University Graduate Council Minutes
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)
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
- 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
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