Loyola University Chicago

- Navigation -

Loyola University Chicago

The Graduate School

Bylaws - council of graduate programs

 

   Bylaws of the Council of Graduate School Programs

(Approved, February, 1996)
(Amended, October 1997)
(Amended, November, 1998)
(Amended, September, 2002)
(Amended, September, 2004)
(Amended, April, 2005)
(Amended, February, 2009)
(Amended, April, 2010)
(Amended, April 2011)

(Amended, April 2012)

 

I. Purpose and Jurisdiction

            A.        The primary function of the Council of Graduate School Programs (the "Council") is to discuss and formulate the aims, purposes, and quality standards for master's and doctoral programs under the auspices of the Graduate School at Loyola University Chicago. The Council has jurisdiction over all academic matters delegated and makes policy recommendations in such areas as: recruitment, admissions and retention, curriculum, qualifying exams or projects, theses and dissertations, and overall objectives related to student life and performance.

            B.        The Council serves in an advisory role to the Dean of the Graduate School.  The actions of the Council shall be reviewed by the Dean of the Graduate School.

II. Officers and Ex-Officio Members

A. Chairperson

The function of the Chairperson is to conduct meetings, arrange agendas, appoint standing and ad hoc committees, and work as liaison with the Dean of the Graduate School and the Council. The Chairperson does not vote on Council motions, except in the case of a tie vote. The Chairperson also convenes and serves as chair of the Executive Committee.

B. Chairperson-Elect

The function of the Chairperson-Elect is to conduct meetings in the absence of the Chairperson and to assume the office of Chairperson in the event the Chairperson vacates the office. The Chairperson-Elect assumes the position of Chairperson the following year.   In addition, the Chairperson-Elect helps to identify key agenda items during the year and ensures effective transition and continuity of Council work from one year to the next. The Chairperson-Elect chairs the Nominations Committee.

C. Past-Chairperson

The function of the Past-Chairperson is to conduct meetings in the absence of the Chairperson and Chairperson-elect. In addition, the Past-Chairperson helps identify key agenda items during the year and ensures effective transition and continuity of Council   work from one year to the next. In the event a Past‑Chairperson vacates the office or is not reappointed to the Council, the Council may appoint another member of the Council   with sufficient Council experience to serve this function. The Past Chairperson is also a member of the Executive Committee of the Council.

D. Ex-Officio Members

The Dean, Associate Dean, and Assistant Dean of the Graduate School serve in an ex-officio capacity on the Council. Other such officials, as may be appropriate, may be named as ex-officio members by the Executive Committee. All Ex-officio members   have full speaking privileges at all meetings but may not vote or serve as Officers of the Council.

 

III. Committees

A. Standing Committees

Executive Committee: The Executive Committee shall consist of the Chairperson, Chairperson-Elect, Past Chairperson, chairs of the standing committees, and two members at large elected by the Council. The Dean of the Graduate School and his/her designee shall serve as ex-officio members of the Executive Committee. The functions of this committee are to make decisions when time does not permit a meeting of the whole Council, and to prepare materials, issues, agendas, and other items for Council meetings.

Nominating Committee: A Nominating Committee of no less than three persons and no more than five persons, appointed by the Chairperson and chaired by the Chairperson-Elect, shall oversee the recruitment and nomination process for Council officers and Chairpersons of the standing committees. The committee shall also be responsible for identifying candidates to fill officer vacancies that occur between elections.

Curriculum Review Committees: The Lakeside Curriculum Review Committee and the Health Sciences Division Campus Curriculum Review Committee are standing committees of the Council of Graduate School Programs. These committees serve as advisory committees to the Council in all matters of curriculum: courses, programmatic changes, and new programs.  Each committee shall be chaired by a member of the Council and a minimum of three additional members shall be appointed by the Council Chair in consultation with the Executive Committee. The function of these committees shall be to evaluate, analyze,   and determine the appropriateness of any new programs or courses, or changes in existing programs or courses, proposed to the Graduate School by departments or programs which offer a graduate degree under the jurisdiction of the   Graduate School. The chairperson of these committees shall have the discretion to determine that a proposed change is sufficiently minor that it does not require full review by the committee and the Council. The chairs of both committees work together if a course, programmatic change, or proposal is interdisciplinary in nature and involves resources from more than one campus. The committees may draw upon the expertise of other members of the Council, or the Graduate Faculty, as necessary in the completion of their work.

For the review of graduate programs, the Curriculum Review Committees will follow guidelines attached as Appendix A to these by laws. For review of course changes or new courses, the Curriculum Review Committee will follow guidelines attached as Appendix B to these by laws. These guidelines may be changed by a majority vote of the Council.

Awards Committee: The Awards Committee shall evaluate nominations and recommend recipients of the following awards: Graduate Faculty Member of the Year, Dissertation/Thesis of the Year, and such other awards as may from time to time be   instituted. This committee shall consist of no fewer than three and no more than five members. The Chair will be selected by the Executive Committee and members will be nominated by the members of the Council or self-nominate and be approved by the    Executive Committee. Membership shall represent as many disciplines and campuses as feasible. The Chair of the Awards Committee shall be a member of the Executive Committee. 

Ad Hoc Committees: These committees shall be appointed and charged with specific duties by the Chairperson of the Council in response to recommendations by the Council and in consultation with the Executive Committee. Chairs of these committees ordinarily are members of the Council, but members may be drawn from the Graduate Faculty at large.

 

IV. Representation

A. Membership

1.   Each department or degree granting center offering a master’s or doctoral degree, under the jurisdiction of the Graduate School, shall have one representative    to the Council. This representative shall be selected by each unit in a manner determined by that unit and may or may not be the Graduate Program Director. The representative must be a Full member of the Graduate Faculty.

            A.  The members of the Council are expected to:

                        1)  Attend and participate in Council meetings.

                        2)  Establish regular procedures for consulting the faculty who contribute to the master's and doctoral programs 
                             of their respective units.

                        3)  Represent to the Council the concerns of the faculty in their respective units.

                        4)  Report actions of the Council to their respective units.

2.  The Dean, Associate Dean, and Assistant Dean of the Graduate School shall serve as ex-officio, nonvoting members of the Council.

             A.   The nonvoting members shall have full privileges of speaking, but shall be ineligible to serve as Officers of the
                   Council or to vote on any actions put forth by the Council.

3.  There shall be four student members of the Council with full voting privileges. Unless otherwise determined by the council, students shall serve a two year term,  with two students selected annually. The Dean of the Graduate School shall select the student members in consultation with the Executive Committee, attempting to balance representation by campus and school.

B. Elections

1. A Nominating Committee, as described in section III.A., shall secure the names of available and interested Council members for elections. This committee shall call for nominations at the February meeting and present the ballot for officers Chairpersons of standing committees and representatives at the March meeting.

                  A.  Nominations shall also be accepted from the floor.

                  B.  When there is more than one candidate for a given position, voting shall occur by secret ballot. The Chair of the 
                       Council will manage the voting and ballot tabulation timing and process to ensure the results of the election are 
                       available at the April meeting of the Council.

2.  Elected officers shall assume their duties during the final Council meeting of the academic year.

 

V. Meetings

A minimum of four meetings of the Council shall be scheduled each year, usually in October, November, February, and April. Meetings may be held through videoconferencing.

 

VI. Procedures

A.  The Council shall conduct its meetings according to most recent edition of Robert's Rules of Order.  A quorum is required to convene a Council meeting and conduct the business of the Council.

B.  A quorum of 60% of the voting members of the Council is necessary to convene a meeting of the Council. In establishing the quorum and before conducting business of the Council, the Chair will ensure each campus is represented at the meeting.

C. The agenda shall be determined by the Chairperson in consultation with the Executive Committee and the Dean of the Graduate School and shall be posted or distributed at least 7 days before a scheduled meeting. Minutes shall be distributed or posted in advance of the scheduled Council meeting. Supplemental materials, including but not limited to reports from standing committees or information items are also posted or distributed in advance of Council meetings.

D.  Motions for action items must originate from the Council membership. The Chair of the Council may not initiate a motion.

     1.  Any motion requires a second for that motion prior to discussion.

              a)  Recommendations from standing committees are considered motions and do not require a second before discussion
                   can occur.

     2.  At the conclusion of discussion, the Chair calls for a vote on the motion.

              a) A simple (50% + 1) majority of the voting Council members present at a convened meeting is sufficient to pass a
                  motion related to the general business of the Council.

                        1)  A 2/3 majority of the voting members presented at a convened meeting of the Council is required to pass a
                             motion related to:

                                 a.  Suspending or modifying the bylaws or previously adopted rules of the Council;
                                 b.  Preventing the introduction of a question for consideration;
                                 c.   Closing nominations or voting.

              b) A motion must be voted upon unless said motion is withdrawn by the member who originally makes the motion, or if
                  the Council approves a secondary motion to postpone consideration of the original motion.

                         1)  Secondary motions may include:

                                 a. A motion to refer the original motion to a committee;
                                 b. A motion to postpone consideration of the original motion to a definite future time;
                                 c. A motion to postpone the original motion indefinitely.

       3.   Actions from the Council are subject to review by the Dean of the  Graduate School.

                a)  If the Dean rejects a motion passed by the Council, the Dean shall return it to the Council stating in writing the reasons for disagreement. If the Council reaffirms a motion rejected by the Dean and does so by a two-thirds vote of those present and voting, the motion is then sent to the Dean for reconsideration..

 

VII. Amendments

A.  These bylaws may be amended by a 2/3 majority of the voting membership present at a convened meeting of the Council.  

B.   An amendment to the bylaws must be presented for consideration and discussion at a regularly scheduled and convened meeting of the Council. The amendment may not be voted upon at this same meeting.  At the next meeting of the Council, the amendment will be voted upon. Amendments to the bylaws go into effect at the first meeting of the Council at the start of the next academic year.


   Bylaws: Appendix A
Graduate Program Review and Evaluation Process

    

Program Review Committee
Program Review Structure

Revised, September 16, 2005

  1. Two members of the Committee will exercise the general oversight function for the Committee. One person will be a Council member, who will chair the Program Review Committee and serve on the Executive Committee. The chair of the Program Review Committee will oversee the selection and assignment of the faculty review monitors. It is recommended that the other member be drawn from the Council or the Graduate Faculty at large. The general oversight function will include, although is not limited to, the creation and updating of a review checklist and the coordination of the activities of the faculty review monitors proposal reads as follows:
    1. Two members of the Committee will exercise the general oversight function for the Committee. One person will be a Council member, who will chair the Program Review Committee and serve on the Executive Committee. The chair of the Program Review Committee will oversee the selection and assignment of the faculty review monitors. It is recommended that the other member be drawn from the Council or the Graduate Faculty at large. The general oversight function will include, although is not limited to, the creation and updating of a review checklist and the coordination of the activities of the faculty review monitors.
    2. The remaining members will serve as the faculty review monitors for graduate education. These individuals will normally be members of the Council and are responsible to the Council and its program review mission. In this capacity each member will be assigned to a unit under review. Each member will be involved in October to examine the specific questions that will guide the review process for the unit in order to insure that appropriate attention is paid to graduate issues. In the February-March phase of the review, the committee member will provide an update of the process to the Council. Once the report of the Review Leadership Team (RLT) is prepared, the faculty review monitor will compare the report to the Council’s evaluation checklist and will share the report, the evaluation, and the recommendations with the Council for discussion. The faculty review monitor will prepare a report guided by the checklist and CGSP discussion for the RLT so that any concerns raised can be part of the material examined as the RLT develops the strategic goals for the unit’s next five years.
  2. The remaining members will serve as the faculty review monitors for graduate education.  These individuals will normally be members of the Council and are responsible to the Council and its program review mission. In this capacity each member will be assigned to a unit under review.
  3. Process:
    1. The Executive Committee will examine each unit’s program review questions that are generated during the fall part of the AP&R process to insure that appropriate attention is paid to graduate issues. Executive Committee’s suggestions/observations will go to the Graduate Dean, Chair of the AP&R process.
    2. In the February-March phase of the review, each faculty monitor will provide an update of the process to the Council. Once the report of the RLT is prepared, the faculty review monitor will compare the report to the Council’s evaluation checklist and will share the report, the evaluation, and the recommendations with the Council for discussion. The faculty review monitor will prepare a report guided by the checklist and CGSP discussion for the RLT so that any concerns raised can be part of the material examined as the RLT develops the strategic goals for the unit’s next five years.  
    3. The Council will provide an arena for issues and concerns about the Graduate Program Academic Review Process.  If necessary, an ad hoc committee will be formed to evaluate grievances.

   Council of Graduate School Programs
Checklist
Academic Planning and Review Process

Introduction

Once the Review Leadership Team (RLT) for each unit under review examines the material generated during the assessment process, it drafts a report that addresses the questions posed to focus the review process in light of the material gathered. The RLT’s analysis of the answers to these questions shapes the strategic goals established to guide the unit’s development for the next five years.  This checklist is designed to help the Council insure that graduate programs have received appropriate and sufficient attention during the review process. The questions posed to focus the review may mean that some of the questions on this checklist beyond categories I and II may not be appropriate.

  1. General
    1. Does the report answer the questions posed by the RLT for the review?
      • If so, how fully?
      • If not, where lacking?
    2. Is the review primarily descriptive or are there evaluative judgments about the quality of the program and the adequacy of the resources?
    3. Is the review forward looking rather than just an assessment of the program’s current status?
    4. Has the review/recommendations provided mechanisms for positive change?
    5. Has this review provided a blueprint for planning?
    6. Has the review assessed the level of university accountability for the quality of the graduate program?
    7. How has this review laid the basis for the improvement of the graduate program?
    8. Has the review been academic in focus or has it been financial, i.e. the ability to produce income?
  2. External Review Team
    1. Are the external reviewers’ credentials appropriate for the graduate portion of the review?
    2. Did graduate issues get appropriate and sufficient attention by the external review team during the review?
  3. Program Mission, Goals, and Objectives
    1. Has the review defined how the program contributes to the mission of the university?
    2. Is it clear how the graduate program is situated within the University’s goals and priorities?
    3. Is it clear how the graduate program is set within the Department’s goals and priorities?
    4. Has the graduate program been viewed as merely an extension of baccalaureate study or does it possess a dynamic of its own?
    5. Does the graduate program and department possess the vision and drive to achieve local, regional, and/or national status?
  4. Admission and Recruitment
    1. Has the review provided information on the student market for the program and on the department’s ability/success in exploiting it?
    2. Are the admission requirements and application review process adequate for the selection of qualified students?
    3. Has the review provided information on the program’s level of attractiveness to potential students?
    4. Has the review provided information on the size and stability of the graduate program, so that it is possible to assess the existence, or lack there of, of a critical mass of qualified students?
  5. Curriculum
    1. Did the review focus attention on the graduate curriculum?
    2. Has the program been structured to meet the intended outcomes?
    3. Does it demonstrate appropriate rigor?
    4. Does it meet the standards of quality as determined by the discipline?
    5. How well has the program responded to the profession’s needs?
    6. Has the department advanced the state of the discipline/profession?
    7. How has the program been assessed by experts in the field?
  6. Administration
    1. Did the review focus attention on the program’s administration environment?
    2. How effective has the Department Chair been in the support of the program?
    3. How well has the Graduate Program Director served as an advocate for graduate student affairs and as the keeper of student records?
    4. To what extent have students been integrated into the life of the department?
  7. Faculty
    1. Has the review analyzed the level of faculty involvement in the graduate program?
    2. Is the level of faculty involvement appropriate for the program’s fields of study?
    3. Does the faculty workload reflect its participation in a graduate program?
    4. Does the disciplinary participation reflect the state of the fields of study offered by the department?
  8. Pedagogy, Advising, Mentorship, Professional Training
    1. Did the review address the quality of advising/mentoring students?
    2. How effective has the teaching and training of students been?
    3. Are the appropriate strategies being pursued to prepare students to be professionals in the discipline?
  9. Student Funding
    1. Did the review address the level of funding available to students in the program
    2. Did the review evaluate the role of funding in overall program development?
    3. Did the review address the competitiveness of the funding available (amount and number of assistantships) in relation to the program’s disciplinary competition?
  10. Student Placement and Outcomes
    1. Did the review assess the program’s retention level?
    2.  Did the review assess time to degree and evaluate the contributing factors?
    3. Did the review assess the program’s graduation rate?
    4. Did the review assess the program’s success at job placement?
    5. Did the review assess the nature and amount of student accomplishments?

   Bylaws: Appendix B

Guidelines for Review and Evaluation of New Course, Program Modification, and New Program Proposals

See also: Procedures/Checklist, Course Proposal Form

Overview

Courses

The Curriculum Review Committees will review proposals for changes in existing courses and proposals for new courses. The purpose of this review is to evaluate the appropriateness of each proposal and ensure that the proposed course logically fits within the context of the particular program. The Curriculum Review Committee oversight is also designed to ensure that courses meet general university interests, that is, avoid unnecessary course duplication, reflect attention to issues relating to student concerns about advertised goals and ground rules, and recognize demands placed upon units outside of the department necessary for the proper execution of the course, such as library resources.

Programmatic Changes

The Curriculum Review Committees will review changes in existing programs in addition to their evaluation of proposals for new courses.  The purpose of the review is to assess the nature of the proposed change(s) in terms of overall program design, academic rigor, and trends in the field.  Once evaluated by the appropriate Curriculum Review Committee, proposals will go before the Council of Graduate School Programs for approval.  If approved, the proposal then goes to the Graduate Studies Coordinating Board for review.  Implementation of proposed changes cannot occur until the proposed changes receive approval from the Graduate Studies Coordinating Board.

New Programs

The Curriculum Review Committees will review proposals for new programs in addition to their evaluation of proposals for new courses and changes in existing programs. The purpose of the review is to assess the appropriateness of the proposed program for the Graduate School and the nature of the proposal in terms of overall program design, academic rigor, trends in the field, relationship to mission, and market viability. Once evaluated by the appropriate Curriculum Review committee, proposals will go before the Council of Graduate School Programs for approval. If approved, the proposal then goes to the Graduate Studies Coordinating Board for review. Program implementation will not occur until the proposal receives approval from the Graduate Studies Coordinating Board.

Conclusion

All proposals – courses, program modifications, and new programs – begin the process through submission to the Associate Dean on the Lakeside campus. The Associate Dean will send out the course proposals for review to specialists in the field. The Associate Dean will review all program modification proposals and new programs and communicate the need for any changes in design or content back to the department or program before these proposals move to appropriate curriculum committee for review. The Curriculum Review Committees may request additional changes and these must be addressed.

Guidelines for Review of Proposals for program Modification

Program modifications encompass a variety of elements. These can include, but are not limited to, changes in overall program design, changes In the number of hours required for the degree, and changes in major tracks (i.e., adding a new track or eliminating one).

All proposals for program modifications should be submitted on the Application for Approval of a Program Modification form and include the following elements:

  1. Presentation of the existing program components and the proposed change(s).
  2. A substantive rationale/justification for the proposed change(s).
  3. A discussion of the strengths of the proposed change(s).
  4. If the proposed change(s) draw upon the resources of other units, permission from the appropriate Department Chairs and Dean must accompany the proposal.
  5. A discussion of how the proposed change(s) fit within what goes on at the program’s benchmark institutions.
  6. A substantive statement of support from the Dean of the School (when appropriate).
  7. A description of the plans for implementation of the proposed change(s).

Guidelines for Review of Proposals for New Courses

For new courses, the following general guidelines shall be in effect, the submission of 1) a complete Application for Approval of a New Course, 2) two critical reviews by experts within the area of expertise from outside the department or academic unit proposing the course, 3) recommendation to accept the course by the appropriate Curriculum Review Committee, and 4) the majority approval of the Council. If a course appears to duplicate an existing course, there must be specific justifications for why it is still needed. Should a Curriculum Review Committee consider a new course to be acceptable, this recommendation will be made to the Council at the next regularly scheduled meeting, provided the title, short description, target group, and objectives of any new courses have been distributed to members of the Council at least seven days in advance of the meeting. Minority reports of a Curriculum Review Committee will be presented by their author at the meeting of the Council. Specific procedures for approval of a new course are outlined below:

1.      The department, program, or institute proposing the course submits a complete Graduate School Application for Approval of a New Course form to The Graduate School.

2.      The department, program or institute proposing the course submits at least three names of reviewers external to the program who posses expertise in the academic field of the proposed course.

3.      The course proposal is submitted to at least two of these external reviewers for evaluation and comment.

4.      The appropriate Curriculum Review Committee receives copies of the proposal and the comments of at least two of the reviewers.

5.      The appropriate Curriculum Review Committee discusses the course proposal with attention to the following types of issues:

a. Clear description of the course's goals and content, including for purposes of illustration a relatively detailed schedule, a list of readings, and the evaluation procedure. The evaluation segment should indicate the percent of grade dependent on tests, papers, class presentations, and class participation, while recognizing that not every course will utilize all of these evaluative categories. The syllabus must include a statement about academic integrity.

b. The nature of prerequisites, if any, for the course.

c. The nature of the role of the course in terms of the program, i.e., required for the degree or elective, and how this relates to the proposed schedule of offerings.

d. The relationship of the new course to existing courses in the program. Does this replace an existing course? Are plans underway to drop such a course? What is the timetable for doing this?

e. The reasons for adding this course.

f. Adequacy of library resources.

g. Number of faculty available to teach the course. If there is only one person, is this appropriate?

h. An analysis of the course evaluations provided by external reviewers.

i. Presence of course duplication, if any.

6.      The appropriate Curriculum Review Committee recommends action to the Council:

a. Acceptance as is.

b. Acceptance based on specific revisions or recommendations to be incorporated into the proposal.

c. Request for further information/clarification. In this case, a Curriculum Review Committee returns the proposal to the department, program, or institute for clarification or correction. At times, a Curriculum Review Committee may ask the faculty member proposing a course to attend a committee meeting to answer questions or clarify issues.

d. Not approve the proposal. Failure to recommend adoption can be due to negative external reviews or refusal of the department, program, or institute to consider the suggestions made by a Curriculum Review Committee. The proposal is returned to the department, program or institute for final revision or retraction.

e. If course duplication appears to be an issue, a Curriculum Review Committee may offer one of two solutions:

o    The course be cross-listed with the two departments involved.

o    The existing course be made available to the students who would be served under the proposed course, thereby alleviating the need for said course.

Guidelines for Submission of New Programs

All proposers of new programs should consult the discussion of new program proposals here. All proposals should include the following elements:

·         Executive Summary

·         Rationale

·         Relationship to University Mission and Strategic Plan

·         Benchmarks

·         Market

·         Admission Requirements

·         Curriculum

·         Implementation

·         Resources

·         Letters of Support

·         Outside Reviews of Proposal

Meetings of the Curriculum Review Committees

Each Curriculum Review Committee shall meet a minimum of four times per year sufficiently in advance of a regularly scheduled meeting of the Council to insure that brief descriptions of new courses and/or program changes recommended for approval can be distributed to the Council in advance. As a general guideline, all materials necessary to the evaluation of a new course and/or program change are to be submitted to the Lakeside Associate Dean of the Graduate School at least 21 days prior to an upcoming Council meeting during which the proposers hope to have the course or changes presented to Council. No course or program change will be evaluated by the Curriculum Review Committee without complete documentation and the prior distribution of this material to the committee members as indicated above.

Presentation of a New Course, Program Change, Or New Program to the Council

It will be the responsibility of the Chairperson of the appropriate Curriculum Review Committee to present new courses, program changes, or new programs to the Council for approval. Should any questions arise, it will be the responsibility of the chairperson to address the question at issue either at that meeting of the Council or at a subsequent meeting of the Council.

Approval of a New Course, Program Change, or New Program to the Council

A new course, program change, or new program can be approved at the regularly scheduled Council meeting in which the course or change is presented, provided the title, brief description, target group and objectives of the new course or rationale for the program modification has been made available to Council members at least seven days in advance of the meeting. A majority vote of the Council shall be sufficient to approve a new course, program change, or new program. Approved programmatic changes and new programs are then submitted to the Graduate Studies Coordinating Board.



Loyola

1032 W. Sheridan Rd. · Chicago, IL 60660
773.508.3396 · gradschool@luc.edu

Notice of Non-discriminatory Policy