Summary of the Graduate Affairs Committee meeting Oct 2, 2013, 1-3pm

Present: Ken Jackson, Eyal de Lara, Aida Nematzadeh, Michael Brudno, Allan Jepson, Christina Christara (last half hour)

Regrets: Bogdan Simion, Stephen Cook (Chair).


ITEM 0.  Additional topics to be discussed at future GAC meetings:
- The lack of introductory grad courses scheduled for this winter term.
ACTION: Add this to the agenda of the next meeting.  What can be done for winter 2014 (probably not much since the teaching schedule is set)? And what can be done in future years?

ITEM 1 and 2.  New graduate course proposals both approved: Systems Thinking for Global Problems (sponsor Steve Easterbrook), Topics in Storage Systems (sponsor Bianca Schroeder).
ACTION: Grad Office contact instructors of this approval, submit new course proposals to SGS, add the new course number as an equivalent course number on this year's posted course schedule (both courses will be offered Winter 2014, but are currently listed as other topics courses), move the students enrolled to the new course numbers, note the exclusions of these new courses with previous topics courses held during specific terms.

ITEM 3. Specialized breadth requirements for students w/o a CS background (see agenda for more information).  [This was discussed before Christina's arrival.]

The five GAC members present were unanimous that we did not wish to give any individual student more specific breadth requirements (say, based on their previous background).  The five members present during this discussion felt that our existing bread requirements were sufficient.  It was mentioned that these breadth requirements are often enhanced by discussions about the student's professional development, between the student and his/her supervisor.  (Last year Faith raised the concern that such feedback could vary widely with the supervisor.)

It was left open whether a member of the GAC who wasn't present during this discussion wishes to pursue this proposal further.  In order to be useful during the graduate admission cycle this year, such a proposal would need to be approved and in place by early Jan, 2014. 

ACTION: Anyone who wishes to pursue this should contact Steve Cook, the chair of the GAC.

ITEM 4. Redefining the timeline for PhD checkpoints.    

There was general support for combining the first two checkpoints in a new qualifying oral, although the proposed timeline was strongly disagreed with and needs to be revised. 

Specific items in this proposal are addressed below: 

Re: Removing the MSc Paper presentation:

It was pointed out that graduate students should be expected to give seminars, and that the MSc Paper Presentation was the one formal opportunity to do that before the Departmental defense.  

A second problem is that SGS requires DCS to have PhD committee meetings at least once a year, and the question is what sort of committee meeting would be useful within the first year of PhD studies?  [As the grad chair, Allan suggested that the department has some room to schedule of the first checkpoint in the first 1.5 years. He will check on that.] 

Re: Combining some of the paper presentation checkpoint with the qualifying oral: 

A rough concensus for a qualifying oral exam (w/o a previous MSc presentation meeting) was as follows:

The expectations at this exam would be roughly that of an extended graduate course project.  The student must demonstrate both competence and perspective on the field of study, along with some preliminary results of their research to date.  These preliminary results need not be publishable, but must be substantial enough to be suitable for, say, an extended course project over two academic sessions.  In addition to the presentation, and oral exam, the student is asked to write a short article on this research topic and their investigations (roughly 20-30 double spaced pages).

The deadlines for this checkpoint in the proposed timeline (posted with the agenda) were felt to be too short.  

An appropriate deadline for this first checkpoint was felt to be 16-18 months from the start of the program (for PhD students with a previous MSc, whether this previous MSc was from DCS or not).  

The deadline for PhD-direct students was not explicitly discussed, but perhaps 16-18 months after their completion of their research paper. [Later Remark: Why isn't their research paper exactly the content of the paper required for their Qualifying Oral?  And this too could be done within 16-18 months?].)

The proposal needs to be revised and reconsidered.

Appropriate consequences of missing checkpoint deadlines need to be discussed.

Re: Including the Research Proposal checkpoint in the candidacy criterion.

The following statements about PhD Candidacy were reviewed:

1. [FROM SGS] All doctoral students are subject to the requirements for Good Academic Standing, including candidacy. To achieve candidacy, you must complete all requirements for the degree exclusive of thesis research and courses such as ongoing research seminars that run continuously through the program. You must also have an approved thesis topic, supervisor and supervisory committee.

2. Moreover, SGS requires that PhD students with a previous MSc achieve candidacy within their first three years.  This is extendable by one year and, with more documentation, for another year.  The maximum time to candidacy is therefore five years, with explicit requests for documentation on the student's progress to date at the ends of years three and four. (Similarly, for PhD direct students, SGS's time limit is 4 years, extendable by up to two years, in one-year increments.)

Currently DCS only requires that a PhD student has successfully completed the qualifying oral (and their course work) in order to achieve candidacy.  This does not match SGS's intent (above) that the student "must have an approved thesis topic".  

This processing by SGS of candidacy, along with their rules for extending it, provides an opportunity for DCS to include SGS more fully in monitoring the progress of our PhD students.

In particular, it was agreed that students should be required to have finished their Research Proposal (and course work) in order for the graduate office to recommend them for candidacy.  SGS's time frame for candidacy seems reasonable for the Research Proposal checkpoint.

ACTION: Allan is to revise the proposal to be considered at a subsequent GAC meeting.

ITEM 5. a) Schedule the next meetings well in advance; and b) look into errors in scheduling.
a&b) DONE