Graduate Council Meeting Minutes
March 9, 2011
GBB 202, 12:10-1:00 p.m.
Members Present: A. Borgmann, L. Economides, M. Ehrman, D. Erickson, J. Hirstein,
J. Hodgin, R. Judd, M. Mayer, H. Naughton, C. Palmer, G. Quintero, W. Shields, R.
Shortbull
Members Absent/Excused: N. Moisey, J. Olson, S. Ross, S. Sprang
Ex-officio members Present:
The meeting was called to order at 12:12 p.m.
The 3/2/11 minutes were approved.
Communication Items:

The Council continued discussion on the RA and TA tuition rates specifications.
Programs benefit from flexibility in distribution of RA/ TA funds. It seems that if a grant
is paying for out- of- state tuition for partial research assistance it would be more
economical to reduce the number of research assistants to comply with the policy and pay
in-state tuition. Additional information is needed in order to determine whether prorated
tuition discounts would be feasible. Faculty were not involved in the implementation
decision making so they do not understand the ramifications. How is the University
making up for the loss in tuition? The discussion will continue when Associate Provost
Sprang is in attendance. In the spirit of shared governance it would be helpful to have a
summary of the issues that were considered when the implementation decisions were
made.
It was noted that the College of Arts and Sciences doctoral stipends are equal to the
minimum set by the Graduate School.

Bertha Morton applications are due next Tuesday. However, they will not be available
on Blackboard until Monday, March 21st. The Council will need to have the review
completed by March 30th so the middle group review can be identified prior to spring
break.
Business Items

The Council continued discussion on the English program review. Information
regarding rates of completion and job placements of students that do not go on to
get a PhD would be helpful. Perhaps the Council could ask the program to address
the lack of structure as well. Specific suggestions for improvement to a program
have been made in the past. The Council could identify the problems with the
external review and suggest that the department and the administration consider
the current contention and bigger issues facing the discipline and develop a plan
that takes into account current external factors.
The review document is essentially a review of the external review and does not
follow the Council’s guidelines approved in 2006. However, many of the
previous program review documents also do not follow the guidelines. Perhaps
these should be reviewed to be consistent with current practice or the Council
should review its procedures in order to make its review more meaningful.

Chair Hirstein spoke with the College of Visual and Performing Arts Dean. The
College’s concerns can be addressed without revisiting the 300UG issue. The
guidelines will need to include a mechanism for meeting the needs of programs
that determine 300 level course work is appropriate for a graduate degree.
The meeting was adjourned at 12:58 p.m.