The Graduate Council
Graduate Council Minutes No. 990
February 25, 2010
Present: Buckholz, Bybee, Clayton, Coon, Coulter, Czarnetzki, Etscheidt, Harton, Joseph, Pohl, Schuhart, Waldron, Wurtz
Waldron called the meeting to order.
1. Coulter made a motion to approve January 14, 2010 minutes. Buckholz seconded the motion. Motion approved.
2. Graduate College reports – Joseph reported a committee has been working on updating graduate admission procedures and course numbering. The deadline for registering for the Graduate College Symposium in April has been moved back to March 8, 2010.
Schwieger reported there will be a meeting with President Allen for graduate students on March 3, 2010. A workshop on “How to Write and Interpret a Journal Manuscript Review” is scheduled for March 10 and is for students and faculty.
3. Clayton stated UNI will likely get $5.2 million from the state and would appreciate feedback from as many graduate faculty as possible. Three possible ideas include giving back salary money, give back benefits or invest money to help with cost savings down the road. Clayton is asking members of the Graduate Council to discuss this issue with their peers in their department and mail their feedback and suggestions to her. It was suggested that money could be invested also in distance education or energy savings. Clayton asked for feedback concerning if faculty felt their lost salary should be returned to them even if all groups on campus are not able to have their salaries returned. An example would be if AFSCME employees are not allowed to have salaries lost returned t them, then should faculty be allowed to have their salaries returned. New business – graduate education in the strategic plan draft – feedback is needed by tomorrow. Thoughts about plan and graduate program. Do not feel that applied programs should have focus of funds – this means other equally quality programs may lose funds. Some of our degrees are only offered at UNI.
4. Discussion on the Strategic Planning process. It is problematic that graduate education is seen as supporting undergraduate education. Graduate education had its own goal in the first document. Committee felt they also need to support presidential goals. Joseph stated faculty in her task force group were supportive of graduate education while non-faculty were not supportive. It was felt the goal could be having UNI seen as a leading liberal arts institution and not place entire emphasis on undergraduate.
5. The Program Assessment Committee did not achieve charge as given by Lubker. The committee was to identify signature undergraduate and graduate programs. It was noted the largest program or the one receiving the most press that could possibly be seen as the signature programs even though facts may not support that assumption. Up to this point the task forces have only focused on one goal. The
entire plan has not been read through to remove duplications. Pohl stated in the past applications were based on criteria to be recognized as a premier program. Pohl felt there was a lack of continuity. Stalp voiced concerns about the lack of student responsibility being visible in the Strategic Plan. Jen will e-mail comments to committee from Graduate Council and encourage members to send individual e-mails also.
Clayton felt there was nothing in the core values regarding research or scholarship and would like to see more emphasis on these areas. Buckholz voiced concern regarding the future of the Graduate College and stated graduate faculty need to show support for the Graduate College and services provided. The Graduate College can provide oversight for cross-discipline programs. Joseph noted that the Graduate College at the University of Iowa over the interdisciplinary programs offered. Forty percent of UNI undergraduates become graduate students at UNI.
6. Discussion regarding work load proposal by Jerry Smith. Harton stated she did not feel the Graduate Council should respond to proposal. Clayton does not agree with CFHA Senate to form committees. After much discussion it was decided Waldron would draft statement and e-mail to Graduate Council for approval before forwarding to Faculty Senate.
7. Discussion regarding CHFA Senate proposal in response to merger. One motion was sent to Faculty Senate; the other was sent to the Provost. They have asked if Graduate Council will endorse their motion. They are asking for ten members plus two co-chairs on the steering committee which initially was known as the transition team. Waldron stated there has been concern expressed regarding the strength of language in the proposal.
8. Waldron stated the Graduate Council should draft a proposal on the Graduate College and graduate education to ensure graduate faculty concerns are addressed. Currently there are two members on Graduate Council from each college; with the merger of CNS and CFHA representation will change. Faculty are concerned the amount of assistantships allotted to each college may change. Waldron and Clayton have been attending meetings with the CFHA and CNS Senates. There will likely be two associate deans for the new college. One dean would focus on the liberal arts core and the other on undergraduate education The Steering committee will compile a list of issues to be addressed in the merger. Nothing has been decided at this time. Graduate Education feel a representative is needed on steering committee. Currently there are not any non-faculty staff or students on the steering committee. CHFA and CNS will be voting on three representatives which are automatically members of the steering committee. Two from each of the remaining colleges will be selected. It is unclear who will appoint the final four members. Graduate education needs to remain in forefront and not get forgotten in the discussion around the liberal arts core. Any ideas can be forwarded to Waldron, Clayton or the steering committee.