xt7t4b2x6t8d https://exploreuk.uky.edu/dips/xt7t4b2x6t8d/data/mets.xml University of Kentucky. University Senate University of Kentucky. Faculty Senate Kentucky University of Kentucky. University Senate University of Kentucky. Faculty Senate 1984-11-12  minutes 2004ua061 English   Property rights reside with the University of Kentucky. The University of Kentucky holds the copyright for materials created in the course of business by University of Kentucky employees. Copyright for all other materials has not been assigned to the University of Kentucky. For information about permission to reproduce or publish, please contact the Special Collections Research Center. University of Kentucky. University Senate (Faculty Senate) records Minutes (Records) Universities and colleges -- Faculty University of Kentucky University Senate (Faculty Senate) meeting minutes, November 12, 1984 text University of Kentucky University Senate (Faculty Senate) meeting minutes, November 12, 1984 1984 1984-11-12 2020 true xt7t4b2x6t8d section xt7t4b2x6t8d LDNVERSHY OF KENTUCKY


TO: Members, University Senate

The University Senate will meet in regular session on Monday,
November 12, 1984, at 3:00 p.m. in room 106, Classroom Building.


Minutes of September 10, 1984.


Progress Report of the ad hoc Committee on Evaluation of
Administrators: Professor Wilbur Frye, Chairman.

Chairman's Remarks.
a. Proposed change in University Senate Rules, Section 1.,

5.2. Election: Two Voting University System Faculty
Members. (Circulated under date of 11 October 1984.)


Proposed change in University Senate Rules, Section V.,
4.3.1, English Requirement. (Circulated under date of 30
October 1984.)


George Dexter
Secretary, University Senate




The University Senate met in regular session at 3:00 p.m., Monday, November l2,
l984, in Room lO6 of the Classroom Building.

Robert Bostrom, Chairman of the Senate Council, presided.

Members absent: Charles E. Barnhart, Susan M. Belmore, Jack C. Blanton, Peter P.
Bosomworth, Thomas D. Brower, I. K. Chew*, Henry Cole*, Glenn B. Collins, Emmett
Costich*, Leo S. Demski, Marcus Dillon, Richard C. Domek, Jr., Herbert Drennon, William
Ecton*, Charles W. Ellinger*, Donald G. Ely*, Charles H. Fay, Stanley Feldman, Joseph
L. Fink, Timothy Freudenberg, Richard W. Furst, Art Gallaher, Jr.*, Andrew J. Grimes*,
Gina Hall, Marilyn D. Hamann*, S. Z. Hasan*, Leonard Heller, Stan Hoffman, Raymond
Hornback, Alfred S. L. Hu*, Chuck Huffman, Keith Johnson*, John J. Just*, James 0.
King, Laura L. Ladd, James R. Lang*, Robert A. Lauderdale, Robert Lawson, Beth Lewis,
0. J. Loewer*, David Lowery, Edgar Maddox, Paul Mandelstam*, Kenneth E. Marino*, Sally
S. Mattingly*, Richard McDougall*, Marcus T. McEllistrem, Kevin D. Moore, Steven
Nicholson, Robert C. N0bel*, Merrill Packer*, Robin D. Powell, Madhira D. Ram, Thomas
C. Robinson, Gerald A. Rosenthal, Wimberly Royster*, Charles Sachatello*, Edgar Sagan,
Timothy Sineath, Otis A. Singletary*, John C. Snider, David A. Spaeth*, Marcia Stanhope*,
Tom Stephens, Elizabeth Taylor, Kenneth Thompson, Steve Thornbury, Luke Thornewill,
Marc J. Wallace, O‘Neal Weeks, Charles T. Wethington, Carolyn Williams*

The Minutes of the meeting of September l0 were approved as circulated with the
exception of adding the College of Social Work to the list of colleges that had en—
rollment increases for the Fall l984. This was in President Singletary's remarks on
page 2, paragraph 2, last sentence.

Chairman Bostrom recognized Professor Leonard Stoltz who presented the following

Memorial Resolution on the death of Professor Carl Edward Chaplin.


Carl Edward Chaplin l9l6—l984

”Carl E. Chaplin, Professor Emeritus of the Department
of Horticulture and Landscape Architecture, died at his
home on April 26. He is survived by his wife, Pauline, two
sons, Dr. Michael Chaplin, Associate Dean of Instruction,
Pennsylvania State University, and Dr. Mark Chaplin, a
pediatrician in Elizabethtown, Kentucky and three grand—

He was born at Olney, Illinois on May 30, l9l6 and
received his 8.8. and M.S. degrees from the University of
Illinois in l938 and l947. In l939 he taught at Smith
Hughes Agricultural School in Campbellsburg, Indiana and
that same year accepted the position as Superintendent,
University of Illinois peach breeding station at Olney,
Illinois. ‘In l949 he was appointed Assistant Professor of
Horticulture, University of Kentucky and was promoted to
ASSociate Professor in l956. Professor Chaplin taught
,several courses on various aspects of fruit culture and
served as Acting Head, Department of Horticulture, from
l960 to l962. He retired from the Department of Horticul—
ture and Landscape Architecture on June 30, l98l.

*Absence explained


 His work primarily involved peach, apple, and straw—
berry research. Recognizing the need to select for disease
and insect resistance in addition to quality factors he
developed and introduced the ‘Citation' strawberry in l965.
Many of his strawberry breeding lines, especially those se—
lected for mite resistance, have been disseminated and
utilized nationally in mite resistance breeding programs.

In l968 he was awarded the L. M. Ware Award for his research
based on the inheritance of mite resistance in strawberries.
He was highly respected for his knowledge of frUit culture
and was a frequent speaker at fruit grower meetings.

Carl was a soft spoken, genteel man whose counsel was
regularly sought and highly respected by his colleagues and
'his students. As the epitome of the erudite man, he never
sought self-aggrandizement but was always ready and willing
to provide encouragement and help so that others might
attain their fullest potential. He will be sadly missed and
fondly remembered.”

(Prepared by Professor Leonard Stoltz, Department of Horticulture
and Landscape Architecture.)

Professor Stoltz requested that the Resolution be entered into these minutes
and that copies be sent to the Chaplin family. Chairman Bostrom asked the senators
to stand for a moment of silence in tribute and respect to Professor Carl Edward

Chairman Bostrom recognized Professor Bradley Canon for a Resolution of Appre—
ciation to Earl Douglas Rees, Past Chairman of the Senate Council.


Earl Douglas Rees

“Earl Douglas Rees--known aeroug to one and all-—has
just completed the l983-84 year as Chairman of the Senate
Council. Doug was the first M.D. to hold this position
in modern times. As such he was the first Council Chair-
man to have one of those ubiquitous beepers attached to
him wherever he went. While I do not recall a Senate
meeting being so interrupted, in several meetings of the
Council, Doug skillfully balanced his attention between
agenda items and dispensing advice or prescriptions to an
ailing patient. For that matter, it was not unknown for
Doug to dispense a bit of medical adVice to his fellow
Senators. However, stories that the Senate Council Office
had become the north annex of the Medical Center are some-
what exaggerated.

Doug's chairmanship was a busy and varied one. He
spent all year keeping track of the merger negotiations
between the UK and U of L dental schools and of the nas-



cent proposals to merge UK and U of L in toto. Implement-
ing the details of the newly adopted selective admission
policy was another year long concern. Reorganizing and re—
vitalizing the Senate's committee system was also a time—
consuming project. But perhaps Doug will be most remembered
for his efforts to enhance research capabilities at the
University of Kentucky. Through his efforts, the Senate and
the academic community were made more fully aware of the
campus' research facilities and sUpport services, including
their strengths, weaknesses and future plans. Likewise,
through Senate discussion and a series of resolutions, the
administration was more fully informed about the faculty's
research problems, concerns and desires.

Like all who preside over the Senate, Doug had to grin
and bear it through discussions that got bogged down in
semantics or arguments over unclear issues. Will he ever for-
get the half hour the Senate devoted to determining whether
its rules should prohibit sex discrimination or gender dis—
crimination? Will he ever remember what the main issue was
when the Senate debated over two meetings how the suspension
or termination of programs was to be processed?

We are sure we can continue to count on Doug for sage
advice, given in a low—key and accompanied by a touch of
humor. And we wish him all the best as he returns to treat—
ing patients and searching for the causes of cancer on a
full—time basis. Would you please join me in giving Doug a
big round of applause in appreciation of his service.”

Dr. Rees was given an enthusiastic applause.

Chairman Bostrom recognized Professor Wilbur Frye for a progress report of the

ag_h9g_Committee on Evaluation of Administrators. Professor Frye is the Chairman
of that committee and his report follows: ‘


University regulations provide for an evaluation of
departments every four years (except in the College of
Agriculture, College of Home Economics, and the Medical
Center, which are evaluated every six years.) Colleges
are to be evaluated every six years. Administrator evalu—
ations are an integral part of the unit evaluations. The
various units conduct these evaluations in different ways
but always, so far as I know, a committee with faculty
representation is appointed to conduct the evaluation. I
say this to point out that the system, as it now exists,
provides for a certain amount of faCulty input. ‘

There seems to be a feeling by a substantial number
of faculty members that the faculty should have greater
participation than we now have in the evaluation of deans
and departmental chairmen. Such an evaluation would allow
participation by all faculty in an academic unit, be con-



ducted regularly at some predetermined interval, be some—
what different in format than the present evaluation, and
be based on the duties and responsibilities as outlined in
the University Regulations for those positions being evalu—

The overall purpose of such an evaluation would be to
improve the performance of the academic units. Important
benefits would include (l) increasing faculty input into
the evaluation process, (2) improving communication between
faculty and the administration, (3) educating all concerned
with regard to the duties and responsibilities of adminis-
trators, and (4) providing deans and Chancellors with more
information on which to base their evaluations of depart—
mental chairmen and deans, respectively.


In l983, Senate Council Chairman, Professor Donald
Ivey, appointed a committee composed of Professors Donald
Hochstrasser, Robert Bostrom and Wilbur Frye (chairman) to
make a recommendation to the Council regarding the feasi-
bility of faculty evaluation of administrators. That
committee's report was affirmative and recommended that a
larger committee composed of faculty from outside the Senate
Council be appointed to prepare a recommendation, with
Senate approval, to the University administration. The
recommendation would include a further feasibility study,
evaluation instrument, and procedures.

The committee appointed by Professor Douglas Rees,
l983-84 chairman of the Senate Council, was composed of
Professors Michael Adelstein, Donald Diedrich, Ben Leon,
Leslie Martin, and Wilbur Frye (chairman).

The committee concluded that, with some revisions, the
University Regulations in providing for periodic unit
evaluations, adequately provide for faculty evaluation of
administrators, but that the process should be improved to
ensure a satisfactory level of faculty input and to ensure
that significant findings of the evaluations are made
available to the faculty of the units concerned. The
committee suggested that the chairman meet with the central
administration to determine the needed regulation changes
and the feasibility and acceptability of a more highly
structured form of evaluation. I have conferred with
President Singletary, Chancellor Gallaher, Chancellor
Bosomworth, Dr. Sears, three deans, and, informally with
‘some departmental chairmen.

Findings and Conclusions


'The following findings and conclusions can be sum—
marized from the committee's work to date:



While cautioning about some of the pitfalls of
faculty evaluation of administrators, the central
administration would not oppose a well-designed
system of evaluating the performance of deans

and departmental chairmen that allows partici—
pation of all faculty members of a particular
academic unit, provided the process is structured
within a positive framework.

There are distinct benefits derived from the present
system of unit evaluations, and the central admin—
istration would not like to abandon that process.
Therefore, any new form of evaluation probably would
not substantiate for, but supplement the present

The evaluation should be limited to deans and depart—
mental chairmen of academic units.

Every two years, as initially proposed, is probably
too frequent to conduct an evaluation, epecially of

President Singletary would agree to the minor changes
in the University Regulations necessary to provide for
regular evaluation of units and their administrators
but would like to have a degree of administrative
flexibility built into the system to allow some delay
or advance of evaluation of deans, if conditions
dictate a need to do so.

The concerns mentioned most often were the potential
misuse of results causing unjustified professional
damage, in small units a few faculty members could
unduly influence the evaluation, and too much
faculty time may be spent in evaluations.

The deans interviewed showed the strongest support
of any group of administrators for the proposal.
They felt that such an evaluation would help them
improve their performance and help them assess the
performance of their departmental chairman.

Some units conduct their own administrator evalua—
tion but most would favor replacing it with a
suitable university—wide evaluation.

(9) Similar evaluations are conducted at other insti-
tutions and instruments to use as models are

Summary and Recommendation


Faculty evaluation of deans and departmental chairmen
that supplements the present system of unit evaluations would



be feasible at the University of Kentucky in the new future.
Obviously, much more work is needed to develop an evaluation
that would be acceptable to all concerned. Special atten—
tion must be given to three areas: (l) Developing an .
evaluation instrument based on the duties and responsibili—
ties of deans and departmental chairmen as outlined in the
University Regulations, (2) developing the evaluation proce—
dures and establishing guidelines, and (3) determining how the
results will be used.

I have recommended to the Senate Council that the
committee be continued, with additional members and replace-
ments appointed, under the direction of a new chairman.

Work of the committee should include interviews of other
deans and departmental chairmen to ascertain their acceptance
and obtain their input, development of a suitable instrument,
and determine procedures and guidelines for conducting the

The senators had no questions for Professor Frye.

Chairman Bostrom made the following announcements. He said that the new Senate
Council members are Professors Richard Angelo, Education; E. Douglas Rees, Medicine;
and Jesse Neil, Physics. They will begin work the second semester. He asked the
senators to put on their calendars for Tuesday, December ll from 4:00 to 6:00 p.m.
the party for the Board of Trustees in the Alumni House. Spouses are cordially in—
vited. The Chairman’s last announcement concerned the Jean Pival Committee. He said
the committee had done an outstanding job in preparing an outline of some of the
options available for early retirement. The committee is thinking of alternatives
for faculty in the coming 80's and 90‘s. The Pival Committee Report has been sent to
the administration. The President and his staff received the report in a very posi-
tive light. The Chairman was happy to report there are plans to have some open meet—
ings for faculty with members of the administration and Senate Council to get sugges—
tions and general faculty input. Basically what has been proposed is some kind of
early retirement procedure to be instituted so it would be financially attractive
for faculty to retire at some point prior to age 65. There have been alternatives
raised such as part-time appointments and additional research opportunities. He hoped
this was something the senate would get to do early next year.

Chairman Bostrom recognized Professor Bradley Canon, Secretary of the Senate
Council, for a motion. Professor Canon, on behalf of the Senate Council, recommended
the approval of the proposed change in University Senate Rules, Section 1., 5.2.
Election: Two Voting University System Faculty Members. This proposal was circulated
to members of the senate under date of October ll, l984. Professor Canon said the
basic purpose of the amendment was to limit eligibility for voting and serving on the
Board of Trustees to those professors who are in tenured positions.


The floor was opened for questions and discussion. Professor Olshewsky said he
was going to vote against the proposal on grounds that he felt the senate was unduly
and unnecessarily separating the transitory faculty members.

There was no further discussion and the proposed change passed and reads as



Proposal: (underlined portion is new)

I. 5.2 Election: Two Voting University System Faculty
Members, Board of Trustees
As specified in the Governing Regulations (Part II.A.2)
there shall be two voting University System faculty
members of the Board of Trustees. Faculty members who
may vote in the election of the University System
Faculty members to the Board of Trustees shall be those
in the University System who:


a. have an actual or equivalent rank of Assistant
Professor or higher;

hold a tenured position or one in which tenure may
be acquired, except that untenured members of the
faculty whose appointment is specified as ending
on a certain date without further notice or as not
leading to consideration for tenure shall not be

eligible: and

are included in the faculty T.I.A.A.-C.R.E.F. re-
tirement program (or eligible for such inclusion
after one year of University service) or other re—
tirement program approved by the Board of Trustees.





Faculty members eligible to serve as an elected member
of the Board of Trustees shall be those who meet the
voting qualifications and who have a primary assignment
in a faculty role at the time of election and service
(50% or more involvement in teaching, research, and/or
service). For purposes of this section, assignment as
chairman of a department shall not exclude one who holds
such a position from eligibility to serve as an elected
member of the Board of Trustees. Faculty members of
Board of Trustees shall be eligible for re-election.
Eligibility under paragraphs a. and b. above shall be
certified in the same manner as for elections to the
University Senate.

Background and Rationale:

Recently the University administration has stopped classi-
fying transitory faculty members as visiting professors
unless they have a home institution. Faculty members who
have no home institution (usually recent Ph.D.s replacing
someone on leave or assignment, etc.) are now classified

as regular faculty members by the administration. Such
persons are eligible for TIAA—CREF on the same basis as
permanent faculty and would have to be considered for tenure
if they were to remain at UK for six years. The only thing
differentiating such appointees from other regular faculty
is that their contracts indicate in the section on_condi-
tions of appointment, assignment or tenure, that the
appointment expires on a particular date without further
notice or that the appointment may be renewed on a year—to—




year basis by mutual agreement, but will not be continued
beyond five years (including applicable prior service) and
will not lead to consideration for tenure.

The original intent of Rule 1—5.2(b) was to limit eligi-
bility for voting for or serving on the Board of Trustees
to tenured or tenure track faculty. Transitory faculty
members who have no home institution are now being certi—
fied to eligibility. The proposed change is designed to
restore the rule to its original intent by limiting
eligibility for voting or serving on the Board to faculty
members whose interest in UK is more than transitory.

This change was proposed by the University Senate Rules
Committee and approved for Senate action by the Senate

Implementation Date: Fall, l985

NOTE: The proposal will be forwarded to the Rules
Committee for codification.

Chairman Bostrom recognized Professor Bradley Canon, Secretary of the Senate
Council, for the second action item. Professor Canon, on behalf of the Senate Council.
recommended the approval of the proposed change in University Senate Rules, Section V.,
4.3.l, English Requirement. This proposal was circulated to members of the senate
under date of October 30, l984.


The Chairman reminded the members of the Arts and Sciences College that the pro—
posal was in two parts. The first is the senate rule regarding the English requirement.
The specific course changes have not yet gone to the Senate Council.

Chairman Bostrom recognized Professor Robert Hemenway from the English Department.
Professor Hemenway said Professor Blues, Director of Freshman Composition, had been
doing a masterful job of sheparding the proposal through appropriate committees and
councils. He said the proposal came to the senate from the English Department because
they were the agency from the University that is empowered to implement the Univer-
sity's writing requirement. However, he said the English Department sees themselves
as representing all those in the University who believe that the faculty can and
should improve the quality of writing in the UK student body. What the proposal does
is raise the standards for writing proficiency at the University of Kentucky. If
adopted, fewer students will have the option of exempting themselves from one semester
of writing courses. He pointed out it was part of an overall program of the English
Department for the improvement of writing at all levels in the University. Professor
Hemenway said he appreciated the opportunity to speak on the proposal.

The floor was opened for questions and discussion. A senator asked if there would
be any savings in resources. Professor Hemenway said there would be no savings but
fairly complicated calculations had been made to see what the additional costs would
be. It has been estimated the cost would be between $l7,000 to $20,000 a year. A
second question was how many students would be able to bypass the course with an ACT
of 25. Professor Blues said 350 to 400 students come to the-English Department each
fall with an ACT of 25 or above. Professor Hemenway said there were 734 students who
have an entering ACT in English between 22 and 24. Those students, under the present



system, have the option of taking only the second semester course in English. He said
it had been discovered that the ACT test is a very poor predictor of success.

Professor Ivey wanted to know what the justification was for using the ACT at all.
Professor Hemenway said it was assumed there was some relationship between reading and

There was no further discussion and the proposed change, which passed unanimously,
reads as follows: -


V. 4.3.l English Requirement
Two semesters of Freshman English or their equiva—
lent are required of each student unless the student
demonstrates competency according to the exemption
plans specified in the Bulletin. Only in unusual
circumstances will a student be permitted to with-
draw (for reasons stated in Section V. l.8.3) with
the approval of the Dean of the student's college.
A full—time student must enroll in Freshman English
each semester until the student has satisfied this
requirement unless:

a. the student qualified for a one—semester option,
in which case the student may enroll during
either semester of his/her freshman year; or
the program of the student's college or depart-
ment requires postponement of the second course.
(See patterns available in Part 2 of the

Bulletin under Graduation Requirements.)

Writing Requirement

Two semesters of writing courses (normally ENG lOl,
Writing 1, and ENG lOZ, Writing II) or their equiva—
lent are required of each student unless the student
demonstrates competency according to the exemption
plans specified in the Bulletin. Only in unusual
circumstances will a student be permitted to with—
draw (for reasons stated in Section V. l.8.3);

only the Dean of the student's college can authorize
such a withdrawal, in consultation with the instruc—
tor. A full—time student must enroll in a writing
course each semester until the student has satis-
fied this requirement unless the student qualifies
for a one-semester option, in which case the student
may enroll during either semester of his/her fresh—
man year. -

The University requires demonstrated competency in English com—

position. Competency may be demonstrated in the following ways——
(l) Students who have a standard score of 2l and below on



the English section of the ACT must satisfactorily complete

two semesters of composition: English lOl in their first semes—'
ter at the University and either English l02, or English l03,
or English lO4, or English l05. (2) Students who have a
standard score of 22 and above on the English section of the
ACT must satisfactorily complete either English l02, or l03, or
l04, or l05. If they receive a grade of B or better, they will
have fulfilled the English composition requirements, but if
they receive a grade of C, or D, they must complete one of the
other second semester courses. Only in unusual circumstances
(such as illness, injury, serious personal or family problems
or serious financial difficulties) will a student be permitted
to withdraw from a freshman English course. Full-time students
must enroll in freshman English each semester until they have
satisfied this requirement unless (l) they qualify for a one—
semester option, in which case they may enroll during either
semester of their freshman year; or (2) the program of their
college or department requires postponement of the second
course. Individual schools in the University may make addi—
tional requirements.

Students with ACT standard scores of 25 or above may complete
the requirement by earning an A or B on a special examination.
Students earning an A or B on the examination will receive
three hours credit for ENG l02. Students who take the exam-
ination and do not make an A or B must complete the requirement
as specified in (2) above. (Note: Some programs generally
outside the College of Arts and Sciences, may require ENG l02
or may require a substitute for it, such as ENG 103, or lO4;
students should check with an adviser in their program. For
complete information on the special examination, contact the
Freshman Composition Office, l22l Patterson Office Tower.)

The University requires competency in writing which is usually
demonstrated in one of the following ways:

(l) Students who have a standard score of 24 or below on the
English section of the ACT must satisfactorily complete
English lOl (Writing I) and English l02 (Writing II).

(2) Students who have a standard score of 25 or above on
the English section of the ACT may elect to take a
special writing proficiency examination, administered
by the English Department Writing Program. Students
who pass this examination are eligible to fulfill the
University Writing Requirements by successfully com—
pleting English lOS (Writing: An Accelerated Course).
Students who do not pass this examination are re—
quired to take the normal sequence of ENG lOl—l02.

(For complete information on the writing proficiency
examination, contact the Writing Program Office, l22l
Patterson Office Tower, 257-7002.)



Full-time students must enroll in either ENG l0l or
ENG l02 each semester until they have satisfied the
Writing Requirement, unless they qualify for ENG l05,
in which case they may enroll during either semester
of their freshman year.

Only in unusual circumstances (such as illness, injury,
serious financial difficulties, serious personal or
family problems) will a student be permitted to with—
draw from a course needed to fulfill the University
Writing Requirement. Only the Dean of the student's
college can authorize such withdrawals, in consultation
with the instructor and the Director of the Writing

Implementation Date: Fall Semester, l985.

NOTES: The proposal will be forwarded to the Rules Committee
for codification. See attached pages for background and

The Chairman moved to adjourn at 3:40 p.m.

George M. Dexter




Student Writing Proficiency The primary purpose of this
> proposal is to meet a need
widely recognized by faculty at this and other universi-
ties-~the need to improve our students’ ability to commu-
nicate in written English.
In 1980 the Arts and Sciences Faculty Council surveyed
1,000 UK faculty members on their assessments of student

writing proficiency. According to the re ort of the Review
Committee on University Writing Programs submitted to the

Dean of Undergraduate Studies, June 19, 1981), a full 90%

of respondents said that ”their students had writing prob-
lems that prevented them from effectively handling essay
questions; some professors claiming 15—35% of their students
had such difficulty. The respondents listed the most per-
sistent problems in the area of sentence structure and
grammar, spelling, organization, and limited vocabulary.”

Student writing problems are not unique, of course, to
this institution. A 1981 survey conducted by the City
University of New York reveals that 97% of responding
institutions (about half the colleges and universities in
the United States) regard the skills (reading, writing,
mathematics) level of entering freshmen to be a
significant problem. In short, our own experience and
the experience of other institutions tells us that most
incoming freshmen need extensive, systematic training and
practice in writing.

Some students have trouble composing syntactically
coherent or grammatically correct sentences. Many more
have never been taught to generate, explore, and develop
ideas in writing. Very few incoming students possess the
basic writing skills necessary to carry on their own
educations. They cannot summarize reading material or
synthesize two or more written documents. They cannot
compose a critique or construct an argument. They have
not yet learned the vital connections between writing and
reading, and they are not prepared to use writing in the
learning process.

Academic Sense In ENG 101 we teach the writing process-'
from generating ideas, to revising, to
final editing and preparation of the manuscript. And we
provide practice in writing interpretative and opinion
papers. The course also contains a review of grammar,
mechanics, usage, and punttuation. In the second—semester
course, ENG 102, we provide intensive instruction and prac-
tice in the kinds of writing that students—-as students-—
need to do: summary, synthesis, critique, and argumenta-
tion. In short, we train students to write in the contexts

of written texts. We also include a unit on the essay



But our current policy diverts many students from this
coherent and academically sound course sequence. Fer
example, Engineering, B&E, and some Agriculture students
who take ENG 101 normally take either the business or
technical writing option as their second—semester course.
In effect, these student take a professional writing
course (see III below) before they have completed a
program in the fundamentals of writing, and before they
have had any significant training in the discipline to
which their professional writing course is specifically
related. '

Those students who