Curriculum Council

Voting Members Present: Paul Adams, Mike Bailey, Alix Gitelman, Sue Helback, Robert Iltis, Sara Jameson, Kate MacTavish, Prem Mathew
Ex-officio Members Present:Bill Bogley, Dianna Fisher, Nancy Laurence
Guest: Gary Beach, Brenda McComb, Rebecca Mathern, Sarah Williams

Approval of November 7 Minutes

• Robert moved to approve the minutes; motion seconded and passed by voice vote with no dissenting votes.

Proposal for a Co-Degree Masters Program – Brenda McComb

• Brenda explained that the proposal is a framework, or template, that a unit can use to develop a program; the unit will be allowed to impose additional requirements outside of the proposal.
• Has something similar to this proposal has been successful at other institutions? Brenda responded that it is a popular option at Stanford
• Because Engineering has had something similar in the past, and there is interest among other units, there was a desire to have this as a campus-wide option. Regarding financial aid, Doug Severs indicated that the school must determine when the student moves from the undergraduate level to the graduate level; the transition must occur following the junior year; and it would occur when most of the remaining courses are graduate courses and, at this point, the student would be eligible for graduate financial aid. The proposal would need to be a university-level decision.
• Can the unit limit the number of credit hours? Brenda indicated it would be up to the department to determine how many credits they will accept. For slash courses, students would sign up for the 500 level of a 400/500 level course once they are accepted into the graduate portion. Student credit hours would be double-counted. It was suggested to determine how other institutions handle the issue of double-counting.
• Would this proposal restrict a student to their major? Brenda stated they hadn’t thought about that aspect, but envisioned if a program offers both Bachelors and Masters degrees, this would provide a pathway to the Masters.
• It was stated that the Curriculum Council would need to request a revision to AR25 to allow approval for the proposal.
• It was noted there is a possibility of students losing Pell awards and there may be problems with assistantships, but this proposal may assist with student recruiting.
• Is there a possibility that University Honors College students will do two theses in two years? Brenda noted that the Honors thesis advisor would continue as the Masters thesis advisor. The view is that they want to keep the completion of one degree clean; the Honors thesis would be defended, then the student would move on to the Masters thesis.
• What about GTA’s serving as a TA for graduate courses? Brenda explained that it is discouraged, particularly when there is a conflict of interest.
• Brenda noted it is implicit that students will complete the program in five years, but may actually take 5.5 or 6 years if working on a thesis. Students will take a full credit load through the senior year, but may need special advising that year.
• It was noted that the proposed 3.25 GPA appears to be low. Brenda indicated that initial GPA discussions ranged from 3.0 to 3.5 and 3.25 was settled on; she noted that departments may require a higher GPA.
• If the GPA for a non-admitted student is not as competitive as those who are admitted, does the non-admitted student pay more overall than students who are admitted to the program? It’s difficult to determine cost depending on when full graduate tuition is paid, GTA appointments, etc., are factored in.
• How is tuition determined if they are taking undergraduate and graduate courses at the same time? Rebecca noted that Doug Severs still needs a line of demarcation and, if co-enrolled in undergraduate and graduate courses, they will be considered as a graduate student.
• Because there are undergraduate and graduate advisors, students would be advised by both; this already occurs in Engineering.
• Brenda wants a recommendation or agreement from the Curriculum Council; the same will be asked of the Graduate Council. If both Councils agree, the proposal will be forwarded to the Faculty Senate Executive Committee.
• It was noted that the Willamette 3+3 law degree was an MOU, but this is a special program that would not require a Category II; however, it needs internal approval and the catalog listings must be clear.
• The case was made that, because the students are at OSU and will be known by faculty, as opposed to incoming graduate students, a set GPA may not be an important factor.

Please forward to Brenda any additional input. The proposal will be revised and brought back to the Curriculum Council for a vote. It was suggested that the proposal also be reviewed by students before it comes back to the Curriculum Council.

Report from the Chair – Mike Bailey

• • Category I Reviewer Assignments –
    • #84962 – Rename Women Studies to Women, Gender, and Sexuality Studies – Robert Iltis, Ben Tribelhorn
    • #84096 – New Degree Program Proposal – MS, PhD in Comparative Health Sciences – Alix Gitelman, Prem Mathew
    • #82032 – New Degree Program Proposal – MA/MS in Communication – Paul Adams, Sue Helback
    • # 83436 – New MOU Proposal – MFA in Low Residency Creative Writing (Cascades) – Sara Jameson, Kate MacTavish, Daniel Stroud
    • #84452 – Merge Academic Units Proposal – Merge Biochemistry and Biophysics with Microbiology to Create a School of Life Sciences – Frank Chaplen, Richard Nafshun
    • #85547 – New Degree Program Proposal – PhD in Business Administration – Mike Bailey, Matt Kennedy
    • Math Academic Program Review – Mike will assign a reviewer

Report from Academic Affairs – Bill Bogley

• Course Designator Requests
• Bill requested that the Council consider developing criteria related to course designator requests, particularly when related to courses not in an academic unit. Factors to consider when developing criteria:
• Perhaps identify a substantial number of courses to be considered before approving a designator.
• First determine whether OSU would lose E&G dollars if student credit hours are credited to an administrative unit rather than an academic unit.
• Sara Jameson, Clay Torset and Dianne Fisher will work with Bill to draft recommendations to be considered by the Council.

Minutes prepared by Vickie Nunnemaker, Faculty Senate staff.