Dear
Prof. Mason & Members of the Faculty Senate Graduate Studies Committee:
Below please find our
responses to the questions and recommendations that
were transmitted to me and Jeffrey Raffel
by the Faculty Senate Graduate Studies Committee regarding proposed changes to
the Ph.D. Program in Urban Affairs and Public Policy. Several supporting
documents are also attached to this message.
1) The course numbered 866
listed on your academic approval form needs to be changed to 862 to match with
your new course proposal on the course inventory list. Likewise, 867 needs
to be changed to 861.
Response: Changes made as requested.
2) The committee recommends that
your graduate program admission requirements in your policy document be moved
ahead of the degree requirements.
Response: Changes made as requested
3) Is there an expected time
factor in completing the teaching or research experience? Is this expected before the student is
admitted as a doctoral candidate? In
most doctoral programs, requirements of this nature have to be completed before
admission to candidacy. The committee
recommends that you be explicit about your expectation or allowance on this
matter.
Response: Our preference is to require
the student to satisfy the teaching/research requirement before
the degree is conferred, and to not have the satisfaction of this
requirement be a condition for entry into candidacy for the
degree. Before entry into candidacy, students are very busy doing course
work, preparing for and taking their qualifying exams, and developing the
dissertation proposal. This means that students are often is a better
position time-wise and knowledge-wise to teach and do publishable quality
research during the period when they are actually writing their
dissertations. We know from experience that opportunities for
teaching and research occur at different times during a given student's period of study, and we want to
give the student the flexibility needed to exploit these opportunities whenever
they happen to come. For these reasons we think it's better to afford the
student the flexibility of fulfilling the teaching/research requirement at
anytime during their matriculation through the program.
4) On the academic approval form, you state that your changes include "higher
required competency and coursework in research design and methodology,
quantitative and qualitative methods," but it is not clear to the
committee how this is being achieved from what it was before to that being
proposed. This may be in your proposal,
but we were not able to pick it out. It
is helpful to specify that which is old contrasted with that which is new.
Response: What is new is that admitted students
will be expected to have competency in research design/methods at the level of
"UAPP 800 - Research Methods and Data Analysis." In addition,
students must take 6 more credits in advanced research design,
qualitative or quantitative methods. Previously, students had to take UAPP 800
as part of their curriculum and just three additional credits in advanced
statistical methods (usually UAPP 816). This new proposed approach frees up
time in the students' schedules for more advanced courses, requires an
additional three credits in advanced research design and methods, and allows
students and their academic advisors to decide what advanced courses are most
appropriate given the interests of the student.
5) In your proposal, you refer
to an Academic Program Review report. We
would like to see the portion of the report that addresses your graduate
programs. In a response back to us, we
would like you to identify the points raised in the review that are being
addressed and revised in your proposal.
Response: Please see the two
attached documents: 1) the actual UAPP Academic Program Review Report
issued in September 2003, and 2) a document entitled "Ph.D.
Program Issues in the UAPP Academic Program Review Report." This second
document contains the UAPP Program faculty's December 2003 responses to each
issue in the Report that pertains to the Ph.D. Program, and an update of
actions taken by the School and UAPP faculty relevant to each issue.
Prof. Raffel
and I look forward to attending your committee's meeting on Feb 25 at
Sincerely,
Steven W. Peuquet,
Ph.D.
Director, Urban Affairs & Public Policy Program
School of Urban Affairs & Public Policy
302.831.1689
From: Charles Mason [mailto:mason@UDel.Edu]
Sent:
To: Steven Peuquet; Jeffrey Raffel
Cc: Mary Martin
Subject: Revision of Ph.D. Program in Urban Affairs and Public Policy
Dear Professors Peuquet and Raffel:
Your proposal on revision of the existing Ph.D. program with
a major in Urban Affairs and Public Policy was reviewed by the Faculty Senate
Graduate Studies Committee and the committee has the following observations,
questions, and recommendations:
1) The course numbered 866 listed on your academic approval
form needs to be changed to 862 to match with your new course proposal on the
course inventory list. Likewise, 867 needs to be changed to 861.
2) The committee recommends that your graduate program
admission requirements in your policy document be moved ahead of the degree
requirements.
3) Is there an expected time factor in completing the
teaching or research experience? Is this
expected before the student is admitted as a doctoral candidate? In most doctoral programs, requirements of
this nature have to be completed before admission to candidacy. The committee recommends that you be explicit
about your expectation or allowance on this matter.
4) On the academic approval form, you state that your
changes include "higher required competency and coursework in research
design and methodology, quantitative and qualitative methods," but it is
not clear to the committee how this is being achieved from what it was before
to that being proposed. This may be in
your proposal, but we were not able to pick it out. It is helpful to specify that which is old
contrasted with that which is new.
5) In your proposal, you refer to an Academic Program Review
report. We would like to see the portion
of the report that addresses your graduate programs. In a response back to us, we would like you
to identify the points raised in the review that are being addressed and
revised in your proposal.
Please prepare a written response on the points stated
above. If the changes or suggestions
seem to be out of order, please specify why in your response. After completing these, send an electronic
file or files of your response and any supporting documentation as attached
files accompanying an e-mail to me with a copy to Mary Martin. In that regard, if you have something only
available in paper copy (which is likely the case with the APR report), we
would prefer it scanned into a PDF document, or if you don't have this
available, let me know and I will facilitate this. The Faculty Senate is trying to do everything
electronic. I will distribute your response
to the members of the Graduate Studies Committee prior to a future committee
meeting at which time we will revisit your program proposal. At this meeting, we would like to have
someone from your program present to speak on behalf of the proposal and answer
any further questions from the committee.
Our next meeting is scheduled for February 11 at
Please let me know if there is anything I can do to clarify
any of this.
Thank you,
Chuck Mason
Charles E.
Mason, Professor
Faculty Senate Graduate Studies Committee Chair
Dept. Entomology and
Phone: 302 831-8888, Fax 831-8889