Graduate Council

Voting members present: Jim Coakley, Rebecca Eliot, Theresa Filtz, David Finch, Marie Harvey
Voting members absent: Ryan Contreras, Lisa Ganio
Ex-officio members present: Graduate School – Jennifer Dennis
Guests: Rosemary Garagnani, Megan MacDonald, Heidi Wegis

Masters of Adapted Physical Education Proposal – Heidi Wegis and Megan MacDonald from the College of Public Health and Human Sciences  

• Megan provided a brief explanation of the 14-month program. The unit currently maintains two federal grants at both the master’s and doctoral levels.
• What if a student hasn’t taken the pre-requisites? Heidi responded that they could take the pre-requisites from other institutions, or most of the pre-requisites can be taken online from OSU; pre-requisites must be completed before students enter the program. One noted that, if students have not taken the pre-requisites, that will increase the length of time to completion.
• Regarding admissions and ‘verification of successful experience,’ one noted that the majority of students would not know to what this pertained.
• Contact either Heidi or Megan with additional questions.
• Theresa noted that, because this is a new program, the proposers will be invited back for a five-year review.
• The program should also consider whether they want to ask for permission to have an alternate final exam, as is now allowed for non-MA, non-MS degrees.

Graduate Council Discussion:

• Are scholarships set aside for this? Marie was uncertain. One member suggested that the program should apply for Laurels Grants.

Action: Jim moved to approve the proposal; motion seconded and approved; the proposal was approved with no dissenting votes.

Action: Marie will communicate the Graduate Council approval to Heidi and Megan and will suggest the possibility of Laurels Grants for students.

Didactic Credits

• Questions have come forward regarding implementation of the change from 36 to 27 didactic credits. Programs are asking if they will need to submit a Category II proposal to change requirements in their PhD program to reflect the reduction in didactic credits. Also, existing students have already starting asking if this rule change applies to them, and how they can take advantage of it if they have submitted their program of study but not yet completed all required didactic coursework. Rosemary says that it would be helpful to have an effective date.

• Existing students must meet the requirements that were in place at the time of matriculation. If existing students wish to change to the (lower minimum) requirement, they may do so, but all new requirements established in the interim (e.g. addition of an ethics requirement) must also be met.
• Does each program come forward with a Category II if the only change is that the credits are being reduced from 36 to a minimum of 27? The Graduate Council chair could approve the proposal if the only change is the number of credits.

Action: Theresa will compose an email for Graduate Council approval to distribute to program directors and coordinator explaining the implications of the credit reduction.

Crop Science Graduate Program Action Plan

• Newly Revised Action Plan 
• Original Action Plan 
• Reviewer Report 
• Theresa previously forwarded the revised Action Plan to Stacy Semevolos, who was involved in the program review, and Stacy felt it was more appropriate than the original Action Plan.
• One questioned whether anyone knew why the unit had problems developing the Action Plan. Stacy may have insight.
  • Perhaps the unit doesn’t know how to engage in the planning processes – are there resources to assist them? One noted that there is a new Agricultural Sciences graduate program that could be involved, or the dean could be contacted to determine how to assist the program to be successful.
• There are no metrics to determine whether the quality has increased.
• Comments for the unit: How did they get to this point, determine feasibility of engaging the Agricultural Sciences graduate program, and be supportive.
• The Graduate Council has not yet accepted the review team’s report – is their recommendation of restructuring appropriate? An alternative is to suspend admissions.
• Invite Dan Arp and unit heads so the Graduate Council can provide perspective to the unit and determine whether the restructuring recommendation is appropriate.

Action: Theresa will invite the program director and dean to meet with the Council. She will also send the review report and action plan to the dean.

Minutes prepared by Vickie Nunnemaker, Faculty Senate staff