xt7z610vtr12 https://exploreuk.uky.edu/dips/xt7z610vtr12/data/mets.xml University of Kentucky. University Senate University of Kentucky. Faculty Senate Kentucky University of Kentucky. University Senate University of Kentucky. Faculty Senate 1993-10-11 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, October 11, 1993 text University of Kentucky University Senate (Faculty Senate) meeting minutes, October 11, 1993 1993 1993-10-11 2020 true xt7z610vtr12 section xt7z610vtr12 7484

MINUTES OF THE UNIVERSITY SENATE, OCTOBER ll, I993

The University Senate met in regular session at 3:00 p.m., Monday, October I l, 1993, in Room
I 15 of the Nursing Health Sciences Building.

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

Members absent were: Stephanie Ateher, Mark C. Berger*, Antimony Bishop*, Robert L.
Blevins, Rick Boland, Peter P. Bosomworth, Douglas A. Boyd, Joseph T. Burch, D. Allan
Butterfield*, Lauretta Byars. Bradley C. Canon*, Clyde R. Carpenter. Ben W. Carr, Edward A. Carter,
Shea Chaney*, G.L. Monty Chappell*, Donald B. Clapp, Jane Clark, Jordan L. Cohen, Darby Cole,
Melissa Cox*, Lance E. DeLong*, Brian DeYoung, Richard Edwards, Raymond Forgue, Michael B.
Freeman*, Richard W. Furst, Joseph H. Gardner*. Lorraine Garkovich. William Gibson*, Larry J.
Grabau*, William S. Grifﬁth*, J. John Harris, Zafar S. Hasan*. Christine b nice, Robert E. Hemenway,
Floyd J. Holler, Chester A. Holmquist, Don A. Howard. Edward J. Kasarskis*, Kenneth K. Kubota,
Gretchen LaGodna*, Thomas W. Lester, Thomas T. Lillich*, C. Oran Little, Loys L. Mather*, Jan
McCulloch*, Martin J. McMahon. James S. Mosbey, David A. Nash*. Anthony L. Newberry,
Jacqueline Noonan*, Judith Page, Barbara Phillips*, Rhoda—Gale Pollack, Thomas C. Robinson, Ellen
B. Roscnman, Horst Schach*, Janice Schach*. David Shipley, Thomas J. Stipanowich, William J.
Stober*. David H. Stockham. Michael Stover, Phillip A. Tibbs. Miroslaw Truszczynski, Henry C.
Vasconez, Mary Walker, Chris Webb, Charles T. Wethington*, Brent White, Eugene R. Williams,
Emery A. Wilson*. Mary L. Witt*.

The Chair welcomed everyone to the University Senate meeting.

The Chair stated that the Senate Minutes for September 20 have not been circulated. Since the
September meeting was postponed one week, there were only three weeks between meetings.

The Chair made the following announcements:

The Governor's Higher Education Review Commission has met for the ﬁrst time. The Governor
at the ﬁrst meeting distributed his list of recommendations. The Chair is not sure how far the list has
been circulated. The Senate Council received a copy and it was distributed to each member. There are
several interesting recommendations coming from the Governor, 14 in fact. The Chair said the
President planned to discuss what is going on with the Commission at the next Board of Trustees
meeting. The Governor's timetable on response is by the end of the calendar year. Chairman Fulks
asked that the Senate make themselves aware. The Senate Council plans to discuss the Commission
and the Governor's recommendations with the President at the next meeting of the Senate Council.

* Absence Excused

7485
Minutes, University Senate. October 1 1, 1993

As a result of some recommendations coming out of the Self—Study and also the SACs review,
the Senate Council became interested in the Athletics Board. It was their desire to make contact with
the faculty members of the board and establish lines of communication to see to what extent they felt
support from the faculty and to what extent they felt they were representing the faculty. The Senate
Council initiated some dialogue with the faculty members of the board and they satisﬁed their
curiosities. The Chair suggested to the Senate that if they have any questions at all concerning
athletics, primarily the academic end of athletics, they contact members of the board. There are six
official members from the faculty and the faculty representative to the NCAA serves on the athletics
board as well. Connie Wilson spoke with the Senate Council last Monday. The members of the
Board are: Bill Markesbery from the Sanders Brown Center on Aging, John Piecoro from Pharmacy.
Tommy Whittler from Business and Economics, Bob Lawson from the Law School, Connie Wilson
from Social Work, Jack Van Nagell, Jr. from the College of Medicine, and Virginia Atwood from the
College of Education. They are certainly open to any questions the Senate might have, as have been
C.M. Newton and his staff.

The Chairperson then introduced to the Senate Dr. Deborah Powell, Faculty Member to the
Board of Trustees to give the traditional fall address to the Senate.

Address to University
as

Faculty Trustee
October ll. 1993

I would like to report to you on the activities of the Board of Trustees during the 1992-
93 academic year and a little bit about the coming year.

As you know, last year, because of the change in the way the Board of Trustess members
are appointed. almost half of the board was newly appointed or elected. For most of the
year, many of us were getting to know each other and getting accustomed to the Board
process. The Board of Trustees has 20 members. Three are faculty members, 2 from the
Lexington Campus and 1 from the Community College System. The Community College
representative is John Sistamik from Jefferson Community College and the two faculty
members last year were myself and Carolyn Bratt. This year the new faculty
representative in addition to myself is Loys Mather.

This coming year we have only one other new member of the Board. Jim Rose, who has
been a long standing member of the Board of Trustees has been replaced. Otherwise, the
Board will be the same this year as last year. Recently the Board held elections and
Governor Edward Breathitt has been re—elected to continue as Chair of the Board of
Trustees.

The Board meetings, as you probably know if you have attended them, are open to
everyone with a very formal agenda. The agenda for the Board meetings is set by the
President. Occasionally, special presentations are given to the Board of Trustees. Last
year several presentations were given including one on the University Honors Program,
one on the College of Pharmacy. and a tour of the University Hospital. This year we
have had a presentation already about the new library.

7486
Minutes, University Senate, October 1], I993

I have tried to think of highlights from the Board meetings last year that might be of
interest. In addition to the formal approval of the University budget which takes
place every year in June, with a special brieﬁng session for board members before
that time, we also approved the biennial budget request this year. This approval was
also proceeded by a special briefing session.

One of our biggest issues was the question of representation of faculty members on
committees of the Board of Trustees. I think Professor Carolyn Bratt reported to
the Senate on that last fall. I would like to bring you up to date as to what happened
to that process. The Board of Trustees has six committees plus the University
Hospital Board of Directors which is a committee that is also made up of board
members. Before last year the University Faculty Trustees were not broadly
represented on the committees of the Board and were basically clustered on a
committee that is known as the Student Code Committee. Professor Bratt really
spearheaded the effort to try to get University Faculty Trustees more broadly
represented on committees. especially on the committees that were perceived as
important committees of the board. most notably the Finance Committee and the
Executive Committee. In response largely to her actions we were appointed to
several different committees of the Board including the Student Code Committee.
the Hearing Committee, the Nominating Committee, and the Investment Committee
last year. This year's committee list is just being released, but I know that one of us
will be appointed to the Finance Committee. I think that primarily because of her
efforts, the Faculty Representatives are being more broadly represented on
committees of the board, where a lot of the work of the board actually takes place. I
think that is very positive for the faculty. 1 think it is crucial that we be on important
visible committees of the Board.

The second issue on which I will report occurred through the Student Code
Committee. That happened at the end of the year based a motion that was brought
to the Student Code Committee by Student Government. This led to an action of
the Board at its June meeting, which recognized that the University would formally
add to its policies that it would not discriminate against any student, any faculty, or
any staff member because of sexual orientation. This began with an amendment to
the Student Code of Conduct that was brought by Student Government to the
Student Code Committee and then was broadened by Board action to include not
only students but faculty and staff. That nondiscriminatory policy was accepted by
the Board at its June meeting last year.

This coming year, I think that the Board will be hearing from the President and from
Governor Breathitt about the Governor's Commission on Higher Education which
Dan Fulks has already mentioned. Governor Breathitt and President Wethington are
the two UK representatives to that commission. I think we are all going to be very
interested and quite concerned to know what that group decides. It's report is due in
December. The President has distributed the Governor's comments to all the Board
Members and stated that he will be discussing this commission with the Board.

7489

Minutes, University Senate, October ll, 1993

The whole issue of maintaining the ties which were originally established in the
cross—disciplinary component of University Studies is a serious one. When the
courses were ﬁrst proposed, the syllabi and the covering letter indicated in some
detail the ways in which the paired courses would illuminate speciﬁc issues and
enrich the students' understanding. With changes in faculty, the use of TA's, and the
lack of ongoing discussion between instructors, maintaining connections between the
courses has been difﬁcult, especially here at the Lexington Campus. 1 should note
that the faculty at the community colleges have been much more successful in
sustaining discourse among the instructors in the cross-disciplinary area. In any
event, it has been proposed that we establish some sort of a "sunset clause" for the
cross—disciplinary offerings and ask the departments on a regular basis to justify the
continuance of their courses in the University Studies Program. Indeed, the
possibility ofhaving such a "sunset clause" for all the offerings in USP may be a wise
step for the Committee to take. In such a context departments which wish to keep a
particular course within the general studies program would be asked to indicate what
is transpiring in their USP courses and what plans they have for continuing their
offerings.

Early in its attempts at assessing University Studies, the Committee decided to focus
on two aspects of the program, i._e the writing component and the cross—cultural
component. On the latter count we did a survey both last year and the year before of
instructors and students enrolled in cross-cultural courses to discover whether this
part of USP was having any signiﬁcant impact en the students' sensitivity to cultures
other than their own. I am happy to say that the answer to that question is deﬁnitely
"yes". To some degree at least the cross-cultural requirement is achieving its
objectives. Students, however, have expressed an interest in having a cross—cultural
component in many USP offerings rather than having it conﬁned to a single course.

With respect to writing we are interested in knowing whether the writing component
is having any signiﬁcant effect on students' ability to handle the mother tongue and
whether writing helps them to learn the subject matter in the courses they take. As a
result of a student survey which will be run this fall (and which I will speak about in
greater detail in a minute), we will have a better handle on this issue. As the
Committee wrestled with the effectiveness of the writing component in the USP, we
faced some very practical problems. Among these was our uncertainty about the
faculty's expectations regarding student proﬁciency in writing and the degree to
which those expectations are similar across the disciplines and the conformity (or
lack thereof) between these expectations and the expectations of instructors teaching
English composition courses. As a way of beginning to get an answer to this
question, we solicited the assistance of the English Department last spring. Tom
Blues, David Durant, and several others worked out an experiment for testing faculty
expectations with regard to student writing. Thirty faculty members from across the
campus were asked at the end of the spring semester to read a set of essays
produced by students in ENG 102. The purpose here was to determine whether a
paper was judged proﬁcient, highly proﬁcient, or non-proﬁcient in light of the
faculty's own expectations. The

7490
Minutes, University Senate, October I l, 1993

faculty's evaluations then were compared with the grades which were given by the
instructors in ENG 102. The ﬁnal results of this experiment are not yet complete,
but preliminary results indicate, 1 think, that the correlation between faculty
expectations and TA grading was relatively high. Some committee members,
however, were not so sure about this, and we all await the ﬁnal report which will
include not just the comparative ratings and scores but indications of the kinds of
comments that faculty members from across the campus make about their
expectations and students' abilities to meet them.

The whole issue of assessment became very real to us as we attempted to clarify for
ourselves the actual objectives of the program as a whole. When it was initiated in
1988. the aims set forth for University Studies were persuasive but at the same time
so general in description that it was difﬁcult, if not impossible, to use those aims as
any kind of workable criteria for measuring student progress. As a result of this fact,
the Committee devoted a good part of the second semester hammering out a series
of learning objectives for each of the components of University Studies. This was in
many ways a much more tedious process than we had anticipated, but, in the long
run, I think, it will do much good. We initially focused on the seventy—ﬁve learning
objectives of KERA but found that those objectives were so numerous and so tied to
the teaching methods and content of KERA that they did not readily ﬁt very well
into what we were trying to do. We also took into consideration the objectives
outlined by the Community College System, which revised its own general education
program last fall. The upshot of this effort was that in the end we focused on the
individual components of University Studies since in the Committee‘s mind, at least,
those components seemed quite defensible and we drafted four or ﬁve learning
objectives for each.

This was all well and good, of course, but the important question is whether those
objectives are the same as the objectives of individuals who are actually teaching the
courses in University Studies. Answering that question is our next step. We will
seek to determine in some systematic way whether the objectives we have in mind
are desirable, workable, and actually being pursued by instructors as they teach the
courses. Only until we have some kind of a consensus on this score, can we hope to
discover whether the things we are trying to achieve are actually being accomplished.

The Committee will not, however, wait until such data are gathered before it makes
its ﬁnal report. We do, however, wish to wait until we have information from a
survey of recent alumni which Roseann Hogan in the Ofﬁce of Planning and
Assessment will be conducting this fall. Her survey encompasses a great many
questions but will include speciﬁc items developed on the basis of the newly
established learning objectives, and the responses, we hope, will tell us something
about the students' experience with University Studies. We now have two classes
which have graduated under the USP, and we think these data will give us some
rough idea of what successes we had and what changes need to be introduced.

749!
Minutes, University Senate, October I l, l993

Finally, the matter of fulfilling the Inference & Communication requirement in the
area of Math and/or Statistics + Philosophy has been studied at considerable length
by the Committee. There is some feeling among Committee members that the
disparate ways of satisfying this requirement, i e a three hour course in Calculus or a
six hour sequence in STA plus Logic, seems somewhat inequitable, and we are now
wrestling with ways of dealing with that problem.

This, in short scope, is the present state of our assessment. We anticipate being
ready to make recommendations to the Senate Council by the end of the semester,
and, of course, we anticipate working with the departments on any changes that will
significantly affect their involvement to the program.

One ﬁnal point. I have detected in conversations with a number of people a general
sense ofsatisfaction about the large number of departments across campus which are
involved in University Studies. If you remember, one of our goals when we started
in 1988 was to acknowledge that general education is the responsibility of the
university as a whole. Although approximately 95% of the offerings are offered
within Arts & Sciences, other colleges and departments do have a signiﬁcant role to
play, and I continue to think that the entire academic community beneﬁts from their
participation in the program.

I will do my best to answer any questions you have.
The Chair thanked Professor Swift for his remarks.

The Chair announced that the Senate Council would be having a breakfast meeting
with the area representatives to the State Legislature, Wednesday November 10, 1993. If
there are any questions or discussion items, please feel free to contact the council ofﬁce
or any of the Senate Council members.

Chairman Fulks then recognized Professor Ray Cox, Chair-elect of the Senate
Council, for the ﬁrst action item on the agenda. Professor Cox, on behalf of the Senate
Council, moved approval of the proposed changes to the University Senate Rules, Section
V. These changes are the result of a committee chaired by Professor David Durant. The
proposal was circulated under the date of 27 September 1993.

The Chair said that since the proposal was from the Senate Council it needed no
second. This is a continuation of the proposal from David Durant's committee that was

before the Senate in September. David Durant and Randall Dahl are here to take
questions.

Don Leigh (Engineering) said that under 5.1.] The Marking System W, in the case
of an audit where the student fails to have adequate attendance the instructor can initiate a
W and this seems to be in contradiction to the added statement. The Chair stated that Dr.
Dahl felt this was a technicality, the instructor initiates the withdrawal of the student from
the class, the W grade is not assigned by the instructor. Dr. Dahl stated that their
understanding of that was that it is a disenrollment in the case of the audit, where the
auditor has not met the requirements the instructor has made for withdrawal. Professor

7492
Minutes, University Senate, October I l, 1993

Leigh then asked if the instructor did not initiate the recommendation for a W would
nothing happen?

The Chair asked for some recommended wording to fix the problem. Professor
Leigh said he would omit the sentence.

Professor Hans Gesund (Engineering) stated he agreed with Professor Leigh. There
was at least one other case where a judicial board can assign a W and he feels the
sentence should be left out, he doesn‘t see it's need. If it is going to be cleaned up it
should be cleaned up all the way and he feels there are other ways a W can occur other
than at the student's request.

The Chair asked Professor Durant if removing the sentence would be a problem.
Professor Durant stated he felt they were trying to avoid it being done at the end of the
semester. Professor Gesund said that you could not have this sentence being in conflict
with other provisions.

Professor Don Leigh moved that the added statement be removed. Professor
Gesund seconded the movement. The motion to amend the proposal by deleting the
sentence that reads: A grade of W is not assigned by the instructor but is recorded by the
Registrar as a result of student action to drop or withdraw as provided in 5.1.8 passed.

Professor Bill Lubawy (Pharmacy) stated he had sent an E-mail note about the
section under 5.2.2. Student Load. He asked if that had been resolved in anyway. He

‘ suggested that the line that reads: The professional colleges and the Graduate School may

set lower maximum loads which are consistent with their degree requirements be changed
to the professional colleges and the Graduate School may set different maximum loads
which are consistent with their degree requirements. The reason for this is that students
in the College of Pharmacy and the College of Medicine take clerkship courses during the
summer that are different than the maximum offered and he realizes that deans may set
different limits individually. it seems unusual to set them for the entire class. The Chair
stated he did not see a problem in changing the wording to take care of the problem. He
is not sure it is a problem because in the calendar section of the Senate Rules, the
professional schools are given the authority to set their own calendar and the issue being
dealt with here is the limit in the number of weeks in the term. Students may not take
more credit hours than there are weeks in the term. He does not have a problem
personally in changing the word lower to different. That is really not part of this
proposal. that is the existing wording, this would be an additional change. They could be
more explicit by saying, these units have the authority to increase the length of their terms
and therefore the corresponding maximum credit load.

Professor Dan Reedy (Graduate School) stated that one of the issues may be SACS
accreditation guidelines. if it is changed to different it could mean that there could be a
larger number of hours. He feels the hours can be lower but there is a maximum in SACS
accreditation guidelines of no more than one credit per week of full-time class work.
That is why there are four hours allowed in the four week session and nine permitted in
the eight week.

7493
Minutes. University Senate, October 1 l. 1993

Chairman Fulks asked Professor Lubawy if the provision in the calendar
accommodated this. Professor Lubawy then withdrew his suggestion to be brought up
later. The Chair said he felt this was covered under the calendar section of the Senate
Rules.

Professor Gesund said he did not understand the last sentence under 5.1.3.2 on page
2. He asked what the sentence had to do with anything that prececded it. The Chair said
the problem they were addressing there is that the Senate Rules require that l grades be
initiated by the instructor and if the instructor is out of town or out of the country then
the way the rules are written now there is no way to initiate the I grade. Professor
Gesund asked what the instructor was supposed to initiate. He said that earlier in the
paragraph they were adding except under exceptional circumstances, the student will
initiate the request for the I grade and why wasn't the student the one who was asking for
the extension. The Chair said the student was to initiate the request but the contract
comes from the instructor. Professor Gesund said nowhere did it say the instructor was
to initiate the request for an extension. But then it said if the instructor is not available
that the chair or the dean may petition for the extension but it does not say anywhere that
the instructor is suppose to initiate the extension.

Professor Durant said he felt this was to take care of situations where the instructor
is out of town during the time when the student is trying to complete the incomplete. If
you make the instructor. who is not available. ask for an extension of the I grade. because
the instructor is not available that would be impossible. They tried to set it up so there
would be some way for students. when instructors are not available. to complete the l
grades to get an extension. Professor Gesund said that no where have they said that the
instructor is supposed to initiate, it only says that the student is responsible for asking for
l grades and presumably for a time extension. It does not say anywhere that instructors
are responsible for requesting extension of time on an I grade. Professor Durant said he
did not think it would be appropriate for instructors to ask for an extension. Professor
Gesund asked why it was appropriate if the instructor is out of town for the chair or dean
to request the extension. Professor Durant replied except in the case that the instructor is
not available for the student to complete the I grade. Professor Mike Cibull (Medicine)
said that was the reason for asking for the extension. Professor Gesund said it did not say
that and asked why the student did not request it. How is the department chair or the
dean to know that there is a problem, unless the student ﬁrst brings it to their attention?
The Chair stated that for clarification it is the Chair of the Senate Council that can grant
the request and this is stating that the request to the Chair of the Senate Council must
come from the department chair or the clean. The student obviously will have to initiate

the request to the chair or the dean. The student does not go to the Senate Council with
the request.

Professor Bill Lyons (Arts and Sciences) said he thought that what needed to be
understood was what the language was trying to do has to do with the fact that the
contract was made at the time the incomplete is awarded. A form is made out and the
student and the faculty member agree that a set of things must be completed in order to
remove the I grade. There is also usually a time period speciﬁed. This is not to open up
opportunities to extend that time period. the problem was that very often there are
instructors who are not available for a student to turn in the term paper or take an exam.

7494
Minutes, University Senate, October 1 1, 1993

The language was to simply provide in those kinds of situations an opportunity for the
student to fulﬁll the contractual requirements for the incomplete. He does not feel the
language is that confusing, it is simply limiting the conditions under which a student may
seek out the chair in lieu of the instructor who is not available to make a decision to
extend so the student may complete the requirements. Professor Gesund said that
perhaps it is the English because he does not understand how you could extend a grade.
He can see how you can extend the period required to complete the work. But not how
you extend the grade?

The Chair stated that was an editorial problem and could be changed to extend the
contract period for the I grade.

The question was called and motion passed to cease discussion. In a unanimous
voice vote the Senate approved the proposed changes to University Senate Rules. Section
V, Attending the University. The proposal reads as follows:

Background:
The ad 1153 Committee to Review Section V of the Senate Rules, chaired by Professor

David Durant, has proposed several changes to the Senate Rules. A portion of these
proposed changes was offered for consideration by the University Senate at its meeting on
20 September. The remainder of those proposals are listed below.

Proposals: (Add sections in bold and underlined; delete strike-overs.)

5.1.1 THE MARKING SYSTEM
W Denotes withdrawal from class. It may also be assigned by the
University Appeals Board in cases involving a violation of student
academic rights. (US:9/10/79) It is valued

at zero 10) grade points and zero 10) credit hours.

Rationale: For consistency, change the definition of W by adding the final
sentence.

S Represents the ﬁnal grade in courses caming no academic
credit. It is valued at zero (Ol grade points and zero (@

credit hours. Satisfactory—WWW
. i . H.

[P Represents satisfactorv work in progress in courses
carrying no academic credit. It is valued at zero (0)

grade points and zero credit hours.

Rationale: Change the deﬁnition of S and add 1P so that each grade represents
only one meaning.

7495

Minutes, University Senate, October 1 l, 1993

5.1.3

5.1.3.2

EXPLANATION OF CERTAIN GRADES

Grade I (US: 9/14/87)

The grade 1 means that part of the regularly assigned work of the course
remains undone. It shall be given only when there is a reasonable
possibility that the student can complete the work within the allowable
period of time for removal of an 1 grade and that a passing grade will
result from completion of the work.
Except under exceptional circumstances, the student will

initiate the request for the 1 grade. An I grade shall not be given when
the student's reason for incompleteness is unsatisfactory to the instructor.
A grade of 1 must be replaced by a regular ﬁnal letter grade not later than
12 months from the end of the academic term in which the I grade was
awarded or prior to the student's graduation, whichever occurs ﬁrst. In
the event the grade of 1 is not replaced by a regular ﬁnal letter grade
within the allowable period, the University Registrar shall change the 1
grade to a grade of E on the student's permanent academic record and
adjust the student's grade point standing accordingly. A graduate who
had an 1 grade on his or her academic record at the time of graduation
(and which grade was subsequently changed to an E by the Registrar)
may be allowed a maximum of 12 months following the end of the term
in which the course was taken to satisfactorily complete the course and
receive a grade change. If the
instructor is not available, the department chair or dean of the
colﬁge mav petition the chair of the Senate Council to extend

the contract period of the I grade.

Rationale: The ﬁrst change is to make the implicit practice explicit. The second change is

to take care of such situations as have arisen with instructors who have gone abroad or
are otherwise not available.

5.1.3.3

-_ . ..

fer—the—S—Grade S may be recorded also—as—a-perma-nent-mark—iﬁ-eeufses
emg—m—aeademie—efeéﬁ—Q JLiS grade may not be given to a
student who has done unsatisfactory work or to one who has failed to do
a reasonable amount of work.

7496

Minutes, University Senate. October I l. 1993

5.1.3.4

m
L.
w
m

5.2.2

Grade I?

The grade lP may be recorded for students in zero-credit courses
of research. independent work. or seminar—tvpe. if at the end of
a semester the student, because of the nature or size of the
project, has been unable to complete the course. The proiect
must be substantially continuous in its progress. When the work
is completed, a ﬁnal grade will be substituted for the 1P. This
grade may not be given to a student who has done

unsatisfactory work or to one who has failed to do a reasonable
amount of work.

Grade W

The grade W shall be given to students who ofﬁcially withdraw from a class
or classes under conditions described in Section V.. 5.1.8.2 and 5.1.8.3. It
may also be assigned by the University Appeals Board. See also Section VL.
6.5.1.2 (b). (US:lO/8/79)

STUDENT LOAD

With the exceptions noted below, the maximum load to be carried during
any semester by any student in an undergraduate college (including residence
and correspondence courses) shall be 19 credit hours Wm

.l I II

Rationale: Because the phrase is c