xt7kkw57hh1t https://exploreuk.uky.edu/dips/xt7kkw57hh1t/data/mets.xml University of Kentucky. University Senate University of Kentucky. Faculty Senate Kentucky University of Kentucky. University Senate University of Kentucky. Faculty Senate 1984-04-25 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, April 25, 1984 text University of Kentucky University Senate (Faculty Senate) meeting minutes, April 25, 1984 1984 1984-04-25 2020 true xt7kkw57hh1t section xt7kkw57hh1t LMUVERSHY OF KENTUCKY LEXINGTON. KENTUCKY 40506-0032 UNIVERSITY SENATE COUNCIL 10 ADMINISTRATION BUILDING April 17, 1984 Members, University Senate This is a reminder that there will be a special meeting of the University Senate on Wednesday, April 25, 1984, at 3:00 p.m. in the Classroom Building, 106. AGENDA: 1. Minutes. Resolutions Announcements Action Item: Proposed addition to University Senate Rules, Section V., 3.1.2 Quality Point Deficit. (Circulated under date of March 28, 1984) Action Item: Proposed addition to University Senate Rules concerning probation and suspension rules, College of Allied Health Professions. (Circulated under date of 12 April 1984) Action Item: Proposed addition to University Senate Rules: Probation and Suspension Policy, College of Engineering. (Circulated under date of 16 April 1984) Action Item: Proposed addition to University Senate Rules, Section III., 2.0 Procedures for Processing Programs and Changes in Programs, paragraph 5. (Circulated under date of 29 March and also under date of 17 April) Action Item: Proposal to change the University grading system. (Cir— culated under date of 12 April) Action Item: Proposed change in University Senate Rules, Section IV., 2.2.9, College of Engineering [Admissions standards]. (Circulated under date of April 13, 1984. Elbert W. Ockerman Secretary AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY UNIVERSITY MINUTES OF THE UNIVERSITY SENATE, APRIL 25, I984 The University Senate met in a called session at 3:00 p.m., Wednesday, April 25, l984, in Room lO6 of the Classroom Building. E. Dcuglas Rees, Chairman of the Senate Council, presided. Members absent: Richard Angelo*, James Bader, Michael Baer, Charles E. Barnhart, Jack C. Blanton, Thomas 0. Blues*, Peter P. Bosomworth, Thomas W. Brehm*, Joseph T. Burch, Ellen Burnett, Bradley Canon*, Henry Cole, Clifford J. Cremers*, Donald F. Diedrich, Gadis J. Dillon*, Richard C. Domek*, Herbert Drennon, Nancy E. Dye, Anthony Eardley, William Ecton*, Charles Ellinger, Donald G. Ely*, Charles H. Fay, Nathan Floyd, Wilbur W. Frye, Richard W. Furst*, Art Gallaher, Jr.*, Andrew J. Grimes*, John Hall, Joseph Hamburg, Willburt Ham*, Marilyn D. Hamann, S. Z. Hasan*, Robert Hemenway*, Donald Hochstrasser, Raymond R. Hornback, Alfred S. L. Hu*, James Kemp, Theodore A. Kotchen*, Robert Lawson, Julie Lien, David Lowery, William E. Lyons*, Edgar Maddox, Kenneth E. Marino, Brad McDearman, Marcus T. McEllistrem, Martin J. McMahon, Jr., Mary Beth Messmer, H. Brinton Milward*, Daniel N. Nelson, Clayton Omvig, Mary Anne Owens, Merrill Packer*, Janet Pisaneschi, Jean Pival, David J. Prior, Robert Rabel, Madhira D. Ram*, Kay Robinson*, Caryl E. Rusbult, Charles Sachatello*, Edgar Sagan, Timothy Sineath*, Otis A. Singletary*, Jesse E. Sisken, John T. Smith, Stanford L. Smith, Marcia Stanhope, Phil Taylor, Kenneth Thompson, William C. Thornbury, Enid S. Walhart*, Marc J. Wallace, David Webster, O'Neil Weeks, Jesse Weil, Constance Wilson, Alfred D. Winer, Steven Yates*, Scott Yocum Since the Minutes of the April l9, l984, meeting had not been distributed, the approval was postponed until the September meeting. The Chairman made the following announcements: ”This is the last Senate meeting of the year. Pro- fessor Bostrom of the College of Communications will be SUCCeeding me as Senate Council Chairman on the sixteenth of May. Bob Bostrom will have a successor. Professor Bradley Canon of the Department of Political Science has been elected by the Senate Council as incoming Chairman— elect. There will be continuity and experience in this position in the years ahead. I want to thank the Senate Council. It has been exceptionally diligent and capable. We have had several meetings each month. The attendance has been either lOO% or very close to that. There are a number of issues for this coming year, and I think they are already on the docket. Last week we heard the General Education Committee Report. There will be more about that this coming year. Also there is a scholarship program being assembled under the leadership of Dr. Donald Sands. This is being done in order to attract some of the finer students to the University of Kentucky and that is part of making our se- lective admissions policy work as well as it should. *Absence explained -2- There is also an ad hoc administrative committee under the chairmanship of Professor Jean Pival to study faculty alternatives and they are proceeding to make specific recom- mendations. The Committee on Academic Planning and Priorities under the chairmanship of Professor Jack Hiatt has sub- mitted a detailed plan for evaluating academic progress. In the years ahead program priorities and termination and suspension of programs will become a more important matter than they have been in the past. The Research Committee under the chairmanship of Professor Bob Guthrie has pre— pared a statement entitled 'The Contribution and Impor— tance of State Supported Universities to the Economic Growth in Kentucky.‘ I think that is an important state— ment. It is being reviewed by President Singletary. Also the Research Committee has set forth a list of further topics in the research area that deserve discussion dur- ing this coming year. These and other topics will come about as a result of the economic and political forces that are at work at the present time. I will be writing a thank you note to all the differn ent committee chairmen but now I want to thank Celinda Todd, who is the Senate Council Administrative Assistant. She is really the one who keeps the Senate Council office running and that is a surprise to no one. I should like to thank Martha Ferguson who has done a fine job with the Senate Minutes, and that is not an easy task. Mary Mayhew and Ron Farrar have been dependable and exemplary as our Sargeants at Arms. I also thank Professor Blyton who gives me and the senate assurance that an expert parliamentarian is always at hand. With that we go to our first action item on the agenda.” Chairman Rees recognized Professor Robert Bostrom. Professor Bostrom, on behalf of the Senate Council, recommended approval of the proposed addition to University Senate Rules, Section V., 3.l.2, Quality Point Deficit. This proposed addition was circulated to members of the senate under date of March 28, l984. Professor Bostrom said the new rule was designed to distinguish college suspension from suspension from the University and designed to give individual colleges the right to set the quality point deficit. Chairman Rees recognized Professor Altenkirch for a presentation. Professor Altenkirch's remarks follow: ”Freshmen can be placed on probation if they have a quality point deficit greater than five after the first semester. Undergraduates in general shall be placed on probation if they have a quality point deficit greater than five. If they have more than 90 hours and a GPA of less than 2.0 they are placed on probation. Undergradu— ates are subject to suspension if they get an additional quality point deficit greater than five when they are on probation. If a student is on probation for three conse- cutive semesters and demonstrates he cannot do satisfac- -3- tory work, he is suspended not only from the college but from the University. However, the dean can place the student on scholastic probation if the individual case justifies it. The proposal would make the suspension from the college available to the dean but also make the dean tell the student what he is using to judge satisfactory and unsatisfactory work. Basically the first three items on the agenda go together. The rationale points out the fact that the colleges can make rules in addition to those of the Uni- versity as long as the standards are not below those of the University." The floor was opened for questions and discussion. Professor Just wanted to know if a student were suspended from a college, what part of the University did he/she belong? Professor Altenkirch said the student could belong to any part except that college. Professor Just felt under those circumstances stu— dents would be skipping around from college to college and Professor Altenkirch said that condition existed now. There were no further questions, and the proposal passed. The addition to the University Senate Rules, Section V., 3.l.2 reads as follows: New Rule: V., 3.l.2 Academic Probation and Suspension The academic probation and suspension systems that are used to determine a student's aca- demic standing University—wide are based on quality point deficit. The base for deter— mining the deficit is the number of quality points which wOuld result from multiplying the number of hours attempted by two. Defi- cit is the difference, if any, between this base and the number of quality points earned. Individual colleges may establish policies regarding academic probation and suspension with regard to a student's academic standing within the college in addition to the Univer— sity—wide policies given here. If a college establishes such a policy, the policy must be approved by the University Senate, and the policy shall be made available in writing to the students. [see this Section 3.l.3 and 3.l.5l Rationale: The title change for U§R_V., 3.l.2 from "Quality Point Deficit” to the proposed ”Aca- demic Probation and Suspension” depicts more clearly the nature of the Rule. In addition it sets forth a principle based on the Govern— ing Regulations that college faculties can -4- adopt academic standards and requirements which can be no less than those required University- wide by the Senate Rules and these college stan— dards and requirements must be approved by the University Senate and specified in the Senate Rules. Implementation Date: Fall Semester, l984. Chairman Rees recognized Professor Robert Bostrom to present the proposed addition in University Senate Rules concerning probation and suspension in the College of Allied Health Professions. This proposed addition had been circulated to members of the senate under date of April l2, l984. On behalf of the Senate Council, Professor Bostrom recom— mended approval. The floor was opened for questions and discussion. Mr. Johnson from the College of Allied Health Professions said the proposal had been discussed sufficiently and urged the senate's approval. He said the proposal had been worked through two academic affairs committees. There were no questions and the proposal, which passed unanimously, reads as follows: Proposal: Allied Health professional students are subject to the general University regulations pertaining to academic probation and suspension. In addition, the following standards apply to Allied Health professional students: Professional Program Probation: A student will be placed on professional program probation when: l. the semester GPA falls below 2.0 in courses required by the professional program, or, a failing grade is earned in any course required by the professional program. Removal from Professional Program Probation: A student may satisfy the deficiency warranting probation and will be removed from professional program probation when: in the semester following professional program probation, a 2.0 or above semester GPA is achieved in courses required by the professional program, and a passing grade is earned in any previously failed course required by the professional program. Professional Program Suspension: A student will be suspended from the professional program when: l. a 2.0 semester GPA in courses required by the _5_ professional program is not earned either at the end of the probationary semester, or in any subse— quent semester or, a course required by the professional program is failed a second time or, two courses required by the professional program are failed, unless alternative action is recommended by the Program Director and approved by the Dean. Rationale: The proposed statement sets forth the probation and suspen— sion policy for students in the College of Allied Health Professions. It is set forth in the Governing Regulations (VII. A. 4.) that "Within the limits established by the regulations of the University and the policies and rules of the University Senate, the faculty of a college shall determine the educational policies of that college. It shall make recommendations to the University Senate on such matters as require the final approval of that body, and it may make recommendations on other matters to the University Senate, to the President, or to other administrative offi- cials. The academic or scholastic requirements of a college may exceed, but not be lower than, those established for the University System as a whole by the University Senate or the Graduate Faculty. Any such differences in standards ' must be approved by the University Senate.” Implementation Date: Fall, l984 NOTE: The proposal will be forwarded to the Rules Committee for codification. Chairman Rees recognized Professor Robert Bostrom to present the proposed addi— tion to University Senate Rules: Probation and Suspension Policy, College of Engineer- ing. This proposed addition had been circulated to members of the senate under date of April l6, l984. On behalf of the Senate Council Professor Bostrom recommended approval. Chairman Rees recognized Dean Bowen from the College of Engineering who requested that the senate support the proposal. Professor Applegate felt this was allowing individual colleges to set separate standards in what they felt was needed for a par- ticular major. Chairman Rees said the Governing Regulations gave the colleges that right. There was no further discussion, and the proposal, which passed unanimously, reads as follows: Proposal: Proposed Engineering Probation and Academic Suspension Policy In addition to the University rules on probation and academic suspension, the following rules apply in the College of Engi— neering. , Difinition: Engineering standing is defined as the overall grade-point average for all course work taken while enrolled in the College of Engineering. Excluded are correspondence courses and transient work. (The term semester standing refers to the GPA for a single semester.) l. A student who fails to achieve an engineering standing of 2.0 at the end of any semester shall be placed on academic probation. A student, regardless of engineering standing, whose semester standing is less than a 2.0 for two consecu— tive semesters shall be placed on probation. A student who, at the end of his first probationary semester, achieves a semester standing of 2.0 but fails to bring his engineering standing up to 2.0 will be con- tinued on probation. A student who, at the end of a probationary semester, fails to have achieved a semester standing of 2.0 shall be dropped from the College of Engineering. A student who, at the end of his second consecutive probationary semester, fails to have achieved an engi- neering standing of 2.0 shall be dropped from the College of Engineering. A student who fails to achieve an engineering standing of l.5 at the end of any semester shall have his/her record reviewed and may be dropped from the College without a preliminary probationary semester. A student who has been dropped a single time for academic deficiency may be reinstated into the College of Engineering after an absence of one year. A student will be reinstated as a first semester probationary student and subject to final suspension according to these rules. The dean may use his discretion in applying these rules where a particular case justifies less severe action. Rationale: The proposed statement sets forth the probation and suspen- sion policy for the students in the College of Engineering. It is set forth in the Governing Regulations (VII. A.4) that “Within the limits established by the regulations of the University and the policies and rules of the University Senate, the faculty of a college shall determine the educa— tional policies of that college. It shall make recommendations to the University Senate on such matters as require the final -7- approval of that body, and it may make recommendations on other matters to the University Senate, to the President, or to other administrative officials. The academic or scholastic requirements of a college may exceed, but not be lower than, those established for the University System as a whole by the University Senate or the Graduate Faculty. Any such differences in standards must be approved by the University Senate.” Implementation Date: Fall, l984 NOTE: These rules will be codified by the Rules Committee. Chairman Rees recognized Professor Robert Bostrom to present the proposed addition to University Senate Rules, Section III., 2.0 Procedures for Processing Programs and Changes in Program , paragraph 5. This proposed addition had been circulated to members of the senate under date of March 29 and also under date of April l7. On behalf of the Senate Council, Professor Bostrom recommended approval. Chairman Rees said there were a few hundred programs in the University. The Council on Higher Education is looking at what they call productivity which means the number of people graduating in these programs throughout the course of the year. The statement that the senate was dealing with applied only to the internal processing of program changes. In the event of external demands such as from the Council on Higher Education, it may not be possible to process a program change through the procedure set forth in our Senate Rules. Chairman Rees said that under the Governing Regulations the President has the prerogative under extraordinary circumstances of suspending the University Senate Rules except for those rules concerning admission or awarding the number of credits and quality points earned for graduation. At the last meeting Pro— fessor Gesund asked what happened in professional programs and Chairman Rees said in the College of Law program changes went directly to the Senate Council. In the College of Medicine they go to the Academic Council of the Medical Center then to the Senate Council. On the Lexington campus programs would come from the college depending on whether they were graduate or undergraduate courses they would then go to the Graduate or Undergraduate Councils and hence to the Senate Council. In the Medical Center the non-professional courses would go to the Academic Council for the Medical Center and depending whether they are graduate or undergraduate they would go to the appropriate council and to the Senate Council. Final approval rests with the senate and any five senators can bring the matter to the senate floor for discussion and vote. The floor was opened for questions and discussion. Dean Royster pointed out that the Graduate Council reviewed the proposal and rationale for the suspension of programs about four weeks ago and the Council said there were already rules for suspension and the lifting of suspension for graduate programs. The Council felt the procedure had worked sufficiently well and would like the motion to include termination and the sus- pension for termination of undergraduate programs to continue the procedure that had been established by the senate. Chairman Rees felt the rules dealing with suspension, reinstatement and termination were inconsistent. He said that at the present time sus— pension did not have to come to the Senate Council from the Graduate Council although reinstatement from suspension had to go from the Graduate Council to the Senate Council. Professor Bostrom said termination was in the University Senate Rules and did go to the Senate Council. The proposal on the floor referred only to suspension. Dean Royster moved an amendment on behalf of the Graduate Council to add the word undergraduate. The sentence would read: -8— .including suspension or termination of undergraduate programs.” The motion was seconded. Professor Belmore wanted to know what the present rule is. Professor Rees read Rule l 3.2: ”The Graduate Council shall review graduate pro— grams and suggest measures designed to maintain acceptable levels of academic quality. In pursuit of this charge, the Graduate Council may recommend appropriate actions to the Graduate Dean. For the purpose of this section, such recommendations may include (l) suspension of programs for a maximum of five years, (2) lifting of suspensions, and (3) termination of programs in accordance with the procedures. All recommendations by the Graduate Council and decisions by the Graduate Dean relative to suspension of programs shall be communicated to the Chairman of the Senate Council. No later than the fifth year of any program suspension, the Graduate Council shall review the sus- pension and recommend to the Graduate Dean the reinstatement or termination of the programs. If the Graduate Dean approves a recommendation by the Graduate Council to reinstate a program that has been suspended, he shall submit this recommendation to the Graduate Faculty for review. If the Graduate Faculty concurs, it shall forward its recommendation through the Senate Council to the University Senate for approval.” Professor Gesund felt the amendment would undo what the proposed rules change was forced to do. In other words, the amendment would retain the present complexity where the proposed rule would remove that. He felt the senate should be against the amend— ment. Dr. Sands said there is not an undergraduate faculty (in the sense of the Graduate Faculty) and not a Dean of Undergraduate Studies, and the Undergraduate Council felt the undergraduate program changes should go to the Senate Council. Professor Jewell clarified that the old rule was for suspending graduate pro- grams for only two years. That was not realistic. The Graduate Council passed a rule from two years to five years. After reinstating a program after five years, it might be treated as a new program, and a new program or one reinstated ought to go through the Senate Council. He agreed with the argument that the Senate Council should not be in the business of reinvestigating everything that every other body in the University did. He did not see why the Senate Council should have to review the Graduate Council if they wanted to suspend a program. Professor Rea was curious as to where the amendment would leave the College of Medicine and Law if the word ”undergraduate” were inserted. Chairman Rees said that professional courses in the College of Medicine and Law would continue as at present. He felt there was con— tradiction as things stand now. Professor Rea's point was that currently Law and Medicine must go through the senate for approval. Chairman Rees said the issue under disCussion was whether or not there should be certain circumstances (such as graduate program suspension decided by the graduate dean) where the Senate Council would not be involved and, thus, circula- tion to the senate for final approval would not occur. Professor Just did not understand the rationale of why the Senate Council wanted to get involved. It seemed to him unless the Council viewed itself only as a rubber stamp, it would just increase the bureaucracy. Chairman Rees said one reason for doing this was so that all senators would have a chance to agree or not to agree with the decisions made. The Council could be looked upon as a mechanism of seeing that every- thing was in order. Professor Bostrom explained the rationale of the Senate Council. First, the bureaucracy was in place and is not likely to be disturbed. Suspending courses did not happen often so the workload of any semester would not be increased. For the past three years the Senate Council has been involved with serious questions about financial -9- exigency, programs, etc. If programs were suspended it could affect jobs and students. The Senate Council felt one more step in the process was not unreasonable and wanted to make it a little harder. Dean Royster said the Graduate Council looked at suspension purely on the quality of the program and the number of students that program served. Professor Applegate felt the logic was that either the Senate Council and the University Senate had no busi- ness being involved or there must be some reason for being involved with suspension, termination and reinstatement. Professor Applegate did not understand the ration— ale for the current system. Professor Rees said the senate started out with the basic premise (present Rule 111., 2.0) and then in considering suspension other (sometimes conflicting) rules became attached as part of the charge to Senat's Graduate Council. Professor Jewell moved the previous question on the amendment which was seconded and passed. The amendment passed with a hand count of 27 to 2l. Professor Mattingly agreed with Professor Applegate and felt all programs should be reviewed. She wanted to table the proposal and have it include a definite pro— posal that made sense and encompassed all the colleges and then have it brought before the senate. The Chairman conferred with the parliamentarian. Parliamentarian Blyton said that no formal motion had been made. Professor Mattingly moved to send the pro— posal back to the Senate Council for further study. The motion passed. The Chairman recognized Professor Robert Bostrom for the proposal to change the University grading system. This proposal had been circulated to members of the senate under date of April l2, l984. On behalf of the Senate Council, Professor Bostrom recommended approval. The Chairman recognized Professor Robert Altenkirch who presented statistics and information on grading systems at other universities. Professor Altenkirch's remarks follow: “Last spring the senate wanted to vote on a plus- minus system. You now have the opportunity. A recent study of the American Association of Collegiate Registars and Admissions Officers shows that through the sixties and seventies, faculty and students became dissatisfied with the way grades were being given. The result of that was that institutions went to non—traditional grade report- ing such as pass/fail. In addition to that, academic standards seemed to be relaxed a bit. In the early sixties to the mid seventies the number of A's given went from sixteen percent to thirty-four percent. While the number of C's went from thirty-seven percent up to forty—one percent. At the same time ACT scores went from 20.2 to l8. There was a state of decline in the incoming student quality. In the mid seventies people began to realize this and started to work on the problem. At the conclusion of the study there was one thing that was tried to solve the problem and that was to go to the plus—minus grading scale. The same study says that ninety—five percent of the universities in the United States are on a 4.0 scale. If you look at the vari- ous systems of the four—year universities, sixty-one percent are on straight letters of A through F; thirty-one per- cent have some form of plus-minus grading. From the -10- study it was found that the most noteworthy trend in changing grades was that in 1964 twenty percent of a11 universities had a p1us-minus system. In 1982 31.6 per- cent had the system. The introduction of innovations in the sixties and seventies has gone away. The rate of adopting changes has s1owed down. From 1972 to 1982 on1y twenty—six percent of the universities changed any- thing, and the most preva1ent change was the p1us-minus. At the present time we are on a 4.0 sca1e. I wou1d urge you to keep it that way. If you go to the p1us-minus system as is the recommendation, you have to have e1even divisions. When you grade, you are trying to measure success or performance. When you make a measurement, you have to worry about the percision. The recommendation of the Committee on Admissions and ‘ Academic Standards is that we ought to give you an opportunity to vote on it. We do not have a particu1ar1y strong recommendation one way or the other. The on1y thing I wou1d urge you to do is stay on a 4.0 sca1e. If you raise that you are just contributing to grade inf1a— tion.” The f1oor was opened for questions and discussion. Professor Harris wanted to know if there were responses from the survey that more universities wanted to change their system and wished they did not have it. Professor A1tenkirch said the majority had a fee1ing there was no reason to change. He said there was no strong impetus for change. Mr. Johnson wanted to know from the AACRAO survey if there was an indication of change over different periods of time. He fe1t changes were now back to a more tradi- tiona1 sca1e. Professor A1tenkirch said he was not ta1king about going from a 1etter grading system to a strict overa11 pass/fai1 system. Professor Just wanted to know why certain co11eges were exempted from the proposa1. Chairman Rees said the co11eges had their own grading systems which had been approved by the senate. Dean Royster emphasized the point that the Graduate Counci1 opposed the p1us-minus system. Dean Ockerman did not argue one way or the other but said one of the significant things 1earned about going to the p1us—minus system was that the number of grade changes increased. Professor Moody was in favor of the proposa1, and he fe1t giving grades was one of the more difficu1t things he had to do. He fe1t there was a 1ot of difference between a 70 and 79 and 80 and 89. For that reason he thought it was beneficia1 to the students and wou1d motivate the students to continue to work and he spoke in favor of the proposa1. Professor DeMers said he did not think the proposa1 was a mandate for prom fessors to use the p1us-minus even if it were passed. He said he wou1d not use it for graduate students for the reasons Dean Royster pointed out. He said if the senators voted against the proposa1, they cou1d be denying someone e1se the prerogative of using the p1us-minus. Professor A1tenkirch said the argument was correct but there was no difference than the present grading system where one cou1d take the four divisions but use on1y three grades. There was no guarantee an instructor wou1d use the p1us—minus. Professor Fugate said a 1ot of the responses from the survey were ambiguous; He fe1t the number of grade changes wou1d go up. He did not fee1 there were any convincing reasons in the survey to vote one way or the other. Professor Just addressed the A- —ll— issue of denying the possibility of changing grades. He stated that when he taught 350 freshmen biology students and gave only A, B, C, D and E that the ombudsman would have about l50 complaints. He said the senate should be in favor of the proposal for everyone or against it for everyone. Dean Royster said the Graduate School required a 3.0 for graduation. By putting a minus in the system it could keep a student from graduating. He felt that was really indicating a great deal of accuracy in the grading system. Professor Rea moved the previous question which was seconded and passed. The motion to adopt the grading system of plus-minus failed with a hand count of 42 to 9. There was one abstention. Chairman Rees recognized Professor Robert Bostrom to present the proposed change in University Senate Rules, Section IV., 2.2.9, College of Engineering admissions standards. This proposed change had been circulated to members of the senate under date of April l3, l984. On behalf of the Senate Council, Professor Bostrom recommended approval. Dean Bowen said the College of Engineering became in