East Carolina University
GRADUATE ASSEMBLY
FULL MINUTES OF APRIL 7, 2009
Agenda Item I. Call to order
Dr. Gemperline called the meeting to order at 2:03 p.m.
Agenda Item II. Approval of March 3, 2009 minutes
Minutes were approved as submitted.
Agenda Item III. Review of health coverage for graduate students
The trend across the nation among institutions is to require all students to have health insurance. Dr.
Gemperline introduced Ms. Amy Viverette of the Student Health Center to discuss the UNC Board of
Governors (BOG) proposal of mandatory health insurance for all students (graduate and undergraduate)
and to take questions from the body. Ms. Viverette explained the BOG’s proposal would require all
students without a “hard waiver” (proof of insurance coverage of some form comparable to the plan
offered) will be required to purchase the university health insurance policy. Students with an existing
health insurance policy would not be required to purchase the university policy. The BOG will vote on the
proposal in May, and if passed, the mandate would most likely begin fall 2010. When health insurance
becomes mandatory for students Financial Aid will be able to assist with cost.
Ms. Viverette was asked if she recommended the university health insurance policy.
Ms. Viverette explained that optional plans (such as the university plan) will have much higher premiums
than an employee plan, and this insurance policy is not recommended over any other. Optional coverage
policies generally attract populations with much higher health insurance needs. These individuals raise
the cost of the pool. The current insurance policy for PhD students offers better benefits than the optional
policy.
Dr. Scott Eagle (School of Art and Design) commented that the MFA is a terminal degree therefore the
Graduate School should offer these students the same insurance coverage as PhD students.
Dr. Rick Barnes (Health Education and Promotion) asked if heath insurance would be mandatory for
distance education students. Dr. Gemperline explained this policy would only apply to on-campus
students taking 6 or more credit hours.
Dr. Chris Riley-Tillman (Psychology) expressed the importance of bringing this issue back up for Master’s
students if the BOG votes no for mandatory health insurance for all students.
Dr. Monica Hough (Communication Sciences and Disorders) expressed the policy of mandatory health
insurance has been successful at other institutions in North Carolina.
Dr. Paul Petersen (Technology Systems) inquired if it was a concern that students may decide not to
attend ECU because of the mandatory health insurance policy. Dr. Gemperline explained this fee had not
produced significant enrollment changes at other institutions with mandatory health insurance.
Dr. Jim Decker (Exercise and Sport Science) commented that mandatory health insurance would present
another barrier for students applying for residency (currently students do not have to show proof of
insurance to qualify for in-state residency). Students covered under their parent’s health insurance policy
would not be eligible for in-state tuition. Therefore a student wanting to qualify as an in-state resident
may potentially have to drop a better health insurance policy for the optional policy offered by ECU.
Motion made and seconded to support hard waiver insurance policy on campus as soon as possible.
Motion seconded and passed 25-1.
Agenda Item IV. Task force report: Proposed retention and termination policy
Dr. Carl Swanson (History) explained the proposed policy of the task force on retention and termination.
This policy centers on quality and progress and is consistent with the retention and termination policies of
ECU’s peer institutions.
The proposed policy states that in order to remain in good academic standing, graduate students should:
 Maintain a 3.0 average after 9 credit hours attempted
 Complete at least 2/3 of the credit hours attempted (attempted=student still enrolled as of
census date)
Students who fail to meet these two standards will be placed on probation for one semester,
during which time they will have an opportunity to correct their deficiencies. Enrollment in
graduate school at ECU will be terminated for students who fail to correct these deficiencies by
the end of their probation semester.
Dr. Monica Hough (Communication Sciences and Disorders) asked if a department could appeal the
termination of a student. Dr. Gemperline explained there is an appeals process that applies to termination
of program. Students must appeal the termination; however graduate program directors may send a
letter of support to the Dean.
Mr. Len Rhodes (College of Business) asked why a part-time student who takes 1 course for 3 semesters
would not be put on probation until the third semester. Dr. Gemperline explained that full-time students
and part-time students should be evaluated equally (based on an equivalent number of hours).
Dr. Larry Dennis (PA) asked if individual programs can put into effect a more stringent probation and
termination policy. Programs may decide to apply a stricter termination and retention policy or set
additional criteria. These policies must be documented in the Graduate Catalog. Programs must do this
to avoid grievances.
Motion made to send recommendation as amended by the above discussions to the Graduate School
Administrative Board (GSAB). Motion passed 26-0.
Agenda V. Task force report: Proposed policy on minimum graduate admission standards
Dr. Bob Thompson (Political Science) explained the proposed policy of the task force on minimum
graduate admissions standards. Recommendations included:
 Minimum admission standards should be unpublished (only 1 North Carolina institution published
minimum standards)
o Individual programs often have different admission standards
o Generally averages were published instead of minimums
 The university should set a minimum GRE at the 30th percentile (equivalent to a 950). Similar
criteria would be applied for MAT and GMAT scores.
o If an applicant does not meet this minimum they could be considered for
conditional admission
 Programs who do not agree could propose alternate admission standards (e.g. MFA)
These recommendations are consistent with the policies of other peer institutions across the country and
around the state.
It was noted it is important to have a policy in place that can be articulated when an applicant questions
why they were not accepted by the Graduate School.
Can individual programs put into effect a more stringent policy on minimum graduate admission
standards? Programs may decide to apply a higher admission standard or set additional criteria. These
policies must be documented in the Graduate Catalog.
Dr. Nasseh Tabrizi (Computer Science) inquired how this policy would affect the admission of
international students. International admission standards will be reviewed separately in the future.
If a program decides to admit a student not meeting the Graduate School’s minimum admission
standards a letter should be written justifying why the applicant should be admitted by exception.
Motion made and seconded to send the proposed policy recommendation to the GSAB. Motion passed
25-1.
Agenda Item VI. SACS accreditation - Graduate Program Assessment documents
Ms. Kristen Dreyfus of the Institutional Planning Assessment and Research (IPAR) department was
present to discuss SACS accreditation and graduate program assessment documents.
The IPAR offers assistance with assessment reports and the coordination of program reviews.
Ms. Dreyfus informed the body of TrackDat (software being used with the capability to pull information
from all assessment reports and longitudinally assess program goals) and suggested one person from
each academic program become familiar with the software.
Included in the program assessment documents are 3 learning outcomes, 1 strategic outcome and 1
global persepctives outcome. A group has been assembled to review and analyze the documents. There
are 94 graduate programs for which an assessment document is needed. Programs were divided among
group members and reviewed. Common problems have occurred in the assessment methodology piece
of the document (unclear descriptions of measurement methodologies). Dr. Gemperline informed the
body the Graduate School was behind in the review of program assessment documents and asked for
patience and cooperation as the Associate Deans work to resolve issues.
Most departments have formed an assessment committee with the chair of the department serving as a
committee member. Committees are working with their respective Associate Deans.
Agenda Item VII. Discussion – Official transcript requirements
The previous Graduate School policy required applicants to submit transcripts from institutions where 7
credit hours or more were received. This policy is problematic because it relies on applicant selfreporting.
Currently, each applicant is looked up by an admissions processor in the National Student Clearinghouse
(NSC) in order to see all colleges and universities attended. If an applicant is missing a transcript from an
institution listed by the NSC, they are contacted and asked to submit the missing transcript.
Dr. Gemperline expressed concern that waiting for all transcripts was delaying the processing of
applications. It is standard practice at most of ECU’s peer institutions and sister institutions for applicants
to submit official transcripts from all institutions attended. Some peer institutions make provisional
admissions based on unofficial transcripts (programs should have at least an official transcript from where
degree was earned before making a provisional admission). Larger graduate programs may decide to
wait until all application materials are received before reviewing. It also may behoove clinical training
programs to wait until all transcripts are received. However, smaller graduate programs may want to
make provisional admissions contingent upon the receipt of all transcripts (students will be blocked from
registering until all transcripts have been received). Waiting for all transcripts to be received can cause
ECU to lose quality students because these students may receive earlier offers. Dr. Gemperline
emphasized students will not be able to register after census date in the case of provisional admissions.
Dr. Saeed Dar (Pharmacology and Toxicology) agreed quality students are lost when programs must wait
for all transcripts to be received.
Dr. Bob Thompson (Political Science) commented it should be the responsibility of individual programs to
make sure all transcripts are received.
Benefits of allowing programs to conditionally admit students include:
 More competitive recruitment of students
 Clear rejections can be eliminated quickly
Disadvantages include:
 Unintended consequences of making admission decisions with partial information.
 These circumstances will enable procrastinators
 Logistical issues
Dr. Gemperline announced the Graduate School will proceed cautiously in allowing provisional
admissions for students who have not submitted all official transcripts.
It is the aim of the Graduate School to revise the graduate admission processes this summer in time for
the next recruiting season. It is a goal for program directors to be able to log into Xtender and view
incomplete applications and any electronic records received. Banner Consultants will be revisiting with
the Graduate School processors the first week in May.
Dr. Andrew Morehead (Chemistry) suggested recommendations be submitted electronically.
Agenda Item VIII. Adjourn
Dr. Gemperline adjourned the meeting at 4:08 pm
Respectfully submitted,
Amy E. Tripp
Recorder