FACULTY SENATE
Minutes of May 13, 1998 - (approved)
E-MAIL: ZBFACSEN@ACSU.BUFFALO.EDU

The Faculty Senate convened a special meeting at 2:00 PM on Wednesday, May 13, 1998 in Talbert Hall 107 to consider the following agenda:

1. Resolution on Mid-Semester Progress Reports (Second Reading)
2. Comments on the Resolution for Grade Replacement
3. Report of the Faculty Senate Committee on Affirmative Action
4. Report of the Faculty Senate Academic Planning Committee

 
Item 1: Resolution on Mid-Semester Progress Reports (Second Reading)

Professor Schroeder presented a revised version of the resolution on mid-semester progress reports for freshmen and first-semester transfer students. Paragraph (2) defines the progress report as a statement from the instructor indicating whether a student is making satisfactory progress in a course, and Paragraph (3) makes clear that the progress report is not to be construed in any sense as a grade to be factored into either the work done by mid-term or into the final grade.

Vice-Provost Goodman had checked with CIT and reported that there would not be any difficulty in providing an electronic means for submitting mid-semester reports, one with which an instructor can easily indicate which students in a list are making unsatisfactory progress.

Professor Schack applauded the revision, but wished to amplify the final point, stressing the need for faculty to provide more information to their students on their progress in time for them to take remedial action.

The Faculty Senate voted to adopt the resolution.

 

Item 2: Comments on the Resolution for Grade Replacement

The Faculty Senate Grading Committee had decided to postpone the Second Reading of the resolution on grade replacement until the Fall semester. This decision was based on several problems with the proposal which emerged in last week's discussion. The Committee wished to allow the senators more time to think about the resolution and its intended effects; in the meantime, it is in the process of drafting a set of frequently asked questions (FAQs) and typical examples to help clear any misunderstandings.

Professor Schroeder explained that a student's low grades from one semester "continue to live with that student, dragging the student's GPA downward for a long period of time", thus unduly penalizing the student. Replacing, rather than averaging, grades for repeated courses would emphasize a more positive outcome; it would also avoid counting a course twice in the GPA, hence overweighing it the overall GPA. He added that grade replacement seems to be at least as common as grade averaging at other universities --- including several AAU institutions with good reputations, which counters the notion that UB would be lowering its standard by adopting such a policy.

Professor Benenson pointed out that UB accepted for the Fall 1997, and is planning to accept for Fall 1998, 73% of its applications. "Our noble intentions aside," he continued, "we may not be in quite the same situation as some of the distinguished universities to which you are referring."

Professor Adams suggested that the Committee consider the resolution possibly as a way of displacing the responsibility for effective teaching; it seemed to her that we would be putting more of this responsibility on to the students than we should.

Professor Meacham favored the resolution, pointing out that it would enable faculty to stipulate in their syllabi that students should have achieved a certain level of proficiency before taking a course. This would reduce the great disparity in student competency in several courses, would help insure a greater competency level of those enrolled in a course, and would "significantly upgrade my standards in teaching, as well as the expectations that I can have for students [in upper level courses]".

Professor Wooldridge supported grade replacement, on the assumption that the second grade more accurately reflects a student's attained knowledge or proficiency of the subject matter in a course.

Professor Schack suspected that the group of students targeted by this resolution is quite small, consisting mainly of those "who would not find doing well in the future an adequate motivation" for mastering what they should have already learned. Moreover, the overall effect on the GPA is bound to be minimal. He supported the idea presented at the last meeting that students audit the repeated course, free of charge.

 

 

Item 3: Report of the Faculty Senate Committee on Affirmative Action

Professor Moore had presented a resolution of the Affirmative Action Committee, a Junior Faculty Retention and Mentoring Initiative, under which each junior faculty member be assigned an advocate advisor or committee upon appointment to the University. The rationale for the proposal lay in the disproportionately low retention rate for women faculty; the FSCAA had reason to believe that this applied to racial minorities as well. Professor Acara had pointed out in the FSEC meeting of April 29, 1998 that, three semesters ago, there were seventeen African-American assistant professors on tenure track; today, there are only eight. A mentoring program should help to alleviate this problem not only for women and minorities, but for all junior faculty.

Provost Headrick reported that he had just met, prior to the Senate meeting, with his Junior Faculty Advisory Board, and that they had discussed the topic of mentoring at some length. There was a clear sense that, despite the fact that some areas of the University have successful mentoring programs, we need to address this as a University problem, although it probably needs to be addressed on a unit-to-unit basis. He considered it proper that the responsibility for this initiative rests with his Office. There was also general agreement that new faculty should be given first a period of time top become acclimated to their new positions, as well as the opportunity to choose their mentor, rather than to have one assigned as soon as they are hired.

Professor Benenson suggested some changes in wording to more accurately reflect the intent of the proposed initiative, among them the deletion of the word "advocate", since no mentor should feel obligated to support a junior faculty member undeserving of promotion. He also objected to a mentoring committee, preferring instead individual faculty mentors. Professor Moore explained that the idea of the committee was simply to offer new faculty a means of having contact with as many supportive faculty as desired.

Professor Woodson pointed out that several junior faculty leave UB not for academic reasons (a number have left for better institutions), but because they were unhappy about feeling isolated; she urged that a mentoring committee include faculty from other departments, in order better to integrate the new faculty into the wider University community. Professor Doyno added that, based on a previous study, this feeling of disaffiliation is common to all faculty, and that this is directly connected to the lack of a faculty club at UB.

Professor Schwartz warned against any implicit assumption in the proposal that, simply because a junior faculty member has a mentor, he/she will be suitable for contract renewal or promotion. Professor Moore replied that improving retention rates per se is not the intention or goal, but rather providing guidance for new faculty to better enhance their chances for promotion.

Item 4: Report of the Faculty Senate Academic Planning Committee

Professor Welch reported the creation of a new department, Computer Science and Engineering, which combines the existing department of Computer Science with the section of Electrical and Computer Engineering. The Provost's academic plan had already suggested the creation of this unit last academic year; this was followed by extensive discussion in the two units, and the ensuing development seemed consistent with the plans brought forth in those discussions.

Professor Welch presented the "Resolution on Faculty Senate Review of Proposals for the Future of the University and Reorganization of Academic Units", passed by the Senate last Fall, and explained how the process of creating the new department satisfied each stipulation of the resolution. The APC has not made any specific recommendations for any need for continued monitoring during the transitional period of the formation of the new department; it would address any major problems, should they arise.

Professor Benenson noted for the record that the APC discussions involved principally the chairs of the two units, and "the broad input of the faculty, to my knowledge, was not solicited". Professor Welch replied that the APC did not feel it has the expertise to monitor all the academic aspects involved, but rather is primarily concerned about due process with active faculty involvement; the people with whom they discussed the issue seemed fully aware of all the sentiments of the concerned faculty. In reply to Professor Doyno's question, Professor Welch said that the APC did not announce the meetings, nor invite all the faculty of the two units; rather, it requested that the two Chairs represent the all the views in their departments. Nevertheless, if the Faculty Senate feels the APC should in the future consult more widely in similar situations, it would certainly make every effort to do so.

The Senate voted in favor of receiving and filing the report.

 

The meeting was adjourned at 3:30 PM.

 

Respectfully submitted,

 

 

Robert G. Hoeing

Secretary of the Faculty Senate

 

 

 

PRESENT:

Chair: P. Nickerson

Secretary: R. Hoeing

Arts & Letters: V. Doyno, M. Frisch, N. Grant, M. Hyde, J. Ludwig

Dental Medicine: A. Aguirre, R. Baier, M. Easley, G. Ferry, R. Hall

Engineering & Applied Sciences: D. Benenson, C. Bloebaum, S. Mohan, R. Sridhar

Graduate School of Education: L. Klenk, B. Johnstone, L. Malave, T. Schroeder, L. Yang

Health-Related Professions: L. E. Gosselin, S. Nochajski, J. Tamburlin

Information & Library Studies: G. D'Elia

Law: L. Schwartz

Management: J. Boot, J. Newman, C. Pegels, R. Ramesh

Medicine & Biomedical Sciences: M. Alashari, B. Albini, D. Amsterdam, W. Flynn, S. Gallagher, R. Heffner,

A. Saltzman, H. Schuel, A. Vladutiu

Natural Sciences & Mathematics: R. Allendoerfer, J. Berry, M. Churchill, J. Faran, M. Ram, K. Regan,

J. Resnick, S. Schack

Nursing: P. Wooldridge

Pharmacy: R. Madejski

Social Sciences: J. Gayle Beck, H. Calkins, J. Charles-Luce, P. Hare, J. Lawler, P. Luce, J. Meacham, C. Sellers,

S. Singer, B. Smith

SUNY Senators: J. Fisher, D. Malone, C. Welch

University Libraries: J. Adams, C. Densmore, W. Hepfer, M. Kramer, D. Woodson

University Officer: T. Headrick, W. Fischer

 

GUESTS:

Faculty Senate Grading Committee:

Thomas Schroeder, Chair

Nicolas Goodman

Todd Hennessey

 

Faculty Senate Committee on Affirmative Action:

Brenda Moore, Chair

EXCUSED:

Social Sciences: : D. Banks

 

ABSENT:

Architecture: M. Hadighi

Arts & Letters: M.-E Gutiérrez, J. Holstun, R. Mennen, J. Rickard

Engineering: W. George, M. Ryan

Medicine & Biomedical Sciences: M.Acara, R. Batt, E. Fine, S. Greenberg, C. Leach, B. Noble, S. Rudin,

F. Schimpfhauser, C. Smith, M. Spaulding, J. Sulewski, A. Wakhlo, B. Willer

Natural Sciences & Mathematics: P. Calkin, C. Fourtner

Nursing: M. Johnson

Pharmacy: N.

Social Sciences: M. Harwitz

SUNY Senators: M. Jameson

© Copyright University at Buffalo Faculty Senate | UB Home | Accessibility | Legal Notices | Website Acknowledgements