|
University Archives of Virginia Tech |
Virginia Tech
Governance Minutes ArchiveOctober 22, 1990
MINUTES COMMISSION ON UNDERGRADUATE STUDIES Burruss Hall Board Room October 22, 1990 PRESENT: Deans J.M. White, D. E. Egger, M. A. Ogliaruso, N. B. Spencer, M. A. Lewis, J. F. Marchman, R.S. Purdy; Drs. L. Geyer, K. Eschenmann, D. Morris, J. Taper, E. Brown, W. Etgen, M. Murray; C. Burch-Brown; S.C. Clark for D. Bousquet, Admis- sions; W. Dean, University Registrar; B. Kuster, P. McConnell, J. Hansbrough, A. DeHart, SGA, B. Sgro, Dean of Students. ABSENT: Drs. E.F. Carlisle, R. Daniel, C. Shoulders, M. Deisenroth, J. Williams-Green VISITORS: Elizabeth Guertin, Stephen Foster, Wayland Winstead 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ANNOUNCEMENTS: Carol Burch-Brown, serving as chair for Dr. Carlisle, called the meet- ing to order at 3:02 p.m. 2. The AGENDA was approved with changes. Carol Burch-Brown announced deferral of agenda items 7 and 8 and the change in wording of agenda item 4 to "Student Perception of Budget Cuts." 3. The MINUTES of the September 24, 1990 meeting were approved as cor- rected. 4. STUDENT'S PERCEPTION OF BUDGET CUTS - N. B. Spencer Dr. Spencer explained that this agenda item was a continuation of the September 24, 1990 discussion of this topic. She asked if there were any additional concerns noted during the recent Spring 1991 registra- tion period. Jared Hansbrough voiced concern over the sparsity of business electives offered for Spring 1991. Angela DeHart also noted that several of her major courses were offered at conflicting times, reducing her options for Spring. Dr. Spencer suggested that enrollment statistics as of the drop deadline for courses added to the core cur- riculum would be of interest to the commission. Wanda Dean offered to gather that information for the next meeting. 5. UNIVERSITY PLAN, 1991 - 96 - C. Burch-Brown Carol Burch-Brown introduced Wayland Winstead, University Director of Planning. Mr. Winstead, in introducing the first draft of the plan, explained that the "community involvement" phase includes responses from the commissions and committees in the university's governance structure. He urged the commission to include in its formal response both the good and the bad aspects of the plan. Carol Burch-Brown ex- plained that any suggestion made during this meeting will be distrib- uted at the November 12, 1990 meeting for formal approval. Dr. Purdy opened the discussion by sharing concerns voiced by some faculty that their input was not requested. Mr. Winstead responded that all college faculty associations were requested to formally respond to the plan and that any faculty member can express their concern to any faculty repre- sentative on commissions and committees of the university. Drs. Spencer and Egger noted that academic advising was not an objective in the Undergraduate Education section. Dr. Egger suggested that career and academic advising be addressed. Dr. Egger also suggested that, as in the Graduate and Professional Education section, an objective rela- tive to financial support for continuing undergraduates be added to the Undergraduate section. Several members of the commission questioned the measurability of the teaching effectiveness objective. Mr. Winstead responded that the departments would be responsible for the evaluation and that the University Provost would be reviewing the de- partment's implementation during the program review process. Dr. Etgen urged that the department's responsibility be clearly stated. Dr. Geyer noted that the use of the word "senior" faculty implies best, which is not always accurate. He suggested that "senior" be replaced with "best." Jared Hansbrough asked that the objective in the Informa- tion Systems and Library section referencing access include a statement on public hours of the library. Bill Kuster also suggested that the Lifestyle section include more specifics rather than a statement ex- pressing need for more amenities. Mr. Winstead stated that Dr. Goodale left specifics out of this area to provide for greater flexibility in implementation. Dr. Marchman questioned the absence of any reference to the need for more classrooms. Mr. Winstead suggested that if the commission wishes to address capital outlay it should be included in the formal response of the commission. Dr. Lewis observed that at no point does the plan address program quality. She questioned whether there should be an objective in Undergraduate Education in support of development and fulfillment of undergraduate programs. Carol Burch- Brown asked commission members to contact Wanda Dean before the next meeting if they wished to suggest additional comments. 6. RESOLUTION 90-91 B - REGISTRATION PROCESS - B. Kuster Bill Kuster presented the resolution from the Student Government Asso- ciation (SGA) relative to the priority hierarchy for course request processing. Mr. Kuster indicated that the SGA supported the new policy of registering freshmen during summer orientation. However, the SGA is asking that the priority order be restored for the Spring registration, with freshmen having lowest priority. Angela DeHart stated that some juniors and sophomores experienced problems in obtaining classes and perceived that problem as an outgrowth of freshmen priority registra- tion. Dr. Geyer requested clarification as to the reasons for the pol- icy change. Wanda Dean indicated that there were two reasons: 1) to afford freshmen the opportunity to leave orientation with a schedule and thus avoid the confusion of add/drop week and 2) to complement the efforts of the university in solving the problems associated with reg- istration for core curriculum courses. Commenting on the latter, Dr. Spencer expressed concern that discontinuation of this plan will delay the university's attempt to resolve the registration problem in the core curriculum. Dr. Ogliaruso also noted that, along with the ex- panded core course listing, a lenient substitution policy was included specifically to aid sophomores and juniors impacted by the change in priority course request processing. A motion was made and seconded to approve the resolution. The motion FAILED. 7. COURSE CRITERIA COMMITTEE REPORT - M. A. Lewis A motion was made and seconded to approve for second reading the Sep- tember 24, 1990 report. Motion CARRIED. Courses approved effective Spring 1991 were: o AGEC 2404 Agricultural Financial Management & Methods (revised) o AGEC 3414 Cooperative and Agribusiness Management (revised) o CE 4614 Advanced Civil Engineering Materials o CE 4054 (BC 4054) Construction Law: Roles and Responsiblities (re- vised) o CE 3424 Reinforced Concrete Structures I (revised) o CE 3684 Civil Engineering Materials (revised) o CE 4014 (BC 4024) Estimating, Production and Cost Engineering (re- vised) o CE 4254 Photogrammetry (revised) o CE 4324 Open Channel Flow (revised) o CE 4404 Computer Analysis of Structures I (revised) Courses deleted, effective Spring 1991: o CE 3114 Air Quality Resources o CE 4454 Model Analysis o CE 4684 Civil Engineering Materials o CE 4255-4256 Photogrammetry o CE 4214 Surveying III: Applied Problems and Design o CE 4405-4406 Computer Analysis of Structures o CE 4134 Environmental Engineering Laboratory A motion was made to present the October 22, 1990 report of the commit- tee for FIRST READING. Motion CARRIED. 8. Meeting adjourned at 4:07 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Wanda Hankins Dean University Registrar
VT History | Digital Library and Archives | Special Collections | University Archives
Send questions or comments to:
Tamara Kennelly, University Archivist
University Libraries
Virginia Tech
P.O. Box 90001
Blacksburg, VA, 24062-9001URL: http://spec.lib.vt.edu/minutes/cus/1990/October+22++1990.html
Last modified on: Tuesday, 25-Sep-2001 13:57:29 EDT