University-Wide Form Considered
Evaluations Are Studied Again
At the end of each term,
the students at Capitol
Campus are asked to fill out
a form and answer a few
questions concerning the
evaluation of their course
and their instructor.
However, in the past few
months, a move to develop
the evaluations into a
University-wide form has
been under study, according
to Scott Deardorff, student
goverment association presi
dent. Deardorff is chairman
of the Council of Branch
Campuses and he has
appointed a committee to
s-tra!
Co-op
Progresses
By Virginia Lehman
Staff Writer
What happened to the
titol Campus Co-op?
idents around the campus
' wonder what turn of
its the 00-op has been
ing. The co-op is alive
ready to begin serving
campus by providing
>d quality merchandise
for cheaper prices”. And that
means eggs!
The co-op ?)et with
student resistance by charg
ing a prepayment fee to join
the co-op. Therefore, the
decision was made to Deg in
by selling large fresh eggs.
The system to purchase the
eggs would be setting up
two separate times to order
the eggs. On the pick-up
day, once again, two time
periods would be arranged.
After the co-op is able to
collect some funds and gain
student support, the item
ized food list will be
expanded. These products
will be purchased from
wholesalers enabling the
co-op to sell groceries at
cheaper prices than the local
stores.
Time has been the major
consequence of starting the
Capitol Campus Co-Op.
Concerned students donated
their time and personal
expenses in getting the
co-op started in business.
Contacting other co-ops and
solving legal barriers has
taken a term of hard work to
solve these deterents.
The Co-op was required
to meet federal government
requirements in relation to
accepting food stamps.
They also purchased a
wholesale license and a
cigarette license. The last
item that will allow the co-op
to begin business is
insurance coverage.' These
requirements took a great
deal of indepth research and
seeking legal reference to
begin the co-op within the
limits of the law.
investigate the possibility of
a University wide evaluation
form.
One of the advantages of
such a form would be that
administrators of the Com
monwealth Campuses would
be able to compare profes
sors from one campus with
professors from another.
Currently, the evalua
tions are being used by the
administration concerning
possible promotions, tenure
and salary. The faculty uses
the evaluations as a self
evaluation of their course
~ -X —,v,..
Dr. Susan Richman, assistant professor of mathema
Council.
“Get Your Grades Up 99
Says Faculty Council
On January 14th, after a
riproaring hour of debate,
the Capitol Campus Faculty
Council decided
unanimously on a standard
procedure for dropping
grade-deficient students
from the University.
The meeting was pre
sided over by Prof. Susan
Richman and attended by
representatives of all the
various academic programs
here at Capitol.
Their action was taken at
the request of the Special
Senate Committee on Stu
dent Rules and R.E. Larson,
University Provost.
This request was re
ceived by them through a
memo from Larson which
stated:
“I have received a
memorandum from T.E.
Daubert, Chairman of the
Special Senate Committee
on Student Rules. In the
Memorandum, Professor
Daubert indicates that the
list of the differences and
exceptions between the
general Senate policies and
thise of Capitol Campus, as
listed in my memorandum of
July 18, 1975, to Sally S.
By Cliff Eshbach
Staff Writer
and themselves.
The evaluations are cur
rently being run by the
administration. In previous
years, the evaluations were
run first by the students,
later by the faculty.
One of the proposals
confronting the committee is
the possibility of omitting
two questions that appear on
the form. The two questions
are: the overall course
rating and the overall
instructor rating. Adding
questions hasn’t been con
sidered, but the Engineering
By John E. Stanchak, Assistant Editor
Sman, are scheduled for
presentation to the Senate in
February or March. All of the
changes except one have
been incorporated in the
Committee’s final report.
I quote directly from
Professor Daubert’s memo
randum to me:
‘Rule P-24 states that
academic warning is given
for a deficiency of six (6) or
more grade points while
Rule N-4 defines grade point
deficiency. In your letter of
July 18 it is not clear how
many unit-deficiencies
would be necessary at
Capitol Campus to consti
tute a warning. Since a unit
is approximately four (4)
credits, I would assume that
a unit-deficiency of two (2) or
more would be applicable
(6 + 4 = 1.5—2.0). However
we need to know the correct
interpretation to complete
our work. In addition, the
definition of a unit should be
included.’
I would appreciate your
consulting with the Faculty
Council and providing me
with a response to Professor
Daubert’s inquiry as soon as
possible.”
Department has been adding
questions concerning the
engineering labs.
Possibly the most im
portant questions the com
mittee is faced with are
whether the students are
taking the evaluations ser
iously, and when is the
proper time to administer the
evaluations.
President Deardorff indi
cates that the most helpful
questions on the evaluation
are the essay questions at
the end of the evaluation,
;s, is chairman of the Faculty
After deciphering the
memo, the council decided
all students are to
maintain a 2.0 overall
cumulative grade average.
The first time the
student’s average falls below
the 2.0 minimum, he or she
will receive a letter warning
of their precarious academic
position.
If in a following semester
the average again falls below
2.0, the student will receive
another letter, worded more
strongly.
This letter will state that
if the student’s Average does
not rise above the 2.0 mark
soon, a meeting will be
called to determine the
wisdom of the student
staying on at the Capitol
Campus.
Although many students
assumed these rules to be in
effect previously, they had
not in reality been official.
And, in fact, according to Dr.
Nancy Tischler there may
have been one or two cases
in the past were students
had graduated from the
Capitol Campus with less
than the now official
minimum average.
where the answers seem to
provide the most construc
tive criticism.
Deardorff says he feels
the students will accept the
evaluations more seriously
if members of the Student
Government Association are
asked to go into each of the
classes and explain the
reasons why the evaluations
are vital to the University.
After all,he says,this is one
way students can voice their
satisfaction or dissatisfac
tion with a course or
instructor.
enn G
Questions
Answe
By John Lierzapf
Staff Writer
Two weeks ago, tl
reporter learned from sew
sources that Penn PIRG
about to try another orgai
zational campaign at P f
What is Penn PIRG?
stands for Public Intei
Research Group. It will
used to investigate envii
mental, consumer and s'
dent issues. For example,
the Minnesota PIRG has
lobbyed extensively for
tighter control of pesticide
use in the state.
Who runs Perm PIRG?
Penn PIRG is run by
students under the guidence
of professional men and
women paid for from
organizational funds. Ralph
Nader, founder of PIRG’s,
lends guidance to the
organization.
WHO pays for Penn PIRG
and how are its funds
collected? Students will pay
for it at a proposed rate of
two dollars a term and the
university will become the
collection agency.
PIRG organizers propose
a “negative check-off plan”
to collect funds. Each
student will pay the two
dollar fee as part of the
tuition, but you will be able
to collect a refund if you do
not wish to support the
organization.
The university favors a
“positive check-off plan".
Under this plan the student
decides whether the univer
sity will collect the two
dollars.
Sometime in the near
future, it is possible that
Capitol Campus will be
visited by a PIRG represen
tative asking you to sign a
petition of support. Think
about it. Ask questions
about what your money will
be used for. Organizers of
Penn PIRG expect to raise
approximately $270,000 dol
lars under its “negative
check-off plan”. That’s a lot
of money.