200 Bricker Hall Printer-Friendly Version
November 2, 2005
3:00-5:00
MINUTES
Present: Professors: Lora Gingerich Dobos, Kay Halasek, Richard Gunther, Margaret McMahon, Raymond Noe (Chair), Nancy Reynolds, W. Randy Smith (Vice Chair), Harald Vaessin, and George Valco
Student Members: Jane Evans and Scot Pearson (Council of Graduate Students); Kevin Freeman (Inter-Professional Council); and Amanda Ransburgh and Elaine Yeh (Undergraduate Student Government).
Guests: Professors Elizabeth Hume and Shari Speer, Department of Linguistics; Professor Elliot Slotnick, Associate Dean, Graduate School; and Jed Dickhaut, Coordinator, State Enrollment Reporting, University Registrar’s Office.
APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF OCTOBER 19, 2005
Dobos moved approval of the Minutes of the Meeting of October 19, 2005. Evans seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously.
COMMENTS FROM THE CHAIR – PROFESSOR RAYMOND NOE
• The Faculty Cabinet continues to meet and has expressed considerable interest in the proposed merger of the School of Public Policy and Management and the John Glenn Institute for Public Service and Public Policy. Noe attends these meetings as Chair of this Council.
COMMENTS FROM THE VICE CHAIR – PROFESSOR W. RANDY SMITH
• Three proposals are scheduled for action at the University Senate on November 10, 2005: to establish a Doctorate in Physical Therapy; to Designate Academic Center Status to The University Honors and Scholars Center; and to Rename the College of Medicine and Public Health to the College of Medicine. With regard to the center proposal, Professor Linda Harlow, Associate Provost and Director, University Honors and Scholars Center, and Smith have met with the Faculty Council (October 6, 2005), the Steering Committee (October 21, 2005), and Harlow will soon meet with the Undergraduate Student Government to discuss it.
• Smith commented that he had convened three different groups to discuss curricular issues: social studies, literacy studies, and issues relating to the offering of double majors, dual degrees, and undergraduate minors.
• Later this academic year, Council will be receiving proposals to: establish a School of Earth and Environmental Science; establish Regular Clinical Track Faculty in the College of Social and Behavioral Sciences; and permit students to complete two majors within the International Studies Program.
• The proposal to merge the Department of Public Policy and Management with the John Glenn Institute for Public Service and Public Policy will go to the Faculty Council for a vote on December 1, 2005. With that input, and with a letter from the Provost, the ad hoc committee of the Council on Academic Affairs will present it to the full Council on December 7, 2005.
• Smith said the College of Medicine and Public Health had proposed a Specialization and Transcript Designation for Cancer Biology in the Integrated Biomedical Science Graduate Program (IBGP). The proposal had the approval of the Council on Research and Graduate Studies. Council members gave their approval.
PROPOSAL TO RENAME THE CENTER FOR EXCELLENCE IN MANUFACTURING MANGEMENT TO THE CENTER FOR OPERATIONAL EXCELLENCE, FISHER COLLEGE OF BUSINESS – PROFESSORS RAYMOND NOE AND W. RANDY SMITH, SUBCOMMITTEE D
The proposal to rename the Center had been reviewed by Council at its meeting on October 5, 2005. Council members wanted a letter of concurrence from the College of Engineering. Smith requested a letter and received concurrence from Professor Robert Gustafson, Associate Dean, College of Engineering.
Subcommittee D moved approval, Valco seconded the motion, and it was unanimously approved. The proposal will be forwarded to the Board of Trustees for action at its meeting on December 2, 2005.
PROPOSAL TO ESTABLISH A B.A./M.A. DEGREE PROGRAM IN THE DEPARTMENT OF LINGUISTICS – PROFESSORS RAYMOND NOE AND W. RANDY SMITH, SUBCOMMITTEE D
Late in the 2004-05 academic year, Professor Elizabeth Hume had met with Smith and Professor Elliot Slotnick, Associate Dean, Graduate School to discuss a proposal for a combined program. A revised proposal was submitted to the Council on Research and Graduate Studies in May 2005 and was approved. The combined program has the support of the Department, the Dean of the College of Humanities, and the Colleges of Arts and Sciences. Slotnick said there were rules for establishing a combined program and that the Department had met those requirements.
Council Discussion:
• What does the senior year/M.A. year entail? It appears there are no required courses during the M.A. year. Are there just electives? How does this combined year differ from a typical M.A. year?
• Are there any other combined B.A./M.A. programs at Ohio State? This is most common in engineering. Is there a relationship between the undergraduate research paper and the research thesis? It appears that the research paper in the senior year will be continued into the M.A. year. Is it an undergraduate honors thesis or a Master’s thesis? It is both.
DISCUSSION WITH PROFESSORS ELIZABETH HUME AND SHARI SPEER, DEPARTMENT OF LINGUISTICS
Hume said that they had been revamping their program to give students extra training and to make the program more attractive. Some of their students want to work in fields where a Masters is required – particularly in teaching overseas. This program would give those students the credentials to do so. There is also training in computational linguistics for work in special technologies such as speech recognition, artificial intelligence, and translation. A Masters is necessary in those fields. The traditional linguistics graduate program has been changing in the last decade. This revamping gives students more opportunity to do graduate level work. Core courses would be divided into undergraduate level and graduate level, and will teach students analysis and theory.
The Department is very selective in admitting students to its Ph.D. program. They admit 7-10 students a year, but the graduate classes are small. This combined program would allow more students to enter those classes and give them more opportunities.
There are no required courses in the senior year, but students would begin writing their undergraduate research paper. It would be a thesis that would continue on into their M.A. year. Speer provided background on the program, saying that they had revamped the undergraduate portion because their students were getting better and they wanted to encourage the best to take graduate level work. It may give some of the students an opportunity to go on to other Ph.D. programs.
• Do other institutions direct admit from the B.A. to the M.A. program? Yes, it is standard at many leading research departments.
• Is there any room to select other courses outside of linguistics? Yes. There is an inherent flexibility in the program determined by two separate committees, one for the undergraduate students and one for the graduate students. A student could take computer science for example. There are electives in the Masters program. Hume said they would also like to encourage students to do thesis research, or take the M.A. exam which requires three additional courses.
• To what extent is the B.A./M.A. different from a typical M.A. program? Fifteen additional hours are necessary. It allows students in their senior year to have undergraduate and graduate level courses. There is a university requirement of a 3.5 GPA. The courses that could double count have to be 600 level courses, and they are rigorous courses.
• Can “almost” the best students get in the program? Speers said that they do not admit these students, not unless they have been admitted to a PhD program elsewhere on campus. They do admit students from other colleges to some of their computational linguistics courses if it will enhance their programs – for example, students from the College of Engineering.
• Hume clarified how graduate admissions to the Department works. She said that this is primarily a doctoral program, and they only accept students into the Ph.D. program if they can guarantee them funding for five years. There was concern that they would create a two class system if they admitted their M.A. students into the Ph.D. program. They would not be able to support them.
If a student has a B.A. from Ohio State or from another institution, would you provide a direct admission to the Ph.D. program? Yes. Some may leave with an M.A., if they did not complete their Ph.D. in five years, or if they were not going on to other academic fields.
• Would this new approach create a two-tier system? Why would students with a 3.5 GPA opt for this program rather than a Ph.D. program? There are students who will not need the Ph.D. in the fields they have chosen, such as business or industry. What about a student who could make it into the B.A./M.A. program and wants to go on for a PhD? There is nothing to discourage them from applying for Ph.D. programs around the country. Could this be seen as a “consolation” Masters, and not be perceived as a true Masters? No. Our students would be credentialed, which is very important, and our program is distinguished. What if a student was admitted then decided not to do a Masters, but go on for a Ph.D.? They could do so.
• What about funding of the fifth-year students? There would be no assistance. They would support the Ph.D. students, but not the M.A. students. Why would students do an M.A. program that does not offer funding when they could go to another Masters or Ph.D. program that does? Hume said that the Department of Linguistics would not support them. Smith commented that this shows how much variability there is in our graduation programs: how we admit, for what degrees, and levels of funding. Halasek said that the University needs to be thinking about this. If these students are so qualified, should they not be eligible for some level of funding? Smith said that he will check on this.
• It was noted that most students in these programs, like those at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), are expected to complete their Ph.D. – not the M.A.
• How much would this M.A. differ from a typical M.A.? Slotnick said there would be no changes in the M.A. portion, just in the undergraduate portion.
Subcommittee D moved approval, Valco seconded the motion, and it was approved with 11 in favor and one abstention.
CONTINUED DISCUSSION OF THE REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON GRADUATE EDUCATION: PART I-FINANCIAL AND INTERNAL PROCESS CONSIDERATIONS
As a follow-up to the presentation of this Report to Council on October 19, 2005, Smith said that the Council should prepare a formal response.
It was acknowledged that the Report had addressed what many had known for many years: graduate programs were in serious need of review and of broad oversight - more than had occurred in the past.
• In response to questions about the relationship between this Report and reactions from the Senate Fiscal Committee, Evans, who had been involved in that Committee’s assessment during Summer 2005, indicated that this Report indeed reflected that input.
• Many Council members agreed that the recommendations of the Report were heading us in the right direction, but they need to see more specifics, such as what will appear in Part II and what will emerge from another committee that is looking at reporting lines and related activities for the Graduate School but has yet to issue its report.
• Of particular concern was Item 4 of the Report – that Graduate School would have “absolute” authority over the programs and the selection process. It was noted that the word “absolute” had been a poor choice of words. Smith said that despite that wording, it is clear that many will be involved in the process. Indeed since the Report had been issued, at public presentations of the recommendations, members of the Committee had themselves expressed concern about the use of the term “absolute”.
• Halasek indicated that the College of Humanities was very concerned that students would be admitted through the criteria of the Graduate School, rather than the criteria of departments/schools. Such an approach could affect diversity among other characteristics. There are qualitative issues that affect what students will be selected. It was critical that the departments used their own criteria, rather than have the Graduate School selecting students and handing a list over to the Departments.
• Some believed that, in general, graduate programs should have the kind of oversight that Vice Provost and Dean for Undergraduate Studies, Martha Garland’s office provides for undergraduate programs.
• Council members focused on several tables and figures in the Report. Data on Figure 3 (p.11) were disturbing. Admissions cannot be decentralized. They have to be centralized. Jed Dickhaut, University Registrar’s Office, clarified that fixed funding, state-wide, through the Board of Regents, does not address selective funding of graduate programs. It is up to us to make those decisions. Page 15 shows the requests for referrals. Has the number increased? We do not know. One college in particular had 130 referrals.
• There is an issue about exceptions and the excessive number of them in some colleges. Page 15 of the Report reveals it. Exceptions are made for students below the 3.0 GPA. It appears that we try to make funding follow the students and not vice versa. Page 11 highlights the budget incentives that currently are in place. The decrease in doctoral subsidy is due to terminal Master’s degree programs that permit credit hours in excess of 50.
• Some felt that Item 3 was the most important point of all. What is a Master’s student? The Fiscal Committee also looked at this. It is hard to determine when a student shifts from the M.A. to the Ph.D. There are those already working on this issue and this is an item cannot be addressed right away.
• Will the current funding caps go away? There has been no talk of it from the Board of Regents. Should we suggest this? It is not likely that they will respond. This is why caps were used in the first place. It was left to the University to address its internal issues relating to them.
DISCUSSION: COUNCIL ON ACADEMIC AFFAIRS’ OVERSIGHT REPONSIBILITIES – PROFESSOR W. RANDY SMITH, VICE CHAIR
Smith said that, following meetings that he had during Spring 2005 with the Senate Steering Committee, he had met during Summer 2005, with the new Chair of the Steering Committee, and the new Chair of the Faculty Council, to discuss plans to establish committees that would work “on behalf” of the Council and report to it.
The work would focus on oversight responsibilities that Council has but that it cannot complete easily within its current organizational structure and with its current continuing workload. The approach would be to establish a relatively small committee of faculty and students that would include one or two representatives from the Council to work on selected oversight responsibilities.
Two topical areas that need attention starting this year are: the review of academic centers/institutes; and the review of enrollment limitation plans.
Council members endorsed this approach with two suggestions.
• These committees establish a set of guidelines for these reviews and then bring them to Council for approval before any reviews actually begin; and
• Once a committee is established and a review is completed, it should report back through one of the Subcommittees of the Council. The report would then be submitted to the full Council.
Gunther expressed interest in service on the committee to review centers; and Halasek volunteered to work on enrollment limitation. Smith asked other Council members to consider participation on these committees.
Other Business
Halasek said that the ad hoc oversight committee for the School of Allied Medical Professions’ new undergraduate Biomedical Sciences Major (approved by Council 11/04) was about to meet. Smith said that he has already asked for a full status report to Council at a forthcoming meeting.
The meeting was adjourned at 5:00pm.
Respectfully submitted,
W. Randy Smith
Joyce Rankin
