UNIVERSITY SENATE
ATTENDANCE
Meeting of: bL'vu<«VJf £/.o} /rtf()
UNIVERSITY AT
ALBANY
STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK
UNIVERSITY SENATE
Monday, February 26, 1990
3:30p.m. --Campus Center Assen;tbly Hall
AGENDA
1.
Approval of Minutes: University Senate, December 4, 1989
2.
President's Report
3.
SUNY -wide Senate Report
4.
Chair's Report
5.
Council Reports
a.
Council on Academic Freedom and Ethics - H. Hamilton
b.
Council on Educational Policy- B. Marsh
c.
Graduate Academic Council- K. Ratcliff
d.
Council on Libraries, Computing and Information Systems- V. Aceto
e.
Council on Promotion and Continuing Appointment - J. Fetter ley
f.
Council on Research- E. Reilly
g.
Student Affairs Council - S. Rhoads
h.
Undergraduate Academic Council- J. Levato
i.
University Community Council-S. Jones
6.
Old Business
a.
Senate Bill 8990-07: Reorganization of Senate Councils
7.
New Business
a.
Appointments to Councils
b.
Senate Bill 8990-11: Summer Session Withdrawals
c.
Senate Bill 8990-12: Adding A Course
d.
Senate Bill 8990-13: Policies on Graduation Credits
e.
Senate Bill 8990-14: Cross-Listing of Courses
f.
Senate Bill 8990-15: Ph.D. Program in English
g.
Senate Bill 8990-16: Change in Council Name
8.
Adjournment
University Senate
518 442-5406
Administration 259
Albany, New York
12222
U-N I V E R S I T Y AT
ALBANY
University Senate
518 442-5406
STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK
PRESENT:
UNIVERSITY SENATE
February 26, 1990
Administration 259
Albany, New York
12222
V. Aceto, R. Bosco, D. Brighton, M. Butler, C. Carr, D. Christiansen, D.
Cohen, L. Coniglio, G. DeSole, R. Farrell, J. Fetterley, R. Garvin, H.
Ghiradella, R. Gibson, R. Greene, H. Gueutal, J. Gullahorn, H. Hamilton, W.
Hammond, A. Hoffer, J. Hudson, W. Hehman, J. Jacklet, S. Jones, S. Kim, M.
Knee, M. Krohn, T. Lance, W. Lanford, L. Larwood, P. Leonard, J. Luks, A.
Macario, J. Mackiewicz, B. Marsh, D. Meliti, H. Mendelsohn, S. Messner, G.
Miglino, T. Mirer, V. O'Leary, D. Parker, K. Ratcliff, D. Reeb, E. Reilly, M.
Sattinger, I. Steen, G. Stevens, R. Stross, L. Tornatore, G. Walker, A.
Weinberg.
The meeting was called to order by Chair Bosco at 3:35p.m.
1.
Approval of Minutes
The minutes of the December 4, 1989, meeting were moved and seconded. Senator
Hamilton made the following correction on page 2 under Council on Academic
Freedom and Ethics Council Report. "Senator Hamilton stated certain procedures
:
outlined in this memorandum were not protected by academic freedom." should read
"Senator Hamilton stated that while certain activities mentioned in the flyer were
indeed not protected by our freedom of expression policy, other activities were, and
the University position on the matter should be clarified." The minutes were
approved as corrected.
2.
President's Report
President O'Leary reported on three items:
1. President O'Leary stated that the budget is complex and unclear this year. The
SUNY system budget proposed by the Governor is a standstill budget, but the State
Legislature has to present a budget which the Comptroller agrees is in balance.
Therefore, revenue estimates are important, and revenue for this year is down. As a
result, the Division of the Budget ordered all State agencies to establish a "freeze."
Even though this does not apply to the SUNY system, Chancellor Johnstone has agreed
to follow suit, said the President.
2. EPC will soon be discussing Division I athletics at the University at Albany. It is
important to note that the new sporting facility will be open in the summer of 1991.
A proposal to gauge the sentiment of others will be submitted to the Senate.
-2-
3. President O'Leary gave the background on the plans for the new library. A
cousultant suggested that the library be 40 percent larger than the current 181,000
net square feet. Since there is no room for expansion of the present library, a
separate facility will have to be constructed. The consultant suggested the books dn
science and mathematics can be taken out of the existing library and moved to new
quarters with minimal consequences.
The UAS Board has already agreed to expand the Campus Center, and the architect
proposed that two wings be added to the existing Campus Center. These wings would
accommodate a larger bookstore and a food court. The new library would be built in
modules and connected to the two wings. The Task Force on Library Construction,
chaired by Robert Donovan, is being asked to now consider the question of what is to
be moved to the new library.
3.
SUNY-wide Senate Report
A written report was distributed. Senator Aceto reported on resolutions passed that
were not included in the report: the establishment of a committee to deal with
governance; a proposal to enl;:1rge the operations of the committee to include
libraries, information systems and computing; and a cotnbirted resolution- dealing with
academic freedom and an amendment to the education laws to close meetings. The
latter did not pass.
4.
Chair's Report
Chair Bosco reported that President O'Leary, Vice President Ilchman and he created
an Advisory Committee for the purpose of beginning a year long review of the
General Education program on campus. This committee will report its findings to the
Chair of the Senate and the President. When the report is received, it will be turned
over to UAC for review.
5.
Council Reports
a. Council on Academic Freedom and Ethics: Senator Hamilton reported that the
Council is beginning discussion with the bookstore on their policy on whether to sell a
particular book when there is pressure to ban it. The Council is continuing to look at·
faculty ethics statements. The campus is in the first year of the poster policy, said
Senator Hamilton. The Council is working with Campus Activities Office for
refinement of the policy if necessary. So far the Council has received one poster to
review. CAFE received two complaints from two faculty members of unethical
behavior against other members of the university community.
b. Council on Educational Policy: Senator Marsh reported that all committees are
active. EPC will be looking into Division I and will probably be submitting a proposal
on assessment next meeting.
c. Graduate Academic Council: Senator Ratcliff reported that the Council met
twice on the Ph.D. Program in English which will be acted upon later in the meeting.
d. Council on Libraries, Computing and Information Systems: Senator Aceto had
nothing to add to the written report which was distributed. Senator Aceto pointed out
the resolution sent to President O'Leary recommending no additional support of
WANG.
e. Council on Promotion and Continuing Appointment: Senator Fetterley had nothing
to report.
f. Council on Research: Senator Reilly had nothing to report.
-3-
g. Student Affairs Council: Senator Luks reported for Senator Rhoads. The Council
is continuing it work on st.udent parking at the Student Health Center. Senator
Rhoads will meet with Vice President Hartigan on this issue before further action is
taken.
h. Undergraduate Academic Council: Senator Messner reported for Senator Levato.
There are four bills to be acted upon later.
i. University Community ~ouncil: Senator Jones reported that the Council has been
meeting regularly. The Council has drafted a new charge which will be sent to the
Executive Committee in the form of a bill soon.
6.
Old Business
a. Senate Bill 8990-07: Reorganization of Senate Councils. Senator Aceto will
answer any questions.
Senator Luks moved to amend the bill to raise the number of undergraduate students
on the Student Affairs Council from three to five. The motion was seconded. Senator
Aceto stated that all Councils have student membership. The TasK: Force Clio not feel
that this Council needs additional students because there are the same number of
students as there are teaching faculty and professional employees. The vote on the
amendment was defeated.
Senate Bill 8990-07 was passed as submitted.
7.
New Business
a. Appointments to Councils. The list of new appointments was moved and seconded
to vote on the assigment to the Councils as circulated in the agenda packet. The
appointments were approved.
b-e. Chair Bosco stated that Senate Bills 8990-11 through 8990-14 come to the
Senate floor moved and seconded. (Senate Bill 8990-11, Summer Session Withdrawals;
Senate Bill 8990-12, Adding A Course; Senate Bill 8990-13, Policies on Graduation
Credits; Senate Bill 8990-14, Cross-Listing of Courses) Chair Bosco asked to move
these bills as a package; the Senate concurred.
Senator Lanford questioned Senate Bill 8990-14, I. 2. on why undergraduate and
graduate courses cannot be cross-listed. Senator Messner stated that cross-listing
refers to undergraduate courses that are similar. Shared resources courses are for
undergraduate and graduate courses.
Senator Farrell noted that Senate Bills 8990-11 through 8990-13 deal with
undergraduate policy only and asked that that be indicated. Chair Bosco agreed.
Senate Bills 8990-11 through 8990-14 were approved as submitted.
f. Senate Bill 8990-15: Ph.D. Program in English. Senator Ratcliff stated that the
campus once had a Ph.D. program in English. GAC is now reinstituting the degree.
This program is different from the original and has been thoroughly reviewed by four
external reviewers. Senate Bill 8990-15 comes moved and seconded. The bill was
approved unanimously.
g. Senate Bill 8990-16: Change in Council Name. Senate Bill 8990-16 comes moved
and seconded from the Executive Committee. Senator Hamilton explained that the
bill was intended to make the Council name coincide with its initials (LISC). The bill
was approved.
-4-
President O'Leary called the Senate's attention to the newly restored wall in the
Assembly Hall.
The meeting adjourned at 4:40p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Gloria DeS~/__: fl~
J__._
Secretary
REPORT OF SUNY FACULTY SENATE MEETING
STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK AT BUFFALO
FEBRUARY 1-3, 1990
I.
Address by SUNY Faculty Senate President Markee
Chancellor Johnstone, ordinarily present at the beginning
of the Faculty Senate Meeting, would not be able to arrive until
the next day.
Instead of the usual address by the Chancellor,
followed by a question and answer period on random topics,
senators were asked to meet with others of their type of campus
and to formulate questions, appropriate to their institutions,
which addressed issues which are now of the greatest concern
for the state-wide system.
Those issues are:
A.
Assessment.
What is the next step, and how do we bring
about greater faculty participation?
B.
Faculty hiring.
The nation-wide problem of how to
replenish the professoriate.
C.
Retention and promotion in Affirmative Action.
Continuing the concern of attracting minority faculty, and how
to monitor and support the progress of those hired through term-
renewals and tenure.
D.
Academic standards and access.
These are connected
issues of how we maintain standards and fulfill societal needs.
E.
Research and academic standards.
The issue here will
focus especially on animal welfare.
II.
Address by Vice Chancellor William Anslow on the budget
The Vice Chancellor gave what was SUNY-Central's impression
of the situation as of February 1, namely, that SUNY was
protected, and that it was the best executive budget for SUNY
in some years.
His prognostications of the future are now being
worked out (February 26).
III.
Report by Dennis Malone, SUNY Faculty Senate Secretary,
on meetings of the Executive Committee
The concerns of the Executive Committee, on meetings on
Nov. 17, DEC. 15, and Feb. 1, were:
Master Capital Plan;
membership on the Animal Welfare Committee; National Networks
on Faculty Senates; AAUP censure of SUNY; budget; fees;
Affirmative Action review boards; representation on the Board
of Trustees; SUNY-CUNY faculty exchanges and articulation
(especially with regards to part-time faculty); equipment funding
for the sciences; faculty involvement in honorary degrees; and
a Faculty-Senate newsletter.
IV.
Address by Chancellor D. Bruce Johnstone
In a brief address, Chancellor Johnstone spoke regarding
the areas where he thought the voice of the faculty was most
important:
A.
The heart of the curriculum, especially how do we admit
the main European origins of our civilization and still recognize
the contributions of Asia and Africa.
What about literacy and
language learning?
B.
Standards for students: admission and completion
c.
Standards and expectations of the professoriate.
What
should the balance be between teaching and research, how do
we protect minority and junior faculty from unfair work-load?
v.
Question and answer period
Representatives from each type of campus asked questions
of the Chancellor.
The principal concerns of the University
Centers concentrated on graduate students and teaching
assistants, user fees, international students, and the
professoriate (how to reproduce and how to retain).
Vincent J. Aceto
Paul w. Wallace
UNIVERSITY SENATE
Report of Libraries, Computing and Information Systems Council
February 26, 1990
The Council met twice since the last Senate meeting. The following topics
were discussed:
1. Inter-Active Media Center (IMC)
The Council invited Executive Vice President Ilchman to discuss some
concerns about the lack of consultation with appropriate governance bodies in the
creation of the IMC. Speaking for the Council, the Chair enthusiastically
supported the Vice President's commitment to instructional technology, as
evidenced by the IMC, and indicated the desire of Council members to work with
the administration to promote further progress in this area. Vice President
Ilchman identified the events that led to the creation of the IMC, particularly the
collapse of the language lab in the Humanities building last spring. Over this past
summer, some faculty were consulted informally on the purchase of hardware and
software. Unfortunately, the Council was not consulted because decisions had to
be made quickly early in the summer. In response to questions about the
appropriate advisory body for the IMC, Vice President Ilchman assured the
Council they would be the group to provide advice and to develop policies for the
IMC.
2. Instructional Technology Committee
The Council discussed the relationship of the IMC to the larger question or
the governance body responsible for instructional technology. All agreed this was
part of the Council's charge. After prolonged discussion, the Council unanimously
agreed to create a new instructional technology committee patterned after the two
existing committees with members appointed by the Council and the
administration.
3. Committee Membership
The membership of the three Council committees are:
3.1 Computing Advisory Committee
Peter Bloniarz, Chair; Kathy Lowery; George Richardson; Peter
Duchesi; Harold Story; Thomas Galvin; Christopher Smith; Timothy Gage.
3.2 Collection Development Advisory Committee
Robert Donovan, Chair; Liliana Goldin; David Panyard; ; Lindsay
Childs; Suchete Mazumdar; Rose Marie Weber; Burton Gummer; Joseph Morehead.
3.3 Instructional Technology Advisory Committee
Robert Pruzek, Chair; Pete Seagle; Timothy Lance; Karen Swan; Ray
Ortali; Bruce Marsh; Ted Jennings; Robert Roselini; Robert Bengert-Drowns; Sam
McGee-Russell.
2
4. SITE Report
(.
A continuing agenda item for the Council was the SITE (Shaping the
Technology Environment) document prepared at the President's request by
Associate Vice President Frank Lees. Associate Vice President Lees is to be
commended for sharing this document with the Council from its inception and
requesting recommendations from the Council for changes and additions. The SITE
document has had at least five iterations with the latest version released this
month. A summary of the document will be prepared for the next Senate meeting.
5. Fine Policies for the IMC
The Council approved a fine policy which conforms to existing
policies for print formats. The policy states:
5.1 Hourly IMC loans: Follow the Reserve Room fine policy
of $2.00/hour for late return of h.ourly loans, accruing to a maximum
of $30.00.
5.2 Daily IMC loans: Follow the recall fine policy of $1.00
per day, accruing to a maximum of $16.00.
5.3 Replacement/damage fee for IMC materials: Follow bill-
for-replacement policy of charging the accrued fine, processing fee
and replacement cost.
6. Library Construction Task Force
The Task Force, chaired by Robert Donovan, submitted its report to the
President last spring. Since that time a consultant was brought in to review
proposed plans for the new library. Based on the consultant's report and
discussions with administrative personnel, the plans for the new library were
changed to include a much larger facility. The Task Force will be meeting this
( ..
semester to review the new plan and to make additional recommendations to the
President.
•
•
•
£1 Mj-J24itil4~R't'Ae-d
7. Computing Advisory Committee
~n-
·
The committee met several times since the last,Senate me ting and
identified a number of objectives for the year. These include: , of a computer
store, review of experimental policy on allocation of main-frame computer
resources, and networking of microcomputers.
8. Collection Development Advisory Committee
The committee is reviewing the present structure for providing advice on
allocation of resources for collection development.
9. Instructional Technology Committee
The committee has been meeting on a biweekly basis since its formation in
December. Vince Aceto provided background on the formation of the committee
and explained its dual function as an advisory eommittee to the administration and
a governance committee of the Council. Frank Lees and Vince Aceto presented the
following charge to the committee:
9.1. Members serve the University at large, not as
represen ta ti ves of their respective schools and departments.
9 .2. All rna tters of broad U ni versi ty interest that relate to
instructional technology should be of concern to this committee.
However, its role should center on policy recommendations
concerning the most effective ways to take advantage of developing
instructional technology.
(
9.3. The committee is expected to be both reactive and
proactive in developing policies and making recommendations for
specific plans for improving instruction with technology.
9.4. The committee is expected to draft bills related to
instructional technology that will be sent forward to its parent
Council and, when appropriate, on to the Senate for action.
The committee made numerous recommendation related to the SITE
document. The most important recommendation, introduced by Bruce Marsh, urged
no additional resources be spent on the WANG administrative system. More
specifically, the resolution stated:
The instructional technology committee recommends that no
additional resources be committed to or invested in expansion or
upgrades of the WANG system on campus. Indeed, we recommend
that as soon as feasible the WANG system be phased out. If
additional WANG stations are seen as needed at selected
administrative levels, or if it is necessary to take pressure off the
system by reducing the number of nodes, we recommend that this be
3
done by taking WANGS from departments and replacing them with_
_ _______ _
more suitable equipment.
-
-
-
-
The resolution was passed unanimously and was sent to the President.
Frank Lees reported that he also was recommending there be no increased support
for the WANG administrative system with gradual migration to microcomputers
with LANS.
The committee requested that a catalog of instructional technology
hardware be prepared for distribution to the faculty. Frank Lees will ask the
Educational Communications Center to prepare such a catalog.
Frank Lees presented a draft proposal for a LAN for the IMC requested by
Vice President Ilchman. After prolonged discussion the committee instructed the
Chairs of the Council and the committee to meet with Vice President Ilchman to
express their concerns over this large resource allocation and to propose an
alternative allocation. This proposal specifically recommended funding for:
9.1 Mobile authoring stations be placed in general areas on
campus to maximize use and encourage development of home-grown
courseware.
9.2 Large projection devices capable of projecting computer
images in large lecture centers and other classrooms.
9.3 Highly selective purchase of media relevant to specific
instructional needs of faculty.
9.4 Installation of a basic LAN for the IMC which will
support MAC and DOS environments and be connected to the
University backbone.
A meeting was held with Vice President Ilchman and Associate Vice
President Nepaulsingh to present this proposal. After a productive exchange of
views and reassurance by the committee members of support for the success of the
IMC, it was agreed that authoring stations would be purchased for placement at
selected locations on campus.
10. Finally, two sub-committees were appointed to work on special
assignments. One committee is preparing a statement of policies for the acquisition
and utilization of instructional technology hardware and software. A second sub-
committee is working on a campus-wide survey of faculty to determine current and
anticipated use of instructional technology.
UNIVERSITY SENATE
UNIVERSITY AT ALBANY
STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK
REORGANIZATION OF COUNCILS
INTRODUCED BY: Executive Committee of University Senate
DATE:
November 30, 1989
IT IS HEREBY PROPOSED THAT THE FOLLOWING BE· ADOPTED:
Bill 8990-07
I.
The attached reorganization of Councils be adopted beginning with the 1990-91
University Senate.
II.
This bill be forwarded to the President for his approval.
PURPOSE: To reorganize the University Senate in accordance with the amendments to
the Faculty By-Laws passed by the Faculty in Spring 1989.
BACKGROUND: The By-Laws amendments reduced the number of elected and ex officio
senators by approximately one-third. Using this as a general guide, appropriate
proportional reductions were made on most of the Councils.
COUNCIL ON ACADEMIC FREEDOM AND ETHICS
Composition:
Four Teaching Faculty (two must be senators);
One Professional Employee;
One Undergraduate Student;
One Graduate Student.
COUNCIL ON EDUCATIONAL POLICY
Composition:
The President of the University, ex officio;
The three Vice Presidents who are members of the University
Senate;
A member of the Conference of Academic Deans;
Eight Teaching Faculty (four must be senators);
Three Professional Employees (one must be a senator);
Four Students: three undergraduates, one graduate (two must
be senators).
GRADUATE ACADEMIC COUNCIL
Composition:
The Dean of Graduate Studies or his/her designee, ex officio;
Six Teaching Faculty (two must be senators and one must be a
library staff member);
One Professional Employee;
One Undergraduate Student;
Three Graduate Students (one must be a senator).
COUNCIL ON LIBRARIES, COMPUTING AND INFORMATION SYSTEMS
Composition:
The Associate Vice President for Information Systems, ex
officio;
Director of Libraries, ex officio;
Director of Computing Services Center, ex officio;
Nine Teaching Faculty, two each from the College of
Humanities and Fine Arts, the College of Social and Behavioral
Sciences, the College of Science and Mathematics, and one from
the Professional Schools taken together (three must be sentors);
One Professional Employee;
One Undergraduate Student;
One Graduate Student.
COUNCIL ON PROMOTIONS AND CONTINUING APPOINTMENTS
Composition:
The Executive Vice President for Academic Affairs, ex officio;
Eight Teaching Faculty (four must be senators);
One Professional Employee;
Two Undergraduate Students (one must be a senator);
Two Graduate Students.
COUNCIL ON RESEARCH
Composition:
The Vice President for Research or his/her designee, ex officio;
Seven Teaching Faculty (two must be senators);
One Professional Employee;
One Undergraduate Student;
Two Graduate Students.
STUDENT AFFAIRS COUNCIL
Composition:
The Vice President for Student Affairs or his/her designee, ex
officio;
Three Teaching Faculty (one must be a senator);
Three Professional Employees (one must be a senator);
Three Undergraduate Students (one must be a senator);
One Graduate Student.
UNDERGRADUATE ACADEMIC COUNCIL
Composition:
The Dean of Undergraduate Studies or his/her designeee, ex officio;
Six Teaching Faculty (three must be senators);
Two Professional Employees (one must be a senator);
Three Undergraduate Students (one must be a senator);
One Graduate Student.
UNIVERSITY COMMUNITY COUNCIL
Composition:
The Vice President for University Advancement or his/her designeej
ex officio;
Three Teaching Faculty (one must be a senator)
One Professional Employee
Two Undergraduate Students (one must be a senator)
One Graduate Student
One Staff Member
FACULTY SENATOR CHANGES
Delete
Libraries
Steve Atkinson (1987-90)
Assigned to EPC
Science and Mathematics
Paulette McCormick (1989-92)
Assigned to Council on Research
Ann Farmer
Assigned to LISC
Barbara Schoonmaker
Assigned to LISC
Kelly Bates
Assigned to UAC
Laurie Beth Cohen
Assigned to EPC
Jason Epstein
Assigned to CAFE
Steve Jacobsen
No Council assignment
Richard Ringel
Assigned to DCC
Genice Lee
FACULTY MEMBERS
STUDENT SENATORS
Replace With
Dorothy E. Christiansen (1990)
Proposed for EPC
Raymond Stross (1990)
Proposed for Council on Research
(Spring 1990 only)
John Jenkins
Proposed for UAC
Daniella Korotzer
Proposed for EPC
Brett Reish
Proposed for CAFE
Jennifer Leiffer
Proposed for CAFE
Glenn Graham
Proposed for DCC
(Previously assigned to CAFE, Ms. Lee will be a Senator without a Council assignment.)
Sandra Bradshaw
Assigned to DCC
Revised 2/1/90
COUNCIL CHANGES
Librada Pimentel
Proposed for DCC
I
UNIVERSITY SENATE
UNIVERSITY AT ALBANY
STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK
SUMMER SESSION WITHDRAWALS
Bill 8990-11
INTRODUCED BY: Undergraduate Academic Council
DATE:
November 30, 1989
IT IS HEREBY PROPOSED THAT THE FOLLOWING BE ADOPTED:
I.
WHEREAS it has been a longstanding practice that Summer Session withdrawal from
individual three, four, or six week sessions would be allowed to occur up to the last
class date for the session in which the student was enrolled and
II.
WHEREAS the last date to drop a summer course for an individual three, four, or six
week session is one to two weeks prior to the established withdrawal date,
BE IT RESOLVED THAT the last day to drop a Summer Session course in a session or
module is one day prior to the last day of classes for that session.
That this bill be forwarded to the President for approval and implementation.
.:a--)/
BACKGROUND AND RATIONALE
Unlike the traditional fifteen week semester during the regular academic year, the
summer session at Albany is comprised of nine independent three, four, and six week
session options which exist over a twelve week block of time between June and August.
Although students select courses from a variety of scheduling options based on
convenience and need, they typically enroll for an average of just less than five and
one-half credit hours each during their summer experience at Albany. It has also been
demonstrated that students combine their registration in two or more of the available
session options. Almost without exception, those registered in the three and four week
sessions are enrolled in a singular course for that term although it may be part of the
student's overall summer session registration. While the majority of summer students are
registered for one course per session, the current drop and withdrawal policies make
inconsistent the last date within a session or module that a student may leave the course
depending only on whether they are registered for coursework in another session.
While each session has an independent calendar and last day to drop date, withdrawals
from individual sessions beyond the last day to drop are currently processed by removing
students from the entire summer session. Although this practice is somewhat analogous to
policy which is applied during the regular academic year, it does not recognize the unique-
intensity and rigor of summer courses which are much shorter in duration than the
standard fifteen week offering. The reasons underlying the current drop policy during the
regular academic year do not apply for the summer session. Summer students are not
subject to dismissal. Similarly, they do not engage in summer study in an effort to
willfully manipulate grade point averages in ways unacceptable to the institution. Since
courses are taken on a "pay as you go basis", concerns regarding the over consumption of
full-time study only to result in a late drop do not adversely effect instructional capacity
as might be the case during the fall and spring. Perhaps most importantly, the existing
policy discourages continuing attendance in courses for which the student has enrolled for
other sessions or modules if they are withdrawn beyond the drop date. This factor poses
serious implications for Summer courses dependent on a minimum number of enrollments
in order to be offered for the session.
Amending the drop policy to coincide with the end of a session or module will simply
bring it into conformance with the current undergraduate summer withdrawal policy. This
withdrawal policy already acknowledges the real differences which exist between the
standard academic calendar and the summer session. Since the majority of summer
students register for only a single course in a session or module, the effects on existing
practice will be negligible. Implementation requires no major revision of existing
registration systems. An adjustment of the semester calendar for each individual session
within SIRS can also be easily accomplished.
UNIVERSITY SENATE
UNIVERSITY AT ALBANY
STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK
ADDING A COURSE
INTRODUCED BY: Undergraduate Academic Council
DATE:
December 12, 1989
IT IS HEREBY-PROPOSED THAT THE FOLLOWING BE ADOPTED:- -
Bill 8990-12
I.
That section 3 of the policies on adding a course be amended as follows:
3. Subject to the approval of the Dean of Undergraduate Studies, after the tenth
class day of the semester the consent of a student's adviser to take the particular
course, the consent of the instructor, and confirmation by the instructor that the
student has been attending the course since before the tenth class day of the semester
must be obtained before the Program Adjustment Form can be accepted by the Office
of Records and Registration. A fee will be charged for this program adjustment.
A "class day" is here defined to be any day from Monday through Friday in which
classes are in session and the Office of Records and Registration is open. The above
methods of adding a course apply to quarter courses and Summer Sessions coursework
on a prorated basis, determined by the length of the course in question.
Exceptions to the add policy may be granted by the Committee on Academic Standing
of the Undergraduate Academic Council.
II.
That this bill be forwarded to the President for approval and implementation.
RATIONALE
The amendmetd: specifies that "late adds'' are also subject to the
approval of the Dean of Undergraduate Studies. Under the current
legislation, a student may register for one course, sit in on sever~l
others, and then, contingent only upon the approval of each instructor,
late add those courses in which the student is doing the best work.
This is unfair to students following established procedures and, in
t~rms of University revenues calculated on the basis of enrollments at
the beginning of the semester, is unfair to the University as a whole,
The current policy may encourage other abuses, such as allowing a
student to change freely from audit (whether formal or informal) to
registration at any time in the semester, or allowing faculty to give
private tutelage (whether paid or unpaid) and ±he_n_ a.dd_s_w:::ce£:~fu}. __
students to the class list late in the semester, or enabling a student
to pose as a full-time student (for example, to a funding source) even
though the University has defined that student part-time as of the last
day to add a semester course within the given semester.
Previous abuses deriving from the practice of allowing a student
to late register baEJed on "verification" of one or more late adds have
been blocked by requiring approval of the Dean of Undergraduate
Studies, This amen&nent simply closes the loophole whereby a student
can, effectively, late register for all but one course.
It is neither reasonable nor appropriate for the Registrar's staff
to look for patterns of possible abuse, whether by student or
instructor, nor is it feasible or appropriate for an individual
instruc::tor acting in g'ood faith (and who assumes the student is also
acting in good faith) to question whether the student is attempting to
late add several other courses,
Those students whom the policy was meant to protect will be
allo\.ved to add courses; for example, the student who entered the \vrong
call number at registration, or the student who (through no fault of
the student but with the instructor's consent) took more than 10 class
days to establish "squatter's rights" in a closed course, As a final
safeguard ior those students, if the add is not approved by
Undergraduate Studies they may appeal to the Committee on Academic
Standing. [The third paragraph of section 3 is in the original
legislation, although this paragraph has curiously been omitted from
the published "Schedule of Classes."]
UNIVERSITY SENATE
UNIVERSITY AT ALBANY
STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK
POLICIES ON GRADUATION CREDITS
Bill 8990-13
INTRODUCED BY: Undergraduate Academic Council
DATE:
December 12, 1989
IT IS HEREBY-PROPOSED THAT THE FOLLOWING BE ADOPTED: -
I.
That section 2 of the policies on graduation credits be amended as follows:
2. Credit earned through approved proficiency examinations. Such credit may be
awarded on the basis of a student's performance on such external examinations as
CLEP, RCE, AP, USAF!, etc., or on an examination established for this purpose by
a University at Albany department, school or program. Proficiency examination
credit shall be clearly distinguished as such on a student's academic record, shall
not be accompanied by a grade or score notation on that record, and shall have no
bearing on a student's academic average. Proficiency examination credits shall
not count within a semester load, hence shall not be counted when determining
whether a student is part-time or full-time, and shall not be applied to University,
major or minor residency requirements or semester retention standards.
Any academic unit at the University may award proficiency credit by examination
provided it does so openly and applies standards consistently to all students
seeking credit. In no case may award of credit be contingent upon auditing a
course (formally or informally), private tutelage (paid or otherwise), participation
in University or extracurricular activities or productions; however, the payment of
a modest fee may be charged for administering the examination.
II.
That section 3 of the policies on graduation credits be amended as follows:
3. Credit completed with the grades of "A," "B," "C," or "S." An academic unit
may award credit with an A-E or S/U grade only in a University at Albany course
for which the student was formally registered in a fall or spring semester or
summer session in accordance with established registration and program
adjustment procedures and deadlines.
III.
That this bill be forwarded to the President for approval and implementation.
RATIONALE
The amendments simply legislate existing practices and common
understandings, In so doing, several possible opportunities for abuse
are prevented, (The amendments should not be construed as implying any
of those abuses have been or currently are practiced on this campus,)
.
In the case of the award of proficiency credit or credit accepted
from transfer institutions, pre-established examination norms or
policies on transfer grades determine that the credit is either
applicable or not, Little drain is made upon precious instructional
resources and the University is not making any claim concerning
instructional contact or student load.
In contrast, and in accordance with_S!JNY_ <l.C_c_oun_ting_)2o_licies and
the definition of unit of academic credit [as defined by the
Commissioner of Education, pursuant to Section 207 of the Education
Law, Regents, 4/24/80], the award of an academic grade for a University
at Albany course presumably required extended, conscientious effort and
expertise on the part of an instructor throughout the given semester or
session, Since that instructional effort and expertise might have been
othenvise employed in a period of, at best, steady state resources, it
is appropriate that such grades be assigned only in those courses for
which the individual academic unit and the University are credited
through formal enrollment, which is determined early within each
semester and session,
The amendments will not curtail such e>~isting flexibility as:
academic units may sponsor work done in part or in total during
wintersession (but for which 1 the student registers in the spring); a
faculty member may sponsor an intership which may not neatly coincide
with our academic calendar (but for which a student must still register
within a semester or session); or, within constraints of legislation
concerning "1' 1 grades, the faculty member may allow a student time
beyond the semester or session to finish work for a registered course,
UNIVERSITY SENATE
UNIVERSITY AT ALBANY
STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK
CROSS-LISTING OF COURSES
Bill 8990-14
INTRODUCED BY: Undergraduate Academic Council
DATE:
December 12, 1989
WHEREAS there currently exists no legislation concerning the creation,- review; limitation- -
or processing of cross-listing of courses,
IT IS HEREBY PROPOSED:
I.
That the following policy be adopted:
A. Before a cross-listing of undergraduate courses can be listed in the "Schedule
of Classes," the Dean of Undergraduate Studies or that individual's designee shall
verify compliance with the following:
1. All academic units whose course prefixes are involved have agreed to the
cross-listing.
2. No undergraduate course may be cross-listed with a graduate course.
However, a cross-listed course may also be a "shared resources" course.
3. Cross-listed courses must share the same first digit of their course numbers.
4. Cross-listed courses must have the same title, the same course description, and
the same course prerequisites, if any, as the courses with which they are
cross-listed.
5. Cross-listed courses must meet the same University-wide requirements
(General Education, including Human Diversity, and/or Writing Intensive) as the
courses with which they are cross-listed. Therefore, if the syllabus and course
requirements are not essentially common, each course or section must be approved
as meeting the given requirement(s).
6. A special topics course, seminar or colloquium may be cross-listed with
another course for a given semester or session provided the cross-listing meets the
previous criteria.
B. The Dean of Undergraduate Studies shall submit to the Curriculum Committee
for its review all proposals to cross-list which appear to fail any of the preceding
criteria. A proposal to cross-list which meets these criteria but which, in the
judgment of the Dean of Undergraduate Studies, poses a potential negative impact
upon students or other programs should also be referred to the Curriculum
Committee.
-rt: --1'7
.J-¥-
c. For courses which have been cross-listed, the Dean of Undergraduate Studies
shall report to the Curriculum Committee for its review cross-listings which
appear not to be in compliance with the preceding criteria. Since it may be unfair
to the students and academic units involved to remove a cross-listing from courses
designated as cross-listed in the Fall 1990 "Schedule of Classes," the preceding
criteria shall be considered binding only upon those courses offered in Spring 1991
and thereafter.
D. The "Schedule of Classes" for a given semester or session should list all
cross-listings of courses offered in that semester or session.
II.
That this bill be forwarded to the President for approval and implementation.
RATIONALE
A r~vi~w of bulletins and policy manuals from the period when the
first cross-listings occurred (ca. mid-1960's) through the present
indicates there has never been a policy either allowing or disallowing
cross-listings, ncr any definitions, procedures or the like concerning
limits to the practice. The only legislation 'concerning such courses
is the definition, passed by UAC in 1985 1 that cross-listed courses
shall be considered identical for all purposes--a student may not
obtain credit for both a course and its cross-listing; a cross-listed
course shall be considered to meet the sam~ requirements as all courses
with which it is cross-listed.
Therefore, it is appropriate that one academic unit not be allowed
to cross-list a course with an offering of another department, school
or program if the second unit objects, Rules of accreditation imply an
undergraduate course cannot ''equal'' a graduate course, The definition
of undergraduate course numbers, and the expectation that students
generally snould register for courses appropriate to their class, imply
senior work should not be "equated" to non-se-nio-r work, and upper
division work should not be "equated" to lower division. Other than
300-level topics courses occasional equated to 400-level work in other
departments, the only current discrepancy of levels is the cross-
listing of R Crj 200P with A Soc 381P (which results in a 200-level
course with no prerequisite counting as a 300-level course in the
sociology major and minor).
As for G~neral Education/Writing Intensive/Human Diversity
designation, the fact two courses have the same title, description and
prerequisites implies nothing about their pedagogical sameness or
differences. Psy 270 has a very similar description and the same title
as Soc 260G/Scc 260M, yet it is not cross-listed with them and does not
fulfill the Social Science requirement; a student may receive credit
for both social psychology courses, and neither counts in the other
department's major or minor. Should two academic units wish to make
courses mutually exclusive fo~ graduation credit, this may be done
without cross-listing (cf. B Msi 215Y and A Csi lOlY).
Since the computerized Degree Audit system is the mechanism by '#hich
a cross-listed course is accredited to a student's major or minor or
University-wide requirements, and since the same system is used to warn
students, within a semester, that they are "repeating" a cross-listing
and will<not receive credit for both courses, the Office of
Undergraduati Studies must know which courses ar~ cross-listed with
others, whether for a semester or on a continuing basis,
Since the "Schedule of Classes" lists many but not all cross-
listings of courses offered in a given semester or session, a student
currently cannot rely that the absence of a cross-listing message
indicates two courses are not considered "equivalent , 11 Since cross-
-~
listed courses currently do not necessarily share the same title or
course description or prerequisites, students might be pardoned (but.
are not) for "repeating" such work.
The proposal is not intended to limit academic units. Although the
practice 11 just gre\v, 11 cross-listings have extended student choice and
better enabled faculty to avoid needless duplication. and to engage in
inter- or cross-disciplinary offerings. A program, such a~ women's
studies, which often cross-lists 300- and 400-level offerings in other
departments with A Wss 399, need only create A Wss 499 to be in full
compliance with the requirement concerning course numbers. Two units
wishing to cross-list courses which lack a common prerequisite need
only agree on a common choice of prerequisites; e.g., when the two
social psychology courses formerly were cross-listed, the prerequisite
for both was "Psy 101 or Soc 115, 11
Of 114 double cross-listings and 7 triple-cross listings known to
Undergraduate Studies, about a sixth of the entries do not correspond
in the last two digits of their course numbers, Requiring all cross-
listings to share the same three diqits of their course numbers would
interfere with numbering schemes within academic units. E.g., Lin 220Y
= Eng 217Y (a medial
11 1 11 ·signifying 11 language 1
1_ in English-) -and -a-lso-= -
Ant 220Y (a medial
112 11 signifying
11 language 11 courses in anthropology) .
UNIVERSITY SENATE
UNIVERSITY AT ALBANY
STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK
Ph.D. Program in English
INTRODUCED BY:
Graduate Academic Council
DATE:
January 29, 1990
IT IS HEREBY PROPOSED:
Bill 8990-15
I.
That a Ph.D. Program in English be approved by the University Senate and
submitted for approval by the New York State Education Department;
II.
That the program become effective September 1, 1990; and
III.
That the Bill be referred to the President for approvaL
A PROPOSAL FOR A PH.D. IN ENGLISH
The University at Albany, State University of New York
Sum:tnary
The proposed Ph.D. in English, subtitled "Writing, Teaching, and
Criticism," capitalizes on faculty strength in composition, creative
writing, instruction, and literary criticism. Two upcoming hires
will strengthen the program in literary theory. Integration of the
program is achieved through curricular structure and requirements.
Focusing attention on the making of knowledge and on the questions
that arise from the movement between theory and practice, the
program will graduate persons with particularly strong credentials
in rhetoric, poetics, pedagogy, and theory. The course of study is
designed for those seeking careers in college teaching of English.
The curriculum is composed of seven interdependent branches of
study:
Writing in History, Writing Theory and Practice, Rhetoric
and Composition, critical Theory and Practice, Teaching Theory and
Practice, Language and Language Theory, and Literary History. Each
branch has an introductory core course, a site of interlocking
theories and practices. "Writing in History," a focal category,
constellates a number of courses specifically designed to
interrelate the interests of rhetoricians, creative writers, and
literary scho~ars.
Requirements are these: 72 hours of course work beyond the
baccalaureate, four core courses, a practicum in teaching, an
internship, competence in a foreign language, successful completion
of a three-part comprehensive examination and a dissertation. Also
students are encouraged to undertake interdisciplinary study outside
the Department of English. Five non-English consulting faculty
advise students interested in such areas as the social sciences,
philosophy, continental criticism, education, and women's studies.
" ................. ~ ..... ,...... . . . " '... .... .•. . . .
'. . . ... .
•
,•
• ! .................... ~·-
...
...
•
..... l.
. ....... ,.
PROGRAM OF STUDY (72 credits, minimum)
The program of study, planned with the Director of Graduate Studies in
English and incorporating UQ more than 24 credits of previous graduate study,
should be directed toward the student's interests and specific career
objectives.
It consists of the following: '
·
a.
At least 60 credits in English beyond the baccalaureate, including
Eng 700, "The History ·of English Studies, 1880 to the Present," Eng 770,
"Tea~hing Writing and Literature," Eng 771, "Practicum in English
stud1es,
11 and Eng 810, "English Internship, 11 and two courses selected from
among.the following six:
Eng 701, "Gender, Race and ~lass"; En<.! ~1~,
"Poet1cs"; Eng 521, "Composition Theory"; Eng 542
11 L1terary Cr1t1c1sm and
Theory Since 1950"; Eng 651, "Th.eories of Languag~ 11
; and Eng 580, "Models
of History in Literary Criticism."
b.
Supporting field option:
9-12 credits in a related f:eld or fields.
The
purpose c;f thi-s supporting field- is to enab1e a- student -"to- stud;f in. some
systemat1c way a subject that supports but extends beyond the work 1n
English:
Courses taken outside the department may, with the consent o~
the adv1sor, be applied to the supporting field.
Expertise developed 1n a
supporting field must be incorporated into doctoral examination areas.
COMPETENCE IN A FOREIGN LANGUAGE
Either on admission to the Doctor of Philosophy program or before
P 'lission to candidacy for the degree a student must demonstrate competence in
~ 1anguage other ·than English.
At the discretion of the Director of the
graduate program, this requirement may be met in one of the following ways:
a.
Successful completion of two years (or the equivalent) of undergraduate.
study in a language other than English.
.
b.
Satisfactory passing of a reading test in a language other than English.
c.
Passing of a college level course in literature read in a language other
than English.
COMPREHENSIVE EXAMINATIONS
. Upon the completion of formal coursework, including both the "Practicum in
English StucU:-s'' and the "English Internship, 11 the student must pass a
.:
three-part wr1tten· and oral examination that focuses the student's attent1on
on a specific area of study.
Designed in consultation with an examination
committee approved by the Director of Graduate studies in English, the
.
compre~e~s~ve examination addresses, first, a survey of existing.schola~shlP,
and cr1t1c1sm on the topic selected for study; second, an analys1s of h1stor1c
aspects of the topic; and finally, an exploration of a specific problem for
research.
' .
' , ...
The form of the first part of the comprehensive is a four-hour written
examination; parts two and three of the comprehensive are oral examinations,
1ch based on an essay written by the student for that particular part of the
' ~xamination. Students who have elected to pursue a supporting field of study
outside of English must incorporate expertise developed in that field into
their comprehensive examinations.
ADMISSION TO CANDIDACY
A student is admitted to candidacy for the Doctor of Philosophy upon the
following:
1.
Fulfillment of the foreign language requirement.
2.
Satisfactory record in course study and the internship.
3.
Completion of the University residence requirements.
4.
Satisfactory completion of the comprehensive examination.
SUPERVISED TRAINING REQUIREMENT
The supervised training requirement for all doctoral c~~d-idates in English-
will ordinarily be fulfilled by Eng 771, "Practicum in English studies," and
Eng 810, "English Internship."
DISSERTATION
Dissertations may take a variety of forms and display a variety of
focuses.
They may be prose fiction, poetry, drama, criticism, empirical
~qsearch, or some mixture of these. They may focus on the imaginary, the
:eoretical, the historical, the interpretive, the pedagogical, or the
linguistic.
The one common characteristic this program urges all doctoral
dissertations towards is intra- and interdisciplinary sophistication and
critical self-awareness.
The topic for the dissertation will ordinarily grow out of and incorporate
the student's work in courses and workshops in the major field, the
internship, and/or the comprehensive examination.
Dissertations should be
capable of being completed within the academic year following the student's
successful completion of the internship and comprehensive examination.
A dissertation prospectus will be developed in consultation with the
student's dissertation committee, chaired by a member of the English
department faculty.
One member of the three person committee may be in
another department of the University.
The prospectus must be formally
approved by the department's Director of Graduate studies, acting for the
department's Graduate Advisory committee.
In addition, students must give an acceptable lecture to the department on
one of the topics of the dissertation before submitting the dissertation to
the Dean of Graduate Studies.
UNIVERSITY SENATE
UNIVERSITY AT ALBANY
STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK
CHANGE IN COUNCIL NAME
INTRODUCED BY: Senate Executive Committee
DATE:
February 5, 1990
IT IS HEREBY PROPOSED THAT THE FOLLOWING BE ADOPTED:
Bill 8990-16
I.
That the name of the Council on Libraries, Computing and Information Systems be
changed to Council on Libraries, Information Systems and Computing.
II.
That the name change become effective immediately.
III.
That the Bill be referred to the President for approval.
