GRADUATE SCHOOL ADMINISTRATIVE BOARD MEETING
Monday, April 9, 2007
Members present: Martha Alligood, Sharon Bland, Stan Eakins, Margie Gallagher, Linner Griffin, James Holte, Gerhard Kalmus, George Kasperek, Ron Newton, Todd Nolan, Belinda Patterson, Pat Pellicane, John Placer, Heather Ries, Art Rouse, Carmine Scavo, and Mark Taggart.
Members Absent: Denis Brunt, Sharon Knight, John Kramar, Vivian Mott, Art Rouse
1) Acceptance of the 3/19/2007 meeting minutes
The minutes of the previous GSAB meeting were accepted as amended with the following: Dr. Alligood was a member of the committee, but not a member of the GSAB. She was appointed by the dean to serve.
2) Acceptance of three sets of GCC minutes
The question was asked that when the GCC minutes are approved, are the amendments required by the particular unit included? It was concluded that they should be if at all possible.
(a) The minutes of the February 21, 2007, GCC meeting were considered and approved (without the required amendments).
(b) The minutes of the March 7, 2007, GCC meeting were considered and approved.
(c) The minutes of the March 28, 2007, GCC meeting were considered and approved.
3) Announcements (Ron, Pat, others)
Ron Newton, Chair of the Research and Creative Achievement Week event, thanked the program directors for working with their respective faculty to help with the activities; he was particularly thankful for the input provided by faculty who served as judges.
Ron Newton reported that the Thesis/Dissertation Manual Committee and the Electronic Thesis/Dissertation Committee will be meeting and will be reporting their results back to the GSAB when the appropriate documents have been drafted.
4) Issues surrounding 5000- and 7000-level courses (Linner) distributed at last meeting
Linner Griffin opened the discussion about 5000-7000 level classes. A proposal was submitted that included a 5000 level class with primarily undergraduates enrolled. Darryl Davis also was asked to give his perspective from his own experience as well as IPRE. Dr. Davis reported that we need to have a distinct description of the class levels that we offer. Contention now resides with 5000 and 7000 level courses. Courses designated with 7001 and up are doctoral level offerings. Courses with a 7000 designation will remain as thesis-level. We need to be sure that we have a course designation that describes enrollment that is predominantly master’s level only. If a unit is mostly masters-level unit and wants to enroll predominantly doctoral students in a particular course, a unit should be allowed to offer a 7000 level course. If the unit is serving doctoral students, then the courses need to be designated as so, because there are more dollars associated with a doctoral-level course. If it looks like a 7000 level class is predominantly master’s level students upon analysis year after year, then a change may have to take place back to 6000. All 5000-level classes are now classified as masters level students (regardless of the enrollment composition). Can undergraduates enroll in the masters level courses before they obtain the undergraduate degree? It was stated that we hope that they can. We should be allowing students to take these graduate level courses without the constraints that we now have in place: (1) within 6 hours of graduation, and accepted in a graduate program, and (2) with a 3.5 GPA, and taking courses for non-degree graduate credit. Stan Eakins agreed to draft a language to make the policy more flexible to allow undergraduates to enroll in graduate-level courses.
Did SACS tell us that we should not be offering 5000 level courses? They appeared to have recommended that we have only 4000 and 6000 level only. Most doctoral programs allow some doctoral students to take 6000 level courses.
5) Student Grade Appeals Policy (Todd or representative of the GSC)
Todd Nolan submitted a grade appeals policy that was drafted by the GSC as directed by Vice Chancellor Sheerer of the Division of Student Life. The question was asked, “What was the context by which the VCSL asked for this document to be produced?” It was pointed out that the policy draft assumes that the discussion and communication with the instructor and the graduate program director of the unit have taken place. It is recommended that this language be included? Need to define clearly under what circumstances an appeal can be made. What is the rationale for the prescribed time limit that is specified in the document? Were there other campus grade appeals policies from other campuses considered when this draft was constructed? Most accredited programs require a grade appeals policy. The undergraduate policy is now being considered by the Faculty Senate, but it has not yet been resolved. Is there a document that spells this out? There is an ECU student “bill of rights.” Do we want final examination and other examination questions made public as specified in the document draft? Confidentiality needs to be maintained. Language as to who makes the final decision needs to be addressed. The Dean of the Graduate School? Probably not. At what level is the issue resolved? If not resolved, what is the next level? Need to define what type of evaluation document is being discussed. Examination? Paper? Work Sheet? Etc.? The grievance process needs to include the following: (1) What is the grievance issue? (2) Against whom is the grievance addressed? And (3) What is expected to be accomplished in the resolution of the grievance? It is recommended that the GSC consider policies from other institutions, address the above issues discussed, and present a draft to the GSAB at another date.
The meeting was adjourned at 4:53 pm.
R J Newton, Recorder