members
of the senate under date of March 29 and also under date of April l7. On behalf of the
Senate Council, Professor Bostrom recommended approval.

 

 

Chairman Rees said there were a few hundred programs in the University. The
Council on Higher Education is looking at what they call productivity which means the
number of people graduating in these programs throughout the course of the year. The
statement that the senate was dealing with applied only to the internal processing of
program changes. In the event of external demands such as from the Council on Higher
Education, it may not be possible to process a program change through the procedure
set forth in our Senate Rules. Chairman Rees said that under the Governing Regulations
the President has the prerogative under extraordinary circumstances of suspending the
University Senate Rules except for those rules concerning admission or awarding the
number of credits and quality points earned for graduation. At the last meeting Pro—
fessor Gesund asked what happened in professional programs and Chairman Rees said in
the College of Law program changes went directly to the Senate Council. In the College
of Medicine they go to the Academic Council of the Medical Center then to the Senate
Council. On the Lexington campus programs would come from the college depending on
whether they were graduate or undergraduate courses they would then go to the Graduate
or Undergraduate Councils and hence to the Senate Council. In the Medical Center the
non-professional courses would go to the Academic Council for the Medical Center and
depending whether they are graduate or undergraduate they would go to the appropriate
council and to the Senate Council. Final approval rests with the senate and any five
senators can bring the matter to the senate floor for discussion and vote.

 

The floor was opened for questions and discussion. Dean Royster pointed out that
the Graduate Council reviewed the proposal and rationale for the suspension of programs
about four weeks ago and the Council said there were already rules for suspension and
the lifting of suspension for graduate programs. The Council felt the procedure had
worked sufficiently well and would like the motion to include termination and the sus-
pension for termination of undergraduate programs to continue the procedure that had
been established by the senate. Chairman Rees felt the rules dealing with suspension,
reinstatement and termination were inconsistent. He said that at the present time sus—
pension did not have to come to the Senate Council from the Graduate Council although
reinstatement from suspension had to go from the Graduate Council to the Senate Council.
Professor Bostrom said termination was in the University Senate Rules and did go to
the Senate Council. The proposal on the floor referred only to suspension.

 

Dean Royster moved an amendment on behalf of the Graduate Council to add the word
undergraduate. The sentence would read:

 

 -8—

.including suspension or termination of undergraduate programs.”

The motion was seconded. Professor Belmore wanted to know what the present rule
is. Professor Rees read Rule l 3.2: ”The Graduate Council shall review graduate pro—
grams 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 purpose of this section, such recommendations may include
(l) suspension of programs for a maximum of five years, (2) lifting of suspensions,
and (3) termination of programs in accordance with the procedures. All recommendations
by the Graduate Council and decisions by the Graduate Dean relative to suspension of
programs shall be communicated to the Chairman of the Senate Council. No later than
the fifth year of any program suspension, the Graduate Council shall review the sus-
pension and recommend to the Graduate Dean the reinstatement or termination of the
programs. If the Graduate Dean approves a recommendation by the Graduate Council to
reinstate a program that has been suspended, he shall submit this recommendation to
the Graduate Faculty for review. If the Graduate Faculty concurs, it shall forward its
recommendation through the Senate Council to the University Senate for approval.”

Professor Gesund felt the amendment would undo what the proposed rules change was
forced to do. In other words, the amendment would retain the present complexity where
the proposed rule would remove that. He felt the senate should be against the amend—
ment. Dr. Sands said there is not an undergraduate faculty (in the sense of the
Graduate Faculty) and not a Dean of Undergraduate Studies, and the Undergraduate Council
felt the undergraduate program changes should go to the Senate Council.

Professor Jewell clarified that the old rule was for suspending graduate pro-
grams for only two years. That was not realistic. The Graduate Council passed a
rule from two years to five years. After reinstating a program after five years,
it might be treated as a new program, and a new program or one reinstated ought to
go through the Senate Council. He agreed with the argument that the Senate Council
should not be in the business of reinvestigating everything that every other body
in the University did. He did not see why the Senate Council should have to review
the Graduate Council if they wanted to suspend a program. Professor Rea was
curious as to where the amendment would leave the College of Medicine and Law if the
word ”undergraduate” were inserted. Chairman Rees said that professional courses in
the College of Medicine and Law would continue as at present. He felt there was con—
tradiction as things stand now.

Professor Rea's point was that currently Law and Medicine must go through the
senate for approval. Chairman Rees said the issue under disCussion was whether or not
there should be certain circumstances (such as graduate program suspension decided by
the graduate dean) where the Senate Council would not be involved and, thus, circula-
tion to the senate for final approval would not occur.

Professor Just did not understand the rationale of why the Senate Council wanted
to get involved. It seemed to him unless the Council viewed itself only as a rubber
stamp, it would just increase the bureaucracy. Chairman Rees said one reason for doing
this was so that all senators would have a chance to agree or not to agree with the
decisions made. The Council could be looked upon as a mechanism of seeing that every-
thing was in order.

Professor Bostrom explained the rationale of the Senate Council. First, the
bureaucracy was in place and is not likely to be disturbed. Suspending courses did not
happen often so the workload of any semester would not be increased. For the past
three years the Senate Council has been involved with serious questions about financial

 

 -9-

exigency, programs, etc. If programs were suspended it could affect jobs and students.
The Senate Council felt one more step in the process was not unreasonable and wanted
to make it a little harder.

Dean Royster said the Graduate Council looked at suspension purely on the quality
of the program and the number of students that program served. Professor Applegate
felt the logic was that either the Senate Council and the University Senate had no busi-
ness being involved or there must be some reason for being involved with suspension,
termination and reinstatement. Professor Applegate did not understand the ration—
ale for the current system. Professor Rees said the senate started out with the basic
premise (present Rule 111., 2.0) and then in considering suspension other (sometimes
conflicting) rules became attached as part of the charge to Senat's Graduate Council.

Professor Jewell moved the previous question on the amendment which was seconded
and passed. The amendment passed with a hand count of 27 to 2l.

Professor Mattingly agreed with Professor Applegate and felt all programs should
be reviewed. She wanted to table the proposal and have it include a definite pro—
posal that made sense and encompassed all the colleges and then have it brought before
the senate. The Chairman conferred with the parliamentarian. Parliamentarian Blyton
said that no formal motion had been made. Professor Mattingly moved to send the pro—
posal back to the Senate Council for further study. The motion passed.

The Chairman recognized Professor Robert Bostrom for the proposal to change
the University grading system. This proposal had been circulated to members of the
senate under date of April l2, l984. On behalf of the Senate Council, Professor
Bostrom recommended approval.

The Chairman recognized Professor Robert Altenkirch who presented statistics
and information on grading systems at other universities.

Professor Altenkirch's remarks follow:

“Last spring the senate wanted to vote on a plus-
minus system. You now have the opportunity. A recent
study of the American Association of Collegiate Registars
and Admissions Officers shows that through the sixties
and seventies, faculty and students became dissatisfied
with the way grades were being given. The result of that
was that institutions went to non—traditional grade report-
ing such as pass/fail. In addition to that, academic
standards seemed to be relaxed a bit. In the early sixties
to the mid seventies the number of A's given went from sixteen
percent to thirty-four percent. While the number of C's
went from thirty-seven percent up to forty—one percent.
At the same time ACT scores went from 20.2 to l8. There
was a state of decline in the incoming student quality. In
the mid seventies people began to realize this and started
to work on the problem. At the conclusion of the study there
was one thing that was tried to solve the problem and that
was to go to the plus—minus grading scale. The same study
says that ninety—five percent of the universities in the
United States are on a 4.0 scale. If you look at the vari-
ous systems of the four—year universities, sixty-one percent
are on straight letters of A through F; thirty-one per-
cent have some form of plus-minus grading. From the

 

 -10-

study it was found that the most noteworthy trend in
changing grades was that in 1964 twenty percent of a11
universities had a p1us-minus system. In 1982 31.6 per-
cent had the system. The introduction of innovations

in the sixties and seventies has gone away. The rate of
adopting changes has s1owed down. From 1972 to 1982
on1y twenty—six percent of the universities changed any-
thing, and the most preva1ent change was the p1us-minus.

At the present time we are on a 4.0 sca1e. I

wou1d urge you to keep it that way. If you go to the
p1us-minus system as is the recommendation, you have to
have e1even divisions. When you grade, you are trying
to measure success or performance. When you make a
measurement, you have to worry about the percision. The
recommendation of the Committee on Admissions and

‘ Academic Standards is that we ought to give you an
opportunity to vote on it. We do not have a particu1ar1y
strong recommendation one way or the other. The on1y
thing I wou1d urge you to do is stay on a 4.0 sca1e. If
you raise that you are just contributing to grade inf1a—
tion.”

The f1oor was opened for questions and discussion. Professor Harris wanted to
know if there were responses from the survey that more universities wanted to change
their system and wished they did not have it. Professor A1tenkirch said the majority
had a fee1ing there was no reason to change. He said there was no strong impetus
for change.

Mr. Johnson wanted to know from the AACRAO survey if there was an indication of
change over different periods of time. He fe1t changes were now back to a more tradi-
tiona1 sca1e. Professor A1tenkirch said he was not ta1king about going from a 1etter
grading system to a strict overa11 pass/fai1 system. Professor Just wanted to know
why certain co11eges were exempted from the proposa1. Chairman Rees said the co11eges
had their own grading systems which had been approved by the senate.

Dean Royster emphasized the point that the Graduate Counci1 opposed the p1us-minus
system. Dean Ockerman did not argue one way or the other but said one of the significant
things 1earned about going to the p1us—minus system was that the number of grade changes
increased. Professor Moody was in favor of the proposa1, and he fe1t giving grades was
one of the more difficu1t things he had to do. He fe1t there was a 1ot of difference
between a 70 and 79 and 80 and 89. For that reason he thought it was beneficia1 to the
students and wou1d motivate the students to continue to work and he spoke in favor of
the proposa1. Professor DeMers said he did not think the proposa1 was a mandate for prom
fessors to use the p1us-minus even if it were passed. He said he wou1d not use it for
graduate students for the reasons Dean Royster pointed out. He said if the senators

voted against the proposa1, they cou1d be denying someone e1se the prerogative of using
the p1us-minus.

Professor A1tenkirch said the argument was correct but there was no difference
than the present grading system where one cou1d take the four divisions but use on1y
three grades. There was no guarantee an instructor wou1d use the p1us—minus.

Professor Fugate said a 1ot of the responses from the survey were ambiguous; He
fe1t the number of grade changes wou1d go up. He did not fee1 there were any convincing
reasons in the survey to vote one way or the other. Professor Just addressed the

 

 A- —ll—

issue of denying the possibility of changing grades. He stated that when he taught
350 freshmen biology students and gave only A, B, C, D and E that the ombudsman would
have about l50 complaints. He said the senate should be in favor of the proposal for
everyone or against it for everyone.

Dean Royster said the Graduate School required a 3.0 for graduation. By putting
a minus in the system it could keep a student from graduating. He felt that was really
indicating a great deal of accuracy in the grading system.

Professor Rea moved the previous question which was seconded and passed. The
motion to adopt the grading system of plus-minus failed with a hand count of 42 to 9.
There was one abstention.

Chairman Rees recognized Professor Robert Bostrom to present the proposed change
in University Senate Rules, Section IV., 2.2.9, College of Engineering admissions
standards. This proposed change had been circulated to members of the senate under
date of April l3, l984. On behalf of the Senate Council, Professor Bostrom recommended
approval.

 

Dean Bowen said the College of Engineering became in