Part III: The Abbreviated Compliance Certification
1. The number of full-time faculty members is adequate to support the mission of the institution and to
ensure the quality and integrity of its academic programs. (Core Requirement 2.8)
_X__ Compliance
___ Non-Compliance
Narrative:
The University of Kentucky is in compliance with Core Requirement 2.8. The University employs
an adequate number of competent faculty members qualified to accomplish the mission and goals of the
institution and to ensure the quality and integrity of its academic programs. This expectation suggests that
faculty must possess necessary academic credentials and be deployed effectively to support the
University’s tripartite mission of teaching, research and service. To demonstrate compliance with this
standard, descriptions of policies and procedures that govern faculty appointments and assignments are first
presented. Next, to assess the effectiveness of the policies and procedures that were established to ensure
qualified faculty as well as the adequacy of the number of faculty available for the critical mission area of
teaching, the University examined its standing on five related performance indicators: the percent of faculty
who are full-time; the percent of faculty with a terminal degree; the student-to-faculty ratio, the percent of
classes under 20 students, and the percent of classes of 50 or more students. Furthermore, the University
analyzed student credit hours generated by faculty type to document how faculty resources are used to
support the teaching mission at both the university and college levels.
Descriptions of Policies and Procedures that Govern Faculty Appointments and Assignments
Recruitment and Appointment. Educational units review faculty applications via search
committees comprised of peers in the field who are knowledgeable of standards of excellence the
applicant must have achieved to be considered for an appointment. In evaluating candidates, each college
follows criteria described in the University of Kentucky Administrative Regulations. Following these
criteria assists search committees in evaluating each candidate and ensures the hiring of faculty with
scholarly potential. Each title series (established to support the University’s tripartite mission) and rank
requires that the candidate be evaluated based on specific criteria as follows:
Page V - Appointment and Promotion, Regular Title Series
Page VI - Appointment and Promotion, Extension Title Series
Page VII - Appointment and Promotion, Special Title Series
Page VIII - Appointment and Promotion, Research Title Series
Page IX - Appointment and Promotion, Clinical Title Series
Page X – Appointment and Promotion, Librarian Series
Page XI – Appointment and Promotion, Adjunct Series
Page XIII – Lecturer Series Faculty
Page XIV – Voluntary Series Faculty
Policy on part-time faculty appointments may be found on page 4 of the administrative regulation on
procedures for faculty appointment, reappointment, promotion, and the granting of tenure.
For each initial faculty appointment, faculty employees are assigned to a particular rank, and a
review of the prospective individual’s teaching is completed by each educational unit (i.e., department and
college). For those individuals being considered for tenure and non-tenured appointments at the rank of
Associate Professor or Professor a dossier is completed by the unit. The dossier contains details about the
educational credentials, previous employment, and previous teaching, research, and service contributions.
Each dossier is reviewed and approved by the faculty within the unit. The approved dossier is submitted to
the Provost with a university appointment form, a teaching credentials certification form, a credentials
justification if needed, curriculum vita, affirmative action form, offer/acceptance letter, and a copy of the
individual’s transcript.
Individuals being considered for tenure-track appointments at the rank of Instructor and Assistant
Professors submit the following information to the Provost’s Office: university appointment form, a
teaching credentials certification form, credentials justification if needed, curriculum vita, affirmative
action form, offer/acceptance letter, and a copy of the individual’s transcript.
Faculty being considered for part-time, visiting, temporary, voluntary, adjunct, or research
appointments submit the following: university appointment form, a teaching credentials certification form,
credentials justification if needed, and curriculum vita. Faculty lecturers submit the university
appointment form, a teaching credentials certification form, credentials justification if needed, curriculum
vita, and affirmative action form.
In each situation, the teaching credentials certification and justification data are reviewed by the
Provost to ensure quality and compliance with appropriate qualifications.
Assignment and Distribution of Effort. As set forth in the faculty workload policy, faculty
employees are assigned and evaluated on teaching, research, and service activities. Educational unit
administrators assign and manage the workload of their faculty in consultation with faculty members of the
unit and in consideration of the mission and goals of the unit. Faculty engaged in research-only or serviceonly assignments are given workloads that are equivalent in time and effort to that of faculty with teachingonly assignments. Workload is reviewed at regular intervals.
Each educational unit utilizes a Distribution of Effort (DOE) agreement to track the percentage of
time faculty members are engaged in the areas of teaching, research and creative pursuits, and service in
order to ensure that the unit meets it academic responsibilities and contributes to the mission of the
University. The DOE assures fairness of workload to the individual faculty member by serving as
documentation of distribution of responsibility among the units’ faculty members. While the workload for
faculty is based on the three separate components (i.e., research, teaching, and service), teaching most often
interacts with the other two activities and is inseparable in many cases.
Evidence of Adequacy of Faculty
Evidence of the adequacy of the number and qualifications of UK’s faculty to ensure academic
program integrity and quality is presented below using five indicators provided by offices of institutional
research that use common definitions and methodologies established for the Common Data Set. For each
indicator, the University’s standing was compared to 11 similar doctoral research universities within the
southern region for the fall 2007 semester (the most recently available data at the time this report was
developed), resulting in a group of 12 institutions. These institutions included: Auburn University,
Mississippi State University, Louisiana State University, Vanderbilt University, and the flagship
institutions of Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, South Carolina, Tennessee, and of course,
Kentucky. The comparisons provided are based on the instructional faculty component -- faculty hired
primarily for teaching. On four indicators, UK’s value fell within the range of the 12 institutions; on one
indicator, UK’s value fell at the bottom of the range. Compared to the median of the 12 institutions, UK
underperformed on three indicators, performed above average on another indicator, and scored at the
median on the remaining indicator.
 Percent of Faculty Who Are Full-Time: Nine of 10 (90%) instructional faculty members employed at
the University of Kentucky in fall 2007 were hired to work on a full-time basis. The percent of faculty
members who worked full-time at the comparison institutions and UK ranged from 90 percent to 99
percent. Full-time employment of faculty at the University of Kentucky was four percentage-points
below the median of the 12 institutions.
 Percent of Faculty with a Terminal Degree. Nine of ten (91%) full-time instructional faculty members
and half (48%) of part-time faculty at the University of Kentucky held a doctorate, first-professional or
other terminal degree in fall 2007. Overall, 80 percent of faculty who taught classes during fall 2007
had earned a terminal degree. The percent of instructional faculty members who held terminal degrees
at the 12 institutions ranged from 75 percent to 97 percent. The University of Kentucky’s standing on
this indicator was two percentage-points below the median of the group.
 Student-to-Faculty Ratio. The University of Kentucky’s student-to-faculty ratio during fall 2007 was
17 to 1. The ratio for the 12 institutions on this indicator ranged from 9:1 to 22:1. The University of
Kentucky’s standing on this indicator was right at the median ratio of 17 to 1. This particular indicator
serves as a measure of progress in the University’s Top 20 Business Plan, and the University has a longrange goal to decrease the ratio to 16.4 to 1 by 2020.
 Percent of Classes under 20 Students. About one-third (34%) of undergraduate classes offered at the
University of Kentucky had enrollments of 20 or fewer students in fall 2007. The range on this indicator
for the 12 institutions extended from 27 percent to 67 percent. The median was 38 percent, four
percentage-points above the University of Kentucky’s position on this indicator.
 Percent of Classes of 50 Students or More. Sixteen percent of undergraduate classes offered at the
University of Kentucky had enrollments of 50 or more. The percent of classes enrolling 50 students or
more at the 12 institutions ranged from 6 percent to 20 percent. The median was 13 percent, three
percentage-points below the University of Kentucky position on this indicator.
Who’s Teaching the Classes? To examine more closely the adequacy of the number of faculty in
the delivery of instruction, the University of Kentucky analyzed student credit hours generated for the fall
2007 semester by faculty status and level. The analysis of student credit hours excluded distance learning
classes, noncredit classes and individual instruction (e.g., thesis or dissertation research, music instruction,
independent studies, etc.), a method consistent with best practices in calculating this particular teaching
productivity measure. The summary of findings below shows that the University relies on part-time faculty
and teaching assistants (TAs) to a much greater extent at the undergraduate level than at the graduate and
first-professional levels. This pattern of instruction by type of faculty is typical at doctoral researchextensive universities with research and graduate programs that support and help train future faculty by
using graduate students as TAs in undergraduate courses. In support of this practice, UK has a wellestablished policy on the use of TAs. Also, as anticipated, graduate and first-professional instruction is
carried out almost exclusively by full-time faculty, with somewhat more reliance on part-time faculty at the
graduate level than at the first-professional level.
Undergraduate Instruction. During fall 2007, faculty delivered 259,762 student credit hours in
undergraduate courses, as follows:

Full-time faculty delivered two-thirds (66%) of the undergraduate credit hours.

Part-time faculty delivered one in five (19%) credit hours.

Instruction delivered by Teaching Assistants accounted for 15 percent of credit hour production.
Graduate Instruction. During fall 2007, faculty delivered 22,002 student credit hours at the
graduate level, as follows:

Nine of ten (91%) credit hours were delivered by full-time faculty.

Part-time faculty delivered approximately one in 10 (9%) credit hours.
First-Professional Instruction. During fall 2007, faculty delivered 31,026 student credit hours at
the first-professional level, as follows:

Full-time faculty delivered 94 percent of all credit hours.

Part-time faculty produced only 6 percent of credit hours at the first-professional level.
It is also important to review student credit hour data at the college level to understand better how
faculty resources are distributed appropriately to support mission activities across a broad range of
disciplines. Toward this end, college-level results are provided for the student credit hour analysis. The
college-level analysis documents the extent to which college differences in mission, program mix, and
support for general education result in a differential distribution of faculty workload. The College of Arts
and Sciences delivers a disproportionate share of the general education program, resulting in over 115,000
student credit hours generated for 100-200 level courses; thus, there is considerable reliance on part-time
faculty (24%) and TAs (19%) to deliver nearly 50,000 of those student credit hours. The College of Arts
and Sciences distributes faculty workload in a manner that makes qualified faculty available to ensure the
quality and integrity of its academic programs. For example, in the English department that delivers general
education writing instruction to a freshman class of approximately 4000, a course coordinator provides
extensive oversight to TAs in accordance with the TA policy referenced above. As another example, the
College of Arts and Sciences has developed an advising model that makes extensive use of professional
advisors in order to give faculty more time to focus on delivering instruction, conducting research, and
fulfilling service responsibilities. Thus, the College of Arts and Sciences is a good example of a college that
fulfills its mission and goals through a unique combination of available resources – faculty time distributed
in accordance with faculty workload policy, innovative academic advising programs, and many doctoral
program TAs who seek teaching opportunities to support their development as future faculty.
A brief review of the college-level analysis, however, reveals that there are several colleges for
which the percent of student credit hours generated by TAs appears to be much higher than in the College
of Arts and Sciences. Closer examination reveals that these colleges (Business and Education are two
examples) deliver a significantly smaller number of student credit hours at the lower level due to the lack of
general education courses delivered by those colleges. The College of Business and Economics had 58
percent of lower level courses taught by TAs; however, only 3747 out of 9795 student credits hours were
taught by TAs. Thus, the seemingly high percent is a function of the small number of lower level courses
delivered in the college and the availability of TAs who seek the support and teaching experience. In all
cases, colleges work with available resources and within stated policy on faculty workload and distribution
of effort to ensure that mission activities are supported adequately.
In summary, the University ensures an adequate number of qualified faculty to fulfill its mission
and ensure integrity and quality in its academic programs by appointing qualified faculty, distributing
responsibilities in accordance with faculty workload policy, using part-time instructors with appropriate
qualifications, supporting TAs in their development as future faculty, and providing professional support to
assist with faculty work. At the college level where faculty assignments are made, the colleges have
flexibility, considerable autonomy, and a variety of resources available to assure an optimal distribution of
faculty effort to meet instructional needs. Comparisons on performance measures indicative of the
adequacy of the number of qualified faculty to support instruction show that UK is within the range of
similar institutions. All of the above provide evidence of the University’s compliance on this standard.
2. The institution has qualified administrative and academic officers with the experience, competence,
and capacity to lead the institution. (Comprehensive Standard 3.2.8)
__X_ Compliance
___ Non-Compliance
Narrative: The University of Kentucky is in compliance with Standard 3.2.8. It is fortunate to have a
cadre of talented administrators whose professional training, experience and dedicated service are guiding
the University on a path to greater national and international prominence. Building a strong leadership team
requires deliberate and thoughtful hiring practices, informed by a comprehensive set of regulations to
ensure open and competitive vetting and selection processes. It also necessitates a thorough and coherent
articulation of performance expectations coupled with both formative and summative evaluation to ensure
professional confidence and results. Accordingly, the University has established and refined over time a
comprehensive set of policies and procedures that dictate the processes by which the University attracts
proven leaders, harnesses the talents and skills of those leaders, and documents the performance of its
leadership over time. Governing Regulation Part VIII - University Appointments, Administrative
Regulation II-1.0-8 - Procedures for Search Committees for Chief Administrative Officers of Educational
Units, and Human Resources Policy and Procedure Number 10.0 - Staff Employment define the open and
competitive processes by which the senior leaders of the University are hired.
The chief administrative officers of the University are identified by position on page 19 in
Administrative Regulation II-1.0-6 - The Planning, Budgeting and Assessment Cycle. As evidence of their
qualifications, a roster of chief administrative officers depicts high levels of academic achievement and
significant directly related professional experience for each officer. For this report, the roster includes the
direct reports to the President and four vice president positions that report directly to the Provost or to the
Executive Vice President for Finance and Administration.
The search process that culminated in the appointment of Dr. James W. Tracy as Vice President
for Research in 2007 is representative of the University’s commitment to excellence in the ranks of its
senior administrative leadership. The responsibilities and duties of the position were clearly defined in the
advertisement, which was placed in premier higher education publications with international exposure
(Chronicle of Higher Education and Diverse Issues in Higher Education). A formal search committee was
appointed, representative of the broad faculty constituencies and key administrative officers across the
University, and afforded full independence and autonomy in the execution of its charge. Those candidates
identified as finalists by the search committee participated in two days of campus interviews by the full
range of campus constituencies with which a Vice President for Research would interact. The search
committee solicited formal (confidential) feedback from those individuals who met with each finalist
during the campus interview process. Dr. Tracy’s appointment as Vice President for Research, coupled
with a review of his curriculum vita, is strong affirmation of the University’s commitment to search
processes that ensure excellence in its appointment of senior administrative leaders.
Once appointed, however, key positions within the senior administrative leadership of the
University must be evaluated on a regular basis utilizing a set of formative and summative instruments to
enhance the effectiveness of the University’s senior leadership and hold those leaders accountable to the
constituencies they serve. The University took a major step forward in 2006, after a multi-year
conversation, with its adoption of the significant revision of a signal administrative policy document on
leadership effectiveness and accountability. Part 4-III (see page 19) of AR II-1.0-6 - The Review of Chief
Administrative Officers of the University - implements a series of formal evaluation activities to be
conducted for each senior administrator by his or her supervisor. The roster of current appointees provides
information regarding the most recent evaluation of each appointee who is affected by this policy. The
evaluation process culminates in identification of key areas for performance improvement, which is
communicated to the CAO’s unit members, as appropriate.
In summary, the University has established a set of formal regulations with published policies and
procedures designed to ensure that its administrative officers have the experience, competence, and
capacity to lead the institution. The qualifications of actual appointees provide documentation of the
effectiveness of these policies and procedures. Furthermore, as evidenced by its willingness to review and
update those regulations to ensure best practice, the University has demonstrated its ongoing commitment
to a standard of excellence in the performance of its chief administrative officers.
3. The institution publishes admissions policies that are consistent with its mission. (Comprehensive
Standard 3.4.3)
_X__ Compliance
___ Non-Compliance
Narrative:
The University of Kentucky is in compliance with Comprehensive Standard 3.4.3. In Kentucky
Revised Statute (KRS) 164.125 – University Programs -- the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of
Kentucky established the University of Kentucky to provide, upon approval of the Council on
Postsecondary Education, associate, baccalaureate, master’s, specialist, doctoral, and post-doctoral
programs, as well as professional programs in law, medicine, dentistry, pharmacy, education, architecture,
engineering, and social professions; additionally, the University was designated as the “principal state
institution for the conduct of statewide research and statewide service programs…” In 1997 the top 20 goal
was established through KRS 164.003:
(2) The General Assembly declares on behalf of the people of the Commonwealth the following
goals to be achieved by the year 2020: …
(b) A major comprehensive research institution ranked nationally in the top twenty (20)
public universities at the University of Kentucky; …
The University of Kentucky is an Equal Opportunity University and is committed to a policy of
providing educational opportunities to all qualified students regardless of economic or social status and will
not discriminate on the basis of race, color, ethnic origin, national origin, creed, religion, political belief,
sex, sexual orientation, marital status, age, veteran status, or physical or mental disability. Compliance
with Title IX of the Educational Amendments of 1972, which prohibits sex discrimination, and with Title
VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, is coordinated by the Office of Institutional Equity and Equal
Opportunity.
The mission of the University of Kentucky, updated in October 2006, aligns with expectations for
the University as set forth by state statutes and its commitment to equal opportunity described above. The
mission statement establishes excellence as a key characteristic of education, research, and service
activities; it further identifies issues of diversity, fairness, and equal opportunity as critical endeavors. In
keeping with a mission focus on excellence and equal opportunity, admission policies for all degree levels
have been established to ensure that the University enrolls a diverse, highly qualified student body capable
of excellent performance and achievement as necessary to fulfill its responsibilities to the people of the
Commonwealth. These policies are described briefly below.
Undergraduate Admission Policies
The mission of the Office of Undergraduate Admission & University Registrar is consistent with
the mission of the University of Kentucky. Its mission statement says, “The University of Kentucky seeks
to enroll an academically talented student body that enriches the learning community and is representative
of the diverse society in which we live.” Toward this end, the University publishes undergraduate
admission policies for first-time freshmen, transfer students, and other categories of undergraduate
admission in the undergraduate Bulletin as well as on web pages dedicated to potential students. (NOTE:
With the passage of KRS 164.003 and approval of the Council on Postsecondary Education, the University
of Kentucky no longer accepts students at the associate degree level.) The application for admission (used
by all admit types) includes a listing of available programs of study (degree programs) as well as a listing
of available majors. Some colleges and programs have selective admission requirements beyond University
admission requirements. The admissions criteria for selective colleges and programs are published in the
Bulletin by academic college and are also published on the admission website beginning on page nine of
the section entitled “Admission Policies and Selective Colleges.”
Freshman Admission. The University of Kentucky maintains a selective admission policy to
ensure the level of academic preparation necessary for student success and excellence. The academic
criteria, including cumulative high school grade-point average, completion of the pre-college curriculum,
ACT or SAT I score results, and special talents and abilities, are established by a faculty committee of the
University Senate and conform to widely accepted practices at similar higher education institutions.
Enrollment in the freshman class is limited. Applicants are offered admission on a competitive basis, with
all those who meet the University's selective admission criteria receiving first offers. Remaining spaces in
the class are offered based on the strength of the student's record, potential for academic success, and the
University's enrollment goals.
To be eligible for consideration for freshman admission, students must complete high school, meet
Kentucky's pre-college curriculum requirements, submit ACT and/or SAT I scores, and complete an
application. High school preparation is critically important to a student's potential to succeed at UK, and it
is given significant consideration in the decision-making process. Total number of academic courses
completed in high school, level of course work, number of Advanced Placement (AP) or International
Baccalaureate (IB) courses, and senior year schedule can be important factors in admission decisions.
Additionally, extracurricular activities, a written interview, and letters of recommendation are part of the
review process. Academic characteristics of each freshman class provide evidence that admission policies
and procedures are effective in admitting students who can be successful at the University. The middle 50
percent of the 2008 freshman class was as follows:
 ACT Composite: 22 - 27
 SAT I Total: 1020 - 1230
 High School Grade Point Average (GPA): 3.2 - 3.8
Transfers and Other Categories of Undergraduate Admission
 Transfers. The University serves a critical role in promoting educational attainment in the
Commonwealth of Kentucky by assisting transfer students who want to complete a
baccalaureate degree. Transfer student admissions policy begins on page 14 of the
undergraduate Bulletin.
 Readmission. Students who previously attended the University of Kentucky are eligible for
readmission under the policy published on page 15 in the undergraduate Bulletin and on the
Admission website.
 International Students. The requirements for admission for international students differ slightly
from those for domestic students (see page 17 of the undergraduate Bulletin). Minimum scores
are required on the Test of English as a Foreign Language (TOEFL) or the International
English Language Testing System (IELTS).
 Non-Degree Seeking Students. The goal of the University of Kentucky policy for non-degree
students is to provide appropriate access to academic courses for students desiring to continue
their education without seeking a UK degree. This includes students who pursue lifelong
learning opportunities, auditors who receive no grade or credit, and visiting students who
intend to earn credit at UK to apply to degree requirements at a sponsoring institution.
Admission policies for these groups of students begin on page 15 of the undergraduate
Bulletin.
Graduate Admission Policies
The mission of the Graduate School is to promote advanced study, graduate instruction, and
research by the faculty and students of all colleges and departments. As such, admission policy has been
established to ensure enrollment of diverse, well-qualified graduate students who can be successful at the
University. All information pertaining to admission to the University of Kentucky Graduate School is
published in the Graduate School Bulletin. The Graduate School Bulletin is revised and updated on an
annual basis; new versions are made available in the spring of each year. It is no longer offered in print
format; rather, it is readily accessible from the Graduate School home page.
All applications to the Graduate School must be submitted on-line. The application form, a list of
basic requirements, and an overview of the admissions procedures are available on the Graduate School’s
admission website. Application deadline information is made available to applicants via the online
application website. Consistent with widely accepted practices among graduate schools, all students
seeking admission to the University of Kentucky Graduate School must satisfy the following minimum
requirements:
1) Applicants must hold a baccalaureate degree from a fully accredited institution of higher
learning. An overall grade point average of 2.75 on undergraduate work and 3.00 on all graduate work is
required by the Graduate School. New students applying for admission must have two official transcripts
sent by each institution of higher learning previously attended. One transcript should be sent directly to the
Graduate School and the other should be sent directly to the Director of Graduate Studies (DGS) of the
program(s) of interest. To be official, records must bear the Registrar's signature and/or official seal of the
issuing institution.
2) Applicants must submit scores on the verbal, quantitative, and analytical writing portions of the
aptitude section of the Graduate Record Examination (GRE). Test scores must be sent directly to the
University of Kentucky Graduate School from ETS. A graduate program faculty may petition the Graduate
Council to exempt all of its applicants from the requirement to submit GRE scores. For such a petition to be
successful, the program must show that the GRE is not useful in its admissions process. A graduate
program may also petition the Graduate Council to allow its applicants to substitute another professional
standardized examination (for example the MCAT or LSAT) for the GRE.
The following additional requirements apply to international applicants:
1) Applicants must typically hold a four-year bachelor's degree (exceptions to this rule include
countries in the European Union, Canada, Australia and New Zealand), have excellent grades and rank in
the top quarter of their classes. Submitted credentials should be either the original documents or certified
copies (i.e., copies certified or attested as "true copies" by a notary public). An official translation must be
attached to these records if they are in a language other than English.
2) The University of Kentucky requires a minimum score of 550 on the Test of English as a
Foreign Language (TOEFL; the equivalent score on the computer version of the TOEFL is 213 and the
internet-based test is 79) or a minimum mean band score of 6.5 on the International English Language
Testing System (IELTS). Test scores must be sent directly to the University of Kentucky Graduate School
from ETS or IELTS. Permanent residents who graduate from US institutions or schools outside the US in
English-speaking countries such as Australia, Great Britain, and English-speaking Canadian provinces, are
not required to submit TOEFL/IELTS scores.
Conditional and Special Admission Categories
Policies and procedures for special admission categories used by The Graduate School begin on
page 27 of the Graduate School Bulletin.
 Conditional. Students wishing to pursue an advanced degree who are temporarily ineligible for
regular graduate admission status may be recommended by the Director of Graduate Studies
for conditional admission status.
 In addition to the conditional admission policy above, there are several special admission
categories used by the Graduate School. Details of the admission policies for Special
Admission Categories begin on page 27 of the Graduate School Bulletin.
For readmission policy see page 30; and for transfer of credit policy see page 39.
Professional Program Admission Policies
In accordance with KRS 164.125, the colleges of Dentistry, Health Sciences, Medicine, Nursing,
Pharmacy, Public Health, and Law offer a variety of professional programs for which specific admission
policies have been established. All professional degree programs with the exception of the Doctor of
Nursing Practice (DNP) in the College of Nursing utilize application preparation services to coordinate the
admissions processes. Services authenticate the academic credentials of the applicants’ previously attended
institutions of higher learning and coordinate the delivery of official score reports on nationally recognized
aptitude tests such as DAT, MCAT, GRE, and so forth. Additional documents include evaluations by
individuals in the professional field assessing the readiness of an applicant for graduate work. Upon receipt
of all application materials, the program extends an invitation for personal interviews with members of
admissions committees and a tour of the campus community and clinical facilities.
Each college establishes criteria that seek to identify students who can be successful in completing
the demanding professional degree requirements. With information readily available on the worldwide
web, recruitment brochures are less extensive and limited in distribution. Listed below is each college that
offers a professional degree along with a link to additional information on admissions requirements:
 College of Dentistry Admissions Information (DMD)
 College of Medicine Admissions Information (MD)
 College of Health Sciences Admissions Information (DPT)
 College of Nursing Admissions Information (DNP)
 College of Public Health Admissions Information (DPH)
 College of Pharmacy Admissions Information (PharmD)
 College of Law Admissions Information (JD)
4. For each major in a degree program, the institution assigns responsibility for program coordination, as
well as for curriculum development and review, to persons academically qualified in the field. In those
degree programs for which the institution does not identify a major, this requirement applies to a
curricular area or concentration. (Comprehensive Standard 3.4.11)
_X__ Compliance
___ Non-Compliance
Narrative:
The University of Kentucky is in compliance with Comprehensive Standard 3.4.11. Policies and
procedures are in place and operating effectively to assure that persons academically qualified in the field
are responsible for degree program coordination and curriculum development and review. Information on
faculty credentials, appointments, and tenure status is maintained in the University's Faculty Database,
which was used to generate the rosters of qualifications presented below. Responsibility for program
coordination and curriculum development and review is shared jointly among faculty at three levels within
the University, as follows:
1.
Section 1.2.2 of the University Senate Rules specifies the qualifications of members and its
executive committee (i.e. the Senate Council), who administer and enforce course, curriculum and
degree program approval procedures.
2.
Members of three councils of the Senate –Graduate Council, Undergraduate Council, and Health
Care Colleges Council -- fulfill critical oversight and approval responsibilities for the University
Senate. Rules governing the composition and election of council members are established in
sections 1.3.2, 1.3.3, and 1.3.4, respectively, of the Senate Rules to ensure that council members
represent the University’s organizational structure and have appropriate academic qualifications.
3.
College-level faculty (associate deans for academic affairs; standing committees such as
curriculum and assessment committees; and directors or coordinators of undergraduate studies and
graduate studies) are appointed to assume day to day coordination, development and review
activities. These appointments are made based on individual college and department rules.
Additional information is presented below for each level of degree offerings -- undergraduate,
graduate, and professional offerings within the health care colleges and the College of Law –
along with evidence documenting the effectiveness of the policies and procedures in assuring
responsibility is assigned to those academically qualified in the field.
 Graduate. The Dean of the Graduate School appoints a Director of Graduate Studies (see
page 18 in the Graduate School Bulletin) who has responsibility for each major (or related
cluster of majors) in his or her graduate degree program. Each major (or group of related
majors) has an appointed Graduate Faculty comprised of faculty members who are
academically qualified in the field and have a terminal degree or its equivalent. For these
appointments, the Dean of the Graduate School reviews the curriculum vitae to ensure
disciplinary qualifications. All appointments must be members of the regular Graduate Faculty
(see page 14 in the Graduate School Bulletin for additional information).
 Undergraduate. The deans of colleges that offer undergraduate degree programs appoint a
Director of Undergraduate Studies (DUS) for each department, upon the recommendation of
the department chair and faculty. The deans have the responsibility of ensuring that DUSs are
academically qualified. The DUSs are also responsible for undergraduate minors in their
respective majors, if they exist.
 Health Care College and College of Law Professional Programs. The deans of the health
care colleges and the College of Law dean appoint qualified faculty to serve coordinating roles
for professional programs, as follows:
Dentistry: Associate Dean for Academic Affairs
Law: Associate Dean for Academic Affairs
Medicine: Associate Dean for Medical Education
Nursing: Associate Dean for Advance Practice Programs
Pharmacy: Associate Dean for Academic Affairs
Public Health: Associate Dean for Academic Affairs
Physical Therapy: Division Director
5. The institution provides student support programs, services, and activities consistent with its mission.
(Core Requirement 2.10)
_X__ Compliance
___ Non-Compliance
Narrative:
The University of Kentucky is in compliance with Core Requirement 2.10. In accordance with its
legislative purpose and degree-granting authority, the University of Kentucky enrolls students at all levels
of education -- undergraduate, master’s, specialist, doctoral and first-professional – and therefore, it
provides student support services and programs at all levels. Due to the size and comprehensive program
mix of the University, student services are located throughout the campus -- sometimes centralized and
other times decentralized -- to ensure customized, accessible programs and services for all degree levels.
Additionally, to promote excellence in its instructional mission, the University offers a broad array of
programs and services that help students succeed. And, finally, with its commitment to equal opportunity,
the University enrolls students from diverse, ethnic, cultural, socio-economic, age, and geographical
backgrounds, and therefore, a wide variety of programs, services and activities are tailored to meet the
needs of students from different backgrounds. The brief review presented below demonstrates that these
student programs, services and activities are consistent with the mission of the University.
Student Affairs Division
Student Affairs is the primary central unit charged by the University with planning, implementing,
and assessing student development services, programs and activities that fulfill the needs of all students.
The Vice President for Student Affairs oversees the operations and staff of Student Affairs. The Student
Affairs Strategic Plan sets forth the unit’s vision, mission and values that provide the basis for program
planning, implementation, and assessment for continuous improvement. Annual reports of progress ensure
an ongoing review of accomplishments that align with the mission and goals of the University. Student
Affairs and other central units under the Provost are depicted in the organizational chart for Student
Support Programs and Services in the Provost Area. The table below provides additional information.
College-level Student Support
In addition to an extensive offering of student support programs and services provided through
central offices, the University’s colleges provide customized activities tailored to the needs of their specific
students and disciplines. These activities range from a Professional Development Workshop for new
pharmacy students to a Scientific Writing workshop for graduate students to dining etiquette training for
business students to “First Aid Friday” tutoring sessions for nursing students. The table below provides
additional information.
Table 1. Student Support Programs and Services in the Provost’s Area
Student Affairs
Counseling & Testing
Dining Services
Residence Life
Student Center
Student Involvement
Student Leadership
Community Outreach
Student Clubs & Organizations
Student Government
Student Publications
Violence Intervention & Prevention Center
Dean of Students
Alcohol and Health Education
Campus Recreation
Disability Resource Center
Fraternity & Sorority Affairs
New Student Programs
Parent Association
Kentucky Welcome
UK 101
Student Conduct
Educational Partnerships
International Affairs
Undergraduate Education
Academic Enhancement
Appalachian & Minority Science, Technology
Engineering & Math Majors
Center for Academic Tutoring Services
(CATS)
Central Advising Service & Transfer Center
Experiential Education & Career Services
Service Learning
Multicultural Student Affairs
Student Support Services
Student Diversity Engagement
Martin Luther King Jr. Cultural
Center
Center for Academic Resources &
Enrichment Services (CARES)
Retention & Student Success
Robinson Scholars
Teaching & Academic Support
Undergraduate Research
Enrollment Management
Admissions
Financial Aid
Registrar
Student Billing
College-level Student Support Programs and Services
Agriculture
Arts & Sciences
Mathskeller
The Writing Center
Business & Economics
Communication & Information Studies
Dentistry
Design
Education
Engineering
Fine Arts
The Graduate School
Health Sciences
Law
Medicine
Nursing
Pharmacy
Public Health
Social Work
6. The institution operates and maintains physical facilities, both on and off campus, that appropriately
serve the needs of the institution’s educational programs, support services, and other mission-related
activities. (Comprehensive Standard 3.11.3)
_X__ Compliance
___ Non-Compliance
Narrative:
The University of Kentucky is in compliance with Standard 3.11.3. The assessment of compliance
began with evidence that the institution owns and/or has sufficient control over facilities it uses. Evidence
was then sought to demonstrate the University keeps its facilities in good working order, while addressing
major non-recurring building repairs and component replacements on an ongoing basis. The on-campus
assessment focused on the main 795 acre campus, while off-campus included the surrounding Lexington
city area and across the Commonwealth, in light of the University’s statewide, land-grant mission. Two
considerations came into play when examining the extent to which facilities appropriately serve the
University’s needs: 1) functionality of space for desired use and 2) amount of space or square footage
available. All institutional programs and support services were encompassed, though lesser emphasis was
placed on auxiliary enterprises. An overview of the University’s facilities planning process is presented
first to document the processes through which decisions are made to support the University’s needs and
mission.
Facilities Planning
The University of Kentucky conducts facilities planning on four tiers: 1) a 50-year campus plan, 2)
a six-year capital plan, 3) a biennial capital request, and 4) an annual capital budget. The first tier, the 50year Campus Physical Development Plan, was updated in 2002 (and is scheduled for updating in 2009)
after an extensive process involving faculty, students, staff, leadership, the Board of Trustees, city officials,
members of the surrounding community, and a national planning firm. This master plan depicts structured
change in the main campus. It is actively used to guide physical growth in an organized, long range
context. Engineering studies of the steam, chilled water, and electrical power networks on campus have
been completed in the last two years. These studies identify the system modifications needed to support
new construction and major building upgrades.
The second tier in facilities planning is the Six Year Capital Plan which depicts space
construction and renovation needs, among others, for the upcoming six years. AR II-1.0-6, beginning on
page 8, establishes policies and procedures for developing the capital plan and request. All units of the
University participate in the 15-month process of defining and justifying needs. A Capital Planning
Advisory Group discusses all projects and provides technical expertise to the President, who directs
planning and budgeting in alignment with strategic planning priorities. The six year plan is a critical
component of the University’s planning as well as statewide planning administered by the Council on
Postsecondary Education (CPE).
The third tier in facilities planning is the institution's Biennial Capital Request which is formulated
every two years in preparation for the General Assembly of the Commonwealth, wherein projects are
authorized and state funding is allocated. The institution's two year prioritized list is reviewed by CPE. CPE
submits recommended projects to the governor, who then prepares the Executive Branch capital request to
the General Assembly. The 2008-2010 projects approved by the General Assembly for the University of
Kentucky provide evidence of the effectiveness of the facilities planning process. In summary, it is through
these cycles of facilities planning and biennial funding requests that the University continues to seek
approval and funding for projects to meet facilities needs.
The fourth tier in facilities planning is the institution’s annual capital budget that puts plans into
action. The institution's annual capital budgets for the last four years depict ongoing and planned
expenditures for projects in excess of $600,000 each. Total active projects range between $200M and $1B.
Future projects in the budget range from $83M to $444M. The institution's annual operating budgets reflect
significant investments in facilities.
Operation and Maintenance of Facilities
The land and space resources of the University of Kentucky encompass nearly 25,000 acres of
land (including agricultural farms) and 15.0 million gross square feet of building space. Of these, the main
campus in Lexington, KY has 795 acres and 8.9 million net assignable square feet. Additional detail on net
assignable square feet is available on page 33 of the UK Fact Booklet. As set forth on page 4 of AR I-1.01, the Executive Vice President for Finance and Administration (EVPFA) is responsible for the planning,
development, and operations of the physical resources of the University. In collaboration with the
educational and administrative units, the various physical facilities support offices engage in ongoing
planning and assessment activities to ensure optimal operations and maintenance of facilities in support of
the mission of the University. Recent examples include:

In 2004 the University initiated the development of a Geographic Information System (GIS) to
assist in the operation and maintenance of physical facilities. Full time staffing was assigned in
May 2006. The GIS is expanding to integrate data to broaden its role in decision support and
emergency response.

A bond was sold in August 2005 to provide $6 million dollars for infrastructure repairs and
replacements to central utility plants and underground steam lines. Work on the last remaining
project is underway.

In July 2006 University Student Housing was consolidated under the Office of Facilities
Management. Maintenance of housing buildings is benefiting from expertise available within the
Facilities Management organization. A study of the deferred maintenance needs of the older
residence halls was conducted in August 2006 by an external consultant firm. That firm identified
buildings best replaced and buildings worthy of renovation/renewal investments. This information
was later used in a Housing Development Plan approved by the Board of Trustees in December
2008.

The Joint Commission for the Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations inspected the
University's healthcare facilities in September 2006 and found no conditions preventing
accreditation renewal. The inspection confirmed the need for a replacement hospital which is
currently under construction.

A self-study conducted by the two Physical Plant Divisions (MCPPD and CPPD) that maintain all
campus facilities was completed in October 2006. The report found that UK’s maintenance
expenditure per square foot was below the benchmark average , but was comparable to the average
for doctoral research-extensive institutions represented by the Southeastern Regional Association
of Physical Plant Administrators. The report, however, expressed a concern about the inadequate
funding level for deferred maintenance.

A national facility assessment consultant, VFA of Boston, MA, conducted a systematic assessment
of the condition of most academic buildings on campus and presented its report in February 2007,
providing information on the expected life of building components, the funding needed to restore
components, and future capital renewal needs. The facility assessment found that many building
systems have been maintained well enough to have extended their lives beyond the expected
useful life of such systems.

In response to various assessments such as the PPD self-studies and the VFA facility condition
study, an additional $1,000,000 annually was budgeted to fund deferred maintenance of buildings.

Since May 2007 a facilities management system to support building maintenance has been in
place. To date, 12,495 building components have been logged into the system. The system
centrally documents needs, initiates work orders, and records work done.

The campus utility rate structure/budget was modified in 2007-08 to make available an additional
$1,000,000 annually for utility system repair and needed replacements.

The Environmental Health & Safety office monitors fire safety systems, laboratory functions,
fume hood exhausts, radiation use, and hazardous materials. The 2006 State of the Environment
report provides extensive evidence of the unit’s work and effectiveness in promoting a healthy,
safe campus environment for students, faculty and staff.

In late September 2008, the University’s biomedical research animal facilities were inspected by
the AAALAC accreditation team. They stated that the alternate procedures for cage washing at the
Spindletop conditioning facility were acceptable, though they suggested that the institution follow
through on its plans to increase steam capacity in summer 2009. They were also satisfied with the
institution's corrective plan for some unsealed wooden doors. Deferred accreditation renewal
status was granted pending institutional action on two programmatic deficiencies: a) IACUC
oversight of investigator activities and b) sanitation in animal procedure areas. The IACUC
committee is currently developing an action plan. USDA also inspects certain animal
facilities. These inspections have found no major deficiencies.

A study assessing the structural condition of most parking structures on campus was conducted by
a national consultant with a report issued in November 2008. The consultants found the structures
to be in good, serviceable condition and fit for continued use.

The Physical Plant department is continuing to team up annually with an experienced roofing
consultant to inspect roofs and take proactive steps to prolong roof life.

An electronic building monitoring system continually monitors and adjusts certain building
conditions and equipment. This 24/7/365 monitoring system was expanded in 2008 to monitor
laboratory systems and certain lab equipment.

The University's current Six Year Capital Plan of 2008-2014 prioritizes capital funding needs for
space expansion, renovation, and building deferred maintenance. Two pools of major
infrastructure renewal funds are listed within the top ten priorities (of 152 needs). Additional
building systems renewal projects are placed in the top 30 (of the 152 needs). The Council on
Postsecondary Education supported these priorities in their 2008-2010 funding recommendations
to the Governor of the Commonwealth. These recommendations were included in the capital
projects authorized by the General Assembly in the 2008-2010 capital budget.
Extent to Which Facilities Appropriately Serve Needs
The extent to which physical facilities appropriately serve the needs of the University is assessed
based on space functionality in support of the University’s mission and based on the availability of space as
measured by square footage.
Space Functionality. The University funds an annual classroom improvement program wherein
classroom improvements are prioritized based on needs, and improvement projects are funded accordingly.
The improvement projects address the room's functionality and teaching equipment and adapt spaces to
changing pedagogies.
The University invests several million dollars each year renovating, modifying, and converting
spaces to more appropriately meet the needs of those in the spaces. For example, the King Library,
Engineering Library, and the Medical Center Library all underwent renovation work in the last few years.
These projects align with the 2002 SACS suggestion #13 that the University review the space needs of
Libraries in light of renovation, consolidation, or off site storage options. In addition to this list of
contracted projects, the in-house skilled trades staff complete numerous other space renovation projects
amounting to approximately $17,000,000 annually.
The institution’s Office of Equal Opportunity and the Disability Resource office work directly and
individually with students, faculty, staff, and visitors to ensure programs and services are accessible to
persons with disabilities. The University requested and the Commonwealth authorized $800,000 in the
2008-10 biennium for accessibility improvements as funds become available. The new residence halls
constructed in 2006 provide all the physical accommodations needed by the disabled and fully addressed a
past concern of housing for the disabled. The University ensures that all newly constructed facilities and
major renovations meet current code requirements for the disabled. In summary, both the Disability
Resource office and the Equal Opportunity office report that university programs are accessible and that
reasonable and appropriate accommodations are being made for the disabled.
Availability of Space: Square Footage. The University of Kentucky engages in planning and
implementation activities designed to ensure an appropriate amount of space to support its mission. Key
examples of these activities are presented below.

The University conducts a comprehensive space inventory annually. Summary results of
assignable spaces are presented on page 33 in the UK Fact Booklet, and the inventory data are
used extensively in planning and assessment. Additionally, the Council on Postsecondary
Education uses the inventory data in its space needs model to estimate the space needed by
Kentucky’s public higher education institutions based on national standards. In fall 2004 the space
needs model indicated that in total the University had a space surplus of two percent. The most
recent 2006 analysis indicated an overall space deficit of 13 percent for Education and General
(E&G) space that excludes auxiliaries and the hospital. In 2006 the Council on Postsecondary
Education commissioned a Facility Condition & Space Study conducted by VFA Engineers and
Paulien & Associates. Their Comparison of E&G Space chart indicated that "UK has 191 ASF per
student FTE which is approximately 13% greater than the KCPE Doctoral University average" in
the state. (KCPE: Ky Council on Postsecondary Education).

As evidenced by the published class schedule and confirmation from the Registrar's Office, the
current inventory of classroom space is adequate to meet instructional needs. An analysis shows
an average room utilization rate of 92 percent of the expected minimum of 36 hours per week. The
seat utilization rate is 65 percent. To improve classroom utilization rates, the Registrar upgraded
room scheduling software in 2007.

In response to the need for additional space on campus, institutional leadership has begun to take
advantage of opportunities (or to make opportunities) to relocate certain support functions off
campus. Internal Audit, some healthcare business offices, a physicians’ business group, an
honorary fraternity, and a community service for the blind have been moved off campus.

As enrollment growth and/or pedagogical change place greater demands on classroom space, the
University has identified additional opportunities to make adjustments in room management and
instructional schedules. These opportunities are described in the November 2006 ad hoc Facilities
Committee Report, commissioned by the Provost. For example, when the need for additional
large lecture halls was identified, auditorium renovations were funded to address the need. These
projects and others are listed in the space renovation projects referenced earlier.

The University has completed construction of additional buildings and has other facilities in
design or under construction at this time. A listing of new buildings confirms that significant
additional space has and will become available in response to the institution's most pressing space
need – research space. All the listed construction activity responds to the 2002 SACS
recommendation regarding adequate space.

The University broke tradition in 2008 by purchasing buildings off campus. These include: Good
Samaritan hospital, a medical building, and a prior city library building. In addition, the University
acquired access to a complex of three office buildings east of campus in 2008.
Off Campus Facilities
Off campus facilities are predominantly made up of the 120 county extension service offices,
agricultural research farms, 4-H camps, and numerous leased spaces.

The University has 43 leased spaces in the Lexington area totaling 312,167 square feet and another
32 space leases throughout the state. These locations allow the programs involved to meet their
research and service/outreach missions. The lease contract affords stability in location,
maintenance support, and compliance with safety and accessibility codes. Any concerns about
maintenance are referred to the University's Real Property office. That office reports that UK
tenants "feel the buildings are well cared for." A telephone survey was conducted in March 2008
with the university programs in leased space in Lexington. The survey indicated off campus
programs were satisfied with their space and support services.

The 4-H camps, located in four different locations throughout the state, recently received one
million dollars in state funds to improve their facilities. Also, in the last year, a full time
development director position was created to enhance fund raising. UK’s 4-H camps are
accredited by the American Camp Association which includes standards related to facilities.

No evidence was found raising concerns about the size and condition of the agricultural research
farms. As one Associate Dean of the College of Agriculture stated, 'Kentucky has more support
for its agriculture and extension services than some other comparable states; thus more financial
support for facilities.'

For the past few years, the county extension service offices have been constructing four to five
new office buildings annually. These new buildings are replacing inadequate spaces that had been
made available to the extension offices for free.
Summary
The 2002 accreditation reaffirmation brought forth a SACS recommendation that the institution
continue to seek methods of providing adequate space. Suggestions were made related to library space,
renovating or replacing deficient space, and deferred maintenance projects. The evidence delineated above
demonstrates considerable effort and progress on the part of the institution to operate and maintain its
facilities responsibly in order to serve the needs of its programs and to support its mission. Of special note
is the new computerized maintenance management system; progress in the past five years in providing
additional space, even in ways non-traditional to this institution; construction of additional research space
continuing as a priority in capital planning; library renovation and consolidation projects; projects to
upgrade deficient spaces; and completion of the facility condition assessment that increased awareness of
deferred maintenance needs both within the institution and at the state government level.
7. The institution identifies expected outcomes, assesses the extent to which it achieves these outcomes,
and provides evidence of improvement based on analysis of the results in the following area:
3.3.1.1 educational programs, to include student learning outcomes
(Comprehensive Standard 3.3.1)
__X___ Compliance
____ Non-Compliance
Narrative:
The University of Kentucky is in compliance with Comprehensive Standard 3.3.1. The
University’s overall approach to institutional effectiveness is articulated within the University of Kentucky
Administrative Regulations, and specifically, in section AR II-1.0-6, The Planning, Budgeting, and
Assessment Cycle. This document outlines the comprehensive and integrated process through which the
University both effectively and efficiently allocates resources and documents the University’s success in
fulfilling its stated mission. Moreover, Part 4: Assessment on page 10 sets forth the basic tenet that the
“university and its units shall demonstrate an explicit use of assessment results to facilitate resource
allocation and budgeting decisions in support of their strategic plans and to ensure quality enhancement,”
and explicitly deals with the processes and procedures used to monitor the university’s effectiveness in this
effort. Thus at UK, assessment functions as one method through which educational and administrative units
engage in evidence-driven decision making and quality enhancement.
The Planning, Budgeting and Assessment Cycle
Continuous assessment and improvement is carried out in educational and administrative units
chiefly through three integrated processes: 1) strategic planning, 2) budgeting, and 3) program review,
which includes both periodic review and annual progress reports. Every educational and administrative unit
establishes a strategic plan that aligns with the University’s strategic plan and includes unit mission, goals,
strategies, and outcomes. Educational units also establish program and student learning outcomes at the
degree program level. Strategic plans and results of program reviews facilitate data-driven decision-making
during the annual operating budget development process. The link between program review and unit
strategic planning, budgeting, and further assessment activities is reinforced by the concomitant Annual
Progress Report process (see Part 4. II.E.4, p. 15). This process has been fully implemented and is
operating in a robust fashion at the University, as illustrated by the select samples of recently completed
Annual Progress Reports presented below.
Evidence of Compliance for Educational Programs
In 1999 the University established its Strategic Planning and Reporting System (SPRS) to provide
a means for systematically collecting and reviewing Annual Progress Reports. Educational units use the
system to report results of strategic planning and student learning assessment activities. In 1999 a total of
160 educational and administrative unit reports were submitted in the first SPRS reporting cycle; in 2002 –
the year of SACS reaffirmation – 373 reports were submitted; and in 2008, 190 were submitted. From the
unit perspective, the need to provide documentation of ongoing planning and assessment efforts became
less salient over time, and therefore, participation diminished. In April 2008 Provost Subbaswamy called
for a renewed focus in following through with institutional effectiveness activities, and in January 2009, the
Provost’s Learning Initiative was implemented. The Learning Initiative recognizes that assessment
activities in some units have waned over time, and it establishes a schedule for renewed effort and
enhanced oversight. It also recognizes that other units have continually implemented ongoing improvement
cycles and do not need additional oversight. In fact, over time, some educational units have developed their
own unit-level assessment systems to support accreditation reviews in addition to the University’s planning
and assessment activities. The evidence presented here will draw from both types of reporting systems:
1.
A representative sample of the assessment information included in the Annual Progress Reports is
presented below to provide a snapshot of the range of recent assessment and improvement
activities occurring across colleges and disciplines at the University of Kentucky. The full texts of
these unit Annual Progress Reports are also presented.
2.
Following the selected examples, a close analysis of an exemplary college assessment system in
UK’s College of Education is presented. The College’s assessment system, processes, and
procedures are serving as models for other colleges that may choose to develop their own
assessment systems.
Representative Examples
Anthropology
Student Learning Assessment
Annual Progress Report
Communication Sci & Disorders
Student Learning Assessment
Annual Progress Report
Computer Science
Student Learning Assessment
Annual Progress Report
Economics
Student Learning Assessment
Annual Progress Report (NA)
English
Student Learning Assessment
Annual Progress Report
Forestry
Student Learning Assessment
Annual Progress Report
Geography
Student Learning Assessment
Annual Progress Report
Geological Science
Student Learning Assessment
Annual Progress Report
History
Student Learning Assessment
Annual Progress Report
Mechanical Engineering
Student Learning Assessment
Annual Progress Report
Philosophy
Student Learning Assessment
Annual Progress Report
Physical Therapy
Student Learning Assessment
Annual Progress Report
Psychology
Student Learning Assessment
Annual Progress Report
Pharmacy
Student Learning Assessment
Annual Progress Report
College of Education Example
The University of Kentucky’s College of Education (COE) has developed an exemplary
continuous quality improvement process through which it engages in ongoing, college-wide assessment and
improvement of student learning and program effectiveness, at both the undergraduate and graduate levels.
In general, COE faculty (1) use student learning data to measure the ongoing progress of individual
students within programs, and (2) use aggregate student learning data to assess and improve at the program
level. To ensure that data collection, analysis, dissemination, and use is as efficient as possible, COE
recently developed and fully implemented an in-house unit assessment system, the Continuous Assessment
Record (CAR), which all NCATE-accredited COE programs use to collect and maintain student data at
program admission, retention, and exit transition points. In addition, appropriate college and institutional
effectiveness data such as (in the case of the undergraduate Elementary Education program) GPA,
admissions test scores, student teaching evaluations, and PRAXIS II examination pass rates, are fed into the
unit comprehensive data system for continuous program review and analysis purposes. All COE program
reviews are prepared as online documents in this database, which was designed to meet NCATE reporting
requirements and also meets the program review criteria established in AR II-1.0-6. The database includes
all basic components of institutional effectiveness. For example, the following information is presented for
the Elementary Education (P-5) program:
1.
Student learning outcomes are presented in the Conceptual Framework
2.
Methods of assessment are described in Continuous Assessment
3.
Actual results are provided in Data Tables
4.
Use of results to improve is described in Use of Data.
In colleges of education generally, ‘student learning outcomes’ constitute complex webs of
standards, skills, and dispositions which emerge from state and accreditation mandates, requirements of
national boards and professional organizations, and internal college principles. UK’s College of Education
is no different, except perhaps in the fact that this intricate network is knit together within COE’s
conceptual framework, “Research, Reflection, Learning, Leading.” To best illustrate how outcomes are
linked to assessment methods and how the resulting data are utilized for continuous improvement within
UK’s College of Education, the Elementary Education program’s assessment process/plan is summarized in
the table below. The Elementary Education program is housed within the Professional Education Unit, and
as such, is subject to the unit’s fully implemented continuous assessment plan, which employs mixed
methods (i.e., both direct and indirect assessments) across the learning experience.
Learning Outcomes Assessed

NCATE’s ACEI Elementary
Education standards

Kentucky New Teacher
standards

COE Functional skills and
dispositions

COE Technology skills
Assessment & Improvement
Elementary Education Program
UK College of Education
Assessment Instruments / Methods /
Approaches Employed
Admissions Assessment Point:

individual candidate interviews

applications

Admissions Portfolio materials

on-demand written responses
Professional Block / Professional
Introduction Semester Assessment
Point:

Professional Introduction
Portfolio artifacts

Candidate teaching video and
self-analysis

Candidate Professional
Development Plans

Continuous Assessment form
ratings from:
o methods professors
o practicum instructors
o performance on course
assignments
o formal written feedback
from cooperating teachers
and university supervisors
related to field experiences
Student Teaching Semester
assessment point:

Observation reports
Results and Improvement Actions
Taken

Replacement of the language arts
portfolio with the professional
portfolio in the Professional
Introduction semester

Implementation of consistent
lesson planning format across all
professional semesters

Examination of lesson plans by
course professors for content and
form

Systematic variation in field
placements as teacher candidates
move through the program

2004-2005 Redesign of
Elementary Education Program
(full implementation in fall 2007)
to accommodate:
o 2+2 articulation agreement
with Kentucky community
colleges
o Graduation agreement
initiative at the institutional
level to ensure candidates
have the opportunity to
complete the program
within four years




Thematic unit development
materials
Candidate written self-critiques
of teaching (using videotapes)
Professional Introduction
Portfolio artifacts
Continuous Assessment form
ratings from:
o course performance
o formal written feedback
from cooperating teachers
and university supervisors
related to field experiences
8. The institution evaluates success with respect to student achievement including, as appropriate, consideration of
course completion, State licensing examination, and job placement rates. (Federal Requirement 4.1)
__X_ Compliance
___ Non-Compliance
Narrative:
The University of Kentucky is in compliance with Federal Requirement 4.1. The University evaluates its
effectiveness in promoting student achievement on a variety of performance indicators, including: course grade
distributions, retention and graduation rates, job placement rates, and performance on licensure examinations. This
information is used by the University and its educational units in ongoing planning and assessment activities that
inform improvement efforts. Evidence of each is presented briefly below.
Course Grade Distributions
Each semester the University produces a grade distribution report (see Agriculture example) for each
course section offered during the semester. This report shows the number of students earning each type of grade
assigned, including completing the course unsatisfactorily (D), failing the course (E), or withdrawing from the
course (W). The University analyzes the three grades together – referred to as the “DEW rate” – to identify those
courses where students appear to have the most difficulty completing them successfully. This information is used to
implement curricular improvements to enhance student learning (see Chemistry example) and to determine the
greatest academic needs of students in developing tutoring programs such as those in The Study and the
Mathskellar.
Retention and Graduation Rates
The University annually tracks the retention and graduation rate progress of first-time, full-time
undergraduates at the university level and college level, as well as for different demographic groups. The graph
below depicts the fall-to-fall retention rate of first-time students for the last 10 cohorts. Retention rates ranged from
76.4 percent to a preliminary rate of 81.0 percent for the fall 2007 cohort. The University uses this information to
inform efforts to improve the undergraduate experience and to increase the number of bachelor degrees awarded. As
a result of the downward trend reflected in the retention rate data in 2006-07, the Provost declared “War on
Attrition” and implemented a number of aggressive, proactive, high-touch communication and support strategies
aimed toward ensuring that first-year students receive the attention needed to promote a successful transition to
university life. The most recent record-high retention rate of 81 percent is a result of these efforts.
First-to-Second Year Overall Retention Rate
82.0
81.0
81.0
80.4
80.0
79.3
78.9
79.0
78.0
78.8
78.4
77.8
77.7
77.0
77.1
76.0
76.4
75.0
74.0
98-99 99-00 00-01 01-02 02-03 03-04 04-05 05-06 06-07 07-08
Fall Cohort
The next graph charts six-year graduation rates over the past decade. Graduation rates ranged from 53.0 percent to a
new record high of 61.4 percent before falling to 57.5 percent for the 2002 cohort. Similar to new strategies
implemented to promote retention, the University is also monitoring the academic performance of each student
making up the graduation cohorts in order to intervene at key points to help students graduate in a timely fashion.
Additional Education and Employment
The University of Kentucky follows up on its former students by administering undergraduate and graduate
alumni surveys in odd-numbered years. The surveys are sent to every student who graduated two years earlier.
Items on both surveys ask students to report their educational plans, employment status (i.e., full- or part-time,
unemployed, etc.), and the extent to which their position is related to their major. Survey results are analyzed by
college (for both undergraduate and graduate alumni) and used to support the program review process. The results
presented below on employment status were compiled from undergraduate and graduate alumni surveys
administered in 2003, 2005 and 2007. Since the item assessing graduates’ pursuit of additional education was reworded in 2005, related findings are presented only for the 2005 and 2007 undergraduate alumni surveys.
Pursuit of Additional Education

The percent of undergraduate alumni who indicated they had enrolled at a college or university
since earning their undergraduate degree at UK ranged from 32.9 to 36.8 percent.

Of those undergraduate alumni who reported enrolling at a college or university after graduation…
o
76.1 to 77.6 percent indicated they had achieved or were pursuing a master’s, specialist
or doctoral degree.
o
5.7 to 8.8 percent indicated they had achieved or were pursuing a first-professional
degree.
Full-time Employment Status

The percent of undergraduate alumni who reported they were working at a full-time position
ranged from 76.1 to 78.8 percent on the surveys administered in 2003, 2005, and 2007.

The percent of graduate alumni who indicated they held full-time jobs ranged from 80.5 to 85.9
percent on the three most recent surveys.
Employment Related to One’s Major

The percent of undergraduate alumni who indicated their job was either somewhat or directly
related to their major ranged from 45.2 to 49.5 percent on the last three survey administrations.

The percent of graduate alumni who reported their current position was either somewhat or
directly related to their graduate major ranged from 77.7 percent to 80.8 percent.
Pass Rates on Professional Licensure Exams
A key indicator of the effectiveness of training students in professional programs is their performance on
professional licensure exams. The University submits an annual report to the Council on Postsecondary Education
(CPE) on selected licensure exam results. The educational units (see Physician Assistant example) collect this
information and use it to monitor and improve the effectiveness of the curriculum. As examples, the percent of
students who passed their licensure exam on the first attempt is reported below for several programs:
Law: Students from the College of Law take the Kentucky Bar Exam upon graduation. Pass rates ranged
from 83 percent to 90 percent for exams administered during the last five fiscal years.
Pharmacy: Students in the pharmacy program take the North American Pharmacists Exam after
graduation. Pass rates on this exam for the past five years ranged from 99 percent to 100 percent.
Dentistry: Graduates from the University’s dental school sit for the National Dental Board Exam, Part 2.
Pass rates for the last five years ranged from 92 percent to 100 percent.
Medicine: Students take the U.S. Medical Licensure Exam, Pt. 2 after completing their training in medical
school. Pass rates for the five most recent graduating classes ranged from 89 percent to 99 percent.
Nursing: Graduates from the baccalaureate nursing program sit for the National Council Licensure
Examination before they can become licensed as a Registered Nurse. For the past five years, pass rates
have ranged from 94 percent to 99 percent.
Health Sciences:

Students who earn a master’s degree in Communication Disorders take the PRAXIS exam. Pass rates
have ranged from 88 percent to 100 percent over the last five years.

Graduates of the master’s level program in Physician Assistant Studies must pass the National
Commission on Certification of Physician Assistants exam before they are eligible for a license. For
the last five years, pass rates for graduates of this program have ranged from 88 percent to 94 percent.

Master’s degree recipients in Physical Therapy take the National Physical Therapy exam upon
completion of their program. Pass rates have ranged from 74 percent to 90 percent during the last five
years.
9. The institution’s curriculum is directly related and appropriate to the purpose and goals of the institution and the
diplomas, certificates, or degrees awarded. (Federal Requirement 4.2)
_X__ Compliance
___ Non-Compliance
Narrative:
The University of Kentucky is in compliance with Federal Requirement 4.2. A comprehensive curriculum
approval process ensures that program curricula at all levels are directly related and appropriate to the University’s
mission and goals. As noted in the narrative for Comprehensive Standard 3.4.3, the University of Kentucky works
with the Council on Postsecondary Education (CPE) to provide approved programs at the baccalaureate, master’s,
specialist, and doctoral levels as well as professional programs in law, medicine, dentistry, pharmacy, education,
architecture, engineering, and social professions. As such, UK maintains a comprehensive degree program mix and
offers 129 baccalaureate programs, 116 master's and specialist programs, 70 doctoral programs, and four firstprofessional programs. A review of the UK Degree Program Inventory reveals strong alignment between degree
program offerings and the purpose for which UK was established as stated in Kentucky Revised Statute (KRS)
164.125. Basic components of approval processes designed to ensure alignment with UK mission and goals are
described briefly below.
Overview of the University Curriculum Approval Process
The curriculum of the University is reviewed for academic rigor and appropriateness through a curricular
proposal approval process administered by the faculty governance system – the University Senate. This process
governs the creation of new programs as well as changes to existing programs and courses. Standard forms collect
relevant information to support the review and approval process. Program curriculum proposals are generated by the
program/department faculty, approved by the college curriculum committee (or a committee of the whole faculty in
small colleges), approved by the dean of the college, and then forwarded as appropriate to the Graduate Council, the
Undergraduate Council, and/or the Health Care Colleges Council (with the exception of the College of Law which
forwards proposals directly to the University Senate Council). These councils are comprised of members elected by
the faculty (see Comprehensive Standard 3.4.11 addressed in #4 above). After approval by these councils,
curriculum is approved by the Senate Council and the University Senate. In the special case of creating new degree
programs (see below), the Provost must submit a statement of administrative feasibility (see recent PhD and BS
examples) prior to final approval by the University Senate and the Board of Trustees. Also, by statute (KRS
164.020) the Council on Postsecondary Education has final approval authority for all new degree programs (see
below). Curriculum proposals are available for viewing by all parties during the proposal process.
Special Case of New Degree Programs
Proposals for new degree programs must receive approval for internal development from the Council on
Postsecondary Education (CPE), which has statutory authority to administer academic policy governing program
offerings. Current CPE policy grants the Board of Trustees final approval authority for a comprehensive range of
programs – referred to as the “program band” – that has been agreed upon as falling clearly within the scope of
UK’s mission and goals. For those program proposals that fall outside the program band due to concerns about
duplication, collaboration, and financial constraints, CPE grants final approval after the Board of Trustees approval.
The program bands were established by CPE in collaboration with UK and with other state institutions to promote
collaboration, reduce duplication, and ensure strong alignment between curriculum offerings and the purpose of
each institution in fulfilling the educational needs of the Commonwealth of Kentucky.
The first step in the CPE approval process is participation in the Kentucky Postsecondary Program Proposal
System (KPPPS), a web-based system through which institutions give notification of their intention to offer a new
academic program by posting for public viewing critical information about the proposed program. When a proposal
is posted on KPPPS, other higher education institutions in Kentucky have 45 days in which to voice any comments
or concerns as to overlap, academic rigor, and appropriateness to institutional mission. Once the 45-day review
period has ended:
 If all concerns are not addressed, the institution must revise or withdraw its proposal.
 If the institution has addressed all concerns and the proposed program is within its program band, CPE
grants approval for the institution to complete its internal program approval process and implement the
program.
 If the institution has addressed all concerns and the proposed program is outside the program band, the
institution must submit a more detailed proposal for further CPE review and action following the
proposal’s approval by the Board of Trustees. This additional CPE review is based on completion of a
CPE form that answers "Five Questions" about the mission, goals, and impact of the proposed degree
program on the Commonwealth of Kentucky.
In coordination with the CPE program approval process, the University Senate also requires new degree program
proposals to complete a Request for a New Program form that includes CPE’s “Five Questions” about mission,
goals and impact. Completion of this form ensures that all parties who have review and approval responsibilities
will also have available the information necessary to render an approval decision that is grounded in the purpose
and goals of UK.
10. The institution makes available to students and the public current academic calendars, grading policies, and
refund policies. (Federal Requirement 4.3)
__X_ Compliance
___ Non-Compliance
Narrative:
The University of Kentucky is in compliance with Federal Requirement 4.3. The University makes
available to students and the public information on academic calendars, grading policies, and refund policies through
extensive use of university and unit websites. In some cases, such information may also be available in printed form;
in all cases, such information can be printed from websites and delivered directly to those who may request it.
Additionally, specific emails are sent via university communication systems to currently enrolled UK students
reminding them about upcoming important dates, such as the last day to withdraw from a class for a given semester,
priority registration, degree application deadlines, and other important dates. A brief explanation of each type of
information and supporting documentation follows.
Academic Calendars
As permitted by calendar policies established in the University Senate Rules, Section 2.1.1, the University
maintains several Academic Calendars to support the scheduling and program delivery sequences of a broad array of
undergraduate, graduate and first-professional programs. The calendars are available to students and the public in
several ways:
 Each Academic Calendar is approved by the University Senate and then presented clearly on the website of the
Office of the Registrar.
 Currently enrolled UK students also have access to the Academic Calendars from the password-protected myUK
portal with a direct link from the myRecords tab. The Academic Calendar link takes the student directly to the
information maintained on the Registrar’s site and displays all approved Academic Calendars.
 A search from the UK home page on the term “academic calendar” produces a list of available choices; the UK
Academic Calendar is near the top of the list of matches returned.
 The Academic Calendar for the current year is published as part of the UK Bulletin (Catalog). This publication
is no longer offered in printed format; however, the current and historical versions are available online in a
searchable format as well as a pdf version. New undergraduate students are notified at their advising conference
about how to use the On-line Bulletin.
 The Academic Calendar is included for the current year in the Schedule of Classes. This publication is no longer
offered in printed format; however, it is available online and in a pdf version from the University Registrar’s
website. New undergraduate students are notified at their advising conference about how to use the online
Schedule of Classes (see page 3).
 The Graduate Bulletin (see page 7) contains a calendar that provides important dates pertaining to graduate
admission, registration, graduation and funding. Multiple references are made on the Graduate School homepage to the link to the more extensive university-wide Academic Calendar published by the Office of the
Registrar.
 Three first-professional colleges with Academic Calendars distinct from the general university calendar also
maintain availability on their college-level websites: Dentistry, Law, Medicine.
Grading Policies
Grading policies at the University of Kentucky are approved by the University Senate and are available to
students and the public in Section 5.1, Grading Systems, of the University Senate Rules, which are posted on the
University Senate website. To ensure visibility and access, the grading policies are also available as follows:
 The general grading policy is available on page 64 of the University’s undergraduate On-line Bulletin, which is
maintained by the Office of the Registrar.
 The general grading policy is available on page 37 of the Graduate School Bulletin, which provides additional
explanatory details specific to graduate education.
 In section 6.1 of the University Senate Rules, it is further stated that students will have access to grading policy
as part of the syllabus (see example) for each course: Students have the right to expect the course to correspond
generally to the description in the official Bulletin of the University of Kentucky and the right to be informed in
writing (in the course syllabus) at the first class meeting about the nature of the course--the content, the
activities to be evaluated, and the grading practice to be followed.
 Exemptions to the general grading policy have been made for certain programs based on unique needs and are
available in section 5.1 of the Senate Rules on the University Senate website noted above. In some cases, such
policies are also available on the website of the college or program for which the exemption was made. For
example, see page 32 of the bulletin for Dentistry.
Refund Policies
The Official Fee Refund and Liability/Reassessment Policy is available to students and the public on the
University Registrar’s website, and it applies to undergraduate, graduate and first-professional students. The policy
dates for which students may receive refunds are also embedded in the general Academic Calendar, College of Law
Academic Calendar, and College of Medicine Academic Calendar. In addition, UK students must electronically
accept the Student Statement of Obligation which outlines the financial obligation a student is making when
registering for classes. The Statement must be accepted prior to registering for classes each semester. Students who
do not “accept” the Student Statement of Obligation are not permitted to register for classes. A record of the
student’s acceptance is stored in the student’s record. The refund information and dates are also provided on page 22
of the online UK Schedule of Classes each semester.
Over the past several years, the University has implemented programs, such as the 11-month cohort MBA
program, that do not operate on the regular university calendar, and therefore, the method used to calculate refund
amounts may not be clear and explicit to students and the public. Additionally, the University has implemented a
number of individual program fees for which refund policies were not as comprehensive and clear as needed.
Clarifications related to the existing policies were developed during 2008-09 and are scheduled for formal approval
in April and for publication and implementation as follows:
 Tuition Appeal Procedures and Policy – Effective Upon Approval
 Tuition and Fee Policy Proposal PharmD and Summer Charges – Effective Upon Approval
 Tuition and Fee Policy Proposal for Program Fees – Effective Fall 2009
 Annualized Tuition Refund Policy – Effective Fall 2009
Finally, the Campus Housing Refund Policy for undergraduate residence halls is available to students and the
public in the Policies section (under C for Cancellation Request of Housing Application) of the Campus Housing
website. The Official Date of Cancellation is defined, and a cancellation schedule is presented for both the fall and
spring semesters. This schedule provides for a pro-rated refund based on the time by which a housing application is
cancelled.
11. Program length is appropriate for each of the institution’s educational programs. (Federal Requirement 4.4)
__X_ Compliance
___ Non-Compliance
Narrative:
The University of Kentucky is in compliance with Federal Requirement 4.4. The University offers degree
programs at the undergraduate, graduate and first-professional levels. For each level, program length is determined
based on minimum credit hour requirements established by SACS standards, expectations mandated by specific
program accrediting agencies, and the professional judgment of faculty members who are qualified within their
fields and who have responsibility to develop, approve, deliver, review, and modify program curricula.
Undergraduate Programs
The minimum number of credit hours to be completed for an undergraduate degree is 120 credit hours. This
assumes a schedule of 15 credit hours per term for eight terms. This standard is common practice at most U.S.
undergraduate institutions. Program faculty may establish standards for graduation that exceed the minimum
number of hours and this occurs most frequently in programs accredited by an external accrediting agency, such as
the College of Engineering where undergraduate degree programs must meet the accrediting standards of the
Accreditation Board of Engineering and Technology/Engineering Accreditation Commission (ABET/EAC). The UK
Inventory of Degree Programs shows that the minimum number of credit hours required for bachelor degree
completion ranges from 120 to 148, as follows:
 Programs requiring 120 credit hours: 84
 Programs requiring 128 credit hours: 36 (primarily in Agriculture, Education and Engineering)
 Programs requiring 131- 134 credit hours: 7 (in Agriculture, Engineering, Interior Design, and Nursing)
 Programs requiring 145-148 credit hours: 2 (Landscape Architecture, which is a five-year program, and
Architecture, for which the bachelor degree is awarded as part of a 4+2 program leading to the master’s
degree)
Specific course requirements for each academic program are available to students and the public on the major sheets
presented in the undergraduate Bulletin.
Graduate Programs
Requirements for completion of graduate degrees vary based on previous academic work of the student and
different models for degree completion. The minimum number of credit hours required for completion of the
master’s degree is 30. Master’s degrees may be completed by two models: 1) Plan A requires completion of at least
24 credit hours plus a thesis which is equivalent to six credit hours; and 2) Plan B requires completion of at least 30
credit hours of course work. Doctoral degrees require completion of 18 credit hours plus an earned master’s in the
discipline or completion of 36 credit hours without a master’s degree. For both the master’s and doctoral degrees,
the program faculty determines if more hours are required for degree completion within the discipline. Approvals for
degree length require review and agreement from the following university governing bodies: 1) the program faculty
in each college, 2) the graduate faculty representatives to the Graduate Council, and 3) the University Senate. Health
care degrees have an extra stage of review and must also be approved by the Health Care College Council before
review by the Graduate Council and the University Senate. Finally, requirements for the master’s or doctoral degree
must be completed within specified time limits. A maximum of 10 years is allowed for the master’s degree and 18
for the doctoral degree, counting all possible time extensions.
Masters and Specialist Programs. As depicted on page 5 in Part II, Programs, Certificates and Courses, of
the Graduate School Bulletin, course requirement options for the masters and specialist degrees range from 24 credit
hours plus a thesis to 100 credit hours with no thesis for the Master of Science in Physician Assistant Studies, as
follows:
 Program options requiring 24 credit hours plus the thesis: 43
 Program options requiring 25-40 credit hours plus the thesis: 25
 Program options requiring 30 credit hours: 50
 Program options requiring 31-36 credit hours: 26
 Program options requiring >36 credit hours: 13
The four highest of the 13 options requiring greater than 36 credit hours include: Master of Architecture (57),
Master of Fine Arts (60), Master of Social Work (60), and Master of Science in Physician Assistant Studies (100).
The Master of Fine Arts is the terminal degree in the field, and the number of credit hours required is consistent with
common practice for attaining this level of academic achievement. In the case of the Master of Social Work, this
option is for those students who have not earned the Bachelor of Social Work. Both the Architecture and Physician
Assistant Studies programs are accredited, and the degree requirements reflect current expectations for maintaining
accreditation standards and a curriculum that leads to professional licensure/registration necessary for practice in the
field.
Doctoral Programs. Doctoral program offerings and their required residence model and foreign languages
are depicted beginning on page 3 in Part II, Programs, Certificates and Courses, of the Graduate School Bulletin.
The credit hours requirements vary across the disciplines, and a description of each and/or a reference to additional
sources of information are available on pages 9 through 344. Excerpts of doctoral program requirements from this
extensive inventory of graduate programs and their requirements are presented below:
Anthropology
Curriculum and Instruction
Public Administration
First-professional Programs
The University offers four first-professional programs: Dentistry, Law, Medicine, and Pharmacy. Each of these
programs meets rigorous program accreditation standards that include program length requirements, such as the
accreditation standard below from the Accreditation Council for Pharmacy Education:
The curriculum for the professional portion of the degree program must be a minimum of four
academic years or the equivalent number of hours or credits. The curriculum must include
didactic course work to provide the desired scientific foundation, introductory pharmacy
practice experiences (not less than 5% of the curricular length) and advanced pharmacy
practice experiences (not less than 25% of the curricular length).
Additional information on program length for the first-professional programs is available as follows:
College of Dentistry Requirements on page 27 of Bulletin
College of Law General Requirements
College of Medicine Requirements on page 8 of Bulletin
College of Pharmacy Requirements on page 10 of Bulletin
12. The institution has adequate procedures for addressing written student complaints and is responsible for
demonstrating that it follows those procedures when resolving student complaints. (Federal Requirement 4.5)
_X__ Compliance
___ Non-Compliance
Narrative:
The University of Kentucky is in compliance with Federal Requirement 4.5. UK maintains a governing
regulation on Student Affairs that includes on page two a section on student-university relationships. This regulation
sets forth the Student Rights and Responsibilities code as the official source for articulating the non-academic and
academic relationships between the University and its students; it further describes the jurisdiction and composition
of the University Appeals Board (UAB) for which procedures are those prescribed in Student Rights and
Responsibilities. The University provides several venues to students for having written complaints addressed as
described in this publication, which elaborates on the relationship between the University and its students and
describes the rights, responsibilities, and expectations of all parties when conflicts arise.
Non-academic relationships between the University and all its students, including those enrolled in health
related colleges, distance learning, and continuing education, are covered in Part I of Student Rights and
Responsibilities, which was adopted by the University of Kentucky Board of Trustees and may be amended only by
that body. The code in Part I provides procedures for students to report grievances involving their rights and to have
those grievances addressed. A brief case study and annual reports of student discipline cases are provided as
evidence of the effectiveness of these procedures. The “other” cases in the Referral Source tables of the annual
reports include the cases of student grievances. Two additional sets of procedures regarding student rights and
grievance procedures are expanded upon below:

Students who claim or suspect sexual harassment or violence are encouraged to contact the Violence
Intervention and Prevention (VIP) Center. The UK Board of Trustees recently approved an updated Policy on
Discrimination and Harassment (AR II-1.1-9), which provides procedures for handling reports of such actions.
In addition to the policy, the University has also recently adopted interim guidelines to address sexual assault,
stalking, and relationship violence cases. These guidelines are presently under review and will be brought
before the Board of Trustees for final adoption. They offer the University additional guidance in managing
these complex cases and provide additional clarity to students as to their rights and protections in these cases.

The University recently adopted a new Health Care Colleges Code of Student Professional Conduct. This new
code was reviewed by the University Senate and approved by the UK Board of Trustees. The code addresses the
unique needs of health care related colleges and consists of the usual safeguards intended to protect the rights of
affected students while providing a mechanism for those colleges to maintain a high level of professional
conduct. As implied, this code only covers non-academic offenses while academic offenses (such as cheating
and plagiarism) will continue to be handled as described in Student Rights and Responsibilities.
Academic relationships between the University and its students are described in Part II of Student Rights
and Responsibilities. The code in Part II includes selected faculty senate rules that have been adopted by the
University Senate and may be amended only by that body. Resolution of issues that students have with University
academic or support units begins at the level closest to the source of the problem (e.g., a course director, department
chairperson, program coordinators or director), and moves upward in the organization until the request, complaint,
or appeal is either resolved satisfactorily or has run its course and no more appeals are allowed. The Academic
Ombud Office is an important part of issue resolution. Academic issues not resolved within the unit where the
problem exists may be referred to the Ombud for mediation. While in mediation, strict confidentiality is promised to
the students and maintained by the Ombud. In the event that the issue remains unresolved, the case will go to the
University Appeals Board (UAB), composed of faculty and students (see page 19 of Committee Assignments for
2008-09), for final consideration. Additional detail governing this process is provided on page 175 of the University
Senate Rules. By the authority given by the Board of Trustees, the UAB has final and appellate and original
jurisdiction over all penalties given to students as a result of academic offenses and academic relations. The UAB
chair submits an annual report to the President (see reports for 05-06, 06-07, and 07-08).
Although the Ombud is concerned primarily with academic issues, s/he serves as a triage agent by referring
non-academic problems to other parts of the University, such as the associate provosts, dean of students, college
deans, the registrar, or affirmative action officer, most appropriate to resolve them. The Academic Ombud regularly
sends notices to the entire faculty reminding them of students’ rights and their responsibilities and also publishes
Important Academic Reminders for Faculty on the Ombud website. For example, instructors are reminded to include
in their syllabi a note that alerts students to the existence of the Office of Academic Ombud Services, and for
example, specifically directs students who suspect they might have learning disabilities to the Disability Resource
Center. The Academic Ombud’s role is described on page 162 in Section VI, Academic Affairs, of the University
Senate Rules. The Academic Ombud reports directly to the President of the University and also provides an annual
report to the University Senate on the nature of students’ complaints.
13. Recruitment materials and presentations accurately represent the institution’s practices and policies. (Federal
Requirement 4.6.
_X__ Compliance
___ Non-Compliance
Narrative:
The University of Kentucky is in compliance with Federal Requirement 4.6. A review of recruitment
materials and presentations, including websites, at the undergraduate, graduate and first-professional levels revealed
high quality, informative materials that focus on admissions policies and procedures, available degree programs, and
student support programs and services. Results of surveys of enrolled students showed high levels of agreement that
recruitment materials and presentations are accurate. Additional detail is provided below.
Undergraduate
The Office of Undergraduate Admission & University Registrar is responsible for coordination of
undergraduate recruitment materials and presentations. Most pieces or events focus on new freshmen coming to the
University of Kentucky; similar efforts are directed toward transfer students. In addition to the Prospective Students
webpage, major pieces or events are:
 Freshman, Sophomore, Junior mailing: This publication is mailed directly to all current Freshmen-, Sophomoreand Junior-level prospective students. The piece highlights a path to college readiness beginning in the
sophomore year of high school and continuing through the spring semester of the senior year in high school.
The Kentucky Pre-College Curriculum is provided in addition to information about scheduling a campus visit.
 Lead Piece: This publication is mailed to all senior-level prospective students along with an application for
admission to the University of Kentucky. This piece highlights opportunities on campus such as UK 101, the
Discovery Seminar Program, eUreKa! (Undergraduate Research Program), Mathskellar, The Study, the Honors
Program, National Student Exchange, Education Abroad, and more. An application checklist, cost of
attendance, and Scholarship/Financial Aid sections are included. Also included are the undergraduate majors and
professional programs and tracks as well as a list of the professional colleges.
 View Book: This publication is mailed directly to all senior-level prospective students; it is distributed at the
Visitor Center and the Office of Undergraduate Admission & University Registrar; and it is mailed to
prospective students who inquire about the University. It includes an application for admission; a list of
undergraduate majors; personal testimonials from current UK students; the Kentucky Pre-College Curriculum;
an application checklist; information on tuition, financial aid, and scholarships; transfer student information;
international student information; housing information and an application for UK Housing; and more. The
admission policies are also stated in the publication.
 See Blue Preview Nights: Prospective junior-level and senior-level students from across the state of Kentucky
are invited to attend one of the 10 See Blue Preview Nights in or near their hometown. This program literally
takes the University of Kentucky out on the road. Representatives from Undergraduate Admission, Student
Financial Aid, Academic Scholarship Office, and most of the academic colleges attend. The event is organized
with a “college fair” type environment allowing students and parents to visit areas of interest. Admission
requirements and standards are covered in the presentation.
 Transfer Student Events and Information: Events similar to the See Blue Preview Nights are held for prospective
transfer students. These are often referred to as “Transfer Days.” Representatives from the Office of
Undergraduate Admission, Financial Aid, Academic Scholarships, and the academic colleges go to various
locations across the state including the institutions in the Kentucky Community and Technical College System
(KCTCS) to inform students about the admission process, cost of attendance, and scholarship opportunities.
Survey on UK’s Undergraduate Recruitment Information
An online survey on the University’s undergraduate recruitment information was conducted in
Spring 2009. A total of 1,790 first-year students and first-time students who had transferred as
freshmen or sophomores were invited to respond to the brief questionnaire. Students were sent
two reminders to complete the web-based survey. The response rate for the survey was 17.3
percent, and the margin of error was approximately plus or minus 5 percent. The results
revealed that:







Nearly 9 of 10 students (88.4%) agreed or strongly agreed “The information describing
the admission process to UK was factual.”
Two-thirds (65.1%) agreed or strongly agreed “the information on financial aid and
scholarship opportunities was accurate.”
(68.3%) agreed or strongly agreed “The photographs and student experiences
provided in the publication are representative of what students can expect to find at
UK.”
Three-quarters of the students (77.0%) agreed or strongly agreed “The statistics
mentioned in the publication (e.g., student to faculty ratio, enrollment, cost of
attendance) appear to be correct.”
Seven in 10 students agreed or strongly agreed (70.9%) “The Undergraduate
Admissions website offers a comprehensive set of information on how to apply and
finance your education at UK.”
One-quarter (27.5%) of the students agreed or strongly agreed “The publication
influenced my decision to attend UK.”
Eight of 10 students (80.9%) agreed or strongly agreed “In general, UK’s recruitment
information accurately describes the University’s policies and procedures.”
Graduate and First-professional
The University of Kentucky has been educating graduate students since 1870 and has sought to “prepare
independent scholars capable of research, insightful scholarship and professional practice that expand the borders of
knowledge and deepen our understanding of the world and ourselves.” To that end the University has purposefully
developed recruitment materials to attract and enroll a diverse, academically qualified student body that can fulfill
the promise of advanced education. Recruitment materials for The Graduate School and the first-professional
schools are college and program specific, and to a great extent, they are web-based. Most follow a path that begins
with a link for “Prospective Students.”
While it is the responsibility of each program to update its materials as appropriate, The Graduate School
completes a systematic review of recruitment materials each June after requests for recruitment funding are
finalized. The review looks at the following criteria: accuracy, target audience relativity, and user-friendliness. A
cursory review of materials is done prior to each fall and spring recruiting season and on an as-needed basis. The
institution has programmed its new enrollment management system to alert appropriate staff to the expiration date of
content materials. Specific materials along with The Graduate School’s program are available to interested students
and are distributed at recruitment fairs and events.
The Graduate School surveyed current graduate students (N=5,514) to ask them if recruitment materials
and presentations accurately represent the institution’s practices and policies. Of 1,167 (21%) responses:
 65 percent agreed or strongly agreed with the statement that “recruitment materials accurately presented what I
found at UK;”
 11 percent disagreed or strongly disagreed with the statement; and
 23 percent were unsure and one percent did not respond to the item.
Additionally, 44 percent agreed or strongly agreed that UK materials compared favorably with other institutions; 10
percent disagreed or strongly disagreed; and the remaining 46 percent were either not sure or did not respond to the
question.
The survey results suggest that few students have experienced a situation in which they found a
discrepancy between how the University portrayed itself and actual practice. Additional feedback from the survey
was instructive and pointed largely to the need for a more easily navigable web-site, which The Graduate School is
working to improve. Many also commented on the fact that they were either “not recruited” or recruited themselves
to the University, possibly accounting for the large percent that did not respond to the item.
In summary, the review of recruitment materials and presentations found them to be accurate and current.
Examples from The Graduate School and first-professional programs include:
Prospective Graduate Students
Graduate Degree Programs
Prospective Dentistry Students
Prospective Law Students
Prospective Medicine Students
Prospective Pharmacy Students
14.
The institution is in compliance with its program responsibilities under Title IV of the 1998 Higher Education
Amendments. (Federal Requirement 4.7) The institution audits financial aid programs as required by federal
and state regulations. (Comprehensive Standard 3.10.3)
_X__ Compliance
___ Non-Compliance
Narrative:
The University of Kentucky is in compliance with Federal Requirement 4.7 and with Comprehensive
Standard 3.10.3. The most recent Eligibility and Certification Approval Report for the University of Kentucky was
issued by the U.S. Department of Education with an action indicated of “Reapprove Elig/Full Cert” and an action
date of 05/09/2007. The current Program Participation Agreement has a reapplication date of December 31, 2012
and an expiration date of March 31, 2013.
To ensure compliance with federal and state regulations in a constantly changing regulatory environment,
staff members in the Office of Student Financial Aid (OSFA) are responsible for keeping abreast of all federal
regulatory changes and identifying necessary modifications in office policies, procedures, computing system
software, and so forth, as a result of the changes. Necessary modifications are then made to ensure proper
administration of federal and state aid programs. The University’s financial aid software vendor, Sigma Systems,
Inc., is responsible for maintaining compliance of the University’s financial aid system software with federal and
state regulations. OSFA staff work closely with the vendor to test and validate all required compliance changes in
the software. OSFA staff members attend federal/state training sessions and professional meetings and participate in
all available U.S. Department of Education, National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators
(NASFAA), and state aid program webinars and conference calls in order to remain current with and understand all
federal/state regulatory changes.
OSFA receives a rigorous and objective evaluation of its administration of the Title IV federal financial aid
programs annually as part of the University’s A-133 Audit by an external auditing firm. Prior to FY08, the annual
A-133 Audit of the federal financial aid programs was conducted by Deloitte and Touché. The FY08 A-133 Audit
was conducted by BKD, LLP. Noncompliance findings, if any, are listed in the final pages of the audit reports. The
A-133 Audits for FY02– FY07 were clean with no significant findings or assessed liabilities. One finding was
identified on page 97 (of the actual document) in the recent FY08 audit. The finding reported that the University did
not debit accounts of some students and credit the applicable Title IV federal aid program accounts within 45 days
of the institution becoming aware the student had withdrawn. The delay in the crediting of the federal funds to the
program accounts was due to late notification by the Registrar’s Office to OSFA of some students’ date of
withdrawal from the University. The notification delay was caused by reporting issues associated with the
University’s recent implementation of new administrative software, including a new student Campus Management
system for student registrations and records. A corrective action plan has been in place since May 2008 and funds
have been returned to the Title IV federal financial aid programs within the prescribed timeframe since that time.
The Kentucky Higher Education Assistance Authority (KHEAA) does not audit the state financial aid
programs on a regularly scheduled basis, although they do have the authority to conduct an audit at any time. The
last KHEAA audit at UK was in the late 1980s. The audit was clean with no significant findings or assessed
liabilities. The U.S. Department of Education (DOE) also does not conduct audits/program reviews on a regularly
scheduled basis. The last DOE program review at UK was in the spring of 1995. All initial findings were resolved
and/or addressed. The University incurred no liabilities as a result of the program review.
Student loan default rates at the University of Kentucky are compliant with Title IV requirements and are
also lower than the national averages. The most recent national average cohort default rate (2006) was 5.2%. The
2006 cohort default rate at the University of Kentucky was 2.5%. UK’s default rates for previous cohorts are as
follows:




2005 – 1.9%
2004 – 2.3%
2003 – 1.8%
2002 – 3.1%