GRADUATE COUNCIL
Minutes of the Meeting
The meeting was
called to order by Dean Judith Walker de Felix at
I. Minutes
Dr. Bill Kyle
moved and Dr. Eduardo Silva seconded the motion to approve the minutes of the
II. Committee Reports
Rules and Regulations – Sandra Lindquist
Dr. Peggy Ellis was present to discuss equivalency hours for two Advanced Practice Nursing courses. Last month Council questioned the request for 7 equivalency hours for 250 contact hours. Dr. Ellis explained that each Nursing course requires 250 hours in a clinical setting. The students spend an additional 100 hours on preparation and solutions to questions or problems that arise during patient review. Some Council members felt those 100 hours were part of other departments’ routine student involvement and would not constitute 7 equivalency hours. Dr. Ellis noted these courses are the capstone experience in the program. After discussion, Dr. Peck moved and Dr. Silva seconded to approve 7 equivalency hours for Nursing 6954 and Nursing 6955. Council wished to note that this approval does not set a precedent but rather an exception for this specific program based on the nature of the program. Council approved the change in equivalency hours unanimously.
Admissions and Scholarship - Carol Peck
The committee reviewed section 3.2.1 that would allow departments to determine the transcripts required. The proposal reads:
1. Proposal to Allow Disciplines to Determine the
Transcripts Required
3.2.1. Graduate
Certificate or Degree-Seeking Students
Applicants
for a degree or graduate certificate program at the University of Missouri-St.
Louis shall submit an application, an
official transcripts of all documenting
the baccalaureate degree and
post-baccalaureate work, scores from examinations required by the program,
and other evidence of academic and professional preparation required by the
program. Such evidence may include
letters of recommendation, transcripts of all academic work attempted, and
writing samples. The TOEFL test is also required of international
applicants whose native language is not English.
Council moved to accept the proposed revision. It will be presented to the Graduate Faculty at the spring meeting.
Dr. Peck is the campus’ liaison for the Jack Cooke Kent Scholarship. The committee is to solicit applications and nominate up to two people to forward to the organization. The scholarship award is $50,000 for each year, up to 6 years at any institution. Dr. Peck asked Council if it would be best to use a campus-wide committee (i.e. a Senate committee) to disseminate the information and select two winners since the applicants will be undergraduates. Council agreed and Dr. Felix will check with the chair of the Senate or with the Financial Aid Director.
Curriculum and Instruction – Wes Harris
The committee received 78 courses for review shortly before the semester began. Most are clusters of courses from History and Nursing; others are new cross-listed course proposals. The committee will review them in time for the February Council meeting.
There was discussion that review of graduate courses at the Graduate Council level and at the Senate level might be redundant. For example, at UMKC, the unit is the final stage for courses. One problem with the UMKC scenario is our campus’ interdisciplinary courses/programs that might affect other departments. Oversight by another level would be helpful. The Dean noted that any proposal to change the final approval authority for graduate courses would have to start with a Senate resolution.
Program Development – Eduardo Silva
The committee reviewed changes in degree requirements to the Ph.D. in Nursing. The committee recommends approval but offers a friendly amendment to change the “mode of inquiry” listed on page one to “research methods”. Another suggestion is to move research methods under “Nursing Theory and Science”. Questions arose as to what is being advertised versus what is being delivered. Sandra Lindquist recommended that Dr. Silva discuss Council’s issues with Dr. Jean Bachman. Dr. Peck noted that the admissions requirements section should delete “use of the composite GRE”. Council concurred with Dr. Lindquist and Dr. Peck’s recommendations.
Rules and Regulations – Sandra Lindquist
The committee is reviewing section 2.1 of the rules and regulations and will have a report in February. Dr. Peck said that Optometry will work within this rule by requesting graduate faculty status for clinicians on a case by case basis.
Council discussed revision to section 6.1 of the rules and regulations (see below):
2.
Proposal to eliminate 2nd-class status of departments without
graduate programs
6.1. Definition of a Graduate Course
A course is eligible for graduate
credit if it requires advanced knowledge in the field. For that reason, all
graduate courses shall have prerequisites.
A graduate course not yet approved may
be offered only once by permission of the academic dean and the graduate dean.
For courses to appear in the Bulletin,
a graduate course requires approval by the Graduate Council and the Faculty
Senate.
Departments without graduate
programs may offer 5000-level courses after the Graduate Council reviews the
content, function, and purpose of the course. Such courses shall
be reviewed every two years and may be re-authorized.
Dr. Macan moved to approve the change, Dr. Peck seconded and Council approved the revision unanimously. It will be presented to the Graduate Faculty at its spring meeting.
The dean distributed other policies which need Council’s input:
Section 7.1. 7.3: addition of in progress grade. The UM-C campus uses the IP grade. There are two versions for IP usage. One option would keep the IP grade for all semesters except the final semester when a grade would be given. The other option would change all IP grades to the final grade for each semester. Questions arose from a lawsuit where a student was given A’s along the way, and then the dissertation was not accepted. On campus, some departmental faculty assign grades each semester while others only assign grades for all delayed grades in the final semester. The Dean will check with the Registrar’s office to see how an IP grade would be changed. Dr. Silva suggested a disclaimer be added to this section. Suggested changes in wording are in bold or lined out.
Section 7.3. proposed wording: When a course extends for more than one term
and the student's performance is deferred until the end of the final term,
provisional grades of In Progress may be assigned in the intervening terms. The
In-Progress grade represents satisfactory progress in a
sequential course and indicates that a grade will be assigned
at the end of the sequence. In Progress grades do not
count toward earned hours. No credit is awarded or grade points assigned until
the sequence is completed and a permanent grade is entered replacing the In-
Progress grade(s).
In-Progress grades are
expected may be given in thesis or dissertation research.
Additionally, the Graduate Council may approve the In Progress grade for
specific internships, practica, or project courses
that allow up to at least six months for completion. In no case will an
In Progress grade be given for other graduate research
or internship experiences. Instead, students will be given
a Delayed grade if work is not completed during the semester that the course is
taken.
In Progress grades
are left on the student’s record until the committee
and dean of the
Section 7.4. Probation
Section 7.5. Dismissal Adding request for continuation should come from the advisor or graduate director.
Section 9.10. Proposed to simplify the committee composition.
“The Doctoral
Dissertation Committee shall consist of at least four members of the Graduate
Faculty with expertise in the
dissertation topic: the committee
chair, and at least one other member
from the unit and at least one member from outside the unit. A recognized scholar from outside the
university may serve as the outside a
member upon the recommendation of the unit and approval of the Graduate
Dean. The Graduate Dean shall review the committee membership and may
approve changes in the committee membership.”
Some units want more flexibility in committee membership based on the student’s topic. This proposal would eliminate the outside member. Some departments have no problem with outside members – either on or off campus. Dr. Kyle said the statement “four with experience in the dissertation topic”. How is this judged? Higher Ed doesn’t even have four faculty members who could serve then. What about interdisciplinary faculty?
Section 9.11.1. Dissertation proposal. Proposal to omit dissertation time restriction that is not enforced.
Section 9.6. Residence requirement. Proposal to strengthen the residency experience.
Council members will discuss the proposed changes with their colleagues and should be prepared to discuss them at the February meeting.
IV. Other business
The date of Thursday, April 8 was chosen for the spring Graduate Faculty meeting.
The meeting adjourned at
Respectfully submitted,
Therese Macan
Vice-Chairperson and Secretary
TM:meh