9/20 Executive Committee meeting notes

Notes taken by Joanna Tice.
John McMahon was also in attendance.
Executive Committee Meeting Notes 9/20/13:
EO Report:
CUNY First is coming to the GC
– This may affect purchasing of things like wine and cheese in that it will be a bigger deal (more annoying) for faculty to sign off on these purchases.
– CUNY First will also eventually be used for faculty recruiting
– So far, just as on the campuses, everyone is complaining about CUNY First
Faculty Membership Report:
– Discussion of Prof. Petchesky’s emeritus status will occur between this meeting and the beginning of 2014.
– A question was raised by John Wallach as to what responsibilities and privileges come with that status
– Prof. Rollins explained that there are no responsibilities, but there are continued privileges (teaching classes, attending events, attending committee meetings if they so choose, library card, etc)
Funding:
– The EO is pleased that the department is now providing some sort of funding for all POLSC students and that they actually have extra UF money to spare (~ $20,000).
– That money will go to a Summer 2014 Pre-Dissertation Travel Award.
– These applications will be due by October 14th and decisions will be announced by the end of October.
– Margaret sent out an email last week regarding how to apply.
Exams:
– 65% pass rate overall (a 13 to 7 split)
– Pass rate for August Exams by subfield:
– American: 66%
– Comparative: 66%
– IR: 62%
– Theory: 50%
– Public Policy: 100%
-According to the EO, no appeals will be necessary this semester, but if anyone is interested, the sequence for appeals is provided by the GC bylaws as follows:
1) EO
2) Executive Committee
3) Provost’s Office
– The bylaws require only 2 readers on each exam committee. If there is a split, the EO will ask a 3rd to step in.
– The Committee desires to change the perception that the exams are a weeding out mechanism by explaining that it is very difficult for the EO or the Executive committee to actually remove a student based on failure of an exam. There are very few historical examples of such attempts, and it is next to impossible.
– However, the EO encouraged the faculty to be faster and more complete in producing their comments, as they comments are “of the utmost importance” in processing the exam results. This has been an ongoing issue for at least the last 4 years (since Joanna has been in the program) and is one that the students should continue to push back on in the future. Hold your exam committees and the EO responsible when results are not prompt. There is too much at stake, especially for students who need to pass on to the next level for reduced tuition.
– He claims he has only terminated one student in his tenure and it was “the ethical thing to do” in the circumstance.
– SatProgs and failed exams do not go on a permanent record in the sense that they do not show up on your transcript that you might send to an employer, but there will be a note of it in your file. (The only people who have access to those files are the current EO, Margaret, and the student owner of the file.)
Update to 2008 Program Self-Study:
– EO is in the process of writing an evaluation of the work the program has done since the 2008 self-study
Admissions:
– Last year was the first year of a 3-year cycle of reducing class size (to support new GC fellowship), but POLSC is already basically at the level we need to be at.
Readmission requests:
– Policy: students attempting to re-enter to write their dissertation should re-take their first exam if they are out for more than a decade.
-But because we are a state school, everything can be appealed
– We need to devise mechanisms/policies to prevent these absurd readmissions (for example, a request by someone from the 1990’s who FAILED 5 out of 7 of there classes and is now asking for readmission)
-A new policy is being drafted to deal with cases a certain number of years out
– Such a policy exists in the admissions committee, but it is not in handbook or bylaws
– The EO will show this new policy to the committee at the next meeting
– “Readmission suppresses the quality of our program”
Department Website student page (brought up by student reps):
Please see John McMahon’s email yesterday for more info addressing the implementation of student website content.
Subfield Pages: Need some editing (brought up by student reps):
Margaret will send an email to current subfield chairs to ask for renewal/possible resubmission of information on subfield pages
– Students and faculty are asked to email Margaret if you notice an error on the site (as it is controlled by the GC, things sometimes go haywire without anyone in POLSC touching anything.
Subfield Chairs have also been asked to review their exam reading lists and there was discussion of whether or not to establish a rule about how often these lists are updated.
Marshall Berman Memorial Student Award (brought up by student reps):
-EO response: there is concern (in regards to a memorial service and/or award) of eclipsing or stepping on the toes of people at City College
– We obviously want to go forward with both a memorial service and an award, but that is the political context that needs to be worked out.
– Given how recent Marshall’s passing was, the seemingly sensitive politics around it with City College, and the general commitment to the topic from both students and faculty, it is something to address once more time has passed
Open Defenses (raised by student reps):
For various reasons, faculty do not think that open defenses are a good idea, instead they propose a two-pronged approach.
1) a required job talk (to practice for job market) could be a public event
2) Non-public defense (but student is allowed to bring a small number of guests (close family and friends).