FACULTY SENATE MINUTES

OCTOBER 26, 2006

Present: Bandy, Bolter, Boniecki, Bradley, Bratton, Christman, Frederickson, Esteban, Horton, Johnson, Lichtenstein, Mehta, Mosley, Murray, Musser, Parrack, Powers, Satterfield, Seifert, Thiher, Wiedmaier, Wilmes, Young

Absent: Holden, Lance, McCullough

President Bolter called the meeting to order at 12:45.

Minutes

On a motion by Seifert and a second by Mosley the minutes of the October 10, 2006 meeting were approved unanimously with minor corrections.

President’s Report

Dean of Undergraduate Studies Roden, Vice-President Darling, and Director of Admissions Hatfield reported to the Senate on a variety of items related to admission policies and practices. The following major points were presented by one or more of the speakers.

The university’s Admissions Committee was asked to create a point system for admission that included consideration of more items than an ACT/SAT score during the 1998-1999 academic year. The system which they recommended has been used since 2000. The committee has met annually in the fall to review admissions data relative to the point system formula with the option of recommending changes in the application of the formula. While no changes had been made prior to this year, the committee met on October 25, 2006 and tabled discussion of any changes.

Even though the original committee’s recommendation was a cutoff score of 40 on this formula for admission during the past few years a cutoff of 30 has been used. This change by the admissions office was due to President Hardin’s decision to “grow the University”. A return to a cutoff of 40 would reduce the entering freshman class by approximately 10%.

Regarding the admission of high school students under the concurrent enrollment program the Admissions Committee has not acted. However, the Arkansas Department of Higher Education is drafting a policy for concurrent enrollment to be used by all schools.

Following these reports the Provost reported that he had approved 31 new positions of which 14 are new tenure track positions, 11 are conversions from non-tenure track to tenure track, and 6 are non-tenure track. There will be 26 replacements also. This staffing level is based on the assumption that UCA will receive at least $7,000,000 in formula funding from the legislature for 2007-2008.

President Bolter reported on correspondence that she has received. First, the 8 reserved parking spaces at the HPER building have been reduced to 4 and the 22 spaces on the Western Avenue lot that weren’t faculty/staff have been changed to that status. Second, the Staff Senate has requested that SGA, Staff Senate, and Faculty Senate be shown on the University’s organizational chart and President Hardin has agreed to do so. Third, there is now only one faculty listserve. Finally, an academic misconduct policy from the College of Liberal Arts was presented to the Senate which was referred to Academic Affairs on a motion by Parrack and a second by Lichtenstein.

Committee Reports

The Executive Committee reported that the addition of a non-tenure track member to the Faculty Handbook Committee had been referred to that committee.

Suspension of the rules for consideration of committee appointments by the Committee on Committees was approved after a motion by Mosley and a second by Frederickson. Recommendations were Donna Bowman and Terry Wright to the Public Appearances Committee, Elson Bihm to the Faculty Emeritus/Emerita Committee, Mary Wood to the Retention Committee, and Clayton Crockett to the Institutional Review Board. Frederickson moved acceptance, Parrack seconded, and the motion passed.

Suspension of the rules for consideration of a resolution from Faculty Affairs I regarding health care was approved after a motion by Young and a second by Bradley. (The text is appended to these minutes.) Following a short discussion regarding the dissemination of this resolution, the motion was unanimously approved following a motion by Bratton and a second by Bradley.

Faculty Affairs II reported that it had met regarding the issue of telecommuting faculty and should have a report soon.

Academic Affairs shared a report regarding the number of UCA students that are admitted without an ACT or SAT score along with a preliminary analysis of the effects of this. (The text is appended to these minutes.) But, they had no resolution regarding this issue at the current time.

Announcements and Concerns

There is no priority registration for athletes.

Louis Young is to give a recital this coming Sunday afternoon, October 29.

Frederickson moved and Boniecki seconded adjournment at 2:30 pm.

University of Central Arkansas Faculty Senate

Faculty Affairs 1 Resolution for UHC Concerns

October 26, 2006

Whereas the Faculty Senate was charged with the task of discovering what recourse there is for faculty when our health care provider does not provide the level of care and/or service that is reasonably expected;

Whereas there is no standard system for faculty and staff feedback for concerns about United Health Care or any health care provider;

Whereas there is no on-going assessment mechanism to determine whether the current health care provider is meeting the varied needs of faculty and staff in terms of quality of administrative service, diversity of levels of benefits (prescription drugs, maternity care, for a diverse faculty/staff, varying levels of deductibles for faculty/staff with varying requirements);

Whereas there is currently no means for neither faculty nor staff individually or collectively to express a preference for a choice of health care providers;

Be it hereby resolved that the Faculty Senate requests that the University of Central Arkansas pursue a course of action that will establish a mechanism for faculty and staff to voice a preference for a health care provider and to voice concerns about the performance of a health care provider with which the university may enter into contract.

Be it hereby further resolved that the Faculty Senate requests that the University of Central Arkansas, upon determination of the aggregate health care needs of the faculty and staff, investigates possible alternative sources for that care (self-insurance, health savings accounts, etc.) that may be of financial benefit to both the University and to individual faculty and staff members.

Report from the Academic Affairs Committee

The Academic Affairs Committee met on October 24, 2006, to discuss the following charge from the Faculty Senate:

Determine how many students are admitted to the university without having taken the ACT, analyze the effects, and make a recommendation concerning this issue if you deem action is necessary.

To address the charge, the committee gathered data from the Student Information System on all undergraduate students enrolled at the university since August of 2001. Analysis of the data revealed the following results.

I. Students admitted to UCA without ACT (or SAT) scores

Since August of 2001, 5,012 of 18,507 students (27.1%) were admitted without ACT or SAT scores. Figure 1 shows the percentage of students admitted with and without ACT or SAT scores by school year. As can be seen, the percentage of students admitted each year without ACT or SAT scores has remained relatively consistent (ranging from 22.8 to 29.9). The committee also examined the profile of those without ACT or SAT scores. As can be seen in Figure 2, the majority of students without ACT or SAT scores are transfer and/or nontraditional students (21 and older) (see Figure 2). Figure 3 shows that 85.6% of transfer students and 88.6% of nontraditional students did not submit ACT or SAT scores before admission.

II. Analysis of the effects

The committee examined whether those with and without ACT or SAT scores showed a difference in academic performance. Overall, the average GPA of those without ACT or SAT scores was 2.70 (N = 3,227, SD = .90), whereas the average GPA of those with ACT or SAT was 2.76 (N = 9,708, SD = 0.84). To determine the relative size of the GPA difference, Cohen’s d was computed by dividing the difference by the pooled standard deviation. Cohen’s d was .08, which is very small. (According to Cohen, d = .20 should be considered small, d = .50 should be considered medium, and d = .80 should be considered large.) Figure 4 shows the GPA difference of those with and without ACT or SAT scores by various types of students, such as standard (i.e., nontransfer), transfer, traditional (under 21), nontraditional, and seniors (at least 90 credit hours). As can be seen, the difference between the average GPAs of those with and without ACT or SAT scores were negligible (ds < .20), except for seniors. Seniors without ACT or SAT scores had an average GPA of 3.06 (N = 1,374, SD = .64), whereas seniors with ACT or SAT scores had an average GPA of 3.31 (N = 1,725, SD = .49) (d = .43, a medium difference).

The committee also examined the percentage of students with or without ACT or SAT scores who were unable to maintain a minimum GPA of 2.0. The difference between these percentages was minor: 12.2% of those without ACT or SAT scores and 12.9% of those with ACT or SAT scores did not maintain a GPA of at least 2.0.

Given the generally small to moderate difference between the academic performance of those with and without ACT or SAT scores, the committee wondered about the utility of using the ACT as part of admission decisions. To address this concern, the committee examined the correlation of students’ cumulative GPAs with students’ composite ACT scores. The Pearson correlation coefficient for all students was .57 (N = 9,551) and for seniors was .53 (N = 1,674). Among those transfer students that submitted ACT scores, the correlation coefficient between GPA and ACT was .34 (N = 451), and among those nontraditional (21 or older) students that submitted ACT scores, the correlation coefficient between GPA and ACT was .33 (N = 197). These correlation coefficients indicate that composite ACT scores are moderate to strong predictors of students’ cumulative GPA, though the predictability of the ACT appears greater for traditional, nontransfer students.

III. Committee Recommendation

At this time, the committee does not propose a resolution to the Faculty Senate. Further consideration of UCA admission policies and standards may be necessary before any recommendation is considered.

Figure 1

Percentage of Students Admitted With and Without ACT or SAT Scores by School Year

Figure 2

Percentage of Students With and
Without ACT or SAT Scores that Are Transfers and/or Nontraditional Students

Figure 3

Percentage of Standard, Transfer, and Nontraditional Students Admitted Without ACT or SAT Scores

Figure 4

Mean GPA of Students With and Without ACT or SAT Scores

d .19 .07 .11 .03 .43 .08