Agenda/Minutes‎ > ‎2002-2003‎ > ‎

2002 - 09/26

UCAP Meeting of 09/26/2002


agenda status: approved

University Committee on Academic Policy

Meeting of Thursday, September 26, 2002
10:15 a.m., Board Room, Administration Building

1. Approval of Agenda

2. Approval of Minutes of the September 12, 2002 meeting (Attachment)

3. Comments from the Chairperson

4. Comments from the Assistant Provost

5. Graduation With Honor/High Honor (Attachment)

6. Guidelines for Unit Change Documentation – Wrap-up Winston Wilkinson
(previous draft attached)

7. SOCT Monitoring

8. Technology on Campus
(discussion to form questions for David Gift’s return visit)

9. Roundtable

Please phone or E-Mail Robin Pline (353-5380; if you cannot be present.

Attachments: September 12, 2002 Revised Draft Minutes
Grad with Honor/High Honor materials
Criteria & Procedures for Dissolution of Academic Units 2-20-02 Draft

minutes status: approved

approved at meeting of

UCAP Minutes for meeting held on 09/26/2002

Approved as amended 10/10/02
University Committee on Academic Policy
September 26, 2002

Members Present: Henry Beckmeyer, Bridget Behe (Chair), Howard Bossen, Betty Cheng, George Cornell, Kathryn Day, Chelsea Hasenburg, Patricia Mullan, Hillary Noyes, Georgia Padonu, Sharon Senk, Juli Wade, Winston Wilkinson, Maija Zile

Others Present: Barbara Steidle (Assistant Provost)

Chairperson Behe called the meeting to order at 10:15 a.m.
1. Approval of the Agenda: The agenda was approved without changes.
2. Approval of the Minutes of the September 12, 2002 meeting (without changes).
3. Comments from the Chairperson: Chairperson Behe had no comments.
4. Comments from the Assistant Provost:
· Enrollment data for fall semester:
o Total enrollment: 44,937 students
§ Undergrad: c. 400 more students than expected
§ Graduate: c. 300 more students than expected
o Retention:
§ Number of Freshman actually enrolling (beyond AOP) is greater than before:
· web-based AOP sign-up seemed to help
· More students attended earlier during the summer
§ Freshman and sophomores seem to have high retention rates
§ Seniors appear to be staying longer
§ Increase in Masters population
o Statistics for incoming freshman:
§ ACT: 24.1; GPA 3.54
§ 64% of freshman class were in top 25% of their senior class
§ Honors College had 2400 new students
§ Academic Scholars: 170 new students
o Other data about incoming freshman: (from faculty input and ACT data))
§ Appears to be shift from verbal to visual (digital) skills
§ Most students have some experience with programming
§ Students are noting more problems with high anxiety levels
§ Students are more service-oriented:
· 45% students are involved in extra-curricular activities (e.g., student government, clubs, etc.)
· c. 80% performed some type of volunteer or public service
· About 70% of the students had part-time jobs
o Freshman are not working as much during first year (avg credit hours 13.7, not accepting workstudy)
o Graduation rate for seniors (viewed over 6 year period): 67%
o Increase in parental involvement at all levels (e.g., calls to faculty about students).

· Grade Inflation issues:
o Assistant Provost Steidle distributed comparative summary of term GPAs (1997-2001).
o Posed the question, “Are there grade inflation practices given the slight increase in overall GPAs over the past several years?”
o Does UCAP want to explore this as an issue?

5. Graduation with Honor/High Honor:
      Assistant Provost Steidle presented the following information for discussion.
· Under prior GPA cut-offs, H and HH had reached c. 28% of graduating class)
· Honor: 3.4
· High Honor: 3.7
· Recalibrated 3 years ago, effective the following year: (covered 21% of graduating class)
· Honor: 3.5
· High Honor: 3.8

· Most recent Distinguished Board of Trustees awards given to 10 students (normally designated for 6), all with 4.0 GPA.

6. Guidelines for Unit Change Documentation – Wrap up (previous draft attached to agenda). Winston Wilkinson presented the subcommittee’s results and proposed the following recommendations that were approved unanimously by the committee after discussing each recommendation:
a. That the guidelines UCAP employs in determining the adequacy of consultations and the nature of effects of program dissolution on students be employed also when UCAP is asked to review proposals for unit dissolution.
b. That UCAP be provided with documentation of appropriate and effective consultation with external reviewers, students, relevant faculty, units affected directly or indirectly, college groups and others if necessary or appropriate (e.g., alumni).
c. That UCAP members normally receive such documentation at least a month prior to scheduled discussion of a proposed dissolution.
d. Recommends to the Provost that the Provost’s practice of referring unit dissolution proposals to UCAP become standard procedure.
      Assistant Provost Steidle reiterated that modifying the Criteria for Disbandment of Academic Programs document is beyond the scope of UCAP’s charge, as there has been no request for review by the Provost.

      Subcommittee will review its specific list of the types of documentation it wishes to review in such instances and determine whether they are necessary or desirable and report back to the entire committee their findings.
7. SOCT Monitoring:
· SOCT: Students Opinion of Courses and Teaching
· Questions that were raised by the committee regarding the SOCT forms:
· How are these forms used in faculty review? (Ans: It was the intent of the committee that the SOCT not be used for faculty review unless a department or college decides to use it as the sole review form.)
· Should state when these results will be available. (Ans: not immediate due to logistics. Goal is February when students are enrolling.)
· Costs associated with processing SOCT Forms:
o $10K per semester to process forms (scoring forms and their analysis)
· Issues:
o Concern that faculty and students do not understand difference between SOCT and SIRS forms
o Using a web-based form would significantly decrease costs for SOCT forms.
o Concern: what would be the impact on completion of forms?
· Subcommittee to review these issues: Patricia Mullan (Chair), George Cornell, Chelsea Hasenburg

8. Technology on Campus:
· David Gift will return to UCAP in approximately one month to continue discussion of technology on campus issues
· Committee raised the following topics regarding this issue:
· How do we get rid of SPAM?
· Security issues
· Lack of infrastructure support (insufficient number of dial-up lines, lack of machines, etc.)
· Impact of downloading movies and music (disk space and bandwidth)
· Use of wireless technology
· Technology assessment (i.e., imposing fees for computer and networking usage)
· Access to planning on next generation products
· Who is best served by the instructional technology?
· What are base technological skills that our students should have?

· Factors impacting the resource problems:
· 3 pairs of optical fibers to be installed to access 3 DTN apartment complexes
· merit costs have increased (doubled)
· others, as noted by David Gift in the prior meeting

9. Meeting adjourned: 12:05 p.m.
      Respectfully submitted,

      Betty Cheng