Graduate Council

Residence Requirement for PhD Program – Rebecca Mathern, Registrar

• Rebecca asked what problem is the Graduate Council trying to solve?
  • John Becker-Blease stated that the Graduate School identified the first round of tension.
  • Karen explained that the Doctoral residency has two parts – the second part is in question, while the first part is completion of a minimum of 36 graduate OSU credits. The second part includes completing at least three terms of full-time graduate academic work (at least 9 credits per term) either on-campus or at an off-campus site approved by the Graduate School. The policy was written decades ago and, currently, many students attend part-time and don’t have access to an OSU campus. Every term graduate programs contact the Graduate School to confirm students’ location, but the Graduate School doesn’t know where students are located.
  • Steph added that, for students reading the policy, it’s a deterrent to even apply to OSU. In the interest of increasing numbers and/or attracting high quality graduate students, a change is needed.
  • John Becker-Blease indicated that, although there are not many purely online PhDs, that situation could evolve, and this policy would preclude that. The notion is that people are pursuing a terminal degree while working full-time.
  • Cass stated that he has tried to remove the second part for 25 years. Education offers part-time programs, but the policy does not meet the needs of part-time students.
  • John Becker-Blease suggested that programs could be allowed to opt out of the policy – the default is that one is in a traditional PhD program. A possibility is to have an opt-in – remove the requirement for all programs and, if a program wants to require full-time residency, they could do that. Required course work could only be available in a particular modality. Would removing the policy help to keep students on track?
  • Brian played devil’s advocate by saying that, for some programs, it would encourage collaboration among students and faculty if in-residence was required. Students need to be able to network and collaborate without the policy requirement.
  • John Becker-Blease outlined options: 1) add opt-out, 2) add opt-in (thus remove most/all of #2) and 3) employment issues with students (RA/TA).
• Rebecca felt there are some simple ways to accomplish what’s needed. Remove the italicized section. Have requirements list the 3-5 things absolutely required and add narrative around other things, i.e., employment. Recommend that time to degree be included in the residence requirement. Maintain the fact that students we want to graduate from OSU have OSU credits rather than transfer credits. What PhD program has the lowest number of credits? Credit residency should be as high as they think it should be; marry up with transfer credits. As #2 is changed, review #1 and revise as needed. Make a statement related to the amount of time in which degrees should be completed. Include minimum standards; could not go below minimum. Stay away from adding requirements for those going above the  threshold; if a ceiling, it should be part of the policy.
• John Becker-Blease questioned where the requirement for specific programs would be housed.
  • Rebecca responded that, when a program is approved, it lives in the catalog. What the catalog states is on file with the State of Oregon. There is a narrative about additional requirements.
  • Brian wants flexibility but also wants students to be engaged and engage with peers and mentors. He wants to avoid student push back if a particular element is not required. How do we get students to receive what they need without a lot of exceptions? Is there broad enough language from the Graduate School that covers these situations?
    • Steph noted that programs set requirements above and beyond. Incumbent upon program to allow students to finish in a timely manner.
    • Brian questioned, if it’s not stated in the catalog that students must attend department seminars, and they don’t attend, can it be stated that the student is not making adequate progress to completion?
    • Steph responded that the handbook from the year a student is accepted contains the requirements which would also need to be included in the students’ annual review.
• Rebecca asked whether students actually sign the handbook.
  • Cass stated that Education students sign an MOU stating that they have read the handbook.
  • Rebecca suggested a statement in the catalog that references academic requirements and that non-classroom experiences could occur. For programs that have expectations there may be additional requirements in the student handbook that students are expected to meet.
  • Mark felt that would precipitate a large number of CIM revisions. Instead, could #2 be removed from the policy and add what Rebecca outlined above for additional requirements?
  • Brian suggested that, when it’s time for committee meetings and prelim exams, it becomes a check list for the Graduate School. Ultimately the advisor and committee will notice these things.
  • Rebecca cautioned to ensure that the handbook doesn’t start to creep into any academic course requirements that are not in the catalog.
    • John Becker-Blease suggested that could be called out in #2 related to specific requirements. Would need to alert all doctoral programs to update their handbooks to comply with the revised policy.
  • Steph has advised all programs to update their handbooks for the coming year; could start implementing them now since it’s not a written handbook, just a web version.
• Rebecca would like to review language developed by the Graduate Council prior to implementation.
• This policy will be discussed further next week.

Concentrations

• John Becker-Blease explained that the term ‘concentration’ is widely used across many modalities. In the graduate space ‘concentration’ does not appear on a transcript. The term ‘concentration’ appears in Banner – perhaps to mean something other than a concentration.
  • Rebecca indicated that Banner uses the term ‘concentration’ in place of what OSU uses as an ‘option.’
• John Becker-Blease indicated that the goal is to remove the concept of ‘concentration’ from graduate policies. The Graduate School does not want to monitor or decide concentrations.
  • Rebecca asked if there will be a name for it. She felt it could cause further confusion.
  • John Becker-Blease stated that programs can define a concentration however they wish. There is not a definition for concentration, but there is verbiage of what it is not. In some disciplines there are natural concentrations.
• Rebecca had no concerns about this proposal.

• Rebecca advised the Council that the University is going through the process of updating Course Learning Outcomes (CLOs). colleges will be asked one-by-one to update CLOs – it will take a few years. The goal is to complete two colleges per term in a rolling process. They are doing their best to make it as simple as possible.
• John Becker-Blease indicated that simple changes will be made administratively, while substantive changes will come through normal channels.
  • Rebecca noted that there are barriers to work through, such as working with faculty on misalignment of the same course being offered on different campuses; there are also some missing outcomes for slash courses.

Blanket Credit for Graduate Certificates (notes indicate that the Council did not finalize a decision on this)

Not discussed.

Minutes prepared by Vickie Nunnemaker, Faculty Senate staff

Chat Room:

Steph Bernell  to  Everyone 10:20 AM

And, we still have time to degree requirements

Philip Mote 10:27 AM

Earning a doctorate - demonstrating mastery of a subject - is a bigger challenge than a bachelors or a masters, which are generally primarily about coursework. Cultivating the expectation that forming a scholar (as opposed to an EdD which is advanced practical training in the actual setting for which one is being trained) is a bigger challenge when the student is not strongly connected to other scholars, both peers and those above and below them in the educational community. Mentoring undergraduates can be useful. Obviously in site-based research (as Brian was describing) requires in-person work for the data-gathering phase, but even then, the writing phase can be isolating if the student is remote. The candidate loses something - or must work extra hard to keep it - the more time they spend working remotely, and the program and advisor’s group does too.