Regrets: Margaret Mahoney (Law), David Miller (GSPIA), John Stephens (FAS/GPSA).

I. Minutes Approval

Following welcoming remarks from Elizabeth Baranger, chair, and introductions by members of Council, the minutes of the May meeting were approved as written.

II. Role of University Council on Graduate Study

Baranger reviewed the role of UCGS in the governance of graduate studies at the University of Pittsburgh. Council’s attention was drawn to the organization of graduate study as outlined in Regulations Governing Graduate Study at the University of Pittsburgh. Baranger noted that review of academic programs has been moved to the school level and asked Council for its recommendations on how Council could best keep informed of the quality of graduate work at the University? A related question is how to ensure that reviews do take place on a regular basis.

Baranger went on to note that the role of UCGS described in the Regulations does not account for Council’s concern for graduate students; Council is involved in these issues through the Student Affairs Committee.

Documents connected to graduate study at the University and produced through the Office of the Provost were reviewed.

III. Review of UCGS Activities 1998-99

Baranger summarized the activities of UCGS in the 1998-99 academic year. Council will receive a draft of the annual report at the October UCGS meeting.

IV. Proposal to Transfer Child Development and Child Care Program

Michael Patchner presented the proposal to transfer child development and child care from Social Work to the School of Education. He noted that instead of the anticipated integration with Social Work programs, the child development program integrated more closely with School of Education programs; thus a committee, including faculty and co-chaired by Patchner and Lou Pingel (School of Education), considered the issue and recommended transfer of the program to School of Education. Faculty in both schools and in the program itself are amenable to the transfer.

Discussion followed. Council asked about space implications for students, impact of search focus for new faculty, and rationale for changing the name of the program. Discussion then focused on impact on graduate students specifically. Approximately 40 graduate students will be affected; the students have not yet been told that the transfer is under consideration. Council strongly urged those involved to communicate more directly with graduate students, addressing potential student concerns regarding the advantages or disadvantages to having a degree from one school or the other. Not involving students earlier in the process was seen by Council as a missed opportunity.

Council moved to approve the proposal to transfer the program with the recommendation that students be informed before the news of the transfer becomes public and that students be asked for recommendations for effective implementation of the transfer. This motion was approved.

V. Discussion of Possible Future Activities

Baranger reviewed the committees under UCGS and asked members to indicate their interest in particular committee appointments.
 

• Student Affairs: This group will need to look at follow-up to the advising document prepared and distributed last year. The graduate student health insurance plan for students with eligible academic appointments should also be reviewed.
• Graduate Procedures: The graduate bulletin being produced will raise policy questions that this committee will need to explore and make recommendations on to Council.
• Evaluation of Academic Programs: No new reviews will be managed by this committee, as that responsibility has been transferred to schools. This committee will need to consider how to keep abreast of quality of graduate programs at the University and monitor the new process.
• Postdoctoral Positions Ad hoc Task Force: Last year’s task force made specific recommendations. This year, the task force will need to consider how to implement those recommendations, paying particular attention to terms of appointment and employment and to mentoring/placement. This will involve consideration of how this category, which falls into no neat student/faculty/staff category, fits into the University “bureaucracy.”
• Off Campus Programs: Central questions are how many are currently offered and how many students participate. The Web-based courses should be included for consideration in this category.
• Outcomes Assessment: The University is undergoing Middle States accreditation, a process which asks universities to focus on outcomes assessment. While this accreditation process will look most closely at undergraduate education, the graduate education efforts at the University will also be evaluated and outcomes assessment in that area considered.
• Web: Council expressed interest in exploring recruitment and application functionalities of the Web.

Council expressed need for a secure server to handle applications and electronic transfer of funds. This is currently being handled on a department level; there was sentiment that this could be handled better and more efficiently if the University had a secure server for use by programs who wanted to take advantage of this technology. Council argued that the University should support the use of the Web for recruitment and admissions, and one way to encourage this is to provide a secure server for applications and electronic transfer of funds. Some departments are cutting back on hard copy materials in order to devote resources to providing current information on the Web.

The meeting was adjourned.