Attendance: Pat Beamish, Duncan Brown, Angie Bukley, Carolyn Cardenas, Lee Cibrowski, John Day, Glenn Doston, Judith Edinger, Jason Hartz, Peter Johnson, David Juedes, Hans Kruse, Christine Mattley, Mark Mecum, Michael Mumper, Chester Pach, Susan Sarnoff, Katherine Tadlock, Maureen Weissenrieder, Yingjiao Xu, and Bill Rhinehart filling in for Julia Zimmerman

Excused: Catherine Axinn, Josephine Bloomfield, Donna Conaty, David Drabold, David Mould, Robert Roe, and Josep Rota.

Convened: The meeting was convened at 2:08 pm.  Packets with agenda were distributed and the sign-in sheet was passed around.

1.      Approval of January Minutes:

Duncan noted that, following the January 12th Graduate Council meeting, he had received additional materials relevant to the conflict of interest case of Bruce Brown discussed and tabled at the January meeting.  These materials included a January 30, 2006 memo from Valerie Young, the Graduate Chair of the department of Chemical Engineering, and earlier correspondence between Katie Tadlock and various persons in the Department of Chemical Engineering regarding Bruce Brown’s 2002 application to join the master’s program in Chemical Engineering.  These materials are in the packet given to Council members for today’s meeting and they will be added as an attachment to the January minutes.

Bruce Brown has since withdrawn his application for the Ph.D. program; he will submit a new application.

Lee Cibrowski asked for a correction to be made on page 8 of the minutes.  She said that it should be the “7 year review” not the 8 year review.

With these changes the minutes of the January 12th meeting of Graduate Council were approved.

2.      Chair’s Report (Duncan Brown):

Duncan apologized for the emails he had sent earlier in the week, which remained undelivered to everyone till today. 

1. Provost’s Visit:  Provost Krendl will be out of town on April 14^th.   Therefore, she will instead join us for our May 12^th meeting.  The future of Graduate Council in a post “Vision Ohio” Ohio University will be discussed.

2. Attachments: The mission statement of the Graduate Council is on the agenda (item #7) today.  After discussion Chester’s committee can prepare a statement.  We can discuss it in the March and April meetings, before the Provost’s visit in May 2006.  We should be proactive in our stance and not just respond to the emerging scenario.  Graduate Council needs to discuss where it fits in the new structure.  Another attachment is about the Graduate Education and Research Board.

3. Program Reviews: Full program reviews for upcoming programs will be sent electronically.  Today there are paper copies in the packet.

3.      Associate Provost for Graduate Studies, Michael Mumper:

1. Enrollment: Enrollment for fall quarter was off by 100 students, for winter quarter is was off by only 15 students.  Last year was not a high enrollment year, but it seems like we are bouncing back to where we were a couple of years ago.

2. Applications: Application numbers are ahead by 250 from last year in this week.  This increase is spread across programs and types of students. International applications are up, and there is a substantial rise in applicants from Turkey, the Middle East, and Thailand.  All of these are places where we have been recruiting in the last year.  Our applications from China and India are also going back up.  Recruitment efforts have been initiated in these two countries as well.

3. Graduate Priorities Implementation Team: They did not have much to report; discussions have been ongoing and no decisions have been made yet.  One of the items was to gather feedback from constituent groups and that process is going well.  Another initiative is to get Graduate Council and the implementation team to meet with each other.  

4. Graduate Education and Research Board: The Provost asked Michael to chair the Board; the membership of the Board was announced yesterday.  Catherine Axinn is the Graduate Council Representative on the Board.

5. Innovation Incentive and Economic Growth Challenge:  In the previous state budget an innovation incentive was announced.  A state level committee comprised of Provosts and other similar officials of all major universities in Ohio was responsible for initiating it.  The plan involves holding back 1.5% of the doctoral subsidy which is in turn matched with the same amount of new money.  This money is then available to invest in specific graduate programs.  If no action is taken by the end of the fiscal year the money for that year is lost.

Draft 7 asks us to take half of 1.5% of doctoral subsidy (in our case $143,000), set that aside and identify a plan to reallocate funds.  A proposal delineating our plans for the money must be submitted to the state.  If the proposal is approved, then we receive the same amount from the state for ten years.  Once things are finalized, we will have to act very quickly.  We can look back at actions taken since 2003 to help us identify areas to focus on for our proposal.  John raised the question about constraints that will be faced in this process and what if we identify areas that are not acceptable at the state level.  And, what if more than one school identifies similar areas?  He asked if there was any talk about coordinating with other schools in the planning process.   

Second Year onwards an outside panel chosen by the Ohio Board of Regents will be in place to help with this process.  Glenn asked if each institution will have the opportunity to select areas of interest.  Michael responded that the areas would be economic growth and the Third Frontier Project.  These are programs that have an economic impact for the state; they include STEM Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics.  Carolyn asked if it would be specifically targeted to doctoral programs or terminal degree programs.  Michael answered that it would be taking money from doctoral subsidy and that they will be identifying areas and not programs.  Chester stated that in terms of allocation of centrally held funds all we hear about are budget cuts.  He asked where the money (that is going to be distributed) come from?  Michael responded that with the budget cuts, some money will go to the central pool to fund Vision Ohio projects and that will be divided between undergraduate and graduate priorities and other areas.  Maureen asked whether it was Michael or the Provost who sits on the Board.  Michael explained that it was the Provost and that there is some discussion going on in the Regents Advisory Committee on Graduate Study about this.

Katherine Tadlock:

1. Registrar’s Office: They are asking for a consensus at the college level for making the RAC visible on the DARS.  At the undergraduate level students get their RAC from their advisor during advising.  This offers a small recognition for Graduate Students in the expectation that they could manage programs on their own and be more responsible than undergraduates.  She said that she is in favor of this proposal, but if a college is not interested, then they should let her know.  She added that if she does not hear from anyone in a couple of weeks she will assume that there is no conflict towards the suggestion.  

2. TOEFL: The new policy was included in the handouts for students at the winter quarter orientation.

3. MAGS: Information about the Midwestern Association of Graduate Schools, Thesis Competition will be sent out shortly.  Brochures for Named Fellowships will be sent out next week.  

4. Orientation Information:  Katie introduced her graduate assistants, Malinda and Lisa who have been working putting together the orientation sessions for new graduate students in the fall quarter.  The orientation will focus on how to make the transition for graduate students easier.  This is not meant to replace the departmental orientation.  The process of identifying what they orientation would encompass involved the following steps:  

a)      Identifying that our goals are aligned with those of Vision Ohio 

b)      Literature Review

c)      Student Survey

d)      Departmental Survey

Katie posed the question, should there be a University wide general orientation that gets a set of information conveyed and helps accomplish certain tasks for the incoming graduate students?  In terms of research on best practices and looking at existing models of graduate student orientation, it seems like it is important to have a general orientation.  It can be handled by OGS, following a service fair model.  It would be one-stop shopping where graduate students could take care of their graduate appointments, complete I-9’s, fill payroll forms, receive OU ID’s, and parking permits.  It would be sort of a University welcome for an incoming class of Graduate Scholars.  Also, it will free up time for departments to focus on academic issues of expectations, integrity, course scheduling, and so on.  Tinto stated that academic integration comes before University integration at the graduate level.  At the undergraduate level it is reversed, with the first affiliation being with the university.  There has to be recognition of the need of graduate students to connect with peers in their programs and outside their programs.  Cross program connection opportunities fade away if students do not have access to them early in their academic life at a university.

Katie said that they have presented a very quick review, and that this power point presentation and the data collected will be sent to all members via email.  Chester asked if there was a timeline for which this was being proposed.  Katie said that it is being proposed for fall of 2006 and that we will be working with ISFS and OPIE and with the Teaching Assistant Orientation. There are a number of departments that have two day orientations so we are trying to find the right day and time to do this one.  It is anticipated that this will relieve the departments of some of the load.  Duncan asked if this meant that the department orientations can be on Friday, and Katie responded that yes, they could be.  Maureen asked about the departments whose orientation lasts more than two days.  Michael added that this would not replace, duplicate, or interfere with that, but simply add some extra value for the students.  The principal audience would be those who are not receiving any orientation at the departmental level.  This is not going to be mandatory, so if there is a conflict in the time that this general orientation is being offered and their departmental orientation, they can choose not to come to this one.  Maureen asked if this could be spread out, like maybe in the first week or the third week of the quarter since there is a lot going on that week.  Katie answered that the idea is to have it in the CSC building or in the library, and then continue to offer ongoing training and services.  Michael added that the summer before Graduate school students are anxious and the orientation before classes begin will help quell their anticipatory anxiousness.  Malinda added that this information will be available online so that students who could not attend it in person can still look up these resources.  Susan commented that students would appreciate this and asked when the departments would know about the date and time of this orientation.  This will facilitate in them planning their orientations.  Duncan said that they finalize their schedules in the middle of spring quarter, so if this information is available to them by the third week of spring quarter it will be helpful.  Carolyn added that it would be extremely helpful to students if someone could explain the financial side of their graduate programs to the students, such as health insurance, retirement, and stipend versus tuition remission and so on.  Michael asked if that would be a general session or if it would only be for those having a graduate appointment.  

4.      Admissions Requirement Committee (Josie Bloomfield):

Bruce Brown’s application has been withdrawn and the memo from Valerie Young is included in today’s packet. 

5.      Curriculum Committee (Chris Mattley):

1. Educational Studies: Chris Mattley said that the Program review for Education Studies was undertaken in 2003.  Some of the issues mentioned in the program have already been corrected, reorganization carried out, and weaknesses have been addressed.  The committee recommends that Graduate Council accept the review.  Catherine Glascock said that three of their programs are nationally recognized.  Out of the 13 faculty members only two are untenured.

Duncan added that this is the last of the delayed reviews.  By the June meeting we will not only be caught up with all of the old ones but also will have started with new ones.  All members voted in favor of accepting the review.

2. Music: Duncan said that given Donna’s absence today, questions about the program will not be able to be answered.  He added that Chuck McWeeney said to go ahead with discussion and table the review if we have concerns. Chris noted that it was a pretty strong review.  The concerns of the reviewers were concerns about the availability of resources.  Their findings included a need for regulation of heat and humidity in buildings because it was causing damage to instruments which were then constantly being repaired.  All members voted in favor of accepting the review based on the recommendation of the Curriculum Committee.   

6.      Policy and Regulation Committee (Lee Cibrowski):

Lee stated that the committee decided that it was hard to have one set of rules or policy to apply to all departments and programs, therefore they recommend setting minimum standards.  Judith added that discussions at OU-COM are ongoing, but there has not been much feedback yet.  Chester said that he is concerned about both issues: how much does it really matter to have a policy in place given the number of times this will actually be applied.  And, on the other hand, the standards being discussed seem minimalistic.  There is a huge difference in program requirements across Social Sciences.  He added that he is unable to justify in his own mind lowering of standards for someone who died.  Pat added that one of her doctoral students died while working on her dissertation.  She did not have her proposal done.  Pat said that she always wished she could have facilitated the granting of the degree to her.  Most of the late student’s work was at the front end.  She noted that the human and emotional component of a situation like this need to be addressed.  The dissertation was important to that student and she continued the work on it until very close to the time of her death. Judith commented about procedures and to the degree being awarded in a public versus a private ceremony, adding that in a class students tend to get close to each other.  

David said at the undergraduate level, you have to be a senior (being 75% done) to be considered for an award of a posthumous degree.  If a similar model is followed at the graduate level, how can that 75% be identified?  Having a policy protects the department.  Also, at the graduate level, this would need to be approved by the student’s graduate committee and the college.  Hans said that if a department did not have a policy in place, then by default it would not award a posthumous degree.  Lee asked if departments would have to award a degree based on the minimum standards set by the university.  Mark asked about the impetus for initiating policy about granting posthumous degree.  He asked if this was only respect for the deceased, or for any other reason.  Lee responded that sometimes the family of the student might establish a scholarship in the deceased student’s name.  Duncan brought up the fact that the original impetus was that there is a policy for the undergraduates and not for graduate students.  If a department decides to award a posthumous degree, there would be the minimum standards to comply with.  Susan added that at a university she attended this happened twice and that without a policy discussion gets emotional and is not centered on academic issues and the degree in concern.  Chester stated that if Graduate Council passes this policy, then departments should take action accordingly.  The policy should be in place and the departments then decide to either opt-out and if they do so, then they should not visit the issue for specific cases.  Also, if they decide to opt-out of granting posthumous degrees, it should not mean that they have to grant them based on minimum standards set by the university.

7.      Discussion Items:

We should be proactive about it so that we have a clear role in the post Vision Ohio Ohio University.  Duncan asked about the role of GERB in subsequent years.  Michael said that every two years they will identify new priorities for investment.  Pat asked if the money would be granted to programs or would be designated for areas of emphasis.  Michael responded that it is hard to invest in a general area, without money going to a specific program.  Also, he added, academic areas conform to traditional disciplinary boundaries.  Pat asked if that money would become a part of the base money for those programs, or it would be only for those two years.  Michael answered that the investment would probably shift to a new area every two years.  Hans said that the in one of the meetings the Provost had mentioned that programs that receive the investment would have to generate more funds to return the invested amount.  Michael said that we should identify some metrics for success.  

Chester stated that the Vision Ohio document does not empower Graduate Council to implement decisions or make decisions for investments.  John asked about the role of Graduate Council if OU was to have a graduate college.  Would the Dean of the graduate college have more decision making powers than Graduate Council?   Susan said that many graduate colleges do not include master’s programs, and departments have the choice of opting out of the graduate college.  Michael said that they did not see this format in any of the ten peer institutions.  Duncan added that five members of Graduate Council are on the Graduate Implementation Team so this is significant input for the team.  

Duncan said that we need to think about what graduate education should be like at Ohio University.  The Planning and Strategy Committee of Graduate Council used to be an ad-hoc committee, but now it is a standing committee.  This goes along with our efforts to get Graduate Council to contribute more towards graduate education.  The new policy on conflict of interest coupled with the two-tier process will free up time for us for more discussion along these lines.  There was some discussion about the nature and membership of the GERB.  Michael said that the GERB is tied to graduate education not just research.  The voice of this group needs to be heard on it and that is why one member of Graduate Council serves on that Board. 

John said that we should also define for ourselves what characteristics we look for in programs.  Then, it would be easier to process program reviews, because we could see how they measure against those characteristics.  He added that even though there is significant variance across disciplines and their graduate programs, at least some sort of guidelines can be developed about availability of resources and faculty and so on.  Duncan said that David Ingram, the Chair of UCC is also unhappy with the program review process.  This process was designed to review undergraduate programs and graduate programs are just made to fit into them. 

Meeting adjourned at 4 pm.

Next meeting on March 10^th, 2-4 pm in the Governance Room in Walter Hall.