The University Senate
of Michigan Technological University
Minutes of
Meeting 510
5 October 2011
Synopsis:
The Senate
·
Proposal 1-12 passed
·
Proposal 2-12 passed
·
Proposal 3-12 passed
·
Proposal 4-12 passed
·
Proposal 5-12 passed
1. Call to order and roll call. President Rudy Luck called the University Senate Meeting 510
to order at 5:30 pm on Wednesday, October 5, 2011. The Senate Secretary Marty
Thompson called roll. Absent were representatives of Biomedical Engineering,
Physics and Staff Council and Senators Sha, Koszykowsk and Panian.
2. Recognition of visitors. Guests included Max Seel (Provost), Mike Patterson (Dining
Services), John Lehman (Enrollment), Mike Meyer (Physics), William Kennedy (CTLFD),
Ravi Pandey (Physics) and Jacqueline Huntoon
(Graduate School).
3. Approval of agenda. Luck
asked if there were any changes; there being none Luck declared the agenda
stood approved.
4. Approval of minutes from Meeting 509. Luck
asked if there were any changes; there being none Luck declared the minutes
stood approved.
5. Presentation: “2011 Michigan Tech Teaching Award Winner – Michael
Meyer”
Kennedy introduced Meyer, recipient of the 2011
teaching award. Meyer centered his discussed on the ways in which higher education
is changing. He provided several examples of ways in which he has crafted his
courses in physics to the changing mindset and value system of students,
including; pre-lecture quizzes, confidence building and mentoring. Meyers stated
his overarching goal is to have some fun and learn some physics. He concluded
by presenting three demonstrations to illustrate the joy of physics. Mullins
asked if test scores increase from testing more often and made a comparison to
European higher education. Meyers noted that in the United States, we are
striving towards self-assessment, but currently are not ready for that approach.
Pandey said Meyers teaches the early-year students. Luck said that many
countries only take the top students, whereas in America most students are
accepted. Meyers stated that the labs are attendance and experience. He noted
that the average grade in his course ranges from a BC to a C. Pandey said they
are not physics majors. Schutte asked if the pre-lecture grade means they do not
perform after a grade has been given. Meyers noted that there needs to be some
grading pressure because if students are not rewarded for an activity it will
not happen. Luck thanked Meyers
6.
Presentation: “Enrollment
Statistics” by John Lehman
Bulleit, Institutional
Planning Committee, introduced Lehman, assistant vice-president for enrollment
services. Lehman delivered the 2011
enrollment report. Overall enrollment is 7031, up from 6976 from last year. He
provided data for graduate student, female and international enrollment – all
of which has increased. Lehman compared the ACT scores of students admitted to
Tech versus the national ACT score averages from 2000-2011. He noted that freshman
to sophomore retention rates increased to 83.3%. Luck asked how student loans and retention
rates correlate. Lehman said that the highest retention rate was for those with
little or no student loans, whereas higher loan amounts show a decreased
retention rate. Mullins asked if the time to graduation has changed. Lehman said
he has not looked at that. Seel said Tech is third, behind Michigan State
University and the University of Michigan, but the difference was not
significant. Mullins said if we have more students taking fewer credit hours
and taking longer to graduate, it will appear as if we have more students
overall. Lehman said there was a decrease in non-compulsory classes. Mullins
asked if students were not taking overloads and remarked on the decrease in
average credit hours per semester. Lehman said he did not know and remarked
that the per student semester credit hours dropped from 14.2 to 14.1. Vable said
the ACT scores show a nice Gaussian distribution but course grade distributions
are bimodal. He said this was cause for concern because the students in the lower mode are more likely to repeat courses, take more effort and time to teach, and pose a problem in retention rates, as they may be more likely to drop-out. Vable suggested the Provost Office or enrollment services need to explain this discrepancy. Lehman said he saw this phenomenon in
out of state students and it should be looked into. He then introduced the new undergraduate recruitment
campaign. Barkdoll asked if we can find out why students choose not to come to
Tech. Lehman performs cancellation surveys but the data acquired is difficult
to make use of. Barkdoll asked which schools students attend rather than Tech.
Lehman said Michigan State University and the University of Michigan.
7. Report from the Senate President
Luck
expressed his happiness that nearly all senator positions are filled. He then
read Senate By-Law C.4. and proposed that we announce committee meeting times
so any member of the university community can attend. Presentation slides from
the presentation at the Board of Control are on the web. Referring to President
Mroz’s campus forum, Luck stated the President’s solution to parking was bike
lanes, walking lanes and added bus service. Luck then noted that previously
submitted parking proposals could be revisited.
8. Report from Senate Standing Committees
Barr,
Fringe Benefits Committee (FBC), reported that the committee met. She added
that she and two others on the FBC were present for the most recent Benefits
Liaison Group (BLG) meeting, where sick leave policy and health insurance were
discussed. Barr concluded by stating that the BLG will be meeting with President
Mroz about total compensation. Luck noted the Daily Mining Gazette article quoting
President Mroz regarding pay raises.
9. Old Business
Proposal 1-12 : “Proposal to Modify Senate Policy
413.1: Accelerated Master’s Programs”
Storer, Curricular Policy Committee,
reiterated
the fact that this was a modification of last
years accelerated masters programs. He read the friendly amendment regarding
tracking the numbers of students enrolled in this program over time and to
report the results to the senate. The final wording change replaces the text, ‘The Dean of the Graduate School will report
to the Senate on the number of accelerated master’s programs and enrollment in
these programs’ with the new text, ‘The
Dean of the Graduate School will report to the Senate on the number of
accelerated master’s programs, enrollment in these programs, the number of
enrolled master’s students who received their undergraduate degree from
Michigan Tech and the number of these that are in accelerated master’s
programs. In addition, this report will include a comparison with the data from
previous years’. Luck said this was a clarification of existing text.
Huntoon expected her office could get the newly described information. Luck
noted the voting issues of a clarifying text versus a major change requiring
two weeks before voting. Vable noted the grade point average (GPA) is 3.0
minimum and asked if each program could make it higher than that. Storer noted
that with declining grades, students could be taken out of the program. Vable
asked if continuation GPA, after admission into the program, could be set
higher. Huntoon said departments can make more restrictive policies and not
less restrictive policies than the graduate school. Storer noted the
continuation and minimum GPA wording could reflect that departments can be more
restrictive. Luck asked if GPA requirements were higher in Mechanical
Engineering-Engineering Mechanics (ME-EM). Vable stated this was a serious
issue among his constituents and noted that ME-EM was reducing enrollment in master’s
programs. He sought the flexibility for departments to make the criteria more
restrictive. Huntoon provided some clarifying language but once a student is admitted
departments cannot require a higher GPA. Storer added the language to permit
programs to define additional or more restrictive criteria for admission and
continuation. Luck noted students can continue in the graduate program so long
as they maintain a GPA of at least 3.0 and inquired as to why students should
be required to maintain a 3.4 GPA if required for admission. Vable asked for
flexibility in wording so departments could set these criteria. Huntoon said
the flexibility would be a good idea because students enroll during their
sophomore year and a lot can happen in the ensuing few years. Luck asked for
final language. Storer rephrased the clarifications into the final wording.
Luck noted the GPA must be maintained if admitted as sophomores through their
graduation. Luck asked for comments; there being
none he called for a vote on the clarifications; the new text passed unanimously on a voice vote. Luck asked if there were any additional
discussion on the proposal; there being none he called for a vote; the proposal
passed unanimously on a voice vote.
Proposal 2-12: “Graduate Appeals of Suspension or Dismissal”
Kampe, Instructional Policy
Committee, reiterated
how appeals will be implemented and
administered. Luck asked for discussion; there being none he called for a vote;
the proposal passed unanimously on a voice vote.
Proposal 3-12: “Graduate Good Academic Standing and
Dismissal”
Kampe, Instructional Policy
Committee, reiterated how this proposal defines good academic standing for
graduate students. He presented some minor editorial clarifications. Luck asked
for comments; there being none he called for a vote; the proposal passed unanimously on a voice vote.
Proposal 4-12: “Graduate Scholastic Standards”
Kampe, Instructional Policy
Committee, reiterated how the proposal formalizes into policy existing
procedures. Luck asked for discussion; there being none he called for a vote;
the proposal passed unanimously on a voice vote.
Proposal 5-12
: “Graduate Grievances”
Kampe, Instructional Policy Committee,
restated the policy. He presented some minor editorial clarifications and noted
the ombudsman office is a resource that students should be made aware of. Luck
asked for comments; there being none he called for a vote; the proposal passed unanimously on a voice vote.
10. New Business
There was no new business
11. Adjournment. Onder moved to adjourn;
Storer seconded; Luck adjourned the
meeting at 6:34pm.
Respectfully submitted
by Marty Thompson
Secretary of the University Senate