Office of the Provost


GRADUATE COUNCIL

GRADUATE COUNCIL MINUTES
FOR THE 
MARCH 17, 2008 MEETING

Members attending: Peter Stearns (Chair), Linda Schwartzstein (Provost Office), Peter Becker (COS), Angel Burgos (for Hinton, SOM), Jamie Cooper (CHSS), Yariv Ephraim (IT&E), Chris Hill (SPP), Joan Isenberg (CEHD), Daniel Menasce (IT&E ), Linda Miller (CVPA), Agnieszka Paczynska (ICAR), Ellen Rodgers (CEHD), James Vail (CHHS), Richard Wagner (CHSS).

Special Attendees: Andrew Flagel, Dean, Admissions Office; Judith Green, Director, International Programs & Services: Susan Jones, University Registrar; Wendy Payton, Assistant Provost, Academic Affairs; Victoria Salmon, Director, Graduate Studies, CVPA; John Zenelis, University Librarian & Associate Vice President, IT.

I. Call to Order
    Provost Stearns called the meeting to order at 1:30 pm.
II. Approval of the February 20, 2008 Minutes

    The minutes of the February 20, 2008 meeting were approved as written.

III. Announcements
    None
IV. Discussion Items

    A. Graduate Dismissal (David Wong)

      David Wong expressed concern about the dismissal process regarding a COS student who had received two Cs and one F while pursuing his master’s degree at Mason. After his degree was conferred he was accepted in a Ph.D. program and has not had any unsatisfactory grades. Peter Becker stated that apparently the student had never made an appeal to his office, which would have required the approval of the Vice Provost for Academic Affairs.

      Daniel Menasce stated that IT&E had a similar situation and felt that the issue should be brought to Grad Council. Susan Jones stated that in Fall 06, with the approval of the Graduate Council, the Registrar’s Office began centrally managing the dismissal of graduate students. At the beginning of the Spring 08 semester, the Registrar’s Office realized that the reports they produced looked only at the student’s current program. The dismissal rule does not refer just to the current program. Following a meeting between Linda Schwartzstein and Susan Jones, a message was sent to the graduate deans informing them of the problem as well as advising them that students would have the right of appeal which should be sent to Linda Schwartzstein to be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. If the appeal is approved, the student is advised that one more unsatisfactory grade would result in dismissal. Susan Jones further added that it is important for the admissions personnel in the academic units to carefully review transcripts to avoid similar situations. Students with unsatisfactory grades on their transcripts in a previous program should be advised that they will be dismissed if they receive another unsatisfactory grade.

    B. Full-Time Status (Susan Jones)

      Susan Jones, University Registrar, stated that her office in conjunction with Judith Green, Director, OIPS, has revised the form doctoral students must complete to certify their full-time equivalent status while doing their doctoral dissertation research. Chris Hill (SPP) and Yariv Ephraim (IT&E) suggested minor changes to the form presented to the Council. The revised form is now available on the Registrar’s web site (http://registrar.gmu.edu/forms/DDR.pdf).

    C. Using Grad Council as a Trigger for Substantive Change Reporting (Wendy Payton)

      Wendy Payton, Assistant Provost for Academic Affairs, discussed the need to have a formalized method for units to report substantive changes to academic programs or the delivery or location of such programs, as well as any contractual agreements. This information would then be reported to SACS six months prior to the expected change. She explained that although this requirement by SACS is not new, in 2007 SACS introduced a standard that states that institutions must follow the substantive change policy and report in advance of the actual event. Failure to report on time would make the institution subject to public sanction which would result in an asterisk on the institution’s accreditation statement.

      Wendy Payton stated that she has been working with a group of associate deans on reaccreditation issues and it was the consensus of the group that substantive changes on the graduate level be sent through the Graduate Council and changes on the undergraduate level would be sent to Deans and Directors. She would then be responsible for reporting the changes to SACS.

      After considerable discussion, Provost Stearns suggested that Council members give consideration to the suggestion to use the Graduate Council as a first step in reporting substantive changes and to discuss this with their units.

      The following template was provided by Wendy Payton:
      TEMPLATE FOR REPORTING SUBSTANTIVE CHANGE

      In accordance with SACS policy on substantive change, this letter notifies the Commission on Colleges that George Mason University intends to offer its [program name] through a contractual agreement with [organization name], beginning with the [term]. Courses will be offered at the following address:

      [complete address of off-campus instructional site]

      The objective of the substantive change is to [objective for offering courses or programs off campus]. Our partner in this endeavor is the [organization name], which will provide the facilities for operation of the program. George Mason University will provide the academic content of the program and exercise control over the academic enterprise.

      The [program name] was approved by the State Council of Higher Education University since that time. It is administered by the [school name], and was included for Virginia in [year approved by SCHEV], and has been in operation at George Mason within the scope of the university’s self study in 2001 as part of the university’s reaffirmation of accreditation.

      [Describe the facilities at which courses will be offered. Answer the following questions:

      1. How will students be admitted to the program?
      2. Who will teach the courses (Mason faculty or other faculty)?
      3. What library facilities will be available to students?
      4. How will students access support services?]

      An educational service agreement to offer the program has been signed by George Mason University and the [organization name], and is attached.

    D. Bachelors/Accelerated Masters Program (Peter Stearns, Susan Jones)

      Provost Stearns commented that the report prepared by Susan Jones indicated that a number of masters programs have very clear procedures for accelerated masters programs. The Provost suggested that programs not doing so might consider whether they wish to offer an accelerated masters program, and he encouraged Council members to take this back to their units for consideration.

    E. Embargoes on Dissertations (John Zenelis)

      John Zenelis, University Librarian, stated that recently library staff granted a student’s request for a 20 year embargo on the student’s work. When it came to his attention, Mr. Zenelis realized that the university does not have a policy on restricted access on dissertations and with the help of library staff has prepared a draft policy statement for the Council’s approval.

      Daniel Menasce stated that he is against allowing an embargo of a dissertation. He further stated that if the university is to consider an embargo policy that the associate deans for graduate study should have some in put. Yariv Emphraim commented that this is a more basic problem as students are required to publish in order to get their Ph.D. If you embargo the dissertation then you should delay the Ph.D. until the dissertation is published. John Zenelis stated VMI now has a “watered-down” policy on embargo. Chris Hill agreed with Daniel Menasce with the possible exception of electronic submission, which is now optional. Provost Stearns suggested a policy be developed that states an embargo would require Graduate Council approval, and that this would occur in only the rarest of circumstance. Chris Hill suggested that it would also need the approval of the dean of the unit. It was agreed that John Zenelis would prepare a policy statement for the Council’s review and approval.

    F. Dissertation Committee Responsibility (Peter Stearns)

      Provost Stearns stated be became aware of a student who filled a grievance because he was unable to form a dissertation committee. Although units make every effort to help students form a committee there are no guarantees. The Provost presented revised catalog language for Council’s approval which would make it clear that it is not the university’s responsibility to provide a dissertation committee.

      A motion was made, seconded and approved to accept the following revisions to catalog copy.

    CHSS: (and Catalog); proposed revisions in bold italics

    Program of Study

    Usually before the end of the second year of graduate study but no later than consideration for advancement to candidacy, doctoral students must submit a program of study for approval by the dean or director of the college, school, or institute. The program of study must include major courses and supporting courses to be completed, research skills required, subject areas to be covered by the candidacy exam, and a proposed date for the candidacy exam. Program of Study Forms are available from each program's doctoral coordinator. Any changes in the programs of study must be documented with an amended Program of Study Form.

    Advancement to Candidacy

    Advancement to candidacy implies that a doctoral student has demonstrated both a breadth and a depth of knowledge in the field of study, is capable of exploring problems on the boundaries of knowledge, and has identified a research area that is likely to lead to a successful dissertation. The candidacy exam includes a written part and may include an oral part, depending on the particular doctoral program. Doctoral students should consult the degree requirements for each doctoral program to determine whether an oral portion is required, whether it is judged separately or with the written portion, the number of times a failed candidacy exam may be repeated and any time limits for repeating, and any time limits for attempting the candidacy exam.

    Before doctoral students may be advanced to candidacy by the unit dean or director, they should have completed all course work required by the program faculty, been certified in all doctoral research skills required, passed the candidacy exam, and been recommended by the doctoral supervisory committee or program coordinator. Students advanced to candidacy after the add period for a given semester must wait until the following semester to register for 999 Dissertation Research.

    Dissertation Committee

    By the time a doctoral student is advanced to candidacy, the dean or director of the school, college, or institute appoints a dissertation committee upon recommendation of the program director. Students work collaboratively with the program director and faculty to form the dissertation committee, with the understanding that some areas of research may be impossible to support due to available faculty expertise. Program personnel will facilitate the formation of the dissertation committee to the extent possible, but there can be no guarantee of successful formation.

    The committee consists of a dissertation director (adviser?), normally a graduate faculty member (see the Graduate Faculty section in this chapter) from the department of the student's field of study and at least two other members of the graduate faculty, one of whom must be from outside the student's local academic unit (school, college, institute, or department). Additional members may be appointed who are not members of the graduate faculty or are from outside the university.

    Student-initiated changes in the composition of the dissertation committee may occur only with the approval of the dean or director in consultation with the committee. Such changes may be made for extenuating circumstances only. Faculty may resign from a dissertation committee with appropriate notice by submitting a written resignation.

    HEP:

    III. ELIGIBILITY AND PLANNING

    1. A student is permitted to register for CTCH 999 Doctoral Dissertation to work on the dissertation only after advancing to candidacy and successfully defending the proposal for the project.
    2. Nonetheless, planning for the dissertation should begin early in the student's program so that appropriate academic background, writing, and research skills needed for completing it may be included in the student's program of study. For example, the student who plans around participant observation within a learning environment should check with his or her knowledge area advisor to determine if specific research courses, especially those focusing on qualitative methods, will be needed. As a student defines the study, it may be necessary to change the program of study accordingly, adding or substituting new courses that will lay the groundwork for the research methods to be employed.
    3. Once the topic for the dissertation has been agreed to, the student, with the guidance of the knowledge area advisor, should begin informally to secure the cooperation of faculty who will serve on the doctoral supervision committee. The make-up and duties of the committee are described in Section IV below.

    IV. DOCTORAL SUPERVISORY COMMITTEE

    1. Before a student is to be considered for advancement to candidacy (course work, internships, comprehensive examinations, and proposal successfully completed), the student contacts the Director of Academics about the formal appointment of the doctoral dissertation committee. The Director of Academics submits the request to the Dean of the College of Humanities and Social Sciences who then appoints the committee.
    2. The committee shall consist of a major professor preferably within the student's knowledge area and at least two other members of the graduate faculty, one of whom must be an approved member of the Higher Education faculty.
    3. The committee shall approve the dissertation proposal and certify the successful defense of the completed dissertation.
    4. The chair of the committee will serve as the student's major professor for the dissertation. Usually, but not always, he or she will be the student's knowledge area advisor. The chair of the doctoral committee is primarily responsible for directing a doctoral candidate's research and guiding the preparation. As the student begins to define a potential topic, (s)he might discover that it does not fall within the advisor's area of expertise or interest. In these cases, the student will need to identify another individual to serve as the major professor for the dissertation.

    V. STEPS IN THE APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSAL
    In order to register for CTCH 998/Doctoral Proposal, students must complete:

    • all course work
    • a signed program of study;
    • completed, signed transfer of credits form (GMU extended studies courses included), if applicable;
    • one internship completed and report filed;
    • a chairperson to direct the student's progress in the proposal writing process.

    Under the guidance of the chair, the student will prepare a written proposal detailing the nature of the project and specifying how it will make a contribution to theory and/or practice. The student should have a completed, signed proposal in one academic year from the first 998 registration date. This achievement facilitates timely research and writing progress. Registration for CTCH 998/Proposal (3 credits): Students must register for CTCH 998 with their dissertation chairs, who will provide them with the CRN code that is required for registration.

V. Old Business

VI. New Business

VII. Adjournment

    The meeting adjourned at 2:30 pm.

Comments and Suggestions | Privacy Statement | Disclaimer

MSN-3A2 4400 University Drive, Fairfax, Virginia 22030
Phone: 703-993-8770 | FAX: 703-993-8871

Copyright © 2008 George Mason University