Graduate College Minutes #921

Back to minutes

January 23, 2003

Present: Bozylinsky, Coulter, Fogarty, Gallagher, Granberg-Rademacker, MacLin, Meier, Pohl, Rajendran, Saiia, Schafer, Smaldino, Somervill, Stuelke, Utz, Villavicencio, Walker

Absent: Hanson

Visitors: Chris Edginton (HPELS), Sue Pettit (graduate student), Biff Williams (HPELS)


Smaldino moved, and Utz seconded a motion to accept minutes #920 with the following corrections:
The first paragraph of the second page should read that "East explained that the Biology department voted in favor of the 15-week calendar." Additionally, the Graduate Council's letter to the Provost, indicating the Council's overall discontent with the 15-week calendar, was added as an appendix to minutes #920. The letter is included with this document. The minutes were approved as corrected.

Somervill began the meeting by welcoming new graduate student members to the Council. He then explained that enrollment figures indicated a decline in the number of spring graduate students, and suggested that, as a result, fall projections may also be altered accordingly.

Walker reminded the Council members about the calendar models suggested by the Registrar's Office, and invited Council members to make their opinions known before the 1/29/03 deadline. Walker then solicited recommendations for one person to represent each college to determine the Outstanding Graduate Faculty Teaching Award. He explained that the committee would have approximately one month to decide a winner, who would be presented with a plaque and $500 prize at the annual Graduate Faculty meeting. A total of 14 individuals were nominated, and 12 of the nominees were submitted by graduate students.

Fogarty explained that guests Chris Edginton and Biff Williams were attending the Council meeting to begin a general discussion of the proposed M.S. in athletic training. The proposal had already gone through the department, College of Education, and Graduate Council Curriculum Committee (GCCC), and now was being brought to the Council for consideration. Somervill explained that the Council typically takes action on a proposal based on the GCCC recommendation. Further, he discussed that both Iowa State and the University of Iowa had been consulted about the proposed program, and both were in support of the athletic training graduate proposal.

Edginton proceeded to tell Council members about the background of the program's development. From a undergraduate minor to an accredited major, the M.S. in athletic training would provide a partnership between UNI and the Cedar Valley medical community, including the construction of a human performance training center. Further, 36 of the 37 recent graduates of HPELS' undergraduate program had gone on to graduate school in recent years. Williams explained that HPELS had developed a curriculum that goes beyond revisiting the undergraduate program, instead providing hands-on experience, and topics to address various athletic trainers' needs.

Gallagher posed the question about how clinical faculty would be treated in terms of tenure, etc. Edginton explained that the current plan was to follow the ROTC model, where faculty are given faculty rank despite not being tenure-track. They are non-voting faculty. Further, Edginton suggested that this partnership would be similar to the relationship that the University of Iowa has with the UI College of Medicine. Williams further explained that some of the clinical staff would serve primarily in internship supervisory positions. Others may team-teach with regular UNI faculty.

Fogarty asked for more information about athletic training as an academic discipline. Williams explained that, as an allied health profession, athletic training consisted of a mixture of physical therapy, occupational therapy, and other fields. He suggested that the six new courses being proposed in this program provide students with a balance of experimental versus clinical research.

Stuelke posed a question about the University's liability with regard to the medical community partnership. Edginton explained the University's coverage, and that the medical practitioners' insurance would cover those individuals if they were on or off campus. Villavicencio asked about the balance of collaboration between UNI and the medical community. Edginton explained that the goal was to have a program that would be mutually beneficial, where students who've been certified as athletic trainers can provide assistance while garnering useful experience.

Utz asked about the development of similar programs at the other Regent's institutions, and the consultation efforts with these programs. Edginton and Somervill explained the consultation processes at some length, and suggested that UNI would have the competitive edge in developing this program at this juncture.

Rajendran requested more information about funding. Edginton explained that the program was self-funding, other than a request for one additional faculty line which was granted to HPELS from the College of Education. He suggested to the Council that HPELS would continue their existing grant-writing efforts.

Utz moved, and MacLin seconded, that the Council approved the athletic training M.S. proposal.

Further discussion ensued about the role(s) of clinical faculty, and their evaluation processes. Edginton explained that a letter of intent between the University and surrounding medical community involved specifying the doctors' roles, including the fact that the doctors will not have sole responsibility for the control of a course. Somervill explained that the role of clinical faculty was not unusual at other institutions.

The Council voted unanimously to approve the athletic training M.S. proposal.

Fogarty concluded the meeting by explaining that the agenda committee had met last week, outlining the suggested semester's agenda. Somervill suggested that the graduate student representatives consider participating in agenda-setting meetings, particularly as they have issues to be included.

Walker reminded Council members that they need to start thinking about the annual meeting of graduate faculty, as there could be a potential conflict with the meeting and the annual MAGS (Midwestern Association of Graduate Schools) meeting in late April.

There were no items for announcement.

The meeting adjourned at 4:40 PM.


Respectfully submitted,


Sara Granberg-Rademacker
Program Assistant


University of Northern Iowa
Graduate Council



MEMORANDUM 20 November 2002


To: Aaron M. Podolefsky, Provost and Vice President
From: Thomas Fogarty, Chair, Graduate Council


In re: Fifteen-week Semester Alternative


At its regular meeting last Thursday, the Graduate Council voted on a formal "motion to approve" the fifteen-week alternative to the present seventeen-week semester. The result was negative, with two votes in favor of the motion and seven opposed. The Council indicated also its wish that I communicate to you a brief outline of our consideration of the shorter semester. Since I voted with the minority, I have circulated this memo among the members of the Council for their comments.


There are, I think, four points it is useful to make.


[1] Members of the Council vote, of course, as individuals, balancing their personal judgements with what they may know of the opinions of those they represent. In the present case I believe the Council made a definite effort to discover and represent the opinions of the Graduate Faculty.


The Council considered the fifteen-week alternative during parts of three meetings, at all of which a member of the Registrar's staff was present to answer questions. The Registrar was himself present and spoke at the first and the third of these meetings. At each meeting, there was a general and frank discussion of opinions.


Members representing the Colleges of Natural Sciences and of Social and Behavioral Sciences invited e-mailed comments