UNIVERSITY SENATE
/ATTENDANCE
Meeting of: -h~?&?A// /:.!3 , If£ f
/' I'
-
UNIVERSITY SENA TF
ATTENDANCE
Meeting of:
!L_p_i;fd.t~dA// t ~ · )f£
1f
r
r
~
/ I
II
I
i
I
I
I I
I
!
I
I
I
!
I
I
I
i
I
I
I
i
'
I
I i
I
I
l
!
I
I
I I
I
I
-
UNIVERSITY AT
ALBANY
STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK
UNIVERSITY SENATE
Monday, February 13, 1989
3:30p.m.-- Campus Center Assembly Hall
AGENDA
1.
Approval of Minutes: University Senate, December 5, 1988
2.
President's Report
3.
SUNY-wide Senate Report
4.
Chair's Report
5.
Council Vacancies
6.
Council Reports
a.
Council on Academic Freedom and Ethics
b.
Council on Educational Policy
c.
Graduate Academic Council
d.
Council on Libraries, Computing and Information Systems
e.
Council on Promotion and Continuing Appointment
f.
Council on Research
g.
Student Affairs Council
h.
Undergraduate Academic Council
i.
University Community Council
7.
Old Business
8.
New Business
a.
Proposed Resolution in Response to the Executive Budget
University Senate
518 442-5406
Administration 259
Albany, New York
12222
UNIVERSITY AT
ALBANY
STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK
UNIVERSITY SENATE
February 13, 1989
University Senate
518 442-5406
Administration 259
Albany, New York
PRESENT: V. Aceto, S. Atkinson, R. Bernstein, K. Birr, F. Boncimino, R. Bosco, D.
12222
Brighton, M. Butler, F. Carrino, R. Clark, D. Cohen, R. Collier, H. Desfosses,
D. Ettinger, F. Frank, R. Garvin, R. Gibson, R. Greene, J. Gullahorn, H.
Hamilton, W. Hammond, J. Hayes, W. Ilchman, C. Kersten, S. B. Kim, H.
Kirchner (forM. Livingston), M. Krohn, T. Lance, W. Lanford, P. Leonard, J.
Luks, J. Mackiewicz, A. Magid, B. Marsh, G. McCombs, G. Newman, V.
O'Leary, D. Parker, R. Pruzek, E. Reilly, K. Ricker, L. Risolo, L. Rizzolo, S.
Seidman, C. Snyder, I. Steen, G. Stevens, R. Stross, L. Tornatore, P. Toscano,
E. Turner, B. Voronkov, G. Walker, L. Welch, D. Windham, R. Whelan.
GUESTS:
A. Anastasi, F. Cohen, N. Lavson, S. Mahan.
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Hammond at 3:45p.m.
1.
Approval of Minutes
The minutes of the December 5, 1989 meeting were approved as printed.
2.
President's Report
The President began his report by summarizing the State's revenue shortfall. On
March 31, 1988, SUNY received its budget and began this fiscal year. The first sign
that the projections were wrong began in mid-April, and, the budget was affected. In
May the State had to pull back money from the agencies. SUNY received a $600,000
cut. By December the revenues were more severely depressed. SUNY was "tithed"
another $400,000; amounting to $1 million for the fiscal year 1988-89. In addition, at
the end of 1988-89, Albany will have to "turn in" 45 vacant State positions along with
15 positions from GRI II.
In this year's Executive Budget, the Governor kept the increase less than inflation.
For SUNY, President O'Leary said, bonds were also refinanced and a parking fee of
$10 per month for 10 months for the whole SUNY system was included as an income
item.
But even with those adjustments, SUNY faces an estimated $47 million shortfall.
Albany's share is 3.6% of the amount or $3.38 million. Some of that can be recovered
by consolidations and by delaying GRI III. The remaining $2.707 million will translate
into 30 faculty and 45 support positions lost in 1989-90. He reported the loss of
people is six percent, which will be spread across the campus.
-2-
The President stated that the major focus should be on restoring some of the cut to
SUNY's budget. This effort will be going on through February and March. Such a
reduction will also have an effect on enrollment. The Budget Panel is looking into
this.
J. Lamb asked how many of the 45 lost positions were administrative and how many
were added. The President responded that some were lost. J. Lamb also asked about
course reductions. The President responded that we won't know until we get our
budget. We will try not to have reductions. H. Desfosses asked if SUNY had its
budget hearing with the legislature. The response was no.
R. Stross asked why the discrepency between the totals from the two charts. The
GRI was included in one and not the other, said the President. He also stated that
the GRI money went to faculty and not to support positions.
D. Ettinger asked if admission standards for incoming freshmen will be raised. The
President responded that the high school average will probably be raised for
traditional students. It is our aim to continue to admit 25% minorities.
3.
SUNY-wide Senate Report
R. Collier read two resolutions; one from SUNY and CUNY Senate Executive
Committees and one from the Student Life Committee. The texts of both resolutions
are attached to these minutes. Both resolutions were approved unanimously by the
SUNY Senate. R. Collier talked about Provost Burke's project of academic
assessment, which the members of governance will need to address.
The Statement of Tolerance included in the report was written by R. Collier. This
statement is not intended to take the place of a significant and on-going dialogue
between faculty and students. R. Collier welcomed any questions.
4.
Chair's Report
Chairman Hammond reported that the Honors Reconsideration bill has now been
approved in total by the President.
At the last Executive Committee meeting, the new poster policy was referred to
CAFE for review, he reported.
The issue of released time for the Chair of the University Senate was brought up at
the last Executive Committee meeting. The Task Force on Governing Bodies might
propose something on this, he said.
Chairman Hammond then reported on the motion that was made by R. Bosco at the
December 5 Senate meeting. The motion: "That this body request the Chair of the
Senate to investigate the nature of committees such as the Library Acquisition
Development Committee, to report to the Senate and to specify, as precisely as
possible, the responsibilities of such committees and to whom they are answerable."
The Chair responded: The University Budget Panel is appointed by, and is
accountable to, the President. Under an informal arrangement made with the
Council on Educational Policy in 1981 in order to avoid duplication of effort, the
members of the Resource Advisory Committee (formerly the Resource Allocation
Committee) of the Council have been included in the University Budget Panel since
that time. While the Budget Panel is not accountable to the Council on Educational
-3-
Policy, the Resource Advisory Committee is. Although Budget Panel deliberations
are confidential, the Resource Advisory Committee is free to comment as it sees fit
on the Budget Panel process and on matters of policy related to the budget.
There are two administrative committees, one involving the University Libraries and
the other related to the Computing Center, to which several appointments are made
by the Council on Libraries, Computing and Informations Systems (USC). These
committees are accountable to the President and not to USC. There is no reason,
however, why USC, if it so chose, could not spawn committees of itself which
functioned in relation to the administrative committees as the Resource Advisory
Committee does in relation to the University Budget Panel.
The issuance of the Senate newsletter has fallen to the Chair of the Senate by
default. Chairman Hammond has looked for Senators to write short articles in
opposition to "4 X 4." J. Lamb asked if Chairman Hammond specifically wanted a
faculty Senator to write an article. The response was no.
5.
Council Vacancies
The Executive Committee recommends that Nadine Repinecz, a graduate student in
Public Administration, be appointed to a graduate student vacancy on the Research
Council. The appointment was approved.
6.
Council Reports
a. Council on Academic Freedom and Ethics: no additions to the written report.
Chairman Hamilton responded to a question concerning any set criteria in denying
poster approval by stating that if the Council was offended by the poster, it will be
denied. He also stated that 8-9 members of the Council will be involved in the
decision.
R. Bosco asked if CAFE met and deliberated on the issue of the poster policy and
could the Senate anticipate any legislation on this issue. Chairman Hamilton said
that the Council had not yet met and there were currently no plans for presenting
legislation. This could change when the Council meets, he said.
Chairman Hammond asked if CAFE is finished with the issue of academic integrity
for the current year. The answer was no.
The report was accepted.
b. Council on Educational Policy: no additions to the written report.
In response to a question, Chairman Birr said that departments could channel any
reactions to the "4 X 4" plan to the Task Force if they so chose.
The report was accepted.
c. Graduate Academic Council: no additions to the written report. The report was
accepted.
d. Council on Libraries, Computing and Information Systems: no additions to the
written report.
Chairman Newman reported that the Council has not received any responses from the
Vice Presidents on the matter of University Micros.
-4-
H. Desfosses asked why there was a shortage of work-study students. Chairman
Newman did not know why. W. Ilchman responded that Albany sets rates locally. The
rates start at minimum and go up to $4.50 or so. There are plans to raise the rates,
Hehman said. We have about half the number of students we need. It was also
mentioned that students could earn more money working off campus than in the
work-study program.
The report was accepted.
e. Council on Promotion and Continuing Appointment: nothing to report.
f. Council on Research: Chairman Mackiewicz gave an update on item B. The ad
hoc committee's review is currently at SUNY Central. The question was raised that
Item B might be coordinated with CAFE; it will be.
The report was accepted.
g. Student Affairs Council: a written report was distributed at the meeting. The
report was accepted.
h. Undergraduate Academic Council: no additions to the written report.
The question was asked why the average for Computer Science was lowered so much.
Chairman Reilly responded that there were not as many students electing that major
as in past years. The Department wants to serve more students now.
S. B. Kim had a correction to Item #7, that a senior could override the rule during
Early Registration. He said seniors must wait until the Program Adjustment Period.
The closed section cards will only be accepted during that time. K. Birr asked how
this was going to be administered. He said there must be some provision to override
the rule and it must be more clearly defined. K. Birr then moved that Item #7 be
returned to UAC for clarification of procedures; the motion was seconded. S. B. Kim
responded that this policy was to protect freshmen, not to punish seniors. Procedures
for the policy will be in place. B. Marsh moved the previous question (to terminate
debate); seconded. Chairman Hammond explained that the Senators will be voting to
terminate debate on this issue. The motion to terminate debate passed.
The Senators then voted on returning Item #7 to UAC. The motion was defeated.
H. Hamilton moved that the Senate continue to 5:30p.m. or such sooner time as it
finishes its work. The motion was seconded and passed.
Discussion on UAC Item #7 continued. L. Tornatore asked what was to be learned by
the one-year experiment. S. B. Kim explained that in the past there has been some
abuse by seniors taking 100 level courses. We will study the course taking pattern of
the seniors. If it is achieving an effect, it will continue; if not, it will be
re-examined. The experiment is scheduled to take place in March 1988. It was
moved that the one-year experiment be delayed until the pre-registration period Fall
1989; motion failed for lack of a second. S. B. Kim will write a letter for the ASP to
inform students about the experiment.
A. Magid said that advisement should take care of this. Freshmen and sophomores
should take 100 and 200 level courses. The departments should police this. A. Magid
moved to have the departments police this matter. The motion was ruled out of
order.
-5-
H. Hamilton suggested that all actions that have an implication, like UAC Item #7,
be printed in full, not summarized. R. Bosco agreed with Senator Hamilton and also
felt that this should have been brought before the Senate as legislation.
The question was called. The report was accepted.
i. University Community Council: Chairman Boncimino said that the parking
situation was being brought back for Council discussion.
A question was asked concerning the proposal by the Albany State Student
Entrepreneurs Club.
Ch<;~.irman Boncimino responded that the proposal given to the
Council was not adequate.
The report was accepted.
7.
Old Business
There was no Old Business to discuss.
8.
New Business
a. Proposed Resolution in Response to the Executive Budget: V. Aceto moved the
adoption of this resolution; seconded by R. Bosco and F. Frank. The motion was
passed.
The meeting was adjourned at 5:25p.m.
Ivan Steen
Secretary
-6-
STATEMENT OF STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK AND CITY UNIVERSITY
OF NEW YORK FACULTY SENATE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEES
January31, 1989
The future of the economy of the State of New York depends on the level and quality
of education of its citizens. In this post-industrial age rising levels of education are
necessary to enter into and participate successfully in the labor force. Every year New
Yorkers who are currently employed enter or return to institutions of public higher
education to gain knowledge and skills necessary to improve their performance, to
upgrade their positions, or to switch to new fields. The young people entering the State's
workforce in the next few decades will be drawn increasingly from populations currently
peripheral to the socioeconomic institutions of American society. Their social mobility
and ability to contribute to the economy depends to a degree greater than that of any
other population upon their access to public higher education.
Traditionally, New York State has provided public higher education of excellent
quality, to its own enrichment. Even during a time of short term financial exigency, the
State must fully fund public higher educational systems which is an investment in its own
economic stability and quality of life. By these means the State can continue to protect
and open opportunities for its present underclass to enter into, contribute to, and
participate in the benefits of society.
-7-
STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK FACULTY SENATE
COMMITTEE ON STUDENT LIFE
RESOLUTION
Presented to the Senate Executive Committee
February 2, 1989
WHEREAS the charge of the Student Life Committee of the State University of
New York Faculty Senate is to concern itself with significant educational,
developmental, social, cultural and recreational policies, programs, issues and
services that affect the quality of student life and the campus environment of the
State University of New York;
WHEREAS the University is committed to the creation and maintenance of
excellence in an educational environment in which student diversity is an essential
part of the overall educational experience;
WHEREAS this diversity can only be achieved by providing those groups who are
presently underrepresented in SUNY with both access to an education and support
services to facilitate their retention;
WHEREAS the quality of student life can be measured by the scope of the
support services and programs provided to all students to meet their individual needs;
WHEREAS these support services and programs are being eroded due to increased
enrollment throughout SUNY and a decline in budget appropriations;
WHEREAS access and retention of all students are endangered by the anticipated
continued reduction in State funding for SUNY;
WHEREAS the University Faculty Senate supports the Chancellor in his efforts
to provide access and excellence within SUNY, and
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the University Faculty Senate urge the Chancellor
to alert all involved in the budget process to the crucial need for sufficient
appropriations to ensure the access and retention of a diverse student body in SUNY
and to maintain support for quality in all aspects of student life.
University Senate Meeting
Monday
February 13, 1989
Student Affairs Council
R E P 0 R T
The Student Affairs Council held its first meeting of the
semester on Friday February lOth.
The following issues were
discussed and aroe presently under review:
A) Student Actvities & Gov't Committee
-University Council will be reviewing the language of the
Student Guidelines, and this committee will be reviewing
these guidelines before printed.
-Presently reviewing Freshman Rush Policy.
The committee will
be reviewing statistics from National Greek Headquarters, The
Center for Study of the College Fraternities, and will be working
closely with Campus Life.
B) Health Committee
*
-An article will soon be published in the ASP, which will
educate the campus on the issue of asbestos.
How safe is it?
-Presently reviewing the effects of AIDS education.
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
The Council will be holding its second meeting on Tuesday,
February 28th, 1989.
Chair SAC
REPORT OF THE CHAIR, SENATE MEETING OF FEBRUARY 13, 1989
From Senate minutes of December 5, 1988:
R. Bosco made the following motion:
That this body request the Chair of the Senate to investigate the
nature of committees such as the Library Acquisition Development
Committee, to report to the Senate and to specify, as precisely as
possible, the responsibilities of such committees and to whom they are
answerable.
The Chair's Report:
The University Budget Panel is appointed by and is accountable to
the President.
Under an informal arrangement made with the Council on
Educational Policy in 1981 in order to avoid duplication of effort,
the members of the Resource Advisory Committee (formerly the Resource
Allocation Committee) of the Council have been included in the
University Budget Panel since that time.
While the Budget Panel is
not accountable to the Council on Educational Policy, the Resource
Advisory Committee is.
Although Budget Panel deliberations are
confidential, the Resource Advisory Committee is free to to comment as
it sees fit on the Budget Panel process and on matters of policy
related to the budget.
There are two administrative committees, one involving the
University Libraries and the other related to the Computing Center, to
which several appointments are made by the Council on Libraries,
Computing and Information Systems (LISC) .
These committees are
accountable to the President and not to LISC.
There is no reason,
however, why LISC, if it so chose, could not spawn committees of
itself which functioned in relation to the administrative committees
as the Resource Advisory Committee does in relation to the University
Budget Panel.
COUNCIL ON ACADEMIC FREEDOM AND ETHICS
Report to Senate Meeting of February 13, 1989
The Council met on 8 December 1988, first considering whether to propose any
legislation relative to the action items reported to the Senate on 5 December.
1.
Members decided to write to Dean Sung Bok Kim requesting that he act as
faculty advocate in all academic integrity violation cases, helping faculty
pursue their cases for academic and/or University sanctions. He will also be
asked to report to the Faculty each year on the outcome of all cases reported
to him during the preceding year. Finally, he will be asked to establish campus
procedures regarding use of graduate students within and between departments
as proctors in exams.
2.
The Council will ask Vice President Livingston to assure that adequate means
are used to inform faculty of how they can make themselves available for
service on hearing boards which rule on academic infractions.
3.
The Council is reviewing statements relative to the appeal process for all
penalties imposed on academic infractions, to determine whether clarification
is necessary and how to publicize the procedures appropriately.
4.
The discussion concerning a faculty ethics statement continued. Some specific
proposals for adding a section on research behavior (not to duplicate a more
detailed statement being prepared by the Research Council) are under
consideration. The Council has not reached consensus on how detailed the final
statement should be.
5.
The Council responded to a request from President O'Leary to provide rapid
review of allegations of inappropriate denial of poster approvals. The Council
will meet as a whole to review any posters referred to it after being denied
approval by the Office of Student Activities; a 48-hour response is anticipated.
6.
It is still hoped that the issue of complimentary textbooks from publishers can
be explored. The matter of a uniform minimum penalty for academic integrity
violations will also be discussed.
Harry Hamilton
Chair
COUNCIL ON EDUCATIONAL POLICY
Report to Senate Meeting of February 13, 1989
At its meeting of December 15, 1988, the EPC received from the Long Range
Planning Committee positive recommendations on Letters of Intent for two new
programs: M.S. in Biometry and Statistics and the Ph.D. in French Studies. The Council
approved the recommendation of the Long Range Planning Committee and forwarded the
two Letters of Intent. Next EPC meeting: Monday, February 6th.
COUNCIL ON EDUCATIONAL POLICY, Continued
The EPC's "4 X 4" Task Force was organized in mid-December as follows:
Kendall Birr (History, ECP), Chair
John Levato (Business, EPC)
Lillian Brannon (English, GAC)
Warren Roberts (History, UAC)
Vincent Aceto (Information Policy and Science)
Stephen DeLong (Geological Sciences)
Francine Frank (Humanities)
Belinda Mason (Student, EPC)
The Committee met on December 16, 1988 and January 27, 1989. At the first
meeting the Task Force decided
To ask the GAC to consider the applicability of "4 X 4" to graduate programs.
To ask the UAC to suggest (a) what degree requirements should look like under
"4 X 4" and (b) what general education requirements might be assuming they
were to constitute no more than the present 30% of the graduation
requirements.
To ask the Long Range Planning Committee of EPC to examine
calendar/scheduling implications of "4 X 4" under different assumptions of the
relationship between credit hours and contact hours.
To circulate to all faculty and professional staff a description of the "4 X 4"
proposal with a covering letter from the Task Force. (All faculty should have
received the material by the time of the Senate meeting.)
At its second meeting the Task Force discussed
The relationship between credit hours and contact hours.
Methods of encouraging discussion of the proposal at the level of schools and
departments.
Ways of developing some examples of the implications of "4 X 4" for the
curricula and requirements of individual departments.
Kendall Birr
Chair
GRADUATE ACADEMIC COUNCIL
Report to Senate Meeting of February 13, 1989
Based on reports from its Committee on Admissions and Academic Standing, the
Council acted on 13 requests from students on waivers of regulations such as the statute
of limitations for transfer credit, residency, number of attempts on field examinations,
etc., approving ten and denying three.
The Council received, and passed on to its Committee on Educational Policies and
Procedures, a request from the "4 X 4" Task Force for views on the applicability of "4 X
4'' to graduate programs.
Bruce Marsh
Chair
COUNCIL ON LIBRARIES, COMPUTING AND INFORMATION SYSTEMS
Report to Senate Meeting of February 13, 1989
A strong letter was sent to Vice Presidents Gullahorn, Hartigan and llchman urging
swift and immediate action to replace the service formerly offered by UNIVERSITY
MICROS.
Because of the budget crisis, cut-backs in services in both computing and libraries
are anticipated. Areas in which these cuts will occur are being discussed.
It is likely that there will be some change in building hours for the libraries. A severe
shortage in work study students has also contributed to the problem.
It appears, however, at the time of writing, that the proposed library building is still
"alive".
The Council will meet again to discuss the 5 year plans of both the computer center
and the libraries.
Graeme Newman
Chair
COUNCIL ON RESEARCH
Report to Senate Meeting of February 13, 1989
The Council met on December 5, 1988. In addition to reports of on-going activities
of the various committees, the following was also reported:
a.
The Council has sent a letter to the Office of Management and Budget
(Washington), expressing support for the new technological initiative taking
place among federal science agencies relative to streamlining grant submission
and review processes.
COUNCIL ON RESEARCH, Continued
b.
The ad hoc committee on Fraud in Research (Chair: P. McCormick, Biology)
has made a final review of the campus-wide policies dealing with fraud in
research and expects to have them sent to the SUNY Central Legal Office in
the near future.
c.
Research incentives awarded 16 Benevolent Awards from 45 proposals
submitted by graduate students.
In the coming semester, the Council expects to address, among other issues, aspects
of scientific freedom on this campus.
John Mackiewicz
Chair
UNDERGRADUATE ACADEMIC COUNCIL
Report to Senate Meeting of February 13, 1989
At its meeting of February 2, the UAC approved the following:
1.
A revision in the Minor in Latin-American and Caribbean Studies.
2.
New course Ant 110N: Introduction to Human Evolution.
3.
Consolidation of the Minors in Anthropology from eight variants to three:
Anthropology, Anthropology for the Professions, and Medical Anthropology.
The Council commends the Department for the simplification.
4.
A revision to the Major in Chemistry.
5.
A revision to the Major in Linguistics.
6.
A change in the Grade Point Average requirements for admission to a Computer
Science major from 3.25 (guaranteed admission) and 3.0 for consideration, to
2.75 and 2.50 respectively. The averages apply to the same four-course core as
before. The action was taken because undergraduate enrollment in computer
science courses peaked here and in the U.S. in 1983 and there is now room to
serve additional students.
7.
A one-year experiment whereby seniors must wait for the program adjustment
period before enrolling in 100-level courses on a space-available basis. The
action was deemed necessary to alleviate the severe shortage of class space for
Freshmen in 100-level courses. Since a department may issue a "closed
section" card to any senior who has a pressing need to enroll in such courses
during Early Registration, they will have the ability to override the rule for
good reason. Endorsement of this Administration initiative was approved,
though the only student present, Vice-Chair Ron Halber, dissented.
Ed Reilly
Chair
UNIVERSITY COMMUNITY COUNCIL
Report to Senate Meeting of February 13, 1989
The Council met on February 2, 1989. Two proposals were reviewed and the
Council's recommendations were sent to the President.
The Council reviewed the proposal from the Albany State Student Entrepreneurs Club
to se11 Coca Cola and Coca Cola products on campus through vending machines. The
Council voted against the proposaL The Council found that the proposal did not take into
consideration the many aspects of the vending machine business.
The Council also reviewed the proposal for parking violation fine increases. In
October, the Council discussed the campus parking situation and suggested that stiffer
fines could be an effective deterrent to i11ega1 parking practices. The numbers received
and agreed upon by UCC are as fo11ows:
1.
Increase the basic parking violation fine from the current $5.00 charge to
$10.00 for each violation.
2.
Increase the fine for parking in handicapped zones from $10.00 to $15.00 and
for parking in fire lanes from $5.00 to $15.00.
Frank Boncimino
Chair
I I,
FTh• Educational Polici•• Council
Th• "4 >< 4" Task Fore•
January 5, 1989
Dear Colleagues:
On November 28 the EPC created an eight person
Task
Force to ad-
vise the Council and
oversee
governance consideration of a major pro-
posal for curricular change called "4 x
4".
The
members of that Task
Force are listed below.
The
attached material is designed to provide you with some preli-
minary
information about this proposal which,
if
implemented,
would
affect all of
our lives at the University.
We urge you to familiarize
yourself with
the material.
We want to emphasize that as of this date
nothing has been decided.
We are in the early stages of a complex pro-
cess through
which. the faculty working through the governance system
will decide whether or not it wishes to recommend to the President the
adoption of
a "4 x 4" system.
Such a change can be implemented Cif we
choose to do so> only with the support and
cooperation of the faculty.
We urge your active participation in the process.
"4 x
4"
is nothing new.
It has been in operation at a good many
prestigious institutions for
many years.
Academic Affairs became in-
terested in the idea last spring, and
last July
two
faculty and two
~dministrators from
Albany spent a day at Binghamton observing the op-
1rations of "4 x 4" there.
Vice
President
!lehman
asked EPC at its
first
meeting
to examine the idea, and after some preliminary discus-
sion EPC recommended a full-scale consideration of the proposal.
In the coming weeks several things will be happening:
--General
consideration
by
the governance system,
chiefly
through the EPC, GAC, and UAC.
--Some
serious research into the attractiveness and
practi-
cality of converting to "4 x 4" at Albany.
--General discussion in a variety of University fora
includ-
ing departments, deans
and
other administrative groups, etc.
Members
of
the
Task
Force stand ready to assist schools and
departments
in
their own discussions.
If there appears to be general support for the proposal and no insuper-
able barriers to its implementation, the appropriate bills will be in-
troduced into the Senate sometime next spring.
If the Senate and the
President approve, "4 x 4" might be implemented in the fall of 1991.
We can't
overemphasize the importance of widespread understanding
of the proposal.
Such a far-reaching change, even if desirable and ap-
proved by the Senate, would fail if it lacked the active cooperation of
.the overwhelming proportion of the faculty.
Kendall Birr, Chair <History/EPC>
Vincent Aceto <Info. & Policy Sci.>
Lillian Brannon <English/GAC>
Stephen DeLong <Geological Sciences)
Francine Frank <Humanities>
John Levato (Business/EPC)
Belinda Mason <Student/EPC>
Warren Roberts <History/UAC>
t I
·'.
"FOUR BY FOUR"
What
Is "4 H 4"?
It is an
arrangement
under
which
most
courses
in
the curriculum are offered for four credi.ts and
in
which the standard student load
each
semester is four courses.
By contrast
the
present
University curriculum might be charac-
terized as a "3 x 5" plan.
Why Propos• Chan;inQ Albany's Curriculum to "4 x 4"?
There
are
compelling •ducational
reasons
for such a change.
Present
students take at least five
and
often six or even seven courses
at once; many faculty feel that no student can give truly serious
intellectual attention to that many different courses at the same
time,
and some students admit to seeking one
or
two
so-called
"blow-off" courses
each semester.
A "4 x 4" system would permit
both faculty and students to focus better their intellectual ener-
gies.
Coherence would supplant fragmentation.
True, there would
be
some
loss in the variety of courses taken by the individual
student, but
we
could partially compensate for that by making
available a certain number of "half" courses.
There
are also
some
compelling institutional reasons for
such
a change.
The University is facing a serious instructional
problem as these data from Institutional Research
clearly demon-
strate:
Y. Change from 1975-76 to 1986-87
Number of Faculty
Number FTE Students
Number FTE Undergraduates
Total Lower Division Enrollment
-
9.0Y.
+ 4.6Y.
+11.1Y.
+17.2Y.
Meanwhil~ the pressures
of research and faculty administrative
responsibilities have
continued to increase.
The instructional
problem becomes visible twice a
year
at registration with over-
loaded and
closed
sections and frustrated students.
Increasing
the amount of instruction is difficult without
damaging the fac-
ulty research effort or faculty responsibility for
advisement,
governance, etc.
If it is difficult to increase the
supply of
instruction, perhaps
we
can decrease the demand.
"4 x 4" would
appear
to decrease the demand for courses by approximately 20Y..
Indeed,
there is evidence that a number of prestigious institu-
tions now on "4 x 4" <Harvard, Amherst, Cornell,
etc.> converted
to the system after World War II
as
a
means of coping with the
flood of returning students.
Wouldn't
"4
x 4" R•quir• R•writing th• Entire Curriculum?
Yes.
But this could become a classic case of converting
a prob-
lem into an opportunity.
In
making
the necessary curricular
changes faculty members would take
a
fresh look at requirements
for degrees, general education, and majors
and minors, weigh the
possibility of reconfiguring calendars and
class schedules, and
reexamine patterns
of course offerings.
Indeed, every aspect of
what we teach and how we teach it could be reevaluated.
For ex-
ample, converting to "4 x 4" would require the University to mo-
dify the present length of
class meetings; but it would also of-
fer the
opportunity
to consider scheduling patterns other than
the current MWF/TTh pattern.
In
short, some major changes would
be required, others would become possible.
Would All Programs and Departm•nts
Find It Posaibl• to Con-
vert to a
"4
>< 4" Syst•m?
We hope so.
At Binghamton which has
been on a "4 x 4" system for some 25 years only the Watson School
of Technology has found it necessary to retain
a "3 x 5" system
by reason of the nature of its disciplines and/or
pressures from
external accrediting bodies.
There would obviously be some excep-
tions such as physical education,
but
we believe these would be
few in number.
Under "4 x 4
11 Is Ther• • Dan;•r
That
L•ss W.ll-Establish•d
Academic Studi•• May Suff•r?
The Task Force recognizes that, if
"4 x 4" were implemented in certain ways, subjects such as inter-
disciplinary studies,
ethnic
and
gender studies, non-canonical
literature, etc.~ might be damaged.
Since students will
take
fewer courses under
"4
x 4" than under the present system, they
might be less likely to take courses
in less well established
fields.
Majors might tend to be filled with
required
<and tra-
ditional) courses.
And smaller departments might have difficulty
in mounting adequate offerings.
However, we believe that various
protections can be built into the system to prevent that happen-
ing.
For example, we believe that general education requirements
should
constitute no
larger a percentage of the total
program
than at present.
Moreover, at many institutions where "4 x 4" is
used, interdisciplinary programs often flourish.
Haw Would "4 K
4" Affect T•aching Loads?
It would probably
cause the average
teaching
load to fall somewhat toward four
courses per year.
The 25Y. or so
of
the University faculty now
teaching five or six courses per year would probably end up teach-
ing fewer courses, although a few might choose to teach two and a
half courses in a particular semester.
Despite
so•e
decline in
teaching loads~ the total nu•ber of courses offered in any se•es-
ter ~ould probably not be reduced as •uch as the 20% reduction in
de•and noted above.
We expect the
average class size under "4 x
4" to decline, and over a period of time the average faculty mem-
ber would probably teach fewer different courses; under such cir-
cumstances we could reasonably hope
for less faculty preparation
time and improved quality of instruction.
( ~~~
Would
Faculty Pr•••ntly on a Four Cours• p•r V•ar Load S••
~Q-
T•aching Loads Incr•as•
From
BiK
to Eight
Hours p•r B•m•st•r
Und•r
114
K 4"?
Yes, if we retain the present "Carnegie unit"
standards which call for
50
minutes
of class time for 14 or 15
weeks for each credit offered.
However, most other universities
on "4 x 4" have modified that relationship.
For example, a three-
credit course should meet for 150 minutes per week and
a
four-
credit course .for 200 minutes;
SUNY
Binghamton courses meet for
180 minutes per week• those at Amherst for
150
minutes.
[Note:
Since our
semesters
average less than 15 weeks each, our three-
credit courses presently meet for 160 or 165 minutes each week de-
pending on how they are scheduled.]
If the University decides to
adopt "4 x 4" the relationship between
credit hours and contact
hours will be one of the most important questions to be decided.
2
How Can Wa Educationally Justify R•ducin; Contact Tim. p•r
Credit? Like other institutions on "4
x
4" we can increase the
amount
of
independent study and of
work
assigned outside of
class.
We
have
high quality undergraduate students fully
cap-
able of engaging in more out-of-class education.
We
ought to be
doing
much
more
than we are to
encourage self-learning ex-
periences.
The
University
may
also opt for some variation in
this matter.
One can argue that first-year students need closer
faculty supervision than do seniors.
Certain types of
courses
such as
beginning
language courses require relatively intensive
faculty-student
contact;
by
contrast
advanced
undergraduate
reading or research courses
need far less faculty contact.
From
the Binghamton experience, we also believe that students will be
'more likely to get the courses of
their
choice more easily than
under the present more congested system.
Will
Ext•rnal Authoriti•s <SED, SUNY C•ntral, •• g.>
Acc•pt
Such Div•r;•nc• from th• Carn•;i• Standard?
We believe so.
Bing-
hamton had to defend their system in the mid-1970s, but their de-
fense was successful and has not been questioned recently.
It is
clear that the price of such divergence is some kind of monitor-
ing;
i.e.~ faculty must be able to demonstrate, usually through
syllabi, that the total work load in the course does indeed jus-
tify the credit being given.
Is Conv•rsion to
"4 K 4" Administrativ•ly F•asibl•?
The
problems would be challenging.
Clearly the University will have
to take a careful look at issues such as the summer session, tran-
sition from "3 x 5" to "4 x 4", rewriting academic: regulations to
conform to "4 x 4'',
problems of transfer students, space availa-
bility,
rewriting computer programs, impact on state budget, fi-
nancial
aid,
etc.
But preliminary investigations have revealed
no insuperable barriers to "4 x 4" •
. 3
Introduced by:
UNIVERSITY AT ALBANY
UNIVERSITY SENATE
February 13, 1989
RESOLUTION ON THE SUNY BUDGET
Vincent Aceto, Chair, 1987-88 University Senate
Ronald Bosco, Vice Chair, 1988-89 University Senate
Ivan Steen, Secretary, 1988-89 University Senate
Whereas, the proposed budget for the State University of New York will have a
major negative impact on the University at Albany, resulting in staff reductions and
diminution of basic services; and
Whereas, such stringencies come after years of similar budgetary austerity, and are
proposed to continue for at least the next two years; and
Whereas, these reductions in staff and shrinkage of services have seriously
interfered with the University's quest for ever-increasing academic excellence, and they
have impeded the University's ability to provide access to quality education for the
citizens of New York State; and
Whereas, a high-quality public university system has been demonstrated to be an
excellent investment of tax dollars; therefore
Be it resolved, that the University Senate of the University at Albany urges that all
responsible parties, including (but not limited to) the State University of New York
Senate, the University at Albany Council, the State University of New York Board of
Trustees, and United University Professions, exert every possible effort to ensure that the
State University of New York is funded at a substantially increased level, so that the
erosion of the past 15 years is halted, and so that the citizens of the State of New York
will have access to an outstanding public University.
PLEASE NOTIFY YOUR EVENT PARTICIPANTS
OF THE FOLLOWING FIRE SAFETY INFORMATION
CC ASSEMBLY HALL
.:ire exits are located in each of the four (4)
corners of this room.
In the event of a fire,
you will be notified by the sounding of the
Building's fire gongs.
If notified, please move
in a calm and orderly fashion to the nearest exiti ~
Thank you."
i i
i I
. !
(Department of Campus Life)
i i
I.
/ ·-·· ''
Billing
Food
STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK AT ALBANY
ACTION
/
Confi:rmed ( &),.,......
__ Housing
Campus Center
/ .. ~ ..
Denied
( )
Audio Visual
Labor
..
,t.~
..
Note _____ ._
RESERVATION REQUEST
Other
1.
Describe Event
Neet.i .. ng
D
M.onday
--------------------~--------
ay
.
2
A
.
t
160
.
pprox~ma e. Number to Attend
Time of Reservation:
From
2: OOp
To
6:00p
---
3.
EXACT •ritle or Theme of Event University Sf:mab.::! Neeti.ng·
----------------~------------------------------- Information Desk ( )
Clipboard ( )
4.
Sponsoring Organization
University Senc-:tt:e
6.
Name of Person Responsible for Event ------------------~-------Phone No.
AD 2ti;2yf;
Title
Address
----·------------------------------
7.
Bill ·to ---------------- Address
.Assembly Hall
3 00
c·
8.
Space Requested------------------ Time of Event:
From
:
·· P. To
,J ~ 30p
9.
Room Arrangement Requ~sted: r) Auditorium ( ) Discussion ( ) Banquet ( ) Lounge
( ) Other (specify)
( ) See attached diagram
10.
SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS:
( ) Stage
( ) ChaIrs on
( ) Blackboard
( ) Phonograph
( ) Coat racks
( ) Plano
) Tape meeting
) Tape recorder
) Audio tape
) Movie projector
) OVerhead projector
) Slide projector
(I{) Speakers table<s>for 5
( ) Registration table
·
stage_
( > Lighting
( }); Lectern
( ) Flags
( ) Portasound
(K) P.A. ( ) Monitor
) Screen (Size
)
) Bulletin boa~
( > Demonstration area
< ) other ____ _
Comments: __ ~D~a~t~e~.s~~~:--~F~··e=.b~·~]=.3~;~M~a~r=·~·~l~.3~;~A~I:):r~·~l~7~,L-=1~9~8~,~-------------------------
1 table by dom::-
:f!o:r: mater ia.ls
Cost Es·timate:
Maintenance
A. V.
------
---------- Other --------------------------
Source of Funds:
St. Assoc. ( ) State ( ) Res. ·Found. ( ) Private ( ) Other
---------------------------------------------
FOOD SERVICE Requested:
Guaranteed Count Due on (date)
Function --------~-------------~--------~ Location ----·--------~----------------------
Type of Service:
) Table
( ) Cafeteria
( ) Mod. Cafe
( ) Other
No. of People ___ Serving Time
Linen------ Flowers
Head Table __________ No.
Menu Code/Price--------------------------
Other Costs
Comments:
EFV:km
Completed by RBB: jmh
00. 1 1"11"1
-oo..
1 /7 ~ • ?M
..
·"'
Date
Shee·t
4/7/88
of
.. ·:
