{ title: 'The Spectrum (Buffalo, N.Y.) 1955-current, September 21, 1979, Page 3, Image 3', download_links: [ { link: 'http://www.loc.gov/rss/ndnp/ndnp.xml', label: 'application/rss+xml', meta: 'News about NYS Historic Newspapers - RSS Feed', }, { link: '/lccn/np00130006/1979-09-21/ed-1/seq-3/png/', label: 'image/png', meta: '', }, { link: '/lccn/np00130006/1979-09-21/ed-1/seq-3.pdf', label: 'application/pdf', meta: '', }, { link: '/lccn/np00130006/1979-09-21/ed-1/seq-3/ocr.xml', label: 'application/xml', meta: '', }, { link: '/lccn/np00130006/1979-09-21/ed-1/seq-3/ocr.txt', label: 'text/plain', meta: '', }, ] }
Image provided by: University at Buffalo
Unclear guidelines cause UB to violate EOF policy u B&Ml has been introduced in the State Legislature to allow public , colleges and universities the same right as private schools. UB’s Educational Opportunity Program (EOP) has been \ wordta *. . t partially paying the tuition costs of some of its students, , J “ km ? w “ ““«* t0 P™ 1 out * h « ?° ! gct EOP although the practice is forbidden by State law. Director of funds unkte he has a W ,Bed to the TAP (Tuition Assistance EOP Edward Jenkins contends that “the law is very unclear” p «» ra,n ) firs ‘- *» * ■ matter of supplementing other funds,” and that EOP has committed nothing wrong. Jenkins. “EOP obhgates itself to the support of its EOP helps economically and educationally disadvantaged students. ' • students. Criteria used for determining eligibility include , 0^L d ! ng t0 , the aud,t .’ p OP used $229,343 out of over family size and income, and an evaluated potential to SJS* complete a college program. the 1976-77 school year. The audit acknowledges EOP’s A state audit conducted from 1975 to 1977-but released the law s interpretation « open to question, this summer-cited EOP for allocating 28 percent of its *! ow^ r> thcy su , ggest EOP °° mply wth Ae P roh,b,t ’ on “ appropriations for tuition costs. “Legislation prohibits the- Education law agamrt supportmg regulmL academic expenditure of EOP funds.” the audit Lies, “for support of with EOP f “ nd % Jcnkl f that EOP is stril r „„i Qr j_,5_ covering the tuition costs of some of its students. participatmg mrt.tut.ons, The vague wording of the law> Jenkins contends> u at the . . ‘ „ „ „ . , heart of the issue. “It’s very unclear, interpretation is left University Controller William H. Baumer, who helped opcn t0 q ue8 tion »• he said prepare the Umversity’s response to the audit, believes that official to the audit -Support of EOP was justified in its actions. “Our contention is that regular academic programs with EOP funds would be . . . to funds are granted for all direct instructional expenses, and the Varies of instructional staff, to purchase laboratory tu ji.° j “ d t d “ that category.” Baumer explained. The w pplies equipment. Financial Aid is provided to EOP audit describes these expenses as “guidance services, remedial studenls as to other students, in light of their total courses and supplemental financial assistance for books and expenditures. These tacludeTition, fees, room other necessary expenses. . and board, books and incidental expenses.” Jenkins pointed out that EOP’s decision to include tuition The response also states that EOP money is only used to costs was made in conjunction with SUNY’s Central supplement other funding programs. “EOP financial Administration. “We did not act alone in this matter,” Jbe guidelines specify that all students shall apply for TAP said, “the policy was SUMY supported?’ support for tuition, shall apply for U.S. Basic Educational Currently, private institutions in New York State are Opportunity Grant support, airi shall be provided EOP permitted to use EOiP funds for tuition while SUNY schools financial aid only to the extent required to supplement these are not. “I have no idea why that is so,” Baumer noted. A bill other sources of support,” by Joe Simon Campus Editor Faculty Senate Chairman Newton Oarver blasted a suggestion Wednesday that faculty surveys assessing University President Robert L. Ketter’s performance be accompanied by “secret numerical codes” identifying the respondent. The codes were offered as a way around new presidential evaluation guidelines which forbid the use of “nonattributable information.” The, guidelines also prohibit the use of surveys or Secret COOeS* °P* nion P° Us_ a restriction the Faculty Senate voted to defy last last Spring transferring the responsibility for evaluating incumbent presidents from campus groups to an external review team.) “They have no business,” Carver asserted, “telling us how we can gather the information we present to the outside team. It’s an affront to the integrity of the University.” Confidentiality guaranteed Carver said that the guidelines guarantee confidentiality throughout the review process, except for the President’s own statement on the condition on the campus and the final evaluation report, which must be made public. He said that he will identify those faculty members he consults only by position—for example “a full Psychology professor.” ' The survey, which was originally prepared before the guidelines were changed, is being revamped. Sociology professor Theodore Mills, one of those working on the revision, said the previous survey was too ambiguous. He hopes to clear up this ambiguity and phrase the questions so that they gauge faculty opinion on how Ketter is filling—or not fulfilling—his responsibilities as President. The survey is slated to be examined by the Executive Committee next Wednesday. on faculty survey o f Ketter would violate privacy The possibility of tagging each survey with a code number emerged at Wednesday’s meeting of the Senate’s Executive Committee. chairman of the Modern Languages Department Edward Dudley, speaking for the Faculty of Arts and Letters, suggested that each professor completing the survey be assigned a number. He said that a listing of professors and their numbers could then be giveto to the outside review team. It could then trace down the source of the input—perhaps making the use of surveys more acceptable to the SUNY Board of Trustees. But Carver said that such coding would be “pandering to the Trustees.” (The Trustees set the new guidelines for all State schools Language placement tests done away with; advisement relied upon by Seth Goodchild Spectrum Staff Writer Ludwig concurs but offered an additional reason. “Neither the time nor the personnel was available to the summer [orientation] people, ” she explained, to let the tests be continued. Both Ludwig and Riszko agree that it was possible for students to manipulate the tests by feigning ignorance, which would lead to their being placed in a lower level course awnyway. One , DUE advisor, who wished to remain anonymous, believes there was an additional reason: “The department needed students [before the tests were stopped], so they let anyone take lower level courses.” Placement tests are no longer given by the Foreign Language Department due to their educational unfeasibility and the inconvenience caused to both students and instructors, according to Assistant Profesor Jeanette Ludwig. Two years ago these tests—then mandatory—were discarded and substituted with a system based on the cooperation of student, instructor and undergraduate advisor. Previously, binding placement tests were distributed to interested language students during , Freshman Orientation. These tests were an integral part of the program, but were time consuming. The scores were tabulated immediately and students were placed in course levels appropriate to their knowledge of the language. In the summer of 1977, these tests were discontinued by joint decision of the department mid the Division of Undergraduate Education (DUE). Liason to the Foreign Language department and DUE advisor John Riszko believes the tests did not account for certain variables, such as the differences in high school instruction. Angry students Department Chairman Edward Dudley and Riszko dismiss this explanation and point to increased language enrollment figures for the Fall ’79 semester. Many students are angered that, without placement tests, advanced students are allowed to take beginning level courses. One novice is “teed off’ with this practice and fears for her grade, as she could “get killed with the curve.” This last fear and feelings of inferiority are the two most popular complaints lodged against the current practice of allowing all students into low level Courses. —continued on page 18— JEWISH STUDENT UNION . rWC Changes in the 79-80 Film Schedule Plaza Shoe Repair 47 Kenmore Shoes repaired and shoes dyed Dry cleaning & laundry done are as follows: 47 KENMORE AVE University Plaza 836-4041 October 29 - Cast a Giant Shadow November 5 ■ The Ten Commandments ELECTRICAL MECHANICAL CiVIL AERONAUTICAL COMPUTER SCIENCE & ENGINEERING MAJORS GRUMMAN Aerospace Corporation Will |t JntervJawigg ON CAMPUSES See your placement office for particulars If our on-cimpui data it inconvaniant, send resume and complete list of courses to Kathy Willsey, Grumman Aerospace Corporation, Bathpage, Long Island, New York 11714. / An Equal Opportunity Employer M/F • U.S. Citizenship Required GRUMMAN The reliable source FEE WAIVER APPLICATIONS r \.?t ’ i . : , •' ,, ' can be picked up Monday thru Friday, from 9 until 4 pm at 117 Talbert Hall - Amherst Campus. APPLICATIONS ARE DUE BY Friday, Sept. 28th >~ / t ■ \
