Wednesday, December 4, 2019

Council in Attendance: 
Ahmed Al-Kaisy (Engineering)
Christopher Livingston (Architecture)
Brock Smith (Agriculture)
Dennis Aig (Arts)
Sobia Anjum (Student Representative)
Lisa Davis (Letters & Science)
Tena Versland (Education)
James Becker (Health & Human Development)
Michael Brody (Faculty Senate)
Sara Mannheimer (Library)
Anne Christensen (Business)
Robert Rydell (Letters & Science)

Also in Attendance:
Lauren Cerretti (Graduate School)
Emily Peters (Graduate School)

Craig Ogilvie (Dean of The Graduate School)
Wade Hill (Nursing)
Que Vo (International Programs)

Meeting started at 1:02 pm

Approval of November 13, 2019 Minutes

Motion to approve made by Versland, 2nd by Livingston, unanimously passed


Faculty Senate Update (Brody)

  • Committee openings
  • 2nd reading of center review guidelines

Doodle Poll for spring schedule (DPC)

New Business

Strategic Planning/Alignment (Ogilvie/Al-Kaisy)

  • Is there anything missing that you think is important? Any input from members on retention and completion?
  • Q: On item #2, how will the capacity be determined?
    • A: In the past, have looked at graduation rates, number of faculty, projections, ratio of students to tenure track faculty
    • Makes sense to involve the department in this, not just GS and OPA
  • Q: On item #6, how is doctoral completion rate calculated?
  •  A: OPA generate these numbers – they would be best to ask
  •  For retention initiatives, we could review schools with higher retention rates and look at what they do
  • Outdoor recreation may be more appealing to undergrads than graduate students
    • Importance of stipends and funding for graduate student recruitment
    • Research active faculty working on timely, interesting, innovative research
  • OPA has run numbers on programs and retention rates. For some programs 2nd year is a critical point, for some programs it’s the 4th year; does vary by program.
    • People leaving in 4th year likely has more to do with not finding support resources. Can be difficult for graduate students to find support.
    • Important to talk to students; anonymous feedback might be best
  • Q: Are some of these items completed? Ex: CRM recruiting and e-communication timeline date is Fall 2019.
    • The GS has hired an E-Recruiter that just started this week
  • Expanding faculty contacts is a successful line of recruitment
  • Item #3 doesn’t necessarily match the university’s plan. Ex: expand research based doctoral degrees (Goal 1.2 on the university plan) is not specifically listed here.
  • Metrics and actions could be added to this document, to align with the university plan
  • Q: In review of the centers in faculty senate, are you looking at impact on graduate students?
    • The review is developing guidelines. Don’t believe the guidelines address anything specifically in terms of students.
    • Some centers don’t use many graduate students. Is a real issue – trying to integrate centers with graduate education.
    • Want a diverse and open environment for research
    • The guidelines include contingency plan if funding runs out, scheduled reviews, plans for sunsetting
    • Item # 7: Enhance synergy between centers and grad education – this is important
  • Q: What is the purpose of reviewing at this point?
    • A: Looking at how the graduate school can contribute to the university strategic plan—would like to develop this with some input from UGC
    • Understanding from Planning Council is that they are already collecting data on these items
  • Concern with the wording on item #6: “Start to build an inclusive and welcoming graduate environment.” Is it not currently?
    • There is room to improve faculty mentoring and student wellbeing. Students are not paid enough to live comfortably here.
    • International students often have trouble navigating health insurance costs and options. Should departments help students navigate this? The Graduate School?
    • Candidacy party was a great new way to recognize graduate students
  • Something that is missing: promoting or increasing the quality of recruits
    • Do you have enough applications that you can pick and choose? Are the applicants going to be successful students?

Accelerated Master’s Guidelines draft (Ad-hoc subcommittee)

  • Handout is of general guidelines; goal is to provide guidance since accelerated programs are growing. Would like input from Council on the proposed guidelines.
  • Guidelines are at the institution level. Should be stated that the department can specify their own requirements.
    • Item #3 does address this
    • Programs can be more restrictive than these guidelines
  • Q: Why is there a guideline that it must be an official program in the catalog? Are there some that aren’t?
    • Discussion on existing accelerated programs
    • There are inconsistencies with how these programs are handled. Goal is to standardize procedures for all accelerated programs.
  • Added information on financial aid. Students should be advised that financial aid may not cover courses reserved for graduate use while enrolled as an undergrad.
  • Suggestion that the guidelines should go to faculty senate
  • Q: Would we want to increase the limit of credits that can be reserved at another university – since these guidelines are 12 and the transfer policy is 9?
    • Clarify that this is a minimum, departments/committee can choose not to allow transfer credits or use more restrictive requirements
  • Under 3rd the bullet point, the language could be more specific. Possibly add a link to policy.

Prior to first spring meeting, Livingston will send out pdfs proposals of two new music programs.

Adjourned at 2:01 pm

• Policy and Procedures Committee (Hill, Versland, Davis, Rydell)
• Curriculum Committee (Livingston, Aig, Becker, Brody (alternate))
• Governance Committee (Al-Kaisy, Giullian, Smith)
• Accelerated Masters Ad-hoc Committee (Davis, Rydell, Versland, Brody)

Next scheduled meeting – 11 am, January 22, 2020 LJH 325