GRADUATE COUNCIL MEETING
May 1, 2008
3:00pm, Kidder 128
Rick Colwell (COAS), Rod Harter (HHS), Chrissa Kioussi
Grad Council Members
(Pharmacy), Tom McLain (Forestry), Darlene Russ-Eft
Present:
(Education), Tom Wolpert (AG SCI)
Grad Council Members Alix Gitelman (SCI), Shawna Grosskopf (CLA), Kathy
Absent: O’Reilly (Vet Med), Rene Reitsma (Business)
Grad School Members
Present: Martin Fisk, Mary Strickroth
Grad School Members
Absent: Sally Francis, Helene Serewis
Guests: Bob Duncan & Mark Abbott, COAS
COAS Graduate Program Review Report
Council members were joined by Dean Mark Abbott and Associate Dean Robert
Duncan of the College of Oceanic and Atmospheric Sciences (COAS).
The Graduate Council program review of the COAS graduate programs was held on
January 25, 2008. Rod Harter, who served as an internal member of the review panel,
presented a brief overview of the review panel’s report. The full report is appended to
these minutes.
Harter began by saying that in his three years serving as a member of OSU’s Graduate
Council, the COAS graduate programs were the strongest he has reviewed. He
recognized the contributions of the external members of the review team (James Yoder,
Margaret Delaney, and Thomas Leschine) and added that the experts were also very
impressed with the COAS programs and that the final review report is strong and
positive. Harter then addressed a few of the review panel’s key recommendations.
Council and visitor discussion focused on the following topics:
FUNDING
The review panel’s first recommendation is that OSU should better assist COAS with its
funding needs. Currently COAS faculty support themselves with little money from OSU.
Over the course of a career, COAS faculty obtain 60-70% of their own salary and
virtually all graduate student support from external (federal) funding sources. The
1 of 5
weakened federal funding climate is threatening this manner of operating and without
more state money the College will be hard pressed to maintain faculty size and the
quality of its programs. Bob Duncan agreed with the review panel’s assessment saying
that these are difficult times and it’s a challenge to find ways to pay the bills. He added
that it would be great to have faculty members and students supported at a level that
would make them as productive as possible.
Curriculum and Teaching
Harter reported that during the site visit, some students expressed concern over the
quality of teaching and the course content of the core course curriculum. Students
indicated that the opportunity to anonymously evaluate the instructors of these lowenrollment courses is near impossible and that some wondered if evaluations are taken
seriously by the administration.
Tom McLain wondered if the issue with teaching quality is due to the way the college is
structured. Since COAS faculty are required to focus on research in order to obtain
funding, this leaves them with less time to devote to teaching and improving teaching
methods. Bob Duncan agreed that COAS faculty do proportionately less teaching and
proportionately more research, but that the majority of faculty put their heart and soul
into the classes they teach and that the incoming faculty are very enthusiastic about
creating new courses.
Mark Abbott responded that after reviewing COAS teaching evaluations (both he and
Bob Duncan have always reviewed them quarterly), he is unconvinced that the problem
is as large as was conveyed by the students. He sees just a handful of issues and the
College is working on addressing them. He added that as a result of this review he
intends to better communicate to students how seriously teaching evaluations are
taken. Abbott meets quarterly with the younger faculty members and has made them
aware of the teaching resources available to them from OSU’s Center for Teaching and
Learning. Coming from research backgrounds, many of the younger faculty have little
teaching experience and mentor as they were mentored.
Duncan informed the Council that revising the curriculum, including considering different
methods of delivering courses, will be the subject of the next faculty summer retreat.
He shared some of the current curricular challenges:
o 500/600 level courses are taught to small classes every other year because the
size of the program. It is very expensive, from a faculty resource point of view, to
continue in this mode.
o Core courses are larger classes but are more problematic. Students enrolling in
these courses come from many areas and backgrounds. Faculty are often
required to teach to students with different levels of quantitative ability.
After the guests left the meeting and after additional discussion, a motion was made
and seconded to approve the COAS Graduate Council Review Report as submitted.
All voted in favor. Motion passed.
2 of 5
Changes to the Graduate Council Program Review Guidelines
Tom Wolpert re-opened discussion on the proposed revisions to the Graduate Council
Program Review Guidelines. This discussion was initiated at the April 1 Council
meeting, but when it was suggested that additional gate-keeping language be added to
discourage coordinating Graduate Council Program Reviews and CSREES
(Cooperative States Research, Education, and Extension Services) reviews,
conversation was postponed until new language could be drafted. Wolpert introduced
the new language to the Council members who agreed that it was appropriate. The new
language added to the Self-Study Document section read:
The Graduate Council will review the self-study document and may elect to
cancel or postpone the Graduate Program Review if the document is not
received by the agreed deadline and/or if the document lacks essential content.
In an effort to make language in the Timing of Reviews section of the guidelines as
clear as possible, McLain suggested striking the word “generally” from the proposed
statement so that it would read:
The Graduate Council does not recommend that a Graduate Council Program
Review be held in conjunction with a Cooperative States Research, Education,
and Extension Service (CSREES) review.
A motion was made and seconded to approve the proposed language above and the
other changes to the Graduate Council Program Review Guidelines discussed at the
April 1 Graduate Council meeting.
All voted in favor. Motion passed.
Petition: Master of Public Health (MPH) Graduate Program Review
Rod Harter told the Council that he had met with fellow College of Health and Human
Sciences members Marie Harvey and Anna Harding of the Department of Public Health
in order to be able to present their petition. After explaining the Department of Public
Health’s requests, Harter told the Council that the Master of Public Health (MPH)
program, a joint program with OSU, OHSU, and PSU, ranks 2nd in the nation and has
recently received its second accreditation.
With discussion it was clear that Council members present were uncomfortable with
considering waiving the MPH graduate program review even though the program had
recently undergone a successful accreditation review. The Council did not want to set
the precedent of accepting an outside agency review in lieu of examining the program
itself. The Council also wanted to know if the department was planning on suspending
its other Masters programs temporarily or terminating them.
3 of 5
After considerable discussion, the Council agreed to postpone making a decision until
additional information could be received. The Council will request that the Department
of Public Health provide an updated proposal, addressing the following issues:
MS Program Reviews
The Graduate Council would like additional information before considering waiving the
scheduled reviews of the master’s program in Environmental Health and Occupational
Safety Management, Public Health, and Health Promotion and Health Behavior.
The Council asks that the Public Health Department further explain its plans concerning
its MS programs. In particular, it asks that you clarify if you intend to terminate or
suspend the degrees and to provide a timeline for submitting the Category I proposal(s).
PhD Program in Public Health and MPH Program Reviews
The Graduate Council Program Review of the PhD degree in Public Health will occur as
scheduled in 2008.
In regard to the upcoming MPH review, the Graduate Council would consider accepting
the MPH accreditation documents in lieu of a full self-study document on the condition
that the Public Health Department agrees to compare its 2005-06 MPH accreditation
documentation to the “Graduate Council Program Review Guidelines” and that any
missing essential content will be provided to the Graduate Council review team
appointed to review the MPH program and the PhD program in Public Health in 200809. This missing essential content and updated tables (containing data gathered since
the 2005-06 accreditation review) would be provided to the reviewers as a supplemental
document.
McLain suggested inviting representatives from the Department of Public Health to the
next Graduate Council meeting if they do not agree to revise the petition as suggested.
Council members concurred.
NSF-Graduate Teaching Fellows in K-12 Education
Council members discussed the GK-12 proposals and rankings. Votes were tallied from
six Graduate Council members. Based on the number of number one rankings, the
Council elected to recommend the proposal submitted by Professor Margaret Burnett,
School of EECS, “Promoting Diversity and Mentorship in Computing and Engineering
through Graduate – K-12 Partnerships.”
To Debbie Delmore, OSU Research Office
At its May 1, 2008 meeting the Graduate Council reviewed three proposals for NSF GK-12 Graduate
Teaching Fellows. NSF permits each university to submit only one proposal to this competition. The
Graduate Council recommends that the proposal submitted by Margaret Burnett be the one chosen by
the university as the proposal to be submitted to NSF.
This recommendation is based on rankings provided by members of the Graduate Council. The proposal
by Burnett and her coinvestigators received four first place votes. The next highest ranked proposal
received two first place votes, and the third proposal received no first place votes.
4 of 5
Because of the May 16 deadline for the submission of letters of intent for this competition, it is probably
important to let Dr. Burnett and the lead investigators of the other proposals know as soon as possible the
outcome of the university's evaluation of the proposals.
If you have questions, please contact me.
Yours,
Dr. Martin Fisk, Associate Dean of the Graduate School
Next Meeting
McLain announced that the next Graduate Council meeting will be held on Thursday,
May 15th.
Meeting adjourned.
5 of 5
Graduate Council
Follow-up review
Department of Industrial and Manufacturing Engineering
Mike Unsworth met with Ken Funk and Logen Logendran on Thursday, May 1, 2008 to discuss
changes that have occurred since the Graduate Council Program Review of the Department of
Industrial and Manufacturing Engineering (IME) in November 2005. Dr Funk was the interim
Department Chair at the time of the Review, and Dr. Logendran was the IME Graduate Program
Chair.
Overview of the current status
At the time of the Review in 2005, discussions were underway to merge the IME Department and
the Mechanical Engineering Department to form a School of Mechanical, Industrial and
Manufacturing Engineering (MIME). IME faculty and staff expressed some concerns at that time
concerning the impact such a merger might have on their Department's ability to recruit and retain
high quality faculty and graduate students. They were also concerned about the potential loss of
departmental identity and budgetary independence.
The merger has now been completed, although several aspects of School structure and operations
continue to develop. Dr. Funk is now MIME interim Associate Head, and Dr. Logendran retains
his responsibilities for the graduate program in the Industrial Engineering.
In general, IME faculty and staff have been satisfied with the progress since the merger. The
School Head, Dr Batten, has been sensitive to IME concerns and was described as a good “people
person”. Although IME no longer has departmental status, it is felt that, at present, the discipline
is sufficiently distinct when viewed by prospective applicants, particularly on the new website
structure. Important budgetary lines for GTA appointments in IME have been maintained
separately from Mechanical Engineering.
In the 2+ years since the review, a number of the recommendations of the Review Group have
been implemented, and these will be discussed in the following sections, which are structured
according to the main recommendations (italicized) of the 2005 review. For readability, some of
the recommendations have been re-numbered and grouped together.
2005 Recommendations and Recent Progress
1. At least one IME faculty position should be created over each of the next two years to restore
faculty numbers and permit growth of the graduate program.
2. IME should be allowed to hire faculty to replace those that have departed. This is critical to
meet the new Graduate School rules regarding graduate coursework and would be an
important show of support for the program.
An Assistant Professor in Information Systems Engineering was hired in 2005; a search for
an Assistant Professor in the areas of Statistical Process Control and Quality and Reliability
Engineering last year was unsuccessful, but this search is being reconstituted with a focus
more strongly on finding a person with leadership potential in the broader area of
Manufacturing Systems Engineering. In addition, an instructor in IME has been hired, and
her presence in teaching undergraduate classes has allowed IME faculty to find time for more
1 of 5
graduate teaching. Progress towards meeting the Graduate School requirements in numbers
of strictly graduate-level (500-) classes is continuing.
3. There are risks that a prospective merger with the Mechanical Engineering Department
could adversely influence the Department’s ability to recruit and retain high quality IME
faculty and graduate students, but there are also potential benefits in a merger. We
recommend that, if a merger proceeds, steps be taken to ensure that IME can be identified as
a self-contained discipline with a clear graduate curriculum and faculty career path.
AND
4. In order to keep an identity for IME it should retain department or a similarly clearly defined
status. This will be critical for the continued recruitment of highly qualified faculty and
graduate students.
AND
5. Some budget lines of IME should be kept separate from Mechanical Engineering to avoid
erosion of the smaller program.
The structure of the School and the presentation of its areas of specialization have been done
in such a way as to maintain the distinct discipline of IME. Although the web-pages for the
School are still under development, it is clear from them that visitors to the web-pages will be
able to readily identify the IME faculty, graduate curriculum etc. Dr Funk has budgetary
responsibility for GTA appointments in IME, and the merger into the School has given him
some useful flexibility in the distribution of GTA funds.
6. The review committee acknowledges the increased recruitment efforts by the department and
recommends that they be continued.
At the time of the review in 2005, the department was concerned about a decline in graduate
applications, and was putting particular efforts into contacting regional University
departments from which students might be interested in coming to OSU to pursue graduate
degrees. These efforts turned out not to be particularly successful, recruiting only a small
number of students who were not academically or motivationally strong. The IME group has
therefore modified its strategy, and now aims to publicize its graduate programs more
through links with faculty and former graduate students on the national and international
scales. A Graduate Student Recruiting Event, jointly held annually by the School and the
College, also has attracted prospective students, both from OSU and outside of OSU. In
addition, IME have moved their treatment of graduate applications to be entirely electronic,
and have streamlined the faculty review process. This has allowed them to respond to
applicants much more quickly and to make early offers. The revised strategy seems to have
been successful, with around 60 applications so far, seeking admission in Fall 2008. GTA
offers have been made to the top 10 applicants for Fall 2008, with 9 of them accepting the
offers. The number of new graduate students in the program has also increased this year
(2007-08) to 15 from about 10-11 in years past. With a breakdown of 7 PhD and 8 MS, about
12 of these 15 students are supported through GTA and GRA positions.
7. To broaden the graduate curriculum, and alleviate some of the impact of faculty losses we
recommend that IME consider cross-listing courses with departments with common interests.
Opportunity would seem strongest with Statistics (operations research for Manufacturing
Systems majors) and Mechanical Engineering (material and materials processing for
Nano/Micro Fabrication majors) although other relationships might also be built with
Computer Science (Information Systems majors) and Exercise Science and Psychology
2 of 5
(Human Systems majors). Developing these relationships would also satisfy the graduate
students’ desire for a broader range of courses.
8. IME should publish a list of courses that will be offered over a two-year horizon to enable
students to better plan their programs.
Cross-listing has not been implemented, because it is felt that current opportunities for
students to take classes in other departments serve the curriculum well. For example, some
IME graduate students are required to take courses from the School of Electrical Engineering
and Computer Science, and in Mechanical Engineering and Chemical Engineering, in
addition to the required and elective courses taught in IME. Likewise, students from other
disciplines take Nano/Micro Fabrication courses taught in IME to meet their program
requirements. Similar situations exist with the courses taught in the Human Systems
Engineering focus area and those taught in the Exercise Science and Psychology departments.
In addition, progress is being made in scheduling classes in the new School to avoid conflicts
between Mechanical Engineering, and IME classes. The aim is to produce a sustainable 2year curriculum plan, for example, with specialist courses taught by faculty on an alternate
year schedule. This plan will be published on the web for graduate student use.
9. We recommend the development of a graduate seminar series. It may be useful to create this
as a course for credit, and require graduate students to attend. Such a series could include
speakers from OSU, both from in IME and elsewhere, as well as speakers from industry.
Academic speakers who require compensation for expenses could come from other
universities in the region to minimize expenses, while those from farther away may be invited
based on fiscal considerations. Possible sponsorship of the series by industry should also be
investigated.
AND
10. The Department should consider mechanisms to avoid isolation of those working at ONAMI.
These may involve improving transportation between ONAMI and campus, creating a student
seminar series, and encouraging regular faculty interaction both professionally and socially
A successful seminar series has been established within the School, with typically eight to
nine seminars per term. Graduate students are normally expected to attend at least 4-5
seminars per term from this series. It was observed that the regular occurrence of seminars
has helped students based at the ONAMI facility on the HP campus to become more
integrated socially and academically with the campus-based group. ONAMI students also
routinely visit the campus for classes, so it is not felt that the physical isolation of the
ONAMI facility has outweighed its many research advantages.
11. The Department, in association with College administration, should develop a flexible plan
that matches graduate student numbers and teaching commitments to the number of faculty
available.
With the new faculty and instructor appointments, the ratio of graduate faculty to graduate
students is now about one to two.
12. The Department should look into areas of research collaboration, which might be led by IME
faculty or otherwise, that could take advantage of the excellent infrastructure in IME and
lead to more research involving cross-disciplinary integration.
3 of 5
The formation of the School has somewhat increased collaboration, but it is felt that it is still
too early to realize the full benefits. It has not been possible to collocate all faculty in the
new School in one building, and the general policy is to allow individual IME faculty to
decide whether a physical move to join ME faculty in Rogers or Dearborn Halls is desirable
for their research interests. One faculty member has moved to Rogers Hall to strengthen
collaboration and Dr Funk has also moved his office to Rogers to be closer to the Head of
School. Because the three buildings occupied by the School are close to each other, it is not
felt that these moves are likely to weaken the cohesiveness of the IME discipline, but clearly
it is desirable for the School eventually to become more physically contiguous.
It is becoming clear that the strong research presence offered by ONAMI is increasing
possibilities for collaboration on research between faculty from different Departments and
Schools and with industry.
13. The Department should keep records of the quality of students applying and being accepted
into the program, and should endeavor to compare intake quality with that of comparator
departments.
AND
14. The Department should introduce an on-going plan to keep track of former students and their
career progression.
The new electronic processing of graduate applications has improved record keeping and
made searching the continuing applicant data base possible to explore trends. Comparisons
of the quality of applicants and graduate intake with other peer universities, and with some
top 10 engineering schools, generally show that OSU applicants and intake compare
favorably in terms of factors such as GRE and TOEFL scores.
The merger to the School structure has placed additional burdens on staff responsible for
administering applications and maintaining databases; these staff also have to share the
varying overall workload of the School. There is some concern about this workload.
15. The Department should investigate further the possible causes of the decline in graduate
applications in recent years. For example is this a national trend, or are there special
factors at OSU that need to be remedied?
It is generally felt that the decline was part of a national problem brought about by post 9/11
visa restrictions and administrative delays on foreign applicants, and by the perception that
other countries were more welcoming to foreign graduate students. This decline may have
been halted, at least based on 2007-2008 applications. The faster response to IME
applications as a result of the electronic treatment and streamlined review of files seems to
have increased success rates.
16. The Department should consider developing a graduate internship program in collaboration
with industry.
Faculty perceive strengths and weaknesses of internship programs. In particular, the effort in
identifying internship opportunities, supervising working arrangements, and the risk of losing
interns to permanent jobs were mentioned. Industry Fellowships are a preferred way of
placing graduate students in industry while encouraging more substantial research
collaboration and these opportunities are being successfully pursued, albeit on a small scale at
this time.
17. The Department should keep track of national rankings of graduate programs in IME
departments and endeavor to use this knowledge to improve the ranking of IME at OSU.
4 of 5
AND
18. Given the climate nationally (and particularly in Oregon) for the funding of higher education,
it may be necessary to increase development efforts as noted in the self-study report. This is
not a short-term process and requires proper cultivation of alumni and corporations. Efforts
should be made to put together a strategic plan of how to accomplish this. Other than
scholarship and assistantships, IME may also wish to consider an endowed seminar series
and professorships to attract top faculty or support current faculty.
Making progress to improve the ranking of OSU Engineering nationally is a goal of the entire
College of Engineering and underlies the recent reorganization and restructuring. A new
position of Associate Head for Graduate Programs and Research in the School is about to be
filled, and this person will undertake strategic planning for development of all three graduate
programs in the School, including likely global collaborations.
5 of 5