To: The Senate From: The Graduate Council Date: January 15, 2013 Re: Graduate Council Minutes – December 2012 ______________________________________________________________________________ Members Present: Angela Abbott, Ed Balsdon, Leland Beck, Jill Esbenshade, David Ely, Damon Fleming, Dana Nurge, Gregorio Ponce, Mahasweta Sarkar, Caren Sax, Anne Turhollow, Satchi Venkataraman, Larry Verity, and Steve Welter. Ex-Officio Members Present: Rita Baumann, Janet Rodgers, Cristina Sanchez, and Margarita Pina-Harlow. Visitors: Kim Mazyck, Montezuma Publishing. 1. Minutes: Approval of the minutes from the November 2012 meeting was postponed. 2. Report of the Dean (Dr. Welter) Dean Welter began discussions by stating that the graduate applications are now being received in only two cycles – normal and priority, with five programs moving from normal to priority. Compared to this time last year, applications are up 11.7% (of which, domestic are up 6.5% and foreign are up 60%). These numbers may have been helped by the in-house review of International transcripts, and are definitely moving in the right direction. At this time, part of the application process still includes the need to print parts of the application, write on it, scan it, and then submit it. Therefore, in an effort to move towards the twenty-first century, Dr. Prislin has been working with the Enrollment Services to move the entire procedure online. Enrollment Services have been terrific in helping with this move forward. GRA has been working with departments in an attempt to homogenize the format as much as possible, and with UCSD for the joint program applications. Dr. Balsdon brought out that GRA has been looking into two main outside software companies (Apply Yourself and Embark) in order to research if it would be feasible to use one of them, or to develop a program that would be able to work for SDSU’s specific needs. Dr. Welter brought out that the Graduate Division has not yet received program caps from Academic Affairs, as they are still working out some of the budget constraints. Additionally, the problem that was discovered last year was that while the caps were sent out to the Dean’s offices, they were not then properly distributed to each program. This year, however, the Graduate Division will distribute the information more widely and will emphasize that the figures are not ‘loose’ caps. Dr. Welter anticipates receiving the caps in February. Dr. Venkataraman asked if it would be possible to ask Academic Affairs for a commitment, such as last year’s caps plus 10%, for example – that would
18
Embed
To: The Senate From: The Graduate Council...1. Minutes: Approval of the minutes from the November 2012 meeting was postponed. 2. Report of the Dean (Dr. Welter) Dean Welter began discussions
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
To: The Senate From: The Graduate Council Date: January 15, 2013 Re: Graduate Council Minutes – December 2012 ______________________________________________________________________________
Members Present: Angela Abbott, Ed Balsdon, Leland Beck, Jill Esbenshade, David Ely, Damon Fleming, Dana Nurge, Gregorio Ponce, Mahasweta Sarkar, Caren Sax, Anne Turhollow, Satchi Venkataraman, Larry Verity, and Steve Welter.
Ex-Officio Members Present: Rita Baumann, Janet Rodgers, Cristina Sanchez, and Margarita Pina-Harlow.
Visitors: Kim Mazyck, Montezuma Publishing.
1. Minutes: Approval of the minutes from the November 2012 meeting was postponed.
2. Report of the Dean (Dr. Welter)
Dean Welter began discussions by stating that the graduate applications are now being received in only two cycles – normal and priority, with five programs moving from normal to priority. Compared to this time last year, applications are up 11.7% (of which, domestic are up 6.5% and foreign are up 60%). These numbers may have been helped by the in-house review of International transcripts, and are definitely moving in the right direction.
At this time, part of the application process still includes the need to print parts of the application, write on it, scan it, and then submit it. Therefore, in an effort to move towards the twenty-first century, Dr. Prislin has been working with the Enrollment Services to move the entire procedure online. Enrollment Services have been terrific in helping with this move forward. GRA has been working with departments in an attempt to homogenize the format as much as possible, and with UCSD for the joint program applications. Dr. Balsdon brought out that GRA has been looking into two main outside software companies (Apply Yourself and Embark) in order to research if it would be feasible to use one of them, or to develop a program that would be able to work for SDSU’s specific needs.
Dr. Welter brought out that the Graduate Division has not yet received program caps from Academic Affairs, as they are still working out some of the budget constraints. Additionally, the problem that was discovered last year was that while the caps were sent out to the Dean’s offices, they were not then properly distributed to each program. This year, however, the Graduate Division will distribute the information more widely and will emphasize that the figures are not ‘loose’ caps. Dr. Welter anticipates receiving the caps in February. Dr. Venkataraman asked if it would be possible to ask Academic Affairs for a commitment, such as last year’s caps plus 10%, for example – that would
2
allow programs to have something to go by while waiting for the actual caps. Dr. Welter said he would ask Academic Affairs.
Dr. Welter explained that GRA has been working on examining the ways they track students, such as with GREs and GPAs. Some program statistics were recently handed out to the College Deans at a recent meeting.
Janet Rodgers updated the group on the recent progress with Hobsons, thanking those who have sent in their department letters to be added to the program. Each department can have at least three letters – one for resident students, one for domestic non-resident students, and one for foreign students. These auto-generated letters go out to the student directly, along with a thank-you letter from Dr. Welter for their interest. Since the MyGap logo for Hobsons is now on most websites, the number of student inquiries has increased. There have been 113 VIP pages created in the last week, and 420 last month (45 of which were international). GRA is here to help the departments, which are encouraged to contact GRA for assistance with anything that they might need throughout the process, including the reports, and tools. Each department’s page can be customized with links and information specific to their program.
Strategic Planning Initiatives continue and there is a draft that will be posted today online. Dr. Welter encouraged the group to review the draft and give feedback.
Dr. Venkataraman asked if the non-resident tuition waiver program could be renamed to something like a ‘research scholarship award’ to make it sound more prestigious, something that could be included on a resume. Dr. Welter agreed that it was a good idea.
3. Committee Reports
Curriculum Committee (Dr. Balsdon) Information reports 3I-12-12 and 3I-12-12.500
Policy Committee Report (Anne Turhollow) The Policy Committee met to discuss adding some the following language to the Rights to Thesis-Dissertation Data and Publication Authorship Form at the end of number two: “In addition, the author grants to ProQuest the non-exclusive right to reproduce and disseminate this work according to the publishing options selected by San Diego State University.” The Policy Committee voted unanimously to approve the change. See Appendix A for the original form.
Student Affairs Reports - None 4. New Business
− NSF/NIH Survey Request (Satchi Venkataraman) Dr. Venkataraman brought out that each year data is requested from the departments by the NSF/NIH survey personnel. However, the departments do not receive any data back from them, even after repeated requests. Dr. Venkataraman suggests that the departments refuse to complete the requested data this year, until data is received
3
from the survey personnel. He requested that Dr. Welter contact the survey personnel and explain that some departments have been requesting information from them for six months, but have received nothing. Dr. Balsdon agreed to contact the survey personnel to request the data.
- Thesis Formatting (Dr. Esbenshade) The Policy Committee met to discuss the thesis formatting and Kim Mazyck from Montezuma Publishing (MP) joined the group to present some information. Ms. Mazyck presented a list of theses submitted/approved for the spring semester with their date of initial submission, date of first review, date of completion, and overall total days to completion (see Appendix B). The average time to completion totaled 59 days. However, after removing any students’ statistics who were over 200 days, since these students encountered personal situations that were beyond the normal circumstances, the average dropped to 44 days. Ms. Mazyck also included a handout of the formatting criteria (see Appendix C) and a list of department reference requirements from the Dissertation and Thesis Manual (see Appendix D). MP is working to design reports that will be submitted to the Graduate Council on a semester basis that will show the turnaround times. Dr. Welter requested that she add information to show the time from when a thesis is first submitted to when it is first reviewed, and when it is first submitted to when it is approved – these statistics will speak to the time it takes for MP to do their portion of the work. Ms. Mazyck added that for spring, 50% of students did the formatting themselves,35% chose MP for formatting, and 15% chose outside formatters.
Dr. Esbenshade continued the discussion by stating that other universities do not require such detailed formatting as SDSU. Dr. Welter clarified that one of the issues being raised here is the question of if we are excessive in the formatting requests. Since the Graduate Council approved the formatting requirements used by MP, then it may be wise to look over the rules and come to a decision about whether they are reasonable. Dr. Venkataraman brought out that the formatting is excellent training for the student to learn to prepare a document for publication, and as a university we also want uniformity – the documents should look professional. Dr. Beck added that although the rules look picky overall, upon examination they are very reasonable. Dr. Welter added that if the Council wants to relax the rules, they have the authority to do so. Dr. Welter asked the group if they would like to review the formatting criteria, and the majority of the group agreed. A subcommittee was formed to review the formatting criteria which will include Dr. Nurge, Dr. Esbenshade, Dr. Venkataraman, and student Angela Abbott.
Dr. Esbenshade brought out that a second issue is that it takes so long for the students to graduate, and she would like departments to have the option to review the formatting. Dr. Venkataraman stated that the departments would not properly review the formatting and that there should be a quality control step in one location to review the theses. Dr. Balsdon agreed that he felt that departments would do a terrible job if left to review the formatting themselves. Ms. Sanchez added that the departments are currently only responsible for signing the signature page, and often committee members sign these pages when the student has included a degree name that does not exist – this does not speak well for the likelihood of a thorough formatting review by
4
departments. Dr. Welter closed by asking the subcommittee to bring their findings to either the January or February meeting.