Attending: Elizabeth Baranger (Chair), David Barker (FAS), Ray Burdett (SHRS), Judith Erlen (Nursing), Steven Husted (FAS), Y.H. John Ismail (Dental Medicine), Margaret Mahoney (Law), David Miller (GSPIA), Ron Neufeld (Engineering), Cindy Persinger (GPSA/FAS), Steve Phillips (Medicine), Deane Root (FAS/Music), Esther Sales (Social Work), Roslyn Stone (GSPH), Curtis Wadsworth (GPSA); Sam Conte (Registrar’s Office), Paul Nelson (GSPIA), Carrie Sparks (Provost’s Office)
I. Minutes Approval
The minutes of the May 2001 meeting were approved as written.
II. Definition of Professional Doctorate
Prior to the June UCGS meeting, the Graduate Procedures Committee met to discuss what is a Professional Doctorate. A draft defining a Professional Doctorate, incorporating the groups suggestions, was presented to UCGS by Vice Provost Baranger. Dr. Baranger noted that the document was not yet finalized and that it will evolve as we continue through the process. Feedback on this document was requested from the Council.
The question of how to count credits was raised. Some universities count credits differently than others. The Council thought that the number of credits seemed arbitrary. It was suggested that perhaps time was a better way to measure the amount of work required. Steve Husted suggested “full-time semesters” was the least ambiguous.
The question if there should be a required comprehensive examination was raised. It was pointed out that there needed to be some assessment of mastery of subject matter. A comprehensive exam would demonstrate that. The Council agreed that a comprehensive examination was a good way to assess knowledge.
Steve Husted suggested that we be careful how we title this proposal. Sam Conte recommended that the title be changed to “Guidelines of a Professional Doctorate: in lieu of “What is a Professional Doctorate.”
Dr. Baranger asked the Council what they thought of having no more than one-third of the required semesters focus on clinical work. The Council agreed to retain this. It was asked how one was going to be able to judge the quality of clinical rotations. Curtis Wadsworth suggested that there be training for clinical instructors. He stressed that it was essential to programs like this that the clinical advisors be well trained experts in the field. He concluded that the departments should also evaluate the clinical experience to ensure that the students would receive quality practical experience.
Ray Burdett said that the clinical instructor would be trained by the coordinator and that Tony DeLitto has a plan on how to evaluate clinical instructors. Ray Burdett agreed that this was important.
Dr. Baranger will add a line to the Professional Doctorate document that states that departments should have an objective way to evaluate clinical rotations.
It was suggested that the title of the document be changed to Professional Doctorate in Health Science Schools, because the document at present does not seem entirely applicable to programs in all schools.
It was suggested that the term “internship” be used in addition to “practicum or clinical.” This document will be revised to make it applicable to a broader group of programs.
Dr. Baranger would like Tony DeLitto to rewrite the proposal as a stronger, more coherent document that presents the doctoral program as more than an upgraded Master’s degree.
III. Status of On-line Applications
Council reviewed the table summarizing the status. The majority of people chose to go with LamTech. Most of those who tried it were pleased with it, some gave critical comments. Dr. Baranger will send the summary to the Council of Deans.
Steve Phillips said they were developing their own system. Dr. Baranger said that Business tried this and was having problems with the shadow system.
Steve Phillips said that LamTech worked well.
Steve Husted seconded that and made the comment that applicants from the US went up from previous years. He also recommended to those who have not implemented the on-line applications to start early to make sure there is time to get it up and running by fall. In addition, letters of recommendation can now be sent electronically. LamTech sends a URL and it gets imbedded in the application.
The question was raised: what happens if a student applies both on-line and on paper? The list has to be manually reviewed before it is sent to the admissions committee.
David Miller expressed appreciation for the support for this project. Kit Ayars is acknowledged for her significant contributions.
IV. Multiple Minors and Areas of Concentration
Dr. Baranger explained that University Policy statement says that there can only be one minor and area of concentration per degree. There has been a request from an undergraduate unit to permit multiple minors and areas of concentration. The Graduate Procedures Committee recommended that we eliminate from the combined bulletin the statement that there be only one minor permitted.
There was a motion to pass this recommendation. The motion was seconded. All were in favor.
V. Proposal to Establish a Master of International Development
David Miller and Paul Nelson presented the proposal for a Master of International Development.
· Drop the Economic and Social Development major within the Master
of Public and International Affairs degree.
· Create a new degree called a Master of International Development.
· Create two new majors within the MID degree.
· Reflects the School’s Current Divisional Structure.
· ESD has become a value laden, outdated term.
· ID represents an expanding market of which GSPIA is positively positioned to capitalize.
The presenters were asked what the faculty in GSPIA thinks about the proposal. David Miller said from his perspective there has been overwhelming support. Paul Nelson said there is a consensus, but not without some debate about terms.
Referring to Page 7 table 2 of the proposal, Deane Root questioned if there was still going to be the same number of courses.
Paul Nelson and David Miller answered that students would take four courses from one major and two courses from the other. There are still 48 credits but with more focused choices. This needs to be rewritten so it is clearer.
Referring to Page 6, Deane Root questioned why there is no formal foreign language requirement.
Paul Nelson and David Miller answered that they encourage students to have a foreign language. Whether or not a student knows a foreign language is a factor taken into consideration on the application form. Most students do have command of a foreign language, or they develop one. In addition, some students end up in careers where English is the language they use in their work.
Other questions were raised concerning the use of the term “environment.” This will be discussed by Ron Neufeld and David Miller at a later date.
The guests were dismissed.
Y.H. Ismail made a motion to accept the proposal contingent on the clarification and corrections the Council requested be made to the proposal. The motion was seconded. All were in favor.
The meeting was adjourned.
June 26, 2001