xt702v2cc19b https://exploreuk.uky.edu/dips/xt702v2cc19b/data/mets.xml University of Kentucky. University Senate University of Kentucky. Faculty Senate Kentucky University of Kentucky. University Senate University of Kentucky. Faculty Senate 1993-04-12 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, April 12, 1993 text University of Kentucky University Senate (Faculty Senate) meeting minutes, April 12, 1993 1993 1993-04-12 2020 true xt702v2cc19b section xt702v2cc19b LHMVERSHY OF KENTUCKY LEXINGTON. KENTUCKY 40506-0032 UNIVERSITY SENATE COUNCIL 10 ADMINISTRATION BUILDING 2 April 1993 Members, University Senate The University Senate will meet in regular session on Monday, a 1993, at 3:00PM in room 115 of the Nursing Building (CON/HSLC . Minutes: 8 March 1993 Chair's Announcements Resolutions Action Items a. Proposal to amend College of Law rules on Readmission. (Circulated under date of 2 April 1993.) b. Proposal to establish separate College of Law rules on withdrawal by students. (Circulated under date of 1 April 1993.) Proposal. to add. to University Senate Rules, Section V — 5.1.2.1 College of Law, the University Marking System and courses taken on a Pass/Fail basis. (Circulated under date of 31 March 1993.) Proposal to limit number of Pass/Fail Units creditable for College of Law students (circulated under date of 30 March 1993). Randall Dahl Secretary AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY UNIVERSITY MINUTES OF THE UNIVERSITY SENATE, APRIL l2, 1993 The University Senate met in regular session at 3:00 p.m., Monday, April l2, l993, in Room ll5 of the Nursing Health Sciences Building. John J. Piecoro, Jr., Chairperson of the Senate Council, presided. Members absent were: Virginia Atwood, Robert S. Baker*, John R. Ballentine*, Mark C. Berger, John J. Bernardo, Glenn C. Blomquist, Thomas 0. Blues*, Douglas A. Boyd, Carolyn S. Bratt, Joseph T. Burch, D. Allan Butterfield*, Lauretta Byars, Rutheford B Campbell, Jr., Clyde R. Carpenter, Ben W. Carr, Chris Carrico, Edward A. Carter, Shea Chaney, Donald B. Clapp, Charlie Clark, Jordan L. Cohen, Georgia C. Collins*, Audrey L. Companion, Sarah Coursey, Clifford J. Cremers*, Paul deMesquita, David Denton, David S. Durant, Jr.*, Richard Edwards, Joseph L. Fink III, Donald T. Frazier*, Michael B. Freeman, Richard W. Furst, Joseph H. Gardner*, Stuart Gay, Todd A. Griffin, Robert D. Guthrie, Lynne A. Hall, J. John Harris 111, Zafar S. Hasan*, Christine Havice, Robert E. Hemenway, James Hertog, Donald L. HochstraSser, Don A. Howard*, Richard A. Jensen, Richard I. Kermode*, Kevin S. Kiernan*, James Knoblett, Kenneth K. Kubota, James M. Kuder*, Carl W. Lee, Thomas W. Lester, C. Oran Little, William E. Lyons, Linda J. Magid*, Justin Marriott, Marcus T. McEllistrem, Pamela McMahon, Richard S. Milich*, Sandra Miller, Karen A. Mingst, William G. Moody*, James S. Mosbey, Anthony L. Newberry, Robert C. Noble, Pete November, Clayton P. Omvig, Barbara Phillips, Clyde D. Poe*, Rhoda-Gale Pollack, Leigh Ann Poynter, Daniel R. Reedy, Thomas C. Robinson, Tracy Rogers, Ellen B. Rosenman*, Minni Saluja, Arturo A. Sandoval, David Sanford, Michael C. Shannon, Candi Smith, Crystal Smith, Thomas Stipanowich, David H. Stockham, Louis J. Swift, Michael G. Tearney*, Phillip A. Tibbs, Miroslaw Truszczynski, Charles T. Wethington*, Carolyn A. Williams*, Eugene R. Williams, Emery A. Wilson. The Chair called the last scheduled meeting of the Senate to order. The Chair stated the minutes for the March 8, l993 meeting were in press and would be available soon. The Chair made the following announcements: The first announcement was the possibility of one more Senate Meeting during this semester. The meeting would be held on April 26, l993, at 3:00 p.m. in Room ll5 of the Health Science Learning Center. The purpose of the meeting would be that the Academic Organization and Structure Committee is reviewing two proposals for reorganization. If that Committee can conclude their work soon enough on the proposals to make a recommendation, there will then be a meeting on April 26th. There will be an agenda put forth for the meeting. Reorganization Proposals - The Academic Organization and Structure Committee is reviewing two proposals. One is to merge the Colleges of Communications and * Absence Explained Minutes, University Senate, April 12, l993 Library and Information Science. The committee has indicated that they cannot recommend the proposal in its present form and had requested more information and elaboration on the proposal. The other proposal is to merge the Department of Telecommunications and the School of Journalism in the College of Communications. The committee is in the process of reviewing that proposal. The committee will try to expedite the process so they may be able to act on the propOSal this semester. Election of Faculty Board of Trustees Member - Professor Loys Mather from Agriculture Economics was elected as the newest faculty member on the Board of Trustees. The history of the balloting follows. On the nominating ballot, the following eight faculty members received the highest nUmber of votes (weighted as Specified in the rules): James L. Applegate (l03 votes) Loys L. Mather (320 votes Daniel L. Fulks (l2 votes) John J. Piecoro, Jr. (l2 votes) Robert D. Guthrie (l2 votes) Keith K. Schillo (52 votes) William E. Lyons (40l votes) A. Byron Young (34 votes) 0n subsequent election ballots, the following votes were recorded. First Ballot Second Ballot* Final Ballot** James L. Applegate l04 104 - Daniel L. Fulks 30 - ' -- Robert D. Guthrie l8 - - William E. Lyons 248 30l 358 Loys L. Mather 243 360 407 John J. Piecoro, Jr. 3l — - Keith K. Schillo 45 - A. Byron Young 72 - — TOTAL 79) . 7b5 7bb Professor Mather will replace Professor Carolyn Bratt on July l, l993. At the first Senate Meeting of the Fall l993 Semester there will be some formal remarks about Professor Bratt's tenure on the Board of Trustees. The Chair asked the Senate to join him in congratulating Professor Mather on his election. The Senate gave Professor Mather a round of applause. There will be a discussion item later in this meeting led by Professor Deborah Powell on the implications and various impacts of the most recent budget cuts. University Research Professorships — Last week at the Board of Trustees meeting, the Board approved the naming of three professors as University Research Professors. Professor Dwight Billings of the Department of Sociology, Professor Moshe Elitzer of the Department of Physics and Astronomy, and Professor Joseph A. Kuc of the Department of Plant Pathology. Research Professors were first named in March 1977 and the Chair is pleased to indicate that the establishment of Research Professors came out of a recommendation from the Senate Research Committee. The Senate made a recommendation to the President in l976. There have been Research Professorships since l977. President Charles wethington commissioned the Institute for Research and Higher and Adult Education of the University of Maryland to examine the senior level Minutes, University Senate, April 12, 1993 organization structure of the University with a focus on improving efficiency in carrying out both University wide and sector functions. The consultants, Professor Robert Berdahl, Director of the Institute and Professor of Higher Education at Maryland, and Harold Enarson, former President of Ohio State University and now a Senior Consultant to the Western Interstate Commission on Higher Education, have already begun to conduct the study. They have done this by reViewing pertinent information and reports and interviewing with administrators, faculty, and student leaders knowledgeable about the central issues. The consultants were here about two weeks ago and hopefully will conclude their process by the end of June. Kentucky Open Records Law - Last month the Senate confirmed the Senate Council's resolution to the Commonwealth Attorney General regarding interpretation of the Open Records Law. A letter of reaffirmation was sent to the Attorney General and as of this morning a ruling has not been rendered. The Senate Council also sent another resolution to the President requesting that University policy be established to inform faculty members when third parties request access to faculty personnel files. The Chair would like to read part of the President's response to the request. Within the provisions of the Kentucky Open Records Law, I share your interest in the protection of the privacy of University faculty“ When the Open Records Law does require the release of information in faculty personnel files to third parties, the University must respond to the request as soon as the records can be made available but in no more than three working days unless the records can't be located within that period. In the context of the very tight response requirements of the law we will ask the relevant college to notify the faculty member when information from his or her personal file_has been requested. He will provide the faculty member with a copy of the official University reSponse to the request. If the faculty member wishes to approve the release of information not required by the law, he or she may forward a written request to the college authorizing the release of the information. Sincerely, Charles T. wethington If anyone (third party) inquires about a faculty member's personnel records, the University will inform the faculty member about that. There is an update on the admission of freshman for the Fall of l993. Last month at the Senate meeting, Chancellor Hemenway reported on freshman statistics for this year and at the end of his presentation presented some information regarding l993 freshmen. Since then Joseph Fink, Director of Admissions, has issued updated figures as of the end of March l993. Applications are up l2.7% above l992, admissions are up 8%, in-state applications are up l0%, out—of-state applications are up 16.6%, in-state admissions are up 5.3%, and out-of—state admissions are up 12.3%. With regard to African American applicants, applications are up 44.4% over last year and admissions up 52.5%. There is also some information about confirmed students. A confirmed student is an incoming freshman who has returned his or her blue confirmation card. The receipt of this card ’ indicates an intent to attend the students assigned advising conference for fall Minutes, University Senate, April 12, 1993 registration. Confirmations are up 9.4% over 1992, in-state confirmations are up 5%, out-of-state 21%, and African American confirmations nearly 100%. A lot of this can be attributed to our recent ranking published several months ago. Professor Dan Fulks has asked that an announcement be made about a breakfast meeting in which the Senate Council is hosting representatives from the deans offices. The meeting will be held on April 30, 1993. The Council is requesting those individuals from the deans offices who are involved with academic affairs to meet with the Senate Council to discuss and identify academic issues that cut across colleges, so that pertinent issues may be taken to the Senate for action. This is a group that met regularly several years ago. The Chair, since this is his last scheduled meeting as the presiding officer of the Senate before the reins are turned over to Professor Dan Fulks, would like to take the Opportunity to thank those peOple who played such a vital role in the work of the Senate. He would like to personally thank all the members of the Senate Council. This group has put in an enormous amount of time, voluntary work, that makes it possible for the Senate body to accomplish its business through that smaller group, the Council. He then thanked each of the senators for accepting the responsibility and for their devotion to the work of the Senate. Thanks were expressed to Randall Dahl and Susan Caldwell for accurately and efficiently providing the minutes for all of the Senate meetings and deliberations. Thanks to Gifford Blyton, who is the Parliamentarian and an emeritus faculty member. He graciously gives up his time to be here and keeps us on the up and up, following the rules of order in conducting our business. I would like to personally thank him. Thanks also to Joanne Davis and Jacquie Hager who function as Sargeants at Arms in an exemplary fashion. I would like to thank the administrative officers of the University; the President, Vice-President, Chancellors, Vice Chancellors, and the Deans for the splendid cooperation that they have provided me and members of the Council whenever anything was requested from them. Lastly I would like to thank someone whose efforts are greatly responsible for the business of the Senate and the Senate Council and that is Celinda Todd. She provides both the continuity and the institutional memory that is essential to the effective and efficient operation of the Senate. I don't think I could have done as good of a job if it weren't for her efforts and all of yours. Would you join me in applauding yourselves and all of those individuals. Thank you very much. Professor Jesse Neil (Physics) stated that when Vice-President Magid announced that there would only be two research professorships this year as opposed to the four that had been established for many years, a number of people told her they thought the cutting back from four to two was a bad idea. He is now inquiring if three professorships is a move back in policy from the announced two or is it a one time situation. The Chair said he did not know, but would try to get an answer for him. . The Chair announced that everyone may not have received each of the agenda items relative to the four action items prior to the ten day notice. He asked that the ten day rule be waived. The Chair recognized Professor Dan Fulks, Chair elect of the Senate Council to present the first action item. Professor Fulks stated there were four action items all relative to the College of Law and there were representatives there from the College to help out with any clarifications. Professor Fulks referred to Action Minutes, University Senate, April l2, l993 Item A which was circulated under the date of 2 April l993. He stated that the proposal concerned readmission to the College of Law and essentially would clarify and make more specific what the College means by material progress toward raising cumulative GPA. The current rule states in order to be readmitted after the end of the second semester the student must either raise their cumulative GPA to a 2.0 or make material progress toward having done that. Material progress is defined as having at least a minimum of 2.0 GPA for that semester. This proposal comes from the Senate Council with recommendation for approval. The question was called. The proposal passed with a unanimous voice vote and reads as follows: ' ' AGENDA ITEM: Proposal to amend College of Law rules on Readmission Proposal: [add underlined portion; delete material in brackets] V.3.3.l. b. Readmission Any student dropped for poor scholarship may petition the Law Faculty Academic Status Committee for readmission. A recommendation to the Dean for readmission is within the discretion of the Committee; however, in most cases, the following policies will guide the Committee: a student dropped after the first semester will be required to petition the full Faculty for readmission; in the case of students dropped at the end of the second semester, a student with a cumulative grade average of l.9 and above will normally be readmitted, a student with a cumulative average of l.7 to l.89 may be readmitted but will be carefully scrutinized, and a student with a cumulative average below l.7 will normally not be readmitted; any student dropped at the end of the third semester or thereafter will be subject to case-by-case analysis. Any student who is readmitted after being dropped at the end of the second semester and who fails to raise his or her cumulative grade point average to 2.0 by the end of the third semester will be readmitted again at that time only if he or she has made Lmnst/mdkej material progress toward raiSing his or her cumulative grade point average to 2.0. Material progress at a minimum shall mean obtaining a 2.0 GPA for the semester. Moreover, such student must raise his or her cumulative average to 2.0 by the end of the fourth semester. In addition to the foregoing academic standards for readmission, the Committee may impose additional academic standards in individual cases, and in any case may impose other reasonable conditions of readmission including, but not limited to, limitation of outside work, specification of schedule of study (including specification of particular courses and limitation of hours), and the limitation of extracurricular activities. The Committee with the approval of the full law faculty may also require the repetition of courses either with or without substitution of Minutes, University Senate, April l2, l993 the grades awarded in the courses retaken. Failure to comply with the requirements and conditions of readmission will result in the student being dropped again from the College, [d/g¢¢¢nn/¢1m¢] in which case he or she will not be readmitted without approval of the University Senate Council upon the recommendation of the Dean following action by the full Law Faculty. Any student aggrieved at any time by recommendation of the Academic Status Committee may petition the full Law Faculty for review.(US: l2/4/89) For purposes of the above rules, a student who is required by the Academic Status Committee to repeat fourteen (14) or more hours of the freshman curriculum in his or her third and fourth semester will be considered as enrolled in his or her first and second semesters. A student who has once been dropped for poor scholarship and who fails to have a 2.0 cumulative average at the end of the semester or summer session in which he or she completes the 90th hour of course work will not be allowed to graduate from the College of Law. Such student will not be allowed to enroll in additional hours of course work in an attempt to achieve a 2.0 cumulative average. (US:ll/8/76) *********** Rationale: The basic purpose of the proposal is to clarify the ex1sting rule. - Implementation Date: Fall Semester, l993 Professor Fulks then introduced Action Item B, dated l April l993. The proposal concerns withdrawal from the College of Law and for readmission thereafter. He stated there were several individual points on this circulation. Section A, General Policy, is actually general expectation and that is, all students enrolled in the college are expected to complete the requirements without interruption other than the normal vacation periods. Section 8 Item 1, sets the procedures for students who wish to withdraw from the College or University during the end of the first year of law study. Readmission is not automatic. It then sets the procedures by which the student would go about petitioning for readmission. Item 2 in similar fashion is for students who withdrawal after the first year. It sets the procedures for the withdrawal process and also refers to Section D for the procedure for readmission. Section C sets the procedures for withdrawal for individual courses or seminars. To withdraw from a course or seminar within the first half of a semester or summer session, the student must submit a completed course withdrawal card to the Dean's designate. The student may withdraw from a course or seminar during the last half of a semester or summer session only on petition certifying reasons relating to illness or equivalent distress. This petition must be apprbved by both the instructor and the Dean's designate. Section D sets the procedures for readmission after what is termed a leave of absence. This proposal comes from the Senate Council, if approved it would have to be codified by the Rules Committee. The Senate Council recommends approval of this proposal. Minutes, University Senate, April l2, l993 The Chair stated since the proposal came from the Senate Council it required no second. There was no discussion. The question was called and in a voice vote the proposal unanimously passed. The proposal reads as follows: AGENDA ITEM: Proposal to establish separate College of Law rules on Withdrawal by Students. ' Proposal: A. General Policy All students enrolled in the College of Law are expected to complete their degree requirements without interruption other than for regularly scheduled vacation periods. It is expected that students will complete all courses or seminars in which they are enrolled. The following rules govern the situations where exceptions to this policy are necessary. 8. Withdrawal From the College and University l. First-year students are expected to complete their first year of law study without interruption. If a student withdraws from the College and University during his or her first year of law study, readmission is not automatic. If a student withdraws during the first semester of law study, applications for readmission will be referred to the Admissions Committee; if a firsteyear student withdraws during the second semester, applications for readmission will be referred to the Academic Status Committee; provided that in either of the above withdrawal situations, the Dean's designate may grant a special leave of absence for the balance of the academic year for reasons relating to extended illness or equivalent distress. 2. After completion of all required first-year courses, a student who withdraws from the College of Law and the University is subject to the rules stated herein regarding readmission after a leave of absence and grades for students who withdraw. To officially withdraw from the College of Law, a student must report to the University Registrar's Office to obtain a withdrawal card; this card must be signed by the Dean of the College of Law or the Dean's designate. If a student plans to complete a semester, but not reenroll for the subsequent semester, he or she must give the Dean's designate written notice of such intention. C. Withdrawal From Individual Courses or Seminars A second-year student, a third-year student, or a first—year student with special permission of the Dean's designate may withdraw from any course or seminar within the first half of a semester or summer session. To withdraw from a course or seminar within the first half of a semester or summer session, the student must submit a completed course withdrawal card to the Dean's designate. A student Minutes, University Senate, April 12, l993 may withdraw from a course or seminar during the last half of a semester or summer session only on petition certifying reasons relating to extended illness or equivalent distress. This petition must be approved by the instructor and the Dean's designate. D. Readmission After a Leave of Absence 1. If a student withdraws from the College and University or does not continue enrollment and has complied with paragraph 8(2) of this rule, the student will routinely be readmitted_to the College provided that the student is in good standing and the absence was not longer than two semesters plus one summer term. No student will be readmitted pursuant to this paragraph more than one time. 2. A student who intends to remain away from the College for more than 2 semesters plus one summer term must request permission for a Leave of Absence. These requests are not routinely granted and will be referred to the Academic Status C0mmittee for recommendation to the Dean. 3. Readmission for students who are not entitled to readmission pursuant to paragraphs B, D(l), or 0(2) of this rule is not automatic. Applications for such readmission will be referred to the Academic Status Committee for a recommendation to the Dean. The Academic Status Committee may consider all relevant facts and circumstances, including the length of time out of the College and reasons for the absence. The Committee and Dean will normally not approve readmission for any student who has been away from the College for six regular semesters. Reasonable conditions, including the repetition of courses for no credit, may be imposed if readmission is approved. . - **-k~k*~k*~k**~k~k** Rationale: The College of Law wishes to establish a separate Withdrawal policy for College of Law students. The policy was developed by the College and reviewed and revised by both the Admissions and Academic Standards Committee and the Senate Council. All three groups now recommend adoption of the proposed rules. Implementation: Fall, l993 If approved, this would have to be codified by the Rules Committee. Professor Fulks stated the next two items would be out of order. Item D concerning Pass/Fail, circulated under 30 March l993 date would be the next item for discussion. Currently, students can take up to 12 hours of credit on a Pass/Fail basis to be counted for graduation requirements. This represents about l3 percent of the total degree requirements which the College deems excessive. This proposal would reduce the number of Pass/Fail credits that would be counted toward graduation requirements. This proposal comes from the Senate Council and would have to be forwarded to the Rules Committee for codification. The Senate Council recommends approval. The Chair stated the proposal came from the Senate Council and did not require a second. The floor was opened for discussion. There were no questions and the motion unanimously passed. The prOposal reads as follows: Minutes, University Senate, April l2, l993 AGENDA ITEM: Proposal to limit the number of Pass/Fail units creditable for College of Law students Proposal: (a) No more than 6 hours of graduate courses outside of the law school, graded on a pass/fail basis, shall be counted. No more than 6 hours of courses in the law school that are offered only on a pass/fail basis shall be counted. No more than 9 of the total number of pass/fail credit hours, whether earned for graduate school courses under (a) or for law school courses offered only on a pass/fail basis under (b), shall be counted. No more than one gradUate school course outside the law school, graded on a pass/fail basis, may be credited in any one semester. Students in joint degree programs may only take up to six pass/fail course credit hours in the law school courses and may take no courses outside the law school for credit toward the J.D. other than pursuant to the applicable joint degree program. *************************** Background and Rationale: Currently, students can take up to 12 credit hours toward graduation on a Pass/Fail basis. This represents more than l3 percent of the credit hours required for graduation. The committee believes that this is excessive because, among other reasons, some students may enroll in Pass/Fail courses not for the intrinsic merit of the courses but to "protect" their GPAs. This strategy puts pressure on other students also to opt out of graded law school courses and into graduate school courses or multiple internship courses. Indeed, there is some evidence of a trend to enrollment in graduate school courses on a Pass/Fail basis. In the l988-89 academic year, ll students enrolled in a graduate school course (other than Philosophy of Law, which is cross-listed, but which counts against a student's 6 credit hours allowable in the graduate school). In the l989-90 year, only one student enrolled in a graduate school course (other than Philosophy of Law). In l990-9l, 17 students enrolled in graduate school courSes (other than Philosophy of Law). In the current year, however, 46 students enrolled in graduate school Pass/Fail courses (other than Philosophy of Law). (The actual number of students enrolled in graduate school courses is slightly less because ll students have taken two graduate school courses this year; only one of those students took both courses in the same semester.) The Committee also has some concern that some students may be enrolling in graduate school courses in order to free large blocks of time for clerking for law firms. Almost every graduate school course in which law students have enrolled meets once a week at night. Although many graduate school courses meet several times a week during the day, there appears to be no interest in these courses. Minutes, University Senate, April 12, l993 Under the proposed rule, students could enroll in one law school Pass/Fail course and two graduate school Pass/Fail courses or two law school Pass/Fail courses and one graduate school Pass/Fail course. Law Journal (but not the Journal of Mineral Law and Policy, which is graded) and Moot Court would continue to count against the allowable Pass/Fail credit hours. ' The proposal has been reviewed by the Senate Committee on Admissions and Academic Standards and the University Senate Council and is recommended for approval. *****~k**‘k****‘k***** Implementation Date: Fall Semester, l993 Note: If approved the prOposal will be forwarded to the Rules Committee for codification. Professor Fulks presented Action Item C which was dated 3l March l993. This item relates also to Pass/Fail courses. This issue has been discussed at length by the Admissions and Academic Standards Committee at least twice and at least twice in the Senate Council also. They understand the problem and both the Committee and the Senate Council tried to reach a satisfactory resolution on this, to no avail. What the College is asking is that a student enrolled in a Pass/Fail course who for whatever reason fails the course, should suffer some academic consequences in their GPA. As the situation now stands and as is true with the University, a student may walk away from a Pass/Fail course and receive no credit and also receive no consequence in terms of cumulative GPA. Students being placed in internships and externships and experiential type courses who walk away from these courses have caused some embarrassment to the College and to the University. The College of Law would propose that a student who fails a Pass/Fail course would have a zero (0) factored into his or her cumulative GPA. This proposal comes from the Senate Council which recommends that it not be approved for the three reasons stated on the circulation. The Chair stated the proposal was before the Senate and did not require a second. The floor was opened for discussion. Gretchen LaGodna (College of Nursing) asked Professor Fulks to expand on the' three reasons. Professor Fulks stated there were relatively few students, he could remember only five. Professor John Rogers (College of Law) said he could remember one, but there were a lot of students enrolled in these courses for whom the significance of the grade is important to them. In terms of being able to identify someone who has failed a Pass/Fail course he knew of only one in the last few years. Jess Weil (Physics) asked if someone could tell them what the problem was for the Law School to be bringing this forward, before they heard about what was wrong with the solution. Martin McMahon (College of Law) said what it basically boils down to is they use the Pass/Fail in the Law School differently than it is used in the University. The Pass/Fail in the University in general was used to allow students to experiment in courses outside of their strengths to see about changing their majors. The idea there was that the student should have a no risk chance to get into something they would fear could be over their heads. Minutes, University Senate, April l2, 1993 That is not the situation in the College of Law, which is a professional program. They have adopted a Pass/Fail in two situations. The first situation is externships, where students are leaving the College of Law and going out and working with lawyers, clients, or with the government and the prosecutors agency. Because of the nature of the experience it is largely an experiential education, it is very difficult to