Graduate Council Meeting Minutes 4/25/12
GBB 202, 12:10-1:00 p.m.
Members Present: R. Arouca, A. Borgmann, D. Campbell, J. Hodgin, J. Hunt, R. Judd,
C. Palmer, K. Swift
Members Absent/Excused: D. Erickson, M. Mayer, L. Stanhope, K. Wu
Ex-officio members Present: S. Ross, S. Sprang
The meeting was called to order by Chair Palmer at 12:10 p.m.
The 4/18/12 minutes were approved.
Communication Items

Chair Palmer sent a correspondence to Dean Comer with regard program review collegiality issues and enrollment concerns for co-convening courses.

Discussion of the second tier of Bertha Morton reviews, the annual report, and
Graduate School policies was postponed until next week.
Business Items

The IIP Oversight report (appended below) was reviewed by the Council. The 68% completion rate is higher than the university’s average which is in the low fifty percentile. This is in line with the national average. The report includes the earlier recommendations for a director and staff support. Approval has been granted for a half time director and new staff position in the Graduate School. It is likely that an internal search for the director will take place soon.

The Council discussed the proposed revision to the program review procedure. It is understood that the program review process will evolve once assessment procedures are in place. In the meantime the revision inserts assessment of UG and co-convened courses. The request for syllabi will need to be included in the self –study information. Departments should be informed of this requirement. The proposed revision was edited and approved by the Council. The following statement was inserted:
(4)The program or department will provide the Graduate Council with the most recent syllabi for UG and Co-convening courses and a brief statement of how and where the syllabi demonstrate graduate –level rigor and intent of the
UG or Co-convening courses.


Council members were sent the final proposal for enhancement of teaching assistants stipends as well as a proposal to change the current procedure for TA allocations from the Graduate School. The enhancement proposal would ultimately be a policy of
Academic Affairs and would require a plan for implementation. The proposal does not call for reallocation.
The current practice of Graduate School TA allocations is not efficient (causes a yearly deficit) and disassociates deans with the process. The proposal would shift the administration of waivers and budget tracking directly to the college or school. This will allow the deans more flexibility with how TAs are allocated. The Graduate
School will still administer contract compliance with TARA. Programs will have better fiscal management when reallocations are required within their own college or school. The Council agrees that the logic behind the proposal.
The meeting was adjourned at 12:55 PM.
IIP - Student Progress and Success
The Graduate School provided the Oversight Committee with a list of ostensibly all IIP students (fifty-one in total) who have been in the program since inception. The
Oversight Committee was able to update this list by addition of two students who were enrolled and have completed the program, and by removal of seven students who either never actually enrolled in the program or who actually enrolled in the MEIP program rather than the IIP program. This updated list shows forty-six students who have been enrolled in the IIP program.
The Oversight Committee attempted to obtain a progress update from each of the eleven students who were listed as currently active. When the students did not respond, the Committee contacted their advisor for an update. Complete responses were obtained from ten students. The Committee was able to confirm with her advisor that the eleventh student remains active in the program. Table 1 shows the current status of the forty-six
IIP students.
Table 1: Current status of the forty-six IIP students.
Completed
Degree
24
Active and
Responsive
11
Leave of
Absence
2
Left UM w/o
Degree
6
Transferred w/in UM
3
One of the students listed as on leave of absence did respond with information.
She started in the IIP in 2009 and by 2011 had successfully completed at least 18 credits of graduate course work. She has not been enrolled since Spring of 2011 but reports that she plans to complete the degree by Spring of 2013.
Of the twenty-two students who started the degree program since 2006, four have completed the degree, eleven responded to our query and seem to be making good progress, three have either dropped out of the program or were unresponsive, two are on leave of absence, and three have transferred to other UM programs. This results in a

potential or likely IIP degree completion rate of 15/22, or 68%. Assuming successful completion of the eleven active students, the overall IIP completion rate since inception is
35/46, or 76%. The data set is small, so it is difficult to draw conclusions. It appears that the completion rate is either holding steady or dropping slightly in recent years.
The ten active students who responded fully to the Oversight Committee request are making good progress toward the degree. One has defended her dissertation and is making final changes, a second defended his dissertation on April 16, two expect to complete the degree this spring or summer, and another five expect to finish by spring of
2013. All of these students have completed enough course credits for the degree with satisfactory grades and are working on dissertation and research credits and results. No report was received for the eleventh active student. The Oversight Committee did not find any problems to report to student advisory committees.
IIP Program Leadership and Administration
As might be expected for such a program, the IIP continues to be a broadly separated collection of students and faculty working on mostly unrelated projects. Since each student has an individualized plan, the program is difficult to monitor and to assess.
During the last academic year the Graduate Council made recommendations to the Graduate School and Provost’s Office. Among those recommendations were the following:
3.
Resources will be made available to adequately fund the joint IIP/MIS programs. a.
Appoint an IIP/MIS Program Director, drawn from the pool of tenured
UM faculty members, with an administrative reassignment commensurate with the time commitment and responsibilities of a Program Director. b.
An annual fall Seminar in Integrative Methodology and Pedagogy should be developed and funded, along with an annual spring Colloquium in
Integrative Research. (Funding should be identified to pay for adjunct instructors who fill in for the Director’s and the Seminar leader’s teaching reductions). c.
A total of one student assistantship will be allocated to the programs. The
Director will determine how it will be used. d.
Additional resources for a .25 support staff position, a faculty and student travel budget, and for periodic external evaluations as per the program review schedule.
4.
The IIP/MIS Program Director will be expected to devote the necessary time and resources for administering and promoting the program both on and off campus. a.
Convene an Advisory Board of UM faculty members. b.
Convene an IIP/MIS Admissions Committee of UM faculty members.

c.
Develop, update and improve on-line and printed promotional materials that are aimed at non-traditional students, international students, and students of diverse ethnic backgrounds. d.
Provide oversight and leadership in program development, program review and recruitment and retention initiatives for the IIP/MIS degrees.
Although the Council was given the impression that the administration was receptive and supportive of these recommendations, not one of these recommended actions have been taken. Without the support of a director or administrative staff, the IIP Oversight
Committee found it difficult and time consuming to collect and analyze data on the progress of individual students. The Oversight Committee is concerned that this review process may overlook subtle complications or problems.
The IIP Oversight Committee would like to reiterate and reinforce the recommendations above. Without adequate leadership, administration and assessment, the IIP (and MIS) programs are at serious risk of failure.