Date: 
04/10/2015 12:00 pm
Minutes: 

Voting members present: Theresa Filtz, David Finch, Lisa Ganio, Greg Herman, Don Jump, Ng Kok-Mun, Janet Lee, Andreas Schmittner

Ex-officer members present: Graduate School Dean (Brenda McComb), Graduate School Associate Dean (Anita Azarenko)

Guests: Badege Bishaw, Dorthe Wildenschild

 

Category I: Graduate Certificate in Forest and Climate ChangeBadege Bishaw

  • Forests and Climate Change Graduate Certificate (Document not yet available)
  • This is a certificate in Forest and Climate Change, with the intent for the graduates to progress into the Master of Natural Resources program. Is MNR the logical progression for an interest in climate change?
    • Badege projected a PowerPoint containing the following: Delivered via Ecampus; 19 SCH; one of several certificate options within MNR, covers impacts, adaptation, and mitigation; core courses included instructors/professors from FES and FERM
    • Why is the certificate needed now? There are few specialized courses related to forests and climate change available (via classroom or online); Natural Resource management agencies are developing monitoring and adaptation plans; 
    • Program Development – unit responded to an Ecampus RFP in November 2011; recommendations from a marketing assessment in August 2012 were: niche market is very small, but growing, and to launch Forest and Climate Change within existing MNR degree. The survey is three years old and there were no peer programs to compare to, and many developments have occurred related to knowledge on climate change and policy recommendations.
    • New classes to be offered include: MNR 550, MNR 538, FOR 524, FES/MNR 500, SNR 590; existing courses include: FES 536, SNR 540, SNR 530, SNR 511
    • Are fixed-term instructors full-time or less than .5 FTE? Badege responded they are full-time 9 or 12-month. If taught by research faculty, they may leave – what about continuity of course material if taught by instructors rather than full-time faculty? Badege responded that young faculty would be teaching; some are full-time professors; it will be part of their in-load.
    • Regarding scholarship, Ecampus faculty frequently teach only one term. Badege stated that faculty associated with the program are not Ecampus, rather, they are full-time faculty.
    • If enrollment targets are not met, how long is FES willing to cover the deficit? Badege stated FES will cover a deficit up to two years; Ecampus is supportive. Theresa requested a letter verifying that faculty teaching time will be committed to the proposed courses and will cover any deficit.
    • Why not an option within MNR? Badege responded that, after 19 credits, students will earn a certificate, rather than an option, which requires more credits and time. Climate change is getting more attention. More attention to climate change does not mean more attention for a certificate. Badege felt this will be a stepping stone for other programs and will likely develop a program around the certificate, as was done with the MNR.
    • Council concerns: Important for students to have training, concerned that it’s extremely siloed. Climate change affects all colleges. Need to talk with peers at other colleges. Felt the scope was too narrow. Felt there is no collaboration with other units that could participate. Felt that insufficient analysis has occurred. The limiting resource is people. Will there be a climate change course for Ag, Science, Forestry, etc.? Doing poor coordination for big issue topics at the university. Badege felt the way to start is with certificates, i.e. MNR, Fisheries Management, etc., which were then pulled them together and developed a Masters program. Let’s start with this and, as they continue, other programs will participate to create a climate change program at OSU. 
    • Badege noted there are two other climate change courses at the university; one of the courses is included in the proposal. One Council member felt there are other climate change courses at OSU that don’t have ‘climate change’ in the title. Badege noted they have done a good job of creating the MNR, and would do the same with this certificate by collaborating with other units.
    • What is the mechanism for doing that? Certificates are not reviewed after approval, but they are proposing to create new courses with no mechanism to review or formal process to occur. How does Badege see the future review? Badege noted that the MNR is ready for a mid-term review; he acknowledged that the Graduate School doesn’t review certificates.
      • If OSU doesn’t have the means to review, it’s not up to the unit. Are we stifling people by preventing them from innovating?
      • It sounds like a pilot study; it’s reasonable, initially, to have more depth to determine if it will develop. Badege stated that SNR is a successful program and also started small, so they have experience with building programs. Badege was asked whether he wanted depth or breadth so graduates will have enough background to get a job. Badege noted that working professionals are targeted in the proposal; ones who want to learn new skills related to climate change.
    • No new resources are required. 
  • The market analysis is for the broader interest in climate change, not specific to forests. The note from Ecampus acknowledges this, but expresses hope that this is the first step in creating an online degree affiliated with climate change. Are there plans to create an interdisciplinary graduate degree in climate change? The certificate is designed for place-bound individuals who are already employed. What is their motivation for pursuing this certificate? If they were interested in an advanced degree, why not enroll directly in the MNR? It appeared to some members that the value-added of the certificate is not clear.
  • Graduate Council discussion:
    • Brenda felt that everyone is struggling with the risk analysis – what’s the likelihood that another program will be developed in another form? There is investment from both Ecampus and Forestry. There should have been more involvement from CEOAS, and other units.
    • Could a 19-credit certificate be accomplished online by involving other units? It would be up to involved faculty and whether modality would allow it. 
    • Will graduates see a benefit in job opportunities? Perhaps not to address climate change, but climate change management within Forestry. It could result in either a promotion or job security.
    • Fisheries & Wildlife surveyed job advancement possibilities – should this be a requirement? If they surveyed natural resource agencies and determined that there was interest with a potential enrollment of 10-15 per year, it would alleviate concerns. That data may not be available; felt they were experts in the field. One would be comfortable that they go to employers and request they review the course topics and have them say that’s what they’re looking for – there is a valuable benefit of knowledge; it’s one aspect. Another thought that there’s more to it. Courses proposed are new, and not included in any other degree program; unclear that other degree programs would feel it was valuable.
    • The Graduate Council and Graduate School are responsible for determining whether courses and programs are appropriate (curriculum and courses). May need to think about an additional layer of review and coordination for Category II proposals and certificates.
    • If they were to collaborate with other units, the Ecampus funds would be distributed among other colleges, and the revenue for Forestry would not be as great.  
    • Consensus to request additional information:
      • Survey of courses – what similar courses are offered at OSU?
      • Query of potential employers: would there be impacts to be hired, advance, or maintain a job? The problem is that students may wish to take the courses just to learn more about climate change, while others will already be employed and use this certificate to advance in their position.
      • Consider creating an option within MNR to determine if there would be an indication of interest at that level.
      • Letter from FES chair and Ecampus stating that they are willing to fund any deficit. Theresa will request that Jim ask Luke McIlvenny, Budgets & Fiscal Planning Committee chair, if they had concerns.
      • Because liaison is not required for certificates; if required, is this an undue request? 
      • CEOAS had a long response to which COF didn’t respond; request that they respond to CEOAS and ask Forestry to liaise with other units.

 

Update/discussion with Dean McComb

There was not time for discussion, but Brenda distributed a discussion document.

  • University learning outcome on DPD?
  • Update on mentoring learning modules
  • Recommendations from faculty and enrollment management committee re: Graduate student enrollment (it will go down) and relationship to university metrics.
  • Expected move of grad school to Gilkey
  • Update on grad student space in MU and Library
  • Update on new members of the grad school staff

 

Minutes recorded by Vickie Nunnemaker, Faculty Senate staff

 

Meeting Documents: