|
University Archives of Virginia Tech |
Virginia Tech
Governance Minutes ArchiveFebruary 11, 1991
MINUTES COMMISSION ON UNDERGRADUATE STUDIES Burruss Hall Board Room February 11, 1991 PRESENT: Dr. E.F. Carlisle, Chair; Deans J. White, M. Ogliaruso, D. Egger, N. Spencer, S. Wheeler for J. Marchman, J. Bowker for R. Purdy; Drs. L. Geyer, R. Daniel, K. Eschenmann, J. Crittenden for D. Morris, J. Taper, E. Brown, W. Etgen, M. Murray; C. Burch-Brown; W. Dean, University Registrar; B. Kuster, P. McConnell, J. Hansbrough, Eric Fox for A. DeHart, SGA. ABSENT: Drs. M. A. Lewis, M. Deisenroth, C. Shoulders, B. Sgro; D. Bousquet VISITORS: J. Williams-Green, J. Wolfe, E. Guertin, H. McElrath 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ANNOUNCEMENTS: Dr. Carlisle called the meeting to order at 3:00 p.m. Carol Burch- Brown announced that the Office of the University Provost was sponsor- ing a teleconference, "Writing Across the Curriculum" on February 27, 1991. Dr. Leon Geyer also announced the visit of the Secretary of Edu- cation on February 27. 2. Dr. Carlisle requested that agenda items four and five be reversed in order of discussion. The AGENDA was approved as amended. 3. The MINUTES of the January 28, 1991 meeting were approved as distrib- uted. 4. RESOLUTION 90-91. D, POLICY PERTAINING TO INTERNAL TRANSFERS OF STU- DENTS, SECOND READING - E. Brown Dr. Brown moved approval of an amendment to the original resolution. The amendment to part 1 eliminated the 30 day review process and the Course Criteria Committee review and added final approval by the Uni- versity Provost. During discussion of the amendment, Bill Kuster ques- tioned the elimination of the 30 day review and noted concern over the lack of student input prior to CUS review. Carol Burch-Brown, in re- sponding to the question of provost approval, explained that CUS can only make recommendations and does not have accountability for re- sources. Dr. Geyer asked why the faculty committee (Course Criteria) was removed from the review process. Dr. Ogliaruso suggested that it was redundant to send these issues to both the Course Criteria Commit- tee and the Commission. Dr. Egger asked if the policy provided for "grandfathering" of programs. Dr. Brown responded that the first re- view would occur in four years. After further discussion, the amend- ment was approved with restoration of the 30 day review process. A motion was made and seconded to approve the resolution as amended. Mo- tion CARRIED. 5. SPECIAL ADMISSIONS PROCEDURE - GENERAL DISCUSSION Dr. Carlisle opened discussion by indicating that the distributed docu- ment "Procedures for Special Admissions" was REVISED administrative procedure and was provided to clarify and regulate operating procedure. Changes reflected in the procedures document were requested by repre- sentatives of the Faculty Senate in a meeting with Dr. J. F. Wolfe. Dr. Wolfe reported that his meeting included discussion of the origin of the faculty senate resolutions presented at CUS on January 14, 1991. Drs. Scanlon and Geyer stressed the concern of the faculty relative to the role of the advocating department and the committee. From that discussion, the University Provost agreed that the advocating depart- ment would not vote and that the committee would be expanded to three faculty members. Dr. Spencer asked how often the special admissions committee met and whether persistence studies were conducted. Dr. Etgen, a current member of the committee, indicated that the committee met as often as needed. Dr. Carlisle also responded that persistence studies can be made available to CUS. Dr. Joyce Williams-Green noted that of the students athletes admitted through this procedure in the previous three years only one lost academic eligibility. Dr. Etgen asked why the threshold of 0.5 percent of entering class was increased to 1.0 percent. Dr. Carlisle remarked that the increase allowed slightly more flexibility in the process but maintained a relatively small threshold (i.e, assuming a class size of 4200, approximately 42 places would be available via the special admissions procedure). Dr. Murray wondered if this increase was in response to a perceived need. Dr. White noted that the percentage is arbitrary, that the 42 places generated is not excessive, and that this provides a window of accessi- bility supported in our mission of a land grant university. In re- sponse to a query as to the quantity of cases brought to the committee, Dr. Wolfe referred to the minutes of the October 1, 1990 meeting of University Council: "Of the 29 cases reviewed last year (19 in athlet- ics; 10 in the arts), 19 were offerred admission (11 in athletics; 8 in the arts)." Bill Kuster asked for a clarification of "accept with con- ditions." Dr. Etgen offerred the example of a student who is required to enroll in a particular course at a local community college prior to enrollment at Virginia Tech. He stressed that the special conditions were requested to ascertain a level of seriousness on the part of the student. Dr. Crittenden voiced his concern that the procedure was not reviewed and voted on by the various entities of the governance struc- ture. He also requested that Dr. Carlisle reiterate that this proce- dure was bypassing review by the faculty. Dr. Carlisle repeated his earlier statement that the procedures for special admission were admin- istrative and designed to regulate and control the process. He further stated that it is not a matter of fundamental policy and that it does not require review through the governance system. He also reminded the Commission that if any requests to alter admission policies were intro- duced the suggested changes would be referred through the governance system for approval. 6. COURSE CRITERIA COMMITTEE REPORT - W. H. Dean A motion was made and seconded to approve for second reading the Janu- ary 28, 1991 report. The motion CARRIED. Courses approved effective Fall 1991: . o COMM 3184 Television Production (revised) o COMM 4145,4146 Electronic News Gathering o EE 3105-3106 Electromagnetic Fields (revised) o GEOL 3404 Structural Geology (revised) o HIST 4145,4146 U. S. Social History o WS 4114 Feminist Theory (revised) Action on Curriculum Checklists and Options: o Biology, Physical Therapy Option (PT), Fall 1991 o Chemistry: BA, 1992; BS 1992-1994; BS 1995 o Forestry and Wildlife, Outdoor Recreation Option, Fall 1991 Courses dropped: o COMM 3185, 3186 Television Production, Fall 1991 A motion was made and seconded to approve for first reading the Febru- ary 11, 1991 committee report. Motion CARRIED. 7. OTHER BUSINESS Wanda Dean reported in response to the inquiry from the January 28, 1991 meeting in regards to deferment for inactive reservists. Con- gressman Rick Boucher's staff contacted the Selective Service for the Office of the University Registrar and reported that deferment is al- lowed for high school students only. 8. Meeting adjourned at 3:55 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/1991/February+11++1991.html
Last modified on: Tuesday, 25-Sep-2001 13:57:30 EDT