Undergraduate Educational Programs January 14, 1988 4-1.0 Introduction At the time of the current University Self-Study, it is fashionable to talk of the crisis in undergraduate education in the United States. The newspapers and educational journals seem, at times, to dote on this crisis; for example, the New York Times of 12 April 1987 headlined, "Changes Sweeping Universities' Curriculums," and went on to talk about such matters as "Trying to Reassert Academic Control," "Teaching Students How to Be Thinkers," and "Past Assumptions Are Being Questioned." Higher Education (December 1986) contains an article by Harold L. Hodgkinson, a former director of the National Institute of Educa- tion, which begins stridently, "God knows there are enough reasons for the United States to undertake a major reform of its higher education effort." And, of course, the Carnegie Founda- tion for the Advancement of Teaching's report, CollegeggThe Undergraduate Experience in America, offers a major critique of universities for (among other things) bowing to the demands of the marketplace in curricular matters, for fostering careerism, and for promoting research and publication at the expense of teaching skills. It is interesting to examine attitudes toward undergraduate education at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University and compare them to those being expressed about undergraduate education across the nation. Regarding the item for the faculty questionaire that "VPI&SU has an image of a strong academic institution on the leading edge in many academic areas," the faculty tended to agree with a response of 3.01. The student response to the same item on the student questionaire was even more positive, with a mean response of 3.32. On the matter of the undergraduate program maintaining a "balance between special- ized training, aimed at preparing students for a single career, and general education, aimed at ensuring a common cultural herit- age and preparing students for life," faculty tended to agree with a response of 2.86. The mean response for the students was 3.07. And, finally, for the item "VPI&SU graduates are adequately prepared to enter their chosen occupations," the faculty concurred a response of 3.19. The mean response for the students was 3.29. While it would be unwise to make too much of these responses, if, as some believe, there is a national crisis in undergraduate education, that view is not shared by most faculty and students at VPI&SU. On the whole, both groups seem to feel that the University has a good image in academic circles, prepares students well for their "chosen occupations," and, to a slightly lesser extent, balances career training and general education effectively. The Self-Study Committee on Undergraduate Educational Programs has found reasons for these prevailing opinions among the faculty and student body: SAT scores of incoming freshmen have been rising for the past decade, computer facilities on campus are clearly superior to those of most institutions, additional build- ing activity has helped ease the space crunch of a few years ago, the library has continued to expandggand automateggits holdings, and the enhanced reputation of the faculty, all of these, and other factors suggest that undergraduate education at VPI&SU is in better shape now than it was ten years ago. However, undergraduate education is obviously a dynamic, perhaps amorphous thing: once one set of problems has been solved, a new set emerges. As younger faculty are hired, perceptions of stand- ards, of what is important, change. This process of change is vital in education, and the controversies that accompany changes are, paradoxically, vital to the whole educational process. The Self-Study committee has found controversies and problems, and some important issues that must be addressed. Among these, the University Core Curriculum is the most serious: how "common," how "distributed," who should teach it, how many courses, what departments should offer core courses. There are a whole host of problems connected with the implementation of the Core Curriculum yet, strangely, no apparent controversy over the idea of having a Core Curriculum. The Honors Program is also an area of concern. Why don't more studentsggespecially since we now have more gifted students at the Universityggenroll in the Honors Program? Related concerns include the following: should there be a person in the Provost's Office who deals exclusively with undergraduate affairs (as is the case at a growing number of other insti- tutions)? Do we do enough about advising? Should there be a University advising center? Can our recruitment efforts be more refined, focused somehow, to attract more minority students? Has the University provided for all the problems likely to emerge with conversion to the semester system? Why are there some significant variations from college to college in such matters as grades and opinions about duplication of material in courses? This list of questions is not meant to be an exhaustive citation of the problems found with the undergraduate program, but to suggest some of significant problems facing the University commu- nity over the next decade. 4-2.0 Undergraduate Educational Programs 4-2.1 Admissions 4-2.1.1 The Undergraduate Program "On Paper" As a member of the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools, the University is charged with the responsibility of ensuring that its "recruiting activities and materials portray the insti- tution accurately and honestly"; full information must be avail- able to students who seek to enter the institution. In addition, students and faculty currently connected with the University need all sorts of printed matter to go about their daily business. To these ends, VPI&SU makes available a great deal of information about the undergraduate program: it issues a general catalog annually and timetables of courses quarterly, which describe, among other things, the programs of study and constituent courses offered throughout the University. (Some individual departments provide lengthier, more up-to-date descriptions of course offer- ings during the various registration periods.) Further, the Application for Admission and the many recruiting documents issued by colleges and departments also to some extent describe the undergraduate program. 4-2.1.1.1 University Catalog The Self-Study committee examined the General Catalog 1987-88 with an eye as to how well it served the needs of potential students, current students, and faculty, and as to how it pictured the University as a whole. The University catalog, a handsomely produced document of about 300 pages, contains 13 sections, nine of which are devoted to the courses and policies of the various colleges (including the graduate school) within the University; other sections deal with admissions (including financial aid), academics (core curriculum, honors program); "The Virginia Tech Story" (University purpose, campus life, facili- ties); finally, there is a list of faculty and staff, a calendar, an index, and a number of photographs. The University catalog is clearly a well-produced, potentially valuable document that contains a wealth of important information. However, while the University catalog does not falsely advertise the institution, there are some problems with the image that it presents. The catalog is a somewhat stylistically contradictory document that tries, on the one hand, to tout the University in the loftiest terminologygg"strives for excellence," "best poten- tial students," "enhancement of the intellectual atmosphere," etc.ggand, on the other hand, to explain some of the nitty-gritty of what the University will, or will not, be responsible for in such matters as housing and residence life in very legalistic, even militaristic languageggstudents are informed that they "are required to" or "must report to" various offices, as though the catalog is something like a manual for getting from point A to point B. It tries, in effect, to recruit students, to disclaim legal responsibility, and to describe the program, all at the same time. As a result, the catalog, especially the first three sections ("Virginia Tech Story," admissions, academics), is a mixture of styles, tones, and points of view with rules and regulations mixed with media hype. This "cut-and-paste" approach suggests that the University does not have a central purpose behind its catalog. Some additional problems in the catalog are too much reliance on vague terms and phrases ("good character," "proper academic preparation," "willingness to study," "desire for a university education," "special consideration," "high academic standards"); a tendency to be less than completely frank about some issues (the racial diversity of the student body, the implications of Cadet/ROTC status); and a general lack of clarity, or specificity, in a number of places (e.g., the section on finan- cial aid, credit-by-exam policy). If part of the committee's concern with the catalog was just what central purpose the University was trying to achieve by publish- ing it, another part was the uses to which students and faculty are putting it. Students apparently do not much use the catalog to help them register for courses; rather, they rely on the timetable. Thus, the role of both of these documents needs study. There is, as well, a certain amount of what might be called "confusing diversity" among such documents as the Applica- tion for Admission and the various recruiting brochures that are issued in great profusion by the various colleges and departments of the University. How effective are these materials? To what extent does their variety diffuse and obscure the identity of the University? Just exactly what image does this University want to project to the world? One final matter of concern about the catalog provoked discussion on the committee: the question of which catalog a student is held to for completing his or her program of study, the catalog of the year of matriculation or the catalog of the year of gradu- ation? There is widespread belief on this campus that the former (i.e. year of matriculation) is the case, yet the General Catalog 1987-88 states (p. 40) that the latter year applies. The consen- sus on the committee is that it is not fair to students to change requirements on themggas well might happenggin the midst of their undergraduate career, whatever the needs of the University to reform curricula, drop courses, etc. This matter of which catalog applies needs to be addressed immediately. Recommendation 4-1: That a standing committee composed of academic deans, admissions personnel, students, and faculty members be appointed to analyze critically all catalog material meant to describe the policies and substance of the undergraduate program, to coordinate revision of this material, and to determine whether the catalog of matriculation or the catalog of graduation applies to deter- mine the requirements for a student's graduation. 4-2.1.2 General Policies While the Board of Visitors establishes overall policies, the Director of Undergraduate Admissions carries out those policies. Admission for both in-state and out-of-state applicants is competitive and is based primarily on the level of classes taken and grades received, rank in high school class, SAT scores, and to a lesser extent, letters from counselors. Educational oppor- tunity and financial assistance at VPI&SU are available to students without regard to race, religion, sex, or national origin, though applicants from Virginia receive special consider- ation in the admissions process. Between 1966 and 1986, the percentage of freshman applicants accepted ranged from 54.2 to 73.3 percent (see Table 4-1), and in the case of transfer appli- cants, the percentage of applicants accepted ranged from 42.2 to 75.1 percent (see Table 4-2). Admission of qualified out-of- state students is limited to 25 percent of the total undergradu- ate enrollment. 4-2.1.3 Undergraduate Admissions Requirements 4-2.1.3.1 General University Requirements for Freshmen Before being formally admitted to VPI&SU, a student must have graduated from an accredited high school or private preparatory school with a minimum of 18 units. At least 14 of the 18 units must be academic or college-preparatory unitsggcourses in English, language studies, mathematics, natural sciences, history, and fine artsggdistributed as indicated below. At least a "C" (2.0) average is required in all academic courses. Minimum Required Units * English -- four units, one unit in each year of high school. * Math -- three units, including algebra II and geometry. Admission preference will be given to those who complete math beyond algebra II. * Social Science -- two units, one unit must be in history. * Laboratory Science (biology, chemistry, physics) -- two units required for all majors. * Additional Academic Units -- three from college-preparatory courses electively chosen from English, natural sciences, social social sciences, history, mathematics, computer science, language studies, and fine arts. These courses must be comparable in content and purpose to other required academic or college-preparatory courses. Particular emphasis in selecting elective academic units should be given to developing written communication, analytic reasoning, and research skills. * The remaining four units may be selected from any course offerings for which the high school grants credit toward meeting graduation requirements. * Freshmen entering in the Fall of 1988 or later (students graduating in the spring of 1993 or later) must meet a language study requirement. The minimum language study requirement may be met by one of the following: - Completing two units of a single foreign or classical language during high school. Three units of a single foreign or classical language are required by the College of Arts and Sciences. - Earning six semester hours of college-level foreign or classical language credit, such credits to be in addition to the number normally required for graduation in a student's program of study. - Receiving credit by examination for a foreign or classical language. All freshman applicants must take the Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) or American College Test (ACT), as well as the College Entrance Examination Board's achievement tests in English and mathematics. Outstanding high school seniors are offered admis- sion in January, rather than in February, March or April. High school graduates with exceptional qualifications may be consid- ered for admission and advanced-placement credit in certain subjects. Exceptional students who have completed only three years of high school may be admitted, but such admission is avoided unless it is clear that the senior year in high school would be better spent in a collegiate environment. General application proce- dures and deadlines are the same as for seniors, with the follow- ing additional documentation required: written endorsement from the director of guidance or principal; a letter from the parents or guardian supporting the decision; and a statement from the applicant outlining the reasons why he or she wishes to begin college after the junior year. Each of these statements should address the student's academic and social preparedness for college. The applicant must rank academically in the top 10 percent of the high school junior class (based on six semesters of academic work) and have official SAT scores on record of at least 1200 with neither verbal nor mathematics below 550. 4-2.1.3.2 College and Departmental Requirements Each freshman applicant indicates preferred majors on the appli- cation for admission. This may influence the decision on admis- sion, as additional preparation in mathematics is required of potential students in engineering and in several other mathemat- ical and scientific curricula and student demands in several areas exceed the University's current resources. A foreign language is suggested for all applicants. 4-2.1.3.3 Transfer Students Those applicants who have attempted 12 or more semester hours of course work following their graduation from high school are considered transfer students. Students wishing to transfer from other accredited colleges and universities are required to meet the entrance requirements for all entering freshman students, have a previous college GPA of at least a "C" (2.00), and be in good standing at all colleges and universities previously attended. A grade of less than "C" from another college is not acceptable for transfer credit. The individual college at VPI&SU into which the student transfers designates, at the time of transfer, the courses and credits that may be used to satisfy degree requirements in the student's major. 4-2.1.3.4 Special Students This category applies to students who wish to continue their education by taking special courses for college credit, or a limited selection of degree-credit courses. Special Students include, but are not limited to, senior citizens, highly quali- fied high school students, and students enrolled in other colleges or universities who may wish to enroll at VPI&SU during summer school only. Course work taken as a special student, however, may not be applied toward a degree unless that student applies for regular admission. 4-2.1.3.5 Academic Eligibility The minimum quality credit average (QCA) required for continued enrollment is based on a sliding scale that progresses from 1.50 after the completion of 54 credit hours to 2.00 after the completion of 105 credit hours (a decade ago, a more lenient eligibility scale progressed from 1.25 after the completion of 42 credit hours to 2.00 after the completion of 146 credit hours). Normally, students are dropped for poor academic performance only at the end of the academic year. After the first academic drop, students may enroll in the summer session immediately following the spring term. Those who are sucessful in making up academic deficiencies may continue their studies in the fall quarter. However, those students who fail to raise their QCA to the minimum by the end of the summer session are not eligible for readmission until the summer session one year later. 4-2.1.3.6 Credit by Examination Credit, not to exceed 38 semester hours, may be granted for demonstrated accomplishment on the College Board's Advanced Placement exams and the International Baccalaureate exams. Credit by examination is allowed by special examination where exceptional command of a subject is demonstrated, not to exceed 12 semester hours. 4-2.1.4 Selected Characteristics of Enrolling Students Undergraduate enrollment, both by college and gender, has changed over the years (see Table 4-3). The enrollment of women in the undergraduate program has increased steadily from 7.6 percent of the total enrollment in 1966, to 35 percent in 1976 and 42 percent in 1986. The gain or loss of students, by college, from 1966 to 1982, is as follows: ALS -21%, AUS +18%, A&S +12%, BUS -17%, EDUC -4%, ENGR -1%, HR +50%, UNIV +1%. Besides national trends, the fluctuations in student numbers among the colleges are in part due to enrollment caps enacted as a result of the last Self-Study. The number of freshman applications received in 1986 was 13,642, of which 8,672 were accepted and 4051 enrolled (see Table 4-1). While the number of applications has increased, the yield of those accepting the offer of admission has declined steadily from 66.8 percent in 1976 to 46.7 percent in 1986. Transfer applica- tions received in 1986 numbered 2023; of the applicants, 1,346 accepted with 55.9 percent enrolled since 1976 (see Table 4-2). There has been a substantial increase in the mean SAT scores for entering freshmen since 1977 (see Table 4-4). Scores have increased 56 points from 1047 to 1103 (Verbal, up 27 points, Math, up 29 points) at a time when the national mean SAT scores increased 7 points from 899 to 906. (The mean SAT score for VPI&SU's freshman class of 1987 is 1121, thus continuing the trend seen in recent years.) The following four tables (4-5 to 4-8) provide an academic profile of the class of 1990 by college. Table 4-9 provides a 20-year review of the class rank distribution of the entering freshman class. Table 4-10 contains projections of high school graduates in Virginia for the period 1976-95. Table 4-11 provides a view of on-campus enrollment by race for the five years 1982-1986. Table 4-12 provides an analysis of the disposition of black, other minority, and white applications for admission in the years 1979-1986. Table 4-13 provides the academic profiles of those freshman students entering VPI&SU in the years 1979-1986. Since admission is competitive, VPI&SU does not offer admission to all "qualified" freshman applicants. The level of competition is determined by the enrollment targets, the number of seats available in high-demand areas, and the number of students apply- ing for admission. Several of the University's colleges and departments cannot accommodate all the qualified students apply- ing for admission. As a result, applicants offered admission to these restricted areas will present a higher academic profile than do applicants offered admission to other programs. The major criteria in every admissions decision, in descending importance, are the following: the level of courses completed and the grades received, class rank, SAT scores (with consider- ation of the major or majors selected), followed by extracurric- ular activities, and recommendations. The strength of the applicant pool determines, to a great degree, the overall level of student ability at the University. The Self-Study committee examined responses to the faculty survey statement indicating admissions standards should be raised. The responses were distributed as follows: Disagree - 11 percent; Tend to Disagree - 32 percent, Tend to Agree - 36 percent; and Agree - 21 percent. One might say, then, that there is, some support for increasing standards (57 percent vs. 43 percent), although relatively small groups (11 percent and 21 percent) feel strongly about the matter. Significant differences in responses were found by rank, years of service, and college. Assistant professors and professors were more likely to support raising standards (the Agree + Tend to Agree combination was 61 percent). Similarly those here 0-5 years and those here over 30 years were more likely to support increased standards (the Agree + Tend to Agree combination was 63 percent). As might be expected, those colleges currently enjoy- ing a surplus of applicants to available spaces favor increasing admissions standards, while the colleges experiencing a dearth of applicants are reluctant to raise admissions standards further. Among the colleges, faculty in Architecture, Arts and Sciences, Business, Engineering, and Veterinary Medicine are more likely to support raising standards than faculty in Agriculture and Life Sciences, Education, and Human Resources. The highest combined Agree percentages were in Architecture and Arts and Sciences (both 68 percent) and the highest Disagree combination was in Education (69 percent). Some faculty perceive raising standards as an opportunity to improve the quality of classroom inter- action, which would allow for a corresponding increase in their level of teaching. Others perceive such action as forsaking the University's land grant obligation to educating all citizens of the Commonwealth further. (In 1976, by contrast, 67 percent of the faculty felt that admission standards should be raised.) 4-2.1.5 Size of the University The 1976 Self-Study revealed much sentiment among faculty, students, and administrators for leveling off the student population at 20,000, a figure that was surpassed just two years later when overall University enrollment jumped to 20,261 in 1978. By 1986, enrollment was at 22,345, a figure substantially in excess of the projection of a decade before (see Table 4-14). It should be noted, however, that the 1976 Self-Study tempered its recommendation about the 20,000 student limit by stating, "Were growth to occur past that objective, it would be for purposes of increasing the number of graduate students or adding specialized curricula not now being taught at the University." Additionally, the 1976 recommendation is couched in terms of the "immediate future," a phrase that is never defined. The data in Table 4-14 indicate that much of the growth above the 20,000 figure was indeed caused by an increase at the graduate level (1,034 of the 2,345 excess above 20,000) and specialized curricula (319 of the excess), while the excess of undergraduates is about a thousand students. The increase in graduate students came about because the University (faculty research commitments, sponsored programs, etc.) and the Commonwealth (SCHEV, in particular) wanted graduate enrollments to grow; the opening of the College of Veterinary Medicine, of course, is responsible for "specialized curricula" increase. The Self-Study committee noted that there is currently much less controversy about the size of the University than was the case in 1976 when the enrollment had been increasing for a decade by roughly a thousand students annually. To some, it may have appeared that the University was "ballooning" out of all propor- tion, at the expense of educational quality. However, the growth in student enrollment over this past decade has been modest in comparison with that of 1966-76. The committee is very concerned that over the past decade, especially since 1979, the number of sections of classes offered by the University has decreased and the average section size has increased. According to a report prepared by the Office of Institutional Research and Planning Analysis (OIRPA), "in Fall 1979, the University offered 1,735 classroom sections with an average of 37 students per section. In Fall 1985, with 1,157 more student registrations in lower- division classes, the University offered 179 fewer sections, each an average of 14 percent larger than in 1979."* Another study on ----------------------------------------------------------------- * Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Office of Institutional Research and Planning Analysis, "Section Size Distributions," IRPA Vol. 86, No. 50, February 26, 1986. ----------------------------------------------------------------- the subject of escalating class size concludes "there is a dearth of information on 'how large is too large,' that is 'When does the size of a section negatively influence learning?' But it does seem appropriate to ask the question: If the University grows in enrollment, how will additional students be accommo- dated?"* ----------------------------------------------------------------- * Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Office of Institutional Research and Planning Analysis, "Trends in Increased Section Size at Virginia Tech," IRPA Vol. 86, No. 42, January 22, 1986. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Recommendation 4-2: Given no particular rationale for the on-campus enrollment to grow beyond the current level, it is recommended that the "creeping inflation" in enrollment over the past five years be stopped, and that in the future, the administration be more open in regard to policies that govern the number of students admitted each year. 4-2.1.6 Recruiting of Students The University currently engages in a great deal of activity designed to recruit students in general and to recruit gifted students and minority students in particular. However, this has not always been the case. The University has only recently acknowledged that the role of the Admissions Office ought not be that of a gatekeeper, but rather to attract, recruit, and enroll an academically talented, and socially and ethnically diverse student body. Also, each of the colleges mails its own packet of materials (which, by the way, vary widely in content, aesthetic appeal, and professionalism of printing) to prospective students, along with the University admissions application. Various assistant/associate deans have considerable recruitment responsi- bilities on behalf of their respective colleges. Among the recruiting activities pursued by the University are visits to high schools by admissions staff, participation in national college fairs, open houses for prospective students, direct mail marketing to prospective students through the use of the College Board's Student Search Service. Additionally, some colleges and departments have open houses at various times during the academic year to provide information for top percentages of students offered admission, while others actively recruit superior students through recruiting trips by college personnel. Because more than one office is thus involved in recruiting efforts, there is some fragmentation in the whole effort. This is unfor- tunate because, as Tables 4-1 and 4-2 show, there has been a steady decrease in yield from the applicant pool over the years. VPI&SU is obviously competing with more colleges and universities for an academically more talented applicant pool than it was a decade ago, and it needs a strong recruiting effort to do so successfully. To attract superior students, the University at the present time invites 75-100 applicants to campus for tests used to award one $3,000 renewable scholarship, 15 renewable $2,000 scholarships, and 35 non-renewable $1,000 scholarships. In addition, the College of Engineering awards between 200 and 300 $1,000 non-renewable Marshall Hahn Scholarships, based on credentials and paper applications only; and the College of Business awards 37 $1,000 non-renewable R. B. Pamplin Scholar- ships (35) and Charles M. "Buddy" Neviaser Scholarships (2), based on credentials and on applications. The Self-Study committee has some concerns that 75-100 students were asked to take additional tests for 16 scholarships of over $1,000. The amount of these scholarships has not changed in seven years and their value has diminished with increasing tuition. Is the additional testing necessary for these few awards? Could the awards be made, as many collegiate awards are, based on credentials? Could the administrative expense of the current competition be channeled into a special non-testing recruitment event, summer-enrichment programs, or other such programs that reach a broader audience? (The committee would like to call attention to a recent report based on the admissions class of the fall of 1985. Although some frequently-listed factors such as convenience of location and institutional size are relatively fixed, other common reasons for not attending VPI&SU included academic reputation and prestige and financial aid. Significantly, the respondents citing financial aid and special programsggHonors, Study Abroadggwere the stronger students.)* ----------------------------------------------------------------- * Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Office of Institutional Research and Planning Analysis, "Reasons Given by New Freshmen Applicants for Not Attending Virginia Tech," IRPA Vol. 86, No. 39, January 1986. ----------------------------------------------------------------- The recruiting of minorities, especially black students, has intensified in recent years with the University's commitment to meeting the Commonwealth's goal of equalizing the college-going rate of black and white Virginians. Among such recruiting activ- ities are: * special mailings to black high school seniors, based on lists obtained from sources like the National Achievement Program for Outstanding Negro Students and the College Entrance Examination Board; * interview sessions sponsored by the National Scholarship Service and Fund for Negro Students and the Educational Opportunity Center of Washington, D.C.; * orientation programs (held on campus) in the fall and the spring to which prospective minority students are invited; * visits by University recruiters to high schools and college fairs; and * the general distribution of a black student brochure, which highlights academic and social aspects of the University from the perspective of the black student. Of particular interest in this area is a pilot program with the Fairfax County school system, which targets black seventh grade students for participation in an early intervention program. The AIMS (Alliance for Increasing Minority Success) program has as its incentive for participation and successful completion a guarantee of admission to VPI&SU. Various colleges, particularly Engineering, Business, and Education, sponsor additional efforts. While the University has enjoyed considerable success in attract- ing more gifted students in the decade since the last Self-Study, the committee is disappointed that the number of black students enrolled at VPI&SU in 1987 is about the samegg738, down slightly from 762 in 1982ggas it was five years previously. A similar situation, evidently, exists throughout the Commonwealth and in much of the rest of the nation. The Washington Post (22 May 1987), for example, reported that ". . . figures from the Depart- ment of Education show that, 14 years after Virginia and several other states were ordered to desegregate their colleges and universities, progress is scattered and tenuous." Whatever the reasons for the failure of more blacks to enroll at VPI&SU (the committee notes that it is fashionable to talk of the Universi- ty's rural location and overall "white" orientation in this regard), the University must continue to recruit minorities with vigor and imagination. A final concern to the institution on recruiting of students generally should be the decline in the number of high school graduates projected for the Commonwealth of Virginia beginning in 1989 and continuing beyond 1995 (Table 4-10). This projected decline coupled with the increased size, stature, and the expanded recruiting activities of such institutions as James Madison University highlight the need to increase University recruitment. Recommendation 4-3: That the University review the present staffing level of the Undergraduate Admissions Office in light of its increased recruiting and programming responsi- bilities, and allocate to the Admissions Office sufficient financial and personnel resources to compete with other institutions in the Commonwealth for students of high academic quality. Recommendation 4-4: That a committee be appointed to study the whole matter of recruiting, with particular emphasis on greater coordination of the efforts of the various colleges and the Admissions Office. Recommendation 4-5: That the University survey freshman appli- cants who choose not to attend VPI&SU to reassess perceived relative strengths and weaknesses, and share these results with the campus community. Recommendation 4-6: That the University strengthen and increase its efforts to attract, recruit, enroll, and retain to the point of graduation a substantially larger number of black Virginians. 4-2.1.7 Academic Eligibility For the purposes of this Self-Study, the Office of Institutional Research compiled IRPA Report #67, 1986-87, "Academic Continuance Policies of Peer Institutions." Fourteen other institutions were contacted about minimum grade point averages for good standing, timing of dismissal, and criteria for readmission. The other universities were Duke, University of Georgia, University of Illinois, University of Maryland, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, North Carolina State, Ohio State University, Pennsylvania State University, Princeton, Purdue, University of Tennessee, Texas A & M, University of Virginia, and the College of William and Mary. Like VPI&SU, most of these 14 institutions used grades only to determine an academic drop. However, unlike VPI&SU, most other schools administered the drop more than once a year to non-freshmen, required more than a specified time out for readmission, and did not automatically permit summer session attendance following a spring drop (see Table 4-15). Recommendation 4-7: That a committee composed of the academic deans, the registrar, the associate provost, faculty, and students re-examine the current drop procedures and criteria for readmission for the semester calendar, reconsider the "year out only" requirement for readmission, consider the appropriateness of administering the drop for junior-senior students after each semester, and make appropriate recommen- dations to the Commission on Undergraduate Studies. 4-2.1.8 Attrition, Retention The 1975-76 Self-Study suggested that the University begin study- ing the matter of student attrition: if attrition was a problem, then what were its causes? The report of a 1984 ad hoc Committee on Measures to Minimize Undergraduate Attrition showed that the first-year retention rate (approximately 87.5 percent) and the five-year graduate rate (64.5 percent) for VPI&SU students were well above national figures for four-year institutions with selective admissions policies (see Table 4-16). Obviously, there is a disparity in freshman-attrition and gradu- ation rates for black and white students at the University, a disparity that some attribute to VPI&SU's environment, the small number of black students, and the academic preparation of many black students. To address this disparity, the University has implemented a number of retention intervention activities. Two activities are the Summer Transition Program (STP) and the Virginia Tech Academic Success Program (V-TASP), both of which serve high-risk black and white students. The major intervention activity, which benefits all students, is the Freshman Rule, a policy implemented in 1986, "intended to assist students who, during their freshman year, are enrolled in courses for which they are ill prepared or are initially enrolled in majors that they subsequently change."* ----------------------------------------------------------------- * Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, General Catalog 1987-88 (Blacksburg, 1986), 34. ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Freshman Rule allows students to omit up to six hours of F or D course work from their freshman-year QCA calculation. It is anticipated that this policy will help first-year students who have trouble making the jump from secondary school to university- level work, or those who have chosen their major without proper consideration of their intellectual strengths and weaknesses. Initial, and partial, statistics from the College of Arts and Sciences on usage of the Freshman Rule during the 1986-87 academic year indicate that the rule is being used heavily to remove grades of F, in mathggespeciallyggand some science courses, from QCA calculations; it is thought that this will have considerable impact on attrition statistics. It is the opinion of the Self-Study committee that attrition and retention are not problems at VPI&SU when this university is compared to other highly selective public institutions. However, the committee is concerned that the Summer Transition Program and the Virginia Tech Academic Success Program are currently funded by the State Council of Higher Education and that such funding is "soft" in nature. The committee therefore makes the following recommendation: Recommendation 4-8: That the University demonstrate its ongoing commitment to student retention, especially minority student retention, by arranging "hard" funding for the STP and V-TASP programs. 4-2.1.9 Scholarships and Financial Aid Scholarships and financial aid serve several purposes, including recruitment of gifted and minority students, retention, recogni- tion, program support, and emergency support. Additionally, scholarships and financial aid are regulated by University policies, which currently require students to be enrolled for at least 12 credits each term, to pass a total of 38 credits per academic year, to meet the University academic eligibility sched- ule with respect to credits attempted or transferred and QCA, and to be limited to 15 quarters of aid or scholarships, with the two terms of summer school counting as one quarter. Through the Office of Scholarships and Financial Aid, VPI&SU administers a comprehensive financial aid program that totals $43.3 million a year. Undergraduate students receive approxi- mately $24 million (56 percent) of the total. This amount includes $11.5 million in grants (including $2.2 million to University-generated merit scholarships), $10 million in loans, and $2.5 million in employment. Fifty-seven percent of VPI&SU students receive some form of student aid. In terms of both total aid dollars and unduplicated recipients, the University's financial aid program is significantly larger than those of the other state-supported universities in Virginia. However, a number of problems appear to hinder the program's overall effectiveness and impact. First, despite the superior computing facilities at VPI&SU and the conscientious efforts of the staff to utilize them, the Office of Scholarships and Financial Aid continues to provide less than satisfactory service to aid recipients due to gross understaffing. The office has a staff of 13, including four administrative faculty. By comparison, Virginia Commonwealth University, which administers a program less than half the size of VPI&SU's, employs a staff of 28 to 30, including 10 adminis- trative faculty. Moreover, new federal regulations now require increased verification and reporting for billing purposes, as well as increased services and information flow to aid recipi- ents. Failure to comply with these regulations in a timely fashion could result in a loss of future funding or costly delays in reimbursements. The office at present has neither the systems capability nor the staff to run comprehensive aid package simulations needed if it is to best serve the aid applicant. In some instances, prospective freshmen and their parents are receiving critical aid award information too late to be assured of support before being required to make an admissions acceptance decision. This situation has a particularly negative impact on attempts to attract financially disadvantaged minority students. Recommendation 4-9: That the University upgrade support of the Office of Scholarships and Financial Aid by increasing the size of its professional staff and allocating operating funds for computer support software and services. Second, it is apparent in view of recent (ca. June 1987) revela- tions in the press that a number of recipients of athletic schol- arships are not making "normal progress toward a degree." Recommendation 4-10: That the definition of "normal progress toward a degree" be expanded to include the selection of a reasonable sequence of degree-oriented courses by the recipi- ent when applying eligibility policies for the continuance of aid or scholarships. Third, VPI&SU does not currently have sufficient funding to meet adequately the standard scholarship and financial aid purposes, i.e., recruiting, retention, etc. Scholarship funds at VPI&SU total $2.2 million a year, of which $1.1 million are for athletic scholarships (see Table 4-17). The Virginia Tech Foundation has about 182 named, endowed scholarships, the total endowment of which is $15.9 million, which should generate at least $754,000 a year. Over one-half the total endowment is in four funds: Distinguished University Scholars, Cunningham, Powell, and Seay. In addition, the Foundation has about 318 scholarships which are not endowed, for a total of approximately 500 scholarships. The College of Engineering and the Athletic Association have been relatively successful in raising funds for scholarships compared to the other colleges. The College of Engineering has a long history of successful alumni, has kept in close contact with them, and has given prominent notice to both major achievers and major donors. The Athletic Association has also been successful in raising scholarship funds through constant promotion and contacts with potential supporters. The Association solicits funds in all amounts, and is able to recognize major donors with various perquisites, ranging from plaques to parking spaces to indoor seating. Perhaps the techniques that have led to success for the College of Engineering and the Athletic Association should be studied for potential adaptation by all colleges of the University to raise scholarship funds. The fact that one-half of the VPI&SU scholarships funds are used for athletes is a strong commentary on the University's failure to secure adequate funding for academic scholarships (see Table 4-18). This statistic is a sobering reminder that the University must demonstrate more vividly its commitment to academic excel- lence by seeking and obtaining additional resources for academic scholarships. The data in tables 4-17 and 4-19 indicate that scholarship funds grew from $1,446,752 in 1982-83 to $1,872,017 in 1986-87, an increase of $400,000. The largest growth was in athletic schol- arships, which increased by over $347,000. The data in these tables also indicate that growth in scholarship funding was consistent across the five-year period for athletic scholarships as well as for the categories "Admissions and Competition," "Engineering," and "Non-University." For the category "Other University/Departmental," there was a decrease in funding from 1982-83 to 1983-84, but a steady increase almost back to the 1982-83 level. A very specific shortcoming in scholarship funding is the absence of any University-level scholarship that recognizes superior performance at VPI&SU. That is, all University merit-based scholarships are tied to freshman recruitment. The recognition for performance is in the form of a renewal of a recruitment scholarship, which is based on a 3.0-3.4 QCA, a grade achievement that is not unusual for many students. It was noted by the Self-Study committee that at a recent Founders Day, outstanding seniors in each college were recognized; none of these outstand- ing students had received a recruiting scholarship and none had been honored with a University-wide scholarship during their four years at VPI&SU. However, several had received college-level scholarships. Recommendation 4-11: That the University increase its funding for scholarships to recruit gifted and minority students, to retain promising students, to support special endeavors like the Honors Program, and to provide discretionary funding for students confronted by unusual, emergency circumstances. Finally, because only insignificant funding exists for interna- tional students, the number of international undergraduates is likely to remain small. These students tend to be among the most severely screened of all students enrolled. Their academic records are superior to any other major "ethnic group" at VPI&SU. These students are deserving of academic scholarships and often exhibit high financial need. As the University seeks to develop its international dimension and reputation, the presence of international students on campus becomes an important bridge to international understanding. Modest funds are needed to recog- nize and assist international students. Recommendation 4-12: That the University seek scholarship funding for international students from former international students, from international businesses located in Virginia, and from carefully selected individuals with special interest in international students. 4-2.1.10 Student Records The VPI&SU Office of the Registrar maintains permanent grade transcripts for all students who have enrolled at this univer- sity. Admission files are also retained for two years following graduation or five years following termination of enrollment. Since 1976, when a student information computer data base was brought into existence, VPI&SU has become increasingly reliant on computer "files," rather than on paper records; however, the University continues to maintain a complete backup system in case of destruction or failure of the computer system. In addition, the University implements and publishes standards for release of and for access to the information in adherence to the Family Rights and Privacy Act of 1974. These standards cover such matters as the type of information that will be part of the permanent transcript, as well as the type of information that may be released without the written permission of the individual concerned. Users in academic offices are made aware of the rights of the individual as stipulated in the Privacy Act and of the consequences to the University if a violation occurs. 4-2.2 Curriculum 4-2.2.1 The University Core Among the many suggestions in the 1975-76 Self-Study was one asking the University "to ascertain whether the general educa- tional requirements of the colleges are adequate." In response to this and other stimuli, a University Committee on Liberal Education and the Professions (dubbed the "Collins Committee," for its chair, University Distinguished Professor Emeritus of Physics George B. Collins) recommended on 24 November 1981 "that the faculty adopt a University-wide required Liberal Education Curriculum, which will give the same force, coherence, and purpose to liberal education and the pursuit of critical intel- lectual skills that core curricula in the colleges afford our special education and the pursuit of specific professional skills." The result of this recommendation was launched in the 1985-86 academic year as the University Core Curriculum, a distribution of requirements in such basic areas as English, foreign languages, mathematics, the natural sciences (including laboratory work), the social and behavioral sciences, and the humanities and arts. The Collins Committee recognized the need to have a central university-wide thrust administered from the Provost's office in implementing the Core and in creating an environment that would attract the senior and experienced faculty into the adaptation of existing courses and development of new courses appropriate to that curriculum. Perhaps predictably, the University Core in its infancy is now being subjected to a number of growing pains. In the transition to the semester system, the Provost's office requested a 50-percent reduction in the number of courses offered in the humanities and fine arts areas, a process that has not been without difficulties. One such difficulty can be seen in these words from a letter to the committee from faculty in the Center for Programs in the Humanities in the College of Arts and Sciences: Despite the fact the Collins Report . . . cites the courses of the Humanities Center as models for interdisciplinary work throughout the curriculum, the Center. . . . was allowed [by the College of Arts and Sciences] to submit only two 'internal' and two 'external' groupings of courses. This limitation goes against the very grain of the Collins Report. We object to what appears to be arbitrary numerical quotas for courses submitted by the departments and to the shortsightedness of this policy. A different sort of apparent problem is evident in the concerns voiced in the spring term of the 1986-87 school year by student representatives on the Commission on Undergraduate Studies about the number of University Core courses being taught by graduate teaching assistants. (The response from the Provost indicated that (1) many graduate teaching assistants are excellent teach- ers, and (2) we [the University] have an obligation to teach the graduate assistants how to teach.) Still another type of problem centers on the availability of undergraduate courses that have achieved the unofficial status of University-wide core courses. For example, Public Speaking, taught by the Department of Communications Studies, is required or strongly recommended by nearly every college in the University and the difficulty of getting into a Public Speaking section is the subject of much complaint. In fact, the SACS accreditation guidelines clearly state that institutions must have a core that provides competence in oral communication (an echo of the Carnegie Commission's report on undergraduate education, which states "proficiency in the written and the spoken word is the first prerequisite for a college-level education"). Public Speaking at VPI&SU has become, in effect, a de facto core course and the Department of Communication Studies struggles to meet this service obligation without the committment of sufficient University resources to meet the enrollment demand. There are, obviously, faculty and students who believe there are problems with the University Core and the manner in which the transition to the semester system is being handled. There is also some question about the commitment of the University to the concept of a University Core, despite the fact that the faculty and student responses on the Self-Study questionnaires, 3.33 and 3.14 respectively, were very strongly in favor of the proposition "The University-wide core curriculum should continue to be required for all undergraduate students." Clearly, during implementation of the Core momentum has lagged. In a memo from the President's office (Policy Memorandum No. 44, January 31, 1983) dealing with implementation, the discussion was in terms of "current financial and other constraints upon the University making it impossible to implement, at the outset, much in the way of new courses, new staffing, or new administrative structures called for in the (Collins) Report", and "Initially, course sequences or clusters in the core curriculum will be drawn from existing course offerings." In spite of the stress in the Collins Report on the fact that existing courses alone would not be sufficient, the program was launched using existing courses with a clear message that new development was not being encour- aged in any way. During the year that preceded the launching of the Core, given the directive from the President's office, it was business as usual in many of the departments. Sequences and/or clusters were submitted that were precisely the courses that had been taught for years with no widespread attempt to adapt or modify offerings to better meet the spirit of the Core. As 1987 draws to a close, there are, indeed, many indications that all is not well with the University Core Curriculum. The fire and excitement that accompanied the original recommen- dations coming out of the Collins Report must be fanned back to life. If the concept of a University Core Curriculum is impor- tant, then it deserves some of the support that was originally called for in developing new courses, new teaching techniques, and in providing a forum for experienced, distinguished teachers in the University community. For the record, some concerns being voiced within the University community are the following: * Not all the sequences or clusters are being taught according to the commitments at the time the Core was approved, making the scheduling and completing of the requirements difficult for the students. * There is no uniform and consistent evaluation of the effec- tiveness of the Core offerings across the various colleges and departments offering the courses. * Even though the Core is a University program, colleges are being allowed to impose restrictions on the University Core, thus denying students access to some of the sequences and clusters associated with the University Core. This suggests the Collins Committee was correct in emphasizing the university-level administration of the core. The Committee concludes that the University Core is not serving the purpose for which it was initiated: instead of being a "core of liberal education," the Core is little more than a distrib- ution requirement. The Core needs to be examined, revitalized, and changed as needed to improve its contribution to the educa- tional process of the University. Recommendation 4-13: That the Office of the University Provost assert its control over the administration of the University Core Curriculum; establish and operate a proper set of Core offerings; evaluate the wisdom of the mandated reduction in the number of Core offerings which was established to facili- tate the semester conversion; and ensure that Core courses are offered regularly. 4-2.2.2 Role of the Commission on Undergraduate Studies While it is the responsibility of the University Council to give final approval to all academic programs and policies, the Commis- sion on Undergraduate Studies (CUS) has been charged with the review of proposals and the formulation of policies that relate to undergraduate study. The Commission is comprised of: * the Provost as chair * the following voting members: - the deans of the undergraduate colleges, - one elected faculty member from each undergraduate college, - three faculty senators, - the Chairperson of Academic Affairs of the Student Government Association, and - three students selected by the SGA President from nominations by the colleges. In practice, the deans delegate their responsibility to their respective assistant/associate deans for undergraduate programs; and a number of other members of the administration customarily meet with the CUS in a non-voting capacity: an assistant provost (as secretary), the director of admissions, the associate provost for student systems, and the assistant to the provost. Pursuant to its charge, the CUS has three standing committeesggFaculty-Authored Textbooks, Course Criteria, and Core Curriculumggeach of which reviews proposals that originate in departments and, after approval by the curriculum committees of the respective colleges, makes recommendations to the full Commission. 4-2.2.2.1 Faculty-Authored Textbooks This committee, chaired by a member of the CUS, reviews proposals to use textbooks authored by VPI&SU faculty. Customarily the approval is initially for one year, then renewed for a four-year period provided there are sufficient adoptions at other universi- ties. This procedure seems to be working well, and no changes are recommended. 4-2.2.2.2 Course Criteria This committee provides orderly review of undergraduate courses and programs, which ensures consistency of standards and expecta- tions, coherence of programs, and minimizes duplication. Additionally, it monitors changes in graduation checksheets, which ensures that students and other affected departments receive timely notice of changes in graduation requirements. It is chaired by one of the college assistant/associate deans for undergraduate programs and comprised of the faculty represen- tatives from the undergraduate colleges. Curriculum proposals typically originate at the department level and are passed by the appropriate college curriculum committee, after which they are circulated to the deans of all the colleges for a 30-day review. The Course Criteria Committee makes its recommendation to the CUS for action before ultimate consider- ation by University Council. The 1975-76 Self-Study found this procedure to be unnecessarily time-consuming and recommended ways to improve its efficiency and to keep the faculty more fully current on the progress of proposals. Two innovations have been implemented to make the curriculum review process more efficient. The creation of the Committee itself has allowed for a substantive consideration of each proposal while the CUS is free to concentrate on matters of policy. Further, the use of PROFS to transmit and store the proposals themselves has aided in regularizing the format, has reduced the number of hard copies that need to be generated, and has made recommended changes much easier to implement. This increased efficiency has had the unintended side effect, however, of reducing the visibility of the proposals during the 30-day waiting period. In order to minimize the potential for course duplication under such a system of passive review, some proce- dural changes might be considered. For example, during the 30-day review period, hard copies might be provided for the dean (or the undergraduate assistant/associate dean) of each under- graduate college as well as for each member of the Course Crite- ria Committee. As well, a line could be added to the PROFS format, requiring the proposer to identify similar courses in the University, if any, to explain how the proposed course is suffi- ciently different to justify its approval, and to indicate that the other department has been notified and a letter of support solicited. Recommendation 4-14: That the Course Criteria subcommittee of the CUS improve the course review and approval process by adopting the following practices: * Streamline the course approval format. * Require that faculty representatives to the CUS (who comprise the membership of the committee) also serve on the Curriculum Committee of their colleges. This would reduce the delays and confusion that sometimes occur when a Committee member is not aware of the background for a proposal. * Notify departments when a proposal has been approved and can be listed in the timetable and catalog. * To minimize course proliferation, place a significant burden of proof on a department wishing to retain a course that has not been offered in a 3-year period. While the Committee's function with regard to courses and programs can be made more effective, it seems to be working rather well on the whole. The same cannot be said for the oversight of graduation checksheets, where the responsibility of the Committee is less clear and the notification by the depart- ment less consistent. Recommendation 4-15: That a clear set of procedures be estab- lished to monitor changes in graduation checksheets. 4-2.2.2.3 Core Curriculum This committee reviews proposals and makes recommendations to the CUS regarding proposals for the Core Curriculum. The committee is chaired by the assistant provost, who serves as CUS secretary, and includes faculty, administration, and student represen- tatives. Like the other standing committees, it receives proposals originating with departments and approved by the respective college; but there is an additional step in this approval process. Between the college committees and this Committee is interposed a committee for each area of the Core Curriculum: Mathematical Sciences, Natural Sciences, Social Sciences, Arts and Humanities, Freshman English. While this extra step may have been necessary as the Core Curriculum was being developed and the proposals in each area weighed for consistency, coherence, and appropriateness, now that the Core Curriculum is in place the approval process seems unnecessarily burdensome. Recommendation 4-16: That the Core-Curriculum approval process be streamlined, by the elimination of the Area Committees. In the matter of developing academic policies for undergraduates, the procedures are less formal and less likely to percolate up through the department and college levels as curriculum proposals do. Although issues can be brought to the attention of the CUS by any member of the University community, the likeliest sources of policy proposals are the Provost or assistant/associate provosts, the SGA (the assistant provost currently attends the meetings of the SGA Academic Affairs Committee), and the assistant/associate deans for undergraduate programs (who meet, unofficially, as a group every two weeks throughout the year to ensure consistency of treatment for students in all the colleges). When an issue arises that may require CUS action, the Provost appoints an ad hoc committee that reports to the CUS. Once a policy has been formulated and passed on to University Council, the Faculty Senate may request a six-week deferral of final action to investigate the matter. In theory, this means that advice through the Faculty Senate is purchased at the cost of considerable delay; in practice, this has not been the case because the Provost currently meets regularly with the Senate's Cabinet, apprising them of issues that may be forthcoming so its members can begin their own deliberations, if necessary, before the policy is placed on the University Council agenda. Thus, while no formal procedure exists to identify issues and seek advice on the formulation of policy, a number of informal practices have developed that contribute to the need both to establish avenues to the CUS for its various constituencies and to work with all deliberate speed. What remains to be developed is a mechanism whereby the faculty at large can be given the opportunity to contribute to the debate on matters of policy before they are adopted. Recommendation 4-17: That the current informal practices of consultation about CUS business be maintained and, if possi- ble, formalized, including the process for the timely notifi- cation of the total faculty about policy matters that affect them. 4-2.2.3 Honors Program An Honors Program was established at VPI&SU in the mid-1960s. The scope was "revitalized" and expanded in the mid-1970s to include the current Freshman Honors Program and the University Honors Program, which leads to a bachelor's degree "in Honors." These two programs, along with several activities designed to attract outstanding high school seniors to the University, are administered by the Honors Program office. This office also coordinates the University Honors Colloquia series of seminars and has directed Virginia's Governor's School for the Giftedgga summer academic enrichment programggsince 1983. This program has been a highly sucessful tool in recruiting gifted/talented students to VPI&SU. Freshman Honors Admission Requirements Prospective Honors students are invited to join the program on the basis of their high school records and entrance examination scores; the specific criteria are SAT score of 1200 with neither math nor verbal score below 550 and rank in the upper 10 percent of their high school graduating class. Normally, the top 10 percent of the entering freshman class is invited to participate. In recent years, approximately 600 entering freshmen have quali- fied for the Freshman Honors Program. In addition, students who have completed at least one quarter of work at VPI&SU, or at another college, with a QCA of 3.4 or above are eligible to be admitted to the Honors Program, while students with superior creative ability are also considered on an individual basis. University Honors Program Upon completion of the freshman year, all students with an earned minimum QCA of 3.4 are invited to join the University Honors Program. This group is usually the top 10 percent of the "rising" sophomore class. At the end of the sophomore year, a limited number of students may be admitted to candidacy for a bachelor's degree "in honors." This program is focused on independent study and research in the student's major field of interest. Total participation by sophomores, juniors, and seniors averages about 600 annually. Additional features include a number of academic privileges, such as the waiving of normal course prerequisities (with the approval of advisor, academic dean, and Honors director), greater access to graduate courses (including certain graduate student privileges in the library) and special advising programs, and the possibility of reshaping degree requirements. Any academic unit within the University may offer a program leading to a degree "in honors," subject to approval of the Faculty Honors Advisory Committee. At present, nearly every academic department offers a degree "in honors." Admission to candidacy for a degree "in honors" is based on completion of 90 to 145 quarter hours of college credit, at least 15 hours of which must have been completed at VPI&SU, an overall QCA of 3.4 or above, and approval of the appropriate college, division, or department committee. Requirements for the degree are established by each college, division, or department, subject to approval of the Faculty Honors Advisory Committee. Minimum requirements include a minimum of 9 hours of independent study (H4970), Undergraduate Research (H4990), and/or graduate courses taken for undergraduate credit, and an honors thesis, carrying a maximum of 6 additional credits. As a department or division option, a thesis may not be required, and a minimum of 15 credits must be taken in supervised independent study and/or graduate study. Other requirements are a minimum of 6 credits in University Colloquia (UH3000) and a comprehensive departmental examination that may be based in part on the department's Honors Reading List. Administration of the Honors Program The administration of the program is coordinated by the Director of the Honors Program, according to regulations and requirements established by the University. The Faculty Honors Advisory Committee and the Student Honors Advisory Committee serve in an advisory capacity to the Director. The Faculty Honors Advisory Committee is composed of the Director of the Honors Program, a faculty member from each of the seven undergraduate colleges, recommended by the college dean and appointed by the Provost for a three-year term, and four students from the Student Honors Advisory Committee, including the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the committee. The Student Honors Advisory Committee has a total of eight members; two students from each academic levelggfreshman through seniorggselected each November through a process similar to that used for the Faculty Honors Advisory Committee. Perceptions of the Honors Program Reports from the Director of the Honors Program and an ad hoc committee appointed by the Provost have provided useful background information about the organizational structure of the Honors Program. The Faculty and Student Surveys conducted for the University Self-Study contain data that help to illuminate the current perceptions of the Honors Program on the campus. Finally, a draft of a memo from the Academy of Teaching Excel- lence to the Provost has been useful in crystallizing recommen- dations. Responses on the Faculty and Student surveys suggest that there is some uncertainty about the extent to which "The Honors Program at the University plays an adequate role in meeting the needs of academically talented students." Mean responses of both groups were between Tend to Agree and Tend to Disagree (2.60 for the faculty and 2.85 for the students, standard deviation 0.90 for both groups). Discussion with faculty, administrators, and students eligible for the Honors Program reflects concern about the Honors Program as presently structured and administered. Comments include statements such as: "This is an Honors Program that is no honor to be in; the rewards are unclear to negligible." "Participation in the Honors courses is a good experience, but to have to go through the tightly structured program is a high price to pay, especially since the only way for students in at least some of the professional colleges to participate in the honors degree program is to carry overloads in credit each quarter." "Gradu- ation 'in Honors' has no value to a prospective employergggraduation with distinction does have meaning." Questions raised in the course of discussion about the Honors Program with faculty members reflect uncertainty about the "fit" between the courses in the Honors Colloquium and a "normal" curriculum. For example, should 15 credits in independent study, specified in the Honors Program, replace 5 required courses in a student's curriculum? Ideally, the 15 credits in independent study might replace electives, but, in the tightly structured curricula common in many departments, 15 credits of electives is a luxury. Another area of uncertainty concerns the intent of the courses in the Honors Colloquiaggshould they be "enrichment" courses? and what is a reasonable level of expectations of students' performance? Finally, the resources allocated to administer the program are extremely limited. Faculty members selected to teach in the program frequently do so in addition to their normal departmental responsibilities. The $1300 remuneration paid to the faculty member's department often is not adequate to hire someone of similar caliber to replace the professor who teaches in the Honors Program. A university of the caliber of VPI&SU should have a program to stimulate and challenge the most able students. However, the rewards should be consistent with the costs involved. At present, that is not the case, and the Honors Program should be restructured. Restructuring would provide clarification of the purpose of the program and should include a mechanism for curric- ular control that is clearly communicated to all members of the University's academic community. Such steps should help to answer questions about who selects the courses to be taught and the professors who teach in the Honors Program. Additionally, the level of resources committed by central admin- istration to the Honors Program should be at a level that matches the expectations for achievement. Recommendation 4-18: That the five recommendations concerning the Honors Program made by the Academy of Teaching Excellence (sent 20 April 1987 in a memo to the President and the Provost) be implemented, namely: 1. the prestige and profile of the program must be upgraded, 2. a more creative grading scheme must be used for honors courses, 3. the Academy of Teaching Excellence should serve as an honors review board, 4. resources must be provided for students doing honors projects, and 5. honors students must be integrated into the main-line program of the University by participating in such functions as seminars and receptions for distinguished visiting scholars. 4-2.2.4 Grades and Grade Escalation One of the concerns of the 1975-76 Self-Study was the rapid escalation of student grades; however, during the past decade this escalation has been arrested. The quality credit averages for all University courses during the Fall Quarter for years 1966, 1967, 1971, 1972, 1973, and 1976 through 1986 is shown in Figure 4-1. These data indicate that the mean University QCA for the past 10 years has remained almost constant at just under 2.7, or about a B- grade. The data also indicate that the adoption of the + and - grading system in the Fall of 1979 had little effect on the grade distributions or upon the mean University QCA. Another concern expressed in the 1975-76 Self-Study was the lack of consistency in the grading practices among the various colleges within the University. The distributions of the grades assigned by the various colleges in upper-division (3000- and 4000-level) courses during the Fall Quarter of 1986 are shown in Figure 4-2; the corresponding QCA for these grade distributions is shown in Figure 4-3. Since these are only upper-division courses, these grades are primarily the grades that colleges assign to their own majors. These data indicate that little progress has been made toward eliminating the inconsistencies in the grading practices among the colleges. Some additional data were obtained in order to examine further the inconsistent grading practices among various colleges. The performance of college majors as measured by the grades assigned by the colleges during the Fall of 1986 (QCA) was compared with the entrance credentials of the students admitted to that college in the Fall of 1984 (SAT and high school rank). Except for students who transfer, the grades assigned in 1986 were assigned to those students who were admitted in 1984. A negative relationship between the student performance (QCA) and the student potential (SAT scores and high school class rank) is illustrated in Figure 4-4. Those colleges where students have the lower mean SAT scores tended to have the higher mean QCA and vice versa. It is apparent that the current grading policies result in a negative relationship between student performance and student potential. Further, as part of the exit interview conducted by the Placement Office, the students are asked about their perception of duplication of material in courses within their curriculum, and their responses are shown in Figure 4-5. The two colleges which have the highest student perception of course duplication are the same two colleges that assign the highest grades. Recommendation 4-19: That the administration take stepsggwithin the limits of academic freedomggto encourage the elimination of inconsistent grading practices among the various colleges, including, perhaps, the publication for all faculty of grades assigned each semester by the individual colleges. 4-2.3 Instruction 4-2.3.1 Evaluation of Instruction After the 1975-76 Self-Study, efforts were made to change and refine the system of student evaluations of faculty. It was believed that a uniform mechanism for evaluation would be helpful, and a common form was devised, using elements extracted from the questionnaires that the various colleges had developed. This resulted in a questionnaire available for use throughout the University, and its contents were approved by a committee appointed by the Provost. While this form is available for instructor use, some departments and colleges (for example, Engineering, English, Architecture, and Economics) prefer to use forms of their own design, which may better suit their particular needs. Also, there is at present no University-wide requirement for in-class student evaluation. Different colleges and programs have established their own requirements, ranging from the expectation that every faculty member be evaluated in every course (as in the College of Business) to no requirement at all. The University does recom- mend that untenured faculty be evaluated frequently (once per quarter), while tenured faculty may be evaluated less frequently. Despite the lack of requirement for the tenured faculty, experi- ence indicates that a good proportion do request student evalu- ation more or less regularly. Evaluations may be sent to college administrators, to department heads, and/or to the individual faculty member privately. There is no University-wide policy as to who receives the results or what use is made of them. There are no aggregated data on the results for the faculty as a whole, but a given run of depart- mental evaluations will yield means, and it is possible to compare faculty performance within departments. As with the use of teaching evaluation forms, peer review of teaching varies by colleges. Some colleges indicate that it is used systematically (i.e., Agriculture and Business), while others leave the matter to individual departments. For the most part it is a rather informal process, coming more often in the context of guest-lectures or team-teaching, rather than as a formal observation of one instructor by another. The 1975-76 Self-Study report indicated that "Student evaluation of faculty remains controversial," and this is still, to some degree, the case. Students generally express support of the use of the in-class evaluation form as one means of assessing teach- ing quality. On the Self-Study questionnaire, they approved its use with a ranking of 3.16 (standard deviation 0.88). Faculty members were somewhat less supportive, ranking the value of the in-class written evaluation at 2.86 (standard deviation of 0.90). However, the fact that there is so much variation among the colleges in the extent and the use of the forms, and the fact that the Student Government Association issues a student- developed guidebook to classes at Tech indicates support for a variety of evaluation mechanisms and for considerable latitude in their frequency and use. The pre-graduation interview is another source of information on the evaluation of faculty, and has yielded responses from about 95 percent of students during the past three years. To the question, "The teaching in my department has been very good,"response has been: A TA TD D 1985-86 32 51 13 4 1984-85 29 51 13 5 1983-84 31 48 14 5 These responses lead to a rather ambivalent set of conclusions, and can be interpreted in at least two ways. It is notable that about 80 percent of all students either Agree or Tend to Agree that the teaching has been very good. However, it is also notable that about half the responses fall into the Tend to Agree category, indicating that there is room for improvement. These responses generally held true for the individual colleges as well as for the entire University. (Agriculture represented the only exception, with more than half the students agreeing fully with the statement.) There is a widespread perception on the part of both students and faculty that the University system of rewards does not adequately recognize and reward faculty who are involved in undergraduate education. To the item on the student survey, "The University's current reward system and working environment do not support faculty involvement in undergraduate education or its improve- ment," students responded at the level of 2.93 (standard deviation 0.79). Faculty were even more convinced that involve- ment in undergraduate education is not sufficiently encouraged, responding at the level of 3.03 (standard deviation 0.84). Support for increasing the recognition given to teaching is so strong as to be virtually universal. To the question on the student survey, "The weight given to teaching in decisions on promotion, tenure, and salary should be increased," students responded at the level of 3.51 (standard deviation 0.68). This was the single most strongly-supported statement on either the student or the faculty surveys. While it is not surprising that students would support the statement, faculty as well indicated strong agreement. To the comparable question on increasing the weight given to teaching in personnel decisions, faculty agreed at the level of 3.14 (standard deviation 0.94). (This contrasted sharply with a tendency to disagree with increased emphasis on research when salary and personnel decisions are made.) University Certificates of Teaching Excellence are awarded within colleges, with recipients generally chosen by student-faculty committees. The system of awarding the certificates has changed since the 1975-76 Self-Study. It was previously the policy that each college might award the certificate to as many as 10 percent of its faculty members. This was changed because of a perception that the certificate had been devalued, and a policy was adopted of allowing the smaller colleges a single certificate each, and the larger colleges a proportional number. There is now a perception that too few certificates are available, and that in any year each college has at least two individuals who are deserving of recognition. The University's top teachers are honored through and designated by the Academy of Teaching Excellence. The Academy's primary activity has been the support of the Honors program. It has expressed concern about and interest in the means by which under- graduate instruction is evaluated and improved, but has not yet defined its appropriate role in these areas. In conclusion, opinions about undergraduate instruction at VPI&SU range from generally satisfactory to quite good, with some individuals and programs offering exceptional instruction. Both students and faculty have given strong support to increased recognition of outstanding undergraduate teaching, with students, understandably, unanimous in their support. Recommendation 4-20: That the University emphasize its commit- ment to the quality of undergraduate instruction by attaching a greater weighting to teaching when making salary and personnel decisions. Recommendation 4-21: That a committee be appointed to study the whole matter of student and peer evaluation of teachingggespecially teaching in core curriculum coursesggwith a view toward adopting a University-wide consistent mode of such evaluation. 4-2.3.2 Faculty Competence Competence of undergraduate instruction cannot be measured by any single criterion, but some sense of the state of faculty compe- tence at VPI&SU may be derived from the numbers and proportions of faculty holding terminal degrees, the diversity of insti- tutions represented among the highest held degrees, and the perceptions of the student body and the faculty members themselves. The full-time teaching faculty of VPI&SU is distributed among eight colleges and the administration (see Table 4-20). The earned doctorate, held by 75.8 percent of the total full-time faculty, is evidence of a high degree of demonstrated ability (though not necessarily teaching competence). It should be noted, however, that in some fields and in many instances, another degree or experience may be of equivalent value in terms of teaching competence. Age, sex, and race have no direct relationships to competence because these parameters are not related to learning or teaching. They may become important, however, to the extent that they may influence the degree to which students are able to develop a rapport with, identify role models in, and relate experiences to, the faculty. That is, the more diverse the faculty, the greater the likelihood that all students will identify and participate in a positive learning experience. The distribution of the faculty by rank, by sex, race, and by date of final degree is given in Table 4-21. It is apparent that the University faculty is predominantly male, white, and holds an earned doctorate. That more than 75 percent of the total faculty and 87 percent of the teaching faculty (administration excluded) hold earned doctorates is, indeed, an indication of a high degree of faculty competence. The diversity and recognized standing of institutions from which the University faculty members hold their highest degrees is another measure of the competency of undergraduate instruction. The Office of Institutional Research and Planning Analysis analyzed the distribution of the University's faculty (1,384 full-time faculty and administrators at or above the rank of assistant professor) in August 1983 and found that 1,176, or 85 percent, of these individuals had earned their highest degrees from one of three major groups of institutions: (1) AAU, the 52-member American Association of Universities; (2) LG, the 50 Land Grant Universities; and (3) NCHEMS-1A, the 57 "major" research universities as classified by the National Center for Higher Educational Management Systems. (See Table 4-22.) Two of the best measures of faculty competence in undergraduate instruction are the perceptions by the students being taught and by the faculty itself. The only available student perceptions are the responses to question 6 in the pre-graduation survey reports. The question is: "The teaching in my department has been very good," and the responses indicate a rather strong measure of agreement (see Table 4-23). Student rankings of the quality of teaching are highest for the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences and lowest in the College of Education. Unfortunately, there was no question on the Faculty Self-Study questionnaire directly addressing the competence of undergraduate teaching. Many departments conduct peer evaluation of teaching, but these data are not presently available. Future Faculty Self-Study questionnaires should incorporate at least one question on faculty perceptions of the competence of undergradu- ate instruction. 4-2.3.3 Advising of Students In the decade since the last Self-Study, the University made a major effort to examine the state of advising within the under- graduate program. An advising subcommittee of the Commission on Undergraduate Studies in 1981 surveyed student opinion on the matter and concluded that it was "clear that the students do perceive a need for a more workable and adequate system (of advising)." Student comments cited a variety of problems, ranging from a lack of information about programs of study and career choices to questions about the interest, availability, and competence of advisors. On 16 April 1982, the Provost asked the faculty to respond to a survey by the CUS advising subcommittee, observing that "the academic advising of individual students remains a persistent and often cited weakness in the life of most universities." He further acknowledged that good advising was difficult to come by and "too often is little heeded and less appreciated even when it is good and readily available." The CUS questionnaire, to which 566 people responded (approximately one-fourth of the faculty), probed the extent to which advisors "should feel responsible" for selecting an appropriate schedule, developing study skills, career advice, personal problems, resolving academic difficul- ties, and dealing with the university bureaucracy. As well, it solicited opinions about the strengths, weaknesses, and overall quality of the advising done by the individual faculty member's department. The faculty response to the questionnaire indicated that it shared the student-body opinion that there were problems with advising, but, perhaps predictably, many faculty felt that these problems were caused by student indifference and lack of cooper- ation; others felt that students were old enough, and responsible enough, to take care of themselves, that there was "too much hand-holding at VPI&SU"; and some felt that as long as students did not have to follow the advice, they would never take it seriously. A great many faculty felt that the University, in one way or another, merely paid lip service to advising: it was not rewarded at salary or promotion/tenure time. In its report, dated 24 January 1983, the CUS advising subcommit- tee did not recommend any "sweeping changes in the system"; instead, it called attention to the "importance of student responsibility for meeting the requirements of their programs, and the accountability of individual faculty members, department heads and deans for seeing that students receive accurate infor- mation and informed, considered advising when they seek it." It is still too early to judge whether the compromise of student/faculty/administration responsibilities envisioned by the CUS subcommittee in 1983 has been achieved. This self-study committee notes the increasing availability of guidebooks and other descriptive material being produced by the academic depart- ments, much of which may be appearing in connection with the coming of the semester system. But we do note that the faculty and student questionnaires issued in connection with this self- study both contain very similar responses on the statement "Undergraduate course advising adequately serves students": Faculty mean 2.48, Student mean 2.44 (on a scale of 1 to 4, with 1 meaning "disagree" and 4 meaning "agree"). This would seem to indicate that both faculty as a group and students as a group are divided down the middle about the state of advising at the University. Among the faculty of the various colleges, those in Human Resources and Engineering feel most strongly that their advising "adequately serves students," while those faculty in Architecture tend to lack confidence that their advising is adequate. Student responses from the 1985-86 Pre-Graduation Survey Report tend to back the faculty opinion that advising is in good shape in Human Resources, with Agriculture a close second, and Education third; students seem most dissatisfied with advising in Business (see Figure 4-6). Interestingly in all of the colleges, students frequently are more disappointed with their advisors' knowledge of courses offered by other departments than with such matters as the advisor's availability. This Self-Study committee reiterates the request of the CUS subcommittee of three years ago for a "strong stand by the administration on the necessity for a strong advis- ing program. The Provost's office should make it clear that deans and department heads are responsible for seeing that students have access to competent advising. In the past, when mandates have come down from the administration they have produced results (e.g., clearer understanding of the importance of publications for receiving tenure). Such directivesggand careful monitoring of their implementationggshould alleviate most of the recurring problems in the advising program." 4-2.3.4 Use of Computers Several computer options are presently available on campus. These include the mainframe, the minicomputer, and the personal computer (PC). Based on a recent survey (1986), undergraduate students favor the personal computer. That is, student responses (1,693) to a recent survey indicate that the personal computer is most commonly used, with 83 percent of those responding indicat- ing that they spent some time with a PC, while only 28 percent reported using the mainframe and 20 percent reported using the minicomputer. According to the Chronicle of Higher Education (1987), VPI&SU is one of 17 American colleges where students are either required to purchase a personal computer or are supplied with one. Presently, two academic units at VPI&SU require freshman majors to purchase computers: the Computer Science Department and the College of Engineering. A third unit, the College of Business, highly recommends that its students purchase a personal computer. Still other units, such as Forestry and special English sections, are presently considering such a move. The decision by VPI&SU officials to encourage students to purchase personal computers, rather than to develop extensive computer laboratories, was a critical one, and it is not clear how advantageous the choice has been. Some faculty have suggested that more teaching laboratories are needed to help students learn to make better use of the microcomputers they do own. This idea gains support from student responses to a recent survey about computer use (1986). In response to items concern- ing the most frequent uses for computers for homework and personal use, students ranked word processing/text editing and program software development relatively high; however, they indicated much less frequent use of computer analysis, simulation, graphics or computer art, spreadsheet calculations, data base management, computer-aided design and electronic commu- nication. Several computer laboratories do exist to promote computer liter- acy and stimulate communication among computer users. One such example is found within the College of Education. There, an education microcomputer laboratory (EML) provides students and faculty access to personal computers and software. Laboratory staff members offer instruction in educational uses of microcom- puters through courses and workshops. Additionally, the college has a high-technology classroom located in its Self-Paced Instructional Curriculum Laboratory (SICL). Instructors using this classroom can switch between inputs from two computers, both VHS and 3/4-inch computer VCRs and the campus cable television channel. An instructor can switch between these sources by remote control to project images on a large screen. Although students may be required to purchase computers, there are some questions about the extent to which course assignments actually support or necessitate computer use. That is, among students taking the courses identified in the recent survey, the majority reported that they used the computer little or not at all for that particular class.* This response is consistent with ----------------------------------------------------------------- * The courses involved were: ESM 2000, ESM 2020, ESM 2030, MATH 2211, MATH 2212, MATH 2213, PHYS 2171, PHYS 2172, PHYS 2173, IEOR 2150, EE 3010, and MaTE 2030. ----------------------------------------------------------------- the students' report that their most frequent use of the computer was word processing and text editing. There is some question among college educators as to whether such use promotes the problem-solving skills hoped for as a consequence of computer access. Survey data suggest that undergraduates believe that such skills have improved as a result of their use of computers. Recommendation 4-22: That the University devise a means to monitor and study the use of computers in the undergraduate program to determine how effective computers are in inculcating problem-solving skills. 4-2.3.5 Honor System A significant ingredient of the undergraduate educational experi- ence at VPI&SU is the honor system first put into practice in 1908. The system "provides students with an opportunity to decide and maintain their own guide for personal conduct." Over the years, the honor system has evolved from a university-wide honor-court concept to one in which judicial panels in the various colleges administer an honor code that "expressly forbids cheating, plagiarism, falsification, or attempts thereof." Though based on very lofty ideals, e.g., "To trust a person is a positive force in making that person worthy of that trust," the honor system, or the implementation of it, is not looked on by the faculty, at least, with anything like total approbation: the MEAN response on the faculty-staff self-study questionnaire to the statement "The implementation of the Honor Code is fair and equitable" was 2.59, indicating only a very slight tendency to agree with the statement. Many, obviously, have some problems with the honor system. The number of infractions has remained reasonably constant, and honor system violations are not increasing or decreasing (consid- ering that the size of the student body has risen considerably since 1979, the percentage of violations has certainly dimin- ished). (See Table 4-24.) One problemggwhether perceived or realggwhich may explain the split faculty opinion about the honor system is some uncertainty about the penaltiesggwhich range from probation, a grade of F, suspension, and even permanent dismissal from the Universityggmeted out by the system. If some think these penal- ties are too harsh, others are concerned about their consistency and accountability. Additional concern has been expressed about the overturning of honor system verdicts and the reduction of sentences by the Provost's Office, which acts as the final voice in all such matters. Such administrative action may, thus, mean the overturning by one individual of decisions reached by many involved more closely with the specific case. This committee is certainly concerned that the faculty did not give a more resounding vote of confidence to the honor system. However, it is noted that the Honor System Constitution was revised by committee action in 1986-87 (to take effect in Septem- ber 1987), and this action was approved by the Faculty Senate. The changes, among other things, attempt to establish specific, published sanctions for specific offenses and to clarify proce- dures when the Provost's Office overturns verdicts or changes sanctions. This committee hopes that the effects of this new constitution will be monitored at some time in the near future. 4-2.3.6 Graduate Teaching Assistants The use of graduate teaching assistants (GTAs) in the classroom in service of the undergraduate program is, at this time, as controversial an issue as it was at the time of the 1975-76 Self-Study. The mean responses on the faculty (2.65 on a scale of 1 to4) and student (2.74) questionnaires suggest only that there is a slight tendency by both groups to agree that "Too many undergraduate courses at the University are taught by graduate students or part-time teachers." The 1975-75 Self-Study carefully balanced the weaknesses ("not interested," "inexperi- enced," "lack the time,") it felt GTAs might have with the "beneficial results to the University": better student-teacher ratios, budgetary economies, the gaining of important teaching experience by graduate students, providing released time for faculty, and financial aid for graduate students. (To this list of pros and cons might be added the fact that GTAs win teaching awards and the praise of their students just like experienced faculty, and that, in fact, there may be in many introductory courses no palpable difference in the learning experience provided by GTAs or full-time faculty.) The 1975-76 Self-Study cited some statistics from the English Department, a department that has traditionally utilized the services of large numbers of GTAs in teaching freshman English: 50 percent of freshman English sections were taught by GTAs in the fall of 1975, reduced to 30 percent in the fall of 1976. In the fall quarter of 1986, the English Department taught 184 sections of freshman English, 35 of which were taught by graduate teaching assistants, a percentage of 19 percent. (The average size of those 184 sections, incidentally, was 23, above the National Council of Teachers of English recommended class size of 20.) This committee notes that some departments provide orientation programs for new GTAs, obviously a sound practice that should be followed by all departments with extensive responsibilities in the undergraduate program. The fact that the University has instituted an English oral-competency exam for GTAs beginning in 1986 is a welcome additional factor in the matter, which should do much to remove a nagging, persistent criticism that some non-native speakers of English among the GTA population are not competent teachers. (The importance of this oral-competency test greatly increases as the University continues with its goal of expanding international programs.) The committee also notes the existence of courses like EdCI 6640, College Teaching, and English 5060, Teaching College Composition, and makes the follow- ing recommendation: Recommendation 4-23: That departments which rely heavily on graduate teaching assistants to teach large numbers of under- graduates consider putting into place a required course or some type of GTA orientation program, which will ensure an adequate level of teaching competence in undergraduate classes. 4-2.3.7 Cooperative Education Program The Cooperative Education program is unique among the universi- ty's academic opportunities in that it alternates periods of employment with normal classwork in a structured five-year program. Since its origin in 1952, it has thus offered the student on-the-job experience, the opportunity to develop a record of employment consistency, the chance to learn and incor- porate practical aspects of employment with academic principals, and the opportunity to earn funds to pay for yearly academic expenses. The CO-OP program, administered by a director, an assistant director, and three coordinators, presently has about 1,100 active student participants. Although it fluctuates with the national economy, reaching a high of more than 1,300 students in 1982 and a low of about 601 students in 1974, the program is relatively healthy (see Table 4-25). The Spring 1987 enrollment figures reveal that the CO-OP program is most active among engineering students (especially electrical and mechanical) (see Table 4-26). The program, which currently has approximately 380 active employers, is ranked 14th among the 1,049 CO-OP programs in the United States and Canada. The success of the program is seen in part by the offering of positions by the CO-OP companies to approximately 70 percent of the students who apply and the return of 53-57 percent of the students to full-time employment with their CO-OP employers upon graduation. The CO-OP program was initially administered under the Academic Vice President but was shifted to Student Affairs in 1976, appar- ently because the program was thought of as a personnel activity rather than as an alternative academic program for students. This shift is now viewed by the CO-OP staff as an unfortunate move because it de-emphasizes the academic aspects of the CO-OP experience and reduces the visibility of the attendant in-class scheduling problems. For example, some CO-OP participants, being out of phase with students in a standard four-year program, have problems with the availability of classes that must be taken in specific sequences; as a result, some must take classes out of order, or must substitute or even omit classes. The large number of CO-OP students (about 1,100) being handled by a small staff of advisors (4) results in the students often receiving little time with their advisors. Despite this situation, it is probable that there is as close, or closer, a relationship between the students and their advisors as exists in most departments. This develops because the advisors help so directly to coordinate jobs and serve as the students' primary links to campus while on the employment site. The CO-OP office physical facilities are cramped and often result in conflicts for use of the single, moderate-sized room where orientation sessions and discussions are held and the files and listings of available positions are located. The staff constantly attempts to increase student awareness by presenting the program at summer orientation, by having CO-OP advisors in 40 academic departments, by placing notices in the Collegiate Times, and by displaying 4,000 posters and notices. Recommendation 4-24: That the shift of the position of the CO-OP program from Student Affairs to an academic position under the Associate Provost be considered. Recommendation 4-25: That the number of CO-OP advisors be increased to better accommodate the students. Recommendation 4-26: That increased space be made available so the CO-OP records and files may be located in a room separate from that used for orientation sessions. 4-2.3.8 Summer School The activities of the University have generally been viewed in the time frame of the traditional academic yearggFall, Winter, and Spring Quartersggextending from late September until mid-June. Although many of the usual functions of the University cease or operate in a reduced capacity, a goodly portion of its educational mission is carried out in the summer. Under the purview of the Vice Provost, the majority of summer school academic programs are stable, a fact borne out by summer school enrollment data for the past 10 years (see Table 4-27). Total summer enrollment peaked in 1980 with 12,876 students in attendance and was at its lowest level in 1984 with 10,334. Over the period from 1977 through 1986, the total summer enrollment remained between 51 and 66 percent of spring enrollment. Perusal of the two previous Self-Study reports indicates that rather limited attention was given to summer school issues. In the 1965-66 Self-Study, five lines under "Miscellaneous" addressed a desire for a broarder summer program on behalf of the Department of History and Political Science. In the 1975-76 Self-Study, parts of three pages were devoted to Summer School. The primary information presented was a one-page table listing the summer-school attendance for the years 1973-75 by college. The significant messages that emerged from that report were: 1) offerings were uneven across departments and often based on tradition rather than need; 2) summer school may be a means of relieving some of the space problem; and, 3) students should be encouraged to use the summer session as a "regular" quarter, taking one of the other quarters off for vacation, thus helping to alleviate some of the space problem. The present committee believes that the potential of the summer- school program for students and faculty across the University has been only minimally fulfilled and that regular surveys should be conducted to help estimate the specific need for summer offer- ings. Attention should be paid to undergraduate and graduate students, as well as faculty in both teaching and advising capac- ities. Although this seems to be done in some programs, it is not done campus wide. As programs develop, needs may emerge for funding and other resource allocations that have not been tradi- tional. For example, although many graduate student enroll for research credits in the summer, they often find courses of an appropriate level unavailable in the summer. Also, undergradu- ates who want to advance their programs during the summer, in contrast to those who want to make up deficiencies, often find offerings limited to basic courses, and so they choose not to attend. While it may not be possible to offer the range and scope of course offerings in the summer that are offered during the academic year, departments should be encouraged to provide a representative selection of courses during the summer term. Recommendation 4-27: That a needs assessment be done, and periodically redone, to understand how current policies about, and offerings in, summer school are viewed by both students and faculty. As the faculty has matured, there seems to be a trend, at least in some departments, for members not to want to teach during the summer, and to move from calendar-year to academic-year appoint- ments. The former instance may be due, in part, to funding caps, and differing personal financial needs. Faculty find that, although summer school offers additional pay, they may not receive "full pay for a full load," or fringe benefits. For example, summer school earnings are not calculated in the retire- ment benefits. Recommendation 4-28: That the University explore ways to make compensation and fringe benefits for summer teaching more attractive to faculty. A particular concern with regard to the graduate program is related to the scheduling of examinations. Although it is theoretically possible to complete degree requirements in the summer, many graduate students find it very difficult to bring together their committee members who are on academic-year appointments. Although this varies from department to department and individual to individual, summer study opportunities, personal travel, and summer conferences frequently complicate summer completions. As graduate enrollments become even greater, this issue will become more prominent. At the undergraduate level, most advisors are nine-month faculty. While most departments have designated advisors for summer school, the course and program advisement is limited to these persons. In addition, undergraduate field study and practicum experiences may be only minimally supervised. Some departments and programs have been able to deal with this issue via 7990 assignments or as part of special advising funding. Although an expanded number of non-course assignments and equivalent credit assignments might be used to help meet the needs expressed, at least temporarily, a more regularly budgeted way would seem to be an appropriate means of funding such activities. Recommendation 4-29: That provisions be made to have faculty available for advising and student committee work during the summer. Although summer school has been seen by many as a way for under- graduates to make up academic deficiencies that came about during the regular year, a more positive approach would be to view summer school as a time to accelerate programs. Also, it could be a time for special offerings not usually found in the regular year. This dual approach would undoubtedly call for a change in current university/departmental thinking and funding about summer school. Because of the necessity to alternate academic terms and work periods and to complete all of the requirements for both the degree and the Cooperative Education Certificate, it becomes necessary for the students participating in the CO-OP Program to attend summer sessions to make up course work which they normally would have taken had they not been away from campus for work periods. The semester school/work schedule indicates that CO-OP students on campus must be provided with Sophomore I and Sophomore II course work during the summer. In addition, the schedule also indicates that CO-OP students on campus must be provided with Junior I course work during the spring semester. In the past years there has been no problem in providing CO-OP students with the course work they need if they remain on the regular schedule. It is even more important to have this sched- ule continued under the semester system for students to have this opportunity because they will have fewer chances to make up necessary courses. The summer program might also attempt to meet the needs of returning adult students in a variety of professions. Teachers and other school personnel have often returned to the campus during the summer, but is the University creative enough to offer innovative courses in typical time sequences in order to draw an even greater variety of professionals, and perhaps the "lay public"? Recommendation 4-30: That summer school offerings be made to accommodate the needs of: 1) students attempting to make up academic deficiencies; 2) students seeking to advance in their normal academic programs; 3) cooperative education students regularly scheduled for summer school; and, 4) adult professionals seeking to upgrade their skills during the summer term. Some graduate programs utilize the summer session for on-campus residency requirements. The summer offerings will need to be of sufficient length and offered in a time frame which will allow this practice to continue. Starting dates for extended sessions should keep in mind the schedules of those involved in public education. Recommendation 4-31: That the summer school calendar accommo- date the special needs of students returning for advanced degrees or for upgrading their skills, as well as regularly enrolled students. Graduate students are quite typically enrolled year around, but funding for assistantships is relatively minimally available for them during the summer. Some programs, such as the Marriage and Family Therapy doctoral program, require year-around enrollment to meet accreditation standards. However, summer funding is rarely available for these students. This funding issue is often particularly acute for international students whose language skills may not allow them to fulfill teaching assignments. The expanded course offerings commented on related to Recommendation 4-30 above, may help, in that they should generate additional monies through expanded enrollments. This alone, however, will not cover the needs being discussed here. Recommendation 4-32: That funding opportunities for graduate students during the summer needs be increased. Although there are some classrooms that can comfortably accommo- date summer classes, additional resource allocation must be considered to air condition classroom and laboratory space. This could be accomplished on campus, or via arrangements with off-campus resources. 4-2.3.9 The Study-Abroad Program One aspect of summer school that deserves special mention is the Study-Abroad Program, administered through the Cranwell Interna- tional Center. The University regularly sponsors overseas programs in English and Architecture, and occasionally in Spanish, Environmental and Urban Systems, and Electrical Engineering (see Table 4-28). Further, the International Student Exchange Program permits VPI&SU to exchange undergraduate and graduate students with about 70 overseas universities in 30 countries. (The University has had at least one of its under- graduates receive a Fulbright grant for graduate study abroad every year since 1980.) Though all of the summer programs are operating smoothly, the study-abroad programs appear to be under- utilized, perhaps because of parochial attitudes, insufficient faculty encouragement, and expense. Recommendation 4-33: That summer study-abroad programs be better publicized among undergraduate faculty and students and that some partial scholarships be made available to qualified students. 4-2.3.10 Conclusion In closing, the committee would like to make mention of some special efforts in the area of instruction that are not specif- ically covered in the preceding discussion. In particular, the ongoing good work of the Learning Resources Center on behalf of the undergraduate program should be cited. The center continues to provide audiovisual equipment, a test-scoring and questionnaire-processing service (as well as assistance in the design and development of tests), and production services for a great variety of classroom needs. (The committee notes, for example, that color-slide production at the center as risen from 39,569 in 1975-76 to 95,827 in the 1985-86 academic year.) Of a different nature is the evidence that the University is reacting favorably to current concerns about classroom environment. For example, several workshops on teaching effectiveness have taken place in the last decade: an ongoing series on "Black Students and White Teachers" has attempted to probe the problems black students face in a predominantly white institution; these workshops and othersgge.g., "Creating a Favorable Classroom Climate for Women" (3 April 1987)ggexamine potential bias in the classroom, of course, but also such matters as bias in curricular materials and relationships between teacher behavior and student performance. Finally, this committee acknowledges the contrib- ution made by the Office of Institutional Research and Planning Analysis to the undergraduate program in such matters as analyses of attitudes and problems; indeed, the committee has found helpful a number of documents from Institutional Research in the writing of this report.