Graduate Council Meeting - Minutes
October 13 , 1997

Present:   Ken Bowers, Dan Hertz, Priscilla Lund, Tim McDermott, Bruce McLeod (first agenda item only), Jay Schmidt, Joe Fedock, Becky Schanz, and Margarita Courney Visitors: Clark Llewellyn, Paul Gleye, Hugo Schmidt, Lee Spangler, George Tuthill

Item 1: Master of Science in Science Education

Two issues are involved:

 Students accepted Summer 1997 Semester, and currently attending classes.

Students pending acceptance.

The two issues involve current and potential students who are under the assumption the MSSE Program is a 30 credit program. Information in print and on the Web list the program as a 30 credit program; however, the program was approved as a 36 credit program by BOR and the University. There is potential liability for those students currently attending.

A discussion on the history of the program began. The program was submitted and approved as a 36 credit program. Lee stated that after reviewing the program and its course requirements, the Steering Committee felt it could be a 30 credit program and still include all core disciplines without cutting content or integrity of the program. The MSSE Council agreed on the 30 credit program, but failed to request approval.

* Board of Regents and Graduate Council approved the program at 36 credits.

* MSSE Committee approved the program at 30 credits (but failed to go through the proper university channels for approvals).

* The Burns publication and the Web Site both list the program erroneously at 30 credits.

* At the July 29 Graduate Council Meeting, a formal request from Norman Reed was presented to change the program from 36 to 30 credits. This request was denied.

* Bob Brown approved the Burns publication stating the program was 30 credits.

Overall feeling of present Graduate Council Members is if the current students were approved into the program believing it is a 30 credit program, then that must be honored for them. However, all future students must be advised the program is 36 credits, but under review to change to 30.

Item tabled. A final decision on the issue was waived until a meeting of the entire Graduate Council, Deans (R. Hitz, J. McMillan, T. McCoy), Norman Reed, and the MSSE Committee can be scheduled.

Item 2: New Course Requests for Physics Department

 Astronomy for Teachers (PHYS 511)

This course will be specific to the Master of Science in Science Education Program. It is designed to expand the core base of the program. This is an on-line course. Students must have a minimum BA and 1 year teaching experience.

A discussion began as to whether this course should be/would be open to students who are not in the MSSE Program. Due to the requirement of 1 year teaching experience, it is felt only those in the MSSE Program would be able to enroll. The main concern of the Council is that students without the required pre-requisites would try to take the course. A proposal was made to add to the pre-requisite statement so that access was limited to those with the requirements.

Motion made by Tim McDermott: Accept new course, and add to the pre-requisite statement A ...Secondary Certification in Teaching. @

Seconded by Ken Bowers, concurred, and carried unanimously.

Astrophysics (PHYS 560)

Discussion on pre-requisites and course requirements. This is not a replacement for another course, and will not add to course load.

Motion made by Dan Hertz: Approve Phys 560 as stated in course request.

Seconded by Ken Bowers, concurred, and carried unanimously.

Item 3: Master of Architecture

Issue: Determine if portfolio can/should be used as an acceptance tool to the program in lieu of grade point average (gpa) requirement, and whether the gpa is to be undergraduate cumulative gpa, undergraduate 2-year gpa or undergraduate, upper-level architecture gpa.

Clark explained why the department places such high standards on the portfolio. He pointed out other schools consider the portfolio #1 criteria, second letters of recommendation, third letter of intent from the student, fourth grades, and fifth GRE scores.

The proposed criteria for acceptance into the MArch Program is currently being used to assess 5 th year students. Eight portfolios were submitted to the department from students. Four were presented to the Council for review as Outstanding, Excellent, Satisfactory, and Unsatisfactory.

Architecture Department is asking for approval to make the decision to ascertain the level of each student, and determine if they can maintain a 3.0 gpa. The Architecture Screening Committee also wants the ability to accept a student who has an outstanding portfolio, but, lacking in grades.

Further discussion by Council Members asked, if a student is accepted with a low gpa, how will that student be able to maintain a 3.0 once in the program? The Council was assured once a student is accepted into the graduate program, they would be required to main a 3.0 gpa throughout the program.

A question was raised as to why the gpa requirement is for Architecture courses only? Council felt the gpa should include all undergraduate courses. Another concern is the lowering of the 2.75 gpa requirement, if it is done for MArch, then other departments will feel they should have the same standards which would lower the overall integrity of the graduate programs.

Motion made by Tim McDermott: Maintain gpa requirements to include all A cumulative undergraduate work, @ not just Architecture courses.

Seconded by Ken Bowers, concurred, and carried unanimously.

Motion made by Tim McDermott: To set acceptance standards as follows:

Students with a 3.0 gpa - Full Acceptance

Students with a 2.75 - 2.999 gpa - Provisional Acceptance

Students below 2.749 - Taken on a case by case basis

Seconded by Ken Bowers, concurred, and carried unanimously.

The meeting was adjourned at 11:30 a.m.