xt79gh9b8p2b https://exploreuk.uky.edu/dips/xt79gh9b8p2b/data/mets.xml University of Kentucky. University Senate University of Kentucky. Faculty Senate Kentucky University of Kentucky. University Senate University of Kentucky. Faculty Senate 1980-10-13  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 13, 1980 text University of Kentucky University Senate (Faculty Senate) meeting minutes, October 13, 1980 1980 1980-10-13 2020 true xt79gh9b8p2b section xt79gh9b8p2b UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY
LEXINGTOV. KENTUCKY 40506

UNIVERSITY SENATE COUNCIL
IO ADMINISTRATION BUILDING

September 30, 1980

Members , University Senate

The University Senate will meet in regular session on Monday, October 13,
1980 at 3:00 p. m. in room CB 106.

AGENDA:

University Senate Minutes, September 8, 1980.

Memorial Resolution.

Chairman's Remarks

Action Items:

a) Proposal to establish a selective admission policy in the

Department of Medical Technology, College of Allied Health
Professions. (Circulated under date of September 30, 1980.)

b) Proposal to remove individual department requirements

for admission to the upper division program in the Department
of Metallurgical Engineering. (Circulated under date of Septem-
ber 29, 1980.)

Elbert W. Ockerman
Secretary

If you are unable to attend this meeting, please call Ms. Martha
Ferguson in the Registrar’s Office (7-2958).

AN EQUAL OPPORT'UN'TY UNIVERSITY

 

 MINUTES OF THE UNIVERSITY SENATE, OCTOBER 13, 1980

The University Senate met in regular session at 3:00 p.m., Monday, October 13, 1980,
in Room 106 of the Classroom Building.

George Schwert, Chairman, presiding

Members absent: Tawny Acker, Rusty Ashcraft, Albert S. Bacdayan, Michael A. Baer*,
Charles E. Barnhart, John J. Bernardo, Brack A. Bivins*, Jack Blanton, Scott F. Boggess,
Bob Bolin, Peter P. Bosomworth, Robert N. Bostrom*, Joseph T. Burch, Harry M. Caudill,

S. K. Chan, Donald B. Clapp, D. Kay Clawson, Lewis W. Cochran*, Glenn B. Collins*,

J. Donald Coonrod, Emmett R. Costich*, M. Ward Crowe, George Denemark, Philip A. DeSimone*,
Louis Diamond*, Marcus L. Dillon, Joseph M. Dougherty, John Drake, Herbert N. Drennon,
Phillip A. Duncan, Anthony Eardley, W. W. Ecton, Roger Eichhorn*, Joseph Engelberg*,
Charles H. Fay*, Paul G. Forand*, Art Gallaher*, John H. Garvey, Jon P. Gockerman,

Zakkula Govindorajuju*, Andrew J. Grimes*, Joseph Hamburg, Jesse G. Harris*, Jack Heath,
Roger W. Hemken*, Andrew J. Hiatt, Raymond R. Hornback, Alfred S. L. Hu*, Eugene Huff*,
Michael H. Impey*, David T. Kao, Jane Kotchen*, Ralph Lane*, James R. Lang*, Thomas P.
Lewis*, Gordon P. Liddle*, Rey M. Longyear*, Tim Mann, James R. Marsden*, William J.
Marshall*, Marion E. McKenna*, Martin McMahon*, Susan Meets, Ernest Middleton, John M.
Mitchell, Elbert W. Ockerman*, Thomas Olshewsky, Merrill W. Packer*, Leonard V. Packett*,
Bobby C. Pass*, Antoinette Powell*, Deborah E. Powe11*, David Proffitt*, Diane Raggard,
Herbert G. Reid*, Gregory Richardson, Philip W. Roeder, C. Blake Ross, Edith Rowe, Charles
Rowell, Robert W. Rudd*, Holly Schumacher*, D. Milton Shuffett*, Timothy Sineath*, Otis
Singletary*, John T. Smith*, David A. Spaeth*, Edward F. Stanton*, Marjorie S. Stewart*,
Rrad Sturgeon, Joseph V. Swintosky*, Lee T. Todd*, Harold H. Traurig*, Mark Vickers,

M. Stanley Wall, O'Neal Weeks*, Paul A. Willis, J. Robert Wills, H. David Wilson, Alfred
D. Winter, Madeleine Yeh, Robert G. Zumwinkle*

The minutes of the meeting of September 8, 1980, were approved as circulated.

Chairman Srhwert recognized Professor Virgil Hays who presented the following
Memorial Resolution on the death of Professor W. M. lnsko, Jr.

_~/, MEMORIAL RESOLUTION
Wyatt Marion Insko, Jr., 1901-1980

W. M. Insko, Jr., emeritus Professor of Animal Sciences
(Poultry) died August 24, 1980. Ho was popularly known as
"Jack" to his many friends throughout the University and the
Poultry Industry. Jack was born in Carlisle, Kentucky, March 10,
1901. He received a B.S. (Agriculture) degree from the Uni—
versity of Kentucky in 1924, the M.S. degree at West Virginia
University in 1927 and did graduate work at the University of
Wisconsin in 1928.

In 1924 and 1925 he taught vocational agriculture and
served as principal of the high school at Perryville, Kentucky.
He was assistant in Animal Husbandry at West Virginia Univer—
sity from 1925-1927 and a teaching fellow at the University of
Wisconsin in 1927 and 1928. Tn 1928 he joined the Animal Indus—
try Department of the University Of Kentucky as Assistant in
Animal Nutrition, becoming Assistant Poultry Husbandman in 1931,
Associate Professor in charge of Poultry Husbandry in 1939 and
Professor in charge of Poultry Husbandry in 1941. From 1960
to 1966 he was Professor and Head of the Department of Poultry

*Absence explained

 

 -2-

Science. On merger of the Animal, Dairy and Poultry Husbandry
Departments into the Department of Animal Sciences in 1966, he
became Professor of Animal Sciences in which capacity he served
until his retirement July 1, 1971. His service to the University
of Kentucky and the Poultry Industry of the state and nation
spanned 43 years. He was author or co—author of more than 100
experiment station bulletins and technical papers, as well as
numerous popular articles dealing with Poultry Research. His
research interests were broad, being concerned with mineral
metabolism and nutrient requirements of growing chickens and
laying hens, factors affecting the hatchability of chicken and
turkey eggs, growth of chickens and turkeys and aging in chickens.

He served on the training schools committees of the
National Poultry Improvement Plan and the National Turkey Im—
provement Plan and was Chairman of the Committee on body weights
and measurements of the National Turkey Improvement Plan.

He served as Director of the Poultry Science Association
from 1944 to 1947 and from 1950 to 1952, was second Vice—
President 1947—1948, first Vice—President 1948—1949, President
1949—1950, and was elected a Fellow of the Poultry Science
Association in 1962. He was also a member of the World Poultry
Science Association, the American Association for the Advance—
ment of Science, the Kentucky Academy of Science, Alpha Zeta
and Sigma Xi.

After retirement from the University, Jack worked with
numerous senior citizens groups at Maxwell Street Presbyterian
Church and was active in the Meals on Wheels Program. His wise
counSel and guidance and his pleasant manner will be missed
by all who knew him.

(Prepared by Professor Virgil W. Hays, Chairman, Department of Animal Sciences)

Chairman Schwert directed that the Resolution be made a part of these minutes and
that a copy be sent to Mrs. Insko. The Senators were asked to stand for a moment of
silence in tribute and respect to Professor Wyatt Marion Insko, Jr.

The Chairman introduced the members of the Senate Council. The members are:
Daniel R. Reedy, Spanish and Italian; Donald Soule, Economics; Donald Ivey, School
of Music; James Kemp, Animal Sciences; William Wagner, Chemistry; Paul Sears, Chemistry;
Glenn Collins, Agronomy; Douglas Rees, Medicine; Joseph Krislov, Ex Officio; Vincent
Yeh, Student Government; Tawny Acker, Student Government, Constance Wilson, Ex Officio,
Faculty Trustee; Brad Sturgeon, Student Government President.

The Chairman also introduced Dr. David Stockham and Colonel James Alcorn, two
Sergeant-at—arms; Elbert W. Ockerman, Secretary of the Senate; Martha Ferguson, Record—
ing Secretary; Celinda Todd, Staff Assistant to the Senate Council; and Stanford
Smith, Parliamentarian.

The Chairman said that Professor Malcolm Jewell, who was the Chairman of a committee
some years ago whose report resulted in the current structure of the Senate, has written
a letter suggesting that it may well be time to reconsider the functions of the Senate
and to consider the number and composition of the various committees of the

 

 -3-

Senate; to explore the possible use of ad hoc committees to serve the areas that

many of the standing committees of the Senate now serve; and also suggested it might

be questioned whether or not it is essential that every member of the Senate to serve

on a committee. He also raised the question as to the optimum size of the Senate.
Chairman Schwert felt these were issues of substantial concern with the academic well“
being of the University. He invited the Senators who had an interest in serving on this
committee to consider these issues or if they wished to nominate some fellow member,

to get in touch with him.

The Chairman recognized Professor Constance Wilson who spoke to the Senate in the
role as Faculty member of the Board of Trustees.

Professor Wilson spoke to the Senate as follows:

"Last year we said that we would report periodically to the Senate
in our role as Trustees. Bill Wagner and I will alternate doing this.
First, I want to tell you about some activities of the Board of Trustees.
Both of us attend the regular meetings of the Board as well as all the
Executive Committee meetings. Many times faculty concerns come up at the
Executive Committee meetings. We also represent you on the Council on
Higher Education whiéh has an Advisory Committee made up of the Faculty
Trustees of every public University in the State and one person who
represents the private colleges. Some Trustee business that involves
changes relevant to faculty:

1. Deans' Search Committee - a Board of Trustee member has been
put on the Deans" Search Committee for the College of Business
and Economics and the College of Arts and Sciences.

Governing Regulations — I call your attention to the Board of
Trustees minutes item PR—3 which has to do with faculty consul—
tation. Many faculty are interested in this.

Community College Trustee — A change in the governing regula—
tions is in process in order to reflect the fact that the
Community Colleges will be electing their own trustee.

4. Medical Center - Change in the by-laws of the University
hospital.

All Trustee meetings are open to everyone. They are held on the
18th floor of Patterson Tower and I hope you will come to observe the
process at least once. Trustee minutes are available in every Depart—
ment, in the King Library, and in the Senate Council Office. The
structure of the Council on Higher Education has also changed. Presi—
dent Singletary mentioned the change in the role of University
Presidents. Other sub—groups of the Council are: Executive Committee,
the Academic Affairs Committee, the Health Sciences Advisory Committee,
Financial Affairs Committee, Faculty Advisory Committee, the Student
Advisory Committee, and Private College Advisory Committee. Harry
Snyder chairs the meetings of faculty trustees and the appropriate staff
(depending on the subject) of the council attend.

Bill Wagner has given you two sheets that contain information we
received last week at the Council meeting. We thought the comparison
of UK and U of L relating to the appropriation/FTE student would be of

 

 interest to you because every time we have been to those meetings we

have heard faculty at U of L say that UK gets more funding and UK gets
more of everything from the State. As you can see, these figures clearly
show U of L gets a big hunk of the ”pie” and, in fact, more than we get
for the FTE equivalent. The other sheet gives a comparison for all the
regional colleges. These are a first draft and will be discussed further
at the next meeting of the Advisory Committee. We will keep you informed.

Other business included a financial exigency statement made at the
faculty trustee meeting of the Council which reads: 'The Executive
Director (Snyder) was urged to request that each university develop a
well defined policy on financial exigency.‘ Two faculty members were
appointed by the Chairman of the Advisory Committee, Dr. William
Buckman of Western Kentucky University to meet with Dr. Robert Sexton
to determine the appropriate means by which our committee can pro-
vide information to the committee appointed by the Governor to chart
the future of higher education in Kentucky. A person from Eastern
and one from Murray were designated by the chairman to serve. The
teacher education certification was also discussed. Apparently,
many faculty who teach in the basic sciences are very concerned about
a new regulation for teacher certification that adds hours in the
methods courses in education in order to qualify for certification.
There was strong feeling that there should be more content courses in
a particular discipline rather than adding methods courses. If you
have any ideas on that, we will be glad to forward them to the Council
on Higher Education. The Council really has no direct responsibilities
in this area, but a committee to look at the implications for other
disciplines will be appointed. Other information — the review of
doctoral and masters programs has been completed. The review of under—
graduate programs has now begun. If any of you have concerns about
undergraduate programs that have been in the Council pipeline for two
years, the review process is about to begin. Another item on the
Council Agenda is a review of all the mission statements of all the
universities. I don't know if you remember the fight our President
pulled off successfully in recognizing the University of Kentucky as
the State University. The University of Louisville was quite unhappy
about this. The review will look at any overlap in programs among
universities and colleges. Mr. Snyder said, 'There are certain univer-
sities that by their actions or by their programs are preventing other
universities from carrying out their mission statements.“ ”

Professor Wilson answered some questions raised by Senate members. A Senator asked
what the first sheet "Appropriation/FTE" meant? Professor Wilson responded that one sheet
had all the regional colleges in the breakdown. It did not have UK or U of L on it. They
did not have a breakdown of the figures from UK or U of L. Professor Wagner said this came
about primarily because of the newspaper publicity over the Kentucky State University.

The Governor had the Council to look into the situation. Professor Wilson said that
financially UK is lower than the regional universities. The question was asked if the
figures had been published and Professor Wilson said they had not and this was a first
draft. A question was asked about the comparison with the benchmark institutions and
Professor Wilson said the Council was going to get those figures. The comment of Mr.
Snyder was, "UK looks pretty good.”

 

 The Chairman recognized Professor James Kemp for a motion from the Senate Council.
Professor Kemp, on behalf of the University Senate Council, recommended approval of the
proposed change in the University Senate Rules, Selective Admissions Policy: Department
of Medical Technology, College of Allied Health Professions. This proposal was circu—
lated to members of the Universty Senate under date of September 30, 1980.

 

The floor was opened for questions and discussion. A Senator wanted to know why
twelve hours of General Chemistry was required, how the score of 70 percent was arrived
at on the interview, and how objective it was. Professor Vittetoe responded that the
chemistry requirements were for six hours of general chemistry, four hours of organic
chemistry and the lab. As for the interview scores, there are three different people who
interview each student. There are seven or eight categories on the interview form. As
far as the categories are concerned, they are not scored individually but each person
makes a designated interpretation. They are not absolutely objective. The question was
asked if Professor Vittetoe saw any legal problems arising from the students who were
rejected. She responded that there might always be the outside possiblity that someone
would ask why they didn't get accepted but if that were the only thing the college based
admission on, they would be on shaky ground. She added that the college felt safe in
that particular realm.

Professor Stein-Martin drew the Senate's attention to the Rationale Statement on
page four concerning bias on the part of the interviewers. Professor Pival wanted to
know if the three interviews would be conducted by three different people. Professor
Vittetoe said what they tried to do was have three students interviewed by the same
three professors. There are eight people on a committee who are interviewers. Inter—
views are scheduled for thirty minutes at a time and each student is interviewed indi-
vidually. »

Professor Just wanted to know why the GPA requirement in the sciences was lower than
the overall GPA. Professor Vittetoe responded that the college had an equal concern
and would like to see the GPA higher. However, most students found sciences more diffi-
cult than other general studies requirements. Therefore, they were given some leeway.

Dean Langston wanted to know if provision had been made for students who had taken
courses earlier but had not been employed; therefore, they would have no recommendations.
Professor Vittetoe said that recommendations were really character references and not
necessarily employment recommendations. A Student Senator said that he questioned the
validity of admitting a student who had a year of experience with a GPA of between 2.0
and 2.29. In the rationale "motivation is another factor" it seemed to the student
that someone motivated by a year of experience could be under heading one with "signifi—
cant improvement." Professor Vittetoe said that if a person had been working and out
of school for awhile, there was some problem with grade/inflation. The college felt
that by the mere fact they were highly motivated, the students had changed their minds
and wanted very badly to do well and improve their grades. She said, "there are people
who want to change their lives, and they should have the opportunity to do so."

Professor Christensen pointed out that the Department of Medical Technology had
put extensive effort into going back and looking at students who had succeeded in their

program. They had checked the students under the criteria the Department was setting up.

There was no further discussion. The proposal passed and reads as follows:

Background:

The Department of Medical Technology has had selective admissions
since 1972. Recent Federal, State and University regulations in

 

 fair practices for student admissions regarding race, color, creed,
sex, age or national origin dictate that the existing process be
clarified and refined to prevent discrimination. This concern for
fair practice is reiterated by the accreditation agency for schools
of medical technology, the National Accrediting Agency for Clinical
Laboratory Sciences (NAACLS). The NAACLS guidelines state that
"admission policies should be based on established criteria that
are necessary to assure admission of students who are prepared for
the educational program.” In another statement, specific require—
ments are spelled out for the quantitative and qualitative criteria
needed to prevent discrimination, while assuring the preparation of
safe practitioners having the requisite intellectural, psychomotor
and professional skills.

Therefore, the faculty of the Department of Medical Technology
propose the following definition of the process and criteria neces—
sary for admission into the professional program.

The Department of Medical Technology Admission Committee will con—
sider applicants who have:

1. Filed application with the University of Kentucky and the
College of Allied Health Professions or who are enrolled therein.

Completed 45 of the 60 semester hours required for admission,
including:

English Composition or equivalent 3-6 hours
Chemistry with laboratory 12 hours
Microbiology with laboratory 5 hours
Mathematics (required sequence) 4—6 hours

Submitted professional application materials, including:
Initial application form(s)

Official transcript(s) of completed course work

List of courses planned and/or in progress

Three recommendations from former employers or instructors
ACT scores

Interviewed with three departmental and/or clinical faculty.

Shown evidence of being capable of carrying out the duties of
a professional medical technologist.

Criteria for Admission:

 

The following specific criteria are proposed:
1. Composite GPA of 2.5 or above.*

Science/Mathematics GPA of 2.3 or above.

*All GPA calculations are based on a 4.0 = A

 

 Rationale: The Department of Medical Technology is collecting
data on students and graduates related to their success in this
program and in the profession of medical technology. Data
gathered to date indicate that an overall GPA of 2.5 and a
Science/Mathematics SPA of 2.3 are minimal to succeed in pro—
fessional program courses and to pass national certification
and/or licensure examinations.

Three recommendations which indicate suitable ratings on the
applicant's professional characteristic, e.g.: commitment,
responsibility, personal relations and ability to communicate.

Three interviews which ascertain information on the applicant's
knowledge of the profession and of the program's requirements;
and, the applicant's motivation to complete the program. An
average score of 70% or better is required for admission.

Rationale: Based on available data and professional judgment,
students who have low ratings on recommendations and/or who

have an interview score of less than 70% are generally unable to
adjust to the professional work milieu. Examples of poor adjust—
ment are: a) failure to establish and maintain good working
relations with employees, students and colleagues; b) high
attrition rate due to such factors as low commitment to the pro—
fession, lack of interest, etc.

Alternative Judgments relative to the above criteria:

 

Due to the wide variety of applications received and to the admitted
subjectivity of the latter two criteria listed above, the following
alternative judgments may be made relative to the above criteria:

1) If overall GPA is between 2.30 and 2.49, the applicant will
not be rejected based exclusively on PGA if the ACT composite
score is at or above the 50th percentile and if the transcript
shows evidence of significant improvement over the last one
or two semesters.

If the Science/Mathematics (S/M) GPA is between 2.0 and 2.29,
the applicant will not be rejected based on S/M GPA exclusively
if there is documented evidence of at least one year experience
in a clinical laboratory.

Rationale: Since completion of the program requires both
cognitive and psychomotor skills, applicants who have clini-
cal laboratory experience will have mastered the majority of
basic psychomotor skills. Therefore, those skilled applicants
may spend more time on didactic aspects of course work.
Motivation is another factor which enhances the success of
those entering with clinical experience. They have a sense

of direction and already understand many of the applications
for didactic material being learned.

 

 —8—

If the recommendations are unsatisfactory or if interview
scores are less than 70%, the applicant will not be rejected
based on these criteria exclusively but may be considered
qualified according to committee vote based on professional
judgment.

Rationale: In cases where there appears to be some bias on
the part of the interviewers or recommendors, the qualities
rated low will be considered and/or more information will be
sought to verify stated deficiences or undesirable qualities.
In recognition of the uniqueness of each applicant, the com-
ponent of subjectivity is somewhat diluted by the large size
(at least eight persons) and varied background of the Medical
Technology Admission Committee.

Qggree Reguiremengs: Students enrolled in the Medical Tech—
nology Program must satisfy the University of Kentucky graduation
requirements and obtain a 2.0 GPA in Medical Technology.

Students are expected to be familiar with Medical Technology
degree requirements. Faculty from the Department of Medical
Technology will serve as advisors to students in pre—professional
and professional curricula.

It should be noted that the Allied Health Clerkship and Clini—
cal Practicum are graduation requirements and will necessitate
off-campus experience outside Lexington.

Note: Implementation Date — Spring Semester 1981

The Chairman recognized Professor James Kemp for a motion from the Senate Council
on the second action item on the agenda. Professor Kemp, on behalf of the University
Senate Council, recommended approval of the proposal to remove individual department
requirements for admission to the upper division program in the Department of Metallur—
gical Engineering. This proposal was circulated to members of the University Senate
under date of September 29, 1980.

The Chair pointed out that the proposal tended to ease the requirements for

admission rather than stiffening them. There was no discussion. The proposal passed
unanimously and reads as follows:

Background:

On May 8, 1978, the University Senate approved rules for Admission to
the College of Engineering. These rules include the following criteria for
admission to the upper division (Section II. A);

 

1. Completion of a minimum of sixty (60) semester hours
acceptable toward the degree program with a minimum
cumulative grade point average of 2.0.

Completion of the following degree program require—
ments with a minimum grade point average of 2.0 in:

Freshman English

Freshman Chemistry course sequence
Physics course sequence

Calculus course sequence.

 

 In addition, admission to the upper division in Metallurgical Engi—
neering required a minimum grade point average of 2.0 in all required
courses listed in the first two years of the program, General Studies
excepted.

This additional requirement meant that students had to have a minimum
GPA of 2.0 in courses in Economics, Engineering Graphics, Computer
Science, Thermodynamics, Organic Chemistry and Materials Science.

The Department of Metallurgical Engineering now wishes to drop this
individual departmental requirement for admission to the upper
division.

The proposal to drop all special departmental requirements for ad—
mission to upper division status and to adopt the uniform College
requirements as the only qualifications for upper division status
has been approved by the College Faculty, the Senate Committee on
Admissions and Academic Standards and the Senate Council and is be—
ing recommended for Senate approval.

Note: Implementation Date - Spring Semester 1981

The meeting adjourned at 3:45 p.m.

Martha M. Ferguson
Recording Secretary

 

 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY
LEXINGTON KENTUCKY 40506

UNIVERSITY SENATE COUNCIL
Io ADMINISTRATION BUILDING

September 29, 1980

Membe rs, University Senate
University Senate Council

AGENDA ITEM: University Senate Meeting, Monday,
October 13, 1980.

Background:
On May 8, 1978, the University Senate approved rules for Admission to

the College of Engineering. These rules include the following criteria for
admission to the upper division (Section ILA)

 

1. Completion of a minimum of sixty (60) semester
hours acceptable toward the degree program with
a minimum cumulative grade point average of Z. 0.

Completion of the following degree program re-
quirements with a minimum grade point average
of Z. O in:

Freshman English

Freshman Chemistry course sequence
Physics course sequence

Calculus course sequence.

In addition, admission to the upper division in Metallurgical Engineering re-
quired a minimum grade point average of Z. O in all required courses listed in
the first two years of the program, General Studies excepted.

This additional requirement meant that students had to have a minimum GPA
of 2., O in courses in Economics, Engineering Graphics, Computer Science,
Thermodynamics, Organic Chemistry and Materials Science“

The Department of Metallurgical Engineering now wishes to drop this indi—
vidual departmental requirement for admission to the upper division.

AN EQUAL OPPOFT .INITY UNIVERSITY

 

 Page 2
Senate Agenda Item: October 13, 1980 (Engineering Proposal: Metallurgical)
September 29, 1980

The proposal to drop all special departmental requirements for admission to
upper division status and to adopt the uniform College requirements as the only
qualifications for upper division status has been approved by the College Faculty,
the Senate Committee on Admissions and Academic Standards and the Senate
Council and is being recommended for Senate approval.

a, u, u, u. u.
r s “s -A. , .

Note: Whenever possible, amendments or motions relative to agenda items

on the floor of the Senate for action should be presented to the presiding officer
in writing by the person(s) proposing said amendments or motions prior to the
opening of the Senate meeting.

 

 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY
LEXINGTON. KENTUCKY 40506

UNIVERSITY SENATE COUNCIL
10 ADMINISTRATION BUILDING

September 30, 1980

Members, University Senate
University Senate Council

AGENDA ITEM: University Senate Meeting, October 13,
1980. Proposed Selective Admissions Policy: Department
of Medical Technology, College of Allied Health Professions.

Background:

The Department of Medical Technology has had selective admissions since
1972° Recent Federal, State and University regulations in fair practices for
student admissions regarding race, color, creed, sex, age or national origin
dictate that the existing process be clarified and refined to prevent discrimina—
tion. This concern for fair practice is reiterated by the accreditation agency
for schools of medical technology, the National Accrediting Agency for Clinical
Laboratory Sciences (NAACLS). The NAACLS guidelines state that "admission

policies should be based on established criteria that are necessary to assure
admission of students who are prepared for the educational program. " In
another statement, specific requirements are spelled out for the quantitative and
qualitative criteria needed to prevent discrimination, while assuring the prepara-
tion of safe practitioners having the requisite intellectual, psychomotor and pro-
fessional skillso

Therefore, the faculty of the Department of Medical Technology propose the
following definition of the process and criteria necessary for admission into
the professional program.

The Department of Medical Technology Admission Committee will consider
applicants who have:

1;. Filed application with the University (f Kentucky and the College
of Allied Health Professions or who are enrolled therein,

Completed 45 of the 60 semester hours required for admission,
including:

English Composition or equivalent 3—6 hours
General Chemistry with laboratory 12 hours
Microbiology with laboratory 5 hours
Mathematics (required sequence) 4—6 hours

AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY UNIVERSITY

 

 Page 2
Senate Agenda Item: October 13, 1980 (Selective Admissions: Medical Technology!
September 30, 1980

30 Submitted professional application materials, including:

Initial application form(s)

Official transcript(s) of completed course work

List of courses planned and/or in progress

Three recommendations from former employers or instructors

ACT scores

Interviewed with three departmental and/or clinical faculty.

5. Shown evidence of being capable of carrying out the duties of a
professional medical technologist.

Criteria for Admission:
The following specific criteria are proposed:

 

10 Composite GPA of 2., 5 or above. >:=

2. Science/Mathematics GPA of 2° 3 or above‘,

Rationale: The Department of Medical Technology is collecting
data on students and graduates related to their success in this
program and in the profession of medical technology, Data
gathered to date indicate that an overall GPA of Zn 5 and a
Science/Mathematics SPA of 2., 3 are minimal to succeed in
professional program courses and to pass national certification
or/or licensure examinationsa

Three recommendations which indicate suitable ratings on the
applicant's professional characteristic, ea go: commitment, re—
sponsibility , personal relations and ability to communicate.

Three interviews which ascertain informat