2001-2002

2001 - 2002 Academic Year

2001-2002 Graduate Council Archives

Agenda/Minutes

October 24, 2001

AGENDA IS NOT AVAILABLE 


OAKLAND UNIVERSITY GRADUATE COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES

October 24, 2001 Present: Gary Barber, Eric Follo, Randy Gu, Ranald Hansen, Frances Jackson, John McEneaney, Mildred Merz, Kathleen Moore, Mohinder Parkash 
Absent: Michelle Piskulich 
Staff: Karla Brown, Christina Grabowski, Claire Rammel

1. Call to Order: 2:05 PM by Ranald Hansen, Interim Vice Provost for Research and Graduate Study.

2. Approval of Minutes: The 10/10/01 minutes were amended. In Item 2, the last sentence -The motion was unanimously approved' was deleted and a new sentence was added, 'Discussion closed until second reading.' A motion was made to approve amended minutes, members voted unanimous approval.

3. Discussion on STEP: This item will be addressed at the next meeting. Randy Hansen indicated that Dean Otto would like to be present when this item is discussed.

4. Collaboration for Secondary Teacher Preparation – 2nd Reading: Gary Barber asked that a budget be included in this proposal. Eric Follo stated he thought this was an existing program so a budget would not be required. Council indicated they would still like to include a budget and a section on additional resources necessary to the program. Eric Follo will try to put one together and distribute at the meeting next week. Claire Rammel asked that he also include a copy of the letter from the State that approves the program. Eric Follo will provide. Mohinder Parkash asked if the College of Arts and Sciences could provide the Council with a written document stating their concerns with this program; Randy Hansen will inquire. Randy Hansen indicated that Dean Otto would like to be present when this item is discussed. Randy requested further discussion delayed until the next meeting.

5. Discussion of Current and Future Program Reviews: Randy Hansen asked Council whether or not they would like to discuss web-based courses/distance learning. John McEneaney expressed it should be an item addressed; this will be a future agenda item. Claire Rammel indicated she was ready to distribute current program reviews for English, Linguistics and Music. She anticipated that each team would summarize their findings and present it to the Council. Claire Rammel asked the Council how they wanted to handle the final report to the Provost. What were their expectations? Eric Follo suggested that each group create their report using a consistent format. The Council decided the teams should use the current Graduate Program Review Guidelines when reviewing these programs. Frances Jackson gave an overview on how program reviews are processed at the national level. The criteria being used is reviewed/evaluated and determined whether it is being met or not met. Each criterion is addressed separately indicating any recommendations and outstanding accomplishments as well as areas of weakness. Frances Jackson will create a draft of this process and will send electronically to the members. Randy Hansen would like to have the first report finalized by 11/21/01. Music is tentatively scheduled for 12/5/2001 and Linguistics for 12/19/2001. Gary Barber asked if previous reports could be provided to the teams doing the current reviews; Claire Rammel will provide what she is able to locate. Claire also indicated she has requested copies of the external reviewers’ comments from Susan Awbrey. She will distribute when they arrive.

6. Discussion of Committees: Randy Hansen discussed three activities in which Grad Council needs to be involved: a) Program Review Guidelines. A committee needs to be formed to work with Council to research and finalize Graduate Program Review Guidelines. The committee should consist of a Council member and individuals selected from the Schools/Colleges. Randy Hansen and Kathy Moore will put this group together. b) A second committee needs to be formed to discuss stipends. A recommendation needs to be made to the Provost on where we want to go with Graduate Assistantships. The former Provost stated he would not support the infusion of new funds and challenged the units to look at incentive plans designed to reward external funding. Randy Hansen will ask Michelle Piskulich to form this group. c) A third area to be addressed was commencement. No mechanism is currently in place to recognize faculty or graduate students at commencement for their outstanding efforts. Gary Barber and Frances Jackson both indicated their schools had special awards, but these were not announced during the commencement. Randy Hansen would like the Council to brainstorm and make recommendations on how to recognize these individuals.

7. Other Business: Randy Hansen reported that the web site is being restructured and encouraged the members to check it out and make suggestions. John McEneaney suggested that any Council documents available electronically should be posted to the web site. It was agreed that Graduate Council meeting minutes would be posted after they have been approved. Frances Jackson asked why the letter she had drafted for the Council regarding interim leadership for graduate study had not been distributed. Randy asked Frances to send the letter to Karla Brown and she would forward to Council electronically. Meeting was adjourned at 3:00 PM.

The next scheduled meeting will be October 31, 2001 at 2:00 PM in Room 100 of Kresge Library.

October 31, 2001

AGENDA IS NOT AVAILABLE

 


 

OAKLAND UNIVERSITY GRADUATE COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
October 31, 2001

Present: Gary Barber, Eric Follo, Randy Gu, Ranald Hansen, John McEneaney, Mildred Merz, Kathleen Moore, Mohinder Parkash, Kristine Thompson (for Robert Jarski) 
Absent: Frances Jackson, Michelle Piskulich 
Guests: Brian Connery, Mary Otto 
Staff: Claire Rammel

1. Call to Order: 2:05 PM by Ranald Hansen, Interim Vice Provost for Research and Graduate Study.

2. Collaboration for Secondary Teacher Preparation - 2nd Reading: Gary Barber asked again why no budget was provided to the Graduate Council. Dean Otto explained this program was termed incentive, thus a budget is prepared much later in the process and approved by President Russi. She assured Graduate Council that no new resources would be needed. Brian Connery, Chair of the English Department, stated he saw a conflict of interest between the new MAT program and the current STEP program. He is concerned that the MAT program will pull students from the STEP program. Mary Otto stated she believed that the University should provide more than one path to students for initial teacher certification. Brian agreed that the STEP program does provide less flexibility and does not necessarily well serve post bachelor students aspiring to change careers. However, the program is successful and growing and deserves continued support by the University.

Brian expressed some concerns with the lack of curricular content in the student major. He noted no graduate courses in the students' content area are required. Mary Otto indicated all students who apply to the MAT must first receive a passing score on the Michigan Basic Skills Test and the MTTC major and minor area test. She stressed one of the goals of the program is to be collaborative with the school district and providing the student strong hands-on experience. Brian believed classroom method is discipline specific and this program does not provide that opportunity. Eric Follo indicated CIL 528 would offer discipline specific sections. Brian Connery identified concern that the proposal for the MAT was submitted to the Michigan Department of Education under the auspices of Michigan' Alternative Route to Teacher Certification. However, the School of Education is suggesting this is a MAT program NOT an alternative MAT. Dean Otto responded that the program was designed to address "potential" shortages identified by the local school district. Claire Rammel pointed out on Page 5 of the proposal, it states that 4-8 additional credits at 300-level and above are required. She asked Eric Follo if the assumption was these credits would count toward the graduate degree. Dean Otto stated these credits would NOT count toward the degree requirements. Brian Connery was concerned that recommendation for approval of the MAT by Graduate Council would preclude future approval of a MAT designed specifically for future English teachers. Randy Hansen did not see this as prohibiting. Claire Rammel asked if applicants could be denied admission based on a bachelor’s degree with a major NOT in a "high needs content area" as defined on Page 3 of the proposal. Dean Otto stated admissions could be denied based on critical shortages as determined by the school district. Claire was concerned about potential legal issues arising from lack of clarification regarding this admission criterion. She suggested that the proposal be modified to incorporate this information. Dean Otto said language would be written to clarify this issue.

Gary Barber stated again his concern with the lack of budget. He believed minimally, the proposal should reflect resources needs that could impact faculty. Millie Merz also requested that library resources are included in budget. Dean Otto agreed to provide a budget to Graduate Council.

Randy asked if council members were prepared to vote. Graduate Council requested to delay the vote until revisions and budget were made available.

Meeting was adjourned at 4:00 PM. The next scheduled meeting will be November 7, 2001 at 2:00 PM in Room 100 of Kresge Library.

November 7, 2001

AGENDA IS NOT AVAILABLE 


OAKLAND UNIVERSITY GRADUATE COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES November 7, 2001

Present: Eric Follo, Randy Gu, Ranald Hansen, Frances Jackson, Robert Jarski, John McEneaney, Mildred Merz, Kathleen Moore, Mohinder Parkash, Kristine Thompson Absent: Gary Barber, Michelle Piskulich Staff: Karla Brown, Claire Rammel

1. Call to Order: 2:10 PM by Ranald Hansen, Interim Vice Provost for Research and Graduate Study.

2. Approval of 10/24/01 and 10/31/01 Minutes: The 10/24/01 and 10/31/01 minutes were approved as written.

3. Collaboration for Secondary Teacher Preparation – 2nd Reading: Randy Hansen recapped the discussion held last week. The following items were requested by Graduate Council and distributed: (1) a budget; (2) an annotated list of required courses; (3) language to clarify the additional 4 to 8 credits requirement on Page 5; and (4) an email from Brian Connery, Chairperson of Department of English, summarizing concerns with the MAT program. Eric Follo pointed out the library contribution budget item includes support for leadership journals and books for assessment. Claire Rammel stated her continued concern that applicants can be denied admission, based on critical shortages determined by the school district, without reference to this admission criterion in the proposal. She suggested the proposal be modified to clarify this information on Page 3. Mohinder Parkash questioned why CIL519 was not on the annotated list of required courses. Eric Follo said it was left off in error and will be added. Mohinder also pointed out the budget does not reflect the same number of credit hours as required in the proposal. Eric said he would have this corrected. Mohinder asked why Group 1 was not listed as enrolled for the 3rd year in the budget. Eric indicated students would be certified after completion of the 2nd year. Ideally those students would seek a teaching position and get teaching experience before returning to Oakland University to complete graduate credit hours for the MAT.

Frances Jackson requested clarification on admission criteria for the MAT and what makes it different from STEP. Frances does not believe there is a need for the University to offer two programs that do the same thing with the only apparent difference being the MAT offers classes on weekends and evenings and STEP does not. Frances believes the MAT will be in direct competition with the already existing STEP program. Why do we need another degree to deliver the same product? Eric Follo responded that the MAT provides flexibility for individuals working full-time, which STEP does not offer, and the MAT will serve a lot more people. Frances thought the proposal should address this issue. She believes that if such population distinctions exist, there need to be different admission criteria that clearly define the difference in degree paths. Kris Thompson agreed that population distinctions should be noted.

Frances Jackson made a motion that a report on the MAT is presented to Graduate Council one year after it has been implemented. This report should address specifically the impact the MAT has had on the STEP program by documenting the contrast between populations

 

in student profile, enrollment and their experience. Kris Thompson seconded the motion and approved 6 in favor with 1 opposed. Eric Follo will provide the Council with an addendum of requested revisions at the next meeting.

Randy called for the vote and the proposal was unanimously approved.

4. Other Business: Randy Hansen introduced Kristine Thompson, representing the School of Health Sciences for Fall 2001; Robert Jarski will remain on Graduate Council, but will abstain from voting during Fall 2001. He will return to full duties on Graduate Council Winter 2002.

John McEneaney and Eric Follo addressed the Council about their assignment to evaluate the program review in English. John McEneaney indicated the current graduate program review guidelines would work for the English review only if Graduate Council supports their request to seek additional materials from the English department. John McEneaney and Eric Follo plan to submit a draft report to the Council at the next meeting that includes a request for further information from the English department. Their preference is to have the request to the department come from Council rather than the review subcommittee.

Frances Jackson reported that the guidelines would not work for the Masters in Music review, even if they requested additional information from the department. Randy asked each of the three review teams to keep track of issues affiliated with the review process so that the subcommittee, charged with creating new graduate guidelines, will have benefit of their input.

Meeting was adjourned at 3:45 PM. The meeting on November 21, 2001 has been cancelled. The next scheduled meeting will be December 5, 2001 at 2:00 PM in Room 100 of Kresge Library.

 

January 16, 2002

AGENDA IS NOT AVAILABLE 


OAKLAND UNIVERSITY GRADUATE COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES January 16, 2002

Present: Gary Barber, Eric Follo, Randy Gu, Ranald Hansen, Robert Jarski, John McEneaney, Mildred Merz, Kathleen Moore, Mohinder Parkash Absent: Frances Jackson, Michelle Piskulich (on leave) Staff: Karla Brown, Christina Grabowski, Claire Rammel, Steve Szalay

1. Call to Order: 2:05 PM by Ranald Hansen, Interim Vice Provost for Research and Graduate Study.

2. Approval of 11/7/01 Minutes: Mohinder Parkash made a motion to amend the minutes. A correction was made in item 3; the motion that a report on the MAT with Initial Teacher Certification be presented to Graduate Council one year after implementation was approved 6 in favor with 1 opposed. The vote on the proposal should read as unanimously approved. Bob Jarski submitted a correction in item 4; Kristine Thompson is representing the School of Health Sciences for Fall 2001; should Bob attend any Fall meetings he will abstain from voting until Winter 2002. A motion was made, and seconded, to approve the minutes as amended. The vote was unanimously approved.

3. English Program Review (Eric Follo and John McEneaney): Eric Follo and John McEneaney presented their report on the English Program Review to the Council members. The charge to the review team was to determine whether the self-study met criteria as published in the current graduate guidelines. However, since the self-study was written using Undergraduate guidelines with a focus on evaluation of the Undergraduate program, some of the information incorporated on graduate programs was difficult to extract. The review team felt the English department needed to provide additional information in areas before the team could determine whether some criteria objectives have been met. The team’s major issue was trying to align the self-study report with the Graduate Program Review guidelines. Overall, the review team felt the English self-study was a quality report.

Randy Hansen indicated the next step is for Claire Rammel to work with Brian Connery to request the additional information required by the review team. Once the English department responds to the request, Claire will provide the information to Eric Follo and John McEneaney to finalize the review and create an executive summary. Kathy Moore is chairing a subcommittee who will be reviewing the program guidelines in depth. The English Program Review will be continued at the next meeting.

4. Music Program Review (Gary Barber and Frances Jackson): Gary Barber reported that he has been exchanging voicemails with Frances Jackson regarding the Music Program Review, and have not been able to complete their report. Both Frances and Gary have major concerns that the self-study lacks sufficient emphasis on the graduate program. However, Gary felt that after hearing the English Program Review Report, the Music review team would attempt to construct a report. Claire Rammel will work with Gary and Frances to decide how to proceed with this program review report.

5. New Course Approval Policy: Randy Hansen reported that Claire Rammel is evaluating graduate policy and current practices. She will be bringing to the Graduate Council both current graduate policy and new policy proposals for Graduate Council review and/or approval. Claire distributed two policy handouts. The first handout was Current Graduate Policy on “New Graduate Course Approval for Existing Graduate Programs.â€쳌 The Council reviewed this document and saw no issues for discussion. The second handout was a New Graduate Policy Proposal on “New Graduate Course Approval for Areas without Graduate Degrees.â€쳌

Claire presented the current policy as follows:

An academic department not authorized to offer a graduate degree may be authorized by the Council to offer courses numbered 500 and above, subject to the following stipulations:

a. A maximum total of five such courses may be authorized for such departments, exceptions to this restriction may be granted only by positive action of the Graduate Council. b. Each course must be separately reviewed and approved by the Council. c. The offering of courses approved by the Council must be approved by the Dean of Graduate Study prior to each semester or session they are to be offered.

Claire then explained the proposed new policy as follows:

An academic department not authorized to offer a graduate degree may be authorized by the Council to offer courses numbered 500, subject to the following stipulations:

a. Courses are limited to 500-level, exceptions to this restriction may be granted only by positive action of the Graduate Council/Vice Provost. b. A maximum total of ten such courses may be authorized for such departments, exceptions to this restriction may be granted only by positive action of the Graduate Council/Vice Provost. c. The Office of Graduate Study reports annually to Graduate Council all courses in this category with the respective enrollment. d. The Office of Graduate Study will report to the Academic Deans courses not offered at least once every eight years before purging the courses from the Graduate Catalog.

The Graduate Council supported the restriction of courses to 500-level, with exceptions to this restriction granted by Graduate Council/Vice Provost. The Council suggested all exceptions be reviewed in an annual report to the Council. Eric Follo questioned the purpose of an academic unit creating a course when it was not associated with any graduate program. Claire stated that on some occasions academic units, with approved graduate programs, approach units without approved graduate programs to create a new course designed for their students. Eric agreed with this concept, but believed the Graduate Council should require rationale whenever such a request was presented to Council for approval. Graduate Council members suggested the new policy proposal be modified to require rationale. The Council will review the amended policy, return to further discussion and vote at the next scheduled meeting.

(Randy Hansen left at this time, Claire Rammel continued the meeting.)

6. Assign Review Team for MPA Program Review: Claire Rammel reported the MPA program is currently in the middle of their accreditation. They have completed their self-study and have not scheduled a site visit yet. Claire asked for two Council members to serve on this review team. Bob Jarski and Kathy Moore agreed to work on this program review report.

7. Subcommittee Announcement: It was announced that Kathy Moore would be the chairperson for the subcommittee assigned to review Graduate Program Review Guidelines. She is working with Randy to finalize committee membership.

8. Presentation on Graduate Council Web Site: Claire introduced Steve Szalay to make a presentation on the Graduate Council web site. Documents will be centrally located and accessible to the public and to Council members only. It was suggested that every time the web page is updated, an email notification be sent to the members. Steve will send a link to the members so that they can browse through the demo web page and provide feedback. Claire emphasized this is a tool designed to support Graduate Council. She requested that members provide any suggestions, comments or concerns to either her or Randy.

Meeting was adjourned at 3:30 PM. The next meeting is scheduled for January 30, 2002 at 2:00 PM in Room 100 of Kresge Library.

January 30, 2002

AGENDA IS NOT AVAILABLE 


OAKLAND UNIVERSITY GRADUATE COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES January 30, 2002

Present: Randy Gu, Ranald Hansen, Frances Jackson, John McEneaney, Mildred Merz, Kathleen Moore, Mohinder Parkash Absent: Gary Barber, Eric Follo, Robert Jarski, Michelle Piskulich (on leave) Staff: Karla Brown, Claire Rammel

1. Call to Order: 2:05 PM by Ranald Hansen, Interim Vice Provost for Research and Graduate Study.

2. Approval of 1/16/02 Minutes: The 1/16/02 minutes were approved as written.

3. Music Program Review (Gary Barber and Frances Jackson): Frances Jackson reported that she has drafted a review based on the format of the English review, but it is not ready to present as a final copy. She believes the music department has some legitimate problems that need to be addressed. There were three accrediting visits in Fall 2000 and Council will decide at what point to request copies of these reports. Randy Hansen asked Frances to compile a list of items needed from the music department to complete the report. At the next meeting Council will determine whether a request should be sent to the music department asking for supplemental materials or request the department to repeat the graduate program review.

4. Status of English Program Review: Claire Rammel reported that she made a phone call to Brian Connery and faxed him the request for additional information as prepared by Eric Follo and John McEneaney. Brian has taken the request to their graduate committee. He will contact Claire after the committee has had an opportunity to review and determine a response timeline. John McEneaney felt it would be best to have future requests approved by the Graduate Council first so it would be clear the review team was not acting autonomously. Randy suggested that Claire draft a set of procedures on how Council will handle the program reviews.

5. Linguistics Program Review Report Date: The first reading will be March 13, 2002.

6. New Graduate Course Approval Policies: Claire Rammel distributed the two policy handouts that were discussed at the January 16th meeting. She presented the current policy as follows:

An academic department authorized to offer a graduate program may offer courses numbered 500 and above, subject to the following stipulations:

a. Graduate-level courses are those numbered 500 and above. Proposed graduate courses that are cross-listed with 400-level undergraduate courses must specifically detail significant differences for requirements in content area for graduate students. b. The respective schools or college initiate the Graduate Course Action Form in their departments. The department forwards the form to the school or college internal governance bodies for approval and obtains signatures of the department chair and academic dean. The internal governance process normally involves:

Department/unit College or School Graduate Committee on Instruction College or School Assembly Academic Dean

c. The Graduate Council/Vice Provost has final approval on all new or modified courses approved by the College or the Schools.

d. The Office of Graduate Study reports new course approvals to the Graduate Council at least twice per semester. e. The Office of Graduate Study will report to the Academic Deans courses not offered at least once every eight years before purging the courses from the Graduate Catalog.

Course approvals for new degree programs are part of the approval of the degree itself and subject to the full internal governance process through the Senate, the Provost, President, and Board of Trustees.

With no concerns noted from the Graduate Council, a motion was made, and seconded, to approve the submitted policy on “New Graduate Course Approval for Existing Graduate Programs.â€쳌 The vote was unanimously approved.

Claire then presented the proposed new policy on “New Graduate Course Approval for Areas without Graduate Degrees.â€쳌 She incorporated the modifications as suggested by Graduate Council at the January 16th meeting and reviewed the proposed new policy as follows:

An academic department not authorized to offer a graduate degree may be authorized by the Council to offer courses numbered 500, subject to the following stipulations:

a. Courses are limited to 500-level, exceptions to this restriction may be granted only by positive action of the Graduate Council/Vice Provost. b. The academic department must provide rationale for creating the course offering. c. A maximum total of ten such courses may be authorized for such departments, exceptions to this restriction may be granted only by positive action of the Graduate Council/Vice Provost. d. The Office of Graduate Study reports annually to Graduate Council all courses in this category with the respective enrollment. e. The Office of Graduate Study will report to the Academic Deans courses not offered at least once every eight years before purging the courses from the Graduate Catalog.

The Graduate Council was satisfied with the proposal as modified. A motion was made, and seconded, to approve the submitted policy on “New Graduate Course Approval for Areas without Graduate Degrees.â€쳌 The vote was unanimously approved.

7. New Course Report: Claire Rammel distributed and reviewed a report requested by Graduate Council on all new and modified Graduate courses over the last two years. Pie charts were presented to illustrate concentrations. She will be providing these reports to the Council on a quarterly or biannual basis.

8. Other Business: Frances Jackson reported that the Provost had agreed to attend a Graduate Council meeting in response to a memo submitted by Council. The memo expressed the Council’s concerns regarding the length of time there has been interim leadership in graduate study. Randy Hansen said he would follow up with the Provost.

Claire Rammel distributed a proposal that will be coming forward from the School of Education – Ph.D. in Educational Leadership. There will be a first reading on this proposal at the next meeting with Sandra Packard representing the School of Education.

Randy Hansen stated that portions of Graduate Study will be moving into North Foundation Hall and will be referred to as graduate admissions and graduate student services.

Meeting was adjourned at 3:00 PM. The next meeting is scheduled for February 13, 2002 at 2:00 PM in Room 100 of Kresge Library.

February 13, 2002

AGENDA IS NOT AVAILABLE 


OAKLAND UNIVERSITY GRADUATE COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES February 13, 2002

Present: Eric Follo, Randy Gu, Frances Jackson, Robert Jarski, Mildred Merz, Kathleen Moore, Mohinder Parkash Absent: Gary Barber, Ranald Hansen, John McEneaney, Michelle Piskulich (on leave) Guests: Sandra Packard, Cate Vincent Staff: Karla Brown, Christina Grabowski, Claire Rammel

1. Call to Order: 2:05 PM by Vice Chair, Frances Jackson.

2. Approval of 1/16/02 Minutes: The 1/30/02 minutes were approved as written.

3. Name Change in Nursing Adult Health – 1st Reading: A memo from the School of Nursing was distributed to council members requesting to change the name of the Nursing Adult Health program to Clinical Nurse Specialist. Kate Vincent, Associate Dean of Nursing, explained to the committee that by changing the title the program would be in line with the nursing role as defined by the American Nurse Association. A motion was made by Eric Follo to waive the second reading and approve the name change. Mohinder Parkash seconded the motion. The vote to approve the name change was unanimously approved. The name change will be effective Fall 2002.

4. Specialization in Higher Education - 1st Reading: Sandra Packard from the School of Education presented a proposal for a “Minorâ€쳌 in Higher Education. The minor is designed for doctoral students admitted to the PhD program in Educational Leadership and interested in creating a focus on higher education administration. The minor requirement is 28 credits with 4 elective credits and 100 hours of internship. Mohinder Parkash questioned why education would define a specialty or concentration as a “minorâ€쳌. Council acknowledged a problem with the terminology “minorâ€쳌, but suggested it be set aside at the moment and comment on the structure/content of the proposal. Kathleen Moore asked if students selecting this option would be encouraged to submit a dissertation with higher education as the subject. Sandra stated yes. The proposal is specifically designed to provide the necessary research focus for writing such dissertations. A corrected budget and a library report will be presented at the 2nd reading.

5. Current Program Review Reports – Music: Frances Jackson discussed the list of items missing from the Music self-study according to the graduate program review guidelines. The original report, dated 1999, was written from the undergraduate program guidelines. Claire Rammel reported two new documents were received from Music and have been forwarded to both Frances Jackson and Gary Barber for review. Frances indicated she would not be comfortable looking at the proposed Ph.D. in Education with a specialization in Music when no program reviews have yet been completed for the masters in music. Frances suggests we forward the list of missing items to the Music Department and form a group to meet with Susan Awbrey to develop a set of joint guidelines. Claire Rammel reminded council that Kathleen Moore is chair of a subcommittee charged with review and rewriting the graduate program review guidelines. Claire suggested that we delay meeting with Susan Awbrey until the subcommittee has had an opportunity to make their recommendations. Eric Follo made a motion that the Music Department respond to the list of missing items; Mohinder Parkash seconded the motion. The vote was unanimously approved. Claire Rammel will forward the list of missing items to the Music Department on behalf of Graduate Council.

6. Program Review Process: Claire Rammel explained to Graduate Council that the graduate program review process, as approved by Graduate Council, needed to be rewritten to incorporate the temporary distribution of graduate program reviews from Susan Awbrey’s office. The draft is NOT intended to replace the approved process, but written to describe the current practice until the Program Review Subcommittee completes their review.

7. Dissertation/Thesis Processing Requirements – Policy: Claire Rammel distributed a copy of the thesis/dissertation processing requirements. These requirements were developed based on current practice, a recent telephone survey of other Michigan institutions and identified issues conflicting with graduation policy. Currently, the Office of Graduate Study publishes much of this information in the Dissertation/Thesis Format Guidelines and the Schedule of Classes. Claire is proposing that Graduate Council approves the requirements as graduate policy, thus allowing the Office of Graduate Study to communicate the policy requirements in many key venues beyond the current two sources. Kathleen Moore stated she believes these requirements should not be enforced until they are included in the graduate catalog. Frances Jackson suggested that Claire find out if we need to publish the requirements in the Graduate Catalog before we can hold students accountable. Eric Follo expressed his support of the document, indicating both faculty and students will benefit from the publication of this policy.

8. Nomenclature: Claire Rammel distributed a copy of graduate level nomenclature. Claire stated that these terms are based on current practice at Oakland University and information gathered from other universities. Claire indicated with the expansion of new graduate programs it is now necessary to review uniformity of graduate program nomenclature. Discussion of proposed nomenclature will resume at the next meeting.

9. Ph.D. in Mechanical Engineering: Frances Jackson reported that the PhD in Mechanical Engineering program was recommended for approval by Graduate Council and is currently being reviewed at the Senate. Frances requests that the Graduate Council submit a copy of their report to the Senate.

Meeting was adjourned at 4:00 PM. The next meeting is scheduled for March 13, 2002 at 2:00 PM in Room 100 of Kresge Library.

March 13, 2002

AGENDA NOT AVAILABLE 


OAKLAND UNIVERSITY GRADUATE COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES March 13, 2002

Present: Eric Follo, Randy Gu, Frances Jackson, Robert Jarski, John McEneaney, Mildred Merz, Kathleen Moore Absent: Gary Barber, Ranald Hansen, Mohinder Parkash, Michelle Piskulich (on leave) Guests: Sandra Packard Staff: Karla Brown, Christina Grabowski, Claire Rammel

1. Call to Order: 2:10 PM by Vice Chair, Frances Jackson.

2. Approval of 2/13/02 Minutes: The 2/13/02 minutes were approved as written.

3. Specialization in Higher Education – 2nd Reading: Sandra Packard from the School of Education distributed copies of a revised budget and a budget explanation for the proposed “concentrationâ€쳌 in Higher Education. The budget shows a conservative estimate of the revenue and costs for the first three years of the program. Since the concentration is designed predominately for doctoral students admitted to the PhD program in Educational Leadership, students admitted to the program are not eligible to begin working on the concentration until all their core courses are completed. Based on this information, enrollment projections for the program during the first couple of years will be low. A motion was made by Kathleen Moore and seconded by Bob Jarski to approve the proposal. The motion was unanimously approved.

Sandra Packard also reported that there appears to be a market interest in offering the concentration as a graduate certificate program. She will begin preparing the graduate certificate proposal to present to the Graduate Council in the near future.

4. Current Program Review Reports – Linguistics: Randy Gu and Mohinder Parkash will present their graduate program report for Linguistics at the next meeting.

5. Program Review Process – Status: Claire Rammel reported that the English department has provided the missing program review data as requested by the Council. Eric Follo and John McEneaney will review the data report and present an updated report at the next meeting. Claire also reported that the request for missing program review data needed for the Music graduate program review was sent to Jackie Wiggins in the department. Claire indicated that Jackie Wiggins would begin compiling the data and will get back to Council with a response.

6. Dissertation/Thesis Processing Requirements – Policy: Claire Rammel redistributed a copy of the thesis/dissertation requirements that were introduced and discussed at the last meeting. These requirements were developed based on current practice, a recent telephone survey of other Michigan institutions and identified issues conflicting with graduation policy. The proposed policy is as follows:

1. Application for graduation

Applications for graduation are due by the published deadline in the Schedule of Classes for the term in which the student expects to graduate.

2. Scheduling dissertation defense

a. The dissertation defense must be scheduled 6 weeks prior to the last day of the semester. b. The student must be registered for the term in which they plan to defend. c. The Office of Graduate Study must approve the format to be used for the doctoral dissertation at least one term prior to the defense of the dissertation.

3. Deadline for submitting dissertations/theses to Office of Graduate Study

a. The Office of Graduate Study must approve the format to be used for all dissertations/theses at least one term prior to defense or committee review for theses. b. All dissertations/theses must be submitted to the Office of Graduate Study 4 weeks before the last day of the semester. c. Those students defined as severe hardship cases, where situations deemed outside the control of a student prevents completion of the required manuscript, may apply for a 14 day extension. d. A Petition of Exception, justifying the hardship, must be submitted by the chair of the thesis/dissertation committee and approved by the Office of Graduate Study before a manuscript can be accepted beyond the deadline. No extensions will be granted for requests 14 days beyond the published deadline.

4. Participation in graduation ceremony before completion of degree requirements

Master’s students, within one term of completing their degree requirements, may participate in commencement. A “Request to Participate in Commencement Ceremonyâ€쳌 form must be approved by their academic advisor, department chair and submitted to the Office of Graduate Study.

Doctoral students are not eligible to participate in commencement without completing all degree requirements, including dissertation defense and submission of dissertation.

Bob Jarski indicated that item 2.c. should be reworded. Eric Follo indicated in item 4, last part of sentence should read, “including dissertation defense and submission of accepted dissertation.â€쳌 A motion was made by Eric Follo, seconded by John McEneaney, to adopt the thesis/dissertation processing requirements policy. The motion was unanimously approved.

7. Other Business: Frances Jackson shared with the committee that Brown University allows parents of students who are graduating to march in their ceremony. She was not sure of the specific requirements, but believes the parent must hold faculty rank at another college or university. Frances thought this was a good idea and would like to see Oakland University open their graduation ceremony up to external faculty as well.

Meeting was adjourned at 2:40 PM. The next meeting is scheduled for March 27, 2002 at 2:00 PM in Room 100 of Kresge Library.

March 27, 2002

AGENDA IS NOT AVAILABLE 


OAKLAND UNIVERSITY GRADUATE COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES March 27, 2002

Present: Gary Barber, Eric Follo, Randy Gu, Ranald Hansen, John McEneaney, Mildred Merz, Kathleen Moore, Mohinder Parkash Absent: Frances Jackson, Robert Jarski, Michelle Piskulich (on leave) Staff: Claire Rammel

1. Call to Order: 2:05 PM by Ranald Hansen, Interim Vice Provost for Research and Graduate Study.

2. Approval of 3/13/02 Minutes: A motion was made by John McEneaney, seconded by Eric Follo, to approve the 3/13/02 minutes as written. The motion was unanimously approved.

3. Linguistics Program Review (Randy Gu, Mohinder Parkash) Randy Gu and Mohinder Parkash presented the linguistics program review. This review team, like the Music and English program review teams, cannot complete their evaluation until Graduate Council requests the Linguistics department respond to missing or incomplete data. Both Randy and Mohinder expressed great concern regarding the difficulty working with the new combined undergraduate/graduate format. Program goals, the mission statement, learning objectives and assessment data were just a few areas mentioned by the team as being hard to interpret. The team also noted that no reference was made in the current document regarding changes, issues or problems addressed in the 1985 graduate program review. The team asked Graduate Council to define their next step in the process. Randy Hansen suggested Grad Council postpone addressing this issue until we hear from the English and Music program review teams later in the meeting. Members of the Council all agreed.

4. English Program Review (Eric Follo, John McEneaney) John McEneaney and Eric Follo presented an updated program review report based on the additional data requested from the English department. Even with the requested information provided by English, both Eric and John agreed that writing a review report based on the existing document was a problem. While it is clear that English has put much effort into the self-study, the document in its current state does not have enough substance for the review team to write a final report. The combined format, in part, has made data clarity a complicated process for the review team Mohinder Parkash asked Randy Hansen to define the purpose of the report. Randy Hansen indicated that the Graduate Council subcommittee would define the purpose as part of their charge. John McEneaney stated that the current process has provided valuable insight to improvements needed when redesigning the future process. John indicated whatever the process, there should be a focus on being productive. Randy Hansen suggested using the blending approach to self-study which has created 1) more focus on the departments than on the programs, 2) a complex problem involving interwoven graduate data and 3) a less serious effort.

5. Music Program Review (Gary Barber, Frances Jackson) Randy Hansen asked Gary Barber to summarize his and Frances Jackson’s experience with the Music program review. Gary felt the music department took the self-study very seriously. The music department complied promptly with Graduate Council’s request for additional data. He had no complaints and believes he and Frances can write a final report based on the information provided.

6. Completion of Current Program Reviews Randy Hansen asked how Graduate Council wanted to complete the three (3) program reviews currently under evaluation by Council. Discussion centered around three possibilities: 1) write the final reports from the existing self-studies, 2) request the departments submit new self-studies or 3) handle each of the current self-studies individually. Graduate Council made several suggestions that included: rewriting self-study but imposing a shorter timeline, inviting department representatives to Graduate Council to clarify current self-study, communicate better standards, review existing guidelines and improve internal process. After much discussion, Kathleen Moore suggested we ask the basic question, “Was a concise overview provided by each department?â€쳌. She went on to state if Graduate Council can’t be comfortable writing a final report from existing documents, then we must offer an alternative. Randy Hansen felt Graduate Council could not hold these departments accountable for the reports since our guidelines and expectations were not communicated.

The recommendation supported by Graduate Council was to delay writing reports until the subcommittee assigned to review the Graduate Program Review Guidelines has examined the process and made recommendations to Council. Claire Rammel requested Graduate Council communicate this information to the current program review departments and the Deans.

7. Update on Graduate Program Review Guidelines Subcommittee Randy Hansen is very close to completing appointments to this subcommittee and will be meeting with the chair, Kathleen Moore, to discuss. Randy has suggested hosting a retreat for Graduate Council where members could present issues affiliated with current program reviews and offer suggestions for improvement. Randy indicated schedules may require the retreat to be held in Spring or on a weekend. Graduate Council supported the opportunity.

8. Graduate Council Appointments for Next Year Randy Hansen initiated a brief discussion regarding Graduate Council appointments. At the time of appointment, it will be with the understanding that the member will serve a 3-year term with annual appointment renewals. Mohinder Parkash thought 3 years was an ideal length of service. Claire Rammel agreed that the length of appointment was a great improvement, but would suggest we phase-in the appointments so senior members could provide some mentoring for newer appointments. All members of Graduate Council present were very supportive of the length of appointment.

9. Other Business Randy Hansen has circulated a document to the Deans defining nomenclature at the Graduate level. Once the Deans have had an opportunity to discuss and modify, he will be bringing the document to Graduate Council for discussion and approval.

Meeting was adjourned at 3:10 PM. The next meeting is scheduled for April 10, 2002 at 2:00 PM in Room 100 of Kresge Library.

April 24, 2002

AGENDA IS NOT AVAILABLE 


OAKLAND UNIVERSITY GRADUATE COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES April 24, 2002

Present: Gary Barber, Eric Follo, Randy Gu, Ranald Hansen, Robert Jarski, John McEneaney, Mildred Merz, Mohinder Parkash Absent: Frances Jackson, Kathleen Moore, Michelle Piskulich (on leave) Staff: Karla Brown, Christina Grabowski, Claire Rammel

1. Call to Order: 2:10 PM by Ranald Hansen, Interim Vice Provost for Research and Graduate Study.

2. Approval of 3/27/02 Minutes: Robert Jarski made a motion to amend the minutes. In item 8, the 3-year term was clarified to state “At the time of appointment, it will be with the understanding that the member will serve a 3-year term with annual appointment renewals.â€쳌 A motion was made by Mohinder Parkash, seconded by John McEneaney, to approve the minutes as amended. The vote was unanimously approved.

3. Professional Development and Guest Student Admissions Policy Claire Rammel distributed a copy of the graduate non-degree admission policy. A motion was made by Eric Follo, seconded by John McEneaney, to adopt the policy. The vote was unanimously approved. The members reviewed the policy and the following issues were addressed. Mohinder Parkash questioned why the policy refers specifically to “professional developmentâ€쳌 and “guestâ€쳌 applicants instead of “non-matricâ€쳌 applicants in general. Claire indicated that these terms are being used at Oakland University currently and are very common among other schools. The Graduate Council asked if “non-matricâ€쳌 accurately described both “professional developmentâ€쳌 and “guestâ€쳌 status. Claire indicated that both populations could be classified under non-matric status, but the policy must address differing admission requirements. Graduate Council preferred the general term “non-matriculatingâ€쳌 to broadly define the population and admission requirements. The policy should then denote additional admission requirements for specific sub-population (professional development and guest). Graduate Council confirmed that all applicants are required to follow admission requirements and comply with the admission process. Admissions decisions and permission to enroll are at the discretion of the school. Prior to enrollment, faculty and/or advisors for the College and Schools must evaluate applicant’s academic background and degree credentials to affirm proper academic preparation for courses. Claire will make suggested changes to the policy and Council will email their vote.

The following policy was distributed on June 4, 2002 to the Graduate Council for vote. The vote was unanimously approved on June 14, 2002.

Graduate Non-Matriculating Admission Policy Effective Term - Spring 2002 Applicants who wish to enroll in graduate courses, but do NOT wish to be admitted to a graduate program may request non-matriculating status. Applicants admitted to a non-matriculating status are subject to the following stipulations:

Graduate students from other accredited colleges or universities must submit a graduate application with verification of academic standing from the applicant’s home institution BEFORE the applicant will be considered for enrollment.

Applicants who have a bachelor’s degree from an accredited college or university must submit a graduate application with a copy of a transcript providing evidence of a terminal degree (bachelor’s, master’s or doctoral).

1. Admission is granted to a particular school or college, but NOT to a specific graduate program. 2. There is no limitation on the number of graduate credits that may be earned in this status. 3. Departmental permission must be obtained, prior to enrolling for graduate courses, to assure proper academic preparation. 4. There is no assurance that credits earned in this status will be approved and applied toward a graduate program. 5. Not more than 12 credits would be eligible for review, approval and application toward a graduate program at a later date. These credits must comply with requirements published in the Time Limit section of the Graduate Catalog. 6. Non-matriculating graduate students who later decide to seek admission to a graduate program must adhere to all admission requirements specified by the program.

4. Special Credit Offerings - Policy Postponed until Fall 2002.

5. Status of Graduate Nomenclature Policy Randy Hansen reported that he presented the nomenclature at the Dean’s Council meeting and requested feedback from their academic units. Randy indicated Luellen Ramey from the Department of Counseling in the School of Education and Human Services had some concerns with one category in the proposed nomenclature. Luellen is going to send her comments to Randy within a month. Eric Follo stated he attended the same meeting as Luellen and thought the changes addressed from Counseling were minor. To expedite the process, Eric offered to contact Luellen so correct terminology can be incorporated in the new Graduate catalog.

6. Graduate Council Retreat Randy Hansen asked the Graduate Council their thoughts on getting together for a half-day retreat with the Graduate Program Review Subcommittee before they begin working on the Guidelines document. The members indicated they would prefer the program review subcommittee establish their draft of the guidelines before the retreat takes place. All the members were in agreement so the retreat will be scheduled for the beginning of Fall semester. Claire Rammel indicated that unless the subcommittee meets this summer, the retreat would need to be scheduled towards the end of Fall term.

7. Graduate Council Meeting Dates and Appointments Appointment letters to Graduate Council for 2002-03 will be distributed by early August. Randy Hansen asked the current members to let him know if they will be on sabbatical next year. The Graduate Council meeting day and time will remain the same (Wednesdays at 2PM) next year.

8. Items for Graduate Council Fall 2002 Claire Rammel presented an outline of business items for the Graduate Council in year 2002-03. The list included the following topics:

· Policy Issues o Special Credit Offerings – Policy o UMI Proposal o Continuation Fee (Phd) o Continuation Fee (NRS; HS) o 400/500-Level Cross listings

· Subcommittees

o Graduate Program Review o Graduate Assistantships o Web Distance o Commencement

· Program Review

1999-00 o English o Music o Linguistics

2001-02 o History o MPA o Physical Therapy – MS o Exercise Science – MS

2002-03 o SEHS – master’s program (7)

· New Program Possibilities

o Grad Certificate in Nursing o MED in Education o Grad Certificate in Higher Education o Grad Certificate in Business o PhD in Music Education

9. Dedication of Grad Student Service Center Randy Hansen thanked everyone for participating at the open house on April 17th.

10. Other Business Randy Hansen reported that for the past 7 months a group of people from Oakland University has been meeting with Thomas Cooley Law School in Lansing. Cooley is interested in establishing a remote site in Oakland County and approached Oakland University to explore collaboration. It would not be an Oakland University degree nor would our faculty be directly involved. Approximately 20% of their credits would be offered at this site. Other affiliated degree programs under discussion are the LLM in taxation and LLM in intellectual properties. The Provost has made an announcement to the Senate and indicated the program would initially be treated as a pilot program. Randy indicated that Graduate Council would be involved in any evaluation and program approval at the graduate level. Randy will keep everybody posted on the status.

Meeting was adjourned at 3:30 PM. The committee will reconvene Fall 2002.