I. Minutes Approval
The minutes of the October meeting were approved with the addition of Esther Sales to the attendance list.
II. Announcements
Elizabeth Baranger noted the following:
Committee chair Lou Pingel reviewed the committee’s meeting and presented the following action items for Council vote:
1. The following statement regarding the MA/MS comprehensive exam appears in Regulations Governing: “Whenever a program substitutes an equivalent requirement for the comprehensive examination, the department must obtain prior approval from the University Council on Graduate Study.”
GPC recommends that the statement be revised to read: “When a program substitutes an equivalent requirement for the comprehensive examination, the department should notify the University Council on Graduate Study.”
Council suggested that “and describe the substitution” should be added to the end of the new sentence.
The revision with the additional phrase (“and describe the substitution”) passed unanimously. The approved sentence reads: “When a program substitutes an equivalent requirement for the comprehensive examination, the department should notify the University Council on Graduate Study and describe the substitution.”
Council asked to see an overview of the current MA/MS comprehensive requirements.
2. The following statement on MA/MS coursework appears in Regulations Governing: “At least four courses (12 credits) or one-half the master’s degree program, whichever is greater, must be at the graduate level (the 2000 or 3000 series).”
GPC recommends that the statement be revised to read: “At least four courses (12 credits) or one-half the master’s degree program, whichever is greater, must be at the graduate level (the 2000 or 3000 series) and must be completed with at least an average grade of B (3.00).”
The revision passed unanimously.
3. GPC recommends that the following statement on students’ status be added to Regulations in an appropriate place: “A student on provisional or special status or on probation is not eligible to take the PhD preliminary evaluation, to take the MA/MS or PhD comprehensive examination, or to be graduated.”
The addition of this statement passed unanimously.
4. GPC recommends inserting a statement regarding doctoral QPA requirements to read: “Departments may require a higher minimum QPA for study in a doctoral program.”
Council discussed the function of adding such a statement and decided that the initial statement in Regulations that these are “general regulations and minimal requirements” covers the right of departments or schools to hold more stringent requirements such as higher QPAs, and that the insertion of a statement pointing to one of those requirements in particular was unnecessary and potentially confusing. Thus, no statement regarding departments requiring a higher minimum QPA will be added to Regulations.
5. GPC recommends adding language to the regulation regarding timing of the comprehensive exam for doctoral students. Regulations on the master’s comprehensive currently reads: “A student who is unable to complete all degree requirements within a two-year period after passing the comprehensive examination may be re-examined at the discretion of the department or dean.” [See later revision of this to “department or school.”]
GPC recommends adding the following statement to the paragraph on page 37 of Regulations for the doctoral comprehensive examination:
“A student who is unable to complete all degree requirements within a five-year period after passing the comprehensive examination may be re-examined at the discretion of the department or dean.” [See final revision of this to “department or school.”]
Council asked that both statements refer to “department or school” rather than “department or dean.” With that editorial change in place, the recommendation to insert the statement proposed by GPC in the description of doctoral comprehensive exam requirements passed unanimously.
6. GPC recommends that, as per University procedures, researchers be reminded in Regulations of the need for approval by the University Institutional Review Board for research involving human subjects. On the recommendation of GPC, Council voted unanimously to add the following statement to the “Overview of Prospectus Meeting” section (page 39) of Regulations Governing:
“If the research proposed in the overview or prospectus involves human subjects, that proposed research must be approved by the University Institutional Review Board (IRB) before it may be carried out.”
Council’s recommendations for changes to Regulations will be submitted to the Provost.
IV. Graduate Student Affairs Committee
1. Committee chair Steve Hirtle reviewed the committee’s report, noting first the discussion of advising practices. Schools were asked to submit information about their graduate programs’ advising practices in light of the guidelines of Elements of Good Academic Advising. Responses from the schools indicate that some areas are doing better than others in making public their practices involving advising of graduate students.
The Student Affairs Committee recommends to the Vice Provost for Graduate Study that units who have not yet submitted advising documents be urged to do so as soon as possible, that units are reminded that their advising documents should be publicly available to graduate students through online resources or student handbooks, that schools with glaring deficiencies be asked to correct those, and that schools should be asked to use the Elements document for self-evaluation and to then report back to the committee on how the school and its programs assess and reward advising.
2. The Graduate Student Affairs Committee asks for Council action on the following suggested revisions to the TA/TF Policy Statement:
In the definition of TA/TF appointments, it should be stated explicitly that TA/TFs are graduate students with “full graduate admission status.” Council passed this addition unanimously.
The current policy statement describes the process for transferring a TA/TF from a teaching assignment to a different assignment as follows: “A department may, during the year, transfer a student, with the student’s consent, from a teaching assignment to another appointment as a Graduate Student Researcher or to another appropriate assignment that provides for essentially equal financial benefits and professional responsibilities.”
It was noted that as the responsibility for courses taught at the University rests with the faculty, a student’s consent regarding removal from a position teaching a course cannot be assured. A recent appeals case exemplified the difficulty inherent in the current wording of the policy statement. The Student Affairs Committee recommends the transfer statement be revised as follows:
“A department may, during the year, transfer a student, after consultation with the student and for good cause, from a teaching assignment to another appointment as a Graduate Student Researcher or to another appropriate assignment that provides for essentially equal financial benefits and professional responsibilities.” [italics added]
The proposed revision resulted in extended discussion and particular concern regarding the phrase “for good cause.” Council members pointed out that this phrase can impose an undue legal burden on department chairs for showing why a move was necessary.
Council voted on request to amend the suggested revision by deleting the phrase “and for good cause.” The motion to remove “and for good cause” from the revised statement was defeated by a vote of 5 for, 9 against, and 2 abstentions.
A motion was then made to accept the revised statement as presented by the Student Affairs Committee. The motion passed with a vote of 10 for, 3 opposed, and 3 abstentions.
Council’s recommendations for changes to the Policy Statement will be submitted to the Provost.
3. Graduate students with eligible academic appointments participate in the UPMC Health Plan medical insurance program. UPMC recently announced a decision to restrict subscribers to a limited number of pharmacies. The University opposed this restriction for graduate students under the current contract; thus grad students will continue to have covered access to pharmacies in the ProVantage Pharmacy Network (a network of independent and chain pharmacies) through August of 2001.
Students will receive a new insurance ID card with the ProVantage logo.
Students who run into any difficulties with the prescription drug coverage (or with other components of the health insurance plan) are encouraged to contact Kit Ayars.
V. On-Line Applications for Graduate Programs
Representatives from several graduate schools at the University have been investigating online application options for their programs. Schools would like to be able to allow prospective students to apply online to their graduate programs by September 2000, with credit card fees, test scores, letters of recommendation, and other application materials also deliverable in electronic format.
The two most practical routes to achieving this goal at this time seem to be to use a company which allows applicants to apply via its (the company’s) server, with schools given access to download data from that server, or to use a company that will establish the application and the database on the school’s own secure server. Both options are being explored, with representatives from both types of vendors making presentations on campus over the next few months.
VI. Geoff Wood/Office of International Services
Council was asked to submit any questions regarding admission of international graduate students and the Office of International Services’ role or related issues to Elizabeth Baranger before next month’s meeting.
One member noted that there are some visa problems in placing its international graduate students in other institutions to teach. An international student in GSPIA, for instance, may, as part of her professional development, be encouraged to teach a course at Chatham College, but visa issues complicate the matter.
VII. The meeting was adjourned