Combined with




Tuesday, April 22, 2003, 3:00 pm

Student Center Theater




1.      The President opened the meeting at 3:05 PM.  He welcomed the members and offered the following comments on matters of interest to the Georgia Tech community:


a.       The Legislature has completed the amended 03 budget, which turned out to be favorable to the University System; it restored some MRR funds and provided support for GRA; it did not cause us to absorb any additional cuts this fiscal year.  The budget for 04 has been very difficult for the Legislature; several options for “revenue enhancement” are being considered – some of which can avoid similar problems in the 05 budget.  There will be no salary increases in the 04 budget.  At this point, no additional cuts have been assigned to the University System.


b.      Tuition and fees will likely go up more than they would normally because of the significant cuts in State budget we have had.  The $18M budget cut we have had represents nearly 10% of our State budget; it is equivalent to 180 faculty positions, which is huge for an Institute with nearly 800 faculty members.  The Board of Regents will decide on tuition increases at their next meeting; there will likely be a differential tuition increase for the Research Universities. We will let our incoming students know what their tuition will be as soon as the Board of Regents decides.    Despite the recent increases, our current undergraduate tuition for in-State students is twentieth out of 21 institutions in our peer group, and $2000 below the average for that group. 


c.       Considerable demands have been placed on Georgia Tech and other institutions because of the new tracking and visa requirements for our foreign students and visitors.   We have approximately 3000 international students for whom the new SEVIS system (Student and Exchange Visitor Information System) requires us to enter data (address, matriculation status, etc.) every term; in other words, 9000 sets of data have to be entered every year, which represents a considerable increase in work load for our Office of International Education.  Additionally, there are concerns that if it becomes increasingly difficult to get visas, many of those highly-talented students and visitors may opt not to come to the US. A group of six university presidents (including Dr. Clough) who are concerned about this issue met last week with two under-Secretaries of the Department of Homeland Security to express their concern; the meeting was positive.  Secretary Ridge is also concerned about the issue and expressed willingness to work with the Universities to address it; will likely see a change in 6-8 months.


A comment was made that as a result of the differential tuition between institutions in the University System, more Georgia Tech students are petitioning the Undergraduate Curriculum Committee to simultaneously enroll at other institutions (e.g. Kennesaw State) where they can take their core courses, especially during the summer. There is also an economic incentive for students to delay their transfer to Georgia Tech as much as possible.  A question was then asked as to whether such unintended consequences of differential tuition have been discussed.  The President responded by stating that such discussions have not been held, and indicated that he will ask Sandi Bramblett (Director of Institutional Research and Planning) to look at the statistics.  The President also indicated that tuition increases may “economically segregate” our students, which would be highly undesirable.  Scholarships are offered to address this issue; however, currently, tuition is considered as “State money”, and therefore can not be used for scholarships.  Also, the decline in endowment income has reduced the amount of money available for scholarships. The problem will remain until the stock market improves or the Legislature allows us to use some of the tuition income for scholarships. There were no other questions for the President.


2.      The President called for approval of the minutes of previous meetings, which were posted on the web: (1) Combined meeting of the General Faculty Assembly and Academic Senate (February 4, 2003), and (2) Spring meeting of the General Faculty and General Faculty Assembly (February 25, 2003).  He indicated that minor wording changes in the February 25 meeting minutes were made and that the posted minutes reflect those changes.  The minutes were approved without dissent. (See Attachment #1 below for web site reference).


3.      The President called on Dr. Marc Smith, Chair of the Statutes Committee to present a recommended change to the Statutes/Bylaws.  Smith presented a “second reading” for the recommended change to section of the Bylaws.  The change deals with increasing the size of the Faculty Honors Committee from four to six elected members.  He indicated that the change was requested by the Faculty Honors Committee and endorsed by the Executive Board; it was motivated by the recognition that the range of expertise among the current small committee membership may not be sufficiently broad to evaluate candidates for the various faculty awards.  The first reading was approved by the Faculty on February 25, 2003.  It was moved that the General Faculty approve the second reading of the recommended change to Section of the Bylaws.  (See Attachment #2 for the exact wording of the approved changes). The motion was approved without dissent.


4.      The President called on Ms. Jo McIver (Registrar) to present the degree candidates for the Spring Commencement.  The Registrar indicated that the list of degree candidates for the Spring 2003 commencement has been circulated to the Academic Departments.  It was moved that all candidates who complete their requirements by Noon on Wednesday May 7, 2003 be awarded their degree.  The motion passed without dissent.  The President indicated that as a part of our celebrations of fifty years of women at Georgia Tech, we have selected two outstanding women to speak at our commencements this Spring; Senator Elizabeth Dole will be the Undergraduate Commencement speaker, and Dr. Julie Gerberding (CDC Director) will be the Graduate Commencement speaker.


5.      The President called on Dr. Farrokh Mistree, Co-Chair of the Institute Oversight Committee (IOC) for Post-Tenure Review (PTR) to present the Committee’s final report and recommendations.  Copies of the final report of the IOC committee, along with the slides used in the presentation, are attached (see #5 and 6 below).  Mistree presented a list of committee members -- seven faculty members and six administrators (Deans of the six colleges); Dr. McMath (V. Provost) also served on the committee as co-Chair.  Mistree indicated that the Committee previously reported to the faculty on September 17, 2002, and that most of the Committee’s recommendations were adopted at that time.  However, the Committee was asked by the faculty to consider two additional issues; recommendations dealing with those two issues are to be presented today, thereby concluding the committee’s comprehensive review of the PTR process following the first five-year cycle.   He stated that the objectives of post-tenure reviews are to facilitate faculty development and ensure their intellectual vitality and competent levels of performance throughout their professional careers.  The Committee’s recommendations adopted by the faculty on September 17, 2002 were then enumerated: (a) Retain faculty-driven, peer evaluation process, (b) Retain provision that the decision of the faculty peer reviewers is final, (c) Focus on faculty development with 5/3 year recommendation to be part of the process, (d) Change the name from Post-Tenure Review (PTR) to Periodic Peer Review (PPR), (e) Replace Special Recognition feature with Program for Faculty Development for all, (f) Conduct major review of the PPR process every five years with monitoring between major reviews, and (g) Assign the responsibility for instituting and maintaining the faculty development program and process monitoring to the respective College Deans for units within the colleges of Architecture, Engineering, Ivan Allen, and Sciences, and to the VP-Academic Affairs for the colleges of Computing and Management.  Additional Committee recommendations adopted by the faculty on September 17, 2002, which deal with details of the unit-level committees’ composition, documentation, and communication of the outcome to the candidates, were also enumerated (see attachments #5 and 6 below). 


The first of the two remaining issues, namely, application of the process to tenured faculty with administrative titles other than unit chairs and above (e.g. Associate Chairs), was then discussed.  Mistree indicated that faculty in that group are to be covered by the Periodic Peer Review Process; the question raised at the September 17, 2002 meeting was whether they would be allowed to serve on unit-level review committees since the policy states that such committees should consist of tenured, non-administrative, academic faculty.  He indicated that the IOC recommends that this question should be decided by the faculty in each individual unit, and that the decision must be reviewed by the faculty (in each unit) at least once every five years.  The second issue deals with the appeals and grievance process associated with Periodic Peer Reviews.  The questions are:  (1) how can a faculty member get a unit-level committee recommendation reversed? and (2) how should a grievance related to the PPR “process” be handled?  The IOC recommends that upon receipt of the review outcome, a candidate may appeal to the President to overturn a unit-level recommendation, and that grievances related to the application of the PPR process should be handled by the Faculty Status and Grievance Committee under Section of the Statutes.


It was moved that the Georgia Tech Faculty endorses the additional recommendations of the Institute Oversight Committee for Post-Tenure Review as documented on Pages 6 and 7 of the presentation (Attachment #6).


A question was raised as to whether the faculty member to be selected by a candidate to serve as an “advocate” on the unit-level PPR committee must be from the same unit as the candidate, a different unit within Georgia Tech, or from outside Georgia Tech.  Mistree responded by stating that the intent is for the advocate to be a faculty member in the same unit as the candidate.  A question was raised as to the criteria to be used in evaluating tenured faculty with administrative titles who are covered by the PPR process.  Mistree responded by indicating that the Policy (Attachment # 5) spells out the evaluation criteria for periodic peer reviews.  The default criteria are those used by the unit for promotion and tenure; alternate criteria may be applied to reflect the varying emphases and roles that a faculty member may have.  Responsibility for formulating the individualized alternate criteria lies with the unit head, in consultation with the candidate.  The policy also describes how such criteria should be documented, and how situations in which an agreement regarding such criteria could not be reached between the faculty member and the unit head should be resolved.


The motion was approved without dissent.  The President thanked Dr. Mistree and the entire IOC committee for their hard work and contributions to improving an important process for the Institute.


6.      The President called on Dr. Miroslav Begovic (ECE), Chair of the Student Academic and Financial Affairs Committee (SAFAC), and Ms. Sandi Bramblett, Director of Institutional Research and Planning (IRP), to present the SAFAC report on Grading and Grade Inflation at Georgia Tech. A copy of the slides used in the presentation is attached. (See Attachment #4 below).  Dr. Begovic indicated that in June 2002 the Committee was tasked by the Executive Board to examine this issue as a follow-up to extensive discussions at an earlier Academic Senate/General Faculty Assembly meeting (February 5, 2002). He stated that the Committee’s work has been completed and that the final report will be issued at the end of this term; the report will be posted on the web at that time. The Committee reported to the Executive Board last month.  He indicated that in addition to today’s presentation, he would be willing to return for additional discussions in the Fall after faculty members have had a chance to read and examine the final report. 


Ms. Bramblett began her part of the presentation by stating the definition of grade inflation used by the committee:  “the upward shift in grade point average of students over an extended period of time without a corresponding increase in student achievement.”  She indicated that “grade compression,” which refers to the narrowing of the range between high and low grades was also examined by the committee, albeit to a lesser extent.  She outlined the methodology used in the study, beginning with an extensive literature survey -- a great deal of literature exists about grade inflation, and the types of related statistical analyses which can be conducted.  A survey of peer institutions, as well as other institutions which recently conducted studies on grade inflation, was conducted.  Additionally, a statistical analysis of Georgia Tech data was performed.  The study focused on the undergraduate level; it provided an historical perspective by using data covering nearly 30 years.  An in-depth study was also conducted using data from the last ten years to identify differences between lower and upper level courses, as well as differences among individual departments.  She acknowledged the contributions of Ms. Leslie Hamm (IRP) who collected and analyzed the data. 


A list of Georgia Tech’s peer institutions was presented; it includes seven private and 13 public institutions.  In addition to the peer institutions, data and studies from five other institutions were reviewed:  University of Arizona, UNC-Chapel Hill (conducted a comprehensive study of grade inflation in 2000), Harvard (credited with placing the issue of grade inflation in the national spot light), LSU, and Hood College (established precise definitions of grades).  The peer review included a survey of any recent grade inflation studies at ten institutions, and compilation of grading definitions at all twenty institutions (14 of them use +/- systems).  Grade inflation studies at other institutions, notably UNC-Chapel Hill and Harvard, were also reviewed.  Of the ten peers surveyed, five conducted grading and grade inflation studies, ranging from in-depth studies of the effects of +/- grades, to simplistic plots of SAT versus GPA.  MIT reported that they conduct numerous studies of student performance; however, they do not examine student grades since they do not believe that grade inflation exists at their institution.  Berkeley reported that grade inflation is not viewed as an important issue at their institution, because, if they wish, they can have a freshman class with a minimum SAT score of 1400 and a near perfect high school GPA.


Ms. Bramblett indicated that most of the peer institutions use a standard 4.0 grading scale, with letter grades ranging from “A” (excellent) to “F” (failure), and that fourteen peer institutions use some form of  a +/- grading system, while Cal Tech and MIT use a Pass/Fail system in the freshman year.  She enumerated the “symptoms” which may have caused the alarm with respect to this issue; median graduating class GPA at Princeton increased from 3.09 in 1973 to 3.36 in 2000; average GPA at Dartmouth increased from 2.70 in 1967 to 3.33 in 2001; more than half the grades awarded at Harvard during the past three years have been “A” -- over 90% of the 2001 Harvard graduating class graduated with Honors.   At Georgia Tech, the average overall GPA in the Fall of 1985 was 2.59 versus 2.86 for Fall 2002.  Charts showing the gradual rise in overall GPA at Georgia Tech and other institutions over the past 30 years were presented, all of which show consistent upward trends, with Harvard and Princeton at the top of the range and  Georgia Tech at or near the bottom of the range (along with Purdue and Texas A&M).  She indicated that in response to these trends, starting in Fall 2003, Harvard will switch from their 15-point grading scale to the traditional 4-point scale; additionally, Honor degrees will be awarded to a limited percentage of each graduating class.


Begovic continued the presentation focusing primarily on the Georgia Tech data.  He began by discussing possible sources of grade inflation; several possible “external” and “internal” causes were enumerated, including the increased quality of incoming students as measured by their high school GPA, SAT and Admission Index, the increase in the percentage of female students, reduction in course loads, better teaching, variations among departments, and possible influence on course/instructor teaching evaluations. A table comparing the 2000 Freshman students’ anticipated grades against their actual cumulative GPA at the end of the first year at Georgia Tech was shown.  Only one third of those who expected a grade in the 3.5 to 4.0 range actually achieved that goal; more than 50% of the students with anticipated grades of 2.5 and above failed to meet those expectations. Plots of the average high school GPA, SAT scores and GT Admissions Index for freshman cohorts over the past ten years show gradual upward trends.  The relationship between the students’ performance (as measured by their Georgia Tech GPA) and their high school GPA, SAT scores, and GT Admissions Index during the past ten years was examined.  While the overall trends are consistent, the scatter in the correlation is large. Trends of high school GPA over the past ten years for freshman cohorts with different ethnicity show consistent, gradually-increasing, trends.  While the overall average freshman class high school GPA mildly correlates with the overall class average Georgia Tech GPA, the individual student’s high school GPA and his/her Georgia Tech GPA show very low correlation, probably due to the differences in the quality of high schools. 


Begovic presented data for the effect of the instructor’s tenure status on grades for two different terms; the data suggest that larger percentages of the highest grades are assigned by non-tenured and non-tenure-track instructors, than those assigned by tenured faculty.  However, the differences between tenured and tenure-track faculty appear to be relatively small.  Percentages of different grades (A through F) assigned during three different years were presented.  Grade distribution data for 1000-level and 4000-level courses were separately presented. For 1000 level courses the percentage of “A’s” increased from 31.8% in 1993 to 36.5% in 2002; the corresponding numbers for 4000-level courses are 42.0% and 51.9%, respectively.  Similar data were presented for individual colleges.  For 1000-level classes, the College of Architecture had the largest increase in the percentage of assigned A’s over the past ten years (from 53.39% to 79.30%), while the college of computing showed a reduction from 29.30 to  26.92% during the same period.  For 4000-level classes all colleges showed an increase in the percentage of assigned A’s between 1993 and 2002; the increases in the percentage of “A” grades ranged from 6.24% for the College of Computing to 15.63% for the College of Management, as compared to an Institute-wide percentage increase of 9.88%.


Average grades assigned by the different departments during the Fall 1993 and Fall 2002 were presented.  The data show large variations among the average grades assigned by various departments, with average grade points for all undergraduate courses ranging from 2.5 to more than 3.75.  Of the 31 units examined, 20 reported higher assigned grades for 2002 than 1993.  Begovic discussed possible implications of the observed trends on students, schools, and employers.  Grade inflation may cause some of the best students to perform at less than their best, since high grades are easier to achieve; they may also look at other non-academic ways to distinguish themselves.  For schools, grade inflation may lead to a drop in their perceived reputations.  Grade inflation may also impact employers, inasmuch as they may look for alternate evaluation tools of job candidates, including personal recommendations, standardized tests, and closer examination of the courses taken by the students.  


Begovic presented a list of possible mitigating actions including: (1) adoption of more clear and specific grade definitions, (2) adoption of a +/- grading system, (3) establishment of an Institute average GPA, (4) expansion of transcript data, (5) modification of the honors requirements, and (6) broad dissemination of grading definitions and policies.  Additional mitigating actions were enumerated, including: (1) training of TA’s, adjunct faculty, and tenure-track faculty on grading definitions and policies, (2) conducting both self-calibrations and external calibrations of grade distributions, (3) external enforcement of grade distributions, (4) standardized testing, and (5) modification of student instructor/course evaluations.  He presented an outline of the final report to be prepared by the committee; it begins with a chapter providing the scope of the study and definitions of the various terms, followed by a chapter on grading at Georgia Tech, which includes all the data analyses, as well as essays/opinions offered by faculty members, and responses provided by students.  A chapter providing analyses of data from peer institutions will be included.  Discussion, including sources of grade inflation, implications and remedies will be provided, followed by conclusions. 


Begovic summarized the study’s conclusions.  Statistically, there is reason to believe that some amount of grade inflation may exist; however, comparison with peer institutions, in terms of the relative position of Georgia Tech and the absolute magnitude of the changes, does not present a cause for alarm.  The quality of incoming students is increasing; the effect of the increased student quality on the rising grades, particularly for the lower level courses, as well as the quality of “student experience,” is difficult to quantify.  The tenure status of the instructors has an impact on the assigned grades.  Finally, there is a non-uniform distribution of grades among departments, not to an alarming level, but, nevertheless, it needs to be further examined. 


A comment was made that there are other attributes that one can look at besides the average GPA, which cover the two extremes of the grade distribution: (1) Is there an increased reluctance to fail students? and (2) Is there an increase in the number of students with perfect overall GPA? -- five years ago we may have had only two students graduating with a 4.0 overall GPA; this year we may have 30 students in that group.  Begovic responded by indicating that the committee has not looked at the two extremes; nevertheless, there is a clear evidence of grade compression.   A question was asked as to what was meant by the “quality of student experience” in the list of conclusions.  Begovic responded by indicating that significant efforts have been recently devoted to increasing student retention through several initiatives; these have increased the percentage of students who complete their degrees, and the grades particularly in lower level courses.  He indicated that one of the faculty essays included in the report points to the importance of improving the quality of undergraduate “student life” at Georgia Tech. 


A comment was made that the conclusion states that “statistically there is grade inflation.” However, in looking at the definition of grade inflation (upward shift in GPA without corresponding increase in student achievement), the first part of the definition, namely the increase in GPA, can be easily seen from the data, while the second part, namely, lack of commensurate increase in achievement, has not been demonstrated.  The increase in the quality of incoming students (high school GPA, SAT, and GT Admission Index), increased retention, and added efforts to tutor students particularly in lower level courses, are indicative of increased achievement.  How can that change be measured?  Begovic indicated that the committee was cautious not to claim or infer that grade inflation is a matter of alarm at Georgia Tech, especially in comparison to other institutions.  The issue of “grade compression” needs to be addressed in order to be able to distinguish performance with a “higher resolution.” 


A question was asked as to whether a State-wide study of grade inflation has been conducted since the HOPE Scholarship program was established.  Bramblett indicated that only anecdotal evidence is available, which suggests that the HOPE Scholarship program has resulted in higher high school GPAs, and that some students “beg” the professors for a higher grade to maintain their scholarships.  A question was asked as to whether data on the rise in the number of “withdrawals” is available and whether students are repeating classes to increase their grades.  Bramblett indicated that such data are available, and that some of the HOPE scholarship recipients delay the time they reach the 30 credit-hour point by dropping a class so that they can continue to receive the scholarship for another term; as a result, we now have more than 2000 students who have not completed 30 credit-hours after two semesters, versus about 1400 in the past. 


A question was asked regarding the correlation between the average freshman class high school GPA and GT GPA, and whether a similar correlation exists between the average SAT scores of incoming freshman and the GT GPA.  Bramblett responded affirmatively, and indicated that a similar correlation was found, especially with Math grades.  A comment was made that the lack of correlation between an individual student’s high school GPA and his/her GT GPA may be due to the fact that we are only looking at a small part of the spectrum, and that students had already been “pre-screened” when they were admitted to Georgia Tech.


A comment was made that grades are used as a means to motivate students -- can work hard and get an “A” or coast and get a “B,” which has led to grade compression, particularly in the College of Architecture.  A follow-up comment was made that the introduction of a (+/-) system may help in that regard.  A question was asked whether the committee had examined the correlation between student/course evaluations and grades.  Bramblett indicated that the committee did not because it ran out of time.  A comment was made that the increase in course evaluations is due to the improvement in the quality of the instructors, and that Georgia Tech has placed a great deal of effort in that area through CETL.  Begovic concurred.


[Note added by the Secretary of the Faculty:  At 3:55 PM the President asked Dr. Gary May to chair the remainder of the meeting since he had to teach a class].


Dr. May thanked Dr. Begovic, Ms. Bramblett, Ms. Hamm, and the entire committee for their outstanding presentation and the extensive effort they have put into this study.


7.      Dr. May called on Mr. Swant (Associate VP -- Budget and Planning) and Dr. Wepfer (V. Provost -- Distance Learning and Professional Education) to present an update on the “Technology Square” project.  Mr. Swant began by describing the various components of the project:  the Global Learning Center, Hotel and Conference Center, parking deck, Bookstore, Shops, College of Management building, and the Economic Development building.  He pointed to the “seamless” connection between the Global Learning center and the Hotel & Conference Center as a means of efficient utilization of meeting space; the benefits of the Bookstore (to be operated by Barnes & Noble) to Georgia Tech and the community at large; and the large number of classroom spaces to be provided by both the GLC and the College of Management building, all of which will be well-equipped and wireless.  He indicated that with nearly 1.1 million square feet, this is the largest Georgia Tech construction project.  He provided a breakdown of the square footage of space to be occupied by the various parts of the project (see Attachment #8 below), and indicated that the construction cost for the project is $120M, with a total project cost of $180M.  Construction began in November of 2001, with occupancy slated for August of this year. 


Dr. Wepfer continued the presentation focusing on the Global Learning Center.  He pointed to the slide presentation posted on the web (Attachment #7 below) which includes additional details.  He described the relationship between the Global Learning Center (GLC) and the Georgia Tech Hotel and Conference Center (GTHCC); GLC will host short courses, day conferences and joint programs with GTHCC, while GTHCC will host multi-day conferences.  Both GLC and GTHCC will have complementary capabilities and facilities, and will be seamlessly coordinated; they will allow GT to host conferences with up to 500 attendees.  The hotel is planned on the concept of “complete meeting packages;” it will have 200 rooms and 17 meeting rooms and will have a 3 to 4 star rating.  The GLC will have 27 meeting rooms, including five auditoriums, seven computer labs, and a total seating capacity of 1,500.  It will provide convenient parking for faculty and course participants, and will have the technology to deliver and receive programs from around the world.  He indicated that faculty interested in scheduling an event at GLC should contact Tim Gargis, the sales manager.  He indicated that GLC will operate on a “fee for service” basis, and expects that 70% of the use will be for Georgia Tech activities, while the remaining 30% will be for other organizations.  Pricing for use of the facility will be geared toward the “midtown area” and that he is hopeful that by making the facility available for corporate use, we may be able to lower the costs for Georgia Tech users. 


A question was asked as to who will operate the various shops at Technology Square.  Swant indicated that they will be run through licenses.  A question was asked as to whether the classrooms will be available for the Fall term since classes have already been scheduled for those rooms.  Swant responded affirmatively, and indicated that, at this time, there is a great deal of construction activity inside the buildings with more than 500 people working at any time to finish the project on time.  A question was asked as to whether the classroom space in the GLC will eliminate the need for the distance learning classrooms currently used on campus.  Wepfer indicated that the campus classrooms will continue to be used and that none of the rooms in the GLC is currently in the classroom inventory.  A question was asked as to who will operate the hotel.  Wepfer indicated that the hotel will be operated by Crestline (also operate Emory’s facility).  Swant indicated that we expect the building to be certified for “sustainability,” and pointed to a highly complimentary article on the project and its impact on the neighborhood which was recently published by the Atlanta Journal Constitution.  Lynn Fountain, Chair of the Academic Services Committee, complimented Dr. Wepfer on his vision for the Distance Learning and Professional Education Department, and the changes he has implemented to achieve that vision.


Dr. May thanked Mr. Swant and Dr. Wepfer for their informative presentation.


8.      Dr. May called on Dr. Hughes, Chair of the Undergraduate Curriculum Committee, to introduce minutes from that committee and action items therein.  Hughes indicated that there are five committee meeting minutes to be approved [January 29, February 26, March 12, March 26, and April 2, 2003]; these have been posted on the web (see Attachment #3 below).  He enumerated the action items contained in those minutes, including new courses in APPH, BIOL, LCC, and MGT; change in degree requirements for BS programs in Biology, Building Construction, and Economics; change in major designator for Polymer and Fiber Engineering; restrictions on MGT 3101/3150 [03/12/03], and change in degree requirements for BS in Chemical Engineering [04/02/03].  He indicated that none of these action items requires a separate vote by the Faculty.  A motion was made to approve the UGCC meeting minutes for 01/29/03, 02/26/03, 03/12/03, 03/26/03, and 04/02/03, and all the action items therein.  The motion passed without dissent.


9.      Dr. May called on Dr. Green, Chair of the Graduate Curriculum Committee, to introduce minutes from that committee and action items therein.  Green indicated that there are two committee meeting minutes to be approved [February 27 and March 27, 2003]; these have been posted on the web (see Attachment #3 below).  He enumerated the action items contained in those minutes, including a new course in APPH, and correction of the minutes of January 25, 2001 to reflect approval of the five-year BS/MS program in Materials Science and Engineering [02/27/03]; a new MS degree in Biomedical Engineering (terminal degree to be offered to students who are unable to complete the PhD degree); MS and PhD degrees in Paper Science and Engineering, along with associated courses in ME and CHE [03/27/03].  A motion was made to approve the GCC meeting minutes for 02/27/03, and 03/27/03, and all the action items therein. 


A question was raised as to whether we intend to seek ABET accreditation for the new MS degree in Paper Science and Engineering since we do not have an undergraduate degree in the same field.  Green indicated that he does not know whether or not such accreditation will be sought.  It was agreed that he will seek a response from the Dean of Engineering or the Provost’s Office regarding our intent with respect to accreditation of the MS degree in Paper Science and Engineering, and report to the faculty.  With that stipulation, the motion passed without dissent. [Note added by the Secretary of the Faculty on April 25, 2003:  Dr. Green reported that he had sought a clarification on the accreditation issue from Dr. Ron Rousseau (Chair, ChE), who is responsible for integration of the IPST degree programs within Georgia Tech, and that Dr. Rousseau has stated that we do not intend to seek ABET accreditation for the MS degree in Paper Science and Engineering].


10.  Dr. May called for any other business; hearing none, he closed the meeting at 4:45 PM.



Respectfully submitted,


Said Abdel-Khalik

Secretary of the Faculty

April 25, 2003


Attachments to be included with archival copy of the minutes:


  1. Minutes of Faculty Meetings:
    1. February 4, 2003 meeting of the Academic Senate & General Faculty Assembly:
    2. February 25, 2003 meeting of the General Faculty & general Faculty Assembly:
  2. Statutes Changes related to increasing the size of the Faculty Honors Committee:
  3. Minutes of Committee Meetings:
  4. Grading and Grade Inflation at Georgia Tech (Presentation by Dr. Begovic).
  5. Proposed Periodic Peer Review Policy
  6. Periodic Peer Review (Presentation by Drs. McMath and Mistree)
  7. Global Learning Center Update (Presentation by Dr. Wepfer)
  8. Technology Square (Presentation by Mr. Swant)