GSA Senate meeting
We met at Einstein bagels at 11 a.m.
Who was there:
– As of Aug. 19th, we received 15 RSVPs however, the expected number is 40. Teri will confirm with Taco Joint that we will be min. 30 people. Update: As of Aug. 27, we now have almost 30 RSVPs. Teri will increase the appetizers to 40 servings.
– Amal and Linda volunteered to arrive early (3:30 pm) to greet early birds.
– Teri will send invitations to new faculty members.
– Jennifer will remind Pia to send a reminder.
– Teri bought some name tags, the ones that says: Hello, My name is…
– Brian D. will put flyers in mailboxes and Amal and Suzanne will put flyers on all the office doors.
GSA internal business
– Amal will be the historian (responsible for documenting meeting min. and other things).
– We need everyone’s phone numbers for better communication, Amal will create a sheet and send it to everyone.
– We will use WordPress for meeting minutes instead of word documents. We are not sure what to use our blog for?!!
– Julie Gavran will be the guest speaker at GSA 1st general meeting. Brian D. and Suzanne will study UTD gun situation to discuss the matter with Julie.
– Amal and Teri are responsible for cleaning up our Google Drive.
– We need to visit the 6300 classes to introduce GSA and to invite potential new students to Fall Social. Teri will work on a schedule.
– Teri and Suzanne attended A&H faculty meeting 8/18/2016 and here are notes of the meeting:
• Dean Kratz discussed amendment to the A&H by-laws to bring them into compliance with the university by-laws and give voting rights to all non-tenure-track (NTT) faculty.
• A&H hired 3 full-time senior lecturers (NTT): Misty Owens, Lorena Camacho-Guardado, and Patsy Totusek.
• Dr. Natalie Ring is the new associate dean of A&H undergraduate education. Michele Hanlon is the new A&H associate dean for the arts. Pia Jakobsson is now called the assistant dean for graduate education.
• Dr. Redman, A&H representative on the university senate, reported that:
•There will be a UTD DART station opening in 2025.
•If you want to declare your office a gun-free zone, you must give oral notice any time a student visits you there—you can’t just put a sign on your door. People who share an office cannot make their office a gun-free zone.
• Dr. Matt Brown discussed his proposal for creating a new degree, a BA in philosophy. Dean Kratz called for a vote on the new philosophy degree. Everyone approved it except Dr. Reynolds.
3/24/2016 GSA General Meeting minutes (by Teri)
Meeting was held in the Ackerman Center at 5:00 pm.
Teri asked for feedback on the 2016 RAW conference. The general consensus was that the conference went smoothly. There were two suggestions: signs inside and outside the ATEC building to direct participants to the conference rooms, and better coordination with ATEC facilities management to ensure that the building and rooms are unlocked in a more timely fashion. (We recognize that we have control over only one of these two suggestions.)
A question was asked about how the RAW entry fees are used. Entry fees go toward the keynote speaker’s fee, travel, and hotel costs, and toward the participants’ lunch and reception expenses. Funds provided by the A&H department make up the difference.
Tracey noted that for RAW 2017, we will try to coordinate with the Center for Values to engage a speaker; if we are successful, this may determine the date of our conference.
Reports from Faculty Meetings
Teri read Poe’s reports from the faculty and executive committee meetings:
Dean Kratz has decided to form various committees in an attempt to figure out a way to increase the A&H graduate and undergraduate populations. There has been a steady drop in graduate school admittance over the last four years. To counter that, Dean Kratz also wants to create a film studies certificate and an MFA program dedicated to “Narrative Arts.”
Ashley Barnes (19th Century Literature) and Manny Martinez (Creative Writing) have been offered and accepted tenure-track positions, negotiations are ongoing.
The GSA will hold an end-of-the-year social event some time after April 29 and before May 15.
Teri noted that elections for next year’s GSA Senate will be held soon and encouraged people to run for office.
An attendee asked whether the GSA Senate would be willing to issue a statement regarding the campus-carry law that will go into effect in fall 2017. We discussed the issue at some length and agreed that we would probably be able to invite a guest speaker to a general GSA meeting to explain the ramifications of the law for graduate student TAs. Teri will invite Julie Gavran to speak to us at the first meeting of the fall semester.
The forum was held to give bewildered new PhD students the benefit of the experience of students who took the above-named exam last fall (the first time it was given).
DISCLAIMER: These notes in no way represent official policy, requirements, standards, or advice. (As yet there is no official policy, etc.)
The following information is published on the UTD A&H site at http://www.utdallas.edu/ah/programs/graduate/humaqualifyingexamination.html (please check the site for updates):
PROCEDURE FOR HUMA DOCTORAL QUALIFYING EXAMINATION
Effective Fall 2015 we are instituting a qualifying examination early in doctoral study as a way of ensuring timely progress toward the doctoral degree. Students take the qualifying examination in the middle of the semester in which they will complete their first 18 hours of doctoral coursework applicable to the degree plan.
The examination is composed of two parts:
PART I: Compile an annotated bibliography of ten to twenty items on a topic from the list supplied by the Associate Dean for Graduate Studies. Your bibliography must be substantially free of typographical and mechanical errors and should follow the guidelines set by a major bibliographic research guide; your bibliography must identify the guide used.
PART II: In a short essay, explain two concepts separately (1250 words each, not including bibliography) from the list supplied by the Associate Dean of Graduate Studies. Your essay should be substantially free of grammatical and mechanical errors, and any citations should follow the guidelines set by a major research guide, which should be identified at the end of your essay.
Students will have three business days to complete both parts of the exam and return it to the Graduate Coordinator. Student may begin the examination at 10:00 am on Monday or Tuesday only. All examinations will be submitted to turnitin.com.
Completed exams will be evaluated independently on a pass/fail basis by two faculty members. In the event that the evaluations do not concur, the exam will go to a third faculty member for a decision. Students will receive the final evaluation within one week of taking the exam. At the discretion of the evaluators, student may be permitted to take all or part of the examination a second time within the semester. A third attempt is not allowed.
In the experience of the first exam takers, this description is mostly true. Because the exam was given late in the semester, those who failed were not able to retake it in the same semester. And although the information above says that students will get their results “within one week of taking the exam,” the students who took it in the fall were told to expect results in “4-6 weeks.” Note that you are not officially a PhD student until you pass this exam.
What You Get
The email Alice sent out last semester to students taking the exam reproduces the instructions given in Part I and Part II of the explanation from the website. You must respond to the email to confirm that you have received it. The email also includes the time and date the exam documents are due; for example:
No later than Thursday at 10:00 a.m. please send an attached Microsoft word document to me. I will confirm receipt. You will be notified of the results of your examination by email and also mailed a memo. Please use only your UTD email account. If you have any questions, please email or contact me at 972-883-2756.
Attached to the email are two lists of concepts you may write on. Part I contains concepts for the bibliography; Part II contains concepts for the essays. The following lists were used in the fall 2015 exam. (Note that Part II describes the essay as a single 2500-word essay on two concepts. We expect that the instructions will be updated to reflect the current explanation on the web site: two 1250-word essays on two concepts. Also, Part II instructs you to “identify the questions answered.” There are no “questions” as such. We understand this to mean that you must identify the concepts you are writing about in the essay titles and/or the introductory paragraphs.)
Part I: Compile an annotated bibliography of ten to twenty items on one topic from the list below. Your bibliography should be substantially free of typographical and mechanical errors and should follow the guidelines set by a major bibliographic research guide. Please identify the topic answered and additionally identify the research guide used at the end of your essay. The A&H office will submit your completed exam into turnitin.com.
- NATURE AND HISTORY OF PERFORMANCE WITHIN A PERIOD OF YOUR CHOICE
TEXTURE AS A MUSICAL ELEMENT
- THE ROLES OF VALUES IN SCIENCE
- THE IDEA OF BILDUNG
- THEORY OF WORLD LITERATURE
- MODERNISM (WHAT IS IT?)
Part II: In a short essay (2500 words minimum), explain any two concepts from the list below. Concepts can be combined from two different areas. Your essay should be substantially free of grammatical and mechanical errors, and any citations should follow the guidelines set by a major research guide. Please identify the questions answered and additionally identify the research guide used at the end of your essay. The A&H office will submit your completed exam into turnitin.com.
- ART OF PERFORMANCE IN THE 20TH AND 21ST CENTURIES
- REFLECTIONS ON PERFORMANCE FROM THE GREEKS TO MODERN TIMES
- HOMOPHONY & POLYPHONY
- THEORIES OF TRUTH
- SOCIAL JUSTICE
- AMERICAN LITERATURE OF WWII
- STEINBECK VS. HEMINGWAY IN THE SECOND HALF OF THE 1930s
Each time the exam is given, two professors from each discipline (HUAS, HUHI, and HUSL) are asked to contribute “concepts” to the list and to grade some of the exams (though not necessarily exams that address the concepts they chose). In each discipline, the graders are chosen in alphabetical order by last name, which may be helpful if you know where the selection order stands when you are ready to take the exam. As the concept list demonstrates, the professors were given no guidance as to the scope of a “concept”; most are very broad, a few are very specific.
(Because much of the information that was shared in the forum consisted of questions and answers, we’re going to stick to that format.)
Q: Who can I ask if I have questions about the exam instructions or concepts?
A: The exam email will come from Alice with a copy to Dr. Gooch, and you can email her back as many times as necessary for clarification about the process, format, etc. Keep all your correspondence, of course.
Q: Does everyone get the same list of concepts in the exam email?
Q: Can we ask the professor who provided a particular concept what she/he is expecting? Or Dr. Gooch?
A: No. You will not know who provided the concept, and that professor will not know whose exam she/he is grading. Dr. Gooch is not involved in the grading.
Q: So we don’t get a specific question or prompt to write to, just a “concept”?
A: That is correct.
Q: Did anyone fail?
A: Yes. Nine students took the exam last fall, and we have heard that either 4 or 5 failed at least one part of the exam. (Note: A student who passed and a student who failed one section both attended the forum to share their experiences.)
A: Most people seemed to have passed the annotated bibliography section, though at least one student was failed by at least one grader for using non-academic sources. The reasons for failing the essay portion included incoherent writing, getting an historical event wrong, faulty or overly broad claims, and citing oneself as a source.
Recommendations: Use academic sources—stick to peer-reviewed journals and books published by university presses or by major publishers of academic books (for example, Palgrave or Routledge) if you are unsure what this means.
Q: Does the administration have any plans to publish standards or requirements for passing this exam?
A: Unknown. It is possible that they may develop some in the future, but any proposed standards would have to go first to the GSC and then be voted on by the faculty before being implemented.
Q: How long should each annotation be?
A: Our best guess is at least 100 words. There are many guidelines online and in research format guides for creating an annotated bibliography. Generally, you should identify the author’s argument and evidence, the scope of the work, its audience, relevancy, and approach. You can also include a brief quotation from the work if it is particularly apt.
Q: How can I read 10 books in one day? Or should I stick to articles?
Recommendation: One student who took the exam used only books. If you use books, read the introduction and maybe the first and last pages of each chapter, and the conclusion if there is one. You can also look for book reviews, but be very careful not to plagiarize them. Scholarly articles are fine, too. Those with abstracts will help you get the gist more quickly.
Q: What format should I use?
A: Use the format you are most familiar with (for example, Turabian, Chicago, or MLA), and be sure to note the format that you used in one line at the end of your bibliography and your essay.
Q: So the essay portion is actually two 1250-word essays on two different concepts, but stuck together in one paper?
A: Yes. A student who passed used a centered row of asterisks (* * *) to separate the two essays and combined the bibliographies for the two essays into one. If the instructions this time allow you to submit two different files (one per essay), provide the relevant bibliography with each (obviously).
Q: How many bibliographic sources do I need for the essays?
A: An average of one source per page was accepted in the first exam.
Q: What if I don’t know anything about any of the concepts?
A: You won’t be alone. Think in terms of shortcuts: use Google and Wikipedia to get information, but don’t quote them. Other recommendations were to use reference works like The Bedford Glossary of Critical and Literary Terms and the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy for overviews of particular concepts.
Q: Do I have to work up an argument for each essay?
A: Not unless you have the necessary expertise in the concept. A student who passed suggested that you approach the essay as though you were teaching it to a class of undergrads. It’s impossible to know what individual graders are looking for, but if you are able to coherently express a broad understanding of the concept, write clear thesis statements, and use logical transitions between paragraphs, you should be fine.
Q: What should I use for a header on my papers?
A: Put your name, Spring 2016 Qualifying Exam, and the date in your header (unless you get instructions to do otherwise).
- Manage your time! Plan to devote one entire day to each of the three parts.
- Clear the week (or at least the days) of the exam. Skip your own classes. Get a sub if you are a TA. If you have work due in a class, ask for an extension.
- Start with the part you think will be the easiest (for most students, the annotated bibliography).
- A student who passed recommended alternating work on the two essays over two days to ensure that both are of about the same quality.
- Use block quotations in your essays. In fact, one student’s strategy was to identify the most relevant block quotes from each source first and structure the essay around them. (Be strategic—it shouldn’t be obvious that you are using the quotes just to pad the word count.)
- If your experience during the exam is different from what we have described here, or if you think of additional helpful tips, please email the GSA. Talk to each other! Shared information is incredibly helpful in navigating the UTD graduate program.
(as transcribed by Teri)
Meeting was held in the Ackerman Center at 5:00 pm.
Center for Teaching and Learning
Dr. Starnaman talked about the new Center for Teaching and Learning, where she represents the A&H department. The Center offers (among other services) both a regular and an advanced graduate teaching certificate to TAs who have completed a series of requirements attesting to their training and experience in pedagogy. These certificates will be helpful to grad students applying for teaching positions at community colleges.
The certificate requirements include completion of several developmental workshops, and Dr. Starnaman is preparing one on syllabus writing for non-rhet TAs. She asked for suggestions for additional workshops, and Merry asked for one on dealing with difficult (i.e., aggressive) students and for students with disabilities. Anyone with other suggestions/requests should contact Dr. Starnaman.
Also, graduate students who have worked as TAs here can retroactively apply their teaching experience to the requirements for the teaching certificate.
Finally, Dr. Starnaman encouraged students to attend one of the workshops on teaching writing given by Dr. George Gopen on 1/28 and 1/29. The student workshop on 1/28 is full, but grad students may attend the faculty session on 1/29 if seats are available.
Dr. Catherine Parsoneault, our new Assistant Dean of Assessments, joined the meeting to tell us what she does. Dr. Parsoneault holds a Ph.D. in historical musicology from The University of Texas at Austin, and she came to us from Texas Tech, where she was also the university’s assessment officer.
The goal of assessment is to figure out how to improve learning for both undergrad and graduates students. It encompasses more than just figuring out what to do to stay accredited, though that’s how a university usually starts the process. Although grades are one of the more obvious tools for assessment, they in fact do not always accurately reflect what students have learned. Dr. Parsoneault gave us a brief overview of how to create better assessment tools. She also noted that there are objectives for our degree programs, although faculty doesn’t always know this (and ironically, they should be the ones setting these objectives).
The UTD office of assessment will hold a workshop on assessing learning outcomes on Wednesday, 2/10, at 10:00 am in MC 2.410. This workshop is for anyone who teaches—old and new faculty, adjuncts, and TAs. Dr. Parsoneault will see if she can coordinate with the Center for Teaching and Learning to ensure that attendance at the assessment workshop counts toward the teaching certificate.
18-Hour Exam Workshop
Everyone was reminded that the completely unofficial workshop on the 18-hour exam will be held on Tuesday, 2/25, in Room 4.614 at 5:00 pm. Because not all students facing the exam are able to attend, I have promised to take and distribute notes.
University of Texas at Dallas
Arts & Humanities Graduate Student Association
March 4th and March 5th, 2016
Keynote: Dr. Sandy Stone
We still have some openings available for the 2016 RAW, so we’ve decided to extend the deadline for submissions until December 28th, 2015. Please send all submissions and/or questions to email@example.com