Present: Athinarayanan, Buis, Curtis, Ferguson, Hathaway, Janzow, Jones McDougall, McGowan,
Prater, Redmond, Shaw Shepard, Starrett, Stephens and Syler
Guests: Paula King
A. Minutes of November 1, 2005 Upon a motion by Curtis; seconded by Janzow, the minutes were unanimously approved.
B. Action Items
Item number 1 on the agenda was presented as number 2. Items listed on agenda as
information items were moved to discussion items.
1. Revision to admission criteria for Dietetics program
Prater moved approval of the revisions to the admission criteria for the Dietetics
program; Syler seconded. King explained that the dietetic internship application
is a very competitive process. She stated that for 6 positions it is not unusual
to have 40 to 50 applicants and that students must be well prepared in grades and
maintain coursework at a certain level to secure internships. Additionally, in order
to be a registered dietician, students must do an internship. Currently, there are
no admission or retention requirements. Jones suggested that a statement be added
about the requirement of completion of the internship and an exam for dietetics certification.
McDougall pointed out that other professional programs require clinicals and passing
of Board exams without the warning. King accepted the inclusion of the statement as
a friendly amendment. The motion passed. King will add statement and the revised policy
will be distributed. (Revision attached)
2. Changes to Graduate Standards Policy regarding “C’s”
Janzow moved approval of the changes to the GSP; Shaw seconded. Proposed changes would
require a cumulative grade point average of 3.0 on a scale of 4.0 be required in all
graduate work taken; not allow a student who accumulates nine or more hours of ‘C’
or receives an ‘F’ and has other grades below ‘B’ to continue in the graduate program
without specific permission; non-degree seeking students are expected to meet same
standards as degree students in respect to maintaining a 3.0 grade point average;
students receiving a grade below ‘B’ will be encouraged to repeat the course. Janzow
distributed the current policy (Academic Standards, page 12 in Graduate Bulletin, 2005-2007). He noted that the Bulletin does not address the ‘C’ issue. After much discussion
it was agreed to make the following revisions to the proposed policy: add a mechanism
to provide for an appeal process/procedure; in item 2 of the policy, add “department
and the approval of the Dean of the School of Graduate Studies” regarding specific
permission to continue in the graduate program; and remove the “/or” which will require
both the Dean “and” the department to make exceptions. It was also agreed by the
Council that the sentence: “The student must complete a repeat card and obtain permission
of the Dean of Graduate Studies to repeat a course” would be deleted. In the Procedure
section of the policy, it will be added that a student is required to schedule an
appointment with appropriate personnel concerning the receipt of a 3rd ‘C’. Upon
a call for question and vote, the Council voted 11 in favor of the revised policy
with the changes and 4 against. A corrected copy will be sent to the Office of the
Provost and distributed to the Council. (Revision attached)
3. Revisions to M.A. in Secondary Education
Janzow moved approval of the revisions to the M.A. in Secondary Education; Buis seconded.
The proposed new structure would offer only Educational Studies and Educational Technology
as options. Shepard explained that modifications to the program option A (Art Education,
Business Education & Social Studies) and option B (Middle level education, educational
studies, & educational technology) were made because of low graduation rates in the
Art, Business and Social Studies Education sub-options. The professional education
core of 33 hours remains unchanged. After discussion concerning SE694 Thesis, this
requirement will be placed in both options. A revised document will be forwarded
to the Office of the Provost for distribution to the Council. The motion passed unanimously.
(Revision attached)
4. 60% Rule
McGowan reviewed recommendations 1 and 2 of the subcommittee report concerning the
60% rule; Jones moved acceptance; Athinarayanan seconded. Council considered the
following items: (1) eliminate the rule that requires 60 percent of the major be at the upper division; and (2) implement a rule that would require that at least 15 hours of the major be at the
upper division. The motion passed unanimously for recommendation of items 1 and 2 only.
Recommendation 3 (change the degree requirement from 30 upper division hours to 40 upper division hours) was discussed. Concerns expressed were for the impact on transfer students and what
would be within the CBHE guidelines. Shaw stated that The School of Polytechnic Studies
would be going through accreditation process soon. Jones made a motion to change the
40 hours to 39 hours and be effective fall 2008; Prater seconded. Stephens expressed
hesitation to implement a change without the input of the Registrar who was unable
to attend today’s meeting. McGowan moved to table Item #3; Janzow seconded. Jones
noted that there needed to be a vote on tabling the motion. Council unanimously passed
tabling the motion.
5. Minor with BGS degree (Originally on agenda as discussion item)
Stephens noted that this was being moved from a discussion item to an action item.
The issue is to include a minor with a Bachelor of General Studies degree. The motion
for approval was made by McGowan; seconded by Jones. McDougall stated that this would
be attractive to on-line students; and the option to have a minor would be allowed
as a choice but not as a requirement. The motion passed unanimously.
C. Discussion Items
1. Graduate Issues
Due to the length of the meeting only item b. (certificate program potential) was
discussed.
a. Commencement Participation(moved to February’s agenda)
b. Certificate Program Potential
Janzow distributed a list of graduate level certificate programs currently offered
at other institutions. He noted that this was in line with strategic planning and
recruitment. This is not a degree program; however, students would complete a defined
set of courses for certification. In all but 2 cases credit hours are 12 to 15 hours.
He stated that this would serve students not seeking a full Master’s degree and would
be marketed on the web. McDougall questioned if the 12 to 15 hours would all be the
500 level. Stephens stated that certificates under 18 hours are not an issue with
CBHE. Stephens reminded the Council that any certificate program would need to be
seen and approved by Academic Council even if an internal program.
c. Accelerated Graduate Studies(moved to February’s agenda)
2. English Composition Task Force
Starrett announced that the English Composition Task Force would bring a report to
the Council in February.
D. Information Items
None presented.
Contact