I. Minutes Approval

Minutes of the January 1999 meeting were approved unanimously.

II. Evaluation of the Graduate Programs in English

Liaison Ian Reynolds presented the Subcommittee on the Evaluation of Academic Program's report on the graduate programs in the Department of English. He noted the large size of the department and its positive reputation. SEAP recognizes the good job done by the department and endorses the internal and external review team recommendations to facilitate communication in the department community, elevate Film Studies, make more visible the composition program's approaches, offer unencumbered fellowships to attract the best graduate students, share the writing-requirement burden with other FAS departments, fill vacant faculty positions, combine some part-time faculty positions into full-time non-tenure-stream positions, and review the department's academic programs again at the next regularly scheduled interval.

Department Chair David Bartholomae noted that one change the department would like to see is approval for charging a fee for writing-intensive courses; this was not endorsed by SEAP, though SEAP recognized the department's request.

A question and answer period followed. Discussion covered the number of faculty and major-students in the department divisions (literature, writing, composition, film), alternatives to charging a course fee for writing classes, and grading policies.

After Bartholomae and Everett were excused from the meeting, Council discussed the issue of the department's need for better communication, given its large size and varied citizenry, pointing to problems exacerbated by ineffective communication such as information on graduate faculty status or promotion and morale of and hiring/promotion practices for part-time faculty. Various amendments to the SEAP recommendations were proposed to strengthen the endorsement of better communication practices. Council agreed to amend the first recommendation to now read, "The department should develop methods to facilitate communication of information between faculty (both full- and part-time), students, and administrators to ensure that the goals of the department are both clearly articulated and implemented." UCGS then approved the SEAP recommendations unanimously.

Elizabeth Baranger noted that this is the last academic program review to go through the SEAP process. Beginning in AY00, the schools will be responsible for organizing the review of the programs.

III. Post Doctoral Task Force Report

Task Force Chair Ian Reynolds reviewed the report. Baranger reminded Council that postdocs fall into three categories and are not given much attention. Reynolds identified seven recommended steps to make the University a more attractive place for high-caliber postdocs to come here: identify these employees through more specific coding mechanisms in Human Resources (so that trainees are coded differently from long-term employees, for instance), identify a person in each school's dean's office to be a contact point for postdoc information and establish a permanent subcommittee of UCGS to consider postdoc issues, encourage postdocs to set up a self-governing grou pto encourage interaction and community, clarify benefits to be received by postdocs and consider extending to those in some categories the same benefits extended to research associates, establish and disseminate appointment and termination guidelines (as well as basic employment documents such as appointment letters and annual evaluations), publicize a postdoc "minimum wage", and support other positive-environment efforts (e.g. career workshops, designated transitional-funding contact, degree options, ethics and integrity training, and clear grievance procedures).

Baranger noted that the report will be presented to the University Research Council in February.

UCGS was then asked to decide what action it wanted to take. The following action items were approved:

(1) identify who post-docs are via more accurate employee coding

(2) determine what benefits and employment practices should be and then include in appointment letters

(3) compose a policy statement similar to the TA/TF Policy Statement

(4) thanks to be extended to the task force for its report, with a request that the action items be carried out as much as possible and that UCGS be kept informed of this work.

IV. Council of Graduate Schools' Resolution

The University is a signatory of the Council of Graduate Schools' resolution regarding the timing of offers of financial aid to graduate students. This resolution gives students until April 15 to accept or turn down an offer of support without pressure from schools. Baranger noted the usefulness of this resolution in that offers don't have to be made by September in order to get the best students.

Jacob Birnberg argued that just as the undergraduate admissions policy has changed over time in response to the market structure, the graduate admissions process is also subject to change. He sees the CGS Resolution as anachronistic.

In the discussion that followed, several Council members pointed to the usefulness of the April 15 deadline in their work in recruiting and retaining quality graduate students. The general consensus was that there was more to lose by ignoring the resolution than there was in keeping it and that therefore the University should maintain its signatory status. Any violations to the policy should be sent to the attention of UCGS.