Attendance: Josephine Bloomfield, Duncan Brown, Carolyn Cardenas, Scott Carson, Lee Cibrowski, Jesse Davis, John Day, David Drabold, Jason Hartz, David Juedes, Dina Lopez, Christine Mattley, Michael Mumper, Tootie Overby, Josep Rota, Susan Sarnoff, Katherine Tadlock, Ginger Weade, Maureen Weissenrieder, and William Rhinehart for Julia Zimmerman. 

Excused: Catherine Axinn, Pat Beamish, Carolyn Cardenas, Scott Carson, Judith Edinger, Jerrel Mitchell, and Susan Sarnoff.

Convened: The meeting was convened at 2:05 pm.  Packets with agenda were distributed and the sign-in sheet was passed around.

1.      Approval of Minutes:

Peter Johnson’s motion to approve minutes for the April 8^th 2005, was seconded by Lee Cibrowski.

Joe Rota’s motion to approve minutes for the special meeting of Graduate Council held on April 22^nd 2005 was seconded by David Drabold. 

2.      Chair’s Report (Dr. Duncan Brown):

1. List Serv is available now: Duncan informed members that the Graduate Council List Serv is available, thought it has not been used much.  He added that about three-fourths of members are on it and he is hopeful that it will be used more in the next academic year. 

2. Mission Statements for Standing Committees: So far only two of the five committees have formulated their mission statements.  Duncan requested the other committees to have at least a first draft of their mission statements before the next meeting.  He added that it will be helpful if the committees write their mission statements and then begin to identify some of the university policies they use or refer to.  

3. Next meeting: Duncan reminded the members that the next meeting is not going to be on the second Friday of the month, but on the first Friday, which is June 3^rd.  Also, the meeting time is 3 to 5 pm and not 2 to 4 pm. 

3.      Associate Provost for Graduate Studies, Michael Mumper:

1. Provost’s Support for International Recruiting: Michael informed the members that the recruitment process this year will be more formal than it was last year.  There is more time this year to plan for recruitment travel.  He added that a review of last year’s efforts will be conducted and then the request for funding will be made.  The review will focus on what was done, how much money was spent and the ways to measure success of this endeavor.  He also clarified that it is still a year-to-year initiative and not an on-going activity.  The review process will help provide the Provost a good sense of how much funding is required. 

2. Graduate and Research Priorities: Michael said that Barbara Reeves and Gary Schumacher are working on the said document.  He noted that the document is a little different from what it started out as.  It is a more comprehensive plan; some of the features of the plan include a commitment to graduate education, research, identifying programs that have the capacity to generate revenue (which can be shared with other programs), and focus on T.A. training, stipend enhancements and so on.  The need to be specific yet inclusive is a hard one to accomplish; the document strives to be inclusive while identifying some nationally prominent programs.  The packet distributed today included a handout about the National Prominence Sub-Committee.  This document lists eight goals that will further the image of Ohio University by developing and enhancing the curriculum and the learning environment at Ohio University.

3. Search for Associate Provost for Enrolment Management: The search for a new Associate Provost for Enrolment Management has been called off.  The Provost has created a committee which will address enrolment, including graduate enrolment in a manner it has never been included before.  The members of the committee are Michael Mumper, David Descutner, and Mike Williford.  He added that it is more difficult to measure progress in terms of enrolment for graduate students than it is for undergraduate students.  We do not have targets like we do for incoming freshmen.  David Drabold asked whether, since increasing enrolment seems to be a financially driven effort, we are expecting all of the students to be fee paying?  Michael said that if we follow the undergraduate model, then it would be true. 

Terrie Bruscino, Coordinator of Electronic Thesis and Dissertations: Terrie referred to the list of members of the ETD Steering committee that is a part of the package.  She said that the committee has 17 members and if any department is interested in being represented on the committee, they can let her know.  The role of the committee is liaison between the Department and the ETD coordinator.  Terrie informed Graduate Council that many ETD training sessions for faculty and staff were offered in this past academic year.  She added that there won’t be any more training sessions until Fall quarter, so if a department was interested in having her present, she would do so.  Terrie said that earlier in spring quarter she did a presentation at Mechanical Engineering, which was very successful. 

Terrie informed Graduate Council that the deadline set by the Registrar’s Office for submissions of dissertations is May 17^th.  All the paperwork must be done, in order for the student to participate in commencement.  So far she has received 62 submissions, the average length of a dissertation being 300 pages and that of a thesis 120 pages.  Terrie apprised the members that an item for future discussion would be to devise a plan to deal with the increasing number of ETD submissions.  One way to accommodate it would be train the people at the College level who accept paper submissions or have more people at a central location, like her office under the umbrella of Graduate Studies.  She expects the number of ETD submissions to grow significantly in the next couple of years.  Some of the departments have made an electronic submission mandatory.  Michael added that either one is a plausible model—having people trained at the college level or having more people at the central office.  Either decision will affect staffing at Graduate Studies.  Josie expressed concern about the time commitment required on part of the people at the College level.  Ginger echoed the sentiment and said that they encourage their students to submit electronically.  She added that she would also like to know what a person should look for when they are checking the electronic submissions. 

4.      Curriculum Committee:

Duncan informed Graduate Council that Scott Carson could not be here and that Joe Rota would provide an update about the two items that went to University International Council. 

1. MBA at the Huazhong University of Science and Technology:

a)      Joe Rota indicated that the cost figures presented for the HUST proposal were unacceptable.  Another problem he said pertains to the language of instruction.  Some of the courses will be taught in Chinese.  There was no reference to this in the proposal that was presented to Graduate Council.  John Day responded that this was mentioned in the full proposal.  Joe Rota also expressed concern over the credit transfer policy.  The same academic work is being counted for two degrees. 

b)      The discussion centered on the fact that the whole proposal is presented to the Curriculum committee and the committee forwards a brief document—usually less than a page.  It is not possible to include all the details in the executive summary that is presented to the entire Graduate Council.  Dina Lopez added that it would be helpful to have some guidelines to follow while evaluating these proposals.  Also she said that, a standard format in which all proposals can be presented will be advantageous too.  John Day added that if there is a prescribed set of rules that can be applied to all of these programs, they can then be applied to all programs.  Maureen noted that most of these programs are going to be unique, so it is hard for them to conform to one set of structural guidelines.  Katie Tadlock suggested that since she and Maureen sit on the subcommittee for UIC, crossover knowledge can be applied at the sub-committee level to ensure a comprehensive evaluation of a proposal. 

c)      David Drabold commented on the interesting approach taken by the College of Business about providing a venue for students from the Middle East to earn an MBA from OU in Malaysia.  John Day explained that Malaysia is a good choice because of the similarity of cultures (Islamic influence) and the long standing positive relationship that OU has enjoyed with Malaysia.  He also clarified that the Al-Tamini Group is responsible for marketing the program and recruiting students for it. 

d)      Maureen asked John Day about what criteria the College uses to decide how many of such off-shore programs they will run at any given point in time.  John Day answered that the criteria prescribed by the accreditation bodies and the university rules about on-load and overload teaching assignments determine it.  He further clarified that they are required to have at least 75% of the courses taught by Ph.D. faculty and the remaining 25% can be taught by adjunct faculty. 

The proposal was approved by Graduate Council.

2. MFE at Tianjin University: K. Doroodian, Professor of Economics, was present at the meeting to respond to questions and concerns raised by Graduate Council regarding the above mentioned degree program.  Michael Mumper informed Graduate Council that this program is an outgrowth of the recruitment travel undertaken in the Fall.  Duncan said that this is a good example to cite when we request base funding for recruitment travel.  In response to Peter Johnson’s question about how many students will enroll for this program, K. Doroodian said 40 to 50. 

The proposal was approved by Graduate Council.

3. Academic Program Review: Human and Consumer Sciences: Greg Janson was present to respond to questions and concerns raised by Graduate Council.  John Day informed Graduate Council that he conducted this review.  He said that in the next step the review is presented to UCC.  Duncan Brown said he will write a cover letter to forward Graduate Council’s decision on the review to UCC.  Josie asked about the issue of faculty capacity and if that meant that the department would have to hire more faculty.  John Day responded saying that it is only a recommendation, the decision lies with the department.  Duncan added that this is an important point which can be useful when the program is up for the seven year review and goes to the Board of Trustees for their approval. 

Graduate Council approved the report of the Program review.    

4. Academic Program Review:School of Recreation and Sports Sciences: Ming Li, Director, School of Recreation and Sports Sciences was present to respond to questions and concerns.  John Day said that Ming Li will be invited to the Board of Trustees meeting when the proposal is presented to them.  Ming Li informed Graduate Council that the school has an endowed fund to support graduate student research. 

Graduate Council approved the report of the Program review. 

5. Program Reviews: Chuck McWeeny reiterated that coordination between Graduate Council and UCC is required.  He cited the example of two program reviews, one for Social Work and the other for Fine Art.  They both made it to only one organization each, not to both bodies as they should have.  Duncan added that Scott Parks, of UCC, is working on a routing sheet to track the progress of the review process.  He added that Marty Tuck is looking into it as well.  John Day said that unless someone shepherds them through UCC, they get filed there and do not make it to Graduate Council.  Maureen noted that the problem is not about tracking reviews on a flowchart, but the fact that there is no deadline for a review process like this.  There is thus a tendency for reviews to get lost.  She added that it is not necessarily a structural issue and that faculty are busy and they are not to blame when reviews get lost at UCC.  Chuck McWeeny added that he found that the trail always ended at UCC.  John Day commented on the meeting times of Graduate Council and UCC.  Duncan clarified saying that UCC usually meets a few days before Graduate Council in the same week.  So, documents from each do not get to the other for a month.  John Day suggested that UCC and Graduate Council could process documents at the same time.  The parallel processing will save time.  Duncan endorsed the idea and said that since UCC does not take action on the suggestions made by Graduate Council; this might be a good option to consider. 

5.      Admissions Requirement Committee:

1. No-Conflict: Josie said that initially they thought John Cohenour’s application for pursuing a Ph.D. in EECS was a conflict of interest, but later found that it was not.  She added that they are trying to follow the spirit of the resolution which is awaiting the Provost’s approval.  Barbara Harrison’s application was ruled no-conflict as well. 

2. Prior proposals: Duncan said that it is unfair to delay action on the two proposals that had been tabled in the past months.  Ginger agreed and said that Council would be in error to make people wait for this long.  Duncan added that he is aware of the implications involved in making a decision using the old policy or the new philosophy (yet to become policy).  John Day said that Graduate Council should make a decision based on current policy and rules and these candidates will be grandfathered in even if the new policy comes into effect later.  David Drabold said that the review should be based on the policy current at the time of the date of application.  It was decided that the two proposals will be discussed in the next meeting.  Duncan offered to schedule the presentation by the Admissions Requirements Committee earlier in the meeting to accommodate discussions.

6.      Policies and Regulations Committee:

1. Continuous Registration/Enrollment Maintenance and Leave of Absence Policy:

a)      Dave Drabold informed Graduate Council that the philosophy on which the new policy is based on is very similar to the existing policy.  The suggested $50 fee is reflective of that sentiment.  Maureen raised the question about how it would be determined if the student should register for regular credit hours or the enrollment maintenance credit.  Dave Drabold responded that it would be up to the faculty involved to be responsible for the balancing act.  Maureen added that it would be nice if faculty would inform their students that they cannot provide services unless they are registered for regular credit hours. 

b)      Julia Zimmerman expressed concern about students who are in limbo and cannot avail library services.  She noted that they would be happy to provide library services if there was a way to activate that on their status on SIS.  Dave Drabold added that having access to library services was a part of the original document and they can include that in the current one as well.  Katie Tadlock said that the issue of what constitutes full enrollment comes up when we have to report to the National Clearing House.  This is in regard to students who qualify for the deferral of Federal Loans.  She explained this further by saying that Ph.D. (Psychology) students who are doing their internship are registered for ‘zero’ credits but they are reported as fully enrolled.  David Drabold said that he is not aware of the revenue implications that this enrollment would have.  Katie said that it is hard to make a distinction (without specific information from student advisors and their faculty) between students who are actually working towards their thesis or dissertation and those who have accepted a job and will come back to finish their degrees later.  Julia Zimmerman noted that this probably has to be dealt case-by-case.  David Drabold said that we could make a case for library and email services for the sake of keeping a student’s status active on SEVIS.  Peter Johnson commented that OU grants email privileges for life.  He also said faculty will most of the times would not stop advising students if they are not registered, because it is in the interest of faculty to do so. 

c)      Peter also expressed interest in knowing what the policy is at our peer institutions.  Michael Mumper said that he was surprised to see that many of our peer institutions have a continuous registration policy.  Duncan said that a brief study of spring quarter 2004 to identify graduates yielded interesting results.  There were no time gaps for international students.  For domestic students the maximum time gap was 11 quarters.  Brief discussion on two different sets of policies followed.  Duncan clarified that two sets of policies are required because international students have to maintain continuous registration for SEVIS purposes.  Domestic students do not have such requirements. 

d)      Josie said that Graduate Chairs might not want to be responsible for informing students that they are being dropped from their program.  It was agreed that it could be called a drop from the university not the program, because the decision was not being made at the program level, rather at the central administrative level.  David Drabold said we should not look at this in terms of it being punitive to students.  $50 is a modest fee.  Duncan added that he particularly likes the idea because it places the onus on the student as opposed to the Graduate Chairs.

e)      Duncan mentioned that Judith Edinger had brought to his notice that OUCOM has a leave of absence policy.  There was brief discussion on granting leave of absence to a student who is not in good academic standing.  Duncan noted that each program will have the details and responsibility of implementation of the policy.  Peter Johnson asked if students could receive an extension for their programs.  Katie said that Deans have the authority to grant a one quarter extension—only for the next consecutive quarter.  If a student requires more time, then he/she has to reapply.

2. Revisions to Graduate Catalog:

a)      IELTS versus TOEFL: Katie informed Graduate Council about the updates regarding accepting IELTS scores at OU.  She said that Charlie Michelson suggested accepting a 7.0 instead of 6.5on a 9 point scale.  Katie added that a NAFSA research document from a couple of years ago showed that most institutions in Australia and Canada and some universities in the U.S.A. accept 6.5.  Most of the universities in the U.S.A. consider 7 out of 9 to be an acceptable score. 

b)      Waiving English proficiency tests: In reference to the TOEFL and IELTS Joe Rota said that it seems to be affront to require students from some African countries and some Indian universities (where the medium of instruction is English) to demonstrate their English proficiency by requiring them to take one of these two tests.  He cited the example of the American University of Beirut which is an Anglophone university like many from African countries and India.  He recommends that the English proficiency test be waived for students from such Anglophone universities.  Katie expressed some reservations about each department having flexibility of waiving these test requirements.  Peter Johnson suggested that alternative language might be used where, in addition to those whose native language is English, others who are exempted from the TOEFL requirement would be defined as those who have received a college degree from an accredited educational institution where the language of instruction is English.

c)      Transfer of credit: Katie informed Graduate Council that for credit transfers, it has to be graded coursework (courses taken simply for credit are not transferable).  Maureen asked about the process for a student taking courses as a non-degree, who decides to pursue a degree in the same area.  Katie said that the student would have to go through the application process. 

Graduate Council approved List One of the revisions to the Graduate Catalog. 

7.      Planning and Strategy Committee:

Tootie Overby informed Graduate Council about the working of the Graduate Research Priorities committee.  She asked if anyone had sent feedback to the Provost for the document.  Ginger said that she had sent some recommendations.  Duncan added that the College of Communications made some suggestions to the Provost as well. 

Tootie said that the document became too broad and it was rather hard to talk about priorities if everything is considered a priority.  She said that at present it is the fifth revision and the new document will address the value of graduate education at OU and the maintenance of quality of graduate programs, identification of revenue generating programs and some programs that can be enhanced.  She further added that there is still talk about whether these will be referred to as foci or categories (as they were initially called).  There is also discussion about what group will be responsible for identification of such programs and the criteria that will be used by them.  Graduate Council could possibly over see this process she noted.  She also said that it was very encouraging to see Graduate Council mentioned at a few places in that document. 

David Juedes asked about the implications of the state cap on graduate student subsidy and if that will have any effect in the identification of priorities.  Michael said that the subsidy is in effect only for doctoral students and that OU will only receive a 3% cut because of our shrinking numbers.  John Day said that the only way to start new Ph.D. programs would mean that students would have to be fee-payers and the program thus a revenue generator.  Michael said it could also mean that some programs might have to be closed down.  Duncan said that instead of identifying some programs as the blessed and some as the damned, the broader and more inclusive document seems better. 

Meeting adjourned at 4:15.

Next meeting on June 3^rd, 3-5 pm in the Governance Room in Walter Hall.