iLab Meeting Minutes
Friday, September 11, 2015
9am – 11am; University Hall
Present: Jeanne Loftus, Liz Ametsbichler, Charles Janson, Paulo Zagalo-Melo, Larry Abramson, Peter
Baker, Julie Cahill, Claudine Cellier, Brian French, Nancy Gass, Effie Koehn, Samuel Panarella, Nader
Shooshtari
With regrets: Abraham Kim, Bill Borrie, Trey Hill, Mary Nellis, Marja Unkuri-Chaudhry, John Matt
*handout with recommendations circulated
Jeanne opened with a summary of the recommendations and explained the steering committee
submitted the report to the administration. Now iLab is waiting to move forward with approval. The
floor was opened for comments on the recommendations.
Claudine: Expressed recommendations were summarized and reflected the study well
Effie: It was a valuable process, over 100 people were involved
Sam: Inquired, what’s next?
Summary: The steering committee met last week and sent an advance report to the administration. The
final recommendations were presented to the board. The following questions were asked:
 Funding – what was the base budget
 Follow up with President Engstrom’s strategic plan – include internationalization when
revamping the UM strategic plan
 Recruitment with Brazil and China
Paulo – 1) budgeting: support basic services, send lists to administrators and advisors, directly
reward & soft money for base budget 2) China and Brazil financial crisis, can’t plan for those
events, definitely impacts recruitment when recruitment focuses on 3 major countries (Brazil,
China, Japan).
Charlie: Faculty expressed a complaint about the support/compliance for faculty led programs
from admin. Afraid details will be cryptic/lost in a large 190 page report
Larry: Some action items are too vague, the board needs action items so those
recommendations don’t get buried in the report (for example diversity, or academic travel)
Jeanne: clarified report sections – some items can move forward without admin approval, asked
for suggestions on getting admin to push forward for items requiring admin approval
Brian: Asked if items were prioritized on the list submitted to admin. Suggested using a priority
list, not wanting to overshadow important element, but hoping to gain moment on few items
within the fiscal year.
Charlie: explained compliance for faculty means paperwork, seeing faculty ideas through to
fruition – not just the idea stage. Need admin support for faculty led trips, needs someone to
advise on risks, money, credit bearing courses and business services
Jeanne: there needs to be a full time position to achieve those duties
Sam: Is there money? Or is this just spinning windmills? Is there any money allocated for this
type of budget – there is no support or communication with the faculty and there needs to be
transparency. Is it best to tell faculty there is no budget but there’s a list of resources to help
with faculty led programs?
Larry: In response to Sam – the purpose of the self study is to identify areas needing
improvement and to set goals. We need more money so we need to tell leadership to make iLab
a priority and allocate the funding.
Paulo: We’re hopeful to get a person to support faculty led study abroad programs, a request
has been submitted from international programs
Larry: Named targets/scholarships money in departments – is money coming out of the
foundation: accounts are important and valuable
Effie: Recruitment efforts overseas is attractive, we should focus on how this can help
enrollment
Sam: a big draw to the law program is the China study abroad attraction
Charlie: moving back to priorities, we could emphasize one full time employee. Admin might
bite on consensus if that one FTE strategically could benefit all involved parties – ideally 3
people but that’s not realistic
Jeanne: restructuring items: internships, portions of job in business services, would the position
change?
Charlie: sounds like we should restructure the subcommittee and report
Nancy: the list isn’t prioritized because we don’t want the admin to respond to 1 point and
consider everything all done – they need to decide the priority based on the report
Brian: hopefully they’ll be more flexible over time, maybe the admin can work on 2 to 3 each
year. The greatest impact would be on enrollment so international recruitment should be the
number 1 recommendation as it’s the biggest investment
Julie: One FTE can’t do everything, if there are more students from enrollment, there needs to
be more support to process all of those applications. She referenced the case with Michigan
State when 4,000 new international students enrolled in under 3 years and the university had to
rise and meet those demands – there is nothing stopping that from happening at UM.
Paulo: The UM could permanently station people in host countries to help with recruitment
efforts. They would operate contractually.
Julie: Again, we need people on the receiving end to process the applications, I-20s, and other
documents.
Paulo: Try recruitment without additional money, less students would equal less money. We
could aim for a larger recruitment with the same budget. Other universities do 15% for their
international recruitment.
Claudine: I agree with all of this, we’re not in a position where admin will say do it. We need to
identify what’s feasible and how to move forward
Effie: Lou transitioned to OIP, half of the job transferred, so that’s not even 1 full time employee
on international recruitment.
Jeanne: Summarized the second handout, the proposal was grouped into four categories for the
iLab to move forward on this year (wraps up in June). We need feedback on the handout,
somethings can’t move forward without the admin but there’s a green light on the strategic
plan.
Effie: We should identify faculty members to be advisors for international students in their
departments and use an international student directory for momentum.
Jeanne: Would those advisors support domestic students going abroad as well?
Brian: No, it should only focus on international students, the requirements are different for
study abroad and ELI. Comparing domestic and international student requirements are like
comparing apples and oranges.
Peter: Is there an outgoing address? Nothing is present in the strategic plans but the
international education section stands alone.
Paulo: It goes beyond structure, faculty program development, building tracks, major things an
office can’t do alone. Should we add an enrollment and support item then?
Brian: It could factor into the general education reform – I can take it to the committee: there’s
the foreign language requirement, encourage study abroad; it relates to cultural emersion, it
could be 10 credits – language vs. abroad
Liz: explained testing out of a language and how spending one week in a country does not equal
the same classroom experience of learning a language
Jeanne: We need to encourage study abroad
Liz: yes, let’s encourage students to start in their first year, not to wait
Larry: recommended a Gen Ed Global learning study abroad credit, the language credit should
still be required
Nader: There could be up to 6 credits for studying abroad –a counter point is disadvantaged
students so credit should count as an elective. The departments could make efforts to credit
study abroad
Effie: it’s easier for sophomores to go abroad because credits transfer best within gen ed, but
not so well within majors.
Paulo: Pre approve semester abroad so all students can take advantage within their major
Nader: Faculty fights everything not in the core curriculum
Claudine: global century education – what does it mean – we need to define it
Brian: Liz is a major asset for Gen Ed
Charlie: We could have the dean tell the chair to tell the faculty in a meeting to sit and discuss
and make something happen
Jeanne: Need the Provost Input
Charlie: Departments can review standards anytime
Liz: But it’s a hassle, you do it every two years
Nader: Target the sophomores to go abroad
Jeanne: Let’s decide working groups and we can survey for participation. 1) UMT Standards, 2)
Global Education Requirement, 2) International Recruitment & Support 4)+______
Peter: What’s the difference between the working group and the strategic plan?
Paulo: There is a steering committee to make up the strategic plan, and there are 4 working
groups that report to the steering committee. Small yield of applications & enrolling students –
not necessarily less apps, big issues in enrollment apps are up on both sides.
Jeanne: External people for subcommittees? We could do that for the working groups?
Paulo: We need a clean slate – establish ideal, we need a number of people for each working
group, and one of the four steering committee members in each working group.
Jeanne: iLab enough people?
Paulo: Same task force, head hunt people – set unit standards and use the campus network.
Global learning outcomes, global education, learning abroad is a component.
Nader: Hard to push from the bottom up
Liz: CBA issue – int’l component, union to get international bargaining
Charlie: Require unit standards with language
Nader: Try both approaches and carry forward
Nancy: voluntary from the departments
Paulo: enrollment working group – items: recruitment, program development, pathways,
new/develop/changing programs. How can internationalization bring more students (int’l &
domestic). Orientation – source for recruitment, law school example, the China program
impacts with the international dynamic
Brian: Gen Ed: study abroad – indigenous/global same requirement? All departments study
abroad, major elective – gains credit, faculty led/global credit, in major required to study
abroad. Guaranteed to count ASCRC Goes under faculty group
Nancy: find area where you fit to help move in daily life
Paulo: International task force, 4 working groups, 5-8 people per group, 2 people on
international strategic plan committee
Jeanne: new working group: enrollment program development, pathways, international
recruitment, 2 12 Ums, aboard, IBGLI, High school
1.
2.
3.
4.
Campus network
Education abroad – global learning
Added enrollment and support
Admissions
How to recruit: send announcement, new stage want to be involved? Task force to working groups 
working groups chair
Board representation / requirements from all over, business school, some people who added interest
Come back – nominations, steering committee decide for accurate representation
Official commitment June 2016 (academic year)
Most important part ACE iLab is next campus visit: Leader to do what’s been laid out, come in & read
steering committee report issues/what’s delaying it – Michigan state iLab coming spring semester –
President & Provost, give view: ACE – accreditation similar, lean on top admin, ACE provide report after
site visit
Change of working groups:
Standard template
-action plans
-exclusion plans
-review recommendations
- move forward within power
-faculty led programs more seamless
-5 year priority plan (long term)
-action items to achieve plan
-tell this to strategic plan
-implementing as well  not just stop
Note of caution: start making things happen but also introduce chaos, structure of offices to do things,
example: curriculum change – it needs to go to committee, but can propose the idea there!
Hire ups need to get on board – bottom up doesn’t work well.
Get representation in working groups to help with implementation.
Submit report next week with plans for this semester – get that out by June strategic plan!
Go Team!