xt71rn305q88 https://exploreuk.uky.edu/dips/xt71rn305q88/data/mets.xml University of Kentucky. University Senate University of Kentucky. Faculty Senate Kentucky University of Kentucky. University Senate University of Kentucky. Faculty Senate 1996-02-12  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, February 12, 1996 text University of Kentucky University Senate (Faculty Senate) meeting minutes, February 12, 1996 1996 1996-02-12 2020 true xt71rn305q88 section xt71rn305q88 University Senate Council


Office of the Chair

10 Administration Building

Lexington, Kentucky 40506-0032
Office: (606) 257-5871 or (606) 257-5872

FAX: (606) 323-1062
31 January 1996

TO: Members, University Senate

The University Senate will meet in regular session on Monday, February 12,
1996, at 3:00 PM in room 115 of the Nursing Building (CON/HSLC).
1. Minutes

Chair’s Announcements


Research and Graduate Studies: Present Status, Future Issues:
Fitzgerald Bramwell, Vice President for Research and Graduate Studies and Daniel
R. Reedy, Dean, The Graduate School.

Action Items:

a. Proposed amendment to University Senate Rules, Section 1, - Senate
Advisory Committee on Privilege and Tenure. (Circulated under date of 1
February 1996) If approved, this proposal will be forwarded to the President for
appropriate administrative action.

b. Proposed change in University Senate Rules - to amend the College of
Engineering Probation, Suspension and Admissions Rules. (Circulated under date
of 2 February 1996)

c. Proposed change in University Senate Rules, Section IV 4.3.3 to add a
statement to that section concerning repeated registration in a course. (circulated
under date of 30 January 1996)

Retention and Graduation Report, Follow-up Survey on Non-Returning Students:
Louis J. Swift, Dean of Undergraduate Studies and Director, University Studies,
and Roseann R. Hogan, Director, Planning and Assessment, Lexington Campus.

Betty Huff

US Agenda: 2.12.96


An Equal Opportunity University



The University Senate met in regular session at 3:00 pm. Monday. February 12. 1996 in
Room 115 of the Nursing Health Sciences Building. ‘

Professor Gretchen LaGodna. Chairperson of the Senate Council, presided.

Members absent were: Debra Aaron*, Gary Anglin. Patrick Arnold, Benny Ray Bailey. John
Ballantine*. Michael Bardo. Terry Birdwhistell. Douglas Boyd. Bill Brassine. Joseph Burch. Mary
Burke. Lauretta Byars. Joan Callahan. Berry Campbell. Ben Carr. Edward Carter. Shea Chaney*.
Eric Christianson. Jordan Cohen*. Scott Coovert. Raymond Cox, Carla Craycraft. Susan
deCarvalho*. Richard Edwards. David Elliott, Donald Falace. Robert Farquhar. Richard Furst.
Kirby Hancock. lssam Harik*. S. Zafar Hasan*. Christine Havice. James Holsinger. Stuart Keller*.
Craig Koontz. C. Oran Little. Jeff Lowe, Daniel Mason*. Jan McCulloch. David Mohney. Maurice
Morrison. Wolfgang Natter. Anthony Newberry. Michael Nietzel*. William O‘Connor. Barbara
Phillips. Rhoda-Gale Pollack“. Tom Pratt. Shirley Raines. Karl Raitz. Amy Rasor. Daniel Reedy.
Thomas Robinson. John Rogers*. Scott SaFford. David Shipley. Todd Shock. Sheldon Steiner.
David Stockham. Michael Thomlin. Michael Uyhelj i. Craig Wallace. Charles Wethington*. Chad
Willet. Carolyn Williams. Eugene Williams. Mary Witt. Elisabeth Zinser*.

Chairperson Gretchen LaGodna called the meeting to order.
The Chair made the following announcements:

The minutes from November 13. 1995 had been circulated. There were no corrections to the
minutes and they were approved as circulated. The minutes of December 1 1. 1995 and February
12. 1996 will be circulated in the near future. with the approved University Calendar attached to
the February minutes.

Input from colleges and student groups is still being received on the +/- grading system. The
Senate Council will consider all input as well as research based data at its February 19. 1996
meeting. After that they will be making a final recommendation that will be brought to the next
Senate meeting.

The recommendations from the Ad Hoc Senate Retirement Committee are being pursued with
the appropriate groups. President Wethington has assured that the proposed phased-in retirement
plan for faculty is on the table for discussion in his cabinet group at the present time.

The date of the March Senate Meeting has been changed due to Spring break to Monday.
March 18. 1996.

In response to a number of faculty inquires. this is to clarify regulations concerning promotion
and tenure. On October 4. 1995. President Wethington issued a memo to the deans, which was
interpreted by some to mean that unit-specific standards for promotion and tenure could no longer
be utilized. This memo was brought to the attention of the Senate Council in January 1996. they

* Absence Explained


 _ 2 -
Minutes, University Senate, February 12, 1996

were concerned and not entirely clear about the meaning of the memo and requested some
clarification from the President. On February 8, 1996, the President responded to the request with
an explanatory memo which indicates that departments and units can certainly promulgate unit level
expectations for performance that guide promotion and tenure recommendations. Nothing has
substantially changed. The full memos are filed in the Senate Council in the administrative memo
file, if anyone wants to see them.

The Senate Council voted on January 22, 1996 to approve with expressed concerns an AR
change related to the Clinical Title Series appointments in the College of Medicine. This is AR 11
1.0.1. Afier the vote, there was subsequent input and the Senate Council voted on January 29,
1996 to rescind its conditional approval and recommended that the issue be reopened and reviewed
by the College of Medicine department chairs and faculty. The AR change had already been
approved by the President, between the initial and second vote. A meeting was held with .
Chancellor Holsinger to share concerns, resulting an a commitment to reexamine the issue with
possible additional procedures or amendments forthcoming.

Those of you in colleges in which there are elections for Senators, please note that to date
there only 60 nominations to fill these Senate seats and that is really inadequate. If you can
encourage nominations, please do so.

Chairperson LaGodna recognized Professor Peter Winograd from the College of Education to
present a memorial resolution in honor of Dr. Kawanna Simpson.

Memorial Resolution
Kawanna J. Simpson
1 947-1995

The unexpected death of College of Education faculty member Kawanna J. Simpson
on September 29, 1995 was a difficult loss for all those who knew and loved her. But we
remember her today as one among us who lefi a unique mark on education in Kentucky
and in the hearts of so many for whom she was a mentor.

Dr. Simpson was associate professor of secondary education and former associate
dean for undergraduate and graduate studies in the College of Education. She had a long
and illustrious career with the University of Kentucky.

Dr. Simpson received her bachelor's and master's degrees from UK in 1972. In 1976,
she earned her Ed.D. in vocational education from the university.

She began her work at UK as a graduate assistant in business education. From 1973
to 1976. she was an instructor in the Department of Vocational Education. After earning
her doctorate, she became an assistant professor, and, in 1981, she received tenure and
was promoted to associate professor. Dr. Simpson served as program faculty chair in
business education from 1983 to 1986. For eight years, from 1986 through 1993, she was
the associate dean for undergraduate and graduate studies, working with Dean Edgar L.
Sagan and Dean J. John Harris 111. Since 1993, she was a full-time faculty member in the
Department of Curriculum and Instruction.


 - 3 -
Minutes. University Senate, February 12, 1996

A much beloved teacher and graduate program adviser, Dr. Simpson consistently
received outstanding teaching evaluations from her students. She was a recipient of the
College of Education's Exceptional Achievement Award for Teaching and Advising. In
1984. she was honored with Kentucky's Outstanding Business Teacher of the Year
Award. Dr. Simpson served as guest lecturer on educational and cultural topics at a
technology institute in Changchun, People's Republic of China, in 1985.

She was committed to developing student leaders through her work with Delta Pi
Epsilon, a national honor society in business education. and she was an active leader in the
University of Kentucky chapter of Phi Delta Kappa, serving at various times as president.

' vice president, and secretary/treasurer.

Dr. Simpson was a leader in education reform efforts in Kentucky. She was
appointed by the Kentucky Education Professional Standards Board to the Council on
Experienced Teacher Standards and also served on several committees for the Council on
Higher Education.

In addition to her extensive academic work, Dr. Simpson served in many other
university and community roles. She was a member of the UK Faculty Senate and served
on numerous department, college, and university committees. Her service to the
community included participation in several key civic committees concerned with housing
and homelessness, including the Lexington Housing Committee and the Mayor's Task
Force for the Homeless.

A memorial fund has been established in Dr. Simpson's name at the College of
Education. Please contact the Office of the Dean at the college for more information
about this fund.

Dr. Simpson was deeply committed to her students and to the improvement of
education in the state of Kentucky. Her resonant life exemplified the best in education.
She is deeply missed.

Professor Winograd asked that the resolution be made a part of the minutes and a copy be sent to
Dr. Simpson's family.

Chairperson LaGodna asked the Senate to stand for a moment of silence in honor of Dr. Simpson.

The Chair stated there was another resolution to bring before the Senate and everyone should have
a copy of it. This resolution is sent forward by the Senate Council, who moves its endorsement by the
full Senate. In the same spirit of last year's approval of the resolution supporting the development of a
staff congress, this resolution recognizes the importance of the staff representation in the University
community. The resolution reads as follows:

WHEREAS, the over 9,000 full-time staff members at the University of Kentucky University

System and Community College System do not have an elected representative on the UK Board of


 - 4 -
Minutes, University Senate, February 12, 1996

WHEREAS. staff at Eastern Kentucky University, Kentucky State University, Morehead State
University, Murray State University, Northern Kentucky University, University of Louisville, and
Western Kentucky University all have elected representatives on each of their respective governing
boards, -

BE IT RESOLVED, that the University of Kentucky University Senate affirm its support of
House Bill 83 which will add an elected staff representative to the University of Kentucky Board of

Chairperson LaGodna stated the Senate Council recommends to the full Senate endorsement of
the resolution. The Senate Council supports this in regard to their continued support of staff efforts to
be represented and have some voice in the governance of the University. To borrow words from
former Senate Council Chair Ray Cox, because it is the right thing to do.

Dclwood Collins stated that there was a need to look at what the definition of a board should be.
He felt the Board should be a lay board, and if there were too many people representing different
factions of the University, it would no longer be a lay board.

The question was asked, how would the stafit member be chosen?

Chairperson LaGodna introduced the two co—chairs of the staff association, Tom Kunselman and
Shannon Price. Mr. Kunselman said that the way the legislation has been defined for the other regional
universities, it includes the full-time non teaching staff. At UK that would include the staff at the
community colleges, Lexington campus, medical center, hospital, and central administration. Professor
LaGodna said the selection would not be an easy task but it would be doable. The details of how it
would be implemented would have to be worked out.

The resolution passed in a show of hands.

Chairperson LaGodna then introduced Vice-President Bramwell to give an update on the status
and future of research and graduate studies.

Dr. Bramwell made the following remarks:
Graduate Education and the Scientific Research Infrastructure

Graduate education plays a pivotal and complex role within the scientific research infrastructure.
Within the numerous elements that comprise graduate education and contribute to this role several
groupings stand out. These include faculty, students, administration, curricula offerings, available
resources and research networks. and the influence of legislative and business sectors on higher
education. These-elements. and a host of others. are of critical importance in fabricating the web
known as the research infrastructure. To simplify this presentation, 1 will restrict my comments to
what I call the three R's: recruitment, retention and risk: particularly as they apply to faculty, students,
administration and other elements of the human resource development component of the complicated
equation known as the scientific research infrastructure.


 _ 5 -
Minutes, University Senate. February 12, 1996

The next few slides show the research infrastructure for the University of Kentucky, its effectiveness in

garnering appropriate support for academic research, its relation to benchmark universities, and some
funding concerns for the future.


There are numerous concerns that face a department chair. dean and college administrator in the
recruitment of new faculty. Appropriate planning and specificity of purpose are two key elements
which lead to successful, long term faculty recruitment. A clear vision of the research environment and
its interaction with the graduate education effort should be articulated to create the optimal atmosphere
and conditions for a successful faculty hire. This involves working not only at the departmental level to

determine the academic and scholarly needs of the department. but also working within the context of a
college strategic plan.

Budgetary constraints in putting together an attractive employment package require some creative
management techniques. The current trend seems to be toward shared use facilities and shared start-up
costs within a multidisciplinary framework. The days of single user, high-end instruments appear to be
dwindling. For example, the purchase of capital intensive equipment and its requisite infrastructure
may be necessary to support the research of a prospective faculty member and may be a critical element
of a start-up package. However, that equipment purchase with its probable high-end maintenance
costs should be put into the context of a college strategic plan as well as departmental needs. Thus, a
shared use facility such as a SOOmHz nuclear magnetic resonance spchometer may meet the needs of
new hires in a school of pharmacy, a department of biochemistry and medical school department of
immunology as well as address a university need to develop expertise in structural biology. ‘
The working environment which includes, but is by no means limited to. the following: the proximity of
shared use facilities to departmental offices and laboratories; the possibilities for travel and for
professional development; the extent to which an office of sponsored program activity assists in
drafting, formulating and promoting research proposals; the mechanism or protocol for including a new
hire into departmental activities; the availability of an academically and technically strong graduate
student body; a strong and well-defined curriculum; a flexible protocol for incorporating the latest
research results into graduate education; can be a powerful inducement for the recruitment of faculty.

Faculty are often attracted to those schools they perceive as being active and well led: in short, schools
with vision. Thus, departmental leadership, its interaction with the campus administration, and its
ability to attract and retain high caliber faculty are also important in the recruitment of faculty.
Departmental leadership should consider a team concept in attracting new faculty. Indeed. the
possibility of joint or multidisciplinary appointments, should be actively discussed among various

departments and centers as well as with the appropriate college administrators prior to faculty

The living environment is also.a critical point which is ofien dismissed or given short shrift when hiring
new faculty. Yet my experience leads me to believe that the living environment is a key factor to the
retention of faculty. Spousal job opportunities, affordable housing, participatory involvement in
cultural and civic events, all play roles which must be considered in bringing a new hire to campus.


 - 6 _
Minutes. University Senate, February 12. 1996

The Graduate School has a number of outstanding accomplishments as well as some concerns which
are outlined in the next series of slides.

lf faculty are the heart and brains of the research enterprise, then students are its lifebloOd. They are a
resource that is constantly renewed. invigorated and occasionally spilt. Many of the same protocols
used to recruit faculty are applicable here. For example, student recruitment is greatly enhanced when
students interact through seminars, research opportunity awards. or by scholarly reputation, with
graduate faculty.

The career path in which I started many years ago was a simple, not easy, but simple two-dimensional
path which began with K-12 education, continued through college, graduate school, industrial

experience and the university. By substituting post—doctoral experience for industrial experience, l am
willing to venture that most colleagues of my generation in the sciences followed a similar career path.

The world that today's students face is three-dimensional. It is a world that promotes life-long
continuing education and offers an enormous number and variety of options. For example. students
may opt to go from K-12 to industry to a two-year college to industry to a four year college to a
graduate school within a university. This is not an uncommon path. Indeed. the average age of
students entering graduate school has increased. These students have different career aspirations than
those from my generation. These aspirations are. in part, molded by parental responsibilities,
multidisciplinary career paths, and a changing market place in which to seek job and business
opportunities. '

On average. doctoral education in the sciences takes over five years. considerably longer now than in
the past. Yet interestingly, the majority of technology-based products which we will purchase in the
next five years have not even been conceptualized! This is, indeed. an interesting paradox, and speaks
loudly for a paradigm shift in which problem solving and creativity assume an equal or greater stature
than the ability to execute algorithmically driven technology. In short, our students need to further
develop creative and multidisciplinary approaches to research.

Once again. providing a good living environment is a critical point which is often dismissed or given
short shrift when recruiting new students. Yet my experience leads me to believe that the living
environment is a key factor to the success of students. Spousal job opportunities, affordable housing,
participatory involvement in cultural and civic events, all play roles which must be considered in
bringing a new student to campus and thereby investing in the academic success of the graduate school.


The few minutes that I've devoted to this issue have not even scratched the surface. The purpose for
presenting these thoughts is to provoke comment and reaction. Thank you for the opportunity to
outline my views and experiences to you. Having said that, I once again would like to thank you so
very much for your attention. and now invoke for you the three B's. We talked about the three R's:



Minutes. University Senate, February 12, 1996

recruitment. retention and risk. The three B's are: be concise, be to the point, and be gone. So. thank
you very much.

Following Dr. Bramwell‘s remarks he took questions from the audience. Dr. Bramwell was given
a round of applause.

AGENDA ITEM 1: Proposal to amend Universig Senate Rules, Section 1, - Senate Advisory
Committee on Privilege and Tenure. If approved, the proposal will be forwarded to the President for
appropriate administrative action.


The 1994-1995 Annual Report of the University Senate Advisory Committee on Privilege and Tenure
included a recommendation that the Senate Rules related to the Committee’s function be reviewed and
revised if warranted. In response. the Senate Council appointed an ad 1m group to review the
designated portion of the Rules. The E M group, consisting of Jim Hougland. Brad Canon and
Gretchen LaGodna, did so and they forwarded the following recommended changes:

University Senate Rules, Section 1 [add bold sections; delete bracketed section] Senate Advisog Committee on Privilege and Tenure
The Committee is charged with giving preliminary consideration to the following matters
as referred to it by the President, the University Senate, or individual staff members of the '
University: cases of appointment termination for cause of a faculty member who has
tenure; cases of dismissal of a faculty member during a limited appointment: cases of non-
rencwal of a probationary appointment with less advance notice than specified by the
Governing Regulations; cases of allegation by a faculty member on a non-tenure
appointment that a decision for non-reappointment violates his or her academic freedom as
a faculty member; cases of allegation by a faculty member on a non-tenured appointment
that a decision for non-reappointment violates either Part X A or Part XIIA in the
Governing Regulations banning certain discriminatory practices in academic employment:
cases of allegation by the University administrator that a decision to terminate his or her
appointment to his or her administrative post. or not to reappoint him or her. violates his
or her academic freedom; cases of termination of a tenure appointment or the dismissal of
a person prior to expiration of a non-tenure appointment, because of a financial
emergency; and all similar cases. The function of the committee in all such cases is to
attempt to effect an adjustment when appropriate [and. in cases of failure, to recommend
to the President action to be taken]. Recommendations for action shall be made to the
President or to other administrators deemed appropriate by the Committee with a
copy to the President.

The Committee may. upon request. advise individual staff members on the interpretation
of University privilege and tenure regulations, with copies of the interpretation being sent
to the University Senate Council. the chair of the Department, the Dean. and the
President. The Committee also may consider allegations of faculty members who believe
that their privilege as scholars has been abridged or abused. Faculty members should


 _ 8 _
Minutes, University Senate, February 12, 1996

address statements to the chair of the Committee setting forth in detail the reasons why
they believe their privilege has been abused. The Committee will review the statement and
determine whether conditions warrant further investigation. Upon investigation the
Committee will make recommendations to the faculty member and file a copy with the
President. Recommendations may be made also to the President with a copy sent to the
faculty members.

The Committee is also charged with making a continuing study of privilege and tenure
regulations. making recommendations to the University Senate.

The Chair recognized Professor Jan Schach. Chair-elect of the Senate Council for introduction of
the first agenda item. Professor Schach reviewed the background of the item and moved approval on
behalf of the Senate Council.

Professor Jesse Weil (Physics) proposed an additional amendment. He said that for some time a
number of faculty have felt an addition was needed to the proposed section on the Senate Committee on
Privilege and Tenure. The purpose of it is to address some very occasional cases where decisions are
made that appear to be grossly inconsistent with the dossier or other records available. If you read the
grounds for bringing a case to Privilege and Tenure, the grounds primarily are violation of academic
freedom or failure to follow procedures that are specified in the Governing or Administrative
Regulations. Making a bad or unsubstantiated decision does not fall into either or those categories. He
moved the amendment which would add language to the reason for bringing a case to the Senate
Committee on Privilege and Tenure which would at least provide a route of appeal in such cases.

Paragraph one. line 1 1. add "cases of allocation by a faculty member on a nontcnure appointment
that a decision for nonreappointment or terminal appointment is not supported by substantial evidence.
that is. is not only marginally incorrect but is a decision that could not have been made by reasonable
persons acting reasonably."

Paragraph two. line five add after the phrase abridged or abused, "abridgment or abuse of privilege
shall include the rendering of any administrative decision or evaluation affecting a faculty member
which is not supported by substantial evidence."

There was no second to the motion, the amendment to the main recommendation did not pass.

The main motion passed in a show of hands.

AGENDA ITEM 2: Proposal to amend University Senate Rules, Sections lV- and V- — College of Engineering Admissions & Suspension Policies. If approved, the proposals
will be forwarded to the Rules Committee for codification.



Re: Probation, Suspension and Reinstatement: The major purpose of the change is to simplify
College of Engineering probation. suspension and reinstatement rules by basing them on the UK


 - 9 -
Minutes. University Senate. February 12, 1996

grade point average. Currently, these rules are based upon the students’ “engineering. standing”
grade point average which includes only course work taken while enrolled in the College of
Engineering. The UK grade point average is readily available to the student while the
engineering standing grade point average is more difficult to determine.

Re: Admissions: Under the present system admission to “engineering standing" is gained either
“automatically" (for students with a minimum cumulative GPA of 2.5. plus a number of other
conditions), or (in the case of students with lower GPAs), through “departmental review” for
which no criteria are published. Under the proposed policy, criteria for admission to engineering
standing will be defined clearly and will be published in the University Bulletin. Therefore
students will know precisely what is required for admission to a given department. Having
admissions requirements which differ from department to department will enable departments
with heavy student demand to restrict admission based on GPAs, to keep enrollment
commensurate with teaching and space limitations. It will also enable departments to impose
prerequisite course requirements appropriate to their specific programs.



Section V — Probation, Suspension and Reinstatement: [delete current section; replace with
proposed section beginning College of Engineering on page 2]

DELETE: College of Engineering (US: 4/25/84) In addition to the University rules
on probation and academic suspension. the following rules apply in the College of Engineering.
Engineering standing is defined as the overall grade-point average for all course work taken
while enrolled in the College of Engineering. Excluded are correspondence courses and transient
work. (The term semester standing refers to the GPA for a single semester.)

A A student who fails to achieve an engineering standing of 2.0 at the end of any semester
shall be placed on probation.

A student. regardless of engineering standing, whose semester standing is less than a 2.0
for two consecutive semesters shall be placed on probation.

A student who, at the end of his/her first probationary semester, achieves a semester
standing of 2.0 but fails to bring his/her engineering standing up to 2.0 will be continued
on probation.

A student who, at the end of a probationary semester. fails to have achieved a semester
standing of 2.0 shall be suspended from the College of Engineering.

A student who. at the end of his/her second consecutive probationary semester. fails to

have achieved en engineering standing of 2.0 shall be suspended from the College of


 - 10 -
Minutes, University Senate, February 12. 1996

F A student who fails to achieve an engineering standing of 1.5 at the end of any semester
shall have his/her record reviewed and may be suspended from the College without a
preliminary probationary semester.

A student who has been suspended a single time for academic deficiency may be
reinstated into the College of Engineering afier an absence of one year. A student will be
reinstated as a first semester probationary students and subject to final suspension
according to these rules.

The dean may use his/her discretion in applying these rules where a particular case
justifies less severe action.

REPLACE WITH College of Engineering: In addition to the University rules on
academic probation. suspension and reinstatement. the following rules apply to the College of

l. No Student with a cumulative UK GPA of less than 2.0 will be enrolled in the
College of Engineering. Any student who fails to maintain a cumulative UK
GPA of 2.0 will be dropped from the College of Engineering and will not be
readmitted until this GPA is 2.0 or greater. No probationary notice will be given.

Any student enrolled in the College of Engineering who achieves a GPA of 2. 0 or
less in any semester will be placed on academic probation

Any student on academic probation who fails to achieve a 2.0 semester GPA will
be dropped form the College of Engineering and will not be readmitted until he
or she has obtained a semester GPA of 2.0 or greater for one semester and the
student’s cumulative UK GPA is 2.0 or greater.

Students who are dropped twice from the College of Engineering will not be


Section IV - Admissions [Delete current section; replace with proposed section beginning College of Engineering on page 5]

DELETE: College of Engineering (except Computer Science) (US: 4/25/84)
Admission to the University of Kentucky does not guarantee admission to one of the degree
programs in the College of Engineering. In addition to the requirements for admission to the
University. all applicants seeking admission to one of the engineering degree programs will be
considered on the basis of the criteria outlined below.


 - 1] _
Minutes, University Senate, February 12, 1996

Application must be made for admission to a specific degree program. However,‘subsequent
transfer between programs will be permitted and may be accomplished by applying and satisfying
the appropriate specified criteria.

In all admission categories. an applicant whose native language is other than English and who is
not a citizen of the United States is required to take the Test of English as a Foreign Language
(TOEFL) and to have a minimum score of 550 in order to be considered for admission. (An

equivalent score from another English proficiency test similar to TOEFL m