MINUTES (approved
A meeting of the
1.
Announcements
Dr.
Potash opened the meeting by placing a resolution before the faculty:
Whereas,
Construction is all but completed on not one but two major buildings on the
College campus, namely, the Rickey Science Center and the Dyson-Baudo Recreation Center;
Whereas, This ambitious building program has presented major
challenges to our colleagues in Physical Facilities;
Whereas, The
College community has been kept well informed as to progress and interruptions
to daily campus life; and
Whereas, A concern
for the safety of the College community has always been a first priority,
Resolved, That the
Faculty of Marietta College send their thanks to Fred R. Smith, P.E., Director of Physical Plant, and his staff for
the efficient and cheerful manner in which they have carried out their work in
buildings, old and new, and on the campus grounds during the construction
period.
The
resolution was approved unanimously by an enthusiastic voice vote.
2.
Minutes
The
minutes of the meetings of October 14, 21 and 28 were approved as submitted.
3.
President’s Report
(a)
New Buildings. Dr. Scott thanked the
science and athletic faculties for their work in moving into the
(b)
Comprehensive Campaign. The
President reported that the campaign had achieved more than $62 million byh the end of December 2002 and would close on
(c)
Enrollment 02-03. Dr. Scott
reported that the Spring full time enrollment was 1000
± 1. This meant that the Spring budgeted number had been achieved. The Fall-Spring retention for freshman
students had been good at 92%.
(d)
Enrollment 03-04. The President
reported that the situation for 2003-04 looked very promising with applications
at 1,365 compared to 735, showing an 86% increase over 2002. Completed applications at 1,070 exceeded the
total for the 2002-03 class. So far, 954
students had been accepted for the Fall of 2003,
compared to 343 at the corresponding date in 2002. Deposits at 89 compared to the previous
year’s 39. Campus visits were also up on
the 2002 experience. Dr. Scott mentioned
that it was difficult to give precise explanations for the increase over 2002,
but said that new strategies were in place to improve yield. She said that the increased acceptance rate
had not been achieved at the expense of quality when comparing the number of
students accepted who were eligible for trustees and presidents
scholarships. Of the students accepted,
257 qualified for these scholarships, a significant increase over the previous
year. The College’s Strategic Plan
called for 450 new students in the Fall of 2003 and
Dr. Scott was confident that this goal would be achieved if the admissions
trend continued.
(e) Marietta 2010.
Dr. Scott announced that there would be a “Common Hour” meeting on
Wednesday 19 February when she planned to start discussion with the faculty on
its vision for
(f)
Introductions. Dr. Scott called
on Prof. Debora Lazorik to introduce the additions to
the athletic staff: Todd Glazer, head football coach, and Curt Wiese and Tony Jennison, assistant coaches. A fourth was expected to arrive on campus
shortly.
4.
Provost’s Report
(a)
Introductions. Dr. DeWine
introduced Mr. Jason Witherell who had joined the
Department of Computer Science, and Mr. Ben Thomas who was a visiting assistant
professor in the Department of Petroleum Engineering and Geology where he would
focus on energy engineering. Mr.
Thomas’s visit was being funded externally and with restricted funds.
(b) Calendar. Information on up-coming events was
distributed. A copy is attached as
Exhibit A (green) to these minutes.
(c)
Assessment. The Provost announced
that Prof. David Freeman, Chair of the Academic Assessment Committee would be
establishing groups to work on assessment as a lead-in to re-accreditation.
(d)
Admission. She reported that the
Office of Admission would be approaching faculty to make telephone calls to
students who had made deposits for the Fall of 2003.
(e)
Departmental meetings. Dr. DeWine
announced that she would be meeting with departments to plan for a possible
large freshman class in the Fall of 2003.
5.
Academic Standards Committee
The
following motion was introduced by Dr. Mark Sibicky
of the First Year Task Force, and seconded by Dr. Egolf,
Chair of the Academic Standards Committee.
Whereas,
Whereas, our
primary objective must be the academic success of our students and their
progress toward graduation;
Whereas, students
participating in co-curricular activities should be in good academic standing,
not only for themselves, but because these students represent the College’s
values to the community;
Whereas, currently,
when a student’s GPAs falls below the minimum set by the faculty (i.e., 1.6 for
first year, 1.8 for sophomores, 2.0 for junior and seniors) the student is
placed on academic probation (MC Catalog 128);
Whereas, according
to our current catalog: “The policies governing academic warning, probation and
dismissal are designed to help ensure that a student is making satisfactory
progress toward degree completion (128);”
Whereas, our
current academic probation policy is inadequate because it provides neither
real incentive, nor substantial consequence to students who are not making
satisfactory progress toward graduation;
Whereas, our
current policy detracts from the academic reputation of
Whereas, we believe
the proposed changes to our academic probation policy would better serve
students in the following ways:
a. Provide a greater incentive to
students to develop strategies for their academic success before facing the
consequences of academic probation.
Changing our policy may also motivate students to take greater advantage
of the programs and services the college now provides to help students develop
good academic related habits (e.g., the first year program, ARC, the writing
center).
b. Encourage students to spend more time
on their academic endeavors, and motivate students to seek out course
instructors for help.
c. Provide greater incentives to
students on academic probation to work toward a 2.0 semester GPA and thus get
off co-curricular restrictions.
d. It signifies that
Whereas, the
Provost has agreed to assume responsibility for enforcing the proposed policy
and she has agreed to inform the faculty on an annual basis if she grants any
exceptions to students for extraordinary circumstances;
Whereas, the First
Year Task Force believes that the proposed changes are the best policy because
it represents a simple, clear and easily administered set of procedures;
Resolved, the
Faculty of
Academic
Warning, Probation, Dismissal:
The
A student will receive an academic
warning when his/her semester grade point average falls below 2.00. Academic warning is used to alert students to
potential problems with unsatisfactory academic progress. Upon their placement on academic warning,
students will receive a letter from the
The purpose
of academic probation is to: (a) inform students when they are not meeting the
normal academic standards expected of college
level students; (b) encourage students to re-evaluate their motivation and to
develop strategies for academic success; (c) encourage students to spend more
time on academic endeavors. A student will
be placed on academic probation if the student’s cumulative GPA falls below the
following minimum:
Credit hours Minimum
attempted GPA
24 hours or less 1.6
25-58 hours 1.8
59 hours or more 2.0
A student on academic probation may enroll in no more
than 16 credit hours each semester. Upon their placement on academic probation,
students will receive a letter from the
The following
co-curricular restrictions will apply to students during their probationary
period. Exceptions for extraordinary circumstances may be made by the Provost.
a. They are
ineligible to participate in any college athletic team or club sport.
b. They may
not hold office in any campus organization or social fraternity or sorority.
c. They may
not travel off campus to a meeting or trip with any college organization or
club unless required to do so for an academic program.
d. They may
not represent the college in any on campus or off campus public events or other
co-curricular activities (e.g., plays, musical performances, student newspaper)
unless required to do so for an academic course.
e. They may
not register for courses that require co-curricular participation, unless required
by their major.
At the
beginning of each semester, a list of students on academic probation will be
available in the Records Office. All
faculty, staff and administrators that directly or indirectly supervise
co-curricular activities are responsible for checking with the Records Office
to ensure that students are eligible to participate in a co-curricular
activity. The Provost of the college is
responsible for enforcing adherence to the academic probation policy by all
members of the college community.
If the
student earns a semester GPA of 2.0, or better, during the probationary
semester, co-curricular restrictions will be removed for the following
semester.
Should a student’s cumulative GPA remain below the
stated minimum for two consecutive semesters, the Academic Standards Committee
will review the individual’s academic record and determine whether to dismiss
the student from the College. A student
may appeal the decision to dismiss to the Academic Standards Committee.
A student can also be considered for dismissal by the
Academic Standards Committee with no prior warning or probationary period when
his or her performance drops significantly below the minimum stated above.
Dr.
Sibicky explained that the proposal came out of
discussions at the First Year Task Force, had been passed to the Academic
Standards Committee who were now bringing it to the faculty. Dr. Egolf reported
on discussion over several meetings at her committee. A vote was taken which showed a slim majority
for the proposal. In response to a
question, she added that the vote was taken in the knowledge that the proposal
would be brought before the full faculty.
The
Chair invited Prof. Lazorik and Dr. Monek to address the faculty. While sympathetic to the goal of the proposal,
both spoke against. Their argument was
captured in a set of overheads attached to these minutes as Exhibit B (pink).
The
Chair invited Mr. Kasey Drennan,
President of the Student Senate, to address the faculty. He reported that student sentiments varied
widely. He read a statement from the
Student Athletic Advisory Council. This
statement is attached as Exhibit C (blue).
Discussion
ensued. Ms. Arbuckle showed an overhead
which compared the grade point average of students on probation, differentiating
between those involved in athletics and those not involved. This overhead is attached as Exhibit D
(ivory). Other issues raised included the
fact that The Student Athletic Handbook
states College policy as requiring “normal progress towards a degree” for
eligibility for participating in College athletics; the probation policy
required more work; a coach indicated his primary reason for coming to the
College as an undergraduate had been athletics and only later did he come to
appreciate the importance of the academic aspect of college life; and a comment
that the motion would at least establish a minimum academic standard for those
representing the College in co-curricular activities.
The
question was called but failed to achieve the necessary two-thirds majority.
In
response to a question, Prof. Lazorik indicated that
practice varied greatly among NCAA colleges when considering the impact of
academic performance on eligibility. The
Registrar indicated that it was difficult to predict the effect of the proposal
on retention. He thought the withdrawal
of financial aid based on academic underperformance would have a more dramatic
effect.
The
Chair accepted a motion to defer further consideration of the motion until the
meeting previously scheduled for Monday, February 10.
6.
Adjournment.
The
meeting adjourned at
Fraser
G. MacHaffie
Secretary
of the Faculty
Exhibit
A (green): Academic Events Calendar
Exhibit
B (pink): Opposing Argument
Exhibit
C (blue): Statement from the Student Athlete Advisory Council
Exhibit
D (ivory): Probation Status Comparing Athletes with Non-Athletes
Distribution:
Dawes
Library
Dr.
Scott
Dr.
DeWine
Dr.
Potash