2007 - 2008 Academic Year - Graduate Council

2007 - 2008 Academic Year

2007-2008 Graduate Council Archives

Agenda/Minutes

October 10, 2007

GRADUATE COUNCIL AGENDA 

10 October 2007 2:00 PM 100 Kresge Library

 

I. Call to order 

II. Approve the minutes of April 18, 2007 

III. Report from the Chair 

IV. Informational Items 

a. International Baccalaureate Program – School of Education

IB Certification – Lisa Reeves (2:30p) 

b. New Graduate Course - University Library

LIB 500 – Information Literacy Course for Educators - Frank Lepkowski (3:00p)

 

V. Old Business 

a. Nomination to University Research Committee

b. Academic Standing, Probation and Dismissal

 

VI. New Business 

a. Graduate Council Officers

Secretary – non-voting member

Parliamentarian – non-voting member

Vice Chairperson – voting member

b. Transcript Requirement for Graduate Admissions

c. Doctoral Projects – Format and Submission Requirements

 

VII. Good and Welfare

VIII. Adjournment

 


 

GRADUATE COUNCIL MINUTES 

October 10, 2007 
Approved: February 13, 2008 

Present: Tom Blume, Dave Downing, Jacqueline Drouin, Lisa Hawley, Frances Jackson, Paul Licker, Mildred Merz, Meir Shillor, Mohamed Zohdy
Absent: 
Zissimos Mourelatos, Joseph Shively
Guests: 
Christina Grabowski, Beth Kraemer, Frank Lepkowski, Lisa Reeves, Mary Stein
Staff: 
Julie Delaney, Lynette Folken, Eilene Lohmeier, 

I. CALL TO ORDER

The meeting was convened at 2:12 pm by D. Downing, Chair. 

II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

D. Downing entertained a motion to approve the April 18, 2007 minutes. MOTION made by L. Hawley to approve the April 18, 2007 minutes as presented. SECONDED by M. Shillor and PASSED without corrections. 

III. REPORT FROM THE CHAIR

  • · D. Downing welcomed P. Licker, School of Business and Public Administration, and J. Drouin, School of Health Sciences, as new members of Graduate Council.
  • · Faculty and staff were thanked for another very successful Graduate Open House held on October 9. Results: 254 attendees and 210 submitted applications.
  • · Web CAPP is now active for students in all programs at the undergraduate and graduate level. This comprehensive degree evaluation tool allows students to access information needed for academic planning and evaluation of options relating to course study/degree. Additionally, it has the ability to create “what if” scenarios for different degrees that a student may be considering. Web CAPP has posted over 2000 hits with anticipated growth. A campus-wide broadcast was emailed to students, and a post card will be mailed providing the following instructions on how to access gain access:

1. Access SAIL

2. Select Student Services and Financial Aid

3. Select Student Records

4. Select Degree Evaluations 

In the future, Web CAPP will be available for faculty advisers doing interactive sessions with students. It has not been activated due to a problem with masking faculty adviser ID numbers on evaluations. Until this problem is resolved, students must either bring a copy of their degree evaluation report to their advising meeting or produce a copy from the faculty advisor’s office using their own login ID number. Faculty advisers will be notified when this tool is available.

  • Oakland University has completed a comprehensive review of their administering of student financial aid to determine if it meets federal regulations. D. Downing alluded to a number of findings that will directly impact graduate education at Oakland University. Several policy issues relating to financial aid are expected to come before Graduate Council, for example, “P” grade definition and continuous enrollment for master’s students.
  • Graduate Admissions will conduct a student survey to determine the possible cause of declining enrollment at the master’s level. The survey will address areas such as admitted students who have not registered for courses, tuition rates, a comparison of program credit requirements, and the effect of the State of Michigan’s overall economy on enrollment.

 

IV. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS

a. International Baccalaureate Concentration

Lisa Reeves and Mary Stein from the School of Education and Human Services (SEHS) requested approval of a 20-credit International Baccalaureate (IB) course sequence as professional development and as a major dependent concentration attached to the M.Ed in Educational Studies.


The IB offers a continuum of high-quality education that encourages international-mindedness and intercultural understanding. It is accessible to students through a worldwide community of 2000 IB schools in 125 countries that share a commitment to international education. Its aim is to develop knowledgeable young people who are prepared to live, learn, and work in the changing global environment. The IB program is rapidly expanding and consists of three programs based on 3 year-olds to 19 year-olds: Primary Years Program (PYP), Middle Years Program (MYP), and Diploma Program (DP). The certificate (award) will be presented directly from the International Baccalaureate Organization (IBO) to the student upon completion of the program.

The IBO will be conducting a site visit in December 2007 and, once approved, Oakland University will be the first higher education institution to provide a complete Level 1 program in the U.S. The program at OU will target recent education graduates and current teachers from schools with an interest in the IB philosophy.
 

The Council was informed that the initial cohort of approximately 20 students will begin in Winter 2008. The 18-month program (January 2008 – May 2009) will consist of 10 courses (20 credits). In the meantime, teaching faculty are currently undergoing IB training and observing existing programs.

Council members were assured by the SEHS representatives that their Dean’s office has committed support for possible faculty overload payments needed to initiate the program and that no additional library requirements are anticipated.

 

b. New Graduate Course – LIB 501, Information Literacy Course for Educators

D. Downing introduced Frank Lepkowski and Beth Kraemer from Kresge Library. 
F. Lepkowski presented the new LIB 501 course which was offered as a continuing education course (during Summer 2007). The course was developed to target incoming freshmen lacking information literacy skills and to train practicing teachers on how to use information literacy principles in their content area of teaching.
 

To attract prospective teachers and to help refresh their instructional practice, Kresge Library would like to modify this course from a continuing education course awarding CEUs to a 1-credit graduate course. 

V. UNFINISHED BUSINESS

D. Downing requested nominations for the open seat on the University Research Committee. M. Shillor will provide D. Downing with a nomination. 

VI. NEW BUSINESS

a. Election of Graduate Council Officers

2007-2008 Graduate Council Officers were elected:

Vice Chair: J. Shively

Parliamentarian: F. Jackson

Secretary: E. Lohmeier

b. Proposed Policy: Transcript Requirements for Graduate Program Admission

Christina Grabowski, Graduate Admissions, presented a proposal requesting policy for provision of minimum transcript requirements for graduate program admission. Under the proposed policy, departments can determine, program-by-program, whether (1) they will require applicants to provide all post-secondary educational institutional transcripts from which the applicant either earned a degree or completed graduate level coursework beyond the bachelor’s degree or (2) they will waive certain transcripts that are not needed to make a determination for admission. It was noted that under the proposed policy some programs will dramatically reduce the amount of paper-intensive waivers currently required on a case-by-case basis by minimizing the number of unnecessary transcripts. 

C. Rammel reported that most colleges require a complete set of transcripts in order to identify students with academic issues. The concern was substantiated by other Council members. 

P. Licker cautioned that the policy does not address “incomplete” grades in a course. Discussion ensued and additional changes to the policy were recommended. 

D. Downing entertained a MOTION to approve the first reading. SECONDED and PASSED. 

C. Rammel will revise the proposal and bring the proposal back to Graduate Council. 

c. Format and Submission Guidelines for Doctorate Final Projects

The Graduate Study website currently provides format guidelines for dissertation, thesis and the Doctor of Science in Physical Therapy (DScPT) doctoral project but does not address guidelines for the new Doctor of Nursing Practice (DNP) project. F Jackson agreed that the existing DScPT guidelines could be used for the DNP project.

M. Zohdy expressed concern that the final written outcome of a doctorate program was a project rather than a dissertation. J. Drouin explained the differences between a professional doctorate (DScPT, DNP) and a Ph.D. and expressed concern about the members’ perception that a doctorate “project” is lesser than a dissertation. J. Drouin indicated that doctorate projects are comparable to dissertations and contribute to scholarly knowledge through publications. 

A possible name change from “project” to “clinical project or clinical paper” was recommended. L. Folken cautioned that whenever human subjects are involved, IRB approval letters must be included in the dissertation, thesis, or doctorate project.

 The guidelines will be updated and brought back to Graduate Council.

  1. GOOD AND WELFARE

M. Merz reported that Kresge Library was hosting an art reception on the 2nd floor. 

  1. ADJOURNMENT

The meeting adjourned at 4:00 pm. The next meeting is scheduled for October 24, 2007 at 2:00 pm in 100 Kresge Library.

October 24, 2007

GRADUATE COUNCIL AGENDA 

24 October 2007 2:00 PM 100 Kresge Library

I. Call to order 

II. Approve the minutes of 10 October 2007 

III. Report from the Chair 

IV. Informational Items 

a. Spring/Summer Status

b. NCA

c. Graduate Assessment 

V. Unfinished Business 

a. Transcript Requirement for Graduate Admissions

b. Doctoral Projects – Format and Submission Requirements

c. Academic Standing, Probation and Dismissal

 

VI. New Business 

a. Grading Thesis, Dissertation and Doctorate Research Project

b. Graduate Repeat Policy 

VII. Good and Welfare

VIII. Adjournment 


 

GRADUATE COUNCIL MINUTES 

October 24, 2007 
Approved: February 13, 2008

Present: Tom Blume, Dave Downing, Jacqueline Drouin, Lisa Hawley, Frances Jackson, Paul Licker, Mildred Merz, Zissimos Mourelatos, Meir Shillor, Joseph Shively, Mohamed Zohdy
Guest: 
Christina Grabowski
Staff: 
Julie Delaney, Lynette Folken, Eilene Lohmeier

I. CALL TO ORDER

The meeting was convened at 2:10 pm by D. Downing, Chair. 

II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

D. Downing stated that the minutes of October 10, 2007 will be deferred to the next meeting. 

III. REPORT FROM THE CHAIR

D. Downing welcomed Zissimos Mourelatos, School of Engineering and Computer Science, as a new member of Graduate Council. 

IV. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS

a. Spring/Summer Status

D. Downing reported on the formation of a committee to address financial aid difficulties for students taking courses that overlap both spring and summer sessions. Due to accreditation requirements, programs in the School of Nursing, for example, that must offer courses for a full 16-week period do not comply with federal financial aid regulations. The committee met with an SCT Banner representative to focus on these issues, and a consultant will be retained to make further recommendations.

b. North Central Association Site Visit

C. Rammel reported that the North Central Association (NCA) will conduct a full-program site and review visit April 6-8, 2009. A steering committee has been convened in preparation for the visit. 

c. Graduate Assessment

C. Rammel reported that she recently attended the workshop “Assessing Graduate Programs” hosted by Laura Schartman, Director of Institutional Research, and presented by Kelly Funk, Director of Assessment, Michigan State University. Shannon McNair, Chair of Oakland University’s Assessment Committee, will be invited to an upcoming Graduate Council meeting to discuss assessment as it relates to program reviews. 

V. UNFINISHED BUSINESS

a. Transcript Requirement for Graduate Admissions

C. Rammel presented an updated transcript proposal and distributed a handout detailing transcript requirements at other Michigan institutions. As is traditional with most Michigan institutions, the current Oakland University graduate admission policy requires students to submit degree and non-degree transcripts from all educational institutions. The proposed policy, however, requires only transcripts relating to the student’s bachelor’s degree. 

C. Grabowski presented an overview of Oakland’s graduate admission process and stated that students are currently required to provide all transcripts from every educational institution attended. Students are notified of missing admission materials, and some admission decisions are delayed while waiting for non-degree transcripts. 

To expedite the process, some program coordinators/advisors have questioned the necessity of waiting for unnecessary transcripts that are not helpful in making admission decisions. Some programs elect to waive certain transcript requirements by signing a waiver form. C. Grabowski reported that the process of consistently securing waivers and programs waiving non-degree transcripts has become very labor intensive. It was proposed that the process may be expedited by introducing a more minimal graduate transcript policy that allows the department/programs to determine which specific transcripts are required in order to make admission decisions. 

P. Licker suggested that the policy require only the transcript from the latest or highest undergraduate degree granting school and allow the individual programs to establish specific requirements. C. Grabowski stated that the departments/ programs will need to provide program-by-program specific requirements in order to assure that the requirements will be posted accurately on the web. 

C. Rammel stressed the importance of mandatory student disclosure of all institutions from which the student is attending or has attended in case of future academic issues. 

J. Delaney asked if there would be accreditation issues resulting from the proposed policy change. Also, she cautioned that the possible downside of waiving non-degree transcripts during the admission process would be the sizeable number of students who would later choose to seek approval for transfer credits and petitions. That equally important approval process would be delayed while waiting for additional transcripts.

D. Downing summarized the discussion and noted consensus and support for a policy which establishes a baseline statement providing the maximum flexibility to the individual programs in determining what transcripts and information is required for their admission decision. He added the need to be careful with non-matriculated coursework at the graduate level because it is not relevant. Council members, particularly those associated with clinical programs, disagreed stating that all transcripts including non-matriculating transcripts were important for their admissions review and decisions. 

It was agreed that there are two primary issues: 1) that a mandatory list of all institutions attended by a student must be provided on the admission application and 2) that departments establish and provide program-by-program transcript requirements to Graduate Admissions for posting on the web. 

Accreditation issues will be investigated and General Counsel will be asked to review the policy before it is brought back for Council review. Language changes will be incorporated into the proposed policy and presented at the next meeting.

b. Doctoral Final Projects – Format and Submission Requirements

D. Downing presented the Doctorate of Nursing Practice, (DNP) and Doctor of Science in Physical Therapy (DScPT) format and submission requirements proposal. The proposal provides minimum format and submission guidelines for a clinically-based research project or doctoral project. 

M. Zodhy asked why neither program requires the submission of a dissertation. 
F. Jackson stated that the DNP research project requirement is modeled after other similar DNP programs which do not require a formal dissertation. J. Drouin explained that the DScPT program is clinically based and attracts students who are pursuing teaching and/or research. Though not a Ph.D. dissertation, the project is clinically relevant and is a scholarly work that serves students and the profession. The proposal is based on the framework of a traditional dissertation, but the outcome is a publication in a peer-reviewed journal rather than dissertation.
 

M. Zohdy questioned the use of the term “doctoral project” and recommended renaming the exit project. Also, he objected to the DNP exit project consisting of either a report that could take the form of a manuscript submitted for publication, a grant proposal submitted for funding, or a report that represents the outcomes of the research effort. J. Delaney stated that there is a discrepancy between what was approved in the original program proposal and what appears in the current graduate catalog. L. Hawley asked how approved program requirements could be changed by an academic unit without going through the Graduate Council governance process and requested further discussion. 

J. Drouin noted that the DScPT requirements do differ from the proposed policy and that an oral presentation is required. 

c. Academic Standing, Probation and Dismissal

C. Rammel requested that the discussion be deferred to the next meeting in order to address existing problems with the dissertation thesis grading issue that is a piece of academic standing built into the dismissal. Based on previous approval, there is a problem with doctoral components.

VI. NEW BUSINESS

a. Grading - Thesis, Dissertation and Doctorate Research Projects

The issues and inconsistencies in the grading of dissertations and theses with numeric grades and satisfactory/unsatisfactory grades were discussed. 
C. Rammel stated that dismissal can be problematic when a student has consistently received satisfactory progress reports in the form of numeric grades. At two earlier meetings, Graduate Council agreed to discontinue the use of numeric grades and to use the Satisfactory/Unsatisfactory grade mode.
 

Financial aid standards require that a student maintain satisfactory progress which calculates into earned credit, in order to be eligible for aid. If the “P” grade is defined as an incomplete grade, financial aid does not calculate the grade as earned credit. If a “P” grade does not calculate into earned credit, a doctoral student with a series of these courses with “P” grades runs up against the 60-70% cumulative federal aid requirement between attempted credits and earned credits. 

C. Rammel reported that by Senate definition, “the P (Progress) grade is a temporary grade that may be given only in a course that cannot be completed in one semester or session. The “P” grade is given only for satisfactory work.” Based on that, a “P” grade verifies that a student is making satisfactory progress. An issue arises when looking at financial aid loans because they are based on attempted credit and earned credit. Some Graduate Assistants have been made ineligible or put on financial aid probation because they do not appear to be making satisfactory progress. Graduate Council’s previous recommendation was to provide a “DF” deferred grade for thesis and dissertation credits. However, to satisfy financial aid requirements, the designation must immediately calculate those credits as attempted and earned. A new grading process for dissertations and theses must be created in order for these students to be financial aid eligible.

J. Delaney stated that there is inconsistency in dissertation grading. Some programs use satisfactory/unsatisfactory grading, numeric or combination grading. Council members agreed that numeric grading is not appropriate for research. It was articulated that some programs do not want to evaluate whether a student is making satisfactory progress or not, and their main concern is the completion of the dissertation.

Also, J. Delaney reported that there is a similar grading issue at the master’s level for exit plans that are projects or theses. Projects are graded numeric, but there is a difference between the programs on whether to grade thesis research satisfactory/unsatisfactory or numeric. C. Rammel reported that Graduate Council approved satisfactory/unsatisfactory grading for theses, but programs have objected because they prefer to assign a numeric grade to a thesis.

L. Folken stated that she has received course action forms requesting approval to revert back to numeric grading for master’s theses. Following a brief discussion and based on the previous and current discussion, members agreed that numeric grading of master’s theses will not be allowed. D. Downing requested that numeric grading be corrected in Banner Catalog immediately.

VII. GOOD AND WELFARE

D. Downing reported that L. Hawley and F. Jackson have agreed to sit on the Student Conduct Committee. In accordance with Graduate Council minutes of 1984, members of this committee are selected from the Graduate Council membership.

T. Bloom asked which governing body has the authority to determine how graduate policy decisions are implemented and how are these decisions communicated back to the departments. D. Downing stated that Graduate Council has the authority to make policy decisions. After some discussion it was agreed to increase department input and to improve communication with the departments to ensure full inclusion and support. To better facilitate communication regarding Graduate Council information and policy changes, the minutes will be distributed to Deans and Associates Deans and will be posted on the Graduate Study website. 

VIII. ADJOURNMENT

The meeting adjourned at 3:47 pm. The next meeting is scheduled for November 14, 2007 at 2:00 pm in 100 Kresge Library.

December 5, 2007

GRADUATE COUNCIL AGENDA 

05 December 2007 2:00 PM 100 Kresge Library 

I. Call to order 

II. The minutes of 10 October, 2007 and 24 October, 2007 deferred. 

III. Report from the Chair

IV. Informational Items

V. Unfinished Business

a. Transcript Requirement for Graduate Admissions

VI. New Business

a. Commencement Ceremony – Doctoral Hoodingl

VII. Good and Welfare

VIII. Adjournment


 

 GRADUATE COUNCIL MINUTES 

December 05, 2007 
Approved: February 13, 2008

Present: Tom Blume, Jacqueline Drouin, Lisa Hawley, Frances Jackson, Paul Licker, Mildred Merz, Zissimos Mourelatos, Meir Shillor, Joseph Shively
Absent: 
Mohamed Zohdy
Guest:
 Christina Grabowski
Staff: 
Julie Delaney, Lynette Folken, Eilene Lohmeier 

I. CALL TO ORDER

The meeting was convened at 2:12 pm by J. Shively, Vice Chair. 

II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

The minutes of October 10,2007 and October 24,2007 were deferred to the 
January 16, 2008 meeting.
 

III. REPORT FROM THE CHAIR AND INFORMATIONAL ITEMS

J. Shively asked C. Rammel to provide an overview of the agenda items. C. Rammel reported that at a recent Associate Deans meeting, the Associate Deans requested that they be better informed and involved with policies and issues being addressed by Graduate Council. The Associate Deans also expressed an interest in working more closely with Graduate Council. 

Extensive preparation is underway for the North Central Association’s (NCA) visit which will focus on level outcomes by courses and programs. C. Rammel was informed by S. Awbrey, Vice Provost for Undergraduate Education, that NCA has included new review criteria, "8.2 the Commission's Federal Compliance Program" which will impact graduate education. C. Rammel stressed the necessity to focus on priorities and ensure policies and foundations are established and moving in the direction of supporting NCA guidelines. 

C. Rammel reported that she met with V. Moudgil, Provost, to discuss graduate assessment. Current graduate assessment is not at a level that will satisfy NCA expectations. It was suggested that a faculty support position might be created and be responsible for taking a leadership role for the graduate education assessment function. 

IV. UNFINISHED BUSINESS

a. Transcript Requirement for Graduate Admissions

The proposed transcript policy was shared with the Associate Deans. After lengthy discussion, the consensus was to retain the existing policy requiring all transcripts from every postsecondary institution, except possibly transcripts from community colleges which are normally used to satisfy the bachelor’s degree.

At the October 24, 2007 Graduate Council meeting, C. Rammel was asked to investigate any accreditation issues or legal ramifications of the proposed policy. She reported that the accreditation guidelines reference “best practice.” The minimum guidelines of “best practice” require that a student must have a bachelor’s degree and provide proof/evidence of such degree. C. Rammel also discussed the issue with the General Counsel’s office. Their recommendation was that if the original transcript posting of a student’s bachelor’s degree is required to satisfy “best practice”, then the admission decision cannot rely on secondary transcripts (i.e., master’s transcript) to provide proof of the bachelor’s degree. General Counsel recommended the establishment of a baseline minimum based on “best practice” and stressed that it is critical that the transcript carries proof of the awarded bachelor’s degree. A student cannot be fully admitted without it.

Traditionally, students have been required to provide evidence of every postsecondary college attended. Many institutions also require submission of transcripts that validate transfer credits. The new proposed policy would eliminate transcripts of post-bachelor undergraduate credits and would require transcripts only from the post bachelor’s degree forward. General Counsel cautioned that a student’s admission cannot be retracted when a student has not been asked to produce the transcript(s) to begin with.

J. Delaney supported the need for requiring all transcripts. There have been cases where a student’s admission was rescinded, not necessarily based on the application, but on the information provided by transcripts.

To expedite the admissions process, “best practice” dictates that an admission decision does not have to wait for official transcripts to admit a student, but allows for the use of an unofficial transcript to review for provisional admission.

T. Bloom clarified the two levels of requirements: the admission requirements and the documentation requirements. The documentation requirements are required regardless of whether the student is admitted or not in order to make the admission decision. C. Grabowski stated that a conditional/provisional admission can be made based on the unofficial bachelor’s degree. However, the student would not receive full admission until all official, required transcripts and program required documents (formal application, letters of recommendation, etc.) have been received and reviewed.

Members expressed a need for a glossary of terms with standardized language. 
C. Rammel agreed with members to address nomenclature and to operationally define our language in the form of a glossary.
 

T. Bloom asked how students are informed about individual program requirements. C. Grabowski stated that the program requirements for each department are published in the catalog and available on the Web site. Applications completed on the web will populate the department’s requirements for admission and submission will generate a confirming email. Paper applications also generate a confirming email with links, description and a question and answer sheet. Information is also mailed to the student. For financial aide compliance, we will need to ensure consistency articulating information such as prerequisites and course requirements between the catalog and Web site. 

C. Rammel was asked to incorporate the changes suggested by Council members and create a minimum transcript policy based on “best practice”. It is agreed that the Schools/College will retain the ability to require additional transcript information as necessary. The revised transcript policy will be forwarded to the members via email for review, approval and vote. 

V. NEW BUSINESS

Commencement Ceremony – Doctoral Hooding

C. Rammel received a request from a doctoral student, who has defended but not yet submitted her final dissertation to Graduate Study, to participate in the upcoming Fall commencement. The department argues that the early deadline dates limit the student’s ability to complete her requirements in time to participate in Fall commencement.

Though a one-time exception was granted for a similar request last year, J. Delaney explained that there are two commencement ceremonies held each year: May (for winter semester doctoral graduates) and December (for Spring/Summer /Fall semester doctoral graduates). She stated that Oakland University’s thesis/dissertation submission deadlines are comparable to other institutions in Michigan. 

Following discussion, Graduate Council agreed that a successful doctoral defense does not affirm that the doctoral process is complete. The doctoral degree is only awarded after a student has successfully completed his/her defense and has submitted an approved dissertation to Graduate Study. Submission of an approved dissertation for publication is a degree requirement for doctoral students. All degree requirements must be successfully completed before a student is approved for graduation. Council members recommended that doctoral students become familiar with the existing deadlines and plan completion of their doctoral process accordingly.

Following lengthy discussion, Graduate Council recommended that directors and advisors alert students that they do not have an entire semester to complete their dissertation process and affirmed that doctoral students must adhere to the published dissertation deadline dates. Additionally, the Council directed Graduate Study to adhere to all published thesis/dissertation deadline dates. 

The doctoral student’s request to participate in the upcoming December commence-ment was denied unanimously.
 

On behalf of Graduate Council, F. Jackson agreed to forward a position statement to V.Moudgil, Provost, regarding the requirements for doctoral participation in the commencement ceremony and reaffirm no doctoral student would be hooded prior to completion of the dissertation process.

VI. GOOD AND WELFARE

F. Jackson reported that the Student Conduct Committee met on November 27,2007 regarding the dismissal appeal of a Physical Therapy student. The committee will meet with the student on December 6, 2007, and the report and recommendation will be submitted to C. Rammel following the meeting. 

C. Rammel reported that a new Graduate Study website is being developed and will provide a more user-friendly environment. 

VII. ADJOURNMENT

The meeting adjourned at 3:40 pm. The next meeting is scheduled for January 16, 2008.

January 16, 2008

GRADUATE COUNCIL AGENDA 

16 January 2008 2:00 PM 100 Kresge Library 

I. Call to order 

II. The minutes of 10 October, 2007; 24 October, 2007; and 
December 5, 2007 will be approved via email.

III. Report from the Chair 

IV. Informational Items

a. Presentation by Shannon McNair: Graduate Assessment

b. Position Statement: Commencement Ceremony – Doctoral Hooding

c. Spring/Summer status

V. Unfinished Business

a. Transcript Requirement for Graduate Admissions

b. Doctoral Capstone Research Projects: DNP and DScPT 

VI. New Business

a. First reading of the Doctor of Philosophy in Electrical and Computer Engineering program proposal

VII. Good and Welfare

VIII. Adjournment 


 

GRADUATE COUNCIL MINUTES

January 16, 2008 
Approved: February 13, 2008

Present: Tom Blume, Jacqueline Drouin, Lisa Hawley, Frances Jackson, Rob Kushler, Paul Licker, Mildred Merz, Joseph Shively, Mohamed Zohdy
Absent: 
Zissimos Mourelatos
Guests: 
Christina Grabowski, Shannon McNair
Staff: 
Julie Delaney, Lynette Folken

I. CALL TO ORDER

The meeting was convened at 2:00 pm by J. Shively, Vice Chair. 

II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

J. Shively announced that the minutes of October 10, 2007, October 24, 2007 and December 5, 2007 will be forwarded via email for approval.

III. REPORT FROM THE CHAIR
J. Shively introduced a list of Graduate Council agenda items that was distributed to Council members. The list contains policy items that must be addressed by the Council in preparation for the North Central Association (NCA) visit on April 6-8, 2009 and Federal Financial Aid compliance.

IV. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS

a. Graduate Assessment

C. Rammel provided an overview of graduate assessment and noted that the graduate programs are not as consistent as the undergraduate programs at building assessment into programs. In anticipation of the upcoming NCA site visit and review, C. Rammel stressed the importance of paying particular attention to graduate assessment and its processes. 

C. Rammel introduced Shannon McNair, Chair of the Oakland University Assessment Committee, a sub-committee of the Oakland University Faculty Senate. S. McNair reported that although the University has exhibited forward movement in terms of plans, reports and actual assessment activities across the board, additional effort is needed at the graduate level. She acknowledged that although graduate programs are not as easily defined by goals and activities as undergraduate programs, NCA 
has an expectation that everyone can discuss assessment at either the undergraduate level or the graduate level. 

C. Rammel reported that some graduate programs have not submitted assessment plans. A suggestion was made to convene a committee to address how Graduate Council could help bring graduate program assessment into compliance. J. Shively stated that Graduate Council will formulate a strategy and determine which program assessments are missing. He asked S. McNair for a list of departments/programs that are not compliant. 

F. Jackson asked if the current Graduate Council guidelines for new program approval require that an assessment plan be included. Graduate Study will review new degree program guidelines and graduate certificate guidelines to determine what assessment requirements are included. Graduate Council will need to review and amend guidelines, if necessary.

b. Commencement Ceremony – Doctoral Hooding

Following the December 5, 2007 Graduate Council meeting, F. Jackson was asked to submit a position statement to the Provost representing the Council’s decision that doctoral students should NOT be allowed to participate in the commencement ceremony OR be hooded prior to completion of the dissertation process. 

c. Spring/Summer Status

C. Rammel reported that to be compliant with federal financial aid regulations, Oakland University’s current Spring/Summer sessions must be combined into one 
15-week “Summer” term effective 2008.
 

The following document was distributed to Graduate Council members for review: 

Oakland University Spring and Summer Sessions 

The Provost has requested that we create and publish academic terms and calendars that provide faculty and students maximum flexibility in scheduling courses and maximum financial aid funding to students while:

1. Maintaining quality academic programs, policies and standards; and

2. Ensuring compliance with State and Federal financial aid regulations. 

Definition of a Term and Academic Calendar

The U.S. Department of Education, Office of Postsecondary Education, defines a standard term as: 

  •  A discrete period of time during which all courses are scheduled to begin and end.
  •  The discrete period of time (term) may include or consist of a series of mini courses or courses offered sequentially.
  •  The discrete period of time (term) is a segment of an academic calendar with the academic calendar divided into separate segments (usually 3 terms).
  •  Each standard term is approximately 15 weeks of instructional time.

A standard term-based academic year is defined as:

  •  At least 30 weeks of instructional time and 24 semester hours or 36 quarter hours
  •  A week of instructional time = 7 consecutive days in which at least one day of regularly scheduled instruction, examinations, or preparation for examinations occurs – 1 credit per week of instruction
  •  Instructional time ? periods of orientation, counseling, vacation, or other activity not related to class preparation or examination

The academic calendar ceases to be standard term-based when:

  •  Courses do not begin and end within the discrete period of time (term).
  •  Courses extend beyond the discrete period of time (term).
  •  Courses overlap from one discrete period of time (defined term) into another defined term.

Background

A change to the O.U. academic calendar from three semesters (Fall, Winter, and Spring) to two semesters (Fall and Winter) and two sessions (Spring and Summer) was approved by the Oakland University Senate in April, 1968 and implemented at OU during the following year. In current practice, the only defined difference between the semesters and the sessions is in the length of the term. All official activities that take place in the Fall and Winter also take place in each of the Spring and Summer sessions, including admission, census date counts, grading and the awarding of degrees at the end of the session.

Current Spring and Summer Session Model

Oakland University offers courses during a Spring session and a Summer session. The duration for each session is 7 ½ weeks in length. Within each individual session several mini “parts of term” may be created to accommodate courses which meet less than a full 7 ½ week duration.

Issues

  •  The OU academic calendar defines standard terms as two semesters (Fall and Winter) and two sessions (Spring and Summer)
  •  A “combined part of term” (Spring and Summer sessions OR Fall and Winter semesters) extends beyond the defined standard term AND overlaps one defined standard term with another defined standard term.
  •  Based on the standard terms defined by the OU academic calendar, State and Federal financial aid regulations do not permit awarding aid to courses offered in a “combined part of term.”

Resolutions

  •  Combine the Spring and Summer sessions to create a new standard term (Summer)
  •  Define the OU academic calendar as three standard semesters (Fall, Winter and Summer 

Scheduling Qualifiers

  •  All courses are scheduled to begin and end within the term
  •  A week of instructional time = 7 consecutive days in which at least one day of regularly scheduled instruction, examinations, or preparation for examinations occurs – 1 credit per week of instruction
  •  Standard terms cannot overlap each other
  •  No financial aid for 1 week courses 

F. Jackson questioned whether AAUP approved the language in this handout, Oakland University Spring and Summer Sessions. C. Rammel confirmed that AAUP was consulted and it was her understanding that there was discussion and agreement on issues identified by the AAUP.

C. Rammel reported that the proposed summer term will be presented to the Senate on January 17, 2007 as an informational item.

V. UNFINISHED BUSINESS

a. Transcript Requirement for Graduate Admissions

C. Rammel distributed the proposed policy with modifications recommended at the last Graduate Council meeting. It was agreed that all references relating to “admission” requirements would be removed and be incorporated into a separate admission document. In addition, the following changes were made:

Changed from:

Official transcripts are required from ANY post-secondary educational institutions from which the applicant either earned a degree……

Changed to:

“to require all official transcripts from post secondary institutions beginning with the first baccalaureate degree.

The requirement for associate degree transcripts was discussed. F. Jackson supported the need for ADN (Associate Degree in Nursing) transcripts for admission purposes. Though not a baccalaureate degree, it is a degree and is not addressed in this proposal. It was recommended to adjust the last paragraph to accommodate the requirement. C.Rammel indicated this policy represented “Minimum” Transcript Requirements for Graduate Admissions. Programs may always impose stricter requirements. 

Graduate Council questioned the urgency of moving forward and approving the document at this meeting. C. Rammel indicated Graduate Admissions would like to implement the policy as quickly as possible. It was recommended that additional modifications be made and submitted to members for approval via email or at the next meeting.

b. Doctoral Capstone Research Project – DNP and DScPT

J. Drouin asked that the discussion be tabled until the next meeting to allow for additional editorial changes.

c. Dissertation Grading

C. Rammel distributed the proposed dissertation grading policy as an information item. Federal financial aid regulation will require modifications to this document.

VI. NEW BUSINESS

a. Ph.D. in Electrical and Computer Engineering program proposal

M. Zohdy, Department of Electrical and Systems Engineering, informed Council members that this degree currently falls under the Ph.D. in Systems Engineering degree, but the department believes it should be separated out. 

F. Jackson inquired whether there are differences between this degree and the new Ph.D. in Computer Science and Informatics degree. M. Zohdy explained that computer science is a discipline that concerns itself with software (programming and computer languages). This proposal focuses on electrical and electronics which is the hardware (wireless, automated digital light ray and digital image processing.)

F. Jackson inquired if there are letters of support from computer companies. It was confirmed that there is one letter of support from Denzo. On page 4 of the document, there was reference to community outreach, yet it was not addressed any further. On page 19, there is no information or criteria for the students that are allowed to go from the bachelors to the Ph.D. M. Zohdy said this can discarded since most engineers complete a master’s degree before going into a Ph.D. program. J. Delaney supported the need and importance of specific language because it’s how other doctoral programs are formatted. Admissions are imposing the current criteria that a master’s degree must be completed prior to admission into a doctoral program and noted that the department would be contradicting itself. She recommended that the department should review this issue.

F. Jackson inquired about specific criteria that would allow a baccalaureate student to be admitted into the Ph.D. program. C. Rammel indicated the current PhD in Systems Engineering degree requires 56 credits beyond the bachelor’s degree (exclusive of dissertation). The graduate catalog states that normally a master’s degree from an accredited institution is required for admissions; however students with outstanding undergraduate records may apply directly for admissions to engineering doctoral programs. Given this statement, should a doctoral applicant, currently completing their master’s degree, be processed as a conditional admit pending the awarding of their master’s degree? There may be instances where the applicant doesn’t complete the master’s degree as expected. This situation creates a financial aid issue for students since “conditional” admits are not aid eligible. J. Delaney stated that the admission criteria must be defined and recommended further review.

R. Kushler asked if the 7-year time limit applies with or without a prior master's degree. C. Rammel said good question. Should the time to degree be the same for both post-baccalaureate and post-master’s doctoral programs? M. Zohdy said it is a function of the PhD program and agreed to look at it.

J. Delaney pointed out that on page 20, the proposal states that credit will not be granted for a course that has a grade below a 3.00. Though this appears to be a departmental policy, the School of Engineering policy states that two courses with grades between a 2.5 and 2.9 may count toward degree requirements and the student must have an overall GPA of 3.0. It was recommended that the department review this issue. M. Zohdy reported that the Associate Dean notifies students who earn a grade below a 3.00 in a class. Those students are sent a warning letter and informed that the second grade below a 3.00 will be cause for dismissal from the program. M. Zohdy reported that the Department requires a 3.5 GPA to be admitted into the Ph.D. program.

After further discussion it was recommended that suggestions, questions and remarks be forwarded to Claire Rammel. The comments should be referenced by page number, consolidated into one master document and distributed to graduate council members.

VII. GOOD AND WELFARE

L. Hawley expressed some confusion over what policies are proposed or approved on the Graduate Council Web site. C. Rammel explained that the new Web site is still under construction and is experiencing some issues in the conversion process.

J. Shively asked members if they are aware of any items that will be coming to Graduate Council from their units. L. Hawley reported that SEHS will be bringing forward an Ed Specialist program.

VIII. ADJOURNMENT

The meeting adjourned at 4:00 pm. The next meeting is scheduled for January 30, 2008 at 2:00 pm in 100 Kresge Library.

February 13, 2008

 

GRADUATE COUNCIL AGENDA

 13 February 2008 2:00 PM 100 Kresge Library

 I. Call to order 

II. The minutes of 10 October 2007, 24 October 2007, 05 December 2007, 16 January, 2008. 

III. Report from the Chair 

IV. Informational Items

a. Assessment Log 2003-2008 (distributed) 

V. Unfinished Business

a. Admission to Graduate Programs - Transcripts

b. Doctoral Capstone Research Projects: DNP and DScPT

VI. New Business

a. First reading of the Doctor of Philosophy in Electrical and Computer Engineering program proposal

VII. Good and Welfare

VIII. Adjournment – Next meeting February 20, 2008, 2:00 – 4:00 p.m., 100 Kresge Library

 
 

GRADUATE COUNCIL MINUTES

13 February 2008 
Approved:

Present: Tom Blume, Jacqueline Drouin, Donna Free, Lisa Hawley, Rob Kushler, Mildred Merz, Joseph Shively, Mohamed Zohdy

Absent: Zissimos Mourelatos, Frances Jackson
Guests: 
Christina Grabowski
Staff: 
Julie Delaney, Lynette Folken

I. CALL TO ORDER

The meeting was convened at 2:00 pm by J. Shively, Vice Chair.

II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

J. Shively called for a motion to approve the minutes of October 10, 2007, October 24, 2007, December 5, 2007 and January 16, 2008. R. Kushler moved to approve and

L. Hawley seconded. Motion passed.

III. REPORT FROM THE CHAIR
a. J. Shively welcomed Donna Free as a returning member of Graduate Council.

 IV. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS

a. The 2003-2008 Assessment Report was distributed to Graduate Council members. J. Delaney reported that following an audit, departments were notified and asked to submit their program assessment plans. Many departments have not yet responded and will be re-contacted. M. Zodhy asked if departments can submit information on-line; possibly using Moodle. J. Delaney will investigate the possibility.

V. UNFINISHED BUSINESS

a. Ph.D. in Electrical and Computer Engineering program proposal

 M. Das addressed the list of Graduate Council questions which were forwarded following the January 16th meeting. Attached are the Graduate Council questions and Engineering’s responses. The following questions were discussed in more detail:

 #14: T. Blume questioned the number of students quoted. D. Das stated the reported numbers were based on historic data over the last 3 years. He indicated the Electrical and Computer Engineering degree is the most dominate program among all of the engineering fields.

# 15 T. Blume recommended the phrase “hope to attract” be replaced with “we will attract.”

#17 M. Das explained the request to split “electronical computer engineering” out from under the “systems” umbrella is similar to what “mechanical engineering” did several years ago. Students interested in a mechanical engineering degree no longer enroll under the systems engineering program umbrella. J. Delaney supported M. Das’ comment and stated that prior to the offering of a mechanical degree, students were required to enroll under systems engineering; even though their focus was on a mechanical engineering track. Additionally, since industry requires a specific profile or description of mechanical engineering. the systems engineering degree proved to restrict employment for many mechanical engineering graduates.

Once the PhD in Mechanical Engineering program was approved, students transitioned from the PhD in Systems Engineering program over time (see chart in the proposal). M. Das expects to see a similar situation with the PhD in Electrical and Computer Engineering program. At this time, the School of Engineering does not anticipate further splitting of current engineering programs.

L. Hawley asked how faculty resources will be affected. M. Das stated that faculty resources will not be impacted. Students currently admitted to the PhD in Systems Engineering program are assigned an adviser based on their particular specialty or department of interest.

 #22 It seems odd that the Dean has to approve the committee. Why not the Department chair? Is this the policy for other SECS PhD programs?

M. Zodhy stated that the review committee is composed of advisers, faculty and occasionally outside mentors who provide expertise in the field. After obtaining appropriate approval within the School of Engineering, the form is submitted to Graduate Study for final review and processing.

The Council of Graduate Schools has established criteria for the composition of committees and most graduate institutions have faculty who are certified specifically for graduate students. Once faculty have tenure, they are certified and eligible to serve on doctoral committees. Oakland’s faculty have the dual responsibility of serving both graduate and undergraduate students. Additional questions may be directed to B. Bhatt or C. Rammel at the next meeting.

#23 mustn’t the dissertation also represent new work? (Pg. 22, Paragraph 3.3.5)

M. Zodhy stated that Engineering has recently established a “Research Committee” that will be recommending what constitutes “new research contribution” as well as the possibility of requiring a minimum number of published articles.

#25 Time to degree requirement

M. Das deferred this question to the next Graduate Council meeting (February 20, 2008) when B. Bhatt will be in attendance. J. Delaney said that the graduate policy provides for a six year time limit (with a 2 year extension option) for course work earned toward a master’s degree. While the time limit for doctorals programs cannot exceed 8 years, specific time limits for doctoral programs are published in the Graduate Catalog.

#34 M. Zodhy recommended obtaining a support letter from Google in Ann Arbor to include in the proposal.

#38 M. Merz submitted the library report for the PhD in Electrical and Computer Engineering proposal. She was asked whether OU might consider instituting a library fee. She indicated that since OU had eliminated fees, a proposal to create a new fee would require Board approval. Additionally, the proposal would have to request that the fees be allocated to the Library. M. Zodhy asked if any endowment funds are available. M. Merz was asked to provide a statement of the available endowment fund balance.

J. Shively received the budget from the Senate Budget Review Committee and will distribute it to members. The report from the Senate Planning committee has not yet been received.

M. Zodhy is currently a member of an adhoc committee consisting of the Chair of the Assessment Committee, Chair of Senate Planning, Chair of Senate Budget and Michelle Pickulich. The committee is looking into streamlining the approval process for new programs. A report will be available by the end of the semester 

J. Shively thanked M. Das for addressing the questions prepared by Graduate Council. The proposal will be presented for its second reading at the February 20th Graduate Council meeting.

J. Shively asked that any additional questions be forwarded to Graduate Study in preparation for the 2nd reading on February 20th. J. Delaney asked that all additional questions be emailed to L. Folken at folken@oakland.edu . L. Folken will compile and forward all new questions to B. Bhatt.

b. Transcript Requirement for Graduate Admissions 

J. Shively presented the revised proposal. It was agreed that F. Jackson’s concern regarding the receipt of Associate Degree Transcripts requirement was covered in the paragraph stating “programs can request additional transcripts beyond the minimal requirements”. The following changes were recommended:

Paragraph 4 & 5: T. Bloom recommended removing “subsequent”.

Paragraph 1: Begin the first sentence with “An official college transcript…..”

J. Shively called for a motion to approve the proposal with changes. T. Bloom moved to approve and seconded by R. Kushler. Passed. 

c. Professional or Practice-Based Doctoral Programs

Minimum Requirements for Submitting the Research Project

On behalf of the Physical Therapy and Nursing, J. Drouin distributed a draft of the requirements for the doctoral research projects. An earlier draft document, created by C. Rammel was also circulated. After some discussion, J. Delaney asked J. Drouin and F. Jackson to review both draft documents and create a new document that combines the information.

V. NEW BUSINESS

VI. GOOD AND WELFARE

C. Grabowski reported that Admissions has received over 350 responses to the open house which is being held on February 13th in the Oakland Center.

VII. ADJOURNMENT

The meeting adjourned at 3:30 pm.

The next scheduled meeting is February 20, 2008 at 2:00 pm in 100 Kresge Library.

GRADUATE COUNCIL MINUTES 
February 21, 2007 
Approved: March 14, 2007

Present: Tom Blume, Donna Free, Lisa Hawley, Frances Jackson, Mildred Merz, Meir Shillor, Joseph Shively, Lorenzo Smith, Kris Thompson, Mohamed Zohdy
Absent: David Downing
Guests: Bhushan Bhatt, Ishwar Sethi, Gautam Singh
Staff: Claire Rammel, Julie Delaney, Lynette Folken, Eilene Lohmeier
 

I. CALL TO ORDER

The meeting was convened at 2:05 pm by J. Shively, Vice Chair. 

II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

J. Shively entertained a motion to approve the January 17, 2007 minutes.

MOTION made by D. Free to approve the minutes of January 17, 2007 as presented. Seconded by M. Shillor and passed without corrections. 

III. REPORT FROM THE CHAIR AND INFORMATIONAL ITEMS

  • J. Shively reported that the Graduate Open House held on February 15th was another very successful event. The preliminary totals:
    •  Attendees: 256
    •  New Applications: 198
    •  Marketing Surveys Collected: 203

The open house was successful in generating new graduate applications for admission and collecting significant marketing data to assist with future graduate recruitment efforts.

  • C. Rammel reported that the request to modify the name of the Education Specialist degree program (not Educational Specialist) was forwarded to the Provost, who subsequently approved the change to Education Specialist in leadership. 
  • C. Rammel distributed two approved graduate policies: Dissertation/Thesis Processing Requirement Policy and Commencement Ceremony – Graduate Student Participation Policy for future discussion. Current policy states that doctoral degree candidates are not be eligible to participate in commencement without completing all degree requirements, including dissertation defense and submission of an approved dissertation, including signatures of all committee members and/or the head of the academic unit, to Graduate Study and Lifelong Learning. 

A doctoral student has requested to participate in the May 2007 Commencement Ceremony. The student has applied to graduate for Spring 2007 and will not have defended and submitted dissertation by the winter deadlines. The student has requested to walk and be hooded in the May commencement. Based on this recent request, should we modify the policy to let doctoral students walk before defense? Ms. Rammel asked Graduate Council to review the current policy for discussion at the next Council meeting. J. Delaney noted the deadline for submitting names and dissertation titles to the Provost’s Office for the commencement program is in March. 

M. Shillor indicated support for the exception if the Chair of the student’s dissertation committee would be willing to provide written support that the student has completed all other degree requirements except for the presentation and defense of their dissertation. 

Further discussion immediately ensued. Graduate Council members strongly stated that they were not in support of doctoral candidates participating in commencement and being hooded prior to completing all degree requirements, including defense and submission of dissertation. C. Rammel asked if we should amend the Commencement Ceremony – Graduate Student Participation Policy to include a statement that “exceptions to the policy will be granted for extenuating circumstances.” Mr. Shively expressed concern with placing the Vice Provost for Graduate Education in the position of evaluating requests for exceptions to the policy. Graduate Council agreed that no modifications should be made to the current policy. 

C. Rammel asked members for any recommended changes to the Dissertation/Thesis Processing Requirements Policy. F. Jackson expressed concern that the title of the current policy, Dissertation/Thesis Processing Requirements Policy, did not include the practice focused doctoral programs. C. Rammel will amend the title of the Dissertation/Thesis Processing Requirements Policy to: “Doctoral Project: (dissertation/thesis/project/ paper) Processing Requirements Policy” and include any procedural information specific to those programs. 

The policy will be brought back to Graduate Council for review and approval. 

L. Hawley asked about the status of the doctoral policy and process manual. She volunteered to continue working on the doctoral student handbook to address unresolved issues. 

IV. OLD BUSINESS

Ph.D. program in Computer Science and Informatics – Second Reading 

Shively presented the Second Reading of the new degree proposal from the School of Engineering and Computer Science: Ph.D. in Computer Science and Informatics.

Discussion ensued. C. Rammel had some questions related to the “candidacy” requirements. She indicated unclear or inconsistent terminology might be confusing to a new doctoral student. She referenced an example found at the bottom of page 22 of the proposal. “All Ph.D. applicants are required to pass the Core qualifying examination within the first four regular semesters of admission into the Ph.D. program. The Core examination is administered once every regular semester.” Are we correct in assuming “regular” semester means “academic” semester (fall and winter)? Given the requirement that all PhD students must pass all the written and oral doctoral qualifying examinations within the first three years of joining the program, with the Option Examination administered once every year, defining “semester” eliminates any misinterpretation of the timeline. 

She recommended the proposal clearly define “semesters” as “academic semesters” when appropriate and recommended that “Fall and Winter” be added to the bottom page 22 for further clarification. C. Rammel also questioned whether the Oral Examination requirements (oral presentation of a written document summarizing proposed research) and timeline (one semester following the Written Qualifying Examination) was realistic. G. Singh agreed with her observation, indicating the department had recommended eliminating the written summary as a requirement for the Oral Examination. [pg 27 - 3.2.3 Qualifying Examination (oral)]. 

C. Rammel indicated the University planned to make the Banner CAPP module available online to students and faculty advisors. For those unfamiliar with CAPP, C. Rammel explained it was a tool that allowed students or faculty to track a student’s progress toward satisfying degree requirements. Since CAPP evaluates a student’s academic history against established program requirements, compliance issues can potentially be identified and resolved much sooner. Given this new level of information awareness, C. Rammel indicated her final question targeted how the department planned to track and communicate successful completion of the requirement that “All Ph.D. students must demonstrate some experience in teaching.” 

There was some discussion relating to the evaluation of the teaching requirement. G. Singh suggested a form be developed to communicate completion of this requirement and potentially other non course requirements to Graduate Study. I. Sethi expressed his concerns regarding the number of exceptions currently being made to program requirements. He stressed the importance of minimizing these exceptions. 

M. Merz noted the minimal budget changes and specifically noted that the library requirements do not include lecture notes and computer science notes which are required and would double the library cost. M. Merz will forward a list of library concerns to G. Singh. 

After further discussion Graduate Council suggested the following changes: 

  • A plan of study must be filed with Graduate Study within the first two semesters of a student enrolling in the PhD program. Students would be responsible for notifying Graduate Study of any subsequent changes approved by their advisory committee. 
  • In earlier discussions, G. Singh assured Graduate Council that the program supports full-time student enrollment during the academic year. Thus, allowing students to qualify for graduate assistantships and other forms of financial aid. G. Singh suggested a brief statement be included in the proposal. 
  • Included a paragraph explaining that a student must complete a master’s degree prior to starting the doctoral program. 
  • Provide Graduate Study and Lifelong Learning with catalog copy which includes the application, admissions and degree requirements. I. Sethi will provide. 
  • Provide Graduate Study and Lifelong Learning with a list of prerequisite courses, including undergraduate prerequisites. I. Sethi agreed to review 500/600/700 level courses and make any necessary adjustments to prerequisite courses. M. Shillor reminded I. Sethi that undergraduate prerequisite courses cannot be evaluated in Banner for students with their undergraduate degree from other institutions. Therefore, it has been recommended that any undergraduate prerequisites be included in the course description as “required academic background” and be described, rather than listed 
  • Review a complete course offering report to validate equivalencies, deletions and changes.

C. Rammel confirmed the proposal had requested an effective date – Fall 2007. She reminded B. Bhatt that the proposal had to go through a full governance review. With only two Senate meetings remaining this year, there was little time left for the department to make the recommended changes. It was agreed that the department would make changes and forward the final proposal to C. Rammel F. Jackson, chair of SPRC, indicated she would do her best to assist them in meeting their proposed timeline, but urged them to move quickly, 

J. Shively MOTIONED to approve the Ph.D. in Computer Science and Informatics, contingent on the department making the required changes.

Seconded by and passed unanimously. 

The final proposal will be submitted to Senate Steering for Senate Planning Review Committee and Senate Budget Committee review. 

V. NEW BUSINESS 

A. School of Engineering and Computer Science - modifications to merge existing graduate academic programs in the Master of Science in Software Engineering and the Master of Science in Information Systems Engineering – First Reading 

J. Shively entertained a MOTION to approve modifications to in the Master of Science in Computer Science & Engineering and the Master of Science in Embedded Systems AND merge the Master of Science in Software Engineering AND the Master of Science in Information Systems Engineering. 

T. Blume MOTIONED to approve.

Seconded by F. Jackson and passed unanimously. 

I, Sethi presented the proposal to merge of the Master of Science in Software Engineering with the Master of Science in Information Systems Engineering effective Fall 2007. The merged program will be the Master of Science in Software Engineering and Information Technology. 

I. Sethi explained that the second part of the proposal was to modify the exit plan to offer a “professional option” which requires 36 credits of graduate course work including 4 credits of an internship/industry project. The “research option” which requires 32 credits of graduate course work including thesis is the same as defined in the two former programs. The total number of credits required for the Master of Science in Software Engineering and Information Technology, The Master of Science in Computer Science & Engineering and the Master of Science in Embedded Systems will be 32-36, contingent on the select exit option. 

Additionally, the School of Engineering and Computer Science has requested to change the name of the major, Computer Science & Engineering to Computer Science 

Effective Spring 2007, the School of Engineering will begin “phasing out” the Master of Science in Software Engineering (5600) and the Master of Science in Information Systems Engineering (5580). The phase out period will allow students currently admitted to those programs to complete degree requirements. 

L. Smith questioned the impact this would have on the current faculty workload. I. Sethi indicated the department did not anticipate the proposed change would significantly impact the current faculty workload 

C. Rammel requested that students file a plan of study with Graduate Study and Lifelong Learning. The office would like to provide guidance to students who select the thesis option. I. Sethi agreed. 

To be consistent with other University publications, L. Smith recommended changing the phrase “GPA of 3.0 or better” to “3.0 or above.” 

F. Jackson MOTIONED to waive the Second Reading.

Seconded by K. Thompson and passed unanimously. 

M. Zodhy MOTIONED to approve modifications to in the Master of Science in Computer Science & Engineering and the Master of Science in Embedded Systems AND

merge the Master of Science in Software Engineering AND the Master of Science in Information Systems Engineering.

Seconded by M. Shillor and passed unanimously. 

B. School of Engineering and Computer Science modifications to split the MS in Systems Engineering into two degrees – MS in Systems Engineering and MS in Industrial and Systems Engineering – First Reading 

J. Shively entertained a motion to approve modifications to split the MS in Systems Engineering into two degrees – MS in Systems Engineering and MS in Industrial and Systems Engineering, 

B. Bhatt explained that in the fall of 2005, a new, fourth department was created entitled Industrial and Systems Engineering (ISE). With the creation of the fourth department, portions of the MS-SYS are managed by the ECE department and other portions of the program are managed by the ISE department. The School of Engineering and Computer Science is requesting permission to split the 5 options in the current Master of Science with a major in Systems Engineering into two separate degrees, 

Three of the options will be retained exactly “as-is” in the existing Master of Science

in Systems Engineering degree housed within the Electrical and Computer

Engineering department

o Option 1 – Dynamic Systems and Control Engineering

o Option 3 – Robotics Systems Engineering

o Option 4 – Systems Modeling and Computer Simulation 

The other two options will be moved exactly “as-is” into a new Master of Science in Industrial and Systems Engineering degree housed in the new Industrial and Systems Engineering department

o Option 2 – Industrial and Systems Engineering

o Option 5 – General Systems Engineering 

This change is administrative in nature and permits the two departments to manage their students more effectively. 

C. Rammel will meet with the department to identify course equivalencies and discuss areas of concern. 

L. Smith MOTIONED to waive the Second Reading.

Seconded by M. Shillor and passed unanimously. 

J. Shively MOTIONED to approve modifications to split the MS in Systems Engineering into two degrees – MS in Systems Engineering and MS in Industrial and Systems Engineering, Seconded and passed unanimously. 

C. College of Arts and Sciences: Approval of concentrations in Master of Public Administration and Master of Music 

There was discussion regarding concentrations being noted on student transcripts, along with degrees awarded. When asked to provide background information, C. Rammel explained that Graduate Council requested the Registrar post graduate concentrations on the student transcripts. The Registrar agreed to post the concentration with the following stipulations: 1) all concentrations must be proposed and approved by Graduate Council; 2) concentrations appearing in the Graduate Council must be proposed and approved by Graduate Council; 3) concentrations earned prior to approval by Graduate Council will not be posted to transcripts; 4) students must list the concentration on the Application to Graduate; and 5) departments and Graduate Study are required to audit and approve concentrations as part of degree compliance. George Dahlgren, Graduate Dean at the time, communicated these requirements to both the Master of Public Administration program and the Master of Music program, Graduate Council requires each concentration be defined, including a list of eligible courses and credit required to earn each concentration. J. Delaney will continue working with the departments to secure their proposals for presentation at a future Council meeting. 

D. School of Health Sciences - Proposal to modify the existing Graduate Certificate in Orthopedic Manual Physical Therapy

J. Shively requested a MOTION to approve modifications to the Graduate Certificate in Orthopedic Manual Physical Therapy 

K. Thompson explained that the request is to increase the required credits from 17 credits to 18 credits for the OMPT Graduate Certificate. The credit increase supports the addition of a new course, PT 502, Evidence-Based Practice. The new course, plus a slight reorganization of course credits in the existing curriculum, significantly improves the course distribution and content flow over the 2-year delivery of the program.

M. Shillor MOTIONED to waive the Second Reading.

Seconded by F. Jackson and passed unanimously. 

J. Shively MOTIONED to approve the proposal

Seconded and passed unanimously. 

VI. GOOD AND WELFARE

VII. ADJOURNMENT

The meeting adjourned at 3:40 pm. The next meeting is scheduled for March 14, 2007.

February 20, 2008

GRADUATE COUNCIL AGENDA 

20 February 2008 2:00 PM 100 Kresge Library 

I. Call to order 

II. The minutes of February 13, 2008.

III. Report from the Chair

IV. Informational Items

V. Unfinished Business

a. Second reading of the Doctor of Philosophy in Electrical and Computer Engineering program proposal

b. Admission to Graduate Programs - Transcripts

c. Doctoral Capstone Research Projects: DNP and DScPT

VI. New Business 

VII. Good and Welfare

VIII. Adjournment – Next meeting March 12, 2008, 2:00 – 4:00 p.m., 100 Kresge Library

 


MINUTES ARE NOT AVAILABLE

March 26, 2008

GRADUATE COUNCIL AGENDA 

26 March 2008 2:00 PM 100 Kresge Library 

I. Call to order 

II. The minutes

 13 February 2008 and 20 February 2008 

III. Report from the Chair 

IV. Informational Items 

a. New Program Library Funding Process Discussion 

V. Unfinished Business 

a. Terminal Doctoral Research Project 

VI. New Business 

a. MEd in Educational Studies – program modification

First Reading (Dyanne Tracy) 

VII. Good and Welfare 

VIII. Adjournment – 

Next meeting 9 April 2008, 2:00 – 4:00 p.m., 100 Kresge Library

 


NO MINUTES AVAILABLE

April 9, 2008

GRADUATE COUNCIL AGENDA 

9 April 2008 2:00 PM 100 Kresge Library


I. Call to order
 

II. The minutes 

13 February 2008 AND 20 February 2008 

III. Report from the Chair 

IV. Informational Items

 V. Unfinished Business

 a. Terminal Doctoral Research Project

VI. New Business

a. MEd in Educational Studies – program modification

Second Reading (Michael McDonald)

VII. Good and Welfare 

VIII. Adjournment

Next meeting 16 April 2008, 2:00 – 4:00 p.m., 100 Kresge Library

 

NO MINUTES AVAILABLE