Wednesday, November 13, 2019

Council in Attendance: 
Ahmed Al-Kaisy (Engineering)
Christopher Livingston (Architecture)
Wade Hill (Nursing)
Brock Smith (Agriculture)
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)
Que Vo (International Programs)
Robert Rydell (Letters & Science)

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

Absent:
Dennis Aig (Arts)
Anne Christensen (Business)
Sobia Anjum (Student Representative)

Meeting started at 1:01 pm

Approval of October 30, 2019 Minutes

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

Announcements

Faculty Senate Update (Brody):

  • Courses UGC approved have gone to Faculty Senate and will likely be approved by Faculty Senate Steering Committee next week
  • Today’s agenda for Faculty Senate: Public Policy & Administration PhD program, center review guidelines, merging of CBN and Microbiology discussion
  • BOR meeting on campus Thursday and Friday next week

UGC schedule: no meeting Nov 27; added Dec 4

  • Please bring a device to the Dec 4 meeting - time will be reserved at the end of the meeting to complete a Doodle poll for the Spring 2020 meeting schedule

Candidacy Celebration Dec 2nd

  • President Cruzado will be hosting a new annual event to celebrate graduate students that passed their last comprehensive exam within the last year
  • If you have a graduate student that you think should have been invited but didn't receive the email invite, let Dean Ogilvie know

Old Business

MS of Innovation & Management (Livingston)

  • Revised proposal dated 11/7/19 was emailed to Council
  • NTT director didn’t change—comments in last week’s minutes explained the director’s role, letters of support from 3 colleges added, student survey added, list of roles and responsibilities added
  • Call for comments on the revised proposal
    • Student survey was only to honors students; small sample: 21 total responses
    • Did provide letters of support from 3 college deans
      • Dean Ranalli is also surveying advisory board, but this was not completed in time for UGC meeting
    •  Remaining concern that funding is driving the proposal
      • With current projections, program would operate in the black; donor would provide scholarship funding
    • Will be hiring TT faculty member
      • NTT faculty will be directing the program with a committee of two TT faculty; new TT faculty will not have the administrative load
    • Sense from business faculty is that they would like more involvement
    • Roles and responsibilities added didn’t include curriculum development, but the responsibility of “ongoing changes” may encompass this
    • What’s the rush to get this through?
      • The program has been delayed
      • Strong belief that faculty should be involved in curriculum. However, when courses come through course approval, the specifics of the courses will be reviewed in depth. Not sure what more we would want at this point as a standard operating procedure.
      • Undergraduate committee discussed taking a stronger position on approval of programs and courses. It’s up to UGC to decide where they want to stand.
    • Is the concern that the curriculum is not detailed enough?
      • Each course has a paragraph description
      • Do we need higher level detail?
      • Concern is more with the overall structure of how the curriculum works together with NTT faculty
      • Curriculum is anchored around the sprints; seems the structure would work well for the program
      • Project oriented learning is a good thing; advising becomes important; ex: MSSE project is supervised by the student’s advisor
    • PhD in Public Policy was so well put together, maybe a similar model should be on the graduate website as an example
      • Template of a well-done proposal would be helpful
      • Careful with using PhD Public Policy proposal as an example for a professional master’s degree – very different programs
      • Would a rubric be helpful? What we are looking for as a committee?
    • Larger sampling of employers would benefit the proposal. Advisory board doesn't necessarily encompass a wide variety.
    • Appears they have answered everything other than how the program is being run - though it was answered in discussions at the last meeting
    • The proposal seems significantly improved
    • Proposal usually goes through with an outline of how the program will work, next round will provide more specific information on the courses
    • Many positives with the program: will likely become a self-sustaining program, great opportunity to get degree in one-year, potential interest from undergraduate programs at MSU
    • Q: Are proposals always sent with a letter to Faculty Senate?
      • Yes, provide a letter and document the process that the proposal has gone through in our committee, final vote tally, articulate any outstanding concerns
  • Livingston makes a motion to approve the MSIM proposal with the last edit of 11/7/19, 2nd by Versland
  • Rydell moves to amend the motion with the language "approve with reservations"
    • Provide letter explaining the reservations
  • Motion to approve amended language passed: 7 in favor, 1 abstention
  • Motion to approve the MSIM proposal with reservations passed: 6 in favor, 1 abstention, 1 opposed

New Business

University Council Proposed Policies (Ogilvie)

  • Significant change in research policy: with the current proposal, a student cannot include proprietary or classified work in their thesis or dissertation; if they accept a proprietary or classified GRA, they will not be able to use the results in their thesis/dissertation.
  • Policy and implementation concerns
  • Policy is going through University Council – would like to provide feedback from UGC
  • Consider the proprietary part – is there more of a chance to include this in a student’s thesis/dissertation; current proposed policy does not seem like the best service to students
  • This policy also applies to faculty. This type of research cannot be used in tenure review.
  • Q: What was the rational for the policy revision?
    • A: How do you review someone’s work if you don’t have access to the research?
  • Consider embargo for certain amount of time (filing patents, etc.)
  • Please review the proposal and email Dean Ogilvie feedback as soon as possible

Adjourned at 2:09 pm

Next scheduled meeting– December 4, 2019 Reid 415