for the Academic Senate Meeting on TUESDAY, October 7, 2003
Senate Members Present:
Eunice Aaron (excused), Patty Bartscher (excused), Natalie Batista, Tara
Bohannon (excused), Yu Charn Chen, Robert Corrigan (excused), Joel Kassiola
(excused), Wenshen Pong (excused), Don Scoble (excused), Genie Stowers,
Mary Ann Van Dam (excused)
Visitors: Sam Gill, Ann Hallum, , Leroy
Morishita, Mitch Turitz, Jo Volkert, Yenbo Wu, Darleen Yee
Sposito, executive assistant to the chair, wished chair Edwards
Happy Birthday, as of last Wednesday.
Edwards reminded senators to remind their colleagues to vote in the
elections for the search committees.
AGENDA ITEM #1 - APPROVAL OF THE
AGENDA FOR OCTOBER 7, 2003
m/s/p Otero, Steier
AGENDA ITEM #2 - APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR September
m/s/p Otero, Houlberg
Turitz noted on the second page, fourth paragraph, last line, the phrase
“to also” needs to be corrected.
Garcia noted that Lupe Avila’s name was misspelled.
as amended are approved.
AGENDA ITEM #3 -REPORT - YENBO WU, DIRECTOR, INTERNATIONAL
PROGRAMS International Education Week, 2003
Wu, as director of the International programs office, sought to remind
everyone about the upcoming International Education Week, which is a nationwide
celebration. The office has approached many faculty, staff, and students to
form a showcase of our international character, both in the classroom and
beyond. The timing of submitted proposals for the showcase is of some importance,
and Jay Ward, Coordinator, International Student Services is arranging
for this program and will provide more detail.
issued thanks for the invitation, noting that this is the 4th year
that International Education week has been celebrated across the country.
Unfortunately we don’t have a long tradition here [at SFSU], with this sponsorship
last year had the largest number of activities and events. In addition, more
departments participated than ever before. International Education week begins
on November 17, and the office will leave the program from last year’s celebration
at the senate table for browsing. Also at the table will be program proposal
forms, and Ward requested that senators check in with colleagues to
see if there is a topic lecture, or program your unit may want to offer. Cultural
diversity is a very important area right now, and Ward indicated that
October 10 is the submission date.
Meredith asked about further information, whether there is a website
or other place to check for expanded information.
Ward indicated that so far only last
years program and proposal form are available, both present at the senate
table outside the senate meeting hall.
Steier asked about what the current international program status is,
in the aftermath of the September 11 crisis.
Ward commented about the initiative
to track foreign students, and that most of the energy that SFSU has expended
has been focused on adapting to the presented guidelines.
number of students is down, but matriculated students have shown no decline.
AGENDA ITEM #4 - REPORT - DARLENE YEE AND JO VOLKERT
- Enrollment Management Committee-2002-2003
Yee and Vice President of Enrollment Planning & Management Jo Volkert
from the Enrollment Management Committee described their committee’s formation
and process. The committee met every other week in spring 2003, and every
week this semester to address several important issues for the campus regarding
student enrollment. Yee felt the committee had been very proactive,
thoughtful and productive.
Yee stated the committee has so far
addressed nine items:
CSU enrollment policies and practices
SFSU enrollment policies and practices
Student enrollment data from Jo Volkert and VP Morishita
Updated the brochures “From High School to SFSU and “Transferring to SFSU”
5. Developed and recommended
the fall 2003 undergraduate application deadline plan
6 . Discussed the dissemination
of enrollment management information using multiple avenues
7. Discussed the interface
with presidential advisory group consisting of community leaders
Developed fall 2004 clearance of admission regulations
Developed a general plan 2004-2005
Yee mentioned the supplemental documents
to the agenda that included an executive summary, along with a matrix and
5-pages of narrative background. She noted our significant student demand
and enrollment growth. The second page of the document outlined the committee’s
principles and membership, and Yee felt that the committee had been
mindful of these principles in their deliberations. Pages 3-5 outline a plan
to guide students entering SFSU in 2004-5, whose components, when merged,
will allow fall 2004 launch.
requested the senators examine a one page sheet summary of the committee’s
work, and the matrix, which she then explained. The committee took each indicator
(in the far left of the chart) which was a category of student, or objective,
and then linked that to an underlying principle, then filled in action and
items mentioned are recommendations for the coming year. Freshman applicants
must apply earlier than ever before, March 1, transfer and graduate students
by May 1. We will not be accepting transfer students with fewer than 32-units.
We will be restricting students’ second BA applicants significantly, but this
is not a blanket recommendation, as there are exceptional programs. We will
be considering unclassified graduate students, but there are no firm recommendations
yet while we are still studying the data. We are still studying diversity
issues as we do not want to lose ground in this area of our strength.
is also the issue of students who have a high number of units, over 180-units,
who have not graduated, and we will likely defer this issue to the senate.
We are trying to dovetail with CUSP II to make sure our movement is in alignment
with their thinking.
Yee gave thanks to the senate, administration,
and committee members, and mentioned that the committee is currently looking
for student representatives.
Houlberg questioned the impact of these restrictions, which seemed
likely to cause more havoc for students, along with departmental restrictions.
He asked if it were possible for programs to get guidance for preparing informational
brochures and the like. As far as unclassified graduate students, he noted
that some departments, such as his, take all their students as unclassified.
Volkert responded that the recommendations
were not to contradict restrictive departmental policies already in place
but rather to exist as guidelines for other departments. She suggested checking
with Dean of Graduate Programs, Ann Hallum.
Hallum was concerned about limiting unclassified graduate students, and
is trying to get data. Some 53% of unclassified graduate students come from
underrepresented backgrounds and we don’t want to limit that. She was aware
of special programs, and wanted to make sure they are handled appropriately.
As we look at categories of unclassified students, we might want to develop
a sequence for students with specific degree goals. Another category is the
“love learning” category of students. The data is problematic, and we are
expecting the “data police” to be coming and urged general caution.
Houlberg asked whether it was time for a department to start planning
changes, and whether it was necessary to conduct business differently, perhaps
bringing students in as classified students.
Hallum saw no need for that at the moment, but didn’t think it would
hurt to anticipate it for the future.
Nichols asked for clarification on the May 1 deadline.
Volkert said the recommendation was May
1 for 2004.
Nichols noted that her department already had published the deadline
dates as May 15.
Volkert said she was in discussion
with Dean Hallum and individual departments. There is a need to further
discuss deadlines with the Graduate Council.
Jerris noted that the increased enrollment was impressive, and wondered
what assumption was made in establishing these deadlines.
Volkert expected SFSU to grow even if nothing
changed, and so restrictions to enrollment made sense.
McKeon asked about deadlines. Major campuses often have late notification,
after mid-February, but when a freshman deadline of March 1 at SFSU is set,
it may make for difficulties in the application process for incoming students
Volkert said that the purpose is to close
down some numbers, for us not to take too many people. They want to encourage
students to apply at same time they are applying to UC system, etc.
McKeon asked if March 15 might be used as opposed to March 1.
Yee stated that we wanted to catch
people at the right time, to try to manage the enrollment and these dates
made the most sense.
Alvarez asked to provide the senate with a sense of how this plan will
affect us in real numbers, what it will do to the number of students.
Volkert stated that lower division transfers
are the most affected, perhaps as many as 800 fewer new students arriving.
Cherny asked a question about the policy passed last year that created
this committee, whether this committee reported to both the President and
Yee responded that this report goes
Cherny moved to accept the report and forward it to the President.
m/s/p Cherny, Otero
Carrington speculated that if fees are raised considerably, that this
will affect enrollment more than any policy. He asked what our plan is with
respect to this.
Volkert stated that this year’s increase
did not affect enrollment. This would be a recommendation, once in place,
if reality called for it, we could make alterations. We have tried to build
President Moreshita suggested that fee increases won’t be 100%, maybe
more like 10%. He reinforced the notion that fees at this level do not have
Bernstein asked about bullet item 5, restricting second BA students
and asked who would be examining this category. Would there be a blanket set
of criteria or would departments be giving input?
Volkert said at the undergraduate level
they would restrict, and would not accept second BA’s.
Hallum said that as for unclassified graduates,
restrictions will be discussed in Graduate Council, and we do not wish to
stop the normal conduits of students entering into programs.
Smith asked about bullet item 4, and whether that would include readmitted
Volkert responded in the affirmative. If
there is broken status, students must complete the lower level status and
Vaughn thought we cannot accept the report as written, and noted that
for some programs, lots of applicants are second BAs.
Williams disagreed with the assertion that fees do not have an impact
Volkert acknowledged that we cannot know
who did not come due to fees, but noted that grants for many students were
increased and so some fee increases were covered by increased financial aid.
Cherny noted senator Vaughn’s suggestions about language revisions
and suggested that perhaps the item come back for second reading in two weeks.
Volkert said that they are already taking
notes and can bring the item back in second reading
Moreshita wanted to address Senator Williams
question, and mentioned that as far as the applications to enrollment ratio
went, it remained constant.
McKeon noted that senator Vaughn mentioned that many teacher
candidates come for a second BA. This item actually is a report not a discussion
item, and it is perhaps not possible to change its status.
Edwards ruled that the motion was indeed in order.
Chin noted a typographical error in the supplemental document.
Ulasewicz referred to item seven, and how we could hold underrepresented
Volkert said the wording was deliberately
vague for flexibility.
Gregory asked that since the item is coming back anyway, could some
numbers be provided. The “heavy unit” category for example, as perhaps we
do not want to provide disincentives, but maybe look at that group carefully,
and not discourage their presence.
Yee stated she did not have the statistics
handy, but had reviewed them and can provide those kinds of numbers, which
were remarkably large.
Gregory thought perhaps these can be tied to probation status etc.
Liou asked about transfer students and which departments and colleges
are affected most by transfer student restrictions.
Volkert said that this was not examined,
but could be looked at for next year.
Bernstein was sure that APC took the issue of students with a high
number units before. The number of students with high-unit totals were not
large, and did not affect impacted programs. She thought that it needed to
return to APC, since these are academic issues at hand.
Volkert said that this was the intention.
Yee stated that there was much concern
on the Enrollment Management Committee about second BA and unclassified graduates.
We did not recommend total restriction, we asked for significant restriction.
Vaughn asked if credential students are unclassified, and if they could
be put into a different classification.
Hallum said that the category of credential classified, had never been
used but could be.
will return to the Senate in second reading on October 21.
AGENDA ITEM #5 -RECOMMENDATION FROM THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE—COMMITTEE
MEETING SCHEDULE FOR SPRING 2004—a consent item: 1st and
m/s/p Meredith, McKeon
to second reading. m/s/p Bernstein, Steier. Approved by general
AGENDA ITEM #6 - RECOMMENDATION FROM THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
- APPROVAL of the RESOLUTION ON PROTECTING ACADEMIC PROGRAMS AT SFSU—a consent
item: 1st and 2nd readings
m/s/p Williams, Garcia
to second reading. m/s/p Jerris, Gregory. Approved by general consent.
AGENDA ITEM #7 - ADJOURNMENT