Graduate School Administrative Board Meeting
Monday, September 22, 2008
1511 Greenville Centre
MEMBERS PRESENT: Susan Beck-Frazier, Sharon Bland, Jim Decker, Scott Dellana, Stan Eakins, Rick Ericson, Hamid Fonooni, Linner Griffin, Monica Hough, George Kasperek, Vivian Mott; Ron Newton, Belinda Patterson, Pat Pellicane, Marie Pokorny, Heather Ries, Len Rhodes, Art Rouse, and Terry West.
MEMBERS ABSENT: Brenda Eastman, Linner Griffin, James Holte, Vivian Mott, Hettie Peele, Marie Pokorny, and Marianna Walker.
1. Call meeting to order
The meeting was called to order by Dean Pellicane at 3:35 pm.
The President of the Graduate Student Senate (Elizabeth Baker) was present.
2. Approval of GSAB Minutes (9/08/2008)
The GSAB minutes (Sept. 8, 2008) were presented for discussion and approval with the additions of: (1) the Curriculum and Instruction PhD proposal comments, (2) the Grade Appeals policy (as amended electronically by GSAB), and the (3) Course Repetition policy (as amended electronically by GSAB).
The sentence, “The raised grade, or last grade, stands.“was removed by an amendment from the Course Repetition Policy statement.
The amendment was passed.
The minutes were approved as amended.
Dean Pellicane will look into the implications of the revised Course Repetition policy on student financial aid eligibility.
3. No GCC minutes were provided.
4. Guidance from the GSAB was requested by the GCC chair on the role of 5000-level courses in the curricula of proposed graduate programs. It was stated that a 5000-level course can be included in a list of choice of courses, but a curriculum cannot require an individual 5000-level course to be a required course. Specific required courses should be above the 6000-level. This applies to the MS in Sustainable Tourism that is now being considered. With 5000-level courses, graduate students are supposed to be assigned additional requirements as opposed to what the requirements are for undergraduate students.
The present policy and its fulfillment are uncertain; the discussion was postponed for a later date. It is the perception of the GSAB that undergraduates should be encouraged to take graduate courses, and that policies should be developed around this concept.
5. Approval of policies
Change of Grade: This policy was changed several years ago. The policy was amended with the following phrase: “‘within one academic year’ from the date that the incomplete was given. “ The motion to approve the amended policy statement was passed.
Removal of Incompletes: Special topics courses sometimes are sequential and a student may need to enroll in the same course while having received an incomplete the previous semester. Why is the default grade an “F”? How about setting up a category of an administrative withdrawal (AW) for special case students? The discussion was postponed to a later date – need more insight.
6. Discussion of admissions policies
Enrollment management is now before us because of the increased enrollment this fall. There is discussion and there is development of policies to curb enrollment. This circumstance can also be looked at as an opportunity; the university can now focus on the objective of admitting more qualified applicants.
We don’t actually do what we say we are doing in the catalog when it comes to admissions policy. Furthermore, the process we now use with GPA and test scores has no known origin. Also, every unit has their own admission criteria.
A new proposal was presented by Dr. Pellicane (See attachment) whereby the GPA is weighted to be equivalent to the standardized test score and they are added together (weighted GPA + test score). This new calculated numerical figure would be called the admission index (AI). The AI would be calibrated to the “middle of the range” of possibilities. Presently, a very similar calculation is used by the College of Business, and it was reported that it works very well. Also, this AI can be adjusted very easily as a program continues to change their admissions standards.
In addition to admissions standards with an AI, it was suggested that it would also be informative to know how well a student succeeds in a particular program.
The GSS representative presented the concern of the GSS leadership about the quality of applicants that are presently being admitted into ECU as graduate students. It was suggested that this new AI procedure be shared with the various units before a decision is made by the GSAB. The proposed AI procedure will be discussed at a later date.
The meeting was adjourned at 4:55 pm.
R J Newton