Graduate Assembly

EastCarolinaUniversity

GRADUATE ASSEMBLY

FULL MINUTES OF JANUARY 29, 2009

A special called meeting of the 2009 Graduate Assembly was held on Thursday, January 29, 2008 in the MendenhallStudentCenter.

Agenda Item I. Call to order

Dr. Paul Gemperline, Chair of the Graduate Assembly, called the meeting to order at 2:05 p.m.

Agenda Item II. Comments from VC Mageean

VC Mageean informed the body of Dr. Patrick Pellicane’s resignation as Dean of Graduate Studies. Dr. Paul Gemperline,Associate Vice Chancellor of the Division of Research and Graduate Studies,is now the Interim Dean of Graduate Studies. This position will not be permanently filled until systematic changes have been made in the GraduateSchool. Before commencing a national search it is important for the GraduateSchool be in exceptional condition.

VC Mageean announced the departure of Dr. Ron Newton as Associate Dean of Graduate Studies. Dr. Newton is now Associate Vice Chancellor in the division of Administrative Finance.

It is important to have an experienced person in this position; therefore the Associate Dean’s position was advertised externally and internally. Dr Margie Gallagher of the College of Human Ecology is chairing the search committee for this position. Other members of the search committee include: Dr. David Cistola, Dr. Terry West, Mr. Len Rhodes and Dr. Mariana Walker. Initial screenings are complete and the committee has compiled a ‘short list’ of candidates for video interviews.

Also, because of the need for day-to-day oversight in graduate admissions, the UNC-General Administration approved creation of a new position (Director of Graduate Admissions) in the GraduateSchool. This position will be similar to the position of the Director of Undergraduate Admissions. Mr. Len Rhodes from the College of Business is chairing the search committee for the Director of Graduate Admissions position. Other members of the search committee include: Dr. Belinda Patterson,Dr. Heather Ries, and Dr. Anthony Britt. This position was also advertised externally and internally.

The GraduateSchool is currently understaffed in terms of the number of admissions processors (2 admissions processors recently resigned). The goal of the GraduateSchoolwill be to have 5 permanent admissions processors. 3 temporary employees begin next week. Admissions applications are currently split alphabetically among admissions processors; however the possibility of splitting applications among processors by Colleges will be considered.

VC Mageean emphasized that theGraduate Assembly (GA) is a body that should be utilized to discuss and deliberate issues regarding graduate education and to also be an informative body for the GraduateSchool. Participation and regular attendance at GA meetings is encouraged as this is important for graduate education to move forward at ECU.

VC Mageean announced to the GA that the report generated by The Council of Graduate Schools became available in early December. The recommendations made in this report will be discussed at upcoming GA meetings.

VC Mageean informed the GA that the Division of Research and Graduate Studies worked hard to safeguard graduate assistantships from budget cuts; salary reserves and operating budget were cut instead. The Division of Research and Graduate Studies has a budget of about $15 million. Of this, $8.3 million is devoted to graduate assistantships and tuition remissions. VC Mageean told the group it was important to hold harmless to the extent possible graduate assistantships and for that reason only 1% of the budget cut, or roughly $75,000, was cut from the graduate assistantship and remission budget. A memo will be sent out to graduate directors detailing what can and not be done with funds and to provide clarity concerning the issue of graduate assistantships.

Agenda Item III. Proposed meeting schedule – First Tuesday of the month

Chair Gemperline proposed the GA meet the First Tuesday of each month. It was noted the Faculty Senate may also meet at this time. Chair Gemperline informed the group he would find out the Faculty Senate meeting dates and report back to the group. Also, by the end of next week a GA roster and meeting dates will be assembled.

Agenda Item IV. Review of the GraduateSchool Administrative Board roster & role

Chair Gemperline reviewed Appendix F in regards to the Graduate School Administrative Board (GSAB). The GSAB is an executive committee deriving its authority from Appendix F. The GSAB votes on all academic policy matters related to graduate programs. The GSAB consists of 14 voting members. 12 of the 14 members are elected. 2 of the 14 members are appointed. Representation among colleges is as follows:

3 representatives from the TH College of Arts & Sciences

2 representatives from the College of Education

1 representative from the College of Technology and Computer Science

1 representative from the Brody School of Medicine

1 representative from the College of Human Ecology

1 representative from the College of Allied Health Sciences

1 representative from the College of Fine Arts and Communication

1 representative from the College of Health & Human Performance

1 representative from the College of Nursing

1 representative from the College of Business

1 representative from the Graduate Student Senate

Chair Gemperline noted there is some overlap between the GSAB and GA with some members of the GA also serving as members on the GSAB. Because of the tremendous diversity among programs, it is important the GA be utilized (because of the body’s broad representation) to review and develop non-binding policy ideas to bring to the attention of the GSAB.Chair Gemperline noted the importance of having an accurate record of all GA members. This individual should be a graduate program director.

Chair Gemperline asked the group to review 2 excel spreadsheets (attached). The first spreadsheet displayed assistantship allocations for the current year. Attention was called to a column in the spreadsheet indicating the amount of uncommitted dollars each department has until the end of this fiscal year. Chair Gemperline requested that each graduate director look at their budget to make sure there neither a large positive balance or a large negative balance. The second spreadsheet displayed the allocations for next year’s assistantships and base line budget. Attention was called to the ‘Proposed budget reductions’ column and ‘Proposed reallocation’ column. In line with supporting the graduate experience, administrative graduate assistantships will be reallocated ($62,000). Chair Gemperline informed the GA to plan their recruiting from the numbers presented on the second spreadsheet.

Carl Swanson, History, asked what determined the proposed budget reductions.VC Mageean noted the emphasis on funding for STEM programs and also that some funding reductions were based on program teaching assistant and research assistant needs. VC Mageean emphasized every teaching assistant and research assistant will need to be justified and judged on performance. There should be a rational basis for allocations based on the merits and principals of research. Although research faculty have increased, research dollars on a per capita basis have decreased (with the exception of the Brody School of Medicine). It was empathized that research programs need to ‘step up to the plate’ in order for doctoral programs to have the ability to compete at the national level.

Chris Riley-Tillman, Psychology, asked if programs would be able to use the funds of 2 master’s students for 1 PhD student. VC Mageean answered that it is acceptable to do this. The graduate director has the discretion to allocate money the way in which they choose in discussion with the GraduateSchool.

VC Mageean emphasized the need for an enrollment management plan for graduate education.

VC Mageean informed the group that tuition remissions will not change. Chair Gemperline informed the GA there were 165 out-of-state remissions last year which will be allocated the same way in the coming year. This issue will be addressed this spring with the Deans, as tuition remissions may need to be reallocated based on institutional priorities and needs. For instance, the UNC-General Administration would like to see more out-of-state tuition remissions in STEM programs.

Agenda Item V. Review of new admission standards & implementation problems

Chair Gemperline explained the implementation of certain processes in Banner has been problematic in processing applications. Before admissions processors actually process an application they must first check an applicant’s answers to the safety questions and verify the applicant’s answer with a National Clearinghouse database. Processors then look at the answers of the applicant’s residency questions to determine if they are a resident or non-resident. After residency has been determined, admissions processors begin checking an applicant’s transcripts andthen verify with a National Clearinghouse database that all transcripts for all institutions attended have been submitted. If a student fails to list all transcripts the admissions processor will email the student and inform them of any missing information. Chair Gemperline suggested that requiring students to submit a comprehensive list of transcripts is a potential barrier to students (ex: a student who took courses in the 1970’s). Chair Gemperline asked the group think of alternatives such as looking at transcripts from the student’s last degree earned, looking at transcripts from the last 10 years etc. It was also suggested that graduate program directors sign up for an ECU BIC report, sent via email, which will deliver a list of incomplete applications. Directors may then use this list to contact prospective students and encourage them to complete their applications in a timely manner.

Processors were previously using each grade on every transcript to determine an applicant’s GPA (overall and senior year) to report on the applicant’s accept/reject letter. Chair Gemperline has developed a simpler spreadsheet, which will soon be used, so admissions processors will not have to manually enter all grades from each applicant’s transcript(s).Admissions processors are also spending a significant amount of their time manning the telephones and answering student questions. This has taken away from the time they have to process applications. Chair Gemperline suggested work-flow processes be examined and best-practices implemented regarding this issue.

The GSAB developed a new admissions standard last fall (attached). Chair Gemperline stated this admissions formula that combined the GRE verbal and quantitative raw scores is out of sync with best practices across the country. Furthermore, the new admissions standard allows for students to be admitted into the GraduateSchool with low standardized test scores. Chair Gemperline stated he would like the GA to examine admissions standards and practices. Anyone interested in contributing to this discussion is encouraged to email Chair Gemperline. From those interested, a small task force will be formed to examine the admissions standards and report back to the GA with recommendations that can be debated.

Dr. Scott Eagle (School of Art and Design) called attention to the fact that most Fine Arts programs across the country do not require standardized tests. This has been a turn-off for many students applying to the School of Fine and Performing Arts. Chair Gemperline stated these “exception” cases will be examined and best-practices will be implemented.

Chair Gemperline proposed the GA consider aminimum admissions standard (e.g. applicants must have a 3.0 GPA and standardized test score on at least the 30th percentile) with only 15% of the student body admitted by exception. If an applicant falls well below the minimum admissions standard it is possible they will not be admissible by exception.

Chair Gemperline announced that beginning Wednesday percentile scores are being automatically downloaded as well as raw scores for all standardized test results. These will be incorporated into the Accept / Reject form in the near future.

Agenda Item VI. Review of new retention policy & implementation problems

The current retention policy states that a student must maintain a 3.0 GPA after 12 credit hours completed. Chair Gemperline explained that this would allow a student to complete 1.5 years of graduate education before being put on probation. This is unfair to the student and causes them to incur debt.

Chair Gemperline proposed an alternative approach that is more in line with the eligibility requirements for students receiving federal financial aid, such as a student must maintain a GPA of 3.0 after 9 hours attempted and complete 2/3 of all hours attempted. Chair Gemperline stated he would like to create a small task force to address these issues and welcomed anyone interested in examining the probation and retention standards to email him for involvement.

Agenda Item VII. Graduate student contracts & implementation problems

Chair Gemperline informed the GA that incorrect graduate student contracts were an internal audit finding about two years ago. Chair Gemperline stated contracts not containing a ‘statement of work’ or ‘evaluation’ will be sent back. In general, graduate student’s faculty supervisor should be signing their contracts. Administrative support staff should not be signing graduate student contracts unless signature authority is first approved by Chair of the department sending a memo to the graduate school granting such signatory authority. Chair Gemperline proposed adopting similar minimum academic standards for graduate assistants (e.g. graduate assistants must be registered as full-time students, new students must meet new admissions standards, returning students must remain in good academic standing).

Chair Gemperline pointed out that when an assistantship is pulled from a student, the student can appeal the decision, and the university could face a lawsuit if standard policies are not put into place and enforced uniformly throughout the University The GA will be utilized to discuss assistantship issues.

Agenda Item VIII. Graduate Faculty appointments – for initial discussion

No discussion.

The agendas and minutes from previous GSAB meetings will be sent as attachments to all GA members.

Chair Gemperline adjourned the meeting at 3:55 p.m.