xt7ffb4wmc3j https://exploreuk.uky.edu/dips/xt7ffb4wmc3j/data/mets.xml University of Kentucky. University Senate University of Kentucky. Faculty Senate Kentucky University of Kentucky. University Senate University of Kentucky. Faculty Senate 1990-02-12  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, 1990 text University of Kentucky University Senate (Faculty Senate) meeting minutes, February 12, 1990 1990 1990-02-12 2020 true xt7ffb4wmc3j section xt7ffb4wmc3j [MWVERSHY OF KENTUCKY



24 January 1990

Members, University Senate
University Senate Council
AGENDA ITEM: University Senate Meeting, Monday, February 12, 1990.

Proposal to amend University Senate Rules, Section IV ~ 2.1.2 (b),
Admission to Advanced Standing.


Proposal: (Delete highlighted, bracketed portion)

2.1.2 Admission to Advanced Standing


(a) Admission of University of Kentucky Community College Students:
Grades, credits, quality points and academic status from courses
taken in the University of Kentucky Community College shall be
transferred. when. the Community College student enrolls in. the
University System. The applicability of any given. courses not
offered in the University System towards a University degree
shall be determined by' the Dean. of .the College in which the
student enrolls.

Admission of All Other Students:

Applicants for admission must present evidence that they are in
good standing in every respect in the institution they last
attended. At no time shall college or university records be
disregarded to admit an applicant solely on the basis of his/her
high school records. Credit hours for courses accepted from a
junior college, or other two year colleges or branches, shall be
limited to a maximum of 67 semester hours. Applicants must have
maintained a grade point average of 2.0 or an average of C in
all previous course work. (US:lZ/l3/82)


All collegiate level work taken at a fully accredited college or
university is recognized credit hour for credit hour except that
the dean of a college may require validation by appropriate
means of course equivalencies or applicability toward degree
requirements for more specialized courses. In order to be
classified as fully accredited, a college or university must be
a member of one of the six regional accrediting associations,
such as the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools.
Advanced standing from an unaccredited college or university may
be obtained by special subject examinations [or by validation
under conditions set forth by the Director of Admissions and the
Dean of the College in. which the student will enroll]. The
applicability of the transfer work toward a University degree
shall. be determined by the Dean of the College in which the
student enrolls. (US: 12/13/82)



 Page 2
US Agenda Item: IV — 2.1.2 (b)
24 January 1990

Background and Rationale:

At present, the University's practice of validating transfer credit from a
non—accredited institution is based upon the student's performance at UK.
The working arrangement is that students are allowed to count credits if
they earn a 2.0 or better gpa in the first 24 hours of course work at UK.
Thus, if a student does well at UK in advanced level classes, it is assumed
that the credits earned at a non-accredited institution. are valid. The
policy permits the student's performance at UK to validate another
institution's records. Consequently, UK Admissions could refuse to
validate one of two identical records from an institution on the basis of
varying student performance at UK. (The policy also assumes that the
student's performance level here at IH< is comparable to the performance
level at the previous institution.)


The proposal to eliminate the phrase "...or by validation under conditions
set forth by the Director of Admissions and the Dean of the College in
which the student will enroll" was suggested at the associate dean level
with the following comment: "With the current availability of CLEP exams,
competency (by pass) exams, equivalency credit, etc., it appears that there
are means by which students could acquire credit for competency acquired at
non—accredited institutions." Insisting that students from non—accredited

colleges get credit only by special exam would also take care of the
practical difficulty of having courses that may or may not count-a
situation which makes advising very difficult.

The proposal was reviewed by the Senate Committee on Admissions and
Academic Standards and recommended to the University Senate Council.

Implementation Date: Fall, 1990




The University Senate met in regular session at 3:00 p.m., Monday,
February 12, 1990, in room 106 of the Classroom Building.

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

Members absent were: Charles T. Ambrose, Ronald Atwood*, Raymond F. Betts,
Peter P. Bosomworth, T. Earle Bowen, Michael W. Bowling*, Joan C. Callahan*,
Rutheford B Campbell, Jr., Ben W. Carr, Edward A. Carter, Jeff Carver, Ann
Davidson, Donald Dillehay, Vincent Drnevich, Bruce S. Eastwood, Charles W.
Ellinger, Walter C. Foreman, Raymond E. Forgue, Richard W. Furst, Marilyn C.
Hamann*, Zafar Hasan*, Robert E. Hemenway, Micki King Hogue*, Stephanie
Howard, Alfred S. L. Hu, Bruce Hunt, Craig L. Infanger, David C. Johnson, John
Paul Jones, Kenneth K. Kubota, Gerald Lemons, Linda Levstik, Scott Lewis, C.
Oran Little*, Beth Loafman*, Ernest Middleton, Jose Oubrerie*, Clayton R.
Paul, Deborah E. Powe11*, Doug Reed, Thomas C. Robinson, Jo Ann Rogers, Edgar
L. Sagan, Michael C. Shannon*, Dennis M. TeKrony, Richard H. Underwood, Marie
C. Vittetoe, Charles T. Wethington*, Steven C. Weisenburger*, Carolyn A.
Williams*, Eugene Williams, Paul A. Willis, and Constance P. Wilson.

Chairman Leigh stated that the Minutes for December 4, 1989, and December
19, 1989, were not yet available.

The Chair recognized Professor Mary Sue Coleman to present a resolution on
President Roselle. .

Professor Coleman read the following resolution.

University of Kentucky University Senate
Resolution of Gratitude and Appreciation
for Dr. David P. Roselle

WHEREAS, Dr. David P. Roselle's arrival at the University
of Kentucky in 1987 brought inspiration to staff and
faculty because of his immediate commitment to initiatives
such as tuition-free enrollments for UK staff, and frequent
meetings with the Senate Council and other faculty groups,

WHEREAS, Dr. Roselle used a crisis over racially
inappropriate language as a vehicle for productive
institutional analysis and redoubled commitment to making
the University of Kentucky an open and receptive
institution that values cultural diversity, and

WHEREAS, Dr. Roselle provided national leadership in
restoring academic and institutional integrity to the UK
basketball program, while sustaining and enhancing other
athletic programs of the University in a way consistent
with the academic mission of the institution, and

*Absence explained.


 WHEREAS, his leadership in integrating computer usage into
the daily operations of the University has put this
institution ahead of many others, and

WHEREAS, his rapport with the Student Government
Association leaders has been remarkably sensitive and his
interest in student affairs has been manifest, and

WHEREAS, Dr. Roselle has provided leadership for all of
higher education in this Commonwealth, for which he was
held in esteem by Kentuckians,

NOW, therefore be it resolved by the University of Kentucky
Senate that this body extends to Dr. David Roselle its
deepest affection and appreciation for his leadership as
President and that this body wishes him well in his new

Chairman Leigh thanked Professor Coleman and asked if there was any
discussion on the resolution. The resolution unanimously passed.

The Chair recognized Professor Scott Smith (Agronomy) for a memorial


Harry Hudson Bailey
1921 - 1990

Harry Hudson (Hank) Bai1ey, Emeritus Professor of Agronomy
at the University of Kentucky, died unexpectedly on 24 January
1990. He was born in Virginia in 1921. He earned his 8.5.
degree from Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University
in 1942, and following service as an officer in the U.S. Army
from 1942 to 1946, he returned to academic pursuits at Michigan
State University. He received his M.S. and Ph.D. degrees in
soil science at Michigan State University in 1949 and 1956. He
remained active in the U.S. Army Reserves, attaining the rank of

Before coming to the University of Kentucky in 1955, Dr.
Bai1ey was a soil surveyor in Virginia, Michigan, and New
Hampshire. In 1950-51 he worked on the U.S. Department of
Agriculture's World Soil Map project.

Dr. Bailey had a deep concern for the education of
undergraduate students in the College of Agriculture. He served
as faculty advisor for hundreds of students, provided guidance
and leadership to the Agronomy Club, and coached the University
of Kentucky soil judging teams for 10 years. In recognition of
his outstanding teaching and advising of undergraduate students,
he was selected for the Gamma Sigma Delta Master Teacher Award
and the University of Kentucky Alumni Association Great Teacher


 Dr. Bailey published numerous scientific journal papers and
experiment station articles on soil genesis, morphology, and
classification. Throughout his tenure at the University of
Kentucky, he served as the Kentucky Agricultural Experiment
Station representative for the Cooperative Soil Survey in
Kentucky. His career included two assignments on USAID-
University of Kentucky development projects, one at the
University of Bogor, Indonesia from 1959 to 1961 and the other
at Palembang, Sumatra, Indonesia in 1983 and 1984.

He was a certified Professional Soil Scientist, a member of
the American Society of Agronomy, Soil Science Society of
America, International Soil Science Society, Clay Minerals
Society, Soil and Water Conservation, Sigma Xi, Gamma Sigma
Delta, and American Associations of University Professors.

Dr. Bailey retired from the Department of Agronomy on 31
January 1986 with 31 years of outstanding service to the
University of Kentucky. Following his retirement, Dr. Bailey
volunteered his services to the International Book Project, a
Lexington-based organization that collects and sends over
130,000 books each year to more than 80 developing countries.

He was an active member of Kiwanis International. He was a
deacon and taught a Sunday School class at Calvary Baptist

Church. -

Dr. Bailey is survived by his wife, Terry, two daughters
and a son.

He will be remembered by his colleagues, former students,
and many friends as a kind, gentle, highly capable man who
generously gave of himself to his students, the University of
Kentucky, his church and community, and the world. This is
truly a better world because of the life of Hank Bailey.

(Prepared by Professor Scott Smith, Department of Agronomy)

Professor Smith moved that the resolution be included in the minutes and
that a copy of it be sent to Dr. Bailey's widow, Terry Bailey. The Chair
asked the Senate to rise for a moment of silence.

The Chairman announced that the remaining Senate Meetings for this
semester will be in room 106 of the Classroom Building.

The Chair recognized Professor William Lyons, a member of the Presidential
Search Committee, for a report.

Professor William Lyons (Political Science) stated that most of the
senators know that three faculty members have been elected to serve on the
Presidential Search Committee. The other two members are Professors Loys
Mather (Agriculture) and Carolyn Bratt (Law). The first meeting of the Search
Committee is scheduled for 2:00 p.m., Friday, February 16 in the 01d Board
Room. He stated that there was not much to report on but he wanted to take


 the opportunity to inform the Senate that the Board of Trustees Chainnan,
Foster Ockerman, has said that there will be an open nation-wide search for a
new president. He felt that the faculty representatives on the Search
Committee are committed to that end. The faculty members on the committee
feel that one of the ways they can try to keep the University community
informed about what is going on is through the University Senate. The three
committee members will be taking turns throughout the process to give brief
reports to the Senate from now until the process is completed. He also noted
there should be more in the press this time about the process. The last time
the Herald-Leader filed suit involving the open meetings law and won.
Basically, this means that all proceedings of the Search Committee will be
conducted in open session except those discussions pertaining to specific
individuals. He felt the faculty would have more information about the
process and what is being discussed. It is the committee's understanding that
Chairman Foster Ockerman intends to recommend to the Search Committee that it
adopt the qualifications that were drawn up by the Search Committee the last
time. Professor Lyons feels that everyone on the faculty is more than happy
with this statement, so the three faculty members on the Search Committee will
probably support the adoption of these qualifications. The committee wants to
solicit the faculty's views and hopes they will contact any members of the
Search Committee about potential nominees or candidates for the position.
Professor Lyons asked for questions. Professor Lester Goldstein (Biological
Sciences) noted that the Senate had endorsed a statement of qualifications and
wanted the members on the Search Committee to be aware of that. Professor
Lyons stated the committee is committed to the intent of those qualifica—
tions. He again noted the meetings were open and there should be no problem
if anyone wanted to attend. The first meeting will be Friday, February l6 at
2:00 p.m. in the Old Board Room of the Administration Building.

The Chair thanked Professor Lyons and added that the Old Board Room was
not a large room but faculty should not be intimidated by a small room or
perhaps the meeting could be moved to the l8th floor of Patterson Office

The Chairman made the following announcements:

You may have read by now that Ernesto Scorsone's Bill on
the appointment of trustees passed one week ago today. It
passed by a margin of 86 to lo in the House. That bill does two
things. It lengthens the term of trustees from four to six
years and it creates a selection committee which will submit
three names to the Governor for each vacancy on the Board of
Trustees or Board of Regents of all of the state universities.

I would like to recall for you that COSFL, the coalition of
state faculty leaders, played an important role in initiating
this legislation this year. As you may recall, this was one of
the legislative agenda items that COSFL was interested in
pursuing and we met with Representative Scorsone last November 4
and said that we would like for him to reintroduce his Bill of
1988. In l988 that Bill got out of the House Education
Committee but the Governor lobbied against it and Scorsone did
not bring it to the House of Representatives Floor. He was
rather pessimistic about it this time but said that if COSFL was
willing to support it, he would go ahead. Of course, what has


 happened in the meantime is that the relationship between the
Governor and legislators has changed considerably and his bill
breezed through the House. He undoubtedly would have reintro-
duced it even without our prompting when he saw the mood of the
legislature. That bill now goes to the Senate as Senate Bill 86
and the sponsor is Ed O'Daniel, and I would like to urge all of
you to contact your state Senator and support that legislation.

Interim President Charles Wethington was scheduled to
address the Senate today but due to a scheduling mixup in the
President's office, he will not be here today, but he is
rescheduled for the March 5 meeting.

The Chair recognized Professor Brauch Fugate (Mathematics) for a report
from the Selective Admissions Committee. Professor Fugate stated that the
committee began its work a year ago in August and has worked nearly a year and
a half on a review of the University's selective admissions policy. The
members were Glenn Blomquist, Economics and Public Administration; Mary Beth
Brookshire Young, the student representative; Barbara Mabry, Admissions from
the College of Medicine; Mike Reed, Agricultural Economics; Kawanna Simpson,
College of Education; Paul Taylor, Lexington Community College (Ron Thomas,
Elizabethtown Community College, was replaced by Paul Taylor); and Jo Ann
Never, College of Nursing. The Committee thinks Selective Admissions has been
a success at the University and that it has been a positive force. Graduation
rates are up, grade point averages are up, ACT scores are up, retention rates
are up, geographic diversity is up, racial diversity is increasing and the
performance of black students, as measured by retention and graduation rates,
is close to that for all students.

Professor Fugate stated that the committee detected, from the people with
whom they talked, no sentiment at all to go back to open admissions. He went
on to say that there are substantial problems with the current system. Most
of the improvements occurred in the first year and since that time things have
been improving very slowly. He remarked that under our present circumstances
it is very hard to change our rules. Any rule change has to come through the
Senate and it has to be submitted to the catalog and then it goes into effect
roughly eighteen months after it is proposed. He indicated that this made for
a cumbersome system.

Professor Fugate remarked that one of the serious problems with the
current admissions system is there has been no regular collection or analysis
of data. He noted that very little data on admissions was collected and
analyzed until the committee made their request as part of their study.

The committee has formulated ten recommendations to try to deal with the
problems they found. They feel that one problem is the University's
admissions criteria which are set forth in a step-chart on the front page of
the catalog. It is a combination of ACT scores and high school grades which
has been determined by a least squares fit to student performance data several
years ago. Professor Fugate added that this system does not seem to allow the
University to continue to improve its undergraduate profiles. Each year about
twenty-five percent of the incoming freshman class does not obtain a grade
point average of 2.0 or better. He stated that has been quite constant over
the last several years. The committee feels this percentage is too high.


 His feeling is that a more flexible admissions system should be created,
that is, one where the admissions criteria are not stated explicitly.
Benchmark institutions do not state their criteria explicitly. This will
raise the problem of how the Senate is going to maintain control of admissions
standards. The University Senate Rules call for the University Senate to set
admissions standards for the university. The Committee recommends creating an
Executive Admissions Committee to deal with that problem. The committee would
be composed of the Registrar, Director of Admissions, the Chair of the Senate
Committee on Admissions and Academic Standards, and three faculty members to
be appointed by the Senate Council to staggered three1year terms. The
function of the Executive Admissions Committee would be to set admissions

The Committee's second recommendation is for the regular collection,
analysis, and reporting of data on admissions. Professor Fugate stated that
the Executive Admissions Committee should call for reports on the profile of
the incoming class each year, including their scholastic, geographic, and
racial characteristics. In addition, data should be collected that will let
the University know how it is doing with respect to retention and graduation,
year after year. The committee also calls for the Chancellor of the Lexington
Campus to make an annual report on admissions to the University Senate.
Professor Fugate feels that this should be as much a feature of annual
reporting as is the President's traditional report at the opening of each
year. -

The third recommendation of the committee is the creation of an Enrollment
Management System. Professor Fugate stated that no longer would explicit

criteria of grades and test scores be printed in front of the catalog as
guaranteeing a student admission to the University. He added that instead the
Executive Admissions Committee would decide each year on the desired size of
the entering class. (One figure that has been suggested is 2700, plus or
minus a hundred students.) The EAC then establishes criteria for admission
designed to get the best possible class of the appropriate size. There would
still be an Exceptions Committee which would serve as an appeals board when
people were unhappy with a decision on admission. This committee would
consider admission of people on other than academic grounds.

The fourth recommendation is that students with ACT scores below 15 (on
the old ACT scale) not be admitted to the University unless they are admitted
by the Exceptions Committee. The data shows that over half of these students
in the range of ll to l5 do not return for their junior year. The committee
feels that both the students and the University would be better served if
these students first went to a Community College and then, if they were
successful, transferred to the Lexington campus.

The committee also calls for the creation of firm admissions deadlines.
There is a continuing problem with large numbers of students being admitted
late to the University when it is very difficult to advise them properly.

They come in with incomplete credentials, classes are full, and it is very
difficult for departments and advisors to deal with the situation. The
committee thinks that students should be encouraged to make a commitment early
and to carry out their part of the admissions process in a timely way. To
address the problem of not knowing who is going to attend the University until
very late, the committee is calling_for a tuition deposit of $100 from new


 students when they accept admission to the University of Kentucky. Most of
our benchmark institutions have such a deposit, and many ask for more than
$100. This would replace the current $50 fee to hold a schedule which
entering freshmen are charged.

The committee calls for the Pre-College Curriculum to be more strictly
enforced and recommends that the University institute an early decision
program. That means students who apply by November 15 get preferential
treatment. The idea is that they should be outstanding students and they
agree when they apply under an early decision program that if accepted they
will attend the University of Kentucky. The Committee thinks that is a way to
attract more outstanding students.

The Committee believes the University should offer more scholarships on an
academic basis and scholarships that carry more money. At the present time
the regionals are offering scholarships to good students that the University
is unable to match. Professor Fugate feels more funds should be put into that

Professor Fugate stated that he would be happy to answer any questions.
Professor Hans Gesund (Civil Engineering) wanted to know what provision would
be made for a prospective student who did not have the $100 deposit.

Professor Fugate felt there would be some administrative process where in
hardship cases or someone who would have a scholarship that the fee would be
waived. Professor Gesund wanted to know when a student was rejected for low
scores, could the University accept that student on behalf of the Community
College System. He felt the student could go to college close to home and
then transfer to the University when their grades were acceptable. Professor
Fuguate felt that would be a function of the Admissions Office. Dr. Joseph
Fink (Director of Admissions) stated that the Admissions Office has no
authority over the Community College System. Professor Gesund's understanding
is that we are one university and that would be one way of projecting a good
image to the Commonwealth of being positive instead of negative. Dr. Fink
stated that was done by including in the letter of denial of admission the
fact that if the student went to an accredited institution and finished
twenty-four semester hours of work with a 2.0 average or better, then that
student can transfer to the University of Kentucky, and the UK Community
College System is mentioned in the letter. He added that the University would
not like the Community Colleges telling local students that they were admitted
to the University of Kentucky. There were no further comments.

Chairman Leigh thanked Professor Fugate and his committee for the work
they have done and felt the report was excellent; He added that the report
would be brought to the March 5 meeting for approval.

Chairman Leigh recognized Professor Carolyn S; Bratt, Chair-elect of the
Senate Council, for the first agenda item. Professor Bratt, on behalf of the.
Senate Council, moved that the Senate adopt changes in University Senate
Rules, Section IV - 2.1.2 (b) which has to do with Admission of Students to
Advanced Standing who have come to the University from an unaccredited college
or university. She stated that the change would delete a segment of the Rule
that permits students from unaccredited colleges to gain advance standing
based on their perfonnance once they are enrolled; The Rule would then read:


 "Advance standing from an unaccredited college or university may be obtained
by special subject examinations." Professor Bratt indicated that the proposed
change had been reviewed by the Senate Committee on Admissions and Academic
Standards and by the Senate Council, and both have approved. The proposal was
circulated under date of 24 January l990.

Chairman Leigh opened the floor for discussion. Professor Gesund asked
about the international students. He stated that a student might have two
years in a school abroad that would not be accredited. He wanted to know if
that student would have to take CLEP exams for a year of courses. He sees a
real problem for international students. Chairman Leigh asked Dr. Fink how
international students are now handled. Dr. Fink stated that international
students' records are evaluated by someone in the Admissions Office who is
familiar with resource materials used in evaluating foreign transcripts.
Professor Fink felt Professor Gesund had a good point.

Professor Gesund felt the proposal should go back to the committee.
Chairman Leigh asked for discussion on the motion to refer. There was no
discussion and the motion unanimously passed. Professor Gesund suggested that
the committee also look at American students who spend some time abroad.

Chairman Leigh again recognized Professor Carolyn Bratt for the second
agenda item. Professor Bratt, on behalf of the Senate Council, moved that the
Senate adopt the proposal to amend University Senate Rules, Section V - 2.4.7,
dealing with common examinations. Professor’Bratt stated that the first
recommended change was in the first numbered paragraph to read: "List the days
of the month, week, and the time at which the exam will be given in the
official Schedule of Classes." The next change would appear in the paragraph
marked number two which would delete all the material after the word "block"
and the sentence would read: “Spread each examination over a time block at
least one and a half times the length of the examination." The third
paragraph would be changed to delete the parenthetical phrase (perhaps 7:00
AM) so that the section reads: "Give two examinations at widely disparate
times, but not the morning after the evening examination.“ Professor Gesund
wanted to know why not give the exam the morning after the evening exam.
Professor Bratt did not know, but perhaps on the theory if the student missed
the night before, it might not be possible for them to attend the next
morning. Professor Gesund wanted to know if that could be deleted. Professor
Bratt did not think so because there was sentiment in the Senate Council that
they did not want to have exams scheduled eight, nine or ten hours after the
originally scheduled exam. Professor Bratt stated that the next change was
one following the asterisk which is the current Rules Committee interpreta-
tion, but it is not part of the official rule. The amendment would change the
asterisk to a number four and incorporate the rule interpretation into the
rule itself with certain additions and changes. The paragraph would be four
and reads: "And, any department giving a common examination must give a
make-up exam or develop some other arrangement for students with excused
absences to gain credit as if they had taken the common exam; a department
may not apply a "drop the lowest score" policy to common exams missed with an
excused absence. The following material should be added: "If a student has a
course scheduled at the same time as a common exam and the student has given
notice of the conflict to the instructor at least two weeks prior to the
common exam, the student shall be entitled to an excused absence from the
conflicting common examination." She added that these are the substantive



 changes. The feeling has been that the common exam has caused some students
to have to make choices in terms of courses they want to take because the
course is scheduled when a common exam will be held. Professor Bratt went on
to say that this would permit a student to select a course that meets during
the time periods when a common exam is scheduled and it would give them an
excused absence and the ability to make that common exam up. The proposed
changes are recommended by the Senate Committee on Admissions and Academic
Standards and the University Senate Council. The proposal was circulated
under date of 23 January 1990.

The floor was opened for discussion. A student senator asked about the
word "And". Professor Bratt stated the "Andf was added deliberately to make
sure i17was recognized as an addition to the Rules. She added that the number
four needed to be deleted but prefaced with and so that there is a recognition
it is not an alternative. The question was asked as to how many students were
affected by the common exam. Academic Ombudsman, Daniel Fulks (Business and
Economics) stated there was no way of knowing how many students are precluded
from taking a course because of the common exam. He added that the
Ombudsman's Office gets about forty calls per year involving common exams.

The former Ombudsman, William Moody, stated that every year in the last few
years the common exam is one of the top complaints in the office. Even if the
numbers are not that large, Professor Moody feels it is a major problem.
Professor Lester Goldstein (Biological Sciences) wanted to know if this would
be after the students have spoken to the instructor. Professor Moody remarked
that students are encouraged to go to the instructor first.

Professor Mark Berger (Economics), coordinator for Economics 20l stated

the college has around 1500 students in 20l and 202 each semester. He opposed
the whole motion. He feels common exams are good and his department has
standardized the examination process, cleaned up the inconsistencies of
grading, and if impediments are put in the way of common exams, the department
will forget about them. He opposed the idea of each TA grading their own
exam. He felt the proposal was written as though there are no benefits to
common exams. He added that not to have common exams might be good for upper
level courses, but he assured the Senate common exams are good for courses
such as Economics 20l and Accounting 20l.

Professor Raymond C