|
University Archives of Virginia Tech |
Virginia Tech
Governance Minutes ArchiveFebruary 11, 1992
MINUTES COMMISSION ON UNDERGRADUATE STUDIES President's Board Room February 11, 1992 PRESENT: Dr. E.F. Carlisle, Chair; Deans J. Buffer, H. Doswald, D. Egger, J. Marchman, M. Lewis, R. Purdy, S. Ritchey, N. Spencer, R. Sorensen, L. Swiger, J. White, M. Ogliaruso; Drs. R. Daniel, K. Eschenmann, P. Feret, N. Simmons, L. Geyer, D. Morris, M. Murray, B. Reed, C. Shoulders, J. Taper; B. Sgro, Dean of Students, S. Bambach for D. Bousquet, Admissions, W. Dean, University Registrar; C. Burch-Brown; B. Haddican, M. McGuire, M. Stegura, SGA. ABSENT: Drs. G. W. Clough, C. W. Steger; E. Fox, SGA. VISITORS: E. Guertin, J. Williams-Green, G. Hammond, R. Stillwagon, C. Dudley, J. Shepherd. 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ANNOUNCEMENTS: Dr. Carlisle called the meeting to order at 3:00 p.m. 2. The AGENDA was approved as distributed. 3. The MINUTES of the January 27, 1992 meeting were approved as distrib- uted. 4. COURSE CRITERIA COMMITTEE REPORT - J. White Dr. White offered for first reading the February 11, 1992 report. A motion was made and seconded to approve for second reading the Janu- ary 27, 1992 report. The motion CARRIED. Courses approved effective Spring 1992: o EDVT 3004 Educational Programs in Agriculture, redesignation to ALS o EDVT 3014 Leadership Effectiveness for Professionals in Agricul- tural Organizations, redesignation to ALS o EDVT 4004 Teaching Adults in Agriculture, redesignation to ALS o EDVT 4014 Introduction to Cooperative Extension, redesignation to ALS o EDVT 4024 Managing Agricultural Supervised Occupational Experience Programs, redesignation to ALS o EDVT 4034 Methods of Planning Educational Programs for Agriculture, redesignation to ALS o EDVT 4054 Internship in Cooperative Extension, redesignation to ALS o MN 1104 Naval Ships Systems I: Engineering (revised) o MN 2104 Seapower and Maritime Affairs (revised) Courses approved effective Fall 1992: o EF 1004 Technology and Productivity o FST 3104 Dairy Processing (revised) o IS 2055-56 World Politics and Economy (revised); crosslisted with PSCI; IS is home department o MATH 1114 Elementary Linear Algebra o MATH 1205-06 Calculus o MATH 1224 Vector Geometry o MATH 2214 Introduction to Differential Equations o MATH 2224 Multivariable Calculus o MN 2004 Naval Ships Systems II: Weapons (revised) o MN 3005-06 Navigation and Naval Operations (revised) o MN 4204 Amphibious Warfare (revised) Action on Curriculum Checklists, Options, and Concentrations: o Communication Studies, Class of 1996 o English, Class of 1996 o History, Class of 1993 o History, minor, Class of 1993 o Math, regular option, class of 1993 o Math, education option, class of 1993 o Mathematics Education (MAED), class of 1993 o Math, minor, class of 1993 o Training and Development Options to appear on transcript effective Class of 1992 (College of Education and College of Arts and Sci- ences) Courses to be dropped: o PSCI 1624 Introduction to International Relations, Fall 1992 o MATH 1215-16 Calculus I, effective Fall 1992 o MATH 2215-16 Calculus II, effective Fall 1993 Dr. Marchman asked the status of the requested name change for AGE. Dr. Shoulders responded that the request had been denied by the Course Criteria Committe and returned to the department with sug- gested steps for obtaining approval. Dr. Marchman voiced concern that any changes be heard again by his college. Dr. White re- sponded that any changes are required to be heard by both the col- leges of Agriculture and Engineering. 5. RESOLUTION 91-92.A, REVISED UNIVERSITY CORE CURRICULUM, SECOND READING Dr. Carlisle reviewed for the commission the procedures for voting on the ten parts of the resolution. He noted that each member should have a corrected version of the resolution with additional reference page numbers from the UFLE report. Dr. Feret asked whether the effective date of the resolution created any conflicts for students in five year programs. Dr. Marchman noted that the changes approved for implementa- tion are no different from current requirements and should cause no un- due hardship for any student. Professor Burch-Brown also noted that as the future changes are implemented careful consideration of implementa- tion dates will be critical. A motion was made and seconded to offer for second reading Resolution 91-92.A, Revised University Core Curric- ulum. Dr. Carlisle then led the commission through approval of each of the ten parts of the resolution. o A motion was made and seconded to approve Part 1. Dr. Carlisle noted that approval of this part includes incorporation of pages 4 and 6 and acceptance of page 12 in principle. MOTION CARRIED. o A motion was made and seconded to approve Part 2. Dr. Carlisle noted that approval of this part includes incorporation of page 4 and acceptance of page 13 in principle. Michaelanne McGuire ques- tioned the specificity of definition of pages for the writing re- quirement. Dr. Geyer responded that the Forum was attempting to define a bare minimum, which has previously been lacking. Burch- Brown added that the Forum looked at models from other schools (e.g. UVA requires 20 pages) and that it is important that we agree upon a standard. Dr. White and Dean Doswald inquired as to the de- finition of "page." Burch-Brown suggested that the definition should appear in the handbook. Following the discussion, the MO- TION CARRIED. o A motion was made and seconded to approve Part 3. Dr. Carlisle noted that approval of this part includes incorporation of pages 3, 4 and 6 - 11 with acceptance of page 13 in principle. MOTION CAR- RIED. o A motion was made and seconded to approve Part 5. Dr. Carlisle noted that approval of this part includes incorporation of pages 6 - 11 and acceptance of page 13 in principle. Dean Doswald asked the reasoning behind the requirement of 3 hours of WI in the major. Burch-Brown responded that the Forum felt that students should be prepared to communicate in their individual disciplines. Dr. Marchman noted that 94% of the faculty of the College of Engineer- ing are opposed to inclusion of Area 6 in the university core cur- riculum. Therefore, he offered a motion to amend the resolution by deleting this area. The motion was seconded. Dean Sorensen asked why the faculty were opposed to this requirement. Dr. Marchman re- sponded that the faculty felt that the area is inappropriate for inclusion in the university core curriculum. Bill Haddican asked how this affected the requirements for students in the College of Engineering. Dr. Marchman indicated that it would take one-fourth of the free electives. Michaelanne McGuire noted that student opinion is divided. She indicated that some question how much will be achieved by requiring someone to attend an event? Dr. Dudley responded by asking if the requirement is not appropriate for the core curriculum, then where? He further noted that the core is de- signed to incorporate all aspects of experiences of life. Burch- Brown also clarified that the requirement is not a "theatre arts" requirement. Rather, the area includes a broad array of courses. She also added that the Collins Report identified the arts as the missing part of our liberal education. Following discussion of the proposed amendment, the motion to amend by deleting Area 6 FAILED. Dr. Egger asked how courses will be approved for WI and CI. Burch- Brown indicated that requests will be forwarded to the Core Curric- ulum Committee and to CUS for approval. Following discussion, the MOTION CARRIED. o A motion was made and seconded to approve Part 4. (Note Part 5 was discussed prior to Part 4 at the request of Dr. Marchman). Dr. Carlisle noted that approval includes incorporation of pages 6 - 11. MOTION CARRIED. o A motion was made and seconded to approve Part 6. A motion was made and seconded to offer an amendment to Part 6. Burch-Brown ex- plained that the amendment was in response to concerns expressed at first reading that this part did not clearly indicate which areas colleges and/or departments may specify for required clusters/sequences. Dr. Carlisle added that two clusters/sequences is being established as a baseline with the addition of a qualifier that under certain circumstances (such as accreditation require- ments) that additional clusters/sequences may be approved. Follow- ing much discussion as to the merits of the written amendment, the motion to approve Part 6 as AMENDED CARRIED. o A motion was made and seconded to approve Part 7. THE MOTION CAR- RIED. o A motion was made and seconded to approve Part 8. Dr. Carlisle noted that approval of the motion included incorporation of number 8, page 5 of the Forum report. THE MOTION CARRIED. o A motion was made and seconded to approve Part 9. Dr. Carlisle noted that approval of the motion included incorporation of page 5 and the acceptance of pages 20 - 21 in principle. Following dis- cussion, the MOTION CARRIED. o A motion was made and seconded to approve Part 10. THE MOTION CAR- RIED. Dr. Carlisle indicated that the resolution will be heard by University Council at its February 24, 1992 meeting. Dean Sorensen offered a mo- tion commending the members of the Forum for their outstanding work on behalf of the university. The MOTION CARRIED. 6. STATE POLICY ON TRANSFER Dr. Carlisle led the general discussion of the new policy on transfer approved by State Council of Higer Education. He noted that it was im- portant that we begin to work with this document. He emphasized that there are educational as well as political goals driving this new pol- icy. The educational goals are to aid two year college students in their efforts to realize their goal of a four year degree as well as to support the goals of higher education for the commonwealth. The poli- tical goal is to address the issues as raised in the legislature re- garding the problems that students are experiencing in transferring to four year institutions. The Commonwealth has projected an influx of 70,000 college bound students by the year 2005. Dialogue regarding ac- commodation of this increase has virtually stopped with the advent of the recent budget constraints. When the discussion begins again, com- munity colleges will be expected to absorb the overflow of the students of whom many will be seeking a four year degree. Therefore, for those who are able, transfer should be accommodated in a smooth and efficient way. Dr. Carlisle indicated that the university will discuss the issue of implementation at a later date. Dr. Marchman indicated that the College of Engineering has a problem with the transfer module, espe- cially item 3h. Dr. Ogliaruso noted that the title of the courses of- ten do not provide sufficient information to judge the content of the course. Dr. Carlisle responded that VCSS is trying to set up courses that are equivalent across the entire system. Dr. Purdy commented that she is pleased to see such a policy. She noted that many students at- tempt to transfer without appropriate advice as to which courses will transfer. Dr. Geyer noted that many students can not survive the math- ematics requirement unless they enroll in more than six credits, espe- cially since the quality of mathematics courses is not the same at all community colleges. Dr. Carlisle referred the commission to footnote 6 "...that a set of acceptable mathematics courses be identified for inclusion in the module." Dean Sorensen indicated his college was pre- paring a study to determine if students transferring prerequisites are doing as well in upper division courses as students taking prerequi- sites at Virginia Tech. Dr. Carlisle referred the commission to 1e and 1f in response to this issue. Dr. Egger added his concern that some ill will may occur among community college students who assume that every program has general education requirements only during the first two years. He noted that the Colleges of Architecture and Engi- neering have specific college requirements in the first two years of the program. Dr. Carlisle referred Dr. Egger to item 2c. Dr. Ogliaruso stressed that communication is the major problem and the need for an up to date transfer guide is imperative. Dr. Shoulders asked how much flexibility is afforded senior institutions if the student has an associate degree? Dr. Carlisle indicated that II - D addresses the issue of senior institutions establishing additional requirements. Dr. Shoulders asked if this is finalized policy from the state. Dr. Carlisle indicated that it was approved SCHEV policy and suggested that the commission continue discussion of this issue at a later time or di- rect the admissions policy review committe to include the issue in its charge. 7. PRESIDENTIAL POLICY NO. 113 - ACADEMIC ELIGIBILITY Wanda Hankins Dean, University Registrar, presented statistics on the performance of probationary students who opted to enroll Fall 1991 in- stead of Summer 1991 as per the new policy. Dr. Carlisle asked the reasoning behind the original change in the policy. Dr. Ogliaruso re- sponded that there were two reasons: financial (students indicated that they needed the summers to earn income to support continuation of their studies) and more hours may be used in the fall (up to 19) to correct academic deficiency. Dr. Marchman added that there are a limited num- ber of courses offered in the summer. He voiced surprise at the high failure rate, noting that perhaps many students did not take the pro- bation seriously. Wanda Dean noted that an additional problem encount- ered by some of the students who enrolled fall in lieu of summer was the loss of financial aid. The Office of Scholarships and Financial Aid has a current policy of denying aid to students when placed on pro- bation. Also, Dean noted that students who were succesful in correct- ing their academic deficiency during the fall still faced the prospect of no aid for spring since all allocations have been made. Dr. Carlisle invited Richard Stillwagon, Director of Scholarships and Fi- nancial Aid, to speak to this issue. Mr. Stillwagon indicated that 193 students were economically disadvantged by their policy of denying aid to students on probation. He is proposing a change in the satisfactory progress requirements for students receiving aid so that the policy parallels the university's academic eligiblity policy. He also stressed that this change would better serve the mission of his office to promote recruitment and retention. The proposed changes, which will be forwarded to the Scholarships and Financial Aid Committee for ap- proval, requires students to inform the FA office in writing if the student is attending fall. This step will enable the student to retain aid through the probationary period. Dr. Marchman asked whether, under the old eligibility system, students received aid in the summer. Mr. Stillwagon responded that hardly any aid was available in the summer. Dr. Sgro asked how this requirement and policy will be communicated to students. Mr. Stillwagon responded that all communications from his office will include this new policy. Dr. Spencer suggested that col- leges add a statement to their academic probation letters informing students of the steps required to retain aid. Dr. White voiced strong support for the change in the requirements by Financial Aid as an im- portant step for retention. Dr. Murray asked how the university plans to monitor the continued impact of this policy change. Ms. Dean asked the commission for guidance on further study of the performance of these students. She noted that members may wish to suggest specific areas for further study. She noted that her office will continue to monitor the success and/or failure of the students and will make peri- odic reports to the commission. 8. Meeting adjourned at 4:50 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/1992/February+11++1992.html
Last modified on: Tuesday, 25-Sep-2001 13:57:34 EDT