Process to degree approved

By MARA McGINNIS
Reporter Assistant Editor

Criteria for reasonable academic progress to a bachelor's degree and minimum requirements for student evaluations of courses were approved by the Faculty Senate at its meeting Tuesday.

William Baumer, chair of the senate's Grading Committee and professor of philosophy, presented senators with the criteria for reasonable academic progress to a bachelor's degree that would take effect beginning Fall 2000. Baumer explained that the committee's concern in formulating the resolution was that students who are not in good academic standing are ineligible for financial aid, and some of these students have incurred a sizable debt to the university with little possibility of bettering their standing.

The new standards define-in terms of a graduated scale-reasonable academic progress as the successful completion of credit hours at a corresponding cumulative grade-point average, which allows students who are doing poorly the opportunity to improve gradually.

According to the resolution, students who fail to make reasonable academic progress based on the new standards are not eligible to continue as matriculated students in any bachelor-degree program. However, exemption may be petitioned on two grounds: serious illness or injury, or death or serious illness in the immediate family.

Nicolas Goodman, vice provost for undergraduate education, warned senators that "what we are adopting is a policy that will mechanically dismiss students from the university, which would significantly change the way the university goes about dismissing students," and asked how literally the new standards should be interpreted.

A significant debate ensued between faculty members about the basis for exemption. An amendment was proposed, and endorsed by Goodman, to make the resolution more lenient by allowing exemption on the basis of any "exceptional hardship." Baumer and several others strongly objected, pointing out that "exceptional hardship" could be too widely interpreted and that students get enough second chances, given the university's existing policies for resignation, or R grades; grade replacement, and the "fresh-start" program. The amendment failed.

In other business, the senate also passed a resolution on student evaluations of instructors prepared by its Teaching and Learning Committee that outlines minimum requirements for evaluation efforts across the university and makes all deans responsible for appointing faculty committees to establish policies for the administration of these evaluations.

While university policy already mandates student evaluations of all courses, there currently is no standardized and systematic way of evaluating instruction, explained committee Chair J. Ronald Gentile, SUNY Distinguished Teaching Professor in the Department of Counseling and Educational Psychology.

Regarding student access to the written comments of their peers-a point that has been advocated by students-the resolution states that while students' written comments should be solicited for departmental purposes, they should not be published. Some faculty members objected, saying they believed that decision should be left to each dean.

Despite objections, an amendment was passed so that "the responsibility falls to each dean to have a published policy on the publication of student comments."