1995-96 UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA No. 2
UNIVERSITY SENATE MINUTES
JANUARY 11, 1996
The second meeting of the University Senate for 1995-96 was convened in
25 Law Building, Minneapolis campus, on Thursday, January 11, 1996, at 2:00
p.m. Coordinate campuses were linked by telephone. Checking or signing the
roll as present were 119 voting faculty/academic professional members, 33
voting student members, 5 ex officio members, and 1 nonmember. Professor John
Adams presided.
I. SENATE CONSULTATIVE COMMITTEE
EDUCATIONAL POLICY COMMITTEE
Policy on Uniform Grade and Honor Point System and
University Transcripts
Discussion
PROPOSED POLICY ON UNIFORM GRADE AND HONOR POINT SYSTEM AND
UNIVERSITY TRANSCRIPTS
PREAMBLE AND COMMENT
====================
The Senate Committee on Educational Policy (SCEP) is in the process of
reviewing all Senate educational policies, with the intent of reorganizing and
consolidating them into a coherent whole. These motions on grading are the
first of a number of policy revisions that will be brought to the Senate.
MOTION I
========
THERE SHALL BE A UNIVERSITY-WIDE GRADING POLICY (EXCLUDING THE LAW
SCHOOL AND THE TWO MEDICAL SCHOOLS).
COMMENT
This motion, if adopted, would explicitly reverse Senate action of
3/9/72, delegating authority for grading policy to each campus assembly.
SCEP has been made aware of the fact that there are more than ten
different grading systems in use on various campuses and colleges of the
University. The lack of uniformity makes intra-college and intra-campus
transfers more complicated than necessary. Second, and perhaps most
important, there is keen interest among some faculty and students in having a
grading system that offers the option of finer gradations in recognizing
student academic performance. Finally, this diversity of grading systems
requires maintainence of expensive data bases, especially in light of the
large number of students that pass through the University. For these reasons,
SCEP recommends that a uniform grading system be adopted.
As proposed in this motion, the policy would apply to all colleges and
campuses except the Law School and the two medical schools, which have long-
standing systems that are the norms in their professions.
MOTION II
=========
THE UNIFORM GRADING SYSTEM SHALL BE AS FOLLOWS.
(Parenthetical comments referring to earlier Senate and Assembly
legislation will be deleted from the final text if the policy is adopted by
the Senate.)
I. GENERAL PROVISIONS
1. There shall be two distinct grading systems at the University of
Minnesota, A-B-C-D-F and S-N. The S-N system is a self-contained
alternative to the A-F system and the two may not be combined for a
particular student in a particular course. Students may receive grades
or symbols only from the grading system under which they have registered
for a course. (Assembly 4/28/77)
2. There are, in addition, registration symbols identified and described in
this policy that carry neither grade nor credit.
3. Each college, campus, and program shall determine to what extent and
under what conditions each of these two systems may be available to its
students and to its faculty, consistent with the provisions of this
policy. Any college, campus, or program may specify what courses or
proportion of courses taken by its students or its prospective students
must be on one or the other grading system. No campus, college,
program, or instructor is required to offer a course on the S-N grading
system, nor is any instructor obligated to use pluses and minuses. Any
unit or instructor may choose to limit grades assigned to the A-F or the
S-N system. (Senate, 3/9/67)
4. When both grading systems are available to a student, he or she must
declare a choice of system as part of the initial registration for the
course. The choice may not be changed after the end of the second week
of classes (the first week in summer sessions). (Assembly 4/28/77)
5. No student may receive a Bachelor's degree unless at least 75 percent of
the degree-qualifying residence credits carry grades of A, B, C, or D.
(Senate, 5/22/69)
6. Except as provided in this policy in Sections I (8) and IV (5), no
college or campus may use any grading system other than the one
established by this policy.
7. The University's official transcript, the chronological record of the
student's enrollment and academic performance, will be released by the
University only at the request of the student; mailed copies will
include the official seal of the University imprinted on them. Students
may obtain an unofficial transcript of their own academic work at their
request.
8. The Law School, the Medical School, and the Duluth School of Medicine
are exempt from the provisions of this policy, but shall report their
grading systems, and any changes therein, to the Senate. Any other
units which believe that the national norms of their profession require
a different grading system may make application to the Senate Committee
on Educational Policy for an exemption from this policy; all such
exemptions must be approved by the University Senate.
II. PERMANENT GRADES FOR ACADEMIC WORK
1. There shall be five permanent grades which shall be acceptable for the
completion of a single course, which will be entered on a student's
official transcript. Grades may include pluses and minuses, as follows,
and carry the indicated honor points. The S grade shall carry no honor
points but the credits shall count toward the student's degree program
if allowed by the college, campus, or program. (Senate, 5/20/43;
Assembly, 4/28/77)
A 4.00 . . . . Represents achievement that is outstanding
relative to the level necessary to meet course
requirements.
A- 3.67
_________________________________
B+ 3.33
B 3.00 . . . . Represents achievement that is significantly
above the level necessary to meet course
requirements.
B- 2.67
_________________________________
C+ 2.33
C 2.00 . . . . Represents achievement that meets the course
requirements in every respect.
C- 1.67
_________________________________
D+ 1.33
D 1.00 . . . . Represents achievement that is worthy of credit
even though it fails fully to meet the course
requirements.
D- 0.67
_________________________________
S -0- Represents achievement that is satisfactory,
i.e., is equivalent to a 2.00 and meets or
exceeds the course requirements in every respect.
These definitions are intended to apply to grades awarded to students who are
not enrolled in graduate programs; they may be used in other programs at the
discretion of the faculty.
2. There shall be two permanent grades given for a single course for which
no credit shall be awarded and which will be entered on a student's official
transcript.
F (or) N Represents failure (or) no credit and signifies
that the work was either (1) completed but at a
level of achievement that is not worthy of credit
or (2) was not completed and there was no
agreement between the instructor and the student
that the student would be awarded an I (see item
4). Academic dishonesty in any portion of the
academic work for a course shall be grounds for
awarding a grade of F or N for the entire course.
The grade of F shall carry 0 honor points.
Students who enroll for a course on the A-F grading system shall receive
an F if such grade is warranted; students who enroll for a course on the
S-N system shall receive an N if such grade is warranted.
3. In connection with all symbols of achievement, and especially for the S,
instructors shall define for a class, at one of its earliest meetings
and as explicitly as possible, the performance that will be necessary to
earn each (subject to the provision in this policy that the amount and
quality of work required for an S may not be less than that required for
a C [2.00]). (Assembly, 4/28/77)
4. Every student shall have calculated, both at the end of each grading
period (quarter or semester) and cumulatively, a grade point average,
which shall be the ratio of honor points earned divided by the number of
credits earned with grades of A-F (including pluses and minuses). Both
the periodic and cumulative grade point average will appear on each
student's record. (Assembly, 4/26/79)
All special grade point averages calculated at the request of a college
or unit, if approved by the appropriate chancellor, provost, or vice
president, will be accommodated by the Office of the Registrar in such a
manner that they do not appear on the student's official transcript or
any unofficial transcript which might be issued.
III. OTHER TRANSCRIPT SYMBOLS
1. There shall be a temporary grade I, incomplete, awarded to indicate that
the work of the course has not been completed.
The I shall be assigned at the discretion of the instructor when, due to
extraordinary circumstances, the student was prevented from completing
the work of the course on time. The assignment of an I requires a
written agreement between the instructor and student specifying the time
and manner in which the student will complete the course requirements
during the student's next period of enrollment.
For undergraduates and adult special students, an I that is not made up
within 72 hours of the last final examination of the student's next
period of enrollment at the University becomes an F if the student was
registered on the A-F system for the course and an N if the student was
registered for the S-N system for the course. (Assembly, 5/15/86)
When an I is changed to another symbol, the I is removed from the
record. (Assembly, 4/28/77, 5/15/86)
A student does not need to be registered at the University in order to
perform the work necessary to convert an I to a grade with credit.
(Assembly, 5/28/70)
2. There shall be a symbol T, transfer, posted as a preceding supplement to
the original grade, to indicate credits transferred from another
institution or from one college or campus to another within the
University when reevaluation is required. (Assembly, 4/28/77)
3. There shall be a symbol V, visitor, indicating registration as an
auditor or visitor, which shall carry no credit and no grade. (Assembly,
4/28/77)
4. If a student officially withdraws from a course during the first two
weeks of classes, there shall be no record of that course registration
entered on the student's transcript.
There shall be a symbol W, withdrawal, entered upon a student's record
when the student officially withdraws from a course in accordance with
procedures established by the student's college or campus. The W will be
entered on the transcript irrespective of the student's academic
standing in that course if the student withdraws from the course during
the third through sixth week of class (second or third weeks of summer
sessions). If the student withdraws during the seventh or later week of
classes (fourth or later in summer sessions), a W shall be entered on
the transcript only if the student is not failing the course at the time
of withdrawal. If the student is failing at the time of withdrawal
after the sixth week (fourth week in summer sessions), the grade of F or
N shall be entered on the transcript (depending on which grading system
the student had enrolled under).
Each student may, once during his or her undergraduate enrollment,
withdraw from a course, and receive the transcript symbol W, at any time
up to and including the last day of class for that course whether or not
the student is passing or failing the course. Implementation of this
paragraph is contingent on a decision by the Senior Vice President for
Academic Affairs that its costs are reasonable; the Senior Vice
President shall report the decision to the Senate within one year of the
adoption of this policy.
5. There shall be a symbol X, indicating a student may continue in a
continuation course in which a grade cannot be determined until the full
sequence of courses is completed. The instructor shall submit a grade
for each X when the student has completed the sequence. (Assembly,
4/28/77)
6. There shall be a symbol K, assigned by an instructor to indicate the
course is still in progress and that a grade cannot be assigned at the
present time.
IV. OTHER PROVISIONS
1. No individual faculty member is required to use pluses and minuses in
grading. Faculty members who choose not to use pluses and minuses must
so indicate to students by the course description in published course
guides and catalogues as well as in the syllabus for the course. The
one exception to faculty discretion in use of pluses and minuses arises
in the instance when a department or unit offers more than one section
of a course; the department shall ensure that the grading system is
uniform for all sections.
2. If a student is permitted by the college or campus of enrollment to
repeat a course, all grades shall be reported on the official
transcript. In those instances when a college or campus permits a
student to repeat a course, (1) all grades for the course shall appear
on the official transcript, (2) the course credits may not be counted
more than once toward degree and program requirements, and (3) only the
grade earned in the last enrollment for the course shall count in the
student's grade point average. This section (IV [2]) of this policy
shall not apply to courses using the same number but where students
study different content each term of enrollment; all such courses
falling under this provision must be approved by the college.
3. Any college or campus may set special scholastic or other standards for
registration in a particular course, for scholastic probation,
admission, honors, continued residence, degrees, and other purposes they
deem appropriate.
4. All grades for all courses each period (quarter or semester) shall be
submitted to the Office of the Registrar no later than 72 hours after
the last final examination for that enrollment period.
5. This grading system shall go into effect fall quarter 1996, thereby
replacing all previous University, campus, and college grading systems.
Its grades, symbols, and provisions may not be applied retroactively to
any grades or symbols awarded before that time. Each transcript will
clearly identify the procedures under which it was produced and will be
maintained and released under policies in effect during the time of the
student's registration.
6. Only the Senate Committee on Educational Policy shall have the authority
to grant to individual colleges or campuses permission to use
alternative grading methods outside the provisions of this official
University system, for a specified period (but no longer than five
years), and only for the purpose of experimenting with a new grading
system for possible system-wide adoption. Such permission may be
granted if the proposal does not interfere significantly with the
registration options of students from other colleges, campuses, and
programs. Such alternative systems shall be reported for information to
the University Senate as soon as permitted and, after the specified
period, shall be re-evaluated, either to be discontinued, or with Senate
approval on recommendation from the Senate Committee on Educational
policy, made part of the system-wide policy. Except for the provisions
of this section 6, no college, campus, or program may use any grading
system except for the one contained in this policy.
Because alternative grading systems, once used, must be maintained by
the University for decades afterward (to preserve the integrity of the
transcripts), the Senate Committee on Educational Policy will rarely
grant permission for alternative grading systems. It will consider
doing so only when (1) those who propose it can make a persuasive case
that the alternative is a more accurate and effective way to measure and
record student academic performance, and (2) there is strong reason to
believe that the proposal will be useful to all colleges and campuses of
the University (except the Law School, Medical School, and Duluth School
of Medicine).
7. The chancellors and provosts shall resolve disputes between and among
colleges and campuses should procedures developed for this grading
system result in unacceptable complications for students registering
across college lines. They should bring to the Senate Committee on
Educational Policy issues they are unable to resolve informally through
negotiation, with recommendations for resolution.
COMMENT
This is not the first time that SCEP has considered plus/minus grading.
This is not a new discussion. As noted, no faculty member would be required
to use pluses and minuses; this provides the option for those faculty who wish
to use them. It would be expected, however, that all faculty and instructors
will inform the students at the beginning of the quarter (semester) whether or
not pluses and minuses will be used in a course.
Campuses or colleges could adopt more restrictive grading policies,
provided they do not vary from provisions of this policy. For example, a
campus or college could decide it would not permit plus/minus grading, or that
it would not grant D-'s. Individual faculty could also make such decisions.
Any such decision made by a college or campus would need to be published in
appropriate bulletins, schedules, and other documents; individual faculty
would be obligated to so indicate on their syllabi.
MOTION III
==========
IN THE EVENT THAT MOTION I FAILS, THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATIONAL
POLICY RECOMMENDS TO EACH CAMPUS ASSEMBLY THAT IT DISCUSS AND ADOPT THE
GRADING POLICY CONTAINED IN MOTION II. INCLUDED IN ANY SUCH DISCUSSION SHOULD
BE A CONSIDERATION OF THE COSTS AND BENEFITS, BOTH EDUCATIONAL AND FINANCIAL,
OF NOT ADOPTING A UNIFORM GRADING SYSTEM.
COMMENT
If the Senate declines to repeal campus autonomy in adoption of grading
systems, SCEP then recommends to each campus that it adopt the proposed
grading system. Whether or not agreement can be reached on a system-wide
uniform policy, campuses need to be aware of the need to work together for the
common good of the institution and the costs of variance among its components.
DISCUSSION:
===========
Professor Carl Adams called upon Professor Laura Koch, chair of the
Educational Policy Committee, to lead the discussion of the proposed Grading
Policy and on behalf of the Senate expressed appreciation to her and the
Educational Policy Committee (SCEP) for the enormous effort they have invested
in reviewing the existing policy and deliberating on proposed changes.
Professor Koch drew senators attention to the revised document and
outlined several of the changes that were made since the Senate's last
discussion. She noted that the SCEP had prepared three separate motions
relating to the proposed policy. The first addresses the issue of autonomy
which is the topic that has generated the greatest debate. Professor Koch
reminded senators that in 1972 the Senate determined that each campus should
have autonomy in grading issues. The question now is whether that should be
retained or should a University-wide grading system be implemented. In the
event that the Senate agrees there should be a University-wide grading system,
SCEP recommends in Motion II a proposed policy. If the University Senate
votes to maintain campus autonomy in the area of grading, a third motion
recommends that each campus assembly discuss and adopt the grading policy
proposed in Motion II. Included in each campus discussion should be a
consideration of the costs and benefits, both educational and financial, of
not adopting a uniform grading policy.
"Are there compelling reasons to move away from the 1972 policy on
campus autonomy?" inquired one person. From a financial/administrative point
of view, said Professor Koch, it would be more efficient and more cost
effective to have all campuses on the same system. It would also ease the
transfer of grades between and among the different schools.
If there is campus autonomy in choosing a grading system and a campus
chooses a different system from the Twin Cities campus, who will be
responsible for the administrative costs associated with it? Presumably the
individual campus, replied Professor Koch.
The recommendation to change to a plus/minus system of grading has also
evoked considerable debate. Some feel that if the University converts to that
system faculty should be required to use it, something not required in the
proposed policy. Giving faculty that option seems to contradict the notion of
uniformity, said one senator. What would happen, for example, if 90 percent
of a student's instructors used the plus/minus system and another student's
instructors only used it 25 percent of the time? How would this affect the
comparison of GPAs? This is a concern for the SCEP, replied Professor Koch,
and is one issue still under review. One senator suggested the course
bulletins identify which method of grading an instructor will use so students
have that information prior to registering for a course.
Senators from the Morris campus said their grading system has served
their faculty and students well for many years and there did not seem to be a
compelling reason to change. In fact, a poll taken at the Morris campus a few
years back revealed that the majority of faculty and students favored the
present system. Another Morris senator added that uniformity might be
desirable but it does not seem appropriate for the University Senate to
dictate the grading policies for the coordinate campuses. The Medical and Law
Schools are exempt from the policy and the coordinate campuses should have
that option also.
Another individual raised the point that the policy focuses primarily on
undergraduate students and asked about the implications for graduate students.
Professor Koch replied that the definitions of grades outlined in the proposed
policy are intended to apply to grades awarded to students who are not
enrolled in graduate programs, but the grade points are the same no matter the
level or course of enrollment. It is understood thoughout the University that
grades at the graduate level have different meaning.
It has been suggested, said Professor Koch, that the University include
a student's class ranking on the transcript. At this time the SCEP has
rejected that proposal, she said, due to cost implications and because it is
concerned it would disadvantage some students when applying to graduate
schools and competing with other students who were not ranked.
A student senator said she did not believe the plus/minus system serves
students best and wondered how it will affect the graduation rate. Many
students who are in very competitive fields might be inclined to drop a class
if they felt they were going to receive, for example, a B- rather than a B.
It appears, said another senator, that the primary reason for changing
the policy is to facilitate transferring between and among schools. Yet in
reality when a student transfers the school looks not so much at grades but
whether a student successfully passed a course and the course content. Why
then the need for the uniform policy?
In many majors, responded Professor Koch, there are grade point
requirements and the way grades are translated oftentimes makes a difference
in the evaluation. Students not on the plus/minus system could find
themselves in a disadvantaged position.
Trying to have one uniform policy, whether plus/minus or not, argued
another senator, is practically impossible if for no other reason than there
are many different variations of professorial autonomy in terms of how
students are evaluated that even switching to a plus/minus system does not
ensure consistency.
At this time the following straw polls were taken:
MOTION 1: There shall be a University-wide grading policy (exluding
the Law School and the two medical schools).
(straw vote: 65 in favor, 59 opposed)
MOTION 2: The uniform grading system shall be as written above.
(straw vote: 70 in favor, 44 opposed)
MOTION 3: The Senate Educational Policy Committee recommends to each
campus assembly that it discuss and adopt the grading policy contained
in Motion II. Included in any such discussion should be a consideration
of the costs and benefits, both educational and financial, of not
adopting a uniform grading system.
(straw vote: 91 in favor, 16 opposed)
Professor Koch thanked senators for their thoughtful comments and said
the Educational Policy Committee will bring another revised draft to the
February 15 meeting for further discussion.
II. SENATE CONSULTATIVE COMMITTEE
EDUCATIONAL POLICY COMMITTEE
Semester Conversion Standards
Discussion
PROPOSED STANDARDS FOR THE SEMESTER CONVERSION
I. INTRODUCTION
In September, 1995, the Board of Regents voted that the University of
Minnesota should convert from its current quarter system to a semester system.
This change is to be University-wide.
In November, 1995, the Senate Committee on Educational Policy (SCEP)
brought a series of questions about semesters to the Senate for its
consideration; although the Senate debate itself was desultory, the Committee
has heard from a wide variety of individuals and units across the University.
As a result of those comments, and extensive additional discussion at its own
meetings, SCEP has prepared a draft set of semester conversion standards for
consideration by the Senate and by the various colleges, campuses, and
departments. THE COMMITTEE WISHES TO EMPHASIZE THAT THESE RECOMMENDATIONS
WERE PRESENTED AS A DRAFT AT THE NOVEMBER 1995 SENATE MEETING WHICH LAUNCHED A
UNIVERSITY-WIDE DISCUSSION OF STANDARDS. THE COMMITTEE HOPES THAT STANDARDS
FOR SEMESTER CONVERSION WILL BE DISCUSSED AT THE JANUARY AND FEBRUARY 1996
SENATE MEETINGS AND ADOPTED AT THE APRIL 1996 MEETING. The Committee
continues to solicit views from all campuses and colleges about the standards.
SCEP hopes that as these discussions take place, the Senate will
converge on conclusions about the semester conversion standards. By the
beginning of spring quarter, the convergence will become apparent. As
discussions continue, at all levels of the University, SCEP will continue to
respond to the concerns presented to it.
This is not the only set of standards that will need to be adopted.
There will be others that focus on students in transition between quarters and
semesters, on graduate education, and on preparation standards for incoming
and transfer students. SCEP will consider those standards in the near future.
SCEP wishes to emphasize complete agreement on standards will likely not
be achieved by April, and may never be possible. The need for a decision on
major issues, however, requires that the Senate take action, even if it cannot
achieve consensus. There is no doubt that some programs and individuals will
be adversely affected, no matter what standards are adopted. SCEP hopes that
semester conversion can be accomplished with a minimum of adverse effects, and
therefore seeks as many views as possible about the proposed standards and
their likely impacts.
What is unclear at this point is the extent to which these semester
conversion standards should apply to all campuses. Unresolved issues of
campus autonomy remain to be addressed. Would it be possible or desirable for
each campus to make a decision about calendar, about workload, about contact
hours, about the standard credit module, about length of the standard class
period? SCEP has no answers to these questions, although the majority of its
members believe that some of these standards are sufficiently central to the
educational mission of the institution that little variance should be
permitted. Ultimately the Senate and the central administration will have to
agree on which standards will be system-wide and which can be left to the
individual campuses to adopt. SCEP believes that if campus autonomy is
permitted for one or more standards, the campuses must make explicit whatever
standards they are adopting, including the rationale for them as well as
likely costs and benefits of different standards.
SCEP urges campuses to discuss these standards collectively as well as
in small groups, and especially to offer their views on whether uniform
standards can be achieved. Uniformity would be most efficient for the
University, but the uniformity should arise from understanding. SCEP will
review the discussions from all quarters to try to ascertain the probable
limits of uniformity.
A definitional note is required. For the purposes of this document,
references to "class hour" or "contact hour" or "hour" are defined as a 55-
minute hour.
Senate members and others are referred to the November 16, 1995, Senate
docket for additional information.
II. PROPOSED SEMESTER CONVERSION STANDARDS
1. There shall be two semesters, each of which shall consist of 14 weeks of
instruction, at least one study day, and approximately one week of final
examinations (including Saturdays but not Sundays). Colleges and
campuses may authorize courses shorter than a semester. Classes shall
begin after Labor Day.
There shall be an additional instructional term of three weeks.
There shall be at least one summer term; colleges and campuses shall
have the authority to offer other summer courses and enrollment periods
to fit the needs of their students.
The standard class period during fall and spring semester shall be 55
minutes, with a 15-minute change period between each class. [Further
policy needs to be developed with respect to classes of greater than 55
minutes in length.] The standard class period during the summer term(s)
shall be in proportion to the length of the summer term vis-a-vis the
two semesters, with a 15 minute change period.
All grades for all courses each term shall be submitted to the Office of
the Registrar no later than 72 hours after the last final examination
for that enrollment period, except that grades for Fall Semester shall
not be due until 5 calendar days before the first day of instruction of
Spring Semester.
COMMENT ON THE PROPOSED STANDARD:
Examples of possible 14-week semester calendars follow:
EXAMPLE I (May term, two 5-week summer sessions)
Fall Semester 1999 (70)
September 6 Monday Labor Day
September 7 Tuesday Fall Semester classes begin
November 25-26 Thursday-Friday Thanksgiving holiday
December 15 Wednesday Last day of instruction
December 16 Thursday Study day
December 17-23 Friday-Thurs Final examinations
Spring Semester 2000 (70)
January 10 Monday Spring Semester classes begin
January 17 Monday Martin Luther King holiday
March 20-24 Monday-Friday Spring break
April 24 Monday Last day of instruction
April 25 Tuesday Study day
April 26-May 2 Wednes-Tues Final examinations
May Term 2000 (15 instruction days)
May 8 Monday May Term classes begin
May 26 Friday Last day of instruction
Summer Term I 2000 (25)
May 30 Tuesday Summer Term I classes begin
July 3 Monday Last day of instruction
July 4 Tuesday July 4 Holiday
Summer Term II 2000 (25)
July 10 Monday Summer Term II classes begin
August 11 Frida Last day of instruction
EXAMPLE II (January interim, two 5-week summer sessions)
Fall Semester 1999 (70)
September 6 Monday Labor Day
September 7 Tuesday Fall Semester classes begin
November 25-26 Thursday-Friday Thanksgiving holiday
December 15 Wednesday Last day of instruction
December 16 Thursday Study day
December 17-23 Friday-Thurs Final examinations
January Term 2000 (19 instruction days)
January 10 Monday J-term classes begin
January 17 Monday Martin Luther King holiday
February 4 Friday Last day of instruction
Spring Semester 2000 (70)
February 7 Monday Spring semester classes begin
March 27-31 Monday-Friday Spring break
May 19 Friday Last day of instruction
May 20 Saturday Study day
May 22-26 Monday-Friday Final examinations
Summer Term I 2000 (25)
May 29 Monday Memorial Day holiday
May 30 Tuesday Summer Term I classes begin
July 3 Monday Last day of instruction
July 4 Tuesday July 4 holiday
Summer Term II 2000 (25)
July 10 Monday Summer Term II classes begin
August 11 Friday Last day of instruction
EXAMPLE III (May term, one 7-week summer session)
Fall Semester 1999 (70)
September 6 Monday Labor Day
September 7 Tuesday Fall Semester classes begin
November 25-26 Thursday-Friday Thanksgiving holiday
December 15 Wednesday Last day of instruction
December 16 Thursday Study day
December 17-23 Friday-Thurs Final examinations
Spring Semester 2000 (70)
January 10 Monday Spring Semester classes begin
January 17 Monday Martin Luther King holiday
March 20-24 Monday-Friday Spring break
April 24 Monday Last day of instruction
April 25 Tuesday Study day
April 26-May 2 Wednes-Tues Final examinations
May Term 2000 (19 instruction days)
May 8 Monday May Term begins
May 29 Monday Memorial Day holiday
June 2 Friday Last day of instruction
Summer Term 2000 (35) [that is, 1/2 the regular semester]
June 5 Monday Summer Term classes begin
July 4 Tuesday July 4 holiday
August 14 Monday Last day of instruction
August 15 Tuesday Study day
August 16-18 Wednes-Fri Final examinations
EXAMPLE IV (later Spring Semester start, no interim, two 6-week summer
sessions)
Fall Semester 1999 (70)
September 6 Monday Labor Day
September 7 Tuesday Fall Semester classes begin
November 25-26 Thursday-Friday Thanksgiving holiday
December 15 Wednesday Last day of instruction
December 16 Thursday Study day
December 17-23 Friday-Thurs Final examinations
Spring Semester 2000 (70)
January 17 Monday Martin Luther King holiday
January 18 Tuesday Spring Semester classes begin
March 20-24 Monday-Friday Spring break
May 1 Monday Last day of instruction
May 2 Tuesday Study day
May 3-9 Wednes-Tues Final examinations
Summer Term I (30)
May 15 Monday Summer Term II classes begin
May 29 Monday Memorial Day holiday
June 26 Monday Last day of instruction
Summer Term II (30)
June 28 Wednesday Summer Term II classes begin
July 4 Tuesday July 4 holiday
August 9 Wednesday Last day of instruction
[Note: Any calendar would be recommended for the Twin Cities; the
coordinate campuses would be urged to consider adopting it as well.]
SCEP, at this point, believes that Example I embraces the calendar
principles that should be most seriously considered. It should be understood
that the specific calendar will not be voted upon until academic year 1996-97;
it is only the CALENDAR PRINCIPLES that will be voted on at the April Senate
meeting (i.e., the type of provisions in II [1].)
To take the thorniest problem first, SCEP has debated on several
occasions the issue of the length of the semester. This issue has, in turn,
been entangled with the State Fair operating in late August and early
September adjacent to the St. Paul campus. Despite a few comments received to
the contrary, members of SCEP were unable to ascertain that a 15-week semester
has instructional or pedagogical advantages over the 14-week semester.
Recommending adoption of the 14-week semester and a post-Labor Day start at
least obviates the worst of the problems for the St. Paul campus. (As we
reported in the last discussion of semesters, the practice with respect to
length of semester varies across the country. About 60% of higher education
institutions use the 15-week semester; about 10% use the 14-week semester,
including Michigan, Michigan State, and Wisconsin).
The Committee also concluded, on the basis of what it believed to be
sound advice, that it would be pointless to seek to persuade those who operate
the State Fair to hold the Fair at a different time or move the entire Fair to
another location. There would remain a need for negotiation with the Fair
about use of parking and transitway even if the proposed calendar framework
were adopted.
As a result, SCEP concluded that the 14-week semester would be
acceptable, but only if coupled with an increase in the length of the standard
class period (and all class periods that are fractions or multiples of it).
The closest rounded approximation (within 5 minutes) to the 50-minute hour and
the 10-week quarters would be a 55-minute standard class period for 14 weeks.
The total instructional time, for a five credit course meeting five hours per
week for an academic year, would be 7500 minutes under the quarter system and
7700 under semesters, or an increase of 200 minutes. Assuming a 15-credit
enrollment, the increase for any one student would be 600 minutes per year.
SCEP RECOMMENDS THE 55-MINUTE HOUR.
SCEP realizes that a 55-minute class hour (with a 15-minute period
between classes), however, implies class starting times rotating around the
clock at odd times during the day--as is presently the case. The typical
Tuesday-Thursday classes that run longer (for example, a period and a half
each day for three credits) would meet for 85 minutes.
SCEP believes that this consideration of minutes of instruction is both
important and of value. If one believes, as SCEP does, that instructional
time with a faculty member or other teacher is valuable, then it must be
carefully measured, if only to be certain that it is not reduced as a result
of the change to semesters. It is also important, in SCEP's view, because a
change of even a few minutes in the class period--if that standard period is
honored by most faculty most of the time, which SCEP believes it is--makes an
enormous difference in instructional time offered to students over the course
of the time they spend at the University seeking a degree. (The change from
the 45-minute hour to the 50-minute hour, for example, increased instructional
time for any one student BY 9000 MINUTES over the course of obtaining the 180
credits for a degree [based on the gross assumption of one contact hour per
week per credit]. That is the equivalent of three additional 5-credit courses
and one additional 3-credit course.)
Will the faculty impose upon itself the obligation to teach slightly
longer classes? SCEP hopes they will. Such a change, increasing the faculty
commitment by five minutes per day, three to five times per week, would not
only enhance education at the University, it would bespeak a firm faculty--and
thus institutional--commitment to the students, even in the face of apparent
public policy indifference to higher education.
SCEP believes that the inherent value of faculty-student contact
warrants such a change. Moreover, it believes that this would represent a
serious start at reversing the general decline (in part perceived and in part
real) in the quality of undergraduate education provided in much of American
higher education, in particular at research universities--and likely at the
University of Minnesota as well. (SCEP recognizes that in this respect a
number of salubrious steps have already been taken, under the auspices of the
Undergraduate Initiative begun several years ago by President Hasselmo. While
by no means denigrating the improvements that have been made, SCEP ventures to
suggest that increasing instructional and contact time will be of enormous
importance.) SCEP urges its colleagues to take the step of establishing the
55-minute class period as the standard.
SCEP notes that the 14-week semester with the post-Labor Day start does
not solve all of the problems for our colleagues in St. Paul; a number of
activities must take place in the week or so immediately before classes begin,
while the Fair is operating. Congestion for students moving into the dorms
and other pre-class activities may be unavoidable. To preclude any conflict
with the Fair would require running the semester right to the holidays and
then either continuing it afterwards or having the final exam period
afterwards. SCEP has absolutely no doubt that neither the faculty nor the
students would find that alternative acceptable.
SCEP has been asked about the length of the final exam period (i.e.,
could or should it be shorter?) and the length of final exams, and will
explore practices at peer institutions before making a more specific
recommendation.
Among the comments received on the last semester conversion document
were a considerable number endorsing the adoption of a three-week interim
term; some favor January and some favor May. SCEP has included an interim
among the alternatives, and recommends a set of principles and example that
include a May interim, for several reasons. First, it would provide an
opportunity for intensive study under more flexible conditions than permitted
during normal terms. Second, it extends the end date of spring instruction to
later in the year. For all of the disciplines that rely on field work,
especially the agricultural, horticultural, and biological, bringing the
regular academic year to a close too early (in this northern climate) would
reduce the opportunities for field work. Because much of the work of a land-
grant university revolves around these disciplines, SCEP believes it
appropriate to structure the calendar so the work in the field is not
seriously hindered. Third, and perhaps most important, it allows for a
variety of course arrangements not otherwise available, such as courses that
extend over the interim and first summer term, over the interim and both
summer terms, or parts of any of those terms. The interim plus the two summer
sessions also allow units to constitute a third full semester-equivalent term
(if, for example, May 8-August 18 were used for a full term and final exam
period).
If a proposed interim term is generally acceptable, SCEP would gather
more information about their arrangements from the institutions which offer
it. Are there large institutions which use an interim term? Does it work
well? What are the enrollment patterns? What kinds of academic work are
offered? What is the financial impact on the students and on the University?
What registration and enrollment mechanisms are used? Others involved in the
semester conversion effort will also need to obtain information that is beyond
the appropriate purview of SCEP, such as faculty and graduate assistant
workload and employment contracts.
SCEP also notes that with an interim, the instructional year (excluding
summer session) would be 31 weeks--two 14-week semesters plus one 3-week
interim. This would be an increase of one week over the 30 weeks of the
present system, although the total time for classes and examinations would
remain the same: 14 + 14 + 2 finals weeks + 3 interim weeks = 33, compared to
the present 10 + 10 + 10 + 3 finals weeks. Although some or many students may
not choose to take advantage of an "interim" term, they would have access to a
31-week instructional year. (SCEP has not proposed any final examination
period for the interim, assuming that the varieties of educational
opportunities that might be offered during the interim would be accompanied by
an equal variety in evaluating academic performance.)
SCEP makes no assumptions about how faculty workload and the interim
term would be integrated. In some instances, teaching during the interim may
be considered overload; in some units, it could be made obligatory, with
released time during a semester. SCEP assumes that if an interim term is made
part of the calendar, the Senate Committee on Faculty Affairs will work with
the administration to develop appropriate workload policies and
understandings. Except for the recommendation to increase instructional time
per course, SCEP concurs with the general understanding that the conversion to
semesters should be neutral with respect to faculty workload.
SCEP has received advice about how the summer session should be
scheduled. Evidence presented suggests that shorter terms are more appealing
to prospective students and more likely to have higher enrollment. Shorter
terms also permit more flexibility in scheduling. We have identified several
alternatives, with and without an interim term, and others are possible. The
Committee would welcome suggestions on this issue. No matter what calendar is
proposed, flexibility will be needed for units, such as Education, which offer
summer courses for public school teachers. SCEP will explore further the
options the Senate might consider.
As a final comment, SCEP considered briefly the possibility of a
trimester system. The advice we received about the need for short and
flexible summer session terms, as well as information about the failure of the
trimester experiment at Berkeley, suggested to SCEP that it need spend little
time on such a proposal.
2. There shall be no standard credit module, but departments are urged to
prefer courses of three credits, and especially for courses which are
taken by significant numbers of students from other fields.
COMMENT ON THE PROPOSED STANDARD:
While departments and programs may offer courses of varying numbers of
credits, as is the present practice, SCEP urges that departments try to offer
primarily three-credit courses, in order to ensure that undergraduate students
will have the opportunity to take a sufficient number of courses to ensure
adequate breadth in their education. Ideally, the standard course, especially
those taken by a significant number of non-majors, should be three credits,
but SCEP recognizes that content and disciplinary requirements vary so widely
across the University that establishing a single course credit module as
standard simply would be unworkable. (For example, SCEP recognizes that
certain year-long courses in calculus, the sciences, and the languages are
almost universally offered as four- or five-credit courses; SCEP does not
believe they should be forced to become three-credit semesters courses that
would take a year and a half to complete.)
3. Baccalaureate degrees consist of a minimum of 120 semester credits. The
liberal education requirements (including writing skills), as
established by the Council on Liberal Education, shall consist of at
least 40 semester credits.
A baccalaureate degree program may require up to 132 credits without
obtaining approval from outside the program itself. Any department or
program that proposes degree requirements in excess of 130 credits must
obtain approval from the college and from the appropriate provost.
COMMENT ON THE PROPOSED STANDARD:
In calling for 120 semester credits for a degree (the standard practice
around the country), SCEP has encountered no opposition. This is such a
universal norm that it probably requires little discussion.
SCEP understands that some curricula, especially in engineering and other
professional fields, may require more than 120 credits if the portion set
aside for liberal education and writing requirements is to be maintained and
accreditation requirements are to be met, and proposes some flexibility.
Degree programs that propose to require in excess of 130 credits, however,
should have to be justified, and SCEP recommends that review and approval of
such requirements should be in the hands of the college curriculum committees
and the provosts.
SCEP has, reluctantly, abandoned its proposal to call for a minimum
number of courses for a degree in addition to a minimum number of credits.
That element of the prior proposal is the one that probably generated the most
resistance and criticism. Some have suggested that departments would "play
games" with the requirement (e.g., dividing 5-credit courses into a 3-credit
and a 2-credit course); others have pointed out that defining a "course" would
be a very difficult undertaking (e.g., would independent study be a "course"?
what about labs? what about a 1-credit Physical Education course? How would
honors thesis credits and internships work? Directed study or research?
Special topics? These are all valuable educational experiences that would not
count toward the total number of "courses." Rather than stir up another
hornet's nest, SCEP concluded it would be best to drop the idea, and instead
try to ensure breadth through the liberal education requirements.
SCEP does wish to comment on one argument made, however, and that is that
breadth can be achieved within courses. This seems to many a doubtful
proposition. A longer course in Physics or French does not mean a student
will encounter Political Science and Biochemistry--it means the student will
have more Physics and French, albeit with perhaps larger coverage of the
discipline. The idea of breadth, in the minds of at least some SCEP
members, is exposure to and learning about DIFFERENT disciplines, ways of
knowing, and lines of inquiry--breadth that is not, under usual circumstances,
achieved within the confines of a single course. More courses also means
exposure to more different INSTRUCTORS as well as different course content.
SCEP remains concerned, finally, about breadth, and may bring to the
Senate later (after semesters have been in place) other proposals to ensure
breadth if experience suggests that it is not being achieved in a satisfactory
way. In view of the comments it received, SCEP decided against recommending
that a minimum number of courses be required for a degree or that there be a
standard credit module. But it remains wary about the possibilities: if the
4-credit course becomes the norm, students would need to take only 30 courses
for a degree. If students took only 5-credit courses (admittedly unlikely or
even arithmetically impossible), they could graduate with only 24 courses. A
student who took a mixture of 4- and 5-credit courses could graduate with
between 24 and 30. These numbers seem unacceptably low for a liberally-
educated student. For now, however, the Committee is prepared to let the
matter rest.
SCEP strongly recommends that programs be careful about students who may
try to obtain a degree with fewer than 30 courses.
4. The Senate affirms the standard (first adopted by the University Senate
on February 16, 1922, and reaffirmed subsequently) that one semester
credit is to represent, for the average student, a minimum of three
hours of academic work per week (including lectures, laboratories,
recitations, discussion groups, field work, study, and so on). This
standard applies to all enrollment periods.
All courses proposed for the semester calendar shall include a student
workload statement demonstrating how the course conforms to this policy.
College and campus curriculum committees and other approving bodies
(e.g., the Council on Liberal Education) must consider the student
workload statement in reaching a decision on whether to approve a
proposed semester course, and should normally reject any course which
does not meet the requirement of three hours of academic work per week
for each course credit.
COMMENT ON THE PROPOSED STANDARD:
On the issue of the 3:1 relationship between academic work and credits
for a course--which, along with contact hours, make up the heart of the
educational process--SCEP vigorously reaffirms the standard that has been on
the Senate books since 1922: each credit for which a student enrolls
(typically in a course) should represent, for the "average" student, at least
three hours of academic work per week (including lectures, laboratories,
recitations, field work, outside study, and so on). In the discussions which
ensued after the semester proposal presented in November, there has been no
dissent from this standard, nor has there been any opposition to it expressed
by any member of SCEP. Indeed, support for it has been strong, and some
believe it to be the most fundamental statement about education that the
Senate can make.
As we noted in the last comment on this proposal, the student members of
SCEP were unaware that this is supposedly the standard for course work;
several acknowledged that a number of their courses failed to meet this
standard. A number of faculty members, all serious about their teaching
obligations, have ruefully acknowledged that their courses do not meet this
standard--saying, at the same time, that they should.
SCEP believes this to be a serious problem that must be remedied; the
education a student receives is devalued when it requires too little learning
and study. SCEP thus also calls for a process whereby every course proposal
submitted for approval for the semester calendar (that is, all courses) must
demonstrate, through a workload statement, that each credit requires
approximately three hours of academic effort per week. SCEP understands that
students possess widely varying aptitudes, prior training, and ability to
learn from studying, and that three hours for some may be two hours for other
students and four hours for yet others. But the Committee believes it is both
possible and reasonable to establish a standard for course review and approval
that has a norm of at least three hours of academic work per week per credit.
At the same time, SCEP believes that the expected workload for a course
routinely ENROLLING undergraduate students should not significantly exceed
this standard. Students have a right to expect that a certain amount of work
will be attached to a certain number of credits; they need to be able to plan
their academic work. It is unreasonable, for example, to require three
lectures, a four hour lab, and six hours of outside study for a 3-credit
course. Just as the work should be brought into line with the 3:1 ratio, so
also should the credits be in line with the academic work required.
SCEP understands that estimates of what the "average" student can do in
a given period of time is a vague concept. The "average" science major may be
able to do less, in more time, in a humanities course, than a humanities
major, and vice-versa. There clearly needs to be flexibility in application
of the standard. What should be evident, in any course proposal, is that the
vast majority of students could not complete the work of the course in
significantly less than three hours per week per credit.
5. Generally, the hours of contact time per week for a course shall equal
at least the number of credits for the course.
A contact hour is defined for these purposes as formal instruction by
an individual appointed for that purpose by the department or faculty
member, including faculty members, graduate teaching assistants,
teaching specialists, or, in unusual instances, advanced
undergraduates. This standard applies to all enrollment periods. The
student workload statement (required in the preceding section) must
justify fewer contact hours per week than the number of credits for the
course; contact hours of all types equal to or in excess of one hour
per week per credit need not be justified. College and campus
curriculum committees and other approving bodies (e.g., the Council on
Liberal Education) must consider the contact hours in reaching a
decision on whether to approve a proposed semester course; such bodies
should normally reject course proposals which have fewer contact hours
per week than credits, barring significant evidence that reduced
instructional contact hours are appropriate.
Explicitly exempted from this standard are correspondence courses and
independent study, directed study or readings or field work, directed
research, internships and practicums, honors thesis credits, and the
variety of experiences faculty offer to students outside the normal
laboratory or classroom setting (many of which include activities
beyond the physical boundaries of the campuses). Included in the
standard are interactive video classes (which in practice should be no
different from in-class instruction) and one-way transmission of
instruction from the instructor to the students (it is assumed that
other avenues of two-way interaction are used in this instance, such as
email and the telephone).
Once this policy is adopted, the provosts, chancellors, and deans would
presumably be responsible for ensuring adherence to it. They are asked
to carefully and regularly review the exceptions granted by each
college to this provision, and to bring to the Committee on Educational
Policy any problems they encounter with the policy.
COMMENT ON THE PROPOSED STANDARD:
The majority of the members of SCEP believe that this standard is one of
the two most fundamental principles that the Senate can enunciate about
education (the other is the 3:1 ratio between academic work and credits).
SCEP agrees with the proposition that there is a wide variety of
instructional methods and disciplines. Some question whether the 1:1 ratio is
too inflexible, given that variety. SCEP takes the position that no matter
the differences in fields and pedagogy, there is an irreducible minimum below
which no normal instructional offering should go. This ratio, it should be
clear, is intended to apply to the normal lecture, seminar, and lab courses
that make up the MAJORITY of courses offered for and taken by students, and
the proposed standard explicitly exempts certain categories of courses. Nor
is it intended to restrict in any way the means by which faculty instruct
students.
At peer institutions, the average ratio of contact hours per week to
credits for a course is almost exactly 1:1 in the humanities and social
sciences and well in excess of 1:1 in the physical sciences and engineering.
SCEP believes the University should accept that norm.
SCEP urges that the 1:1 ratio between credits and contact hours per week
re-established as the norm, deviation from which can be approved by the
colleges and campuses, with appropriate review, if sufficient justification is
provided. SCEP does not foreclose ALL variation from the 1:1 ratio, even in
"standard" courses, but does believe that the principle is so important that
any faculty member who wishes to deviate downwards from it should have to
explain the deviation and obtain the approval of a body of colleagues (the
curriculum committee or equivalent body).
The Committee notes that there is no necessary relationship between
contact hours and student workload. One fundamental policy is that the
workload should be approximately three hours per week per credit, so a five
credit course requires 15 hours of academic effort per week for the "average"
student. Another fundamental policy is that there should be at least a 1:1
ratio between credits and weekly instructor-student contact hours, so the five
credit course should meet in a setting of "formal instruction" at least five
hours per week. The relationship between workload and contact hours may vary,
however; of the 15 hours per week expected for the five-credit course, 10
could be in contact hours and 5 in outside work. Or at the extreme, all 15
hours of academic effort could be taken by contact hours. It is up to
individual faculty to decide how best to allocate academic work and student
contact; the only caveat that SCEP calls for is the minimum of the 1:1 ratio.
III. CLOSING COMMENTS
President Hasselmo recently commented to the Faculty Consultative
Committee that "nothing is more important to the future of this research
university than it provide high quality undergraduate education." As is
evident throughout these proposed standards, SCEP is urging the faculty and
students to use the moment of change to semesters to revalue and strengthen
education at the University.
SCEP recommends that units and faculty use this opportunity to reassess
their curriculum and instruction in light of these standards.
SCEP also urges that Senators talk with their colleagues about these
standards, as well as alternatives and the implications of those alternatives,
and to discuss them widely within and without their colleges.
DISCUSSION:
Professor Laura Koch, chair, Educational Policy Policy, presented the
second draft of the Proposed Standards for the Semester Conversion and gave a
brief overview of each section noting the changes that were made since the
previous meeting.
Several senators expressed disappointment that the committee was moving
away from a trimester system arguing that without it there will be
incompatibility between the regular and summer session classes. A summer
trimester could be created that would be intensive and could cover as much
material as is covered in a regular 14-week semester, it was argued. It might
mean the class period would run more than 55 minutes but that is already the
standard for classes taught on Tuesdays and Thursdays and through Extension.
Professor Koch replied that the director of Summer Sessions had been consulted
on this issue. One suggestion, using calendar I, is to combine the three-week
interim in May with the two summer sessions to produce a third semester.
Therefore, if there were needs for this type of situation within a department
that option would be available.
Some courses are not built around the week, commented a senator, and
therefore the standard of three or four hours per week cannot be used to
determine the number of credits for those classes. He suggested the committee
consider an alternative method for determining course credits.
What is the rationale for the three-week interim session in terms of its
purpose, how it can be utilized, grading, credits, etc? asked a senator. An
interim was introduced into the SCEPs discussion, Professor Koch said, when it
began to look at configuring the calendar. Considering that the calendar
could not begin until after Labor Day, the SCEP was limited to 14-week versus
15-week semesters which it preferred. In the block of time for the second
semester there was some time left and the committee endeavored to find some
creative ways to use that time. Input was also sought from other institutions.
The committee has discussed both a "J" (January) and "M" (May) term and tends
to favor the May term for a variety of reasons. It would allow, for example,
graduate programs to finish in May, opportunities for educational experiences
in the field or through travel, and a longer summer term.
Would all departments be required to offer courses during the "J" or "M"
term and would they be taught on an overload basis? Professor Koch replied
that the committee has not worked out the details of such a plan but has
initiated discussions.
Two arguments for the two-semester system, said one senator, are: 1) the
saving of administrative and registration costs and 2) to better accommodate
transfers from other institutions. Problems appear to be: 1) the State Fair,
which is a rigid obstacle and forces a 14-week semester unless classes are
continued over the holiday break, 2) the diversification problem which has
lead to a proposal to have a reduced credit module, and 3) the interim session
which brings the University back to a three-term year destroying all the
administrative and registration cost savings which were achieved by changing
to a two semester system. When the conversion is so fundamentally flawed,
said the senator, why then is the University continuing on this course?
Morris senators said they favored calendar II because it offers the
interim term at the same time as the majority of other institutions. Since
Morris is a small campus and can offer a limited number of programs, students
would have greater opportunity to participate in programs offered elsewhere.
Questions were raised concerning the decision-making process for
eliminating courses. Professor Koch said those kinds of decisions will be
part of the implementation process to be handled at the college and University
level.
The majority of students at the University work to pay for their
education, noted a student senator, and many are working 30-40 hours per week
while still taking three courses per quarter. Under the new system students
will be asked to carry five courses per semester making it very difficult for
working students and, in fact, will most likely cause the graduation rate to
plummet even further.
There has been considerable discussion over the credit module issue,
said Professor Koch, and the SCEP shares the concerns the student just
expressed. The committee believes there has to be some flexibility in the
system and while it is recommending the standard module be 3-credits it is not
saying that they all have to be. One of the things the SCEP will be looking
at is how departments decide which courses need to deviate from the standard.
Currently, on the Twin Cities campus there is no group that looks at these
kinds of issues, such as a curriculum committee. Professor Koch added that
the interim term should be viewed by students as an opportunity to make up
some of the credits they are not able to complete during either semester.
To argue that taking five courses over a semester will be more difficult
is the reverse of true, said another senator. Students seem to be able to
understand difficult material better when it is presented over fourteen weeks
rather than over ten weeks and, thus, they are better able to handle five
courses per semester than bouncing between different classes each quarter.
The senator said he expects to see the graduation rate improve under the
semester system.
Others said converting to semesters should be viewed as an opportunity
for the University to examine its curriculum and for faculty to look at the
way they are teaching courses. Also, University-wide guildelines should be
established to address such issues as student contact hours per credit.
Some students wondered how financial aid would be affected by the
conversion and whether students in the midst of their education at the time of
conversion will be disadvantaged. Professor Koch replied that the Semester
Coordinating Group will be addressing the financial aid issue but she does not
believe the change will have any adverse effects for students. The SCEP has
been discussing the second issue, students in transition, and its goal is to
ensure that students are not set back in their graduation. The Committee
further hopes students will still choose to come to the U of M even though
they may be caught in the transition period.
Senators also discussed the importance of coordinating its semester
conversion efforts with those of other institutions around the State.
Professor Koch said the Semester Coordinating Group will be pursuing that
endeavor.
At this time a number of straw votes were taken:
1. There shall be two semesters, each of which shall consist of 14
weeks of instruction, at least one study day, and approximately
one week of final examinations (including Saturdays but not
Sundays). Colleges and campuses may authorize courses shorter
than a semester. Classes shall begin after Labor Day.
There shall be an additional instructional term of three weeks.
There shall be at least one summer term; colleges and campuses
shall have the authority to offer other summer courses and
enrollment periods to fit the needs of their students.
The standard class period during fall and spring semester shall be
55 minutes, with a 15- minute change period between each class.
[Further policy needs to be developed with respect to classes of
greater than 55 minutes in length.] The standard class period
during the summer term(s) shall be in proportion to the length
of the summer term vis-a-vis the two semesters, with a 15
minute change period.
All grades for all courses each term shall be submitted to the
Office of the Registrar no later than 72 hours after the last
final examination for that enrollment period, except that grades
for Fall Semester shall not be due until 5 calendar days before
the first day of instruction of Spring Semester.
(straw vote: 96 in favor, 6 opposed)
2. There shall be no standard credit module, but departments are
urged to prefer courses of three credits, and especially for
courses which are taken by significant numbers of students from
other fields.
(straw vote: 72 in favor, 23 opposed)
3. Baccalaureate degrees consist of a minimum of 120 semester
credits. The liberal education rqeuirements (including writing
skills), as established by the Council on Liberal Education, shall
consist of at least 40 semester credits.
A baccalaureate degree program may rquire up to 132 credits
without obtaining approval from outside the program itself.
Any department or program that proposes degree requirements in
excess of 130 credits must obtain approval from the college and
from the appropriate provost.
(straw vote: 88 in favor, 4 opposed)
4. The Senate affirms that standard (first adopted by the University
Senate on February 16, 1922, and reaffirmed subsequently) that one
semester credit is to represent, for the average student, a
minimum of three hours of academic work per week (including
lectures, laboratories, recitations, discussion groups, field
work, study, and so on). This standard applies to all enrollment
periods.
All courses proposed for the semester calendar shall include a
student workload statement demonstrating how the course
conforms to this policy. College and campus curriculum
committees and other approving bodies (e.g., the Council on
Liberal Education) must consider the student workload statement
in reaching a decision on whether to approve a proposed semester
course, and should normally reject any course which does not
meet the requirement of three hours of academic work per week
for each course credit.
(straw vote: 91 in favor, 5 opposed)
5. Generally, the hours of contact time per week for a course
shall equal at least the number of credits for the course.
A contact hour is defined for these purposes as formal
instruction by an individual appointed for that purpose by the
department or faculty member, including faculty members,
graduate teaching assistants, teaching specialists, or, in unusual
instances, advanced undergraduates. This standard applies to all
enrollment periods. The student workload statement (required in
the preceding section) must justify fewer contact hours per week
than the number of credits for the course; contact hours of all
types equal to or in excess of one hour per week per credit need
not be justified. College and campus curriculum committees and
other approving bodies (e.g., the Council on Liberal Education)
must consider the contact hours in reaching a decision on
whether to approve a proposed semester course; such bodies
should normally reject course proposals which have fewer
contact hours per week than credits, barring significant evidence
that reduced instructional contact hours are appropriate.
Explicitly exempted from this standard are correspondence
courses and independent study, directed study or readings or field
work, directed research, internships and practicums, honors
thesis credits, and the variety of experiences faculty offer to
students outside the normal laboratory or classroom setting
(many of which include activities beyond the physical boundaries
of the campuses). Included in the standard are interactive video
classes (which in practice should be no different from in-class
instruction) and one-way transmission of instruction from the
instructor to the students (it is assumed that other avenues of
two-way interaction are used in this instance, such as email and
the telephone).
Once this policy is adopted, the provosts, chancellors, and deans
would presumably be responsible for ensuring adherence to it.
They are asked to carefully and regularly review the exceptions
granted by each college to this provision, and to bring to the
Committee on Educational Policy any problems they encounter
with the policy.
(straw vote: 82 in favor, 7 opposed)
III. SENATE CONSULTATIVE COMMITTEE
Student Senate Officers
Action
MOTION 1:
To amend the Senate Constitution as follows: (deletions are in
[brackets]; additions are in CAPS)
Article III, Section 6b
. . . .
6. University Senate and Student Senate Officers
a. . . . .
b. The officers of the Student Senate shall be a chair AND a vice
chair [, a clerk, and a treasurer].
[The chair and vice chair shall be elected by the Student Senate at
its last regularly scheduled spring quarter meeting from the
members of the Student Senate.] THE CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR SHALL BE
ELECTED AT A SPECIAL SPRING QUARTER SESSION OF THE STUDENT SENATE
ATTENDED ONLY BY STUDENT SENATORS ELECTED FOR THE FOLLOWING YEAR.
THE OUTGOING CHAIR SHALL PRESIDE OVER THE ELECTION. NON-SENATORS
AND OUTGOING STUDENT SENATORS MAY NOT BE CANDIDATES FOR THESE
POSITIONS. The chair and vice chair shall not be from the same
campus. In the event that no one is nominated for the vice chair
position from a separate campus, the position will be open to all
qualified members of the Student Senate. Term of office shall be
July 1 to June 30, and the personS holding office [is] ARE eligible
for re-election. The duties of the chair are (1) to be the
official spokesperson of the Student Senate; (2) to set the Student
Senate agenda, to be approved by the Student Consultative
Committee; (3) [to organize and chair the Student Lobbying Advisory
Committee;] TO SERVE ON THE BOARD OF THE COALITION/UMCHE, THE
UNIVERSITY'S STUDENT LOBBYING ORGANIZATION; (4) to serve as the
University's representative on the Student Advisory Committee; (5)
TO SERVE ON ONE CENTRAL UNIVERSITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE AND TO
DELEGATE STUDENT MEMBERS FOR OTHER ADVISORY COMMITTEES; (6) TO
SERVE AS THE CHAIR OF THE STUDENT CONSULTATIVE COMMITTEE.
The duties of the vice chair are (1) to assume the duties of the
chair in the event of an absence or incapacity of the chair; [and]
(2) to assume responsibilities delegated by the chair; (3) TO
SUBMIT TO THE SENATE OFFICE AN ANNUAL BUDGET REQUEST FOR THE
STUDENT SENATE AND STUDENT CONSULTATIVE COMMITTEE, TO BE APPROVED
BY THE STUDENT SENATE DURING ITS FALL QUARTER MEETING; (4) TO
ORGANIZE AN ANNUAL ORIENTATION FOR MEMBERS OF THE STUDENT SENATE;
(5) TO MONITOR STUDENT SENATE ATTENDANCE AND ENSURE THAT THE
STUDENT SENATE HANDBOOK IS UPDATED AND DISTRIBUTED; (6) TO SERVE ON
A CENTRAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE THAT IS NOT ATTENDED BY THE STUDENT
SENATE CHAIR IF THERE IS MORE THAN ONE SUCH COMMITTEE ACTIVE; (7)
TO SERVE AS THE VICE CHAIR OF THE STUDENT CONSULTATIVE COMMITTEE.
[The clerk and treasurer shall be appointed by the chair subject to
the approval of the Student Senate. The duties of the clerk and
treasurer shall be prescribed in the Senate Bylaws. The Student
Consultative Committee shall periodically review these officer
positions.]
c. . . . .
MOTION 2:
To amend the Senate Bylaws as follows: (deletions are in [brackets];
additions are in CAPS)
Article I, Section 8
Article I. University Senate Membership, Elections, and Officers
. . . .
[8. Treasurer of the Student Senate: The treasurer of the Student Senate
shall be the chief budget officer of the Student Senate. The treasurer
shall chair the budget subcommittee of the Student Senate.]
Article III, Section 4
4. Consultative Committees
The Senate Consultative Committee shall be composed of 10 elected
members of the faculty, 9 elected students, and the vice chair of the
University Senate. The faculty representatives shall serve as the
Faculty Consultative Committee; the 8 elected student representatives
and the chair and vice chair of the Student Senate shall serve as the
Student Consultative Committee; the 8 elected student representatives
and the vice chair of the Student Senate shall [comprise] CONSTITUTE the
9 voting student members of the Senate Consultative Committee.
. . . .
Student Consultative Committee
Membership
The Student Consultative Committee shall be composed of:
one student from the Crookston campus
one student from the Duluth campus
one student from the Morris campus
five students from the Twin Cities campus, as follows:
1993-94 4 undergraduates, 1 graduate/professional
1994-95 3 undergraduates, 2 graduate/professional
1995-96 4 undergraduates, 1 graduate/professional
1996-97 3 undergraduates, 2 graduate/professional
1997-98 4 undergraduates, 1 graduate/professional
the chair and vice chair of the Student Senate
Student members EXCEPT FOR THE VICE CHAIR shall be elected in accordance with
procedures determined by the respective campuses' student constituencies,
subject to the following provisions:
- At the time of their election, students shall be members of the
University Senate (except for Crookston).
- Students shall serve a one-year term, and are eligible for re-election.
No student member is eligible to serve more than three consecutive
terms.
Student vacancies shall be filled in accordance with procedures determined by
the respective campuses for the balance of any unexpired term until the next
regular election.
THE VICE CHAIR OF THE STUDENT SENATE SHALL ALSO SERVE AS THE VICE CHAIR OF THE
STUDENT CONSULTATIVE COMMITTEE. IF THE VICE CHAIR HAS ALREADY BEEN ELECTED TO
THE STUDENT CONSULTATIVE COMMITTEE AS A REGULAR MEMBER, HE OR SHE MUST CONCEDE
HIS OR HER PRIOR POSITION TO ANOTHER STUDENT, TO BE CHOSEN AS SOON AS POSSIBLE
BY THE APPROPRIATE STUDENT CONSTITUENCY. THE CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR SHALL SERVE
NO MORE THAN TWO CONSECUTIVE TERMS. The chair of the Student Senate shall
serve as an ex officio, nonvoting member of the Senate Consultative Committee
[if not otherwise elected in his or her own right]. The vice chair of the
Student Senate shall serve as a voting member of the Senate Consultative
Committee.
Duties and Responsibilities
a. To meet separately, when necessary, to discuss with the president, or
others, matters of concern to the student body.
b. To serve as [the nucleus of an] THE executive and steering committee of
the Student Senate.
[c. To provide for a budget subcommittee of the Student Senate. The budget
subcommittee shall be chaired by the treasurer of the Student Senate.
Three members shall be appointed by the chair of the Student Senate with
one member from each of the following committees: Student Senate
Consultative Committee, Student Committee on Committees, Student
Lobbying Advisory Committee. These appointments are subject to the
approval of the Student Senate.]
Chairs: The chairs of the Faculty Consultative Committee and of the Student
Consultative Committee shall be elected by their respective members from among
their number for a one-year term of office. Chairs shall be eligible for re-
election to that position. THE VICE CHAIR OF THE STUDENT CONSULTATIVE
COMMITTEE SHALL BE ELECTED BY THE STUDENT SENATE IN ACCORDANCE WITH ARTICLE
III, SECTION 6B, OF THE SENATE CONSTITUTION. The chair of the Faculty
Consultative Committee shall serve as chair of the Senate Consultative
Committee.
[The Student Consultative Committee shall have a chair and a vice chair who
shall be from separate campuses. The vice chair shall assume the duties of
the chair in the event of an absence or incapacity of the chair and shall
assume responsibilities delegated by the chair.]
COMMENT:
As a constitutional amendment, Motion 1 requires a two-thirds majority
approval at one meeting or a majority approval at each of two meetings to be
approved. It received a majority approval at the November 16 Senate meeting
and is being presented for a second vote. The vote on Motion 2 is pending
approval of Motion 1. If approved, the amendments will take effect fall
quarter 1996.
CARL ADAMS, Chair
Senate Consultative Committee
DISCUSSION:
With little discussion Motions 1 and 2 were approved 126 to 0.
APPROVED
IV. ANNUAL REPORTS
Information
EDUCATIONAL POLICY COMMITTEE
ANNUAL REPORT, 1994-95
During the 1994-95 academic year the Senate Committee on Educational
Policy (SCEP) was engaged in reacting to proposed actions by the
administration primarily connected to University 2000. Since educational
policy permeates every one of the strategic directions of U-2000, the SCEP
provided through its e-mail minutes an open forum for the educational
ramifications of U-2000 plans and its "critical measures."
The SCEP also initiated action which led to Senate consideration of
issues important to the educational mission of the University. In particular,
it began a study aimed at consolidating and making known Senate educational
policies. Where Senate policy differs from University practice, the committee
will either propose changing the policy or changing the practice. The study
of Senate policies on such topics as class scheduling, grading, graduation
requirements, credit allocation, transfer credit, teaching evaluation,
international study, and technology usage has been completed. Formulating
policies for Senate consideration which either reaffirms existing Senate
policy, modifies existing Senate policy to correspond with successful
practice, or repeals obsolete Senate policy, is nearing completion. This
year, the SCEP plans to introduce a consistent package of educational policy
for Senate consideration.
After investigating the many studies made at this University about
whether or not to change to the semester system, the SCEP decided that there
was no additional information to be gathered. It then sent to the Senate a
resolution urging the administration to decide quickly, based on the many
existing studies and reports, if the University should change to a semester
system and if that change were to occur to provide the planning resources
necessary to make the change. The resolution was adopted by the Senate.
The SCEP also oversees the committee which chooses the recipients of the
Morse-Alumni Award for contributions to undergraduate education. In this
connection it recommended changes in the awards to more publicly showcase
examples of the excellent undergraduate education offered by the University.
These changes have been implemented. The SCEP endorsed the report of the
President's Committee on Teaching and Learning on recommendations to improve
the climate for teaching and learning at the University. In addition, the
Committee heard reports on the progress in implementing the Senate policy on
the liberal education requirement, peer teaching evaluation, and preparation
requirements from high school. Policy modifications of the high school
preparation standards were sent to and approved by the Senate.
Kenneth Heller, Chair
FINANCE AND PLANNING COMMITTEE
ANNUAL REPORT, 1994-95
Professor Fred Morrison, chair of the Finance and Planning Committee,
reported on the merger between the University and Fairview Hospitals. He said
the Committee had been consulted on numerous occasions by the President and
Senior Vice President for Finance and Operations concerning the merger. Given
the present state of the health care market in the Twin Cities area the
Committee believes an action of this kind is essential to the continued
operation of the University Hospitals, and the pending arrangement appears to
be the best alternative at this time. The Board of Regents is scheduled to
vote on the memorandum of understanding at its January 12 meeting, said
Professor Morrison, with final details to be worked out over the next 4-5
months. The Finance and Planning Committee expects to participate in the
continuing process.
Fred Morrison, Chair
V. OLD BUSINESS
NONE
VI. NEW BUSINESS
Professor Carl Adams reported that the Faculty Consultative Committee
(FCC) recently endorsed the idea of a unified biweekly payroll system to be
initiated in September 1996. The proposed merger has been met with mixed
emotions, he said, and will cause some discomfort during the transition
period. For example, the pay periods for most employees will not coincide
with what they are now and there will be a 10 day delay period which is not
present in the current faculty payroll system. The Administration has assured
the FCC that an employee's cash flow will not vary from what it is now.
Professor John Adams provided a brief update on the tenure discussions.
He described the work of the various committees involved in the process and
outlined the steps for amending the Tenure Code. Faculty can participate in
the discussions on many levels, he said, and will be most effective in the
early stages, which is now. He encouraged senators to attend some of the
committee meetings at which tenure will be discussed or to forward
comments/questions to the Senate office. Professor Adams also explained the
role of the Tenure Working Group which was appointed jointly by the FCC and
Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs at the end of October to coordinate
the tenure discussions. Professor Adams referred senators to a discussion
document prepared by the Tenure Working Group to begin the debate on potential
issues and finally announced the scheduling of two Faculty Senate Forums on
Tenure for January 25 and February 8, the details of which will be widely
publicized.
Ms. Susan Giovengo, the Executive Vice President of the Council of
Graduate Students (COGS), distributed a document concerning a situation the
Council understands is occurring at Yale University. It is the COGS
understanding, she said, that for the past 5 years graduate students and
teaching assistants at Yale University have been trying to organize a group
called the Graduate Students Employee Organization (GSEO) as a negotiating
body on pay and working conditions. Apparently, their attempts to communicate
with the administration have been unsuccessful and recently the situation has
escalated to the point where graduate students feel threatened by the
administration and in some cases negative actions against students have been
taken. In response to the situation, said Ms. Giovengo, the COGS has prepared
a resolution supporting the graduate students at Yale and would like to urge
all faculty and students to learn more about the situation in the hope that
they will lend their support as well.
VII. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 4:20 p.m.
Martha Kvanbeck
Abstractor