Attending: Elizabeth Baranger (Chair), David Barker (FAS/Political Science), Ray Burdett (SHRS), Judith Erlen (Nursing), Joseph Grabowski (FAS/Chemistry), Steve Hirtle (SIS), Stephanie Hoogendoorn (GPSA), Steven Husted (FAS), Margaret Mahoney (Law),David Miller (GSPIA), Ron Neufeld (Engineering), Steve Phillips (Medicine), Louis Pingel (Education), Deane Root (FAS/Music), Esther Sales (Social Work), Roslyn Stone (GSPH), Regis Vollmer (Pharmacy), Curtis Wadsworth (GPSA); Kit Ayars (Provost’s Office), Barbara Heron (Registrar’s Office), Cliff Brubaker (SHRS), Anthony Delitto (SHRS), Kathleen DeWalt (FAS/Anthropology)
I. Minutes Approval
The minutes of the April 2001 meeting were approved as written. Copies of the combined graduate and professional programs bulletin were distributed to Council members.
II. Proposal to Establish a Doctor of Physical Therapy Program
UCGS Chair Elizabeth Baranger introduced the proposal, noting that it does not fit neatly into current degree categories. Dr. Anthony DeLitto then described the existing Physical Therapy program, which ranked third in the country but failed to recruit a full class. Where the program used to have 800 applications for 40 positions, it now draws only 150 applications for those 40 spots. DeLitto identified the high out-of-state tuition rate and the lack of a doctoral program as the reasons for this shift.
In addition to the marketing considerations, a doctoral program more closely matches the credit load carried by the program. In addition to the coursework, students will be tested comprehensively on all areas of study, including a practical component, and will be required to keep a data log of their patients. The data log will include assessments, treatments, and outcomes, as well as a comparison to benchmarks and best practices, providing a research component to the degree program.
The proposed DPT would replace the current MPT. It would serve as an entry-level degree to professionals in physical therapy. Council asked a number of questions regarding the nature of this program as a doctorate program. Questions included significance of the title “doctor” and request for clarification of how MPTs would apply or move into the DPT program – or whether all MPTs would eventually need to have DPTs.
After departure of the guests, Council expressed concern that this was a minimalist presentation: SHRS just seems to be adding something to the masters in order to satisfy accrediting agency. Council would have preferred to see a presentation that aggressively presented why these are doctorate standards in the field/discipline.
Concern from Council that it has no way to measure and evaluate the existing proposal -- the proposal should present clear goals that can be evaluated by Council. What are the standards by which this proposal should be benchmarked? There needs to be a substantive difference between the masters and doctoral programs, and this proposal doesn't show that. This proposal looks like it's being foisted on the University because the profession feels this degree should be called a doctorate instead of a masters.
The program's standards should at least be comparable in stringency to those of Duke, USC, Washington and this should be shown in the proposal.
Elizabeth Baranger concurred with Steve Hirtle's assessment that we need a new category: "professional doctorates." This would require new general guidelines for this category of degree program. Guidelines might note that no dissertation is required, that this is a generally accredited program, etc. Some mention of level and form of research component.
Two key issues: quality of program proposed and how to categorize this degree.
The proposal should be rewritten to focus on this as a stand-alone doctorate (not as mutation of existing masters program or masters-doctoral) and what it hopes to achieve as a doctoral level program. It should compare the proposed program to those of other schools with highly regarded DPTs (schools at or above SHRS ranking level). The proposal should show students' ability to inquire and do creative work and its rigor in training. A table should indicate the length of time and number of credits in this proposal compared to high-ranking schools. The following course of action was agreed to:
1. Elizabeth Baranger notifies SHRS for need for new proposal that addresses concerns raised by Council.
2. Graduate Procedures Committee (GPC) looks at the issue of professional doctorate guidelines.
3. GPC presents guidelines for new degree category to UCGS in June.
4. SHRS submits revised proposal to UCGS in September.
III. GPSA Report of Activities: 2000-2001
Stephanie Hoogendoorn, GPSA President 2000-2001, distributed a report of this year’s activities. She added that since creation of the report, an International Students Committee has been formed; this committee will work with the graduate student serving as a representative to the Office of International Services Director search committee to identify issues of concern to international students and to domestic students who travel or do research internationally.
Highlights of the report included a safety survey conducted with the FAS Graduate Student Organization, the results of which were discussed in a positive and constructive fashion with Executive Vice Chancellor Jerry Cochran and public safety leaders. Hoogendoorn noted that much of the GPSA budget went to travel grants for students. She thanked Council for its assistance in identifying schools’ contacts and practices in distributing travel awards to students.
Council congratulated Hoogendoorn and the GPSA on the report and on another active and successful year.
IV. Proposal to Establish a Joint Degree Program Leading to a PhD (Anthropology) and an MPH (Behavioral and Community Health Sciences)
FAS Associate Dean Steven Husted and Dr. Kathleen DeWalt described the proposal to establish a joint degree program between FAS and GSPH that would lead students to a PhD with a major in anthropology and an MPH with a major in Behavioral and Community Health Sciences. DeWalt noted that many students are already doing both degrees simultaneously; the formalized joint degree program will allow them to move more efficiently and effectively through the programs. This combination of degrees makes students highly marketable. The joint program is not a hybrid degree program; rather, it is respectful of the needs of both programs and includes the strengths of each.
Council noted the lack of GSPH representation at this meeting and lack of official GSPH endorsement letters in the proposal. Roslyn Stone, UCGS member, noted that faculty in GSPH are indeed enthusiastic about the proposal. The memo from the dean had not arrived in time to include in the proposal packet.
Following discussion, Council moved to recommend approval of the proposal pending receipt of approval or endorsement memos from the Dean of GSPH, the senior vice chancellor for the health sciences, and a list of the GSPH groups which reviewed and approved the proposal.
The meeting was adjourned.
May 15, 2001