Faculty Senate minutes - April 17, 2008 meeting
TO THE MEMBERS OF THE ACADEMIC COUNCIL FORTIEth SENATE Report No. 9
Summary of Actions Taken in Administrative Session of the Steering Committee on behalf of the Fortieth Senate
April 17, 2008
A. Recommendation from the Committee on Graduate Studies
Upon a recommendation from the Committee on Graduate Studies, the Steering Committee, on behalf of the Senate, approved the recommendation from the Committee on Graduate Studies to renew the degree-nominating authority of the Interdepartmental Program in Biophysics for the PhD and MS degrees for a five-year period, from September 1, 2009 through August 31, 2014.
B. Recommendation from the Committee on Graduate Studies
Upon a recommendation from the Committee on Graduate Studies, the Steering Committee on behalf of the Senate, approved the joint degree programs consisting of the Master of Science in Computer Science and the Doctor of Jurisprudence in Law, and the Master of Science in Electrical Engineering and the Doctor of Jurisprudence in Law. As with all previous joint degree programs, the C-GS recommendation for both programs is for an initial period of three years, from September 1, 2009, through August 31, 2012.
C. Recommendation from the Committee on Graduate Studies
Upon a recommendation from the Committee on Graduate Studies, the Steering Committee on behalf of the Senate, authorized the joint degree programs consisting of the Master of Public Policy (MPP) and (respectively) the JD degree in the School of Law; the MBA degree in the Graduate School of Business; the PhD in Education; the PhD in Economics; the PhD in Psychology, the PhD in Sociology; the MA in International Policy Studies; and the PhD in Management Science and Engineering. As with all previous joint degree program recommendations, the C-GS recommendation is for an initial period of three years, beginning September 1, 2008, through August 31, 201l.
D. From the Committee for the Review of Undergraduate Majors
Upon a recommendation from the Committee on Review of Undergraduate Majors, the Steering Committee, on behalf of the Senate, authorized the renewal of the degree-nominating authority for the Bachelor of Science degree, for the Interdepartmental Program in Mathematical and Computational Science for a five-year period from September 1, 200,9 through August 31, 2014.
E. From the Committee on Graduate Studies
Upon a recommendation from the Committee of Graduate Studies the Steering Committee on behalf of the Senate, extended the authority to nominate candidates for the PhD and MA degrees to the Interdisciplinary Program in Humanities for the period of September 1, 2008 through August 31, 2009.
F. From the Committee for the Review of Undergraduate Majors
Upon a recommendation from the Committee on Review of Undergraduate Majors, the Steering Committee, on behalf of the Senate, authorized renewal of the degree-nominating authority for the Bachelor of Arts degree, undergraduate Minor, and Honors Program for the Interdisciplinary Program in the Humanities for a period of three years, September 1, 2008 through August 31, 2011.
SUMMARY OF ACTIONS, APRIL 17
At its meeting on Thursday, April 17, 2008, the Fortieth Senate of the Academic Council took the following action:
1. By unanimous voice vote, the Senate conferred baccalaureate degrees on the Fall Quarter candidates listed in SenD#6081, as recommended by the Committee on Undergraduate Standards and Policy (C-USP).
2. By unanimous voice vote, the Senate also conferred the various advanced degrees on the Fall Quarter candidates listed in SenD#6036, as recommended by the Committee on Graduate Studies (C-GS) with one additional degree granted posthumously.
3. By unanimous voice vote, the Senate approved the Committee on Graduate Studies recommendation that joint degree programs consisting of the JD/MS and the JD/MA, the JD/MPP, and the PhD/MPP degree programs, and which allow up to 45 units to be double-counted toward residency requirements, upon approval by the cognizant departments or programs and Schools, do not require approval by C-GS or the Faculty Senate.
REX L. JAMISON, M.D. Academic Secretary to the University Minutes, APRIL 17 I. Call to Order xxxxwI. Call to OrderThe Chair, Professor Eamonn Callan, called the Senate to order at 3:15 PM. In attendance were 28 voting members and 5 ex officio members.
II. Approval of Minutes - (SenD#6069)The minutes of the March 6, 2008, meeting of Senate XL were approved.
III. Action CalendarA. List of Candidates for Baccalaureate Degrees (SenD#6081)
Chair Callan introduced Jackie Charonis, Assistant Vice Provost for Student Affairs and Associate University Registrar, representing Registrar Tom Black who was away from campus.
The list came to the Senate moved and seconded by the Committee on Undergraduate Standards and Policy. There were no changes to the list of undergraduate degrees. The list was approved by unanimous voice vote. Chair Callan declared the baccalaureate degrees duly conferred on the recommended candidates.
B. List of Candidates for Advanced Degrees (SenD#6082)
The list came to the Senate moved and seconded by the Committee on Graduate Studies. Assistant Registrar Charonis announced there was one change. She recommended that Mehmet Atalay be awarded his master's degree in philosophy posthumously. The list of Candidates for Advanced Degrees was duly conferred on the recommended candidates by a unanimous voice vote.
IV. Standing ReportsA. Memorial Resolution
Jay Fliegelman (1949-2007) SenD#6076
Chair Callan introduced Professor David Riggs, Professor of English, who presented a memorial statement in honor of his colleague, Jay Fliegelman.
"Professor Jay Fliegelman, William Robertson Coe Professor of English and former Chair of the English Department, died at his home in Menlo Park on August 14, 2007. The cause was complications from liver disease and cancer.
"Jay Fliegelman was a path-breaking scholar and leading figure in the field of American Studies. He chaired the Department of English and directed the program in American Studies. He was the author of two widely acclaimed studies of American culture in the eighteenth century: Prodigals and Pilgrims: The American Revolution Against Patriarchal Authority (1982) and Declaring Independence: Jefferson, Natural Language, & the Culture of Performance (1993). His most lasting legacy will be his mentoring of undergraduates and, especially, graduate students in their academic and research careers at and beyond Stanford.
"Mr. Chairman on behalf of a committee consisting of Professors George Dekker, Albert Gelpi and Arnold Rampersad, and myself, I am honored to lay before the Senate a resolution in memory of the late Jay Fliegelman, Professor of English."
(The full-length memorial resolution will be published in next week's Stanford Report.)
All present stood in silent tribute.
Chair Callan thanked Professors David Riggs, George Dekker, Albert Gelpi and Arnold Rampersad.
B. Steering Committee
Chair Callan presented the report of the Steering Committee.
The Steering Committee met in an Administrative Session today before the Senate meeting to vote on six items that did not need to come to the full Senate. A report of the actions taken in that Session will be attached to the minutes of this Senate meeting and will appear in the April 23rd Stanford Report.
The Steering Committee voted at its last meeting to ask Professor Persis Drell, Director of the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center (SLAC), to join the Senate as an ex officio member. The position of SLAC director is equivalent to that of the School deans, and has always been included among governance groups with the deans.
The Steering Committee is in the final stages of planning Spring Quarter agenda. Among the items scheduled to date are:
May 1. At this meeting we will hear a report from the Committee on Research regarding the research project announced last year for Stanford University to lead the Army High Performance Computing and Research Center consortium.
Vice Provost for Faculty Development and Diversity Pat Jones will present the annual reports on faculty, Status on Women Faculty: Recruitment and Retention and Gains and Losses.
The Executive Session that was planned for May 1 has been postponed until Fall Quarter.
May 15. In a brief Senate meeting prior to the Annual Academic Council meeting, Professor Hester Gelber, Chair of C-USP, will present the mandated ten-year review of the Area One General Education Requirements.
May 29. The Provost will present the Budget report.
June 12. The Dean of Admissions will present his report. Following the June 12th meeting, at 4:30 p.m., President Hennessy will host the annual reception at the Faculty Club for the members of the incoming and outgoing Senates, chairs of the Committees of the Academic Council, and members of the Board of Trustees.
The Academic Secretary reports that the membership positions on the Senate mandated "Committee to Examine Non-Academic Council Appointment Processes" is almost complete.
Following today's meeting the voting and ex officio members of the Senate will go into the Spring Quarter Executive Session.
That concluded the report of the Steering Committee. Chair Callan invited questions.
There were none.
C. Committee on Committees
Gordon Chang, chair of CoC, is away from campus but asked that his report be read by the Academic Secretary.
"The Committee on Committees met regularly in March and April to complete its work which included nominating members of the faculty to serve as Chairs of the seven Standing Committees of the Academic Council, to succeed those members whose terms have ended. It also nominated faculty to serves as members of--
The Committees of the Academic Council
The five University Committees and
The five committees of the Board of Trustees.
"At its meeting last Thursday, the CoC selected members to be asked to stand for election as members of the new Steering Committee of next year's 41st Senate and to stand for election as Chair of the Senate to succeed our Chair, Eamonn Callan. We are in the process of contacting these people. Those of you continuing as members of the 41st Senate will receive notice of the elections in about ten days, as soon as the candidate lists are filled.
"This concludes the report of the Chair of the CoC, Professor Chang."
With Chair Callan's permission, Professor Jamison complimented the members of this congenial, hardworking and effective committee, and especially its Chair, Professor Gordon Chang.
D. President's and Provost's Report
President Hennessy was away in China.
The Provost had no report. He did comment that the President was accompanied by a large contingent of deans on a fund raising mission in Hong Kong.
Chair Callan invited questions for the provost from the floor.
Professor Robert Simoni asked, "With all of them away, is this an opportunity for mischief?" [Laughter]
Provost Etchemendy replied to Professor Simoni, "You don't need an opportunity."
[Laughter]
E. Senate Forum
Chair Callan recognized Professor Hank Greely who had asked to speak. Professor Greely thanked the Chair and said:
"I just thought I would draw to the senate's attention two recent news stories relevant to our discussion last year of research funding that would be of interest to the Senate, and particularly to those senators who were members last year.
"The first of the stories came from [the journal] Science, February 29, 2008, reporting that Philip Morris had discontinued its external research funding program, which we discussed at some length last year. According to at least one of the people quoted in the story, they discontinued it because it had become a public relations fiasco, thanks in part to 'U.C. and other universities' fighting internal battles about accepting tobacco funding.
"The second story is more immediately relevant to the amended resolution or the amended policy on research that we adopted at the end of last year, calling on researchers to make their own best judgments about the ethical appropriateness of the research they did. The story comes from the New York Times, March 26, 2008, dealing with some research from the Weill Cornell Medical School. [It was about] a research article published in the New England Journal in 2006 dealing with a controversial use of spiral computer tomography scanning to detect early lung cancers.
"It turned out that the research was funded by an obscure foundation which was recently discovered to have been funded almost exclusively by a tobacco company, the Liggett Group. The story goes into some detail about the controversy and Cornell's knowledge, which continues to be unclear.
"I think [these stories] point out that for researchers taking seriously their obligations to be concerned about the ethics of their research, we may need to look behind the names of foundations, particularly obscure foundations, to determine where the funding is actually coming from."
Professor Greely concluded by stating that he would be glad to make available hard copies of these stories to any Senator by mail or email. Chair Callan thanked Professor Greely.
V. Other ReportsA/ Report from the Undergraduate Deputy Chair (SenD#6083)
Chair Callan introduced the next two speakers by noting that last year the Senate invited undergraduate and graduate student representatives to give a report to the Senate. He was pleased that representatives had accepted his invitation to present their reports again this year.
He introduced Mr. Eugene Nho, Undergraduate Deputy Chair, and member of last year's ASSU Senate.
Mr. Nho thanked Chair Callan, and with the aid of slides, began his presentation. Copies of the slides had been distributed to all those present.
"I will be presenting two issues that are very important to the undergraduates at Stanford…I want to emphasize that I come here with problems rather than solutions, to inform you about problems we are facing and how we are approaching those problems rather than [presenting]…solutions that have already been devised. We are open to any kind of inputs, discussions, or criticisms you might have…
"I am going to present two issues--course readers…and late-night study spaces on campus.
Course Readers
"Course readers are too expensive for a lot of students. By 'course readers', I mean the collection of journal articles and excerpts from books that are printed as in-class reading materials. Right now, 150 out of 1,000 classes offered each quarter use course readers. An average price [for a course reader] is about $60 to $85. This…might seem very insignificant. However, once you take into account the fact that many students take more than one class that uses course readers per quarter, and that there are three quarters in each year, it's not a negligible [expense] for a lot of students on this campus.
"Why is this so expensive? Well, first of all…each student has to pay a copyright fee for each article in course readers…Stanford libraries already have a license for a lot of journal articles that are used for class…Essentially, students are paying copyright fees that have already been paid by Stanford libraries when they purchase course readers.
"Second, markups: The Stanford Bookstore is driving up costs because its prices are not as competitively priced as other off-campus printing shops.
"What can be done?
"The ASSU believes that the faculty's help is very critical in improving the situation. If professors could upload journal articles that are available through Stanford libraries to coursework rather than printing them on course readers, it's going to…save a lot of money for Stanford students. And second, using more competitively priced printing shops will help drive the price down as well.
"On the other [hand]…making uploading as easy as possible for the faculty is very important as well. We are aware of the time issue for a lot of professors, and…that sometimes performing complicated tasks presents technical…challenges. So the ASSU has been working with Academic Computing to make uploading and coursework as easy as possible.
Michael Keller, University Librarian, interjected, "Eugene, could I interrupt for just a second. I want to make sure we cover one of these issues very clearly. The first [point about] faculty's help is critical. PLEASE DON'T UPLOAD THE ARTICLES. WE'LL GET SUED. Rather, upload the citation for the articles as a hot link to the article. [This is] much easier to do [and will not get] us in trouble with the copyright owners."
Mr. Nho acknowledged and endorsed Librarian Keller's comments.
Late Night Study Spaces
Mr. Nho turned to his second point.
"The basic problem is that there is a severe lack of past-midnight study spaces on campus. Right now, the only spaces available are the first floor in Meyer Library, Tresidder Union LAIR, Old Union, and dorm rooms. In a survey [to which] almost a quarter of undergraduate students responded, an overwhelming number, almost 85% of the students, said they are unsatisfied or very unsatisfied with the current status."
Mr. Nho referred to a series of slides of a poll he had arranged to be taken:
1. "During the academic year, how often do you study past midnight?" 1,238 (84.7% of the those responding) answered "Several times a week or more".
2. "How satisfied are you with the current late-night (after midnight) study spaces available on campus?" 487 (33.4%) answered "Very unsatisfied" and 730 (50%) answered "Unsatisfied".
3. "Do you think Meyer is an adequate study space conducive to working effectively?" 1,243 (85.1%) answered "No".
4. "If Green Library were open later than midnight, how likely would you be to study in Green after midnight?" 623 (42.8%) answered "Likely" and 621 (42.7%) answered "Very".
5. "Realistically, how late would you regularly (once a month or more) use Green after midnight (if it were open)?" 687 (47.7%) answered "Until 2 am" and 367 (25.5%) answered "Until 3 am."
"All of you have the survey results…but I just want to highlight this slide that [shows] there is a very high demand for late-night study spaces on campus--85% of the students say that they study past midnight several times a week or more. Of course, we are all Stanford students; we need to study. But there are really no places to study [past midnight] right now.
"I want to also point out that if Green Library were open until later, almost 85% of students said…they are likely or very likely to stay past midnight to study at Green Library.
"I want to point out that a quarter of the undergraduate population responded to this survey in 72 hours. I think it's saying something very strong about how important this issue is to undergraduate students.
"Among its peer institutions, Stanford is one of the few that do not open their main libraries for 24 hours or at least until 2:00 am.
"In summary, the students really need more and better late-night study spaces. In the survey that we conducted, the students wanted to Green Library [to remain] open until later, 2:00 or 3:00 a.m."
Chair Callan thanked Mr. Nho and opened the floor for questions.
Professor Al Camarillo commented that the study space problem had been exacerbated by the last ten years in residential education. "At one time, we had many study seminar rooms in the dormitories. They no longer exist or are very few."
Professor Tony Siegman called "the Senate's attention to an electronic newsletter that's been distributed recently by the Stanford Report. It's what I think is a model for that kind of thing. It's an e-mail with a multiplicity of items, typically 20 to 30. Each item is a terse but informative headline, a sentence or two that runs two or three lines [with] a hot link underneath it…that kind of format would be a way for faculty members to distribute the course reader in a single e-mail message to all of the class students with the links immediately available."
Professor Simoni directed a question at Mike Keller on behalf [of the students]. "Why can't Green Library stay open later?"
The University Librarian replied, "We do stay open later during Dead Week and Exam Week; we have gotten funding specifically to do that. [As for other times] we have several issues. One is a budget issue--where to spend money and how to spend money. The second matter is a slightly more complex one--getting staff. Whereas we can sustain with our existing staff later hours at the end of quarters, getting staff--both union staff and non-union staff--to help keep the libraries, especially Green, open a few more hours, or even eight more hours, is something of a stretch. It's difficult to do. It's simply finding people who are willing.
"At the same time, despite these statistics [shown by Mr. Nho], when we close Green at midnight, we don't [observe] hundreds of people streaming out of the building; [it's rather more like] 100 streaming out of the building. And [while] all those spaces in the Tresidder… and Meyer are clearly not…optimal, they are, nevertheless, not completely occupied…until those last few weeks of the quarter."
"I very much appreciate Al's (Camarillo) remark about the closing of study space in the dorms. I think that has had a deleterious effect on the possibilities. But I wonder whether it might be possible for us to think of other spaces than Green that don't require the same sort of staffing that we must have for Green because of what's in there and because of the complexity of the offerings.
"I'm very sympathetic…to this issue. I'd love for us to be open 24 hours a day. But those two issues--budget and staffing--are key issues. We're doing our very best with our present set of responsibilities and assets to be more open at the end of quarter.
"But I think Eugene [Nho] and those who responded to the survey have presented us with yet some more information that I need to try to make use of, perhaps at the budget committee."
Mr. Nho commented, "I do have a response to the suggestion that there might be some spaces that could be opened other than in Green Library…we did have a comments section in the survey…I [showed] some of the quotes students wrote. First of all, they repeatedly mentioned that Meyer is too noisy…and it is way too open; people could hear [students] turning pages on the other side of the room. Many of the available spaces other than Green Library are similar to Meyer in that respect. Whether it's seminar rooms or classrooms, they are all open spaces, [unlike]…Green Library, where there are a lot of isolated areas where students can focus…it has a lot of isolated places, cubicles, [that] students really seem to love."
Chair Callan: "Thank you very much, Eugene, for a very informative presentation. And I think you've given us a lot to talk about."
B. Report from the Graduate Student Council (SenD#XXXX)
The President of the Graduate Student Council, Adam Beberg, began his presentation. A handout of his slides was distributed to all present.
"I'll just preface my comments to say that the GSC has a really good relationship with the administration of Stanford. When we have little problems, we send an e-mail, and the problem goes away. When we have medium problems, we have a meeting, and the problem goes away. When we have big problems that none of the PhD's at Stanford can solve, I get [to show] these slides once a year. These are the three big problems that nobody has really solid, good solutions to or we would have fixed them already.
Graduate Student Housing
"The first issue that graduates have is housing, specifically, more low-cost housing.
Crothers moving to undergrads = 245 beds lost, with Engineering and Law priority housing lost as well.
Off-campus subsidized housing phase-out.
Super-Meg-Ultra luxury Munger coming in. 200x with 600 beds for the visiting executive. Nobody on stipend will be able to afford it--so this does not count.
Summary = ouch.
"Crothers is moving to undergraduate housing when Munger does come on line, so we're losing about 245 beds that are cheap. Off-campus subsidized housing is being phased out along the same process because of Munger. And we're getting some super ultra luxury housing, about 600 beds, when Munger comes on line. We're not exactly sure what it will cost yet, but we know it probably won't be affordable to those on stipends.
"The summary here is—this [the situation] isn't great. They are moving to take some of the current units, and turn them into one bedroom or two bedroom units, which will be excellent, and the cost of those will be comparable to Munger. But those are not actually new beds.
"So…this is an ongoing issue that's going to probably last until the earth cools."
Graduate Student Cost of Living
"Graduate [student] cost of living is a little more urgent, at least on people's minds. People talk about this on campus all the time, and I don't even have to bring it up.
Financial Aid has [sic] an average of $2,735/month* as the cost of living at Stanford in February 2008, even ignoring some expenses - about $300.
This requires $3,078/month in pre-tax income—yes, we pay taxes too.
Provost set the minimum salary + 50% health stipend to $2,443/month ($6,593/3 + ca. 125).
Grad students in some departments are telling prospecttives not to come to Stanford because of the cost of living.
*Grad Guide for New Students, Single, 50% on/off campus, includes Cardinal Care and travel, NO inflation.
"Financial aid did projections of the cost of living here. We all kind of agree, on the average, it's about $2700 a month to live at Stanford if you're single and some other caveats. We pay taxes and things. So it's actually close to $3100 a month you would have to make to be at that point. And the minimum university salary, including the health stipend and the health cost is also included above, is about $2450. So there's about a $600 gap per month between the cost of living and…the minimum salary, which is probably more of a problem in the Humanities & Sciences. Engineering has higher minimums, in general. And some departments are actually doing very well.
"But as a minimum, there's a pretty big gap here. Some students I know are telling prospective students not to come here; if they have kids and they're on this minimum stipend, go somewhere else. That's not what we want happening at Stanford.
"Obviously, we can't just raise [the minimum stipend], because then you have to bring in more grant money. So this is one [that] all of those Ph.D.s in the room can't figure out. But it is a problem and it is on people's minds around Stanford right now.
Graduate Health Care.
No health insurance for Stanford children and spouses - unique among top research schools. It was costing a fortune due to the health insurance "death spiral".
This is a huge expense, if you can get it. International issues, dropping issues, etc.
Kids are mostly on the county program.
And the school and daycare situation…
Get everyone back into the pool!
"As you may know, we lost our spouse and dependent health insurance a couple of years ago. We got into…what they call the "health care death spiral" [meaning] healthy people opt out, the cost went up, more healthy people opted out, and cost went up some more. It was going to be $700 or $800 a month. We just said—forget it, this isn't going to work.
"But this is a huge expense for anyone at Stanford with a family. I'm currently in the process of trying to get my wife and child health insurance. My daughter is in this three-month waiting period to get on the county's wonderful plan—which is actually very good. Many of the doctors here at Stanford are on the Healthy Families program. But this is still a huge expense for families at Stanford.
"You all are probably aware of the school and health care, the daycare situation. I heard that the waiting list for the new childcare center is already [up to] 800, which is a little shocking. We need to find a solution to this. But, fundamentally, we need everybody back into the same insurance pool.
"Those are the big three issues that we have that are complicated and nasty and we couldn't fix with a meeting."
Chair Callan thanked Mr. Beberg and opened the floor for questions.
Professor Simoni commented, "Adam, I hope your colleagues appreciate the job you're doing. It's really terrific. And these are, I think, not insoluble problems, but they're certainly tough ones.
"I want to say a word about the cost of living and the stipend level. I don't know a faculty member at Stanford who would not like to increase the stipend for graduate students."
Mr. Beberg interjected, "And we know that."
Professor Simoni continued, "The offsetting issue, of course, is, that the more we pay each student, the fewer students we [can support]. So each year, we [faculty in the department] sit down and try to optimize as best we can, including market forces, which we're all subject to—to try to keep our yield high, keep our cohort size high and yet sustain a sort of level of support [that is sufficient]. By way of example…my department has about 100 graduate students. We raised the stipend this year $500, which is a pittance, to be sure, but that's $50,000 [in total]. That means we will have one less student entering next year. [$50,000] is roughly what it costs to support a student.
"So I think that the sympathy is enormous. I suspect our decision-making was just about right, because I don't think we're losing students to other higher-paying or cost of living places. But we're right on the edge--no question.
"One other thing…you have an enormously good advocate in [Vice Provost for Graduate Education] Patti Gumport. She has already started a campaign to try [to raise] the stipend level broadly. She has made some progress. It was not without pain for her, however, because as soon as [the rise in stipend] was announced, she heard from one department that shall be nameless, 'How do you expect us to pay for this?' They were faced, I'm told, by reducing their cohort size for next year. That's precisely the balance we have to face."
Mr. Beberg replied, "We are aware of that balance. I was actually in the meetings with Patti about that…We do know that there's a give-and-take here…We're not banging the table…and picketing like they would at Berkeley, or anything. [Laughter]
"We do understand both sides of the issue very well. We understand that we can't just raise pay out of magical pixie dust. We understand that we have really strong advocates all over this university. But it is—it has become an issue.
"I would point out that in 2004, this slide would have looked great. [The implication is that] this problem has developed very quickly over the last four years. Inflation has just gone crazy. So this is recent and getting worse quickly."
Professor Simoni added a coda: "Just a historical note. It is not as nearly as bad as it was during the dot-com boom, where there were no places to rent and if you could find one, the prices were prohibitive."
Dean of the School of Education, Deborah Stipek, asked, "I'm just curious. I know that affordable daycare is very tight. But I'm not aware of the problems with [the public schools]. The Palo Alto system has a very good reputation."
Mr. Beberg agreed, "We have excellent schools. It was more the preschools--for the five and under—that are very hard to get into. Almost all the graduate students' children are five and under, for obvious reasons. [The problems for us] are the preschools and full-time daycare."
Professor Hank Greely commended Mr. Beberg on his presentation. "I remember your presentation from last year, where you talked about graduate health care. That prompted some discussion among senators and others. Ira Friedman [Vice Provost for Student Affairs and Director, Vaden Health Center] commissioned a report, Student Mental Health and Well Being. [The task force] is looking at how we could try to make health care affordable. A few weeks ago, he asked me and Alain Enthoven [Eccles Professor of Public & Private Management, Emeritus, Graduate School of Business], one of the country's leading health policy expert, to come in and listen to the presentation and try to figure out how to go forward. It was very depressing. Not only cannot PhD's figure out a solution to this, but MD's, JD's, and others are stumped, [too]. We might be able to get by bringing all graduate students who are currently in health care into a pool that covers dependent coverage for crummy catastrophic coverage that only paid in the worst possible cases [but] we'd probably have to raise everybody's rates by 15%. And there was concern that that's not something the rest of the graduate student body would support. So it's a really hard problem."
Mr. Beberg concurred, "It's a hard sell."
Chair Callan concluded the discussion, "Adam, thank you very much for that engrossing presentation."
C. Committee on Graduate Studies: recommendation for policy regarding approval of joint degree programs.(SenD#6070)
Chair Callan welcomed Professor Phil Lavori, Chair of the Committee on Graduate Studies (C-GS), to outline the proposed new process. This would be followed by an open discussion and a vote on the recommendation.
Chair Callan noted that members of C-GS were invited to hear this report, and some are in attendance today. Vice Provost for Graduate Education Patti Gumport is in attendance as well.
Professor Philip Lavori thanked the Chair and began his presentation,
"Briefly, in the course of reviewing many joint degree programs, we noticed some statistical irregularities in our discussion and we decided to take advantage of that by isolating a large but nearly homogeneous group of joint degree programs that appears to be reasonable to approve on an administrative basis--studies that fit that template. These were programs in which there were a limited number of degrees, included credits that were double-counted, and had a couple of other [similar] characteristics. Essentially, the [group consisted of] PhD/masters, JD/masters or MD/masters combinations. [By treating these programs as one group] that would leave us time to focus more deeply on the more problematic and questionable degree combinations.
"With the great help of a subcommittee and especially the drive of student members on our committee, we have come up with a recommendation for a group of studies that could be approved administratively by the schools, the cognizant programs, going forward. We also have included some draft documents or working documents that reflect our thinking about the sorts of documentation that should come forward for new programs. [Also included] are some changes in the language in the bulletin and a little schematic diagram of the template, which is the last item.
"We recommend your approval of this proposal."
Chair Callan thanked Professor Lavori and invited Vice Provost for Graduate Education Gumport to comment.
Vice Provost Gumport responded, "They [members of C-GS] worked really hard on this, especially the student members. Their energy…drove it forward and helped refine it in a way that the committee believes makes really good sense. And I do, too. I want to thank Professor Lavori for his leadership on this…it was very complex and not something that many faculty like to roll up their sleeves and dive into."
Chair Callan opened the floor for questions and comments. There were none. He therefore called for a vote, the recommendation having been moved and seconded by the Committee on Graduate Studies.
Upon recommendation of the Committee on Graduate Studies, the Senate approves joint degree programs consisting of the JD/MS, the JD/MA, the JD/MPP, and the PhD/MPP degree programs, and which allow up to 45 units to be double-counted toward residency requirements, upon approval by the cognizant departments or programs and schools. These programs will not require approval by Committee on Graduate Studies or the Faculty Senate.
The motion passed by unanimous voice vote.
Chair Callan thanked Professor Lavori and the C-GS for the hard work that led to this action.
VI. Unfinished BusinessNone.
VII. AdjournmentThe motion to adjourn was moved, seconded and approved. The Senate adjourned at 4:00 PM. The Senate then went into Executive Session.
Respectfully submitted, Rex L. Jamison, M.D. Academic Secretary to the University
