Meeting Minutes

Undergraduate Education


March 13, 2018

Members Present:  A. Ahr, J. Bauman, J. Belanger, T. Cios, D. Conti, J. Furfaro, G. Caspar, Y. Gaudelius, D. Han, P. Heaney, K. Henninger, V. Hewitt, P. Johnson, P. Linehan, K. Pollack, V. Prabhu, M. Rice, B. Seymour, D. Smith, M. Stine, S. Suliman

Members Absent: J. Safran, G. Samuel

  1. Call to order
  2. Approval of the December 5 minutes
    1. The minutes were approved
  3.  Report from Officers and Chairs
    1. The April plenary agenda will be quite large.
  4.  Old Business
    1. Discuss Legislative, and Advisory and Consultative reports from UE/ARSSA subcommittee
      1. An advisory committee will be created to make recommendations on the Legislative piece. We will do an Advisory and a Consultative Report for next fall. The advisory committee will recommend best practices in building student success for students in academic warning and suspension process. However, there was support for moving the legislative piece forward first.
      2. We plan to have the Legislative policy completed by April.
      3. One of the recommended changes in policy is to suspend students after two semesters instead of three. Interventions need to happen sooner, when students still have time to dig out of a hole.
      4. The committee voiced support for the legislative changes. Karen Henninger noted more clarification is needed for part-time students: is it two semesters or 18 credits? In the new system, academic warning triggers intervention and possible suspension.
      5. David Smith said the University Advising Council would like to work on fleshing out the details of how the academic warning process works and the most effective strategies for student recovery.
    2. 54-00: Academic Difficulty and Recovery
    3. 54-20: Academic Warning
    4. 54-40: Academic Dismissal
    5. 54-90: Academic Renewal
    6. 58-20: Persons to Whom Policy is Applicable
    7. 58-50: Re-enrollment from Good Standing
    8. 58-60: Re-enrollment from Warning, Suspension, and Dismissal
      1. The suggestion for the academic suspension piece was to move from two- to one-semester, if students petition and show a recovery plan. The suggestion is to move to more positive language and talk about “recovery” points instead of “deficiency” points.
      2. The question was raised, is there an appeal process for removing the suspension – say from one semester to zero semesters for a student with a 1.99 GPA? The committee agreed that would be desirable. The detail/process needs to be worked out.
      3. The concern was expressed: Will faculty advisors be able/willing to rise to the level of “professional” full-time advisors? The discussion was that we would model best practice through training, and the consultation with each college/campuses’ DUS advisors.
      4. We voted on two items: Was their support for the concept of a petition to move from two to one semesters of suspension? The committee voiced support. Was their support for the concept of a petition to move from one to zero semesters suspension? The committee voiced support.
      5. The consensus was that suspension can happen after one semester.
      6. The question was raised: How did the university arrive at four years of suspension before academic renewal? (Students can petition to waive the four years of suspension.)
      7. We voted on two additional items: Was their support for dismissal after two semesters below a 2.0? The committee voiced support. Was their support for a petition to reduce dismissal to less than four calendar years? The committee voiced support.
    9. 47-80: Repeating Courses
      1. The question was raised: Should we change the maximum number of repeating courses from three to two? Most all students are getting approved, by most associate deans, for a fourth attempt.
      2. Students have been caught in the recent change in policy to three attempts. The question was raised: Should we wait for the first policy change to take hold before changing the policy again?
      3. We voted on the following item: Does the committee support a change to allow two attempts at a course with the ability to appeal for a third attempt? The committee voiced support.
    10. 51-50: Cumulative Grade-Point Average
      1. The suggestion was that on a grade of ‘C’ or less can be replaced on a second attempt with a maximum of 12 repeating credits. An ‘F,’ or ‘D,’ or ‘C’ would still show on the transcript, it just wouldn’t’ be calculated.
      2. The question was raised: Should we support this change for a maximum of 12 credits not calculated in the GPA? The question was debated, shouldn’t all grades earned be calculated? A majority of committee members voiced support for not calculating up to 12 credits.
    11. 51-70: Recovery Points
      1. The suggestion was to change the previous language used from “deficiency” points to “recovery” points and to put that language back into the current policy.
      2. There was some discussion about the possibility of creating a calculator for recovery points to aid the advisors and faculty advisors.
      3. The question was raised: Is there support for adding the language about “recovery” points to the current policy? The committee voiced support.
      4. A final question was raised: Was the committee comfortable submitting legislation to Senate, with the approved changes, in 10 days? The committee voiced support.
      5. The question was raised: Does coming back into a controlled major through academic renewal trigger a dean’s review. Karen Henninger confirmed that it does.
  5. New Business
    1. We ran out of time for new business.
    2. We will pick up where we left off at our April meeting, which will, again, be a full agenda. It was important that we dedicated this meeting to walking through the above policies, step by step.
  6. Adjournment

back to top


January 23, 2018

Members Present: A. Ahr, J. Bauman, J. Belanger, T. Cios, D. Conti, J. Furfaro, G. Caspar, Y. Gaudelius, D. Han, P. Heaney, K. Henninger, V. Hewitt, P. Johnson, P. Linehan, K. Pollack, V. Prabhu, J. Safran, G. Samuel, B. Seymour, D. Smith, M. Stine, S. Suliman 

Members Absent: D. Smith 

  1. Call to order
  2. Approval of the December 5 minutes
    1. The minutes were approved
  3. Report from Officers and Chairs
    1. There was a general discussion concerning President Barron’s letter regarding the Revision to AC-21 Definition of Academic Ranks-Provision of Multi-Year Contracts. Senate leadership was disappointed that there was a lack of support for extending the contract for senior fixed-term faculty beyond three years. The letter says that five-year contracts are not able to be supported by the institution on soft funds (as opposed to permanent dollars). Some senators were aware of cases where fixed-term faculty have been granted five-year contracts on soft funds.
    2. There will be a follow up discussion and response from Senate Council.
  4. Old Business
    1. Review committee charges/priority form and complete mid-year report
      1. The committee reviewed the list of committee charges on the Senate Committee Priority Form 2017-18.
      2. Keith Shapiro will be leaving our committee and joining CC&R. However, he still wants to work with us on our vision statement.
    2. Update on committee work with ARSSA and Student Life
      1. Both ARSSA and UE are not interested in pursuing policy changes regarding students sitting in on classes that they are not currently registered in.
      2. As a committee, we decided not to pursue the discussion about senior faculty no longer needing to have SRTEs completed for their classes. We agreed, this sends a terrible message to students and to junior faculty.
      3. We discussed the continuing low response rate on SRTEs and the importance of using the data correctly. The data should be used to mentor faculty, not as a basis for dismissal.
      4. The chair will send to the committee a report, drafted by Angela Linse, on SRTEs at Penn State that was presented to the Senate last year.
      5. We will invite Angela to come to our March meeting if we think there are holes in the report.
      6. We discussed A-6, the Student Life report, time management and students having three major exams scheduled on the same day. It is difficult to gather the kinds of data we would need to understand the scope of the problem. (Is a project equivalent to a major exam if it is due on the same day?)
      7. Karen Henninger said that if five or fewer students have a problem with multiple exams on the same day, they are told to work it out with the instructor. If six or more students have the problem, the exam is automatically rescheduled for the entire class.
      8. The student members of our committee agreed to work on shaping the scope of such a report moving forward.
      9. Beth reported that A-7 and A-8 are being worked on aggressively with ARSSA, in particular the issue of student “recovery” and students repeating courses in order to boost their GPA. The policy says that if a student earned a ‘C’ grade in a course they are supposed to talk to their academic advisor before repeating the course. A subcommittee of UE and ARSSA has been working on policies concerning student recovery, including good standing, academic warning and re-enrollment, and repeating courses.
      10. The attendance policy is done.
      11. A University growth model for online learning was discussed. The chair will follow up with Renata Engel on next steps concerning a possible report.
    3. Discuss alignment of Gen Ed/major requirements with major requirements, 82-20
      1. We will be talking more about allowing course substitutions to hold when students move into different majors. Requirements that were accepted in one degree audit can fall out on the degree audit when students move into a different major.
      2. We will look at this more in March.
  5. New Business
    1. Open discussion
      1. We talked again about final exams in courses being moved to Week 14 to avoid conflict with the policy that prohibits faculty scheduling final exams on the last week of class (Week 15) if the exam is worth more than 10 percent of a student’s grade. Sometimes students may be in favor of moving the exam up and ending the course early, but are we creating other problems when we do this?
      2. We agreed that the final exam policy was worth looking into next year.
      3. We talked about the Trauma Petitions meeting coming up. We will have to have representation at that meeting.
  6. Adjournment

back to top


December 5, 2017

Members Present: A. Ahr, J. Belanger, T. Cios, D. Conti, J. Furfaro, Y. Gaudelius, D. Han, P. Heaney, K. Henninger, V. Hewitt, P. Johnson, P. Linehan, K. Pollack, V. Prabhu, M. Rice, J. Safran, G. Samuel, B. Seymour, K. Shapiro, D. Smith, M. Stine, S. Suliman 

Members Absent: G. Casper 

  1. Call to order
  2. Approval of the October 17 minutes
    1. The minutes were approved
  3. Report from Officers and Chairs
    1. Beth said there will be some adjustments to the wording of new faculty contracts for fixed term versus standing non-tenure, for consistency
    2. There will be some changes to the election of officers. The proposed change to the Senate bylaws would have only elected senators, rather than administrative senators, eligible to vote for chairs.
    3. There were other discussions at Officers and Chairs about the implications of the proposed new tax laws.
  4. Old Business
    1. Update on committee work with ARSSA and SL
      1. The report from Admissions Records Scheduling and Student Aid (ARSSA) and Student Life (SL) could come to us as an informational report
      2. Starting over the holiday break, we will be working on policies around good standing, academic warning and re-enrollment, working ARSSA.
    2. Discuss Petition Report
      1. Senate Council had some additional questions about the Petition Report we passed last time, and asked us to add more explanation of the drops. The introduction of the report was expanded to add more detail and to help explain the fluctuations we are seeing.
      2. A motion was made to accept the revised report. The motion passed. The revised report will be presented on the January agenda.
    3. Align Gen Ed requirements with major requirements to time students enter University — ARSSA asks us to weigh in on discussion
      1. General Education (Gen Ed) requirements have typically been set when student enters Penn State; versus the major course requirements, which have typically been set when the student enters the major. This scenario creates added complications for re-enrollment students. They are now held to the new Gen Ed requirements. In spring 2018 we will have 700 students returning to Penn State under these new Gen Ed requirements.
      2. Other Big Ten schools set Gen Ed and major requirements at the same time: when students enter the University. Karen Henninger said it is easier to keep a student year in the program year in which they started, rather than move them.
      3. We could tell students, “Re-enroll within a year and you can remain in your old program. Re-enroll more than a year later, you move into the new program requirements.” The implication: if a program wants to make a change, it will take them two years to fully implement that change.
      4. George, Andrew, Yvonne and Samia volunteered to work with Beth and someone from ARSSA to look at this policy.
    4. Discuss Senate Policy 34-20, Registration
      1. Having students sitting in on a class that they are not registered for. Legal counsel has weighed in on this and there have been concerns about liability. We received feedback from the Senate Office concerning the number of petitions that might involve this issue, and the numbers are quite small. This would include students who sit in on a class and late add it when they know they are doing well. Also, students who participate in an internship and then register for it after the fact.
      2. Discussion about this issue has largely gone away now that we no longer have the Registered to Scheduled (Reg to Sched) process in LionPATH. As a result, we decided we were not prepared, as a committee, to draft or change the policy. We would allow the faculty to use their own discretion for now.
    5. Update Vision subcommittee – Keith
      1. Keith reported that the committee met Nov. 15 and was charged by Matthew to consider updating our processes to communicate more efficiently as an institution regarding undergraduate, graduate and online committees.
      2. It was noted that the Graduate School conducts its own annual review and produces a report. Senate officers wonder if the Undergraduate Education and ARSSA committees should have a better connection to graduate programs.
      3. We also might want to consider looking at online programs. The Outreach Committee does produce a report every year that focuses primarily on the World Campus, but that does not cover all online courses at Penn State. For example, online courses are offered as resident instruction offerings at all campus locations.
      4. Vicki Hewitt will join this discussion, representing the Graduate School.
    6. Exceptions to degree requirements, 82-60 – Yvonne and David
      1. We will save this agenda item for our January meeting.
  5. New Business
    1. Michele Rice (new member) – Prior Learning Assessment discussion
      1. Data on Prior Learning Assessment (PLA) at Penn State was shared and an overview of the transfer credit process at Penn State was provided. Advanced Placement (AP) credits are our biggest use of PLA at Penn State and helps us address the access and affordability issue. It improves student success and graduation rates.
      2. We have processed almost 40,000 transfer courses since March 2016. More than 200,000 course substitutions have occurred since Dec. 2015.
      3. There has been a marked decrease in credit by exam and credit by portfolio in the last few years. Michele has been charged with increasing awareness of these options. For example, where do students in each college go for assistance? Ohio State has an entire catalog of credit by exam and credit by portfolio options with detailed information about the requirement for each option.
      4. The committee can assist more with our military credit/American Council on Education (ACE) transfers.
      5. It was mentioned that students transferred 19,000 credits into Penn State last summer from outside institutions – from students who went home over the summer and took a course nearby. Students often do this to maintain progress toward their degrees. They also do this to save money – courses offered at community colleges and other institutions are often less expensive. They also think it will be easier. If it is a difficult course, they won’t have to worry about the outside course pulling their Grade Point Average (GPA) down.
      6. Data shows that AP students out performed students who took the prerequisite course at Penn State. Non-AP transfer students generally held their own except in calculus and physics courses.
  6. Adjournment

back to top


October 17, 2017

Members Present at pre-meeting: J. Belanger, M. Stine, S. Suliman

Members Present: A. Ahr, G. Casper, T. Cios, D. Conti, J. Furfaro, Y. Gaudelius, D. Han, P. Heaney, V. Hewitt, P. Johnson, P. Linehan, K. Pollack, V. Prabhu, J. Safran, G. Samuel, B. Seymour, K. Shapiro, D. Smith 

Members Absent: K. Henninger 

  1. Call to order
  2. Approval of the September 12 minutes
    1. A motion was made and the minutes were approved.
  3. Report from Officers and Chairs
    1. Note, that additional items have been added to the Senate Committee Priority Form.
    2. The workflow between ARSSA, Curricular Affairs and Undergraduate Education are still being worked out.
    3. There will continue to be work this year on the professional pathways for fixed-term faculty.
    4. The Committee on Rules is looking at a broader vision for the Undergraduate Education Committee. The proposed new name is the Education Committee.
  4. Old Business
    1. Update on joint work with ARSSA. There are five items we will be discussing jointly.
    2. A-7, Academic Standing: Mary Beth Williams (chair of ARSSA), Beth Seymour, Yvonne Gaudelius, and David Smith will discuss.
    3. 42-27 Class Attendance Policy – changes addressing students in active duty military status
      1. A motion was made to approve the revised language. The motion was approved.
      2. 42-27 will move to the December Senate meeting for a vote.
    4. Discuss Senate Policy 34-20, Registration
      1. Risk Management suggested updates to this policy. Students participating in engagement activities for a course must be registered for the course.
      2. Broader issues were raised about permitting students, or adults, to sit in on classes without registering. Among these issues: students sitting in on classes to see if they are happy with the grade they would earn before paying for the class, students taking seats from other students who need the course to graduate, Go 60 students sitting in on classes because they are interested in the topic, but perhaps creating distractions.
      3. Yvonne will add phrasing to paragraph No. 2 to the effect, “… Students who want to register for more than 19 credits need permission from their academic advisor.”
      4. The group hoped for more of an explanation of the issues from Karen Henninger. What is the scope of the problem? What can LionPATH do and not do? How is the wait list functionality impacted?
    5. Committee to work on UE purview with respect to education – new vision
      1. Beth asked for volunteers to think about a broader Education perspective for the work of our committee, encompassing both undergraduate and graduate issues.
      2. David Han, Peggy Johnson and Keith Shapiro volunteered to serve on this committee.
  5. New Business
    1. Discuss Petition Report
      1. The Petition Report provides a summary of students who have petitioned to have academic decisions overturned during 2016-17. The process calls for three reviewers to read the student’s petition and documentation.
      2. The committee hopes to move to a digitized version of the process moving forward. It was suggested that the comments of the reviewers (the last page), should not be included when petitions are forwarded to each reviewer is able to make an independent judgment without seeing the comments of other reviewers. Furfaro recommended that the form stay as is, to allow reviewers to see the comments of the previous reviewers.
      3. An increase in the number of petitions submitted was noted. This increase was attributed to policy changes that came with LionPATH implementation.
      4. A motion was made to approve the report and the motion passed.
    2. Review existing policies
      1. The Graduate School (Michael Verderame) has been compiling a list of Senate policies that apply to both undergraduate and graduate students.
      2. The list of joint policies will be posted on the Graduate School web site. Policy for both undergraduate and graduates is delegated to the Senate on these issues.
    3. Exceptions to degree requirements, 82-60
      1. David Smith and Yvonne Gaudelius offered to look at this policy. Students switching majors find themselves short of credits. General Education credits that counted in the old major don’t count in the new major. Yvonne noted that Schreyer Honor’s College students already have this protection. The feeling is that other students should as well.
      2. David described this as the “move three concept.” When a student takes a sequence of courses in a particular General Education area to explore their interest in a particular area, they should have confidence that those courses will count in a major. Adjusting the policy to support students’ General Education choices would help to preserve the spirit of Penn State’s new General Education structure, instead of forcing students to use 3 credits of General Education to meet the missed degree requirement.
      3. Yvonne reminded us that the associate dean/director of academic affairs for the entering college would still have to approve these substitutions. In addition to the policy change, documentation of the process would also be needed to require that the proper notation is made in Starfish acknowledging that the substitution has been requested and approved.
    4. New agenda items
      1. Michelle Rice, Director of Prior Learning Assessment (PLA) at Penn State has shared the recommendations of the Task Force on PLA. PLA covers everything from Advanced Placement credits earned in high school to transfer courses brought in by returning adult students and courses that resident instruction students take at other institutions over the summer then transfer into Penn State.
      2. The recommendations include referring to both credit by exam and credit by portfolio as being part of a larger category of credit by assessment options at Penn State.
      3. The Task Force identified concerns with large numbers of transfer credits coming into Penn State as “general” as opposed to “direct equivalents.” The goal for the institution is to move more of these credits into direct equivalents on Penn State degree audits. When credits aren’t counted toward direct equivalents, students’ time and cost to degree is increased significantly.
      4. When the University moved into LionPATH from ISIS, the decision was not to bring in transfer credits that had not been evaluated in the last 10 years. A concerted effort was made across faculty disciplinary communities to enter these courses into the new database for evaluation. To date, 40,000 courses are in the database, but there is still a great deal of work to be done and the faculty play a crucial role.
      5. The PLA Task Force recommends that faculty reviewing these courses consider the 80/20 rule for content comparison and focus more on common learning outcomes rather than differing text book choices or pedagogy.
      6. Yvonne reminded us that 60 of a student’s last 120 credits still have to be complete at Penn State in order to earn a Penn State degree.
    5. Beth said that we will pick up the SRTE discussion as part of our spring agenda.
    6. There was some additional discussion about the Attendance/student absence policy, which is often misunderstood by faculty. Faculty can ask student if they have an excuse for missing class or an assignment, but they can’t require it. The policy clearly states that not all work can be made up. ACUE updated the process around this procedure to eliminate any confusion.
  6. Adjournment

back to top


September 12, 2017

Members Present:  A. Ahr, J. Belanger, T. Cios, D. Conti,  J. Furfaro, Y. Gaudelius, D. Han, K. Henninger, P. Linehan, K. Pollack, V. Prabhu, J. Safran, G. Samuel, B. Seymour, K. Shapiro, D. Smith, S. Suliman

Members Absent: G. Casper, P. Heaney, P. Johnson, M. Stine

Agenda:

  1. Call to Order
  2. The April 25, 2017 minutes were approved with minor modifications.
  3. Discussion of priority items for the year
    1. ACUE recommendation to consider the alignment of general education and major requirements with the year the student enters the University. Discussion: The ACUE discussion was explained that there can be a lot of confusion surrounding different requirements for degree, Gen Ed and University, as many degree requirements kick in with Entrance to Major rather than start of first year. We need to consider creating a system that allows for clearer and better planning for students. An additional consideration relates to accreditation requirements by state the state for some majors (nursing or engineering, etc.) LionPATH would need 6 months for any changes. Other considerations: What happens with change of major because students enter pre-major declaration. Possibly think of this as a contract with students. It affects the phasing in and out of courses. We agreed it was a worthy charge, and that we should coordinate with ARSSA. Timeline: possibly December.
    2. Consider amending Bylaws to clarify the jurisdiction of the Senate and the UE committee’s purview with respect of education. Discussion: We’ve been asked by Chair of Senate, to consider changing the purview of UE to include graduate education. The suggestion is to possibly change our structure, calling ourselves Committee on Education, with subcommittees possibly including Graduate education and online education. Other Senate standing committees are also expanding their reach into graduate education, including Research, Scholarship and Creative Activity. It was brought up how graduate education varies tremendously across the University, College of Medicine, the law schools, Graduate Council, professional masters. There is no committee currently that focuses on graduate education, and it is part of the University Faculty Senate’s purview. There are many areas where better communication and consultation with the various graduate schools and the Senate would help to facilitate the work of the University. The committee accepts the charge and will work with ARSSA. Timeline: this will take some thought and discussion, late spring.
    3. Consider drafting legislation (with ARSSA) revising Senate Policy 34-20, Registration Archive. Discussion: We are being asked to consider adjusting this policy out of concern for students sitting in a class while they are not registered. One possible issue is liability. The student is not officially auditing. One of the main reasons we are considering a change is because with we no longer have a distinction between scheduled and registered status. It was brought up that this might concern some liability concerns related to field trips or some kind of problem, lab issues, etc, that might occur in the classroom. Currently, if a student is not enrolled in the class, they are not on the LionPath roster. We then discussed the various reasons that students might have to delay scheduling, because they are waiting for money to come through, have a registration hold (immunization is a common one), so the student might ask to attend while they get their situation resolved. It was mentioned that students who are having trouble paying bill can still enroll, but if haven’t paid a past semester, can’t even enroll unpaid. We decided it was an important item, and to work with ARSSA. Timeline: December.
    4. Consider an advisory/consultative report that permits faculty above the rank of assistant professor or assistant professor of teaching to opt out of SRTE evaluations in every class, in every semester. Discussion: We decided to discuss it, possibly invite Angela Linse to present to the committee. We will need to consult with Faculty Affairs. Timeline: January.
    5. With Student Life, draft an informational report on best practices for aiding students who have three or more midterm exams in a single day. Discussion: Student Life has the lead on this one, it is a recommendation from UPUA, and we are being asked to consider it. Students experience a lot of stress when they have multiple exams bunched together during the semester. Timeline: December.
    6. Look at Grade submission deadline, particularly in reference to Academic Standing and Pre-requisite checking, 47-20 Basis for Grades, G-1 Grade Reporting, and 54-10 Good Standing. Discussion: There are a bunch of complications related to academic standing, pre-requisite checking, grade reporting timeline and running reports in LionPATH. While the Senate’s change of policy related to good standing were designed to help students, now that it is implemented it needs some fine tuning. With DF of NG, academic standing is calculated based on the grades they have to date. So students may be put into warning or dismissal AFTER the next semester begins. So we let them go another semester. They can dig a hole deeper and deeper. Form task force regarding what is student success? This seemed like a sticky problem, overall. A very complicated issue. We will work closely with ARSSA. Timeline: December/January.
  4. The committee was asked if there were other items left over from last year, or other items the committee should consider.
    1. Attendance Policy 42-27: This was worked on last year, but worked stopped over the summer. Student on active military duty may be deployed, and some instructors are willing to work with them, but sometimes they don’t when work just can’t be made up. Withdrawal already exists on case-by-case basis if they need to deploy, and they are reimbursed. D. Smith will find the policy and work with the chair to move this forward for committee review. Timeline: December/January.
    2. From last meeting, consider a place to house information or a syllabus template for faculty to help them address all of the Senate mandated syllabus items. Who would be responsible for keeping it current? And disseminating it to all? How do we best accommodate the goals associated with this? This is an item that needs more discussion.
    3. David Smith brings this item to the committee: 47-80 Repeating Courses. Some students are taking courses again and getting multiple As to help their entrance to major GPA requirement. 47-80 says they can retake if C or better, but they need permission of the advisor, but no one checks. Needs to be automatically checked and someone alerted so that students adhere to 47-80. If course can be used to meet multiple specific requirements, one attempt can be applied to one, and the next attempt applied to the other. Degree audit may be checking this, not sure. Entrance to Major, Smeal College requirements, etc. What about grade replacement option, newest attempt would stick? Highest attempt would stick? It was decided we would benchmark with other Big10 schools. Consult with ARSSA as well. Timeline: March.
  5. The chair then asked for volunteers to staff three subcommittees (Retention and Transfer, Writing, US/IL) for SCCA. There was some discussion about the amount of work required, and members wanted a description of Retention and Transfer sent out via email. The work is done online.
    1. Peter Linehan volunteered for US/IL
  6. Volunteers were requested for the University Advising Council.
    1. Jonna Belanger and George Samuel volunteered
  7. Adjourned at 10:30

back top