xt76ww76x15p https://exploreuk.uky.edu/dips/xt76ww76x15p/data/mets.xml University of Kentucky. University Senate University of Kentucky. Faculty Senate Kentucky University of Kentucky. University Senate University of Kentucky. Faculty Senate 1989-10-16  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 16, 1989 text University of Kentucky University Senate (Faculty Senate) meeting minutes, October 16, 1989 1989 1989-10-16 2020 true xt76ww76x15p section xt76ww76x15p MINUTES OF THE UNIVERSITY SENATE, OCTOBER 16, T989

The University Senate met in regular session at 3:00 p.m., Monday, October
16, l989, in room ll5 of the Nursing/Health Sciences Building.

Donald C. Leigh, Chairman of the Senate Council, presided.

Members absent were: James L. Applegate*, Michael Baer*, Harry V.
Barnard*, Mark C. Berger*, Raymond F. Betts, Wilford A. Bladen*, Glenn C.
Blomquist*, Peter P. Bosomworth, T. Earle Bowen, Michael W. Bowling*, Douglas
Boyd, Stanley D. Brunn*, Joan C. Callahan*, Rutheford B Campbell, Jr., Ben W.
Carr, Edward A. Carter, Jeff Carver*, W. Harry Clarke*, Jordan L. Cohen*,
Raymond H. Cox*, Clifford J. Cremers*, Ann Davidson, Richard C. Domek, Jr.*,
Vincent Drnevich, Paul M. Eakin, Bruce S. Eastwood*, Charles W. Ellinger, Rob
Followell*, Raymond E. Forgue, Michael B. Freeman*, J. Brauch Fugate*, Richard
W. Furst, Marilyn C. Hamann*, Zafar Hasan*, Robert E. Hemenway*, Micki King
Hogue, Tony Holloway*, Alfred S. L. Hu, Bruce Hunt, Richard A. Jensen, David
C. Johnson*, Richard I. Kermode, Kenneth K. Kubota, Gerald Lemons*, Scott
Lewis, C. Oran Little, Sean Lohman*, Bruce A. Lucas, Loys L. Mather*, Marcus
T. McEllistrem*, Peggy Meszaros*, Ernest Middleton, Robert C. Noble*, Dennis
T. Officer, Jose 0ubrerie*, Deborah E. Powell*, Doug Reed, Daniel R. Reedy*,
Thomas C. Robinson, Jo Ann Rogers, David P. Roselle, Edgar L. Sagan, Donald E.
Sands, Fred Schwendeman, Steven J. Skinner*, M. Scott Smith*, Jeffrey
Stivers*, Louis J. Swift*, Dennis M. TeKrony*, Marie C. Vittetoe*, Thomas J.
Waldhart, Steven C. Weisenburger, Charles T. Wethington, Carolyn A. Williams*,
Eugene Williams, Enery A. Wilson, H. David Wilson*, W. Douglas Wilson, and
Alfred D. Winer.

Chairman Leigh recognized Professor William Moody for the Academic
Ombudsman's Report.

[The Ombudsman's Report, in its entirety and as it was submitted to
President Roselle, is attached at the end of these Minutes.]

Professor Moody was given a round of applause at the conclusion of his
report. The following questions were asked of Professor Moody.

Professor Leigh asked about the problem of a death in the family.
Professor Moody stated there were cases where students missed exams and a
death in the family is an excused absence. All the students need is documen—
tation to support the absence. A Senator asked about the "Common Exam"
problem. He did not understand why Professor Moody viewed the exam a serious
problem. He added that "Common Exams” are listed in the Schedule Book and
students should read. Professor Moody stated that he considered it a problem
because there are cases where students have concerns with ”Common Exams." He
stated that the problem arose when there are two tests at the same time.
Professor Moody said that "Common Exams“ are not as cut—and-dried as they may
appear, and he is also a strong advocate of students being responsible. He
still feels this an area that can be improved.

A Senator stated that in the Rules quizzes are interpreted as
examinations. He asked how oral presentations would be interpreted.

*Absence explained.


 Professor Moody did not know whether a final decision had been made in terms
of the Senate because in the Ombudsman's Office a decision is made as to what
is best as long as something can be worked out with the instructor and

The Chairman thanked Professor Moody for his report.

The Chair recognized Professor Carolyn S. Bratt, Chair—elect of the Senate
Council, for the first agenda item. Professor Bratt, on behalf of the Senate
Council, moved approval of the proposal to revise Section V — 3.l.5,
University Senate Rules, relative to rescinding academic suspensions. She
stated that it was basically a new rule dealing with rescinding academic
suspension. She said that the rationale is that there are no rules about
rescinding academic suspensions. The intention of the rule change is to
continue to allow Deans the ability to rescind, but to signal that they should
do so only for good cause and only when they are prepared to report that
cause. The implementation date is January l990. This proposal was circulated
to members of the Senate under date of 27 September l989.


The Chairman noted the motion was from the Senate Council and required no
second. The floor was opened for discussion. Professor Hans Gesund (Civil
Engineering) wanted to know if any of the deans were contacted for comments.
He wondered how they feel about rescinding academic suspensions. He felt it
was similar to using a two by four to get someone's attention. Professor Dan
Fulks (Associate Dean of the College of Business and Economics) said that the
proposal has been discussed at some length. He feels that the result of the
discussion is that as a group the associate deans can live with the proposal.
He did not feel that the amendment to the rule was necessarily bad. He did
find the particular wording of the rationale to be insulting and offensive.

There was no further discussion. The motion unanimously carried and reads
as follows:

Proposal: (Underlined portion is new; bracketed portion is
to be deleted)

Section V 3.1.5 University Academic Suspension Policies


The following undergraduate student who has not previously been
academically suspended shall be subject to academic suspension
from the University, but a dean may continue a student on
scholastic probation if the individual case justifies it:

a. A student who acquires an additional deficit in excess of
five (5) quality points during any semester or session
while on scholastic probation.

A student who has a cumulative deficit in excess of l5
quality points at the end of any semester or session while
on scholastic probation.

A student who has been on scholastic probation for three
consecutive semesters.

A student who demonstrates that he/she cannot or will not
do satisfactory work.


 A student who is under academic suspension from the University
may not enroll in any courses offered by the University of
Kentucky, nor take any examination for University of Kentucky
credit while on academic suspension or probation.

A student who has been academically suspended from the
University a second time shall not be readmitted to the
University except in unusual circumstances and then only upon
recommendation of the dean of the college in which the student
plans to enroll and approval of the University Senate Council.

Once reported to the University Registrar an academic
suspension may be rescinded by the dean only in the event of an
error in the determination of the student's eligibility for
suspension, an official grade change that alters the student's
suspensiOn eligibility, or exceptional circumstances. In such
cases a written notice of rescission documenting the basis for
the action must be filed with the University Registrar by the
dean imposing the original suspension.


Rationale: There are now no rules on the books about
resc1naing academic suspensions. The rules simply say that
students may be reinstated after a semester and a summer
session (V — 3.1.6). This implies that suspension cannot be
rescinded, but in fact it often is. Deans find that they have
suspended students in error or that exceptional circumstances
that merit rescission have occurred. Some deans use the
suspension to get the attention of students who cannot seem to
be reached by mere probation. Policies on rescission are now a
matter of personal judgment by the deans and result in some
unevenness across the university. Further, within colleges,
only those students who guess right even know to apply for
rescission, so that even within colleges the "rule” is unequal.

The intention of the rule change is to continue to allow Deans
the ability to rescind, but to signal that they should do so
only for good cause and only when they are prepared to report
that cause (as professors now must do on grade changes). The
rule is intended to make all students aware of a right of which
only the lucky or brash are aware or taking advantage of. This
may add to the numbers of students placed on suspension who
will protest, but that seems fairer than having an unwritten
open door.

Implementation Date: January, 1990

The Chairman recognized Professor Bratt for the second agenda item.
Professor Bratt, on behalf of the Senate Council, recommended approval of the
proposal to revise Section VI —2.l.4 and Section VII - 2.3(f), University
Senate Rules, relative to the statute of limitations for the Ombudsman to hear
a grievance and to the retention of records by the instructor. She stated
that Section VI - 2.2.4 would be amended to add “by the last day of the


 semester following that in which the problem occurred (not including summer
terms.)” Section VII 2.3(f) would be amended to add "If any of the records
mentioned above are not returned to the students, they shall be retained by
the instructor until the last day of the following semester (not including
summer terms). In addition, student records and grading policy procedures
including roll books, syllabi and attendance records (if applicable)--or
copies of this information-—shall be on file with the instructor and/or the
department office whenever the instructor will no longer be available.” She
stated that the rationale for the rule is that a one—year period of time after
the end of the semester is too long. The implementation date is January,
l990. This proposal was circulated to members of the Senate 28 September l989.

The Chair noted that recommendations from the Senate Council required
no second. The floor was opened for discussion. Professor Gesund felt the
wording should be amended so that if an instructor left at the end of a
semester that records should be retained in the department office. He felt an
amendment should be made that records be retained by the instructor until the
last day of the semester (not including summer terms), but if the instructor
will no longer be available, the records shall be retained in the department
office. He asked if that would be reasonable. He stated that if the Senate
Council would accept the wording as an editorial amendment, there would be no
need for a formal amendment. The Chair agreed on the "and/or" and the
sentence was editorially changed to delete the ”and/" and would then read
"...shall be on file with the instructor or the department office whenever the
instructor will no longer be available." He felt the amendment needed to be
made because if the instructor would not be available, then students have a
hard time getting their exams for use with the Ombudsman. Professor Gesund's
amendment was to insert after ”the last day of the following semester" the_
sentence "If the instructor will not be present the records shall be retained
in the department office." He said that he would be satisfied with the
wording of the Rules Committee. Professor Bratt suggested the amendment be
”they shall be retained until the last day of the following semester (not
including summer terms) by the instructor or the department office whenever
the instructor will no longer be available." The amendment was seconded.
There was no further discussion on the amendment which unanimously passed.

Student Senator Mehran Jahed (Graduate School) asked the Ombudsman to
comment on the percentage of cases presented within six months after the
problem occurred. Professor Fulks spoke in opposition to the changes for two
reasons—-one philosophical and one pragmatic. His philosophical reason is
that the Rules Committee had two alternatives. They could either have
extended the time period for faculty to keep their records in order to
correspond with the statute of limitations, or they could have reduced the
statute of limitations. He believes their choice sends a familiar, although
not necessarily correct message. He furthermore does not believe it should be
a problem for faculty to retain records six additional months. The pragmatic
objection is that there are several valid reasons that students do not make a
grievance within the first semester following the problem. In direct response
to Senator Jahed‘s question, Professor Fulks stated that, although the precise
number of such cases is not readily known, if there is but a single case, that
should be a sufficient number. He is certain there is at least one such case
per year.


 Professor Moody stated his appreciation for the committee's action on
the rule. He felt the rationale made sense, but he agreed with Professor
Fulks that there are students who will not bring the case to the Ombudsman
prior to the end of the next semester. He was in favor of adopting the 365
days rule across the board. The Chair asked Professor Moody if he wanted to
make an amendment. Professor Moody said that he was in favor of leaving the
365 days in the rule. Professor Bratt clarified there would be no change in
2.l.4 and in 2.3(f) that in each place where ”the last day of the following
semester” appeared, there would be substituted "within 365 days subsequent to
the conclusion of the academic term in which the problem occurred.” The
amendment was seconded and the floor was opened for discussion on the

Professor Bradley Canon (Political Science) opposed the amendment. He
chaired the Rules Committee last year when it recommended the end of the next
semester cutoff. He said that Professor Fulks' arguments for a one—year
cutoff could just as easily support a fourfiyear cutoff and that there were
space reasons, especially in TA carrels, as well as reasons about what we
could expect instructors as a practical matter to do which argued for a one-
semester cutoff. Moreover, he argued, it did not seem likely that students
would wait beyond the next semester to complain about a perceived injustice.
He did not find Professor Fulks' argument that the proposed rule contracted
student rights persuasive.

As a point of information Professor Leigh said that the last sentence
does allow the students to appeal in cases of extreme hardships and the
problem could still be considered.

Professor David Durant (English) spoke in favor of the amendment. He
said it would be a great mistake to cut back on students' rights for a minor
convenience for the faculty.

Professor Edward Scheiner (Journalism) wanted to know from the
Ombudsman if papers would include projects. He said that in advertising they
had poster boards, photographs, etc. and he wanted to know if those had to be
retained. The Chair said that they would have to be retained if not given
back to the students.

Professor Gesund's perception of the problem is that if students don't
react immediately to receive justice, they will create an injustice in their
own minds just before graduation when they find they are in trouble. He did
not feel there would be much difference between one year or one semester. He
said that if the faculty wants to take good care of the students, then give
the papers back immediately for feedback and for purposes of study.

Professor Fulks felt the students are being punished for two reasons.
One is that the faculty is afraid students will fabricate problems and he
feels that is not fair to the good (or innocent) students. Secondly, he feels
the faculty is restricting rights of the students for the convenience of
faculty's storage problem. He said that when students had problems, one of
the first things asked is, ”Where is the exam or research project," and if it
has been thrown away, there is no way to resolve the case. Professor Fulks
appreciated the Rules Committee's efforts to bring the rules into agreement,
but he could not see a good rationale for cutting back the 365.


 Professor Philip Greasley (University Extension) stated that the
fastest growing group of students across the country is the non—traditional
group. He said that the rules made sense when talking about full-time
students on campus. He said that the non-traditional student might go at a
slower pace taking one course a semester. To him the rule was aimed at the
traditional student.

There was no further discussion. Chairman Leigh stated that the
amendment was to retain 2.l.4 as it was in that the Ombudsman can still hear
complaints within 365 days and the other part was the instructor and
department be required to keep records for 365 days past the end of that
semester. The amendment passed and reads as follows:

"until 365 days subsequent to the conclusion of the academic term in
which the problem occurred."

There was no further discussion on the main motion which passed as
amended and reads as follows:

Proposals: (Underlined portion is new; bracketed portion is
to be deleted)

Section VI

2.1.4 Statue of Limitations

The Academic Ombudsman is empowered to hear only those
grievances directed to his or her attention within 365 days
subsequent to the conclusion of the academic term in which the
problem occurred. However, the Ombudsman may agree to hear a
grievance otherwise barred by the Statute of Limitations in
those instances where (l) the Ombudsman believes that extreme
hardship including but not limited to illness, injury, and
serious financial or personal problems gave rise to the delay
or (2) all parties to the dispute agree to proceed. (US:2/ll/80)


Section VII

2.3(f) They shall return to, discuss with, or make available
to students all papers, quizzes and examinations within
a reasonable period of time, unless the confidentiality
of the examination precludes[;]. If any of the
records mentioned above are not—returned to the
students, they shall be retained by the instructor
until 365 days sUbsequent to the conclusion of the
academic term in which the problem occurred. In
addition, student records and grading policy procedures
including roll books, syllabi and attendance records
(if applicable)-—or copies of this information—-shall
be on file with the instructor or the department office
whenever the instructor will no longer be available.

Mark the following a new section 9 and reletter the remaining
rules in the section.

9. To give final examinations in accordance with procedures
approved in Section V., 2.4.6.



The Rules Committee expects that material relating
to a student who had an "I” grade in a course would
be retained until 365 days subsequent to the
academic term following the change in the “I”

Rationale: It is hard to believe that a student who really
believes a potential academic injustice has occurred will not
contact the instructor, ask for any unreturned material, and
bring the case to the Ombudsman prior to the end of the next
semester. Of course, there are students who drop out and
faculty on leave, but the same problems exist under a 365 day
rule. If contact is impossible, these problems can be met with
the student mailing or filing a complaint to the Ombudsman
during the following semester which sets forth the student's
suspicions. The Ombudsman would then ask for the relevant
material or ask the instructor to retain it longer.

Most instructors think it is common sense to keep material just
one semester. Their offices are small (TA offices are often no
more than a desk) and instructors are not in the storage
business. Their experience is that students who think an
injustice has occurred will not wait 365 days to complain about

The proposed "end of the following semester" policy is fair,
simple and realistic.

Implementation Date: January, 1990

There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 4:l5 p.m.

11/ /" ‘/' l ;y“\", r /, .
//. /// [/4 X/ [k
Randall w. DahT’
Secretary, University Senate




On July 1, 1988, I became the 15th person to hold the Office of
Academic Ombudsman at the University of Kentucky. As you may
know, this office was created in 1969 as a result of the student
protests in the late 1960’s. A few of my predecessors have held
the office for two years, while the majority of us felt that one
year was sufficient. Although I have been a member of the teach-
ing faculty at the University since 1963, I had no previous con-
tact with the Office of Ombudsman and was only vaguely familiar
with its overall function.

I allowed my name to be placed in nomination for this office more
out of curiosity than anything else. Once I had been screened
and interviewed by the committee, I became more interested and
was actually excited about the challenge it offered. I looked at
the office as an opportunity to grow as an individual and learn
more about the University academic community. I also felt that
my twenty—six years of teaching and advising students could be an
asset in working with students and faculty in mediating griev—
ances. After completing a year as Academic Ombudsman, I must
say, the office was everything I expected and then some.

My first few days were spent learning the procedures, reviewing
the Senate Rules and familiarizing myself with a few carry—over
cases that had been left by my predecessor. Unfortunately as it
turned out, a couple of these cases lasted the entire year. This
is a good time to take a moment to express thanks and apprecia-
tion to Ms. Frankie Garrison, the Assistant to the Ombudsman and
Mrs. Donna Bruszewski, a ten—month Staff Assistant, for their
help and assistance. Actually, had it not been for Frankie’s
help I would have been lost those first few weeks. Frankie and
Donna both do an excellent job in assisting the Ombudsman in
carrying out his duties. In fact, they are the only continuity
this office has from one year to the next. I think it extremely
important that some consistency be maintained, particularly as it
pertains to bench mark cases and certain policies that are
followed. Also, I think it fair to say that these ladies have a
tough job since they acquire a new boss every year or two.

As I reviewed the Ombudsman reports of previous years, it seemed
that many of the problems that confronted this office kept re—
occurring. The one thing that caught my attention from Bill
Fortune’s report last year was the need to establish better
communications with students. With this in mind, I decided to
make this my priority item for the year.

My report today will focus on three areas. First, I want to
comment on a few things we did this past year in an attempt to


 Academic Ombudsman Report
Page 2

improve communications. Second, I shall point out some of the
problem areas that exist and finally finish by telling you what I
think we, as a teaching community, can do to help lighten the
load of the Ombudsman and alleviate many of the problems that



From observation and talking with students, it became
clear that 1) many students don’t know that we exist and
those that do are either afraid to contact the office or
are reluctant to solicit its services and 2) many stu—
dents don’t know what their rights and responsibilities
are since they have never read the booklet entitled
Student Rights and Responsibilities. This being the
case, I decided to write a monthly article entitled the
"Ombudsman’s Corner" that would be published in the
Kernel (See list of articles at end of this report).
Overall, I was pleased with the response we had with this
series, as we received several compliments from both
students and faculty telling us that they had read our
articles and thought this an excellent way to get our
message across.

My second attempt to acquaint students with our office
was to work closely with the Student Government
Association. I found James Rose, President of the SGA,
not only interested in the idea, but he assigned one of
his student leaders to work with me in monitoring
complaints issued against foreign Teaching Assistants.

As you may recall, in the Spring of 1988, the whole issue
of foreign TA’s was very much in the news. I sensed that
students would voice their complaints to the Student
Government Association before coming to our office. Each
time we received a complaint on a TA, either from the
Student Government or from our office, it was forwarded
to a special committee appointed by Dr. Don Sands to
evaluate each case and make recommendations. I might add
that we had very few formal complaints last year which
indicated that the TA screening procedure appears to

be working.

My other approach to foster better communications with
students consisted of making talks before fraternity
groups and other student organizations. Although I did
not do many of these, I enjoyed the interaction with the
students and felt this was a worthwhile endeavor.


 Academic Ombudsman Report
Page 3


Our office participated in orientation programs for new
faculty and teaching assistants. Frankie and I set up a
booth at Parents Weekend to further inform students,
faculty and parents of the things we do. In addition,
our office sent out the usual "Beginning and End of
Semester" reminders to all faculty and administrators,
alerting them of important Senate rules and deadlines
pertinent to the teaching segment of the University.
Toward the end of the Spring semester, we mailed each of
you a "Flow Chart" describing the proper procedure to
follow in processing a cheating or plagiarism case. I
also gave a seminar to the faculty and graduate students
in one fairly large department. I regret not doing more
of this across campus, but we did this only upon request.
So, if any of you would like to have the Ombudsman
present a seminar to your group, I feel sure Dan Fulks
and Frankie Garrison would be happy to arrange such a


Last, but certainly not least, I thought it important to
keep the President informed of our activities on a
somewhat regular basis. To do this, I sent President
Roselle three reports at approximately four—month
intervals. Some of you know, it is not uncommon for a
disgruntled student’s parent to contact the President, a
member of the Board of Trustees or even a political
figure about a problem their son or daughter is having at
the University. Therefore, it seemed only appropriate
that we keep the President abreast of not only the
routine cases that come through our office but more
importantly the special "problem" cases that might become
awkward or embarrassing if allowed to get out of hand.
The President expressed appreciation for this information
so I felt it served a useful purpose if none other than
to act as a barometer for student grievances.


The next part of my report addresses special problem areas
that seem to haunt us year in and year out. We had a few new
problems this year but for the most part they were the same
problems with different faces. Those areas that consumed a
large portion of our time and tested our patience centered
around such things as grade discrepancies, common exams,
absences, repeat options (deadlines in general), course
requirements (particularly in colleges offering certification
programs), dead week, cheating and plagiarism.


 Academic Ombudsman Report
Page 4

This year we had two cases that took a disproportionate
amount of my time. Both cases involved students in pro—
fessional colleges. These cases were ongoing when I

assumed office in July and were only resolved a week or so
before I completed my year as Ombudsman. I have no doubt
that I could write a best selling book on one of the cases
since it took so many different turns during the course of
the year, but because of the confidentiality of our office, I
have decided against it.


The students number one complaint, as you might expect,
concerns discrepancies over grades. Every case seemed to
have a different twist, so it is difficult to pinpoint
any consistent thread of commonality that runs through
each one. Without going into a lot of detail, it is
probably fair to say that most of the problems result
from a misunderstanding or a failure on the part of the
teachers to clearly define their grading policy at the
beginning of the semester. In a few cases, discrepancies
occurred because of an honest mistake by the teacher not
recording a homework problem or not recognizing an
excused absence. Even a math error in computing the

grades resulted in a student receiving a lower grade than
expected. From my vantage point, it appears that
students who take predominately essay exams and who are
graded on their participation in class have the most
complaints about grades.


The common exam continues to be a headache despite
efforts to improve it. The problem seems to occur when
students find they have two tests at the same time.
Unfortunately, many of these students aren’t aware of the
test times when signing up for different courses. In
some instances this information was not available in the
class schedule book and in other cases the students

just didn’t think far enough in advance. Some of you, in
departments offering the common exam, have been very
cooperative in trying to work things out with the
students. Even with this, I still feel that more
attention should be given in trying to alleviate the
problem. I understand an effort is now being made with
the computerized registration to indicate on the
student’s schedule where a potential problem exists.
Hopefully, this will help, but if not, I suggest forming
a committee of those department heads and/or class
coordinators, together with the Registrar, Chairman of


 Academic Ombudsman Report

Page 5

the Senate Council, and the Ombudsman to iron out these
problems once and for all. In my opinion, there is no
reason why this has to be one of the major problems
listed in the Ombudsman’s report each year.


We still have too many students who have problems with
the excused absence policy. Senate Rule, Section V —
2.4.2, is very clear about those situations that
constitute excused absences. The problem seems to
surface when students fail to present their teachers with
sufficient documentation. Some teachers are reluctant to
give make-up exams even though the rule states that
students with excused absences are entitled to a make-up.
Another part of this whole matter of absences concerns
those absences which are legitimate, but aren’t mentioned
in the Senate Rules.

This is where good judgement and common sense must pre-
vail. Teachers must decide on an absence policy that is
fair and equitable to all students, but it should not be
so rigid that it cannot be altered.


Some students still have difficulty understanding the
Repeat Option rule. Most of the problems that have come
to us on this matter have been a result of student
negligence or just plain forgetting to sign up by the
deadline. In a few cases, problems have arisen as a
result of poor advising or errors in record keeping. By
in large though, this is the student’s responsibility.


In a few incidents, we had students come to us who had
accumulated a large number of hours, but because of
changes in the program, these students had no real hope
of getting a degree in the foreseeable future. Without
exception, these were students pursuing degrees in
accredited programs where the competition into these
programs is very stiff. I don’t feel it right for
students to be lead along and kept in the system without
some reasonable expectation for completion. Fortunately
the numbers of students that fall into this category are
relatively few.


 Academic Ombudsman Report

Page 6


Dead Week continues to be abused by some of our teachers
despite our efforts to publicize this in the Kernel and
by a special mailer. We just discovered this past spring
that a large