xt7dbr8mh02r https://exploreuk.uky.edu/dips/xt7dbr8mh02r/data/mets.xml University of Kentucky. University Senate University of Kentucky. Faculty Senate Kentucky University of Kentucky. University Senate University of Kentucky. Faculty Senate 1979-02-12 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 12, 1979 text University of Kentucky University Senate (Faculty Senate) meeting minutes, February 12, 1979 1979 1979-02-12 2020 true xt7dbr8mh02r section xt7dbr8mh02r UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY
LEXINGTON. KENTUCKY 40506

UNIVERSITY SENATE COUNCIL
IO ADMINISTRATION BUILDING

February 1, 1979

TO: Members, University Senate

The University Senate Will meet in regular session on Monday,
February 12, 1979 at 3:00 p. m. in the Court Room of the Law
Building.
AGENDA:
Approval of the Minutes of January 22, 1979. ’
Comments: Joseph A. Bryant, Jr., Chairman

Action Items:

a) Presentation of Honorary Degree Candidates:
Dr. W.C. Royster.

b) Proposal to change University Senate Rules, Section 1V,
2. 4. l Unclassified Graduate Student. (Circulated under
date of January 23, 1979.)

c) Proposed change in University Senate Rules, Section V,
4. 4 Change in Program Requirements. (Circulated under
date of January 31, 1979.)

(1) Proposed change in University Senate Rules, Section V,
4.1. 3 A Second Bachelor's or Nlaster‘s Degree. (Circulated
under date of January 24, 1979.)

e) Proposal to establish standards of admission and graduation
for students in the Honors Program. (Circulated under date of
February 1, 1979:)

f) Proposed Admissions Policies: College of Dentistry.
(Circulated under date of January 29, 1979.)

Elbert W. Ockerman
Secretary

AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY UNIVERSITY

Ms. Celinda Todd

EF
Senate Council
10 Admlnls

Lrvntl(n1 BLItIdilu;

03200

MINUTES OF THE UNIVERSITY SENATE, FEBRUARY 12, 1979

The University Senate met in regular session at 3:00 p.m., Monday, February 12, 1979,
in the Court Room of the Law Building.

Joseph A. Bryant, Chairman, presiding

Members absent: Michael A. Baer*, Charles E. Barnhart, R. Paul Baumgartner*, Janis L.
Bellack*, John J. Bernardo*, Brack A. Bivins, Jack C. Blanton, Thomas 0. Blues*, Carolyn P.
Brock*, C. Frank Buck*, Joseph T. Burch, Joe B. Buttram*, W. Merle Carter*, S. K. Chan*,
Linda Chen*, Donald B. Clapp, Richard R. Clayton, Lewis W. Cochran, Clinton Collins*, Glenn
B. Collins*, Ronda S. Connaway*, Samuel F. Conti*, Paul Davis, John A. Deacon*, Patrick P.
DeLuca*, George W. Denemark*, David E. Denton*, Ronald C. Dillehay*, Joseph M. Dougherty,
Anthony Eardley, Roger Eichhorn, Jane Emanuel*, Richard A. Etlin, James E. Funk*, Abner
Golden*, Joseph Hamburg, Virgil W. Hays, Roger W. Hemken, Raymond R. Hornback, Clyde L.
Irwin*, Malcolm E. Jewell, Richard I. Kermode, Edward J. Kifer*, James A. Knoblett*, Jane
Kotchen, Linda Krefting, Robert A. Kuehne*, Gretchen LaGodna, Thomas P. Lewis, Betty W.
McClaskey, Marcus T. McEllistrem, Lora McGuire, Marion E. McKenna*, Phillip J. Noffsinger,
Elbert W. Ockerman*, Jean Pival, Deborah E. Powell*, Walter Precourt*, David H. Richardson*,
Robert W. Rudd*, Kathryn Sallee*, Mike Schutte*, D. Milton Shuffett, Otis A. Singletary*,
John T. Smith, Tim Smith*, Don M. Soule, Lynn Spruill*, Joseph P. Straley*, Leonard Tipton*,
M. Stanley Wall, Marc J. Wallace, Constance P. Wilson

The approval of the minutes for the meeting of January 22, 1979, was deferred until
the March meeting.

The Chairman made several announcements. The first concerned the questionnaire that
has been circulated by the Library Committee dealing with the use of the King Library.
The Chairman urged the Senators to complete the questionnaire and return it to the commit—
tee; he noted that the Medical School will be circulating its own.

The second item was the announcement of the election of the Senate Chairman, Joseph
Krislov, for 1979—80 who will be taking office on July 1. The Chairman also thanked
everyone for the committee nominations for the various area committees, and noted that
these have been submitted to the President. He said that suggestions for members on a
Search Committee for a Dean of the College of Social Professions have been sent to the
President.

The Chairman called the Senators' attention to the next Faculty Recognition Dinner,
to be held on April 9. The person handling the details is Charles Atcher, who the Chair—
man said had done a magnificent job in the past.

He reminded the Committee Chairmen that Annual Reports are due in April.

The Chairman noted that the catalog continues to be a matter of concern and reminded
the Senators to use the "tear sheets'I from the old catalog only to make changes of a
typographical nature. If substantial changes are to be made, they must go through the
various Councils for approval. A revision in the catalog, he said, is not being called
for by a ”tear sheet.”

The Chairman's final item concerned the Ombudsman Search Committee of which Professor
Buck is Chairman. Nominations for Ombudsman are due February 20.

*Absence explained

The Chairman recognized Wimberly C. Royster, Dean of the Graduate School, who pre—
sented the proposed candidates for honorary degrees at the May 1979 Commencement. Dean
Royster presented five candidates with the request that the names be withheld until the
Board of Trustees have taken action and the nominees have accepted. Following Dean
Royster's presentation, the Senators voted unanimously to accept the five proposed
candiates for recommendation to the President.

The Chairman recognized Professor Daniel Reedy for a motion from the Senate Council.
Professor Reedy, on behalf of the University Senate Council, recommended approval of a
proposal to change University Senate Rules, Section IV, 2.4.1, ”Unclassified Graduate
Student." This proposal had been circulated to members of the University Senate under the
date of January 23, 1979. Dean Royster was asked to answer questions, and the floor was
opened for discussion.

A Student Senator asked why the number of credits that could be transferred into a
program was only nine. Dean Royster replied that all transfer credit from one program to
another or from another institution to the University would include only a maximum of nine
hours.

The previous question was moved, seconded and passed. The motion on the proposal
passed unanimously, and reads as follows:

Background:

Approximately three years ago the Senate established a status
of graduate student admissions called "unclassified.” A student is

considered unclassified if he or she (1) demonstrates promise but

has not qualified for admission to a degree program, or (2) has no
intention of completing a degree program. Students in this status
receive graduate credit but are not allowed to apply more than 12
hours of credit with a grade of A or B to a program leading to an
advanced degree. Unfortunately even in the brief period in which

it has been in effect the term unclassified has been used to desig—
nate an unofficial probationary status for many students though there
are a fair number of unclassified graduate students who are simply
taking courses. The Graduate Council therefore proposes the follow-
ing rules change to recognize the true status and intention of the
two main categories of people now registered as provisional students.
The Graduate Council, Graduate Faculty, Senate Committee on Ad-
missions and Academic Standards, and Senate Council recommend the
following rules change:

Proposed Rule:

IV, 2.4.1 Provisional Graduate Student —- A student who wishes to
pursue a higher degree, but who, for one or more of the
reasons listed below, is temporarily ineligible for regu-
lar admission status may be recommended by the Director
of Graduate Studies as a provisional student:

1) Missing transcripts or other requirements for ad—
mission such as letters of recommendation.

_.3_

Temporary waiver of the Graduate Record Examination.
Deficiencies determined by the program.

Temporary ineligibility for regular admission status
because program only reviews applications once a year.

Graduating University of Kentucky seniors lacking no
more than six hours for graduation; the consent of the
college dean and the Dean of the Graduate School and
approval of the Director of Graduate Studies are
necessary. Such students may take no more than 12
credit hours and must complete the undergraduate degree
during the semester in which they enroll in the
provisional status. '

Provisional status will be allowed for a maximum of one
semester or for the time required to complete 12 hours of
work. After this time the student's performance will be
reviwed, and within 30 days after the beginning of the
semester immediately following and on the recommendation
of the Director of Graduate Studies he or she will either
be given regular status or removed from provisional status.

Post—baccalaureate Student —— Students who hold a baccalau—
reate degree and who wish to take graduate courses with no
intention of pursuing a higher degree in a program may
apply for admission as a post—baccalaureate studentn

A post—baccalaureate student may take an unlimited number
of courses. If the student later decides to work toward a
degree, only nine hours of credit earned with a grade of A
or B may be transferred into a program with the approval
of the Director of Graduate Studies and the Dean of the
Graduate School. The time limit for the intended degree
will begin from the term of the first course transferred.

Permission to enter any graduate class as a post—
baccalaureate student will be granted only if the student
meets the prerequisites and if Space is available.

Regular Graduate Student —— Satisfied all requirements
for admission and accepted by the program.

The Chairman again recognized Professor Reedy for a motion from the Senate Council.
Professor Reedy, on behalf of the University Senate Council, recommended proposed change
and addition to University Senate Rules, V, 4.4, ”Change in Program Requirements.” This
proposed change had been circulated to members of the University Senate under date of
January 31, 1979. The Chairman explained that the Senate Council was aware that a change
of that kind had many ramifications and affected each program differently. He added that
the Council had given everyone the opportunity to make changes before submitting the
document to the Senate. Unfortunately, the Medical School had had no input. Therefore,
the Chair recognized Professor George Schwert for an amendment.

Professor Schwert moved that the words ”or professional" in the proposed change be
deleted. He added that the rationale for the request was that the degree requirements for
the Doctor of Medicine can not be stated in as specific and as fixed terms as those for
other degrees. The amendment was seconded.

Professor Weil expressed concern about the replies from the other professional
schools. The Chairman said that the Law School was not concerned one way or another.
Dean Packer spoke on behalf of the College of Dentistry in favor of the amendment. He
said that the rationale for excluding Dentistry was very similar to that for excluding the
Medical College.

Professor Adelstein asked which colleges are the professional ones. The Chairman
responded that there were two Councils which controlled the professional schools, and the
Senate Council controlled the Law School. A Senator wanted to know what the "numerous
expressions of uneasiness" were. Professor Sabharwal said that the original amendment was
for the Graduate School and not the professional schools. The problem existed when some
students were told they could not enroll in the Graduate School. Professor Weil said that
it was still not clear to him what the professional schools were. The Chairman said that if
the word "undergraduate" remained, all undergraduate programs even though considered pro—
fessional in nature would be included. If the second amendment remained, all programs
now under the Graduate School would be included. If the words ”or professional” are
omitted, all programs under the Academic Council of the Medical and Law School would be
excluded.

Professor Sears said that the professional schools included Medicine, Dentistry,
Law, the specific Doctor of Pharmacy degree and Pharmacy. Vice President Bosomworth said
that the baccalaureate programs in the Medical College did not come under the current
definition of professional.

Professor Lienhard proposed an amendment to the amendment, which was seconded, to
read:

"...for an undergraduate or professional, other than a medical or
dental, degree program...”

After considerable discussion Professor Lienhard withdrew his amendment. The previous
question was moved and passed. The amendment made by Professor Schwert to delete the words
”or professional” passed. There was no further discussion on the proposal as amended. The
previous question was moved and passed. The proposed change as amended passed and reads
as follows:

Background:

In response to numerous expressions of uneasiness, particularly
specific objections by two Ombudsmen, the Senate Council undertook
to consider Senate Rule V.4.4

V. 4.4 Change in Program Requirements
When requirements for an undergraduate degree program are
changed after a student has enrolled in it, the student
shall have the option of fulfilling either the old or the
new requirements.

In fulfilling the old requirements, if a student finds that
necessary courses have been eliminated or substantially rc-
vised, he may substitute other courses with the approval of
the dean of the college. In this eventuality, however, the
student shall not be forced to comply with the new require—
ment.

However, if a student interrupts his work in the program or
the University for more than two semesters, then the dean

of the college shall determine which requirements the student
shall fulfill.

If the curriculum revision is required by an external
accreditation certification body, and this body submits a
written statement to the University that the accreditation
of a program or certification of its graduates is in
jeopardy unless students fulfill the new requirements, the
option of fulfilling the old requirements shall not apply.

Add the following statement with respect to the Graduate
School:

When Graduate School or degree program requirements are
changed after a student has begun a course of study,

the student shall have the option of fulfilling either the
old or new requirements.

If the student elects to fulfill the old requirements but
finds that necessary resources (e.g., courses, instruction
in particular skills) are no longer available, the student
may make reasonable substitutes with the approval of the
Graduate School Dean upon recommendation of the Director of
Graduate Studies.

In the event that a student interrupts work on a graduate
degree (i.e., is not enrolled) for one calendar year or
more, the Graduate School Dean shall determine, upon
recommendation of the Director of Graduate Studies,
whether the old requirements or the new requirements shall
apply. In the event a student has not completed the re~
quirements for the graduate degree five years after the
effective date of a change in degree requirements, the new
requirements shall apply unless determined otherwise by
the Graduate School Dean.

The Chairman again recognized Professor Reedy for a motion from the Senate Council.
Professor Reedy, on behalf of the University Senate Council, recommended approval of a
proposed change in University Senate Rules, Section V, 4.1.3, ”A Second Bacnelor's or
Master's Degree.” This proposed change had been circulated to members of the University
Senate under date of January 24, I979. The Chairman added that the implementation date
would be ”immediately.” Dean Royster was asked to answer any questions about the second
master's degree and Dean Stephenson was asked to answer questions about a second bachelor's
degree. The floor was opened for discussion. Professor Neil asked if there were any mini—
mum requirements for a second bachelor's degree. Professor Stephenson responded that if a
student had taken all the courses required for a specific degree then the degree would be
conferred.

After additional discussion Professor Hasan moved, and it was seconded, that the
second sentence in the second paragraph be deleted. Professor Jaros said that the sentence
was technically redundant but experience suggested that it might be wise to leave it, and
he was against the motion. Professor Westley pointed out that the proposal stated the stu-
dents who switched programs were not pursuing a second graduate degree. The previous
question was moved and passed. The motion to amend the proposal by deleting the second
sentence in the second paragraph passed. In further discussion, Dr. Langston asked if
courses that were taken for one graduate degree could also apply for a second degree. Dean
Royster said that the student would have to meet requirements for both degrees. The pre—
vious question was moved and passed. The propOsal as amended passed and reads as follows:

Background:

On March 1, 1978, the Undergraduate Council wrote to the Senate
Council proposing a modification in the Senate Rules, V, 4.1.3
modifying the statement of conditions under which a person would
qualify for a second bachelor's or master's degree. Before acting
on the proposal the Council submitted it to the Graduate School
requesting consideration and recommendation. After several ex—
changes the Senate Council put together a proposal combining the
wishes of both the Undergraduate and Graduate Councils and asked
the Committee on Admissions and Academic Standards to review the
matter. The Council also, in September of 1978, asked the Rules
Committee to comment on the proposal. Finally, after additional
modifications, mostly of an editorial nature, the Council approved
the following version of the proposal which it now submits to the
Senate for final action.

Proposed Rule:

V 4.1.3 A Second Bachelor's or Master's Degree —— Students are
eligible to qualify for either a second bachelor's degree
or a second master's degree. For a second bachelor's
degree in the same college, the college will set the re—
quirements. For a second bachelor's degree in a different
college the student will be eligible whenever he has com—
pleted the requirements for a second curriculum.

In regards to graduate degrees, however, two degrees will
not be granted at the same time and simultaneous enroll—
ment in two or more programs is not permitted.

The Chairman again recognized Professor Reedy for a motion from the Senate Council.
Professor Reedy, on behalf of the University Senate Council, recommended approval of the
proposal to establish standards of admission and graduation for students in the Honors
Program. This proposal had been circulated to members of the University Senate under the
date of February 1, 1979. Professor Betts was asked to respond to questions. The floor
was opened for discussion.

A Student Senator asked if the Student Advising Council had been consulted. Pro—
fessor Betts responded that the proposal had been approved by the faculty and the Student
Advisory Council, but with some mixed feeling. He said that the immediate question was
whether or not the proposal would be retroactive. A Student Senator asked if an honor
student would be dropped immediately if he or she did not have a 3.0 grade point standing.

Professor Betts responded that if a student were doing reasonably well and extenuating
circumstances caused that student to fall below 3.0, then the Director of the Honors
Program would use his discretion as to whether or not to drop the student. He said that
3.0 was an arbitrary figure, but traditionally 3.0 stood for a ”B" or good performance,
and the Honors Program was designed for the better student. Student Senator Koopman
asked if the proposal would be retroactive or apply only to incoming freshmen. Professor
Betts said that he did not have the answer, but he felt that the proposal would not be
retroactive. The Chairman said that perhaps the answer was in the material circulated.
The Senate Rule states that "when requirements for an undergraduate degree program are
changed after a student has enrolled, the student shall have the option of fulfilling
either the old or new requirements.” Professor Bostrom asked if students graduating from
the Honors Program received special recognition or a certificate. Professor Betts said
there was a notation on the diplomas and beginning this year there would be certificates.

Professor Hasan moved an amendment, which was seconded, to add the word "normally."
The sentence would read:

...average of 3.0 or better is normally required...”

Professor Westley moved an amendment, which was seconded, to delete the word
"temporarily." The sentence would read:

"...academic performance drops below this level..."

Student Senator Wood expressed his desire to allow students to graduate in the Honors
Program with less than a 3.0 standing. Professor Betts said that the University would not
graduate a student with less than a 2.0 standing, and the Honors Program had to have cer—
tain standards also. The previous question was moved and seconded. The original proposal
as amended passed and reads as follows:

Background:

Up to this point the University of Kentucky Honors Program
has had no clearly defined standards of admission and graduation
other than those applicable to all other students. Nevertheless
it declares in its statement in the catalog that it seeks "outstand—
ing students" and offers them "a special program and a special
identity" and affirms its "commitment to academic excellence." The
following proposal was transmitted by the Honors Program through
the Undergraduate Council and the Senate Council recommends
approval:

Proposal:

Program Requirements: Students in the Honors Program are required
to maintain a good academic standing. A cumulative grade point
average of 3.0 or better is normally required for continued parti—
cipation in the program. In circumstances when the academic
performance drops below this level, the Director will consult with
the student to determine whether and by what means the student may
restore performance to an acceptable level. In any case, a
cumulative GPA of 3.0 will be required for graduation in the
Honors Program.

—8—

The Chairman again recognized Professor Reedy for a motion from the Senate Council.
Professor Reedy, on behalf of the University Senate Council, recommended approval of the
proposed Admissions Policies: College of Dentistry. This proposal had been circulated to
members of the University Senate under the date of January 29, 1979. Dean Packer was
asked to answer any questions, and the floor was opened for discussion. Dean Packer said
that the policies had been processed by the College of Dentistry Academic Assembly. During
that processing they had consulted with the Vice President's Office and the Student Advisory
Council. He added that the College of Dentistry was quite supportive of the proposal.
Professor Schrils questioned the lack of consistency of the interviewing process in Policy
Number Three, Methods and Procedures. Dean Packer responded that in regards to the ques-
tion of the interviewers who did not have access to the records, it was for a better change
of information without preconceived ideas.

A Student Senator asked what the general thrust was behind the last paragraph under
Policy Number Seven. Dean Packer responded the intent was that an advanced student could
very well function in the curriculum for the balance of his work. Professor Hasan ques—
tioned Policy Number Three, Methods and Procedures. Dean Packer responded that when the
Admissions Committee met there was input from the faculty and staff members, and then the
deliberation would take place. A Senator questioned Admissions Policy Number Seven con—
cerning admission of qualified individuals within underserved areas, for instance a student
from Jefferson County versus one from Harlan County. Dean Packer responded that the college
felt the responsibility to influence the distribution of dentists in the state of Kentucky.
He added that if a student came from Harlan County, in all probability he would return to
Harlan County. After further discussion, the previous question was moved and passed. The
Proposal as presented passed and will be forwarded to the Rules Committee for codification.
It reads as follows:

Background:

A year ago the faculty of the College of Dentistry undertook to re—
vise its admissions policies in order to improve the quality of
students and to insure that it would be training those who on gradu—
ation would be most likely to provide dental care to the population
of the Commonwealth, especially those parts of the population that
have been inadequately served in the past. The attached set of
policies have been approved by the Academic Council for the Medical
Center, the Senate Committee on Admissions and Academic Standards
and the Senate Council, which now submits it to the Senate with a
recommendation for approval.

Implementation Date: Fall, 1979

Admissions Policy Number One — RESPONSIBILITY FOR ADMISSIONS POLICY

Objective of the Policy: To identify the responsible agent for
establishing admissions policy for the Professional Dental Education
Program.

Responsible Agent: The Dean

Methods and Procedures: Admissions policy will be formulated by the
Academic Council and approved by the Academic Assembly.

Admissions Policy Number Two — SELECTION CRITERIA FOR INITIAL
SCREENING

Objective of the Policy: To define the criteria and process by which
applicants are selected for further consideration for admission to
the Professional Dental Education Program.

Policy Statement: The initial screening process will establish a
pool of qualified applicants, each of whom has the potential to
complete the Professional Dental Education Program. The size of
this pool may vary from year to year.

The following criteria will be considered in the initial screening
process: (a) undergraduate record, (b) dental admission test,

Responsible Agent: The Dean

Methods and Procedures: The initial screening will be based on a
thorough consideration of the following:

l. Undergraduate Record

quality of the institution attended

quality of the program followed

academic load carried

quality of pre—college education

consistent improvement since enrollment (recent performance)
total number of credit hours accumulated and grade point
average

Dental Admissions Test Scores

Letters of Reference

The applicant's integrity, concern for people, ability to relate
to and work well with others, and the potential for leadership
will be evaluated from letters of reference. These letters
should be written by those whom the applicant feels are best
able to comment on the characteristics mentioned above.

4. Application

The Application Form provides the candidate with an opportunity
to convey additional information, both in response to directed
questions and in his or her personal statement.

If, on the basis of a thorough examination of the above material,
the candidate does not appear to have the potential for success—
fully completing the Professional Dental Education Program, a
rejection notice will be sent. If the potential has been demon-
strated, an invitation for an interview will be sent (see
Admissions Policy Number Three).

Admissions Policy Number Three — CRITERIA AND PROCEDURES FOR FINAL
ADMISSIONS RECOMMENDATIONS

Objective of the Policy: To select candidates for admission who are
most likely to fulfill the goals and objectives of the Professional
Dental Education Program.

Policy Statement: The interview will be the final mechanism for
selection of candidates for admission from the pool of qualified
applicants.

Responsible Agent: The Admissions Committee

Methods and Procedures: All applicants who were not eliminated by
the criteria listed in Admissions Policy Number Two are considered
to be qualified and are issued an invitation for an interview. Each
candidate will be interviewed by three members of the Admissions
Committee. The first two interviewers, selected at random from the
Committee and having no prior access to academic grades and DAT
scores, will obtain information about the interviewee's social
awareness and concern, sensitivity toward patient needs, compassion,
and practice orientation. The third interviewer will be an
administrative staff member who has full access to all records at
the time of interview.

All information pertaining to the candidate is presented to the full
Admissions Committee which will then select the best candidates
available for recommendation to the Dean.

Admissions Policy Number Four — KENTUCKY RESIDENTS

Objective of the Policy: To admit qualified candidates who are most
likely to provide primary dental care within the Commonwealth of
Kentucky.

Policy Statement: The number of Kentucky residents accepted for
admission into the Professional Dental Education Program will equal
or exceed the percentage required by the Council on Public Higher
Education.

Responsible Agent: The Dean

Methods and Procedures: The pool of qualified applicants will be
divided into resident and nonresident groups. Candidates accepted
from the resident pool will equal or exceed the percentage placed
upon the College by the Council on Public Higher Education.

Admission Policy Number Five — UNDERSERVED AREAS OR POPULATION
GROUPS WITHIN THE COMMONWEALTH

Objective of the Policy: To influence future distribution of prac—
ticing dentists within the Commonwealth through the admissions
process.

Policy Statement: Recruitment and admission of qualified indivi—
duals with the greatest probability of establishing practices with-
in underserved areas or population groups of the Commonwealth will
be given particular emphasis by the Admissions Committee.

Responsible Agent: The Dean

Methods and Procedures: The Admissions Committee will use available
data to ascertain areas or population groups of documented need with—
in the Commonwealth.

Admissions Policy Number Six — MAINTENANCE OF OPTIMUM ENROLLMENT

Objective of the Poligy: To define the procedures to maintain
optimum enrollment in the College of Dentistry.

Policy Statement: The College will attempt to maintain optimum
enrollment in the Professional Dental Education Program through ad-
mission of advanced standing students.

Responsible Agent: The Dean

Methods and Procedures: When available data indicate that optimum
enrollment is not being maintained, the Dean will direct the
Admissions Committee to select students for consideration for ad-
mission as advanced standing students.

Admissions Policy Number Seven - ADVANCED STANDING STUDENTS

Objective of the Policy: To define the process by which advanced
standing students may be admitted to the Professional Dental Educa—
tion Program.

Policy Statement: To maintain optimum enrollment, the College of
Dentistry may accept advanced standing students.

1. Definition: An advanced standing student is a student who
is accepted into the College of Dentistry at any point in
the curriculum other than the customary beginning of the
first day of the first semester of the first year.

Admissions Procedure: Students may be considered for
admission with advanced standing upon formal application.

Responsible Agent: The Dean

Methods and Procedures: Advanced standing students follow the
same admissions procedures as other applicants with the exception
of the final admissions decision. Applicants will be considered
for admission individually or in relation to other advanced stand—
ing applicants.

Those recommended by the Admissions Committee will be forwarded to
the Assistant Dean for Student Affairs for the development of a
special curriculum. The curriculum will then be presented to the
Administrative Co