The
University Senate
of Michigan
Technological University
Minutes of Meeting
473
18 March 2009
Synopsis:
The Senate
1. Call
to order and roll call. President Sloan called the University Senate Meeting 473
to order at 5:32 pm on Wednesday, March 18, 2009, in room B45 EERC. Secretary
Cooper called roll. Absent were representatives of Civil & Environmental
Engineering, Humanities, the Library, Academic Services B, and Academic
Services C. Mechanical Engineering–Engineering Mechanics, Academic Services A,
and Auxiliaries and Cultural Enrichment currently have
no elected representatives.
2.
Recognition of visitors. Guests included John Lehman (Enrollment), Les Cook
(Student Affairs), Max Seel (Interim Provost), and Troy Cogan (USG).
3.
Approval of agenda.
Hamlin moved
approval of the agenda; Hoagland seconded the motion; it passed unanimously on a voice vote.
4.
Presentation: “Enrollment Outlook,” by John Lehman (copies of the slides that were shown are at the end of
the minutes)
Total undergraduate applicants for Fall 2009 are down 5 percent from last year; total acceptances
are down 8 percent; and total deposits are down 14 percent. As we had an exceptionally good year last
year (the highest ever), these figures are a bit misleading. Looking at the
numbers for the past six years, total applications for Fall 2009 are tracking
just behind 2008 and ahead of all years 2004–07; total acceptances are tracking
behind 2008 but still ahead of years 2004–07; and total deposits are tracking
with but behind years 2007 and 2008 but at this point ahead of years 2004–06
Starting in 2007, more applicants began delaying paying deposits until the May
1 deadline. Tracking deposit patterns by week confirms this, with a spike in
deposits coming later each year from 2007 to 2009. Acceptance to deposit yield
rates (the percentage of students we have admitted who have paid a deposit)
show this year tracking about at the mean of the six year
period; the difference from last year, thus, is not in the yield rate but in
the number of applications we received in 2008.
One of the
initiatives we’ve spent a lot of time on this year is enrolling more women. We
experimented with Google ad buys (an ad linking to a page on Women in STEM on
the Michigan Tech website); 900 handwritten cards from current undergraduate
women students; and 21 coffee houses in regional cities around the area to
which we invited prospective women students. Senator Klooster suggested asking
students in future to text message prospective applicants instead. These
efforts are beginning to pay off, as the data on deposits paid by women are
tracking ahead of years 2004–07. Deposits from women
enrolling in the College of Engineering are also tracking above six-year
averages, but nowhere near the numbers we saw last year.
Domestic minority
acceptances and deposits are also tracking ahead of years 2004–07 but behind
2008.
Senator Luck asked
what is responsible for the sharp upturn in all the graphs. Lehman said it is
the effect of the May 1 deadline.
Deposits in the
College of Engineering are lower than last year; Mechanical Engineering–Engineering
Mechanics is tracking with the overall institution figures; Biomedical
Engineering is beating the curve; hit hardest is Materials Science and
Engineering. Deposits in the College of Sciences and Arts are also lower than
last year. Deposits in the School of Forestry, the School of Business, and the
School of Technology are about average this year. The decline in deposits for
the School of Technology in years 2005–2007 was
due to the increase in standards for acceptance.
Preview Day, a Scholars
of Excellence event for accepted students, scheduled for March 27 and 28, has
299 students registered to date; last year there were 400 students and the year
before 350. At this point only 25 percent of them have paid their deposits, and
usually this figure is 50–60 percent. One way to look at that is to realize
that these are students who are really interested in coming to Michigan Tech,
and so there is still a lot of deposit potential out there.
Students who have
paid deposits through March 11 have a Freshman ACT composite average of 26.3;
if we can keep the usual summer downturn to .3, we can hit our goal of an
average ACT composite of 26 for incoming students. Campus visits by prospective
students (not including invited or special events) tracked the same in 2008 as
in 2007 (though with about 200 fewer students) despite the horrendous gas
prices; in July, 2008 tracked ahead of 2007 even though gas prices were at $4 a
gallon. Housing contracts are tracking with deposits, but there are 91
additional students with housing contracts who have not paid deposits. Current
students have made over 18,000 calls to prospective applicants, with 21 percent
of the calls resulting in “meaningful” conversations (ones lasting an average
of seven minutes). Summer enrollment of currently registered students is up 12
percent, which may be a result of fewer available co-ops or students wanting to
finish up sooner.
We have made strong
efforts to inform students of financial aid opportunities. President Mroz sent
a note to all domestic undergraduate students telling them to contact
admissions if they needed help with finances, and we ended up helping about 250
students this year with additional aid. We also put a widget on the home page
so that students could click directly to financial aid, and we saw the hits go
from about 50 to about 500 a week. Financial aid packages go out within the
week and we hope to see a reaction in deposits.
In the state of
Michigan all students take ACTs their junior year in high school, and we send smart
applications to all those who have filled in our code on their tests because
this group tends to enroll at a higher rate. The number of students filling in
our code has increased over the past couple of years because we have sent out a
mailing to all juniors in high school telling them to put our code on the ACT
test, and this year we included a pencil with our code on it so when they go to
take the test, they have the code.
Dan Greenlee sent
information on years when the economy was in recession, and we compared it with
the new freshman enrollments for those years and found no pattern.
Graduate school
applications this year show an increase of 154 applicants for masters programs,
and an increase of 31 acceptances; the increase in doctoral applicants is 119
and in acceptances 56. About 40 percent of graduate students we accept end up
enrolling.
Comparing our
enrollments with our enrollment plan for 2007–2010, we were ahead of the goal
by 29 students in 2007 and 221 students in 2008. We project
being ahead of our goal by 7 students this year, with a projected enrollment of
6,893.
Frost asked whether
as we are trying to recruit more women in engineering and science someone will
do a study to ascertain retention rates for the women we recruited. Lehman said
that we do that, we look at first and second year retention, and after that we
look at four, five, and six year retention rates every year. We try to tie that
to not only what their incoming credentials look like but also what their
financial status looks like to see if there is a way we could prevent students
from leaving by funneling them more financial aid. Frost asked whether we are
also tracking changes in majors. Lehman said that yes, we do, and we have a
grid that shows that. Engineering feeds in and many programs get students from
transfers. For example, the School of Business gets about half its students
from internal transfers.
Luck said that USA Today just had a report showing that
Computer Science showed an 8 percent increase of students nationally, and he
asked why we are not showing comparable figures. Lehman replied that we are
down about 20 percent in
deposits in Computer Science.
5.
Presentation: “ADVANCE” by Max Seel
There has been a lot of discussion about the
ADVANCE grant, and Provost Seel proposed an interactive discussion to help
clarify issues. The goal of the ADVANCE grant is noncontroversial: to develop
systemic approaches to increase the representation and advancement of women in
academic science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) careers
thereby contributing to the development of a more diverse science and
engineering workforce. Michigan Tech is one of only a few institutions that
received a grant. We received about $500,000, thanks to Leslie Lovett-Doust,
who is the Principal Investigator., with Co-PIs Donna Michalek, Peg Gale, Bill
Predebon, and Chris Anderson and Sue Bagley as Senior Faculty Personnel.
There are six major
goals in the grant, three new activities and three ongoing activities. The new
activities are cluster hires (SFHI), online screening tools that support rapid
and unbiased evaluation of candidates, and best practices for promoting faculty
opportunities at Michigan Tech (how to present Michigan Tech to the outside
world so that we get a more diverse pool of applicants). The adapted activities
are accountability in the hiring process by building a collegial framework and
support for hiring faculty through the use of Colleagues of Equity and
Procedures (CEPs) and the President’s Commission on Procedures and Equity
(PCPE), a university-wide mentoring program that assigns mentors for newly
hired untenured faculty, and campus-wide training programs to build awareness
and knowledge of gender bias and climate issues and solutions and to train
faculty for CEP and PCPE positions.
Where’s the problem?
In accountability: the goal of building a collegial framework and support for
hiring faculty through the use of CEPs and the PCPE. There are currently 22
CEPs, and the PCPE consists of Martha Sloan, Miguel Levy, Mark Plichta, M.C. Friedrich, and, recently
added, Anita Quinn. The biggest problem is with the CEPs because as it’s
currently written in the grant, the CEP on a hiring committee should be someone
not from the hiring department. I have argued that in the College of Sciences
and Arts we have had an outside chair on all chair hiring committees and that
has worked quite well. I’m not the PI on this grant, but if a grant affects
university policy and procedures, as this grant does, then Human Resources and
the Provost needs to be involved in the discussion.
Vable said that the
problem is that departments have their charters, they have their own way of
doing things, now you’re bringing someone from outside to be on those search
committees. It’s a question of jurisdiction and how you handle that. Seel said
that part of the problem was that there was not enough discussion before hand.
I’m waiting for feedback. In my opinion, this is not written in stone. We can
adjust the details of how the grant is implemented. We want to make this work;
we want to build collegial framework and support, that’s all.
Givens asked why that
point is listed. Seel replied that it’s specifically written in the grant.
Givens asked whether how it’s implemented could change. Seel said yes, we want
to make it work.
Seel’s
final point is that we want STRIDE NOT STRIFE. STRIDE is the acronym of the
University of Michigan’s ADVANCE implementation (Strategies and Tactics for
Recruiting to Improve Diversity and Excellence). Strife is defined as a bitter,
sometimes violent conflict or dissention; an act of contention; exertion or
contention for superiority. STRIDE is a group who is coming up to Michigan Tech
for a training program. Strife is what we have encountered a little bit over
the past two weeks, and we shouldn’t be. It’s a good program.
Hoagland stated that
the Social Sciences department is very exercised about
this. The problem with the CEP is that it interferes with internal hiring
procedures. The external chair on the chair hiring committee was very useful,
but I don’t see the parallel for a totally internal appointment. The way this
came about was anything but transparent, and I think this is a problem the
whole Senate should be concerned about. Seel said the important thing is having
someone on the search committee who has undergone further training. It might be
someone from the department, which is what they do at the University of
Michigan, as long as there is somebody on the committee who has had training,
additional expertise. So it might not be mandatory to have an external CEP,
though some committees might want one. Would that work? Hoagland said yes.
Vable said that HR
normally meets with all search committees to convey this sort of information.
Seel said that normally committees might invite the HR person to meet with them
once. There are not enough HR staff to have one per
committee. HR will be part of this training process and they could serve as a
CEP. Vable asked whether the CEP is to be there only for the first couple of
meetings of the committee. Seel said no, the CEP is supposed to be on the
search committee.
Turpening commented
that this is only a grant, so if it doesn’t work, it doesn’t work. Seel said
yes. But he said that he has had feedback from candidates who have applied who
said that they wouldn’t have applied if they hadn’t seen that Michigan Tech is
an ADVANCE institution. So we want to make it work, but we can adjust the
implementation.
Hoagland asked
whether there is something the Senate can do to add weight to your negotiations
with the PI. Seel said the current discussion is helping, and if the Senate has
a position, I’m happy to receive it.
Luck asked why didn’t
the people writing the grant come to the Chemistry department and ask how they
achieved a 50 percent female faculty. Seel said let’s look to the future, get
more feedback, and try to make it work. We had some very good numbers for
hiring women in the last two years. I can send you the statistics from Shari
Kauppi. There will be metrics provided at the end of the grant. Sloan said that
if Seel would send her the statistics from Kauppi, she would distribute them to
the Senate, and we will be better informed in future discussions.
Frost asked how
people become CEPs. Seel said he asked deans and department chairs for names.
Frost asked how much training is involved. Seel said it’s an ongoing process.
There’s a workshop at noon tomorrow, where we go through some do’s and don’t’s
of hiring, then some people from STRIDE are coming in to give an additional
workshop. I don’t know how much training you get until you are certified.
Hopefully, everyone will go through the process. The goal is every year you
have a new group of 20 or 30 in training.
Vable asked now that
we are hiring all these people, what changes are we going to make
institution-wide so they are welcome. Seel said that one point is the mentoring
program. Vable said if our attitude continues to say that you can be as
different as you want as long as you’re just like me, then it will defeat the
hiring objective. Seel agreed: it’s part of the
training not to look for someone just like you. If you look just for your own
replacement, that’s not how you increase diversity at an institution.
Hoagland said that
the requirement of the CEP implies that faculty don’t want to hire diverse
people, that we need outsiders come tell us what to do. But in fact we all want
a diverse faculty, and we hire a lot and tend to lose a lot. Retention was seen
as a greater problem in a previous study. And that’s another reason that this
program is particularly galling to the Social Sciences department. Seel said
that was not the intent. It should be a collegial framework, not an insulting
one.
Hoagland said that
one program that is not even mentioned in this grant is a program for dual
career hires, which is a big problem with retention. Seel said there is a lot
of discussion going on about this, and it is a complicated problem. It’s not
part of this grant, and I appreciate the comment about retention.
Vogler said the
notion that there is a purely internal hire seems odd, as faculty are always
potentially working on interdisciplinary projects and potentially involved in
dual career hires. She commented that we are too silo oriented. Seel said
that’s the point of the SFHI. We could compare the results of these two
programs in achieving diversity.
Frost asked whether
there are any details about how the mentoring program is going to work. Seel
replied that they are just beginning to roll out that plan and he hasn’t seen
the plan or seen details yet.
Hoagland asked
whether there was anything we could do toward a resolution tonight. Sloan asked
Seel whether this plan is being used for this year’s searches. He said no.
Sloan then said that as this is not an urgent problem, a better-considered
resolution could be drafted for the April 1 meeting, though we could also draft
a resolution and consider it tonight. L. Davis commented that there could be
some urgency, as in the School of Business ads are already being put together
for next fall, and the conferences and the interview process start in the last
half of July, with the search committees going to the conferences. Sloan
concluded that it’s up to the Senate to decide whether we construct a
resolution tonight or wait until April 1. If we are to entertain a resolution
tonight it would most appropriately go after Senate elections and before
adjournment.
6.
Approval of minutes from Meeting #472
Hamlin
moved that the minutes be approved; Malette seconded the motion; and the
motion passed on a voice vote with
no opposition.
7.
President’s Report
Proposals
1-09: A Proposal to Allow the Reuse of Some of Michigan Tech Credits in the Pursuit of Multiple Graduate Degrees, was approved by the administration on March 10 with some additional editorial changes. These changes are replacing "research" with "research/practicum" credits and "non-research" with "non-research/non-practicum") to be consistent with the proposal statement that: "Research or practicum credits cannot be applied toward more than one degree". As these changes were discussed on the Senate floor without much problem, the chair has ruled that these are editorial. The Senate, of course, is free to overrule the chair on this point. If so, the proposal will be brought back to the Senate at its next two meetings.
Proposal 5-09: Proposal
for a Masters Degree Program in Computer Engineering and 6-09: Proposal
for a Doctor of Philosophy Degree in Computer Engineering were
approved by the administration on February 17 and by the Board of Control on
March 5. They were sent downstate the next day to meet the agenda deadline for
the state Academic Officers meeting on April 17. If they are approved there,
they will return to the Board of Control for a second approval at its May 1
meeting.
Provost
Search Committee
The provost’s search committee comprises,
besides Mari Buche, David Flaspohler, Nancy Grimm, Alex Mayer, and Erik
Nordberg, whom we elected: Amy Hughes and Theresa Jacques from Staff Council,
graduate representative Jill Witt, undergraduate representative Sarah Anderton,
and in addition Ravi Pandey, Tim Schulz, Jackie Huntoon, Darrell Radson, and
Dave Reed, the Senate president and Anita Quinn, HR ex-officio.
The committee will
meet for the first time on March 26 with consultant Dr. Robert Lawless of
Academic Search and will elect its chair and vice-chair.
Aetna
At the request of several Senators and
constituents, the Senate will start collecting accounts of experiences with
Aetna, Tech’s new health insurer. Such accounts can either be sent to me (masloan@mtu.edu) or to Senate Benefits
Committee chair, Dana Johnson, dana@mtu.edu.
Evaluation
of President
The Senate Administrative Policy Committee
has arranged for an on-line evaluation of the president through March 26.
Please encourage your constituents to participate.
Officers
for 2009–2010
The 2009–2010 Senate will elect its officers
on April 15. Candidates for Senate officers are now being sought. Officers must
be 2009–2010 Senators (not Alternates). The current president is term-limited
so there will be a new president. The vice president has announced that he will
be a candidate for another term. The secretary also has announced she will be a
candidate for another term, but she will be on leave for spring 2010. To run
for vice president, a candidate must be a staff member; to run for president or
secretary, a candidate must be a faculty member.
Caneba commented that
the deadline for the evaluation of the President has been moved to March 27.
8. Old
Business: Proposal 7-09: “Repeat Policy” presented by the Curricular Policy
Committee Sloan stated that this proposal has come to the Senate before, and
there has been some reworking of it. We want it to be clear as it will be read
by undergraduate students, and for the benefit of students we want to make sure
that it is something we can all agree on. Keen moved approval of the proposal and asked for an editorial
correction to change “college dean” to “school dean” in the next to the last
line. The motion was approved by
voice vote with no opposition.
9. New
Business
The only new business is the Spring 2009 Senate elections.
10.
2009 Senate Elections
Sloan noted that a chart was handed out
listing the nominations that have been received for all positions, and other
nominees have been received since this chart was compiled.
For the sabbatical
leave committee, the Senate is to provide a slate of candidates to the
President from which he will pick the committee. The only candidate we have for
this committee is Mary Durfee, who is eligible because she has taken a
sabbatical leave. Sloan asked it there are any other nominations for this
committee. Seeing no other nominees, Sloan ruled that Durfee is elected to the
slate to go to the President.
For the conflict of
interest committee, there are two nominees: Greg Graman and Brenda Helminen.
There were no other nominations. Helminen was elected to the committee.
For the distance
learning committee, there is one nominee: Kedmon Hungwe. There were no other
nominations. Sloan declared Hungwe elected to that committee.
For the two positions
on the misconduct committee, there is one nominee: Paul Charlesworth. Brett
Hamlin nominated himself for the other position. There
were no other nominations. Sloan declared Charlesworth and Hamlin elected to
that committee.
For the public safety
committee, there is one nominee: Paul Raymond. There were no other nominations.
Sloan declared Raymond elected to that committee.
Hamlin moved to close nominations for all
those remaining committees for which we have a nominee (academic integrity, one
position on the faculty distinguished award committee, and commission for
women), Luck seconded the motion, and it passed
on a voice vote with no dissent. Sloan asked whether there were any other
nominations for these committees. There were none.
Luck observed that
traditionally people have been chosen for these positions in the fall, and we
can still do that for the positions that have no nominees yet. Sloan added that
the administration will be pressing for nominees for other important
committees, so these elections will be continued later.
Storer moved to elect the single candidates
for the academic integrity committee and the commission for women, Givens
seconded the motion, and it passed
on a voice vote with no dissent. Brett Hamlin was elected to the academic
integrity committee, and Audrey Mayer was elected to the commission for women.
Sloan said that we do
not need to send out a ballot, because there is only
one or no candidates for the positions that need approval by the faculty
(faculty senator at large (2), academic integrity committee, faculty
distinguished award committee (2), faculty review committee (4), and the
commission on women).
Sloan asked if anyone
wants to present a resolution tonight on the subject of the ADVANCE grant.
Hoagland moved that it is the sense
of the Senate that the CEP portion of the ADVANCE grant be redesigned so that
outside members not be assigned to internal search
committees. While the overall goals of the ADVANCE grant are laudable, the CEP
program does nothing to “build a collegial framework.” Vable seconded the
motion.
Miller said that the
CEP program was something that came out as a best practice in the research done
for the grant. The PIs would be open to input, but I wouldn’t be comfortable
saying to them that you must do it another way.
Storer said as a
member of a unit that has outside members on our internal search committees I’m
not sure about the wording “not be assigned.” If there’s a list of 22 CEPs,
couldn’t they be selected. I’d like to hear about an
alternative.
Vable asked whether
this is a proposal that will need to be decided at the next meeting. Sloan said
it is a sense of the senate resolution, so it can be decided at this meeting.
Anyone who feels strongly about wanting to go back to their unit to discuss it
before voting could make a motion to table it.
Storer moved to table the motion, and Klooster
seconded the motion. By a vote of 26 to 3, the motion was tabled. The state of the house resolution will be considered at the
next meeting.
11.
Adjournment.
President Sloan adjourned the meeting at 6:58
pm.
Respectfully submitted
by Marilyn Cooper
Secretary of the University Senate