xt74mw28d18p https://exploreuk.uky.edu/dips/xt74mw28d18p/data/mets.xml University of Kentucky. University Senate University of Kentucky. Faculty Senate Kentucky University of Kentucky. University Senate University of Kentucky. Faculty Senate 1983-10-10  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, 1983 text University of Kentucky University Senate (Faculty Senate) meeting minutes, October 10, 1983 1983 1983-10-10 2020 true xt74mw28d18p section xt74mw28d18p LNHVERSHY OF KENTUCKY



September 30, 1983

Members, University Senate
The Univeristy Senate will meet in regular session on Monday,
October 10, 1983, at 3:00 p.m. in room 106, Classroom Building.


Minutes of 12 September 1983 meeting.

University of Kentucky Board of Trustees Report: Professor C.P.

Report of the Research Committee of the University Senate (Circu—
lated under date of September 29, 1983).

a) Recommendation #2 (graduate student stipends)

b) Recommendation #5 (new faculty ”start—up" funds)

Proposal that Extension Professors be permitted to vote for and
to serve in the University Senate. (Circulated under date of
September 28, 1983)

Proposed change in University Senate Rules, Section V., 1.8.2
and Section IV., 3.1 relative to the withdrawal policy. (Circu—
lated under date of September 29, 1983)


Consideration by the Senate of the proposal for a Joint Committee
on Course Processing was postponed in order that the Senate Council
could consider opinions from the various other Councils affected by
the proposal.

Elbert W. Ockerman




The University Senate met in regular session at 3:00 p.m., Monday, October lO,
l983, in Room l06 of the Classroom Building.

E. Douglas Rees, Chairman of the Senate Council, presided.

Members absent: Roger B. Anderson, Kathy Ashcraft*, James Bader*, Dennis K.
Baird, Charles E. Barnhart, Trudi Bellardo, Jack C. Blanton, Peter P. Bosomworth*,
David Bradford, Thomas D. Brower, Joseph T. Burch, Ellen Burnett*, Beverly Carter,

I. K. Chew*, Henry Cole*, Jose Concon, Gadis J. Dillon*, Richard C. Domek*, Herbert
Drennon, Paul M. Eakin, Anthony Eardley, William Ecton*, Richard W. Furst, Art
Gallaher, Jr.*, Lester Goldstein*, Charles P. Graves*, C. Michael Gray, Andrew J.
Grimes, John Hall*, Joseph Hamburg, Marilyn D. Hamann*, Penny Heaton, Robert Hemenway*,
Raymond R. Hornback, Harold Hotelling, Alfred S. L. Hu, John J. Just*, Theodore A.
Kotchen, Gurcharan Laumas*, Robert Lawson, D. C. Leigh, Edgar Maddox, D. Ram Madhira,
Kenneth E. Marino*, Marion McKenna, Ernest Middleton, H. Brinton Milward*, Harold
Nally*, Daniel N. Nelson*, Robert C. Nobel, Merrill Packer*, David C. Payne*, Janet
Pisaneschi*, David J. Prior, Robert Rabel, Charles Sachatello*, Edgar Sagan, Otis A.
Singletary*, Jesse E. Sisken, John T. Smith, Marcia Stanhope*, John Thompson, Kenneth
Thompson, William C. Thornbury, Marc J. Wallace, David Webster, O'Neil Weeks, Paul A.
Willis, Ralph Wiseman*

The approval of the Minutes of the Meeting of September l2, l983, was postponed
until the November meeting.

Chairman Rees made the following announcements:

“The Governing and Administrative Regulations have been
updated and are now available. This is a rather heroic accomp—
lishment by Professor Paul Sears and five copies are available
in the Senate Council Office. Anybody in need of the latest
in that area can check one out in the Council's Office. There
are also two committee reports that received rather extensive
discussion in the Senate Council and at some point we wiIl
probably be bringing some matters to the floor related to these
reports. One report is from the Committee on Academic Planning
and Priorities, chaired by Professor Hiatt, that deals with
priorities. Also there is a report from the ad hoc committee,
chaired by Professor Lowery, concerning financial exigency.
Both reports are available in the Senate Council Office.

Our senior faculty member on the Board of Trustees is
Professor Connie Wilson, who will now report on the Board of

Professor Wilson spoke to the Senate as follows:

"Several years ago the Senate set a precedent that the fac—
ulty representatives on the Board of Trustees report to the
senate at least once a year, or more often if critical issues
aroie. The faculty representatives alternate in performing this
tas .

*Absence explained



Today, I thought I might address some questions frequently
asked by faculty. What do the faculty members on the Board do?
Do they have any influence? Is the Board a rubber stamp? Does
what happens there really affect me directly?

In Kentucky almost all power resides in the Board of Trus-
tees. Unlike, for instance the model at Oxford where the faculty
is the University, most models in this country have placed the
power in the Board of Trustees. It was only in the sixties that
extensive powers in the academic areas were delegated to the
faculty by the Board.

Various historical events will indicate to you the sweeping
power of the Board of Trustees and the relative weakness of any
faculty authority. Although the faculty participated somewhat in
curricula affairs through a University Senate, at the meeting of
the Board in April, l94l the Trustees abolished the Senate and
replaced it with a body which 'consisted of solely administrators--
and would be the final authority in all matters pertaining to
curricula—~recommending granting of degrees—-subject only to the
Board of Trustees.‘ (This quote was taken from the University of
Kentucky by Charles Talbert, UK President, l965.) It was only
in the early seventies that the present Governing regulations
were put into place. Originally all faculty served 'at the
pleasure of the Board' but due to legislative changes and govern-
ing regulations faculty with tenure cannot be removed except for
cause and with due process hearings.

A committee of the AAUP chaired by Professor Howard Beers
in the late 40's made two important suggestions to then
President Herman Donovan. These were that (l) the faculty
should participate in the search for the new President of
the University and (2) that faculty should serve on the
Board of Trustees. Donovan said he would agree to the first
suggestion if the second was dropped. Faculty participation
in the search for a President, now a precedent, was estab-
lished in the early sixties. This is especially significant
for us today since President Singletary is due to retire in
three years and this University will be under new leadership
in a short time.

In the mid—fifties a faculty group headed by Professor
James Martin and Professor Paul Oberst began negotiations
with the two gubernatorial candidates for a faculty role on
the Board of Trustees. Although the recommendation was im-
plemented under the Combs administration, in the course of
passage the legislation was amended to read that faculty
would serve but without a vote. Ostensibly the reason given
was 'conflict of interest' in that faculty would be voting on
their own salaries. In point of fact, the trustees never see
individual faculty salaries. Only administrative salaries are
presented to the Board as a line item. No gains accrue to
faculty trustees. Indeed, in my view, faculty serving on the
Board are many times placed in jeopardy especially if they
present a strong faculty stand which is contrary to the
views of powerful Board members or the Administration.


 It is interesting to me how faculty finally got the vote.
In the early seventies the students approached the legisla-
ture for representation on the Board of Trustees with the vote.
Due to last minute faculty lobbying, that legislature was
amended to include the vote for the faculty representative

What is the present makeup of the Board? Sixteen members
are appointed by the Governor and serve six year terms.
These members can be reappointed indefinitely. In addition,
there are three faculty and one student representative. The
two campus faculty representatives are elected to three year
terms and can be reelected for any number of terms. The
community college faculty is limited to a three year term, and
the position rotates from college to college. The student
representative serves one year by virtue of being student
government President.

As you know, both William Sturgill, the present Chairman,
and Albert Clay, the former Chairman are well known Kentucky
figures who have served on the Board of Trustees for many
years and therefore wield tremendous influence. (However,
they cannot match the tremendous power wielded by that his-
torical figure Judge Richard Stoll, who served on the Board
for fifty years, and stories are told of how he would per-
sonally oversee some of the smallest administrative details.)

Why is faculty representation important? What does or
can the faculty do?

First, I would like to suggest that all faculty read
the Board of Trustees minutes. These can be found in the
offices of every Chairman, in the Senate Council Office, and
in the Library. In addition, Board meetings are open to the
public. These represent the formal actions of the Board.

But as we all are aware, the informal relationships and
interactions that precede the formalities are many times of
much more significance. Some items never formally come before
the Board, some are modified. Faculty bring to the Board an
important view and values that could be entirely different
than an economic or business man's view. Faculty views alert
the Board members that there is a large constituency that
considers itself the ‘heart of the University‘; that the
faculty has views and rights that it can assert; and that it
can be mobilized to voice these strongly.

Some issues which faculty trustees addressed because of
strong faculty concern (and which did not necessarily receive
Board concensus) were: The Robinson Forest (here could be
seen clearly the contrast of the faculty values for preserva-
tion and emphasis on the use of this resource for research
and teaching with the contrasting view of its economic value;
the issue of eleven month appointments where some faculty on


 twelve month appointments were asked to 'volunteer' for

eleven month appointments in order to save money; layoffs of
staff people who have served the University ten to twenty
years or longer; the increase in parking fees; women's issues
(sexual harrassment. gender in the govening regulations, etc.);
admissions procedures and especially the right of the faculty
to set that procedure without amendments by the Board. Faculty
trustees spend a lot of time on the telephone with various
faculty, staff, and students' concerns that are rather fre—
quently articulated. The faculty trustees take their responsi—
bilities seriously and always follow-up. I must say that a
faculty hearing whether with the Administration or a Board
member has never been refused.

In conclusion, the faculty trustees believe that we have
performed our duties in an informed, conscientious, and
courageous manner.”

Chairman Rees thanked Professor Wilson for her report.

The Chair recognized Professor Robert Bostrom, Secretary of the Senate Council,
for the proposal that extension professors be permitted to vote and serve in the
University Senate. Professor Bostrom, on behalf of the Senate Council, moved
approval of the proposal. He added that if the proposal were approved, it would be
forwarded to the administration for appropriate action. He said the Senate
Council felt the extension professors should not be added in the apportionment of
members for the University Senate. The College of Agriculture would have a larger pool
from which to elect their present number of senators.

The Chairman recognized Professor Brad Canon who gave some history of the rationale.
He said there had been a number of complaints from the extension professors that they
were affected by things the University Senate did and yet they had no voice in the
senate. Most of the extension professors are in the College of Agriculture and en-
gage in functions that regular faculty perform such as teaching and research. Pro-
fessors Andy Grimes and Wilbur Frye were on the ad hoc committee of the Senate Council
which studied this matter.

Student senator Taylor wanted to know if there would be any additional faculty
in the senate. Professor Canon said there would not be. Professor Neil wanted to
know the duties of the extension professors, how they are hired, criteria for promotion,
function and how they compared to regular faculty. Professor Hiatt said, in terms of
recruiting, the college used basically the same criteria. He added that they were
people with Ph.D.'s, top quality, able to do research and teach. In terms of promotion
the criteria was basically the same. The one difference is that there is not as rigid
requirement in terms of publication in journals.

Dean Royster said there was also an Area Advisory Committee for Extension Title
Series appointed by the President so the review process was essentially the same.
Chairman Rees said that went back to the point Professor Canon made that extension
faculty were critically affected by committees of the senate. Professor Gesund felt
it was a bit unfair when the vote of all faculty members in the College of Agriculture
was going to be diluted by the proposal. It seemed to him that the extension professors
were willing to go along but what about the other members in the college. Professor
Frye said he could not speak for all members of the College of Agriculture, but the ones
he had discussed it with did not feel this was an issue. They were not as concerned
about the number of senators as they were with eligibility to serve and to vote.


 Chairman Rees cited in this regard that currently the size of the Senate was being
decreased considerably. The size of the extension faculty addition would introduce a
rather sudden change in the distribution of senators among the colleges. Also, unfor—
tunately, the extension faculty was not considered in the fairly recent decision by the
senate to reduce the senate size to 85 faculty members. Professor Weil wanted to know
if it were anticipated in the next reapportionment the number would be changed. Crair—
man Rees said he would anticipate that, but did not know what the senate might do in
the future.

Dean Swintosky asked how many extension people there were. Chairman Rees said
there were about 80.

The previous question was moved, seconded and passed. The motion to approve the
proposal that extension professors be permitted to vote and serve in the University
Senate passed unanimously and reads as follows:


The University Senate recommends to the President that: l) ex—
tension professors be permitted to vote for and to serve in

the University Senate, provided they hold the assistant pro—
fessorial rank or higher and membership in an academic unit;

2) their membership not be included in the formula by which
membership in the Senate is apportioned among Colleges.
(Acceptance of this proposal would require approval by the

Board of Trustees of these changes in the Governing Regulations.)


Background and Rationale:


There are approximately 80 extension faculty members (with the
rank of assistant professor or higher) located on the Lexington
Campus. About 75 are in the College of Agriculture; four or
five in the College of Home Economics; and one in the College
of Business and Economics. While extension faculty spend con—
siderable time performing duties not performed by regular fac-
ulty (mostly supplying professional information to extension
agents away from Lexington), it appears that almost all of them
also spend a considerable amount of time engaging in functions
that regular faculty perform, i.e., teaching and research.
Almost all hold the Ph D. and rank in a particular department,
are active members of their departments and seem to be accorded
all the privileges and obligations of such membership without any
distinction based upon their extension status. Extension pro-
fessors are affected by the Rules and policies adopted by the
University Senate. Moreover, the Senate (through the Senate
Council) advises the President on the appointment of the Area
Advisory Committee for promotion and tenure of the Extension
Title Series faculty--a function certainly affecting the exten—
sion professors in a critical way. Thus, at present the
extension faculty seems to be denied representation without
good reason (Section IV of the Governing Regulations currently
limits faculty eligibility to vote for and serve in the Senate
to Regular and Special Title Series faculty in the Colleges

and the University Library).




Since approval of this proposal would acutely enlarge the
number of eligible faculty members and affect the distribution
of Senate membership amount the individual colleges and, also,
since the size of the Senate (as a result of recent Senate
action) is currently being reduced. the Senate Council felt
that less perturbation would be introduced were the number of
extension professors not used in the formula which apportions
numbers of Senators among the Colleges.

The Chairman said the Research Committee submitted a report to the Senate Council
and to the University Senate last Spring. Discussion was postponed in the Summer and
the committee revised the report into the form which was circulated. The chairman
last year was Professor Govindarajulu who is on sabbatical. The Senate Council has
increased the breadth of disciplines on the committee by adding members representing
areas of scholarly and creative activities in addition to the experimental and
theoretical sciences. The members this year are professors Jane Peters (Art History),
Alan Perreiah (Philosophy), Gerald Rosenthal (Biological Sciences), Robert Lester
(Biochemistry), David Gast (Education), Brinton Milward (Management), Wesley Birge
(Biological Sciences), Joseph Kuc (Plant Pathology), Jim Boling (Animal Sciences),
Harry Smith (Pharmacy), Cliff Cremers (Mechanical Engineering), Marcus McEllistrem
(Physics), and Chairman Robert Guthrie (Chemistry).

Chairman Rees announced that topics related to experimental research and other
scholarly and creative activities will be scheduled regularly into the agenda of the
Senate—-these are senate matters of foremost concern to faculty, students and adminis—
trative officers. The Chairman introduced two of the Research Committee's recommen-
dations by remarking that in great part the research achievements and scholarly
reputation of a University are determined by a) the calibre of its graduate stu-
dents and postdoctoral fellows, b) the research quality and depth of its faculty,

c) the quality of the Administration in providing leadership and a setting conducive
to recruiting and retaining faculty and students. The dynamics of cause and effect
are such that these three factors could go in reverse order.

Chairman Rees recognized Professor Robert Bostrom. Professor Bostrom, on behalf
of the Senate Council, moved Recommendation 5 to establish a pool of funds for start—up
research for new faculty, preferably from state-appropriated funds. This recommendation
was circulated to the members of the senate under date of September 29, l983.

The floor was opened for discussion and questions.

Dean Royster felt there was not anyone who would rather have start-up funds or put
them at a higher priority than the Graduate School. He was for the recommendation if
money could be found. He said the support of research through State funds came in three
ways--faculty salaries, contracts and grants, and formula dollars. He added there was no
line item in the University budget for research. In the last two biennial budgets re—
search funds had been requested and the University always requested more than it ever got.
This year the base was l45 million dollars. He thought the budget was 3l0 million. The
priority in the past has been salaries. In the next budget the University is supposed
to be formula funded. The new formula allows for research dollars plus 2.8 percent for
the mission which includes research and extension. There is going to be an item in the
budget for research.

Professor Neil wanted to know if that meant the money would have to be used for
research. Dean Royster did not know but the formula indicated that UK should get some

mogey. He felt there was a glimmer of hope because there was a research item in the
bu get.



Chairman Rees recognized Professor Guthrie who had surveyed the Chemistry Depart-
ment in regard to the importance of faculty start—up funds. In chemistry, the priority
of all items on the list of Research Committee recommendations was first to recruit
and retain quality graduate students and next to have new faculty start-up funds. The
chemistry department felt these matters were critical. Professor Guthrie cited a
survey of midwestern chemistry departments competing with the University of Kentucky
for graduate students. These universities offered a minimum of $30,000 start—up funds
for new faculty members in chemistry and sometimes went as high as $l50,000. This
funding was promised up front and was viewed as venture capital. In contrast, the
UK Chemistry Department has a $20,000 maximum and the funds must later be applied for--
i.e., not up front. Professor Guthrie felt a way should be found to be competitive with
other universities for capable new faculties.

Professor Gesund felt the question was essentially how much the chemistry depart-
ment's faculty was willing to take out of its salary in order to provide the start—up
money or how much was the faculty willing to forego in pay raises in the hope of
attracting people who would attract more money. He felt it was something the faculty
in the English department should consider very carefully. Professor Smith said that an
informal poll was taken of the chemistry department's faculty last year and over half
of the senior members were willing to forego half or more of their current raise if
those funds were transferred to the appropriate places. He felt the senate should let
the administration know what it feels are the important needs and priorities.

Professor McEllistrem supported Professor Guthrie's comments. He said the total
amount of money was not fixed. Most of the money was used for support. He said if
”seed” monies were provided up front then the most promising people could be brought to
the University. He felt when the departments got the most exciting people they could
work most effectively for extramural support and the University would benefit. These

monies would have literally nothing to do with faculty salaries. Professor Bostrom
said the “seed” monies get widely spread around the University and are most apprec-
ciated and helpful.

Professor Smith seconded Professor Guthrie‘s remarks and said the faculty should
not lose sight of the fact that this type of ”seed” monies was important to develop
quality faculty.

Dean Royster said ”seed” grants were funded by two sources of allocated funds.
One was salary reimbursements which was when a grant pays a portion of an individual's
salary to the University and the other was indirect costs. He said the recommendation
was asking that the State pick up part of the funding. Chairman Rees said priorities
were going to be involved at some point but right now the senate needed to make its
needs known. The goal is to define specific needs and to enlarge research funding.

The previous question was moved, seconded and passed. The recommendation was
accepted unanimously and reads as follows:

Recommendation #5 The University should:

Establish a pool of funds for start-up research for new
faculty, preferably from state-appropriated funds.


This recommendation is supported by the data generated for
the Report of the Committee on Research. Specifically,


 the Report stated: “Last year, the Faculty Research
Committee considered approximately 85 to 90 percent of
the requests submitted to be of sufficient merit to re-
ceive some degree of support, but only 63 percent could
be funded (mostly at greatly reduced levels). This lack
of start-up or ”seed“ monies seriously limits the initia-
tion of new research that is essential to developing grant
applications to potential funding agencies. It also ad—
versely affects the recruitment, career advancement, and
retention of promising young investigators. Thus, the
future research potential of this University's faculty

is being jeopardized.”

The Senate Research Committee sees this problem as one

of the most serious affecting research productivity at the
University, yet it is one problem area that can be remedied
with modest additional funding. The Committee recommends
that a substantial percentage (ca. 5—lO percent) of the
total indirect overhead costs and salary savings on all
research grants, plus an equal amount of funds from gen—
eral state appropriations, be allocated for Recommendations
Nos. 4 and 5, in addition to returning a fraction of the
overhead monies as ”incentive funds“ to the units generating
these funds.

Chairman Rees recognized Professor Robert Bostrom. Professor Bostrom, on behalf
of the Senate Council, moved acceptance of Recommendation #2 which was to provide in—
creased support to recruit and retain quality graduate students. He said there was a
need for the Graduate School stipend to be competitive with those offered in the same
disciplines at institutions which we strive to emulate. This was circulated to the
senate members under date of September 29, l983.

The Chair recognized Professor Brauch Fugate. Professor Fugate said that last year
at the request of Dean Baer there was a study made of workloads and compensation of
teaching assistants in the College of Arts and Sciences. The following report was
given by Professor Fugate:

”During the l982—l983 academic year, a study was made of
teaching assistant duties and pay in the College of Arts and
Sciences. As part of this study, chairmen and directors of
graduate study were interviewed. They were nearly unanimous
in the opinion that TA stipends were too low, and that this
is the most serious problem facing their graduate programs.

A report released by the University of Nebraska gives
strong support to these opinions. "Graduate Teaching Assis-
tantship Stipends,” by Henry F. Holtzclaw and Russel C.
Nelson, reports on l,O93 departments at 25 universities, for
the l98l-82 academic year. The Nebraska study included
several regional universities and some private ones. When
these are eliminated, l6 major state universities remain:
California (Berkeley), Colorado, Iowa State, Indiana, Kansas,
Kansas State, Missouri, Maryland, Michigan State, Nebraska,
Ohio State, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Pennsylvania State,
Purdue and Wisconsin. Not every department in every insti~
tution responded to the survey.



The University of Kentucky was not included in this
study, but l98l—l982 UK stipends are available. The table
on the following page shows, by department, where UK ranks
in net stipend (stipend less tuition).

Note that only three UK departments are at the middle of
the rankings; all the others are far down. Twelve of twenty
UK departments rank last or next to last. Moreover, the
schools in the rankings are, with one or two exceptions,
those which UK should compete against for graduate students.
Five of the schools on the list are UK benchmarks.


No more recent comparison study is available, although
Holtzclaw and Nelson will be conducting one during l983—84.
In any case, it is unlikely that UK's rankings have improved.
Since l98l-82, graduate tuition is up by $246, and the for—
merly optional $50 health fee is now mandatory. Partially
offsetting this is a tuition waiver for TAs of $7 per credit,
to a maximum of $l26 per year. In addition, average stipends
have increased approximately $300. If we assume a TA who
takes 9 credits per semester and who subscribed to the health
plan when it was optional, then stipend less tuition and fees
is up $l80 in two years. In this period, rent for graduate
student housing in Cooperstown has increased by $500.

Clearly, net stipends for TAs are not competitive, and
are falling behind increases in basic living costs.”

Professor Kemp wanted to know if there was any data for the southern schools.
Professor Fugate said the data was for the state universities listed. Professor Gesund
wanted to know who set the stipends for the graduate students? Dean Baer asked how
many dollars per student Professor Fugate was talking about and if there were any
estimates on how much additional funding was needed to be competitive? Professor Fugate
said the deficit per individual stipend was around Sll00 but he did not know how much
funding it would take in total. Dean Baer said he could answer the question on how
stipends were determined. He said departments have a line but until that line increased
or unless the departments decided to decrease the number of TAs there was no way of
increasing individual stipends unless more money came in. The class sizes are growing
so the TA positions could not be decreased. In order to bring the stipends up to a

relative competitive level two years ago it would have taken approximately $400,000
on a recurring basis.

Student senator Taylor felt the TAs taught the basics and without them the upper
division classes would suffer. He said low stipends can lead to poor TAs and hurt the
University overall. Professor Canon attested from his experience in the Graduate Fellow-
ship Office that UK was not competitive. He said good students would turn down a fellow—
ship offer because they could get more at other schools. He said the money was just not
there to be competitive. Professor Guthrie said that chemistry's position had dropped
from l3 of l4 to last place in a recent survey for benchmark instititutions, so the
University was losing ground.

The previous question was moved, seconded and passed. The recommendation passed
unanimously and reads as follows:


 Recommendation #2: The University should:

Provide increased support to recruit and retain quality
graduate students; especially, significantly increase sti—
pends consistent with the University's role as principal
research and graduate educational institution in the
Commonwealth of Kentucky. These stipends should be com-
petitive with those offered in the same disciplines at
institutions which we strive to emulate.


The quality of number of students in a graduate program
critically affects its research productivity. In some
disciplines, particularly in the experimental sciences,
research is carried out by graduate students under
faculty supervision. Here there exists a direct propor—
tion between research output and student population. In
the Humanities, faculty time is consumed when qualified
graduate students are not available to perform instruc—
tional chores, indirectly reducing research activity.
Although graduate student stipends may be competitive in
a few individual departments,there is abundant evidence ’
that in most areas we fall well below the institutions
with which we would like to compete. This was the clear
conclusion of a College of Arts and Sciences survey based
on l98l—82 data. Two separate surveys of chemistry
departments showed UK TA stipends to be at the bottom of
the scale both regionally and nationally. Last year
seven TA offers from the English Department were declined
explicitly because of the low stipends.

In one UK department it was possible to raise TA stipends
when an enrollment decrease allowed a reduction in the
number of required positions. This department reported

a dramatic improvement in the caliber of incoming students
the following year. It seems clear that money spent on
this combined research and teaching resource is a uniquely
cost effective investment in the future of the University.
One possible method of implementing the necessary changes