Graduate Council Meeting Minutes
23 September 2015
Attending: J. Perkins, B. Lawrance, T. Trabold, S. Hansen, S. Ludi, T. Cummings, L. Underhill,
C. DeFilippo, , J. Mukhopadhyay, H. Flores, J. Hornak, S. Rommel
Linda Underhill distributed copies of the current course outline form and requested feedback
about possible changes to the form specifically for graduate courses.
Hector Flores discussed the upcoming Graduate Program Directors Retreat. He distributed
handouts about the SOAR analysis that will be conducted at the retreat.
The Council then continued its discussion from two weeks ago about the strategic plan
dimensions, “difference makers”, and objectives related to graduate study.
There was some discussion about the title of Dimension Two: The Student-Centered Research
University. Hector Flores pointed out that this is inaccurate since most of RIT’s programs are
professional programs and are not research intensive. Other members disagreed. There was some
discussion about what exactly constitutes a “research degree”. Does it mean that students do
some research? Is their degree program predominantly research focused? Do they produce a
research thesis? Do projects count as research the same as a thesis? Do graduates of the program
end up working in research after leaving RIT? There is no data available on this last point. No
consensus was reached on the definition of a research degree.
Council then returned to its SOAR analysis from two weeks ago. Sean Hansen suggested adding
specific examples to the list of Strengths from the SOAR analysis:
1. “Well known, especially for some programs”. Examples:
RIT’s top ranked programs are in CIAS:
Industrial Design
Visual Communication Design
Imaging Arts (Photography)
Some programs are very selective: Film & Animation, Game Design, Computer Science
Packaging Science
2. “Medical connections” – RIT-Rochester Regional Health System Alliance; eNable
3. “Scholarships for students”
There was some discussion about what constitutes a “good” scholarship. A few students
get 100% tuition remission. But graduate program directors have been told that our
overall scholarship rate is 30% of tuition. So while some students get a full scholarship,
others are getting less or nothing at all. 30% is actually quite low given the high cost of
tuition and other expenses.
4. “Co-op, experiential learning”
RIT has a strong record of success with co-ops at the undergraduate level. An
opportunity/aspiration is to migrate that success to the graduate programs as well.
5. “Faculty expertise, diversity, etc.”
Do we really have a diverse faculty? RIT recently won a diversity award. Yet many
diverse faculty leave RIT soon after arriving. Why do they leave?
RIT seems to draw its faculty heavily from industry. Not surprising given the career
focus of many programs. Do these faculty have any experience or training in teaching? Is
this any different for faculty coming from academia (most of whom are not trained as
teachers)? Is the situation at RIT any different that at other universities?
6. “Our students are successful”
By what measure? RIT has a high placement rate (90% ?? within one year of graduation)
but how successful are they after landing that first job? We don’t seem to have a large
donor base.
Council then added specific examples to a few of the Opportunities from the SOAR analysis:
1. “Leveraging strengths in non-STEM fields”
e.g. CIAS
2. “A means for faculty to know what the other programs are doing”
This relates to promoting collaboration and interdisciplinarity.
There is a committee on campus exploring ways to disseminate/promote events on
campus. Mass emails don’t work since we’re all inundated with email.
Sean Hansen mentioned the idea of creating faculty research cards, similar to baseball
cards, with a synopsis of each faculty member’s scholarship.
3. “Professional MS programs”
Many professional programs generate higher revenue with fewer resources. Research
intensive programs – especially PhD programs – generate less revenue and require more
resources. This brings us back to the earlier discussion about RIT aspiring to be a
research university. This aspiration seems to be inconsistent with the goal of developing
revenue generating programs.