xt7sf7667984 https://exploreuk.uky.edu/dips/xt7sf7667984/data/mets.xml University of Kentucky. University Senate University of Kentucky. Faculty Senate Kentucky University of Kentucky. University Senate University of Kentucky. Faculty Senate 1981-02-16  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, February 16, 1981 text University of Kentucky University Senate (Faculty Senate) meeting minutes, February 16, 1981 1981 1981-02-16 2020 true xt7sf7667984 section xt7sf7667984 MINUTES OF THE UNIVERSITY SENATE, FEBRUARY 16, 1981

The University Senate met in regular session at 3:00 p.m., Monday, February 16, 1981,
in Room 106 of the Classroom Building.

George Schwert, Chairman, presiding

Members absent: Richard G. Alvey, Rusty Ashcraft*, Michael A. Baer, Charles E.
Barnhart, John R. Baseheart, John J. Bernardo, Leslie Bingham, Brack A. Bivins, William
H. Blackburn, Jack Blanton, James A. Boling*, Robert N. Bostrom*, Vickey Bowen, Thomas
W. Brehm*, Joseph T. Burch, Bradley C. Canon*, W. Merle Carter, Harry M. Caudill, Ralph
Christensen*, Donald B. Clapp, D. Kay C1awson*, Lewis W. Cochran, Glenn B. Collins*,
William L. Conger*, J. Donald Coonrod, Raymond H. Cox, Clifford J. Cremers*, Charles
Cunningham*, Guy M. Davenport*, George Denemark*, David E. Denton*, Philip A. DeSimone,
Louis Diamond, Joseph M. Dougherty, Herbert N. Drennon, Phillip A. Duncan*, Anthony
Eardley, Roger Eichhorn*, Paul G. Forand, Art Gallaher, Davis Gardner*, John H. Garvey*,
Peter Gillis*, Thomas C. Gray*, Andrew J. Grimes*, George W. Gunther*, Hal Haering, Jr.,
Joseph Hamburg, Curtis Harvey*, S. Zafar Hansan*, Virgil W. Hays, Jack Heath, Andrew J.
Hiatt, Raymond R. Hornback, Cathy Howell, Alfred S. L. Hu*, Michael H. Impey, Donald W.
Ivey*, Keith H. Johnson*, David T. Kao, Richard I. Kermode, Edward J. Kifer, John
Leonard, Thomas P. Lewis*, Thomas T. Lillich, David Listerman, Nancy Loomis*, Tim
Mann, Kenneth E. Mariono*, James R. Marsden*, William J. Marshall, Sally S. Mattingly,
Jo Ann Maurer, Marion E. McKenna*, Martin McMahon, Susan Meers, Ernest Middleton,

H. Brinton Milward*, George E. Mitchell, Jr.*, John M. Mitchell, Brian Murphy, Patricia
Montgomery*, Philip J. Noffsinger*, Elbert W. Ockerman*, James R. Ogletree, Clayton
Omvig*, Merrill W. Packer, Leonard V. Packett*, Bobby C. Pass*, Jane S. Rowe, Charles
Rowell, Wimberly C. Royster, Robert W. Rudd*, Holly Schumacher, Donald S. Shannon,

D. Milton Shuffett*, Timothy Sineath, Otis Singletary*, Harry A. Smith*, John T. Smith,
Donald Soule, Edward F. Stanton*, Earl L. Stee1e*, Marjorie S. Stewart, Anne Stiene—
Martin, William J. Stober*, Brad Sturgeon, Lee T. Todd*, Harold H. Traurig*, Mark
Vickers, William F. Wagner*, Enid S. Waldhart*, M. Stanley Wall, James H. Wells, Wayne
A. Wiegand*, Paul A. Willis, J. Robert Wills, Constance P. Wilson, Ralph F. Wiseman*,
Cindy Woolum*

The minutes of the meeting of October 13, 1980, were approved as circulated.
Chairman Schwert made the following remarks:

"I have a number of announcements. The Council kept turning papers
over in the span between meetings, and I think it is quite possible that
the committees who have been meeting to consider the self—study problems
have used up most of the energy which we usually use in committee meetings
and that may be one reason there is not a great deal in monumental decision-
making grist to come before the Senate's mill.

One of the first things I should point out to you is that new mem-
bers of the Senate Council who have been elected to this office at the
beginning of this semester are Professor Harry Caudill, History; Professor
Alfred D. Winer, Biochemistry; and Professor Constance Wilson, School of
Social Work. The Senate Council has recently been through its process of
election. The Chairman-elect for the period July l, 1981, to June 30,
1982, is Professor James Kemp and Secretary—elect is Professor Donald
Ivey.

*Absence explained

 

 .2~

One of the actions of the Senate Council which I bring to you
for information and to make sure that you have no objection to this
action of the Council is that the Council waived the fourth year
requirement of the curriculum in the College of Medicine to permit
June Frost, a member of the class of 1981, to receive the M.D. degree
posthumously at the May Commencement. I assume there is no objection
to this action.

The rules of the Senate state that the Senate Council will nomi—
nate to the President, on request, members of search committees for
Deans. In the past this has frequently been done 'off the top of the
Senate Council's head.’ The Council has decided that in the future
when such nominations are requested they will poll the college in
question for such nominations and submit these to the President.

Another item of business which has been transacted and which has
some meaning to the faculty, concerns two points which a faculty mem—
ber raised. It is not infrequent that the academic advisor for the
Athletic Association calls members of the faculty who deal with under—
graduate students to find out what the status is of various athletes
who hold Athletic Association scholarships. The first question this
faculty member asked was, 'Is it possible that a faculty member by re—
leasing this information violates the student's rights to privacy con—
cerning his academic status?‘ The second question was whether or not
this information can be properly transmitted over the telephone by
properly identifying a voice. I took these questions to the office of
Legal Council, and Gay Elste drafted a form which the scholarship
athletes might sign to give permission for such information to be
shared with the academic advisor of the Athletic Association. I had
a meeting with Mr. Hagan and Mr. Bradley, and it was agreed that, in
the future, athletes who have scholarships will be asked to Sign this
form giving permission for information about their status in any college
to be transmitted to the athletic advisor.

The other problem, whether such information can be properly dealt
with over the telephone, wasn't resolved. Apparently, in the past,
Mr. Bradley has sent letters requesting information. The rate of return
was not high and in order to touch base about the large number of
students it was necessary to do this by telephone. If the faculty
would return the forms to Mr. Bradley, that would meet the requirement
for security of information about class standing.

Next I invite your attention to the fact that the processes of
making changes in the academic programs of the University are tedious
and many-stepped. The Council has appointed an ad hog committee to
study course processing with the hope that it can resolve the problem
of how to inform all the people who need to know without taking so much
time and using so much paper. Professor Alfred D. Winer is the Chairman
of this committee. Professor Walter Smith, Chemistry; Professor Jane
Emanuel, Allied Health; Professor Daniel Reedy, Spanish and Italian; and
Mr. Ruby Watts from the Office of the Dean of Admissions and Registrar
are the members of the committee. If you have any thoughts on how
to resolve this problem, I am sure that one of these members would be
glad to receive those ideas.

 

 _3_

Another committee that has been appointed since last we met is an
29.h22 committee on the composition and structure of the Senate. Pro—
fessor James Kemp is the Chairman and the other members are Professors
Mike Adelstein, Lyle Back, Andrew Grimes, Bob Ogletree, Doug Rees and
Don Sands. Again, I am sure they will be glad to hear any thoughts you
may have on what the size and committee structure should be of this
group to make it operate as effectively as it can.

The next item of information is that the search committee for Ombuds—
man has been appointed. Professor Criswell is Chairman. Shortly you
will be asked for nominees for this important position in our academic
structure. I hope you will have lots of ideas for Professor Criswell.

The last point in our remarks is that at our next meeting Professor
A. w. Patrick, who is the Chairman of the Sub-committee on Resource
Allocation, will tell us about what that committee has found out about
the University's technique for allocating funds to its various functions.”

The Chairman recognized Professor James Kemp for a motion from the Senate Council.
Professor Kemp, on behalf of the University Senate Council, recommended approval of the
proposed change in the University Senate Rules, Section 1, 2.5.1 b regarding the cir—
culation of the Senate Minutes. This proposal was circulated to members of the Univer—
sity Senate under date of February 5, 1981.

 

The proposal reads as follows:

Background:

Professor Robert Rabel suggested to Dean Sands that thought be given to
reducing the paper flow in the University by restricting the circulation
of the Minutes of the University Senate.

Proposal

Dean Sands forwarded the suggestion to the Senate Council. The Senate
Council recommends that paragraph I, 2.5.1 b of the Rules of the Senate
be changed from:

b. To keep minutes of the Senate meetings and to circulate these
to all members of the University Senate and faculty and to
administrative offices that are concerned with academic affairs.

to indicate that:

b. Minutes will be circulated to Department Chairmen and Senate
members and that, when rules changes are approved by the
Senate, a separate memorandum will be sent to the general
faculty for information.

The floor was opened for questions and discussion. Professor Gesund said that he
did not think it was a modest proposal. He felt the minutes are about the only way the
University faculty is kept in touch of what was going on University—wide. He said that
many people read them before they put them in the trash. He felt if there were a prob—
lem with paper, it might be possible to publish the minutes in the Kernel. He did not
feel it was a good idea to cut off the University faculty from the flow of information

 

 which the proposal would do. Chairman Schwert responded that the possibility of pub—
lishing the minutes in the Kernel had been investigated and the Kernel did not have a
"driving wish" to publish the minutes. The cost would be about twice what it is now.

Professor Jewell said he realized we were in an age of lowered expectations, but he
found it difficult to believe that the University could not afford the paper it took
to keep the members of the faculty informed of what was going on. He said that of the
thousands of pieces of paper that crossed his desk he did not think the minutes should
be thrown away first. He further stated that when he was not on the Senate he liked to
know what was going on and when rules were changed he liked to know the logic for the
change and the arguments for and against them. He also liked to read the President's
speech. He didn't think the University was suffering from too much communication but
from a lack of communication.

A Senator asked what the savings would be each month. Chairman Schwert said that
the cost was around $300 per set of minutes which was around $2,000 a year. A Senator
said that much in resources had been wasted in debating. Chairman Schwert said there
was never going to be a way to save debate in that group, but they could save paper.
Professor Bosomworth asked if the Public Information Office had been contacted to see
if the minutes could be incorporated in any of their publications such as the Communi—K.
Chairman Schwert responded that would certainly be a valid way of solving the problem.

He said that Professors Jewell and Gesund had pretty well laid out the issues for the
Senate. Chairman Schwert called for a vote. The motion to change the circulation of the
Senate Minutes was defeated.

The Chairman recognized Professor James Kemp for a motion from the Senate Council
on the second action item on the agenda. Professor Kemp, on behalf of the University
Senate Council, recommended approval of the proposal to drop the requirement for each
BGS senior to submit a final evaluation of the program. This is applicable to students
enrolled in the old program only. This proposal was circulated to members of the
University Senate under date of February 4, 1981.

The Chair pointed out there is now a continuing Bachelor of General Studies Degree.
The rule in question existed during the time when this was regarded as an experimental
or trial period for the BGS. Dean Sands thought this reqirement could be thrown away
with little loss of meaning and a great diminution of form—filling. There was no debate.
The proposal passed unanimously and reads as follows:

Background:

On April 10, 1972, the University Senate approved the BGS as an experi—
mental degree until June 1, 1980. One of the degree requirements was:

"In the final semester of the degree program, . . . the
student will communicate to his advisor the results,
benefits, and values of his work . . . . These communi-
cations must be made in some durable medium (e.g., the
written word) ."

On September 8, 1980, the University Senate approved several revisions
and permanent status for the BGS degree. An evaluation of the program
is no longer a requirement. Dean Sands requests that the requirement
of a critique of the program be waived for students now in process in
the program.

Implementation Date: Spring Semester, 1981.

 

 -5-

The Chairman asked Professor Kemp to read a Resolution from the Senate Council for
consideration by the Senate. Professor Brock moved to amend the Resolution to state
that "Current budget restrictions are limiting the programs of the University. We be—
lieve that further reductions in financial support of the University must result in a
substantial lessening of educational opportunities offered by the University to the
Commonwealth." Professor Olshewsky seconded the motion. The amendment passed unani—
mously. The amended Resolution also passed unanimously and reads as follows:

"On behalf of the faculty of the University of Kentucky, the
University Senate endorses and wholly supports the position taken
by President Singletary at a recent meeting of the Council on
Higher Education. Current budget restrictions are limiting the
programs of the University. We believe that further reductions in
financial support of the University must result in a substantial
lessening of educational opportunities offered by the University
to the Commonwealth.”

The last action item was the consideration of the honorary degree candidates.
The Chair recognized Dean Margaret Jones from the Graduate School who presented the
candidates. The Chair reminded the Senators that until the candidates were approved
by the Board of Trustees the information was to be regarded as confidential. Follow-
ing Dean Jones' presentation, the Senators voted to accept the four candidates for
recommendation to the President.

Professor Harriett Rose, Director of the Counseling and Testing Center, gave a
Report: UK Freshmen, Then and Now.

Professor Rose spoke to the Senate as follows:

"At the risk of covering information you already have, I am going
to talk a little about what the ACT measures and how it measures it,
because people who have not dealt with freshmen as advisors are unfami—
liar with it. The ACT consists of four sub—tests: English, which deals
with correct speech and writing, English usage and does not concern it—
self with the memorization of rules, but the ability to recognize
effective writing, punctuation, grammar, sentence structure, diction,
style, logic and organization; the Mathematics Usage test which is
largely computational, covers first-year algebra and some geometry, and
is a very easy test; the Social Studies reading test in which the infor—
mation being asked is available in the form of paragraphs which the stu—
dent reads and then is asked to answer questions; the Natural Science
test which is constructed in the same way but requires a little more
prior knowledge. The tests are about 52 questions long but are standar—
dized so that scores range from 1 to 36, with a mean of 20 and a
standard deviation of 5. For purposes of organization ACT uses these
categories, which are equivalent to the normal curve: 26—36; 21—15;
l6~20 and 1—15. We would expect then 16 percent of the distribution to
fall between 26—36; 34 percent between 21—25; another 34 percent be—
tween 16-20 and another 16 percent from 15 down. In 1969 we looked much
better than that, as we should have looked since we are what is called
a type 4 University, that is, a Ph.D. granting institution. In 1979
we looked considerably worse than that in our distribution.

When we look at mean scores, it appears that not too much has
happened. English has dropped two points, 40 percent of a standard
deviation. Math has dropped in its mean a good deal. Social Studies

 

 has dropped three, flirting with four points. Natural Sciences has
declined much less. It's important to know that it is possible to
score as follows just by chance. You can get a 7 in English, an 8 in
Math, a 7 in Social Studies, and a 14 in Natural Sciences by chance.
The final score, by the way, is a simple average of the 4 standard
scores and is called Composite.

When you are confronted with a student who has a 5 Composite score
and someone asks you, ‘What is the matter with this kid?', your only con—
clusion can be that he tried. Had he not tried and just marked, he would
have probably gotten a 9. The right answer counts in all cases. The
wrongs do not subtract from the rights. All ACT is concerned with is how
many of those 52 items were answered correctly. The decline in mean scores
is bothersome. It is, of course, what has happened all over the country,
and we don't look any worse than other universities. But what is really
striking is the decline from the top category to the bottom category.
Kentuckians speak a peculiar form of English so we have never looked great
in it. We look worse now. Even females of whom only 5 percent scored in
the bottom category ten years ago now have 18 percent. The men who were
never very good in English had 10 percent in the bottom and now have 24
percent. Math has dropped alarmingly——not only is the top category much
reduced, the bottom category is much enlarged from 8 percent to 23 percent
for the men and from 15 percent to 34 percent for the women. What to me
is the most alarming of all is the decline in social studies, because what
that says is 38 percent of the women and 30 percent of the men are reading
below the tenth grade level. The information is there, it's in front of
them; they are unable to use it, and to answer appropriately. That is
1,056 freshmen students who cannot read a book or paragraph and get out
of it the information they need. We have gone from 5 percent of the men
in the bottom category on Composite to 18 percent and 9 percent of the
women to 24 percent. At the same time the high school grades have accel—
erated. They are looking at the same students we are, but where those men
students in English who got a 2.8 ten years ago, they now get a 3.01.
Where the girls got a 3.16 they now get a 3.26. In Math where they are
doing only the simplest work, similarly the high school grade point
average has ascended. I direct you to look at the Social Studies grades.
Also, the high school grade point average has also gone up unbelievably;
as has the college grade point average when I look at English 101 for ten
years. In 1971 the mean ACT Composite for English 101 was 21.2. The aver—
age of the grades in English 101 was 2.14. In 1979 the ACT Composite was
18.5 or one—half a standard deviation lower, and the grade point average
was 2.33 or .19 higher. In Math 113 (allow me to congratulate you gentle—
men), you stayed right where you should have been. The quality of the
student is the same, the grade point average is the same.

Other striking things about our freshmen after ten years are the
changes in vocational planning away from education to business, more atten—
tion to the health professions, and fewer people being undecided. Of these
students, among whom 1056 cannot read, 876 aspire to a Ph.D., an M..D., a
J.D. or Similarly elevated degrees. Their family income level has grown
too. Ten years ago only 9 percent thought their family income exceeded
$20,000. Now 40 percent say so. I really have a little trouble thinking
that 40 percent of the freshman class has a family income above $20,000,
but maybe it is true. Where 10 years ago we had 20 percent below $7500,

 

 -7—

we now have 5 percent. What this means I leave to you, but I think we
both have pretty good ideas about it. We very often hear that a different
population of students is coming to the University now, and that's very
true. We have several very different populations who are coming. I
hasten to tell you before we use them for scapegoats that in this whole
analysis there are only 128 blacks, and among those 1056 students who
could not read only 77 of them were black. The rest of the blacks were
distributed among the other three categories.

I have a lot of thoughts on reasons for this decline. First are
social problems, and the assignment of the schools to be the agency
to make up for all the social ills of a hundred years. That's part of
it-—then the abandonment of standards in high school. For instance, I
came back to graduate school in 1960. Then people were saying we had to
stop the amount of dropout from high school. So we stopped the dropout
from high school. We now have high school graduates who cannot read, and
a number of them come on to the University of Kentucky. Now we are
getting similar pressures to stop the dropout from college. If we do
that the same way we have done it for high school, we will soon have
graduates from the University of Kentucky who cannot read. Do not
think that all of them leave us at the end of the freshman year. That is
not true. In the Counseling Center we operate a reading and study skills
component——we call it learning skills. Peg Payne, the Coordinator, came
to me the other day and said, 'There's a senior in my office who cannot
read and cannot write. The Chairman of her department sent her over here,
because they couldn't let her graduate like this.‘ I said, 'Has she been
here all along?‘ The reply was, 'Oh, yes.' This year we are beginning
to have students who are voluntarily referring themselves because of their

alarm about their own inability to read. That is a change. We've had
them that couldn't read before, but they were not alarmed about it. I
guess that is progress.

I have looked also at the same decade of graduates from the University
of Kentucky, not with the same care and not analyzing quite as well, but
it doesn't hurt quite as much either. In 1971 the ACT mean of those
people who graduated was 23. In 1980 the ACT mean of those people who
graduated was 22.1, so we are kind of respectable in that area. We dropped
.9. Within specific degree programs, there have been some more spectacular
drops.

What do I want you all to do about it? I don't know. I just know that
if we go along the way we have been, not requiring anything of students,
we are cheating them. We are saying, 'You poor little thing, you're in—
competent, we will let you by.‘ I don't believe they are incompetent. I
think nobody makes them do anything, and when you don't make them do any—
thing, they don't. We will have a generation of college students who do
not have jobs, which they are promised, and we will have a rebellious,
disheartened, social problem generation of college students. I don't think
that is what they are entitled to. I think you should, because you set
academic policy, start requiring things of students. Thank you.”

A Senator asked Professor Rose to give some of her speculations in her
role as a psychologist.

 

 Professor Rose responded as follows:

"I have been speculating for years. In the first place, something we
are not in charge of is television and the passivity of turning on a pro—
gram and being entertained. Our succumbing to that ethos in our teaching
and our presentation has already happened in high school. Students learn
all kinds of things, but they don't learn from books. How one gets through
this world not reading is hard for me to understand.

Another big problem has been, in my opinion, not the integration of
schools, but how we treated the integration of schools, how frightened
teachers were, and how they accepted being told they didn't know how to
teach this new kind of student or what was 'relevant.’ I don't think those
black parents who fought like crazy for equal opportunity for their child—
ren meant they wanted less or that they wanted everybody's opportunity to
be similarly lowered. I think they wanted their children educated. And
when we say they are educated and hand them a degree which has no subs—
tance, we are not contributing to their American dream or to our own
either.

Another thing, we have unbalanced the system considerably. Although
we are now educating better than 50 percent of the high school graduates,
only 20 percent of the jobs require a college education. That hasn't
changed. Nobody has made the other 30 percent of the jobs upgrade their
standards to where it does require a college education. Industry is taking
some of our graduates. Others come to me with their feelings of disappoint—
ment after having been interviewed, and interviewed, and interviewed and
not gotten a job. I look at them, and the counselor part of me wants to
build up their self-esteem, and the other part of me says inside my head,
'I wouldn't hire them either.’ They don't have the habits that make good
employees.

I think we succumbed in the 60's to what college students said, and
perhaps it had to be at that time. I can remember being on the Rules
Committee one time when we got the probation and drop rules eased. Our
purpose was not to allow people to stay in college indefinitely who couldn't
'cut it', it was only to give them a chance to get over the shock of their
freshman year. I'm not sure that's the way it worked out, as with many
good intentions which get diluted as time goes on. Whatever it was, then
we listened to what students wanted and told us what they ought to study.
That was twelve years ago——three college generations ago. It's time for us
to stand up to what we really know—-that an educated populace is an im—
portant asset and a necessity for any country.

One of the things that happens when students leave high school and
come to college is that we want to acquaint them with the fact there are
different ways of thinking, not just 'this is right, this is wrong and they
butt up against each other.’ We want to give them a sense of relativism,
and we bend over backwards doing it. The students learn that, then they
progress to the next stage which says 'anybody's opinion is just as good
as anybody else's opinion. All knowledge rests on opinion.‘ They never
go on beyond that. I hate for the important decisions that affect all of us
in this country to be made by people who absorb everything that's important
about the news from two minutes of the news on television, who cannot

 

 -9-

read the newspaper and decide what is true and what is false or at least
know there are other ways of thinking about it. At any rate, what we do
now is very expensive. If we were going to accomplish anything with all
the remedial work we are giving them in college, then I would be all for
it. But I am afraid it is not going to accomplish anymore than what we
offer them in high school, which is electives—-take what you like. When
you look at the distribution of what our students who are coming into
college have had, it is not surprising that they score the way they do.
Ladies and gentlemen, I leave you to your job, which is tough."

Dean Langston said that he would like to see the Senate initiate debate and
discussion on the issue as to what to do about it. He felt it would be nice if
everybody would raise standards. He said he felt the Senate Council should appoint
a committee to take issue, work at it for a year and come up with University—wide
academic policy. Chairman Schwert said that Dean Langston's point was certainly
well put and the reason Dr. Rose was asked to address the Senate was to stimulate
some consideration of what is really a very sober problem for the University.

The meeting adjourned at 4:25 p.m.

Martha M. Ferguson
Recording Secretary

 

 Frank B. Stanqer Jr.
Unlvurnlty Archivo
4 K‘nq Library Annux

 

 On behalf of the faculty of the University of Kentucky, the

University Senate endorses and wholly supports the position taken by

President Singletary at a recent meeting of the Council on Higher

Education‘. We think it is clear that further reductions in the budget

of the University will result in a lessening of educational opportunities

and a decrease in educational services offered by the University to the

Commonwealth.

Resolution
University Senate
February 16, 1981

 

 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY

LEXINGTON. KENTUCKY 40506 6%

February 4, 1981

UNIVERSITY SENATE COUNCIL
Io ADMINISTRATION BUILDING

Members, University Senate
University Senate Council

AGENDA ITEM: University Senate Meeting, Monday,
February 16, 1981. Proposal to drop the requirement
for each BGS senior to submit a final evaluation of the
program. (Applicable to students enrolled in the old
program only. )

Background: On April 10, 1972, the University Senate approved the
BGS as an experimental degree until June 1, 19800 One of the degree
requirements was:

"In the final semester of the degree program, . . o the
student will communicate to his advisor the results,
benefits, and values of his work . . . . [These commu—
nications] must be made in some durable medium (e. g. ,
the written word) a . . ”

On September 8, 1980, the University Senate approved several revisions
and permanent status for the B68 degree. An evaluation of the program
is no longer a requirement. Dean Sands requests that the requirement of
a critique of the program be waived for students now in process in the
program.

Proposed Implementation Date: Spring Semester, 1981"

AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY UNIVERSITY

 

 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY
LEX'NGTOV IH'NTUCKY 40506

UNIVERSITY SENATE COUNCIL
ID ADMINISTRATION BUILDING

February 5, 1981

TO: Members, University Senate

The University Senate will meet on Monday, February 16, 1981 at 3:00
PM in room 106, Classroom Building.

AGENDA:
University Senate Minutes, October 13, 1980.
Chairman‘s Remarks

Action Items:

a) Proposed change in University Senate Rules, Section 1,
2.5.1 b regarding the circulation of the Senate Minutes.
(Circulated under date of February 5, 1981)

Proposal to drop the requirement for each BGS senior

to submit a final evaluation of the program. Applicable
to students enrolled in the old program only. (Circulated
under date of February}, 1981.)

c) Honorary Degree Candidates: W.C. Royster.

Report: UK Freshmen, Then and Now. Dr. Harriett Rose.

Elbert W. Ockerman
Secretary

Note: If you are unable to attend this meeting, please call Ms. Martha
Ferguson (7—2958) in the Registrar's Office.

AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY UNIVERSITY

 

 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY
LEXINGTON. KENTUCKY 40506

UNIVERSITY SENATE COUNCIL
Io ADMINISTRATION BUILDING

February 5, 1981

Members, University Senate
University Senate Council

AGENDA ITEM: University Senate Meeting, Monday,
February 16, 1981. Proposed change in University
Senate Rules, Section I, 2. 5.1 b. If approved, the
action of the Senate will be forwarded to the Rules Com-
mittee for codification.

Background:

Professor Robert Rabel suggested to Dean Sands that thought be given to
reducing the paper flow in the University by restricting the circulation of
Minutes of the University Senate.

Dean Sands forwarded the suggestion to the Senate Council. The Senate
Council recommends that paragraph I, Z. 5. l b of the Rules of the Senate
be changed from:

b. To keep minutes of the Senate meetings and to circulate
these to all members of the University Senate and faculty and
to administrative offices that are concerned with academic
affairs.

to indicate that Minutes will be circulated to