xt759z90cj8g https://exploreuk.uky.edu/dips/xt759z90cj8g/data/mets.xml University of Kentucky. University Senate University of Kentucky. Faculty Senate Kentucky University of Kentucky. University Senate University of Kentucky. Faculty Senate 1986-11-10  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, November 10, 1986 text University of Kentucky University Senate (Faculty Senate) meeting minutes, November 10, 1986 1986 1986-11-10 2020 true xt759z90cj8g section xt759z90cj8g LflWVERSHY OF KENTUCKY



Members, University Senate

The University Senate will meet in regular session on Monday,

November 10, 1986, at 3:00 p.m. in room 115 CON/HSLC Building.



Minutes of 8 September and 13 October



a. Proposal to recommend to the administration revisions
in University Senate Rules, Sec. I, 2.2.3 and Governing
Regulations, Part IV, page 2, to add the Director of
the University Studies Program as an ex—officio, non—
voting member of the University Senate.



a. Proposal from Admissions and Academic Standards Committee
on Pre—college Curriculum.

Randall Dahl




The University Senate met in regular session at 3:00 p.m., Mondayfr; g.
November 10, l986, in Room ll5 of the College of Nursing/Health Sciences

William E. Lyons, Chairman Elect of the Senate Council, presided.

Members absent were: Frank Allara, Sandra Allen*, Roger B. Anderson,
Richard Angelo, Patrick Appleman, Michael A. Baer, James Barclay*, Charles
E. Barnhart, Raymond F. Betts, Dibaker Bhattacharyya*, Tex Lee Boggs*,
Charlie Boyd*, Ray M. Bowen, Daniel J. Breazeale*, Joe Burch, D. Allan
Butterfield, I. K. Chew, Harry Clarke, Emmett Costich*, Frederick Danner,
Leo Demski, Richard Domek*, Anthony Eardley, Stanley Feldman, Gerald
Ferretti*, James Freeman*, Michael Freeman, Wilbur W. Frye*, Richard W.
Furst, Art Gallaher, Jr.*, Donna G. Greenwell*, John R. Groves*, Marilyn D.
Hamann*, Jody Hanks*, Zafar Hasan*, Ronald C. Hoover, Raymond R. Hornback,
Jennifer Jacquet*, Mehran Jahad, John J. Just, James 0. King, Joseph
Krislov*, James R. Lang, Robert G. Lawson, Bruce A. Lucas, Edgar D. Maddox,
Sally S. Mattingly, Peggy Meszaros, Michael T. Nietzel, Robert C. Noble*,
Arthur J. Nonneman, Alan Perreiah, John J. Piecoro*, Peter Purdue, G.
Kendell Rice, Christy Robinson, Thomas C. Robinson, John M. Rogers, Thomas
L. Roszman, Wimberly C. Royster, Edgar L. Sagan, Karyll N. Shaw*, Otis A.
Singletary*, Brian Taylor, Sheree Thompson*, Thomas L. Travis*, Enid
Waldhart, Marc J. Wallace, Jesse Weil, James Wells, Charles T. Wethington,
Carolyn Williams*, Constance P. Wilson*, Judy Wiza, and Constance L. Wood.

Chairman—Elect William Lyons made the following announcements and

"Wilbur Frye, Chairman of the Senate, is out of
town today and asked me to preside. My name is Bill
Lyons, and we are going to try to go through the
agenda as it was sent out. Let me begin with the
Minutes of the September 8 and October l3 meetings.
These have not been circulated to you. They are
prepared, but there is a very good reason they have
not been circulated to you. We will try to take them
up at the next meeting. One of the things Wilbur has
apparently discovered, with the help of Cindy, is that
the mailing list for those who get Senate materials
has gotten longer and longer. We are now up to an
exorbitant amount of money each year for mailing the
Minutes. What Wilbur is trying to do is purge that
mailing list so that he can get it down to a reason-
able list and as soon as that task is accomplished and
mailing labels are available, we will get the Minutes
to you. Bear with us."

Chairman-elect Lyons recognized Professor Louis Swanson, who read the
following memorial resolution on Charlie Perry, Department of Sociology.

*Absence explained


Charles Perry

On April 27, 1986, Charlie Perry's valiant struggle
against cancer ended. At home, surrounded by his family,
Charles died as he had lived -- with great dignity. He was
38 years old.

Four years ago, upon learning of the dreaded news that
he had a brain tumor, Charlie responded with gritty
determination. He absolutely refused to permit the disease
to rule his life. Charlie became very active in voluntary
organizations, such as "I Can Cope", which work with people
attempting to come to terms with the day-to-day hell of
cancer. His activities caught the eye of the Lexington
newspaper; it ran a full—fledged feature on his fight for
life. He also shared his hopes and fears with his friends
and colleagues. In an extraordinarily moving service at
the Lexington Unitarian Universalist Church, where he was
an active member, Charlie told us what it was like to deal
with imminent death. He spoke of how the simple things of
daily life gain new meanings and how special become the
relationships with others. He challenged us to take time
out from our busy professional lives and renew our ties
with each other. Toward the end of the service, Charlie
experienced a brain seizure. We saw first hand the ravages
of the disease and his immense courage coping with it.
Charlie was a truly remarkable human being who did not
shrink from the trials of life.

During his affliction, Charlie never quit his
professional activities. A paper on Durkheim that was just
published in Rural Sociology was a product of this period
of personal stress. He also has another article still
under review. In addition, Charlie co-authored a research
monograph with Hard Bauder. But what best symbolized
Charlie's insistent refusal to resign his professional life
despite the capriciousness of cancer is that he had just
completed the first draft of a new, fiveeyear duration
experiment station research proposal before he re—entered
the hospital in February.

Charlie will be fondly remembered for his unique wit
and his intellectual contributions as a rural sociologist.
During his academic career he published many professional
articles addressing the changing character of rural life
and its consequences for rural people. The rationalization
of American agriculture and coal mine safety were
particular areas of interest. The latter work gained
prominent attention in Kentucky and was the basis for a
week-long series by the Louisville Courier Journal on the
poor safety standards of the coal industry. Charlie's

title for his paper ——_"Dyin to Dig Coal” -7 was typical
of his ability to combine wi w1th soc1al cr1t1c1sm. So,



 too, was his "discovery" of and subsequent contributions to
the writings of Max Marx in The Rural Sociologist.


In the altruistic spirit of rural sociology, Charlie
Perry was deeply committed to service for rural people.
This commitment was guided by a progressive world view that
championed the rights of those suffering from the
inequities of social organizations and upheld the need for
peaceful coexistence throughout society. The strength of
these convictions was especially apparent when Charlie, in
concert with his wife Sue, took the status of conscientious
objector during the Vietnam War and performed alternative
service in Taiwan. Those who remember this era will recall
that his choice was not the easy one; draft boards were not
sympathetic. Charlie must have been his usual charming and
articulate self to win over his doubting draft board.

Charlie received all three of his university degrees
from Cornell University. He is survived by his wife Sue
Perry as well as his mother Ingrid and father Charles and
two sisters, Alice and Betsie. Also aggrieved are six cats
he saved from the gas chamber at the Humane Society and an
adopted stray dog.

The Department of Sociology at the University of
Kentucky has set up a special fund in memory of Charlie‘s
personal and professional contributions. It will be known

as the "Charles Swanson Perry Research Award” and will be
given once a year to an outstanding graduate student.

Charlie is gone but his spirit will enrich those of us
who knew him well. He was a person you can't forget.

Copies of the resolution will be sent to the Perry family. The Senate
stood for a moment of silent tribute.

Chairman—elect Lyons made additional announcements:

"I have a couple of announcements that Wilbur
Frye asked me to make. The first one concerns the
formation of two committees. The Senate Council has
formed an ad hoc committee to study and review the
evaluation of educational units. Many of you know
that some work was done on this several years ago, and
the Senate Council has asked a committee composed of
Jesse Harris, Chairman, Charles Ambrose, Bob Bostrom,
Evelyn Geller, Margaret Jones, Jim Kemp, Edgar Sagan
and Billie Miner to work on this. The other committee
that has been formed is a University-wide committee
that was organized to plan a day to honor President
Singletary. The tentative date for this occasion is
April 16, and the committee consists of a variety of
fieople. It has met twice to plan the activities. Ray
ornback is the chairman of that committee. Mike


 Adelstein, Wilbur Frye, Donna Greenwell, George
Griffin, Lynn Hunt, Peggy Meszaros, Marie Piekarski,
Reed Polk, Charles Rowland, Tom Schrand, Molly Tucker,
Paul Willis and Connie Wilson will serve on that
committee. You will be hearing more about a number of
events that will be coming up this Spring with respect
to the recognition of the work that President
Singletary has done.

The Senate Council plans to have a breakfast
twice monthly with various groups and individuals
relevant to work of the Senate and the Senate Council
and relevant to the activities of the University. The
first breakfast will be held with the chairpersons of
the various Senate committees on November 18 from
7:30-9:00 a.m. in the President's Room of the Student
Center. Those of you who are chairing a Senate
Committee should have gotten those invitations in the
mail. The Senate Council will be meeting with other
groups, including some student groups. This project
was started last year when Brad Canon was chairing the
Senate. The first one was with the State Legislative
Delegation from Fayette County. That was a very suce
cessful event. Wilbur Frye wants to expand on that.
This will be the first of a series of these meetings.

Another thing that Wilbur would like to do to

improve communications is to invite everyone to take a
look at what is now going to be a regular Senate and
Senate Council notes section in the Communi-K. If you
will look in the November 10th issue, you will see a
sample of the type of things Wilbur is trying to com—
municate to everyone in the University.

Wilbur wanted me to remind everyone that the
Presidential Search Committee is now meeting rather
frequently to complete the screening process and to
narrow down the list of applicants. 'The committee is
making very good progress.'

I would also like to remind everyone of the
End-of-the-Semester Social for members of the Senate
which will be held from 4:00-6:00 p.m. on December 9.
If you have not put that in your date book, please
make sure you do.

Mac Jewell came to me this morning and gave me
some information about the election results for the
Senate Council positions. We have two people that
have been declared winners: Chuck Ambrose from the
Medical Center and Jim Applegate from Communications.
I congratulate them for becoming members of the Senate
Council. There is a third position open, and the

rules are that one must have an absolute majority to
win. In the third p051tion no one had a maJority of

the ballots cast. As a result there will be a runoff.


 You will be receiving a ballot in the next several
days that will contain two names. You will be asked
to vote for one. They are Don Leigh from Engineering
and John Piecoro from Pharmacy. That ballot will be
coming to you very soon. I was also asked to remind
everyone to vote for a member of the faculty to serve
on the Board of Trustees. If you did not get a
ballot, please notify Cindy."

Chairman-elect Lyons recognized Professor Ward Crowe, member of the
Senate Council, to present the first action item on the agenda. On behalf
of the Senate Council, Professor Crowe moved approval of the proposed
addition to University Senate Rules, Section I, 2.2.3 Ex Officio Member—
ship, Non-Voting and in Governing Regulations, Part IV, page 2, making the
Director of the University Studies Program an ex officio, non-voting member
of the University Senate. Professor Crowe said that if approved by the
Senate, the proposal will be forwarded to the President for appropriate
administrative action. This proposal was circulated to members of the
Senate under date of October 23, 1986.



The Chair said that an item coming from the Senate Council did not
require a second, and the floor was opened for questions and comments.
Senator John Rea (French) pointed out an editorial change in the proposal
to make the Director of University Studies Program the same in both the
Proposal and Rationale.

There was no further discussion and the motion, as editorially changed,
passed unanimously and reads as follows:

Proposal: [underlined portion is new]

Non-Votin :

The ex 0 icio non—voting membership shall include the
President, all other vice presidents, University System
Registrar, Director of Undergraduate Admissions, Dean of
University Extension, Dean of Students, Professor of
Military Science, Professor of Aerospace Studies, the
Director of the University Studies Program, and, if—they
are not already elected members of the Senate, the
University System faculty members of the Board of Trustees,
the Academic Ombudsman, the Director of the Honors Program,
and the chairmen of the University Senate Committees,
including University Senate Advisory Committees. All
officials mentioned in the preceding paragraph who are not
voting ex officio members in any year shall be considered
non-voting ex officio members. Other ex officio non—voting
members may be added by the University Senate Council for
the purpose of supplying information and viewpoints on
problems considered by the Senate. Ex officio non—voting
members shall enjoy all privileges of the elected member—
ship except the right to vote. (US:lO/lZ/8l and
Bosz4/6/82) (US: 12/10/84 and Bosz4/l/86) (US: lO/l4/85
and Bosz 4/1/86)




On February 3, l986, the University Senate approved the new
University Studies Program outline. In a subsequent meeting
(April l4, l986), the University Senate approved the rule
changes necessary to implement the new program. In the future,
the University Senate will be considering specific proposals
for the new University Studies Program in preparation for
implementation in Fall 1988. To this end, and to facilitate
communications relating to a wide range of academic policy, the
University Senate Council proposes that the Director of the
University Studies Program be added to the University Senate as
an g5 officio, non-voting member.

The Chair again recognized Professor Ward Crowe. On behalf of the
Senate Council, Professor Crowe moved approval of the proposed change in
University Senate Rules, Section IV - 2.l.l (c) Pre—College Curriculum.
Professor Crowe pointed out that included with the circulation (dated
October 30, l986) was a letter from Kendell Rice, Director of Admissions,
stating the urgency surrounding the proposal. The Chair said the reason
the Senate Council was pushing so hard was that the University is receiving
applications and some clarification on this issue must be made.



Chair—elect Lyons recognized Senator Loys Mather (Agricultural
Economics), who chairs the Senate Committee on Admissions and Academic
Standards, to give some of the background. The item was returned to his
committee last Spring. This is now the recommendation the committee has.

Senator Mather made the following remarks:

"Thank you Bill. I think most of you are aware
that beginning in the Fall of l987 the University's
Pre-College Curriculum will take effect which means

' that students, to be admitted at that point, must not
only have met our previous requirements for selective
admission but they must also have met the requirements
of our pre—college curriculum. In the proposal the
Admissions and Academic Standards Committee made to
you last spring, we did not have the benefit of the
data that we now have and we could not be as specific
as we can now. The action of the Senate last spring
established the policy of a single pool for those who
had not met the pre—college curriculum requirement and
for those who had not met the requirements for
automatic acceptance. We were trying then to find
some means in the short run to deal with students who
may be unable to satisfy all requirements of the
pre-college curriculum due to a lack of offerings in
some high schools. One particular problem case was
the World Civilization course which had been taken out
of the State curriculum and then put back in again.
For good reasons we felt there could be quite a number
of students who might be at a disadvantage as far as
admission to UK because of the offerings or lack of

offerings in some of their high schools plus the


 simple fact that most any policy should address the
issue of how to deal with students who have not met
all the requirements. As a matter of fact, the
Council on Higher Education is asking us for a
response to that, so part of what we will be dealing
with today will be our response to the Council on how
we will handle the admission of those students who
have not otherwise met all of our requirements. Keep
in mind what we are dealing with today is really an
interim policy, because all of our admissions
policies, selective admissions, athletic admissions,
pre-college curiculum, etc. are up for a major review
during the l989-l990 academic year. The reason it was
agreed to by this body last spring was that with all
the changes that have taken place in the last several
years in admission of students to the University of
Kentucky, we felt we needed a few years of experience
with selective admissions, pre—college curriculum and
other dimensions of admissions to see if the policy is
bringing in the quality and caliber of students that
we want. We felt that three or four years of
experience in the data base would allow time to take a
critical, rather serious look at the entire curri-
culum. So with that in mind and with the knowledge of
what we are talking about today as the interim policy,
we looked at the data made available to us in mid—
October from the Admissions Office of the students who
made early application for the 1987 Fall Semester. 0f
the students who have already applied, 920 are
students who would predict a 2.0 g.p.a. A predicted
2..0 or higher means they would be automatically
admitted to the University of Kentucky. Of that 920,
775 (84%) would meet the requirements also established
by the pre-college curriculum. We found there would
be l45 students, otherwise automatically admissible,
who would have one or more deficiencies in the
pre—college curriculum. Keep in mind under selective
admissions the type of students we are trying to
attract to this institution are those who fall in the
category of being automatically admissible. The
Admissions and Academic Standards Committee is
recommending a policy that would facilitate the
admission of these students if they have compensating
scores or experiences which would suggest they can
handle university work. That is basically the thrust
of our proposal. One objective is to facilitate
admission of students who are otherwise exceptional,
above average students. The other objective we had in
our proposal was to keep it simple, one that would be
easily understood by students, by parents, by people
in the high schools and so on without a lot of
rigorous digging into various kinds of statistical
tables. In this proposal, when looking at these l45
students, if a student fails to meet the requirements
of one of the subject areas in the pre—college

curriculum, but has a compensating ACT score in that


 subject area of 2l or higher, we would consider that
the student has met the spirit of the pre-college
curriculum. We would allow two such potential
deficiencies on the part of the student. If the
student did not have a compensating ACT score, that is
if the score was below 2l, then the student would
revert to the delayed admission pool and could be
admitted only on a delayed basis. Keep in mind that
the pool has a cap of 20 percent of the freshman
class. No more than 20 percent of a class can come
through the pool. This year l3 percent of our 1986
class was admitted through the pool. If a student has
two or more deficiencies, the student would be auto-
matically rejected for admission. We are allowing
students who have one or at most two potential
deficiencies in the pre—college curriculum to remain
eligible for admission provided they have compensating
ACT scores.

Of particular concern is what effect this may

have on the upper level students whom we are trying to
appeal to under our selective admissions policy. If
those 145 students are broken into two groups, those
who have an ACT of 22 or higher and those below 22,
of the l45, 88 students fall into the higher cate-
gory. Fifty—seven fall into Group II which has an ACT
below 22. If we apply the proposed policy to these
l45 students, 78 of the 88 who are above the 22 ACT
would be admitted. Only l8 of the 57 applicants below
22 would be admitted. The policy would facilitate
admission of those who are the better students.
Twenty out of those l45 are students who would other-
wise be eligible for the Honors Program, the Academic
Excellence Scholarship and so on. The thrust of our
proposal was to facilitate admission of this caliber
of students. Thank you Bill."

Copies of the transparencies Professor Mather showed follow:

Students Predicting 2.0 GPA 920 lOO
Eligible for Automatic Admission 775 84
Deficiency in Pre-College Curriculum l45 l6

Group I: ACT 22 88 78

Group II: ACT 22 57 l8



 The Chair thanked Senator Mather. He pointed out a letter from the
Director of Admissions, Kendell Rice, that accompanied the proposal
regarding the urgency of this issue. He said if there were any questions,
Don Byars from that office was present. Chairman Lyons said it was an
important policy for the entire University. In addition, Vice Chancellor
Donald Sands was recognized for any comments about the Chancellor's view of
the proposal. Vice Chancellor Sands emphasized the importance and the
urgency of the policy. He viewed it as a natural development of the
history of selective admission. He said selective admissions was started
two years ago on the principle that UK should accept only the students who
had the ability to do well at this University. The Pre—College Curriculum
was designed to make sure students are properly prepared for university
studies. "What we are looking for now are some very good students who have
exceptions and have not fulfilled one or two components of the pre-college
curriculum for reasons such as Loys suggested,II he said. He added there
was no intention or desire to lower the standards or quality of entering
classes. The Admissions Office has been instructed to concentrate on the
quality of students first. That is more important than numbers. This fall
the freshman class could have been increased by another ten or fifteen
percent. He added that we did not want to lose good students, and if we
told these students we would not let them know until March or April they
had been accepted, then we would lose a good number of students to other
universities. He urged the Senators to approve the policy.

The Chair reminded everyone that when the term "deficiency" was used in
the proposal it referred to one of the courses, not a complete sequence.

Senator Hans Gesund (Civil Engineering) said the proposal read
"deficiencies in no more than two of the four subject areas" which meant
there could be more than one deficiency in one area. He said he could
imagine a student not taking any science or mathematics and graduating with
a 4.00 g.p.a. in the humanities, going into the delayed pool and coming out
fine. The Chair said if they took no math there would be more than two
deficiencies. Senator Gesund said all he was going by was what was written
in the proposal. He felt that meant there could be more than one defi-
ciency in an area. He wanted the wording tightened up. Vice Chancellor
Sands in response said that most of the students in the pool would be
deficient in one course. Senator Gesund said a student with no math or
science with a 4.00 g.p.a. in high school could get into the University
through the delayed pool. The Chair asked Senator Mather to speak on the
intent of the proposal. Senator Mather's response was that in the first
place the student probably would not graduate from high school.

Senator Philip Palmgreen (Communications) wanted to know if deficiency
was defined in the Senate Rules as one course in a particular area. The
Chair said this was a new policy, so it would not be defined in the Rules.
Senator Palmgreen said deficiency should be defined as perhaps a student
not having one course in a particular area so that someone missing the
courses that were mentioned might have six deficiencies. Senator Gesund
said deficiency might be no more than one course in no more than each of
two areas. He said he was only asking for a clarification. Senator Mather
wanted to know if Senator Gesund would accept "who has a deficiency in no
more than two," and Senator Gesund said he would accept ”in no more than
each of two.”


 Senator Malcolm Jewell (Political Science) wanted some clarification
from the committee in what they intended. He said the wording could be
clarified after the proposal passed if the Senate knew the intention of the
committee. The Chair said there were two ways to solve the issue. One
suggestion was to insert in (i) "but has a deficiency in no more than two
of the four subject areas and in (ii) and (iii) ”a deficiency in more than
two." The second was to have a definition for deficiency.

Senator John Rogers (Law) wanted to know if a substitution could be
made that deficiencies in no more than two instead of saying in the four
subject areas, say no more than two of the required courses. Senator
Gesund said two math courses could be listed. Senator Jewell said usually
the proposals were sent back to the committee, but since there was a
limited amount of time, the Rules Committee could "clean up the language"
if it was clear what the Senate intends. Senator John Rea (French) said
the committee might consider instead of the word "deficiency" to say "who
lacks no more than one course." Senator Gesund suggested saying ”lacking
a course in no more than two areas.”

Senator James Kemp (Animal Sciences) wanted to know how the require-
ments fit in with persons who had high school equivalency diplomas and how
it handled older students who may want to start college in mid—year who may
not have had several of the courses but were sharp individuals. Senator
Mather responded that was part of the reason for the proposal -- to
facilitate the admission of the non—traditional student. His understanding
was they were still going to be taking the ACT. Senator Kemp asked for an
explanation of the figure 22 that was used in the chart. Senator Mather
said that 22 was approximately the UK average. The committee selected 21
because it was approximately the sixtieth percentile.

Senator Jewell asked that when the data was compiled was the committee
looking at students who were missing a course in an area and not the possi-
bility of missing two or more courses in an area. Senator Mather responded
that out of 145 only one or two were missing two courses in an area.

Chairman-elect Lyons said if the Senate wished to pursue the suggestion
that the Rules Committee work on the language, there should be a motion to
that effect and deal with that and then deal with the substantive issue.
Motion was moved, seconded and passed unanimously. There was no further
discussion on the main motion which passed unanimously and reads as follows:

Proposal as Approved (and amended by the Rules Committee)


IV., 2.l.l (c)

(c) Pre-College Curriculum

To be admitted to the University of Kentucky in fall of l987 or later
under the admission policy outlined above, an applicant must have
completed successfully the following high school courses as a minimum:


Two of these: Biology I, Chemistry I, Physics I


 Eninsh I, II, III, IV

A1gebra I, Geometry I and AIgebra II

U.S. History and WorId Civi1ization/Nor1d History
Tota] Units: 20 or more

(In addition, the University Senate recommends that high schoo1
students comp1ete at 1east two years of a foreign 1anguage, one
additionaI year of mathematics beyond A1gebra II, and one year
of fine arts.) (US: 3/21/83)

(i) An app1icant who is otherwise e1igib1e for automatic
admission under 2.1.1 (a) but has no more than one
course deficiency in no more than two (2) of the four
subject areas of the University's pre—c011ege curricu1um
requirement may be considered in comp1iance with the
requirement and admitted automatica11y on the basis of a
compensating sccore of 21 or higher on the ACT sub-test
corresponding to each subject area deficiency.

An app1icant who is otherwise e1igib1e for admission to
the University and has no more than one course
deficiency in no more than two (2) of the four subject
areas of the University's pre—c011ege curricu1um
requirement but does not have a compensating score of 21
or higher on the ACT sub-test corresponding to each
subject area deficiency may be considered for admission
through the existing provisions of 2.1.1 (b), the
rank—order (or "de1ayed consideration") p001.

An app1icant who has more than one course deficiency in
any subject area or has course deficiences in more than
two (2) of the four subject areas of the University's
pre-coIIege curricu1um requirement wi11 be automatica11y
rejected for admission.


Reasonab1e provisions for 1imited exceptions to the
University's pre-c011ege curricu1um requirement are necessary
and desirable for severa1 reasons. First, the pre-co11ege
curricu1um represents a new minimum qua1ification for admission
that imposes specific pre-c011ege course work requirements for
which tota1 schoo1 and app1icant comp1iance may not be feasib1e
during the initia1 years of the new requirement. This is
particuIar1y re1evant in the case of the ”Wor1d Civi1ization"
course which had been virtua11y e1iminated from the curricu1um
in many high schoo1s prior to adoption of the pre-co11ege
curricu1um. Second1y, due to variations in high schoo1
curricu1a across the United States as we11 as variations in
curricu1a in Kentucky over the past decade, otherwise
high1y-qua1ified out-of-state app1icants and 01der,


 "non-traditional" Kentucky applicants may not be in a position
to technically satisfy every element of the pre-college
curriculum requirement, and in many such cases the requirement
would have the unintended consequence of denying admission to
capable students (i.e. those who would otherwise be admitted
automatically) who are actively recruited by the University.
Finally, as a new policy, the effects of and levels of
compliance with the pre-college curriculum are unknown, and a
prudent exceptions policy allows the University to err on the
side of opportunity for strong applicants who for valid reasons
are not in full compliance with the new requirements.

In recognition of the Senate's comprehensive review of the
University's selective admissions policy scheduled for the
1989-90 academic year, this exception section is proposed as an
interim policy. A final policy on application of and excep-
tions to the pre-college curriculum requirements should be
developed during the scheduled review on