Attendance: James Archibald, Catherine Axinn, Joseph Bernt, Rathindra Bose, Gary Chleboun, John Day, Howard Dewald, Judith Edinger, Annette Graham, Jennifer Hines, Jennifer Horner, Aimee Howley, David Juedes, Hans Kruse, Jody Lamb, Jan Maxwell, Brian McCarthy, Mike Prudich for Jim Rankin, Willem Roosenburg, Josep Rota, William Shambora, Robert Staron, Gary Weckman, and Peter Wickman.
Excused: JoAnn Dugan, Kamile Geist, Andrew Escobedo, David Mould, Stephan Oechsle, and Katherine Tadlock.
Guests: David Ingram, Susan Sarnoff, and Angie McCutcheon.
Convened: The meeting was convened at 2:10 pm.
1. Approval of Minutes of the January meeting
The minutes from the January 9th, 2009 meeting were approved.
2. Chair’s Report (David Juedes)
A. Task Force on Centers of Excellence: David informed members the initial draft of the Centers of Excellence report had been published, and that the Provost asked him and Jeff Connor to attend a Faculty Senate meeting to answer questions about the report. At that meeting several questions were raised. Most of the questions were about the appeals process and the categorization of programs. David told members that section E of the report will need to be revised to clarify the numerical values of two items. In particular, David mentioned that the numerical ratings for sections 2 and 3, and section 4 used the same scale (1-4), but that vastly different meanings were associated with those values. He said that this was clarified at the Faculty Senate meeting, and that the final report would fix this mistake.
Rathindra noted that the questions about professional graduate programs being treated unfairly were also raised at the Faculty Senate meeting and that he has heard from many departments about it. Rathindra noted that since the same metrics were used to rate all programs, whether research based or professional, his sense was that the professional graduate programs feel that they were treated unfairly. In one case, the discussion focused on the discrepancy in rankings of the programs by an accrediting organization versus this report. David Juedes clarified that in his experience accrediting agencies just list whether a program meets the minimum requirements or not, and they do not rank programs. Joe Bernt noted that the criteria used seemed to be heavily weighted in favor of research programs and did not fit the professional programs appropriately. David Juedes added that this was a very difficult process and that he will bring all of these comments back to the task force. David also said that the rankings were based on the self-studies completed by the departments. So, if a table was void of any data, then that did not leave much room for discussion in allotting a rank.
In response to a question from Jennifer Horner, David noted that to preserve the independence of the voting members of the Task Force, it was decided that all questions regarding program appeals be directed to Ben Ogles, Jeff Connor, or himself. Joe Rota said that one other complaint against the report is that it treated the interdisciplinary programs like the programs offered by the Center for International Studies unfairly. He added that these programs achieve very high rankings nationally, but the ranking in this report did not reflect that. Rathindra said that the Task Force did a wonderful job and that at this point in time, it is not fair to complain about the criteria used. He added that it could not have been an easy task to rank these 87 programs, even though the rankings were based on the self-studies. Gary Chleboun noted that program goals should also be taken into account. William Shambora added that this report allows us to look at programs macroscopically, and it probably not the best way to compare individual programs.
David Juedes said that in the process of reviewing the 87 graduate programs on campus, he became aware of many great things that are happening all over campus. He added that even though a program might not be satisfied by their ranking they can look at the report for areas for improvement and hopefully this will help them move forward.
3. Remarks by Jennifer Hines and Katie Tadlock
A. Named Fellowships: Jennifer Hines informed members that information regarding Named Fellowships will be sent to departments shortly. She also noted that due to budget cuts, the “Graduate Studies” Fellowship might not be able to be funded for the coming academic year.
B. Admissions Data: Jennifer Hines told members about the two items in the packet for today that pertain to admissions data. She added that this is not a comprehensive picture of the current numbers. This data was collected for a CGS survey and that is why it only reflects what that survey asked for.
C. Outreach Form: Jennifer informed members that the application form for new delivery format or location of a previously approved graduate program is available online, through the outreach website. She said that form will soon be linked from the graduate college website.
In response to a question from Aimee about completing this form for every new cohort, Rathindra said that this form will help the Graduate College collect data that needs to be reported to OBOR. He added that this is a twofold process, where both of the offices, Outreach and the Graduate College need to be informed about it. Catherine said that flowchart to describe the process might be helpful to all departments. Jennifer Hines said that she and David are working on that process. Joe noted that as much as he appreciates all the new programs that are offered, however, there seems to be a commercial quality to the process. He added that due to the pressure to deliver, sometimes, adjunct faculty teach in these programs. Rathindra assured members that even though the financial pressure is always going to be there, he is not willing to compromise the academic quality of the programs.
D. ELIP courses: Jennifer Hines drew everyone’s attention to the handout in today’s packet that notes the new course call numbers for the Graduate Writing and Oral Communication Courses for Spring quarter onwards. She informed members that the five courses with the prefix ELIP that are noted on the handout do not cost extra to students as long as they are registered for a full course load. She said that this will help reduce the confusion that used to occur when all of these courses had the OPIE prefix.
E. iBT versus Speak Test: Dawn Bikowski (from OPIE) put together some data from the test scores received from students in the last two years to show the correlation between the institutional Speak test score and the Speak score component on the iBT. More information about the test scores will be sent to all members to help them make decisions about awarding teaching assistantships to international students.
4. New Business
A. Thesis and Dissertation Services:
Angie reminded members that since the fall of 2007, all thesis and dissertation services have been centralized with one website to download all forms and instructions, one set of guidelines and procedures to be followed, and all training materials have been computerized.
She informed members that recently they were contacted by an attorney from Pearson Publishing because they found two instruments in an appendix of a dissertation that were used without permission. The discussion then focused on the process followed to identify plagiarized material and the consequences thereafter if someone was known to have engaged in the act. Catherine Axinn noted that she finds ‘Turnitin.com’ very helpful in this regard. David Ingram added that SafeAssign accomplishes a similar task.
Aimee Howley said that the process whereby, if a student has been found to plagiarize and is informed about it and then asked to ‘fix’ the said text, puts the pressure on faculty, with not much responsibility on the student. Gary Weckman said that Turnitin really helps in this regard. It is able to catch citation errors, which very well could have been genuine mistakes and not intentional. He also added that all graduate students in the College of Engineering are required to take the ET602 course (Technical Writing). That course covers basic information about writing conventions to be followed. Discussion focused on using a centralized service to subject documents to a service like Turnitin. Jennifer Hines cautioned members that if this were to be centralized at TAD services, it will involve extra costs to the unit, which might not be feasible at this point in time.
Joe Bernt said that it is usually apparent upon reading a manuscript if the text was written by the said student or not. He said that if a student plagiarizes in his class, he fails that student. David Ingram said that it is hard to draw the line in terms of providing help in the writing process. Also, he added reiterating Joe’s point, that faculty judgment plays a big role here in terms of identifying whether the intent was to deceive the reader or not. He added that he is one of the three members of the Academic Honesty Committee and since 2006 they have processed 60 cases. Aimee echoed the sentiment about helping students and said that as advisors it is their obligation to help students write well and research well, but not to help make a dishonest student’s endeavor honest by helping them if their intent was not honorable. Jennifer Horner said that 98% of our students do not engage in these practices. And, the more education we can provide upfront, the better it is for them and for us. Catherine Axinn reiterated the responsibility of faculty and the time and energy it requires on their behalf. Rathindra said that it seems like it would be a good idea to institute a course that all graduate students will be required to take. Jennifer Horner said that the goal is to not just prevent plagiarism, but to give students writing skills and impart training for conducting research responsibly. Susan Sarnoff added that there should be some discipline specific training as well. Angie said that she has some mini-courses on appropriate methods of citation and paraphrasing etc. on her website.
Peter Wickman said that he would like to take these recommendations back to GSS. He said that he would like to see an office where a student who was in this situation could go and talk to someone to seek help. Jennifer Hines said that if a case is brought to Angie’s attention, she talks to the student in person and does not approach the student with the assumption that he/she is guilty. Mike Prudich said that ever since the ET602 class became mandatory, they have not had major issues. David Ingram added that some of the students had very good lawyers and in an extreme situation, a degree can be revoked. Rathindra said that all of this comes at an enormous cost to the institution in terms of faculty and administrative time. Jennifer Horner said that plagiarism is an ethical issue, improper citations are more of a rule based issue and that we should maintain the distinction between the two. Gary Weckman added that when students take the ET602 in their first quarter, it helps them throughout their program, not just when it comes to writing the thesis or dissertation.
B. Planning and Strategy Committee (Hans Kruse):
i) Status of Graduate College/Graduate Council Efforts: Hans Kruse informed members that the task force that put together the report on the Graduate College was disbanded after the report was delivered. He said that the committee and one member of the task force will meet with Jennifer Hines over next few weeks to revisit that report.
ii) Centers of Excellence: Discussion focused on using the information presented in the report to inform the seven year review process, and ensuring that if a program was rated as excellent, it is treated so. Rathindra reminded members that this process was undertaken as a response to the OBOR initiative and that he hopes that no programs are cut. He added that the seven year review process has its own merits. He also noted that this gives us an opportunity to look at programs that have been struggling for many years. By keeping a program alive that is not recognized nationally, we are not doing any service to the students. Joe Bernt said that enormous amount of time was spent on this process and this was as thorough (if not more), a process as the seven year review. Aimee said that the seven year review process involves departments, but the College of Education has departments that have multiple programs. John Day agreed that this process was more rigorous than the seven year review process.
iii) Resolution regarding composition of Graduate Council: Hans informed members that the discrepancies regarding the composition of Graduate Council need to be resolved. He said that the Center for International Studies does not have any representation on Graduate Council. Also, the library representative that Graduate Council has is not mentioned in the Faculty handbook. In response to Howard’s question about definition of faculty, Joe Bernt said that anyone who can vote at faculty senate is defined as faculty. Rathindra said that at some schools only graduate faculty could sit on the Graduate Council. Hans Kruse said that since this language comes from Faculty Senate, this issue needs to be raised there. Jennifer Horner added that for the sake of consistency, she proposes adding ‘or a representative’ to the text about the Associate Provost for International Programs. Joe Rota requested the change in the name from International Programs to International Affairs to reflect the current name of the office.
Jan said that she would like to bring this information to the notice of her Dean. She added that she sees her role as the library representative to ensure that programs can be supported with the relevant resources and that it is not unusual for the library representative to be the non-voting member. Joe Bernt added that it would be best to clarify the meaning of the word faculty. Catherine said that the fourth representative from GSS also needs to be added to the Council.
C. Policy and Procedure Committee (Brian McCarthy): Discussion centered on the issue of work hours of graduate students holding an appointment (GA, RA, TA). Jennifer Hines said that she is working on resolving the language noted in the Graduate Appointment guidelines. Questions were also raised about winter intersession and Howard added that Spring break is also known as spring intersession. Joe Rota reminded everyone that international students can only work for 20 hours a week. They would be in violation of their visa status if they work more than that. Brian suggested adding such wording to the Graduate Appointment guidelines as well. He also added that sometimes departments reduce the workload during the quarter to accommodate work during winter intersession. Members were of the opinion that the departments should have the authority to make these decisions.
D. Recruitment and Admissions Requirements Committee (Catherine Axinn): Members discussed Kelli Cyrus’ conflict of interest case. Aimee said that she did not think that the recommendations made by the committee are broad enough, because Kelli’s coursework could cross over multiple programs. Her conflict of interest case was approved with the replacement of this language for the paragraph about mitigation of conflict, ‘She should not work on any grant proposal for any faculty member in the College of Education of any faculty member in her program of study’.
E. Curriculum Committee (Annette Graham): Per the committee’s recommendations, Graduate Council accepted the Program Reviews for the departments of Modern Languages and Communication Studies. Since the curriculum committee recommended an expedited review in both cases, the Council did not need to vote for approval.
Rathindra informed members that the stimulus package was passed by the House, adding that there is money in that for research and higher education. He said that we can all take advantage of that opportunity to apply for some of that money and that more information about it will be posted on the research website soon. Catherine reminded members that there are some good proposals that were not funded through GERB, and that those would be easy to forward.
The meeting was adjourned at 4:05 pm. The next meeting is on March 13th, 2009 from 2 to 4 pm, in Baker 239.
