Members present:  Awbrey, Bednarski, Berven, D., Berven, K., Cole, Connery, Doman, Dulio, Eis, Gilson, Grimm, Grossman, Guessous, Jackson, Kruk, Latcha, Leibert, LeMarbe, Licker, Mabee, Marks, Meehan, Moran, Moudgil, Pedroni, Polis, Russsell, Schott-Baer, Schweitzer, Schartman, Shablin, Southward, Spagnuolo, Switzer, Tardella, Tracy, Walters, Wells, Williams

Members absent:  Chamra, Free, Gallien, Giblin, Graetz, Hightower, Jhashi, Kim, Larrabee, Medaugh, Penprase, Sudol, Voelck, Wood

Provost Moudgil called the meeting to order at 3:15 P.M. 

A.  INFORMATIONAL ITEMS

Call for Volunteers for Ad Hoc Constitution Committee
Mr. Moudgil called for volunteers for an Ad Hoc Committee to begin work on rewriting the Senate constitution.  He requested members to send nominations for this committee to himself or to Associate Provost Michelle Piskulich.   Ms. Jackson volunteered immediately to be on the committee.

Transfer Student Initiative—Ms. Aubry-Slowik and Ms. Westergaard
Susan Awbrey introduced Ms. Aubry-Slowik and Ms. Westergaard.  Ms. Awbrey noted that in 2010/11 Oakland University has 15, 530 undergraduate students, of whom 1825 are transfer students.  The reason for the increase in transfer students has to do with the fact that there are more commuters on campus than there have been in the past.  She expressed her appreciation for the collaboration between the Office of Admissions and the Office of the Registrar in overseeing the matters related to transfer student issues.  The Associate Registrar oversees academic records and transfer credits, and transfers the information for the Banner system.  She introduced Ms. Aubry-Slowik (Associate Director Admissions) and Ms. Westergaard (Associate Registrar), who gave their report to the Senate, collaboratively. 

• Ms. Westergaard leads the Registrar’s recruitment team, providing communication online and necessary critical information to the Registrar.  She said that the recruitment team is working on being more successful at engaging the community colleges by forming new relationships and also by renewing old ones.  The team has been interested to find out if OU is transfer friendly and successful from the point of view of transfer students.  Based upon their findings, they have been able to make some quick changes as well as long-term ones.   They are sponsoring a community college ‘counselor connection’ program, and have taken counselors on the road to Grand Rapids, as one example.  The team is working with Mary Otto to see how OU is perceived at OCC, St. Clair, Mott and Macomb.  The reaction has been positive, and they are presently looking for more collaborations. 
• Ms. Aubry-Slowik:  There are transfer student resources available.  Community colleges in Michigan have been reviewed by her office for transfer equivalency information.  Twelve schools are in this group, and so students from these institutions can look online to see how their credits will transfer to OU.  Also, there are guides online for students to look at with important information.  For instance, feeder programs exist for most majors.  In addition, the Office of Admissions is utilizing the website Michigantransfernetwork.org., and Oakland University has 40,000 transfer equivalencies in that data base.  Ms. Aubry-Slowik said that they are now looking into putting it all together onto the website so that students can do ‘one stop shopping’ to figure out all of their transfer credit issues.
• Ms. Westergaard:  Transfer students are asking three basic questions:   1) How many credits will transfer, 2) How long until the student will get their credits, and 3) What is the cost to the student?  Transfer students have a tendency to quantify, and if OU will advance their career, they are more likely to come here.  Staff is available to help them.  The Registrar’s office is open late on Tuesday, and students can get transfer credit evaluations on the spot every day of the week.  Four times a year, there is a Transfer Open House for students to learn about Oakland University.  Transfer students are also included in the “Go for the Gold” events.  Transfer students are interested in social as well as academic opportunities available on campus.  Statistically, 60% of the students are under 24 years old, and this is a factor to consider when it comes to transfer students.  Ms. Westergaard observed that her office is looking at ‘hot’ transfer majors.  They have discovered that Nursing is the #1 major of interest, followed by Business, Health Science, Pre-Elementary Education, Biology, Engineering, Social Work, Communication, Undecided, History and English.  Her office is working on developing its own transfer website.  There is now a new direct link to advisors and events.
• Ms. Aubry-Slowik:  In Academic Records, they get students’ records, assess them, and get the information back to students within days.  She said that OU faculty members need to be involved in order to help the transfer credit evaluation process.  One area in which she needs help is in having 4-year schools evaluated for how courses transfer to OU. 
• Ms. Westergaard gave some sample numbers related to transfer students.  For example, OU has 557 students from Oakland Community College which is the number one feeder school.  There are 354 from Macomb Community college, and 40 from Henry Ford and St. Clair.
• Ms. Aubry-Slowik expressed excitement about the Retention Committee.  They are creating templates for faculty to communicate with freshmen and transfer students.  If anyone wants to get more info about their department into the system, they should contact her.
• Ms. Westergaard said that there are grants available for transfer students, such as the $2000 award for two years for the Distinguished Transfer Student, and $1000 for the Talented Transfer Award.

At the conclusion of Ms. Westergaard and Ms. Aubry-Slowik’s reports, Ms. Jackson asked whether in discussions with the community colleges, the recruitment teams had pointed out that admission to the Nursing program at Oakland University depends on courses taken as freshmen on our campus.  Ms. Westergaard said that they had done so. 
Mr. Polis observed that the number of FTIACs has gone down, and he wondered if they knew why this was so.  Ms. Westergaard replied that it is most likely financial issues resulting from the economic situation in Michigan that has caused this situation.  Ms. Jackson pointed out that for the last two years, tuition at OU has gone up, first by 9%, then by 5%.  She asked whether any other universities had tuition hikes to compare with ours.  Mary Beth Snyder said that Central University compares with OU in this regard.  Ms. Jackson suggested that high tuition hikes could be a deterrent to transfer students, and Ms. Snyder concurred. 

Undergraduate Enrollment Update for Fall 2010—Mary Beth Snyder
Mary Beth Snyder (Vice President for Student Affairs) provided the Senate with an update on undergraduate enrollment for fall 2010.  The following are highlights of her report. 

• Enrollments are up 1.7% to 15,530 students in the fall 2010 semester. 
• Credits have climbed as well, and are up to 186,426 credits.  FTIAC credits hours keep moving upwards.
• There is a percent change in undergraduate majors, and it is notable that students are more market-sensitive.  The economy is affecting their decision-making.
• New student enrollment is down 6.3% among FTIACs, to 2311 students.  Ms. Snyder believes that this may be because of the economic situation in Michigan.  Families may be moving out of state.  On the other hand, transfer student numbers are up 8.8% to 1825 students.
• Parent attendance has increased at orientation events.
• Among the Tri-County enrolled FTIAC students, Macomb and Oakland are down, but Wayne is up 16%.  Ms. Snyder pointed out that we need to broaden our reputation as well as the areas in Michigan targeted for recruitment.
• Out of state counties:  56 counties are represented now, and so this number is inching up.
• 98% of students come from Michigan.
• 96% of freshmen are full-time.
• Distribution of GPA and ACT Scores for FTIACs:  72% had a 3.0 or above, versus 59% in the year 2000.  The ACT score has gone up as well, to 22.4.  These changes indicate that OU is admitting better-prepared students than we have had in the past.
• Freshmen students by gender are 60% female and 40% male.
• 2133 students are being housed on campus.  There are 2211 total available rooms, and all of the rooms are occupied. 
• Conditional admits:  Students with high ACT and low GPA, or vice-versa, can be admitted conditionally.  They have to be in good standing at the end of their first semester.  Of these, this year 96 were admitted, 68 enrolled.
• Financial aid disbursement:  $56,603,864 was disbursed to 10,202 students, which  is a 13.9% increase over previous years.  Most of this aid comes from the federal government.
• General Fund aid:  OU decided to provide guaranteed four years of financial aid to students.  Of these awards, 55% are need-based, and 45% are based on merit. 

Following Ms. Snyder’s report, Mr. Connery asked exactly whose heads are being counted.  Ms. Schartman said that if they are not here, we do not count them. 
Mr. Kruk expressed his skepticism concerning whether we are actually admitting better students these days.  He had done some research on ACT scores for the USA overall, and found that we are lower than the national average with regard to ACT scores.  He maintained that the ACT test is getting easier, and thus our students are not actually better.  Ms. Snyder responded that what he said is true for all schools in the country, if the ACT test is easier than it used to be.
Mr. Polis observed that grade inflation needs to be taken into account.   Mr. Moudgil pointed out that in addition to these factors, students are evaluated differently in different systems all over the world, and this needs to be taken into account as well. 
Mr. Meehan added that financial aid has a positive effect on retention.

Provost update—Provost Moudgil
1)  Mr. Moudgil reminded the Senate that this year several searches will be taking place, to include the following:  1) Dean of the School of Nursing, for which the search committee will be announced within days; 2)  Director of the Research Office, for which the search will begin in a week, and 3) Dean of Kresge Library, for which library faculty members will meet soon with Mr. Moudgil to set up the search committee.  An Interim Dean will be appointed.

2)  Mr. Moudgil invited Senate members to attend the Oakland University State of Academic Affairs to take place on Thursday, October 14, 2010 at 12:00 PM in Meadowbrook Theatre in Wilson Hall. 

3)  Mr. Moudgil welcomed new members Jay Meehan and Mark Doman to the Senate Steering Committee.

4)  Mr. Moudgil invited Robby Stewart (Associate Dean, CAS) to talk about the ‘Degree in Three’ initiative.  Mr. Stewart said that the ‘Degree in Three’ is an undergraduate degree in the College of Arts and Sciences accomplished in three years.  There are students who come to OU with AP credits.  Highly-motivated students can take courses in the summer sessions, in addition to fall and winter.   Considering their AP credits and by taking summer courses, it is possible for some students to complete their degrees in three years instead of four.  The 3-year program is developed primarily for highly motivated students to fast-track to graduate school, law school, professional schools, etc.  It will be available by fall 2011.  Mr. Stewart said that in checking to see what they are doing at other universities, he found that 100% of students who start a ‘Degree in Three’ program will finish in four years if they do not finish in three.  In other words, they ultimately have a100% retention rate.  So far, there are fifteen BA degrees and four BS degrees in the CAS at OU able to facilitate a degree in three years.  Ms. Jackson asked if the Assembly had discussed and approved it. Mr. Stewart replied that it had. 
Mr. Tracy observed that a ‘Degree in Three’ has always been an option.  Mr. Stewart agreed, but said that a rotation of teaching schedules across years within departments can facilitate this option.  Mr. Moudgil added that one reason to do a degree in three years is economics, and that it will end up costing the student less in the long run.
Mr. Pedroni inquired as to the nature of the debate about the degree in three years in the CAS Assembly.   He expressed his concern that this degree overlooked the overall experience of the undergraduate.  Mr. Stewart agreed that students need time to ‘percolate’ what they learn, and thus they often turn to four years.  But non-traditional students may prefer the three-year option.  Mr. Pedroni was worried that students will just fulfill requirements to get done, but that this would have a negative effect on the culture of the university as a whole.  Mr. Stewart said that the number of students doing this option will always be small.  But he encouraged departments to think of scheduling their courses so that students can get their credits in three years.  Ms. Guessous echoed Mr. Pedroni’s concern about the overall undergraduate experience, and cautioned that publicity for this kind of program could have a negative effect.  It would be better to emphasize summer internship opportunities, for example.  Students need time to mature, and she cautioned that burn-out could be a problem for those trying to get their degrees in three years.  Mr. Meehan mentioned that as the chairman of a department in the CAS, schedules are already available for a ‘degree in three’.  He said that a good advising system will help students, and he agreed with Mr. Stewart that it will always be a small number doing a degree in three years.  Mr. Grossman said that he did not recall this matter coming to the Assembly, and he did not remember a motion about it.  He requested a follow-up at the Assembly.  Mr. Connery said that this type of accelerated program may not be an advantage because students will then be applying to graduate school in their sophomore year.  Mr. Pedroni re-emphasized his worry that if this option is advertised too much, OU will be branded as a 3-year school, and this is not a positive association.  Mr. Moran said that he would never advise a history major to do a degree in three years because history is a reflective discipline, the major needs to be done over time.  He would be particularly sorry to see his best students do a degree in three years because it would be a disadvantage to them.  He re-iterated that the degree in three years has always been a possibility, but that he would be very alarmed to start seeing advertising on television or elsewhere. 

B.  APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES of September 23, 2010.

Corrections to the Minutes included changing the designation of Ms. Schott-Baer to Interim Acting Associate Dean of the School of Nursing (first informational item).
Mr. Russell objected to the statement in the Minutes that the revisions to the constitution of the SOM had been passed along to him for initial input before being passed on to the SOM, because the revisions were reviewed by other faculty members as well. 
The motion was made to approve the Minutes with suggested corrections (Jackson, Tracy).  The motion carried.  

C. UNFINISHED BUSINESS

1.  Motion to increase membership of the General Education Committee (Mr. Polis, Ms. Gilson)

Moved that the membership and terms of the General Education Committee consist of the following:

Twelve faculty members, one of whom shall be chair, appointed to staggered three-year terms by the Senate upon nomination by the Steering Committee, and one student;  ex officio and non-voting: the Vice Provost for Undergraduate Education, a representative from the Advising Steering Committee, and the Registrar, or designee, and the Director of the Office of Institutional Research and assessment, or designee.

Comment:  This will increase the committee membership from nine to twelve faculty members and increase the term of service from two to three years. 

Second reading:  debatable, amendable, and eligible for final vote at this meeting.

Following the introduction of the motion as presented in the September 23 Senate meeting, Ms. Schartman explained that the original motion as stated above was not what the General Education Committee intended.  She brought to the Senate a substitute motion from the General Education Committee, as follows:

Twelve faculty members, one of whom shall be chair, appointed to staggered three-year terms by the Senate upon nomination by the Steering Committee, and one undergraduate student designated by the University Student Congress.  Ex officio and non-voting members include:  the Senior Associate Provost for Undergraduate Education, a faculty representative from Kresge Library, the Assessment Coordinator, and one representative from each:  the Professional Advisers Council, the Office of the Registrar, and the Office of the Director of Institutional Research and Assessment.

Mr. Moudgil called for a second to the motion to substitute the new motion for the original one.  The motion to substitute was passed by unanimous voice vote. 

Mr. Grossman asked if he understood correctly, that if there were one member of the Gen Ed Committee from Kresge Library, this would then preclude them from being one of the 12 faculty members?  Ms. Schartman said that this is correct.  
Mr. Tracy said that the motion is a good idea because the Gen Ed Committee has so much work, and the new committee membership will help to streamline their activities.  Also, with 3-year terms, there will be more memory on the committee. 
Mr. Grimm said that he wanted to introduce a friendly amendment to the motion, as follows: of the 12 faculty members on the Gen Ed Committee, 7 members would be from the CAS.  Mr. Grimm said that seven CAS faculty members would constitute a majority, and furthermore allow one representative from each School.  Mr. Leidka came forward to say that only 4 of the Senate committees specify faculty units.  There is a danger that in doing so, there will be empty spots that would end up not being filled. 
Mr. Polis said that he did not consider the amendment to be friendly. 
Mr. Grimm made the formal motion of his amendment (above) (seconded by Moran). 
Mr. Moran agreed that there should be proportional representation on the Gen Ed committee.  Ms. Williams said that the majority of the GEC did not agree with the proposal to have proportional representation on the committee because there is no justification for it from the point of view of the students.  Also, she does not believe there is a need to be territorial.  Mr. Grimm disagreed strongly, based upon his personal experience. 
Ms. Jackson wondered about the SOM, and was concerned that their unit did not seem to be involved.  She did not think it was a good idea not to include them. 
Mr. Meehan pointed out that some Senate committees do have proportional representation.  But he thought that stipulating a number could be a problem.  He would like to see proportional representation consistent with a fair set-up, whether it is one from each area.  He observed that the wording for the motion is difficult. 
Mr. Tracy spoke against proportional representation because the committee has a lot of work to do, and the idea of proportional representation adds too much complexity to the make-up of the committee.  He agreed that the idea of going from 9 to 12 faculty members is a good idea in order to divide up the work in a better way. 
Mr. Moudgil agreed that the make-up of the committee should not eliminate a School.
Mr. Russell then proposed an amendment to the amendment, based upon Mr. Moudgil and Ms. Jackson’s concern.  He proposed that there be 13 faculty members, including 6 members from the CAS, and one each from each School (seconded by Moran). 
Mr. Moran agreed with the idea of having 6 from the CAS, but felt they should be allotted.  Susan Awbrey said that she did not feel comfortable with the idea of having 6 faculty members from the CAS just to be proportional because she did not see how that would help with the business of the Gen Ed committee.   She observed that when they added more members to UCUI from the CAS, they added one member to represent each of the four major areas of the College, and she thought that that could be useful to GEC since it would give input on the various areas of general education.   
Mr. Moudgil then called for a vote on the amendment to the amendment.  15 voted yes, 14 voted no.     
Then the vote was taken on the amendment.  15 voted yes, 15 voted no.  Tie vote meant that the amendment did not pass. 
Mr. Moudgil then called for a vote on the motion (as substituted above by Laura Schartman).  The vote was 21 yes, 8 no.   The motion carried.

D. NEW BUSINESS 

Staffing the Senate standing committees
Ms. Piskulich explained that so far she did not have direction from the Steering Committee regarding the staffing all of the Senate standing committees.  Mr. Moudgil said that the Steering Committee should make a clear recommendation.

E.  GOOD AND WELFARE

• Mr. Meehan said that he thought the informational items have taken too much time.  He stated that he thought there should be a limited time for the presentations of informational items.  Mr. Moudgil was in agreement.  Mr. Grimm strongly agreed as well, and added that because so much time was spent on the informational items, there was not enough time to spend on the old business of the Gen Ed committee formation.  

• Serge Kruk asked if there had been any follow-up since the September 24 Senate meeting concerning the problem of some students not having their books for their classes until several weeks into the semester.  Ms. Berven said that she had been contacted by Mary Beth Snyder who said that the problem may have to do with the fact that the students who cannot afford to buy their books have had to apply for a second round of financial aid, and this takes extra time.   Mr. Kruk said that he thought we should think of a way to help these students have books sooner. 

The meeting was adjourned at 5:00.

Respectfully submitted,
Dikka Berven  

posted 11/9/2010