Graduate Council Annual Report 2013-2014
Graduate Council Membership
Stephen Sprang, DBS (Chair)
(2014)
Kenton Swift, Accounting & Finance
Duncan Campbell, Psychology
Emily Stone, Mathematical Sciences
Morgan Alwell, C & I
Neva Hassanein, Environmental Studies
Jesse Johnson, Computer Science (fall)
Xi Chu, Chemistry (spring)
Lori Gray, Music
Ione Crummy, Modern & Classical Languages
Ashley McKeown, Anthropology
Linda Frey, History (fall)
Mehrdad Kia, History(spring)
Ashby Kinch, English
(2014)
(2014)
(2014)
(2015)
(2015)
Graduate Students:
Daniel Biehl
Brett Klaassen
Sarah Williams
Ex-Officio Member
Sandy Ross, Dean, Graduate School
Blakely Brown, Interim IIP Director
Nancy Hinman, Interim Associate Provost
Raquel Arouca, Graduate School Postdoc
Subcommittee Members
Humanities
Sciences
Linda Frey/Mehrdad
Emily Stone
Kia
Stephen Sprang
Ashby Kinch
Jesse Johnson /Xi Chu
Ione Crummy
Social Sciences
Schools
Duncan Campbell
Kenton Swift
Neva Hassanein
Morgan Alwell
(2016)
(2016)
(2016)
(2016)
(2016)
(2016)
Ashley McKeown
Lori Gray
IIP Oversight Committee Members
Duncan Campbell
Emily Stone
Stephen Sprang
Morgan Alwell
Mehrdad Kia (spring) Xi Chu (spring)
Linda Frey (fall)
Ashley McKeown
Jesse Johnson (fall)
IIP Admissions Committee Members
Dusten Hollist, Sociology (2014)
Jillian Campana, Theatre & Dance (2015)
Lida Frey, History (2014)
William Holben, DBS (2016)
Karri Jo Harris, Public Health (2016)
Agenda Items and Actions
Annual Curriculum Review
The Graduate Council acted on 86 curriculum forms, including 23 new courses, 7 course
deletions, 2 program modifications, and two level I proposals. Six of the new courses are UG,
and 1 is co-convened.
Level I changes


Change title of Intercultural Youth and Family Development to Global Youth
Development
Change the titles of the MS & PHD options in Cellular, Molecular and Microbial Biology
Old option title
Cellular and Molecular Biology
Microbial Ecology
Microbiology
Biochemistry
New option title
Cellular and Developmental Biology
Microbial Evolution and Ecology
Microbiology and Immunology
Molecular Biology and Biochemistry
A Level II was proposed for a new interdisciplinary Master in Online Learning Technologies housed
in the Graduate School. This proposal was originally considered in Fall 2012 it was submitted again with
several revisions. The Council met with the proposers on November 13th. Although the cost recovery
funding model was reported to have been approved by the Provost, the Council was not provided with
the details. The proposal was approved by the Council with 5 in favor, 4 against, and 2 abstentions. It
was referred back to the Council by the Faculty Senate. Chair Sprang consulted with the requesters and
identified three possibilities to proceed.
1. Request revisions to the current proposal.
2. Suggest the proposal be reconstituted as an option within the Masters of Interdisciplinary
Studies (MIS).
3. Launch the program as a track within the MIS in order to further develop the courses
using experimental course numbers.
Program Reviews
Graduate School’s Self-study (in progress)
Biomedical and Pharmaceutical Sciences
Environmental Studies
Geography
Mathematical Science
Public Health
Admission Requirement proposals – alternative to GRE Requirement
Counselor Education
Media Arts
Graduate Advising Guidelines
The Council started work on the Guidelines last year. Several drafts were discussed by the
Council. Drafts were also sent to the UFA and ECOS for feedback. The document was revised
per comments and introduced at the April Faculty Senate meeting. Senators were requested to
send feedback by April 30th to be incorporated into the guidelines. The Council considered
comments submitted by one Senator and by the UFA during its April 30 meeting, and made final
revisions to the guidelines. The Guidelines will be posted on the Graduate School and GSA
websites, and distributed to all Graduate Programs. See appendix 1.
Bertha Morton Scholarship Application Review
The Council reviewed 51 applications and awarded 25 scholarships.
IIP Oversight Committee Procedures and proposed Process for IIP Students’ Program
Revision
The documents appended were approved at the April 9th meeting and provided to the Faculty
Senate as information at the May 8th meeting. See appendix 2 and 3.
Review and revision of Committee’s charge
The Council discussed its responsibilities as identified in the Faculty Senate bylaws. It made
revisions to better align with the role and function of faculty governance. The amendment will
not go the Faculty Senate for consideration until next fall. See appendix 4.
Other Business / Discussion Items
Recommendations from the Graduate School Web Committee
The Committee was established to find a solution to conflicting information on department and
the Graduate School’s web sites. See appendix 5.
Graduate Student’s Association request for formal recognition as a governance body
The GSA is currently considered a club of ASUM. The co-presidents prepared a white paper
outlining its proposed structure. It hopes to be formally recognized and given support by
capturing some of ASUM student fees paid by graduate students to start to address issues
specific to graduate students. The GSA has attempted to negotiate with ASUM without success.
The graduate student voice is missing from the shared governance process.
Meeting with Provost (3/12/14) and follow-up letter
Discussion focused on: the Provost’s vision for the role of the Graduate School and Graduate
Programs at UM; long-term trends in decline in graduate enrollment; low TA stipend rates; the
current model for allocation of general funds to programs; establishment of interdisciplinary
programs; process by which the Provost’s approves programs for consideration by the Graduate
Council; the role of the Graduate Council in formulation of strategic plans for graduate
education; concern that one of the recommendations of the Cost Savings Workgroup was to
eliminate the Graduate School; discussion of the process by which programs are evaluated for
modification, enhancement or elimination; the role of the Graduate Student’s Association; and
financial support for the position of Director of Interdisciplinary Graduate Programs in the
Graduate School Office. On the day following this meeting, it was published in the Kaiman that
eight fewer TAships would be provided to graduate programs across the university in AY 20142015. In response to this event, the Graduate Council sent a letter to the Provost to communicate
its appreciation for his participation in a dialog about issues impacting the graduate education,
but also its disappointment that the Provost did not share information about planned reductions in
the number of TA positions with the Graduate Council during the March 12 meeting, indicating a
critical breakdown in communication between the Provost and the Graduate Council. The
Provost accepted an invitation from the Graduate Council to attend its final meeting of the
semester on May 7 to discuss the future of interdisciplinary graduate programs and the overall
vision for graduate education.
Meeting with Vice President Whittenburg (3/19/14)
Discussion focused on: interest by the President in increasing graduate enrolment and in creating
viable new programs; VPRSC’s strategic goal that UM should achieve a Carnegie Very High
Research Activity classification; the VPRSC’s initiative to offer a 3-for-1 RA support program;
VPRCS interest in keeping more research funds centrally as the office approaches solvency;;
concerns about the university budget model which does not currently value graduate research;
recruitment of a Proposal Development Office; interactions between Deans and the VPRCS in
supporting funding opportunities that involve the creation of new programs.
Interdisciplinary Individualized PhD
The IIP issued Program Review report for 2013-2014. Highlights of the report include: current
IIP enrolment of 12 students (11 active), 2 students graduated and 2 in pending status; four
students admitted this year. The report describes the progress of IIP students since last year,
research areas of newly admitted students, and of students returning from leaves of absence. The
report describes retention and recruitment efforts by the IIP and the current status of the IIP
office.
English Language Proficiency Policy
The Graduate Council was informed of the proposed to the English language proficiency policy
that applies to undergraduate students. The Graduate Schools policy was reviewed for
alignment. Only the score on the MELAB was lower than the revised minimum by 1 point. The
Graduate School will likely raise this minimum requirement. Students not meeting the minimum
standards may be admitted provisionally to a graduate program or as a graduate nondegree
student and the department will reassess the admission status after one semester or one year of
study.
ULC Budget Resolution
The Graduate Council received, as an item of information, the ULC’s resolution in response to
proposed FY2015 budget cuts.
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Appendices
Appendix 1
Procedure Number:
Procedure:
Date Adopted:
Last Revision:
References:
Approved by:
302.30
Graduate Advising Guidelines
4/30/14
4/30/14
UFA Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA); Graduate School
Policy C6.000, D4.000, F1.000, G1.000; The Northwest Commission
on Colleges and Universities (NWCCU) Accreditation Standards
2.D.3 and 2.D.10; University Policy 410
Graduate Council
Resources:
Samples of Best Practices see section F
A. Purpose & Scope
Provide students and faculty with guidelines for graduate advising at the University of
Montana, and provide reference for existing policy.
B. Assumptions
Academic programs have various cultures and styles for student advising that meet their
program requirements and student needs. Each Master’s and Doctoral degree program has an
orientation session to introduce graduate students to the policies, practices, and resources of
the department, including a mechanism for addressing student complaints.
C. Definition(s)
Advisors are critical to the success of a graduate student’s education. Graduate advisors
provide essential training and mentoring through close collaboration with students. The
primary responsibility of the advisor is to assist the student to reach their academic and
professional goals. The advisor and student should work together to determine suitable
thesis, professional paper / project, or dissertation objectives per program requirements.
While students may seek mentorship and advice from any source, particularly the students’
dissertation or thesis committee, the term “principal faculty advisor(s)” refers to the principal
formal supervisor(s) overseeing their work.
D. Relevant Existing Policy
Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) found at
http://www.umt.edu/provost/faculty/CBAs/default.php:
Graduate School Policy found at www.umt.edu/grad/Academic%20Policies/default.php
C6.000 – Thesis/Professional Paper Examining Committee
D4.000 – The Dissertation
F1.000 – Graduate Student Advising
G1.000 – Qualifications of Graduate Committee Members
E. Guidelines for Graduate Students and Advisors
Graduate programs should provide students with timely, specific, accurate information and
advising about the requirements of their program of study, including key steps with timelines
towards graduation. This information could be in the form of a student handbook, and
disseminated at appropriate points in students’ education.
General guidelines for all graduate students are available on the Graduate School website and
specific information is on the program's website.
Faculty advisors are available to assist graduate students in planning their academic
programs, but students have the responsibility for meeting all requirements for their degree.
To identify an advisor for their graduate studies, students are urged to consult with
professors, academic advisors, department chairpersons, Graduate School staff and others, as
needed and following specific programs’ guidelines.
Graduate students take primary responsibility for informing themselves of the regulations,
policies, and practices governing their degree, course requirements, research activities, and
conflict resolution. They understand faculty advisors’ central role:
Students should understand that advisors are essential to the intellectual and
instructional environment.
Students are responsible for ensuring that the contributions of all participants in
-
-
research and creative activities are properly acknowledged in publications and
presentations.
Students should be aware of time constraints and other demands imposed on faculty
members and program staff.
Students should take the initiative to arrange meetings with faculty advisor as often
as necessary and to keep the advisor informed of any factors that might affect
progress towards achieving their graduate degree. Circumstances and diverse
academic cultures will dictate the frequency of meetings; best practices suggest a
minimum of twice a semester.
Students should seek an early and informal resolution of problems that may occur in
their working relationships with their advisor, or others, by first consulting with the
advisor prior to starting a formalized process.
Faculty advisors must take an active role in understanding the relevant university policies
that pertain to graduate students. These include, but are not limited to, requirements of
coursework, tools and methods used by the student in the course of scholarly or creative
activity and research, examinations, authorship, intellectual property, environmental
health and safety, ethical standards and standards of conduct relevant to the student’s
graduate work, Institutional Review Board guidelines, and the Student Code of Conduct.
Faculty advisors or graduate programs should clearly communicate to students who
receive funding the expectations, requirements, limitations and duration of financial
support, whether through teaching or research funds.
Advisors serve as intellectual and professional mentors to their graduate students.
Because certain academic, research or creative traditions encourage faculty-graduate
student collaborations and the sharing of authorship or rights to intellectual property
developed in research or other creative or artistic activity, advisor and advisee are
counseled to seek mutual agreement about expectations for such collaboration.
Advisors are responsible for monitoring the accuracy, validity, and integrity of the
student’s research, scholarship, or creative works to the extent dictated by graduate
program policy and practice.
Advisors provide students with evaluation of their progress and performance in
regular, timely and informative ways.
Advisors seek to prepare students to be competitive for employment, encouraging
them to participate in professional meetings, perform or display their work in public
settings, and publish the results of their research.
Advisors seek to provide a realistic view of the field and the current job market.
Advisors maintain a high level of professionalism and excuse themselves from
participating in committees where they have a conflict of interest.
Advisors shall never impede a graduate student’s progress toward the degree sought,
either through negligence or to benefit from a student’s proficiency as a teaching or
research assistant.
F. Resources for Evaluating the Effectiveness of Advising
In general, all units of the University of Montana must meet the Northwest Commission on
Colleges and Universities Standard for Accreditation 2.D.10 for advising
http://www.nwccu.org/Standards%20and%20Policies/Standard%202/Standard%20T
wo.htm. Specifically, the Graduate Council and Graduate School expect units to develop
mechanisms for evaluating the effectiveness of advising within the unit, and procedures
employed to mitigate instances of ineffective advising.
Guidance and information on best practices adopted by public universities for Advising is
available at The University of Michigan publication How to mentor graduate students: a
guide for faculty at http://www.rackham.umich.edu/publications/, and The Ohio State
University Graduate Student Handbook at http://www.gradsch.ohiostate.edu/Depo/PDF/Handbook.pdf and mentoring guide at
http://www.gradsch.osu.edu/DEPO/PDF/MentoringAdvisingGradStudents.pdf.
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Appendix 2
Procedure:
IIP Oversight Committee Procedures
Date Adopted 5/4/06
Last Revision: 4/9/14
References:
Approved by: Graduate Council
A. Oversight Committee
The Oversight Committee is composed of Graduate Council doctoral program faculty. In
concert with the Graduate School’s Director of Interdisciplinary Studies, the committee
provides oversight of the IIP Program and provides consultative guidance to the IIP
Admissions Committee.
B. Annual review by the Oversight Committee
1. Progress for each IIP student who is currently enrolled in the program will be reviewed
annually late in the Spring semester;
2. Using the format specified by the Director of Interdisciplinary Studies, students are
required to complete and submit a formal on-line “Progress Report” by the second week of
April.
a) This report will be submitted to the Director of Interdisciplinary Studies and will
indicate each student’s progress in his/her program (e.g., number of completed credits,
number of currently enrolled credits, explicit description of progress regarding
dissertation activities, anticipated dissertations and program completion dates), as well
as an overview of the student’s relevant professional activities.
b) Each student’s dissertation chairperson will be required to review and indicate his/her
approval of the student’s progress report prior to its submission.
c) Approved reports will be compiled by the Director of Interdisciplinary Studies.
3. Using the Progress Reports as the data source, the Graduate School and the Director of
Interdisciplinary Studies will draft and submit to the IIP Oversight Committee a Program
Review of the IIP. This review will constitute a written summary of each student’s progress
and accomplishments within the IIP.
a) The Program Review will serve as evidence of whether the IIP as a whole is meeting
its goals.
b) The Program Review should include notice of students who are failing to make
substantive progress toward program completion. The review should include a general
description of the circumstances for students who have fallen behind as well as a
general description of how their progress is lacking. The review should also document
whether or not the students and their committees have developed remediation plans to
support students’ progress. Specific details of each student’s circumstances and
remediation plan will not be contained in the Program Review. Instead, these details
would be discussed thoroughly with the Interdisciplinary Graduate Program Director,
the IIP students’ committees, and the committee chairpersons.
c) The IIP Oversight Committee will review the Program Review and provide a brief oral
description of the IIP’s annual status at the final Graduate Council meeting of each
academic year. The IIP Oversight Committee and/or the Graduate Council will use the
Program Review to identify questions or concerns about the IIP. Questions and
concerns will be addressed to the Interdisciplinary Graduate Program Director. The
Program Director and the IIP Oversight Committee will work together to address the
concerns.
4. Consultative Functions:
Finally, the IIP Oversight Committee will serve a consultative function for the Director of
Interdisciplinary Studies and the Chair of the IIP Admissions Committee. For example, the
IIP Oversight Committee is available to consult with the Director of Interdisciplinary
Studies about issues that may arise regarding a student’s unsatisfactory progress or issues
of disagreement between a student, his/her committee, and/or his/her chair. Ultimately, per
typical Graduate School operating procedure, responsibility for decisions regarding student
complaints and resolution of disagreements among committee members will rest with the
Dean of the Graduate School.
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Appendix 3
Proposed policy language regarding procedure for substantive changes made by students
to approved Interdisciplinary Doctoral Programs
The process to approve major, substantive revisions to an IIP student’s original Individualized
Interdisciplinary Doctoral Program (IIP) is as follows:
The IIP is housed in the Graduate School and does not have a specific department. Thus, the
student’s IIP committee serves as his or her department. The Director of Interdisciplinary
Graduate Programs oversees the IIP, and serves in the role of department chair with support from
the IIP Admissions Committee, the IIP Oversight Committee, and, when needed, the Dean of the
Graduate School. Upon admission into the program, the student’s prospective committee
becomes the official acting committee (i.e., the “department”). This committee is responsible for
directing the student’s program and committing their time and effort to mentor and guide the
student through program and degree completion.
If an IIP student makes substantive changes to his or her IIP program (e.g., original research
plan, scope of work, timeline, comprehensive examination format, or committee member
composition), a formal review and approval process of the revised IIP must occur. The Graduate
School (which is the responsible academic unit) must approve of the proposed changes. The
formal approval process can occur through one of two different courses of action; the student can
choose which course of action.
Course of Action #1: The IIP student convenes the current committee (i.e., the committee
approved by the IIP Admissions committee and recognized by the Graduate School) and presents
to them the proposed revisions to the IIP. Specifically, this presentation should include:
1)
A brief summary of the revised research plan, including methodology. If the student
is proposing revisions to the IIP committee (i.e., the ‘department’) the student must
explain how revisions will successfully contribute to the revised research plan and
degree completion.
2)
Present a revised timeline, showing coursework completed and any new courses that
might be needed to meet the goals of the revised research plan and any changes in
committee member composition.
3)
Describe any changes to the comprehensive exam format that was originally agreed
upon.
After the presentation, the student will be excused, and the committee members will discuss the
students’ proposed revisions to the IIP. After this discussion, the student will be informed of
whether the current proposal is acceptable as submitted or require minor changes. If major
changes are required, the revisions will need to be reviewed, evaluated and approved by all
members of the student’s current committee. All documents prepared for this meeting will be
kept on record in the student’s file at the Graduate School.
If the changes do not implicate committee membership, members of the existing committee will
indicate their approval verbally during the meeting. If the approved changes include new
committee members, these new members will be required to write letters of commitment and
submit them to the Graduate School. These letters should mirror in scope and format the letters
submitted by prospective committee members at the time of the student’s original application to
the IIP. As noted in the application guidelines, the letters must, “…include a statement about the
value and rigor of the student's proposal, [the committee members’] willingness to participate in
the collaborative effort and [the committee members’] specific areas of expertise and how this
strengthens the student’s IIP program of study and dissertation project(s)” (see PhD Individualized
Interdisciplinary Doctoral Program, item 3.13, “Establishing a Program Committee”:
http://www.umt.edu/grad/Interdisciplinary%20Graduate%20Programs/Prospective%20Students.php) .
These
letters will be kept with the student’s file.
Course of Action #2: The IIP student prepares a new IIP application that includes the revisions to
the research plan, course of study, comprehensive exam format, timeline and committee member
makeup and submits this to the IIP Admissions Committee. The application can and should
include relevant coursework and research activities that the student had already completed in the
course of his or her original plan. The application submission deadlines are November 15 and
April 1, each academic year. The IIP Admissions Committee will review the application and
decide to fully approve, provisionally approve, or deny the student admission into the IIP.
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Appendix 4
Faculty Senate Bylaw Amendment – Graduate Council
4/10/14
SECTION III.
COMMITTEES
A. Standing Committees of the Faculty Senate
4. Graduate Council
b. Responsibilities







Promote, review, and evaluate graduate programs to ensure vitality, currency, and
quality;
Review and make recommendations on all requests for new programs, for deletions
of programs, and for curriculum additions or changes by departments and schools;
Consider suggested changes in Graduate School regulations;
Consider issues raised by graduate students relating to regulations of specific
graduate programs or their welfare;
Initiate and supervise Oversee interdisciplinary graduate programs housed in the
Graduate School; in response to national, regional, or state needs, or to the desires
and needs of sufficient numbers of graduate students;
Allocate awards and scholarships conferred by the Graduate School;
Decide on substantive matters Make recommendations to the Senate regarding
standards and policies relating to graduate programs, curricula, general Graduate
School regulations, awards and scholarships, etc., and communicate those standards
and policies to students, faculty , and the administration . forward decisions to the
Graduate School, Faculty Senate, or and the Provost and Vice President for Academic
Affairs as appropriate.
Rationale
The Graduate Council (GC) proposes to amend its bylaws to clarify its role in developing
Graduate School (GS) policy relative to that of the Faculty Senate (FS). Current bylaws confer
decision-making authority upon the GC. This appears incongruent with FS Article III which
states that "The Senate may establish committees composed of its membership or of the
members of the faculty to assist it in the discharge of its powers and duties". The existing GC
bylaw is also at variance with those of the ASCRC and University Library Committees, which
serve in an advisory capacity to recommend, rather then decide policy. The GC proposes to
likewise assume an advisory, rather than a decision-making role, to better align its role with the
spirit of faculty governance embodied by the FS. Other proposed changes to GC bylaws are
intended to eliminate redundant (with respect to changes in GS regulations) and superfluous ("
… in response to national, regional or state needs …") text and to clarify the role of the GC in
oversight of interdisciplinary graduate programs housed in the GS.
…………………………………………………………………………………………………..
Appendix 5
Graduate School Web Committee Recommendations

Recommendations
 Develop a uniform list of minimum requirements and information to reside on each
respective department’s area of the Graduate School’s web site and also on their
departmental web site. Departments can have more than the minimum requirements on
their web sites and use their own design.
 Communicate to the departments the requirements and set a deadline for web site
compliance. The Graduate School will do this.
 The Graduate School will revise its web site to have a uniform page for each program.
 The Graduate School will conduct an audit of all departmental sites and notify them of
required changes.
Information on Graduate School pages (Administrative Information)
 Table with list of degrees/options offered
 Admission application instructions
 Admission deadlines
 List of required application materials
 Departmental contact information
 Link to departmental site
Departmental pages (Academic Information)





Program description
Program requirements (academic requirements, not admission requirements)
Program director
Assistantship/Scholarship information
Link to Graduate School site for application instructions