Report Number 228 Of The Committee Of Academic Policy & Programs
THURSDAY, APRIL 10, 2025
To the Academic Board,
University of Toronto,
Your Committee reports that it held a meeting on Thursday, April 10, 2025 at 3:10 p.m. in the Council Chamber, Simcoe Hall with the following members present:
PRESENT: Catherine Amara (Chair), Walid Houry (Vice-Chair), Nicholas Rule (Vice-Provost, Academic Programs), Robert Austin*, Sheila Batacharya, Daniel Bowyer, Pier Bryden, Susan Bondy, Robert Cooper, Joe Flessa*, Ehab James, Shone Joos, Anuradha Prakki, Kevin Temple, Rosa Saverino, Suzanne Wood
REGRETS: Joshua Barker (Vice-Provost, Graduate Research & Education and Dean, School of Graduate Studies), Laurent Bozec, Tarun Dewan, Annabelle Dravid, Jason Harlow, Akina Lalla, Marcus Law, Yee Fun Lo, Amy Mann, Karen Reid
NON-VOTING ASSESSORS: Leah Cowen (Vice-President, Research and Innovation, and Strategic Initiatives), Angelique Saweczko, University Registrar
SECRETARIAT: Joanne Chou
IN ATTENDANCE:
Melanie Woodin, Dean, Faculty of Arts & Science
Gillian Hamilton, Vice-Dean Academic Planning
Ken MacDonald, Interim Director, Centre for Diaspora and Transnational Studies
Linda Feng, Acting Department Chair, East Asian Studies
Louis Pauly, Acting Department Chair, Political Science
Joseph Clarke, Department Chair, Art History
Kajri Jain, Tri-Campus Graduate Chair, Art History
Jill Ross, Director, Centre for Comparative Literature
Alex Hernandez, Principal, Victoria College
Eric Jennings, Department Chair, History
Christopher Yip, Dean, Faculty of Applied Science & Engineering
Natalie Enright Jerger, Director, Division of Engineering Science
Justin Nodwell, Vice-Dean, Research & Health Science Education
Mingyao Liu, Director, Institute of Medical Science
Katie Larson, Vice-Dean, Teaching, Learning & Undergraduate Programs, UTSC
Marianne Hatzopoulou, Chair, Department of Civil and Mineral Engineering
George Arhonditsis, Chair and Graduate Chair, Department of Physical and Environmental Sciences
Michelle Silver, Chair, Department of Health and Society
Emma del Junco, Academic Reviews & Planning Specialist, Office of the Vice-Provost, Academic Programs
David Lock, Academic Reviews & Planning Specialist, Office of the Vice-Provost, Academic Programs
Alexandra Varela, Coordinator, Academic Programs, Office of the Vice-Provost, Academic Programs
Lachmi Singh, Director, Academic Programs, Planning & Quality Assurance, Office of the Vice-Provost, Academic Programs
Jennifer Francisco, Academic Change Specialist, Office of the Vice-Provost, Academic Programs
(*attended remotely)
OPEN SESSION
- Chair’s Remarks
The Chair welcomed members and guests to the meeting. She noted that they would be fulfilling one of the most important parts of the mandate, the second part of the Semi-Annual Reviews of Programs and Units. -
Reports of the Administrative Assessors
The Chair remarked that there were no reports of the Administrative Assessors. -
New Undergraduate Program Proposal: Major in Film Studies in an existing undergraduate degree (HBA), University of Toronto Scarborough (UTSC)
The Committee reviewed the new program proposal, the major in film studies in an existing undergraduate degree at the University of Toronto Scarborough (UTSC).
Professor Rule reported that the new undergraduate major in film studies, which led to the Honours Bachelor of Arts degree would be offered by the Department of English, at UTSC. Building on the success of the popular minor in film studies, the major enabled students to develop an understanding of the formal and technological components of film, and a strong grasp of the historical esthetic, cultural, economic and political context of cinema and moving image media.
The program had unlimited enrollment, and ensued once students completed 4.0 credits. The major consisted of 7.5 credits. Students in first and second year courses received a broad introduction to the critical study of film, the global history of cinema and the larger cultural context of cinematic and literary production in courses. In the second and third year courses students learned about various genres, traditions and methodologies in film studies, and the year four courses offered a more in-depth approach to specific topics, including a focus on directors, regions, particular practices and specific theoretical approaches to film. The major in film studies prepared students for graduate studies in film and related fields, and for potential careers in the film industry and in film and arts organizations. Consultations occurred outside of UTSC with the Faculty of Arts and Science (FAS) and University of Toronto Mississauga (UTM), in which both divisions supported the proposal for a September 2025 start date.
Members had no questions.
On motion duly made, seconded, and carried
IT WAS RESOLVED,
THAT the proposed Major in Film Studies, which will confer the existing HBA degree, as described in the proposal from the University of Toronto Scarborough dated March 17, 2025 , be approved effective September 1, 2025. -
Reviews of Academic Programs and Units
-
Semi-Annual Report on the Reviews of Academic Units and Programs
The Chair noted that the Committee had received 12 reviews of units and programs, which included one Provostial review, and 11 Decanal reviews. All were brought forward for information and discussion. The submissions included the signed administrative responses from each Dean, which highlighted action plans in response to reviewer recommendations.
The Chair reported that members had been placed into four reading groups and that each group had been assigned up to four reviews to consider. To guide their work, members of these groups were asked to consider four questions:-
Does the summary accurately tell the story of the full review?
-
Does the administrative response address all issues identified?
-
Are there any questions, comments or substantive issues that the Committee should consider?
-
Is there a need to ask that the Vice-Provost, Academic Programs bring forward a follow-up report?
-
-
The Chair also noted that, as part of their review, each of the Reading groups had submitted comments to the appropriate Deans’ Offices for their consideration in advance of the meeting.
The Chair invited Professor Rule to make general remarks about the reviews.
Professor Rule noted that the Committee played a critical role in the reviews of all academic programs and units at the University. The goals of these reviews were to:
- to obtain expert advice of leaders in the field concerning academic and administrative issues,
- to measure performance against leading international programs, and
- to obtain guidance and input from peers on key strategic decisions.
He confirmed that 12 reviews were being brought forward for the Committee’ consideration; recurring and new themes were identified in the reviews: the talent and high caliber of students and the impressive body of scholarship produced by faculty, as well as the academic units’ strong and productive connections with surrounding communities, and the many initiatives undertaken by the academic units to enhance equity, diversity, and inclusion.
Professor Rule noted that as always, the reviews indicated areas for development. The reviews identified opportunities for units to strengthen coordination and leverage interdisciplinary strengths, and suggested ways to augment support and mentorship for students. The reviews also highlighted the benefits of enhancing communications and clarity for faculty around promotion processes and requirements, and continuing to ensure that diversity was reflected in faculty complement and curriculum.
Faculty of Applied Science & Engineering (FASE), Division of Engineering Science (EngSci)
The spokesperson for the reading group reported that the review summary accurately described the full review and that overall, they found the review highlighted the many strengths of the program, as well as areas for improvement. The group noted the program’s academic rigour and reputation, strong alumni engagement, interdisciplinary structure, and supportive student community. The reading group reported that the Dean’s administrative response had adequately addressed issues identified by the review, but requested more clarity regarding the first and second year curriculum challenges with the materials, hiring practices related to faculty and teaching rotation planning, and concerns related to Equity, Diversity & Inclusion (“EDI”) measured outcomes.
Dean Chris Yip responded that regarding engagement and hiring practices, EngSci sourced from cognate departments, as many of the core faculty members were appointed in other departments, emphasizing a cross collaboration between units.
Natalie Enright Jerger, Director, Division of Engineering Science added that it was by design that they drew their teaching faculty from across FASE, and FAS, noting that it was a strength of the program. They had strong relationships with Department Chairs in the Faculty to discuss any issues around teaching rotations in a timely fashion. As a faculty member with The Edward S. Rogers Sr. Department of Electrical & Computer Engineering (“ECE”), she was engaged in that faculty’s hiring process as appropriate and would explore additional formal mechanisms. They were reviewing EDI both in teaching staff and students, and were doing well in relation to diversity in FASE teaching staff overall. In terms of students, they were measuring outcomes of student retention, years to completion, student success in the Professional Experience Year Co-op Program (“PEY Co-op”), and other post-graduate opportunities.
No follow-up report was requested.
Temerty Faculty of Medicine, Institute of Medical Science (IMS)
The spokesperson for the reading group reported that the review summary had accurately reflected the full review, and that overall, they had found the review to be positive, noting that the program provided “world renowned” training in an “impressive diversity of research topics.” However, the reading group noted that the reviewers were not able to give a fulsome review of the Graduate Diploma program due to the attendance of only one student during the consultation process, therefore recommended that an additional review of the program take place. The reading group reported that the Dean’s administrative response did not adequately address the issues identified and did not align with the Unit’s response, and asked the Faculty to further comment on a number of matters which included how the review took place, failed recruitment efforts to generate more applicants and widened geographic spread, data collection and evaluation of faculty supervision data and demographic data, lack of communication surrounding rules and expectations in various programs for students and faculty, and evaluation of the success of the graduate diploma.
Justin Nodwell, Vice-Dean, Research & Health Science Education responded that regarding the demographic data, it was attributed to a lack of awareness and that the demographic data dashboard was processed through the School of Graduate Studies (“SGS”). He explained that he had spent a lot of time reviewing the data, but not in the context of IMS.
Regarding the evaluation of the success of the graduate diploma, Professor Nodwell noted that the IMS was a unique and established program of the graduate unit, enabling faculty to supervise graduate trainees (MD and non-MD) in a formal and high-quality program. He acknowledged that the Dean’s response did not address several points in the review, and that there was a planned review for the Graduate Diploma in Health Research (“GDipHR”) program.
Regarding the evaluation of faculty supervision data, Professor Nodwell noted this oversight, that there had been a graduate supervision review for all the basic sciences in medicine for the past five years. This was an annual exercise which included IMS, and where IMS scored well. He added that both the faculty-wide results were shared in an anonymized form with all departments, as well as the specific departmental review.
Regarding recruitment, this was an area of concern as their focus was to recruit the best students and work with many moving targets regarding the funding landscape. There was a harmonized stipend agreement for all of the graduate students, and an upper limit where the number of accepted students was dependent on available funding. There were various supports and resources for Principal Investigators to optimize their success, and recruitment numbers fluctuated year-over-year.
Regarding how the review took place, Professor Nodwell confirmed that the review was conducted virtually.
Mingyao Liu, Director, Institute of Medical Science responded that he was committed to make the adjustments as recommended in the review. Although they requested an in-person review, it was virtual due to the previous year’s circumstances. He explained that due to poor coordination between the organizer and students, this led to a disconnect where only one student attended the Graduate Diploma program consultation review, and a separate review for this program would be organized.
Regarding recruitment, Professor Liu commented that both a special recruitment committee, and an admission committee had the mandate of increasing the quality of the students by focusing on academic excellence and EDI. Supports were being explored to help students from outside the province or other institutions to find a supervisor. The harmonized stipend had been increased in the last five years, approximately $10,000 for each student. The operational cost for each year was over $5 million to maintain the current number of students, impacted by economic challenges of low funding and high cost of living.
Professor Nick Rule added that it was permissible to have a virtual visit, but that in-person review site visits were strongly encouraged.
A one-year follow-up was requested on the status of the GDipHR review.
University of Toronto Scarborough (UTSC) Department of Physical & Environmental Sciences (DPES)
The spokesperson for the reading group reported that the review summary accurately described the full review, and the Dean’s administrative response adequately addressed all issues identified. The Reading Group reported that the review highlighted high morale, strong research, breadth of program, strong co-op and experiential learning opportunities, interdisciplinary collaboration and clear progress since last review. The Reading Group asked the Unit to further comment on the strong opposing views on the management of the co-op program.
Katie Larson, Vice-Dean, Teaching, Learning & Undergraduate Programs, responded that the co-op and experiential learning programs were core commitments, a strength and priority of the campus. The Arts & Science co-op office administered the co-op program in a centralized format, working with various departments to support those programs. The Department of Physical & Environmental Sciences (“DPES”) had been advocating for a department focused model, whereas the Dean’s office wanted to explore a centralized model. Steps were taken in the interim to address the departmental concerns that were highlighted in the review. There were dedicated staff that served as direct department liaisons and they were in the early stages of assessing progress, acknowledging the core differences in opinion. Professor Larson noted that this was an ongoing discussion, and that there was a planned external review of the Arts & Science co-op program at UTSC, to gain proper insight on how best to move forward, since this concern was connected to experiential learning more broadly on campus.
No follow-up report was requested.
University of Toronto Scarborough (UTSC) Interdisciplinary Centre for Health and Society
The spokesperson for the reading group reported that the review summary accurately described the full review and that overall, they had found the review to be positive. The Dean’s administrative response had mostly addressed issues identified by the review, noting that steps were already in progress to address concerns. The Reading Group asked the Department to further address the concerns regarding progress toward program enhancement, specifically the proposed increase of dedicated staff positions and faculty complement, building consistent discretionary funding into the department’s budget for the Chair to support evolving departmental priorities, and “appropriateness and effectiveness of the methods for assessing student achievement.”
Michelle Silver, Chair, Department of Health and Society (“DHS”) responded that the department comprises faculty from health, humanities, sciences and social sciences. They had embarked on a collaborative effort to evaluate how assessments took place. She noted that a large group of students had engaged with the assessors during the site visit, and their feedback was related to exam policy and the fact that exams were returned without comments at the end of the term. They had explored ways to provide feedback to honor the exam policy, noting that the types of assessments in the humanities courses were different than the lab-based courses. She remarked that they would continue to discuss and collaborate to ensure that the assessments were substantially different and reflected appropriate student learning.
Katie Larson, Vice-Dean, Teaching, Learning & Undergraduate Programs, reported that regarding faculty complement planning, DHS played an important role in the broader campus-wide strategy connected to preparations for The Scarborough Academy of Medicine and Integrated Health (“SAMIH”) Garron building. UTSC undertook limited strategic hires related to SAMIH and the Health Sciences, which was a priority. DHS was actively involved from a curricular perspective, regarding program demand and program expansion as Health Sciences were further established at UTSC. This was an ongoing priority and as the move was planned to SAMIH, DHS was part of the shared staffing considerations to ensure that they had the staffing resources that they needed.
Regarding the budget considerations, there were ongoing budget discussions with all departments in the current fiscal context, to ensure that the Department Chairs had the resources that they needed. She noted that they were shifting towards a new budget model, which provided departments with more autonomy over their finances.
No follow-up report was requested.
Faculty of Applied Science & Engineering (FASE) Department of Civil & Mineral Engineering
The spokesperson for the reading group reported that the review summary accurately described the full review and that overall, they had found the review to be positive. The Dean’s administrative response addressed most of the issues identified and expressed support for the unit’s approach to the concerns identified in the review report. The reading group requested further explanation of the appointment of a pre-tenure professor as Associate Chair to oversee professional programs.
Marianne Hatzopoulou, Chair, Department of Civil and Mineral Engineering reported that she took a different approach to workload: She supported people's ambitions and engagements, and noted that the Associate Chair was a high performer, well connected and led initiatives at the department level. She concluded that the individual received a teaching reduction, and delivered an excellent presentation to the review team.
No follow-up report was requested.
Faculty of Arts & Science (FAS) (Provostial Review)
The spokesperson for the reading group reported that the review summary accurately reflected the full review. While the administrative response covered most of the pertinent issues, the group highlighted several areas of concern, which included the expansion of teaching by sessional faculty, challenges for FAS decision-making given multiple constituencies, and the changes and impact of the new budget model.
Dean Melanie Woodin responded that in the past 5 years, there had been a significant decline in the number of courses taught by sessional instructors; in 2017-2018, 17% of FAS courses were taught by sessional instructors, and in 2023-24, 13% were taught by sessional instructors. Therefore, there was an increase in the percentage of teaching done by appointed faculty. More courses were also being taught by graduate students, since the number of graduate students grew over this period of time.
Dean Woodin stated that given the large size of the Faculty and its many disciplines, decision-making was a complex process. She highlighted the collaborative and transparent process that engaged multiple stakeholders throughout the Faculty, and recognized their contributions to budgetary decisions. All constituencies were engaged in decision making. During the transition towards the new budget model, there was a commitment to make all information clear and accessible on a SharePoint site, and to communicate timelines for subsequent decision making.
Dean Woodin explained that the new budget model reflected a change from a historic expense-based model. She provided context regarding the historical process with its associated challenges, including lack of transparency, predictability and stability. Every unit going into the new budget model would have the exact same budget next year as it did the previous year, with no cuts. The goal was to encourage department chairs and directors to better understand their revenue sources and expenses, as they are best positioned to make decisions regarding funding priorities in their own discipline.
No follow-up report was requested.
Faculty of Arts and Science (FAS) Centre for Diaspora & Transnational Studies
The spokesperson for the reading group reported that the review summary had accurately reflected the full review, and that the administrative response fully addressed the issues identified and included a comprehensive, forward-looking plan. The group had no additional questions or comments.
No follow-up report was requested.
Faculty of Arts and Science (FAS) The Department of East Asian Studies
The reading group found the summary to accurately reflect the full review. While the administrative response covered most of the pertinent issues, the group requested further explanation of a statement in the report that: “[We] emphasize that we have never seen such a poorly funded, top-ranked graduate program anywhere in North America”, and to identify any potential vulnerabilities regarding the comment: “The department enrols the largest proportion of international students of any humanities unit at U of T” given the uncertain and rapidly changing international context.
Dean Melanie Woodin responded that the University had significantly increased the minimum funding packages for graduate students to $40,000 per year across the University, an increase from $28,000. Dean Woodin noted that PhD students in the department experienced higher than average times to completion, highlighting connections between time to completion and student funding. There were continued efforts to support the department’s learning objectives and student success within the funded cohort.
Regarding the large proportion of international students, Dean Woodin reported that quantitative data were not available, but that the proportion of international students in the unit was known to be high. The vulnerabilities identified also existed across the entire Faculty, and across the tri-campus structure. She noted that the department itself would have difficulties mitigating this vulnerability on its own, and that the University was focused on addressing these challenges.
No follow-up report was requested.
Faculty of Arts and Science (FAS) The Department of Political Science
The reading group found the summary to accurately reflect the full review. The group reported that the Dean’s administrative response adequately addressed issues identified by the review, however they asked that the Department further comment on the impact of the FAS budget model, and the relationship between the Munk School of Global Affairs & Public Policy and the Department of Political Science.
Dean Melanie Woodin responded that the academic plan for the Faculty of Arts and Science, titled Leveraging Our Strengths, was focused on the interdisciplinary breadth and depth of research across the Faculty. The new budget model had been developed to incentivize interdisciplinarity and encourage departmental collaboration. This included revenue sharing with budget transparency for those processes. The former budget model involved separate agreements between department chairs which served for that moment but, over time with changes in chairs and department context, was susceptible to confusion and lack of transparency, resulting in eroded relationships between academic. The new budget model supported transparency and relationship building between units.
Louis Pauly, Acting Department Chair, Political Science reported that the relationship between the Munk School and the Department of Political Science had been an ongoing discussion since the inauguration of the Munk school. Much of the Munk School leadership at that time were appointed from the Department of Political Science and other cognate units. Professor Pauly noted that over time, faculty cross-appointments had increased, and highlighted collaborative and mutually supportive partnerships. Transparency from the new budget model enabled the sustained joint and mutually beneficial relationship between the Department and the Munk School.
No follow-up report was requested.
Faculty of Arts and Science (FAS) The Department of Art History
The spokesperson for the reading group reported that the review summary had accurately reflected the full review. The reading group reported that the Dean’s administrative response had adequately addressed the issues identified by the review, however, asked the Department to further address the concerns around enhanced faculty advising and student experience, short term deliverables regarding mentorship, specific timelines for reporting on program and student outcomes, tracking and engagement of faculty participation at the Works-in-Progress seminar, EDI outcomes and supports, clarifying specific task timelines and identifying success criteria to evaluate positive impacts.
Dean Melanie Woodin responded that there was ongoing work to navigate climate challenges, and that unit leadership was committed to collaborating with the Dean’s office to ensure that the department and the graduate program thrived.
Regarding the mentorship concerns, Dean Woodin reported that the Faculty had recently launched new mentorship guidelines. Prior to this, departments had a range of formal and informal mentorship programs, with various levels of success. In consultation with units, a set of guidelines was developed to foster uniformity of expectations about mentorship, and offer flexibility for chairs and directors to tailor the program to best suit their needs. The mentorship guidelines preserved best practices, which included clarity around the mentor role, affirming confidentiality, and engagement.
Regarding transparent reporting on program and student outcomes, Dean Woodin reported that SGS had unveiled an extensive data dashboard on their website which was valuable to FAS. The dashboard included detailed items such as time to completion, attrition for PhDs at the unit level, and specific information on job outcomes.
Regarding EDI outcomes and supports, Dean Woodin reported on recent developments in the Faculty. The FAS EDI Office recently launched the Arts and Science Equity Practitioners Community of Practice. Developed for departmental staff members supporting EDI initiatives, the Community of Practice provided professional development, opportunities for shared EDI knowledge and resources, and awareness for successful initiatives in other units. A second initiative was also launched to support academic colleagues that chaired EDI committees and foster collaborations. The Department would also leverage resources from The Institutional Equity offices. Chairs of EDI committees developed an EDI plan that included internal processes for implementation and progress tracking. The Chairs of the Undergraduate and Graduate Programs jointly worked together to advance the engagement of the EDI plan and availability of resources.
Dean Woodin confirmed that a faculty workshop, addressing interpersonal and inter-campus issues to enable constructive conversations, had been scheduled for Sept. 5.
Joseph Clarke, Department Chair, Art History reported that enhancing student advising was a priority for the department. Over the past five years, program enrolments increased by 54% and staff FTEs increased by only 39%; thus the challenge was to ensure that that all students were supported and received the advising needed. There were planned initiatives to enhance student experience, such as the creation of a thesis option for undergraduate students. The faculty advised students on subject matter and potential graduate studies. There was continued work on formalizing the internship program with supports from the experiential learning and outreach support office around areas of professional and career development.
Professor Clarke stated they were developing a codified plan regarding mentorship expectations, and collaborating with the Dean’s office to ensure its alignment with the newly launched mentorship guidelines.
Kajri Jain, Tri-Campus Graduate Chair, Art History reported that tracking faculty engagement in the Works-in-Progress seminar was a simple matter of noting the number of participants at a given event. This program, where students and faculty present works-in-progress, was noted as a positive initiative, however it had been better attended by students than faculty. One of the ways they measured faculty engagement in the graduate unit was the quarterly Tri-Campus graduate faculty meetings, and they would try to find resources to provide better refreshments based on the feedback they received.
Considering that there were several matters of concern and complex issues to address, the reading group requested a one-year follow-up to report on progress following the upcoming curriculum retreat(s) and mediated faculty retreat.
Faculty of Arts and Science (FAS) Centre for Comparative Literature (CCL) + Literature and Critical Theory programs (LCT) (Victoria College)
The spokesperson for the reading group reported that the review summary accurately described the full review and that overall, they had found the review to be positive. The reading group reported that the Dean’s administrative response had adequately addressed issues identified by the review. They asked, however, that the College further comment on the revised Memorandum of Agreement (“MOA”), graduate funding (MA & PhD), faculty complement, allocation of grants.
Dean Melanie Woodin responded that regarding the MOA renewal, the CCL and Victoria College had a long standing collegial and productive relationship which they were eager to continue. Plans were underway to review the MOA, with the first meeting scheduled on May 6. The Dean's office had ensured that the program and college leadership were aware of the new budget model, and understood its potential impacts related to the MOA.
As the main point of contact for future graduate students, SGS had updated their website with data on student funding at the unit level, to ensure transparency for future students. As the primary point of contact related to the students’ financial packages, FAS had extended its SharePoint platform to include information about graduate funding. This robust site presented extensive information on all aspects of funding of the program, amplifying information provided by SGS.
Regarding faculty complement and stability, Dean Woodin reported that proposed faculty appointments were reviewed by the Faculty Appointments Committee, which included representation from all disciplines to ensure a transparent and fair process.
Regarding the allocation of grants, Dean Woodin reported that faculty members with budgetary appointments in multiple units were able to choose the unit through which their grant funds would be administered. Dean Woodin noted that grant funding cannot be administered through a unit in which a faculty member has a non-budgetary appointment, but that this information would be reported in units’ review self studies going forward.
Jill Ross, Director, Centre for Comparative Literature reported that the website was updated and reflected the new $40,000 funding package, increasing student awareness of this development.
No follow-up report was requested.
Faculty of Arts and Science (FAS) Department of History
The spokesperson for the reading group reported that the review summary had accurately reflected the full review, and that the Dean’s administrative response fully addressed the issues identified. While the administrative response covered most of the pertinent issues, the group requested further explanation of the issues regarding graduate funding and the new budget model, governance formalization and graduate curriculum.
Eric Jennings, Department Chair, History responded that regarding governance formalization, the unit had disentangled their governance structure, which now comprised a four-chair model, and the unit was working to define the functions of these roles.
Regarding the graduate curriculum, Professor Jennings noted that the majority of MA and direct-entry PhD students took a mandatory methods course, which assisted them with methodology and thesis writing. Only PhD students entering the program with an MA from another institution were not required to take this course, having previously received methodological training. Professor Jennings commented that the unit was developing a methods course to harmonize course content and avoid repetition. There were also professionalization opportunities available to students, such as mock job talks.
Regarding graduate funding, Professor Jennings noted that the department was a pioneer in offering $40,000 per student before this was implemented across the institution, and that the unit would explore potential adjustments as appropriate.
No follow-up report was requested.
CONSENT AGENDA
On motion duly moved, seconded, and carried
YOUR COMMITTEE APPROVED
THAT the consent agenda be adopted and that Item 5, the Report of the Previous Meeting, be approved.
- Report of the Previous Meeting
The report of the previous meeting was approved. - Business Arising from the Report of the Previous Meeting
There was no business arising from the report of the previous meeting.
- Date of the Next Meeting: Tuesday, May 13, 2025
The Chair confirmed that the next meeting of the Committee would be held on Tuesday, May 13, 2025 in the Council Chamber. - Other Business
There were no items of other business.
The meeting adjourned at 5:04 p.m.
April 21, 2025