Wednesday, 15 December 2004, 3:30 p.m.

Alumni Room AB, University Union

Presiding Officer: Sally Dresdow, Speaker

Parliamentarian: Professor Kenneth J. Fleurant






4.   REPORT ON THE CAMPUS MASTER PLAN -  Presented by Assistant Chancellor for Planning and Budget Dean Rodeheaver


            a. Requests for Future Senate Business

6.   PROVOST’S REPORT - Presented by Provost Sue K. Hammersmith

7.   UNIVERSITY COMMITTEE REPORT - Presented by Professor Gregory Davis, Chair

8.   OPEN FORUM: General Education (attached)



MINUTES 2004-2005


Wednesday, November 17, 2004

Alumni Room AB, University Union

Presiding Office: Sally Dresdow (BUA-UC), Speaker

Parliamentarian: Kenneth J. Fleurant, Secretary of the Faculty and Academic Staff

PRESENT:, Greg Aldrete (HUS-UC), Scott Ashman (ED), Angela Bauer (HUB), Forrest Baulieu (ICS), Joy Benson (BUA), Peter Breznay (ICS), Gregory Davis (NAS-UC), Michael Draney (NAS), Sally Dresdow (BUA-UC), Scott Furlong ( PEA-UC), Regan Gurung (HUD-UC), Sue Hammersmith (Provost, ex officio), Derek Jeffreys (HUS), Timothy Kaufman (ED), Harvey Kaye (SCD), Michael Kraft (PEA), Judith Martin (Soc. Wk), Steven Meyer (NAS), Steve Muzatko (BUA), Tom Nesslein (URS), Debra Pearson (HUB), Ellen Rosewall (COA), Bruce Shepard (Chancellor, ex officio), Christine Style (COA-UC), Rebecca Tout (COA), Bryan Vescio (HUS), David Voelker (HUS), William Witwer (COA).

NOT PRESENT: Denise Bartell (HUD), Andrew Fiala (HUS), Mimi Kubsch (NUR), Tara Reed (NAS).

REPRESENTATIVES: Rachel Abhold (Student Government Association), John Landrum (Academic Staff Representative).

GUESTS: Chris Behnke (student), Dean Fritz Erickson, Interim Dean Fergus Hughes, Michael Schmitt (Academic Staff Committee), Associate Provost Timothy Sewall, Scott Hildebrand (University Communication), Matt Richmond (student).

1. Call to Order. With a quorum present, Speaker Dresdow called the Senate to order at 3:03 p.m.

2. Approval of Minutes of UW-Green Bay Faculty Senate Meeting No. 2, October 20, 2004.

The minutes were approved without change.

3. Chancellor’s Report. The numerous political visits in recent months provided a great opportunity to educate students about politics and to educate the community about the nature of a university. A few facts that might be useful for discussions in the community: No taxpayer’s money was used to bring Michael Moore or any of the candidates to campus; we did not choose which candidates would come--the candidates did; the Chancellor should not decide who can and cannot come to this public institution.

The launch of a study out of Madison brought together university, public sector employees and community business leaders for discussions of the economic future of our region and the central role of the university in an information-based economy. A very successful event, it may one day be understood as a transformational moment in the life of our region.

Following the Senate discussion of priority registration for athletes and follow-up discussions with others, it became clear that the greatest problem was in upper-division psychology courses. The order of priority registration has been changed to seniors first, followed by athletes, and then others to see how that works.

The Regents acted on salary matters at their last meeting. Their research shows that our faculty salaries are about 7.2% below those at peer institutions; academic staff salaries are significantly below that. Regents are recommending salary adjustments of 5% in each year of the biennium. During this time peer salaries are projected to increase 2% each year. This is a step in the direction of catching up. Regents adjusted the range of executive salaries and this has made the news, but it must be understood that these adjustments were required to stay within the law. They also are fighting further increases in faculty/staff health care and are working on providing full benefits for domestic partners. Their stance has little to do with the defense of marriage act and much to do with keeping up with the highly competitive environment for hiring and retaining quality personnel. The "soft benefits" we are currently able to offer are so meager they are embarrassing, but they are at least symbolic of the direction in which we would like the state to move. (The Provost wished to clarify that changes in our domestic partner benefits are not within Regent purview but would require legislative action.)

System has proposed its next budget to the governor who will announce his budget in January. The Governor has asked each state agency to go through a 10% of administrative budget reduction exercise. For our campus the reduction would total $400,000. On top of the biggest "hit" in System history two years ago, it is unclear where this sort of money could be found. The Governor keeps saying that this is only an exercise and the university will not be cut. Efforts to hire the best candidates are compromised by talks of impending cuts, so premature speculation is not in our interest; but, at the same time, prudence is in order. At this point the exercise is Systemwide and no campuses have been asked how they would cut. Once the budget is announced, we will need to be ready to adjust our enrollment as necessary.

Senator Breznay asked about TABOR. Whatever form it takes among the many possibilities, our efforts must be to protect UW interests.

4. Continuing Business

a. Implementing a Physical Education Executive Committee (previously distributed). Presented by Speaker Dresdow. Senator Meyer moved (with second) acceptance of the proposal as presented. Senator Kaye asked whether there was any talk of creating a physical education degree program in light of the sports center expansion. Neither Provost nor Chancellor is aware of such talk. With no further discussion, the motion passed 23-0-2.

5. New Business

a. Resolution on the granting of degrees. Presented by Speaker Dresdow. The motion to approve granting of degrees at the December 2004 commencement was moved (with second) by Senator Baulieu. The motion passed unanimously. The Chancellor commented on the importance of this motion that establishes faculty authority for granting degrees.

b.Resolution in Opposition to the Proposed Constitutional Amendment Regarding the Definition of Marriage (previously distributed). Presented by Speaker Dresdow who explained that the UC is bringing the resolution forward. This type of resolution has been passed at most System campuses. Senator Kaye (with second) moved to accept the resolution. Senator Martin reported that Social Work had approved the motion and encouraged the Senate to do so as well. During the course of the discussion, Senators mentioned other units that had voted to support the motion (SCD, HUD) or had spoken favorably of the motion without vote (COA). Student Government Representative Abhold underscored the strong support by the Student Senate for this sort of resolution. Senator Jeffreys, while actively opposing the constitutional amendment, was uneasy about a Senate vote without a substantial discussion about whether it is appropriate for a faculty Senate to make a statement about a controversial public policy issue. He also said the Senate should discuss the underlying values represented by such a resolution before voting on it. He moved (with second) to table to a date to be decided by the UC. The vote to table failed 6 in favor, 16 opposed with 3 abstentions.

Returning to the original motion, UC Chair noted that this resolution is very similar to ones passed by the Faculty Senate at Madison and Milwaukee. System administration is interested in feedback on this from campuses in advance of the January Board of Regents meeting. Senator Jeffreys now asked directly what values were inherent in a vote for this resolution. Senator Martin responded that one of the values is diversity. She added that there is a fear that passage of the proposed constitutional amendment could prevent campuses from giving any rights (even soft ones) to domestic partners. We need to avoid such restrictions on campus rights in the interest of students and faculty. Senator Jeffreys pursued his desire to have the body decide whether it supported the substantive values in the motion. Representative Abhold noted the Student Senates opposition to the constitutional amendment stemmed from it opposition to writing any form of discrimination into the State Constitution.

Senator Gurung said that Senator Jeffreys’ questions about the Senate voting on public policy issues in general is an important one and may be a topic for another day, but many units have had the chance to discuss this and a great deal of thought has gone into the resolution. Senator Kaye supported Senator Martin’s view that the Senate resolution demonstrates belief in the value of diversity. The constitutional amendment threatens values that the university has long committed itself to regarding diversity. Senator Draney sees no need to discuss the value content implicit in every resolution, especially, as in the case before the Senate, where these implicit values are clear. Senator Breznay pointed out that the whereas statements make the underlying values clear. They are tolerance, opposition to harassment and discrimination, a climate that supports everyone, and a commitment to educational values for the campus. Senator Voelker sees tolerance and diversity as procedural values without which education could not take place

Looking ahead to the next agenda item, Senator Baulieu requested that the UC schedule a debate at some future date on the appropriateness of public policy resolutions in the Faculty Senate--in general and not in connection with the resolution on the floor. Senator Rosewall notes that the existence of the Senate Legislative Affairs Committee does indicate that legislative issues are a traditional concern of the Senate. That Committee is available as a resource. This particular resolution needs to be moved forward now since the topic is likely to be before the BOR in January and System officials in need of feedback must have it very soon. Speaker Dresdow noted that Wisconsin is one of the few states that provide as a civil right, protection against discrimination in employment based on sexual orientation. The constitutional amendment appears to contradict that right. Senator Meyer reported that his religious convictions don’t allow him to vote for the resolution on the table. Following further discussion on ethics, not legislating morality, the need for action and parliamentary possibilities, Senator Benson moved to close debate and vote on the previous question (with second). The motion is non-debatable and requires 2/3 majority. The motion passed with 21 of 25 votes cast and the Speaker called for a vote on the original resolution. The resolution was adopted 24 in favor 1 opposed with 1 abstention. The UC will forward the resolution to the Board of Regents.

c. Request for Future Senate Business. The Speaker noted the previous request from Senator Baulieu. There were no further requests.

6. Provost’s Report. Provost Hammersmith’s written report was previously distributed and attached to the electronic copy of the agenda for today’s meeting. It is also available at The Provost distributed additional documentation and elaborated on each of the points in her report.

1. Learning Outside the Classroom. The Provost distributed the report of last year’s Student Affairs Committee. (The report is available at This is an emerging opportunity. There are also challenges to be met such as deciding what this means for workload.

2. National Survey of Student Engagement. This report compares levels of student involvement on System campuses. On the positive side, the survey shows good ratings for a supportive environment on our campus. On the negative side, there are many areas where our students rate us lower than other institutions: active and collaborative learning, student-faculty interaction, for example. It is difficult to know why the ratings are low but the data should be useful in future conversations. Students tend to declare majors very late, which could have a bearing on the negative perception of interaction. Senator Kaye suspects a possible negative effect on interaction in the arrangement of MAC Hall. Senator Breznay suggests that advising deficits may also contribute to the problem.

3. Higher Education Research Institute Survey. Faculty are advised to expect to receive a survey soon from HERI an organization run out of UCLA. A comparable survey designed for Academic Staff will also be distributed.

4. Updates on Academic Matters: a) The Honorary Degree Committee has been reactivated. These degrees are made in recognition of outstanding scholarly, artistic or professional work, and are not meant to court potential donors. b) General Education requirements are met when a person with a baccalaureate degree from another campus pursues a second degree here. This policy is an extension of the Regents’ directive that those with associate degrees meet the general education requirements when they pursue a baccalaureate on any System campus. This is a clarification of policy, not new policy. c) Clarification of the procedure for grade appeals. The Provost distributed the new procedure by which students may appeal a course grade. Some discussion arose about whether under the new guidelines unit chairs have the right to change faculty grades on appeal. Step 5 in the procedure says: "On the basis of the student’s appeal and the instructor’s response, the budget unit chair will inform the parties, in writing, of her/his recommendation/decision." Some agreed that this wording implies that chairs can change the grade. The Provost referred to very rare cases where a teacher is not is a position to submit grades. Senator Baulieu suggested that such a scenario is so rare as to be outside the policy for normal app. The Provost made clear that the Dean’s role in normal appeals is simply procedural. The Chancellor suggested that this procedure is necessary so that students will know what they can do if they wish to appeal, and that it is not meant to be a change in policy. If the Senate wishes to reexamine the policy, it should do that and not confuse process with policy. Senator Kaye asks whether the current policy says that the chair makes a recommendation or decision. The Provost answered that current policy says the chair’s role is "advisory to the instructor." Kaye then felt that the new procedure represents a major change in policy. In addition to reducing the faculty’s role, it could put chairs in a difficult position. . The Provost agreed that the word "decision" could be omitted from the chair’s role, making it clear that the chair recommends solutions but does not decide an appeal.

7. University Committee Report. Presented by UC Chair Davis. The backlog of issues the UC had been considering has cleared. The main issue at the moment is faculty development in its relation to increased workload. Faculty life has changed over the years. The size of the student body has doubled but the size of the faculty has not. In that time budget cuts have reduced program assistants who help us do our jobs and library resources we need for our scholarship. Changes in computer software require frequent updating and retraining. The expectation that faculty can excel in interdisciplinarity right out of graduate school without adequate faculty development opportunities may be misplaced. Much has been added and little has been removed from faculty workload. The UC is interested in discussing how quality of instruction, scholarship and service can be maintained in the face of such increases in workload. If something is added to workload should something be removed? Merit and promotion also need to reflect workload expectations accurately. These are some of the concerns and questions that moved the UC to place this question on the agenda as today’s open forum.

8. Open Forum. Senator Baulieu asks where the burden of faculty development falls. Is it a campus or unit responsibility? Senator Furlong noted that items discussed earlier in the meeting (possible additional budget cuts, the upcoming faculty survey) have a bearing on workload and development issues. There is already evidence to show that reduced workload and reduced faculty-student ratios mean improvement in the situation. Increased burden of individualized instruction makes things worse. Increasing the workload makes everything we do as faculty suffer. The Chancellor agrees that the resource shortage on this campus exacerbates the workload problem. However he points out that statistics show no correlation between educational quality or student satisfaction and class size. Furlong does not question that but is concerned that the larger numbers also add to the workload by increasing the time required for advising and the demand for individualized instruction. Representative Abhold offered her personal observation that there is a relation between class size and student satisfaction even if surveys don’t show it. Senator Gurung believes that if students don’t see a difference in large classes it is because faculty are willing to assume the burden of ever increasing class sizes. Such statistics make it likely administrators will agree to live with large class sections since it doesn’t seem to affect outcomes. However what is affected and cannot be documented is faculty mental health. Senator Aldrete gave witness to the enormous burden of independent studies. He has regularly had to turn down students who wanted to do independent studies that would have contributed greatly to their educational experience because he simply could not take on any more. This doesn’t show up in statistics either but it has an impact on our students’ education. Senator Davis said that as workload increases, faculty are using more and more of their personal time to do the work. Senator Kaye does not have the time to do justice to independent studies. He laments that System chancellors haven’t figured out a way to get a real, automatic sabbatical system for faculty as other public systems have. The Provost feels we will need to be creative to meet the need for sabbaticals in the face of budget challenges.

9. Adjournment. As time for automatic adjournment approached, the Speaker promised to bring the topic back for further discussion at another time, and the body voted to adjourn at 5:00 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Kenneth Fleurant, Secretary of the Faculty and Academic Staff

Faculty Senate Open Forum, 12/15/04


December 3, 2004

UW-Green Bay faculty, staff, and students:

The General Education Council believes that we have an opportunity and need to revise UW-Green Bay's general education program. Empirical evidence suggests that our students are not adequately achieving the stated general education learning outcomes and levels of dissatisfaction with the existing program are unacceptably high. Furthermore, we agree with Chancellor Shepard and others that UW-Green Bay, for a variety of reasons, is in a position to provide a unique and innovative general education program.

On the heels of Chancellor Shepard's recent remarks, the General Education Council proposes 3 areas where our general education program can be revised. Our summary aims to initiate a constructive dialogue about general education at UW-Green Bay. Specifically, we hope that you will be moved to contribute comments and ideas to the gbteach-l listserv (see below) and at Chancellor Shepard's all-university forum next spring. 

1. General Education Breadth Requirement

The most substantial element of our existing general education program is the breadth requirement.  Currently, students are required to take 37-39 credits from 6 academic areas (Fine Arts, Humanities, Social Sciences, Natural Sciences, Ethnic Studies, and World Culture). An additional area, Information Technology and Communication, also has been suggested. We recognize two extremes in designing a breadth requirement: a Core Curriculum, where all students take the same general education courses vs. an Open Curriculum where students can choose any courses from designated academic areas.  The first alternative helps ensure that all students are taught a consistent body of knowledge, whereas the second alternative maximizes flexibility.  The current system lies somewhere in the middle.  If we change the general education program, in which direction do you think we should we go?

2. Distinctive General Education Course Requirement

UW-Green Bay's history includes several types of distinctive general education courses (e.g., Senior Seminars, Liberal Education Seminars), but currently we have none.  We might consider an all-university requirement for 1-2 interdisciplinary, problem-solving courses, for example.  If we endorse the idea of a distinctive general education experience, then we can choose between a special type of course or an "imbedded" element within existing courses (like our writing emphasis requirement).  If we add a new type of course, we likely will need to reduce the breadth requirement.  Do you think we should develop one or more types of distinctive general education courses or experiences?

3. General Education Program Oversight

We believe that this could be the most important change.  Currently the general education program fosters little sense of "ownership" among faculty and staff.  One option is to resurrect Domain Committees for each of the 6 general education areas (Fine Arts, Humanities, Social Sciences, Natural Sciences, Ethnic Studies, and World Culture).  These committees would be responsible for developing curricula in the corresponding academic areas, within boundaries set by the existing academic governance structure.  Greater faculty/staff representation might promote ongoing experimentation and innovation.   Do you think the general education program can be more successfully managed?   If so, how should we re-structure the governance framework?

Please take some time to submit comments about these issues.  Organized discussions about general education reform will be coming during spring semester, but here is an opportunity for everyone's good ideas to shape the future of UW-Green Bay's curriculum.   You can share thoughts with other faculty and staff by subscribing to the gbteach-l email listserv. Instructions for subscribing are shown below:

To subscribe to gbteach-l send the following to

subscribe gbteach-l

To remove oneself, send: unsubscribe gbteach-l

Bob Howe
Chair, General Education Council

Report to the Faculty Senate

December 15, 2004

Submitted by Sue K. Hammersmith, Provost and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs

University of Wisconsin-Green Bay




 Two of our faculty have received wonderful honors recently. 

 Ø       Rebecca Meacham (Humanistic Studies) has won the prestigious 2004 Katherine Anne Porter Prize in Short Fiction for a book of nine short stories, entitled Let’s Do.  According to the story in last week’s “Log,” the judge who selected Meacham’s book said she is “one of the freshest voices I’ve encountered in a long time” and described her stories as “deliciously subversive, brave and outrageous.”

 Ø       Ganga Nair (Natural and Applied Sciences) has been named “Chairman for Southeast Asia” for a UN-sponsored project in the conservation and management of natural resources.  This appointment, which will run for three years, follows intensive consultation work in the People’s Republic of China over that past year or so.

 Please join me in extending a hearty congratulations to both Rebecca and Ganga.  I look forward to hearing more about their work.


 A high priority in the next biennium – for both the UW system and the legislature – will be to promote the completion of baccalaureate degrees by more Wisconsin residents. Wisconsin ranks 9th in the nation in the percent of population with associate degrees but drops to 33rd in the nation in the percent of population with bachelor’s degrees. Twenty years ago, Wisconsin was among the nation’s leaders in education.  We’ve steadily lost ground, however, since the late ‘80s, when enrollment caps were enacted for UW institutions.  This “education lag” is now recognized as a major impediment to the economic development of the state.  We now lag behind our neighboring states, and if we follow the current trend, in a few years our educational peers will be Arkansas and Mississippi. 

 The UW System budget proposal for the next biennium includes $1,000,000 to fund a few pilot programs to produce more baccalaureate graduates in Wisconsin.  This is an initiative that has strong legislative support as well.  At last week’s meeting of the UW Board of Regents, UW System’s Larry Rubin gave a progress report on efforts over the past year to facilitate Wisconsin Technical College graduates’ ability to enroll in UW baccalaureate programs.  The meeting was attended by a member of the state legislature, who had initiated this discussion in 2003, as well as a number of officials from the Technical College system.

 UWGB has emerged as a leader in this effort.  I was asked to present on the good working relations we have among the public post-secondary institutions here in Northeast Wisconsin and on what we could do to produce more baccalaureate degree holders here in the Green Bay area.  A copy of my remarks are attached.  Following the presentation, we were encouraged by President Reilly and the Board’s Education Committee to move forward with the development of a pilot project. Funding was discussed briefly, and I said we could only do this with additional GPR funding as well as the tuition revenues generated. 


 Over the next month, I will develop a draft of a strategic plan for the Provost’s area, drawing upon the activities of all the Provost’s budget divisions and the good work of the Academic Affairs Planning Committee.  The Academic Affairs Planning Committee will work on this draft plan in January, for campus review later in the spring.   Also over the next month, the division heads who report to the Provost will develop their 05-06 budget requests.  These are due to me January 15, 2005.  I will be inviting the Senate Standing Committee on Planning and Budget to meet with me and my Administrative Council to discuss their budget requests before I submit our budgets at the end of January.


A search will be undertaken for a new Coordinator of Assessment Services.  David Prestby (interim coordinator) has resigned, and we are hoping to fill the position as soon as possible.  A copy of the position announcement in attached.  I would be grateful if you could assist us by encouraging application by any good potential candidates you may know. 

 Eleven faculty are coming up for tenure this year, and eleven faculty searches are in progress. 

 Respectfully submitted,


Sue H.

 Sue K. Hammersmith, Provost and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs


Thank you for the opportunity to talk with you today about what we would like to do, in keeping with the COBE initiative, to expand baccalaureate education in Northeast Wisconsin.  But first, let me tell you a little about our region.


UWGB has excellent, strong relations with the UW Colleges in our region.   Marinette, Manitowoc, and Fox Valley all provide us with large numbers of very capable transfer students.  However, there is no UW College in Green Bay, nor in the area immediately surrounding Green Bay.  To a very large degree, NWTC and UWGB serve the same population base. 

In our area, Northeast Wisconsin Technical College is the institution that many students go to if they want to start at a two-year institution, or if they’re not sure whether they will go on for a four-year degree.  UWGB already gets a large number of transfer students from NWTC, and the private colleges in our region enroll hundreds of NWTC graduates.  That tells us there’s a need and a desire for further education on their part.  There’s a market. 

We already have a number of programmatic articulations with NWTC (nursing), and we currently have 17 students who are dually enrolled in our two institutions.  So we’ve worked out a lot of the administrative logistics.

What we would like to do now is the offer men and women who have graduated with a TC degree – many would be working adults – with a degree that’s specifically designed to meet their needs.

What would such a degree look like?

The specifics of such a degree would need to be developed by our faculty and go through our campus approval process, of course, and that hasn’t yet begun.  But this is what I’d envision such a program might look like:

1.      We would identify the TC programs of study that would be accepted into this degree and the grade point average requirement for admission into the program.  Those would include programs in the allied health fields, computers, business, graphics, criminal justice, and engineering fields.  These are academically solid programs, and transfer students who come in from them do fine in our classes.  [NWTC also offers a large number of applied, technical, job-readiness diploma programs—e.g., welding—that  would not be accepted into this degree.]

2.      We would accept up to 60 credits from the TC.  This could include 21-30 credits in general education and 30-39 credits in the major program of study.  Previously, we haven’t been able to accept credits for areas of study such as dental hygiene or civil engineering—even if they clearly are of solid academic quality—because we don’t have comparable areas of study on our campus.  The new UW System transfer policy guidelines that were developed this past year as part of the COBE initiative now allow us to do so 

3.      The specific degree requirements have not yet been worked out, of course, but the following would be typical of such degrees nationally in terms of what the students would study after they come to us: 

Ø      Additional general education classes.

Ø      An academic minor of the student’s choosing.

Ø      Communication and analysis courses.

Ø      Business courses.

Ø      A senior capstone course.

Ø      Electives of the student’s choice

4.      Credit for prior learning is also often allowed.  Students demonstrate their prior learning through various means—exams, portfolios, or ACE-accredited military programs, etc.  This is something we already do at UWGB, and have for about 20 years. Over time, though, our student body has become younger, with fewer nontraditional students, and we don’t do as much credit for prior learning now as we once did.

What kind of students is such a degree appropriate for?

Not the students who need or want more specialized, in-depth training in their technical fields.  For example, if an RN wants more nursing education, this degree is not for them.  If a mechanical engineering associate degree holder wants more in-depth engineering, it’s not for them.

Rather, this degree is for the students who want to become more broadly educated, more versatile, more skilled at managing people and complex issues, more adept at managing or leading change. 


A person who started in a technical field, has worked several years, and now has advancement opportunities that require more education or adaptabilty, supervision, communication, or analytic skills.  I can give you an example, someone I knew in Michigan.  She started as a registered nurse, having graduated from a two-year diploma program.  She worked as a nurse in a hospital for a number of years.  Then over time, she started getting promoted into or assigned other kinds of responsibility for her hospital, doing less and less actual nursing and more and more other things.  These included grant-writing, developing education programs for patients or the public, public relations type work, and supervising other employees. 

So at that point in time, she went back to school for a bachelor’s degree, but she didn’t need a Bachelor of Science in Nursing, because nursing wasn’t actually what she needed at that point in her career.  What she needed was a whole lot of communication (written and oral), some small-group decision-making, a little management, knowledge about different cultures, and the more general education that teaches you new ways of thinking about the world.

The same kind of career progression happens with engineering technology people, health worker, and many others.  You’ve all heard many times, I’m sure, how the average worker today changes careers 6 or 7 times.  This kind of degree is one that helps people with those changes. It’s not for everyone, but for many people, it’s exactly what they need and want.

NWTC graduates about 1500 students a year, so there’s a huge potential market.  We estimate that about 150 would enroll in such a degree program in its first year, and that the figure would increase to about 375 over time.  I have some experience with such degrees, so for me this isn’t just hypothetical.  I know the paradigm, and I know it works.   

Thank you.

Banner, 719 pixels wide





Position:                                        Assessment Specialist


Date Posted:                                  December 7, 2004


Essential Job Functions:                Provide staff support for the planning and implementation of assessment research activities; coordinate activities associated with credit for prior learning, institutional assessment testing programs, and institution-wide course evaluation process.  


Qualifications:                               Bachelor’s degree required; higher degree desirable, in psychology, assessment research, educational research, statistics or a related field.   Requires excellent verbal, presentation and written communication skills including the ability to use Microsoft Word and PowerPoint.  Essential skills include demonstrated ability to manage multiple projects, adaptability and flexibility within a team-oriented organization and maintaining cooperative, positive working relationships with diversified staff and the general public. The ability to use software applications including Microsoft Access and Excel as well as SPSS or a similar data analysis package is desired.  Knowledge related to individual and/or group assessment procedures, statistical interpretation of data and experience conducting survey research projects is also desired.


Starting Date:                                February 15, 2005


Conditions of Appointment:           Position is a full-time, fixed term academic staff position.  UWS title assignment, Administrative Specialist, Pay Grade 3. The UW System provides a liberal benefits package including participation in a state pension plan.


Salary:                                           $32,000 to $36,000 starting salary.  Future increases based upon performance and provisions of university pay plan.


To Apply:                                       Submit a letter of application; resume; names, addresses, and phone numbers of three references; and transcripts of all post-secondary work.  Unofficial transcripts may be submitted with application; official transcripts will be required of finalists.  Submit application materials to:  Dr. Timothy Sewall, Chair, Search and Screen Committee; Office of the Provost; University of Wisconsin-Green Bay, 2420 Nicolet Drive, Green Bay, WI 54311-7001.  Phone:  920/465-2082.  FAX: 920/465-2430.  Email:


Application Deadline:                    Review of applications will begin January 10, 2005 and continue until the position is filled.


For More Information:                    Visit the UW-Green Bay website at


The University is committed to achieving a more culturally diverse academic community, in a region with an increasing population of Southeast Asians, Latinos, Native Americans, and African Americans.