Graduate Council Minutes 3/5/14
GBB 205, 12:10-1:00 p.m.
Members Present: M. Alwell, M. Berthelson, D. Biehl, D. Campbell, I. Crummy, L. Gray, N. Hassanein,
A. Kinch, A. McKeown B. Klaasen, E. Stone, S. Williams S. Sprang, K. Swift
Members Absent/Excused: X. Chu, M. Kia, B. Brown
Ex Officio Members Present: R. Arouca, N. Hinman, S. Ross
Guest: Provost Brown, C. Dumke
The 3/5/14 minutes were approved. The meeting began with introductions and the UM minute.
Communication:
The discussion with the Provost was focused on the questions / concerns sent in advance.

OVERARCHING QUESTION: Where does the Provost, and central administration, place the
importance of graduate education as part of the overall mission of the University of Montana?
A comprehensive research university demands a significant emphasis on graduate programs.
Graduate programs enhance the stature and education provided at all levels- doctoral impact
master’s and master’s impact undergraduate students. Graduate programs are a critical part
of the university and economic development for the state. Higher levels and specialized
education create the leaders and innovators that create jobs for undergraduate students as
well as provide opportunities at other levels. A strong and viable nation has diverse graduate
education with a strong science foundation to work on the worlds complex problems.
Society’s future is very much dependent on the sophistication of graduate education to
develop the next generation of experts in science, philosophy, and etc. If UM had the
financial wherewithal it would have more graduate programs. Currently the University is
having difficulty resourcing, but this should be a temporary situation.

What is the Provost’s reaction to the long-term trend of declines in graduate
enrollment reported in the Graduate Program Self Study? Has the Provost
considered approaches to increasing graduate student enrollment – does the
Graduate School have a role to play?
There are a number of reasons UM is in the current situation in terms of graduate program
enrollment. Certainly part of it is the level of financing TAs and waivers. Although the dollar
amount (approximately $9,000 for masters) has been stagnant, the number of TAs has
increased. Many institutions, Idaho for example, are in the same situation. The Provost has
asked Graduate School Dean Ross and Interim Associate Provost Hinman to research how
the university might increase the amount and number of stipends. We may need to consider
offering fewer stipends in order to increase the amount. The Foundation has raised
additional funds for fellowships to invest in graduate students. It is charged with raising
additional money to boost stipend levels.
Enrollment is tied to existing programs. The University needs to assess its programs to
determine whether they are relevant to the 21st century and whether there may be additional
opportunities to enhance and enrich the portfolio. The assessment should consider whether
there are programmatic areas where a minimum investment would generate a large return.
Areas where UM has talent, but needs to create a different structure. For example, the
University has efforts in several disciplines (PT, CEHS, Biology, Psychology) centered on
the brain. An interdisciplinary program could be created at a fairly low cost that would be
attractive to students. UM suffers from not having Engineering which is where MSU has
experienced 100% growth over two years. UM needs to identify the niches where it can
excel. It may be able to do something innovative with its current portfolio. The Provost
would like to see the Graduate School bring faculty together to discuss possibilities and
encourage cooperation.
One area currently popular is master degrees in professional programs. These are developed
by combining a basic discipline with law, public policy or business management. The
Graduate School could play a role in bringing the various disciplines together to talk about
the viability of such a program.

The Graduate Council has frequently discussed interdisciplinary programs and
the difficulty in the review of new programs due to questions about commitment,
credit for teaching, funding, and oversight.
There was difficulty in identifying startup funds for Material Science. A search for a new
faculty member will take place next year which should move the program along.
The GSA has heard from students in Systems Ecology that are confused about the structure.
The new budget model links credit hours with funding. If a program generates credit hours it
gets funded. The funding for the proposed Online Learning Technologies was aligned with
this approach. The Council was not provided with the details of the budget plan, only that
it had been approved by the Provost. Administration and Finance is trying to build in factors
to account for the other components.
Not all graduate programs are based solely on courses; some will have research and
performance parameters. There are existing programs with high credit loads that should
have additional funding based on credits hours. The logic doesn’t seem to make sense given
the possibility that only a limited number of students might enroll the first year in a new
program.
The issue of determining whether a program has appropriate resources is a reoccurring
problem and effects academic quality. New interdisciplinary entities are faced with
administrative resistance in terms of structure, accountability, and oversight. The Council is
not clear about the strategic vision for graduate programs. The strategic plan includes a lot
of areas- we can’t do everything well.
The Graduate Council should be discussing strategic directions for graduate education. The
Provost’s office stops a number of programs that are not yet ready for review by the Graduate
Council. Level II proposals require that the proposer address: How the program fits within
the University, State, or region. These responses determine whether the program makes
sense for the University. We need programs that will distinguish UM from other universities.
Although proposals show little or no cost, they are not cost neutral. They may detail a way
for fund raising, require faculty to devote time (a labor of love), or require investment of
some money.
There was concern that one of the recommendations of the Cost Savings Workgroup was to
eliminate the Graduate School yet the Graduate Council was not consulted. There seems to
be a breakdown communication at fundamental level with regard to the Graduate Council’s
role and where the administration or the University at large wants to go and prioritize
things. The Level I and Level II proposals require preliminary approval from the Provost’s
Office. The Council takes this to mean that Academic Affairs values the program, yet
according to Interim Associate Provost, this only means that the paperwork is complete. The
Council is surprised when proposals have no permanent faculty, resources, or support. The
Graduate Council does not have a sense of communication with Academic Affairs or the
Research Office. The lack of resources creates an academic problem. It is difficult to
approve new programs with limited resources when current programs are struggling with
existing resources. It seems that the Council is asked to make a decision about a piece of the
picture but isn’t clear what the picture is intended to be.
The President’s Taskforce on Academic Programming that worked over the summer made
some recommendations, but did not actually review all programs. A process is needed to
identify where programs can be enhanced. The President would like the Faculty Senate
leadership and the academic deans to start working to identify criteria for a review.
Programs should be contemporarily relevant.
Virtually all programs have value. There may be some that could be delivered differently to
be more salient / innovative for the future. We need to evaluate how programs are packaged
and marketed. The review will look across programs. Identify why programs are struggling
and how they might be enhanced or modified to be relevant to the passions students have
today. There may be general programs that are not competitive that could become more
specialized, similar to the approach taken by Environmental Journalism. Philosophy is now
undertaking a similar process.
The Graduate Council should be involved in the review. It still seems that priorities are
needed when resources are limited.

Do you support the GSA as serving the role of grad student advocacy and
representation in the school's shared governance model, and how do you plan to
increase administrative support for this organization?
The Provost considers the Graduate Student Association the graduate student voice on
campus as part of ASUM. He is an advocate for the GSA. It is important that this group is
vibrant and energetic.
Student members commented about the problems with the current structure. The GSA is
often not represented on Committees. ASUM makes nominations to committees. Graduate
Students serve on 4 committees this year and was on 6 last year. There is not a graduate
student on the committee that deliberates disciplinary actions of graduate students. In the
current climate the GSA might not exist next year. ASUM gives the GSA very little funding
and graduate students are not represented at the Legislature.

What are the Provost's plans for the Interdisciplinary Studies degree programs
housed in the Graduate School, specifically the Directorship position, which is
still interim after almost 2 years.
The time was running short, so the topic was not discussed other than the Provost indicated
he would put the issue on his radar.
The issues under Research and Creativity should be addressed by Vice President
Whittenburg. He is also working on intellectual property rights. The Provost’s Office will
work on procedures for better communication with regard to processing curriculum review.
The meeting was adjourned at 1:00 p.m.