October 6, 2015
(Last update: 10/01/15)
Handouts of the Graduate Faculty
Council
Graduate School
Memo
To:
Dean Pennington – College of Engineering, Dean Seely – College of Sciences and Arts, Dean Klippel –
School of Business and Economics, Dean Sharik – School of Forest Resources and Environmental
Sciences, Dean Frendewey – School of Technology
Cc:
David Reed - Vice President for Research, Peter Larsen – Vice President for Research Office, Jodi Lehman - Vice
President for Research Office, Lisa Jukkala – Sponsored Programs Office, Kim Codere - Sponsored Programs
Office, Pushpa Murthy – Graduate School
From:
J.E. Huntoon, Provost and Interim Dean of the Graduate School
Date:
September 24, 2015
Re:
Changes to GACS (Graduate Assistant Cost Share) Program Guidelines
Due to the high success rate of University proposals, modification of the GACS guidelines will be implemented for
proposals submitted on or after January 1, 2016.
GACS will remain available when the sponsor requires cost share.
GACS requests will continue to be considered in support of large or strategic proposals (including those submitted in
response to young investigator programs such as CAREER and the ONR Young Investigator programs).
The change being made is that in the future GACS will only be available for summer support (stipend plus minimum fulltime tuition [one credit]). To be eligible for GACS summer support, proposals must also include full-time academic-year
support for students so that students receive continuous support from the project using a combination of sponsor and
GACS funds.
In addition, requests for augmented GACS support for large proposals (>$500k/year) that also require cost-share will be
considered on a case-by-case basis.
Requests for GACS support will continue to be considered on an individual basis by the dean of the Graduate School.
Requests for GACS should be submitted through the Graduate School finance coordinator (Heather Suokas).
Current language (from the Graduate School website):
http://www.mtu.edu/gradschool/administration/academics/policies-procedures/gacs/
•
When cost share is mandatory
GACS support will be available.
The Graduate School will provide up to a maximum of 50 percent of the total required cost-share. For example, if the
total cost of a project will be $50k and a 1:1 match is required from Michigan Tech ($25k), the Graduate School will
commit up to a maximum of $12.5k in cost share (50 percent of the total required cost share).
•
GACS support can only be used for tuition. External funding must be secured from the sponsor to provide the stipend for
the student, as well as the remainder of the tuition.
•
Cost-share support will be capped at the equivalent of the cost of nine credits of tuition (at the current rate) for a
maximum of two students for a maximum of two academic-year semesters per project year. No incremental increases
for multiple year budgets will be included.
•
•
Support for large or strategic proposals
GACS support may be available for large proposals (>$500k/year) that involve investigators from multiple units on
campus and contribute significantly to the University’s mission.
GACS support may also be available for proposals that reinforce strategic initiatives (e.g., the National Science
Foundation CAREER program).
In both of these situations, requests for GACS will be considered on an individual basis by the dean of the Graduate
School. Requests for GACS should be submitted through the Graduate School finance coordinator (currently Heather
Suokas).
Planned revised language (for the Graduate School website) with changes marked with yellow highlight.
•
When cost share is mandatory
GACS support will be available.
The Graduate School will provide up to a maximum of 50 percent of the total required cost-share. For example, if the
total cost of a project will be $50k and a 1:1 match is required from Michigan Tech ($25k), the Graduate School will
commit up to a maximum of $12.5k in cost share (50 percent of the total required cost share).
•
GACS will only be available for summer support (stipend plus minimum full-time tuition [one credit]). To be eligible for GACS summer
support, proposals must also include full-time academic-year support for students so that students receive continuous support from
the project using a combination of sponsor and GACS funds.
•
Cost-share support will be capped at the equivalent of the cost of nine credits of tuition (at the current rate) for a
maximum of two students for a maximum of two academic-year semesters per project year. No incremental increases
for multiple year budgets will be included.
•
•
Support for large or strategic proposals
GACS support may be available for large proposals (>$500k/year) that involve investigators from multiple units on
campus and contribute significantly to the University’s mission.
GACS support may also be available for proposals that reinforce strategic initiatives (e.g., the National Science
Foundation CAREER program).
In both of these situations, requests for GACS will be considered on an individual basis by the dean of the Graduate
School. Requests for GACS should be submitted through the Graduate School finance coordinator (currently Heather
Suokas). Requests for augmented GACS support for large proposals (>$500k/year) that also require cost-share will be
considered on a case-by-case basis.
The University Senate of Michigan Technological University
Proposal XX-15
(Voting Units: Academic)
Proposal to Change PhD Degree Title:
“Ph.D. in Applied Physics”
(Old title: PhD in Engineering Physics)
Department of Physics
Michigan Technological University
Houghton, MI 49931
(September 22, 2015)
Proposed by: Yoke Khin Yap, Director of Graduate Studies – Engineering Physics
(ykyap@mtu.edu)
Bryan Suits and John Jaszczak
Department of Physics
Michigan Technological University
Houghton, MI 49931
1
I. Introduction
The Department of Physics proposes to change the name of a current graduate degree, “Ph.D. in
Engineering Physics,” to “Ph.D. in Applied Physics.”
The current “Ph.D. in Engineering Physics” program was originally proposed over fifteen years
ago to facilitate interdisciplinary research in which physics principles are applied to advanced
practical problems. At the time, the applied research interests of the faculty were strongly aligned
to engineering disciplines. A change of name to “Ph.D. in Applied Physics” will better reflect the
applied research interests of faculty and students, which still include those in engineering, but have
broadened to also application areas such as biophysics.
II. Proposal
1. General description and characteristics of program
The study of physics has generally been focused on the foundational disciplinary areas such as,
high-energy physics, atomic and molecular physics, astrophysics, solid state physics, and nuclear
physics. During the past two decades, new branches of physics have become separately identified
including some in areas where traditional physics intersects with other applied disciplines. These
include many areas of engineering, biophysics, physics at the nanoscale, condensed matters,
materials physics, optics/photonics, optoelectronics, etc. In order to encourage study and research
in these interdisciplinary areas at the Ph.D. level, a PhD in Engineering Physics was added in 2001.
The program description includes requirements which are roughly ¾ Physics and ¼ in an
application area outside of the physics department. Approximately 20% of the current Physics
PhD students are in the PhD in Engineering Physics program and about a dozen PhD’s in
Engineering Physics have been granted since the program’s inception.
2. Rationale
At the time that the PhD in Engineering Physics was created, the assumption was that application
areas would largely come from collaborations with engineering departments (at MTU). It has
come to our attention that there are other application areas of current interest which are not
normally identified as an area of engineering which are tacitly precluded because of the use of the
word “engineering.” We propose to change the title of “Ph.D. in Engineering Physics” into “Ph.D.
program in Applied Physics,” along with the obvious generalization of the word “engineering”
within the program description, to make it clear that application areas do not need to be considered
engineering. Other than these wording changes, no other changes to the program are proposed.
3. Discussion of related programs within the institution and at other institutions
3.1. Related programs within the institution
Michigan Tech offers a M.S. degree in Physics, a M.S. Degree in Applied Physics, a Ph.D.
degree in Physics, and a Ph.D. degree in Engineering Physics. The Physics department also has
2
faculty and students engaged in the PhD in Atmospheric Sciences program. All these programs
are designed with their own curriculum and have been running successfully.
3.2. Related programs at other institutions
There are several universities offering M.S. and Ph.D. level graduate programs in applied
physics including:
University of Michigan (http://www-applied.physics.lsa.umich.edu/ )
Columbia University (http://apam.columbia.edu/applied-physics#Programs),
Caltech (http://www.aph.caltech.edu/ ),
Stanford University (http://www.stanford.edu/dept/app-physics/cgi-bin/ ), and
Cornell University (http://www.aep.cornell.edu/ ).
All these universities emphasize new emerging areas of study, including:
• nanoscience/condensed matter/solid-state physics,
• laser/photonics/plasma physics,
• biophysics/medical physics.
4. Scheduling plans (Extension, Evening, Regular)
Regular only.
5. Curriculum design
No change on the course work requirement.
The only change is to change the “engineering” component to the “application” component as
described as follows,
For the current “Engineering” component qualifying examination paper:
“The engineering member(s) of the student's Advisory Committee shall formulate the engineering
component of the Qualifying Examination that is two to three hours in length and appropriate to
the student’s chosen area of engineering physics interest, focusing on fundamentals related to but
not on the student's current research. The format of the engineering component of the Qualifying
Examination shall be determined by the student's Advisory Committee.”
For the new “Application” component paper:
“The student's Advisory Committee shall formulate the application component of the Qualifying
Examination that is two to three hours in length and appropriate to the student’s chosen area of
applied physics interest, focusing on fundamentals related to but not on the student's current
research. The format of the application component of the Qualifying Examination shall be
determined by the student's Advisory Committee.”
3
All the proposed changes are summarized here:
Degree
Course Requirements Beyond Those of the Graduate School
Ph.D. in
Engineering Physics
Core Courses:
PH5010 Journal Club (1 credit)
PH5110 Classical Mechanics (2 credits)
PH5210 Electrodynamics I (3 credits)
PH5310 Statistical Mechanics (3 credits)
PH5320 Mathematical Physics (3 credits)
PH5410 Quantum Mechanics I (3 credits)
Disciplinary Electives:
Three courses at the 4000-level and higher, including a minimum of one
course at the 5000-level or higher, in the student’s chosen area of
specialization, and as approved by the student’s advisory committee.
Additional courses may be required by the student’s advisory
committee.
Research:
PH6975 Full-Time Doctoral Research and PH6999 Doctoral Research
as required to complete doctoral research and credit requirements
Qualifying Examination:
The physics component of the Qualifying Exam will cover three of
the four following areas, to be chosen in advance, by the student:
classical mechanics (including special relativity), electricity and
magnetism, quantum mechanics, and general physics.
The engineering component of the Qualifying Exam is described
earlier in this section.
Ph.D. in
Applied Physics
Core Courses:
No change.
Disciplinary Electives:
No change.
Research:
No change.
Qualifying Examination:
No change on the physics component.
The engineering component of the Qualifying Exam will be
changed to the application component as described earlier in this
section.
6. New course descriptions
No new courses are necessary and none are proposed.
7. Library and other learning resources
No additional library or learning resources are required.
4
8. Computing Access Fee
Not applicable.
9.
Additional Resources Required
No additional costs are anticipated for this new graduate degree program.
10.
Space
No additional space is required to accommodate the new graduate degree program.
11.
Policies, regulations and rules
None besides curricular requirements outlined above.
12.
Accreditation requirements
Not applicable.
13.
Internal status of the proposal
September 15, 2015: The proposal was approved by the physics department faculty.
September/October xx, 2015: The proposal was discussed in the council meeting of the
College of Science and Arts. Supportive suggestions were received.
November xx, 2015: Approved by the Deans Council.
November xx, 2015: Introduced to the Graduate Faculty Council.
November xx, 2015: Approved by the Graduate Faculty Council.
14.
Planned implementation date
Fall semester of 2016.
[The financial evaluation form (http://www.sas.it.mtu.edu/usenate/propose/04/51-04.htm)
is not required, and is therefore not included with the proposal]
5
Proposal to allow double-counting up to six credits for 3+1+1 programs
Proposal
The Computer Science Department proposes to offer the 3+1+1 students the same incentive
as accelerated MS students. A student of the 3+1+1 program can double-count up to 6
undergraduate credits obtained at Michigan Tech during the senior year towards his/her
MS degree at Michigan Tech subject to the requirement of a minimum of combined
undergraduate and graduate credits that is equivalent to 150 Michigan Tech credits without
double-counting any credits.
Background
Accelerated master’s program: The accelerated master's program allows Michigan Tech
undergraduate students to earn an MS degree with just a single year of study beyond their BS.
The student is allowed to double-count 6 senior-level credits with approval of the Graduate
Program Director toward both his/her bachelor's and master's degrees. The student needs to
complete a minimum of 150 combined credits (without double-counting any credits).
3+1+1 program: Full-time undergraduate students of an institute under the 3+1+1 program
can study at Michigan Tech after successful completion of their first three years of
undergraduate study at their home institute. Students who have successfully completed the
fourth year of undergraduate study and earned all the credits required by both parties will
be awarded bachelor’s degree by the home institute. The students may continue with the
master’s degree program at Michigan Tech if they apply to and are accepted for admission
to a Michigan Tech graduate program.
Rationale
The current 3+1+1 programs promote one-year master’s degrees with the same credits
requirement as regular master’s programs which typically take 1.5 years to 2 year to
complete. The accelerated MS model can make these programs more attractive and
substantive as earning 24 credits within a year is more practical.
Although 3+1+1 students do not receive bachelor’s degree from Michigan Tech, they spend
their senior year at Michigan Tech and take Michigan Tech credits. This proposal will only
allow a 3+1+1 student to double-count the credits earned at Michigan Tech.
Each individual 3+1+1 program needs to evaluate and ensure the total credits of the
bachelor’s degree of the corresponding institute under agreement are equivalent to a
minimum of 126 credits of the counterpart program at Michigan Tech.
Graduate Program Self Evaluation
Pushpa Murthy
Alex Guth
6 October 2015
Graduate program(s) self-assessment
Why?
•
•
•
•
To assess strengths and weaknesses
To identify areas that need emphasis, de-emphasis or continuation
To strive to improve quality
Provide info to accrediting body, Higher Learning Commission
BUT
• Measuring quality is difficult
• Quality measures vary widely among degrees and disciplines (publications?
proceedings? time to completion? books? juried exhibits?)
• Departments can substitute more appropriate measures
• Data-informed
Where is your program and where do you want to be?
How do you want to measure success?
Possible measures of quality
Student success:
Time to research mode
Time to degree
Completion rate
Publication with student coauthors
Professional development (IDP)
Placement
Attrition rate (and when)
Additional measures:
Funding of students: GTA/ GRA/self-supported
Placement
Regional and national awards
Number of applications received/number admitted
Student satisfaction:
Current student survey (Fall; conducted by Grad School)
Student exit survey
Alumni feedback?
Data provided by Grad School to Departments
• No of applications and admitted students
• Demographic information
• Student enrollment, attrition and completion data
• Time to candidacy (research mode)
• Time to completion
• Form of student support (GTA/GRA/self-supported)
• Publications with student coauthors
• Current student survey
• Student exit survey
Suggested process
Every graduate program will undergo a five-year review (4 Departments per year)
Summer:
Graduate School collects data
September: Discuss data with graduate program leaders (Chair, Graduate
Director and others the Department may want to include)
February:
Departmental response from Chair (issues of pride and issues of
concern; findings and observations; timeline for changes and
improvements)
April:
Program review letter from the Dean of Graduate School to
Department and Dean of the College
Higher Learning Commission
The institution must:
Maintains a practice of regular program review
Demonstrates a commitment to educational improvement
through ongoing attention to retention, persistence, and
completion rates in its degree and certificate programs
Thank you!
Questions?
2015
Michigan Technological University
Department Name
[GRADUATE PROGRAM REVIEW]
Regular, periodic reviews of academic departments and schools provide a formal process for
thorough, fact-based documentation and evaluation of academic programs and the infrastructure
supporting them, and for setting and acknowledging plans for their growth and improvement. The
distinctive feature of these reviews is that they focus uniquely on evaluation of the academic
department as an integrated whole, and on the way the department's resources are managed to
promote its overall success.
Possible Measures of Quality
Purpose
 Each Department will be provided program data by the Graduate School and may also elect
to collect/receive other data.
 Each Department should examine this data and find areas of strength (which can be used
for promotional pieces, for example) and areas they would like to focus on
 Each Department should identify goals to shoot for over the next 5 years.
 Departments should also select a subset of the following listing of measures of program
quality, or determine their own program-specific measures, to focus on
o For ease, each potential quality measure has been linked to pertinent tables and
survey questions that would provide supporting evidence.
Table 1: Potential quality measures linked to data tables
Quality Measure
Time to research mode
PhD
Master’s
D4
N/A
Time to degree
D4
M4
Completion rate
D4
M4
Attrition rate
D4
M4
Student Publications
D6
M6
Professional development
D6, surveys*
M6, surveys*
Student satisfaction
D1, D5, D7,
surveys*
M1, M5, M7,
surveys*
*Addition data on student satisfaction will be collected through current student surveys, exit interviews,
and examination of available support.
ii
Table of Contents
Doctoral Programs........................................................................................................................................ 1
Doctoral Student Data .............................................................................................................................. 1
Placement ............................................................................................................................................. 2
Departmental Data ................................................................................................................................... 2
Additional Data (Optional) ........................................................................................................................ 3
Master’s Programs ....................................................................................................................................... 4
Master’s Student Data .............................................................................................................................. 4
Placement ............................................................................................................................................. 5
Departmental Data ................................................................................................................................... 5
Additional Data (Optional) ........................................................................................................................ 6
iii
Doctoral Programs
Doctoral Student Data
Table D1: PhD Applications and Admissions.
Number
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
5yr Goal
Applications
New students with funding
New students without funding
Total students enrolled with funding
Total students enrolled without funding
Table D2: PhD Student Demographics
Demographic Percentages
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
5yr Goal
2014
5yr Goal
% Domestic (US Citizens/Residents)
% International Students
% Under-represented Minority1
% Female Students
Table D3: Availability of Departmental PhD Regulations and Procedures
Number
2010
2011
2012
2013
Do you provide a document outlining programspecific PhD regulations and procedures that
was publically available? (Y/N)
Table D4: PhD Degree Completion Progress
Number
Time to Research Mode
Time to Degree
Attrition: students leaving
before research mode
Attrition: students leaving
after research mode
1
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
5yr Goal
Total Grad Students
Graduates
Min
Max
Mean
Min
Max
Mean
Student Count
Student Count
includes American Indian/Alaskan Native, African American/Non-Hispanic, and Hispanic/Hispanic American
1
Table D5: Student funding: % of students receiving full funding (tuition + stipend).
Number2
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
5yr Goal
GTA (lab assistant)
GTI (instructor)
GRA (Research Assistant) external funds
GA (Research Assistant) internal funds
Self-funded
Table D6: Research productivity of PhD Students. Each Publication/Poster/Presentation/etc. is counted exactly once.
Number
2010 2011
2012
2013
2010
2012
2013
2014
5yr Goal
Peer-Reviewed Pubs with Student as First Author
Peer-Reviewed Pubs with Student as Coauthor
Oral/Poster Presentations at Prof. Meetings
Students who applied and received external or
internal funding (travel grants not included)
Placement
Table D7: Post-Graduation Activities.
Students Graduating in Indicated Year Going
Directly to These Positions3
2011
2014
5yr Goal
Tenure-Track Faculty
Non Tenure-Track Faculty
Post-Doc
Industry
Government
Other
No Position
Departmental Data
Table FD1: Faculty Involvement in Graduate Education
Number of Faculty
Serving as PhD Advisor
Serving on PhD Committees
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
5yr Goal
2
GTA (lab assistant/grader = assist faculty members in teaching), GTI (instructor = full responsibility for the
course(s) they are assigned to teach), Research Assistant (GRA/GA = associated with a specific research grant,
contract, or internally supported research project)
3
Data may be incomplete. Please share additional information with us.
2
Additional Data (Optional)
Graduate Programs can opt to have the following data provided.
Doctoral Students
Table D8: Entering PhD Class.
Characteristic
Average Verbal GRE Score
Average Quantitative GRE Score
Average Analytical GRE Score
Average Undergraduate GPA
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
5yr Goal
Table D9: Student funding: % of students receiving full funding (tuition + stipend).
Number
1st Year
2nd-4th
5th Year
>5
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
5yr Goal
Table D10: Teaching Experiences of Graduate Students.
Number
Lab &
Recitation
Sections
Lecture
Sections
Grading
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
5yr Goal
GTA/GTI Duty Required? (Yes, No)
Average Number Taught per
Semester by Students
Min Section Size
Max Section Size
Ave Section Size
Average Number Taught per
Semester by Students
Min Section Size
Max Section Size
Ave Section Size
Average Sections Graded per
Semester by Students
Min Section Size
Max Section Size
Ave Section Size
Faculty
Table FD2: Faculty Scholarly Activity
Measure
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
5yr Goal
Peer-Reviewed Publications/FTEF
Citations/FTEF
% Faculty (Headcount) with Grants
3
Master’s Programs
Master’s Student Data
Table M1: MS Applications and Admissions.
Number
Applications
Admits without Funding Offers
Admits with Funding Offers
Enrolled without Funding Offers
Enrolled with Funding Offers
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
5yr Goal
2014
5yr Goal
Table M2: MS Student Demographics
Demographic Percentages
% Domestic (US Citizens/Residents)
% International Students
% Under-represented Minority4
% Female Students
2010
2011
2012
2013
Table M3: Availability of Departmental PhD Regulations and Procedures
Number
Do you provide a document outlining programspecific Master’s regulations and procedures
that was publically available? (Y/N)
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
5yr Goal
2014
5yr Goal
Table M4: Overall Master’s Student Degree Completion Progress. TTD = Time to Degree
Number
2010
2011
2012
2013
Research MS
Student Count
Students Graduated
Min TTD
Max TTD
Mean TTD
Professional MS
Student Count
Students Graduated
Min TTD
Max TTD
Mean TTD
Students Converted from a PhD Program
Students Leaving the Program5
4
includes American Indian/Alaskan Native, African American/Non-Hispanic, and Hispanic/Hispanic American
5
Students leaving the program are defined as those who have failed to comply with the continuous enrollment policy for at
least two of the most recent academic-year semesters. Date of attrition should be first semester following last enrollment.
4
Table M5: % of students receiving full funding (tuition + stipend)6.
Degree Type
Number
Research MS
GTA (lab assistant / grader)
GTI (instructor)
Research Assistant
(internal funds)
Research Assistant
(external funds)
Self-funded
GTA (lab assistant / grader)
GTI (instructor)
Research Assistant
(internal funds)
Research Assistant
(external funds)
Self-funded
Professional MS
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
5yr Goal
Table M6: Research Involving Graduate Students. Each Publication/Poster/Presentation/etc. is counted exactly once.
Number
Peer-Reviewed Pubs Student as First Author
Peer-Reviewed Pubs Student as Coauthor
Oral / Poster Presentations at Prof. Meetings
Grants with Student Author or Coauthor
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
5yr Goal
2011
2012
2013
2014
5yr Goal
Placement
Table M7: Post-Graduation Activities
Number Students Graduating in Indicated
Year Going Directly to These Positions7
2010
PhD Position
Post-Secondary Education
Industry
Government
no Positions
Departmental Data
Table FM1: Faculty Involvement in Graduate Education
Number of Faculty
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
5yr Goal
Serving as Master’s Advisor
Serving on Master’s Committees
6
GTA (lab assistant/grader = assist faculty members in teaching), GTI (instructor = full responsibility for the course(s) they are
assigned to teach), Research Assistant (GRA/GA = associated with a specific research grant, contract, or internally supported
research project)
7 Data may be incomplete. Please share additional information with us.
5
Additional Data (Optional)
Graduate Programs can opt to have the following data provided.
Table M8: Entering MS Class.
Characteristic
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
5yr Goal
Average Verbal GRE Score
Average Quantitative GRE Score
Average Analytical GRE Score
Average Undergraduate GPA
Table M9: Student funding: % of students receiving full funding (tuition + stipend).
Number
1st Year
2nd Year
> 2 Years
Professional
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
5yr Goal
Table M10: Teaching Experiences of Graduate Students.
Lab & Recitation
Sections
Lecture Sections
Grading
Number
GTA/GTI Duty Required?
(Yes, No)
Average Number Taught
per Semester by Students
Min Section Size
Max Section Size
Ave Section Size
Average Number Taught
per Semester by Students
Min Section Size
Max Section Size
Ave Section Size
Average Sections Graded
per Semester by Students
Min Section Size
Max Section Size
Ave Section Size
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
5yr Goal
6
PhD Cohort Outcomes: All MTU
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
Continuing
Graduation
2010
Attrition
2011
2012
2013
2014