I. Minutes Approval
Minutes of the October meeting were approved as written.

II. Evaluation of Academic Programs
Chair Elizabeth Baranger reviewed the role of the Subcommittee for Evaluation of Academic Programs (SEAP), noting that SEAP is currently discussing the role of its report. UCGS was asked for its thought regarding the role of Council in reviewing SEAP reports.

Council responded that SEAP reports helps UCGS identify policy issues; the evaluation process itself is useful and leads to changes in programs. Steve Hirtle noted that if UCGS is responsible for approving new programs, then evaluation or review of existing programs is a necessary backdrop to that work; furthermore, UCGS is one place where a program has to meet with a "public" group outside its discipline, thus keeping the program academically sound.

Ed Sussna pointed out that the internal reviewers in evaluations are very strong people with strong standards who will issue a "wake-up call" if needed; the review function should set high standards and expect excellence from programs.

Baranger added that UCGS can be a site for "integrative" thinking about graduate issues. For instance, financial aid or the need for fellowships in Arts and Sciences comes up repeatedly in the reviews; UCGS provides a perspective across departments and across schools for addressing such issues. Wynne Korr seconded the importance of this perspective, noting that issues such as faculty retirement will call for integrative thinking.

In summary, Council noted the value of its review of SEAP reports, but admitted to some frustration at not knowing whether its recommendations are considered. It was suggested that SEAP report recommendations be reviewed to see to what degree those recommendations were realized.

III. Revision of Regulations Governing Graduate Study at the University of Pittsburgh
It is time to print new copies of Regulations Governing Graduate Study. Council was asked to consider any updates or revisions to this document. In particular, does Council wish to revise any of the following:

• certificate issues
• teleconferencing for oral defense (does this satisfy the requirement of an oral defense before a committee? who should pay costs of teleconferencing?)
• should regulation be added requiring schools to check students’ records to make sure they have the undergrad degree? (Note: Council agreed that this should be a reminder, not a regulation; all schools should already be doing this and UCGS’s responsibility should be limited to function of reminding schools of this housekeeping task via a memo to the deans.)
• what limits should there be on students who wish to transfer credits taken as an undergraduate at the graduate level to count toward their graduate degree?

The Graduate Procedures Subcommittee will consider these issues.

IV. Bulletins on the Web
Members of Council received copies of the memo sent by Baranger and Mary Ann Aug (University Relations) to all deans informing them of guidelines for online bulletins. The question of archiving such documents arose. Baranger noted that the hard copy versions of the bulletins will remain the "official" ones; schools should keep copies as usual for their records. The online publication will contain the most recent information, but its terms are not binding; online bulletins are there for informational purposes only.

V. Subcommittee Appointments
Council will not meet in December. Subcommittees should arrange to meet during December or early January.

VI. Miscellany
Members of Council asked to have an email distribution list set up by the Office of the Provost to facilitate communication between Council members. This will be done before the next UCGS meeting.

Baranger asked if Council wanted to arrange a meeting with Provost James Maher. UCGS members agreed that a meeting with the provost in the spring would be helpful. One suggestion is that this meeting might involve discussion of the impact of SEAP/UCGS recommendations.

VII. Evaluation of the Academic Programs Offered by the Department of History
SEAP liaison Ed Sussna reviewed his role, noting that he is a reporter and a liaison between parties; he is not an evaluator. He then reviewed the summary report and recommendations submitted through SEAP.

General observations included:

• the department is well-regarded nationally and internationally
• department demography is a concern; major recruitment decisions needed in the next few years
• the undergraduate teaching model is large introductory-level classes with small subsections led by grad students, while upper-level classes are small and taught by faculty
• the PhD program has a long time-to-degree
• re-establishing department priorities will be necessary but may be difficult in such a collegial atmosphere

Department chair Ted Muller noted the general congruence between the department’s perceptions and those of the reviewers; however, he noted, the review reports strike him as myopic in their lack of recognition of the department’s long-range, ongoing work on key issues. The department has been working since before the review process began on a vision for the intellectual future of the department, keeping in mind that key recruitment decisions will need be made in approximately 1999. The replacement strategy called for in the reports, then, is already underway. Deciding on this strategy did create tension but the department worked through these tensions and remains professionally collegial.

Muller also noted an error in the reports, pointing out that West European and Asian areas will suffer the most from the upcoming retirements. He added that the doctoral program was recognized as overly large four years ago; since that time, the department has been pulling back. One-third of the funded students are on fellowships; two-thirds are funded as TAs. Since 1980, approximately 83% of PhD graduates from the department are employed full-time in history-related professions.

The large number of associate professors was also recognized some time ago; about five years ago, the department began working with them to move them up to full professors. One-third of the associate professors in the department are being courted by other institutions.

Fred Whelan of the Internal Review Committee noted his group’s positive response to the harmonious intellectual climate of the department. The IRC is urging the department to think about what happens after retirement, especially in regards to the balance of different fields. Muller noted that this work is being done; area groups are now moving toward working together as "Atlantic Community" and "Trans-European" clusters.

UCGS members’ responses to the report, its recommendations, and the ensuing discussion included the following:

• concern about the students – the time to degree seems excessive (Muller notes that students work as TAs for four years and then work on finding fellowship funding; both skills – teaching and scholarship – are necessary in job market and therefore the length of time to degree is the norm; he does not see increased focus on mentoring as helpful as mentoring is already being done) and the workload of TAs very heavy
• need for a department Web page

UCGS member Karsten noted as former chair of the department that neither report mentioned that the department’s faculty productivity has ranked first nationally and its graduate training ranked 32nd; he sees collegiality as positive part of restructuring work.

Muller and Whelan left the room, and UCGS continued its reaction to the reports and discussion. Note was made that reviewers from other institutions also pointed out an excessive workload for TAs. More discussion on this and on time to degree continued, including reasons for the time (such as need to travel to research sites even before doing research). The exchange between the written recommendation of SEAP and the chair’s response was noted as being very useful.