Council of Graduate School Programs
Regular Meeting
October 25, 2002
West Meeting Room, 13th Floor, Lewis Towers,
Water Tower Campus
MINUTES
[Approved, 11/22/02]
Members Present: Gad Bensinger, Barney Berlin, Matthew Bozovsky, Pamela Caughie (chair), Andrew Cutrofello, Mary Elsbernd, O.S.F., Olympia Gonzalez (for Susan Cavallo), Thackery Gray, Susan Grossman (for Randolph Lucente), Grayson Holmbeck, Stephen Jones, Claudio Katz, Maya Kelly, James Krueger, Michael Maher, Marcia Maurer, Patricia Mooney-Melvin, Duarte Mota de Freitas, Jon Nilson, Diane Suter, Elizabeth Vera, Peter Whalley (for Fred Kniss), Yolande Wersching.
Members Excused: Susan Cavallo, Maureen Hellwig, James Keenan, Fred Kniss, Randolph Lucente, Mary Manteuffel, David Ozar, Kayhan Parsi, Pauline Viviano, Alan Wolfe.
Members Not Present: Adam Driks, Jawed Fareed, Allen Frantzen, Anthony Giaquinto, Joan McLane, E.J. Neafsey, Jeanine Seitz-Partridge.
Graduate School Deans: Max Caproni, Douglas Davis, William Yost.
Call to Order
Pamela Caughie, chair of the Council, called the meeting to order at 1:15 p.m.
Approval of the Minutes of the Past Meeting
Dr. Caughie asked if there were any revisions to the draft of the minutes of the September 27, 2002 regular meeting. Hearing none, she asked if there were any objections to approving the draft of the minutes. Hearing none, she announced that the minutes were approved as drafted.
Dean's Report
William Yost distributed a written report and discussed its contents. Dr. Caughie asked if there were any objections to moving to agenda item #4. There were none, and the Council then discussed the following matters: (a) the new budget system for graduate education, (b) the future of the Teaching Fellows program, (c) the dean's proposal of suspending admissions in certain programs, and (d) program review.
Issues discussed included: how other universities handle financing and managing graduate education; the role of Council in a decentralized structure for graduate education and a "depowered" Graduate School (because of its very limited resources); how will program review be monitored by the Council if it will now be in the hands of departments; how can Council enforce its own by-laws when there's no money for external reviews; and how will teacher-training be handled in light of the likely closure of the Teaching Fellows Program. The Council agreed to discuss the issue of program review at greater length a future meeting. It was also suggested that an associate dean for graduate education should be appointed in every school/college of the University. And finally, the representative from IPS (which will no longer be part of the Graduate School) expressed her appreciation to Dean Yost for his leadership.
Chair's Report
Dr. Caughie reported on the Council's response to the provost's proposal to revise the university?s academic calendar. [The text of Dr. Caughie's report is attached.]
Dr. Caughie announced that the provost plans to attend the Executive Committee's November 8 meeting and the Council's November 22 meeting; she invited Council members to communicate to her comments and questions that may be forwarded to the provost in advance of the November 22 meeting.
Dean's Policy Initiatives
Dr. Caughie asked the Council to provide input on the policy initiatives concerning the number of dissertation students per faculty member and the number of faculty members per graduate program, as described in Dean Yost's October 21, 2002 memorandum to Council members. Discussion followed. Some representatives felt that 8 dissertations per faculty member was too high a number; others mentioned that the kind of attention a dissertation demands from the director varies across disciplines and that therefore the number should not be set too low.
Proposed Amendments to the By-Laws
Diane Suter introduced the following amendments to the Council's by-laws (the proposed revisions are underlined):
Article IV (Elections), section A (Membership), sub-section 1:
Each department or degree-granting center or institute offering the Master's or Ph.D. degree shall have one representative on the Council. Representation on the Council shall come from the graduate faculty or graduate program director of that unit and shall be determined by the Chairperson of each department or the director of the academic unit. It shall be either the Chairperson, the Graduate Program Director, or the Chairperson's designate. In addition, each department/unit shall also appoint a designated alternate from the graduate faculty who can attend meetings when the Council representative is unable to do so. Alternates shall be provided with all materials for the Council meeting and may vote for the department/unit.
Article VI (Procedures), section B, sub-section 1:
Attend and participate in all Council meetings, or, when attendance is not possible, assure that the alternate will attend.
Discussion followed. Representatives asked what would be the policy on substitutes under the revised by-laws if neither the Council representative nor the alternate could attend. Dr. Caughie suggested that the revision would make no change that substitutes would still be permitted to attend but not to vote. (The revised by-laws would allow the alternate to vote.)
The proposed amendments will be considered at the next meeting of the Council, as described in Article VII of the by-laws.
Adjournment
Dr. Caughie adjourned the meeting at 3:00 p.m.
Council of Graduate School Programs
Chair's Report
Friday, October 25, 2002
Report to the Council: Motion from 9/27/02 on academic calendar:
As of October 7, I had received emails from 17 Council representatives. At least 2 of those had also been copied to the Provost. The responses varied widely, from statements that the proposed change had no effect on the unit's programs to the proposed change would severely disrupt summer offerings and put students at risk of not completing degrees; from concern that adding a second class meeting per week would prevent part-time students and part-time faculty from taking or teaching summer classes, to optimism that the change would allow students to take one more class per year; from concern that the shorter period for classes would harm quality to enthusiasm for the new learning opportunities it would open up; from concern over the effect on student stipends and faculty salaries to concern that later ending date in May would hurt student employment. One said the proposal lacked a rationale. Another opposed the time grids for class scheduling.
The point is, both the Provost's email of October 4 and his comments on Wednesday (Oct. 9) to Faculty Council render many of these issues moot. By a large margin, faculty and students support a Maymester over a J-term. He also gave out a mock calendar that provided various options (4, 6, 8 and 12 weeks) for summer courses. (I'm not sure how that satisfies the goal of uniform start and end times.) He also said that time grids will be built into the system for scheduling because there are a limited number of options and because time slots at WTC will be tight because of space limitations with the destruction of two buildings. Asked why we need to move so quickly on this change, the Provost seemed to say, why not? He said logistical issues mention in the Oct. 4 email could be worked out, this may increase revenue, and it may help the School of Business, which has been losing students. He also feels that the responses sent to him by email were sufficient consultation.