xt7x69700k33 https://exploreuk.uky.edu/dips/xt7x69700k33/data/mets.xml University of Kentucky. University Senate University of Kentucky. Faculty Senate Kentucky University of Kentucky. University Senate University of Kentucky. Faculty Senate 1994-03-07  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 7, 1994 text University of Kentucky University Senate (Faculty Senate) meeting minutes, March 7, 1994 1994 1994-03-07 2020 true xt7x69700k33 section xt7x69700k33 LHMVERSHW OF KENTUCKY

LEXINGTON. KENTUCKY 40506-0032

UNIVERSITY SENATE COUNCIL
10 ADMINISTRATION BUILDING

25 February 1994
Members, University Senate

‘ The University Senate will meet in regular session on.“fififig§§§
‘Mashfi§i$§ 1994, at 3:00 p.m. in ROOM 115 of the Nursing Building
(CON/HSLC) .

AGENDA:

Minutes

Chair's Announcements
Resolutions

Action Items

a. Presentation of Honorary Degree Candidates: Dr. Emery
Wilson. '

b. Proposal to establish a policy to provide student access to

course and teaching evaluations (circulated under date of
24 February 1994).

Randall Dahl
Secretary

AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY UNIVERSITY

 

 MINUTES OF THE UNIVERSITY SENATE, MARCH 7, 1994

The University Senate met in regular session at 3:00 p.m., Monday, March 7, 1994, in Room 115 of the
Nursing Health Sciences Building.

Professor Daniel L. Fulks, Chairperson of the Senate Council, presided.

Members absent were: Debra Aaron, Stephanie Atcher, Mark C. Berger, David T. Berry*, Suketu P.
Bhavsar, Antimony Bishop, Robert L. Blevins*, Rick Boland, Maria Boosalis*, Peter P. Bosomworth, Douglas
A. Boyd, Joseph T. Burch, Lauretta Byars, Allison Carll-White*, Ben W. Carr, Edward A. Carter, G.L. Monty
Chappell, Louis C. Chow, Michael L. Cibull*, Donald B. Clapp, Jane Clark, Jordan L. Cohen, Darby Cole,
Delwood Collins, Michael P. Connors*, Jean C. Cooper*, Melissa Cox, Nancy Custer*, Susan E. DeCarvalho*,
Lance E. DeLong, Clarence Robert Dowdy, Richard Edwards, Joseph L. Fink“, Michael B. Freeman, Richard
W. Furst, Lorraine Garkovich, Thomas F. Garrity, William Gibson, William S. Griffith, David A. Harmin*, J.
John Harris, Zafar S. Hasan*, Christine Havice, Robert E. Hemenway, James Hertog*, Chester A. Hohnquist,
James Knoblett*, Kenneth K. Kubota, Donald C. Leigh*, Thomas W._Lester, Thomas T. Lillich*, C. Oran Little,
Sandra Miller, Karen A. Mingst, Roy L. Moore*, James S. Mosbey, Anthony L. Newberry, Michael Nietzel*,
Judith Page*, Clayton R. Paul, Barbara Phillips, Rhoda-Gale Pollack*, Thomas C. Robinson, Ellen B.,
Rosenman*, Daniel Rowland*, Edgar L. Sagan*, Horst Schach, Janice Schach*, David Shipley, Thomas J.
Stipanowich, William J. Stober*, David H. Stockham, Michael Stover, Louis J. Swift, Phillip A. Tibbs*,
Miroslaw Truszczynski, Salvatore J. Turco, Mary Walker, Chris Webb, Charles T. Wethington*, Brent White,
Carolyn A. Williams*, Eugene R. Williams, Paul A Willis, Emery A. Wilson, H. David Wilson*, Mary L. Witt,

‘ Linda K. Worley. .

Chairman Fulks thanked everyone for coming to the March 1994 meeting of the University Senate.

The Chair made the following announcements:

There is a new Administrative Regulation concerning the Family Medical Leave. The act was implemented 63C,
in an administrative regulation earlier this year. The Administration has in response from requests from the
Senate incorporated an extension of the probationary period as part of the act. The Senate Council is not entirely
finished. They are not entirely pleased with the regulation as it is currently written. Given the perameters set by
the President, the primary one being whatever is done hasto be imbedded within the act, they have a start. At
this point if a faculty member files a claim under the act, the faculty member can also request an extension of the
probationary period. Initial requests would be for a six month extension of the probationary period, and there
would then be the option to request an additional six month extension. The issue has been sent to the Ad Hoc
Committee on Privilege and Tenure Issues. What they would like to have is a policy concerning extension of the
probationary period separate and apart from the act itself. There is some concern about taking care of situation
where a faculty member would have reason to take leave during the summer months when they are not

technically on contract. They have been assured that can be taken care of under the policy as it is now written
with interpretation.

The Ad Hoc Committee on Privilege and Tenure Issues is meeting weekly and addressing a variety of 0V
issues, including but not limited to the one just mentioned as well as prior service questions, other reasons to
extend the probationary period, and a variety of issues. If there are issues to be brought before the committee,
please contact Sheldon Steiner, who is the chair, or any member of the committee.

* Absence Explained

 

 Minutes, University Senate, March 7, 1994
We are in the process of putting together another Ad Hoc Committee to look into retirement incentives and /
retirement situations. Now that there is no longer a mandatory retirement age, at the request of the emeritus
faculty group, a group will be put together to look at what the University might do to encourage people to retire.
Chairman Fulks read the following resolution:
DATE: February 28, 1994
To: President Charles T. Wethington

Daniel L. Fulks, Chair
University Senate Council

RE: Women/Minorities in Administrative Positions SA/

The following resolution was passed unanimously by the University Senate Council on February
23, 1994: ’

The University Senate Council wishes to express deep concern and disappointment about the lack
of diversity among the three finalists selected for the position of Chancellor of the Medical Center.
This is particularly discouraging in light of the recent departure of Dr. Lee Magid from the
position of Vice President for Research and Graduate Studies.

The University Senate and the Senate Council have consistently reaffirmed the importance of
increasing diversity at the highest levels of leadership in the University since the 1990 issuance of
the reports on the status of women and minorities. The makeup of the finalist group sends a
message to members of the university community and the larger public: There is no room at the
top. Furthermore, this action may discourage non-traditional applicants from seeking similar
positions in the future. We sincerely hope that this missed opportunity does not create this
expectation for future choices. Future searches must increase the diversity of university
leadership at the sector and central administration levels.

The Chair wanted to make it clear they were not being critical of any of the three finalists for the position
of Chancellor. They were expressing their disappointment for the fact that neither minorities nor women were
included;

The Chair recognized Dean Dan Reedy (Graduate School), for the presentation of the list of candidates for
Honorary Degrees. The Chair reminded the Senate the information was confidential, that it was not yet official,
it had to be approved by the Senate and the Board of Trustees. Dr. Reedy, representing Dr. Emery Wilson,
Chair of the Honorary Degrees Committee, stated the recommendations came from the Honorary Degrees
Committee and had been approved by the Graduate Faculty. Dr. Reedy read biographical information on the
three nominees for the Senate's consideration.

Chairman Fulks stated he would take that as a motion for approval, the motion was seconded and there
was no discussion. The motion was” unanimously approved for recommendation to the President.

 

 Minutes, University Senate, March 7, 1994

The Chair then recognized Professor Ray Cox, Chair elect of the Senate Council to present the next action
item. Professor Cox on behalf of the Senate Council recommended approval of the item concerning student
access to Course and Teaching Evaluations. The item was circulated under the date 13 February 1994.

The Chair stated the item was brought before the Senate Council during the fall. It was discussed with the
students and recommendations were made for changes. It went back to the Student Government Association

and returned to the Senate Council a month ago with a revised proposal. The Chair then read the following three
comments concerning the proposal. :

March 1, 1994

TO: University Senate
FROM: Donald E. Sands
SUBJECT: Evaluations of Teaching

The proposal before you would disseminate, to anyone who asks, the numerical scores from the
teaching evaluation forms filled in by students. I urge that you reject this proposal.

The original purpose of teaching evaluations at this University was faculty development. The shift
of these anonymous evaluations to influencing the merit ratings and pay increments of faculty
generates serious ethical questions. In every other evaluative process, the person being evaluated
knows who the evaluator is and exactly what is being said. Certainly the identities of the faculty

- are known to the students they grade. Promotion and tenure procedures now afford the candidate
under consideration full access to the comments of every contributor to the dossier, and the
openness that has evolved has, I think, helped make the promotion processes fairer and more
responsible. Similarly, there is no cloak of confidentiality for the department chair who must
evaluate the performances of the faculty. '

These requirements for responsibility recognize the power granted implicitly to an evaluator.
Another essential balance to this power is the right to privacy of the person being evaluated.
Thus, we do not post student grades or divulge them to anyone lacking a valid need to know (not
to parents, not to friends, not to classmates, not to newspapers).

Even if there were a valid reason for publicizing the individual ratings of the faculty, there remains
the objection that the numerical average computed from the teaching evaluation forms is not an
adequate measure of teaching. It is one piece of evidence, one indicator of teaching performance;
a substantive assessment of teaching cannot be based upon such flimsy date. As a department
chair charged with evaluating the teaching of my colleagues, I consider, along with the numerical
scores, the distribution of the numbers, the written comments of students, discussions with
students and former students, the observations of colleagues, evidence of special efforts to
enhance instruction, and the nature of the classes. Teaching is a highly complex human activity

and a simplistic assessment of teaching based upon a single numerical measure is wrong, logically
and morally.

Contrary to its claims, this proposal will not improve teaching. It has no relevance to helping
students select courses that will benefit their educations. It is too superficial to contribute to

 

 Minutes, University Senate, March 7, 1994

improved retention. With no apparent purpose but to demean or embarrass faculty members, it is
malicious, and it should be defeated.

1 March 1994
MEMORANDUM

To: The Senate Council
From: Robert W. Kiser' _
Re: Student Access to Course and Teaching Evaluations

I am absolutely astounded by the action (under date of 13 February 1994) of the Senate Council

in recommending approval to the University Senate of student access to course and teaching
evaluations.

In this memorandum, which might well contain many criticisms of your action on legal, logical,
and moral grounds, I will restrict myself to the simple case of fairness and privacy.

If it is fair to protect the rights to privacy of student records, and I believe it is, then it is equally
fair to protect the rights to privacy of faculty records. You cannot have one without the other.
Unless you are prepared to deny the privacy act extension to student records, you must logically
reverse your earlier recommendation concerning student access to course and teaching

evaluations, and unanimously withdraw it from Senate (and other) consideration.

It is assumed that you are well aware of the unreliability of anonymous comments, that there is
something called constitutional rights to due process, and the right to face one's accuser. How,
then could the Senate Council make such a recommendation? Would not encouraging students to

use these evaluation data in any publication be akin to encouraging them in potentially libelous
activity?

There are several other possible issues involved in your recommendation that also cause me much
distress. Suffice it to say that I strongly believe that your recommendation was made erroneously
and that it. should be promptly and publicly rescinded.

Date: Wed, 02 Mar 94
From: Carol Brock
Subject; Senate Agenda Item
To: Dan Fulks
Allan Butterfield
Jim Holler

Here are some of my reactions to the idea of making the results of teaching evaluations
electronically available to students et al.:

1. The number of add/drop transactions is expected to be reduced.

 

 Minutes, University Senate, March 7, 1994

Maybe so if the course has a single section and is not required for any major, but otherwise not.
Years ago, when we had a very unpopular professor teaching general chemistry, the drop/add
period was always a nightmare. I remember having lines in front of my door every day for the
first 1.5 weeks of classes. Students were frantic to get out of the "bad" professor‘s section.
(Actually he wasn‘t bad at all - as several Chairs discovered upon investigation - but he did tell
students things they didn't want to hear).

2. The measure is supposed to improve retention and lower attrition.

Again, maybe so for single-section classes of pure electives. But what about the students who
will eventually be "forced" to take courses from less popular professors? If students with higher
GPAs have preference during registration they can be expected to fill the sections with the more
popular teachers, leaving the weaker students with the professors this measure is designed to help
them avoid. And how will the University cope with the inevitable complaints from students that
they would have gotten a better grade if they had just been allowed to take the course from a
"good" (as opposed to a "bad") professor?

3. This measure should improve teaching through peer pressure.

I don't know how other departments operate, but in Chemistry we already know what each others
ratings are. They are an essential part of the required teaching portfolio.

4. This measure is a positive response to accountability issues. This measure is a positive
statement re the importance of teaching.

Perhaps, but this measure would also provide students with yet one more reason for believing that
they would be successful if only the professors would do their jobs correctly. Again, I don't know
so much about other Departments, but I do know that all the professors in the Chemistry
Department teach at least as well as well as the chemistry professors I had at a prestigious and
expensive private college. A result of all the emphasis on improvement of teaching has been a
shift of responsibility for learning from the student to the professor. The single most useful step
administrators could take to improve the climate for learning on this campus would be to tell the
students it is their responsibility to learn.

There are a number of other important issues, but the points made above should be sufficient to

convey my opinion. In summary, I think the proposed action would both create substantial work
and would degrade the educational environment.

Professor Allan Butterfield (Chemistry) wanted to put the three letters into context. Namely the teaching
evaluations as determined by the students consistently rate the professors in the Chemistry Department among the
highest in the College of Arts and Sciences. They tend to have very high numerical values. Please understand the
comments that were read by the Chair are given by professors who in his opinion, are rather good professors as
judged by the students. It is a matter of principle, that were outlined by the three people, you can see where this
is going to go, it is a terrible proposal and they recommend its defeat.

 

 Minutes, University Senate, March 7, 1994

Professor Georgia Collins (Allied Health) doesn't think the same teaching evaluations are used consistently
throughout the University. This in itself would allow for some disparity of evaluations. She asked the students
how it would accomplish the first two items; fewer drop adds, and better retention. She doesn't see that at all.

Bouali Amoli (Chairman of Student Academic Rights Committee) stated the committee as a whole had no
malicious intent to embarrass the faculty in any way, form, or fashion. Their goal is for student awareness, to
increase student awareness concerning the courses they are taking and the teachers who will be teaching the
classes. There are four strong points to support the proposal: 1) Reducing add drop - they have been in contact
with a lot of other universities and the ones that have already implemented this program where students have
access to teachers evaluations, benchmark institutions about the same size as the University of Kentucky;
University of Arkansas, University of South Carolina, University of Mississippi, University of Virginia, University
of Michigan, Mississippi State University, University of Florida, Vanderbilt University, University of North
Carolina Chapel Hill. All these Universities have student access to teacher evaluations. They have had a lot of
contact with the University of Michigan since it is about the same size as the University of Kentucky. Concerning
the reason for add drop from a student point of View it is mainly due to the fact that the students did not have a
good awareness concerning the courses they were taking, they did not know what was expected from them.
Professors have complaints about students taking classes and not knowing what is expected of them in class; what
level it is, if they are having essay, written, or multiple choice tests. Through teachers and course evaluations
students would have a higher awareness. At the University of Michigan it dropped their add drop rate. 2)
Retention and lower attrition - this is the same as add drop, when the students are more aware of what they are
taking, they are less likely to drop out of school or get a lower grade because they know what is expected of
them. 3) Improving teaching through peer pressure - this is meant in a constructive way. At the University of
Michigan and Indiana University a lot of professors, when this program was first implemented, were hesitant
about having their names and ratings published. The interesting thing was that after one or two years they saw
their colleagues were getting high ratings, they considered themselves equal to their colleagues and put their
names on the list. At the University of Michigan and the University of Florida most faculty got high ratings from
good to excellent. That should not come as a surprise, as he considers most of his faculty as fair evaluators and
fair graders. He feels students should be looked at the same way, they are fair graders and evaluators. If a
professor is doing a satisfactory job in teaching and explaining what is being done in class, there is no reason why
students should give him a bad evaluation. Faculty members are being evaluated day in and day out, when the
students walk in the hall ways they ask each other about certain professors and their classes. Unfortunately the
ones who are really vocal about teacher evaluations are the ones who have the negative view toward teachers.
Actually the ones who really like the class are less likely to talk about a professor, while the ones who had a hard
time in class, for whatever reason are the ones who are more vocal. Through this there will be a large number
around two to three hundred students evaluating a teacher. That is why at the University of Michigan the scores
were tremendously high. 4) Accountability issue - professors are accountable just as students are accountable to
faculty members. There will be more emphasis on teaching. This is a trend of the future. A lot of the
benchmarks have already implemented the program. Some schools like the University of Georgia, Auburn
University, and Louisiana State University are in the process of implementing such a program. This would be the
first school in Kentucky to have this program. It would be good to have a leadership role rather than a following
role. This will be better for the faculty in the long term and better for the students also.

Professor Martin McMahon (College of Law) stated until that little speech he was mildly opposed to the
proposal, he is now vigorously opposed. The first part of the explanation about why there would be less activity
in add drop and why there would be higher retention is really addressed by the syllabus requirement. If that is
taken seriously all of the important information will be disseminated to students. The type of information that was
recited as being necessary appears in the syllabus not in evaluations. The rest of the speech was really about the

 

 Minutes, University Senate, March 7, 1994

‘ fact that teachers do not do their jobs unless they are pressured to do it by the humiliation of having evaluations
published. He finds that attitude very offensive. In fact, what this is all about is shopping. It is about shopping
for courses that don't require a great deal of effort relative to other courses. Any faculty member who over hears
students talking in the halls about courses knows that is what the proposal is about.

Professor Hans Gesund (College of Engineering) asked Professor McMahon if the proposal were not liable,
publishing anonymous evaluations in this way would perhaps open the University to liable charges. Anonymous
evaluations could not possibly be documented as being valid. Students may be fair, but they are totally
unknowledgeable about the subject, at least in Engineering. When they walk in they haven't the foggiest notion
what it is all about. He has had two colleagues in the past, both retired, who got very high evaluations by giving
all As and by teaching easy outdated material. The people who took over afier these people retired started
teaching up to date material, gave normal grade distribution and their ratings plummeted, even though they were
doing good jobs. The students do not know whether what they are getting is up—to-date. The students want an
easy course; they do not want to have to work hard and if they are forced to work hard the professors get low
evaluations. When anyone evaluates the student ratings, the numerical ratings, they should divide those by the
average of the grades given to the students. That would normalize the student ratings much more fairly. ‘

Chairman Fulks stated he had checked with the University Legal Office who assured him that there is not a
legal problem. This is not a violation of privacy.

Professor Davy Jones (Toxicology) said he was excited to see this appear in his mailbox. As indicated, this
_ is the trend of the future and just a few years ago here at UK the students themselves created an instrument to
. evaluate the faculty and published a newspaper on it. It is going to happen either next year or the year after, at
some point the students are going to get the data. Are they going to get it with the instrument the faculty has
developed or with the instrument they develop? The students are not the enemy here; there seems to be atone of
that. The faculty is here to serve the students interest. He feels they have a legitimate interest in how well they
are performing their duties as paid public servants. They can go down in the history of the Senate as one of the
last bodies to keep the door closed. He would urge they go down as the first one to open the door.

Amy Sullivan (Student Senator - College of Law) responded to Professor McMahon's statement about
students shopping for easier courses. She took Professor McMahon for Tax One at the Law School and it was
the hardest class she had ever had, but recommends it as the best class she had at the Law School. She rated it in
the highest grouping. She feels the students know the difference between a good and bad professor and it doesn't
have necessarily anything to do with the grade received, matter of fact it doesn't have anything to do with the
grade received. There were alternatives to taking Professor McMahon's tax class. There were easier professors
and easier courses. It was not a required course, and he wasn't the only profeSsor offering it. She took it because
she heard he was a great professor even though she worked harder in the class than she had ever worked.

Professor Richard Milich (Psychology) said when he was an undergraduate 25 years ago at a prestigious

expensive school they would never take a course without looking at the evaluation. He was surprised it had taken
25 years for UK to do the same thing.

Professor James Applegate (Communications) stated he was not sure he had heard any reasons for not
making the evaluations available. He strongly supports the proposal. The institutions around are doing it, the
negatives that'are predicted here have not happened elsewhere. A lot of research on student evaluations support
all the contentions made here about the validity of them. It is another piece of information. If the student wants
to use that as the only piece of information that is bad use of research.

 

 Minutes, University Senate, March 7, 1994

Professor Joseph Gardner (English) would like to hear more on the question about the logistics of the
proposal. There are so many different forms being used around campus. Mr. Amoli said they were not looking
for written comments. On the evaluations it goes from strongly disagree to strongly agree. Other institutions give
a number to each one of those. Professor Gardner asked how they were going to deal with the question of there
being so many different forms being used and looking for so many different things. Mr. Amoli stated he had
talked with Gene Williams who is in charge of the computer technology and was told there was already a data
base where the information 15 available. This will be made available to students through computers just as courses
are made available now.

Lora Week (Student Senator - Education) stated as far as the written comments are concerned they can not
use those. If that is all the college has they will not be able to use those. They will try to use all other evaluations
that are there for them to use. They will list the questions and list the answers. They can not use anything
written, but as far as all the rest is concerned, it is on the data base. Chairman Fulks said the results will be made
available for each professor for each class.

Professor Jacqueline Noonan (Medicine) asked why they could not use the written comments. Could they
not be summarized? Mr. Amoli answered they were too subjective. Professor Noonan said her point was
sometimes the comments are much mOre important than whether it is a four or a two. Ms. Week said that was
one of the things that was discussed with the Senate Council and it was one of the things suggested to be left off;
it was highly subjective. Professor Noonan asked did they say why? Chairman Fulks said it was mostly a matter
of implementation. It would be difficult to deal with.

Professor Gretchen LaGodna (Nursing) stated the written comments only represented one opinion where
the numerical responses represent the entire class.

Professor Bill Lubawy (Pharmacy) asked if it was known if these things were subject to the open records
law. Ccould people get the information if they wanted it without regard to what they do? Chairman Fulks said a
request had never been filed through UK. Tthe legal office is of the opinion that it should be subject to open

records. There was a fairly similar case at Western Kentucky University, in which the open records request was
denied.

Shea Chaney (Student Senator — Arts and Sciences) said they discussed filing open records but wanted the
input of the Senate. He was mildly offended by the idea that students have certain attitudes and will take easy
classes and give good evaluations. The hardest classes he has taken at UK, which includes physical chemistry, he
gave that teacher the best evaluation. All his teachers are doingvtheir jobs, he is doing his job, and he feels
teachers deserve credit. At least evaluations will be published and they will receive that credit. This is a pro-
student proposal but indirectly it is a pro-teacher proposal. The resistance to change is very typical. Many of
their colleagues are probably pressuring them to resist the change. UK does not need to maintain the status quo.
The students who hire this University to educate them deserve this, students are under no obligations to fill out
the evaluations. If UK is going to continue to ask students to go through this process, a process most colleges
and departments put a lot of credit in, he believes they deserve to know the results. They should follow the
recommendation of the Senate Council and pass the proposal.

Professor Donald Frazier (Medicine) said they all know performance varies from day to day, certainly from
year to year. What are the thoughts in terms of putting the proposal together in terms of looking at a professors
performance over time, which is a much more realistic way to evaluate anything. Student personalities change;

 

 Minutes, University Senate, March 7, 1994

,1 their response to a professor changes. He didn't hear anything that they might want to have a cumulative value
looking at this over time which is a much more realistic way to look at performance than a three point shot once a
year. Mr. Amoli said the data base which will be used will look at evaluations for the past two or three years.
There are some professors who teach a course one semester and not the next or every other year. They are trying
to get as much data as possible to try to have a fair evaluation of the professor or faculty member. Ms. Weck said
said that was the original idea that they would do it on a cumulative basis, a long term basis.

Professor Bill Moody (Animal Sciences) is very pro-student but feels this proposal is not in the best interest
of the student or the faculty because some of the best teachers he had he did not recognize it until 10 or 20 years
later. This is too manipulative. Some of the better students, some of the freshmen and sophomores will look at
the scores and stay away frOm some of the best teachers. He is convinced that the student evaluation is not all
that accurate. Students know where the good teachers and the solid courses are. They do not have to do this. It
plays up the fact the student evaluation form is the answer to an excellent teacher or a good course. He feels that
is wrong and the proposal should be voted down.

Professor Don Howard (Philosophy) questioned the manner in which the information would be disseminated
electronically. Would it be available to students as a menu item on view or gopher? If not how would it be
available to students and is the manner in which it will be available to students such that anyone else logging onto
the University computer system, say from another university could also read this information? Mr Amoli stated
in talking with Mr Williams he was told it would be put on Prime but Prime will be going away in a year or so
He did not know what system the information would then be on. Some universities have it in paper form. They

p felt putting it on View it would be more accessible, less paper used, and most cost effective. Professor Howard
said it was not a question of what system it would be on but how it is accessed on that system. He can telnet to
computers all over the world and read through what is equivalent to their view menu and look at all the items
there. Would people elsewhere be able to do the same thing with the evaluation results. That maybe changes the
implication, if it is going to be available to the entire world as opposed to the st