Skip to main content

MCC Daily Tribune Archive

Faculty Senate Minutes


MONROE COMMUNITY COLLEGE
FACULTY SENATE

May 16, 2002

PRESENT: G.Anderson, E.Baker, L.Bartholome, S.Belair, I.Benz, W.Brewer,
S.Cable, L.Chrzan-Williams, T.DiGiacomo, J.Downer, K.Farrell, K.Fox,
E.Grissing, M.Harris, J.Kaufman, T.Keys, E.Mancuso (on behalf of D.Mohr),
C.Marhatta, J.McCauley, A.McIntyre, M.McKinzie, E.Mellas, P.Petersen,
B.Robinson, S.Ruckert, T.Schwartz, C.Schwartzott, R.Shea, J.Smith, G.Toth,
J.Wiranowski
ABSENT: P.Bates, M.Bower, D.Brown, T.Cuby, J.Ekis, L.Gulbransen, R.Kuempel,
E.Laidlaw, E.Lewis, D.Mohr, L.Silvers, B.Smith
GUESTS: K.Canfield, D.Cecero, C.Downing, B.Embrey, B.Herzog, T.Felicetti,
M.Fine, A.Freeman, D.Klein, H.Murphy, J.Nelson, B.Ripton, D.Robertson,
H.Wheeler, H.Williams, T.Vinci

Meeting called to order: 3:38 p.m.

1. ANNOUNCEMENTS
a. Shea announced that this would be the last Faculty Senate Meeting in the FDR
since construction on the new Campus Center will move this facility.
b. Shea announced that there is a template with a 3Rs banner available on the
M: Drive for use as the first page of your course information sheet. The
template is a Microsoft Word document that can be personalized. The Faculty
Senate Executive Committee encourages all faculty to use this template. The M:
drive path will be published in a college-wide broadcast.

2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM APRIL SENATE MEETING
Minutes approved as written

3. DISCUSSION ITEM
Proposed Change of Program Grade Inclusion/Exclusion Policy
This is a continuation of the discussion from the April 25 Faculty Senate
meeting. The Faculty Senate Executive Committee would like input from the
Senate on the next step concerning this policy. Marhatta will facilitate the
discussion.
Marhatta applauded the work of the committee. She pointed out that the academic
soundness of the policy/practice is the issue, not the policy itself.
SUMMARY OF COMMENTS
-A concern is the "professional student" who frequently changes from one
program to another in an attempt to leave behind bad grades. Won't this draw
scorn from other universities? Should we limit how many times a student can use
this policy?
-Everyone should be aware that no grades are ever removed from the student's
transcript. All classes and grades appear. This policy/procedure only involves
those grades that are included in the calculation of the GPA. Course repeats
are not affected by this policy, which always appear on the transcript. The
most recent grade for the course is used in the calculation of GPA.
-There is a distinct difference between a student taking a course then
repeating that course to achieve a better grade. This is different from courses
that are excluded from the GPA because of a program change. Most of this
senator's constituents were appalled by this practice/policy. At other
colleges, they calculated both a program GPA and an overall college GPA.
-Regardless of this policy, MCC only has one GPA. This faculty member would
like to see two GPA's, program GPA and overall college GPA. There are many
issues to deal with if we do this.
-From the Technologies and Career Programs perspective, this may be hurting
some students. For example, a student may take a higher-level math class than
the one that is required. If they don't do well they might go back and take the
lower level class. A student who does a program change would be able to exclude
the bad grade on the first class while the other one cannot.
-This is an integrity issue for the institution. If another institution wants
to manipulate the GPA, so be it. It appears as through the students don't take
responsibility for what they do.
-This discussion does not have to lead to a decision about whether we approve
or disapprove this proposed policy. We could discuss what we would like to see
rather than what we don't want to see.
-Many faculty are not aware of how frequently program changes occur. We need to
come up with something that does work. Two GPA's might work. Students make
decisions and have to live with those decisions. If we use two GPA's we have
the integrity to say here is how I performed in my program and here is how I
performed college-wide. A big question with that is how we would calculate both
GPA's.
-The idea of two GPA's was discussed by the committee. This might be
detrimental to our students especially those who are transferring to other
institutions.
-The program GPA is difficult to calculate - how do we decide which courses are
included in the program or not.
-Why is a depiction of reality detrimental?
-If a student switches into a different program, they would have a new GPA. At
many other 4-year schools, usually the first credits that you take apply to the
program GPA and any courses over and above are counted in the overall GPA.
-How does this differ from Fresh Start program? The Fresh Start program was
founded on the practice of the grade inclusion/exclusion. The real problem is
that the interpretation of this practice differs among those who apply it
resulting in different outcomes. This practice has been in place for at least
17 years at MCC.
-If we have a program GPA and if you passed in that program, you could
graduate. What are the rules for picking and choosing which courses are applied
to the program?
-The number of people graduating with honors is increasing, why is that? Refer
to the 3Rs poster - pretty good isn't good enough. Is this one more example of
us getting by with pretty good but maybe not good enough?
-Maybe Fresh Start needs to be reevaluated if we don't agree with this policy.
Some students may not return to the college for 3 years so they can wipe out
their grades or do we want them to be able to come back right away and start
over?
-Being a community college, students can try out different programs and we
don't penalize them because they made a bad choice. For example, if a student
in an 8-credit basic nursing class is unsuccessful, they can change to another
program and drop the F grade. Without this program they have to carry an
8-credit course with an F grade.
-MCC does 2,500 program changes per year-substantial numbers!
-MCC is offering the same courses with the same standards as 4-year colleges.
Why would we treat them differently than other institutions? But where else can
they go?
-We may want to look at the mission of MCC. It might seem extreme to exclude
any grade but we should look at it in terms of what other colleges do. How will
it affect transfer students? Do we want to give our students the best possible
track for them to continue their education?
-Maybe we should look at why we have so many program changes and review the
reasons for these large numbers.
-This is a college, not high school. We should treat our students as such. You
can never really find excellence by comparing to other colleges. We should do
what is best for MCC. Base it on what we define as our own academic standards.
--- Motion by S.Callen to hold an All Faculty Meeting, seconded by
L.Chrzan-Williams
--- Vote: In favor: 20 Against: 4 Abstentions: 1
--- All-Faculty Meeting will be held on this topic in Fall 2002.

4. ACTION ITEMS
- PR14 (Program Revision) Office Technology / Secretarial Science (AS Degree)
Approved
- PR15 (Program Revision) Office Technology / Secretarial Science (AS Degree, 2
+ 2 Advisement Sequence) Approved

5. STANDING COMMITTEE REPORTS
Curriculum (E.Mellas)
- Mellas reported that this year the committee worked to streamline the
curriculum process as well as co-sponsored with the Curriculum Office several
training workshops.
- Mellas reported that last year 95 proposals were processed. This year, close
to 200 (130 just this semester) were processed, all while maintaining quality
and integrity.
- Mellas reported that the committee would be working through June.

Planning (L.Chrzan-Williams)
- Chrzan-Williams reported that the All-Faculty Meeting held May 15, 2002 was
well attended. Topics included the new Campus Center, Residence Halls, ATEC, a
new North Academic Building, a new South Building (attached to Building 9), and
additional parking. In addition, the issue of what would happen if the college
has more applicants for dorms than can be accommodated.

Academic Policies (C.Marhatta)
- Marhatta reported that the committee would continue to work with the Change
of Program Grade Inclusion/Exclusion committee.
- Marhatta reported that the committee has reviewed and approved the proposed
policy on academic credit for foreign language competency. This policy will be
presented to the Executive Committee and then the Senate next Fall.
- Marhatta reported that the committee is working on defining a course
waiver/substitution policy as well as reviewing the college's course waivers
policy.

NEG (S.Cable)
- Cable reported that that Chris Belle-Isle was re-election for the
Non-Teaching Representative to the MCC Association Board.
- Cable thanked everyone involved in completing the votes this semester.

Professional Development (E.Baker)
- Baker reported that the committee completed all awards for the year.
- Baker reported that The New 3Rs Professional Development workshop on June 7
would be held at RIT Inn and Conference Center.

SCAA (Mark Harris)
- Harris reported that there is one more "meet the candidate" session for Dean
of Curriculum.
- Harris reported that twenty candidates applied for the Director of Counseling
and Testing. Interviewing would begin in June.
- A Senator asked if there would be a vote on Dean of Curriculum. Harris
stated that there would not be a vote because this is an all-campus position
not within an academic division.

6. OLD BUSINESS
There was no old business to discuss.

7. NEW BUSINESS
There was no new business to discuss.

Meeting adjourned at: 4:46 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Raymond Shea, President
Barbara Robinson, Secretary

Minutes approved at the September Faculty Senate meeting.



Faculty Senate
Faculty Senate Office
09/25/2002