xt7s7h1dnv9f https://exploreuk.uky.edu/dips/xt7s7h1dnv9f/data/mets.xml University of Kentucky. University Senate University of Kentucky. Faculty Senate Kentucky University of Kentucky. University Senate University of Kentucky. Faculty Senate 1996-03-18  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, March 18, 1996 text University of Kentucky University Senate (Faculty Senate) meeting minutes, March 18, 1996 1996 1996-03-18 2020 true xt7s7h1dnv9f section xt7s7h1dnv9f TO:

OF KENTUCKY University Senate Council

Office of the Chair

10 Administration Building
Lexington, Kentucky 40506-0032
Office: (606) 257-5871 or (606) 257-5872

29 February 1996 FAX: (606) 323-1062

Members, University Senate

The University Senate will meet in regular session on Monday, March 18, 1996, at

3:00 PM in room 115 of the Nursing Building (CON/HSLC).




Chair’s Announcements

Retention and Graduation Report, Follow-up Survey on Non-Retuming Students:
Louis .1. Swift, Dean of Undergraduate Studies and Director, University Studies, and
Roseann R. Hogan, Director, Planning and Assessment, Lexington Campus.

Action Items:

a. Proposed change in University. Senate Rules, Section IV - 4.3.3 to add a statement
to that section concerning repeated registration in a course. (Originally circulated

under date of 30 January 1996. Circulated again with amendment from the floor on
29 February 1996.)

b. Honorary Degree Presentation: Dr. Daniel R. Reedy, Dean, The Graduate School

c. Proposed changes in University Senate Rule - Section V - College of
Medicine student promotion rules (circulated under date of 1 March 1996).

d. Proposal to amend University Senate Rules, Section V - Grades and Marking
Systems - to establish a plus/minus grading system for the College of Arts and
Sciences (circulated under date of 2 March 1996).

e. Proposal to amend University Senate Rule - Section IV Admission to Non-
Certification Undergraduate Program (circulated under date of 3 March 1996).

Betty Huff

US Agenda: 2.12.96 1 -


An Equal Opportunity University



The Univ :rsity Senate met in regular session at 3:00 p.m., Monday, March 18, 1996, in Room
I 15 of the NuY sing Health Sciences Building.

Professor Gretchen LaGodna, Chairperson of the Senate Council, presided.

Members absent were: M. Mukhtar Ali, Gary Anglin, Patrick Arnold, Benny Ray Bailey, John
Ballantinc, Michael Bardo, Vasant Bhapkar, Ben Bogia*, Douglas Boyd, Fitzgerald Bramwcll, Bill
Brassine, Caro vn Brock, Joseph Burch, Mary Burkc*, Allan Butterficld, Johnny Cailleteau, Joan
Callahan, Ben ‘arr, Edward Carter, Shea Chaney, En'c Christianson*, Jordan Cohen, Jean Coopcr*.
Scott Coovert, L"\aymond Cox, Carla Crayeraft, Frederick DeBeer*, Susan charvalho, David
Elliott*, Rober‘: Farquhar, Juanita Fleming*, Richard Furst, Beatrice Gaunder, Philip Greasley*, Kirby
Hancock, Issan' Harik, Monica Harris, S. Zafar Hasan, James Holsinger, Rick Hoyle*, Edward
Jennings*, Stuart Kcller*, Pamela Kidd, Craig Koontz, Thomas Lester, G.T. Linebcrry*, C. Oran
Little, Jeff Low. . Daniel Mason*, Douglas Miehael*, David Mohney, Roy Moore, Maurice Mom'son,
Donald Mullinc ux, David Nash*, Phyllis Nash*, Wolfgang Natter, Anthony Newberry, Michael
Neitzcl*, William O'Connor, Clayton Paul*, Clyde Poe*, Tom Pratt, Shirley Raines, Karl Raitz, Amy
Rasor, Thomas Robinson, John Rogers*, Michael Rohmiller, Charles Russo, Scott Safford, David
Shiplcy, Todd S: =oek, Richard Smith, Sheldon Steiner, William Stober*, David Stockham, Michael
Thomlin, Michae 1 Uyhclji, Retia Walker*, Craig Wallace, Charles Wcthington*, Chad Willet, Carolyn
Williams, Eugene Williams, Emery Wilson*, Mary Witt, William Witt, Linda Worley.

The minute: of December I 1, 1995 have been distributed. There were no corrections to the
minutes and they were approved as circulated.

Chairperson Jretchen LaGodna made the following announcements:

Professor Le- zs Mather has been reelected to the Board of Trustees. Professor Mather was given
a round of applause. Professor LaGodna thanked all the outstanding candidates that were on the

Professor Lee Edgerton has accepted the request of the Senate Council and the President to
serve a second term as the University Academic Ombud.

Continuing update on the retirement recommendations that were put forth by the Senate Ad Hoe
Retirement Committee. Professor LaGodna met with Myra Johnson who is the Associate Director of
Human Resources for Employee Benefits. HRS has taken a number of very positive steps toward the
recommendations that were made. After talking they decided it would be a very productive idea if
HRS and the Senat: Council cosponsored some open forums for faculty. Three open forums have
been set up to discuss current issues and future changes in retirement planning and benefits. Every

* Absence Explained


 _ 2 _
Minutes. University Senate. March 18. I996

faculty member will be getting a flycr. The dates for the forums are: April 3. I996, April 8. 1996,
and April 1 l. 1996. There are three separate times; two are late in the afternoon, one is over the
noon hour. One is scheduled in the medical center end of the campus and the other two are on the
other end of the campus. These are going to be important forums; I urge you to attend one of them.
lt will give you a chance to have some input into the benefits area.

Dr. Powell and Dr. Mather. as the Board of Trustees representatives and Professor Dennis
Officer as a representative from the Ad Hoc Retirement Committee. and myself met with the
President to discuss progress on the major recommendation that came out of that committee. which
was for the phased-in retirement plan. The President reaffirmed his intent to respond to that issue by
the end of the semester.

The Senate Council endorsed the Green Lights Program, sponsored by Students for an Energy
Efficient Environment.

The Senate Council also sent recommendations for faculty appointments to the Senate Advisory
Committees. Area Academic Advisory Committees. the University Appeals Board. and Student
Media Board to the President.

Chairperson LaGodna recognized Professor Robert Rapp from the College of Pharmacy to
present the following memorial resolution in honor of Professor Michael Gosland who died on
February 26. 1996.

Michael P. Gosland

Dr. Michael Gosland received a BS. in Biology in 1984 and his Doctor of Pharmacy
degree in 1987 graduating Summa Cum Laude, both from the University of the Pacific in
Stockton. California. He then completed a Pharmacy Practice Residency at the Veterans
Administration Medical Center in Palo Alto. California and a three year post-doctoral
fellowship in the Division of Oncology and Clinical Pharmacology at the Stanford
University School of Medicine.

Dr. Gosland joined the faculty of the College of Pharmacy and the College of
Medicine in 1991 as Assistant Professor in the Division of Pharmacy Practice and Science.
He was appointed as Assistant Professor in the Division of Hematology/Oncology in the
Department of Medicine in 1993. and promoted to Associate Professor in the Colleges of
Pharmacy and Medicine in 1995. Dr. Gosland was also the Clinical Specialist in Oncology
in the Department of Pharmacy at University Hospital and a member of the University of
Kentucky Graduate Faculty.

In a small amount of time on the University of Kentucky faculty. Dr. Gosland touched
the lives of many faculty throughout the Medical Center which is a tribute to his wonderful


 Minutes. University Senate, March I8. 1996

ability to collaborate in a wide variety of research projects involving cancer drug therapy.
He was an outstanding and empathetic teacher of both pharmacy and medical students.
He was the primary preeeptor for the Pharmacy Practice Specialty Residency in Oncology
Practice. As a clinician, Dr. Gosland worked with physicians, pharmacists. nurses. and
house staff officers to give the best possible safe and effective drug therapy to Markey
Cancer Center in-patients and out—patients. During the past five years at the University of
Kentucky. Dr. Gosland developed an outstanding reputation for his research on the multi-
drug-resistant cancer gene and ways to reverse this resistance. He was very well known
for his work on the pharmacokineties and pharmacodynamics of anti-cancer agents and a
well-trained laboratory researcher who eagerly shared his views and his visions with other
younger and older faculty members in the Medical Center. Dr. Gosland had already
published over 20 papers in the scientific and professional literature by the time of his
death. He was a highly sought after lecturer and he presented many times at state.
national and international meetings in the field of oncology.

Dr. Gosland and his wife Wendy are the parents of 3 children. Meagan Kathleen. age
I 1. Katherine Elise. age 4, and John Philip. age 2. They enjoyed their life to the fullest in
the Crosswoods Subdivision in Jessamine County and they were members of the South
Elkhom Christian Church on Harrodsburg Road.

Dr. Gosland will be both remembered and missed by his wife and children. his
colleagues. and all his many friends in Lexington and throughout the country.

A fund for the College Education of the Gosland children has been established.
Contributions may be sent to Dr. Robert P. Rapp. Chair, Division of Pharmacy Practice &
Science. Room C-l 14, University Hospital. 800 Rose St.. Lexington, KY 40536. Checks
should be made out to the "Gosland Children's Fund".

Professor Rapp asked that the resolution be made a part of the minutes and that a copy be sent to
his family.

The Chair asked that the Senate rise for a moment of silence.

Chairperson LaGodna recognized Dr. Roseann Hogan and Dr. Louis Swifi for the presentation
of the Retention and Graduation Report. Follow-up Survey on Non-Retuming Students.

Dean Lou Swift and Dr. Roseann Hogan, Director of Assessment and Planning for the
Lexington Campus. presented a report on undergraduate retention at the University of Kentucky.
The report focused on a survey of non-retuming students which was conducted in the spring of 1995.
but it also included findings on Freshman to Sophomore retention rates and graduation rates over the
last decade. Dr. Hogan provided detailed data on the reasons which students gave for leaving the
University, the impressions students had of their experience on campus. and the aspirations they
entertained for continuing their education. Some attention was paid to students’ perceptions of
advising. their academic work habits while attending the university. and the amount of time devoted


 _ 4 _
Minutes. University Senate. March 18. I996

to jobs on or off campus. It was clear that respondents to the survey believed that greater attention
to advising. more feedback on academic performance. and more personalized attention from faculty
are items which the University needs to address.

The report evoked a spirited discussion among the senators.
The charts used for the presentation are attached to the minutes.

AGENDA ITEM l: Proposal to amend University Senate Rules, Section IV.4.3.3 - Repeated
Registration in a Course.

Proposal: [Add sentence that is bold]

4.3.3 Repeated Registration in a Course
The Chair of a department may refuse to allow a student to register in a course a third
time, including correspondence. A withdrawal from the course shall not be counted
as a registration for these purposes.

Background and Rationale:

The proposal was initiated by the Academic Ombud. It was sent to the Admissions and
Academic Standards Committee for their review. It was revised in Committee and sent back to
the Senate Council where it was further amended.

The recommendation is based on the general principles that withdrawal from a course prior to
the official withdrawal deadline does not and should not penalize the withdrawing students.
Withdrawals after the official deadline are permitted only for non-academic reasons and.
therefore, should not penalize the student. Refusal by a Chair to allow a student who has
previously withdrawn frOm a course to register in the course for a third time is inconsistent with
these general principles.

Implementation Date: Summer, 1996

Note: lf approved, the proposal will be codified by the Rules Committee

Chairperson LaGodna stated this item was continued from the February meeting. The
amendment that was introduced by Professor Blues was being discussed when the meeting was
adjourned due to a lack of quorum. Professor LaGodna asked if there was further discussion on the
amendment which reads "if the student can demonstrate that the withdrawal was for urgent non-
academic reasons." There was no discussion on the amendment. The amendment passed in a voice
vote. There was no discussion on the amended motion. The motion passed in a voice vote and reads
as follows:

The Chair of a department may refuse to allow a student to register in a course a third time,
including correspondence. A withdrawal from the course shall not be counted as a


 _ 5 _
Minutes. University Senate. March 18. 1996

registration for these purposes if the student can demonstrate that the withdrawal was for
urgent non-academic reasons.

The Chair stated the next item was a sensitive issue. When honorary degree nominees are
discussed they are recommended nominees only. the Senate is advisory to the President and Board of
Trustees where these nominees are approved. In addition to the Senate's recommendation going
forward. the nominees themselves have to agree to this. therefore there are a lot of reasons why it is
critical not be make public who the nominees are at this point in time. Keep in mind it is very
important while the Senate discusses who the nominees are that there names are not publicized and
do not leave this body. The Chair asked if there were any reporters present that they leave the room
during the discussion. Professor LaGodna then recognized Dean Daniel Reedy from the Graduate
School for the presentation of the list of candidates for Honorary Degrees. Dr. Reedy stated the
recommendations came from the Honorary Degrees Committee and had been approved by the
Graduate Faculty. Dr. Reedy read biographical information on the nominees for the Senate's

The motion to accept the degree candidates for recommendation to the President passed in an
unanimous voice vote.

AGENDA ITEM 2: Proposal to amend Universiy Senate Rules - Section V - &
College of Medicine student promotion rules.

Proposal: (Add bold. underlined sections; delete items in brackets] College of Medicine (US: 3/10/86):
A Assessment of Student Learning

The University of Kentucky College of Medicine is charged with the education and training of
competent physicians. Competence must be assured not only in the students' fund of knowledge and
technical expertise. but also in their standards of personal and professional conduct. Student progress
shall be carefully monitored to certify that students have acquired appropriate knowledge. skills.
behavioral characteristics. and ethical principles. To this end. students are responsible for conforming
to all rules and regulations specified by the Health Science Student Professional Behavior Code. the
"Technical Standards" detailed in the College of Medicine Bulletin. and the academic standards
established in these Student Promotion Rules.

The Student Progress and Promotion Committee (SPPC) is charged with the monitoring of student
progress through the curriculum. The Committee regularly reviews each student's performance and
makes recommendations to the Dean on such actions as graduation. promotion. remediation.
dismissal and leaves of absence. Final authority on all matters of student progress and promotion is
vested in the Dean of the College of Medicine.

Assessment Criteria


 _ 6 _
Minutes. University Senate. March l8, I996

1. Student work is assessed by the faculty through the assignment of grades upon completion
of all required courses and clerkships. Basie science grades are based upon such measures
as written and oral examinations, laboratory practicals. and case write-ups. In the clinical
years. grades are accompanied by detailed descriptive comments reflecting the instructors'
impressions of the student's knowledge. attitudes, and technical skills.

Departmental faculty determine the level of student competence in the course or clerkship
for which they are responsible. Within two weeks of the termination of each course. every
department shall submit to the Office of Education a grade. and where possible. written
comments on each student's performance. The Office of Education will provide every
student a copy of this grade sheet within three weeks of the termination of the course.

Because of advanced academic pursuit in a biomedical discipline. some students may wish to
bypass a particular first or second year course. With permission of the course director and
the SPPC. a student may sit for an "opt-out" examination. The course director will
determine the appropriate level of performance for bypass privileges.

Students will be required to pass a written comprehensive. standardized basic science
examination prior to promotion to the third year and a written comprehensive. standardized
clinical examination prior to graduation. Students may sit for three consecutive
administrations of each examination in the attempt to achieve a passing score. During the
interval between repeated attempts to pass the examinations students are in a non-
promotional category. If unsuccessful after the third attempt, the student will be dismissed
from the College.

Students will be required to pass a Clinical Performance Examination (CPX) prior to
graduation. Students who do not pass the initial examination will be required to participate in
remediation activities and pass a retest.

B Promotion and Retention Criteria

The education of a physician is a complex process. longitudinal in character. with many incremental
steps. To assure that students graduating from the College of Medicine have the necessary
knowledge, skills. demeanor, and ethical principles essential to professional competence. the
following procedures will be used to evaluate and promote students:

I. At regular intervals the SPPC will review the academic record of each student and make
specific recommendations addressing promotion. remediation. or dismissal. Beyond these
recommendation. potential actions include but are not limited to the adjustment of academic
load. repetition of curriculum segments, and participation in counseling sessions.

Promotion to sequential semesters or years in the curriculum is contingent upon attaining
the expected level of performance as prescribed by the faculty of the College of Medicine.
Students attaining a GPA of 3.7 or higher in their current academic year will be promoted to


 _ 7 _
Minutes. University Senate, March 18. 1996

the subsequent year With Distinction. This accomplishment will be noted in their academic
records and on their transcripts.

Commencement honors of High Distinction and Distinction will be awarded at graduation
for students who attain the appropriate GPA. i.c.. 3.7 for High Distinction, 3.5-3.69 for

A non-promotional category will identify students who are not being promoted due to
unfulfilled requirements. These students may be involved in remediation activities. be
working to complete an "1" grade, or be retained for not passing either standardized
comprehensive examination. Students in the non promotional category will be promoted or
dismissed based upon satisfactory correction of the deficiency.

A non-routine promotion category will identify students receiving marginal grades whose
performance warrants close monitoring. Marginal performance may indicate the need for
remediation or repetition of curriculum segments. Continued marginal performance may be
justification for dismissal.

Unlimited opportunity to repeat courses. elerkships or curriculum sequences is neither feasible nor

A student receiving a grade of "U" or "E" has performed at an unacceptable level. To
redress the grade, the SPPC will review both the student's academic record and the
. compensating recommendations of the department that assigned the mark. The SPPC will
determine a plan of action which may include remediation, repetition of all or a portion of
the course, clerkship, or curriculum year, or dismissal from the College.

A probation category encompasses those students who post a GPA of less than 2.5 for any
academic year and those students who receive "U" or "E" grades. Students promoted on
probation must improve their academic performance in the subsequent academic year or risk

Dismissal from the College will result when students have an annually calculated cumulative
GPA of less than 2.0; receive two or more "E" grades; receive three or more "U" grades;
receive a "U" or "E" grade while on academic probation; or fail either of the comprehensive
standardized examinations on three consecutive attempts. At the discretion of the SPPC
and the Dean, students may be dismissed if they receive two "U" grades.

C Leaves of Absence

Students are normally expected to complete the curriculum in four consecutive years. Under
compelling circumstances. leaves of absence may be granted by the SPPC. The request for a leave of
absence must be submitted in writing to the Associate Dean for Education. Return from a leave must
be approved by the SPPC, may necessitate an amended academic curriculum, and is subject to the


 _ 8 _
Minutes. University Senate. March 18. 1996

availability of space in required courses. The following three categories of leave may be sanctioned
by the SPPC and approved by the Dean:

1. ACADEMIC LEAVE OF ABSENCE is available to students who wish to undertake
specialized academic pursuits in a defined field of study. Students must be in good
academic standing. Approval will not be given for intervals in excess of one year without

PERSONAL LEAVES OF ABSENCE are initiated at the students' requests. Students
must be in good academic standing. Leaves in this category may range from a number of
weeks to a maximum of one years.

MEDICAL LEAVE OF ABSENCE: Illness can seriously disrupt or impede student
progress through the course of study. A student anticipating an absence of 10 days or more
must secure a medical leave of absence. Application for this type of leave may be requested
through the Office of Education and must be accompanied by a letter from the student's
attending physician.

Processing and approval of a medical leave by the SPPC may require a review of the
student's pertinent medical records by a specially appointed committee of physicians
with relevant medical expertise. The length of the medical leave of absence will be

determined by the SPPC in consultation with the student, his attending physician. and
the g M Committee of physicians. Request for reentry must be accompanied by a
statement from the student's attending physician which addresses the student's ability
(mental and physical) to carry a full academic load. At this juncture. the SPPC may
again require review of the student's medical records and/or a medical assessment by a
physician with relevant clinical expertise at the student's expense.

Absences due to acute illness do not require a medical leave of absence. However, for
absences which encompass a major performance examination or more than five days of a
clinical clerkship. at the student is responsible for notifying the Office of Education as
soon as possible. Further. a supporting statement from an attending physician must be
filed with the Office of Education prior to returning to class. College of Medicine (US: 3/10/86)

A Represents exceptionally high achievement in performance. It is valued at four (4) quality
points for each credit hour.

Represents the expected level of achievement or performance in each course. This grade
reflects student competence in all areas of course requirements. It is valued at three (3)

quality points for each credit hour.

Represents marginal performance. It is valued at two (2) quality points for each credit hour.


 _ 9 _
Minutes. University Senate. March 18. 1996

E Represents failure or unacceptable performance in a course. It is valued at zero (0) quality
points for each credit hour.

Represents a passing grade in a course taken on a pass-fail basis. It is not used in quality
point calculations.

Denotes withdrawal from the College or from an elective course. 'W' must be approved or
recommended by the Student Progress and Promotion Committee. Withdrawal from a
required course is not permitted, except when a student withdraws from the College. A
student may withdraw from an elective and the 'W' will remain on the record.

Represents unsatisfactory performance in a specified area of course requirements. It is given
instead of an 'E' grade when evidence exists that the student might earn a ['C' ] passing grade
upon completion of make-up work. In the interim the 'U' will be valued at one quality point
for each credit hour. The temporafl grade must be made-up [A 'U' grade must be replaced
by a 'C' or 'E' grade] before the student can be promoted to the next year. The quality point
calculation will then be the average of the 'U' and the ['C' or 'E' grade] the grade given after
the make-up.



In the proposed paragraph on page two (bold, underlined), the exam is designed to assess the
student’s development of procedural skills and other proficieneies necessary for the provision of
appropriate patient care which are not generally measured by written examinations such as USMLE.
The CPX will be administered after the third year of the medical curriculum. Students who do not
pass the examination will be required to participate in remediation activities and be retested. This
promotion rule would be implemented with the Class of 1999. This request also requires a
clarification in the wording of the current rules (see also page 2. section 4). Thus, it is recommended
that the word “written" be added to the appropriate sentences.

The proposed paragraph on page three (bold. underlined) is needed to retain the College of Medicine
commencement honors since the University Senate decided to change commencement honors to a
Magna, Summa. and Cum Laude designation.

The changes on page 5 (definition of the “U" grade) are proposed because the old definition restricted
the grade after make-up work to a “C". With multidimensional evaluation systems, faculty requested
the ability to assign an unsatisfactory grade when a single dimension was not at a passing level. but
wanted the ability to then assign a grade that reflected the student’s performance as the average of all
the evaluation components. '

The proposals have been reviewed and approved by the Senate’s Committee on Admissions and
Academic Standards. They proposed one revision which the College of Medicine accepted. The
proposal as revised was approved by the University Senate Council.



Minutes, University Senate, March IS. 1996

Proposed Implementation: Class of 1999

Note: If approved the proposal will be codified by the Rules Committee

Chairperson LaGodna recognized Professor Jan Schach, chair-elect of the Senate Council for
introduction of the item. Professor Schach reviewed the background of the proposal and stated the
proposals had been reviewed and approved by the Senate Committee on Admissions and Academic
Standards as well as the Senate Council, she moved approval on behalf of the Senate Council.

Professor Jesse Weil (Physics and Astronomy) asked if on page two, item four the examinations
meant the first one or the second one or if it should be plural and apply to both? Sue Fosson (College
of Medicine) stated it was either and it should be read each examination. Professor Weil asked that
examination was being talked about on page three, item three. Ms. Fosson stated both and the word
should be plural.. Professor Weil said the bold faced incertion on page 2 seemed to be the same as
item number four. Ms. Fosson said it was not the same examination and it was determined to make
the bold faced insertion item five. Professor Weil stated that on page five on the bottom line
promotion rule seemed to conflict with page two where it says the CPX exam is required for
graduation but not for promotion. Ms. Fosson stated all the rules were considered promotion rules
including graduation. It was determined to remove the term promotion.

The question was called. The College of Medicine rule changes as amended passed in an
unanimous voice vote.

AGENDA ITEM 3: Proposal to amend University Senate Rules, Section V — Grades and
Marking systems - to establish a plus/minus grading system for the College of Arts and


During the 1994-95 academic year, the Admissions and Academic Standards Committee
considered a College of A&S proposal to establish a plus/minus grading system for
undergraduate students in that college. After deliberations, the committee recommended that
the change be instituted on a university-wide basis rather than in just the College of Arts &
Sciences. Plus/minus grading is already in use in the colleges of Law, Fine Arts, and
Architecture, and the Landscape Architecture program.

At the April 10, 1995 Senate meeting a general discussion was held. Debate ensued regarding
instituting the plus/minus system for all University undergraduate students. as well as solely in
the College of A&S. No clear consensus was achieved.

At the October 9, 1995; Senate meeting, the proposal was again discussed, and the following
concerns raised:

1 . Issues of equity if system is not university-wide


 _ 11 _
Minutes. University Senate, March 18. 1996

2. If there were no designated A+ grade. the best students may be less likely to earn 4.0s.
(This concern was confirmed by experience of Shippensburg University of PA.. who
adopted a +/- grading system in 1992.)

3. Weakest students may be more likely to fall below 2.0 GPAs.

The Senate returned the proposal to the Senate Council for further study.

In response to the Senate's directive, the Senate Council sought additional input by sending the
proposal to the deans of undergraduate colleges, asking that faculty councils or comparable
groups review it. The request specifically asked that they consider the advisability of a
University-wide plus/minus system for all undergraduate students. The memo invited student
input from the colleges as well. A separate request was made to the Student Government

The Senate Council then reconsidered the proposal at its 19 and 26 February meetings. taking
into consideration the following input:

Discussion at previous Senate meetings

SGA's October 1995 petitions and January 1996 Kernel survey
lntcmet assessment of other universities' experiences

Responses from 10 UK Colleges

Research-based data from Dr. Tom Guskey and Dr. Roseann Hogan

While the Senate Council acknowledged that those UK units which currently use such a system
are satisfied. it concluded that there was no compelling rationale to recommend instituting such
a system university-wide. The Council believed. however. that the original proposal forwarded
by the College of A&S should be brought back to the floor of the full Senate for vote.

The Senate Council therefore forwards the following proposal.

Proposal: Add to Section V - the bolded area below

1.0 Grades and Marking Systems
College of Arts & Sciences

The following grades are given with the respective point value indicated.

8+ 3.3 C+ 2.3 D+ 1.3 E 0
A 4.0 B 3.0 C 2.0 D 1.0
A- 3.7 B- 2.7 C- 1.7 D- 0.7

The use of the plus/minus system does not change any college or university grade point
average requirements. nor the method by which grade point averages are computed.
nor the interpretations of other grades awarded, such as F, I. P. W. & S. (US:



Minutes. University Senate. March 18, 199