xt74qr4np80p https://exploreuk.uky.edu/dips/xt74qr4np80p/data/mets.xml University of Kentucky. University Senate University of Kentucky. Faculty Senate Kentucky University of Kentucky. University Senate University of Kentucky. Faculty Senate 1994-10-10  minutes 2004ua061 English   Property rights reside with the University of Kentucky. The University of Kentucky holds the copyright for materials created in the course of business by University of Kentucky employees. Copyright for all other materials has not been assigned to the University of Kentucky. For information about permission to reproduce or publish, please contact the Special Collections Research Center. University of Kentucky. University Senate (Faculty Senate) records Minutes (Records) Universities and colleges -- Faculty University of Kentucky University Senate (Faculty Senate) meeting minutes, October 10, 1994 text University of Kentucky University Senate (Faculty Senate) meeting minutes, October 10, 1994 1994 1994-10-10 2020 true xt74qr4np80p section xt74qr4np80p MINUTES OF THE UNIVERSITY SENATE, OCTOBER 10, 1994

The University Senate met in regular‘session at 3:00 pm, Monday, October 10, 1994 in Room 201 of the
Nursing Health Sciences Building.

Professor Raymond Cox, Chairperson of the Senate Council, presided.

Members absent were: Kevin Adams, Reginald Alston, Dan Altman, Drew Alvarez, Gary Anglin*, James
Applegate, John Ballantine, Michael Bardo, Paige Bendel, Mark Berger, Suketu Bhavsar, Gary Bibbs*, Jana
Bowling, Dean Brothers, Joseph Burch, Allan Butterfield, Lauretta Byars, Ben Carr, Edward Carter, Jordan
L. Cohen, Delwood Collins, Virginia Davis-Nordin*, John Deacon*, Frederick DeBeer, Lance Delong, Paul
deMesquita, Richard Edwards, David Elliott*, Robert Farquhar*, Joseph Fink*, Michael Freeman*, Richard
Furst, Lorraine Garkovich, Thomas Garrity, Hans Gesund*, Anne Haas, Kirby Hancock, J. John Harris, S.
Zafar Hasan*, John Haughton, Christine ‘Havice*, Robert Hemenway, Floyd Holler, James Hougland, Clifford
Hynnirnan, Robert Ireland, Jeff Jones, T.A. Jones, Edward Kasarskis, Richard Kermode*, Craig Koontz,
Thomas Lester, Jonathan Liar, Thomas Lillich*, C. Oran Little, Brent Logan, Loys Mather*, Jan McCulloch,
Martin McMahon, Douglas Michael, David Mohney, Roy Moore*, Peter Mortensen*, David Nash*, Scott
Noble, Jacqueline Noble, William O'Connor*, Clayton Paul, Barbara Phillips, Rhoda-Gale Pollack, Daniel
Reedy, Thomas Robinson, Ellen Rosenman, Edgar Sagan*, Horst Schach*, Janice Schach*, David Shipley,
Timothy Sineath*, Beverly Stanley*, William Stober*, David Stockham, Phillip Tibbs, Chris Vance, Henry
Vasconez*, Greg Watkins, Charles Wethington*, Eugene Williams, Emery Wilson, H. David Wilson, Mary
Witt. -

Chairman Cox made the following announcements:

At last month's meeting there was an error in the announcement regarding distribution of the minutes:
Members of the Senate still get the minutes by mail, while others have access through View.

Monday, October 17, 1994 is the mid-term of the fall semester. Last year the Senate passed a rule that
students are to be advised of their class situation by mid-term. By Friday, October 14, 1994 students should
know where they stand in their courses. This does not require a written notification to each student, but some
type of communication. ‘

The University Studies Committee agreed, after talking with Dr. Swifi about the problem, to allow \/
students who transfer from other institutions to have some of their clustered or paired courses be courses they
took off the University of Kentucky campus.

The USP Committee also agreed to drop some USP courses that had not been taught in the last two ‘/
years. This will be circulated.

Chairman Cox said that minutes from the September 12, 1994 needed to be approved. There were no
corrections to the minutes and they were approved as circulated.

* Absence explained

 

 Minutes, University Senate. October 10, I994

The Chair recognized Professor Gretchen LaGodna, chair—elect of the Senate Council for the first action
item. Professor LaGodna stated the first item was a proposal to amend the senate rules, having to do with
requirements for graduation. The proposal originated in the Admissions and Academic Standards Committee
and basically the change involves adding a requirement that a student must have no less than a 2.0 grade point
average in their major as well as a 2.0 GPA overall. The previous rule would have allowed students to
graduate with GPAs in their majors that could be below 2.0 unless the department has specific rules.

I

Chairman Cox stated this came from the Senate Council and needed no second.

There was no discussion. In a voice vote, the proposal unanimously passed and reads as follows:

Proposal: [Add underlined and bold phrase]

5.4.3 Requirements for Graduation
To be eligible for any degree, a student must have completed the requirements as
approved by the University Senate, except that cuniculum substitutions may be made by
the college affected if not inconsistent with these Rules. Curriculum requirements must
include, in additiOn to specified credits, a specified grade point average both overall and
in the student's major which shall in no case be less than 2.0.

Every baccalaureate degree program shall include four divisions or components:

University Studies

Pre—Major or Pre-Professional
Major or Professional

Free Electives

***********

Rationale: If the University certifies a student to have done adequate work and "majored" in an
area, we as a Faculty should be confident the student is competent in'the major. Some programs
(Business and Economics and Engineering for example) now require a 2.0 in the major.

Implementation: Fall, 1995

Professor Cox then recognized Professor LaGodna for the next action item. Professor LaGodna stated
the second action item was a proposal to change from a Quality Point Deficit system of monitoring progress to
a GPA system. This proposal originated in the Admission and Academic Standards Committee and was
unanimously approved by the Senate Council. The primary reason for the change is to provide clarity and
consistency for both faculty and students. There have been problems in both those areas; presently some
students can continue with less than a 2.0 GPA without any sanctions for extended periods of time. In relation
to the consistency issue, afier 90 credit hours are earned, the quality points are no longer relevant in
determining sanctions. This has been an issue of great concern to students and faculty. The proposal directs
the RulesComrnittee to codify changes to change those rules related to academic progress based on the GPA
criteria as opposed to a Quality Point Deficit. They are looking for a sense in principle whether the Senate

 

 Minutes, University Senate, October 10, 1994

agrees, and if so the Rules Committee will be directed to work out the details and bring this back to the Senate
in February.

Chairman Cox stated this was a fairly complicated rule and it did not behoove them to write a particular
rule if the Senate did not like the idea in principle. The Senate Council took the recommendation from the
Admissions and Academic Standards Committee and if the idea is liked in principle it will be approved then the
Rules Committee will come back with the particular codification.

Douglas Boyd (Dean - Communications and Information Studies) agreed that a simplification is probably
a good idea, but had talked with his student services staff and they had written a formal response. The point
they made in their response is there is a huge difference in having a 1.8 after 12 hours and having a 1.8 after 95
hours. Some of the students haven't come to grips with where they are in the system. For a particular student
who has a 1.97 GPA and 140 hours, it is easier to talk to him in terms of a Quality Point Deficit which he
understands. It sounds easy to say I have a 1.97, I will just take a course and make an A and get my degree. '
It takes three courses with As in this case to get to a 2.0. This seems to be something we want to think about
in the overall scheme of things, because simplifying this overall maybe to the student's detriment.

The Chair stated if senators weren't familiar with this, if a student has a Quality Deficit of 7 for example,
that means is the student has to get seven hours of B to raise their average to a 2.0, for a 12 Quality Point
Deficit they would need 12 hours of B, six hours of A, or some mixture. That is easy to explain to students.

Professor Lynne Hall — (Nursing) would like to speak about suspension without a preliminary
probationary semester if the GPA falls below 0.6 during the first semester. She feels there are occasions
where students do come in and do poorly but yet come back in a subsequent semester and do well. The
adjustments many times for students are very difficult, this is the first time they have been away from home for

an extended period of time, they are faced with new challenges. This is one particular component of this, she
is not in favor of.

Dr. Louis Swifi — (Dean - Undergraduate Studies) asked if it was not possible to have general rules and
the college deans can make exceptions in some cases.

Dr. Randall Dahl — (University Registrar) stated the special suspension provision for first semester
students was passed about two years ago, and allows a dean to in their discretion to suspend a student who
achieves less than a 0.6, the notion being the student may have dug himself or herself so deep a hole to
continue and have another bad semester might make it impossible ever to get out. This is like all the academic
suspensions in the University, they are discretionary with the dean of the student's college.

Chairman Cox stated the vote Would be a sense of the meeting, a spirit of rule and hopefully get a report
' from the Rules Committee in February. The motion passed in an unanimous voice vote and reads as follows:

Proposal:

The Rules Committee is directed to codify a change in the Senate Rules replacing probation
and suspension criteria based on quality point deficit with new criteria based on GPA. The
spirit of the changes are as follows: ‘

 

 Minutes, University Senate, October 10, 1994

A. Monitoring academic progress be done by a system involving GPA rather than Quality
Point Deficit with rules indicated by B, C and D below.

Students are placed on probation if
1. Their cumulative GPA falls below 2.0

2. They have two consecutive academic terms with semester GPAs below 2.0
regardless of their cumulative GPA.

Students are subject to suspension if
1. They have 3 consecutive semesters with their cumulative GPA below 2.0
2. They fail to earn a 2.0 semester GPA for any term while on probation

Students are subject to suspension without a preliminary probationary semester if their
term GPA is below 0.6 after their first term of full time enrollment in the University
System.

Rule 5.3.1.5 applying to students eligible for suspension be continued "the Dean of the
Student's College may continue a student on academic probation if the individual case so
justifies".

Following codification, the Rules Committee is to report to the Senate which will take final
action in February, 1995.

**************

Rationale: The present system based on the calculation of quality points is not well
understood by either faculty or students, is often confusing, and is not consistently applied as
probation for students with over 90 hours is GPA based.

This proposal comes from the Admissions and Academic Standards Committee and egg: _>
with unanimous approval. - ‘ ‘ '

Implementation: Fall, 1995.

The meeting was adjourned at 3: 19 p. m.

R ndall W. Dahl
Secretary, University Senate

 

 LHNVERSHY OF KENTUCKY

LEMNGTON.KENTUCKY405060032

UNIVERSITY SENATE COUNCIL
10 ADmmsTnAhon BUILDING

27 September 1994

Members, University Senate
University Senate Council
AGENDA. ITEM: University Senate meeting, Monday, October 10,

1994. Proposal to amend University Senate Rules, Section V —
5.4.3, Requirements for Graduation.

Proposal: [Add underlined and bold phrase]

5.4.3 Requirements for Graduation

To be eligible for any degrfee, a student must have completed
the requirements as approved by the University Senate, except
that curriculum substitutions may be made by the college
affected if not inconsistent with these Rules. Curriculum
requirements must include, in addition to specified credits, a
specified grade point average both overall and in the
student's major which shall in no case be less than 2.0.

 

Every baccalaureate degree program shall include four divisions
or components:

1. University Studies

2. Pre—Major or Pre—Professional
3. Major or Professional

4. Free Electives

***********

Rationale: If the University certifies a student to have done
adequate work and "majored" in an area, we as a Faculty should be
confident the student is competent in the major. Some programs
(Business and Economics and Engineering for example) now require a 2.0
in the major.

Implementation: Fall, 1995

6984C

AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY UNIVERSITY

 

 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY

LEMNGTON.KENTUCKY 405060032

UNIVERSIYV SENATE COUNCIL
IO ADMINISTIAYION quomc

DRAFT

28 September 1994

Members, University Senate
University Senate Council

AGENDA ITEM: University Senate meeting, Monday, October 10,
1994. Proposal to amend University Senate Rules to establish a
policy to rescind degrees.

PrOposal:

Degrees can be rescinded for reasons of academic fraud and/or academic
misrepresentation. Allegations of such fraud and/or academic
misrepresentation shall be forwarded to the University Appeals Board
which shall then act as a hearing panel to determine the merits of the
charges. In case the Appeals Board finds that fraud or
misrepresentation has occurred, it shall forward a recommendation to
rescind to the President for appropriate administrative action.

***************

Rationale

No such rule exists. In the past UK has had several "near" cases and
other institutions have had actual ones. A statement and procedure
are prposed so that if such a case does occur, the University' of
Kentucky has a process by which rescission can be achieved.

The proposal comes from the Admissions and Academic Standards
Committee and, if approved, will be forwarded to the Rules Committee
for codification.

Implementation: Fall, 1995

6986C

AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY UNIVER‘ITY