University Graduate Council Minutes

 Wednesday, October 30, 2019

Council in Attendance:
Ahmed Al-Kaisy (Engineering)
Christopher Livingston (Architecture)
Wade Hill (Nursing)
Brock Smith (Agriculture)
Dennis Aig (Arts)
Lisa Davis (Letters & Science)
Tena Versland (Education)
James Becker (Health & Human Development)
Michael Brody (Faculty Senate)
Craig Ogilvie (Dean of The Graduate School)
Sara Mannheimer (Library)
Anne Christensen (Business)
Alex Harmon (Letters & Science)

Also in Attendance:
Lauren Cerretti (Graduate School)
Emily Peters (Graduate School)

Absent:
Que Vo (International Programs)
Robert Rydell (Letters & Science)
Sobia Anjum (Student Representative)

Meeting started at 1:02 pm

Approval of October 16, 2019 Minutes

Motion to approve made by Aig, 2nd by Livingston, unanimously passed

Announcements

Faculty Senate Update (Brody):

• Upcoming items: medical excuse policy, travel expense policy, more in-depth discussion on center review guidelines
• Q: Some graduate courses up for approval by Faculty Senate today—what was the process of these courses in UGC?
  • Discussion on course review process: approved by subcommittee and then The Graduate School Dean

UGC schedule: no meeting Nov 27; added Dec 4

• Last meeting of the semester rescheduled to December 4^th; time and location unchanged

Old Business

Integrated MS in Optics & Photonics, vote (Livingston)

• Requested changes were made
• Accelerated master’s subcommittee is working on 4+1 guidelines; the proposal’s 12 reserved credits are in line with the potential proposed guidelines
• Discussion on the importance of the 4+1 process and advising—this information should be updated in the catalog and on the program’s website
• Livingston makes a motion to approve proposal as modified on 10/28/19, Aig seconds, unanimous approval
• Livingston will approve in the CiM system

PhD in Public Policy & Administration, report of email vote (Livingston): 

• 8 in favor, 0 opposed, 2 abstained

MS of Innovation & Management (Livingston)

• Last edit of 10/23/19 was emailed to Council
• Review of UGC’s previous questions/concerns: NTT director, letters of support, advising, NTT faculty teaching, funding
• Request for comments on the current proposal:
  • Most recent revision has an NTT director and two TT faculty serving on a three-person committee; committee serves two purposes: oversee the program and serve on student committees
    • This is the same structure as the MPAc program—it works well
    • Difference is that director of MPAc is a TT faculty member
    • Currently recruiting for one new TT line; eventually the director could be a TT faculty member
  • Q: Is UGC okay with the director of a graduate program being NTT? TT faculty go through a more rigorous hiring process.
    • Examples of other programs with NTT directors
    • Is there feedback on how this worked?
    • Example: MSSE grew rapidly and has done very well
  • Note that MSIM is not a research program
  • Strong growth projections in the proposal. The Accounting program is a world-class program and has been losing students. The MSIM program is filling a niche and could be a great program, but where are the predictions coming from?
    • From the dean’s experience with a similar program at Tufts and how it grew. Looking at growth in the Montana area, new businesses, tech industry, undergraduates in the STEM area.
  • This will be a great opportunity for STEM graduates, especially to complete it in one year
  • Strong support from other colleges (Engineering, Honors College, College of Letters & Science)
    • Currently there are no letters of support included in the proposal
    • The types of letters of support submitted with prior programs (e.g. students taking courses taught in other departments) may not be applicable to this program. What type of letters of support does the committee want to see?
      • A letter stating that students in their area would be interested in this program
        • Survey of student interest would provide empirical support
      • Potentially letters of interest from businesses
      • If students are developing innovative technology, they are probably doing this work in lab facilities located in other departments. Do those departments support this?
        • Q: Given the significant changes to this proposal, does request for additional support warrant another round of revisions or can that be done before faculty senate?
          • Comments that additional revisions are still needed. Goal is to help make the proposal strong enough to succeed beyond UGC.
        • Concern that the program and projections are modeled after Tufts, but Boston is a different environment than Bozeman
          • Fine to include this information and experience from Tufts program, but that shouldn’t be used as the sole evidence
        • Concern about NTT faculty teaching in this program that will have to live within commuting distance of this campus
        • Currently have many highly skilled NTTs in the College of Business. Plan is to draw on the expertise of many of the existing faculty.
        • Proposal has been modified several times and no longer reads clearly—some of the wording is inconsistent from multiple changes
        • Why can’t one of the TTs direct the program?
          • With MPAc, the director is responsible for most of the work (emails from students, applications, etc.). Other members on the committee serve more of an advisory role. Much less work involved as a member of the committee. The TTs have research and other responsibilities. The NTT would handle the administrative side.
        • Committee still wants letter of support from other departments/colleges/business entity
          • Note that emails were received at the start of the program; proposers were asked to formalize those letters
          • OIP could be another letter to support their claim that this program will attract international students
          • Important that we set precedence of whether we ask for letters from proposers
            • Falls in two categories: 1) does your program overload another area 2) will faculty from another department be involved in the program, e.g. teaching or co-chairs.
            • When there are named stakeholders in the program, there is a reason to ask for letters
            • DNP is a great example, need for the program seemed straightforward, but proposers still included extensive letters of support
          • Needs assessment section of this program has limited data. Numbers of proposed students seem very ambitious with minimal data to support it.
          • Intuitively the MSIM program makes total sense, but the proposal still hast to backup these statements
          • Part of it comes from scholarships from outside funding; very optimistic that the program will be able to attract students
            • Students still must want this degree
          • General agreement that a business proposal should have a longer needs assessment and this section should be improved
            • Director being NTT, it would be important to know the exact roles of the three committee members—why it makes sense for the NTT member to be in the director roll—this needs to be articulated in the proposal
              • Bulleted list of general responsibilities of director versus the other two committee members might help with clarity
            • The previous advising concerns have been articulated in the updated proposal with the three-person committee
            • Still some concern with the number of courses taught by NTT faculty. Only 1-2 of the courses estimated to be taught by TT faculty.
              • Explanations of why have been articulated in UGC, but these are not written in the proposal
              • MSSE program is a successful example of a program for professionals with NTT faculty that has been successful; example of MSSE could be added into the proposal
            • Funding is still a concern. Funding paragraph on page 9 could be revised: encourage proposers to use more academic language than “cash positive”, reference the budget in the appendix.
          • Dean Ogilvie will communicate outcome of the meeting to Dean Ranalli. Minutes will be sent to Chair Al-Kaisy and Livingston. Livingston will send Council’s concerns/suggestions back to Dean Ranalli.

Adjourned at 2:02 pm

Next scheduled meeting – November 13, 2019 Reid 415