2004 - 2005 Academic Year - Graduate Council

2004 - 2005 Academic Year

2004-2005 Graduate Council Archives

Agenda/Minutes

September 15, 2004

AGENDA IS NOT AVAILABLE 

OAKLAND UNIVERSITY GRADUATE COUNCIL
MINUTES OF THE MEETING
September 15, 2004

100 KRESGE LIBRARY 
Approved: September 29,2004 

Present: Lisa Hawley, Vincent Khapoya, Krzystof Kobus, Mildred Merz, Sherri Oden, Mohinder Parkash, Claire Rammel, Darlene Schott-Baer, Fikki Shillor, Lorenzo Smith.
Absent:
 Kris Thompson
Guest:
 Susan Saliga
Staff
: Julie Delaney, Lynette Folken 

Call to Order 

Ron Sudol asked Darlene Schott-Baer to be vice chair of Graduate Council for this year. In his absence, the meeting was convened at 2:12 p.m. by Darlene Schott-Baer. 

I. NEW MEMBERS 

Two new members of Graduate Council were present: Meir Shillor, Department of Mathematics and Statistics, and Lorenzo Smith, Department of Mechanical Engineering. Election of Darlene Schott-Baer as vice chair, Claire Rammel as parliamentarian, and Lynette Folken as secretary was deferred until the next meeting. 

II. OVERVIEW OF ACTIVITES 

Claire Rammel invited the Graduate Council members to visit the new Graduate Study web site athttp://www2.oakland.edu/grad where, among many of the new additions, they will find the new thesis and dissertation site, including the new Guide to the Preparation of Theses and Dissertations; a new Application for Graduation; as well as graduate assistant guidelines and forms. 

Ms. Rammel reported CAPP, the curriculum and compliance program offered through Banner, is a module designed to expedite the formal audit of student program requirements and determine degree compliance. Graduate Study and Lifelong Learning has 85% of the graduate programs operating successfully. This is module is a big enhancement for graduate program coordinators, advisers and students. 

III. OLD BUSINESS

MAT in Education (name change from MAT in Secondary Education) and new program track in Elementary Education. 

In winter 2004 semester, the School of Education and Human Services brought to Graduate Council a proposal to make rename the MAT in Secondary Education degree, and to add a new program track in Elementary Education. The School of Education has requested the proposal be held so recent modifications to the MAT in Secondary Education degree be incorporated into the proposal. 

III. UPCOMING AGENDA ITEMS 

a) Graduate program review 

Claire Rammel informed the members that the Council will revisit the topic of graduate program review guidelines this semester. The guidelines developed in 2003 by the Graduate Council subcommittee were used to review the MPA program. The subcommittee was not satisfied with the results from using the new design and subsequently, the guidelines were tabled. Program reviews must continue, so until new guidelines have been adopted, current guidelines will be used for scheduled program reviews this year. 

b) New proposals 

Proposals for new programs are coming from the School of Health Sciences and the School of Nursing this fall.

c) Continuous enrollment

A proposal to implement a continuous registration enrollment policy was submitted and approved at the recent deans’ retreat. Claire Rammel will circulate the policy at the next Council meeting. 

III. ADJOURNMENT 

The meeting was adjourned at 3:25 p.m. The next meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, April 28, 2004.

September 29, 2004

OAKLAND UNIVERSITY GRADUATE COUNCIL

AGENDA IS NOT AVAILABLE

MINUTES OF THE MEETING
September 29, 2004

100 KRESGE LIBRARY 
Approved: 

Present: Lisa Hawley, Vincent Khapoya, Krzystof Kobus, Mildred Merz, Sherri Oden, Claire Rammel, Darlene Schott-Baer, Meir Shillor, Kris Thompson.
Absent:
 Mohinder Parkash, Lorenzo Smith.
Staff: 
Julie Delaney, Lynette Folken 

Call to Order

This meeting was convened at 2:15 p.m. by Ronald Sudol, Associate Provost. 

I. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 

The MOTION to approve the minutes of September 15, 2004 was made, Seconded 
and Passed, unanimously. 

II. REPORT OF THE CHAIR

Ron Sudol had nothing to report.

III. ELECTION OF GRADUATE COUNCIL OFFICERS

MOTION was made, Seconded and Passed to accept the appointment of Darlene Schott-Baer as Vice-Chair, Claire Rammel as Parliamentarian and Lynette Folken as Secretary.

IV. REPORT ON ADMIN 701 

Claire Rammel reported that undergraduate admissions is now using ADMIN 701; November 1 is the tentative “go live” date for Graduate Study. Training is scheduled for October 25 to 29—with on-line training available thereafter. The training will involve, among others, program coordinators, advising faculty, and those who need to review graduate student files. The objective is to familiarize as many people as possible with the system.

Ms. Rammel added that a “record retention” module was purchased, providing the ability to make other information, currently retained in the student file, available to the institution using the on-line system e.g., petitions of exception, transfer credit, plans of study, etc. 

V. POLICY COMMITTEE UPDATE 

VI. Claire Rammel informed the members that the policy subcommittee had met and discussed several policy issues.The first project will be the development of a web document structured to provide general guidance to both students and faculty involved with master’s and doctoral programs. Initial focus will be on issues such as thesis and dissertation committee composition and forms to monitor student academic progress.

VII. NEW BUSINESS

a) CONTINUOUS ENROLLMENT FOR DOCTORAL STUDENTS POLICY 

Claire Rammel introduced the continuous enrollment policy proposal for doctoral students as approved by the deans at their retreat. The objectives are numerous and include the ability to track students who have interrupted their graduate study, as well as the capability to minimize the time required to complete degrees and avoid the accumulation of over-age credits. The deans have asked the Graduate Council to review the proposed policy and to recommend its support. 

The proposal sets forth two components: continuous enrollment and leave of absence. 

The continuous enrollment policy for doctoral students requires continuous registration of students for at least one credit hour each semester in the academic year, to maintain an active graduate student status. This includes semesters in which the comprehensive, preliminary or qualifying examinations is taken and the dissertation is defended, and includes each subsequent term (fall and winter) until the degree requirements are met and the dissertation is submitted to the Office of Graduate Study. Continuous enrollment is met by registration in a graduate-level course relevant to the student’s academic program. Doctoral students who have completed all credits required for their degree may register for GCE 800. This course will be assessed at the “graduate continuous enrollment’ rate (approximately $300) and will not count toward a degree. 

When circumstances arise that may cause an interruption in graduate study, students must apply for a leave of absence which must be approved by their advisory committee and dean. A student on official “leave of absence” is NOT entitled to any services from the university during the leave, including demands upon faculty or adviser time, and may not receive a fellowship, assistantship, or financial aid.

Doctoral students who do not maintain continuous enrollment and have NOT been granted an official leave of absence are subject to termination of admission to the program, based on recommendation of the department and approval by the academic dean. 

To the question posed by Kris Thompson about whether or not the policy could be applied to Master’s students, Ms. Rammel replied the proposed policy had an option of including Master’s students; however, the deans supported a policy governing continuous enrollment for doctoral students only, at this time, with a target date of fall semester 2005.

Darlene Schott-Baer recommended that this policy be published in the graduate catalog. Vince Khapoya commented that it will be necessary for (advisory) committees and major professors to work closely with their students.

A motion was made by Darlene Schott-Baer and seconded by Ron Sudol to approve the first reading of the proposal. The motion was unanimously approved. 

A motion was made, and seconded, to waive a second reading of the proposal, and was unanimously approved. 

A motion was made, and seconded, to approve the proposal, and was unanimously approved. 

VIII. OLD BUSINESS

a) Second Reading: Master of Science in Safety Management Program

Charles McGlothlin presented the new version of the program proposal which includes changes suggested by the Council at the first reading last spring. It was suggested that an assessment plan be included with the proposal. Vincent Khapoya expressed his concerns regarding the rapid decision to approve the new degree. He suggested one additional reading would provide council members an opportunity to study the proposal in more detail. Claire Rammel reminded the Council this proposal required Board approval. She asked if council believed the proposal adequately addressed the issue of sufficient faculty resources. A motion was made by Kris Kobus, and seconded by Kris Thompson to approve the proposal, and was approved.

 IX. GOOD AND WELFARE

Darlene Schott-Baer asked the members to consider the content of faculty vita when included with new program proposals. She asked for suggestions on what information would be relevant to Graduate Council and Senate members in their review. Discussion ensued with the following suggestions. Vita should: 

  • be no more than one or two pages in length,
  • include credentials,
  • include only the most recent publications,
  • include information on grants received,
  • include information that applies only to teaching the new program being proposed.

 

III. ADJOURNMENT

The meeting was adjourned at 4:00 p.m. The n

October 27, 2004

GRADUATE COUNCIL AGENDA 

October 27, 2004 
2:00 PM 
100 KRESGE LIBRARY 

1. Call to order 

2. Approve the minutes of September 29, 2004. 

3. Approve the minutes of May 12, 2004. 

4. Report of the Chair 

5. Informational Items

(a) Course addition to Family Nurse Practitioner Program (SON) 

6. Old Business 

a) MTD Revisions 

7. Graduate Program Revision Guidelines 

8. Good and welfare

MINUTES ARE NOT AVAILABLE

November 12, 2004

OAKLAND UNIVERSITY GRADUATE COUNCIL

AGENDA IS NOT AVAILABLE

MINUTES OF THE MEETING
November 17, 2004

100 KRESGE LIBRARY 
Approved: January 19, 2005

Present: Lisa Hawley, Vincent Khapoya, Mildred Merz, Sherri Oden, Mohinder Parkash, Claire Rammel, Darlene Schott-Baer, Meir Shillor, Lorenzo Smith, Kris Thompson.
Absent: 
Krzystof Kobus, Ron Sudol
Staff:
 Lynette Folken

Call to Order

This meeting was convened at 2:10 p.m. by Darlene Schott-Baer, vice chair of Graduate Council.

I. REPORT OF THE CHAIR

Darlene Schott-Baer summarized the new process for program proposal review. Under the new process, program proposals will be assigned to a 3-person review team. The teams will be rotated with each new proposal, preventing any one review team from being overburdened. The review team will be responsible for completing a comprehensive evaluation of the proposal, including one member focusing on budget and one member focusing on faculty resources. The third team member will be identified as the primary reviewer. This person will be responsible for presenting to Graduate Council a written summary of the team findings and an outline of potential questions, concerns and/or supplemental documents deemed essential to comprehending the proposal. Before inviting department representation to Graduate Council for the first reading, the review team will present their findings and lead members through discussion. During discussion, Graduate Council will agree on final outline of potential questions, concerns and/or supplemental documents. The outline will be submitted to the department representative prior to the first reading for action. The process is designed to enhance the review process. All members of Graduate Council are expected to ask questions based on their own assessment of the proposal.

Kris Thompson suggested that department representatives should be present at the first meeting, so that they would be able to gain an understanding of the questions or concerns posed by the presenters. Ms. Schott-Baer suggested departments be reminded to write program proposals using a writing style that allows all readers, not just those associated with the discipline, to understand and comprehend. After lengthy discussion, it was agreed that council membership would benefit from the opportunity to discuss proposals at length and formulate questions prior to the attendance of the department representatives.

 

II. NEW BUSINESS

a) Introduction of Doctor of Nursing Practice (DNP)

b) Proposal Review Team: Vince Khapoya (primary reviewer), Mohinder Parkash (budget), Meir Shillor (faculty resources) 

Mr. Khapoya will outline findings at the January 19 Graduate Council meeting. 

Mr. Parkash queried University intention of the budget proforma template. He pointed out to council the current form shows only incremental revenue and expenses not income and suggested that the current budget proforma template should be reformatted. In reply, Darlene Schott-Baer suggested that Mr. Parkash submit a draft for a new form, along with written explanations of the suggested changes. With support of Graduate Council, the draft could be forwarded to Provost. 

Mr. Parkash was prepared to present his review of the DNP budget. He questioned whether one faculty would be enough to absorb the extra credits generated by the new program. He suggested the following: 

  • Request one full-time faculty member for the first year and add part-time faculty in years two, three and four,
  • Recalculate general service fee entry. 

He noted that Kresge Library had suggested a library budget of at least $15,000 but the proposal submitted by the School of Nursing requested only $5,000. 

Mr. Shillor was also concerned whether one additional faculty would be adequate to absorb the extra credits, especially the 8-credit research component. Mr. Parkash noted that the proposal included positions for a lab assistant and statistical support. Ms. Schott-Baer responded that the current part-time lab support would have to be increased to full time, possibly including weekends, and outlined explained purpose of statistical support. Mr. Shillor offered to work one-on-one with Ms. Schott-Baer to re-evaluate formula used to calculate faculty/staff resources and express those measures clearly in the proposal.

III. GOOD AND WELFARE

Claire Rammel indicated she has been asked by several faculty and department administrators to provide a list of OU course types with a definition. Example: Independent Study (course type) with a definition (what is an independent study). She distributed the best sample of university course types and their descriptions found through researching other sources. She suggested members review the document in preparation for further discussion at a future meeting.

IV. ADJOURNMENT

The meeting was adjourned at 4:00 p.m. The December meeting is cancelled. The next meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, January 19, 2005.

 

OAKLAND UNIVERSITY GRADUATE COUNCIL
MINUTES OF THE MEETING
November 17, 2004

100 KRESGE LIBRARY 
Approved: January 19, 2005 

Present: Lisa Hawley, Vincent Khapoya, Mildred Merz, Sherri Oden, Mohinder Parkash, Claire Rammel, Darlene Schott-Baer, Meir Shillor, Lorenzo Smith, Kris Thompson.
Absent: 
Krzystof Kobus, Ron Sudol
Staff:
 Lynette Folken

Call to Order

This meeting was convened at 2:10 p.m. by Darlene Schott-Baer, vice chair of Graduate Council.

I. REPORT OF THE CHAIR 

Darlene Schott-Baer summarized the new process for program proposal review. Under the new process, program proposals will be assigned to a 3-person review team. The teams will be rotated with each new proposal, preventing any one review team from being overburdened. The review team will be responsible for completing a comprehensive evaluation of the proposal, including one member focusing on budget and one member focusing on faculty resources. The third team member will be identified as the primary reviewer. This person will be responsible for presenting to Graduate Council a written summary of the team findings and an outline of potential questions, concerns and/or supplemental documents deemed essential to comprehending the proposal. Before inviting department representation to Graduate Council for the first reading, the review team will present their findings and lead members through discussion. During discussion, Graduate Council will agree on final outline of potential questions, concerns and/or supplemental documents. The outline will be submitted to the department representative prior to the first reading for action. The process is designed to enhance the review process. All members of Graduate Council are expected to ask questions based on their own assessment of the proposal. 

Kris Thompson suggested that department representatives should be present at the first meeting, so that they would be able to gain an understanding of the questions or concerns posed by the presenters. Ms. Schott-Baer suggested departments be reminded to write program proposals using a writing style that allows all readers, not just those associated with the discipline, to understand and comprehend. After lengthy discussion, it was agreed that council membership would benefit from the opportunity to discuss proposals at length and formulate questions prior to the attendance of the department representatives. 

II. NEW BUSINESS

a) Introduction of Doctor of Nursing Practice (DNP)

b) Proposal Review Team: Vince Khapoya (primary reviewer), Mohinder Parkash (budget), Meir Shillor (faculty resources)

Mr. Khapoya will outline findings at the January 19 Graduate Council meeting. 

Mr. Parkash queried University intention of the budget proforma template. He pointed out to council the current form shows only incremental revenue and expenses not income and suggested that the current budget proforma template should be reformatted. In reply, Darlene Schott-Baer suggested that Mr. Parkash submit a draft for a new form, along with written explanations of the suggested changes. With support of Graduate Council, the draft could be forwarded to Provost.

Mr. Parkash was prepared to present his review of the DNP budget. He questioned whether one faculty would be enough to absorb the extra credits generated by the new program. He suggested the following:

  • Request one full-time faculty member for the first year and add part-time faculty in years two, three and four,
  • Recalculate general service fee entry.

He noted that Kresge Library had suggested a library budget of at least $15,000 but the proposal submitted by the School of Nursing requested only $5,000.

Mr. Shillor was also concerned whether one additional faculty would be adequate to absorb the extra credits, especially the 8-credit research component. Mr. Parkash noted that the proposal included positions for a lab assistant and statistical support. Ms. Schott-Baer responded that the current part-time lab support would have to be increased to full time, possibly including weekends, and outlined explained purpose of statistical support. Mr. Shillor offered to work one-on-one with Ms. Schott-Baer to re-evaluate formula used to calculate faculty/staff resources and express those measures clearly in the proposal.

III. GOOD AND WELFARE

Claire Rammel indicated she has been asked by several faculty and department administrators to provide a list of OU course types with a definition. Example: Independent Study (course type) with a definition (what is an independent study). She distributed the best sample of university course types and their descriptions found through researching other sources. She suggested members review the document in preparation for further discussion at a future meeting.

IV. ADJOURNMENT

The meeting was adjourned at 4:00 p.m. The December meeting is cancelled. The next meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, January 19, 2005.

December 10, 2004

OAKLAND UNIVERSITY GRADUATE COUNCIL 

AGENDA NOT AVAILABLE

MINUTES OF THE MEETING 
December 10, 2003 

100 KRESGE LIBRARY 
Approved:

Present: Ronald Sudol, Lisa Hawley, Vincent Khapoya, Kathleen Moore, Mildred Merz, Sherri Oden, Claire Rammel, Darlene Schott-Baer, Ishwar Sethi, Kris Thompson. Absent: Mohinder Parkash Staff: Lynette Folken

Call to Order 
This meeting was convened at 2:10 p.m. by Ronald Sudol, Associate Provost.

I. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 
The MOTION to approve the minutes of November 12, 2003 as corrected was made, Seconded and Passed, unanimously.

II. REPORT OF THE CHAIR 
Budget Ron Sudol reported that he had no information to share about the budget, other than a 5% cut in higher education state funding. He reported universities could qualify for a 3% cut, if they can hold tuition below a certain level. Claire Rammel reported that early in January there are two budget retreats planned. The first retreat in the budget review process is a support meeting for the administrative groups. Because these groups have limited resources and no revenue funds, their units will be examined to see if and how services might be consolidated. The second retreat will be with all members of the academic council, where budget proposals will be presented for each of the units within Academic Affairs. Mr. Sudol reminded all Graduate Council members that we have to be vigilant to ensure the academic quality of graduate programs. Commencement Participation for Doctoral Students Ron Sudol reported many faculty expressed their concerns during Senate that the new academic calendar was developed to accommodate commencement dates. Mr. Sudol said that he had been on the committee for scheduling the ceremony and explained some of the problems involved in finding an acceptable date. In the end, he reminded those present that this is a ceremony that revolves around the students and their families, and the committee had to settle on a date that was most convenient for that constituency. Claire Rammel indicated many graduate faculty advisors have raised concerns that the printer deadline for publishing the commencement program are preventing doctoral students from participating in the ceremony. The Provost Office is responsible for the publication of the commencement program. It is their printing deadlines for two semesters that conflict with the submission deadline for doctoral dissertations. It was decided that the matter should be discussed further with the Provost Office. Mr. Sudol then opened a discussion about awarding graduate certificates, in addition to diplomas, during the commencement ceremony. Brian Goslin, School of Health Sciences, would like two of his graduate certificate students to participate in commencement. Vince Khapoya asked if this is the practice elsewhere. In reply, Claire Rammel said that she was not aware of any institutions that allow this. Commencement is a ceremony (with regalia) to confer degrees. Some universities hold separate ceremonies in the schools and colleges. She suggested perhaps these individual ceremonies might be an appropriate forum for recognizing certificate awards. Mr. Khapoya asked about the practice for people who are awarded degrees with certificates. Claire Rammel replied that only the degree name is printed in the commencement program and conferred at commencement; while both the degree and the certificate are listed on the student’s transcript. In summation, Mr. Sudol stated that the main purpose of commencement is to award degrees. Graduate certificates are more professional in nature, relating to careers and licensing. He will reply to Mr. Goslin’s request, expressing a lack of support from the Graduate Council. Mr. Khapoya proceeded to ask the council to consider a change to the doctoral listings in the commencement program. At present, only the title of the dissertation is listed. He suggested that, as key information, the name of the student’s mentor and the name of the student’s baccalaureate institution should be included. With the council’s support, Mr. Sudol said that the issue would be taken to the Provost Office for discussion.

III. OLD BUSINESS: 
Second Reading - Post Master’s Certificate for Adult/Gerontological Nurse Practitioner

MOTION was made, seconded and passed to APPROVE the proposed Post Master’s Certificate for Adult/Gerontological Nurse Practitioner, contingent upon updates to the admission requirements.

IV. NEW BUSINESS 
First Reading – Master of Science in Nursing/Acute Care Admissions for the MSN/Adult Health were put on hold last year, because of low enrollment and subsequent budgetary reasons. Dean Linda Thompson has reported that Henry Ford Hospital has shown an interest in an acute care program. She has suggested the reactivation of the old MSN in Nursing/Adult Health program, with some minor revisions, including changing the name of the track to Master of Science in Nursing/Acute Care. Henry Ford is very interested, but insists that all the clinical courses would be in the field of acute care. The proposed program would prepare an acute care (adult) clinical nurse specialist prepared to practice in the hospital setting. The acute care program would be offered as an off-campus incentive program. Formation of a minimum cohort will be required before specialty courses can be offered. Students will take the foundation and clinical core courses with the students in the existing Family Nurse Practitioner, Adult/Gerontological Nurse Practitioner and Nursing Education programs. In reply to a question asked about budgetary implications, Ms. Schott-Baer stated that the program would be self-supporting. It would need 15 students to break even on the specialty courses.

MOTION was made, seconded and passed to WAIVE the second reading.

MOTION was made, seconded and passed to APPROVE the proposed Master of Science in Nursing/Acute Care. First Reading – Graduate Nomenclature Claire Rammel provided a history on the need for the proposed graduate nomenclature. Discussion followed. Darlene Schott-Baer suggested that “certificates” be added to the list. Ms. Rammel noted the connection between nomenclature and financial aid eligibility. It was suggested that eligibility of financial aid should be included in proposal guidelines. The topic of nomenclature will be brought to the council again, after some of the members have taken it to their faculty for review.

V. GOOD AND WELFARE 
Claire Rammel reported that she has another meeting scheduled with the legal department to review the most recent version of the graduate assistantship letter. This latest version is similar to that used at other universities where the graduate assistantship letter is comprised of two documents: a congratulatory cover letter and a separate contractual piece.

VI. ADJOURNMENT 
The meeting was adjourned at 3:30 p.m. The next meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, January 14, 2004.

January 19, 2005

GRADUATE COUNCIL AGENDA 

January 19, 2005 

2:00 PM 

100 KRESGE LIBRARY

 

1. Call to order. 

2. Approve the minutes of May 12, 2004September 29, 2004; and November 17, 2004. 

3. Report of the Chair 

4. Informational Items 

a. Course addition to Family Nurse Practitioner Program (SON)

b. Update from Academic Council: Embargo Act 

5. Old Business 

a. Review team report and discussion: Doctor of Nursing Practice (DNP) 

6. New Business 

a. Announcement of new proposal and assignment of review team: Doctor of Philosophy in Music Education 

7. Good and Welfare

 

 

MINUTES OF THE MEETING
January 19, 2005

100 KRESGE LIBRARY 
Approved: February 9, 2005 

Present: Lisa Hawley, Vincent Khapoya, Krzystof Kobus, Mildred Merz, Sherri Oden, Mohinder Parkash, Claire Rammel, Meir Shillor, Lorenzo Smith, Ron Sudol, Kris Thompson.
Absent: 
Darlene Schott-Baer
Staff: 
Julie Delaney, Lynette Folken 

Call to Order

This meeting was convened at 2:17 p.m. by Ron Sudol, chair of Graduate Council.

I. REPORT OF THE CHAIR 

Ron Sudol introduced to the Council members three recent graduate issues to illustrate just a few examples of daily policy challenges encountered by Claire Rammel in Graduate Study and himself through the Provost Office. The three areas were: 1) a request for an exception to an institutional admission policy, 2) a request for an exception to substitute an off-campus seminar for a required internship, and 3) a request for an exception submitted by a student who wished to ignore a stipulated degree requirement against the advice of the program adviser. No action required by Council, but he felt the information may be useful to formulating future policy directions.

Mr. Sudol announced Claire Rammel’s appointment to the Senate Planning Review Committee and asked her to share information of interest with Council. Ms. Rammel reported that a recent meeting involved a discussion of grades. She took the opportunity to raise the issue of grade changes and appeals as discussed by Graduate Council this Fall. The discussion focused on whether a time limit exists for grade changes (aside from “P” and “I” grades). Should a student be able to challenge a grade two years after completing a course AND should faculty be expected to respond? What happens when the appeal involves a part-time faculty member or a retired faculty member? As with Graduate Council, the SPRC believes parameters should be provided to establish policy for both faculty and students. Without policy, the current trend will result in a practice requiring faculty to respond to grade challenges for unlimited years. The Registrar is experiencing similar issues at the undergraduate level. 

The University does not currently have a grade appeal policy. The Registrar has expressed a need for a policy which sets a time limitation on grade appeal requests. SPRC members believed Ms. Rammel should work with Graduate Council to draft a proposal and submit for review. 

II. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS 

Ms. Rammel reported Graduate Study had approved a request from the School of Nursing to add NRS 631 Health Promotion (2-credits) as a clinical core course to the Family Nurse Practitioner program curriculum. This course will increase the total program credits from 45 to 47. 

Ms. Rammel distributed a brief written summary of the Department of Commerce Export Administration Amendments Act and the Arms Export Control Act she received in Academic Council. The Export Administration Act deals with the export of knowledge, technology and data. The Act tends to restrict proprietary research, Department of Defense/Armed Forces research and other forms of classified research. Since the Act does impact both our faculty and graduate students, she encouraged members to read. Questions should be directed to the Grants and Sponsored Research Office. 

III. OLD BUSINESS 

a) Proposal Review Team presentation/Council discussion: Doctor of Nursing Practice (DNP)

Proposal Review Team: Vince Khapoya (primary reviewer), Mohinder Parkash (budget), Meir Shillor (faculty resources) 

Vince Khapoya provided a summary of the DNP proposal to those present, offering several questions and concerns to be addressed by the School of Nursing. Meir Shillor reported that he had been working one-on-one with the School of Nursing’s representative, Darlene Schott-Baer, regarding the faculty resources assessment. Following Mohinder Parkash’s report on the proposed budget, extensive discussion ensued resulting in expression of the following concerns and requests for further information to be provided by the School of Nursing. The following questions were submitted to Darlene Schott-Baer for review, modification and/or comments before first reading (February 9, 2005 Graduate Council meeting). 

1. An effective term to begin this new program is not stated.

2. Since no DNP program exists in Michigan, information that compares the proposed DNP to similar programs outside of Michigan is lacking. The University of Kentucky is mentioned as the first institution to initiate a DNP program, but there is no specific information on design or how well the program has done. Other institutions offering DNP besides the University of Kentucky?

3. In the section dealing with sources of students, a statement is made that on-site preceptors would supervise clinical experiences in specialty courses. 

a. There is no information outlining required qualifications OR how these preceptors would be selected.

b. How would the preceptor role be coordinated with out of state programs?

c. The proposal states on-line and distant delivery as a mode for instruction. The anesthesia programs in Marquette and Kalamazoo are examples provided to illustrate successful off-site distance programs. However, no information is included to describe the type of facilities used for these programs. Are they located in hospitals or colleges or some other clinics? 

4. On p.5 in the section concerning the sources of advice and consultation, the statement should be broadened to indicate that consultations with AACN regarding doctoral and master's programs are on-going and not just limited to the first conference in 2004 and forthcoming conferences in 2005. 

5. On p.6, it is mentioned that the DNP degree is envisaged as the minimally accepted academic credential for nurse practitioners, nurse anesthetists, clinical nurse specialists, and nurse midwives. The statement raises the following questions:

a. What will happen to MSN degree holders?

b. Is the MSN going to be phased out?

c. How consistent is this projection with the goal of DNP which was stated earlier as producing clinical leaders in service and academic settings?

d. Is this goal being driven and supported by the AACN?

e. Will there be an exit path for BSN students entering the program and later request to withdraw with MSN? 

6. On p.7, it is mentioned that

February 9, 2005

OAKLAND UNIVERSITY GRADUATE COUNCIL

AGENDA NOT AVAILABLE

MINUTES OF THE MEETING
February 9, 2005

100 KRESGE LIBRARY 
Approved: February 23, 2005 

Present: Lisa Hawley, Vincent Khapoya, Krzystof Kobus, Mildred Merz, Sherri Oden, Mohinder Parkash, Claire Rammel, Darlene Schott-Baer, Meir Shillor, Lorenzo Smith, Ron Sudol, Kris Thompson.
Absent: 
No absences
Staff: 
Julie Delaney, Lynette Folken 

Call to Order

This meeting was convened at 2:15 p.m. by Ron Sudol, chair of Graduate Council.

 

I. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 

The MOTION to approve the minutes of January 19, 2005 as corrected was made, 
Seconded and Passed, unanimously. 

II. REPORT OF THE CHAIR
Ron Sudol stated that he would like to implement a change in the way programs are reviewed.

Citing a recent example of an undergraduate program being approved in a “non-standard” pattern, Mr. Sudol suggested that at some early stage—before submission to Graduate Council—the sponsor of the proposed new program should meet with a technical group consisting of the Registrar, the director of Institutional Research, Susan Awbrey, Claire Rammel, Ron Sudol, and perhaps the Dean to go through a check list of rubrics, codes, transfer requirements, prerequisites, and catalog issues, etc. 

Claire Rammel indicated this process has been the practice for graduate proposals for many years. Given the plethora of majors and minors, as well as the complexity of general education requirements of undergraduate education, this approach would certainly be beneficial to undergraduate programs. 

Mr. Sudol stated that another element of his new program submission proposal was the establishment of review deadlines. After the technical group goes through the checklist, a schedule for the program would be produced with a list of target dates for 1) first reading by Graduate Council, 2) distribution to and return from the Senate Planning Review Committee and the Budget Committee, 3) second reading by Graduate Council, and 4) submission to the Senate.

Mildred Merz asked at what point the proposal review team (primary reader, budget reviewer, and faculty resource reviewer) would get the proposal. In response, Mr. Sudol concurred that the proposal review team would receive the proposal before the scheduled first reading.

A question was posed to Mr. Sudol regarding the performance of the Master of Arts in Liberal Studies program. Mr. Sudol indicated the program is dependent on other departments for their curriculum delivery. This is being handled through cross listed courses, and it has been difficult to get faculty released to teach the courses. Mr. Khapoya reported that he was invited to teach a graduate course that included 300-level students and was “horrified” that graduate students would be sitting through elementary course material required for 300-level students and earning graduate credit. Graduate Council supported Mr. Khapoya’s concerns and agreed problems exist in using 300-level courses to deliver graduate credit, even when some “extra work” is required of graduate students.

Ms. Rammel added many departments are delivering entire graduate programs by cross listing 300-level undergraduate courses with graduate courses. The difference between course requirements for undergraduate and graduate enrollees is the addition of an extra research paper to be accomplished by the graduate students. She has received several complaints from graduate students enrolled in these cross-listed courses. Most student complaints are focused on paying graduate tuition and not believing they are getting a graduate education. Faculty have expressed strong concerns about having to teach toward two populations of students. 

Current graduate policy states, “Courses numbered 300 to 499 are advanced courses primarily for undergraduates. A graduate student, with the approval of departmental adviser, may use a maximum of 12 credits of 400-499 courses taken at Oakland University toward a graduate degree. A standard exception will be made for interdisciplinary programs. To assist students in acquiring the requisite background for interdisciplinary degree programs, graduate credit may be granted for up to 12 credits in courses numbered 300-499 that are NOT in the students’ major field of study.” However, a problem exists in the interpretation of the “cross listing” graduate policy. In order to accommodate the “interdisciplinary degree programs” the policy must allow 300-level courses to be cross-listed. This policy needs to be clarified and published. 

Requests to cross list courses should go through Graduate Council governance via a course action form; however, these requests are not being routed through any governance process, and cross listing is happening at the time of section scheduling. Graduate Study is trying to enforce the policy that states 300-level courses cannot be cross listed with graduate courses except those courses that are interdisciplinary, but there is no definition of interdisciplinary. Ms. Rammel feels that this issue needs to be addressed by Graduate Council. 

 

III. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS

At the request of the Senate Planning Review Committee, Claire Rammel and Susan Awbrey will submit a proposal outlining time limitation parameters for grade changes and appeals.

Thomas M. Cooley Law School and the School of Business Administration are still working on a proposal to offer a joint MBA/JD degree.

The Department of Political Science is working on proposals for two graduate certificates. Two existing concentrations in the MPA program will be expanded into graduate certificates. 

 

IV. NEW BUSINESS 

When a new track was approved for the MEd Educational Studies program, concerns were raised by Graduate Council regarding the large number of electives offered. The program offered four required core courses, 29 elective courses, and one collaborative action research course. Consequently, Graduate Council requested a report to be submitted within one year which focused on the elective issue. Claire Rammel distributed an updated list from the department organizing elective courses into categories. She asked whether members would like to discuss these changes with a department representative or if they needed more information. Darlene Schott-Baer noted that more courses had been added to the list and questioned how this would affect the advisement load. Julie Delaney stated she would like to see credit ranges added and questioned whether these were all degree specific courses or courses used in off-site professional development programs. 

 

V. OLD BUSINESS

First Reading: Doctor of Nursing Practice (DNP)

Darlene Schott-Baer submitted a revised proposal which included responses to Graduate Council’s questions. Ms. Schott-Baer advised the members that the proposal will be resubmitted to the Graduate Committee on Instruction in the School of Nursing. The Committee needs to support the proposed change – from BSN-DNP to post-MSN-DNP. Ms. Schott-Baer expressed difficulty in getting support letters to bolster the proposal because this is a new program, offered at only one other institution. Vince Khapoya was concerned that it will be hard to market the program without support documentation. Several members suggested groups that Nursing might consider for providing such documentation.

Ms. Schott-Baer stated the current library budget is a concern: $25,000 for the first year and $36,600 by year five. Mildred Merz replied that the library budget is complicated by the fact that the program would be delivered so heavily on line, and the minimum acceptable budget would be $10,000. Ms. Schott-Baer indicated that the library budget would be discussed further.

Ms. Rammel indicated the proposed chart presented by Ms. Schott-Baer seemed to work backwards—should be MSN degree + plus credits, not DNP degree - minus credits. Under the current proposal, prospective students not only have to be MSN prepared, but need to meet other criteria to be eligible for final DNP certification. Therefore, depending on the MSN focus, additional credits may be required for prospective students beyond the MSN degree. She suggested changing the wording in the proposal to clarify the requirements. Mohinder Parkash pointed out that, if that is true, then the incremental credit hours are 31, and the budget should be modified to account for additional credit delivery.

 

VI. ADJOURNMENT 

The meeting was adjourned at 4:10 p.m. The next meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, February 23, 2005.

February 23, 2005

GRADUATE COUNCIL AGENDA

February 23, 2005 

2:00 PM 
100 KRESGE LIBRARY
 

1. Call to order. 

2. Approve the minutes of February 9, 2005.

3. Report of the Chair 

4. Informational Items 

5. Old Business

a. Review team report and discussion: Doctor of Philosophy in Music Education. 

6. New Business 

a. Number of graduate courses offered by academic disciplines that do not offer a graduate degree 

b. Leave of absence policy 

c. UMI microfilming fees 

7. Good and Welfare 


 

MINUTES OF THE MEETING

February 23, 2005
100 KRESGE LIBRARY 
Approved: 

Present: Krzystof Kobus, Lisa Hawley, Mildred Merz, Sherri Oden, Mohinder Parkash, Claire Rammel, Darlene Schott-Baer, Meir Shillor, Ron Sudol
Absent: 
Vincent Khapoya, Lorenzo Smith (excused), and Kris Thompson
Staff: 
Julie Delaney, Lynette Folken 

Call to Order
This meeting was convened at 2:20 p.m. by Ron Sudol, chair of Graduate Council. 

I. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The MOTION to approve the minutes of February 9, 2005 as corrected was made, Seconded and Passed, unanimously. II. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS 

Claire Rammel reported a joint meeting of the Admin 701 team and OU Undergraduate Admissions, Graduate Admissions and University IT is scheduled for February 24th. The group plans to identify issues that must be resolved before graduate study can “go live” by the July 1st deadline. This includes decision routing for program coordinators and document workflow process. At this time, Undergraduate Admissions is live.

III. OLD BUSINESS
Ron Sudol inquired about the status of the Doctor of Nursing Practice (DNP) program proposal. Darlene Schott-Baer replied revisions to the proposal have been completed, with the proposal scheduled for final review by School of Nursing faculty this week. It will then be resubmitted to Graduate Council for further review and approval recommendation. Ms. Schott-Baer submitted a packet of emails, from several external sources, that document support and market need for the DNP program. These emails were circulated to the proposal review team, with one set available to graduate council members in Graduate Study (520 O’Dowd Hall).  

IV. NEW BUSINESS
a) Ph.D. in Music Education: Proposal Review Team presentation/Council discussion

Proposal Review Team: Meir Shillor (primary reviewer), Mohinder Parkash (budget), Sherri Oden (faculty resources) 

Meir Shillor provided a summary of a new Ph.D. in Music Education program proposal to be administered by the Department of Music, Theatre and Dance in the College of Arts and Sciences. Currently, music education students are enrolled in the Ph.D. in Education with a major in Educational Leadership and a cognate in Music Education which is administered by the Department of Educational Leadership in the School of Education and Human Services. The College is proposing a new PhD in Music Education degree, requiring 76 post-master’s credit hours and adhering to the existing academic structure of the PhD in Education program. 

The rationale for the proposed program being:

  • Uniqueness of program
  • Enrollment limits. SEHS limits the existing program to 3 music education students per year. MTD already has 6 doctoral students (3 in year 1; 3 in year 2). The department had to turn away one student.
  • Diversity of student interests. In the existing program, the curriculum focus is on educational leadership. MTD wants to create more flexibility in the curriculum, so students could take more music courses.
  • Ability to produce highly qualified music educators. 

Discussion ensued with the following questions and/or concerns being raised: 

1. Enrollment limits, currently imposed by SEHS, was identified as one reason for creating a new PhD degree in the College. However, on page 4 of the proposal, the department is requesting flexibility to admit excellent students, but will NOT seek to admit more than approximately 3 students each year. This approach is designed not to overburden Music Department and guard against having too many students for the SEHS courses. Could same flexibility be addressed in current program, rather than creating a new degree? What is the gain? 

2. The proposal does not state whether the 16-credit dissertation must be completed in one year or could it be completed in one term. It was suggested that the dissertation requirement be expanded from 16 to 24 credits and to require it be completed in a year and a half, so that there is a commitment that something will come out of it that is worthwhile.

3. What is the scope of the dissertation? How much originality? Is it expected to be published? Some programs have expectations that the research is new and that it is publishable.

4. The dissertation defense has to be open to the public.

5. Dissertation should be changed from numerical grade to pass/fail.

6. The proposal states that they are using the SEHS doctoral framework. Proposed changes do NOT adhere to existing SEHS doctoral framework. Need to make modifications to conform OR develop their own CAS framework.

7. The proposal states that only one member of the doctoral committee has to be from Music. If that is the case, the SEHS guidelines are not being followed; the committee structure in SEHS does not allow for just one Education committee member. 

8. Since students are required to have a Master’s degree to be admitted to the program, will they have taken some of the Music Education courses (20 credits) and, if so, will they have to take them again? What do they do?

9. The new degree would be located in the College, but SEHS would still be responsible for teaching 8 of the 12 credits required in the foundation area AND 12 credits to satisfy education area (total of 20 credits). There needs to be a commitment from the dean of SEHS to pay for these education courses? What is the status of the funding stream? Currently SEHS restricts Music admissions to 3 students in these courses. Will these restrictions be removed? If restrictions removed, then enrollment limit rationale has been eliminated.

10. MTD doesn’t have enough people to serve on the committees: 1 full professor, 2 associate professors and 2 assistant professors. If they accept 3 or 4 students per year, as projected, they will have 12-16 active students. They state that they want to have the dissertation adviser start advising during the second year of the student’s enrollment which means that each student will have an adviser for 3 years. Given the number of students, it appears that each faculty member will have 3 or 4 doctoral advisees. This is in addition to thesis advising for the Master’s degree.

The biggest concern is the committee work. If they have 3 or 4 committees, they are going to be made up of the same professors. The department has a lack within to form committees, and there is no clear statement about how many department members will be on the committees. Some of the faculty members are professors in performance, and it isn’t clear how many of these professors would serve on a committee. It doesn’t appear reasonable to have several of these faculty as committee members when the focus is to guide dissertation research.

11. How many students at a time would they be advising? Both Master’s and doctoral.

March 16, 2005

GRADUATE COUNCIL AGENDA

March 16, 2005 

2:00 PM 
100 KRESGE LIBRARY

1. Call to order. 

2. Approve the minutes of February 23, 2005. 

3. Report of the Chair 

4. Informational Items 

5. New Business 

a) Policy Recommendation: New Graduate Course Approval for Areas without Graduate Degrees.

b) Proposal Post-Master’s Certificate in Local Government Management and

c) Proposal Post-Master’s Certificate in Non-Profit Organization and Management

d) Proposal Criminal Justice Leadership Concentration (MPA)

e) School of Nursing: curriculum changes (eliminate NRS 621 & add NRS 631) 

6. Old Business 

a) Policy Recommendation: UMI Requirement for Graduate Students

b) Policy Recommendation: Leave of Absence

c) First Reading: Revised DNP Proposal

d) Further Discussion: Ph.D. in Music Education; handout of abbreviated faculty vita

e) MAT in Elementary Education (return for review and final approval)

7. Good and Welfare

8. Adjournment

MINUTES ARE NOT AVAILABLE