Appendix B

COMMITTEE ON COMMITTEES AND RULES

Revision of Faculty Senate Constitution, Bylaws, and Standing Rules,
Constitution, Article II, Section 4
Faculty Senator Representation Ratio

(Legislative)
Implementation: Spring 2005 Senate Elections and Upon Approval by the President

On October 28, 2003, the University Faculty Senate voted to change the faculty representation ratio from one Senator for each twenty (20) members of the electorate to one Senator for each twenty-five (25) members of the electorate.

Discussion and Rationale
This amendment introduces the ratio change into Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution. This change is introduced with the understanding that the ratio change will be phased in over four years, and that the 1:25 ratio will be attained in the 2008-2009 academic year.

Recommendation

The text that follows is from the current Constitution. Recommended deletions are denoted by strikeout. Recommended additions are indicated by UPPER CASE.

Constitution, Article II, Section 4

The University Faculty of each unit shall elect one Senator for each twenty (20) TWENTY-FIVE (25) members of the electorate (as defined in Section 1) and major fraction thereof in that unit, except that each unit shall have a minimum of one (1) Senator. The normal term of elected faculty Senators shall be four (4) years. One-fourth (1/4) of the total number, as nearly as practicable, of faculty Senators from each voting unit shall be elected each year. To balance membership terms in any unit, the Elections Commission may on request permit the voting unit to elect a Senator for a term of less than four (4) years.

SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMITTEES AND RULES
Deborah F. Atwater
Christopher J. Bise
Lynn A. Carpenter
Joseph J. Cecere
W. Travis DeCastro
Joanna Floros, Vice-Chair
George W. Franz
Pamela P. Hufnagel, Chair
J. Daniel Marshall
John W. Moore
Jamie M. Myers
Robert N. Pangborn
Andrew B. Romberger
Kim C. Steiner

Implementation Principles and Guidelines
for the Phase-In of the 1:25 Representation Ratio

Implementation: Spring 2005 Senate Elections and Upon Approval by the President

For the 2004-2005 academic year, the faculty of each voting unit shall elect one Senator for each twenty (20) members of the electorate. Beginning with the Spring 2005 elections (for the 2005-2006 AY) voting units will have the authority to determine the process for the incremental or immediate implementation of a unit’s representation ratio to 1:25 based on the current census.

Voting units will submit implementation plans to the Senate Elections Commission by October 15, 2004. The implementation plans are subject to the review and approval of the Elections Commission. Each year an annual faculty census is conducted and units will submit a revised implementation plan based on the current number of faculty in the voting unit.

Attached to these principles is a spreadsheet providing a suggested incremental implementation based on the Spring 2004 census. As can be seen, voting units reach the 1:25 ratio in 2008-2009. The following principles will serve as a guideline for units to use in preparing their implementation plans.

1. Units are encouraged to use attrition as a strategy for reducing the number of Senators in a unit, e.g., retirements, resignations, sabbaticals, etc.
2. The implementation plan should allow for an equal distribution of Senators over four years.
3. The plan will allow for modification as a unit’s census changes.
4. The reduction may be incremental and gradual or immediate.
5. Units may reduce the terms of elected Senators, e.g., from four years to two years, to achieve an equal distribution of Senators over four years.
6. Units may not extend the length of Senators terms beyond four years.

Phase-In Schedule for the 1:25 Faculty Representation Ratio, Based on 2003-2004 Faculty Census

Appendix C

SENATE COMMITTEE ON CURRICULAR AFFAIRS
SENATE COMMITTEE ON UNDERGRADUATE EDUCATION

Proposal for Revising the Intercultural/International Competence Requirement

(Legislative)
Implementation: Summer 2005 upon Approval by the President

Introduction

In response to the 1997 Senate General Education legislation that called for the continuous review of each component of the requirements, the Senate Committee on Undergraduate Education in September 2002 formed a subcommittee to review the current Intercultural/ International Competence Requirement (GI). Membership on the subcommittee included representatives from Undergraduate Education, Curricular Affairs, Gye N’Yame, Undergraduate Student Government, and the departments of African and African-American Studies, Music, Religious Studies, and Women’s Studies. The subcommittee consisted of the following members: Cheryl L. Achterberg, Major C. Coleman, Michael J. Johnson, Nakeia L. Oliver, Judith Ozment Payne, William L. Petersen, David W. Russell, Julia B. Simon, Chair, D. Joshua Troxell, Eric R.White, and M. Daniel Yoder. The charge to the subcommittee asked that it “review and clarify the current description of GI.” The charge further indicated that “guidelines and criteria must be written to give clear guidance to departments submitting a GI proposal and to the Committee reviewing the GI proposals.”

In November 2003, the Senate Committee on Undergraduate Education formulated a preliminary report based on the work of the 2002-2003 subcommittee, discussions within the parent committee, and consultation with the Senate Committee on Curricular Affairs.

In December 2003, Christopher J. Bise, Chair of the University Faculty Senate, formed a Conference Committee composed of members of the Senate Committee on Curricular Affairs and members of the Senate Committee on Undergraduate Education so that the two committees could work together to bring to completion their review of the GI requirement. Chair Bise charged this special committee to recommend whatever changes to the GI requirement the Conference Committee deemed necessary. In addition, he directed the committee to consider the original purpose of this requirement. In early March, the Conference Committee submitted its report and recommendations to the Senate Committee on Curricular Affairs and to the Senate Committee on Undergraduate Education. On March 16, 2004, both committees approved the report.

History of the GI Requirement

The history of the GI requirement is relevant for understanding the current recommendations.

1990 legislation, revised in 1994. On March 20, 1990, the University Faculty Senate established a Cultural Diversity graduation requirement. Baccalaureate degree students were required to take either 3 credits in Diversity Focused (DF) courses or 12 credits in Diversity Enhanced (DE) courses. Subsequently, on April 26, 1994, the Diversity Enhanced option was eliminated so that the requirement consisted of 3 Diversity Focused credits.

According to the 1990 Guide to Curricular Procedures, “the goal of Cultural Diversity courses is to encourage students through their studies in many disciplines to (a) consider the various historical backgrounds, cultural and scientific contributions, economic, psychological, and political situations of a wide range of other peoples; and (b) appreciate the impact of the developing global community on American Society.” (SR: 3/20/90 – quoted in the Guide to Curricular Procedures, Section 1, Item G).

“Cultural Diversity” was specifically defined as, “(1) a focus on the study of groups whose experiences and culture are underrepresented in the curriculum; such groups include those distinguished by characteristics related to ethnicity, race, religion, gender, physical/mental disability, and/or sexual orientation; or (2) a focus on the development of a global perspective through study of the impact of other countries and their peoples on society” (Guide to Curricular Procedures, Spring 1996).

1997 legislation (current legislation). As part of the University-wide reconsideration of General Education enacted during the 1997-1998 academic year, Senate legislation of December 2, 1997 replaced the “Cultural Diversity Requirement” with the current “Intercultural and International Competence Requirement” (GI). The requirement remained at 3 credits. As before, a range of courses in various knowledge domains could carry the GI (formerly Diversity) designation. One of the objectives of the GI requirement was “to emphasize student engagement and active learning.” (Senate Agenda, December 2, 1997, Final Report and Recommendations of the Special Committee on General Education, p. 21.)

Current GI Legislation

The following legislation is now in effect:

“The SCGE [Special Committee on General Education] actually makes two recommendations in relation to the intercultural and international competence component of general education. The first is to include this competence in the list of elements that can be selected for integration into all the domain knowledge-based courses (Recommendation #4). The second, outlined here, is to refine the focus of the current cultural diversity requirement. There are several factors to this:

1. To retain the 3-credit cultural diversity requirement for both baccalaureate and associate degree candidates—but to rename it the Intercultural and International Competence component—and establish it as an integral part of the general education program, rather than as an add-on;

2. To sharpen its focus by developing guidelines for approval of diversity-focused courses or experiences (study abroad, in-service work, etc.) that pertain to what students come to know and also learn to do;

3. To place an emphasis on active student involvement in the learning process and to encourage students to take these courses early in their academic experience;

4. To assess the impact of these courses through students’ or graduates’ perspectives on the influence the courses had on their attitudes, behavior or academic choices.”

Senate Agenda December 2, 1997, Final Report and Recommendations of the Special Senate Committee on General Education, p. 22.

Since 1997, as part of the University-wide process of General Education course recertifications, 580 courses have either been recertified as GI (these were courses that had formerly had the Cultural Diversity designation), or newly certified as GI (these were courses, including courses newly added to the curriculum, that had not formerly had the Cultural Diversity designation).

Justification for Changes

For the reasons detailed in the recommendations below, we propose that the Senate replace the Intercultural/International Competence (GI) General Education requirement with two separate requirements, one that focuses on United States Cultures and another that focuses on International Cultures.

1. The revised requirements will provide our students with a better education by ensuring that students have both United States and international coursework.

The 1997 legislation that established the Intercultural/International Competence requirement saw a clear value in studying both topics, but at the time the committee could not find a way of incorporating both within the General Education framework. Events of the past few years, including 9/11 and the student concerns expressed during the Village meetings of April 2001, indicated that both were important to our students and that both had to find a place within our program of study. The either/or arrangement was no longer what we needed.

For that reason, the committees that have recently examined the GI issue have concluded that it was necessary to do what the 1997 Task Force also desired: to incorporate within our requirements a knowledge of both United States cultures and of international cultures. For that reason, we are proposing one requirement called United States Cultures and another called International Cultures (3 credits each).

2. The titles of the revised requirements will be more readily understandable than the current requirement that is entitled Intercultural/International Competence.

(a) The term Intercultural/International has created some confusion since the requirement was adopted. The term United States Cultures states clearly that a course in that category will deal with cultural issues within the United States. The term International Cultures states clearly that the course will deal with cultural issues in nations other than the United States.

(b) The term Competence has also created some misunderstanding. We do not claim that one course, or two, will make students competent, or that we can measure such competence. The proposal has replaced that term with the word knowledge.

3. The revised requirements will allow students to choose from a richer array of courses.

As a result of the changes detailed in the recommendation below, students will be able to choose from a wider number of courses to fulfill the United States Cultures and the International Cultures requirements.

(a) All courses currently identified as GI will satisfy the revised requirements. Curricular Affairs will give these existing courses one or both of the new designations via a streamlined redesignation process.

(b) Departments offering General Education Skills courses that are not now included in GI will be encouraged to designate a limited number of sections in which at least 25% of the material satisfies one or the other requirement. For example, several specific sections of English 15 or English 30 could be so identified, as well as sections of CAS 100. Such sections of skills courses will be taught primarily by faculty or by specially trained instructors. This option will be primarily useful for those locations where it may be hard to meet the requirement by way of Knowledge Domain courses. It will also be helpful to students in certain highly-structured degree programs.

(c) Additional courses at any level may be proposed by their academic units and approved by Senate procedures as either United States Cultures or International Cultures. Departments that now offer 400 level courses in one or both of these areas will be encouraged to submit those courses for designation.

(d) The strategies above will encourage departments to make available more courses that will satisfy the United States Cultures or the International Cultures requirement. Strategies for making adequate spaces in such courses available to students at all locations, without a major increase in instructional costs, include expanded use of Campus Course Exchange or World Campus offerings, greater use of advising networks to make sure that available seats are filled and that students are aware of all options, and consultation with individual departments in the scheduling process.

Feasibility

These revised requirements are not only educationally desirable but also feasible.
Because it is anticipated that these requirements can be double-counted within the range of existing requirements, they will not necessarily increase the number of credits needed to graduate.

Just as students currently fulfill the Intercultural/International Competence requirement by double-counting it with a General Education Knowledge Domain course or with a course in their major or with Study Abroad etc., so students may fulfill the revised requirements by double-counting both the United States Cultures and the International Cultures courses if permitted by their college, major, or degree program. To make it easier for students to find courses to fulfill these requirements, as noted above the pool of courses or sections to be made available for such double-counting should be greatly increased.

This proposal does not preclude colleges, majors, or degree programs from requiring more specific course work in United States Cultures or International Cultures, just as academic programs can now require further course work in any other category of General Education and often do.

We should think of the revised requirements as a way of fulfilling existing components of the baccalaureate degree.

1. For many, indeed perhaps nearly all, students, the courses used to fulfill both requirements may be double-counted with special sections of required Skills courses, Knowledge Domain courses, and courses within the major or minor.

2. In addition, approved courses taken as electives, internships, individual study, Study Abroad, Peace Corps, Americorps, Teach America, and first-year seminars, etc. may also be used to fulfill the United States Cultures or International Cultures requirements.

3. Appropriate courses at all levels will count. The rule precluding students from using courses in their major to fulfill General Education requirements will not apply to courses used to fulfill either of these two requirements. This situation will be the same as now exists for W courses or First-Year Seminars, where courses in the student’s major may be used to fill these requirements.

4. A few examples of student choices follow. In all cases, overlap with another requirement occurs, so that additional credits are not needed:

a. A student majoring in Psychology uses a First-Year Seminar within the College of the Liberal Arts to meet a United States Cultures requirement and, simultaneously, a General Education Social and Behavioral Sciences requirement.

b. A student majoring in Biology uses Sociology 119: Race and Ethnic Relations to meet a United States Cultures requirement and simultaneously a General Education Social and Behavioral Sciences requirement.

c. A student majoring in Spanish or Japanese uses a 400-level Spanish or Japanese culture course, within the major, to meet the International Cultures requirement and simultaneously a major requirement

d. A student majoring in Chemical Engineering uses English 139: Black American Writers to meet a United States Cultures requirement and simultaneously a General Education Humanities requirement.

e. A student beginning her education at Hazelton and majoring in HDFS, uses History 121: History of the Holocaust to fulfill the International Cultures requirement and simultaneously a General Education Humanities requirement.

f. A student majoring in Comparative Literature uses an Education Abroad semester in Germany to meet the International Cultures requirement and simultaneously to meet requirements for a minor in German.

g. A student majoring in Secondary Education uses a semester-long internship in an inner-city school district to fulfill a United States Cultures requirement and simultaneously fulfill electives within her degree program.

Recommendation

Replace the current Intercultural/International Competency requirement (3 credits) for baccalaureate degree students with the following two requirements: United States Cultures (3 credits) and International Cultures (3 credits) as described below and as implemented according to the Principles of Implementation stated below. Associate degree students will continue to have a three-credit requirement and may choose either a United States Cultures course or an International Cultures course.

United States Cultures (3 credits)

A wide variety of social, cultural, and political forces have shaped the culture and institutions of the United States. As a result, it is important for university students to be exposed to the historical background, development, and current configurations of various groups in our pluralistic American culture. Such exposure will promote an understanding of the many complex issues of inter-group relations and the many kinds of cultural contributions that have shaped our nation.

A course that fulfills the United States Cultures requirement must strive to increase students' understanding of contemporary United States society. Such a course need not focus exclusively on the present and may concern a historical subject.

Courses with the United States Cultures designation will include two or more of the following components and will include those components in the graded evaluation of student performance.

United States Cultures courses will:

1. Cultivate student knowledge of issues of social identity such as ethnicity, race, class, religion, gender, physical/mental disability, age, or sexual orientation;

2. Convey to students a knowledge of different United States values, traditions, beliefs, and customs;

3. Increase student knowledge of the range of United States cultural achievements and human conditions through time;

4. Increase student knowledge of United States social identities not in isolation, but in relation to one another (for example, the interaction of race or gender with socioeconomic status).

International Cultures (3 credits)

A wide variety of social, cultural, and political forces have shaped the cultures, nations, and institutions of the modern world. As a result, it is important for university students to be exposed to the historical backgrounds, cultural and scientific contributions, and economic, social, psychological, and political circumstances of civilizations, cultures, and nations outside of the United States, to promote understanding of the variety of world cultures.

A course that fulfills the International Cultures requirement must strive to increase student knowledge of the variety of international societies and may deal to some extent with U.S. culture in its international connections. It need not focus exclusively on the present and may, indeed, be a historical subject. Courses with the International Cultures designation will do two or more of the following:

1. Cultivate student knowledge of the similarities and differences among international cultures;

2. Convey to students a knowledge of other nations' cultural values, traditions, beliefs, and customs;

3. Increase students' knowledge of the range of international cultural achievements and human conditions through time;

4. Increase students' knowledge of nations and cultures not in isolation, but in relation to one another.

Principles of Implementation

A. These requirements--United States Cultures (3 credits) and International Cultures (3 credits)--may be fulfilled by double-counting with other General Education courses, courses in the major or minor, electives, or such approved three-credit options such as Study Abroad, internships, etc., to the extent permitted by the student’s college, major, or degree program.

Courses will be designated as 1) United States Cultures, 2) International Cultures, or 3) United States and International Cultures. A student may use a course in the third category to fulfill either the United States Cultures requirement or the International Cultures requirement. Since 6 credits are required, a single 3-credit course may not fulfill both requirements.

B. The following principles will be adopted to make the approval criteria clear, the approval process as quick as possible, and the course designations readily understandable to both students and advisors. The following criteria will be used in determining course designations:

(a) The course is designed to fulfill the required objectives, as indicated in the previous descriptions.

(b) At least one-quarter of the course is oriented toward fulfilling the objectives of the requested designation as United States Cultures, International Cultures, or United States and International Cultures. For a course seeking both designations, each 25 percent must be satisfied for a total of at least 50 percent.

(c) The objectives are included in the graded evaluation of student performance.

(d) Every undergraduate course meeting these requirements will be eligible for the appropriate designation(s), regardless of course level, offering unit, or other University designations.

1. Existing GI Courses: All existing GI (Intercultural/International Competence) courses will be grandfathered and designated as filling either the United States Cultures or the International Cultures requirement (or, where appropriate, both). Responsibility for determining which of the designations that each existing GI course should receive will be delegated to the college that submitted the GI proposal for this course.

The following process will be used: The Senate will ask each Associate Dean for Resident Instruction to send the University Curriculum Coordinator a list of those courses that qualify for the United States Cultures or the International Cultures designation. The Associate Dean for Resident Instruction will send a request to each department or division head to determine the proper designation for each course that qualifies. The head will send the department’s response to the Associate Dean for Resident Instruction who will convey that information to the University Curriculum Coordinator.

2. Other Existing Courses: A simplified and timely procedure will be developed for the speedy and efficient designation of additional existing courses, including courses within majors, to support the goal of the rapid integration of these requirements throughout the curriculum. Responsibility for determining which of the designations each such course should receive will be delegated to the college that submitted the proposal to establish this course. For offerings of the same course at multiple locations, the college offering the course will determine the designation. For example, the designation for a faculty-taught section of English 15 at Penn State DuBois will be determined by the Commonwealth College.

The following process will be used: The Senate will ask each Associate Dean for Resident Instruction to send the University Curriculum Coordinator a list of those courses that qualify for the United States Cultures or the International Cultures designation. The Associate Dean for Resident Instruction will send a request to each department or division head to determine the proper designation for each course that qualifies. The head will send the department’s response to the Associate Dean for Resident Instruction who will convey that information to the University Curriculum Coordinator.

Departments offering General Education Skills courses that are not now included in GI will be encouraged to designate a limited number of sections in which at least 25% of the material satisfies one or the other requirement. Such sections of skills courses will be taught primarily by faculty or by specially trained instructors. This option will be primarily useful for those locations where it may be hard to meet the requirement by way of Knowledge Domain courses.

3. One-Time Offerings: A streamlined approval process will be developed to add the appropriate designation(s) to one-time offerings of sections of existing courses not otherwise permanently listed for United States Cultures, International Cultures, or United States and International Cultures. Responsibility for determining which of the designations each such course should receive will be delegated to the college offering the course.

The following process will be used: The Senate will ask each Associate Dean for Resident Instruction to send the University Curriculum Coordinator a list of those courses that qualify for the United States Cultures or the International Cultures designation. The Associate Dean for Resident Instruction will send a request to each department or division head to determine the proper designation for each course that qualifies. The head will send the department’s response to the Associate Dean for Resident Instruction who will convey that information to the University Curriculum Coordinator.

4. New Courses and Course Changes: Proposals for newly created courses, however, and for substantive course revisions will go through the regular Curricular Affairs processes.

5. Designations: Designations which are unambiguous and not easily confused with other university designations will be implemented for the United States Cultures and International Cultures requirements.

6. Multiple Bulletin Listings: Some courses may be listed in the Bulletin in multiple versions. For example, one version may bear the United States Cultures and/or the International Cultures designation, and another version may not--just as courses may now have a separate “W” version listed in the Bulletin.

The following process will be used: The Senate will ask each Associate Dean for Resident Instruction to send the University Curriculum Coordinator a list of those courses that qualify for the United States Cultures or the International Cultures designation. The Associate Dean for Resident Instruction will send a request to each department or division head to determine the proper designation for each course that qualifies. The head will send the department’s response to the Associate Dean for Resident Instruction who will convey that information to the University Curriculum Coordinator.

7. Active Learning Criteria: United States Cultures and International Cultures courses that carry General Education Knowledge Domain designations will continue to meet the Active Learning criteria associated with their General Education approvals. United States Cultures courses and International Cultures courses that are not part of the General Education Knowledge Domains will also be encouraged to include Active Learning elements.

8. Additional Options: Aside from the opportunities to fulfill the United States and International Cultures requirements that are mentioned above, other possibilities, such as clusters of courses, may be submitted to the Senate Committee on Curricular Affairs for consideration.

Implementation Calendar

These revised requirements will take effect for students entering baccalaureate degree programs at the beginning of Summer 2005.

SENATE COMMITTEE ON CURRICULAR AFFAIRS
Christopher S. Adams
Phyllis F. Adams
Laurie Powers Breakey, Vice Chair
Douglas K. Brown
Barton W. Browning
Garry L. Burkle
Chao-Hsien Chu
Jeremy Cohen
Valerie A. Earnshaw
Roger A. Egolf
Christopher J. Falzone
Edgar I. Farmer
David J. Green
Sally A. Heffentreyer
Binh P. Le
Robert A. Novack
Mary Beth Oliver
Robert D. Ricketts
David W. Russell
Richard J. Simons, Jr.
Loanne L. Snavely
Shelley M. Stoffels, Chair
Bonj Szczygiel
Rodney L. Troester
Horst von Dorpowski
Mark L. Wardell
Matthew T. Wilson

SENATE COMMITTEE ON UNDERGRADUATE EDUCATION
Cheryl L. Achterberg
Todd (TJ) Bednash
John P. Cancro
Caroline D. Eckhardt
Gary J. Fosmire
Cheri Gallagher
Peter D. Georgopulos
Janis E. Jacobs
Richard R. Kennedy
Nancy S. Love
Arthur C. Miller, Vice Chair
Laura L. Pauley, Chair
Dhushy Sathianathan
John L. Selzer
Patience L. Simmonds
Katie L. Slagle
Candace Spigelman
James A. Strauss
D. Joshua Troxell
John B. Urenko
Beverly J. Vandiver
Eric R. White
Gregory R. Ziegler

CONFERENCE COMMITTEE
Douglas K. Brown Laura L. Pauley
Barton W. Browning David W. Russell
Caroline D. Eckhardt Shelley M. Stoffels
Janis E. Jacobs D. Joshua Troxell
W. Terrell Jones Beverly J. Vandiver
John W. Moore, Chair

Appendix A

Below you will find a list of 100 GI courses arranged alphabetically by department that were taught at all Penn State locations during Fall 2003. These 100 courses were the GI courses with the highest enrollments. Departments placed a seating limit of 17,501 on these courses. The actual enrollment was 15,107. That left 2,484 seats open.

If the Senate approves the legislation calling for a revision of the GI requirement, then the appropriate department heads and deans will decide which new designation to assign to each existing course: United States Cultures, International Cultures, or United States and International Cultures.

This list allows us to see some of the courses that will be available for prompt inclusion in the new United States Cultures and International Cultures categories. This is only a partial list. Further courses that will be added include existing GI courses not in the top 100, existing courses that do not yet carry the GI designation, and new courses yet to be developed.

Top 100 GI Courses According to Enrollments
(Listed Alphabetically)

Appendix D

SENATE COMMITTEE ON INTERCOLLEGIATE ATHLETICS

Revision of Senate Policy 67-00, Athletic Competition, Section 2, Eligibility of Athletes

(Legislative)
Implementation: Fall Semester 2004

Background

The proposed revision to Senate Policy 67-00 has been prompted by academic changes in Penn State curricula, and changes to Big Ten Conference and NCAA legislation. Currently, the University has specific academic guidelines that student-athletes must adhere to in order to participate in intercollegiate athletics. These standards, determined by a student-athletes’ current semester in residence, fall into two specific areas: Minimum Grade Point Average and Minimum Number of Credits Required. It is believed that the current Grade Point Average requirements are crucial to facilitating a strong academic culture within the student-athlete population and within the entire University. However, given many changes both inside and outside the University, the second area, Minimum Number of Credits Required, needs to be reviewed.

Rationale

The policy currently states the following as it relates to the Minimum Number of Credits Required (for intercollegiate athletic participation):

“A student-athlete shall represent the University in an intercollegiate athletic contest only if the student has acquired the designated number of credits at the beginning of each appropriate semester (in residence) as follows:”

After consulting with a variety of experts including current NCAA Faculty Athletic Representative, Dr. Scott Kretchmar, former NCAA Faculty Athletic Representative, Dr. John Coyle, and former Director of the Morgan Academic Support Center, Mrs. Diana Kenepp, it is clear why these academic guidelines were established at Penn State. First, Penn State wanted to have academic guidelines and expectations above the mandated NCAA guidelines. Second, Penn State wanted to have guidelines in place that would insure that student-athletes participating in intercollegiate athletics would be completing a baccalaureate degree in a reasonable time frame (4 ½ or 5 years). Finally, Penn State wanted to insure that student-athletes, who decided to return to Penn State and participate in intercollegiate athletics in a fifth-year of competition, would be within one semester of completing their degree.

However, information obtained from Vice-Provost and Dean of Enrollment Management and Administration, John Romano, indicates that there has been a marked reduction in the number of credits required for a degree (Table 1) across many programs. When the current 67-00 Policy was created, degree programs required many more credit hours for a degree; which in turn, demanded that a higher minimum number of credits required for athletic participation be established.

Given the many demands that required of student-athletes, 15 credits a semester would seem to be a reasonable course load. Gary Burkle, Associate Registrar, indicates that for all of University Park students, the average number of credits taken in a given semester is between 13 and 14 credits. Further, all students, irrespective of whether they are athletes or not, are only required to enroll for 12 credits to maintain full-time status.

Recently passed NCAA legislation requires student-athletes to enroll in and pass at least six credits counting towards the student-athlete’s degree each semester. This creates issues for fifth-year student-athletes who plan to compete in their final season of eligibility. The 118 credits required to start a fifth-year of competition can create situations where a student-athletes will have no courses, which count toward their degree, to enroll in during their last semester of competition. Many of these student-athletes do not want to enroll in a second major or attend graduate school immediately, and therefore, a revised policy would provide flexibility and additional options.

Upon joining the Big Ten Conference, Penn State accepted another set of academic guidelines (in addition to Policy 67-00) for its student-athletes. Similar to the new NCAA requirements, the Big Ten rules addressing credit minimums is very strict in that the conference requires that all credits earned must be degree countable. Additionally, the Big Ten Conference requires that student-athletes must be able to complete their program of studies in a five-year period. As stated earlier in this proposal, Policy 67-00 was written to insure that student-athletes graduated within five years - joining the Big Ten only reinforced this idea.

Recommendation

Given that adherence to the current policy often results in a closing down of options available to student athletes in formulating and completing their semester scheduling plans, and given that the revised set of semester by semester credit minimums are more strict than those imposed upon the general student body at the University, and given that the requirements still surpass those imposed by the NCAA, Big Ten (Table 2), the current policy should be amended to read as follows:


67-00 Athletic Competition

2. Eligibility of Athletes

2. A student-athlete shall represent the University in an intercollegiate athletic contest only if the student has acquired the designated number of credits at the end of each appropriate semester (in residence) as follows:

SENATE COMMITTEE ON INTERCOLLEGIATE ATHLETICS
Charles L. Burchard
Paul F. Clark
Timothy M. Curley
Gordon F. DeJong
Susan Delaney-Scheetz
James T. Elder, Vice-Chair
Bruce D. Hale
Elizabeth A. Hanley
John R. Hellmann
Kane M. High
Janis Jacobs
R. Scott Kretchmar
Russell Mushinsky
John S. Nichols
Gary W. Petersen
Martin T. Pietrucha, Chair
Tammy R. Rishel
John J. Romano
Stephen W. Schaeffer
Stephen M. Smith
Kenneth Swalgin
Vicky L. Triponey
Thomas C. Vary
Susan Welch
Jerry J. Wright
Edgar P. Yoder

Table 1. Number of Credits Required for a Degree by Number of Majors.

Table 2. Comparison of NCAA, Big Ten, and Penn State requirements.

Appendix E

SENATE COMMITTEE ON FACULTY AFFAIRS

Promotion and Tenure Summary - 2002-2003

(Informational)

TENURE

Dossiers for the award of tenure for 94 candidates were forwarded by the deans to the 2002-03 University Promotion and Tenure Review Committee. The University Committee recommended all 94 faculty members for tenure, and the President approved tenure in 92 cases. Twenty-one of the cases approved were for early tenure.

PROMOTION TO PROFESSOR AND LIBRARIAN

Dossiers for promotion to the rank of professor and librarian for 75 candidates were forwarded by the deans to the University Committee. The University Committee recommended all 75 faculty members for promotion, and the President approved promotion for all 75 candidates. Note that there were no promotions this year to the rank of senior scientist.

PROMOTION TO ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR, ASSOCIATE LIBRARIAN, AND SENIOR RESEARCH ASSOCIATE

Dossiers for promotion to the rank of associate professor, associate librarian, and senior research associate for 95 candidates were forwarded by the deans to the University Committee. The University Committee recommended all 95 faculty members for promotion, and the President approved promotion for 93 candidates.

TRACKING COHORTS ENTERING THE TENURE-TRACK THROUGH SEVEN YEARS: COHORTS ENTERING FROM 1990 THROUGH 1996

Preceding the tenure and promotion charts for 2002-2003 is a report prepared by the Office of Planning and Institutional Assessment showing Faculty Tenure-Flow Rates after seven years for faculty members who began on the tenure track for each year from 1990 through 1996. Table 1 shows how many of each cohort remained and were tenured by their eighth year at Penn State. Over this period as a whole, on the average, 55 percent of all the entering group ended up receiving tenure. That does not mean that 55 percent of the group being considered for tenure in their decision year received tenure; it means that for our seven most recent cohorts, 55 percent of all faculty who began with us in provisional status remained with us and were granted tenure at the end of seven years or earlier. The report includes some comparative data that indicates that this figure is consistent with comparable institutions. That being the case, these tables raise the issue of retention as well as tenure success. The average percentage for women faculty members University-wide who were retained and received tenure over that period was 46 percent, compared to 59 percent for men. The average for minority faculty was 52 percent, as opposed to 55 percent for non-minority faculty.

This year, we are also including more specific information for the two most recent entering classes in the group 1995 and 1996. Table 2 presents the tenure flow data broken down by location. The overall tenure rate for these two cohorts is virtually the same at University Park and at our campus locations. At the same time, these data show that for the two most recent cohorts the overall tenure rate seven years after entry for minorities and non- minorities has been reversed at University Park, with 69 percent of minorities receiving tenure and 53 percent of non-minorities receiving tenure. At the campuses for this period 50 percent of minorities received tenure, but these numbers are small (5 out of 10 candidates). Overall, during this period, 61 percent of minorities were retained and received tenure, as opposed to 54 percent of non-minorities.

SENATE COMMITTEE ON FACULTY AFFAIRS
Mohamad A. Ansari, Vice-Chair
Judd B. Arnold
Thomas W. Benson
Leonard J. Berkowitz
Michael H. Bernhard
Thomas E. Boothby
Victor W. Brunsden
Clay Calvert
Craig E. Cameron
Michael J. Cardamone
Debora Cheney
Elizabeth J. Corwin
Dwight Davis
Bill Ellis
Renata S. Engel
Terry Engelder
Terry P. Harrison
Zachary T. Irwin
Ravinder Koul
Deborah A. Levin
Sallie M. McCorkle, Chair
Francis J. Mootz
Ira J. Ropson
Robert Secor
Lourdes Diaz Soto
Richard B. Tenser
Joan S. Thomson
Tramble T. Turner

Faculty Tenure-Flow Rates

Tenure Decisions 2002-2003

Appendix F

SENATE COMMITTEES ON FACULTY AFFAIRS AND FACULTY BENEFITS

Paid Parental Leave for Faculty

(Informational)

The Senate committees on Faculty Affairs and Faculty Benefits have endorsed, and are jointly presenting as an Informational Report, a revision of Policy HRG18, Paid Parental Leave For Faculty.

Rationale

The revisions in the policy are being made in the context of data that show that tenure-track and tenured women are disproportionately disadvantaged in relation to men, in both their professional and their personal lives, when they have children. A recent study published by the University of California at Berkeley finds that women who have children within fourteen years of earning their degrees receive tenure at a rate of 56 percent, as opposed to 77 percent for men. Penn State’s own figures may reflect this phenomenon, since of all faculty members at Penn State who entered the tenure track since 1990, only 46 percent of women were retained and received tenure at the end of their provisional period, as opposed to 59 percent of men. Moreover, the Berkeley study shows that as a result of the difficulty of balancing academic life with child-bearing and raising, only 44 percent of faculty women are married with children, as opposed to 77 percent of male faculty members. The study shows that 38 percent of women in tenure and tenure-track status say that they had fewer children than they would have liked. The revisions being made in HRG18 will not reverse this situation, but it is an attempt by Penn State to relieve the pressures of the workplace for faculty women during the year in which they give birth.

In addition, the policy offers teaching relief for faculty parents during the semester of the adoption because research shows that adoption can be at least as stressful and disruptive as the birth of a child.

Major Changes in the Revised HRG18

The revisions extend the benefits of the policy in the following ways:

1. In addition to the minimum of six weeks of paid maternity leave granted in our current policy, the revised policy provides for a release from teaching assignments for the mother in the other weeks of the semester in which the birth occurs. The policy allows for flexibility, so that if the birth occurs at the end of a semester the release from teaching may occur in the subsequent semester.

2. A semester release from teaching is also granted to faculty parents in the case of an adoption.

SENATE COMMITTEE ON FACULTY AFFAIRS
Mohamad A. Ansari, Vice-Chair
Judd B. Arnold
Thomas W. Benson
Leonard J. Berkowitz
Michael H. Bernhard
Thomas E. Boothby
Victor W. Brunsden
Clay Calvert
Craig E. Cameron
Michael J. Cardamone
Debora Cheney
Elizabeth J. Corwin
Dwight Davis
Bill Ellis
Renata S. Engel
Terry Engelder
Terry P. Harrison
Zachary T. Irwin
Ravinder Koul
Deborah A. Levin
Sallie M. McCorkle, Chair
Francis J. Mootz
Ira J. Ropson
Robert Secor
Lourdes Diaz Soto
Richard B. Tenser
Joan S. Thomson
Tramble T. Turner

SENATE COMMITTEE ON FACULTY BENEFITS

Keith K. Burkhart
Gary L. Catchen, Vice Chair
Michael Dooris
Thomas A. Frank
Robert J. Heinsohn
Deidre E. Jago
Amir Khalilollahi
Cynthia M. Mara
Salvatore A. Marsico
Benedicte Monicat
Gregory W. Roth
Cara-Lynne Schengrund
Dennis G. Shea, Chair
Harjit Singh
Marley W. Watkins
Billie S. Willits

• Purpose
• Definition
• Amount of Time Paid Off
• Release From Teaching Responsibilities
• Procedure
• Cross References