|
University Archives of Virginia Tech |
Virginia Tech
Governance Minutes ArchiveJanuary 19, 1994
MINUTES VPI&SU COMMISSION ON GRADUATE STUDIES AND POLICIES 19 JANUARY, 1994 3:30 P.M. 206 SANDY HALL Present: Drs. Boyle, Brooker-Gross, Eaton, Eustis, Eyre, Johnson, LaBerge, Merola, O'Brien, Olin, Orcutt, Peters, Smith, Stauffer, Stout, Wokutch, Ms. Bezold, Ms. Rainer-Jeanes, Mr. Schell, Mr. Kahn, Mr. Waddill Absent with notification: Aughenbaugh, Mitchiner, Waddill Absent: Bohr, Boles, Burger, Haney Visitors: Marvin Foushee - Registrar's Office Representative Susan Trulove - Spectrum Representative 1. ANNOUNCEMENTS- Professor Michael O'Brien stated that Dr. Mitchiner would be absent from the meeting and he would be presiding, as Chairman-Elect, over today's meeting. 2. INFORMATIONAL HANDOUTS - Two resolutions were circulated from the Course and Program Criteria Committee; Committee report and resolution from the Degree Requirements, Standards, Criteria and Academic Policies Committee and a proposal from the Graduate Research Policies and Pro- grams Committee. 3. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA - Approved as modified. 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF 17 NOVEMBER 1993 - The minutes were approved as distributed. 5. COMMITTEE REPORTS COURSE AND PROGRAM CRITERIA COMMITTEE - Michael O'Brien presented the report of the committee. At the meeting on December 8, 1993, seven courses were considered. CE 5344 - Environmental Systems Optimization was approved; CE 5574 - Geoenvironmental Engineering was approved; EE 5534 - Representation and Cynthesis of Computer Systems was approved contingent on no objects in the 15 day review and minor modifications; EE 6204 - Advanced Topics in Electronics was tabled; ISE 4244 - Fundamentals of Computer Inte- grated Manufacturing was tabled, ISE 4254 - Computer-aided Process Planning was tabled; ISE 4264 - Industrial Automation was tabled. There was additional discussion of the 4000/5000 level courses for Graduate Credit which will be brought forward in the form of resol- utions for consideration at this meeting as Item 8a and 8b. The next meeting will be January 26 in 201 Hancock Hall and this will be noted on the agenda for the next meeting. DEGREE REQUIREMENTS, STANDARDS, CRITERIA AND ACADEMIC POLICIES - Steve Boyle referred to the Proposed Revision 6325 (circulated earlier) deal- ing with adding and dropping of classes. Dr. Boyle stated that this revision is intended to define the circum- stances under which students can add or drop courses. The second sec- tion of the revision is to define the mechanics of the timing by which the students are allowed to do this. The situation is that there are a number of instances in which students, beyond the last drop date, have requested to add or drop courses. The graduate school has been permit- ting students, with permission of the advisor, to drop/add courses af- ter this deadline. This revision was proposed to provide guidelines for this add/drop period and to provide a mechanism for noting the aca- demic circumstances underwhich the drop occurred. There was considerable discussion of the proposed revision and there were suggested changes that the commission membership asked the commit- tee to consider. Dr. Boyle asked that all suggestions be submitted to the committee for consideration at their next meeting. The proposed revision was referred back to the committee for further consideration. Dr. Boyle asked that members refer to the the second section of the committee report entitled: Survey Results: External examiners in dis- sertation programs. The committee has been attempting to evaluate the proposal that current procedures concerning the administration of the preliminary and final examinations in our doctoral programs be modified to reflect that they are "examinations by the department as distinct from examinations by the student's supervisor and advisory committee". The following changes were suggested by the proposal: Preliminary examination a. Examining committees should be appointed by the Department Head in consultation with the Advisory Committee; some, but not necessarily all, members of the Advisory Committee may be appointed as examin- ers. b. One or two additional faculty who are not members of the Advisory Committee would be appointed as examiners. c. The chair of the Examining Committee should not be the student's advisor, but would be chosen from the two additional faculty ap- pointed by the Department Head. These changes were proposed as a means of increasing the objectivity and the departmental nature of the preliminary exam with respect to any particular doctoral candidate. Final dissertation examination a. Departments should be permitted the option of appointing an Ex- ternal Examiner, who may be one of the above-mentioned "additional" examiners. The External Examiner may be from a cognate discipline within the University of may be from an institution outside the University. b. The External Examiner would be appointed by the academic department head in consultation with the dissertation advisor. c. The External Examiner would receive a copy of the dissertation and would submit to the Chair of the Examining Committee (or to the De- partment Head) a written appraisal of the dissertation. This Exam- iner would be expected to participate in the final examination; the academic department would be responsible for expenses incurred by External Examiners outside the University. An an examination was conducted of the 19 peer institutions as defined by SCHEV as well as some 90 Deans and Department Heads within Virginia Tech to find out whether outside examiners were utilized in the prelim- inary or final examinations. In the case of our peer institutions (19); at the final examination, 11 use at least one examiner outside the department (1 reported using an examiner outside the University), 7 do not use external examiners and 1 did not respond. Therefore, approximately 61% of our peer institutions use an external examiner. In the case of Virginia Tech, more specific questions were asked and the departments responded as summarized: Preliminary Examination: Q1. Is the preliminary examination committee the same as the dissertation advisory committee? Answer: 83% yes, 17% no (46 responses). Q2. Do you require a dissertation advisory committee member outside the department: Answer: 66% yes, 33% no (48 responses). Final Dissertation Examination: Q3. Is the final dissertation examination committee the same as the dissertation advisory committee? Answer: 100% yes (46 responses) Q4. Is the final dissertation examination committee the same as the preliminary examination committee? Answer: 80% yes, 20% no (45 responses) In general based on these survey results, it would appear that approxi- mately 60 percent of the departments surveyed use some type of external examiner, either to the department or to the university, in an attempt to bring a measure of objectivity to the preliminary or final examina- tions within their doctoral program. Because of the variety of opinions that have been expressed regarding these proposed changes, and given that these changes will have profound repercussions within the structure with which preliminary and final ex- aminations are administered, the committee recommended that 1) the rep- resentatives of CGS&P survey their constituents to determine the need for adopting the proposal; 2) be prepared to discuss and vote on the proposal (or some modification thereof) during the Spring, 1994 meetings of the CGS&P. Dr. Boyle stated that in general, there is a sense that if only 60% of the departments are using some type of external examiner to the exam- ination process, that it might be worthwhile to consider increasing the rate of participation of various departments in using such a process. There will be many variations and inabilities to start this process, depending upon the department, however, the committee felt that, in general, it is a worthwhile proposal to consider in terms of improving the quality of students being produced from our doctoral programs. The exact mechanism for this is still unclear at this time. The committee's report was accepted. GRADUATE RESEARCH POLICIES AND PROGRAMS COMMITTEE - Dr. Bob Olin re- ferred to a proposal (distributed earlier in the meeting) regarding flexibility in graduate student stipends. Dr. Olin explained that cur- rently the stipend levels are fixed according to scale defined by the University. This leaves little room for adjusting those scales to meet the stipends from competing institutions. This committee proposes to open up the fixed stipend levels into ranges of stipends for each step and to allow each department to determine where in that range they wish to pay their students. Dr. Olin summa- rized various scales as outlined in his proposal. The commission approved the concept of flexible stipend scales. RESTRUCTURING - Dr. Dave Orcutt stated that this committee met imme- diately before this meeting and came up with six suggestions on re- structuring for the CGS&P membership to consider. 1) Need for another member on the CGS&P representing the college of the individual that is currently the chair of this commission. The purpose of this is to take some of the responsibility for sitting on some of the other subcommittees. 2) Need for written descriptions and charges for the various subcommittees and specific responsibilities for committee members. 3) Combining some subcommittees (i.e., Appeals Committee and Graduate Student Relations Committee) 4) Reduce the number of meetings of CGS&P and/or consider having more subcommittee meetings early in the year and more CGS&P meetings later in the year. 5) In the development of the new governance system, the proposal is for university standing committees reporting back to the commissions. Two standing committees that are proposed to report to the CGS&P are the University Library Committee and the Graduate Curricula Committee. The definition of the Graduate Curricula Committee is already covered in one of our subcommittees currently and therefore unnecessary. 6) The combination of the Commission on Research and the Commission on Graduate Studies and Policies. 6. REPORT OF THE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY COMMITTEE- Dr. Joanne Eustis referred to the minutes of the October 27, 1993 which had been distributed in the agenda package. Dr. Eustis that the bids have been opened for the storage facility and the groundbreaking is expected in March. 7. GRADUATE STUDENT ASSEMBLY REPORT - Mr. Tim Schell stated that the exec- utive board met and they agreed that a high percentage of their goals for this year will be accomplished. He also noted the Off-Campus Hous- ing Center will be opening in 121 Squires, a GAPSAV meeting to be held in Charlottesville this Saturday to discuss health insurances issues and budget cuts around the state; Ken Kahn met with Congressman Rick Boucher regarding health insurance and the exclusion of graduate stu- dents or subjecting to insurance rates of $1,800.00 per year. Tim re- ported that the Graduate Research Symposium will be held on the first weekend in April and that the first GSA meeting this semester will be held on Thursday 1/27/94 in Johnston Student Center 100B. 8. DISCUSSION AND COMMITTEE REFERENCE a) 4000/5000 Level Courses Admission Resolution from the Course and Program Criteria Committee - carryover for next meeting. b. Course Revision Resolution from the Course and Program Criteria Committee - carryover for next meeting. 9. ADJOURNMENT - 4:54 p.m. Respectfully submitted, John L. Eaton Secretary
VT History | Digital Library and Archives | Special Collections | University Archives
Send questions or comments to:
Tamara Kennelly, University Archivist
University Libraries
Virginia Tech
P.O. Box 90001
Blacksburg, VA, 24062-9001URL: http://spec.lib.vt.edu/minutes/cgs/1994/January+19++1994.html
Last modified on: Tuesday, 25-Sep-2001 13:57:20 EDT