Tuesday, October 12, 2021


Council in Attendance:
Mike Wittie (Engineering)
Christopher Livingston (Architecture)                       
Scott Creel (Letters & Science)
Tricia Seifert (Education)
Michael Brody (Faculty Senate)
Marc Giullian (Business)
Wade Hill (Nursing)
Catherine Dunlop (Letters & Science)
Hannah McKelvey (Library)
Dawn Tarabochia (Health & Human Development)
Jane Mangold (Agriculture)
Cynthia Stillwell (Arts)
Katelen Bennett (International Programs)
Craig Ogilvie (Dean of The Graduate School)

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

Maureen Kessler (Student Representative)

Meeting started at 11:02 am on WebEx

September 14, 2021 minutes

  • Motion to approve by Wittie, 2nd by Giullian: 9 approve, 0 opposed, 1 abstention


  • Update from the Dean
    • Review retention survey results
      • Sharing results with Department Heads for those departments with integration lower than average – look for ways to improve
      • What was representation in terms of colleges and departments?
        • Haven’t analyzed this yet. Only sending weighted averages to departments if more than 4 students responded to protect anonymity.
      • CS will admit a number of students that don’t meet all qualifications with the expectation of some attrition
      • No negative impact to departments based on attrition rates. Goal is to look at ways department can increase the social engagement in the first term, so students aren’t leaving due to lack of integration.


  • Faculty Senate update (Brody)
    • Courses and programs reaching Faculty Senate are getting approved
    • Letter to BOR about vaccinations: informal response from BOR that vaccinations likely won’t be required unless it becomes a federal issue
    • Tomorrow’s faculty senate meeting will include a presentation on the university’s sustainability framework and a faculty proposal for a climate action resolution

Old Business

  • Associate Graduate Faculty, Revised Policy Proposal
    • Faculty handbook addresses research faculty chairing committees – changed the proposal to only include research faculty as defined in the faculty handbook
    • Still a level of departmental and faculty approval – faculty must vote, and departments can opt out of the program entirely
    • Benefit: mentoring and chairing from top scientists and researchers. Does not extend to group of NTTs that are funded by the university.
    • Comments/Questions:
      • Appreciate changes and integration of feedback
      • “Approval by Graduate School Dean” – is there an actual decision point by The Dean?
        • Notification to Grad Dean – can clarify wording
      • Two pools do overlap: research faculty in some departments also teach NTT courses
        • Research faculty may have NTT appointment in addition to their position
      • Department can opt out. Could also stipulate that research position must be greater than a .5 appointment.
      • This policy does not accommodate nursing faculty – not under research faculty appointment
        • Hesitant to continue exceptions, but can maintain some exceptions at the program level (e.g., Nursing already has a separate process)
          • Is there a mechanism to allow changes in less than the 5 years if issues arise?
            • Department head signs off on every graduate committee, so it’s in the department head’s authority to step in
            • Would come up in annual review
          • Is the benefit to graduate students in terms of funding under these grants, or expertise of these research faculty to advise?
            • Combination of both: create more GRA positions, but that person writing the grant could also be a great mentor for the student
          • In addition to research faculty, can concerns in terms of nursing and education be included?
            • Policy committee to revise
          • Were there conversations with department heads and deans?
            • There was early on. Dean Ogilvie will seek feedback from deans on the current draft.

  • Co-convening Policy, Revised Policy Proposal
    • Policy committee working on changes – will have an updated draft for the next meeting


  • CSAI-CERT, Artificial Intelligence, Level I Proposal
    • Questions/comments from last meeting:
      • There were no required courses
        • Response: broad application of AI. Added one sentence to clarify: “These requirements guarantee that at least 2 courses will be taken from the first 2 sections”
      • AI cert should address ethics component: Dunlop talked to ethics instructors on campus. There is only a 3xx ethics course currently being taught on this topic.
        • For a certificate – labor market oriented – is it okay to bypass the ethics component? How comfortable is committee approving these industry certs?
        • Ethics is not on the provisional courses for CS master’s degree – may want to develop a course on this topic for the master’s level
        • The certificate is more a technical program
        • Could potentially develop a graduate level ethics course with multiple applications
          • Could be a 1-credit course in ethics for a professional, versus a 3-credit course for an academic. Rethink structurally how we can meet the needs of professionals.
          • Support for the idea of a 1 credit STEM degree ethics course
        • If an ethics course is added, departments could require an additional class
        • In all states, certified public accountants must pass an ethics exam – since that happens professionally, isn’t required in the accounting program
          • Nothing like that in CS
        • For this certificate, appears there is not an applicable course. If there becomes one, proposer would be open to adding that.
        • Still concern about the lack of required courses.
          • AI/machine learning/data science are very broadly applicable: don’t think the flexibility makes the certificate invaluable
        • Appreciate flexibility, but the language on the course blocks is still unclear
          • Review how to interpret the course blocks
          • Review the scenarios of content covered by the possible course combinations
        • Suggest inviting the proposer to a meeting
        • May be helpful to compare this cert to existing AI certs at other universities
      • Livingston will ask John Paxton and/or John Sheppard to attend next meeting


  • Graduate Certificate in Science Teaching in STEM, Level I Proposal
    • Proposers working to answer council feedback


  • Provisional Admission
    • Tabled until next meeting


  • Diversity Equity and Inclusion committee
    • Ariel will attend next meeting and answer questions

New Business

  • Graduate Certificate in Applied Economic Analysis, Level I Proposal
    • Overall positive. Few points of clarification:
      • Degree code should be “Graduate Certificate” not “Certificate of Applied Science”
      • Should document the application process for accelerated certificate
      • Coursework section hard to read: prerequisites versus required courses unclear. Titles of courses should be included (not just the rubric).
    • Who will advise these students? Who refers transcripts etc.?
      • Difficult for students to get connected when there isn’t a designated staff person to onboard students
    • How did they assess student demand?
      • Understanding is that they anticipate their undergraduate students will take this certificate


Adjourned at 12:27 pm

Next scheduled meeting – October 26, 2021 WEBEX