Doctoral Program Team Meeting Report

Report for Meeting Scheduled:
Tuesday, October 02, 2001 at 10:00 AM

1. Called to Order:
   • Presiding: Elfreda Chatman

   • Members Present:
     Aimee Reist, Antoinette Graham, Elfreda Chatman, Charles Conaway, Jane Robbins, Ruth Sawyer Woo

   • Members Who Arrived Late:
     

   • Absent Members:
     Tom Hart, Charles McClure, Melissa Gross

   • Others in Attendance: Susan Thompson

2. Special Orders:
   

3. Reports of Sub-Teams:
   

4. Reports of Special Teams and other Team Business:
   The purpose of the first meeting of the Doctoral Team was to begin addressing issues raised by the students and faculty regarding the Doctoral Guidelines. Among the questions addressed are the following: The current guidelines are overly elaborated and not very clear. There is a lot of ambiguity in them that needs to be addressed. Members of the Committee agreed to go through the Guidelines, note problematic areas and suggest solutions. ISSUES and QUESTIONS *The Minor Requirement* Should a minor as currently structured continue to be required. What if multi-discipline? What should be required and what should just be recommended? What about certain tool courses? What is the role of the outside advisor? What mechanics are needed to get an evaluation in the minor area? How could an evaluation be done without an outside advisor? Who should write the minor question? Are ther alternatives to a minor question? *Seminars Requirement* This section of the Guidelines needs clarification. The addition of specific course numbers and classifications of course content would help. Outside courses are not permitted as substitutions and this must be stated. A three-year schedule showing when seminars (etc.) will be offered would help students plan their doctoral course work. (Gross and Chatman are currently crafting a schedule.) *Terminology Standardization* Comps or preliminaries? Proposal vs prospectus? Clarification needed about use of terms such as Faculty should be encouraged to use standard terms to reduce confusion. *Tool Courses* "Tool" courses need to be defined clearly and examples given of the types of courses that would not count toward a minor or as content courses. Credits earned would still count toward the residency requirement. In particular, this status of research methods and statistic courses needs clarification.

5. Unfinished Business:
   Goals for next meeting: A collective sense of clarifications needed. A checklist of requirements and supplemental forms should be developed that could be filled out by the student as each requirement is accomplished. This could also be included in the Assessment Portfolio so APC members wouldhave a clear sense of a student's progress.

6. New Business:
   

7. Announcements:
   Next Meeting: Tuesday, October 16, 10:45am

8. Adjourned:

Agenda Posted by Mark Davis (mad7771@garnet.acns.fsu.edu) on 10/10/2001 at 13:57:16