Present: Athinarayanan, Buis, Curtis, Ferguson, Hathaway, Janzow, Jones McDougall, McGowan,
Prater, Redmond, Shaw Shepard, Starrett, Stephens and Syler
Guests: Paula King
A. Minutes of November 1, 2005 Upon a motion by Curtis; seconded by Janzow, the minutes were unanimously approved.
B. Action Items
Item number 1 on the agenda was presented as number 2. Items listed on agenda as information items were moved to discussion items.
1. Revision to admission criteria for Dietetics program
Prater moved approval of the revisions to the admission criteria for the Dietetics program; Syler seconded. King explained that the dietetic internship application is a very competitive process. She stated that for 6 positions it is not unusual to have 40 to 50 applicants and that students must be well prepared in grades and maintain coursework at a certain level to secure internships. Additionally, in order to be a registered dietician, students must do an internship. Currently, there are no admission or retention requirements. Jones suggested that a statement be added about the requirement of completion of the internship and an exam for dietetics certification. McDougall pointed out that other professional programs require clinicals and passing of Board exams without the warning. King accepted the inclusion of the statement as a friendly amendment. The motion passed. King will add statement and the revised policy will be distributed. (Revision attached)
2. Changes to Graduate Standards Policy regarding “C’s”
Janzow moved approval of the changes to the GSP; Shaw seconded. Proposed changes would require a cumulative grade point average of 3.0 on a scale of 4.0 be required in all graduate work taken; not allow a student who accumulates nine or more hours of ‘C’ or receives an ‘F’ and has other grades below ‘B’ to continue in the graduate program without specific permission; non-degree seeking students are expected to meet same standards as degree students in respect to maintaining a 3.0 grade point average; students receiving a grade below ‘B’ will be encouraged to repeat the course. Janzow distributed the current policy (Academic Standards, page 12 in Graduate Bulletin, 2005-2007). He noted that the Bulletin does not address the ‘C’ issue. After much discussion it was agreed to make the following revisions to the proposed policy: add a mechanism to provide for an appeal process/procedure; in item 2 of the policy, add “department and the approval of the Dean of the School of Graduate Studies” regarding specific permission to continue in the graduate program; and remove the “/or” which will require both the Dean “and” the department to make exceptions. It was also agreed by the Council that the sentence: “The student must complete a repeat card and obtain permission of the Dean of Graduate Studies to repeat a course” would be deleted. In the Procedure section of the policy, it will be added that a student is required to schedule an appointment with appropriate personnel concerning the receipt of a 3rd ‘C’. Upon a call for question and vote, the Council voted 11 in favor of the revised policy with the changes and 4 against. A corrected copy will be sent to the Office of the Provost and distributed to the Council. (Revision attached)
3. Revisions to M.A. in Secondary Education
Janzow moved approval of the revisions to the M.A. in Secondary Education; Buis seconded. The proposed new structure would offer only Educational Studies and Educational Technology as options. Shepard explained that modifications to the program option A (Art Education, Business Education & Social Studies) and option B (Middle level education, educational studies, & educational technology) were made because of low graduation rates in the Art, Business and Social Studies Education sub-options. The professional education core of 33 hours remains unchanged. After discussion concerning SE694 Thesis, this requirement will be placed in both options. A revised document will be forwarded to the Office of the Provost for distribution to the Council. The motion passed unanimously. (Revision attached)
4. 60% Rule
McGowan reviewed recommendations 1 and 2 of the subcommittee report concerning the 60% rule; Jones moved acceptance; Athinarayanan seconded. Council considered the following items: (1) eliminate the rule that requires 60 percent of the major be at the upper division; and (2) implement a rule that would require that at least 15 hours of the major be at the upper division. The motion passed unanimously for recommendation of items 1 and 2 only.
Recommendation 3 (change the degree requirement from 30 upper division hours to 40 upper division hours) was discussed. Concerns expressed were for the impact on transfer students and what would be within the CBHE guidelines. Shaw stated that The School of Polytechnic Studies would be going through accreditation process soon. Jones made a motion to change the 40 hours to 39 hours and be effective fall 2008; Prater seconded. Stephens expressed hesitation to implement a change without the input of the Registrar who was unable to attend today’s meeting. McGowan moved to table Item #3; Janzow seconded. Jones noted that there needed to be a vote on tabling the motion. Council unanimously passed tabling the motion.
5. Minor with BGS degree (Originally on agenda as discussion item)
Stephens noted that this was being moved from a discussion item to an action item. The issue is to include a minor with a Bachelor of General Studies degree. The motion for approval was made by McGowan; seconded by Jones. McDougall stated that this would be attractive to on-line students; and the option to have a minor would be allowed as a choice but not as a requirement. The motion passed unanimously.
C. Discussion Items
1. Graduate Issues
Due to the length of the meeting only item b. (certificate program potential) was discussed.
a. Commencement Participation(moved to February’s agenda)
b. Certificate Program Potential
Janzow distributed a list of graduate level certificate programs currently offered at other institutions. He noted that this was in line with strategic planning and recruitment. This is not a degree program; however, students would complete a defined set of courses for certification. In all but 2 cases credit hours are 12 to 15 hours. He stated that this would serve students not seeking a full Master’s degree and would be marketed on the web. McDougall questioned if the 12 to 15 hours would all be the 500 level. Stephens stated that certificates under 18 hours are not an issue with CBHE. Stephens reminded the Council that any certificate program would need to be seen and approved by Academic Council even if an internal program.
c. Accelerated Graduate Studies(moved to February’s agenda)
2. English Composition Task Force
Starrett announced that the English Composition Task Force would bring a report to the Council in February.
D. Information Items