Oakland University Senate
Seventh Meeting
Thursday, March 18, 1976
3:15 p.m.
128-130 Oakland Center
AGENDA
Submitted by George T. Matthews, for the Steering Committee
A. Reports from Standing Committees
The Steering Committee has requested brief verbal reports of current activities and future plans from the following Standing Committees:
1. Athletics Committee
2. Financial Aids Committee
3. Teaching and Learning Committee
B. Old Business:
None
C. New Business:
1. Presentation of a Proposal for a Unified Undergraduate Advising System at Oakland University from the Academic and Career Advising Committee, dated March 18, 1976.
Ms. Dolores Burdick, Chairperson of the Academic and Career Advising Committee will present the Proposal as a report from the Committee. The Proposal is reproduced below and will not be read unless called for. Ms. Burdick and members of the Committee are prepared to discuss the principles and procedures described in the Proposal under rules of informal consideration.
The Chair orders that discussion will terminate upon consideration of a motion that the Senate approve the principles and procedures described in the Proposal of the Academic and Career Advising Committee, dated March 18, 1976 and recommend their implementation as soon as possible, which motion will be considered as substantive and hence in first reading with further debate possible at second reading. A motion to recommit will return the Proposal to the Committee and may contain suggestions for the Committee's guidance as well as a specific date for resubmission.
The following is the Proposal preceded by Preliminary Comments:
PRELIMINARY COMMENTS
As the University Senate has never, in its history, had the opportunity to ratify an advising system, the Academic and Career Advising Committee (hereinafter, ''the Committee") offers the following proposal in the hope that it will lead to a rational, integrated, and effective advising system. We feel that any advising system will be greatly strengthened by the consideration and approval of this elected body.
Our present advising system is eclectic and rather unwieldy; it tends to concentrate on some students while often failing to reach other students at all. Essentially, the problem is to find a way of coordinating the many excellent advising resources we now have in order�without becoming rigid or coercive�to help all students get the information and counsel they need. The Committee has studied our present system closely. Many of our members have visited other colleges (University of Detroit; University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee; University of Iowa; University of Indiana; Wayne State University; University of Michigan; Michigan State University) and discussed issues of advising with faculty and administrators at those institutions. We have devised a proposal which, we feel, best fits the needs at Oakland. While our presentation does reflect some features of successful advising programs now operating at other universities, much of the plan describes what we are, in fact, already doing.
Ours is a general proposal. it will not effect an instant cure, nor does it spell out details of implementation; it seeks, rather, to establish a set of principles and procedures flexible enough to accommodate most existing structures while demanding more in the way of accountability and orderliness. We have, in trying to avoid the Scylla of ineffective chaos and the Charybdis of inflexible rigidity, devised a proposal which preserves the best of our present system. i\It adds, most importantly, a series of four checkpoints which would insure that each student makes satisfactory progress toward his/her own stated goals (as outlined by the student in a "Program Plan") and toward the university's graduation requirements.
The proposal also contains a strong statement stressing, on the one hand, the faculty's responsibilities in advising and, on the other, the need for the university's substantive support and recognition of that function.
We have attempted to clarify the role of each sector (students, faculty, Advising Office) in the advising process, and to place the Committee in the role of liaison, when necessary, in that process. As the proposal is implemented, the Committee would be in a position to identify successful implementation and to distribute such information to all advising units.
In the desire to perfect the advising system with the cooperation of the entire university community, and to the benefit of students and staff alike, we recommend this proposal for your consideration and, we hope, for your approval.
PROPOSAL FOR A UNIFIED UNDERGRADUATE ADVISING SYSTEM AT OAKLAND UNIVERSITY
PREAMBLE
Good academic advising is an essential and vital component of quality undergraduate education. The primary function of an advising system is to assist students in making those academic decisions which will satisfy university requirements and realize personal and career goals. it is the responsibility of the student to select an academic program and to choose courses within that program. It is the responsibility of the advising system�a responsibility shared by the faculty and the Advising Office�to insure that students have sufficient information and assistance to make appropriate choices. This responsibility includes, but is not restricted to. informing students of the resources, goals, expectations and requirements of the university.
It is the intent of this proposal to establish a unified advising system administered by the Division of Campus and Student Affairs (Office of Student Services, Department of Advising and Counseling�referred to in this document as the Advising Office) with policy responsibilities invested in the Senate Academic and Career Advising Committee. Forma! advising activities of the faculty will be coordinated with the Committee.
Central to our recommendation is the principle that each student will have a Program Plan on file, which includes his/her intentions for fulfilling all requirements for graduation in order to monitor the student's progress, a series of four checkpoints are built into this proposal.
These four checkpoints are:
1. Arrival, planning of the first schedule (see II, A, 4).
2. First PROGRAM PLAN, filed no later than 48 credits (IV, A, i).
3. MAJOR PROGRAM PLAN, filed no later than 80 credits (IV, A, 3 and IV, B, I).
4. Final Advising Audit, no later than 108 credits (IV, B, 3, e).
CONTENTS
I. PRE-REGISTRATION ADVISING AND ORIENTATION
II. REGISTRATION ADVISING AND ORIENTATION
III. ON-GO1NG ORIENTATION
IV. ON-GOING ACADEMIC ADVISING
V. ON-GOING FUNCTIONS OF ALL ADVISING UNITS
VI. GOALS FOR THE FUTURE
I. PRE-REGISTRATION ADVISING AND ORIENTATION: This program will insure that prospective students are familiar with academic programs at Oakland University, and that they will be able to realize their interests and goals within these programs. Good, accurate information must be given to students before they come to orientation on.
A. The Advising Office, in cooperation with the Admissions Office, shall insure that prospective students are aware of the distinctions between, and the options available in the selection of, majors, concentrations, and other special programs.
B. The Advising Office, in cooperation with various academic units, shall develop programs to acquaint interested students with the course offerings adoptions within these units. These programs shall be offered periodically throughout the school year as well as during the summer.
C. The Advising Office, in cooperation with the Admissions Office, shall advise newly admitted students when their initial program selection cannot be met by existing programs and suggest alternatives when appropriate.
D. The Advising Office shall collect and assemble information which will help students select suitable courses at registration. Part of this process should include testing procedures where advisable.
II. REGISTRATION, ADVISING and ORIENTATION: The Advising Office, in cooperation with appropriate university, school and department agencies, will develop procedures and programs needed by students during their first two weeks at Oakland. Whenever possible, these procedures will include individualized advising.
A. Academic advising for new students (including transfers) will:
1. Familiarize students with general academic requirements, policies and procedures;
2. Acquaint students with relevant school or departmental requirements and options;
3. Allow opportunities for test result interpretation;
4. Help students plan first-semester schedule (Arrival, Checkpoint #1)
5. Permit students to register for classes with some assurance they can enroll in the courses they need.
B. Orientation for new students (including transfers) will:
1. Acquaint students with the geography, facilities, (especially the Library), and special services at Oakland;
2. Develop a readily accessible information service to answer student questions;
3. Provide opportunities to review study skills and to attend seminars conducted by academic schools or departments on skills appropriate to their disciplines;
4. Develop opportunities for interested new students to meet individually with faculty members;
5. Develop opportunities for informal activities with faculty, staff, and other students;
6. introduce students to governance systems, clubs, and cultural activities.
III. ON-GOING ORIENTATION: The on-going orientation program should consist of a series of academic and social programs to meet the students' needs at appropriate times. These should include programs addressed to:
A. Study aids, preparation for examinations;
B. Personal counseling;
C. Career explorations;
D. Groups with special needs (e.g., commuters, minority students, older returning students, etc.).
IV. ON-GOING ADVISING:
A. Students who have not chosen a major or professional degree program
1. ideally, within the first semester at Oakland, but no later than the completion of 48 credits, each student shall file a Program Plan with the Advising Office. (First PROGRAM PLAN, Checkpoint �2)
2. The Program Plan shall designate courses which the student intends to take in order to fulfill all non-departmental requirements (e.g. L.S., Gen. Ed.) and appropriate prerequisites for upper-level work.
3. The Advising Office shall develop procedures which:
a. insure that all students without a major file a Program Plan and notify students who have failed to meet this requirement;
b. help students formulate their Program Plan;
c. evaluate the Program Plan once it has been completed and notify students whose Program Plan is unacceptable;
d. provide for student-initiated changes in Program Plan;
e. direct students to schools or departments in which they have expressed interest for consultation in the choice of major or professional degree program, not later than the completion of 80 credits.
B. Students who have chosen a major or professional degree programs:
1. Within the first semester of declaring a major, but no later than completion of 80 credits, each student shall file a Program Plan with his/her department or other relevant academic unit. (MAJOR PROGRAM PLAN, Checkpoint #3)
2. The Program Plan shall designate courses which the student intends to take in order to fulfill all academic requirements, including those for the major.
3. Departments or other relevant academic agencies shall develop procedures which:
a. insure that all majors file a Program Plan;
b. help majors formulate their Program Plan;
c. evaluate completed Program Plans and notify students who fall an acceptable Program Plan;
d. provide for student-initiated changes in Program Plan;
e. insure an advising audit after completion of 108 credits, including a reminder to the student about filing an intent to graduate in the final semester. (Final Advising Audit, Checkpoint #'4)
V. ON-GOING FUNCTIONS OF ALL ADVISING UNITS:
A. The Committee will:
1. Periodically review the advising procedures followed by the advising units (schools, colleges, and Advising Office) to insure that the four checkpoints are being monitored in the manner specified by this proposal;
2. Establish procedures for evaluating the quality of advising;
3. Recommend changes in advising systems or programs as necessary based on evaluations;
4. Serve as an appeal source for, or liaison with, students who feel they are not receiving adequate advising.
B. Departments and other Academic Units will:
1. Insure that faculty in the departments are well informed about academic requirements, policies and procedures;
2. Conduct periodic review of their established departmental advising system to insure that it is being properly executed;
3. Work with the Advising Office in providing information and advising services to now students;
4. Inform Advising Office of the advising system being used, new programs and changes in major requirements.
C. The Advising Office will:
1. Keep the Committee informed as to what programs are being instituted by the academic advising units;
2. Assist advising units in developing, revising, and implementing their advising systems;
3. Develop administrative procedures for implementation of the four checkpoint system.
VI. GOALS FOR THE FUTURE;
A. Immediate
The Committee endorses the principle of encouraging faculty in advising, and shall work to establish procedures for evaluating the quality of advising. Since advising is a professional responsibility of the faculty, (see the 1975-76 Faculty Agreement, Art. X, Par. 59, p. 34), the Committee will work to see that advising be a criterion in considerations for promotion and tenure.
B. Long-Range
The Committee shall work with the appropriate university agencies in developing procedures to provide each student with regular reports on his/her progress toward fulfilling graduation requirements and his/her Program Plan.
2. Motion from the Academic Policy Committee (Mr. Fullmer, Chairperson, will introduce the motion)
THAT OAKLAND UNIVERSITY'S GRADING SYSTEM BE CHANGED IN THE FOLLOWING WAY EFFECTIVE THE FALL TERM, 1976: THAT ALL GRADES OTHER THAN WN APPEAR ON A STUDENT'S TRANSCRIPT.
Comments: On October 24, 1974, the University Senate instituted the WS and WN grades. At that time the Academic Policy Committee recommended that all grades appear on a student's transcript. By one vote, the recommendation was not accepted by the Senate. As a result the WN grade appears on an undergraduate's transcript, but the N grade does not; hence, the WN grade is rarely used. The APC has concluded that if there is to be an evanescent no-credit grade, it should result from a student's volition and it should therefore be the WN grade. in addition, the APC has concluded that if a student tries to complete the last week of a course and falls, that fact should be on a student's transcript for external evaluation. Currently a reader of undergraduate transcripts cannot distinguish between a consistently good part-time student and a full-time student who has received a number of N grades. Another effect of the motion would be to make the grading policy for undergraduate courses consistent with the grading policy for graduate courses.
First Reading: debatable, amendable, not eligible for final vote.
3. Motion from the Academic Policy Committee (Mr. Fullmer, Chairperson, will introduce the motion)
THAT OAKLAND UNIVERSITY'S GRADING SYSTEM BE CHANGED IN THE FOLLOWING WAY EFFECTIVE THE FALL TERM, 1976: THAT THE USE OF THE N GRADE BE ELIMINATED IN NUMERICALLY GRADED COURSES AND REPLACED BY THE USE OF 0.0.
Comments: The Academic Policy Committee has concluded that the WN grade offers sufficient opportunity for students to avoid being penalized by a failing grade. The use of 0.0 would more fairly rate those students who decide to try to complete a course and fail with those who receive credit. It should also be noted that a student who receives a 0.0 may retake the course and replace the grade. The use of 0.0 would also allow for a fairer rating of students by their GPA's. The N grade would be retained for use in S/N graded undergraduate courses with the consistent value of 1.9 or lower with no credit granted.
First Reading: debatable, amendable, not eligible for final vote.
4. Motion from the Assembly of the School of Education (Mr. Hetenyi)
THAT THE FOLLOWING AMENDMENTS (Ratified FALL, 1975) TO THE SCHOOL OF EDUCATION CONSTITUTION BE APPROVED:
a. Article IV THE FACULTY ASSEMBLY: STANDING COMMITTEES
Section I. The Executive Committee shall:
paragraph viii.
appoint replacements for such School of Education seats in the University Senate as may fall vacant in the course of a Senate term, as well as for vacated seats on all standing and ad hoc committees of the Assembly EXCEPT THE COMMITTEE ON APPOINTMENTS AND PROMOTION; with such replacements to serve until the next regular election;
(One change: Addition of "EXCEPT THE COMMITTEE ON APPOINTMENTS AND PROMOTION.")
b. Article V. THE COMMITTEE ON APPOINTMENTS AND PROMOTION
Section 2. The Committee on Appointments and Promotion shall:
paragraph vi.
consist of six tenured members of the organized faculty and the Dean of the School of Education (ex officio, and not voting). Of the total voting membership of the Committee no less than four shall be from the departments of Education and at least one from the members of the Faculty Assembly who are not members of the departments of Education. A minimum of one member shall be selected from the Departments' Committee on Appointments and Promotion.
(Two changes: (i) Deletions of "One of the members of the Committee elected from the departments of Education shall be elected to the University Appointments and Tenure Policy Committee." (2) Next sentence placed in paragraph vii, ''All members shall be elected by the Faculty Assembly and serve for three years.")
c. Article V THE COMMITTEE ON APPOINTMENTS AND PROMOTION
Section 2. The Committee on Appointments and Promotion shall:
paragraph vii
be elected by the Faculty Assembly. Service on the Committee will be for three year terms. Vacancies on this committee, other than those created by the expiration of a full term, shall be filled by special election conducted according to regular election procedures.
(Change: Addition of whole paragraph.)
Article V THE COMMITTEE ON APPOINTMENTS AND PROMOTION
Section 2. The Committee on Appointments and Promotion shall:
paragraph viii
require faculty members elected to the Committee on Appointments and Promotion not to serve in that capacity during the semester in which they are being reviewed for promotion. Such faculty shall withdraw from the Committee no later than January 15th in the semester in which the review takes place. Service will continue during the proceeding year and for the duration of the elected term.
(Change: Addition of whole paragraph.)
Comment: The present School of Education Constitution is attached.
First Reading.
Office of the Provost/j
3/10/76
Attachment