8
S enior finals.
Parking.
Housing.
Core curriculum.
Gynecological
exams. Do students
have a say?
lower children no longer
wander the nation’s college campuses,
waving banners of protest and crying out
for the cause of the day. A new breed of
collegian has replaced the socially aware
student of yesteryear; it is no longer hip
to parade daily for peace.
Granted, there still remain a brave few
who go against the grain to speak their
minds. But often they are accused of
being agitators and aggravators — rebels
without a cause.
But the A&M student body is not
apathetic to the point of complete
silence. Muffled groans of displeasure
can be heard occasionally when
something near and dear to students’
hearts is being threatened — like their
lives, liberty or sacred tradition.
T
JL t-
he most recent point of
controversy and apparent dissatisfaction
among the student body is the issue of
senior finals. Several weeks ago, a plan
was approved to accomodate senior
finals which will require all students to
take final exams beginning the Friday of
chairman of academic affairs, says the
plan’s acceptance is not the main reason
for displeasure. Rather, it was the fact
that the students’ carefully researched
plan was not approved, and the Faculty
Senate’s hastily written plan was
approved. Dingmore says the entire
procedure shows a total disregard for
student opinion.
The Faculty Senate’s reasons for
supporting senior finals ranged broadly,
but the body was mainly concerned with
the opinion that a University the size of
A&M has to require senior finals to
maintain its high academic standing,
Dingmore says.
The disadvantages of requiring senior
finals are many. The recently approved
plan involves a seemingly impossible
finals schedule which affects not only
seniors, but all students. Dead Week is
almost non-existent, since Finals Week
starts before Dead Week ends. This
system also complicates the situation for
graduating seniors. If any complications
arise with finals or with final grades,
seniors may have to miss the graduation
ceremony and receive their diplomas in
the mail.
Future action that can be taken
Most of the attendees at these
meetings were faculty members who
supported the idea but wanted to make
minor modifications. The big
controversies were over which colleges
would gain and which would lose
students, and whether the guidelines
would be specific or broad.
Jim Cleary, one of the Student
Government members who was
involved in the core curriculum plans,
says the process was always very open to
student input.
“Most of us were very pleased by the
way the Faculty Senate solicited our
opinions,” he says. “There was always a
student on the committee. ”
He says Dr. Sam Black, the chairman
of the core curriculum committee, is part
of the reason it worked so well. He got
student support for the plan, which
made the committee’s recommendation
“tons better” than that of the senior
finals committee.
Students expressed concern that the
science requirement was too specific,
and it was changed in the final version of
the plan, he says.
However, Cleary says that there was
little knowledge about the plan in the
student
decisioi
to sign <
room ir
require
student
instead
John
the reas
student
followir
many d
half-em
semest<
of whic
White f
elimina
How
vacanc
becaus
becaus
closing
dorms I
600 fev
Fall 191
The
dissatis
concer
affect tl
percen
When students talk, does
Wciyenrter'n'r
live music & more!
Deranged
Durans
The
Locomotives
BAD
SNEAKERS
Lipoman
Jan
18 Yrs & Otuer Welcome
1 Jus Wcnna Oance!
4410 College Main
Bryanjx. 77801
846-1812
Dead Week and ending the following
Wednesday.
As the situation now stands, the new
finals schedule will be tested in Fall
1987, but seniors won’t start taking finals
until Spring 1988.
The finals plan, which originated in
the Faculty Senate, was approved by
President Frank E. Vandiver, even
though a Student Senate subcommittee
in charge of investigating possible
solutions to the problem disapproved of
the plan.
As soon as the senior finals issue
originated in 1984, a Student Senate
subcommittee was formed and after two
years of work, came up with a plan
which was a compromise between the
Faculty Senate, the Student Senate and
the administration. However, the
compromise did not ever reach
President Vandiver.
The Faculty Senate did look over the
bill, but did not approve it, choosing
instead to quickly formulate its own plan.
The Student Senate subcommittee
reported to the Faculty Senate and to
President Vandiver that the plan was
unacceptable, yet the President
approved it.
Jerry Dingmore, student senate’s
includes making sure the mother’s clubs,
the former students associations and
other Aggie organizations are informed
of the progress of the issue. Dingmore
says it will be up to the organizations if
they choose to take action, which could
cause President Vandiver to reexamine
the proposal.
However it turns out, it is evident from
opinion around campus that students
don’t feel they had a say in the senior
finals issue.
A
-Viother important issue in
the news lately has been the recently-
approved core curriculum, which has
been in the planning stages since many
of this year’s graduates started college.
Although the plan will affect the
courses future Aggies are required to
take and will, in effect, turn some four-
year programs into five-year ones, little
student interest in the issue was seen.
Few students came to three public
hearings on the subject, perhaps
because the plan will not affect students
who have already chosen the major with
which they will graduate.
general student body. Two
questionnaires by Student Government
indicated this.
“Most students really didn’t know
what was going on,” he says. “As long as
we didn’t get any negative responses, we
decided to be in favor of it. It seemed
very logical to us.”
Two weeks after the Faculty Senate
approved the final plan and sent it to
President Vandiver for his signature, the
Student Senate passed a resolution
supporting the core curriculm. The vote
was 37-11. Only 55 percent of the
student senators were at the meeting.
'*â–  ousing has also been at
the root of much student concern this
semester.
In addition to the various
confrontations between the housing
office and individuals and groups of
students (e.g. the Walton Hall E-Ramp
incident and the Dunn Hall issue), there
have been complaints lodged by the
students against housing policies and
plans.
The most prominent issue on most
been a
increas
The
revenu
renova
Vandiv
submit
said th<
the del:
sale of
Center
contro'
Thrc
organic
center
gynecc
prescri]
Katii
Emily I
about \
whent
disconi
Dr. (
health
staff m
“Wf