xt795x25f131 https://exploreuk.uky.edu/dips/xt795x25f131/data/mets.xml University of Kentucky. University Senate University of Kentucky. Faculty Senate Kentucky University of Kentucky. University Senate University of Kentucky. Faculty Senate 1985-02-11  minutes 2004ua061 English   Property rights reside with the University of Kentucky. The University of Kentucky holds the copyright for materials created in the course of business by University of Kentucky employees. Copyright for all other materials has not been assigned to the University of Kentucky. For information about permission to reproduce or publish, please contact the Special Collections Research Center. University of Kentucky. University Senate (Faculty Senate) records Minutes (Records) Universities and colleges -- Faculty University of Kentucky University Senate (Faculty Senate) meeting minutes, February 11, 1985 text University of Kentucky University Senate (Faculty Senate) meeting minutes, February 11, 1985 1985 1985-02-11 2020 true xt795x25f131 section xt795x25f131 LMNVERSHY OF KENTUCKY




Members, University Senate

The University Senate will meet in regular session on Monday,
February 11, 1985 at 3:00 p.m. in room 106, Classroom Building.

Minutes of 10 December 1984.

Chairman's Announcements.





Honorary Degree Candidates: Professor Malcolm Jewell.

Proposed change in University Senate Rules, Section IV, 2.1
1, Transfer Students (circulated under date of 29 January


Proposed change in University Senate Rules, Section VI.,
1.3 (c) Academic Evaluation (circulated under date of 30
January 1985).


INFORMATION STATEMENT: College of Dentistry Professor E.



George Dexter




The University Senate met in regular session at 3:00 p.m., Monday, February ll,
l985, in Room l06 of the Classroom Building.

Robert Bostrom, Chariman of the Senate Council, presided.

Members absent: Michael A. Baer, Charles E. Barnhart, Jack C. Blanton, Thomas 0.
Blues, James A. Boling*, Peter P. Bosomworth, Henry Cole*, Glenn B. Collins*, Leo S.
Demski*, Richard C. Domek, Jr.*, Herbert Drennon, Nancy E. Dye, Paul M. Eakin, Anthony
Eardley, William Ecton, Charles H. Fay, Gerald Ferretti*, Joseph L. Fink*, Carolyn
Fore*, Ray Forgue*, Wilbur Frye*, Richard W. Furst, Art Gallaher, Jr., Lester Goldstein*,
Andrew J. Grimes, Gina Hall, Marilyn D. Hamann*, S. Z. Hasan*, Leonard Heller, Stan
Hoffman, Raymond Hornback, James Hourigan*, Donald W. Ivey*, Keith Johnson*, John Just,
James 0. King, Laura L. Ladd*, James R. Lange*, Robert Lawson, Edgar Maddox, Kenneth E.
Marino*, Sally S. Mattingly*, Marcus T. McEllistrem, Ernest Middleton, H. Brinton
Milward, Keven D. Moore*, Clayton Omvig, Bobby C. Pass*, Alan R. Perreiah*, Robin D.
Powell, Madhira D. Ram*, E. Douglas Rees, Thomas C. Robinson, Gerald A. Rosenthal*,
Charles Sachatello*, Edgar Sagan, Timothy Sineath, Otis A. Singletary*, David A. Spaeth*,
Howard Sypher*, Elizabeth Taylor, Kenneth Thompson, Luke Thornewill, John Thrailkill*,
Kellie Towles, Marc J. Wallace, O'Neil Weeks, James H. Wells, Charles T. Wethington,
Carolyn Williams*, Paul A. Willis, Constance Wilson

The Minutes of the Meeting of December l0, l984, were approved as circulated.

Chairman Bostrom recognized Professor Malcolm Jewell for the presentation of the
honorary degree candidates as recommended by the Graduate School. The Chairman asked
that the five names be kept confidential because it might be embarrassing to the per-
sons if the names were released. Following Professor Jewell's presentation, the
senators voted unanimously to accept the candidates for recommendation to the President.

Chairman Bostrom recognized Professor Bradley Canon, Secretary of the Senate
Council, for a motion. Professor Canon, on behalf of the Senate Council, recommended
approval for the proposed change in University Senate Rules, Section IV, 2.l.l,
Transfer Students. Professor Canon said the proposal was rewording the rule to change
the general definition ”good standing“ and provide that a student transferring to UK
must have a cumulative standing of 2.0 or better for all work attempted and have a
cumulative GPA of 2.0 or better for all work attempted at the last institution attended.
This proposal was circulated to members of the senate under date of January 29, l985.


The Chairman recognized Dr. Sands, Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs, for a
proposed amendment. Dr. Sands felt that Part B of the proposal could cause some
serious problems. He moved an amendment to delete Section B. He said if a student
had a 4.0 average from Stanford after two years and took a summer course and received
a “D“, the second course would be excluded by UK. He felt the policy applied to
students who would have met the University's admissions standards anyway. He added
that the 2.0 GPA should be on all college work attempted and not on work attempted
at the last institution attended. The amendment was seconded.

Professor Canon said the substance of the amendment had been considered in the
Senate Council. He felt exceptions could be made and there was no point in writing
rules whereby every conceivable possibility could be covered. Professor Altenkirch
felt the situation which Dr. Sands described happened in such few numbers they could
be handled on the exceptions basis. He said the numbers were slim and therefore
opposed the amendment.

*Absence explained



Chairman Bostrom clarified that the proposed change was only to substitute for
number l of the present Rule IV, 2.l.l and only referred to an individual who had not
completed twenty-four hours. If an individual qualified under number 2 of the present
rule, he/she would be allowed to transfer.

Professor McMahon suggested redoing the proposal because what had been done was
taking two permutations and leaving a lot in the middle unanswered. He felt what could
happen was to make it more difficult for someone who originally met admissions criteria
but later could not transfer. Chairman Bostrom said the intent was to make it more
difficult to transfer. Professor McMahon wanted to know the rationale for making it
more difficult to transfer. Professor Altenkirch said he did not want to speak on the
rationale, and he was not convinced the wording was what the committee originally pro—

Professor Neil moved to refer the motion and amendment to the Senate Council. The
motion was seconded and passed unanimously.

Chairman Bostrom recognized Professor Bradley Canon. Professor Canon, on behalf of
the Senate Council, recommended approval of the proposed change in University Senate
Rules, Section VI., l.3 (c) Academic Evaluation. This proposal was circulated to
members of the senate under date of January 30, l985.

The Chairman recognized Timothy Freudenberg, President of Student Government.
Student Senator Freudenberg said the proposal was originated by several student organi—
zations to improve the ”Student Code.” Basically, the point was the three areas:
sexual orientation, age and marital status which have no relevance in the relationship
between the faculty member and student in the classroom. The intent was to add these
to a list of criteria which was not relevant in the grading process. Student Senator
Tom Stephens had some problems with the proposal because he did not feel any student
should be discriminated against for any reason. He felt it was not necessary to have
a list. Mr. Stephens proposed an amendment to strike from'among through affiliations“
and add ”no criteria other than academic performance may be taken into consideration
regarding admissions, financial aid, grading policies or any activities outside the
classroom that are unrelated to the course work or program requirements.” The proposed
amendment was seconded. The proposed change as amended would then read:

”(c) Evaluation determined by anything other than a good
faith judgment based on explicit statements of the above
standards are improper. No criteria other than academic
performance may be taken into consideration regarding
admissions, financial aid, grading policies or any
activities outside the classroom that are unrelated to
the course work or program requirements.”

Chairman Bostrom said the rule concerned academic evaluation, and he was not
sure about the financial aid statement.

Professor Harris pointed out while he could see the desirability of not adding
restrictions endlessly, there was a problem for some graduate programs where there
were considerations to a person's ability for a particular field that had little to
do with the grading in a purely academic course. He felt the amendment had some far

reaching implications for decision making that would have to go on in the future for
the graduate programs.



Professor Canon felt the amendment was out of order as it was written because the
proposal was dealing only with the awarding of grades and the proposed amendment con-
cerned admissions and financial aid. He felt the amendment should not be considered
at all or reworded to cover only grades. Student Senator Stephens agreed to reword
the amendment in order that it might be proper. The person who seconded the amendment
also agreed to delete the words admissions and financial aid.

Professor Rea reminded the senators that the proposal was dealing with class
grades. Professor Davis said there was a logical problem with the last clause because
the proposal originally pertained to areas for no discrimination and now seemed to
be used in an area in which discrimination could happen. Student Senator Stephens
said that was the intent.

Parliamentarian Blyton pointed out the statement might be that anything other
than academic judgment on an academic matter is improper. Student Senator Freudenberg's
feeling was that the impetus of the proposal was the University felt in the past a list
of irrelevant considerations were important. He questioned if the list was important
once, why was it not still important.

Vice Chancellor of Student Affairs, Dr. Zumwinkle, said the Student Code Committee
had received a proposal for a code in respect to sexual orientation and that the
committee probably would not resolve that question for a week or two. He pointed out
that admissions and financial aid are provided for in the ”Student Code.ll

Student Senator Stephens said the reason he proposed the amendment was to make the
statement perfectly clear. He felt no student at UK should be discriminated against
for unrelated activities to course work. Professor Wood said in the past the feeling
was that it was important for those students who had suffered an injustice an extra
impetus would be given so they would not be discriminated against. She did not follow
the logic of the statement in pointing out just specific areas of discrimination.

Professor McMahon said listing the most important areas in which discrimination
might occur served a function. In the context of the senate he felt it was important
to list the items. Professor Olshewsky opposed the amendment and said the purpose
of the list was to give exemplars and that was made clear by the phrase'jrrelevant

Professor Belmore moved the previous question which was seconded and passed unani-
mously. In a hand count the amendment failed. There was no further discussion and
the motion carried. The proposal as presented by the Senate Council reads as follows:

Proposal: (new portion is underlined)

VI., l.3 (c) Evaluations determined by anything
other than a good faith judgment based
on explicit statements of the above
standards are improper. Among irrele—
vant considerations are race, color,
religion, sex, national origin,
sexual orientation, age, marital status,
and political affiliations, or any
activities outside the classroom that
are unrelated to the course work or
program requirements.



The proposal was submitted to the University Senate
Council by the Student Government Association on
behalf of the following groups: GALUS, Socially
Concerned Groups, UK Young Democrats, Emergence,
and NOW. The proposed change was reviewed by the
Senate Committee on Admissions and Academic Stan—
dards and the Senate Council, and is recommended

to the Senate for approval.

Implementation Date: Immediately

Chairman Bostrom recognized Professor Emmett Costich from the Oral Surgery Depart—
ment for an information statement dealing with the current state of affairs in the
College of Dentistry. Dr. Costich's remarks follow:

”My purpose in being here is to ask the Senate to evaluate

the academic effects of the University of Kentucky—University
of Louisville sharing agreement for the College of Dentistry.
I believe it needs immediate investigation by the body respon-
sible for the academic program of this University, for it has
serious implications for all of you. With that in mind I will
provide this background.

The Commonwealth has been confronted with serious finan—
cial problems. At the same time, concerns for the quality of
education have increased. This has culminated in wide public

discussion regarding funding for all levels of education, re—
sulting in some improvements in elementary and secondary educa—
tion but higher education continues to be severely stressed

In seeking solutions to funding problems, the Council on
Higher Education (C.H.E.) has shown particular concern for
”duplication” of programs. There are duplicate programs in
many fields, but the health professions, law and engineering
stand out because they are expensive. In late l982, the
Council engaged the services of MGT of America, a Jacksonville,
Florida consulting firm, to look at professional education.
Apparently due to budgetary and time constraints, the study
was done quickly with little on—site investigation or data
collection. Thus, unfortunately, the MGT report contains many
inaccuracies. It is apparent that the report was written with
fundamental misunderstandings regarding the purpose and scope
of programs and the sources and amounts of budgets.

Despite the haste with which it was researched and
written and despite its many inaccuracies which are widely
known and easily substantiated, the MGT report is being used
by the C.H.E. as the guide for designed programs of interin—
stitutional cooperation in dental education. Although the
report contains recommendations about professional programs
in medicine, dentistry, law and engineering, only those per—
taining to dentistry are being acted upon by state educational
planners and governing bodies.



Both Drs. Singletary and Swain have worked hard to com-
ply with the spirit of this inadequate, incorrect study with-
out seriously compromising dental education in the state. In
response to the MGT recommendation to merge the two schools
at one site, i.e., to close one school, the presidents have
proposed a plan to retain both institutions as separate en—
tities but to reduce operating expenses by sharing resources
including specialty programs and faculty. The presidents'
plan also includes provision for a 'blending' of curricular
programs at pre— and post-doctoral levels, common recruiting
and admissions procedures, similar tuition and for combining
continuing education into a single unit. There has also been
a permanent committee formed to monitor the state's dental
personnel needs and to make recommendations on total enroll—
ment. The presidents' plan was submitted to the C.H.E. in
September of l983 and was heralded by both the Council and
the press as the dawn of a new era in interinstitutional
cooperation; an agreement that could serve as a prototype for
all types of future cooperative efforts in higher education.

The faculties of both colleges met in Louisville with
Dr. Swain in early December, l983, following which committees
were formed to study and develop ways for sharing and managing
a cooperative plan. The time and effort of a large number of
faculty was expended in development during the Spring semester
of l984. Implementation of a portion of the plan began in June
although a large component, primarily concerning pre-doctoral
education, has yet to be finalized and put in operation. Parts
which were implemented include agreements made by the presidents
concerning shared chairmen, distribution of speciality training
programs, and creation of a unified continuing education pro-
gram. Negotiations continue on common admissions policies and
procedures. No action has been taken on a variety of academic

It is time to step back and assess the impact that the
agreements for shared chairmen, speciality program distribution
and unified continuing education are having on our college.
With experience, we have become wiser and problems that were
not apparent as we all worked to implement the presidents'
proposals are now emerging. What has been gained by this ex-
periment to date?

The dental colleges at both Universities, in their efforts
to carry out the agreements made by the presidents and to help
solve some of higher education‘s financial problems, have gone
through a very serious introspective study. It has given us
the stimulus and opportunity to develop a data base and thus to
look seriously at our efficiency. This introspective study is
about the only positive result to date. This period of intro—
spection has been accompanied by in—depth comparisons between
the two institutions. These comparisons have revealed that there
are fundamental philosophical differences in the approach to
dental education at our college and the School of Dentistry of
Louisille. Both schools produce educated, qualifed practi—



tioners but by very different approaches. Our philosophy and
curriculum were developed in the early sixties based on recommen-

dations of the Committee on Curriculum of the American Association
of Dental Schools and the Kentucky Conference on Dental Curricu-

lum. Those efforts brought about an innovative, diagonal
curriculum that served as the model for curricula in the many
new dental schools that followed UK. Our college has continued
to be innovative and continues to lead in pre—doctoral curricu-
lum development. Louisville, on the other hand, has maintained
a more traditional approach, that is, two years of primarily
academic activity followed by two years of predominantly clini—
cal activity. These fundamental philosophical differences pre—
clude close coordination of the two institutions unless one or
the other modified dramatically its approach to dental educa—

What specific problems have resulted from this agreement?

There are now three shared department chairmanships. Two
are chaired by UK faculty and one from UL. The three gentle—
men receive an additional $5,000 per year plus travel and
living expenses. All three appointments immediately filled
preexisting vacancies in chairmanships - 2 at UL and l at UK.
The two departments at Louisville were in disarray when the
joint appointments were made. As a result, the Kentucky chair-
men have spent extra time in Louisville (one in excess of 40%
F.T.E.) and have taken other faculty and graduate students with
them to get the teaching done there. At the same time both have
had to recruit new faculty for Louisville which has an accredita-
tion review in the Spring of l985. Administrative problems at
Louisville had not only created faculty and departmental pro-
blems but had delayed efforts to prepare for accreditation.

The Kentucky joint chairs have been making a great effort to
prop up the Louisville program in preparation for accreditation
but at a very great price in teaching and patient care here

at UK.

A second problem that has arisen concerns the distribution
of dental specialty graduate programs between the two institu—
tions. Before the agreement, UK had post—doctoral programs in
pediatric dentistry, periodontics, orthodontics, oral surgery
and general practice. The programs in periodontics and ortho—
dontics both offered an M.S.D. through The Graduate School in
addition to the certificates awarded by all five specialties.
As a result of administrative decisions that are still unclear,
our strong, nationally—known, M.S. and certificate program in
orthodontics has been eliminated. All graduate education in
orthodontics is now based at Louisville. So far as we know,
this program was traded without any concurrence by faculty in
our college or by the Graduate Faculty or the University Senate.
Louisville had three post—doctoral programs and now has a total
of five post—doctoral programs as a result of the distribution
agreement. We have four, a net loss of one. There does not
appear to be any academic basis for these decisions.



Finally, the combined Continuing Education program is in
financial trouble. What had been an independent, self—supporting
C.E. program at UK is being dragged through red ink as a result
of the integration mandated by the cooperative agreement and
negative reaction from the practicing community. The combined
C.E. program has also required additional administrative effort
by a UK chairman who serves as Director of the combined program,
thus diluting his time for departmental responsibilities at UK.
This is another example of the combined program being substan—
tially less than that which had existed at UK before merger.

In the opinion of many of us who have to work daily with
their effects, these changes have done little to strengthen our
college and, in fact, are compromising our nationally recognized,
innovative dental curriculum. Our strength is being slowly but
inexorably drained by the physical and psychological effects of
an agreement that many of us see as entirely too one—sided. We
have yet to see, nor can we foresee much to strengthen our
program. UL has already reaped benefits in terms of infusion
of leaders from UK at the administrative and teaching levels and
by the acquisition of sole rights to the prestigious, lucrative
orthodontic graduate program. UL is also benefitting from the
efforts of President Swain to boost faculty morale and to up—
grade the school image by earmarking $750,000 to refurbish their
physical plant over the next three years. This money will un-
doubtedly soften the effects of the C.H.E. mandated $600,000
reduction in state money for both ULSD and UKCD.

While we realize that the agreement forged by the presidents
was done with the intent to preserve both Colleges of Dentistry,
many of the arrangements were worked out rapidly, with little
study and, unfortunately, with little consultation with Univer-
sity academic bodies like the Senate which the Governing
Regulations of the University gives responsibility to, (i) deter—
mine the broad academic policies of the University and make
regulations to implement these policies, (ii) approve all new
academic programs, curricula and courses and (iii) recommend to
the President on the establishment, alteration and abolition of
educational units in the University.

There is talk of other colleges having shared programs.
The press and the public are watching the dental school sharing
experiment as a prototype for other shared programs. It is
time for the Senate in its role as representative of the entire
faculty to evaluate the project before it proceeds further.

You need to determine: l) the effect of shared chairman—
ships on the quality of educational programs, 2) the impact of
shared chairmanships on faculty development and research,

3) What it has cost in real dollars and quality of programs?

4) What it has cost in faculty morale and it would also be in-
structive for you to assess the potential impact a similar model
would have on teaching, education and research in your own



The University of Kentucky has been identified as the Flag—
ship University with a statewide mission. As such it has the
responsibility to provide programs that are deemed necessary
to meet higher education needs. The University is looked to for
the comprehensive programs to carry out education, research, and
service for the Commonwealth. The Albert B. Chandler Medical
Center of this University meets the challenges in health care.
The College of Dentistry has met that challenge and has striven
to accomplish its state—wide mission. The Senate Council in an
October, l983 letter to the Executive Director of the Council on
Higher Education identified the quality and breadth of the
College of Dentistry programs and their contribution to the
University of Kentucky. The Council went on record stating that
it '...strongly support the position that the College of Dentis—
try remain an integral college with the University of Kentucky.‘

Mr. Chairman, I urge you and the Senate to direct the
Committee on Academic Organization and Structure to immediately
study the presidents' agreement and to direct the Committee to
report to the Senate and the entire faculty the impact of that
agreement on the academic policies and programs of this Univer-
sity. It is imperative that this be done before July, l985 when
another chair at UK may be lost based on the plan generated by the

Chairman Bostrom thanked Professor Costich and said he appeared as a result of a
petition from approximately twenty senators. The Chairman made it clear that Dr.
Costich's statement was for information only and no action was contemplated immediately.

The floor was opened for questions and discussion. Professor Thomas Mullaney read
an excerpt from the Administrative Council Minutes. The statement follows:

”The College of Dentistry's Administrative Council supports the
College's Academic Council in its internal review of the effect

of the cooperative agreement between the University of Kentucky

and the University of Louisville. In addition, the Administra—
tive Council supports Dr. Emmett Costich's request for the Senate
to participate with the academic arm of the College in the con-
tinued review and evaluation of the effects of the cooperative
agreement as it is implemented. “ (The membership of the College's
Administrative Council consists of the Dean, Assistant Deans and
Department Chairmen.)

Dean Packer said the Colleges of Dentistry had been into an agreement since last
June and several people had put forth a lot of effort. He said the Academic Council
was very supportive of the report. He added that as information came into the admin-
istrative “pipeline” corrections would be done to insure continued quality of the
program and be supportive of the cooperative agreement.

Professor Applegate was surprised to learn that programs had been discontinued,
moved, and modified without coming before the University Senate. His understanding was
that there had been significant academic decisions and modifications made and none of
these had been brought forward. The Chairman said there was a technicality in that the
post doctoral programs may not be the purvey of the senate.



Professor Applegate moved that the Senate Council become actively involved in the
process of reviewing the changes that have been made in the dental program at the
University of Kentucky as requested by Dr. Costich. He did not object to waiting for
a report from the Academic Council of the College of Dentistry. Professor Belmore
seconded the motion.

Professor Rea felt it was particularly important that the University Senate and
the Senate Council keep their “eyes on” the dental school merger since there was fur—
ther discussion concerning merger between the two universities on a much larger scale.

Professor Drummond, Chairman of the Academic Council in the College of Dentistry,
said the Council supported Professor Costich's efforts to bring the report to the atten—
tion of the senate. The Council is in the process of looking into the matter them-
selves and should have their report in about a month.

As a matter of information, Professor Canon said the Senate Council has formed an
ad hoc committee to advise on merger and to draft a statement to the Board of Trustees'
committee relating to merger. He was not sure the University Senate, Senate Council
and Committee on Academic Standards ought to take up an investigation of the particular
details of how the merger is affecting the dental school. Professor Canon felt the
Senate Council should wait because he did not feel the senate knew that much about
dental education.

Professor Applegate's understanding was that the dental school's report would not
be available for a month, and he hated to see the senate wait and wanted to begin
immediately. Professor Stanhope supported Professor Costich’s efforts. IIThe College
of Nursing shared a dean with the University of Louisville for two years,“ she said.
While it was a favorable arrangement with the college administration she was not cer—
tain of the effects it had on the College of Nursing faculty and programs. She was in
favor of a committee beginning work very soon. Professor Neil felt the Committee on
Organization and Structure could look into, without waiting for the Academic Council's
report, better procedures for handling moving, ending, and continuing academic pro—
grams. Professor Rea did not feel the original motion had anything in it about how
quickly work should begin and obviously the sooner the better but was not part of the
motion and probably did not belong in the discussion. The Chairman said Professor Rea's
point was well taken and debate ought to be confined to the merits of the motion and
not when work should be done.

The motion to direct the Committee on Academic Organization and Structure to be-
gin work on the issues raised in Professor Costich's statement passed.

The meeting adjourned at 4zl5 p.m.

Martha M. Sutton
Recording Secretary

Note: The revised l985—86 University Calendars and the proposed l987-88 University
Calendars are being circulated for your information.



1985 1985 Fa11 Semester

February 15 Friday — Recommended date for freshmen to submit 1985 Fa11 Semester

June 1 Saturday - Undergraduates p1anning to participate in the Summer
Advising Conferences, in preparation for the 1985 Fa11 Semester,
shou1d app1y for admission or readmission

June 15 Saturday - Ear1iest date to submit app1ications for regu1ar and Ear1y
Decision Program admission, Co11ege of Medicine, for Fa11 1986

June 23—

Ju1y 25 Summer Advising Conferences for new freshmen, Community Co11ege Transfers
advanced standing (transfer) students, auditors, nondegree and readmitted
students enro11ing in the 1985 Fa11 Semester

Ju1y 26 Friday — Dead1ine for app1ying for admission or readmission to The
Graduate Schoo1 for the 1985 Fa11 Semester

August 1 Thursday - Dead1ine for app1ications for Ear1y Decision Program, Co11ege
of Medicine, for Fa11 1986

August 7 Wednesday - Last day Advance Registered students may pay $50 to confirm
their 1985 Fa11 Semester registration

August 26 Monday - Registration for new students who did not advance register

August 27 Tuesday - Centra1ized add/drop for Advance Registered students

August 27 Tuesday - Last day a student may officia11y drop a course or cance1
registration with the Registrar for a fu11 refund of fees

August 28 Wednesday - C1ass work begins

August 28

September Wednesday through Wednesday — Late registration for returning students who
did not advance register and new app1icants c1eared 1ate for admission.

A $20 1ate fee is assessed students who register 1ate.

September Monday - Labor Day - Academic Ho1iday

September Wednesday - Last day to enter an organized c1ass for the 1985 Fa11 Semester

September Wednesday — Last day to officia11y withdraw from the University or reduce
course 1oad and receive an 80 percent refund

September Wednesday — Last day for payment of registration fees and/or housing and
dining fees in order to avoid cance11ation of registration and/or mea1 card

September Wednesday — Last day to drop a course without it appearing on the student's

September Wednesday - Last day to change grading option(pass/fai1 to 1etter grade
or 1etter grade to pass/fai1; credit to audit or audit to credit) in
co11ege dean's office

September Wednesday - Last day to fi1e for repeat option in co11ege dean‘s office,
if student is retaking a course in the 1985 Fa11 Semester

September Friday — Last day for reinstatement of students cance11ed for nonpayment
of registration fees and/or housing and dining fees. Requires payment
of fees p1us $50 reinstatement fee.

September Thursday - Last day for fi1ing