The fourth meeting of the Student Senate for 2004-05 was convened in Studio C, Rarig Center, Minneapolis campus, on Thursday, March 3, 2005, at 11:32 a.m. Coordinate campuses were linked by ITV. Checking or signing the roll as present were 29 voting student. Chair Nathan Wanderman presided.

*The President supports the release of questions that address the learning situation of the course and how it is structured. He also supports increasing the accessibility of course evaluative data. Therefore, the President encourages the Student Senate Consultative Committee to work with the Senate committee on Educational Policy (SCEP) to address these issues through policy, as SCEP works to condense into one the three existing policies on the evaluation of instruction, as well as consider incorporating changes recommended by the ad hoc subcommittee of SCEP and the Senate Committee on Faculty Affairs.

*The President supports the release of questions that address the learning situation of the course and how it is structured. He also supports increasing the accessibility of course evaluative data. Therefore, the President encourages the Student Senate Consultative Committee to work with the Senate committee on Educational Policy (SCEP) to address these issues through policy, as SCEP works to condense into one the three existing policies on the evaluation of instruction, as well as consider incorporating changes recommended by the ad hoc subcommittee of SCEP and the Senate Committee on Faculty Affairs.

MOTION:

To approve the Student Senate minutes, which are available on the Web at the following URLs.

http://www1.umn.edu/usenate/ssen/041202stu.html

DISCUSSION:

With no discussion, a vote was taken and the minutes were approved.

Nathan Wanderman, Student Senate Consultative Committee (SSCC) Chair, said that he has spoken to Mary Koskan in the Student One-Stop Office and Vice Provost Craig Swan regarding the Student-Senate-approved resolution to add a link on the one-stop site by course and professor. Both individuals liked the idea and it is on a list of projects to be completed in time for registration for Spring 2006.

He is also working with Vice Provost Swan on two issues. The first is on the communication to faculty regarding to student evaluation process. Currently, an email is sent in November and April reminding faculty to sign the consent to release the evaluations. Currently, only 22.9 percent sign this release. By raising faculty awareness of student use of the evaluations, there is hope that this percentage will increase.

The second item is to increase the number of APAS forms that include major requirements.

Nathan Wanderman has also been speaking with Vice President Richard Pfutzenreuter about how students can be involved in next year’s budgeting process.

He has been communicating with administrators, state legislatures, and Susan Heegaard, Director of the Higher Education Services Office (HESO), about problems with the FAFSA program and the gap between the expected and actual family contribution.

A last item is revised student release questions, which will be discussed later in the meeting.

Q: From your meeting, can you tell if the administration committed to involving students in the budget process?

A: Some administrators are more willing to involve students. The University tradition, however, is to give the President the authority to make budget decisions. As long as students are active participants, their opinions will be heard.

Q: How will students be involved in stadium funding?

A: Nathan Wanderman was asked to appoint a student to a stadium task force. After emailing all SSCC members, he appointed Rubens Feroz. Any feedback on the stadium can be forwarded to him.

Crookston – Deanne Roers reported that CSA is filling positions after several resignations and working on elections for next year. CSA is trying to get a Barnes and Noble Bookstore into the Student Center, which will open the first week of June. Talks have started about changing the SLC position to a senator position and changing Crookston student lobbying in the Twin Cities since all student have to pay a fee that only a few use to travel. CSA is considering bringing legislators to campus instead of traveling to the Twin Cities. Other projects include spring convocation, commuter student week, and advisor week.

Morris – Jared Warren said that MCSA is working on tenants rights and alcohol and substance rights. They are also finishing technology fee proposals and allocations.

GAPSA - Jamie Larson said that GAPSA has been working on a Program Closing Resolution, which will also go to the Graduate School. GAPSA has been involved with lobbying and testifying at the capital. Graduate and Professional Student Appreciation Week is scheduled to begin in April. Lastly, there have been meetings to include graduate students in Duluth.

MSA - Rubens Feroz said that MSA did not pass a resolution to cap the tuition increase at 5.5 percent. Lobby Day was successful this year, but a question was raised about students being able to be excused from classes for Lobby Day.

MOTION:

To approve the revised student evaluation questions as follows:

Draft Student Release Questions
Note: Directions in italics are for the draft copy only, and will not be used in the actual survey.

Mark the description of your class that best applies in questions 1-4.

1. This course was:

2. In this course, I was primarily expected to:

3. I spent approximately 0-2, 3-4, 5-6, 7+ hours per week on this class outside of the classroom.

4. I would recommend this course to:

(For questions 5-7, students will be asked to mark the number between 1 and 7 that most closely describes their classroom experience. The extremes of the scale are written below, with 1 applying to the first word, and 5 applying to the second word.)

Mark most appropriate number for questions 5-7.

5. This course was: Easyßà Difficult

6. For this course, I learned most: Inside class ßà Outside class

7. The course: Closely followed a syllabus ßà Did not follow a syllabus

(For question 8, students will be presented a list of possible strengths for their professor. Students will mark those strengths that apply to their professor.)

8. Rate 1 to 7 (1 being strong disagreement, 7 being strong agreement) any of the following strengths that apply to your professor.

a) Approachable
b) Gave constructive feedback
c) Returned course work quickly
d) Lectures were well-structured and clear
e) Concepts and theories were well-presented and understandable
f) Passionate and excited about course material

9. I would take another class with this professor?: Yes/No

Approved by the Student Senate Consultative Committee, February 17, 2005.

DISCUSSION:

Nathan Wanderman said that he and Jamie Larson started the question re-write process by looking at the current questions. Most of the questions on the student evaluations are used in promotion, tenure, and salary decisions and are only seen by the instructor, department head/chair, and dean. The last section has 10 questions that can be released for student viewing if the professor consents to the release.

Currently, these answers are hard to find on the one-stop site and there are few releases to review. The goals of this review process are to increase the number of evaluations released, make the evaluations more accessible to students, and improve the questions. With the first two items addressed last semester, focus is now on the questions to make them more direct and useful to students, instructor-friendly, and easy to complete.

These questions have been presented to the Educational Policy (SCEP) and the Student Affairs Committees, as well as student associations/assemblies, and their recommendations have been incorporated. After Student Senate approval, the questions will be forwarded to SCEP for inclusion in the revised policy.

Nathan Wanderman explained that questions 1-7 deal with the course itself, with questions 1-4 being multiple choice and questions 5-7 on a one-through-seven scale as is used on the rest of the evaluation. Questions 8 and 9 then deal with the instructor.

He then asked that two changes be made to the document. For questions 8 and 9, the word ‘professor’ should be changed to ‘instructor’.

A senator noted that question 6 asks a student to choose between memorize and analyze, however these are not opposites of one scale. Also, some courses do require both skills. He proposed that the question be broken into two parts, which 1-7 scales given for each term.

A senator suggested that even though the two terms are not opposite, that by choosing the middle of the scale, it would signify that the course required equal levels of memorization and analysis.

Another student suggested that by breaking the question into two parts, it is clearer for students.

A senator then suggested that ‘not applicable’ be added to both parts in terms of classes that require something besides memorization and analysis.

Nathan Wanderman suggested that this remain one question, as a multiple choice. Options would be: analyze, memorize, analyze and memorize, and not applicable.

A senator then said that question 5 is not needed because the response varies based on the student and a “why” response should be added to question 9 to allow students to explain why they chose yes or no.

Nathan Wanderman said that the Office of Measurement Services, which tabulates the results, does not have the resources to post written responses on the web. If the responses cannot be seen, it is not useful to ask the question.

A senator then said that the current Morris student evaluation questions look different from what is being used on the Twin Cities. He asked that this issue be reviewed.

Nathan Wanderman said that these student evaluation questions will likely not be an issue for Crookston or Duluth because the faculty at both campuses are unionized.

A motion was then made and seconded to accept the motion as printed. A vote was taken and the motion failed with 12 in favor and 15 opposed.

A motion was then made and seconded that question 5 be changed to ‘I found this course was easy—difficult.” The motion was approved by a majority.

A senator then noted that for the first four questions, students can only choose one option. For some courses, it may not be appropriate to choose just one option.

Another senator stated that for many courses, there are separate evaluations forr lecture , discussion, and lab.

A motion was made and seconded that an additional option, ‘two or more of the above,’ be added to question 1. This motion was approved by a majority.

A motion was made and seconded to add another option, ‘group work/discussion,’ to question 2. The motion was approved.

A senator noted that question 8c is vague and will lead to poor evaluations for instructors. A motion was made and seconded to change 8c to ‘Returned work in a timely fashion.’ The motion was approved.

A motion was then made and seconded to move question 6 to the first part of evaluation after question 4, and provide for four options: analyze, memorize, analyze and memorize, and not applicable. The motion was approved by a majority.

With no further discussion, a vote was taken and the questions were approved as amended.

MOTION:

To approve the following resolution.

WHEREAS, the core of the University of Minnesota’s proposed mission is to “prepare graduate, professional, and undergraduate students...” as well as to “generate and preserve knowledge...by conducting high-quality research.”

WHEREAS, as stated on the University’s website, “In all its activities, the University strives to sustain an open exchange of ideas in an environment that embodies the values of academic freedom, responsibility, integrity, and cooperation.”

WHEREAS, many graduate programs at the University add strength and depth to the mission and also represent unique opportunities that Minnesota residents will not have access to via other local institutions

WHEREAS, the University has been facing financial challenges; the administration has been and will likely continue to base critical decisions, in part, according to budgetary concerns.

WHEREAS, the proposed mission statement, the Report from the Task Force on the Future of Funding Graduate Students as well as Provost Sullivan and President Bruininks in public forums have warned that graduate programs and departments are under consideration for cuts or closures in response to the University’s need to reorient its decreased funding.

WHEREAS, the Department of Occupational Therapy has been the first department to face closure, as they have been informed to suspend all new enrollment of graduate students. In addition, this decision was made without a formal and open hearing procedure or a sense of transparency to that decision.

WHEREAS, compassion and concern for our fellow students in Occupational Therapy as well as concern for the future of our own departments and programs have caused University students to react to this process of cutting OT with alarm.

BE IT RESOLVED, the Student Senate Consultative Committee urges the University Administration to be straightforward, clear, compassionate, flexible, cautious and transparent when deciding the future of programs and to include public discussions of all parties involved in that decision including student government representation.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the Student Senate Consultative Committee asks the University Administration to release the list of programs being considered for closure to the public, thereby assisting in the transparency of the process and allowing facilitation of public discussions.

COMMENT:

In May 1999, the University Senate approved a policy describing procedures for reorganization. The policy can be found on the web at:
http://www.fpd.finop.umn.edu/groups/senate/documents/policy/reorganization.html

DISCUSSION:

Jamie Larson reported that when enrollment for the Occupational Therapy department was suspended, students were caught off guard. This decision from the administration prompted this resolution. She then noted that a few changes have been made to the document after meeting with the Educational Policy Committee. The title was abbreviated to Resolution on Program Closures, Student Senate Consultative Committee be changed to Student Senate, and the last resolved clause was eliminated since some discussions need to happen in private, but with students involved.

A senator asked that the last resolution remain in the document, with added text, such as ‘after initial discussions.’

Jamie Larson said that the main emphasis is that students enrolled in the programs need to be involved in the discussions.

The senator noted that ‘public’ could be changed to ‘the affected students.’

A senator then noted that future students would not be involved in these discussions, but the decisions will likely affect their enrollment choice.

Jamie Larson suggested that the language be changed to ‘the affected parties’ so Directors of Graduate Studies share the information with their departments.

Another senator said that the first resolved clause covers this issue and therefore the second resolved clause is not needed.

Jamie Larson noted that the first resolved clause calls for public discussions of closures, which is repetitive with the language in the second resolved clause. She moved that the resolution be approved with the second resolved clause stricken; the motion was seconded.

With no further discussion, a vote was taken and the resolution was approved as amended.

Nathan Wanderman noted that this resolution will go to the University Senate in April for action.

Nathan Wanderman said that while student associations and assemblies are continuing to lobby for students, it makes sense that the Student Senate continue to do its part. The Student Senate Consultative Committee (SSCC) met with a liaison in the Governor’s Office, but after his budget was released. There is still time to talk with chairs of the two higher education committees as well as individual members of the legislature.

He asked members for any suggestions. There was no response from members.

This item was withdrawn from the agenda.

Nathan Wanderman reminded senators of the University Senate meeting at 2:30 p.m. today which will take place in Coffman Theatre. He then invited all senators to lunch at the Lucky Dragon restaurant following the meeting. Lastly, he asked SSCC members to stay a few minutes.

The meeting was adjourned at 12:49 p.m.