DEGREE PROGRAMS & REVIEW PROCEDURES 4/3/70 Agreed that the chair and others from the initiating department should be invited when GC is evaluating a graduate degree program. 5/29/70 Dean Corbin distributed his paper, "The Future of Graduate Programs at CSU". 6/24/70 P. Baker to review Dean Corbin's paper, together with others available from other Ohio universities, and present suggestions and recommendations for GC's consideration. 1/29/71 Suggested establishing formal criteria for use by consultant's to ensure quality evaluations during future program proposal reviews. 7/25/72 Agreed that options within existing programs, not requiring changes in the original structure of the program as approved by OBOR, would not require to come before GC. Such optional paths within an exisiting program should be documented in a short statement. 10/5/72 Procedures for examining present graduate programs discussed. Agreed that graduate program proposals that are certain to be rejected should not even be submitted to the Dean's Advisory Committee. 10/19/72 Decided that programs in at least their fourth year of existence will be evaluated, and that all programs will be evaluated every five years for practicality and quality. Agreed that the departments are too autonomous, and that some semblance of central control is needed. 12/7/72 GC must from now on meet with consultants brought in for any proposed graduate programs. 10/8/75 In response to a UCC request that GC consider whether they should review all new graduate courses, GC decided that it was unnecessary to perform this function, feeling that collegiate chairs and deans must exercise their responsibility in this area. 11/12/75 Agreed on the need for periodic review of graduate programs. 1/14/76 Agreed that a 2-member subcomittee from GC would be advisable to work with new program proposers. 2/11/76 Internal program review procedures discussed. Subcommittee formed to develop a policy statement and criteria to review existing programs. 6/9/76 Discussed professional or "tagged' degrees versus the academic degree program oriented toward continued study at the doctoral level. 4/20/77 Program Review Comm. report leading to a clarification of purpose. 5/11/77 Program Review Comm. proposed revised and approved. 1/18/78 Requested the Dean to approach the President or Vice President to obtain funds for advertising graduate programs. 2/8/78 Dean informed that he has submitted a written request to the Vice President for additional funds for advertising graduate programs. 1/14/81 Agreed on the need to discuss supporting services such as computer services and the library in developing new programs. 1/21/81 Dean assured GC that any proposal requiring support from services such as computer services or the library would be brought before the attention of the support unit prior to the proposal leaving GC. 2/11/81 Graduate program review discussed. Check-off system for graduate courses matter referred to GASC. 3/11/81 Withdrew proposal for a graduate course check-off system. Deans to discuss a means whereby each college will be responsible for checking new courses and transmitting the information to Graduate Studies. 4/8/81 Dean to inquire the of the Provost and FC concerning GC's role in relation to the UCRC and the review of graduate programs. 10/13/82 CSU guidelines for jointly sponsored programs made available. 5/11/83 All new program proposals to require a statement from the Library Director and Computer Center Director, if applicable, before submission to GC. 1/20/87 Provost Flower discussed the Cooperative Agreement on Doctoral Programming between CSU, Akron, Kent, and Youngstown Universities. 6/9/87 Task Force created to write guidelines for reviewing new graduate courses. Asst. Dean Anderson outlined plans for program review. 11/4/87 Proposed graduate course review procedure, written by an GF ad hoc comm., which would require the proposing units to submit documentation of course offerings to the Graduate Dean for review discussion. 12/7/87 Program Assessment recommendations, with modifications approved. 1/12/88 Review process to begin with departments which have potential for doctoral programs, or where positive reviews will likely result. Review process 5-year calendar distributed. 2/9/88 Revised 5-year program assessment calendar distributed. 4/5/88 Final 5-year program assessment calendar distributed. 4/16/91 Graduate Council to act as an appeal body for any graduate unit wishing to challenge either the process or the results of the review. 6/11-13/91 Approved that if any new resources are needed by a program, GC will approve the program only if a written guarantee is provided by the appropriate administrators that the resources will be appropriated. 10/15/91 Closure sought on programs that have completed the previous Graduate Program Review process; summary statement for each program to be written by the Grad. College staff. Materials that had been submitted for other programs under previous review system, which had not progressed as far under the previous review system, will be blended with required materials under the new strategic review process. 5/30/95 GC to work with departments to prepare executive summaries for OBOR. Consensus that CSU should not volunteer to eliminate any doctoral programs. 6/4/96 Reviewed preliminary draft of Proposed CSU Standards of Viability for Master's Degree Programs. 3/19/02 Council proposed an ad hoc committee to look at the program review process after having only the Arts and Sciences College submit program review documents. 11/22/04 Dean Rosentraub reviewed the doctoral program with Chung Ang University in Souel Korea. 6/11/07 Approved guidelines for approving accelerated 4+1 programs.