xt7k0p0wt63p https://exploreuk.uky.edu/dips/xt7k0p0wt63p/data/mets.xml University of Kentucky. University Senate University of Kentucky. Faculty Senate Kentucky University of Kentucky. University Senate University of Kentucky. Faculty Senate 1992-02-10  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 10, 1992 text University of Kentucky University Senate (Faculty Senate) meeting minutes, February 10, 1992 1992 1992-02-10 2020 true xt7k0p0wt63p section xt7k0p0wt63p LHNVERSHY OF KENTUCKY


31 January 1992


Members, University Senate

The University Senate will meet in regular session (n1 Monday,

February 10, 1992, at 3:00 P.M. in room 115 of the Nursing Building


Minutes: November, 1991.

Chair's announcements and remarks.
Action Item:

a. Proposal to amend the Administrative Regulations to add a
Teaching Portfolio to the Criteria for Promotion and Merit
RevieW' Considerations. (Originally circulated under date
of 20 November; recirculated under date of 29 January
1992) Note: If approved this proposal will be forwarded
to the President for administrative action.

Presentation of Honorary Degree candidates: Professor
George Herring, Chair, Honorary Degrees Committee.

Proposal to amend University Senate Rules, Section IV,
2.2.14, College of Communications, admissions policy.
(Circulated under date of 30 January 1992.)

Dr. Roseann Hogan: "What Do They Think of UK?"

Results of Surveys for Undergraduates who obtained degrees,
recent Alumni, graduate students who left with degrees.

For Discussion Only The issue of open records. (See

attached outline.)

Randall Dahl
Secretary, University Senate

If you are unable to attend this meeting, please contact Ms.
Martha Sutton in the Registrar's office (7-7155).




The University Senate met in regular session at 3:00 p.m., Monday,
February l0, l992, in Room ll5 of the Nursing Health Sciences Building.

Marcus T. McEllistrem, Chairperson of the Senate Council, presided.

Members absent were: Robert S. Baker, Bart Baldwin, Harry V. Barnard, John
J. Bernardo*, Robert L. Blevins*, Peter P. Bosomworth, Carolyn S. Bratt*,
Martha Bruenderman, Joseph T. Burch, D. Allan Butterfield, Rutheford 8
Campbell, Jr., Clyde R. Carpenter*, Ben W. Carr*, Edward A. Carter, Louis C.
Chow*, Donald B. Clapp, W. Harry Clarke*, Jordan L. Cohen, Georgia C.
Collins*, Lenore Crihfield, Scott A. Crosbie, Randall W. Dahl*, Frederick W.
Danner*, Richard C. Domek, Jr.*, Paul M. Eakin, Richard Edwards, Wilbur W.
Frye*, Daniel Fulks*, Richard W. Furst, Misha Goetz, Lester Goldstein, Philip
A. Greasley, Robert D. Guthrie, J. John Harris III, Zafar S. Hasan*, Christine
Havice, Robert E. Hemenway, Micki King Hogue, Don A. Howard*, Richard A.
Jensen, Kevin S. Kiernan*, Angela Knopp, Kenneth K. Kubota, James M. Kuder*,
Thomas W. Lester, Linda Levstik, C. Oran Little, Linda J. (Lee) Magid, Pamela
McMahon*, Peggy S. Meszaros*, Richard S. Milich*, Karen A. Mingst, David A.
Nash*, Clayton P. Omvig, Barbara Phillips*, Thomas C. Robinson, Frank A.
Scott, Jim Shambhu, Andrew Shveda, M. Scott Smith, David H. Stockham, Brian
Stover, Dennis M. TeKrony*, John S. Thompson*, Ann R. Tickamyer, Thomas
Tucker, Michael A. Webb, Carolyn A. Williams*, Eugene R. Williams, Paul A.
Willis, and Emery A. Wilson.

The Chairperson welcomed everyone to the February meeting of the
University Senate.

The Chairperson asked for any corrections or additions to the Minutes for
November. Motion was moved and seconded to approve the Minutes of November
ll, l99l, as circulated.

The Chairperson recognized Professor Thomas T. Lillich, College of
Dentistry, to present a Memorial Resolution.


Raymond Bruce Bridges, Ph.D.

Raymond Bruce Bridges, a professor in the Department of Oral
Health Science in the College of Dentistry, died January 27, l992,
after a seven month illness. He is survived by his wife Susan Rogers
Bridges, and a son, Raymond Samuel Bridges.

Ray was born July l4, 1942, in Nashville, Tennessee. He
attended Vanderbilt University where he received a Bachelor of Arts
in chemistry in l964 and a Doctor of Philosophy in biochemistry in
l969. Following his graduate studies, Ray moved to Bethesda Maryland

Absence explained.


 where he became a post—doctoral fellow in the Laboratory of
Microbiology and Immunology at the National Institute for Dental
Research. During this time, he was also commissioned as an officer
in the U.S. Public Health Service. In l972, Ray and his wife came to
Lexington where he joined the College of Dentistry. He became one of
a group of faculty recruited in the Department of Oral Biology to
develop something new in dental education - a self-instructional
basic science curriculum for student-dentists. While his primary
effort was devoted to the College of Dentistry, Ray also received a
joint appointment in the Department of Microbiology and Immunology in
the College of Medicine, became a member of the Graduate faculty and
participated in the planning and development of both the Toxicology
and Nutritional Science graduate programs. He served on many Medical
Center and University committees and was active in professional
societies, especially the American Association of Dental Schools,
where he served for many years as the elected College of Dentistry
faculty representative to the Council of Faculties.

In addition to his teaching and educational development
activities, Ray quickly organized a research program that involved
colleagues from many other parts of the University. His natural
inquisitiveness, fertile mind, and engaging personality were the
foundation of collaborative relationships that produced a stream of
research articles along with an occasional book chapter or invited
monograph. Ray was internationally known for work on the
relationship between cigarette smoking and chronic obstructive
pulmonary disease that he did in collaboration with scientists in the
College of Medicine, the Veterans Administration Hospital, and the
Tobacco and Health Research Institute. At the time of his death, he
was analyzing data from a corrolary study of white blood cells and
periodontal disease in a large population of diabetic individuals.

Ray Bridges' primary professional legacy lies in the effect he
had on the lives of student—dentists in l9 College of Dentistry
graduating classes. His introduction to biochemistry was one of the
first courses the students took after matriculating. Although he set
high standards, he worked hard to ease the transition to a demanding
professional curriculum for students from a variety of undergraduate
backgrounds. He was open, accessible, good natured and caring. He
was an unofficial advisor and confidant to many students who sought
his advice, counsel, and insight about academic and personal
matters. Ray was held in high esteem because students perceived that
he was deeply committed to their academic, personal, and professional
success. His love and devotion were returned many fold. Last fall
his students organized a walk—a-thon in his honor, the proceeds of
which were donated to the Markey Cancer Center in his name.

Ray Bridges was a valued colleague and friend, a dedicated
researcher, and a devoted husband and father. Most especially,
however, he was a professor. He was a teacher of the highest rank,
and he will be sorely missed by his colleagues and friends.

I ask that this resolution be included in the minutes of this
meeting and that a copy be delivered to his family.


 The Chair requested that the resolution be spread upon the minutes and
asked the senators to rise for a moment of silence in honor of Dr. Bridges.

The Chair stated that in keeping with the motion passed by the senate to
include changes in Governing Regulations and Administrative Regulations after
they have been adopted, he made the following announcements of the changes
that have been made.


The following changes in the Governing Regulations were
promulgated to the Board of Trustees at its January 2l, l992 meeting:

1. The College of Home Economics was renamed ”College of Human
Environmental Sciences”, a move we had endorsed in this body

The Special Assistant to the President for Academic Affairs
(now Dr. Juanita Fleming) was incorporated into the
University Senate as an ex-officio, non-voting member. This
also was a move we recommended earlier.

Everywhere the expression ”Chairman” appears in sections of
the Governing Regulations or Administrative Regulations,
when those sections are being reviewed the word
”Chairperson” is substituted, as a gender—neutral term.
Thus the variable use of the word ”Chair”, or ”Chairperson”
now seems to be settled in favor of the latter designation.

The Director of the Honors program now officially reports to
the Dean of Undergraduate Studies. (A director of a unit is
equivalent to a chairperson of a department).

A basic, University provided Life Insurance policy was
established in the l930's at the level of $5,000. Almost a
year ago this was raised by the Board of Trustees to
$7,500. The exact amount of the Basic Life Insurance
carried on all regular, full-time employees no longer
appears in the Governing Regulations, but henceforth the
amount will appear in the Administrative Regulations.

These are all of the changes at this time. I remind Senators that
several sections of the Administrative Regulations are now being
reviewed for changes, and these changes are expected to be brought
forward for your attention later this spring.


The President has issued an extensive memo to the entire
University community via the ”Monday Memos" which appear on-line when
one enters "VIEW" on the UKCC network, or just logs onto the UKNANG
network. I recommend the reading of that to all, if you have not
already read it. The President noted first that this cut, totalling
$23.3 million for the University System (excluding the Community


 Colleges) when combined with the earlier one, would damage the

The President reaffirmed his commitment to academic programs,
University employees, and faculty/staff salaries as his top
priority. He also noted that no decisions on mechanisms for dealing
with the cuts have yet been established in any part of the
University. He further stated that none would be proposed until a
full and careful study of means of doing this in such a way as to
minimize the damage to University functions had been made. He
further expects to involve all divisions, staff, and faculty, as well
as administrators in this thorough review of how and where to cut.
He promised to keep us well informed of the methods to be used to
manage the cut.


You have almost certainly noted that the Library Capital
Construction project has been deferred beyond the fiscal year next.
While this could appear damaging, it really is not, since the
Architect is yet to be chosen, a site to be settled upon, and plans
made. Paul Willis, Director of Libraries, told us last December that
realistic assessment of the year for start of construction suggests
l994. Thus deferring to FY94 for capital construction does not
materially delay the project.

The research facility, so badly needed in the crowded laboratory

conditions of the Medical Sector, has been approved for construc—
tion. Of course, we all realize that the current shape of the total
Commonwealth budget is a proposal before the Legislature, and changes
can be recommended there.

The Chair recognized Professor John Piecoro, Chair-elect of the Senate
Council, to introduce the first action item on the agenda which was still on
the floor from the December 9 meeting. Professor Piecoro stated that at the
December 9 meeting, the Senate Council had introduced the Teaching Portfolio,
but the senate recessed before taking a vote. Professor Piecoro read part of
the proposal dealing with Teaching Evaluation - Teaching Portfolio, Advising
and Student Relations. This proposal was first circulated to members of the
Senate under date of November 20, l99l, and again circulated under date of
January 29, l992.

The Chair stated that the item did not have to be recommended because it
was already on the floor as of the December 9 meeting. The Chair recognized
Professor Bradley Canon (Political Science) who had offered an amendment at
that meeting. Professor Canon stated that his amendment would delete every—
thing after the first sentence in Section C. He stated that his objection is
that the material after the first sentence is written in a mandatory fashion.
To him it seems to preclude other things and is not always relevant to all
types of chairs in whatever situations. Professor Jesse Neil (Physics and
Astronomy) seconded the motion. He is particularly against the statement,
"Evidence that the faculty member has remained current in the field in which
he teaches ...... ” He stated that when he is teaching General Physics, he is
not quite sure what evidence his Chairperson should be offering that


 Professor Neil is still current in General Physics. He added that the
material in General Physics was "laid to rest" as far as research goes quite a
few years ago.

Professor William Lubawy (Pharmacy) stated that at the risk of confusing
the issue, he can understand the points of being mandatory, but he is more
inclined to think that a few mays would be appropriate because that would give
a Chairperson some idea of the kinds of things to put into the Teaching
Portfolio. He does not feel any of the things are particularly hard to do
depending on the circumstance. He added for most people in most classes some
degree of relevency and currency can be documented by the Chairperson. He
went on to say "Frankly, in light of the difficulty in terms of a research
institution, I think the statement that the impact of the faculty member's own
research on his/her teaching should be made clear, where it is appropriate and
identifiable." His feeling is that research is very important to be
considered, if nothing else, for public relations.

Professor Canon stated that he would have no problem with rewriting the
statement to make it less mandatory and suggestive. He stated that if the
proposal goes back to a committee, they might be asked to reconsider that part
of the proposal. The Chairperson stated that the Senate Council had submitted
the resolution to the floor, and he is not sure it was the intent of the
Senate Council that those statements from the Chairpersons should be
mandatory. Unless there is objection from Council members, the Chairperson
ruled that those statements can be interpreted as permissive. He asked
Professor Canon to withdraw his motion, because he would have achieved the
purpose of the motion and then the senate could discuss the whole teaching
evaluation document. Professor Canon stated that he would withdraw the
motion on condition that the language be revised to make it clear that the
statements are suggestions. The Chairperson asked that the minutes reflect
Professor Canon's motion that the language would be revised to make his
suggestions permissive.

The Chairperson wanted to know if anyone had any special thoughts about
things that should be or should not be done. Professor Michael Cibull
(Medicine) wanted to know if that included the whole document and not just the
part about the Chairpersons. The Chairperson stated that Professor Canon's
motion referred only to the Chairpersons. Professor Cibull stated that he has
the same problem with virtually all the parts and any part that stated "must
include this" or ”must include that." He stated that the various parts of the
University have quite different roles of teaching, and he does not feel that
any single part is the same. A syllabi that may be appropriate to one type of
course is inappropriate to another course. He added that examinations may be
made up by individuals in one course and by a committee in another or chosen
from a book of examinations. His feeling is that virtually everywhere there
should be a suggestion rather than a mandate in terms of what should be
included in evaluations. Professor Clayton Paul (Electrical Engineering)
agrees with the intent to follow effective teaching and insure effective
teaching. He stated that in the performance evaluations the course syllabi,
examples of tests, and student—teacher evaluation should be included. He
pointed out that to insure the objective of effective teaching and addressing
that, he does not feel the University has very effective measures of doing
that. He stated that basically all the University has is the student-teacher
evaluation. He does not know what change the proposal will make in the


 chairpersons being able to truly assess the effectiveness of the teacher in
the classroom.

In response, Dean Louis Swift stated that one of the reasons the proposal
was put forth was to respond to one of the area committee Chairpersons who
said that the student evaluations are not enough. The numbers being put forth
did not tell anything, and things such as looking at syllabi or asking an
individual professor about what he or she does in terms of teaching was adding
to the limited kind of knowledge that is present now in the dossiers and
portfolios that come forward. Dean Swift assured the senate it is not true
that all of the departments do these things regularly. He is not opposed to
variations within disciplines of colleges.

Professor William Lubawy feels that the issue of documentation of teaching
effectiveness is difficult, but it has to be done. He added that new faculty
read these kinds of documents as part of their orientation to the system. The
fact that these are in the regulations indicate to new faculty that some
bottom line for teaching accountability is part of that process. His feeling
is that is a separate issue from the proposal on the floor, but also feels the
proposal would help.

Professor Lynne Hall (Nursing) stated that given the importance of the
issue and the fact there are a number of valid concerns that have been raised,
she moved to refer the issue of teaching evaluation to an ad hoc committee
appointed by the Chairperson of the Senate Council for further consideration
and revision instructing the committee to obtain information from our
benchmark institutions and to report its findings and recommendations to the
senate at its April meeting.

The Chairperson knew that the motion might come before the senate so he
has already talked to a few people who would serve on that committee. He has
asked Professor Joseph Davis if he would be willing to chair. Professor Davis
is in a special teaching role for the University at the present time. He '
agreed to do that. Professors Lynne Hall, Angene Wilson and Tom Blues would
serve on the committee. Those are the people the Chairperson would charge
with the responsibility to bring back a statement which deals with what the
instructor must provide for teacher effectiveness evaluation, what the
chairperson must do, the role of student evaluations, and advising. The Chair
would ask the committee to develop those four elements if the motion to refer
to committee passes.

Professor Glenn Blomquist (Economics) seconded the motion and encouraged
. the committee to consider special title series also. The Chair stated that
the committee would consider all title series that involve teaching.

Professor Clayton Paul clarified what he had said earlier. He did not
want to in any way indicate that he is not in favor of the idea which Dean
Swift has. Professor Paul truly is in favor, but he suggests that if the
senate names certain actions to be taken that really do not accomplish the
goal, then the senate really is not doing much. He has no objection to his
colleagues coming into his classes and evaluating him. He stated that unless
there are some direct class evaluations, it is difficult for him to see how a
person is going to be evaluated. He suggested considering a more effectual
way of evaluating the effectiveness as a teacher.


 Professor Lubawy asked for a point of clarification and wanted to know if
the entire document gets referred to the committee or does it mean that the
senate is going to vote on the document with the idea of trying to get the
committee to approve it. The reason for his question is did the committee
involved with the development of this document consider those kinds of
issues? The Chair does not know what Professor Lubawy means by ”consider
those kinds of issues." The Chair stated that the whole document would be
referred back for development into a better document by the committee. The
committee would be charged with preparing a new document dealing with
evaluating teaching effectiveness. Professor Lubawy stated there are comments
in the motion indicating teacher evaluations from other institutions. He
wanted to know if the committee would be formulating a set of documents from
other institutions. The Chair stated that has not been done and the committee
who structured this document did not solicit information from other
universities prior to preparing the document. His understanding is that
Professor Joe Davis does have some information from other institutions and at
this point the Senate Council does as well.

Question was called and seemed to have unanimously passed. In a show of
hands the motion to refer to an ad hoc committee passed. However, there was
a substantial no vote.

Professor Lynne Hall asked for a point of clarification concerning the
previous committee. She wanted to know if is correct that there was not a
previous committee who produced the document. The Chair stated there was not
a specially structured committee for the preparation of the document.

The Chairperson recognized Dean Daniel Reedy (Graduate School) for
presentation of the list of candidates for Honorary Degrees. The Chair
reminded the senate that the information should be confidential until approved
by the Board of Trustees. On behalf of the Honorary Degrees Committee and in
the absence of Professor George Herring, Chair of the Committee on Honorary
Degrees, Dr. Reedy reported there are three nominees for Honorary Degrees this
year. They have been reported by the Honorary Degrees Committee to the
graduate faculty. There is still one step after the senate decides whether it
accepts or rejects the recommendations. They will go to the Board of
Trustees. At this point none of the nominees is aware that they have been
nominated. It is customary that the President will contact them in that
process. Dr. Reedy read biographical information on three nominees for the
senate's consideration.

The Chairperson thanked Dr. Reedy and stated this was a recommendation for
the senate, after discussion, to approve the candidates they wish to recommend
to the President for submission to the Board of Trustees. There was no
discussion and motion was moved and seconded. The motion was unanimously
approved for recommendation to the President.

The Chairperson recognized Professor John Piecoro for the last action item
which was a proposal to amend the University Senate Rules. On behalf of the
Senate Council, Professor Piecoro recommended approval of the proposal to
amend University Senate Rules, Section IV, 2.2.l4, College of Communications,
admissions policy. Professor Piecoro stated that the thrust of the document
is to clean up the language emphasizing the four majors that are in the
College of Communications. Those majors are Communication, General Editorial,



 Advertising, and Telecommunications. Professor Piecoro pointed out a change
on page 4, fifth paragraph, beginning with “Advising of premajors." The words
”with a major code of 600 to designate their status as "premajors" in the
College” should be deleted and "as premajors with a major code approved for
that purpose.“ (The proposal was circulated to members of the senate under
date of January 30, l992.) Professor Piecoro stated that since this was a
recommendation from the Senate Council, no second was required. The floor was
opened for discussion.

The Chairperson asked for any comments. Professor Jesse Neil pointed out
that on the first page under A l “requirements in Basic Skills (I) at least A
and B” did not say anything to him. Professor Enid Haldhart (Communications)
stated that the intent of the statement is that the students need to complete
the requirement in parentheses and the writing requirement. The Chair stated
that putting commas after each of the Roman Numerals would help. Professor
Waldhart stated that the College would like to delete the entire paragraph
after the "Advising of premajors" rather than just simply the code
designation. The Chairperson considered that as an editorial change since the
impact of the paragraph is on the first page. The motion in favor of adopting
the changes for admission requirements to the College of Communications
unanimously passed and reads as follows:

Proposal: (Add bold underlined section; delete material in

2.2.l4 College of Communications (US:l2/7/87)


A. Admission to the College of Communications Degree Programs
In order to be admitted to any of the four undergraduate
[degree programs] majors (Communication, General Editorial,
Advertising, or Telecommunications) offered by the College of
Communications, an applicant must fulfill the following




RATIONALE: Terms added to clarify the four majors by naming
each specifically.

l. enrollment in the University of Kentucky (students are
considered for acceptance by the College only after
acceptance by the University).

2. completion of 45 semester hours of course work;

3. minimum 2.6 cumulative grade-point average;

4. completion of the premajor requirements of the program
to which application is made;

5. completion of [30 semester hours in] the University
Studies Program requirements in Basic Skills (I), at
least A and B under Inference and Communicative Skills
(II), and at least l2 credits toward completion of the
Disc1plinary Requirements (III), including 6 credits in
Social Sciences;



RATIONALE: Rather than specifying the number of USP
credits, this identifies the specific sections each
premajor needs to complete.


 submission of an appTication form [which inciudes an
officiai transcript of coTTege courses accepted by the
University of Kentucky].

RATIONALE: There is no need to inciude transcripts
since this information is readiTy avaiTabTe from the
SIS system.

Students meeting these requirements wiTT be designated as
"majors” or as students with Upper-Division standing in the
program to which admission is grantedT’ Any student not meeting
one or more of these requirements may be granted ”premajor“
status in one of the majors.


RATIONALE: The terms “major” and ”Upper Division standing”
function as equivaient in the remainder of the admission
poTicy description. The finai statement cTarifies that
anyone appTying to become a premajor in the Coiiege,
regardTess of the totaT number of credits the student has
compieted, wiTT be officiaTTy a “premajor” who has access
to advice in that major rather than waiting for fuTT

In the admission considerations, when persona], academic
professionai, or inteTTectuaT circumstances tend to discount
Tower academic scores; admission may be granted if there is
other persuasive evidence of both the capability and motivation
to undertake successfuiiy a program in the Coiiege of

EnroTiment in Upper Division Coiiege of Communications Courses
EnroTTment in CoTTege of Communications courses numbered
300—599 wiTT be Timited in order of priority to:


T. majors and minors in a CoiTege of Communications degree

RATIONALE: it has not been ciear just how minors in either
Communication or Teiecommunications were to get access to
the courses needed for their minors. This is an attempt to
put minors on a par with majors in terms of getting in
those courses numbered 300 and above.

non-Coiiege of Communications students who are registered
for specific programs requiring CoTTege of Communications

other students or categories of students with the express
permission of the department offering the course
(departments may choose to deciare certain courses as open
enroiiment courses).


 Admissions Policy & Process: (US: 3/20/89) Applications for
admission to the College of Communications, whether premajor or
major, must be received [by the College Coordinator of Academic
Affairs] no later than April l for the summer session, June l for
the fall semester, and October l5 for the spring semester.
[Applications should include transcripts showing all grades earned
at all colleges and universities attended by the applicant.]
Normally such application will be made [students apply for
admission to a major program] priOr to the satisfactory completion
of 60 semester hours of college—level courses. [For admission to
a degree program the transcripts should offer proof that 45
semester hours have been completed and accepted by the University
and that all other requirements for the program have been
completed. Subsequent transfer between majors [College of
Communications programs] will be permitted only upon application
to and acceptance by the academic unit offering that major.
LEffective: l990 Spring Semester Applicants]





RATIONALE: Wording changed generally for clarity and ease in
reading. The change in transfer between majors stipulates that
each academic unit offering a major is to determine whether the
applicant, especially one who has been admitted by departmental
review, is sufficiently prepared to enter that major.

Applicants automatically accepted. Assuming all else is in order,
applicants With a 2.60 or above undergraduate grade point average
will be accepted. Once accepted, each student will be assigned a
major advisor by the appropriate department office.


[Applicants provisionally accepted. Students who have completed
40-44 credit hours with a minimum GPA of 3.0 and who have
completed the other admission requirements will be granted
provisional admission to allow them to advance register for
upper-division College of Communication courses. A student
admitted provisionally who, upon completion of 45 credit hours,

. has a minimum GPA of 2.60 automatically will be granted full
admission status (no further application process is necessary). A
student whose GPA is below 2.60 will be denied admission.]

RATIONALE: This entire category of admission has never been used
since selective admissions began. There is no reason to believe
that the College of Communications will have need of the category
in the future, hence it is most clear to simply delete the

Admission Based Upon Departmental Review. Students who do not
meet one or more of the requirements for [either full or
provisional] admission, but who feel that this is due to
extenuating personal, academic, professional, or intellectual
circumstances, must describe these circumstances in detail in
[their application for admission] a separate letter of appeal.
These circumstances will be considered by the Admissions Committee
of the appropriate program. This committee will be appointed by




 the Chairperson of the program. The applicant will be informed in
writing of the committee's decision, which also will be forwarded
to the College's [Coordinator of Academic Affairs] Office of
Undergraduate Studies.


RATIONALE: Deletion of the “provisional” admission category makes
it unnecessary to refer to it here. The specific forms and
handling of paperwork have been altered somewhat since the advent
of selective admissions. Rather than including a letter of appeal
at the time of application, any student who is denied acceptance
receives a letter which offers that student a chance to "appeal“
based on a written letter addressed directly to the Departmental
Review Committee. The change in the name of the recor