Attending: Elizabeth Baranger (Chair), Jacob Birnberg (KGSB), Ray Burdett
(SHRS), Luis Chaparro (ENG), Stephen Hirtle (SIS), Stephanie Hoogendoorn
(GPSA/FAS), Steven Husted (FAS), Mark King (EDUC), David Miller (GSPIA),
Cindy Persinger (GPSA/FAS), Steve Phillips (Medicine), Lou Pingel (EDUC),
Dennis Ranalli (Dental Medicine), Mark Roberts (Medicine), Deane Root (FAS/Music),
Esther Sales (Social Work), Mary Lou Soffa (FAS Science), Roslyn Stone
(GSPH), Curtis Wadsworth (GPSA); Barbara Repasi Heron (Registrarís Office),
Carrie Sparks (Provostís Office)
I. Introduction of UCGS members
II. Role of UCGS
Dr. Baranger described the role of UCGS, its membership and functions. She pointed to page three of Regulations Governing for more information on the role of UCGS.
III. Approval of Minutes
The minutes of the June 26, 2001 meeting were approved as written.
IV. Guidelines for a Professional Doctoral Program
The Graduate Procedures Committee met back in June to create a set of guidelines for what a professional doctorate was. This document was reviewed by Council at the June meeting. Councilís recommendations were implemented into the working document and it was distributed with the September 4th UCGS Agenda.
David Miller said that he wanted the ďGuidelines for a Professional Doctoral ProgramĒ adopted as formal and distributed to the schools. Deane Root asked if the working document would be adopted in a formal way? Elizabeth Baranger said that we should see how it works for the review of the Audiology Doctorate and the Physical Therapy Doctorate. It was referred to as a working document so adjustments could be made as necessary.
V. Proposal to Establish a Doctor of Audiology Program
Catherine Palmer presented the Doctor of Audiology Proposal.
Clarification was asked regarding what Catherine Palmer meant by creating an ďindependentĒ practicing clinician. Catherine Palmer explained that a student graduating with a masterís must be supervised for nine months in order to practice or receive payment. Those graduating with a doctorate could practice independently without supervision.
Mary Lou Soffa asked if their Association had developed a model for this type of program. Catherine Palmer explained that a model had not been developed but a list of competencies had been created. The proposed program could act as the first model.
Steve Phillips asked what the shortcomings were for other similar programs. Catherine Palmer explained that other programs do not provide research coursework and they send their students out anywhere for clinical practice, whereas Pitt has created a network to provide advanced clinical courses.
Mary Lou Soffa asked if there were positions available for those who graduate with this degree. Catherine Palmer responded that there definitely was. She noted that these graduates could practice without supervision and could bill as soon as they graduated opposed to having to be supervised for nine months.
It was asked why they were not asking for tenure stream positions. Catherine Palmer answered that clinical teachers usually do not have the time to build the tenure package. Mark Roberts explained that one should be a good consumer of the research/science that changes practice. He noted that it is a different kind of skill and that there are very good clinicians without tenure. He added that it is good to have a combination of both. Catherine Palmer indicated that they already have three tenure stream people, and more on the speech language side. In addition the people being sought will probably have Ph.D.s because there are not many Doctors of Audiology.
David Miller, as a follow-up to the declaration a Council member made that there is a revolution going on to create professional doctorates in the medical profession, inquired how many of these professional doctorate degrees could we anticipate. Catherine Palmer stated that she could not speak for others outside her school or outside the discipline. She added that either we have these types of programs or we will be out of business.
The Audiology and Physical Therapy guests were asked to leave the room.
Deane Root said that it was a well planned and well presented proposal.
Deane Root made a motion to approve the proposal.
David Miller seconded the motion
All present were in favor of approving the proposal.
VI. Proposal to Establish a Doctorate in Physical Therapy
The proposal before the Council was rewritten after the June UCGS Meeting. Dr. Baranger discussed the changes that Council had suggested.
Tony Delitto discussed why he thought the program should be 8 terms and not 9 terms. The two main reasons given were price and clinical sites with big capacities. Tony Delitto briefly described Evidence-Based Practice
Council was offered to ask questions about the proposal.
Deane Root asked if the program was 7 1/2 or 8 terms long. Ray Burdett responded that it was a full-time program with no term off amounting to 8 terms in total. Steve Hirtle and David Miller noted that the proposed program had the lowest credit hours and the highest clinical time than the compared competing schools. Tony Delitto responded that the less time was due to efficiency and having a commitment from UPMC. He added that the value was placed on clinical hours. Mary Lou Soffa asked if this was an issue that was raised during the June meeting. Elizabeth Baranger answered that it was. Mary Lou Soffa asked why they do not make it 9 terms. Those presenting the proposal answered that students need to accumulate experience, they need internships instead of information otherwise they will only be re-teaching information. A member of Council noted that it seemed strange to have a student earn a doctorate after merely 2 ½ years after the bachelors. Concern over the lack of time for personal and academic reflection was raised. Tony Delitto responded that reflection would take place as the students reviewed their performance.
Mark Roberts stated that he was not convinced that there was a need for DPTs. He said that the trend in HMOs is to have less skilled people doing the work. He asked who would be doing the trained work. Tony Delitto answered that the same people will do the work and that they will be asked to make a higher level of clinical decisions.
The question was asked about what other competing masterís programs were doing. Tony Delitto answered that the entire field was moving in this same direction. Deane Root asked if they had compared their competencies to other programs. Tony Delitto responded that they believe they stack up well. Mary Lou Soffa asked if they used anything for their model. Tony Delitto responded that they had not. The goal was to put forward the best possible product that could be put forth. He explained how this has been a transition from the masterís to the doctorate. The vision or goal was to produce students who could practice cost-effective on day one. He further explained that it did not occur to him to look at other programs. He explained that it is difficult to compare the program.
The question was raised if the didactic section really provided enough information for the Evidence-Based Practice. Tony Delitto responded that keeping up-to-date and reflection on oneís own practice using data was emphasized. The question where students learn how to deal with the data was raised. Tony Delitto responded that it was in Evidence-Based Practice.
The guests were asked to leave.
Elizabeth Baranger stated that the program believed that it must be a doctorate program or that students would not come to it. It is a big program. PTs in this area are trained by Pitt.
Elizabeth Baranger reviewed the issues that Council had had with this proposal.
Deane Root stated that he was still troubled by the difference between the current masterís degree and the doctoral proposal. Luis Chaparro said that the proposed program still seemed somewhere in between a masterís and a doctorate. Increasing it by a term would just seem like a MPT with an addition.
Mark Roberts questioned the idea of having cost effective as a goal. He suggested having high quality as a goal. Ray Burdett stated that the goal was excellence.
David Miller stated that he was not prepared to vote in favor of a proposal that did not take into account Councilís Guidelines. He further stated that efficiency and cost effective are not good arguments. He wanted them to resubmit the proposal with a more compelling reason and argument for not taking into account Councilís Guidelines.
It was stated that perhaps they should beef up the Evidence-Based Practice
to add to the research base.
David Miller made a motion to encourage them to resubmit the proposal that either met the "Guidelines" suggested by Council or provided convincing evidence as to why those Guidelines would not or should not be met.
Seconded by Mary Lou Soffa and Steve Phillips
12 In Favor
The meeting was adjourned.