|
University Archives of Virginia Tech |
Virginia Tech
Governance Minutes ArchiveMarch 23, 1992
MINUTES COMMISSION ON UNDERGRADUATE STUDIES President's Board Room March 23, 1992 PRESENT: Dr. E. F. Carlisle, Chair; Drs. R. Daniel, L. Geyer M. Lewis, J. Marchman, D. Morris, M. Murray, M. Ogliaruso, R. Purdy, B. Reed, N. Spencer, C. Steger, L. Swiger, J. Taper; D. Bousquet, Admissions; W. Dean, University Registrar; M. McGuire, M. Stegura, SGA. ABSENT: Drs. J. Buffer, G. Clough, H. Doswald, K. Eschenmann, D. Egger, P. Feret, S. Ritchey, B. Sgro, C. Shoulders, N. Simmons, R. Sorensen, J. White; B. Haddican, E. Fox, SGA. VISITORS: E. Guertin, W. Winstead, J. Williams-Green 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 February 25, 1992 meeting were approved as distrib- uted. 4. COURSE CRITERIA COMMITTEE REPORT - L. Geyer Dr. Geyer offered for first reading the March 23, 1992 report. A motion was made and seconded to approve for second reading the Febru- ary 25, 1992 report. The motion CARRIED. Courses approved effective Fall 1992: o AgE 3134 Undergraduate Seminar Action on Curriculum Checklists, Options, and Concentrations: o Poultry Science Checklists, Effective Graduating Class of 1993 Courses to be dropped: o AgE 4134 Senior Seminar, effective Fall 1992 5. RESOLUTION 91-92.B, ACADEMIC ELIGIBILITY POLICY FOR AGRICULTURE TECH- NOLOGY, SECOND READING After further discussion of the resolution, Dr. Murray offered a friendly amendment to the paragraph beginning, "That students will be placed on probation...," to read, "That students will be placed on pro- bation at the end of the academic year (spring term) if the students fail to meet the specificed QCA;" A motion was made and seconded to approve the resolution as EDITED. Motion CARRIED. 6. SCHEDULING IMPACT OF ACADEMIC POLICY CHANGES Wayland Winstead, Director of University Planning, continued his dis- cussion from the February 25, 1992 meeting relative to the issue of scheduling impact of academic policy changes and the resources avail- able in Student Systems Computer Services (SSCS). He explained that due to budget constraints that SSCS is back to the issue of having to deal with academic policy changes and attempting to deal with produc- tivity enhancing projects for student services areas such as Scholar- ships and Financial Aid and Undergraduate Admissions. He proposed a formal method of dealing with these issues to affect a means of prior- itizing policy changes. Specifically, he proposes a coordinating com- mittee, with chairs of both CUS and CGS, to aid in the prioritizing of projects. He also suggested that as policy changes move through the governance that a "recommended" effective date rather than a true ef- fective date be approved. During general discussion, Dr. Spencer asked what was the problem with the current process. Mr. Winstead responded that when an academic policy change occurred, SSCS ceased production on productivity enchancement. Dr. Spencer suggested that response was due to the Director of SSCS giving it top priority rather than CUS do- ing so. Mr. Winstead responded that it is assumed that the academic policy change is the most important under the current mode of opera- tion. Dr. Murray suggested a compromise. That is, when a policy change is suggested then SSCS can respond with a suggested, realistic effective date for implementation. Mr. Winstead noted that he is not comfortable setting priorities for academic policy issues. Dr. Carlisle noted that this will not be the only area where choices will be required. He noted that the budget constraints will, in the long term, require that we reconfigure the university based on program pri- orities. This reconfiguration will require, especially in adminis- tration, an effort to combine, consolidate and eliminate areas so as to make the most efficient use of resources to support our academic initi- atives. Dr. Marchman expressed his concern that creation of another committee will slow the already cumbersome bureaucratic process. He suggested that we should leave the process as simple as possible. Dr. Steger also added that he perceives this as an issue of resource and allocation, both issues within the purview of the Provost and not is- sues that necessitate a committee. Elizabeth Guertin suggested that as issues are brought forward that appropriate persons would meet to ad- dress issues of priorities. Dr. Ogliaruso suggested that it would be helpful to know what is currently in the queue that is impeding progress of enhancements. Mr. Winstead responded that SSCS has over 100 items in the queue currently. Dr. Ogliaruso responded that it is obvious that SSCS should be currently setting priorities if there is such a large quantity of requests awaiting action. Dr. Carlisle ended the discussion by suggesting that he would ask someone from his area, such as Carol Burch-Brown, to coordinate a system of a simple exchange of information and "early warnings" between the commissions and SSCS so as to assist in the placement of priorities for academic policy changes. 7. OTHER BUSINESS Wanda Dean shared with the commission the desire of the Commission on Graduate Studies to review the audit policy. Of particular concern to members of CGS was the current lack of policy relative to students who register for audit courses and who fail to attend or participate in the class. CGS has proposed a review be conducted by both CGS and CUS, similar to the review conducted for the "I" policy change. Dr. Carlisle asked for volunteers to work with a sub-committee of CGS. Drs. Purdy and Marchman agreed to work with CGS on this issue. Dr. Geyer asked to discuss the issue of sufficient enrollment in summer sessions. Specifically, he asked how the policy was changed. He noted that the "average" faculty member was unaware of the old or new policy and that there was no discussion among the faculty as to the issue of limited resources for summer school and the method chosen to address the issues. Dr. Williams-Green, Assistant Provost and Director of Sum- mer School, responded to his question of how decisions are made by de- tailing meetings with each department head, using previous enrollments and projected future enrollments, to determine allocation for each area. She also noted that each department head was consulted in Spring 1990 and asked to discuss with his or her faculty the choice of reduc- ing credits or salary. The majority voted to maintain the current level of salary. The new thresholds of sufficient enrollment were de- termined to be 10 for graduate courses and 18 for undergraduate courses. She stated that each department will be given an opportunity to justify retention of any underenrolled course prior to its cancella- tion in mid April. Dr. Carlisle asked Dr. Geyer if he had a sense that there were faculty who wished to teach in summer school but were turned away from doing so? Dr. Williams-Green added that some colleges expe- rience difficulty in finding sufficient numbers of faculty to teach. Dr. Steger also observed that previous attempts to reduce salary for summer school participants was not succesful. Dr. Geyer offered to discuss the issue further with the faculty chairs of each college and determine whether it was issue to be brought back to CUS for further discussion. 8. Meeting adjourned at 3:40 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/March+23++1992.html
Last modified on: Tuesday, 25-Sep-2001 13:57:35 EDT