Historical State (University History)

Ask the Archivists

Find Archival Materials

University Records

University Archives Home

Digital Collections

Special Collections Home

The Provost's Office: An Informal History

Chapter Six: Other Units and Activities

Computer Center

In 1959 Shirley advised the Chancellor to appoint a College Computer Committee. The Computer Committee was appointed by Caldwell with J. A. Rigney as chairman. At this time the computer was managed by the Statistics Department. This was a first step by the college administration to affirm that computing was a college-wide activity. On February 4, 1960, Dean Lampe wrote the Chancellor that funds were needed to put UNIVAC I into operation. There were no other details in this memorandum. In 1960 the UNC Board of Trustees approved a purchase of a UNIVAC computer for NCSC. A UNIVAC Solid State 80 Computer from Remington Rand was ordered on August 22, 1960, for NCSC. It had a discount of $265,000 and a net cost to the College of $220,000. On March 23, 1960, the Computer Committee made a report and recommended that the Dean of PSAM (Menius) not the Dean of the Faculty (Shirley) be the agents responsible for a proposed new Computer Department and the appointment of a person as Head of the Department and Director of Computing. This meant that campus-wide computing would report to the Dean of PSAM, and it did for several years. Caldwell directed Shirley to draw up plans for a Computer Department. It was not to be an instructional department, but it was to be a college-wide service department. In 1961 Caldwell wrote to Mr. Graves Vann, the Business Manager, indicating that when the order for the UNIVAC was canceled (with no indication why) he understood that the plans for the use of overhead funds for the purchase of the computer was also dropped by Mr. Vann. He indicated that while negotiations with IBM had not been pinned down, that a grant proposal was to be sent to NSF, and that the need for overhead funds would continue and would be no less than $190,000. On June 16, 1961, it had been learned that the NSF proposal for that computer was not funded, but the Chancellor requested permission to go ahead with the approval process for a basic or minimum installation of an IBM 1410 Data Processing System. Required approvals included UNC, the Advisory Budget Commission and the State Department of Administration.

On July 29, 1960, the Chancellor sent out a memorandum that defined more specific policies concerning the use and payment of computer time by departments to Deans, Directors and Department Heads. At this time we had an IBM 650. A key item in the memorandum was that all uses were to be paid for, except for 20 hours per week allocated for teaching and for unsponsored research. At this time the Agricultural Experiment station paid for 20 hours per week. It was stated that program development and writing was the responsibility of the user, but laboratory staff would give general guidance to users in writing programs. The laboratory staff could help more, but the laboratory would be reimbursed for such writing of programs. The use of the various machines in the Computing Laboratory required additional payment. Computing was to be done at this time on a first come first served basis. The memo reminded the deans and department heads that research proposals that planned for use of the computer should include specifically budgeted funds for this purpose. Caldwell said, "We have operated the computer center to date without State funds, and we desire at present to continue to operate on this basis knowing that ample funds can be obtained through grants if proper charges are billed and paid." Although computer usage was growing, it is evident that we were really innocents at this time about how important the computer would become in research, teaching, extension and administration at NCSU.

In 1961 a special committee was asked to look at how NCSC's computing needs could best be met, and it recommended that the existing computing facilities and activities be separated from the Department of Statistics but kept in the School of PSAM. It was just before this time the Chancellor requested through the President that NCSC be permitted to buy an IBM 1410 Data Processing System. This would replace the IBM 650 which was overloaded. In the meantime the UNC system had obtained a UNIVAC 1105. NCSC's computing needs had been described in the justification for this equipment. These needs had been described in the justifying of its purchase as an asset to NCSC, but in reality, according to information in several memoranda, it was incompatible with the NCSC's IBM equipment. On the NCSC campus the purchase of the 1105 had been viewed with suspicion and fear that this equipment exceeded the UNC system's needs so much that we would be slowed appreciably in the acquisition of equipment and facilities to meet needs for the development of our computing capability and capacity. Shirley wrote that NCSC would be expected to "pull Whyburn's chestnuts out of the fire."

On September 25, 1961, the Director of the State Department of Administration rescinded our request for the purchase an IBM 1410 computer, but it did approve our revised request for renting an IBM 1410. This began a process for us of renting or lease-purchasing computers frequently on the NCSU campus. We were able to stretch our resources and to get more powerful equipment this way than we could have through purchases with the funds in hand.

In 1962 Shirley recommended that David Mason replace Rigney (now assigned to off-campus activities) on the Computer Laboratory and the Computer Advisory Committees as Chairman. Also in 1962 the UNC System's Computing Center was placed under the responsibility of the UNC-Chapel Hill campus administration. This was an important development because each campus could now develop its own computing equipment rather than having a UNC-wide computer center.

On June 15, 1962, Chancellor Caldwell announced that we had a grant from NIH which provided for the next four years for approximately 50% of the usage of our computer operation and including all of the analyses performed by the biological sciences faculty. He then said, "To put it another way, NIH has made this grant with the understanding that all computer work in the Computing Center on the high speed machines required by the life sciences at State College is being underwritten." In 1962 the Computer still resided in the Institute of Statistics. A major grant for computer equipment was funded for Statistics to support computing, and discussion centered around whether the purchase should be for digital or analog equipment.

In 1963 the Computing Center was moved from the west wing of the cafeteria, (Leazar Hall), to the basement of Nelson Hall "for the next two years." Of course it stayed there many years. The Computer Laboratory Advisory Committee proposed, among a number of other recommendations, that we request state funding for 50% of the total budget of the Computing Center. The Chancellor responded: "Unfortunately, funds for such an undertaking are not available at this time. However, it is hoped that sometime in the days ahead additional consideration will be given to gain support for this request." In 1964, $60,000 from lapsed salaries or other reversions for instructional costs was requested from the State Budget Officer to help fund the Computing Center for 1965.

In 1964 there was a request to network the National Register Records Center with the 1410 in the NCSU Computing Center. This national scientific manpower records program began to use the NCSU computers on December 7, 1965. This led to a tie with this NSF activity for many years until the Register moved back to Washington from Raleigh.

In 1964 there was a plan to exchange the 1410 for an IBM 360. On April 1, 1964, Darrell Shreve was listed as Director of the Computing Center. I saw no notes of his appointment or resignation. Later that same spring of 1964, David Reid became Acting Director of the Computing Center, and T. W. Della became Acting Assistant Director. On May 1, 1965, Paul Edwin Lewis became Director of the Computing Center and Professor of Mathematics.

In 1965 the School of Engineering had an IBM 1620 which it had obtained earlier from a grant from NSF. James Ferrell was the Director of the Engineering School Computer Facility. They announced in their planning report of March 9, 1965, that they would use the 1620 for one additional year and replace it with a remote console for operation with the campus 360.

In 1965 very serious planning was under way to develop a Research Triangle Universities Computations Center. Dr. James Ferrell, a Professor of Chemical Engineering at NCSU, was the chairman of the committee which planned for and fathered TUCC. This innovation provided for NCSU's computing needs at reasonable costs, mostly on IBM equipment, almost until the date I retired. It was a resource that provided large mainframe computing over many generations of computers for UNC-Chapel Hill, Duke University, NCSU and the Research Triangle Institute. Many others used this computer less frequently. I shall not discuss the operation of TUCC, but our Director of the Computing Center, the Business Manager (or VC for Finance and Business) and the Chairman of our Computing Center Advisory Committee played major roles in the further development and in planning the programs of TUCC. They served as NCSU's representatives on the TUCC Advisory Board. The Provost was much involved since the recommendations from TUCC came through the Provost to the NCSU campus. On November 12, 1965, Dr. Ferrell became the first President of TUCC and was on leave from NCSU. We were all fortunate that he served in this role for he got TUCC off on a very sound basis. In 1966 NCSU got a grant of $500,000 for participation in TUCC. A draft of the By-Laws of TUCC dated December 15, 1965, was circulated and studied on the three campuses. They were approved with minor changes early in 1966.

In a memorandum to Deans, Directors and Department Heads in 1966 Dr. Kelly addressed the relationship of TUCC to the NCSU campus. He stated that we had a Computing Center on our campus under the direction of Dr. Paul Lewis who reports to Dean Menius for administrative matters with a campus-wide Computer Center Advisory Committee. Their role was to serve as an advisory group on policy matters relating to computing and to act on any appeals from the decisions of the Director regarding scheduling and other computer activities involving teaching and research activities of the faculty.

When established at NCSU, the Administrative Computing Services reported through the Director of the Computing Center. Academic and administrative computing used the same computer and much of the same systems and operational staff for computer operations. It was decided that the Director of Computing would report to the Dean of the Faculty, the Dean for Student Affairs and the Business Manager and that they would run Administrative Computing Services together. Since the needs of the Dean of the Faculty were of a lower priority than those of Business and Student Affairs at this time, the Dean of the Faculty would chair the group. This group came to be known as the Troika. Later after Chancellor Poulton came, the administrative computing function was instructed to report to the Vice Chancellor for Finance and Business. This function now reports through the Director of the Budget Office to that Vice Chancellor.

On September 1, 1967, The Chancellor approved the appointment of Dr. Kevin Jones as Acting Director of the Computing Center, reporting to the Provost. Policies and Procedures for University Computing were described in a memorandum from the Chancellor to the Deans , Directors and Department Heads on May 3, 1967. They were as follows:

The Computing Center is established to serve the computing needs of the entire University.

The Computing Center Advisory Committee has campus-wide responsibility; however, this Committee serves as an advisory group on policy matters relating to computing and the Computer Center. Further, it reviews all requests for acquisition of any digital computing facility on this campus and makes recommendations to the Chancellor with the view of maintaining adequate support for the Computing Center and equitable distribution of such equipment for teaching, research, and service users. Also, the Committee acts on any appeals from the decisions of the Director of the Computing Center regarding scheduling and other computer activities.

I. General Responsibilities of Computing Center

In order to clarify University computational policy, the following areas of responsibility are assigned to the Computing Center:

1. Operation and maintenance of all equipment on the NCSU campus associated with the TUCC complex. This includes all terminals on this campus tied to the central facility in the Research Triangle.
2. Review periodically the use and maintain liaison with computing installations on the campus not directly associated directly with the TUCC complex. Provide and maintain appropriate computer software necessary for efficient usage of the computer facilities.
3. Provide technical information to support training, research, and business applications on the computer.
4. Furnish key punching services for faculty members who use the computer in research projects. Within the limits of the budget, this service will also be provided for graduate students.
5. Maintain appropriate controls over the work done in the computers to insure efficient operation within the limits of the Computing Center Budget.
6. Maintain proper accounting and statistical records for financial and budgetary purposes.
7. Handle all pertinent communication with the staff at the central TUCC facility and be responsible for all contacts with IBM and the telephone company regarding installation and maintenance of equipment.
8. Determine appropriate 'rates' to be charged for computing facilities. These rates may vary according to usage and basic operating costs.
9. Until a department of Computer Science or some other academic mechanism is established, the Computing Center shall accept responsibility of training and instruction in the basic computer languages within the limitations of available personnel.

The memorandum goes on to describe operational policy in terms of remote terminal management and programming. It describes procedures for obtaining computer time, Computer Center Information Services, the facilitates and the financial support of University computing. Among the financial support items was this statement: ASince computing on the scale planned for NCSU is very expensive, it is very important that every proposal for research requiring computer usage include requests for funds to support this computation. The staff of the Computing Center is available to help make cost estimates for computational programs. Since this last directive did not bring in the needed soft money resources, in 1972 it was required that all proposals that included computing needs be routed through the Director of the Computing Center for review and approval of its requested computational funds. In time, since the persons with grant support often tried to use departmental computational resources first, the Computer Center had to establish a more rigorous system to make certain that grant funds were used to pay for computing. When the Computing Center was transferred to the Provost, an academic Department of Computer Science was created and Paul Lewis became the Acting Head of Computer Science at this time. Kevin Jones became the Acting Director of the Computing Center. In 1968 Jones became Director.

On June 20, 1968, the Provost wrote to the deans and department heads indicating a policy change in computer usage. He stated: "Since the inception of an electronic computer center on the University campus in 1956, it has been the policy of the University to provide computing services for as many activities as required whether or not the activity had funds available. It is the desire of the University to continue this policy. However, increasing demands in the University's computing capacity make it necessary that the policy concerning unsponsored computing be modified." This meant that the Computing Center moved to a system of accounting for the non-paying projects. It also began to give paying projects a higher priority to encourage the use of these funds. The process was to divide the funds which supported non-paying projects by departments and to establish accounts for the departmental users. The users then had to acquire an allocation from the department before using the computer. This system with many modifications continues to be used.

In 1968 the equipment that could be classified as calculators were discontinued from the practice of requiring the Director's and the Chancellor's approvals for purchase.

In 1970 Dr. LeRoy B. Martin was appointed Assistant Provost and Director of the Computing Center. Dr. Kelly said:

The principle role of the Assistant Provost will be to assist the Provost in the review, planning, and coordination of the growth and the development of the over-all data processing capability of the University. Through appropriately designated managers, he will be responsible for the general management of computing and data processing service activities, for rate setting, for the control of computing equipment and personnel to staff computer service activities. Whenever possible, he will provide assistance to departments in defining and achieving their computing needs.

The memo stated he was to assist in presenting proposals for the purchase of equipment to the Advisory Committee. It stated:

He will attempt to insure that a well rounded presentation is made from the standpoint of costs, budget capabilities, cost-benefit advantages, alternative facilities, and impact on the general computing capacity of the University. He will also be responsible for the operations of the office of Administrative Computing Services which is dedicated to providing systems analysis and programming services for the Office of the Provost, the Business Office, and the Division of Student Affairs. In this function he reports to the Provost, the Business Manager and the Dean of Student Affairs.

In 1971 at the request of the Computer Advisory Committee, a change was made to have the Assistant Provost serve as an ex-officio member of the Advisory Committee and to have him make the recommendations of the Advisory Committee for computer purchases to the Provost instead of the Chairman of the Advisory Committee.

In 1972 the procedure which came into practice for the purchase of major computing equipment was complicated. A faculty member had an idea or a need and the department head approved it so a purchase plan was proposed. If funds were available the plan then went to the school dean or his agent for approval for the plan and for the use of funds. The plan then went to the Assistant Provost for Computing and he sent it to the University Advisory Computing Committee. The Committee or the Assistant Provost might make suggestions to the unit about modifications or alternatives. If they recommended approval, the Provost then would approve of the purchase and send the letter drafted by the Assistant Provost to the originating dean or VC. The proposal then went to the NCSU Purchasing Department and then through channels to the State Purchasing Office. Here it usually got sent to a computer group in the Department of Administration and if the equipment was to be used for business transactions, it was also reviewed by the Auditor's Office. This was a long and cumbersome process and the faculty protested vigorously about the length of time required to make a computer purchase. Others said that the State seemed to have confidence in NCSU's on-campus process and that NCSU's requests got approved more frequently downtown and the approvals came faster and with less difficulty than other campuses. At this time all computer purchases had to go through the on-campus process. It was soon after this that we decided that dumb terminals should be exempted from the on-campus review. To my surprise I found in the files that I was still approving some dumb terminal purchases in 1976. These approvals were discontinued before the end of 1976.

On July 1,1973, Dr. Martin's title was changed from Assistant to Associate Provost for University Computing.

In 1974 the University Systems Analysis and Control Center (USAAC) was transferred by PAMS to University Computing and began to report to Dr. Martin. At that time we did not have full-time persons associated with this center. We established a Faculty Advisory Board from the among the users. Later we also created a position for a Director of USAAC. In May of 1975, a system of procedures for acquiring USACC services and facilities by NCSU faculty and staff users was established. An announcement of the facilities and services available through the University Systems Analysis and Control Center was made. The project, was described as follows:

A project was undertaken at North Carolina State University to determine the economic and technical feasibility of establishing, as a part of a computer network, a centralized computer system to monitor laboratory equipment and experiments on a time-shared basis. The goals of this project were to determine the effectiveness of sharing data acquisition resources and to determine the practical extent to which a computer network can bring the computing power of a large scale system into research and educational laboratories. This is an interdisciplinary agency on the NCSU campus which provides access to small scale special purpose computer systems for faculty and students. USACC also provides computer based analog and digital data acquisition and analysis for various laboratory sites.

This facility served many specialized users for many years. In time it had several names and during Hart's tenure it was transferred to the College of Forest Resources as the Computer Graphics Center.

On January 17, 1975, the 370/135 was installed, and by early 1977 we were considering several IBM or IBM compatible computers for a replacement. Because of the speed and capacity and price, we did in time get the ITEL AS-4. This computer in turn would be replaced with a larger IBM model.

In 1976 we dropped the title of Director of the Computing Center from the title of Dr. Martin and made Richard Usanis, Director of the Computing Center and Leo Buckmaster, Director of Administrative Computer Services. Both continued to report to Dr. Martin. In 1983 Carl W. Malstrom replaced Dr. Usanis. Martin continued on the TUCC Board.

On September 1976, a memorandum which superseded the 1967 Policy and Procedures for University Computing was issued by Chancellor Thomas:

The Provost, as principle academic officer, has the responsibility and authority over utilization, acquisition, and allocation of all computing resources. The University Computing Council, consisting of top administrators, assists the Provost in developing broad policies and effective use of available resources. The University Advisory Committee for Computer Affairs is a University Standing Committee which makes recommendations to the Provost on all computing matters.

The Associate Provost for University Computing assists the Provost in reviewing, planning, and coordinating growth and development of computing capabilities.

This memorandum describes the responsibilities of the Computing Center, the funding for computer usage, TUCC, USACC, and special-purpose computer installations.

It also describes the acquisition of computing facilities.

Any proposal for the acquisition of computing equipment or terminals must be approved by the appropriate dean. It should then be forwarded to the Chairman of the University Computer Advisory Committee for Computer Affairs and to the Assistant Provost for University Computing. Guidelines concerning acquisition of computer equipment were established by the Provost on October 11, 1971, and may be found in the manual 'Guidelines for Proposal Preparation and Application Procedure' which was distributed by the Vice Provost and Dean for Research. After approval by the Provost, equipment could be acquired following the regular procedures of the Purchasing Department.

Since many proposals for data processing devices ultimately lead to increased need for large scale computing, every effort should always be made to secure funding to support use of the Computing Center-TUCC complex.

As is evident, we were still thinking of computing more from a centralized than from a distributive manner. However, we were not as rigorous and were beginning to encourage more and more distributed computer purchases. By 1978 we had delegated approvals for minicomputers, microprocessors or peripheral devices that cost less than $2,500 to the dean with a copy to go to the Computing Center for inventory purposes.

On December 13, 1983, a special committee appointed by the Chancellor reported on its Study of Computer Literacy and Accessibility at North Carolina State University. This was a very important study. It made 35 recommendations. Its findings were that both faculty and students in most areas were not as literate as the demands of their fields dictated. This report was a base for many years of efforts by units or groups of units to improve and advance literacy on computers. It also led to a major attempt to make personal computers accessible to the faculty. A large number of PCs were purchased so that most faculty could gain access. It also led to further literacy studies in many units.

In 1984 Henry Schaffer became Assistant Provost and later Associate Provost for Computing. By this time we had reached the stage that personal computers had become so efficient and cheap that we realized soon there would be a computer on every faculty member's desk. By June 30, 1993, this was almost true. Most computing on campus was now being done on the PC. So during the eighties we had moved from a centralized large mainframe type of environment in computing to a networked distributed type. By this time approvals for computers required by the Associate Provost for Computing included only those things whose purchase required approval from State governmental offices.

In this environment networking became increasingly important. It had become very important earlier when we had moved the Computing Center from Nelson Hall to the Hillsborough Building. At this time any computers south of Hillsborough Street had to go by telephone line to the telephone company units downtown and were then sent back to the mainframe computers in the Hillsborough building. This increased our telephone bills and the associated costs for computing for all units on campus substantially. It became imperative that a line be laid under Hillsborough street to connect the computers on the campus to the mainframe just across the street. The mainframe computer in the Hillsborough Building was our connecting link with TUCC. At this time we were connected with TUCC via telephone lines. It was a major improvement in service and speed of computing when we connected to TUCC via microwaves.

In time the State purchased a Super Computer. This was located at the Microelectronics Center of North Carolina in the Research Triangle Park. Linkage and access was through our on-campus Computing Center. When the Super Computer first came, only a few faculty, students and staff could use it. Today it is used by many, and calculations and functions can be made that were only dreamed about a few years ago. Today most large number crunching projects use this facility, and far more are using it than was visualized when we went all out to get the funds appropriated for the facility. We knew that it would be important in the future but not so important this soon.

Most computing in 1993 was done on the PC, which can do much more than was ever dreamed when the Computing Center was a responsibility of mine, at least by me. I knew very little about computing, but I soon learned that there is a jargon that the computing types used to frustrate and confuse the remainder of us. I also learned that if you persisted you could get a report, even verbally, which you could understand. This sometimes required considerable persistence. Martin and Schaffer were great in interpreting this jargon for me. Hart's relationship to and understanding of the jargon was better than mine. I found this part of my job somewhat frustrating for in one year's budget we obtained only a part of the funds which I was told were essential for us to have an effective computing service. This scene repeated itself every biennium under Kelly, Hart and me. We now seemed to be even further behind than we were before, but we continued to make progress and to improve. It caused creative genius and great ingenuity and imagination on the people involved in this operation for us to get as far as possible on an inadequate computing budget. Sometimes we even went in better directions on less money. The resource needs in the area cannot be satiated.

In 1988 Duke and UNC-CH decided they no longer needed TUCC. This was a very bad time for NCSU. We did not have the immediate resources to replace the lost computing capacity. We had gotten more computing for the dollar through TUCC than through any other mechanism. Although times were hard and State budgets tight and were soon to start declining, we began to look at a variety of ways to overcome our large scale computing deficiencies. It was just before this time and before I retired, that the VAX became more and more used on campus. At one time it looked as if every unit on campus had one or two or were going to get their first VAX. Too, the PC had become a far more powerful instrument, and the VAX units on campus plus the increased computer literacy of the faculty and their use of more powerful PCs made the deficiency of the loss of TUCC less a tragedy than we first thought. Many of these PCs were networked to the VAXs and to other larger mainframes. We owe Henry Schaffer, the Computing Center and Administrative Computing staffs a great many thanks for taking us through those trying times.

By this time networking had become as important as the computers. Many years ago Dr. Leroy Martin and Mr. Charles Braswell, Director of the Physical Plant and their staffs began to plan to network all of the campus buildings. This was a slow process because it came from wise use of existing funds and without a special networking appropriation, and was of course encouraged by Mr. Worsley and me. We had several extremely competent persons led by Samuel Averitt involved in developing and carrying out these plans. It started with coaxial cable and today utilizes fiberglass cable. The Physical Plant and the Computing Center budgets covered the costs of getting the cable to the buildings, but it was the responsibility of the academic unit's budgets to get the wiring done inside the buildings. Today I understand that the wiring is complete to all buildings and that most faculty are connected through this method rather than through modems and the telephone lines. I neglected to mention the numbers or the names of the computers, mostly IBM types that we had in the later years as our main resources for centralized computing in the Computing Center. For most of this time the administrative and academic computing were done on the same mainframes with the same maintenance and supporting staff for the mainframe. This enabled us to stretch our resources further than most universities and to get reasonable service to both areas.

Another area I did not mention earlier was the almost desperate need that we had for computers for the students for instructional purposes. Departments received allocations from the Computing Center and accounts for instructional computing. For many years the Computing Center maintained computer laboratories for student uses. Later with the advent of the PC and our inability to get the resources to maintain enough large computer laboratories, plus the problem of space to house these laboratories, the schools and departments began to develop their own computer laboratories and to equip them with PCs networked to VAXs, or to other larger computers. With the ever increasing power of the PC and the associated requirements of computing in classes, we could stay just a little behind in meeting our computing needs by leaving this to the schools and trying very hard in the change budget process and through computer class fees to get additional resources for these activities. When Chancellor Poulton first came to NCSU, our laboratories in Computer Science taught basic computing to almost all students, and they had insufficient laboratories. Chancellor Poulton with Worsley's advice and help undertook a mission to get Governor Hunt to let us use a large amount of lapsed salaries and other funds that we would have to revert to the State to devote to the development of a laboratory in the east wing of Leazar Hall. The space was taken away from the School of Design, with some anguish for Design administrators, students and faculty, but the resources to purchase and sort of catch ourselves up came through that massive effort. While others were involved, Poulton deserves much of the credit here. To help with the funding of instructional computing, we instituted the lab fee for classes which used the computer. These funds were then sent back to the units to help pay for the costs, but they were not adequate. Later Engineering was able to charge a $100 computer fee for each student. I understand that since 1993, other computer fees have also been increased. Fee increases are not easy to impose because they require approvals beyond the NCSU campus.

In 1993 William E. Willis replaced Schaffer as Associate Provost for University Computing. Malstrom continues as Director of the Computing Center and Buckmaster as Director of Administrative Computing.

Library

One of the first assignments of responsibility to the Dean of the Faculty was the Library. In 1958-59 Dean Shirley appointed the Library Committee. This practice changed and the Chancellor began to appoint all committees, but the Dean of the Faculty made or reviewed the recommendations for academic or faculty members on all standing committees. The Director of the Library was formally placed under the Dean of the Faculty for management purposes on October 23, 1964, and reported to Dean Kelly. When I was appointed Assistant Provost in 1967, the Director began to report to me (technically it still reported to the Provost).

In 1964 Chancellor Caldwell reported that the Consolidated Council had agreed that the Librarians at all of the campuses would be EPA personnel and that they were to have the status and privileges of faculty. This had been partially in practice at NCSU but did not include some privileges such as off-campus scholarly assignments. Cahill, in supporting the issue on status for librarians, sent the following statement to Dr. Kelly: AIt should be recognized that the librarian's own job is a full time counseling and teaching responsibility of a special kind. Teaching shall be interpreted to mean the kind of teaching, either group or individual, direct or indirect, that a professional librarian does." When I became Provost I indicated that the librarians and other EPA personnel on permanent appointments were eligible for off-campus scholarly assignments as were those employees with faculty rank. It was not until April 12, 1990, that we were able to make the TIAA-CREF retirement option available to librarians.

I recall that in 1972 the library staff wanted us to permit fines to recalcitrant faculty members. Most faculty were very good about the need for sharing the Library's resources, were considerate of others and returned books when they were due. They sometimes kept books out by renewing them for several years if they needed the books for a class or a constant reference, especially if there were no others who needed the books. There were a very few faculty, however, who weren't so considerate. The decision was not to impose the fines, but in this one case a faculty member had books that others needed and had tried to check out. He would not return the books or make them available to others. He received several reminders from the Library staff that the books were overdue and were needed by others. Dr. Kelly suggested that another reminder be sent. After several additional reminders the books had not been returned seven months later. As Assistant Provost I talked to the faculty member, and he told me that the university should provide him with these books and that he had no intention of returning them. Incidentally he had 27 books checked out that had been overdue for years. This posed a real dilemma because we wanted to retain the very liberal lending policies for faculty, but we could not permit our library holdings to become inaccessible to others. Dr. Kelly again got into the act of trying to get the books back. In the end we decided that we would garnish the faculty member's wages for the replacement cost of these books. We told Director Littleton to tell him this, and the books were returned. The faculty member wrote Dr. Kelly and said that he was returning the books since he didn't need them anymore. This was the worst example I recall of overdue books, which is rather miraculous for such a large University with so many students and faculty.

While our library has many collections, it is very well known for its entomological collections among others. These entomological collections set a precedent for the library to make other collections. In 1956, the Z. P. Metcalf family was thanked for the Metcalf collection which contained much taxonomic data as well as Metcalf's collection of taxonomic notes, his books and journals. This is an unduplicated world resource. Again on October 28, 1958, with Shirley's strong support, President Friday gave approval to purchase another major entomological collection, and he permitted the library to spend its own funds for additional materials in the entomological collection. This was a precedent setting decision, and in the years while Kelly and I were Provosts we could make such a decision at NCSU, if we had the resources, without having to get the President's approval. In later years Clyde Smith's notes, descriptions, and library on aphids, which is another world taxonomic resource was added to the entomological collection. Clyde Smith as well as the Metcalf's heirs gave their materials to the library. They are now housed in the Special Collections portion of Archives.

When the Triangle Research Libraries Network was formed, the Provosts became members of the governing board. Most of the work of the network was done by the TRLN staff, by the staff of the libraries at Duke, UNC-CH and NCSU and by the Directors of the three campus libraries. The Law and Medical Libraries at the other two campuses are also members. The Provosts of the three institutions were important members of the Executive Committee of TRLN and each served as chairman on a two-year rotating basis. I was chairman for one term, Hart also served. Since before I had became Provost there had been close collaboration between the three campuses in library activities including circulation, accessibility to each libraries' resources and collaboration in the purchase of specialized journals and other library materials including monographs. The first proposal that I found in the files involving collaboration in collections was in a letter from President Eden of Duke University on February 2, 1953. After Susan Nutter became Director a survey was conducted to determine the number of unduplicated resources at the three universities' libraries. It was amazing to me to learn how many unduplicated library resources we had at each of the three universities, excluding even the specialized libraries in medicine and law. TRLN expanded this cooperation to include the addition of technology and the computerization of library resources. It became possible to review the library holdings of the three universities initially from central sites on each campus and in time from personnel computers on faculty's' desks. Both Hart and I are proud of the development and use of technological resources and data bases at NCSU libraries while we were Provost.

An area which I considered very important was to have the Associate Provost for University Computing and the Director of the Libraries cooperating closely with each other. We never had enough resources for either function, so it became imperative for us to collaborate and to stretch, not duplicate resources. This has worked amazingly well for NCSU with Directors Littleton and Nutter (William Horner and John Ulmschneider) and with Associate Provosts Martin, Schaffer and Willis. Each uses the same networking system and both units have been mutually supportive. It is essential that both know, even in the very earliest planning stages, what the other is dreaming about in computerization and for the campus. Since the earliest days, the library and academic computing have been blessed by having persons on their staffs who enjoy cooperative endeavors, were very imaginative and very competent. They have been frequently asked to discuss these collaborative ventures by other universities and at national meetings.

One of the things which each Provost learned quickly and appreciated much was the skilled, competent and dedicated librarians and service staff in the libraries. They rendered great service to the students, faculty, staff and all others who used the Library without adequate resources or numbers of employees. They were exceptional and exemplary employees of NCSU. One employee, Mary Elizabeth Poole received the Watauga medal. I recall attending staff meetings with the Libraries' EPA staff and Ms. Poole never stopped working during these meetings even while I, the Provost, was making a report.

A major step in service came when the library was able to open its stacks to the undergraduates as well as to the faculty and graduate students. This had to wait for several years until the new or middle tower of the current library building was completed (not the last addition). This addition also made much more study space available to students including space in the stacks. It also facilitated increased use of the library by students. This increased use was associated with four developments. The first was that the resources were now readily available and accessible to students. The second was that the faculty felt that they could and should now expect the students to use the libraries more. The third development was that the library staff was dedicated to assisting students to learn how to use the libraries resources. The fourth was that the librarians were now able to arrange the libraries' resources to make them more usable. Two other changes that the students did not like, but which were essential, was the policy which prohibited the bringing of food and drinks into the library by users. To accomplish this the door to the food service operation in the basement or the Erdahl-Cloyd wing had to be closed. The other unpopular decision was the closing off of all entrances-exits except the one facing the brickyard in the latest addition to the central tower.

One thing that is emphasized in Dr. Littleton's The D. H. Hill Library, An Informal History, is that there were inadequate resources for the libraries from the day that the North Carolina College of Agriculture and Mechanic Arts opened its doors until today. Over the years the files were filled with requests for increased library funding from the Directors, the Library Committees, the faculty and the students. With every visit of the Visiting Committee of the UNC Board of Trustees there was a special plea from the faculty and the NCSC/NCSU administrators for better library funding. An exceptional year for the library was in the 1961-63 biennium when we got a $259,000 increase for the library. Increased library funding was a constant high priority item in the budget requests under Kelly, Hart and me. In most years our campus asked for more library resources, but they were frequently and usually combined by the BOG and included in the all-UNC system library requests as one item for all campuses. In some other years the system would indicate that they would prepare the library requests for all campuses and that we should not ask for additional funds for the NCSU libraries. When the BOG was created, a formula for library funding came into being. This was a great help to us, but its problem was that it took the base library budgets as they existed at that time with no compensation for prior inadequate budgets. Under these guidelines and when appropriations came for this line, distribution was by the BOG formula, but these increased resources did not enable us to make headway in catching up for past deficiencies. The formula did bring us more resources for the NCSU libraries than we got before the creation of the Board of Governors. In those years when we could ask for more resources, there were so many requests, and it seemed that the total funds appropriated were so small that the academic schools received the largest portions of these limited increases. The libraries always got some but inadequate increases. When there were reductions in State appropriations in the late 1980s and early 1990s we argued that the library was at a crucial time facing extraordinary inflation and cuts should be minimal. These cuts were less on a percentage basis than those faced by schools and other units but were still severe and larger than we wished.

The first note that I found in the files of support from overhead funds (indirect costs recovery funds from grants and contracts) for the libraries was for 1954 at a rate of 0.7% of 1% of the overhead collected that year. At that time the Libraries reported to the Chancellor. When I was Provost they got $65,000 per year from overhead funds, but I was not sufficiently persuasive to get that sum increased in spite of the fact that overhead funds were increasing. When the State of North Carolina began to collect a larger portion of the overhead from each campus the prospect of increases became even more difficult and unlikely. I understand that under Monteith and Hart improvements and increases were made in the overhead allocation to the library, the library's change budget requests and especially in the allocation of funds from appropriations.

I have not given nearly the time deserved to this portion of the Provost's History. Each of the three Librarians have had positive relationships with the Deans of the Faculty and Provosts with whom they collaborated and worked . These were Harlan C. Brown, I. T. Littleton and Susan K. Nutter. Fortunately Dr. Littleton has written a more complete history of the NCSU Libraries The D. H. Hill Library, An Informal History, 1887-1987 which was published in 1993.

Archives

In the early years of the University, records were kept on a more or less haphazard basis. Some were kept and some weren't. During Dean Shirley's tenure a decision was made that a more structured method of retaining records was needed. Stuart Noblin, a faculty member from the History Department, was employed on a part time basis to establish a method for keeping records of the College and to start a system of receiving and maintaining records. Soon after Dean Kelly arrived, Dr. I. O. Schaub, an emeritus employee (a former Dean in the School of Agriculture), assumed the function on a volunteer basis. In 1965 Maurice Toler became the first full-time Archivist. He was professionally educated and trained and had prior experience as an archivist. The position reported to the Dean of the Faculty and Provost through Mr. William Simpson during both Dr. Kelly's and my tenures as Provost.

The Archivist arranges the transfer of non-current University records to the Archives, schedules the disposition of records not requiring permanent preservation, examines and organizes records that are transferred to the Archives, makes records available to researchers, and answers inquiries relating to the history of the University.

The records in the Archives include correspondence, reports, minutes, journals, ledgers, charters, scrapbooks, maps, photographs, and both video and audio materials from all academic, non-academic and administrative units. In Archives there are also published and unpublished histories of university colleges, schools, departments, and programs. University publications in the Archives include: the Agromeck, the Undergraduate Catalogs, the Graduate Catalogs, the Student Handbook, the Faculty Handbook; the Handbook for Teachers, the Adviser's Handbook, Faculty and Staff Directories and the North Carolina State Magazine. Faculty and student records are also included in the Archives. The Archives has a complete set of issues of the Technician, our student newspaper. Some issues are so fragile that they can only be viewed on film.

I have made extensive use of the records from the directories, catalogs, and files of the Provost's Office, the Chancellor's Office, the Faculty Senate's Minutes, and other files from time to time in this report. My most important resources were Maurice Toler and Edward Hodges who were the staff in Archives in 1993. The Archives has had two masters graduate students majoring in Archival Management as Graduate Assistants funded by the Alumni Association for a number of years. This has been an important method of providing additional personnel resource for Archives. These Assistants have also been helpful to me.

In 1989 the Archives was transferred to report to the Director of Libraries. The Archives are housed in the D. H. Hill Library.

University Studies

On July 1, 1970, the Division of University Studies was formally begun. It was created out of the Department of Social Studies, which had been started many years earlier and which taught courses required for accreditation by the School of Engineering. The creation of the Division was stimulated by the fact that these courses were no longer required for accreditation in the School of Engineering, and the Department of Social Studies provided an existing faculty that enabled NCSU to implement some novel and experimental ideas in undergraduate education. Improvement in education had been a major concern of Kelly's while he was at NSF. This concept was in large measure Kelly's, and Caldwell was much interested and excited about the plan too. A draft of a release written by Kelly reads as follows:

A new dimension in education will begin at NCSU on July 1, with the initiation of a Division of Univer sity Studies.

Geared to urgent problems facing the human society, the Division will offer elective, interdisciplinary studies in such areas as food and population, man and his environment, poverty and race, liberty and order in societal change and other problems which beset modern man.

Utilizing faculty from the present Department of Social Studies, which will be modified and become part of the new Division, the Division University-wide in nature, will be administered through the Office of the Provost. Faculty expertise from schools throughout the University will teach the courses in University Studies. In addition, outside authorities will be drawn from other institutions.

Dr. John Lambert of the Social Studies Department will be Acting Head of the Division of University Studies. He will lead a core group of faculty from Social Studies who will plan and coordinate offerings of the new division. Students at any level from freshman through seniors will be eligible to study in the division on a purely elective basis. It is hoped that the interdisciplinary nature of the studies will offer students an in-depth exposure to society's problems, thereby helping to make other studies more relevant.

A committee representing the eight schools of the University will aid in directing curriculum policy for University Studies. Members of the committee chaired by Dr. Carey Bostian of Genetics, are: Robert Burns, Design; Dr. Carl Dolce, Education; Dr. Eric Ellwood, Wood and Paper Science; Dr. Reinhard Harkema, Zoology; Dr. Abraham Holtzman, Politics; James Klibbe, Textiles; Dr. Worth Seagondollar, Physics; and Dr. Robert Truitt, Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering.

The first course, UNI-301 Man and His Environment will be offered in the fall of 1970. Faculty teaching the course will include Dr. Arthur Cooper, a plant ecologist; Dr. James Wallace, an environmental historian, and Dr. Donald Shriver, an authority in ethics. A second course, UNI-323 The World Population and Food Crises, to be taught during the Spring Semester will be taught by a plant pathologist, a sociologist, a crop scientist and a philosopher.

Four current social studies courses which will be reshaped during the coming year are included in the curriculum for the Division of University Studies. These are: "Science and Society" SS 301 and 302 and "Contemporary Issues" SS 401 and 402.

Present faculty besides Dr. Lambert in the Social Studies who will form the core of the division include Dr. James Wallace, Dr. Edward Ezell and Dr. Robert Clack. Currently associated with the department of Social Studies Dr. Robert Metzger will join the Department of Philosophy, and Dr. Robert Elliot and Professor Edith Sylla will join the Department of History. Instructors with the Division of University Studies will include Robert Cornish, Robert Hoffman, Clayton Stalnaker and R. Taylor Scott.

The Division has continued to develop new courses around issues of current interest and importance. The idea was that courses would be taught utilizing professionals from the fields and that they would be team taught. As the course was taught, the issues addressed in the course would be taught using the concepts of the several disciplines of the instructors and would not consist of a team of teachers teaching their specialty for a few days or a couple of weeks and then another teacher taking his/her turn to teach the next segment. We wished to have the students understand how each discipline looked at each issue covered by the course. Such courses were more expensive and much more difficult to organize, teach, and manage. For this reason many other departments, who looked at credit hours generated, thought and said that the Division was treated too generously and had too many faculty lines. Others complained about the Division getting favored treatment from the Provost and wanted the unit to report through a school. We did provide it with faculty lines so that the resources were available to buy faculty time on a release-time basis from other departments to teach these interdisciplinary and team taught courses. The plan was that we would add few if any new courses that would be taught by a single faculty member. Several faculty in schools proposed new courses that they would like to teach in University Studies. Many of these courses were very interesting and sounded as if they would be excellent educationally for our students, but University Studies did not develop them unless they could be taught by a team of faculty. In addition courses that were discipline specific were to be taught by the appropriate disciplines. Both Provost Kelly and I did protect and make certain that the Division had sufficient resources to survive. If we had not and if we had placed it in any school at this early time, I believe that it would have floundered, been neglected or even have failed. Another concept was that courses after they were developed and taught for a period of time might be transferred to departments, and other courses would be dropped when the subject was no longer of current interest.

The Advisory Council was a great idea and was most helpful to the Division and provided a group of faculty without vested interest to bounce ideas off. The Council also provided a committee which could function comparable to a school courses and curriculum committee to oversee the new courses that were being developed. It was used as a committee to review credentials of division faculty proposed for promotion and tenure. While the Council was of great benefit to the Provost it was most helpful to the faculty in the Division.

One of its first charges was to institute a search for a new head of the Division. Among the qualifications required were the following: "Because the aim of interdisciplinary courses is to present students a complete, objective and unbiased comprehension of problems of society and the intellectual discipline for their solution, there should be as much assurance as possible that the Head of the Division will take a broad attitude of scientific objectivity towards the problems of society without becoming a zealous advocate of some particular solution." It went on to include needed characteristics, "as a man of good judgment, temperament, undoubted integrity and with a proper sensitivity to the correct scholarly, non-political role of a public university." It also stated that "the individual should show evidences of a desire and a competence to experiment with innovations in organizing and developing interdisciplinary learning including sharp departures from a conventional lecture-type organization." We were always fortunate enough to find individuals who fulfilled these expectations in the persons who became Head of the Division.

When Kelly asked for the resources to accomplish this effort, Caldwell wrote on February 13, 1970, AI am authorizing you, therefore, to utilize the Department of Social Studies which means its personnel, and budget, as the core instrument for planning, financing, and managing the interdisciplinary, problem-oriented, all-university course offerings. It is my judgment that this department plus justified support funds should be lifted out of the School of Liberal Arts and given a fresh status and mission.@ He said that the new unit would be responsible to the Provost, and would be subject to the curriculum policy direction of the Advisory Council. He went on to say:

It is not at all a part of my thinking or intention that this new effort will attempt to take over responsibility for any courses that are not truly interdisciplinary. The value of the department will require only a fraction of the twelve positions in the department should be filled with permanent staff. The majority of the positions in the department should be left open for the purchase of the services of faculty from the other schools. Although this program has an experimental character in that we do not know precisely how it will do it all, I do not regard it as a trial run. We must enter it with earnestness of purpose.

The departmental Secretary Laura Schenk and the following budget for non-personnel items were transferred to the new division. This was the whole budget of the department while it was in the School of Liberal Arts although the dean did help out almost every year with additional funds: Travel $209.39, Supplies $519. 29, and telephone and postage $477.90 for a total operating budget of $1206.58. Provost Kelly thought that this was too small a budget so he asked me to work with George Worsley to come up with more supporting funds. Mr. Worsley agreed that when we came up with the precise number of faculty lines he would make certain that the division got an appropriate budget that was proportional to that of the other departments in the SLA. A. C. Barefoot said, "It is appropriate to pay homage to Mrs. Schenck, for she was the administrative glue that held the division together. She was the one who remembered all of the deadlines for course submission, classroom assignments, budgetary activities and other faculty responsibilities. Without her the work of the division probably would have floundered."

Prior to the development of this concept for the division, many ideas were floated around of what to do with the Department of Social Studies. There was much concern on the part of the faculty about what would happen to them. In one of the sessions held by Cahill with the faculty of the department one member asked: "Can the Chancellor move lines without the authority from anyone else?" Dean Cahill answered, Ayes the machinery, as well as the precedent for doing that exists on this campus." Dr. Kelly also had conferences with the faculty. The discussions are found in the Provosts' files for 1971-72; however, the memoranda dealing with the subject go back as far as 1965. As these discussions were going on Dr. Lambert wrote a memo to Dr. Kelly:

Subject: Naming the 'baby.'

1. Fred Cahill has suggested that we call 'it' a Center for University Studies, which I personally like since it is what it will be and should have enough dignity to merit outside money.

2. Using US as a course prefix also is acceptable, but the thought of running on a US 301 or a US 401 should promote urgent revision of at least two Social Studies offerings!

3. But if the acronym CUS is to be it, clearly we cannot have the officer in charge called a 'head' for that would make him 'HOCUS' and, since the Provost would be his superior in the chain of command, the Provost would be considered the 'POCUS.' What we might need is some sleight of hand at this juncture, but no hocus-pocus.

4. Right.

It was signed and was followed by the notation that the typewriter was worn out and a new one was needed. It probably was, for some keys were difficult to decipher and the print was barely legible. I wondered if Lambert (and I would not put it past him) had put on an old ribbon before he typed the note.

The plan eventually adopted for the division was to maintain a number of vacant lines that could be used to hire faculty from other NCSU units or to bring in visitors from other universities to teach in these courses. Dr. Kelly delegated the responsibility to me to approve the funds to be reimbursed to the home departments of the participating faculty. I wrote my first letter of concurrence on a release time salary on September 10, 1970. The proposed salaries had been agreed upon contingent of my approval before they were proposed to me. I continued this practice over the years after I became Provost. It was very rare that I did not concur in the proposed salary of a visiting professor or for the release time for a NCSU faculty member. The chancellor, the provost or another person on campus who knew the individual wrote and made the offer for distinguished visitors who were to come to campus to give one, two or more lectures in a course. If a visitor was hired for a semester or longer the appointment followed established practices. The chancellor, after writing to a few of these individuals, was concerned about the amount of money some of these distinguished individuals charged for just one or two days visit and for a couple of lectures. Chancellor Caldwell could not be labeled as a big spender in any area. Some truly outstanding visitors came to lecture in the interdisciplinary courses.

In the fall of 1970 Provost Kelly and several faculty were trying to get Albert Carnesale interested in the position of Head of the Division. Dr. Carnesale was on leave from the University as a member of the U. S. SALT Delegation then meeting in Helsinki, Finland. In March of 1971, he was offered the position. At first he did not accept the position and the committee continued to look at many others both on and off campus. After a long search Dr. Carnesale accepted the position and became its first head on July 1, 1972.

In the fall semester of 1970, Man and His Environment had 60 students enrolled and the Urban Crises had 350 students enrolled to take that course. The first spring semester both Man & His Environment and The World Food & Population Crises were to be taught. The unit had planned for 150 students in the former, but 240 enrolled. They made adjustments including bringing in extra chairs to teach 200. In the latter they expected 60 students and 93 enrolled and were taught.

In October of 1974, Dr. Carnesale left NCSU to accept a position at Harvard, so a search began for a new head of the Division of University Studies. Although Carnesale had remained in the position only a short time he had helped the unit to move toward the goals outlined earlier. On Dr. Kelly's retirement on June 30, 1974, he said how much he was pleased with the accomplishments of this very innovative program which he had nurtured.

Clayton Stalnaker became Acting Head after Carnesale's departure. In his annual report in 1974-75 Stalnaker used the prolog of Charles Dickens's A Tale of Two Cities as a retrospective glance at the state of the Division in that year. To him it seemed that when Carnesale had announced his departure in the fall of 1974:

It was the best of times, it
was the worst of times, it
was the spring of hope, it
was the winter of despair,
we had everything before us,
we had nothing before us.

But when writing his report in June of 1975 Stalnaker said that the "Division indeed has everything before us. The prospects occasion real hope."

After a search, Dr. A. C. Barefoot, a faculty member in the Department of Wood and Paper Science became the Head on July 1, 1975. Barefoot commented about the Division when he was becoming Head:

Indeed in conversation with the Provost Nash Winstead and others, it was clear that the hope was real; but, survival as a viable academic unit was still to be secured. In that sense location in the Provost's office was to be a protectorate, but the Division could expect no major increases in funding or mission until the unit itself had proved its merit to the University and could be moved to a school with a permanent status. At that time there was no school that seemed appropriate or willing to house the interdisciplinary unit. Indeed there were openly heatedly stated antitheses to the idea of interdisciplinary studies and courses among other departments and faculties. There was the openly stated support, not just from the Provost, that made it possible to evaluate the worth and value of the experimental educational unit. We were encouraged by many to be experimental in our approach to serving the University.

In 1980, when it was time for us to review the effectiveness of program and leadership of Dr. Barefoot as head of University Studies, I also appointed a special committee to make recommendations on the future role of the Division. While the Division had done a good job in its assignment, the faculty of the Division, Dr. Barefoot and I all felt that this was the time to take another look for we had reached that level of development. We looked at the goals, procedures and practices being used. In October 29, 1981, I wrote the special committee accepting their recommendations. These were accepted as general guidelines for the future role of the Division. I stated, "The recommendations should not be viewed so stringently as to be totally prescriptive." Some recommendations such as using the Advisory Committee to act as a course review committee could be implemented soon. Others, such as the establishment of a University Scholars Program, could not be implemented then but required further study. Most features of this recommendation may have been incorporated into the programs, but the Scholars Program did not get implemented until much later and then not precisely as proposed.

I also said, "I am requesting that the Division of University Studies in the future make use whenever possible of joint and associate appointments. I would further encourage the Division in any new appointments of full-time faculty to have the credentials of the leading candidates reviewed by the appropriate discipline department and to have any final candidates interviewed by that department so as to provide the opportunity for associate status with the discipline department at the time of the initial appointment." It also called for the faculty of the Division to be scholars as well as teachers. Acceptance of the report of July 28, 1981, was discussed with the faculty and the University Administrative Council. The committee was split over whether the Division should continue to report to the Provost or to the Dean of SHASS. The majority felt that it should remain as it was, reporting to the Provost. The school deans felt that way too. So it remained under the Provost.

The Division was blessed with excellent teachers, but few had strong goals of scholarly research beyond giving papers at workshops, conferences or symposia. That was understandable given the origin of the unit as primarily a teaching and service group. With the appointment of Dr. Elisabeth Wheeler that was to change. Dr. Wheeler, NCSU's first paleobotanist, was given the Isabel C. Cookson award (Best Paper) in the Paleobotanical Section of the Botanical Society of America in June of 1976. She was a joint appointee in UNI, Botany and Forestry. Later she was tenured on the Forestry faculty and has been most successful in achieving national and international recognition. This was evidence of a successful UNI experiment. Barefoot continued to contribute to scholarship and other faculty in the UNI did too. Riddle, an outstanding scholar, continued to participate in and encourage scholarship by faculty in the Division.

Dr. Rolf Buchdahl came as a Visiting Scholar in the Division in the late 1970s. Dr. Buchdahl's initial acceptance by the UNI faculty was reserved. He was a retired researcher from industry. Faculty said, "He is not a teacher!" He rapidly overcame that by his insight, skill and productivity. He represented the epitome of the type of appointments we sought in that era, and he served the Division and the University well. He conceived the idea of a Provost Forum as an opportunity for the faculty and administrators and other interested members of the University to discuss issues and pedagogical concerns of the day. He led the planning, scheduled, and managed all of the early Provost's fora. Over the years we held from one to three fora per year. Most but not all of these have been developed by committees. These were usually chaired and coordinated by faculty members of the Division. I selected the titles from among those suggested, but the ideas for these fora came from everywhere. I began to keep a list of suggestions or issues that were vexing during the year and I would throw these into the hopper for consideration. So many ideas were proposed and we also had a forum to discuss every major academic policy that came under consideration. Most of these were well attended, created a great deal of interest, and gave us an opportunity to hear the concerns at least of the faculty who came. One that I thought would be best attended, but it had the least attendance of all, was a forum on Overhead Funds. VC Worsley led the discussion and described how these funds were obtained in grants and contracts and how they were disbursed and why. I had heard gripes in abundance about the mysteries of the overhead, yet when the time came those who had complained the most about administrative slight of hand techniques and secrecy in the handling of these funds didn't come to find out how they were determined, how they were used or to get their questions answered.

In the mid 1980s I decided that we should emphasize undergraduate teaching for a few years in the Provost's fora. We had several great fora on this theme. Perhaps the best attended, and it was one of the best, was delivered by Patricia Cross on AA Research University and Undergraduate Education." One of the Provost's fora that I thought was among the most important followed and covered the report of the Commission on Ethics in the Professions and the Workplace. This Commission's activities led to efforts in all of the schools and colleges to have seminars on ethics, and each school looked at what they should do to include ethics in the education of all NCSU students. Once again we turned to the Division of University Studies and asked Dr. Erin Malloy-Hanley to take the leadership in the activities of the Commission and in the presentation of this Provost's forum. The most significant series of lectures and talks on ethics was held by the Graduate School. These efforts have led to recommendations that schools and/or curricula include discussions of ethics in some courses or seminars in the various fields of study at both the undergraduate and graduate levels at NCSU. We held many more fora, but I think I have mentioned enough of them. We held some of them in the evenings and others during the day. We never found a best time, but the evening was probably the time that had the least attendance. Buchdahl's idea was a great one, and it has served the University and the Provosts very well.

It was in 1970 that a new All University Committee on Environmental Programs was established. This was to become a center to assist the NCSU and the UNC-CH campuses in developing resources for environmental instruction, research, and extension. While this was an all University Center it had a very small amount of funds. In 1974 it was decided that these resources would report through the Provost instead of through the Dean of Research. I transferred the management of the funds which came to NCSU to Dr. Carnesale, the Head of the Division. When Carnesale left NCSU that fund was managed by Dr. Barefoot. When Dr. Riddle became Head the funds were managed by Dr. David Adams, a member of the faculty who had a joint appointment with the Department of Forestry. After the Division of University Studies was transferred to CHASS, I transferred the environmental studies efforts to The Vice Chancellor for Research who later placed it under the Natural Resources Research Center and the Dean of Forest Resources. Dr. Adams continued to manage the program and the small amount of funds.

Dr. Barefoot wrote:

As Coordinator of Environmental Studies, I was to play an interesting role in securing what is now Jordan Hall. One day Drs. Jay Langfelder and B. G. Copeland (J. G. Vandenburg was to join the group later for final planning) came to my office to discuss the need for a new building to house several then disparate departments or offices such as MEAS, Marine Science, Wildlife and even certain forestry functions. The idea was to create a place for the synergistic meshing of interdisciplinary thinking and research in the Natural Resources. At a meeting Barefoot agreed to put the idea before Chancellor Joab Thomas. Dr. Thomas encouraged us to proceed and asked us to prepare a brochure that he could pull out of his back pocket for someone looking for such a project. With a small grant from the coordinator's budget to some students in the School of Design who examined several sites in cooperation with the Office of Campus Planning, a prospective building was presented to a seminar-workshop in Kilgore Hall. Dr. Ellwood then seized the ball and with the help of the then Lieutenant Governor Robert Jordan secured the appropriations for the Natural Resources Building which was later named for the Jordan family.

The underlying battle for the Division's survival still lay in its acceptance by the University for its academic integrity in teaching. Interdisciplinary teaching was under fire. Barefoot said, "The major battles on these lines were orchestrated to occur in the University Committee on Courses and Curricula, upon which we were seated by the Provost. One attack, which failed, so blunted the attacks that the Division could be said to have won the war. At least the attackers knew that their efforts were more likely to be futile as long as the rest of the University community supported the Division as it did in that attack in the committee. A period of semi-truce ensued, which allowed the unit to concentrate on building a solid academic program. I believe we did!"

Over the years we developed a large number of excellent interdisciplinary courses that served the University's students well. Some new ones would arise usually on an experimental basis and after being taught for a year were added to the official courses of the Division. A few others did not succeed. At times a course might be taught for just a few years before being phased out. In 1986 the Division listed some 18 courses excluding the 290 and 490 courses. The course World Population and Food Prospects was still there. So were the old numbers of UNI 301, 302, 401 and 402, but with different titles and contents from those which were the base courses of the Division in its beginnings. Harry Kelly would have been pleased to see that Peace and War in the Nuclear Age was being taught. This was a subject that he thought would be most important for our students because after his experiences in Japan in World War II, he hoped to never see such instruments of destruction used again. Also, those courses that related Technology and Society were things that he dreamed would someday be taught here for he thought that these were neglected areas in university education almost everywhere. There were other courses dealing with environment and with ethics. There were programmatic attempts in Women's Studies and Environmental Studies. Of these, the work by Professor James Wallace (Vice Chairman, N. C. Environmental Commission; member, N. C. Sedimentation Commission; and Member, Environmental Quality Committee of the National Conference of Mayors) and Dr. David Adams resulted in a recognized environmental program in the Division. An effort begun by Dr. Donald Huisingh in Life-Long Learning was pursued vigorously by Dr. Charles Korte. It is now the Encore Program of the University. Likewise African-American Studies received recognition under Dr. T. N. Hammond while Dr. Korte was Head. Yes, Harry Kelly would have been pleased to see the accomplishments of his academic child.

In 1986 I felt that the Division had developed sufficient stature and strength that it could now find a receptive home in the College of Humanities and Social Sciences. Dean Toole was also excited about the move. This was probably the best decision that I made about the Division because it has been a most effective catalyst for the Division's growth and development. Here the name changed to the Division of Multidisciplinary Studies. They now have academic programs and advise as well as teach undergraduate and graduate students. So they have come to do all of those things that a faculty in a research university are expected to do and have still retained that excellence of teaching undergraduate multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary courses.

Dr. Barefoot resigned as Head and left in early 1982 on an off-campus assignment to become Chief of Party for an Agency for International Development sponsored Reforestation and Watershed Management Project in Sri Lanka. Dr. John Riddle from the Department of History became the new Head of the Division. After the Division moved to CHASS Riddle decided to return to teaching and research, and Jack W. Wilson was appointed to become Head. After Wilson decided to return to the Department of Business Management in the College of Management, Dr. Charles A. Korte became Head. Korte was the first faculty member of the Division to become its Head.

Although the Provost made no contribution in the following activities (we did follow its development with interest) it should be included as an important new activity of the Division after it became a part of CHASS. Dean Toole had a major interest in the development of dual degree programs with the other schools of the University. Today one of the responsibilities of the Division is to coordinate and manage these activities. I quote from the literature provided me by Associate Dean Moni Sawhney.

The College currently has three double degree programs in cooperation with the other colleges in which students combine a major in one of the humanities and social sciences with a major in agriculture, the life sciences, engineering, computer science or textile management. Students completing the programs earn two undergraduate degrees within five years, a B.S. degree in a science or technical field and a BA or B.S. degree in an area of the humanities and social sciences. These programs are both intellectually challenging and academically enriching and are designed to provide the breadth of understanding that comes from a solid liberal arts education. The result is graduates who are knowledgeable not only in technology and science, but also in human affairs. The three programs have matured over the last few years and have developed into strong academic programs involving some of this University's brightest and most capable students. The conscientiousness and diligence of each of the faculty coordinators has resulted in double degree programs of which this College and University can be proud.

These programs are sought by students. The first program to start was the Thomas Jefferson Program in collaboration with the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences which was started in 1985 with the help and cooperation of Dr. Edward Glazener. The Benjamin Franklin Program was started in 1990 with the College of Engineering, and in that same year the Eli Whitney Program was started with the College of Textiles.

Barefoot wrote me a note as he was suggesting additions and corrections to this segment of the Provost's Office History which says, "My impression now as I have reflected on the success of the Division in later years is that you and I laid the foundation for the successes which have come through the work of Bill Toole, John Riddle, Jack Wilson and now, our current appointee Chuck Korte. We done well!"

Admissions

Admissions was administered through Student Affairs until Chancellor Poulton came to NCSU. In 1983 he transferred Admissions to the Provost. Since Dean Shirley's appointment as Dean of the Faculty, the Deans or Provosts had been involved in the determination of the numbers of new freshmen and transfer students to be admitted. This was done at first in consultation with the Dean of Student Affairs with a joint recommendation to the Chancellor. Late in Kelly's tenure as Provost, and during both Hart's and my tenures as Provosts, prior to making a recommendation, studies were made by Institutional Research of the projected number of continuing students, estimates of the number of new graduate students, and later estimates of the number of special or adult students. The Director of Admissions worked with each school dean and the appropriate VCs to determine estimates of new freshmen, transfer students and the adult students to be admitted in each school or unit. These were then analyzed so that we could better estimate how the enrollment increases in specific numbers in the various categories would affect total FTE enrollment. After we came under the provisions of the Consent Decree, African-American students were added as a new category to consider. We were supposed to reach a goal of over 10.2% African-American students at NCSU. We never did reach the goal, but with hard efforts by our admission's staff we did make substantial progress. This matter is discussed in the section on Issues Concerning Race in Chapter Four.

While there were requirements for admission in 1956 they were minimal, and all students who applied and who met the requirements were admitted. At that time NCSC did not have very close estimates of what the new enrollment might be the next fall. It was at this time that Dean Shirley wrote to Dean Stewart saying that NCSC should look at the College Entrance Examination Board's (CEEB) tests and especially the Scholastic Aptitude Tests (SAT) for possible use in admissions, and he also proposed that same year that we look into the use of that agency's Advanced Placement Program. Later we did begin to use the CEEB's programs, including the SAT, Advanced Placement and the College Level Placement (CLEP) programs.

The use of the SAT, high school rank, grades in high school courses and other factors led to the development of what was at first called a predicted grade point average (PGA). This could better estimate a prospective student's chance of succeeding at NCSC and aided in estimating the numbers of new students to be admitted and enroll, thereby helping to project enrollments. In the 1980s we changed the title to a more suitable one called Admission's Index (AI). It really never was or has been a good predictor, but it was the best that we had. These formulas were revised each year based on the prior freshman class performance, and from time to time separate predictions have been estimated on the basis of the NCSU school of enrollment, race and sex. While different formulas including these factors have been used over the years, in time we came to use just one formula. In this formula high school performance is the component which contributes most to the prediction. It includes the SAT scores, with mathematics scores counting more in the formula than the verbal scores. Other factors considered in admissions included courses taken in high school, recommendations from teachers, guidance counselors, and administrators in the high school, and grades from the courses taken.

Besides graduation from high school, specific course requirements were the next criteria adopted for admission. At one time we admitted all high school graduates who applied, but we soon set a specific minimum number of high school units required. When Shirley became Dean it was 16 units. Later we became much involved in what courses should make up the units and four years of English and specific math courses became standard requirements. With time, the specific math courses required for admission changed. In the late 1980s the BOG adopted a set of minimum course requirements for all of the 16 campuses. These can be found in the Undergraduate Catalogs. These courses were very similar to those required at that time by NCSU. They did recommend that all students take two years of a foreign language. At NCSU a foreign language was required for admission only for students in CHASS. Language requirements for graduation existed in CHASS, PAMS, and the Biological Sciences. The recent Commission on Undergraduate Education did recommend that we require a foreign language for admission to NCSU. We found upon review of student's credentials who had been approved for admission to NCSU that almost all of these students had taken two or more years of a foreign language in high school.

Later, after the Board of Governors was created, the system estimated the number of high school graduates that would be available in the State and gave NCSU a budgeted FTE figure which, among other factors, included NCSU' s estimated share of the high school students expected to graduate that next year. This became the targeted enrollment. If our total enrollment was 2% less than the budgeted enrollment we lost resources. If we were no more than 2% above the target it was OK. If we enrolled more than 2% above the target the Chancellor was scolded. At times even worse words were used than those normally used in being scolded and fussed at. With both Thomas and Poulton the scolding got rather severe several times. It came to be that the system's staff would scold NCSU's Chancellors regularly even if the enrollment was only 2% over the budgeted FTE figure given to us. At times when we received our budgeted FTE figure we advised the general administration that their estimates were too low and that we would exceed the 2% figure, a factor which they did not consider adequately was our adult student population. This was the most under served population in the Research Triangle area. It was also difficult to estimate the numbers of returning students. It seemed that in most years when the economy was bad, more students returned in the fall semester than in those years when the economy was good.

The Faculty Senate has always taken a keen interest in and passed a number of recommendations about the quality of entering students, the requirements for admission, and the issues of inter-school transfers. Many of these concerns came to be policies. When we looked at the inter-school transfer policies we found that only a few programs really restricted such transfers. These were Engineering, Biological Sciences, Zoology (Pre-med), Design, Economics and Business (now Management) and Education. In most cases these were over-enrolled and needed to restrict enrollments. In the case of Education, the issue was the high grade point average required for admission to teacher education at the beginning of the junior year. In the 1980s the Senate became much concerned about the duties of the Admissions Committee. Over the years the Committee had essentially become a readmissions committee again as it was in the early years of Dean Shirley. Late in Poulton's tenure changes were made reinstating many of the former charges to the Admissions Committee. After Monteith became Chancellor these Senate recommendations were fully accepted, and the duties of the Committee in recommending policy were considerably expanded over and beyond those of any preceding charge to an Admissions Committee.

Early in Caldwell's tenure we began to need to restrict enrollments in certain programs because we did not have the faculty resources, the financial resources nor the space to handle all students meeting minimum requirements. These were in those programs mentioned earlier. So the question of what to do with students who were admitted to the university but who could not gain admission to the school of their choice required a solution. Caldwell, with the advice of his Deans and Kelly, decided to put all such students into SLA. This was the beginning of the "Phantom Major" problem. The first phantoms were primarily students who wanted to be engineers. Other phantoms have always included those who wanted to be in the School of Design. The engineering phantoms gradually became fewer. With the high requirements for inter-school transfer those who really wanted to be engineers just withdrew or did not enroll at NCSU if they could not get into the School of Engineering. In time most of the phantom majors in SHASS became business major phantoms.

At the November 2, 1965, meeting of the Faculty Senate questions were raised with President Friday and Chancellor Caldwell about the nature and size of the university in the future. I quote from the Senate minutes of that date. "The question of the size for a university evoked considerable discussion. President Friday stated that the efforts are being made to answer this difficult question. He stated that the university has a responsibility to all the people of the State, and that the University cannot arbitrarily close its doors after accepting a certain number of students. The decision must be made with the total needs and the total resources of the state in mind. Chancellor Caldwell said that 20,000 is the figure being used in the physical planning for the campus, but that is not restrictive. The feeling was expressed that it would be a mistake to convert the campus exclusively or even primarily to a center for graduate study."

The real issue of controlled admissions came to a head in 1969 when the State Budget Officer wrote Mr. John Wright, the Business Manager, on November 26, 1969. In his letter he said that they had examined the fall FTE enrollment at NCSU and found that the budgeted enrollment had been exceeded by 795 students or 7.9%. He indicated that the trend gave them concern, and that "Inasmuch as the present enrollment already exceeds the budgeted enrollment for the 1970-71 by some 393 students, it appears to us that budgetary problems in that year can and should be avoided by drastic reduction in the number of new students accepted, especially new out-of-state students. He also said:

Included in the 1967 Budget Report is the following Special Recommendation: The practice of institutions accepting more students than the number budgeted has consistently created problems to the State, among the most serious is the presentation to the General Assembly of a demand for payment of an obligation created by an expansion of activities which was not legislatively authorized. There is also the problem of reduction in the quality of the instructional program which necessarily follows the shortage of dollars, teachers, buildings, equipment, and other facilities; and there are finally the bad effects of sudden, ill-planned changes in the size, goals, and programs of an institution. Substantial over enrollments at some of the State institutions have been a matter of serious concern to the Advisory Budget Commission, especially since there are other State institutions (as well as North Carolina private colleges) which are under-enrolled, and since every State institution has consistently over realized its budgeted out-of-State enrollment we recommend that the General Assembly provide for limitations of enrollments at the several institutions by appropriate legislation.

Mr. Wright wrote Caldwell suggesting that this be taken up with President Friday "since it is going to involve the policy of whether or not the Legislature is going to set the enrollment figures for the university." Caldwell wrote Friday on January 8, 1970, and essentially repeated his understanding with President Friday. This was that we would continue our present policy for accepting all qualified students except that we would hold the enrollment in Liberal Arts at its present level except for the new business administration degree program. Of course, it was not known at this time, but Caldwell's proposal did not solve the problem, for business administration became the fastest growing curriculum at NCSU. NCSU then was forced to begin to look at enrollment as an overall University matter instead of letting each school independently determine its enrollment. This action by the State Budget Officer quickly led to more planning on enrollment and to more control of enrollments for new students, transfer students, out-of state enrollment, foreign enrollments, and the graduate enrollment. Money and budgets talk, for the message delivered was that the State would no longer pick up in the current year's budget supporting funds for our newly enrolled students when they exceeded the budgeted FTE. So we then began to carefully project our enrollment growth. Of course it was just after this beginning that the Board of Governors came into being, and one of its early programs was to project enrollments for the State and to begin to assign FTE enrollments for the various campuses.

Prior to 1983 when the Admissions Office became the Provost's administrative responsibility, both Kelly and I worked with the Dean of Student Affairs (later called the Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs) to develop the targeted enrollment for NCSU. The Director of Admissions would meet with the VC for Student Affairs and the Provost and present suggested goals. Procedures that were used after I assumed responsibility for Admissions will be described later. After I became Provost we realized that we got few resources other than those that were associated with increased enrollment. For example, our library budget was woefully weak, but the new enrollment brought increased funds under the formula at a rate that was much better than it had been before. We rarely got any type of cost-of-living increases in our academic budget for any area. Some few resources did come most years for program improvement and new programs. So Dr. Tally and I consciously decided to try to set our target at the 2% over the BOG figure. I continued this practice for most years, until when during Poulton's tenure we lowered our target at the insistence of the BOG staff to the budgeted figure. This targeted figure was also used while Hart was Provost and Monteith was Chancellor. It is of interest that the figure for new freshmen remained relatively constant over the time I was Provost. We all wanted to have more adults in our programs. Some of these adults desired to enroll in degree programs and would be admitted to our degree programs at a later time. My concern was that the triangle's universities and colleges provided so little opportunity for adult students. Before I retired we were teaching around 300 courses and sections each semester in the evening and offered 15 degree programs that enabled students to complete the requirements in the evening. This subject is discussed in Chapter Seven in the section entitled Extension. Poulton was a strong advocate for increasing our campus' access to adults and in increasing the numbers of adults enrolled both in on-campus and on off-campus programs. It was a pity to cut off enrollments in these evening programs and to turn these students away as we frequently did.

Using this approach we had only two under enrollments which led to budget problems. One was associated with the change in the rule of only 15% out-of-state students which existed soon after Shirley became Dean and was reaffirmed by the legislature when there was student unrest at UNC-CH. At that time the Legislature introduced a bill that would limit out-of-state enrollment which President Friday avoided when he reaffirmed the 15% rule for out-of-state undergraduates admitted to the freshman class. A few years later the Legislature became concerned again, and the BOG changed the figure to 18% of the freshman class. At this time the Legislature was concerned about budgets and the cost of higher education. They realized that out-of-state students still cost the state money. As a result they began to increase the out-of-State tuition every year. Technically the BOG did this, but the Legislature effectively did it in the amount of funds appropriated and with the understanding they had with the BOG staff that a portion of the funds would come from increased out-of-state tuition. Chancellor Poulton was concerned that we might get over enrolled with out-of-state freshmen at the same time that we were turning down qualified in-state students in large numbers. At this time he had proposed a rather substantial increase in our total enrollment to the staff of BOG. They in turn reduced Poulton's enrollment projection and reduced the in-state portion but left the out-of-state portion with too large a number. The Director of Admissions had also been directed to admit out of-State students more conservatively than the 18%. The result was a substantial budget tuition income shortfall for one year. The second time this happened was when there was a conscious effort not to exceed the enrollment target while Hart was Provost, which resulted in being under the enrollment target. We also began to restrict foreign enrollments at the undergraduate level in the mid 1960s and have continued to carefully select only a few foreign undergraduates each year.

The two Chancellors who tried very hard to get our budgeted FTE enrollment levels raised were Thomas and Poulton. In one letter Chancellor Poulton complained about our denying admission to so many qualified engineering students. He felt that the State needed additional graduates in this area, which was in short supply. He ended his request by saying that, "if the students have to be denied I would rather put the blame on the BOG than to have the blame reside on our campus." The request didn't work, and we got no increase in our budgeted FTE.

The process used by me and the Director of Admissions to determine our enrollment recommendations to the Chancellor began with consultation with the school deans about the number and qualitative criteria, including minimum AI and GPA that they wished to be used in arriving at new freshmen and transfer admissions for their school. Prior to December 1984, we used the term Predicted Grade Point Average (PGA) when talking about the formula used in admission's decisions. It was at this time that Dean Anna Keller of Admissions suggested that we use the term Admission Index, (AI) instead of PGA. The Dean of Admissions and her staff, in consultation and review with the staff of IR, would look at prospects based on prior year's experiences and the number of projected high school graduates. If the numbers and the AIs proposed by the deans were too far out of line (in either direction), the Director or Dean of Admissions would consult again with that school dean. The Dean and the IR staff would meet with me and we would go through the projected or requested enrollments for each school and all the projections for returning students. At that time we would reach certain conclusions about realistic numbers in each category. In these discussions I also looked at projected FTEs and the estimated or known faculty position projections. If a school was very far out of line I sent the Dean (Director) back to see the school dean. We then made recommendations to the Chancellor, including targets by school and by adult students. While graduate students were included in our projections we tried to admit all of the estimated numbers of graduate students who might come to NCSU. We then sent our recommendations to the Chancellor for concurrence. With Chancellor Poulton and later Chancellor Monteith, the Provost, the Director of Admissions, the Dean of the Graduate School and the Director of IR would meet with the Chancellor to set goals by student category. We did this soon after we learned the FTE enrollment in the fall semester and after we got a new budgeted enrollment figure from the BOG. This enabled the Director of Admissions, the Graduate School Dean and the Evening Program's Director to have goals for the next year. It was not uncommon however, for us to have to meet in emergency session after we had final enrollment figures for the fall to reset targets for the spring semester's enrollment. On occasion we would reduce the number of transfers, eliminate entry of new freshmen, and sharply reduce the number of adult students to be admitted or enrolled for the spring semester. We did this because our enrollment FTE was based on an average enrollment for the two semesters. I remember one spring when we admitted no new students, except graduate students, and reduced drastically the planned number of adult registrations in the evening and the number of credit hours allowed for these students. The issue was not whether we have space in the classes being taught at night, but whether we were about to go over the danger point in the budgeted FTE. I always believed that the reasons why the Board of Governors were so hard on us about being over-enrolled was associated with the fact that the under-enrolled universities in the system thought that they would get more students if we didn't admit them. The fact that we now had a larger number of students than UNC-CH, and that the vast majority of the members of the BOG were UNC-CH graduates couldn't have had anything to do with this, could it? I think also that the BOG staff did not want to have to explain over enrollment to the Legislature. On their behalf, I'm certain that they would not have had a receptive audience in the legislature, for increased enrollments meant increased appropriations in the next biennium. I always thought that in our state, which had well below the national average of high school graduates attending college, we should have been working harder to increase the number of students attending college, including the adults who were so under-served in the Research Triangle area. The increases in enrollments for us were in the adult and graduate areas and were not in the increased numbers of new high school graduates. Some of the engineering students that we didn't admit may have gone to UNC-Charlotte or to NCA&T, but they also went to other engineering programs in major college in other states. We never knew how many never went to college. The two other engineering programs at N. C. public institutions did not increase their engineering enrollments by nearly as many students as the number of qualified applicants to whom we denied admission.

When Shirley became Dean of the Faculty we had a probationary system which prohibited students on probation from representing the University in off-campus or on-campus activities. This restriction soon disappeared and was called provisional status for a short time. In 1990 the probationary system was initiated again. Under these provisions a student on probation could not hold leadership positions or participate in extracurricular activities on or off-campus.

The special or adult student route, along with correspondence courses and Summer School, has long been one that a student could use to earn admission to NCSU. After students had completed satisfactorily a specified number of hours, including composition and math (and for some programs, specific math courses), they could be admitted to NCSU. Summer School and correspondence courses have also been the way suspended students could obtain the GPA needed to be readmitted. In 1989 the Admissions Committee recommended that after a period of absence from the university, a suspended student be permitted to enroll as special or adult student to try to re-earn admission. The issue was referred to the Faculty Senate and in 1991, a policy change was adopted which permitted suspended students after only one year's absence from the university to be allowed to use this mechanism to earn the opportunity to gain entry to the university again. Other requirements for eligibility for Lifelong Education courses included:

a) have acquired a high school diploma or GED certificate; b) not have been suspended from any college or university, including NCSU, for two full semesters not including summer sessions; c) not be a degree candidate at North Carolina State University; or d) be high school students who have been recommended by their school and approved by the Admission's Office to take lower level courses.

The title of Dean of Admissions was approved for Mrs. Keller by the Trustees on recommendation of Chancellor Poulton with my concurrence. The members of the Faculty Senate expressed some concern about this title for the Director of Admissions and felt that the title of dean should be given only for those holding a more academic position. The Chancellor and I agreed that the title would revert to Director upon Mrs. Keller's retirement, and it did when George Dixon became Director.

When Admissions reported to me there were a small number of exceptions admitted as athletes. Chancellor Poulton was concerned that the number was too large so he reduced the number to 23. Each of these were admissible under the NCAA formula but were below the requirements for admission to NCSU. Prior to this time, if the students met the NCAA requirements we admitted them. This was a practice at most universities and had existed under Caldwell and Thomas until Thomas imposed a more limited number of exceptions to NCSU admission's requirements. After the 1984 freshmen were admitted, Poulton was very concerned about the quality of those exceptions who had the poorest admission credentials under the NCSU formula. He then wrote the Athletics Director and said that athletes who were exceptions and admitted with AIs under the NCSU formula below those of other non-athlete exceptions admitted to NCSU, could not play in their first year. He assigned me the responsibility to make this determination. Poulton and I also understood that if a student who was an exception performed well during the first semester, that I could and probably would rule that the athlete could play in their sport during the second semester. In the fall of 1985 there were several who were ruled ineligible by me to participate that fall. The coaches concerned and Director of Athletics appealed to Chancellor Poulton, but he upheld my decision. It was at this time that Poulton also eliminated the practice of exceptions who were admitted on the basis of the minimum NCAA rules. He delegated to me and the Director of Admissions the responsibility of admitting athlete exceptions. There were no specific numbers, but I knew that the number must be very small. The system we used was as follows: before a student could be admitted, the Director of Admissions sought all of the advice from the high school that she/he possibly could get. The SAT qualitative factors, the high school record, courses taken, and the recommendations from the high school were reviewed by the Director of Admissions and personnel in the Academic Skills Program. The more borderline cases required interviews by both Admissions and Academic Skills personnel. The Director of Athletics and these two Directors then recommended to me whether we should accept or reject admission in each specific case. This process did improve the academic quality of admitted athletes. All of these athlete student exceptions were required to participate in the University Transition Program. This program is described in Chapter Seven under Academic Skills. Under the new Admission Committee's responsibilities, these decisions are now made by that Committee.

As Provost I had to hear appeals from denials of readmission by the Admissions Committee. I heard few cases, for the word was out that the Provost did not overrule the Admissions Committee. Provost Kelly heard few cases too. In one of his cases a young man told Dr.