1995-96 UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA No. 3
UNIVERSITY SENATE MINUTES
FEBRUARY 15, 1996
The third meeting of the University Senate for 1995-96 was convened in
Cowles Auditorium, Humphrey Center, Minneapolis campus, on Thursday, February
15, 1996, at 2:00 p.m. Coordinate campuses were linked by telephone.
Checking or signing the roll as present were 124 voting faculty/academic
professional members, 33 voting student members, 7 ex officio members, and 6
nonmember. President Nils Hasselmo presided.
I. INTRODUCTIONS
President Hasselmo introduced the following new senior administrators to
Senate members: Senior Vice President Joanne Jackson, Dean H. Ted Davis, Dean
Katherine Fennelly, and Dean Marilyn Speedie.
--------------------------------------------------------------
CONSENT AGENDA
Action
Agenda items II. and III. are considered to be noncontroversial or
"housekeeping" in nature and are offered as a "Consent Agenda" to be taken up
as a single item with one vote. Any item will be taken up separately at the
request of a senator. A majority of those members present and voting is
required for approval.
II. MINUTES FOR NOVEMBER 16, 1995
III. COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIPS, 1995-96
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE ASSEMBLY: Faculty/academic professionals: Robert Pepin
(chair), Norman Chervany, Philip Furia, Joan Garfield, Marti Gonzales, Marvin
Marshak, Thomas McRoberts, Victoria Mikelonis-Paraskov, Susan Rose, Richard
Skaggs, Karl Smith, 1 to be named. Students: Ronald Bogenreif.
For Information: Members not requiring Senate ratification include: M. Janice
Hogan, David Frank, Philip Wagner, Suzanne Bates Smith, Joshua Colglazier,
William Ewing, Patricia Bathke, Susan Stonefield, Kent Warren, Archibald
Leyasmeyer, and W. Phillips Shively.
APPROVED
--------------------------------------------------------------
IV. SENATE CONSULTATIVE COMMITTEE
EDUCATIONAL POLICY COMMITTEE
Standards for the Semester Conversion
Discussion
STANDARDS FOR 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, and in January, 1996, the Senate Committee on
Educational Policy (SCEP) brought a series of questions and proposed semester
standards to the Senate. At the January meeting, in a series of straw votes,
the Senate showed substantial support for all five of the draft conversion
standards that SCEP had developed.
SCEP considered the numerous comments about the standards at the Senate
meetings, and has continued to solicit views from all campuses and colleges
about them. As a result, it now presents to the Senate a slightly revised
version of the semester conversion standards. For the most part, however, the
standards remain largely as the Senate cast straw votes on them in January;
the changes have been minor.
THE COMMITTEE WISHES TO EMPHASIZE, ONCE AGAIN, THAT THESE STANDARDS WERE
PRESENTED AS A DRAFT AT THE NOVEMBER, 1995, AND JANUARY, 1996, SENATE
MEETINGS.
SCEP originally said it hoped that as these discussions take place, the
Senate would converge on conclusions about the semester conversion standards.
Given the wide margins of the straw votes at the January meeting in favor of
the five draft standards, we are led to believe that conversion has already
begun to occur in a significant way. As discussions continue over the next
two months, at all levels of the University, SCEP will continue to respond to
the concerns presented to it.
As we have noted previously, 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 be
bringing additional standards to the Senate in the near future.
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 does not have the 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.
The major issue, thus, is to obtain a sense of the Senate on the
applicability of the standards. SCEP has asked that there be, for each of
these standards, straw votes at the February meeting about whether they should
be system-wide or decided on by campus. Ultimately the policy adopted by the
Senate will have to be one the central administration accepts, including a
statement 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.
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 period.
II. Proposed Semester Conversion Standards
Motion 1A: Motion 1C (the calendar principles) shall apply to all campuses of
the University except the Law School.
Motion 1B: All campuses of the University shall have the same calendar.
Motion 1C: 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.
Colleges and campuses may authorize courses shorter than a
semester, subject to the approval of appropriate curriculum review
committees.
Final examinations normally shall be two (clock) hours long;
instructors may schedule longer examinations with the approval of
their department.
There shall be an additional instructional term of three weeks.
No department is obligated to offer courses or academic work
during the interim.
It is generally assumed that students will be able to complete
their degrees by enrolling only for the fall and spring semesters.
With college approval, however, departments may offer courses or
academic work during the interim that are required for majors.
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. [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 business hours (3
business days) 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 at January 11, 1996, Senate Meeting: 96 in favor, 6 opposed)
COMMENT ON THE PROPOSED STANDARD:
The example of a possible 14-week semester calendar that SCEP believes
most appropriate (at least for the Twin Cities campus):
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 Friday Last day of instruction
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 18 Senate meeting.
SCEP assumes that a student who enrolls full-time in the fall and spring
semesters will be able to graduate in four years; the only exception may be
those disciplines and majors where outdoor field work is required, in which
case enrollment in the interim or summer sessions may be necessary.
The only additional comment SCEP makes about this calendar is to
emphasize the flexibility the interim term offers. Departments may combine
the interim with one or both of the two summer terms to offer courses that
best meet their curricula and the needs of their students. And has been the
case for many years, departments may continue to offer summer terms of
different lengths, if that meets their needs.
Motion 2A: Motion 2B shall apply to all campuses.
Motion 2B: 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 at January 11, 1996, Senate meeting: 72 in favor, 23 opposed)
COMMENT ON THE PROPOSED STANDARD:
One possibility that SCEP may still take up is to insist on a minimum
number of courses for a degree (which would come logically as part of the next
standard). At present, under the 180-credit quarter system with four-credit
courses the average, a student would presumably take 45 courses to graduate.
SCEP could consider setting a 30-course minimum (2/3 of 45), which would allow
considerable flexibility for students, yet retain a minimum below which
students could not go.
Motion 3A: Motion 3B shall apply to all campuses.
Motion 3B: Baccalaureate degrees consist of a minimum of 120 semester
credits. The liberal education requirements (including writing
skills), as established by the appropriate body on each campus
(the Council on Liberal Education on the Twin Cities campus),
shall consist of at least 39 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 132 credits must obtain approval from the college and from the
appropriate provost.
(straw vote at January 11, 1996, Senate meeting: 88 in favor, 4 opposed)
SCEP changed the liberal education requirements from 40 to 39 so that it
is divisible by three-credit courses.
Should this be changed from "Baccalaureate degrees" to "The bachelor of
arts and bachelor of science degrees"?
Motion 4A: Motion 4B shall apply to all campuses.
Motion 4B: 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.
(straw vote at January 11, 1996, Senate meeting: 91 in favor, 5 opposed)
Motion 5A: Motion 5B applies to all campuses.
Motion 5B: Generally, the hours of contact time per week for a course shall
equal at least the number of credits for the course.
The hours of contact time for a course shall equal at least the
number of credits for the course times the number of weeks the
course is offered. In the majority of cases, this would mean the
number of contact hours per week would equal the number of credits
for the course, but the contact hours need not be spread out
evenly by week.
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 total contact hours than the
number of credits for the course times the number of weeks the
course is offered; contact hours of all types equal to or in
excess of at least one hour per week per credit, on average, 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 than the
number of credits times the number of weeks the course is offered,
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 at January 11, 1996, Senate meeting: 82 in favor, 7 opposed)
DISCUSSION:
Professor Koch, chair of the Educational Policy Committee (SCEP),
presented the latest draft of the Semester Conversion Standards which has been
divided into separate motions. Following the discussion, she said, straw
votes will be taken on each to give the committee a better sense of the
Senate's preferences.
The State Fair continues to evoke considerable debate, said Professor
Koch, and people are wondering why the semester cannot be carried into
January. The SCEPs original plan, she said, was to have a 15 week semester
but because of issues related to the State Fair, the committee is now
recommending a 14 week semester. However, the difference has been compensated
for by implementing 55 minute classes. The committee realizes this is not the
same as a 15 week semester but the State Fair has proved to be an immovable
barrier.
One person cautioned senators to seriously think about the notion of a
14 week semester. If this becomes the calendar, the senator said, the faculty
will only be teaching eight instead of nine months and considering the
atmosphere in the Legislature this could provide just the argument they are
looking for to reduce faculty salaries by one month. This could be solved,
she added, by faculty teaching during the three week term but she assumes many
departments will not offer classes during that time because in most instances
it is not viable to do so. She urged the SCEP to consider an alternative
plan to the one they are proposing.
Professor Koch responded that the committee has considered the problem
of faculty teaching eight months instead of nine and has asked the Finance &
Planning Committee and the Faculty Affairs Committee to consider that issue as
well. Studies of other universities have shown that most schools with a split
fall semester discontinued them because they were found to be ineffective.
Some senators argued the advantages of a split fall term, such as
providing an opportunity for students to write term papers over the break.
A student senator asked the record to show that most students she has
discussed the conversion with are opposed to moving to a semester system. In
general, she said, their preference is to move to five week terms with a
doubled class length. This would better reflect student needs on a large
commuter campus in which most students work, she said.
Another student inquired whether the standard that one credit shall
represent three hours of academic work per week is intended to apply to the
interim term as well and Professor Koch replied that that was the committee's
intent.
"Does the Legislature still favor converting even though the research
has proven how complicated and unsatisfactory the proposal is?" asked a
senator.
President Hasselmo responded that the Legislature made a decision
concerning Minnesota state colleges and universities over which they have
direct jursidiction. In the interest of higher education in Minnesota, the U
of M decided to move to the semester system, a decision subsequently approved
by the Board of Regents.
Finally, in response to a question concerning yearly tuition, Professor
Koch replied that there should be no change under the semester system.
At this time the following straw votes were taken on the motions
outlined above:
Motion 1a (straw vote: 108 in favor, 9 opposed)
Motion 1b (straw vote: 92 in favor, 31 opposed)
Motion 1c (straw vote: 71 in favor, 51 opposed)
Motion 2a (straw vote: 72 in favor, 41 opposed)
Motion 2b (straw vote: 85 in favor, 31 opposed)
Motion 3a (straw vote: 102 in favor, 9 opposed)
Motion 3b (straw vote: 101 in favor, 12 opposed)
Motion 4a (straw vote: 119 in favor, 1 opposed)
Motion 4b (straw vote: 114 in favor, 1 opposed)
Motion 5a (straw vote: 111 in favor, 4 opposed)
Motion 5b (straw vote: 110 in favor, 8 opposed)
V. SENATE CONSULTATIVE COMMITTEE
EDUCATIONAL POLICY COMMITTEE
Uniform Grading and Transcript Policy
Discussion
UNIFORM GRADING AND TRANSCRIPT POLICY
PREAMBLE
As the Senate Committee on Educational Policy (SCEP), has indicated
before, it is in the process of reviewing all Senate educational policies,
with the intent of reorganizing and consolidating them into a coherent whole.
This grading policy is the first of a number of policy revisions that will be
brought to the Senate over the next several months.
(Parenthetical comments referring to earlier Senate and Assembly
legislation will be deleted from the final text if the policy is adopted by
the Senate. This version is written for the Twin Cities campus, in that it
includes an exclusion for the Law School and Medical School but does not refer
to the Duluth Medical School, which would presumably also be exempted from the
usual grading system on the Duluth campus.)
(Changes from the previous draft are noted as follows: language in CAPS is
new; language to be deleted is in [brackets])
Motion:
That each campus assembly be asked to consider the following grading
policy, and to adopt it, with or without changes, and to report their actions
no later than the May 16, 1996, Senate meeting.
I. GENERAL PROVISIONS
1. There ARE [shall be] two distinct grading systems ON EACH CAMPUS OF [at]
the University of Minnesota, A-B-C-D-F (WITH PLUSES AND MINUSES) 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. 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
(WITH OR WITHOUT A PLUS OR MINUS ATTACHED TO IT). (Senate, 5/22/69)
COLLEGES AND UNITS MAY CHOOSE NOT TO ACCEPT ACADEMIC WORK RECEIVING A D
(WITH OR WITHOUT A PLUS OR MINUS).
4. 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, OR
program,[ or instructor] is required to offer a course on the S-N
grading system. Any unit [or instructor] may choose to limit grades IN
A PARTICULAR COURSE to the A-F or the S-N system. (Senate, 3/9/67)
5. 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)
6. Except as provided in this policy in Sections I (8) and IV (5), no
college 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 OR IN ACCORD WITH STATE OR
FEDERAL STATUTES; 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, EXCEPT WHEN THEY
HAVE A TRANSCRIPT HOLD ON THEIR RECORD.
8. The Law School and the Medical School 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 ARE [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 grade points. The S grade shall carry
no grade 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)
These definitions [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
throughout the University that grades at the graduate level have
different meaning.
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.
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. NEITHER THE F NOR THE N [The grade of
F] shall carry ANY [0] grade 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]).
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 grade 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.
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] WORK TO MAKE UP AN I MUST BE SUBMITTED 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 becomes an N if the student was registered for the S-
N system for the course]; IF NOT SUBMITTED BY THAT TIME, IN THE SIXTH
WEEK OF THE NEXT TERM THE I WILL AUTOMATICALLY CHANGE TO AN F (IF THE
STUDENT WAS REGISTERED ON THE A-F SYSTEM) OR AN N (IF THE STUDENT WAS
REGISTERED ON THE S-N SYSTEM) FOR THE COURSE.
When an I is changed to another symbol, the I is removed from the
record. ONCE AN I HAS BECOME AN F OR AN N, UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE
PRECEDING PARAGRAPH, IT MAY SUBSEQUENTLY BE CONVERTED TO ANY OTHER
GRADE, UPON PETITION BY THE INSTRUCTOR (OR THE DEPARTMENT IF THE
INSTRUCTOR IS UNAVAILABLE) TO THE APPROPRIATE COLLEGE SCHOLASTIC
COMMITTEE.
A student does not need to be registered at the University in order to
COMPLETE [perform] the work necessary to convert an I to a grade with
credit IN THE TIME AND MANNER PREVIOUSLY AGREED UPON BETWEEN THE STUDENT
AND THE INSTRUCTOR. THE INSTRUCTOR IS OBLIGATED TO TURN IN THE NEW
GRADE WITHIN FOUR WEEKS OF THE DATE THE WORK WAS SUBMITTED BY THE
STUDENT.
A STUDENT SHALL HAVE THE RIGHT TO PETITION THE COLLEGE SCHOLASTIC
COMMITTEE IF THE WORK HAS BEEN SUBMITTED AND THE TIME LIMIT FOR AWARDING
A GRADE SET IN THIS POLICY HAS BEEN EXCEEDED.
2. There shall be a symbol T, transfer, posted as a PREFIX [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.
3. There shall be a symbol V, visitor, indicating registration as an
auditor or visitor, which shall carry no credit and no grade.
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). WITHDRAWAL IN THE SEVENTH OR LATER WEEK OF CLASSES (FOURTH
OR LATER IN SUMMER SESSIONS) SHALL REQUIRE APPROVAL OF THE COLLEGE AND
MAY NOT BE GRANTED SOLELY BECAUSE A STUDENT IS FAILING THE COURSE; THERE
MUST EXTENUATING NON-ACADEMIC CIRCUMSTANCES JUSTIFYING LATE WITHDRAWAL.
Each student may, once during his or her undergraduate enrollment,
withdraw from a course without college approval, and receive the
transcript symbol W, after the sixth week of class and at any time up to
and including the last day of class for that course.
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.
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. 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 FIRST GRADE OF
C OR S (OR BETTER) EARNED IN THE COURSE [last enrollment for the course]
shall count in the student's grade point average. This section (IV (1))
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.
2. 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.
3. 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 TERM [enrollment period].
4. This grading system shall go into effect fall quarter 1997[6], 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.
5. 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 and Medical School).
6. 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 [or across campuses]. They should bring to the
Senate Committee on Educational Policy issues they are unable to resolve
informally through negotiation, with recommendations for resolution.
Comment
=======
Following the discussion and straw votes at the January 11 meeting of
the Senate, SCEP concluded that it would offer a grading policy permitting
campus autonomy. Although there were enough votes to approve a system-wide
policy, the coordinate campus members of the Senate voted unanimously against
such a policy. SCEP does not believe it would be wise to attempt to establish
a system-wide policy over the strong opposition of our colleagues on the
coordinate campuses.
Implementation of Section III (5), paragraph 3, is contingent on a
decision by the Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs that its costs are
reasonable and the ability of the Registrar to put in place a program which
will restrict the use of this exceptional withdrawal to one time for each
student; the Senior Vice President shall report the decision to the Senate
within one year of the adoption of this policy.
Section IV (3) may need to be amended when the University changes to
semesters; grades for Fall Semester, if a 14-week post-Labor-Day calendar is
adopted, should probably not be due until after the holidays.
In response to comments received by SCEP and made on the floor of the
University Senate in January, SCEP has removed the provision permitting
individual and collegiate discretion in using the grading system.
The substance of the policy has been presented to the Senate twice.
SCEP believes that this policy can be presented to the campus assemblies for
review and action. Included in the assembly discussions should be a
consideration of the costs and benefits, both educational and financial, of
not adopting a uniform grading system. It may be that there will be a uniform
grading policy proposal (i.e., the one recommended in this Senate item)
adopted by one or more campuses. To the extent a campus then varies its
grading policy from this one, it may be obligated in the future to bear the
expense of maintaining a different system.
Discussion:
===========
Professor Koch also presented the most recent draft of the Uniform
Grading and Transcript Policy noting the changes since the previous discussion
and reviewing in detail the two most substantive changes, which involve
withdrawing from a course and repeating courses.
Is it correct, asked a senator, that if a student receives a C or S or
better in a course, that grade will count whether the student repeats the
course in an effort to secure an even better grade? Professor Koch confirmed
that was correct. The SCEP is concerned that when students repeat courses
over and over again it slows the rate of graduation as well as placing a
financial burden on the student, University, and the State.
Wouldn't it make more sense, argued another senator, to charge more
tuition for repeating a course which then places the burden on the student?
The proposed language, the senator added, invites manipulation by a student to
get a D or F if he/she is not doing well in a course and wants to repeat it.
The problem with that logic, replied Professor Koch, is that it only
favors students with money.
A student senator commented that including each grade a student receives
for the same course on the transcript should discourage students from
repeating courses. In this regard, Professor Koch pointed out that while all
grades for a course will appear on the transcript, only the first grade of C
or S or better will count in the students GPA.
"How will the withdrawal system be implemented?" inquired a senator.
Professor Koch responded that the process will not change from current
practice. If a student officially withdraws from a class, a W will appear on
his/her transcript. But if he/she informally drops out, the student will
receive an F and it will have to be changed to a W through the Office of the
Registrar. The instructor will sign a grade report with a W, but only if the
student has gone through the withdrawal process.
With respect to the section on incompletes, one faculty member voiced
objection to the clause that obligates an instructor to turn in the new grade
within four weeks of the date the work was submitted by the student arguing
that that isn't a timeframe that can always be met, for example, if an
instructor is on leave. He encouraged the committee to reevaluate this
clause.
Another individual suggested the committee drop the requirement that an
instructor must petition the
college scholastic committee to have an I, that has become an F or an N,
changed to an earned grade because it is
contrary to present practice and just adds an unnecessary administrative
layer.
At this time straw votes were taken on several sections:
1. the section on incompletes (straw vote: 88 in favor,
14 opposed)
2. the section on withdrawals (straw vote: 103 in favor,
8 opposed)
3. the section on repeating a course (straw vote: 48 in favor,
70 opposed)
A fourth motion to have each campus assembly consider the grading
policy, and to adopt it, with or without changes, and to report their
actions no later than the May 16, 1996, Senate meeting was withdrawn.
"What will be the effect of sending the proposed policy to the
assemblies?" asked a senator. "Will their decision be final or will it then
be brought back to the Senate for a vote?"
Professor Koch said the intent is to have it come back to the Senate but
not necessarily for a vote. She reminded senators that at the last meeting in
one straw vote the coordinate campuses voted overwhelmingly against the notion
of a system-wide policy, but the straw vote on the policy itself was supported
by all campuses. By sending the policy to each assembly, she said, campus
autonomy is maintained. If assemblies create variations to the policy, the
Senate will need to determine what is the proper course of action.
VI. PRESIDENT'S REPORT
President Hasselmo reported on the following issues:
LEGISLATIVE UPDATE The University included in its bonding request $132
million for health/safety/facilities renewal, the library access center, UMD
library, a science building at UMM, an environmental building at UMC, and
funding for the Academic Health Center. The House has recommended $112
million which was very generous considering the governor's recommendation of
$98 million. The House recommendation did not include funding for the UMD
library, he said.
FAIRVIEW HOSPITAL MERGER The establishment of a strategic alliance
between the Academic Health Center and the Fairview Health System would result
in the transfer of the U of M hospital and related activities to a new
division of Fairview. This proposal, said the President, came about after
very extensive and intense scrutiny of all available options. From the
President's perspective it is a very creative proposal and one that should be
moved forwarded and consummated. At this time, there is both a letter of
intent and memorandum of undertanding but there nothing is legally binding
yet. A contract is expected by June, the President said, with many issues
still to be resolved. The most important of those is the Human Resources
issue and what the role will be of current hospital employees in the new
division. Discussions with the unions are underway to assess what the
implications will be and to make sure the best possible provisions are made
for employees affected by the merger.
TENURE The President reaffirmed his goal to maintain a strong and
vigorous tenure system at the University that will protect academic freedom
and provide necessary employment safeguards. At the same time, he said, it is
important to have a system that is flexible and one that can credibly be
demonstrated to society. Tenure is one of the most important things in a
democratic society, that is, the right to do free and open inquiry. However,
it must also be a system that allows appropriate flexibility and change in the
institution when research, teaching, and outreach priorities have to be
changed. The President said he is encouraged by the discussions that have
already taken place.
UNION CONTRACTS The administration has negotiated contracts with the
Teamsters and AFSCME and is currently working with the Civil Service Committee
on a compensation plan for non-bargaining unit civil service employees and
with the faculty leadership about faculty compensation. The provosts,
chancellors, and vice presidents are being asked to make strategic investments
where there are compensation pressures because of limited compensation
resources. It is extremely important to meet the competitive pressures in
those academic areas where intellectual leadership must be maintained, said
the President.
1997-99 BIENNIAL BUDGET The 1997-99 biennial budget process has
already begun, reported President Hasselmo, and a proposal will be brought to
the Board of Regents in September. It will include consultation with various
constituencies, including the governance structure, to identify University
priorities. It will be important for the University to identify areas where
academic leadership must continue to be exercised, he said, and to target
critical strategic investment areas in programmatic terms, compensation, and
further restucturing which can lead to greater effectiveness in what the
University does.
VII. QUESTIONS TO THE PRESIDENT
QUESTION: Do you believe it is fair that the students did not have a say
with respect to the decision to convert to semesters?
RESPONSE: The semester issue has been on the agenda for many years and
consistently faculty and students have been divided on it. Since
the Legislature adopted the semester system for all state
colleges and universities, in the interest of higher education in
Minnesota, the U of M opted to convert also.
QUESTION: Please address the issue of fringe benefit rates for graduate
students.
RESPONSE: This issue is being reconsidered within the Graduate School.
Most graduate and research assistants have a nine month salary
between $8,000 and $11,000, which is the salary base on which the
fringe benefit is computed. It is no longer the case that
graduate students and faculty members can be mixed. Seven
percent of the fringe benefit cost is for FICA, approximately 8-9
percent is associated with health care benefits, and
approximately 30 percent is for tuition. Studies have indicated
that total costs for a graduate assistant are very much within
the mean of peer institutions. Alternatives would be a direct
charge mechanism or to increase the salary of graduate students
and have them pay their own tuition.
VIII. SENATE CONSULTATIVE COMMITTEE REPORT
Professor Carl Adams reported on the status of a proposed Sexual Assault
Policy that will be brought before the Senate in the spring and on a proposal
to establish consultative committees in the three provostries on the Twin
Cities campus. He also drew senators attention to the Faculty Consultative
Committee's quarterly report to the Regents which was distributed at the door.
Finally, he described some of the Consultative Committee's efforts this year
to improve communication with various groups, including small meetings with
senators, deans, and department heads, and regular articles in KIOSK.
IX. OLD BUSINESS
NONE
X. NEW BUSINESS
NONE
XI. TRIBUTE TO DECEASED MEMBERS OF THE UNIVERSITY COMMUNITY
FACULTY
Donald W. Bates
1918-1996
Robert S. Cobb
1920-1995
Kenneth L. Graham
1916-1996
Lowell E. Olson
1923-1995
Ardell Wantoch
1915-1996
Jan Erik Almlöf
1945-1996
Jan Erik Almlöf was born in Malung, Sweden on April 1, 1945. He
received the degree of Fil.kand at the University of Uppsala in Sweden in 1967
and graduated from the same university with the degree of Fil.lic. in 1971,
with a thesis on the crystal structures of hydrates of perchloric acid. He
received the degree of "Philosophia Doctor" (Fil. Dr.) from the University of
Uppsala in 1974 with a thesis on hydrogen bonding. His research mentors were
Professors Ivar Olovsson and Björn Roos.
He entered a chair in Theoretical Chemistry at the University of Oslo in
Norway in 1976, where he began a career of teaching and research in
computational physical chemistry, becoming Professor of Chemistry in 1982. In
September 1985 he moved to the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis as
Professor of Chemistry and Chemical Physics where he continued these pursuits.
He taught both undergraduate and graduate courses, and he had 28 predoctoral
and 16 postdoctoral research students.
Professor Almlöf was highly regarded in the international scientific
community for his accomplishments in advancing the theory of molecular
structure and for his work in the development of efficient algorithms for
carrying out calculations of the structures of molecules. His most widely
known work is the development of so called "direct" quantum mechanical methods
for calculating electronic wave functions and energies of molecules; these
methods allow one to take advantage of the high speed of state-of-the-art
computers even when the computer does not have enough memory to store all the
intermediate calculations, and these methods have been widely used in many
chemical companies and national laboratories, as well as by the academic
research community. In 1993 he was awarded the Schrödinger Medal by the World
Association of Theoretical Organic Chemists in honor of his development of
direct methods.
Professor Almlöf served on the advisory editorial boards of two
international journals, the International Journal of Quantum Chemistry and
Theoretica Chimica Acta.
Professor Almlöf was a Fellow of the University of Minnesota
Supercomputer Institute and was engaged in collaborative research with Cray
Research, Inc., IBM, Sandia National Laboratory, and Battelle Pacific
Northwest Laboratory on both the development of new computational techniques
for supercomputers and applications of these techniques to problems in
chemical Physics. He also had long-standing collaborations with the
University of Tromsø, in Norway, where he was a frequent visitor.
Professor Almlöf died on January 17, 1996.
He is survived by his wife Elisabeth, his sons Anders of Uppsala,
Sweden, and Martin of Madison, Wisconsin, and his daughter Mia of Oslo,
Norway. He is also survived by his mother, sister, and three brothers.
John P. Clark
1928-1995
Professor John Clark, a member of the Sociology Department at the
University of Minnesota for 22 years, passed away on December 30, 1995, in
Eugene, Oregon, after a long and debilitating illness. During his tenure at
Minnesota, he served as a two term department chair, and associate dean of
social sciences. In addition, he founded and served as Director of the
Conflict and Change Center at the Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs.
Professor Clark left Minnesota in 1990 to become Professor of Sociology
at Oregon, where his wife Shirley, formerly Dean of General College, is
serving as Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs of the Oregon State System of
Higher Education. While in Oregon, he continued research and teaching,
completing a three year study evaluating the effectiveness of community
policing, sponsored by the U.S. Department of Justice.
An expert on deviant behavior, Professor Clark's work in the areas of
white collar crime and community theft, along with his research on the
experiences of police officers, and the relationship of Native Americans with
the American criminal justice system, is acclaimed by researchers in his
field. Professor Clark was an expert on the Chinese educational system, with
an avid interest in promoting programs which would advance civil liberties and
civil rights, according to friend and colleague, Professor David Cooperman.
The College of Liberal Arts is grateful for Professor Clark's dedicated
service. The foundations he executed during his tenure in Minnesota will
continue to be his legacy, a living tribute to his interest in the study of
conflict, cultures, and people.
Willard L. (Tommy) Thompson
1915-1996
Willard L. "Tommy" Thompson, retired University of Minnesota dean,
professor and administrator, died February 5, 1996, in St. Paul. He was 81.
In his 23 years at the University of Minnesota, Thompson held a position
as assistant to the president, served as dean of the General Extension
Division, chaired the advertising course sequence in the School of Journalism
and Mass Communication and directed the University's Summer Session. He
retired in 1984.
Born in LaSalle, Illinois, November 14, 1914, Thompson came to Minnesota
from Oregon with O. Meredith Wilson, president of the University of Minnesota
from 1960 to 1967. Thompson had been the University of Oregon's Director of
Public Services and Development when Wilson was its president.
At Minnesota, Thompson served from 1960 to 1963 as Assistant to the
President. For the next decade he was Dean of the General Extension Division
and Summer Session. He continued to direct the Summer Session from 1973 to
1984, dividing his time between his duties there and the School of Journalism.
Thompson's academic and professional background was in journalism. His
Bachelor of Science (1937), Master of Science (1949) and Ph.D. (1956) degrees,
all from the University of Illinois, were in journalism and mass
communication.
From 1937 to 1939 Thompson worked as a reporter for the Peoria Journal-
Transcript and from 1939 to 1941 was an advertising representative at the
Pekin Daily Times. Thompson spent the years from 1941 to 1945 in the U.S.
Army, then returned to the Daily Times as a wire editor and reporter. In 1946
he became president of the Effingham (Illinois) Broadcasting Company and
general manager of WCRA radio station in Effingham.
In 1949 Thompson joined the journalism faculty of the University of
Oklahoma and taught there until 1952. He left Oklahoma to teach journalism
courses at the University of Oregon. In 1956 he took the position of Director
of Public Services.
Thompson was active in a number of professional associations. In 1980-
1981 he was president of the American Academy of Advertising, and in 1982-1983
he chaired the Academic Division of the American Advertising Federation.
From 1971 to 1974 he served as president of the National Adult Education
Action Council. In 1973-1974 he was president of the Association of
University Summer Sessions, and in 1975-1976 he was president of North Central
Association of Summer Sessions.
Thompson also held positions in the Advertising Association of the West,
Alpha Delta Sigma (professional advertising fraternity), and the National
University Extension Association, editing its journal from 1963-1971. He
received Alpha Delta Sigma's Golden Fifty Award for Contribution to Teaching
of Advertising.
Thompson had a long standing interest in accreditation issues. He was
chairman of North Central Association accreditation teams, and he served as a
resource person for the North Central Association Commission on Higher
Education at its conference for institutions seeking accreditation.
Thompson was a member of the American Association of University
Professors and the Association for Education in Journalism. In 1969-70 he
chaired the Council on Extension of the National Association of State
Universities and Land-Grant Colleges and in 1970-71 was a member of the
association's senate.
Thompson was active in University of Minnesota organizations as well,
including the University Committee on Summer Sessions, the Council of Academic
Officers and the University Calendar Committee. In 1971-1972 Thompson was
president of the Campus Club.
Thompson was a member of Minnesota's chapter of the Public Relations
Society of America and an advisor of the Public Relations Student Society of
America. He also advised the University of Minnesota student chapter of the
American Advertising Federation. In the fall of 1983 the Minnesota chapter of
the Public Relations Society of America honored him by establishing the Dr.
Willard Thompson PRSA Scholarship Fund, and in the same year the Advertising
Federation of Minnesota established a similar scholarship fund in his name.
He was a member of the Urban Action Committee of the Upper Midwest
Research and Development Council from 1962-1970, a member of the St. Paul-
Minneapolis Committee on Foreign Relations from 1963-1973, and active with the
U-YMCA. He served as consultant and examiner of the North Central Association
of Colleges and Secondary Schools.
Thompson is survived by his wife of 53 years, Mabel; his daughter, Susan
Thompson and her husband Don R. Miller of Brooklyn, NY; two granddaughters,
Sydney Aakhus and Inge Erickson, Minneapolis, MN. A daughter, Julia Linn
Erickson, preceded him in death in 1994. He is also survived by three
brothers.
STUDENTS
Michael E. Altman
College of Liberal Arts
Anne B. Dunlap
Carlson School of Management
Russell R. Boatman
College of Education
John D. Chatterton
College of Liberal Arts
Brian K. McClure
College of Liberal Arts
Kami Marie Talley
College of Liberal Arts
Andrew E. Wallen
College of Liberal Arts
XII. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 3:45 p.m.
Martha Kvanbeck
Abstractor