Cleveland State University

Faculty Senate

April 21, 2004

I. Approval of the Agenda
II. Approval of the Minutes of the March 10, 2004 Meeting
III. Announcement of Elections at the May 5, 2004 Meeting
IV. Announcement of Coming Faculty-Wide Election
V. University Curriculum Committee
VI. Admissions and Standards Committee
VII. University Faculty Affairs Committee
VIII. Library Committee
IX. University President’s Report
X. Annual Report (Report No. 30, 2003-2004)
XI. New Business

PRESENT: E. Anderson, Barbato, Bathala, W. Bowen, Dobda, Doerder, Droney, Flynn, Forte, Ghorashi, Gross, Hanlon, S. Hill, Hinds, Hoffman, Hoke, Jeffres, Konangi, Kuo, LaGrange, Larson, Lazarus, J. McIntyre, Mills, Moutafakis, N. Nelson, J. Nolan, Nuru-Holm, Ozturk, L. Patterson, L. E. Reed, Rom, M. Saunders, A. Schwartz, M. Schwartz, Shah, M. Smith, Spicer, Spiker, E. Thomas, Thornton, Tumeo, J. G. Wilson.

ABSENT: C. Alexander, Angelova, Atherton, D. Ball, J. Bazyk, Boyle, Charity, Ekelman, Hanniford, Jeffers, S. Kaufman, L. Keller, Lopresti, McLoughlin, Misra, O’Donnell, Quigney, Rafiroiu, Rosentraub, Sawicki, Scherer, Sparks, Steinglass, Tewari, D. Webster, F. White, Zhou.

ALSO PRESENT: Govea, Meiksins, Silberger, Steinbacher, Steinberg.

Senate President Vijaya Konangi called the meeting to order at 3:05 P.M.

I. Approval of the Agenda

Acceptance of the Agenda for April 21, 2004 was moved, seconded, and approved.

II. Approval of the Minutes of the March 10, 2004 Meeting

Acceptance of the Minutes of the March 10, 2004 meeting was moved, seconded, and approved.

III. Announcement of Elections at the May 5, 2004 Meeting

Senate President Konangi announced the elections scheduled for the meeting of May 5, 2004 as follows: three faculty representatives to the University Faculty Affairs Committee; three faculty representatives to the Minority Affairs Committee; two faculty representatives to the Budget and Finance Committee; one faculty advisor to the Board of Trustees; one faculty representative to the Board Committee on Honorary Degrees, Citations, and Recognitions; one faculty representative to the Copyright Review Committee; one faculty representative to the Patent Review Committee; four representatives to the Equal Opportunity Hearing Panel.

IV. Announcement of Coming Faculty-Wide Election

Senate President Konangi also announced the upcoming faculty-wide election of one faculty representative to the Academic Misconduct Review Committee.

V. University Curriculum Committee

A. Proposal to Re-admit the School of Social Work to the College of Arts and Sciences and Assign the School to the College of Liberal Arts and Social Sciences (Report No. 24, 2003-2004)

Professor Peter Meiksins, chair of the University Curriculum Committee, noted that both the Interim Dean and the Transition Committee for the College of Liberal Arts and Social Sciences are in favor of admitting the School of Social Work into the College of Liberal Arts and Social Sciences. The School of Social Work is also in favor of this proposal. Should Social Work be admitted to CLASS, they would be treated as a social science for the purpose of internal governance within the College. Dr. Meiksins stated that Senate approval is needed to assign the School of Social Work to CLASS.

There being no discussion, Senate President Konangi asked the Senate to vote. Senate unanimously approved to re-admit the School of Social Work to the College of Arts and Sciences, and to assign the School to the new College of Liberal Arts and Social Sciences.

B. Proposed Joint Master of Fine Arts in Creative Writing
(Report No. 25, 2003-2004)

Professor Meiksins presented next the joint Master of Fine Arts in Creative Writing, as proposed by the English Department in collaboration with the English departments of Youngstown State University, Akron State University, and Kent State University. This is a Master’s of Fine Arts program which will be shared among the units. This program has been a long time in development. It predates most present members of Senate. The original program development proposal was sent to Columbus ten or more years ago. It has taken a great effort by the Graduate Dean and the chair of the English Department to make this all happen. The program has gone through all of the required procedures. All of the colleges involved, as well as the Graduate College, have approved it, and it has been reviewed by the University Curriculum Committee. The UCC met with Dr. John Gerlach and Dean Mark Tumeo and they responded to its questions on this matter. The UCC thinks this is a fine addition to the curriculum. There is no significant cost and it brings something to the University that we don’t currently have and could definitely benefit from. The UCC recommends approval of the joint Master of Fine Arts to Faculty Senate.

Dr. Jane McIntyre commented that she was on the College Curriculum Committee, and she apologized for not noticing before, but there is strange wording in the budget narrative. It states a one-time startup cost of no less than $40,000 per year for two years. The text should probably suggest the opposite of that. While she also acknowledged that this cost is going to be divided among the universities, she wondered what the actual projected cost will be for our university.

Dr. Peter Meiksins responded that he hadn’t noticed that particular phrasing, but he added that he had asked Dean Mark Tumeo about the issue of where the $10,000 would come from.

Dean Earl Anderson responded that they have requested $6,000 per year for two years.

Dr. Meiksins also stated that the Graduate Office pledges the additional $4,000 per year.

Dean Mark Tumeo reported that the reason the language was used in that way was in recognition of the fact that various departments and other units could do things like copying, publishing brochures, etc. that weren’t necessarily coming from that $10,000. It was understood that there was at least $40,000 to cover such ongoing expenditures. He agreed that the wording in this section of the text was unique.

Professor Michael Spicer stated that he presumed that the $10,000 won’t cover the staffing costs for the courses.

Dr. Meiksins agreed and stated that the way it was presented to the UCC and the way the proposal presents it is that the program can be built using existing courses, existing faculty, and existing resources on campus. It is simply bundling together things that we basically are already doing into a coherent program.

There being no further discussion, Senate President Konangi asked the Senate to vote on the proposal. The Senate unanimously approved the proposed Joint Master of Fine Arts in Creative Writing program.

VI. Admissions and Standards Committee

A. Proposed New Admissions Standards (Report No. 26, 2003-2004)

Dr. Roberta Steinbacher, chair of the Admissions and Standards Committee, presented the Committee’s proposal to raise the Admissions Standards for new freshmen students. She noted that in the Committee’s long deliberations reviewing this proposal, comments were solicited from the faculty at large, from university officials, the Admissions Office, and the Student Services Office. The Committee requested historical data, and also projected data into the future. She noted that Dr. Bonnie Jones, the Director of Admissions, will talk about all that shortly. Dr. Steinbacher referred members to the first page of the proposal after the cover memo which shows the three criteria that form the basic admissions standards. She noted that members might remember that in May of 2002, the Senate approved the second and third criteria for admission. Those are therefore not new. What is new in this proposal is the first criterion – Completion of 13 units of the state-specified core curriculum in high school. What is also new is the addition of the dual or deferred category. Essentially, freshmen admits, if they are admitted regularly, will need to have all three criteria. Provisional admits will be required to meet two out of the three criteria. The deferred students, who meet one or none of the criteria, will be referred to a two-year institution. The Admissions and Standards Committee added the qualifiers listed in the cover memo. They were basically meant, and this is the Committee’s feeling on the matter, to encourage the Administration to provide additional support to provisional and deferred students, and to increase access and retention rates.

For the provisional admits, the Committee proposed that students enroll full-time until the Fall of 2008. The original proposal had these students coming in part-time in 2006. That was the major revision in the proposal.

Then the Committee had five additional qualifiers: increasing support for advising; liaisons to high school guidance counselors; dual admissions with the two-year colleges for our deferred students; support on the state level mandating the core curriculum in high schools; implement a thorough statistical monitoring system of new admissions standards (Institutional Research) and report findings to the Admissions and Standards Committee at the end of each term for the first five years of implementation.

Dr. Steinbacher referred to the chart distributed with the meeting materials showing the current regular admissions, and the proposed regular admissions – provisional and dual. She stated that the Admissions and Standards Committee encourages Faculty Senate’s approval of the proposal.

Senate President Konangi noted that Dr. Bonnie Jones, Director of the Admissions Office, will make a PowerPoint presentation and additional material will be distributed.

Dr. Bonnie Jones thanked everyone who had helped her get started at Cleveland State. Since she came to CSU in July 2003, she has met a lot of people who have helped her work out many issues, and there are still many people she has not met yet. She stated that thus far she has dealt with many issues, and this is one that she has been working on. She also thanked Dr. Jerry Kiel and Dr. Jae-won Lee who were on the original committee that put together this proposal for Dr. Kuo, who had requested a proposal for raising undergraduate admissions standards.

First, why should CSU change its freshman admissions policy? Dr. Jones noted that the Committee wants to improve student success. We want to make sure that the college GPAs are in line with what would be expected for college students, and that they are doing the learning that is required. CSU’s retention rate is quite low in the State of Ohio – we are second from the bottom. We would like to see that improve, along with our graduation rates. We want to see improvement in Cleveland State’s reputation and funding. We want to have a learning environment where everyone can learn, no matter what level the student is on, and that the learning environment is conducive to that and faculty are able to really do their best. Everyone knows how the CSU faculty is very stellar. It is truly amazing to her coming from institutions where the teaching really isn’t done by the faculty but is done by graduate students quite a bit. To see a faculty so engrossed and so involved with their students is amazing. We want to improve the rates. We also want to support the local high school goals. President Schwartz met last week with the principles, superintendents, and guidance counselors in the area. They all looked at this proposal and were quite happy to see that we were requiring things like the core curriculum because that might be very helpful to them in doing the things that they would like to do. Finally, the present proposal promotes timely degree completion -- that is shorter time to degree. The quicker students get out, the quicker they are earning a professional salary, and that of course leads to higher earning power, better community progress, etc.

Dr. Jones then referred to the limitations of open admissions. If one looked only at whether someone has a high school diploma or a GED, then this is not really a good predictor of whether or not they will be successful in college. Another thing to keep in mind is that Cleveland State is the only public four-year institution in Ohio that does not consider completion of the core curriculum as part of the admissions process. We are alone in that. By changing, it is not that we will be different from anyone else, but we would be getting in line with everyone else.

Dr. Jones noted the rationale for using high school GPAs and the academic core curriculum as standards, a practice that is typical across the country. High School GPA is in just about any study you look at or any research you look at. It always comes out as the strongest predictor of college GPA, college retention, and college graduation, no matter what you look at and no matter what you study. The ACT and SAT scores do moderate the effects of high school competitiveness. What type of high school you went to also makes a difference. Sometimes a student with a 3.5 at one high school may have a higher ACT than a student with a 3.5 in another high school. This sometimes signals that there are a lot of individual differences between schools, and that admissions decisions are fairly complicated because there are a variety of factors in play. But of the above indicators, the high school GPA and the core curriculum preparation are two stronger predictors. Core curriculum is important because it prepares students for the college experience in their GPA, their retention, and later in their graduation studies. If you look at the Board of Regents’ web site, there is extensive information about what happens to students who have the core curriculum and to students who don’t have the core curriculum when they go to colleges and universities in Ohio. You can actually see that those who have the core curriculum perform far more strongly GPA wise at the universities than those who don’t. The Regents actually break it down by individual high school. There is a lot of information available, if you want to look at what is really quite important.

Dr. Jones stated that one of the things they were really looking for in this whole admissions recommendation proposal is that students will be prepared for Cleveland State, so that they can succeed. She knows that Cleveland State has a mission of access. She noted how it is really quite ironic that about this time yesterday, she was sitting at a conference where Vincent Tinto was speaking. He is a national expert on student retention. He has done extensive research in this area. Throughout his entire presentation Dr. Jones kept thinking that she wished she could bring him (Vincent Tinto) along with her to speak to the Senate today, because he so eloquently explained the difference between providing access just to provide access, and providing access with the purpose of student success. He said that if you provide access, it is very important that your students are not continuing on as long as they are not retained. If you lose them right away that first semester or that first year, if they do not graduate, then you really have not been successful in your access mission. Part of the access mission, he explained, was making sure that the students you are opening your doors to become successful, they graduate, and they go out and use their degrees in the community. It was really an excellent presentation. She asked somebody how much he thought Mr. Tinto would charge to come to CSU to speak to the faculty. She mused that she did not think President Schwartz would want to spend about $20,000 to $25,000 for that right now.

Dr. Bonnie Jones thanked Mr. Peter Trumpower for the tremendous amount of work he did ever since this group got together in September, trying to pull all of the data together. She referred to the Fall 2002 cohort. This is the group used to study what would be the effect if we were to impose these admissions standards on the Fall 2002 class that entered as new full-time freshmen, without any college course work or anything other than they had taken in the PSEOP program in high school. Mr. Peter Trumpower has provided tables to show their academic performance and their retention via each of the criteria – by their high school GPA, by their ACT scores, or by having taken the core curriculum. Of students who had less than a 2.3 high school GPA in that Fall group, 203 of these had a high school GPA which we could use in the study. Of those that had over a 2.3 GPA that entered in the Fall of 2002, there were 622. If you look as to whether they were retained the following year Fall 2003, which was this previous Fall, 56% of those below a 2.3 were retained and 65% of those above a 2.3 were retained. If you look at the mean GPA of the two groups, those below 2.3 had a 2.3 GPA here at CSU and had at least eight hours. [Mr. Trumpower didn’t include students who completely withdrew from everything or maybe just had one course.] Those students above a 2.3 had a 2.84. The mean degree credits, again there is a major difference – 13 below 2.3 and 22 above 2.3. The percentage that actually attained sophomore status (30 or more credits) was 7% for those below 2.3 and 27% of the 2.3 or above group. That is really significant. These students are showing progress toward their degree. The percentages for those having a four to six year graduation track, i.e. they had at least 22 credits, were only 16% of those that had below a 2.3 in high school, but it was 57% of those above a 2.3. Looking at test scores, again the breaking point is below 16 on the ACT or above 16. Mr. Trumpower did look at the local ACT, that is the IACT, and then the converted SAT using the conversion tables to compare those who just had SAT scores but didn’t have a comparable ACT score. For Fall 2002, we had 175 below 16 and 689 at 16 and above.

The retention rate was about 58% with those below 16 on the ACT and 64% for the 16 and above group – again this is showing a little bit of a difference. Dr. Jones stated that the GPA was the best predictor. The mean GPA again, 2.10 for the below 16 group and 2.63 for the 16 and above group. For credits earned, 16 for the below 16 group and 24 for the 16 and above group. The percentage becoming sophomores: 5% of the below 16 group and 27% of the 16 or above group. Again, sophomore status is pretty low even for this group. Percentage of a four to six year graduation track: 18% of the below 16 group and 54% of the 16 and above group. Again, a dramatic difference in those characteristics.

Finally, the core curriculum units. This is a projection. Mr. Trumpower actually had his graduate assistant go through our admissions files and pull high school transcripts, and then go through them line by line and look to see who had the English, the math, the sciences. He got through about two thirds of them. This is why these numbers are a little lower than the previous numbers. If you look at those who had below 13 units of core curriculum as opposed to those above, the retention rate is 57% to 69%; mean GPA, 2.4 to 2.6; mean progress, 15 credits to 24 credits; percentage of those who became sophomores, 11% to 29%; and then the percentage on track for four to six year graduation, 27% to 60%. So about less than half were actually on the graduation track.

What is CSU’s current policy on freshman admissions? Dr. Jones stated that we of course now have open enrollment where you need a high school diploma or a GED. If we want to change our open enrollment policy, it is state law that we have to notify our perspective students two years in advance of any change to our open enrollment. That is why this proposed change is not projected until 2006. Right now, we already have provisional admission for students below a 2.3 high school GPA, and who have below a 16 on the ACT or a 750 on the SAT. Students do have some special requirements in order to be retained and the advising office does work with them to make sure that they get the kind of counseling and what they need.

Dr. Jones referred to the last chart showing a summary of the admissions guidelines. For the regular students, they would need to meet all three criteria and have at least a 2.3 or above high school GPA, a 16 or above and 750 or above on the ACT/SAT and 13 units of core curriculum. They would be regular admits. Looking at the big table, there are different requirements for the colleges. Those are set by the colleges and those are currently in effect and that is what is being used now.

For the provisional student, at least two of the criteria would be needed of the three criteria mentioned: 2.3 GPA, 16/750 for the ACT/SAT, and 13 units of core curriculum. Effective in Fall 2008, there would be part-time enrollment as Dr. Steinbacher said. Instead of full-time enrollment, those students would be part-time enrolled. One of the factors that went into the decision from the beginning -- we have been discussing this since September -- is that a lot of what we are judged on through the Board of Regents is how successful our freshman cohort is, and that is defined as the first time freshman full-time student. So if these students are put into the part-time category for the first year or until they get their developmental courses out of the way, or whatever might need to be done, they would not be counted against our retention rate or our fixed year graduation rate. However, they would still be our students.

The third category is the dual/deferred. This would be effective in Fall 2006. These students would have only one or none of these criteria. They would be admitted to CSU after completing twelve hours of non-developmental courses with at least a 2.0 GPA, including one math and one English course. That could be at Tri-C through a dual admission program which is what we hope to set up. President Schwartz already has on his calendar a meeting with the community college presidents and is discussing this issue. This work could be done at any college the student went to for twelve hours, and that accepted them, and they were successful. They could then come back to CSU at that point, after completing those requirements.

Dr. Bonnie Jones referred to the last chart for the Fall Semester 2002 cohort that shows what would have happened to them had we imposed these standards percentage wise and number wise. There were 946 total students who entered as first time full-time freshmen in Fall 2002. Of this number, 62% (582) would have been regular admits; 26% (243) would have been provisional admits; 13% (121) would have been dual/deferred admits. We are now thinking that we are driven by the budget, and we have to worry about how much tuition and subsidy we are getting. What will happen if we just cut these 121 students out? Remember that this will go into effect two years from now. We are hopefully going to get this message out so that students do try to get core curriculum. We are going to get it out to the high schools, to the students, to the parents, to as many people as we can so that they can meet the criteria and don’t have to fall into this. We have two years to do this. The provisional admits will not go into effect until 2008. We hope by that time with things like the honors program coming in -- where we are getting some outstanding students -- we will start drawing some of the students like the other some 80 colleges and universities are doing in Cuyahoga County. When an Indiana school comes into Cuyahoga County, she (Dr. Jones) did not feel that it was right for them to take CSU students. Hopefully we will be able to recapture some of the students other schools have stolen from CSU, because they didn’t feel comfortable coming here for whatever reason. Now they will see CSU as a viable alternative, and not just a viable alternative, but one of their first choice institutions.

Dr. Jane McIntyre stated that she certainly does favor raising the admissions standards for our faculty and students. She does have some concerns for our traditional orientation for the non-traditional student. That has been actually one of the primary student groups at Cleveland State. She does see the note on the summary statement that said non-traditional freshmen applicants who have been out of high school five or more years will be considered on a case-by-case basis. Dr. Jane McIntyre wanted to know, “What is our intention with respect to letting students know that non-traditional students will still be welcomed at CSU? It has been our strength and we have had many outstanding non-traditional students. What are we going to do to let them know that they are still welcome here?” She then inquired how many non-traditional students are enrolled at CSU.

Senate President Konangi asked Mr. Edward Mills, Executive Director of Student and Administration Services, how he is going to get the message out that non-traditional students are still welcome to come to CSU. Mr. Mills responded that we definitely will continue our programs for recruiting those students and right now Bonnie’s team has been doing some of that. We definitely want to work with not only the in-coming first time students but also our transfer students to let them know that we are very willing to work with them and we do understand that when you have been out of high school for a long time, these criteria may not be the same. He indicated that he will get the word out in our marketing and in our programs and in individual meetings through the admissions staff and our counseling staff and through work with the community colleges and primarily emphasize that same formula. We want to make sure that we have access to the majority of the population.

Senate President Konangi also asked Dr. Roberta Steinbacher how CSU is going to get the message out to non-traditional students, since this issue was also discussed in the Admissions and Standards Committee.

Dr. Steinbacher responded that this only applies to freshmen. It is the Committee’s intent that returning folk out there know that some programs are built on adult learners. This should not affect them in any way, but she agreed that we have to somehow let them know that these new standards do not apply to them, and that was the Committee’s intention.

Dr. Susan Kogler Hill observed that even in the admissions materials in our books, we need to have a section for the non-traditional student. Otherwise they might not come here if they read those criteria and they don’t want to take an SAT or ACT test. We need to have that stated in these materials: re – non-traditional students must meet other criteria.

Senate President Konangi commented that because the Committee did realize this, there is a footnote at the bottom of the Undergraduate Admissions Guidelines. This matter was discussed with Dr. Bonnie Jones and Mr. Ed Mills.

Professor Mareyjoyce Green stated that it is important to make certain that the word goes out regarding the non-traditional student. These are students who are very sensitive to what goes on and how the university sees itself. It just so happens that on the morning in which the Plain Dealer carried an article on the front page about changing our admissions standards, we were having our semester outreach to these non-traditional students and several people walked in with the newspaper in hand saying, “What about us?” So, these people are quite sensitive to this issue and she (Mareyjoyce Green) was able to say something to the effect that she was sure we were going to handle this situation. But, as we get the new admissions policy out, we need to make certain that adult learners are still admitted on a case-by-case basis.

Professor Michael Spicer stated that he was curious as to what the budget will be there because we had a number of anticipated budget hits the past couple of years and this will be a self-inflicted one. He was curious as to what the impact will be, assuming that we are not able to recruit a higher class of students to replace those that we have excluded.

President Michael Schwartz responded that Vice President Jack Boyle modeled this for us. We put them between the new students in the honors program and recruiting for the new students at the East Center. We found that we have a good chance of breaking even at least, although we probably will see some dip in the first time full-time freshmen that may last a year or two. At least that is the experience at other institutions. The City University of New York, which has been noted for their open admissions since the 70s, recently abandoned that the same way we are trying. President Schwartz noted that in a recent conversation, the President of Queens College told him (President Schwartz) that that was in fact their experience. They had a very modest break for two years and it has now come right back up.

Professor Barbara Hoffman wondered about those students who will be admitted on a provisional basis and allowed to take only up to eleven hours and asked, “Does this impact on their eligibility for financial aid?”

Senate President Konangi responded that this issue was brought up in Steering Committee, and Mr. Ed Mills informed the Committee that these students will get the equivalent of part-time financial aid. Mr. Ed Mills agreed with Dr. Konangi that this exists today, and that it will continue to be the case. Dr. Konangi added that it will be proportionate with the part-time enrollment.

There being no further discussion, Senate President Konangi asked for a vote. The Proposed new Admissions Standards were approved.

Senate President Konangi thanked Senate for approving the new Admissions Standards. He noted that this will be the start of a new chapter of the University’s history. Several people put quite a bit of work into this. Dr. Konangi thanked Dr. Bonnie Jones, Mr. Peter Trumpower, Dr. Jerry Kiel, and Dr. Jae-won Lee. He also thanked Professor Roberta Steinbacher for taking on this issue. It was a very intense process.

B. Proposed Modification to the English Language Proficiency Policy (Report No. 27, 2003-2004)

Dr. Steinbacher went on to note that this proposal is to add an option to the current English Language Proficiency Policy for international undergraduate applicants who are speakers of other languages. She added that one might remember that early last Fall we added another option, stating that students who are speakers of other languages could use them to be admitted to Cleveland State. It is her understanding that this proposal is for YBM Education, Inc. language centers and institutes to be accepted by us because doing so would attract more Korean undergraduate applicants. They take this course work more than they do ELS. The proposal is to create another option to help our University attract more of these students.

There being no discussion, Senate President Konangi asked members to vote.

The proposed Modification to the English Language Proficiency Policy was unanimously approved.

VII. University Faculty Affairs Committee

A. Proposed Plan for Faculty Senate Representation for the Two New Colleges (Report No. 28, 2003-2004)

Dr. Rodger Govea, chair of the University Faculty Affairs Committee, noted that this proposal involves the representation of the two new colleges – the College of Liberal Arts and Social Sciences and the College of Science with regard to representation in Faculty Senate. The issue arose because some of the representatives have ongoing terms and there was a question on how to handle the new college arrangements. UFAC considered the question and then discovered that the two transition committees for the two separate Colleges had already taken up the issue. After conferring with the Arts and Sciences Caucus, the UFAC agreed with their proposals. Essentially they stated that elections will be held at the end of this current academic year for all Senate terms with about one half being one-year terms and the other half being two-year terms, thus achieving the staggering which has always been there. Essentially, it means that the other terms from Arts and Sciences that would have ended in 2005 be discontinued and that people must then stand for election at the end of this academic year. So the proposal is for elections in the two separate Colleges to be held at the end of this year for both two-year Senate terms and one-year Senate terms.

Professor Barbara Hoffman inquired how the UFAC came up with the division or representation on Senate. Dr. Govea responded that there is a formula in the “Green Book” that prescribes one Senator for each five full-time members of the College up to 25 and then one additional Senator for each five faculty thereafter. So these are based on the count of faculty in these two Colleges for next year.

Senate President Konangi added that the Bylaws specify that representation is based on tenure-track faculty. He received a list from Dr. Shorrock’s office and UFAC counted the number of faculty in each of the two new Colleges to determine the number of representatives.

Professor Peter Meiksins asked what was the location of Social Work when the count was made.

Senate President Konangi responded that it was assumed that Social Work would be in CLASS. He added that the elections have not been conducted so if Senate approves this proposal today, the elections would still be consistent with the action taken today.

Professor Govea commented, “In case of orphans, we just assumed foster parenthood.”

There being no further discussion, the vote was taken and the proposed Faculty Senate Representation for the two new Colleges – College of Liberal Arts and Social Sciences and College of Science – was unanimously approved.

B. Proposed Revision to Student Evaluation Procedures (Report No. 7, 2003-2004)

Dr. Govea reported that this issue was introduced to Senate several Senate meetings ago and referred back to Committee after its originally unanimous recommendation that student evaluation procedures be held in the twelfth week. The proposal comes back entirely unchanged. The University Faculty Affairs Committee is still unanimous on the subject and UFAC is holding to its position that if there are possible contaminations to the student evaluation outcomes, they should be removed. One such contamination is having the instructor of record present when the evaluations are administered which has been shown to contaminate results significantly. In terms of the administration of forms, we argue that this should not ever happen. Secondly, since there is this opinion and it is supported by some research that there is a correlation between student evaluation scores and anticipated grades, and in addition in the last week of classes, there is often anxiety with regard to final projects, all of that could be contamination against student evaluation scores so, therefore, UFAC has brought Senate the recommendation in essentially the form that it was previously.

Professor Michael Spicer stated that he still remains uneasy about holding evaluations at a point in the course where a student has not acquired enough material which otherwise would hopefully necessitate a better evaluation. In regard to the correlation of grades with assessments, he is inclined to worry about that a little bit less because in terms of evaluating the faculty, we use these evaluations as a mean anyway. Now the mean is going to be affected in this institution by that same bias.

Professor Mehmet Ozturk stated that the concern is students’ anxiety. Why don’t we give the evaluation over various time periods, beginning from the first week to the fifteenth week. When the instructor feels comfortable, he or she can give the student evaluations because that may be the usual cases during those first three weeks or within the twelfth week. If you want to reduce the anxiety level as much as it can be, he added, you could give the evaluation over various time periods. In any case, we would still not be getting back student evaluations before the end of the semester.

Dr. Rodger Govea stated that we do not get the student evaluations back until after grades are submitted anyway. That doesn’t really matter. The Faculty Affairs Committee did consider the possibility of this sort of open window during which recommendations could be administered, but it was felt that it would in fact compromise the comparability across individual faculty. For that matter, it could be as much as the fourteenth week versus the twelfth week, versus the eleventh week. What we wanted to establish in fact was a single week at which they are all administered. If some people are of the belief that the thirteenth or fourteenth week is better than the twelfth, certainly Senate has the ability to amend the main motion if desired. Note also that UFAC did talk about the fact that evaluations could happen at the fourteenth week, if there is an educational reason for it to be so. In general, however, the idea was that UFAC wanted to make it comparable and uniform in the administration.

Dr. Andrew Gross commented: 1) Student evaluations are suspect in general; 2) He would prefer the last week if any, not the twelfth week; 3) There seems to be a movement on the part of local and probably national employers here to reimburse students fully for A grades, and only partly or not at all for grades less than A. Under the President’s report, or New Business, he would respectfully ask Dr. Schwartz and/or others to comment and whether or not we can, as individual faculty, send out letters to employers that this is an absolutely poor policy and puts tremendous pressure on professors across all the colleges to give very high grades. A student has withdrawn from one of his graduate classes because of this. “If I can’t get an “A”, at CSU, etc… I have to get an A because that is the only way I get reimbursed from my employer.” So it is not just the constituency of the faculty and the students, but there is another stakeholder here who is playing a major role and that is to say the employers, and he would respectfully ask for comment on that, either now or later.

Professor Candice Hoke spoke in support of the Committee’s recommendation. It seems to be extremely well grounded in the science and the broad loop of the subject, but this is not a question of simply when we would prefer to receive our feedback. This is a question of being able to have a certain kind of comparability, one that is less tainted by the fear of exams and by evaluations. She observed that we could go to a completely different model which some universities do, which is not to do any student evaluations any time near the course but a year later to survey students, or something like that. But right now, that is not the system here. She was thinking particularly about junior colleagues and the importance of their getting a fair unbiased evaluation of their teaching capacity before the students go into fear, panic, and retribution, which does happen at the end of the term when students are facing those exams and those final papers. She noted that this proposal is an appropriate balance between all competing interests, and she strongly supports and commends the Committee for their recommendation.

Dr. Peter Meiksins commented that were the Senate to change the date, he assumes that all of the norms that are used to calculate what deciles are in and all of that will be changed as well. He would strongly recommend that that be the case because if you are right that the outcomes are determined by the proximities of final exams, then the present norms would therefore be incorrect. The other question that occurs to him is that the twelfth week versus the thirteenth week, in lower division classes, the twelfth week is often an exam week. If you give four exams, that is the third one. A lot of first and second year courses are set up that way so he doesn’t know whether the committee looked into the likelihood that this would coincide with the scheduling of exams which would produce exactly the effect you are trying prevent.

Dr. Jane McIntyre stated that she hasn’t seen the norms for other colleges, but the College of Arts and Sciences has been collecting norms on student evaluations since we switched to this current system under the union contract. In the College of Arts and Sciences, we do our evaluations generally speaking quite late in the semester, and these are so heavily squed towards the high side that students are expressing satisfaction and optimism even with the late date. However, things may be quite different perhaps in other colleges. She wondered what the student evaluations would be like when we give them in week twelve. They are already so heavily squed towards the high side that people can get all objectively positive evaluations and still be in the bottom 25 percent even though 90 percent of the students are satisfied with the class.

Professor William Bowen stated that he is going to vote in favor of the University Faculty Affairs Committee’s recommendation. It seemed to him, however, that if we were really going to take this seriously, we should find out what the factor structure of this instrument we use looks like, and make sure that it aligns with some sort of a conceptual definition of what we are trying to achieve. Then we can establish some criteria for its validity. As it is, as he understands it, none of that has ever been done so there is a sense of what we are doing is putting a band-aid on a much deeper wound.

Professor Chenchu Bathala stated that he believes the students should have good information before they are expected to evaluate the course. That happens most often at the fourteenth or fifteenth week. If earlier than that, they are using past information from the course. As Professor Meiksins pointed out, some professors give the second exam and the third exam back in the second week or fourth or thirteenth week. When he gives the second exam, some people might be disappointed with the scores and that may reflect in these scores as well. That is why he would not agree with strictly going by one week. There should be some flexibility for the faculty depending on the course and depending on what the students accomplish in the course. Giving the evaluation between the twelfth and fifteenth weeks would be a better option.

Professor David Larson said that he could understand setting it up with a window from ten to twelve weeks. Something like that would not affect the validity very much. But if you get any closer then the twelfth week, you are definitely contaminating the results. This is not the grade on a class. Students are not deciding whether or not a year or two later that this was a wonderful class and it helped them. They are responding to the professor and how they feel about the amount of course work, and how much anxiety they are having, and the closer you get to the end, the more contaminated it is going to be. All of the research suggests that and indeed, if you think about it in your own experience, it may suggest the same thing too. The second point he wanted to make is a little awkward, but he is going to make it anyway. The current system puts enormous pressure on our untenured faculty and on our part-time people to get good scores. Because for untenured people, any good score is part of whether or not they get tenure. For part-time people it may, and it often does. With 40 or so part-time people, that is one of the things you look at when you are deciding whether to retain them. What do you think the pressure is to over-grade people near the end to diminish things and he needs to get good scores. By putting it close to the end, we are encouraging high grades which is exactly what Dr. Gross says he doesn’t want, especially when they are untenured and are part-time instructors. That is the best way to decrease student anxiety.

Professor William Bowen called the question. The motion was seconded.

Senate President Konangi noted that the question has been called and asked for a vote on whether to terminate the discussion. The motion was approved and the discussion was terminated. Senate President Konangi then asked for a vote on the main motion from the University Faculty Affairs Committee on the proposed Administration of Student Course Evaluations. The motion was approved.

VIII. Library Committee

Report on OhioLINK Negotiations and the Looming Crisis/Issues for Scholarly Communication (Report No. 29, 2003-2004)

Dr. Glenda Thornton, Director of the University Library, reported that last Fall, several news articles were distributed in the Chronicle and various places about some of our major universities cutting subscriptions to Elsevier like Cornell University, the University of California system, Harvard University, etc. She received a message from Dr. Konangi inquiring whether or not we were going to be cutting some of these major journals as well. In the year that we are in now, her answer was no but that we were planning to do so for 2005. As the situation in the State and in the nation continues to be not so good in terms of economics, the situation for Ohio and OhioLINK continues to be not so very good either as everyone is aware. As the Fall moved along and come January at an OhioLINK meeting, Tom Sandville, our Executive Director of OhioLINK began to talk to us about his negotiations. We had been negotiating price increases for these journals for two and three years trying to keep the prices down over a period of time. We are now ready to re-negotiate for the 2005 year. Mr. Sandville said how about us trying to keep the price increases to no more than 5% or 10% and that is better than anybody else in the world can get by the way. A number of us said that we don’t think our budgets are going to go up by 5% or 10% so that is not okay. We left that meeting and asked Mr. Sandville to go to these major publishers and tell them: “No increase for next year.” He did his work with Elsevier, Spring-Verlag and Kluwer and sent them messages and talked and negotiated with them and said our budgets in Ohio are not increasing and we do not and cannot afford more price increases for journals. Mr. Sandville asked the publishers to keep pricing flat for 2005 and 2006. We have heard back from Elsevier and they have agreed to keep our pricing flat for 2005, so we will have no price increase from them for 2005. We have a contract with Elsevier that says we can cut content if we cannot afford your price increase for all of your journals and we were prepared to consider exercising that at the OhioLINK level. If we were to begin to cut subscriptions at the OhioLINK level, then we, as individual institutions could begin to negotiate with Elsevier and these other folks for whatever journal subscriptions we could afford. And, that would become a nightmare for them because there are about 80 of us in this state. They agreed to keep our price increases for 2005 to zero percent. She noted that she asked Tom this morning whether we had heard from Kluwer and Springer-Verlag and his response was, they sent back unsatisfactory responses. He is still negotiating with them. Now they were supposed to give us that response by April 1, 2004. We are hoping and prepared to cut content with those folks and we hope that the cost of doing business with the various libraries in the State of Ohio would dissuade them from increasing our prices. But, everyone has probably been reading more and more in the paper and in the Chronicle all kinds of articles about the prices of scholarly communications. This is not a problem just at CSU, it is not a problem just in Ohio, it is a problem world wide. The OhioLINK consortium is one that meets with consortiums around the world and we are working very hard to keep the prices of scholarly communications low. But, we do not know the future. An article that was published in November 2003, which was from Cornell reads, “The statistics for the top North American research libraries over the last fifteen years are rather telling. The prices of serials have increased by 215%. ARL Library expenditures on serials, we are not in that league, have gone up 210% and the serial titles purchased by the large academic libraries had decreased by 5%. The consumer price index during the same period has only increased by 62% and, as everyone knows, our library budgets simply cannot go up in that same percentage any more than the university’s budget keeps going.”

Dr. Thornton noted that she just wanted to report to Senate today that we don’t know about Kluwer and Springer-Verlag and some of the others. We do know that Elsevier has agreed to keep our price increase for 2005 to zero. This is really good news. We know that the world publishing and libraries look to Elsevier and we hope that the others will hold their price increases lower as well.

Dr. Thornton commented that this is national library week and she hopes that everyone is noticing some of the things being done in our Library to highlight some of the services. As a finale on that week, Mr. Tom Sandville has been asked to come to Cleveland State and he will be here on Monday, April 26, 2004. She has also invited everyone from Faculty Senate as well as other people to a luncheon meeting at noon in the Library. She has invited department heads and the liaisons that work with our subject librarians to the Library at 2:00 P.M. to hear Tom Sandville talk about this situation. Everyone’s support and understanding is needed to know what is happening. It does affect you and your colleagues who are on the tenure-track. The world of publishing is changing. She doesn’t know how any institution can sustain 15% increases on their journals. At Cornell, for example, they spent $1.7 million in 2003 for Elsevier titles. That is more than we spend for all of the journals at CSU. We have access to every Elsevier title. That is the power that OhioLINK has provided to Ohio institutions. We are privileged in the world of scholarly communication to be here in Ohio for that. She encouraged everyone to come to the special collections room in the Library at 2:00 P.M. on Monday, April 26th to hear Mr. Sandville and to ask him questions. He is one of the leading negotiators in the world of scholarly communication. We will share with you some of the ideas that have been suggested for our faculty colleagues to help us with these prices because it is not going to go away.

IX. University President’s Report

President Michael Schwartz commented on how, in their infinite wisdom, his colleagues, the public university presidents, have elected him to the Higher Education Funding Commission, which is just what we all needed. They recently had a conference call with some representatives from the Ohio Board of Regents and other members of the Funding Commission to talk about next year, FY 2005, and the budgets. Most line items were, at that time, going to sustain about a 6% cut, which is the way the Regents had figured out how to absorb the Governor’s budget cut. What was held harmless in all of this was the State’s share of instruction, which is the basic subsidy line. We were able to persuade the Regents’ staff that at least the Challenges should be considered part of the core funding of the institutions: Success Challenge, Access Challenge, Jobs Challenge, etc. and they agreed with that. In this budget, however, there are 6% cuts in the line item for OhioLINK, the super computer, and a couple of other things that are state-wide academic assets. We were able to get them to reduce that to 2% and that was about the best we were able to do with those. So the cut to OhioLINK, following on what we just heard from Dr. Thornton, will be a 2% cut next year which is not devastating -- but it is not very helpful either. In order to do that, the 6% cuts to the remaining line items have gone up to about 6.27%. We will cope with that, but he felt that everyone needed to know that.

President Schwartz also responded to Professor Gross’ earlier question by asking him to repeat his question.

Professor Andrew Gross asked whether President Schwartz would encourage individual faculty or people from the President’s Office to contact employers informally or otherwise to ask that they not put pressure on their graduate and undergraduate students to bring back “As” for full tuition refund. He also wondered if it was appropriate for individual faculty and/or members of the President’s Cabinet, etc. to talk informally with local employers about this situation. Dr. Gross added that he is very concerned that there are tremendous pressures for grade inflation, not just from students, but now from employers.

President Schwartz responded that he would take up this issue when he next meets as a board member of the Greater Cleveland Partnership. He thought that Dr. Gross’ point was well taken. Any resistance we can offer to sources of grade inflation, we ought to offer that resistance. He observed that it is an enormous tribute to this faculty and to faculties all over the State how, in a formula driven system (one that says keep your students hanging around for as long as you can: good, bad, or indifferent, and we will pay you some money), grade inflation has been resisted. In fact it has been resisted to a very great extent. If that weren’t true, our attrition rate would look a lot different and so would our graduation rate. It is a great tribute to you but it doesn’t help when not only is the structure of funding encouraging grade inflation, but employers are getting into the game and doing the same kind of thing. So wherever we can resist that, that is exactly what we have to do.

President Schwartz noted that the first step has been taken in changing a very long-standing tradition with regard to registration for classes at Cleveland State University. Our students are now accustomed to telephone and on-line registration and more of them, because of this, have begun to register early. Thus, we have enrolled somewhere between 50% to 75% more registrants for both Summer and Fall than at the same time last year. Of those registering, 75% have done so on-line which is a tribute to our efforts to get students to use these services without having to go and stand in line and have clerks dealing with surly students who have been waiting too long and one thing or another. There is no muss and no fuss, and it has gone very well. We owe a tribute to Mr. Ed Mills and Mr. Mike Droney and to a whole bunch of people here. Those percentages allow us to get a more efficient schedule in place, by providing ample advance warning when additional sections are going to be needed to accommodate student demand. We just have more lead time, yet people said that we couldn’t do that at Cleveland State. They said that we couldn’t change the culture of this institution, but we are doing it. Some things take a little longer to change and that leads him to the latest news from Columbus regarding the entire budget.

President Schwartz noted that the taxpayers of the State of Ohio may wish to know that while the State legislature continues to starve public institutions of higher education, and he means starve them, that same legislature contributes more than $52 million per year to those institutions in the private sector of higher education in Ohio. That is enough money to rank Ohio number one among the 50 states in public aid to private higher education. And those same taxpayers should know in fact how well we use their money to prepare excellent and really hard-working students whose education is very negatively impacted by these repeated reductions in State support. His first example, everyone may have already read about her, is Sonia Steckler, a Cleveland State University student who is our very first Berry M. Goldwater scholar – this is a federally endowed program – she is one of just 310 of them in the United States. And those 310 came from nominees from 477 colleges and universities. Sonia, who is like many of our students, transferred into the biology program here where she has worked in the laboratory with Professor Walton, and she has also conducted a great deal of her own independent research. She was later chosen to participate in a ten week summer research program funded by the National Science Foundation. She is going to use that Goldwater scholarship to pursue a Ph.D. in conservation ecology.

President Schwartz stated that he would like everybody to know something about a young lady he just met last week – her name is Katie Szabo. She immigrated to this country from Hungary and has spent her entire undergraduate career at Cleveland State and will graduate next month. She has a double major in chemistry and biology with a non-grade inflated perfect 4.0. She worked for three years as an assistant in Professor Kalafatis’ lab rising to become a senior research assistant there. She has also been a research associate at the Cleveland Clinic. She spent a year in an African hospital working with AIDS patients and, under a grant from the American Heart Association, she has worked side-by-side with researchers at the Learner Research Institute of the Cleveland Clinic. In our department of chemistry, where she was working on a project, the results of her work were published in the Journal of Biological Chemistry. She is just graduating and she already has a nice publication record. She wants to go to medical school. She has been accepted at some, and she has turned down acceptances from the Mayo Clinic, the Cleveland Clinic’s new medical school, UCLA, the University California Medical School in San Francisco, and the University of Pittsburgh. She has chosen to go to Stanford. She also turned down an interview at the Ohio State University. He is being told that the Mayo Clinic calls her every day. They are trying to persuade her to change her mind at the Mayo Clinic.

President Schwartz stated that taxpayers need to know about the work we do with people like this, and those are two examples out of many hundreds and hundreds that we have here all of the time. $52 million dollars go to the private schools. It is not only graduating seniors who have profited from the education that the taxpayers made possible here. They are ready to contribute to society. On Saturday, a first year student whose name is Catherine Lee will be initiated into Alpha Lambda Delta, which is the national honorary for first-year students. She is also going to be installed as the president of that organization. She entered Cleveland State last Fall, has already earned 33 credit hours, and so far at least she is a 4.0 student. She has found time to complete our leadership certification program, be selected as an officer of Kappa Delta Leadership Honorary, serve as Arts Scene editor for the Vindicator, worked as an intern for the campus activities board, be elected as a senator in the Student Government Association, and represent Cleveland State in the Raise Your Voice national campaign to increase civic involvement among college students. He wouldn’t bet against her being Ohio’s first female Governor and the fact of the matter is that it might help us a great deal.

President Schwartz noted that these are a couple of the students who represent a return on investment, not just for the tax payer’s dollar, but for our work with them. They compete with and frequently beat out the best in the country. We need to convince Ohio to be proud of what these people have accomplished, and to be proud of what it is that you and I accomplish here all of the time too.

Finally, President Schwartz congratulated all of those members of the faculty who have achieved promotion and tenure, and wished those who have been awarded professional leaves the best of luck in their projects for the coming year. President Schwartz added that we have had a pretty good year here. If we just had a few more bucks, what couldn’t we do?

Professor Candice Hoke asked President Schwartz to describe the kinds of budgetary lines by which the legislature is conferring or allocating this money to private institutions. She is wondering if it is sort of hidden in places that don’t appear.

President Schwartz responded that in the Higher Education Budget, there is a line called, “The Student Choice Grants.” The legislation that created these grants back in the early 80s was called the Ohio Tuition Equalization Act. The message was quite clear. Every Ohio resident who is a student at a private institution earns that institution so many dollars. That money is sent directly to the university or college, and it is supposed to appear in the account in the student’s name, which is then taken right away as a scholarship against their tuition. Therefore, it is under the Ohio Equalization Act, and that is how it appears and that is what it is called – Student Choice Grants.

Professor William Bowen inquired, “What is the Higher Education Funding Commission about that the President referred to earlier?”

President Schwartz replied that this is representatives of the various sectors – community colleges, technical colleges, four-year institutions -- that work in concert with members of the Board of Regents trying to determine how the existing formula might work and might work best. It is a consultation body more than anything else.

Professor Bowen asked who authorizes the body and to whom do they report.

President Schwartz noted that actually it is a consultation group and the Regents have authorized it and we report back to our own organizations – in our case, it is the Inter-University Council. He noted that he will keep everyone posted as they come along.

Professor Andrew Gross inquired, “What is the single best way in President Schwartz’s view to change the ranking of Ohio from being number one in public aid to private education?”

President Schwartz responded that he doesn’t think we are going to pry $52 million lose right away. From private schools, probably not ever. Everyone understands that that lobby is very, very powerful and many members of this legislature are products of those institutions. So the best way is to dilute it by enormously improved public institution aid and he doesn’t need to tell everyone that that may come in the not too distant future, but not in the next four years anyway.

Professor Mareyjoyce Green asked President Schwartz if it would be appropriate to tell the small victory that we had many years ago with regard to Choice. You will recall that in the Ohio budget over the years, the only Ohio instructional grants that could be given to students would be if you were full-time. And it was the group that we were talking about here, the re-entry women particularly for Cleveland State University who persisted with the legislature to be able to bring pressure so that Ohio Instructional Grants could be pro-rated for part-time students. She did not think about the budget process until someone said that this is a finite amount and if you are asking for money from this budget to be allocated to certain lines, they are going to say, “Where are we going to get it?”, and you are to say, “Perhaps you will get it from Choice.”, and I said, “What is Choice?” That is when we found that there is this pot of money for private schools. We are very grateful historically to our incoming students who persisted at the level of the legislature more than one time and were turned down. But we did get a little bit of money from Choice and that is how we have pro-rated Ohio Instructional Grants for our part-time students.

President Michael Schwartz noted that what Professor Mareyjoyce Green spoke of was a much larger victory than she thinks.

X. Annual Report (Report No. 30, 2003-2004)

The Senate received the Annual Report from the Committee on Academic Space.

XI. New Business

There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 4:28 P.M.

Nicholas J. Moutafakis
Faculty Senate Secretary



[Top of Page]