Academic and Admission Standards Committee,
University Senate
Minutes from Meeting on December 8, 2003
Members Present:
 Walter Ferrier, Chair
 Ruth Staten
 Michael Braun
 Jule Gassenheimer
 Tamara Brown
 Richard Jefferies
 Jeff Dembo, Senate Chair
Order of Business:

Jeff Dembo, Chair of the University Senate and Senate Council, reviewed the committee charge and
activities.

Proposals considered:
1. Pharmacy Academic Performance, Progress & Promotion Guidelines
(see Dean Lubawy’s memo/attachment dated June 10, 2003)
The committee was generally in favor of the proposal, but expressed some confusion
regarding the definition of some of the terms. While assumptions regarding these
terms were made, Chair Ferrier will seek clarification from the College of Pharmacy
on these issues:
 “expects” versus “must” or “will”
 “Pharmacy GPA” versus “GPA”
 “Required” vs. “Pharmacy” vs. “all” courses
Action: Move approval of guideline changes pending clarification of above
questions and addition of footnote definition of terms. Motion unanimously
approved.
Follow-up (appended to minutes DEC 17 and DEC 28): Text of e-mail inquiry sent
to Associate Dean Lubawy with his responses in blue font –
The Committee was generally in favor of your proposal, but had a few questions or concerns about
particular terms, definitions, and conditions included in the proposal. A general summary of these
concerns are:
1. Pharmacy GPA: We assumed that this included all coursework (including PHR and nonPHR electives?) that comprises the First through Fourth Professional Years of the
program and not pre-Pharmacy coursework. Is our assumption correct?
YES that is correct.
2. The first sentence of the Policy specifies: (a) 2.0 minimum Pharmacy GPA and (b)
minimum of “C” in all courses. Given your response to item # 1 above, does the term all
courses include either pre-Pharmacy courses or non-PHR electives in the First through
Fourth Professional Years of the program? We recommend that you consider eliminating
this part of the sentence, because it seems implicit in the numbered items of the Policy.
We meant it to mean all courses in the first through fourth professional years,
including non-PHR electives. If you think eliminating this last part of the
sentence makes it better, that is fine with me. Would this be any better? “All
3.
4.
students are expected to maintain a minimum Pharmacy GPA of 2.0 and
earn a minimum of C in each course taken during the time they are students
in the College of Pharmacy.”
“All students are expected to maintain a minimum Pharmacy GPA of 2.0…” We suggest
that you consider changing the two uses of the word expected to must in this first
sentence of the revised Policy.
Sounds reasonable. I agree with both.
Required courses: As with item #1 above, we assumed that these comprise courses in the
First through Fourth Professional Years of the program. But, we were unsure as to
whether this term describes only non-elective PHR courses. We suggest that you
consider revising the Policy to sharpen this definition – either by specifying what
required courses are, or what they are not.
I am glad your committee looked so closely at this. I would suggest that in
light of the other changes we just drop the word “required” in #s 2, 4 and 5. I
believe this would imply all courses taken during the time they are students in
the College of Pharmacy are the ones in which they must earn a C or better.
Recommendations for revised Academic Policy for Professional Students in the
College of Pharmacy:
All students must maintain a minimum Pharmacy GPA of 2.0 and earn a
minimum of C in each course taken during the time they are students in the
College of Pharmacy.New footnote Further:
I. Any student with a GPA less than 2.0 in a single semester or
with a cumulative GPA less than 2.0 may be placed on probation
or may be suspended from the College.
II. [same as proposed policy, except eliminate the occurrence of the
word “required”]
III. [same as proposed policy]
IV. [same as proposed policy, except eliminate the occurrence of the
word “required”]
V. [same as proposed policy, except eliminate the occurrence of the
word “required”]
VI. [same as proposed policy]
VII. [same as proposed policy]
VIII. [same as proposed policy]
New footnote
This includes all coursework, including PHR and non-PHR
electives, that comprises the first through fourth professional
years of the program.
2. Graduate School GRE Admission Requirements
Item #1: Individual programs be allowed to petition the Graduate Council to remove
the GRE (or GMAT) requirement for all applicants to their program.
Item #2: Units may also petition to allow their applicants to substitute another
standardized professional exam (such as the LSAT or MCAT) for the GRE.
Action: Move approval of items #1 and #2. Motion unanimously approved.
Item #3: GREs would continue to be required for fellowship applications.
The committee expressed concern regarding item #3 in that this requirement could
potentially create a need for some students to take two tests, one for admissions to a
particular program, and one to be considered for a fellowship. Further, we want each
program to clearly inform qualified applicants about this particular fellowship
application requirement.
Chair Ferrier will discuss concerns with Jeanine Blackwell, Dean of the Graduate
School, about the rationale for continued requirement of GRE for fellowship
applications versus accepting of other standardized professional exams (such as
LSAT or MCAT), create equivalencies for exams.
Follow-up (appended to minutes DEC 17): Text of e-mail summary and synthesis of
Dean Blackwell’s comments sent to Committee –
I chatted with Jeannine Blackwell about the Graduate School’s proposal to provide programs
flexibility with respect to their use of the GREs for admissions. Recall that we were in strong
favor of the general proposal, but had some concern about Point #3: “Continue to require
GRE scores for all fellowship applications.”
This point maintains the status quo of the fellowship evaluation process, which is a
calculated, conservative position. The Grad School’s rationale for this is:
 To wait to see the ‘fallout’ from the new policy’s points # 1 and 2
o See how many programs across campus petition to waive the GREs
o See how many programs adopt a substitute exam (and which exams) for
admissions
o Point #3 can be reexamined after programs change and publish changes in
their admission requirements for the 2004-2005 academic year
 A detailed examination of the comparability in the distributions of scores of across
exams (GRE, LSAT, MCAT, GMAT, or others we don’t yet know about) is required
before the various fellowship programs can confidently rank applicants according to
entrance exam percentiles, standardized scores, or whatever.
 Varying scope and level of impact of proposal points:
o Points #1 and 2 will have an impact at the “program level”
o Point #3 will have an impact at the “University level” because fellowships
are University-wide instruments.
Follow-up (appended to minutes DEC 29):
Upon circulating Dean Blackwell’s comments to the Committee, the Committee also
recommends support for item #3 of the Graduate School’s proposal. However, we
urge that should individual programs successfully petition to use exams other than the
GRE or GMAT for admissions, these programs must clearly articulate to all
applicants interested in applying to fellowships that the GRE scores (in addition to
scores from a substitute test) must be also submitted.
3. Arts Administration Program admission requirements
In an effort to manage enrollment, this program seeks to establish a new set of
admission requirements:
 45 hours of coursework
 minimum of 2.8 cumulative GPA
 minimum of 3.0 GPA in pre-major requirements (specific AAD, COM, ACC,
and ECO courses)
The committee discussed the issues related to the strong possibility that the selective
admission policies of some programs (e.g., B&E, communications, etc.) would create
excessive student demand in other programs (e.g., psychology, etc.). Although, the
Committee was aware that previous task force/committee studied and provided
recommendations and guidelines related to selective and/or enrollment managementdriven admissions policies, the outcome of this effort was not clearly known to the
Committee members. Chair Ferrier will review the recommendations of this previous
taskforce so that the Committee can further discuss this report and make general
recommendations, if necessary, at the committee’s next meeting.
Action: Move approval of the admission requirement for the Arts
Administration Major. Motion unanimously approved.
4. Proposal to Require Midterm Grade Reporting for First and Second Year Students
Jeff Dembo will be invited to discuss this proposal at the next meeting. The
committee supported the concept that first and second year students would benefit
from concrete and timely feedback on progress in courses at midterm, and this would
not create an undue burden on faculty. Question was raised about the timing of this
report and rationale for the specified time
5. Admission, Retention, and Completion of University of Kentucky Educator Preparations
Programs
A representative from the College of Education will be requested to attend the next
committee meeting to provide concise clarification of the proposal.
Other Business:

Best meeting day for Committee members present was designated as Mondays after 1:00 p.m.
Minutes drafted on DEC 8 by Ruth “Topsy” Staten; appended on DEC 17, DEC 29 and DEC 30 by Wally
Ferrier.