Graduate Studies
Graduate Council Minutes - May 3, 2021 - Special Meeting
3:00 p.m., Virtual
Members Present: C. Anderson, C. Blackinton, A. Hyde, B. Locke (Chair), J. McQuillan (Vice Chair), T. Roberts
Members Absent: S. Ghimire, J. Hammersley
Guests Present: D. Schmidt, S. Martinelli-Fernandez, K. Kapale, J. Robinett, S. House, R. Polubinsky, M. Allison, T. Killian, T. Adkins-Covert, M. Bezold, H. Nikels, E. Sheffield, K. Daytner, D. Barr
Ex-officio Present: M. Mossman
Others Present: A. Schulz
Motion: To reorder the agenda and review the requests from Theatre first. (Roberts/McQuillan)
MOTION CARRIED: 5 YES – 0 NO – 1 AB
I. GRADUATE CURRICULUM
A. Theatre and Dance
1. Request for a new graduate (500 or 600-level) course
Motion: To consider all new graduate course requests together. (McQuillan/Anderson)
MOTION CARRIED: 5 YES – 0 NO – 1 AB
a. THEA 520, Advance Stagecraft for the Theatre, 3 s.h.
b. THEA 521, Automation for the Theatre, 3 s.h.
c. THEA 522, Metal Working for the Theatre, 3 s.h.
d. THEA 523, Introduction to Entertainment and Theatrical Rigging, 3 s.h.
e. THEA 554, Graduate Theatrical Technical Direction, 3 s.h.
Mr. House, Mr. Schmidt, and Ms. Killian were in attendance. Ms. Killian explained that the course titles were changed to add “theatre” or “theatrical” to all of the courses. A letter of support from Engineering Technology was also provided to Council members.
Motion: To approve the request. (McQuillan/Anderson)
MOTION CARRIED: 6 YES – 0 NO – 0 AB
2. Request to change graduate program requirements
a. Master of Fine Arts in Theatre – Technical Direction concentration
Mr. Schmidt explained that this specific area in Theatre has high demand and high turnover in the industry. The role of people with this skill set is to work with scenic designers to create their vision on the stage. This requires specific tools and mechanics. Mr. House added that he is the main recruiter for design and is seeing more students seeking this specific area of theater.
Motion: To approve the request. (Blackinton/Hyde)
MOTION CARRIED: 6 YES – 0 NO – 0 AB
II. OLD BUSINESS
A. Graduate Student Cost Guarantee Resolution draft
Dr. Locke provided a brief overview of the work done by Council members over the last two months in regards to the cost guarantee and the stance they are taking to recommend retention of the guarantee. Dr. Mossman added more background information on the Provost’s stance on the cost guarantee including a few different outcomes for the University depending on how the Board of Trustees proceeds. The outcomes could be 1) a decrease in assistantships; 2) an increase in tuition; or 3) eliminate the cost guarantee. He added that no other public graduate school in Illinois offers the cost guarantee and that graduate students are drawn to the accessibility and the specific programs when making their decisions.
Dr. Locke stated that he feels the logic is tricky because it pits tuition increases against the cost guarantee and he would rather see a counter proposal with a rotating two-year increase in tuition so students know their total program cost upfront. Dr. McQuillan added that he is not in favor of losing any assistantship positions but that the cost guarantee is a nice marketing tool and could be a tipping point for a prospective student. He is thinking long term and is also taking into consideration future alumni donations. Dr. McQuillan would be in favor of a two-year guarantee so that when an increase needs to happen, it can be a bigger increase for incoming students and not small yearly increases on current students. Dr. Hyde noted that her area has a lot of programs without assistantships so the decrease in assistantships is not relevant to their students. She doesn’t want to see tuition go up drastically but doesn’t think that removing the cost guarantee will solve the financial issues either.
Dr. Locke noted that the Council is missing important data that would help make the decision easier. There is no guarantee that any additional tuition money would go towards new assistantships or even anything graduate school related. He strongly feels that a two-year basis for tuition increase is appropriate. Dr. Roberts polled the graduate coordinators within the College of Arts and Sciences with all adamant regarding retention of assistantship positions but would be in favor of a two-year cost guarantee instead of the current four-year guarantee. Dr. Mossman added that the budget is fluid and a lot of it depends on enrollment. The numbers are uncertain because of the pandemic and our international student population not knowing if they can enter the United States or not. Dr. Nikels stated that she oversees two graduate programs with one relying heavily on assistantships but the other having a minimal amount so she feels that she is stuck in the middle of both sides.
Ms. Blackinton questioned if there have been tuition increases recently. Dr. Mossman responded that yes, the tuition has increased for graduate students. Dr. McQuillan added that international students struggle to make it financially and is worried that an extra increase during their second year would be an unnecessary stress for them. Dr. Bezold stated that nearly all of their students in the program are international and they have lost many students because they cannot afford to attend. She knows of students in the program that skip eating in order to pay tuition. She is in support of retaining the cost guarantee. Dr. Kapale added similar concerns as Dr. Bezold and Dr. McQuillan with international students. He stated that we need to have truth in advertising to help these students prepare for life in the United States and knowing their full tuition expectation is a huge part of that. Dr. Polubinsky explained that the retention aspect is crucial as well and not all the focus should be on recruitment. The University needs to make good on what is promised and advertised to the students when they first enroll. Tuition transparency is critical and would be the biggest factor in retaining graduate students.
Dr. Locke turned the focus back to the draft of the resolution that some Council members had put together. He shared the document with all on the zoom meeting. Discussion was held regarding inclusion of graduate assistantship language. Dr. Hyde noted that she added language to address the assistantship issue as the last item. Dr. McQuillan agreed that it should come at the end of the resolution so that it did not take away from the main purpose of it. Discussion was held over each line of the resolution. Council members decided on the addition of retention and assistantship information. Discussion was held over the length of the resolution and if supporting pages should be included. Dr. McQuillan thought the supporting documents were important but the actual resolution should be kept at one page.
Motion: To approve the one page resolution as written and submit to the Board of Trustees for consideration. (Roberts/McQuillan)
MOTION CARRIED: 5 YES – 0 NO – 1 AB
Meeting adjourned: 4:50 p.m.
Connect with us: