xt7h9w090g96 https://exploreuk.uky.edu/dipstest/xt7h9w090g96/data/mets.xml University of Kentucky. University Senate University of Kentucky. Faculty Senate Kentucky University of Kentucky. University Senate University of Kentucky. Faculty Senate 1977-10-10  minutes 2004ua061 English   Property rights reside with the University of Kentucky. The University of Kentucky holds the copyright for materials created in the course of business by University of Kentucky employees. Copyright for all other materials has not been assigned to the University of Kentucky. For information about permission to reproduce or publish, please contact the Special Collections Research Center. University of Kentucky. University Senate (Faculty Senate) records Minutes (Records) Universities and colleges -- Faculty University of Kentucky University Senate (Faculty Senate) meeting minutes, October 10, 1977 text University of Kentucky University Senate (Faculty Senate) meeting minutes, October 10, 1977 1977 1977-10-10 2020 true xt7h9w090g96 section xt7h9w090g96 LEXINGTON. KENTUCKY 40506

UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY \}~ {30“}?
oIl

I

UNIVERSITY SENATE COUNCIL
IO ADMINISTRATION BUILDING

September 30, 1977

TO THE UNIVERSITY SENATE:

The University Senate will meet in regular session at 3:00 p.m.
Monday, October 10, 1977, in the Court Room of the Law
Building.

AGENDA:

ApprOval of minutes of meeting of September 12, 1977.

Chairman's remarks.

John Stephenson: Undergraduate Education

Action Items:

a) Proposal for Re—organization of the College of Home
Economics, to be approved and forwarded to the ad—
ministration for appropriate action. (Circulated under
date of September 30, 1977.)
Proposed change in University Senate Rules, Section I, 3.1. 2
and Section I, 3.1. 3 pertaining to the term of office of the Chair-

man of the Senate Council. (Circulated under date of September
29, 1977.)

Elbert W. Ockerman
Secretary, University Senate

AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY UNIVERSITY

 

 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY
LEXINGTON. KENTUCKY 40506

UNIVERSITY SENATE COUNCIL
Io ADMINISTRATION BUILDING

September 29, 1977

Members, University Senate
University Senate Council

AGENDA ITEM: University Senate Meeting, Monday,
October 10, 1977. Proposal to change the University
Senate Rules, Section I, 3.1. 2 and 3.1. 3, pertaining
to the term of office of the Chairman of the Senate
Council.

Background:

1) The Chairman of the Senate Council serves a term of one year begin-
ning January lst and ending December 31st. This time frame seriously
impedes the business of the Senate. The outgoing Chairman leaves office
with much of the work he or she has been associated with incomplete, and
the incoming Chairman assumes office at the busiest time of the year faced
with the problem of assuming direction of the multitude of activities
initiated by the previous Chairman.

Further, the Chairman of the Council is relieved of half—time duties in his/
her academic unit. It is generally easier to find replacement personnel
for the academic year than for the calendar year.

Proposed changes in Section I, 3.1. 3 of the Rules presented below are designed
to change the term of office of the Chairman of the Senate Council from
January 1 through December 31 to July 1 through June 30.

2) It is the usual case that‘the Chairman of the Senate Council is serving

in his or her third year as a Council member. Thus, when a term of office
as Chairman is completed the past Chairman immediately ceases to be a
member of the Council. This means that the past Chairman's intimate know—
ledge of Senate activities is lost to the Council. The Council feels that it is
highly desirable to have the immediate past Chairman of the Council continue
as an SE officio member of the Council to provide greater continuity in Senate
activities. The changes in Section I, 3. l. 2 of the Rules presented below will
make the Chairman of the Senate Council ang; officio member of the Council
for the year immediately following the term as Chairman if he or she would not
normally hold elected membership in the Council.

AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY UNIVERSITY

 

 .u

Page 2
Senate Agenda Item: Senate Council Chairmanship
September 29, 1977

This is a particularly propitious time to make these changes since Professor
Wilson, the current Chairman of the Council, will continue in her third year
as an elected member of the Council immediately following her year of service
as Chairman. Professor Oberst, Chairman—elect of the Council, will assume
office on January lst, but is retiring on July 1, 1979, and will serve for only
six months making the change in the term of office for the Chairman particular
ly convenient.

Action: The Rules Committee and the Senate Council propose the following
changes in the Rules of the University Senate effective immediately (deletions
in brackets, additions underlined).

I. 3.1. 3 Officers (E—O4~76) -— The officers of the Senate Council shall consist
of a Chairman, a Chairman—elect and Secretary. The Chairman shall hold of—
fice from [January 1st] July 1st to [December 3lst] June 30th, shall preside at
Council meetings, and shall be responsible for the operation of the Senate
Council office. The Chairman-elect and Secretary—elect shall be elected [at
the first or second Council meeting in March] in May,* to assume office 14
months later. The Chairman-elect shall assume the duties of the Chairman
in his or her absence, and shall succeed, to the office of the Chairman on
[January lst] July 1st or at any time that the office becomes vacant. The

 

Secretary shall assume office on [January lst] July lst, shall serve for a term
of one year or until a replacement is elected, shall keep the minutes of the
Council meetings and shall present Council recommendations to the University
Senate for action. If for any reason the office of Chairman—elect or Secretary

I, 3. 1. Z Compositio -— The Senate Council shall be composed as follows: the
elected membership shall include nine (9) members chosen by and from the
faculty membership of the University Senate and two (2) members elected by and
from the newly elected student membership of the University Senate; the student
and faculty members of the Board of Trustees and. the immediate past Chairman
of the Senate Council, who, if they are not elected members of the Senate Council,
shall be 3X_o_ffi_c_i_o_, non-voting members.

 

 

J, J a, d;
(P (P 4‘ ,P

*If approved, the election for Chairman—elect for July 1, 1978—June 30, 1979
shall be held as soon as possible after the new members of the Senate Council
are seated. Subsequently, the elections will be held in May, as proposed in
the Rules change.

 

 UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY
LEXINGTON. KENTUCKY 40506

UNIVERSITY SENATE COUNCIL
IO ADMINISTRATION BUILDING

September 30, 1977

Members, University Senate
University Senate Council

AGENDA ITEM: University Senate Meeting
Monday, October 10, 1977. Proposal for Re—
organization of the College of Home Economics,
to be approved and forwarded to the administra—
tion for appropriate action.

The University Senate Council and the Senate Committee on Academic Or—
ganization and Structure recommend that the proposed re—organization in

the College of Home Economics be approved by the University Senate and

forwarded to the Administration for appropriate action.

Recommendation:

That the present five departments in the College of Home Economics
(Human Development and Family Relations, Housing and Interior Design,
Management and Family Economics, Nutrition and Food Science and
Textiles, Clothing and Merchandising) be restructured to form three de-
partments:

Family Studies: Human Development and Resource Management
Human Environment: Design and Textiles
Nutrition and Food Science

All existing courses, programs and degrees offered by the existing de—
partments shall be transferred to the three respective new departments
and continued by those units.

Background:

Because of the concern for the administrative difficulties resulting from

the small number of faculty in three of the departments and the difficulties

in obtaining persons for existing chairmanship vacancies who have credentials
to qualify for graduate faculty membership and tenure, the Dean‘s office

was requested to analyze its operations and suggest restructuring of the ad—
ministrative component which would reduce the number of departments by at

least two.
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY UNIVERSITY

 

 fDage 2
Agenda Item: University Senate Meeting, 10/10/77 Home Economics Re-Org.
September 30, 1977

Background (continued)

The study began in October, 1976 and was completed in February, 1977 by

a committee of elected faculty and administrators. Faculty input was sought
constantly by the representative faculty members. Graduate students also
were consulted and undergraduates were given an opportunity to react to the
proposed plan.

It is believed that the recommended changes of reducing the number of depart—
ments from five to three will result in more effective administration of the

33 full-time faculty in the College of Home Economics. Interdepartmental

and interdisciplinary research and teaching should result as well as strengthened
graduate programs. Other advantages will accrue due to less administrative
time and more emphasis on teaching, research and service.

 

 \ulv‘x

4" l . I ' , ioIWIw

UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY

' LEXINGTON, KENTUCKY 40506

DEAN 0F ADMISSIONS AND REGISTRAR . l. > », , ‘ October 14, 1977

Dr. Otis A. Singletary, President
University of Kentucky
Administration Building

I Campus

Dear President Singletary:

The University Senate at its meeting of October 10,1977. voted to recommend
to you for presentation to the Board of Trustees the recommendation that the Univer-
sity reorganize the College of Home Economics; V The University Senate Council and
the Senate Committee on Academic Organization and __Structure recommend approval
of the proposal.

Recommendation:

, That the present five departments in the College of Home Economics . '
(Human Development and Family Relations, Housing and Interior Design,
Management and Family Economics, Nutrition and Food Science and
Textiles. Clothing and Merchandising) be restructured to form three
departments: »

Family Studies: Human DevelOPment and Resource _
_ 7 . Management "

Human Enwronment Design and Textiles

Nutrition and Food Science

All existing courses, programs and degrees offered by the existing d3"
_ .partments shall be transferred to the three respective new departments
and continued by those units

' » Background:

Because of the concern for the administrative difficulties resulting from
the small number of faculty in three of the departments and the diffi-
culties in obtaining persons for existing chairmanship vacancies who
_‘ have credentials to qualify for graduate faculty membership and tenure, ‘
g the Dean‘ 5 office was requested to analyze its operations and suggest
restructuring of the administratiVe component which would reduce the '
number of departments 15y at least two; ‘

IAN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY UNIVERSITY ‘

 

 '7'?"

Dr. Otis A. Singletary. President
October 14, 1977

Page 2

The study began in October, 1976 and was completed in February, 1977
by a committee of elected faculty and administrators . Faculty input was
sought constantly by the representative faculty members. Graduate
students also were consulted and undergraduates were given an oppor~
tunity to react to the proposed plan.

It is believed that the recommended changes of reducing the number
of departments from five to three will result in more effective adminis~
tration of the 33 fullctime faculty in the College of Home Economics .
interdepartmental and interdisciplinary resaarch and teaching should
result as well as strengthened graduate programs. Other advantages
will accrue due to less administrative time and more emphasis on
teaching, research and service.

Cordially ,

Elbert W . Ockerman
Dean of Admissions
and Registrar

 

 MINUTES OF THE UNIVERSITY SENATE, OCTOBER 10, 1977

The University Senate met in regular session at 3:00 p.m. , Monday, October 10, 1977,
in the Court Room of the Law Building.

Constance P. Wilson, presiding

Members absent: Roger B. Anderson*, Harry H. Bailey*, Charles E. Barnhart, R. Paul
Baumgartner*, Robert P. Belin, A. Edward Blackhurst, Jack C. Blanton, Thomas 0. Blues,
Russell H. Brannon, Joseph A. Bryant*, Joseph T. Burch, Bradley Canon*, Donald B.
Clapp, D. Kay Clawson*, Glenn B. Collins*, Ronda S. Connaway*, Raymond H. Cox,

M. Ward Crowe*, Guy M. Davenport*, Robert J. DeAngelis*, Patrick P. DeLuca*, George W.
Denemark*, Anthony Eardley, Jane M. Emanuel*, Calvin Ernst*, James E. Funk, Art
Gallaher*, Abner Golden*, John L. Greenway*, Andrew J. Grimes*, Joseph Hamburg, S. Zafar
Hasan*, Raymond R. Hornback, Alfred S. L. Hu, Eugene Huff*, Margaret W. Jones*, Dave
Kaelin, David T. Kao*, James A. Knoblett, Theodore A. Kotchen, Gretchen LaGodna*,
Stephen Langston, Donald C. Leigh*, Thomas P. Lewis, Arthur Lieber, John H. Lienhard*,
Austin S. Litvak, George E. Mitchell, Richard Murray, Jacqueline A. Noonan*, Elbert W.
Ockerman*, Edward O'Hara*, Peggy O'Mera*, Merrill W. Packer*, David Peck*, Bobbie G.
Pedigo, William K. Plucknett*, Anna K. Reed*, Billy Renner*, Wimberly C. Royster*,
Pritam S. Sabharwal, John Serkland’l‘, D. Milton Shuffett*, Gerard E. Silberstein*, Otis A.
Singletary*, John T. Smith*, John P. Strickland*, Willis A. Sutton*, John Thrailkill*,
Harwin L. Voss , M. Stanley Wall, J. Robert Wills, Ralph F . Wiseman*, Judith Worell*,

and Louise Zegeer*

The minutes of the regular meeting of September 12, 1977, were accepted as circulated
with the correction of the amendment on Page 20 to read: "On Page 2 , Item 4 by deleting
reference to specific departments and/or disciplines. "

SUMMARY:
I. Action Items:

A. Proposal for Reorganization of the College of Home Economics , to be approved and
forwarded to the administration for appropriate action. (Circulated under date of
September 30, 1977.)

Motion passed.

Proposed change in University Senate Rules , Section 1, 3.1.2 and Section I, 3.1.3
pertaining to the term of office of the Chairman of the Senate Council. (Circulated
under date of September 29, 1977.)

Motion passed.

 

II. Senate Council Activities and Informational Items

A. Update on activities of ad hoc and Standing Committees of the Senate: Numbering;
Academic Organization and Structure; Summer School; Evening School; Evaluation
of Procedures; and Ad Hoc Committee of Assistant and Associate Deans.

*Ab senc e Explained

 

 Admissions and Academic Standards Proposals

1. College of Architecture
2. College of Dentistry

Summer School Report, Professor Stephen Langston, Chairman
D. Evening School
E. Appointment of Procedures Committee

. Professor John Stephenson, Undergraduate Dean
Report: Undergraduate Education at UK: A Look at the Near Future

Chairman Wilson summarized the Senate Council activities and informational items as
follows:

The Assistant and Associate Deans Ad Hoc Committee has been reestablished and
is meeting regularly to discuss concerns of mutual interest to them and the Senate
Council.

Professor Malcolm Jewell, Chairman of the Committee on Numbering has completed
the report to the Senate Council with some suggestions for changes in the Senate
Rules. In addition, Chairman Jewell is working out a procedure to simplify the
method by which courses (both numbering and description) can be corrected and
brought into conformity with the rules.

The Committee on Academic Organization and Structure is reviewing the academic
questions related to financial exigency.

The Committee on Admissions and Academic Standards is reviewing a proposal from
the College of Architecture to eliminate the Spring admission of students. The
admissions policies of theCollege of Dentistry are being reviewed.

Professor Langston will present the final report on the Summer School to the Senate
Council on Wednesday, October l9.

The evaluation and proposals on the Evening School are being studied by the
Committee on Special Teaching Programs.

An Ad Hoc Committee to examine procedures in privilege and tenure, academic area
committees , the hearing panel, faculty code, and other such structures is in the
process of being appointed.

 

  

Minutes of the University Senate, October 10, 1977 - Cont 5090

B. Admissions and Academic Standards Proposals

1. College of Architecture
2. College of Dentistry

C. Summer School Report, Professor Stephen Langston , Chairman
D. Evening School
E. Appointment of Procedures Committee

III. Professor John Stephenson, Undergraduate Dean
Report: Undergraduate Education at UK: A Look at the Near Future

Chairman Wilson summarized the Senate Council activities and informational
items as follows:

1. The Assistant and Associate Deans Ad Hoc Committee has been reestablished
and is meeting regularly to discuss concerns of mutual interest to
them and the Senate Council.

2. Professor Malcolm Jewell, Chairman of the Committee on Numbering
has completed the report to the Senate Council with some suggestions
for changes in the Senate Rules. In addition, Chairman Jewell is
working out a procedure to simplify the method by which courses
(both numbering and description) can be corrected and brought into
conformity with the rules.

3. The Committee on Academic Organization and Structure is reviewing
the academic questions related to financial exigency.

4. The Committee on Admissions and Academic Standards is reviewing
a proposal from the College of Architecture to eliminate the Spring
admission of students.

5. The admissions policies of the College of Dentistry are being reviewed.

6. Professor Langston will present the final report on the Summer School
to the Senate Council on Wednesday, October 19.

7. The evaluation and proposals on the Evening School are being studied
by the Committee on Special Teaching Programs.

8. A committee to examine procedures in privilege and tenure in academic
areas and to hear panel faculty code and other such structures is in
the process of being appointed.

3)

 -3—

Professor Wilson introduced Professor John Stephenson, Professor of Sociology,
Dean of Undergraduate Studies, Chairman of the Undergraduate Council, editor of

Images , and probably one of the most creative people on campus.

Professor Stephenson spoke to the Senate as follows:

"I have been invited by the Senate Council to share with the Senate some
of my thoughts on the state of undergraduate education at the University.
I would like to use this opportunity more to look at the future of undergradur
ate education than to review the past or merely assess the present, although
I will try to do all three in the next twenty minutes. Let me at least begin
with the future in View of the fact that, like it or not, that is where we are
all going to be living soon.

Earlier this year I was made aware of some projections about the future
of higher education in the South. These data were assembled for the
Southern Regional Education Board by David Spence. David was kind
enough to share his projections with me, and I would like to put some of
them before you now.

According to the SREB figures, enrollments in the nation will increase
between 1975 and 1980 by 6. 5%, whereas between 1980 and 1985 they will
decline by 4.1%. This increase-followed-by~dec1ine is a projection most
of us are well aware of. What I had not seen before were figures for the
South and for Kentucky , projections which take into account the effects of
net migration, such as the current so-called Sunbelt movement. For the
14 SREB states, postsecondary enrollments are projected to increase by
11.5% between 1975 and 1980, and then to decline by 2.0% between 1980 and
1985. In Kentucky specifically, enrollments are projected to increase by
7.8% in the first period and to decline by 7.4% by 1985. Only Florida,
Arkansas , and Maryland are projected to increase in enrollments between

1980 and 1985 .

As controlling a factor as overall enrollment size is, it is not the only
thing that is going to change. The kinds of postsecondary institutions these
students choose to attend will also change somewhat. Fewer will attend
private institutions , as we might all guess , and more will attend two-year
institutions , according to the SREB projections for the South.

Moreover, there may be a slight decline in the proportion of students
seeking first degrees (baccalaureate and first professional degrees), and
only a slight increase in the proportion seeking graduate degrees. The in-
crease Will come in the proportion of non—degree students.

So, in general, we are looking at a future for the South and probably
for Kentucky in which there are fewer students choosing to attend four—
year institutions with definite degree objectives in mind. One clear
implication of this presumed fact is that colleges and universities generally
will be giving much more attention to the problem of retaining the students

 

 __4_

who do come to them. Another which seems fairly clear is that institutions
will have to come to a new understanding of the objectives and needs of
those students who are not the usual degree-seekers. Who are they, what
do they want, how are they to be best served? A third implication is that
sooner or later, competition for students among institutions in the same
general market areas will intensify. In fact, one of the more competitive
universities in Kentucky was chastised only a few weeks ago for its aggres-
sive advertising campaign aimed at recruiting students through the mass
media.

The SREB projections also show that the nature of our student popula-
tion is likely to change in other ways in the future. In fact, the composition
of the student body is already changing. For one thing, it is older. In
1965, only 20.5% of college enrollees in the U.S. were over 24 years of age,
compared to 33.6% in 1975. In the South, 14% of the population was made up of
18- to 24 year-olds in 1975. That figure will drop to 10.4 by 1990. The im-
plications for universities like this one are fairly clear. The needs and goals
and learning styles of adult learners are going to have to be better under—
stood and programs modified accordingly. The increasing proportion of
older students anticipated in the future also explains the increase in non—degree-
seeking students-—more than likely they are the same.

They are also probably the same. students who attend colleges and univer-
sities part—time rather than full-time. In the South in 1974, 33% of college
enrollment was made up of part—time students. That figure is expected to
grow to 43% by 1985. We are talking here about students, both men and wo-
men, who are older, have families, are working full-time, and who want to
upgrade job-related skills or simply improve themselves educationally in
general. We can also anticipate somewhat stiffer guidelines for re-licensure

in some of the professions, a trend which will send additional numbers of

adults back to school on a part-time basis.

Another trend underscored. by the SREB study is the increased propor-
tion of women enrolled in postsecondary institutions. A good bit of the
change in this respect since WW II has come since 1970, but the change over
the last 25 years is dramatic , at least in comparison to most demographic
changes. The proportion of women among those enrolled in 1951 in the South
was 36.5%, compared to 47.0% in 1976. The reasons for this trend are not
difficult to identify, and they are likely to continue their influence for the
next few years at least.

Again, a number of these women students will be older than what we
think of as the normal 18-22 year—old ”coed. ” As I have said elsewhere, the
presence of these persons on our campus is likely to make a noticeable
difference in the general learning atmosphere, as well as differences in the
programs we deliver and ways we deliver them.

Of course , the accuracy of projections such as these cannot be deter—
mined until 1985 or later. Many things can happen to change the assump-
tions on which these trends are based-~economic shifts, radical demographic

 

 -5_

changes , wars , and fickle public attitudes are the stuff of which futurists'
bad dreams are made.

On the other hand, some of the changes predicted are determinable
from the simple fact that, barring something like a nuclear holocaust, we
know how many people are going to be around in 1985 and 1990 in certain age
categories . In addition, many of the projections are merely amplifications
of trends that common sense and simple observation tell us are happening.
At any rate, I think being aware of these trends can help us think about what
we might want to plan for in the immediate future.

Now I would like to make a few comments about the future of undergraduate
education at the University of Kentucky. What can be said about undergradu-
ate programs at UK? What are our problems, what are our opportunities?

As a whole, I think the University has shown itself surprisingly adapt-

able. It has shown, by and large, that it can meet the changing needs of

its client groups. At least this has been my observation over the eleven years
I have been here. The University's enrollment has grown from 13,850 to

over 22,000 since 1966. Baccalaureate programs have increased both in num-
ber and flexibility. Courses and course sequences have gradually incor—
porated such techniques as modularization, self~instruction, video feedback,
and "fall-back" sectioning, so that teaching-learning processes are more
easily adapted to the backgrounds, ability levels, and goals of individual
students. It is strikingly clear to me that the campus as a whole is much more

interested in the quality of teaching and learning than was the case in 1970 ,
and I believe this is true at both graduate and undergraduate levels.

I have been impressed also by our willingness to experiment, even, in
some instances , when we don't personally believe the experiment will
result in success. For example:

 

—-the BGS, now under review, was initiated only a few years ago.
--the Developmental Studies Program was begun in an effort to prevent
open-door admissions policy from becoming a revolving-door policy.

~-the University Year for Action program, which has since become the
Office for Experiential Education has helped many of us learn a great deal
about a new form of teaching and learning which has become an important
component of many curricula on campus.

--Various teaching improvement programs, such as the Mini-Grant pro-
gram begun by Dan Reedy when he was Dean of Undergraduate Studies ,
the University-wide orientation for new graduate teaching assistants, the
reorganization of the Office for Instructional Resources, the creation of re-
quired departmental graduate courses in teaching , and the greatly increased
number of departments which have appointed faculty members as Directors
of Undergraduate Studies to serve as counterparts of the Directors of
Graduate Studies .

 

 -6—

--a continuing series of changes in library programs, all aimed at im-
proving services to users, all carried out in an attitude of experimentation.

—-_the Individualized Program of Study in the College of Agriculture,
and also their new special program for assisting returning students to ex—
pedite degree completion.

--and the various programs that have emerged from the Vice President's
Commission on the Freshman Year, such as the Freshman Seminar Program,
the two-day Summer Advising Conference, and the " continuing orientation”
seminars (although there are still many improvements needed, such as increas-
ing the variety of offerings available to Freshmen) .

These changes show an unusual degree of institutional self—confidence, and
they always pleasantly surprise me because in my early days here I con-
cluded that UK was an anxious, status~conscious middle-ranked university
holding onto its ill-defined traditions for dear life. as the seas swelled up
around her in the late 1960's. We are somewhat more mature now, and while
we enjoy our successes enormously, we are not afraid of occasional failure
if we have given some experimental program a good try.

What is in UK's future as far as undergraduate programs are concerned?
Much of what SREB has projected about higher education in the nation and
the region certainly applies specifically to UK:

—-first, the composition of the student population is going to change, and
is in fact already changing. We can expect more female students, more older
students, and more part-time students. (You may not know that last year ,
according to one count, there were more than. 1600 women students over the
age of 25 on campus, most of whom were undergraduates).

--second, we can anticipate the prospect of decline in first>year enroll-
ments. This change may not be far off. This trend means that we will want
to study problems of retention in order to keep at the University of Kentucky
more of those who initially enroll here. Among other things , that means
improving undergraduate advising, giving more attention to individual
student needs and learning goals, and minimizing confusion, poor communica-
tions, and conflicting policy interpretations. It also means improving, as
we are able to, the conditions under which the faculty teach and the students

learn, especially in those areas presently understaffed. (Incidentally, for

your information, our rate of return of freshmen to the sophomore year is
probably around 75%, which is the national average. In addition, of stu-
dents beginning UK in 1971, 48% had not graduated by Fall, 1977. In one
college, that figure is as high as 61%. An unknown proportion of these
students may have been best served by leaving, of course. We know little
about them or about the rest, although a. study is now underway) .

Among the concerns to which I think we need to address ourselves
in the coming year or two, I would rank the following among the highest
in priority. Some of them represent old problems which have not been

 

 _7._.

completely solved. Others represent new problems we did not face five or

ten years ago. Still others represent new opportunities to take the lead in
serving changing higher educational needs. I merely list these items, and
give them in no special order:

—-1. We must find ways to improve the situation in those areas where
enrollments have outdistanced growth in numbers of faculty. There is not
much doubt that we have lost ground overall in the student/faculty ratio
University~wide over the past ten years or so. In addition, there continue
to be shifts in student choices of majors and of individual courses, a situa—
tion which invariably creates a lag in the allocation of teaching resources.

It does not take long for sudden enrollment increases to take their toll on

the quality of teaching and learning, so I would place high value on improve—
ment of this situation in selected departments, and I am encouraged that the
University’s biennial budget request gives this problem very high priority.

—-2. We should continue to give attention to issues concerning the
guality of student learning and to issues concerning the guality of faculty
teaching and advising:

(a) The mean ACT composite of entering freshmen declined from
22.1 in 1968 to 20.2 in Fall, 1976. Meantime, the average grade awarded to
UK increased from 2.5 in 1965—66 to a high of 2.8 in 1973-74. (It has since
levelled off at 2 . 7 in Fall and 2.8 in Spring). The average GPA increased
from 2.42 in Fall, 1965 to 2.65 in Fall, 1976. These contradictory trends
need to be monitored and reported--perhaps annually to the faculty. (Each
of us may wish to place his own interpretation on the data, but they should
nonetheless be known to us) .

(b) The Faculty Code has had unknown effects on the assurance
of basic student entitlements to quality teaching. Its presence may have made
some differences, but there still exist from time to time some basic problems
in classroom teaching which the Code does not seem able to handle. I be-
lieve the effects of the Faculty Code need study, and this, among other
things , is being looked at by the Pisacano Committee on Ethics and Academic
Responsibilities. I might mention also that the problem of the extent of
student cheating is also being looked into by this committee.

(c) Efforts to involve students in the serious and careful evaluation
of teaching and advising are being met with varying degrees of success.
We have long passed the point where students greeted the opportunity to
evaluate the faculty with enthusiasm and righteousness. On the other hand,
it is clear that when students take this task