Attendance:Catherine Axinn, Josephine Bloomfield, Duncan Brown, Lee Cibrowski,Donna Conaty, Glenn Doston, David Juedes, Hans Kruse, ChristineMattley, Mark Mecum, Michael Mumper, Chester Pach, Animesh Rathore,Josep Rota, Gregory Shepherd, Katherine Tadlock, Maureen Weissenrieder,Yingjiao Xu, and Bill Rhinehart for Julia Zimmerman.

Guests: Gary Neiman, Andy Kreutzer  (for item #4)

Excused: PatBeamish, Angie Bukley, Carolyn Cardenas, John Day, David Drabold,Judith Edinger, Jason Hartz, Peter Johnson, David Mould, Robert Roe,and Susan Sarnoff.

Convened: The meeting was convened at 3:05 pm. 

1.      Approval of May Minutes:

Minutes of the May 12^th, 2006 meeting were approved.

2.      Chair’s Report (Duncan Brown):

A.     Next year’s meeting dates: The dates for next year’s meetings are mentioned at the bottom of the agenda. 

B.     Thanks to all members: Duncan thanked all members, particularly all the committee chairs for their work. 

C.     Review of the past year:

·        Graduate Council dealt with a fewer number of conflict of interest cases this  year, due to the expedited process that is in place now.

·        The backlog of seven- year program reviews was dealt with.  Latertoday an item of discussion will be whether we can institute anexpedited process similar to the one for conflict of interest.  In September we will look at program reviews conducted this spring.

·        A policy was recommended to the Provost regarding awarding posthumous graduate degrees.  OU-COM will bring their proposal in the Fall.  Chesterasked if the departments had been advised about the provision in thepolicy that they can add specific requirements for degree conferral.  Lee said that once the policy is approved by the Provost, departments will be advised.  Duncan also added that departments do have a choice to opt out of that policy. 

·        GraduateCouncil reduced from 12 to nine the minimum number of hours required toregister for to be eligible for support during summer.

·        The260 hours policy was replaced by a much simpler policy which is basedon the number of quarters of financial support a student can receive.  Michaelsaid that Graduate Appointments staff has been able to work withFinancial Aid to calculate the number of hours of support a student hasreceived thus far.  Discussion ensued about funding veteran students versus new students.  Maureensaid that if they continue to fund existing students departments do nothave enough funds to recruit new students since they cannot offer themfunding.  Also, young scientists always need students to further their research interests.  Michaelsaid that because of this policy, students now have the eligibility toreceive funding which was non-existent in the past.  However,it was noted that this change does not create any additional fundingand it is unlikely departments will be able to extend the period offinancial support they give their students.    

·        Aproposal was also sent to the Provost to increase the named fellowshipsfrom five to seven and to increase the amount from $13,000 to $15,000with a full fee waiver for the duration of the award. 

·        Graduate Student Senate made recommendations about the increasing Health Care/Insurance costs for graduate students.

·        GraduateCouncil discussed its role in the post-Vision Ohio university to focusmore on strategic issues versus operational issues.  The President and Provost noted that Graduate Council should have an important role. 

3.      Reports by Michael Mumper:  

A.     Outstanding Graduate Faculty Award: Michael congratulated Chester Pach on being nominated as the outstanding graduate faculty for 2005.  He will speak on June 9^th at the annual graduate commencement. 

B.     Enrollment:Michael said that in the Fall of 2004 the Provost approached Joe andMichael to look into recruitment of international graduate students.  Staff from the Center of International Studies and the office of Graduate Studies traveled to recruit new students.  Application numbers have gone up from countries where recruitment efforts were focused.  Admits for master’s degrees have increased from 411 in Fall 2005 to 529 for Fall 2006.  Joe noted that the increase in doctoral admits has not been significant (from 55 in 2005 to 60 in 2006).  This is because most of the effort was focused on recruiting at the masters and undergraduate levels.  Michaeladded that Turkey has been cited as being a good market and BethClodfelter and Vicki West will be attending fairs in Turkey in the nextcouple of weeks.  The undergraduate admissionsoffice will train them to do admissions so that they can do on-the-spotadmissions while they are in Turkey.

Glenn asked about recruitment in Africa.  Michael said that it has been hard to find organizations or tours that do systematic recruitment in Africa.  For now recruitment efforts in Africa have been initiated by individuals.  Steve Howard travels to West Africa and recruits actively in that region.  Michael added that he is open to ideas and suggestions about recruitment in Africa.  Joe said that in U.S. universities no African country is among the top 20 in terms of number of students.  But, at OU Ghana is at third place and Kenya in the eighth place.  Chester asked about discipline specific recruiting versus recruiting for the entire university.  Michael said that usually the location of the fair determines the audience attending the fair.  Ifa fair is held in the conference facility of a technical university,then most people attending the fair express an interest in thetechnical fields.  Glenn asked if we had reached our target numbers.  Michael said that is the next step, to evaluate our efforts and to set targets.  He added that when we started this effort it was a crucial situation and we wanted to increase numbers. 

4.      Curriculum Committee (Chris Mattley):

A.     Proposal to waive the Language requirement for admission to the Ohio University/Beijing Sport University MSA Program:Chris informed Graduate Council that the curriculum committee voted viaemail to approve the proposal to waive the language requirement foradmission to the Ohio University/Beijing Sport University MSA program. 

DeanNeiman said that this is a great opportunity to marry the top programin Sports Administration in U.S.A. with the top sports University ofChina.  In preparation for the 2008 Olympics thatwill be held in China there is considerable interest on their part topartner with OU to train officials in the area of sports andentertainment.  Their interest in OU stems from the work done by the department here and in particular by Ming Li, Director of the School.  The School is requesting this waiver as a pilot program for two years.  This situation is novel for OU, but not for other universities in the U.S.A.  Arizona State University has graduated its first cohort of Chinese government officials.  Josie asked if the language requirement would be needed to be waived after 2008 as well.  DeanNeiman responded saying that most of the officials who will have accessto join this program are going to be at a higher rung in the hierarchy.  And, the higher they are in the hierarchy; chances of them having English proficiency are minimal.  Also, these officials would not like to take the TOEFL, because getting a low score will cause them to lose face. 

Maureen asked if there were any other universities besides ASU which were offering similar programs.  She noted that if someone receives an OU degree there is an assumption about the quality of that degree.  Deliveringa degree comes with a certain set of admission requirements which needto be met by all who are admitted to that program.  Duncan asked if there was a certain model that the school had adopted for the proposed delivery of this degree.  Joesaid that Ohio State University, Bowling Green State University, andKent State University offer degree programs in other countries.  Chrissaid that she is concerned about ensuring the quality of contentdelivered, given that the instructors do not speak English.  Dean Neiman said that they will have translators and the exams will be translated in English.  Chris said that it seemed like most of the instructors at ASU speak Chinese.  Also, she mentioned the recent article in the Economist about scientific fraud in China.  Shesaid that the present proposal does not meet the standards we have hadin the past and that she would like a little more assurance about thecontent and process of delivery of the degree. 

Hans said that he is open to this proposal since it is seeking a waiver for only two years, it is a pilot project.  If this was a long term waiver, he would not be comfortable with it.  GregShepherd said that he believes this is a unique opportunity and thatoffering this degree as a pilot program does not mean that we will beoffering multiple graduate degrees all over the world in variouslanguages. 

Duncan asked about the possibility of it being a Beijing University degree versus an OU degree.  Dean Neiman said that from the Chinese perspective an American degree is considered more prestigious than a Chinese degree.  Chester asked about grading exams and whether instructors would grade the Chinese product or the English product.  Dean Neiman said that the translators will play a significant role in this endeavor.  AndyKreutzer said that all the translators who will be hired will belicensed and that there will be an opportunity for simultaneoustranslation in class as well.  He further addedthat this is an opportunity to establish a foothold in this uniqueculture and that the School is very excited about this opportunity.  Donna added that when she thinks of a cohort the dynamic interaction between students and faculty comes to mind the foremost.  In the absence of a common language, she noted that it is unclear how that will be achieved.  Inresponse to Glen’s question about the size of the cohort, Dean Neimansaid that they are proposing two cohorts of a maximum of 30 students ineach. 

Cathysaid that the transcripts and diplomas can have a designation on themthat indicates that the program was conducted in Mandarin.  Sheadded that it can also be made known to them that the waiver is onlyfor the first two cohorts, so that the subsequent cohorts have enoughtime to gain English proficiency.  Duncan expressed concern regarding this situation setting a precedent for future programs.  DeanNeiman said that two years is a fair amount of time for their Chinesepartners to enforce the English proficiency requirement.  And, that in the present situation, given the existent Chinese hierarchy the waiver makes sense.  He added that in no way will the integrity and quality of the program will be compromised.  Also,this is well aligned with the University’s strategic plans and goals ofestablishing pre-eminence in certain selected areas.  Maureen expressed concern about the integrity of the degrees we offer.  Bill noted the lack of a library collection in the Chinese language.  Hewondered about instructional support and curriculum development withoutthe presence of a body of literature in the given language.  Dean Neiman said that most major textbooks, including the one written by Ming Li have already been translated into Mandarin.  Thecohorts will have access to our online resources as others do and thatinstruction is going to be augmented by professors bringing in extramaterials to class.  Also, the students will have access to the Beijing Sports University resources. 

Chris noted that it seems like that the standards that need to be maintained for this program pivot on the translators hired.  Dean Neiman said that the cost of the translators is being borne by the Beijing Sports University.  Headded that in the last paragraph on the last page of the proposal theyindicated that the transcript ‘may’ indicate that the program was notconducted in English.  They were not sure if it would be possible for the Registrar’s office to make that designation on the transcript.  Chester asked if it is possible to have a sort of an expiration date of this mandate.  Dean Neiman said that the last cohort will be admitted in January of 2009.  Responding to concerns expressed by members about teaching with a translator, Cathy said that it involves a little bit of adjustment on the part of the professor.  She added that they just have to speak slower so that the translator can translate everything.  Valeriecommented about the interpreters who work with the blind and deafstudents and that we accept their ‘translations’ and interpretations.  She added that she believes that hiring of translators is more of a technical detail and not a deal killer.  But, if we are discussing whether an OU degree can be granted or not in such a scenario, then that is a different issue. 

Joe said that we have a good discussion and this is a great opportunity for the university.  This can potentially open other doors for us.  This will be an empirical test and will give us evidence about other such endeavors.  Yingjiaoattested to the fact that higher the position of the official in thegovernment, lesser the chances that they will have English proficiency.  But, there is tremendous potential to influence others for the future. 

Theproposal was approved by Graduate Council with a temporary waiver ofthe language requirement for admission to the Ohio University/BeijingSport University MSA program for the first two cohorts with the secondcohort to be admitted no later than January 2009. 

B.     Proposal to institute an expedited review process for selected program reviews: The committee proposed instituting a two-stage review for program reviews.  Ifthe committee supports the seven year review, then all members receivea copy of it, but it does not get discussed in Graduate Council.  It gets forwarded by the Chair to UCC.  If,on the other hand, the committee is concerned about certain issues,then it is brought forth for discussion to all members of GraduateCouncil. 

5.      Report on Electronic Thesis and Dissertations (Angie McCutcheon):

Angie presented an update about the current status of the submissions to the ETD office.  She said that half of all the dissertations are now being submitted electronically.  Angieinformed Graduate Council that there is a 10% chance of a papersubmission being viewed versus a 50% chance of it being viewed ifsubmitted electronically.  Also, an electronic submission does not cost the university, so it is a financially viable option as well. 

Chestersaid that in the History department they have not been in favor ofelectronic submissions because of the fear of the document being viewedbefore it gets published.  Angie said that thereis a five year delay that a student can opt for while submittingelectronically, that way the only document released is the title andthe abstract.  Hans said that he has a strangesense of discomfort about the approval process and the form that theadvisor signs, since there is no document attached to it.  Angie said that she does not approve any document if it has not been approved by the advisor.  Hanssaid that there is no formal way in the whole process to ensure thatthe document that was approved by the advisor is the one beingsubmitted by the student to the ETD office.  Maureenasked if a final copy could be kept at the department or college levelso that an advisor is not liable for any wrong action taken by astudent.  Cathy noted that the chain of evidence can be maintained if the advisor submits the document.  Donna noted that it could cause problems if the advisor did not turn it in at the right time.  Angie said that she can send the final document as an attachment to the advisor when she receives it.  Michaelsaid that Angie works with the ETD steering committee and if anyonewould like to serve on that committee, they can let him know. 

There was no new business and the meeting was adjourned at 5 pm.