East Carolina University s1

East Carolina University GRADUATE ASSEMBLY FULL MINUTES OF APRIL 7, 2009

Agenda Item I. Call to order

Dr. Gemperline called the meeting to order at 2:03 p.m.

Agenda Item II. Approval of March 3, 2009 minutes

Minutes were approved as submitted.

Agenda Item III. Review of health coverage for graduate students

The trend across the nation among institutions is to require all students to have health insurance. Dr. Gemperline introduced Ms. Amy Viverette of the Student Health Center to discuss the UNC Board of Governors (BOG) proposal of mandatory health insurance for all students (graduate and undergraduate) and to take questions from the body. Ms. Viverette explained the BOG’s proposal would require all students without a “hard waiver” (proof of insurance coverage of some form comparable to the plan offered) will be required to purchase the university health insurance policy. Students with an existing health insurance policy would not be required to purchase the university policy. The BOG will vote on the proposal in May, and if passed, the mandate would most likely begin fall 2010. When health insurance becomes mandatory for students Financial Aid will be able to assist with cost.

Ms. Viverette was asked if she recommended the university health insurance policy. Ms. Viverette explained that optional plans (such as the university plan) will have much higher premiums than an employee plan, and this insurance policy is not recommended over any other. Optional coverage policies generally attract populations with much higher health insurance needs. These individuals raise the cost of the pool. The current insurance policy for PhD students offers better benefits than the optional policy.

Dr. Scott Eagle (School of Art and Design) commented that the MFA is a terminal degree therefore the Graduate School should offer these students the same insurance coverage as PhD students.

Dr. Rick Barnes (Health Education and Promotion) asked if heath insurance would be mandatory for distance education students. Dr. Gemperline explained this policy would only apply to on-campus students taking 6 or more credit hours.

Dr. Chris Riley-Tillman (Psychology) expressed the importance of bringing this issue back up for Master’s students if the BOG votes no for mandatory health insurance for all students.

Dr. Monica Hough (Communication Sciences and Disorders) expressed the policy of mandatory health insurance has been successful at other institutions in North Carolina.

Dr. Paul Petersen (Technology Systems) inquired if it was a concern that students may decide not to attend ECU because of the mandatory health insurance policy. Dr. Gemperline explained this fee had not produced significant enrollment changes at other institutions with mandatory health insurance.

Dr. Jim Decker (Exercise and Sport Science) commented that mandatory health insurance would present another barrier for students applying for residency (currently students do not have to show proof of insurance to qualify for in-state residency). Students covered under their parent’s health insurance policy would not be eligible for in-state tuition. Therefore a student wanting to qualify as an in-state resident may potentially have to drop a better health insurance policy for the optional policy offered by ECU. Motion made and seconded to support hard waiver insurance policy on campus as soon as possible. Motion seconded and passed 25-1.

Agenda Item IV. Task force report: Proposed retention and termination policy

Dr. Carl Swanson (History) explained the proposed policy of the task force on retention and termination. This policy centers on quality and progress and is consistent with the retention and termination policies of ECU’s peer institutions.

The proposed policy states that in order to remain in good academic standing, graduate students should:  Maintain a 3.0 average after 9 credit hours attempted  Complete at least 2/3 of the credit hours attempted (attempted=student still enrolled as of census date) Students who fail to meet these two standards will be placed on probation for one semester, during which time they will have an opportunity to correct their deficiencies. Enrollment in graduate school at ECU will be terminated for students who fail to correct these deficiencies by the end of their probation semester.

Dr. Monica Hough (Communication Sciences and Disorders) asked if a department could appeal the termination of a student. Dr. Gemperline explained there is an appeals process that applies to termination of program. Students must appeal the termination; however graduate program directors may send a letter of support to the Dean.

Mr. Len Rhodes (College of Business) asked why a part-time student who takes 1 course for 3 semesters would not be put on probation until the third semester. Dr. Gemperline explained that full-time students and part-time students should be evaluated equally (based on an equivalent number of hours).

Dr. Larry Dennis (PA) asked if individual programs can put into effect a more stringent probation and termination policy. Programs may decide to apply a stricter termination and retention policy or set additional criteria. These policies must be documented in the Graduate Catalog. Programs must do this to avoid grievances.

Motion made to send recommendation as amended by the above discussions to the Graduate School Administrative Board (GSAB). Motion passed 26-0.

Agenda V. Task force report: Proposed policy on minimum graduate admission standards

Dr. Bob Thompson (Political Science) explained the proposed policy of the task force on minimum graduate admissions standards. Recommendations included:  Minimum admission standards should be unpublished (only 1 North Carolina institution published minimum standards) o Individual programs often have different admission standards o Generally averages were published instead of minimums  The university should set a minimum GRE at the 30th percentile (equivalent to a 950). Similar criteria would be applied for MAT and GMAT scores. o If an applicant does not meet this minimum they could be considered for conditional admission  Programs who do not agree could propose alternate admission standards (e.g. MFA)

These recommendations are consistent with the policies of other peer institutions across the country and around the state.

It was noted it is important to have a policy in place that can be articulated when an applicant questions why they were not accepted by the Graduate School. Can individual programs put into effect a more stringent policy on minimum graduate admission standards? Programs may decide to apply a higher admission standard or set additional criteria. These policies must be documented in the Graduate Catalog.

Dr. Nasseh Tabrizi (Computer Science) inquired how this policy would affect the admission of international students. International admission standards will be reviewed separately in the future.

If a program decides to admit a student not meeting the Graduate School’s minimum admission standards a letter should be written justifying why the applicant should be admitted by exception.

Motion made and seconded to send the proposed policy recommendation to the GSAB. Motion passed 25-1.

Agenda Item VI. SACS accreditation - Graduate Program Assessment documents

Ms. Kristen Dreyfus of the Institutional Planning Assessment and Research (IPAR) department was present to discuss SACS accreditation and graduate program assessment documents.

The IPAR offers assistance with assessment reports and the coordination of program reviews. Ms. Dreyfus informed the body of TrackDat (software being used with the capability to pull information from all assessment reports and longitudinally assess program goals) and suggested one person from each academic program become familiar with the software.

Included in the program assessment documents are 3 learning outcomes, 1 strategic outcome and 1 global persepctives outcome. A group has been assembled to review and analyze the documents. There are 94 graduate programs for which an assessment document is needed. Programs were divided among group members and reviewed. Common problems have occurred in the assessment methodology piece of the document (unclear descriptions of measurement methodologies). Dr. Gemperline informed the body the Graduate School was behind in the review of program assessment documents and asked for patience and cooperation as the Associate Deans work to resolve issues.

Most departments have formed an assessment committee with the chair of the department serving as a committee member. Committees are working with their respective Associate Deans.

Agenda Item VII. Discussion – Official transcript requirements

The previous Graduate School policy required applicants to submit transcripts from institutions where 7 credit hours or more were received. This policy is problematic because it relies on applicant self- reporting.

Currently, each applicant is looked up by an admissions processor in the National Student Clearinghouse (NSC) in order to see all colleges and universities attended. If an applicant is missing a transcript from an institution listed by the NSC, they are contacted and asked to submit the missing transcript.

Dr. Gemperline expressed concern that waiting for all transcripts was delaying the processing of applications. It is standard practice at most of ECU’s peer institutions and sister institutions for applicants to submit official transcripts from all institutions attended. Some peer institutions make provisional admissions based on unofficial transcripts (programs should have at least an official transcript from where degree was earned before making a provisional admission). Larger graduate programs may decide to wait until all application materials are received before reviewing. It also may behoove clinical training programs to wait until all transcripts are received. However, smaller graduate programs may want to make provisional admissions contingent upon the receipt of all transcripts (students will be blocked from registering until all transcripts have been received). Waiting for all transcripts to be received can cause ECU to lose quality students because these students may receive earlier offers. Dr. Gemperline emphasized students will not be able to register after census date in the case of provisional admissions. Dr. Saeed Dar (Pharmacology and Toxicology) agreed quality students are lost when programs must wait for all transcripts to be received.

Dr. Bob Thompson (Political Science) commented it should be the responsibility of individual programs to make sure all transcripts are received.

Benefits of allowing programs to conditionally admit students include:  More competitive recruitment of students  Clear rejections can be eliminated quickly

Disadvantages include:  Unintended consequences of making admission decisions with partial information.  These circumstances will enable procrastinators  Logistical issues

Dr. Gemperline announced the Graduate School will proceed cautiously in allowing provisional admissions for students who have not submitted all official transcripts.

It is the aim of the Graduate School to revise the graduate admission processes this summer in time for the next recruiting season. It is a goal for program directors to be able to log into Xtender and view incomplete applications and any electronic records received. Banner Consultants will be revisiting with the Graduate School processors the first week in May.

Dr. Andrew Morehead (Chemistry) suggested recommendations be submitted electronically.

Agenda Item VIII. Adjourn

Dr. Gemperline adjourned the meeting at 4:08 pm

Respectfully submitted,

Amy E. Tripp Recorder