President Barstow's report was read by Vice-President Weaver and is included here as Appendix A (Available by Request from the Senate Office).

Vice-President Weaver then read two letters from President Smith to the Secretary of the Senate concerning the disposition of Proposals 1-72 (Inter-Curricular Transfer Students, p. 696), 2-72 (American Indian Programs, p. 700), and 3-72 (Academic Credit for R.O.T.C., p. 707. The letters are included here as Appendix B (Available by Request from the Senate Office).

Report on Meetings of the Academic Council and Board of Control

1. Halkola reported on the last two meetings of the Academic Council. His report is included here as Appendix C (Available by Request from the Senate Office).
   
   
2. Weaver reported that the only Board of Control meeting scheduled since the last Senate meeting was postponed to a later date and will be reported on at the next meeting.
   

Committee Reports

A. Curricular Policy Committee:

Weaver introduced Proposal 4-72, Baccalaureate Credit for Associate Degree Courses (see p. 721), by moving that it be adopted. Following a second, a lengthy discussion focused on the original Pass/Fail Policy (Proposal 2-69, p. 388) and how this proposal would fit in with the restrictions stated therein. Halkola suggested that the significant aspect of the proposal is really not the pass/fail credit basis but the offering of baccalaureate credit for Associate Degree course offerings. He further suggested that the matter of pass/fail is somewhat misleading. Halkola then moved that Proposal 4-72 be referred back to the Curricular Policy Committee, stating that the issue of baccalaureate credit for associate courses may have been unwittingly complicated by limiting it to pass/fail. The motion was seconded and passed by a vote of 16 Yes, 8 No.

Weaver then moved the adoption of Proposal 5-72, Transfer of Baccalaureate Credit Earned in Associate Degree Program (page 715). The motion was seconded and following a brief discussion was passed by a voice vote.

 

B. Instructional Policy

Halkola submitted a written report to each Senator present. The report included two proposals 11-72, Letter Grade M, and 12-72, Permission for Dropping a Course, which will be discussed at Meeting No. 64. The complete report is included here as Appendix D (Available by Request from the Senate Office).

 

C. Elections:

Greuer submitted the report of the committee which is included here as Appendix E (Available by Request from the Senate Office).

 

D. Academic Calendar :

Stebler introduced Proposal 7-72, Quarter System Calendar (p. 728), by moving that it be adopted. His motion was seconded. Bayer pointed out that in the earlier committee report the duration of the spring break was spelled out (item g, p. 723) but that there was no mention of this in the final proposal. Stebler stated that this was really an oversight and the committee had intended to include item g in Proposal 7-72. He then moved to amend the proposal as follows:

1. Renumber item 6 to be item 7.

2. Include as a new item (number 6):

6. The spring break should be a minimum of one week in length (including scramble day) and as short as is practical (starting day either on a Monday, Tuesday, or Wednesday).

The amendment was seconded. Then, in response to a question from the floor, Stebler read an example of a calendar based on the recommendations of Proposal 7-72 (for the 1973-74 academic year). That example and several others are included here as Appendix F (Available by Request from the Senate Office). In the discussion several points were brought out. Stebler stated that there is a possibility that final exams could be conducted in a four-day period rather than five. We may also consider giving final exams on Saturday. Crowther pointed out that moving up the spring quarter would eliminate spring field trips. This would result in an impractical situation for some departments. Some dissatisfaction with week ends in the middle of exam periods was expressed. The awkward starting and ending of quarters in mid-week was noted. Following the discussion the amendment passed by vote of 24 Yes, 2 No.

Vice-President then stated that because of the amendment the final vote on the proposal would have to be taken at the next Senate meeting. He then called for a first vote on the amended proposal. Bayer suggested that since the amendment was simply due to an oversight and included a recommendation which was in the original committee report, the chair might consider a ruling under the editorial change policy (Proposal 8-71, page 636). After consulting this policy statement, Weaver ruled that the amendment did constitute an editorial change and therefore the vote would be final.

In response to a question from the floor, President Smith stated that although he hadn't yet completely analyzed the Student Council proposal, it was very much like this one; in fact, all of the proposals from the several committees involved looked pretty much the same.

The amended motion then carried by a vote of 21 Yes, 1 No.

 

E. Joint Faculty Association: No Report.

 

F. Promotional Policy

Crowther moved the adoption of Proposal 6-72, Promotion Policy and Procedures (page 724). Following a lengthy discussion Spain moved that Proposal 6-72 be amended as follows: Insert as the beginning of each of the two sentences of the second paragraph of the Preamble the words "The faculty of." The second paragraph of the Preamble would then read:

The faculty of each department should establish its own criteria for recommendations concerning promotion of its faculty members, subject to approval by the College or School and the University. The faculty of each College and School should establish its own methods for evaluating and processing promotion recommendations, subject to approval by the University.

The amendment carried by a vote of 17 Yes, 1 No. The amended proposal was then approved by a vote of 16 Yes, 1 No. Horvath suggested that since the department, school, or college is its faculty, the amendment be ruled an editorial one. Vice-President Weaver agreed.

G.Sick Leave: No Report.

 

Old Business - None

 

New Business

Karl Johnson moved the adoption of Proposal 8-72, Abolition of "F" Grade (page 729). Following a second, DelliQuadri moved that the motion be temporarily tabled until immediately following the discussion on Proposal 9-72, Drop Period Extension (page 729), arguing that intelligent consideration of 8-72 depended upon what was done with 9-72. The motion to table temporarily was passed by vote of 16 Yes, 4 No.

Karl Johnson then moved that Proposal 9-72 be approved. Following a second, Johnson asked the chair to permit Teo Babun, President of the Student Council, to speak on behalf of the proposal. President Babun outlined the problems encountered by students under the present drop system. He asked the chair to permit a student, Sherry Orbin, to address the Senate. Miss Orbin described an awkward grading problem which arose in a class she took. She stated that had she been able to drop the course, the end result would have been much fairer. Weaver pointed out that it is exactly situations like this that lead to student pressures for an unlimited drop period. He pointed out that if everything were done according to the rules in the first place, situations such as this would never arise. Bredekamp agreed and stated further that the real solution to problems of this sort is the Ombudsman.

In response to a question from the floor, President Smith stated that the student count for funding purposes will be based in the future on the number of grades given in each course.

Spahn pointed out that final exam schedules are drawn up after the end of the drop period. That would preclude any extension beyond about the eighth week, and even at that, the exam schedule would come out at the end of the quarter.

Bayer stated that although the late drop would solve some problems and resolve some injustices, the end result would be a reduction of the caliber of education at Michigan Tech and so would hurt the student even more.

Johnson pointed out that several eastern schools have gone so far as to drop the grade of "F", and it hasn't degraded their quality. Spain wondered whether an alternative to the late drop might not be simply harder work on the part of the student to avoid the "F." He also pointed out that Michigan Tech's admission procedure is not as selective as that of eastern schools mentioned by Johnson.

DelliQuadri suggested that we retain the six-week drop period but remove the power to grant extensions from the administration and return it to the departments where it belongs. This would solve many of the problems cited.

Following the discussion, the motion was defeated by a vote of 19 No to 2 Yes.

As a result of the prior motion to table, Proposal 8-72 was returned for discussion. Nordeng questioned whether there would really be any difference in the appearance of "NC" or "F" on a student's transcript, since the connotation was the same. He said that the only effect would be on the grade point average. Horvath pointed out that the grade point average wasn't even mentioned in the proposal and therefore the only effect would be a new name for the grade of "F." The grade point would still reflect such grades. Babun stated that the intent was that it not count in the grade point average.

Weaver cautioned the Senate not to kill the patient to cure warts. In response to a question by Johnson about what we could do to remedy the alleged injustices in grading he answered that the Ombudsman should be consulted.

Babun read a memorandum which allegedly was circulated by a department head to the faculty of his department several years ago. The memo urged the faculty to strive to maintain a grade point average of 2.3 for all grades given in that department. A later survey of the department showed that the request had indeed resulted in a shift in the grade point average toward 2.3 on the part of several members of the department.

It was pointed out that if the "F" were eliminated, then the lowest grade of "D" would probably be given more often rather than the "NC" since it would affect the GPA.

Following the discussion, the motion was rejected by a vote of 19 No to 1 YES.

Bredekamp then moved the adoption of Proposal 10-72, Examination Scheduling (page 729). Following a second, Bayer objected that for classes which meet only once or twice a week this could result in eliminating ten percent of the time available for quizzes. There followed several proposed amendments and amended amendments. The outcome was an amended proposal which reads as follows:

Proposal 10-72, Examination Scheduling. No regular exams shall be given the last week of class in the term except that laboratory exams may be given.

The exclusion of laboratory exams passed by a vote of 21 Yes, 0 No. The extension from two days to one week passed by a vote of 14 Yes, 5 No. The amended proposal passed by a vote of 16 Yes, 4 No. This proposal must pass a second vote before implementation may proceed.

K. Johnson announced that a strike had been called by the Student Council for 12 noon to 1:00 p.m. on Friday, April 21, to protest the mobilization of military forces and increased strife in Viet Nam. In addition, an afternoon symposium had been organized. Mr. Adams, Vice President of the Student Council invited all interested parties to attend both the rally and the symposium as many people of varied background and opinion had been invited to address the group.

Stebler asked that the Academic Calendar Committee be discharged. Vice-President Weaver then discharged both the Calendar Committee and the Promotion Policy Committee.

DelliQuadri expressed the opinion that we need a more intelligent approach to selecting our "At Large" Senators. He suggested that the Senate consider a more meaningful election procedure consisting of perhaps nomination petitions, platform declaration by candidates, etc. Vice-President Weaver suggested that either such a proposal be submitted in formal fashion or the subject be referred to the Election Committee. DelliQuadri then formally moved that an ad hoc committee be established to recommend a more meaningful election procedure. The motion passed by a voice vote.

 

The meeting was adjourned at 10:05 pm.