Graduate Council Meeting Minutes
March 14, 2008
Attendance: Catherine Axinn, Dominic Barbato, Joseph Bernt, Joanne Bray for Judith Edinger, Howard Dewald, JoAnn Dugan, Kamile Geist, Jennifer Horner, Aimee Howley, David Juedes, Hans Kruse, Jody Lamb, Brian McCarthy, David Mould, Chester Pach, Mike Prudich, Josep Rota, Robert Staron, Katherine Tadlock, Wanda Weinberg, and Peter Wickman.
Excused: John Day, Andrew Escobedo, Judith Edinger, Tim Heckman, Greg Lusk, Christine Mattley, Animesh Rathore, William Shambora, and Yinjiao Xu.
Guest: Sergio Ulloa
Convened: The meeting was convened at 2:10 pm.
1. Approval of Minutes of the February meeting
The minutes from the February 8th, 2008 meeting were approved.
2. Chair’s Report (David Juedes)
A. Task Force on Centers of Excellence in Graduate and Professional Education: David Juedes informed members of the Graduate Council that the Task Force is completing work on a draft of the self-study format along with an evaluation rubric that will be used to grade each self-study. He added that the self-study format and the evaluation rubric will be ready for a round of comments within a week or two. David Juedes said that the Task Force will solicit comments via a feedback form.
Hans said that the kind of information required seems akin to required for a seven-year review. David said that similar comprehensive reviews have been carried out at other schools (for example at OSU and Western Michigan) and we can use this information for those reviews. Joe Bernt recommended having the review due in the Fall and not in the summer.
Jennifer said that the document notes ‘excellence’, but excellence has not been defined. She added that a list of criteria will be very helpful to have so that everyone knows what they are being graded for. Jennifer also felt that some of the data required for this process can be accessed from the Office of Institutional Research, instead of each department trying to compile that on their own. David Juedes responded saying that an evaluation rubric will be included in the self-study form, so the criteria will be listed there. He also added that the Task Force has been working with Mike Williford, and he will have the relevant tables easily accessible. David Mould said that the departments that compiled data for the NRC survey, found that some of the data received from the Institutional Research was unreliable.
Howard suggested including the current graduate chairs as a constituent group as well. He added that since the College of Arts and Sciences does not have any graduate faculty, the graduate chairs will be the ones completing the self-study. Discussion focused on the criteria for the designation of graduate faculty. Howard said that currently even Group two and four faculty can also serve on dissertation committees in their College. David Juedes added that it will be up to each College to generate their own criteria for designation of graduate faculty.
David Mould expressed appreciation to Katie and David Juedes for serving on the Task Force.
B. Program Reviews: David told members that Graduate Council should see some program reviews shortly, namely Journalism, EECS, Chemical Engineering and Communication Studies.
C. Graduate Student Contract Grievance Board: David informed members that Hans and Catherine have agreed to serve on this board. He added that two graduate students have been appointed to the board by GSS. Katie added that since the year 2000, there has not been a reason to have any meetings since there has been no complaint or grievance. Joe Bernt added that historically the Policies and Regulations committee used to deal with the grievances, if ever there was one.
3. Remarks by Katie Tadlock
A. Mini-GERB Future Growth Fund: Katie informed members that proposals for the Mini-GERB Future Growth Fund are due by April 11. The award will be a one-time-only $250,000; the focus is on the regional Master’s or fee-paying Doctoral programs.
B. Enrollment Update: Katie informed members that currently graduate applications are 7% above at this time last year. She added that we have seen a significant increase in numbers from countries where we recruited. Katie said that with the increased numbers we have seen an increase in diversity and visa types and many complex immigration issues. She added that with ISFS is understaffed to handle these increasing numbers.
Joe Bernt asked about recruiting in Ohio and other neighboring states. Katie said that since there has been no centralized effort for that, there is no funding for that initiative. She added that it is typically left to the departments to do so. Joe added that sometimes it is easier to bring fee-paying domestic students instead of international students. Most of the international students look for funding and in the absence of funding it is hard to attract them. Domestic students however, are not always dependent on funding offered by the departments.
C. Graduate Student Health Care Subsidy: Katie informed members that this is a priority for GSS and they will be meeting with John Day the following week about it.
D. Named Fellowships: Katie informed members that the deadline for nominations for the Named Fellowships is March 19th and that packets will be provided to committee members by March 21st. She added that the awards will be announced at the April meeting.
E. Ph.D. in Civil Engineering: Katie informed members that she will be presenting the proposal for the Ph.D. in Civil Engineering to RACGS on March 28th.
F. SIS Update: Katie said that the new product, PeopleSoft will replace the existing SIS. She said that the Fit/Gap sessions will begin soon.
4. Task Force on the Creation of Graduate College
Sergio informed members that the members of the Policies and Regulations committee worked with the Task Force. Hans added that the committee went through a draft of the document that is a part of today’s packet. Sergio noted that the document has a better structure now and the focus has been on getting the language right and the details clear. Joe Bernt said that it is noted in the document that the Graduate Council is a legislative body for the Dean of the College. But, the document does not seem to be infused with that notion. He also added if the Dean represents one area of academe, then the Associate Deans should represent other disciplines, this would make for a good complementary administrative structure.
Joe Rota cautioned about duplication of services. He said that some of the international services noted in there will already be housed in the new proposed Division of International Affairs. He also said that the Directors from the Center for International Studies have been concerned about having oversight by the Graduate College. The Center has been an autonomous body with degree granting authority since 1967. It was noted that it is important for programs to have a ‘home’ college. The other academic departments do not have that problem.
Discussion also focused on the role of UCC and Graduate Council in the program review process. Hans said that the timeliness of the reviews and the process needs some tweaking to ensure that the process is carried out efficiently. Catherine said that there isn’t much training for faculty when they get assigned to the review process. She said that the delay in the reviews is not a function of malice but rather happens due to neglect and not enough knowledge about the process. The only remuneration involved in this process is for the external reviewer, and sometimes even they are too busy to present their reports on time. David Juedes added that the Provost’s office could enforce a timeline and also provide resources to faculty for the review process. Mike Prudich added that an external reviewer for their program was on campus in early January and so far they have not received the report. Joe Bernt added that information does not get disseminated the people who actually have to do the work.
Sergio said that there is concern about the graduate faculty status and since every College will have its own guidelines, it might be appropriate for Graduate Council to approve those. Joe Bernt said that this body ought to establish minimal standards at least. David Juedes asked if one would have to have the graduate faculty standing to be able to serve on Graduate Council. He also asked if the rights and responsibilities of a graduate faculty designation are noted in the document. Sergio said that when they tried to include such information in the document, it seemed to be rather limiting in nature and it was then decided to let the schools set their own guidelines.
Catherine Axinn brought member’s attention to the list of goals of the graduate college. She said that if they are not listed in an order of priority, then that should be clarified, so that there is no room for misinterpretation.
Jennifer Horner said that it is also important to clarify the difference between the approval and acceptance of a thesis and/or dissertation. She added that it is for the academic college to approve the document and the role of the TAD office would be to accept it.
Chester asked about the mandate that all schools and departments have an ethical code for graduate students. Sergio said that several department chairs explicitly requested that to be added. Hans said that it might be worthwhile to revisit the document to see if it indeed is the right place to have ethical guidelines for students. It might streamline the document to eliminate some things that are not central to the mission of the document. He added that the deleted items can take the form of a to-do list for the Dean or this body. Chester said that this document ought to be like a constitution, i.e., establish basic principles and procedures where required and leave the rest to the legislative bodies. Joe Bernt added that the student handbook addresses academic honesty and ethical policies and that Student Affairs could look into it. Catherine Axinn added that much of the language of the document is an embodiment of discussions that take place in this body. So, it is definitely a good idea to ensure that there is no duplication of efforts.
5. New Business
A. Admissions Requirements Committee: Graduate Council approved the proposal put forth by the committee regarding Diane Bouvier’s conflict of interest case.
B. Program Development Plan for Master of Engineering in Engineering Management: This program development plan was approved by the Russ College of Engineering and Technology in the Fall and has had two readings at UCC. The Department of Industrial and Systems Engineering is already offering essentially the same program to students at the branch campuses under its Master of Science in Industrial and Systems Engineering major. This program development plan seeks approval from the state to get permission to complete a full new program proposal for this new degree program. The new degree name (M.E instead of the M.S.) better represents the nature of the program. Joe Bernt said that the document notes the date for the Vision Ohio document as 2004, he said that does not seem correct. Joe Rota said that he could easily get a cohort for this program in Dubai. Katie said that the separation of the M.S. and M.E. follows the national trend to separate the theoretical knowledge building programs from the professional programs where this would be a terminal degree for someone not wanting to pursue a research option.
C. Student Health Insurance: Dominic Barbato said that per the new proposal all graduate students who have a graduate appointment will pay $89 less every quarter. He added that the University of Cincinnati has a similar program. So, if OU institutes this measure, it will put us ahead of some of the other schools.
Aimee said that graduate assistantships are disproportionately distributed across campus and as a result of that the fee paying students bear the burden of a high tuition rate. Dominic said that he would eventually like to see this waiver be applied to all graduate students irrespective of them having an appointment. But, at this point in time, this proposal only seeks to provide the waiver to graduate students with an appointment. Joe Bernt asked if graduate students had any comments about the coverage provided by the insurance. Dominic said that the coverage has a ceiling for $50,000 for one illness, there is no dental coverage and there is extremely limited vision coverage. Brian McCarthy added that the current insurance plan hinders recruitment because it does not cover pre-existing conditions. David Juedes said that in the Fall Graduate Council had voted to support an earlier, comprehensive resolution by GSS that included statements about graduate student health care, and so he could draft a letter to the Provost reiterating Graduate Council’s support for these efforts.
The meeting was adjourned at 4:10 pm. The next meeting is on April 11th, 2008 in the Governance room in Walter Hall from 2 to 4 pm.
