1
Graduate Council Minutes 5/1/13
GBB 202, 12:10-1:00 p.m.
Members Present: D. Biehl, M. Alwell, R. Arouca, A. Borgmann, D. Campbell, N. Hassanein,
J. Hunt, J. Johnson, M. Mayer, S. Sprang, K. Swift, E. Stone
Members Absent/Excused: J. Hodgin, B. Klaassen, H. Naughton, D. Zielaski
Ex Officio Members Present: B. Brown, N. Hinman, J. Laine, S. Ross
The 4/24/13 minutes were approved.
Communication Items

Professor Sprang noticed an error on the annual report. The level II title change for Cellular,
Molecular and Microbial Biology was reversed. Camie will make the correction.
Business Items

The Journalism Interim Assessment document was amended slightly and approved.

The Council discussed the draft correspondence to the proposers of the Masters of Arts in
Applied Online Technologies. Several edits were suggested. Professor Alwell will make
these changes and send the document to Camie to forward to the requestors (see appended
letter).

There was a brief discussion regarding the next step with regard to advising best practices
and Graduate School policy. The issue is not with the process or structure (this may vary
from program to program) the issue is with the outcome. Programs should be assessing
whether its advising /mentoring practices are effective. Providing access to best practices
could be helpful to programs, especially to those where students to not feel appropriately
guided. Input from the Graduate Student Association would be welcomed with regard to this
issue. Student member Arouca identified her preferred resource samples (appended below.)
The discussion will continue next week.
The meeting was adjourned at 1:00 p.m.
………………………………………………..
To: Dean Maclean, Rick Hughes, Robert Squires
From: Graduate Council
Re: Proposal for Master of Arts in Applied Online Technologies
May 1, 2013
We have carefully reviewed your proposal for the Master of Arts in Applied Online
Technologies, and have the following concerns and suggestions for you to strengthen
your proposal.
2
Please note that we are charged with holding all graduate program proposals to similar
standards; this provides the framework and foundation for our suggestions.
We feel that your proposal is in correct form, but must address these issues in more
depth:
1. Program Home: The program should have an academic home outside of SELL.
Perhaps the program could be offered jointly by two departments OR be offered
as a specialized track within the existing Masters of Interdisciplinary Studies
program (offered through the Graduate School). This would ensure that courses
and faculty are reviewed regularly.
2. Faculty: Please name the tenure-track and adjunct faculty who will be associated
with the program, and their qualifications. There should be a sufficient number of
tenure track faculty members to cover the range of emphases that are named in
Section 5, and ensure long-term commitment to the program. (Please note that we
cannot approve a program based mostly on adjunct faculty.)
3. Courses: More information is needed about the content of each proposed course –
sending in syllabi for each course would be most helpful. Related to this, please
expand the Program Details (section 5). For example, a number of courses are
briefly described. Are any of these currently offered? The prerequisites for the
program are also vaguely stated. What are the specific competencies required for
admission? How will courses be delivered? If delivery is entirely on-line, then
how will students be advised? Please also comment on completion rates and
authentication issues.
4. Need for the Program: It would also be helpful to expand your justification for
this program. For example, while other programs may not exist in MT, what other
programs are offered nationwide? What are graduation rates from such
programs? What are the outcomes for students: where, and with what successes
do students find employment? How was the demand (section 3 C) for the
program determined? The statement that input was received from students,
faculty, etc. is anecdotal.
5. Program Assessment: Please add some detail here, such as the near- and longterm benchmarks that will be used to measure the success of the program. How
will data be collected and reviewed?
6. Program Cost: While this is not an academic issue within the purview of the GC,
it does not seem prudent to assume that the costs of the program can be defrayed
solely by tuition. What will be the institutional commitment to the program,
particularly within the first few years of its operation?
7. Consultation: Please consult with affected programs (Computer Science for
3
example) and have the department chairs sign the proposal.
8. General Comment: Please consider making the title more descriptive of program
of study.
We regret that we cannot approve your proposal in its current form. We invite you to
resubmit the proposal in the fall, with the suggested changes.
…………………………..
Student Member Raquel Arouca’s picks of best practices in the samples provided:
California University of Pennsylvania
Graduate School POLICY: Academic Advising
A. Purpose & Scope
The purpose of this policy is to provide students with appropriate counsel in pursuing
their academic degrees.
B. Definition(s)
The University has embraced developmental academic advising which is a goal-oriented,
growth-oriented process helping students to assess their strengths and weaknesses, set
realistic academic and other goals, and to monitor progress toward achievement of these
goals. In this process, seven elements are essential:
1. Advising is a continuous process with accumulation of personal contacts between
advisor and student—these contacts have both direction and purpose.
2. Advising must concern itself with quality-of-life issues, and the advisor has a
responsibility to attend to the quality of the student’s experience in college.
3. Advising is goal related. The goals should be established and owned by the student
and should encompass academic, career, and personal development areas.
4. Advising requires the establishment of a caring human relationship, one in which the
advisor must take primary responsibility for its initial development.
5. Advisors should be models for students to emulate, specifically demonstrating
behaviors that lead to self-responsibility and self-directedness.
6. Advising should seek to integrate the services and expertise of both academic and
student affairs professionals.
7. Advisors should seek to utilize as many campus and community resources as
possible.
From: Developmental Academic Advising, Jossey-Bass, 1984.
C. Policy
4
Faculty advisors are available to assist graduate students in planning their academic
programs, but students have the responsibility for meeting all requirements for their
degrees. Students are urged to take advantage of the advisory and consultation services
available at the University. They should feel free to consult with professors, academic
advisors, department chairpersons, staff of the School of Graduate Studies & Research
and others, as needed. All of these university representatives maintain regular office
hours for student consultations.
D. Procedure(s)
New graduate students should create course schedules based on the requirements
specified in the official advisement sheet for their program of study. Currently enrolled
students are expected to seek the resources described under Part C. Each student may
register online or contact the Graduate Admissions Office for assistance. Some graduate
programs block registration access until students have consulted with their advisors.
Fulfillment of program requirements for a degree is ultimately the responsibility of the
student.
Rackham Graduate School at University of Michigan
Advising under duties of Dissertation Chair
http://www.rackham.umich.edu/dissertation_information/dissertation_committees/
How to mentor graduate students: a faculty guide
http://www.rackham.umich.edu/downloads/publications/Fmentoring.pdf
Best Practices – Mentoring and Advising
http://www.rackham.umich.edu/faculty_staff/information_for_programs/academic_succe
ss/mentoring_advising/