Graduate Council Meeting Mon, 2013-02-25 12:45

Voting Members Present: Jay Casbon (via phone), Jim Coakley, Theresa Filtz, Greg Herman, Don Jump, Janet Lee, Murray Levine, Darrell Ross, Stacey Semevolos
Voting Members Absent: Nancy Kerkvliet, Mike Lerner
Ex-officio Members Present: Brenda McComb
Guests: Neil Browne, Lynda Ciuffetti, Stella Coakley, John Fowler, Joey Spatafora

Welcome and introductions

Botany and Plant Pathology Graduate Program Review – Graduate Council reviewers’ recap

• Graduate Council Representative: Mike Lerner
  • External Panel Review
  • Review Summary


• Major issues found by the review team from Mike via Jim:
  • Botany and Plant Pathology (BPP) has good faculty, but are spread too thin in some cases between their own and interdisciplinary programs.
  • The student support is not competitive with peers. BPP is using indirect cost to fund GTA’s; some funds are supposed to some from the College of Science (COS). Brenda noted that a case has been made to Sherm Bloomer to work with the University Budget Committee to develop an adjustment to reflect increases in head count or SCH. There is a detailed MOU from the College of Agricultural Sciences outlining funding coming from COS to teach BPP courses in Biology.
  • It doesn’t appear that BPP offers Ecampus courses.
• Minor issues:
  • Inadequate facilities; can’t do a lot about this issue. It was noted by a Council member that, if indirect revenue was used for other than GTAs, those funds could be used for facilities; do they have enough funding for the operation? BPP raises $8 million per year from research – where does it go?
  • Regarding modernizing course offerings, are 300/500 courses allowable? Slash courses were a concern of the review group. BPP is cancelling courses due to insufficient enrollment.
  • The international student enrollment is low.
  • Courses need to be strengthened.
• Regarding the program size, the proposal anticipates 13 students per year, initially, for an eventual total of 60 graduate students. There would be 23 faculty with a large number of courtesy faculty; 16 of the 23 are full professors.
• They are not competitive for GTA’s – what is the current rate? Need to clarify.
• Research funding? GRA’s at .49 FTE are paid in the $20,000 range.
• Were graduate learning objectives reviewed? Brenda was uncertain.
• Why the need to modernize? Brenda stated that the recommendation came from outside reviewers resulting from discussions with graduate students. The reviewers did review some syllabi.

Botany and Plant Pathology Graduate Program Review – Unit representatives present

• • Unit Representatives: Lynda Ciuffetti (Chair), Stella Coakley (College of Agricultural Sciences Associate Dean), John Fowler (Graduate Studies Committee Chair), Joey Spatafora (Associate Chair)
• The level of support for GTAs and where their funding comes from is not clear. Lynda responded that the total need is for 41.5 quarters;7 quarters for mycology, 9 quarters for botany, and 25.5 quarters for biology courses. The funding is approximately $36,000 for the herbarium, $47,000 for botany, $133,000 for biology and $12, 000 comes from the College of Agricultural Sciences (CAS).
• Stella explained that the COS policy was to return all overhead to the unit; however, COS offered that the college could keep the returned overhead for GTAs or deployed to units. It’s implicit that the college would provide more support for GTAs if they could. Commitments made to the herbarium and mycology were made at the time the faculty were hired, but COS did not stand behind the commitments. There is no adjustment in the base budget for Biology.
  • Is there an opportunity for renegotiating how the funding will be handled? Lynda responded that, in terms of the biology program, Botany and Plant Pathology (BPP) is committed on a pedagogical sense (plant scientists should be teaching in the program). BPP contributes to teaching 10 Biology courses and contributes to 8 MCB courses. BPP faculty are not pleased about having to pay for all the GTAs because it does not allow for competitive GTAs or GRAs (faculty pay GRAs from grants if that’s available). The Biology program becoming a major in a department is of grave concern to BPP
  • Do they have access money for Biology? Lynda stated that, when in COS, BPP only could request access money for BOT101, which is a Baccalaureate Core course, but did not receive it. It is not their place to ask for Biology access funding – that is up to the Biology chair.
• As to the recommendation to modernize course offerings, has BPP looked at other offerings? Lynda responded that the department has looked at courses offerings, some of which were reduced when the Provost required a minimum number of students; and BPP has designed new courses due to a computational concentration. Regarding assessment at the undergraduate level, Lynda and Carol Riven met with Bill Bogley and identified issues on which to concentrate.
  • Joey felt that the statement was targeted to a few specific courses, such as BOT550, which is scheduled for discussion with the faculty; several courses have been added and strengthened in plant physiology. Botany and Plant Pathology 350 is the largest plant pathology course in the country and the lab is very extensive; all students attend the same lecture, but undergraduate and graduates have their own lab and graduates have an additional meeting. Students have expressed their desire for a stand-alone course. BPP did the best they could with what they have.
• Are there problems with graduate students running labs in courses in which they are enrolled? Lynda mentors all graduate students and discusses conflict of interest issues. There are enough TAs so no one is ever evaluating one who would be a potential conflict of interest. No graduate students teach lecture courses, but they do teach labs.
• It appears that BPP is understaffed for the number of courses taught. Lynda was thinking about faculty when preparing for this meeting and noted there are a number of BPP faculty who don’t teach in Botany because they teach MCB and Biology courses. Has BPP thought of reducing offerings? Lynda stated that they have reduced courses and have been trying to develop Ecampus courses, mainly at the undergraduate level. They also have to pay temporary instructors with returned overhead, and quite a few Botany courses are taught by temporary instructors. BPP is at bare bones related to dropping classes and need to expand to meet student demand. Joey stated the outcome is that they are penalized for participating in interdisciplinary programs, which BPP values, but is at the expense of their own major. Lynda noted that BPP has a lot of courtesy faculty. From BPP’s perspective, they are short in all three focus areas. Additionally, BPP professors are aging and there will likely be a large turn over at the same time; many of these professors don’t teach, but they do train graduate students.
• Related to increasing international enrollment, Brenda stated that Kim Johnson in the Graduate School can assist BPP with recruiting international students. John noted he has been in contact with Kim, which has resulted in two potential international students.
• Lynda questioned whether BPP responds to the Graduate Council’s final document or recommendations from the review team; Jim indicated that they respond to both.
• Lynda questioned what was meant by ‘metrics’ in the Action Plan. Brenda responded that they need indicate what will be measured so it can be determined in three years if progress is being made.
• Regarding graduate student stipends at comparable institutions, Joey indicated that students don’t feel that stipend level is a deciding factor, but faculty agree that stipends need to be increased. Lynda explained that BPP GTA GRA students are paid the same rate; however, because Biology’s rate is lower, BPP was not allowed to pay the BPP rate to students, so the Biology rate was at .4 FTE with an added BPP at a smaller rate. A comment in report stated that BPP was not as competitive in some cases, but in other cases they were. Additionally, competitiveness may result in a tier level for salaries. Lynda was advised to include the stipend issue in their Action Plan. Brenda suggested checking with Courtney Everson regarding salary rates at peer institutions.

Graduate Council Discussion of the BPP Graduate Program Review –

• Brenda felt that the COS and CAS deans should be talking about this issue.
• 23 faculty and 50 undergraduate majors is not sustainable.
• Not fair for BPP to fund Biology courses. There is partial support from MCB.
• To what extent is the graduate program affected? Staffing and support for GTAs.
• Faculty are overtaxed and under supported.

Action: Jim will draft a response.

New MOU Proposal – Low Residency MFA in Creative Writing at OSU-Cascades

• Graduate Council Representative: Janet Lee
  Unit Representative: Neil Browne
  • Online
  • PDF


• Neil Browne provided a revised MOU which included comments addressing the structure and how the Board will work. Regarding the transferability issue, Jim explained that there have been requests for a university solution so a student in similar degree programs at different campuses cannot transfer without the department accepting a student into the program at the other campus. The Registrar’s Office is looking at ways to flag these students in Banner if there is a capacity issue. Because all coursework is transferable, Jim felt this should not be held up due to the transferability issue.
• The curriculum at OSU-Cascades is still an issue that needs to be resolved. Students would create with a professional mentor for a term and the work would be facilitated by an exchange of packets; the relationship is analogous to how a professional writer and a publishing house would work. There is a residency twice per year where the student and mentor would be onsite for 7-10 days, and then an exchange of work would continue. Brenda felt that this is a hybrid arrangement and is why Ecampus not involved. Neil stated that Ecampus has been consulted, and they are on board with the plan. Brenda noted that Lisa Templeton has not talked with anyone and understood that there would only be an exchange of packets. There was an e-mail from Natalie Dollar indicating that she had talked with Lisa Templeton; Brenda suggested that Neil contact Lisa. Neil explained that the model they are constructing is different and is engaged far more personally on a relationship basis between a small group of students and a mentor, but it has the possibility for an online platform. A student and mentor would exchange ideas, create reading lists, and topics for an annotated bibliography.
• It was noted that the Association of Writers & Writing Programs endorses the proposed model, and that close mentoring and relationship is supported by the AWP. Neil noted that AWP is the accrediting organization and publishes hallmarks for this type of program. It was important to create a program that distinguishes itself from other programs, yet complements the Corvallis program.
• The proposed courses exist, but delivery will be different.

Graduate Council Discussion of the Proposal –

• A member hesitated to hold up the program due to the model, and suggested the Graduate Council give approval, but require a full external review in three years after the first co-hort is admitted to evaluate the program.
• Brenda noted that Lisa Templeton was told that the Graduate School was on board with the proposal, which is not the case. Jay will make it known that incorrect information was conveyed to Ecampus.

Action: Jim will approve the proposal and include a request for a full external review of the program three years after the first co-hort is admitted.

Graduate School Report

• Brenda was asked to approve a waiver for a College of Education student to defend their dissertation in less than one full term. Because the Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval for a related survey occurred about four months prior to when she planned to defend, how does one accomplish the requirements in less than four months? It appears from website is that one chapter is literature review and the other is original research. She felt that’s about what a master’s student would do.
  • Original research is not required for a Master’s, but a PhD does need to be original.
  • Apparently the major advisor agreeable with the student’s plan.
  • A minimum of two publishable articles is required.
  • One Council member questioned what constitutes a level of research in granting a PhD at OSU?
    • One member didn’t feel that the timeframe was a problem if the student could accomplish the requirements.
    • It was noted that a student could be prepping for a period of time before IRB approves the survey.
    • It’s up to the graduate representative to ensure that the process is followed, but not to the detriment of the student.
    • Concern was expressed related to a literature review vs. a dissertation.
    • Is continuing to accept a literature review as one of the two pieces of work acceptable? Some members were not aware this was acceptable.

Meeting adjourned at 12:55 PM.

Minutes provided by Vickie Nunnemaker, Faculty Senate Staff