Graduate Council Meeting
Minutes
March 10, 2006
Attendance:Catherine Axinn, Pat Beamish, Josephine Bloomfield, Duncan Brown, AngieBukley, Lee Cibrowski, Donna Conaty, John Day, Glenn Doston, DavidDrabold, Jason Hartz, Peter Johnson, David Juedes, Hans Kruse,Christine Mattley, Mark Mecum, Michael Mumper, Chester Pach, JosepRota, Susan Sarnoff, Katherine Tadlock, Yingjiao Xu, and Julia Zimmerman
Excused: Carolyn Cardenas, Judith Edinger, David Mould, Robert Roe, and Maureen Weissenrieder.
Guest: Sandy Turner
Convened: The meeting was convened at 2:05 pm.
1. Approval of February Minutes:
Minutes of the February 10th meeting were approved.
2. Chair’s Report (Duncan Brown):
A. Graduate Implementation Task Force: Duncan informed Graduate Council that at the April 14thmeeting, one of the items on the agenda will be discussion with themembers of the Graduate Implementation Task Force about the proposalfor the $2 million.
B. Plagiarism:Duncan met with a group from Faculty Senate, convened by Faculty SenateChair Phyllis Bernt, to discuss the plagiarism issue and will keepGraduate Council informed about the progress.
C. Program Reviews: The Social Work and Health Sciences program reviews are the last of the reviews from the backlog. Duncan informed everyone that he has already received some of the reviews for this year. He hopes to have them brought up in the next couple of meetings. Duncan also said that he hopes to also have the September meeting this year, like last year. It will be helpful, particularly for addressing the Conflict of Interest Reviews that come through in the summer.
3. Remarks by Michael Mumper:
A. Graduate Applications: Michael informed Graduate Council that we are ahead by 100 applications this week compared to last year. Most applications were concentrated in January and February, which is due to the change in departmental deadlines. International applications have increased by 250 and domestic have dropped by 150. These numbers do not include the applications for the MBA cohort that will begin in July in India. Also, in response to the concern expressed by Hans about the decreasein domestic applications, Michael said that one of the factors that canaccount for it is the MBA program on campus which is now going to beginin June. So, the application numbers for it are in the count for summer not, fall. Overall, he said he is optimistic that we will be ahead of where we were last year.
B. Graduate Student Senate: Last year GSS did not select an outstanding graduate faculty. They will select two this year, one of them will be the commencementspeaker at the graduate commencement this year and the other one atnext year’s commencement.
C. Resource Distribution Plan: The resource distribution plan is being presented to the Cabinet, Michael informed. It provides substantially greater incentives to departments by reducingthe share of Regional higher education and lifelong learning. Thus, departments receive credit for student credit hours. He said that there are two parts to the revenue distribution, the tuition distribution and the subsidy distribution. There is agreement about the tuition distribution and there seems to bean agreement at least in principle about the distribution of subsidy. He explained that the Athens campus and a couple of branch campuses are on a guarantee plan for receiving subsidy. This means that they receive a fixed amount for a certain number of students until they reach the threshold.
Katie Tadlock:
- Change in time for commencement: Katie informed Graduate Council about the change in time for the commencement ceremonies for Friday (June 9th) and Saturday (June 10th) from 10 am to 9:30 am.
- Pre-registration DARS: Katie said that the Registrar’s Office would like feedback about continuing to print pre-registration DARS. They are available online to students and their advisors. The current procedure involves printing two copies of those DARS andthen they get sorted at Graduate Studies and sent to all departments. Catherine said that the only issue she would have is that it is hard toreview the document online when the student is with the advisor in hisor her office. Josie added that they use them to keep track of the 260 hour issue as well. Also, the online version does not print like the printed version received from the Registrar’s office. If that can be achieved, it would make sense to not print them. But, there are certain formatting issues that prevent the online version to print like the paper copy. Angie said that there probably is a printer friendly version option on the print menu.
Duncan asked about the students who are not currently registered, Katie said that it is still possible to print a DARS for them. Donna asked if it is possible to send the DARS to students via email. Katie said that it has been a discussion point for the new SIS, but at this point in time, it is not an option.
4. Curriculum Committee (Chris Mattley):
A. M.Ed at the University of Education, Winneba, Ghana:Chris mentioned three concerns that the committee had: price of theprogram, contract structure and the nature of in-kind contributions,and finally the clause noting that half of the students admitted wouldbe women. Chris added that the statement about having 50% women seems to be like imposing a quota. Sandy Turner responded to the concerns. She said that the cost is $164 per credit hour, which is the same as fees charged here, without the general fees. Duncan asked if this proposal had been approved by UCC and UIC. Joe said that has been done. Sandy added that this program is exactly the same as the one on campus. Regarding the enrollment of women, she clarified that they would changethe language to say that the goal is to have 50% women, and that thoseadmitted will all be qualified candidates. Duncan added that we also should bear in mind that we are looking atthe pedagogical issues and the other administrative and budget detailsare looked at by UIC. Sandy noted that 10 courses will be taught by OU faculty, three by adjunct faculty chosen by OU.
Onthe recommendation of the Curriculum committee, Graduate Councilapproved the proposal to offer M.Ed at the University of Edcuation,Winneba, Ghana.
B. Social Work: Chris noted that this is a very strong program and has filled a niche in the discipline. The only concern the committee had was the lack of diversity. Josie asked whether it was diversity in terms of gender. Chris acknowledged that there are more women than men and that this is also reflected in the national profiles. Susan responded to that saying that they have greatly improved upon that since the inception of the program. There are more out of state students as well now. One of the reasons for lack of diversity in the program is due to thefact that the outreach efforts of the department are more focused onrural areas. Most minorities tend to be concentrated in the downtown areas of big cities. She added that they are now able to offer scholarships and they havehad some outstanding graduate students and that they are constantlytrying to increase diversity.
On the recommendation of the Curriculum committee, Graduate Council approved the program review of Social Work.
C. Health Sciences: There were no major concerns regarding this program. The only issue was about not having enough faculty lines. Lee noted that the statement about aggressive expansion of the Schoolis not really true for the period when the review was undertaken. It is true now, but not for then. She recommended eliminating that particular sentence from the review.
Onthe recommendation of the Curriculum committee, Graduate Councilapproved the program review of Health Sciences, with the exclusion ofthe statement about aggressive expansion.
5. Policies and Regulations Committee (Lee Cibrowski):
A. Posthumous Awarding of Graduate Degrees:Lee said that the document about Posthumous Award of Graduate Degrees,in today’s packet is the updated version, based on the changessuggested in a previous meeting. Duncan saidthat the important thing to remember is that we are just setting theminimum standards here and the rest is up to the departments to havetheir own policy. David Juedes asked about clarifying what ‘good standing’ would mean in the context of OU-COM. Lee said that she was hoping Judith would be here to clarify that, because OU-COM was going to have guidelines about that. Peter said that good standing at OU-COM refers to having acceptable grades in their coursework. Donna added that the definition of ‘good standing’ is still vague. Katie responded saying that she would assume that it would follow thecatalog policy which states having a 3.0 out of 4 GPA at least. Peter added that at OU-COM courses are graded as pass or failed, there are no letter grades.
Chester asked about the 75% of coursework being completed for the qualification of an award of the Master’s degree. He noted that if there is a thesis requirement for that program, how the 75% would be applied in that case. Lee responded that the committee is trying to be as open about it aspossible, because all of the specifics are for the departments toprescribe. Chester said that this is ambiguousenough that there could be a situation where a department would find ithard to agree upon what constitutes the 75%. Headded that he is torn about it, on the one hand it does not seem like abig issue just because of the number of times it really comes up and onthe other hand he wants to be sure that we set appropriate criteria. Susan asked if a letter would be sent to each department chair toindicate if these are the minimum criteria set by the university andthat each department has the choice to opt out of it if they so desire. Josie said that the requirements of ‘admittance to candidacy’ for the award of a Ph.D. or Ed.D. differ across colleges. Lee said that is the reason why they cannot specify a fixed number ofchapters of a dissertation being completed for the qualification ofaward of the degree.
DavidDrabold asked about the possibility of faculty proposing someone’s namefor the award of a degree versus the family of the deceased. Joe said it would be much better to have higher university standardsversus having the university prescribe minimum standards and thenletting each department adding their own standards to it. The university awards degrees, not each individual department. For the award of a Ph.D. having passed the comprehensive exams seems like a minimalistic requirement. There are people who do not finish their programs sometimes even after defending their proposals. Donna added that we also need to remember that our motive here is tohonor the work of the people who would have otherwise gone on to finishtheir degrees and have successful careers. And, at the same time, she cautioned we need to be cognizant of any external motivation while awarding a degree. It was decided that the committee would like into the specifics of ‘good standing’ as outlined by OU-COM.
B. Proposal to reform the 260 Hour Rule: A proposal to reform the existing 260 hours rule was presented to Graduate Council. According to current policy the university does not receive subsidy for students who register for more than 260 hours. According to the new policy funding for students will be restricted notbased on the number of credit hours they register for, but by thenumber of quarters for which they receive funding. Hans asked about the rationale for proposing the new rule. Michael said that some students, who do more than one masters programand a doctoral program, run into the 260 hour limit and thus areineligible for funding. Chester said heappreciates the idea because it is very difficult to complete a Ph.D.program in History in three or four years. He also wondered about possibility of funding for the students already enrolled in the program. Michael said that the online appointment system counts hours not quarters of funding received. The new policy can only be introduced in the fall and said that they can try to accommodate some current students as well.
David Drabold echoed Chester’s sentiments and said about appreciating the new initiative. He asked about how this would work for students who have received degrees from other countries. Katie said that students from India come with a three year bachelor’sdegree and a two year master’s degree and that we credit them with 51graduate hours. Even though she added that theMaster’s degree after a three year bachelor’s degree is not equivalentto a U.S. Master’s after a four year bachelor’s degree. The M.Phil. degree from India is what we should consider equivalent to a U.S. Masters. Josie asked about the 15 (if they have a masters from anotherinstitution) versus 18 (if they have a masters from OU) quarters ofsupport for doctoral students. Michael said thatwas proposed to offset the cumulative hours for our students so thatthey would reach the limit at a later time.
Joesaid that he likes the idea but he said he would like to proposereducing the number of quarters for which we would offer financialsupport. He said that support should be offered only for the number of quarters which are actually required to complete the degree. By pledging support to students for more quarters that are actuallyrequired to complete the program we are locking our programs out fornew students. Also, this encourages students totake more elective courses than they need to and to not plan theirprogram of study appropriately. Hans said that he did not think we should impose a new limit that did not exist in the past. He said that by trying to get around the 260 hour issue we are creating a new ceiling, a new problem. He added that it is a source of concern specially if they get adeserving student, and because of this policy, they would not be ableto offer that student any financial aid, and might thus lose him/her. Pat added that they never have enough money to support their students. She said that they can only support their Master’s students for two quarters and their doctoral students for two years.
Markasked if it would be possible for a department to increase the amountof the stipend that would help the students with paying their tuition. Josie responded that the budget ear-marked for stipends prevents them from doing that. John asked about the number of times students actually pursue a third master’s degree. Katie said it is not very common. Michael said that the issue arises when someone got a masters degree,for which they had to take 70 or so credit hours and then after thatthey are enrolled in a second masters which is not progressing the wayit should and they have by now, accumulated a substantial number ofcredit hours for it. After that they enroll in a Ph.D. program, by this time they are very close to the 260 hour limit and cannot be funded. Katie said that another scenario that comes up every now and then iswhen students who are enrolled in a master’s program, do not completethat program and decide to pursue another masters and then a Ph.D.after that. Once they enroll in the Ph.D. program, they get flagged as being close to the 260 limit. Hans said that we should not have an institutional policy that chasesstudents away to another institution, because of our inability to fundthem, as a consequence of this policy.
Jason noted that most of the discussion seems to be focused about policy for Master’s students. And, if there are no issues with the policy for the Ph.D. then we can look at them independent of each other. Michael agreed and said that for the next meeting we should bring itback as two separate proposals; time limit for master’s students andtime limit for doctoral students.
6. Graduate Affairs and Fellowships Committee (Peter Johnson):
Peterinformed Graduate Council that this year 20 nominations have beenreceived and Katie has handed the packets to all members today. At the next meeting the committee will bring recommendations of five names to be awarded the named fellowships.
7. Graduate Student Senate Resolution regarding split courses:
Mark brought everyone’s attention to the document in today’s packet. He noted that many cross-listed courses do not have any distinguishing features for the graduate component of the course. He added that the syllabus is also the same for the undergraduate and the graduate version. Mark said that there should be some oversight, either by asub-committee of the UCC or GC that ensures that the course content isappropriate for the graduate level course. Many cross listed courses are offered and taught every quarter. Donna asked if these courses are required courses for someone’s major or are taken as electives. Michael said that in the 1960s and 1970s, when departments wanted tooffer Masters degree without adding new faculty lines, offeringcross-listed courses was one of the ways to achieve that goal. Referring to the number of ‘unsatisfied (with the cross listed course)’graduate students Julia asked if there are any statistics aboutsatisfaction with graduate level courses only.
Peternoted that in the cross-listed courses he has taught, he has receivednegative evaluations from undergraduate students who feel that they arebeing evaluated on a higher standard. John saidthat in the College of business, due to the nature of the programs thatare run as a cohort, the only option for some students who want agraduate level course is to take a cross-listed course. Chester said that we also need to interpret the data appropriately byasking about the specific experience of students in a cross-listedcourse. He added that he teaches one of those and that there are 40 undergraduate students and eight graduate students in that class. He said that the class focuses on the undergraduate curriculum more than graduate. Chester said that he is sympathetic to the issue and does not intend to dismiss the concerns of GSS. The reality of numbers reflected in the ratio of undergraduate andgraduate students in a cross-listed course dictates the primaryaudience for teaching that course. David Drabold added that it also depends on whether that course is a required course or an elective. In their department, they sometimes use these courses as a remedial tool.
Jason asked if there was a procedure about these courses being approved by a committee. Catherine said that she sits on the UCC and that every cross-listed course gets looked at by them. She added that many courses do not get approved and are sent back to departments. Catherine noted that many a time the faculty who teach a cross-listedcourse leave and the next person teaching it, may or may not follow theguidelines. She said that the department chaircan look at the syllabus of a cross-listed course to ensure that thecourse content is appropriate for a graduate class. Catherine noted that in the class she is teaching, there are 30 undergraduate students and one graduate student. The class is taught with the primary audience being the undergraduatestudents, but the graduate students is required to do more work and ata higher level.
Susan said that it would be an overkill to have the department chair look at each and every syllabus of cross-listed courses. It seems like extensive work for a problem that might not be so rampant. She added that even a reminder about this policy can fix 90% of the problem she believes. She also noted that it should be a part of the orientation for new faculty. Katie said that the syllabus should specify the quantitative differenceand that students might not be aware that they do have an option forrecourse. Pat said that it is best to educate new faculty and that a reminder can come from UCC or GC. Angie said that two years ago when she taught a cross-listed course forthe first time at OU, the department chair explained the differencesand requirements that should be expected out of the graduate studentsin that class. Chester said that we offer morecross-listed courses than we would like, and that is just a product ofnecessity, not of choice.
8. Discussion Item, Planning and Strategy Committee (ChesterPach):
Chester reminded Graduate Council that Provost Krendl will attend the May 12th meeting. He added that as Vision Ohio is formalized, we do not have a clear indication of the role of this body. The Graduate Education and Research Board seem to have a big role toplay and so do the Implementation Teams in the Vision Ohio. Members of Graduate Council are members of the above mentioned bodiesbut Graduate Council as an entity has not been involved in it. He added that we should not wait to be told what our role is going to be. We should delineate our role for ourselves. If we have a Graduate College then Graduate Council could serve in an advisory capacity to the Dean of the Graduate College. Michael said that we need a strong Graduate Council to further graduate education and accomplish our goals. He also clarified that the Graduate Education Research Board that hasonly one member from Graduate Council is not a part of the decisionmaking body for Vision Ohio. David Draboldconcluded the discussion that once there is clarity regarding thestructure, we will all have a better sense of our roles.
The meeting was adjourned at 4:10pm.
Next meeting: April 14th, 2:00 – 5:00 pm in the Governance Room in Walter Hall
