Prospective Students  |  New Students  |  Current Students  |  International Students  |  Faculty & Staff  |  Alumni & Friends

Home » Policies & Procedures » Guides » Guide to Graduate Policy » J. Appendices: Full Version

J. Appendices

This version of the Guide to Graduate: J. Appendices handbook has been made available for users who prefer to print or read it in its entirety.

Appendix 10: CITI Requirement for Advancement to Candidacy

Berkeley: Office of the Dean of the Graduate Division

December 15, 2005

To: Head Graduate Advisers, Graduate Advisers, Graduate Assistants

From: Joseph J. Duggan, Associate Dean

Re: CITI Requirement for Advancement to Candidacy

At the August 2005 Graduate Advisers and Assistants meeting, I informed you of a new requirement that went into effect September 1, 2005 for students who plan to use human subjects in their research. Before such students can submit an Application for Candidacy they must take the online Collaborative IRB Training Initiative (CITI) course and print out the Course Completion Record to be submitted with their candidacy application.

Candidacy forms submitted without the CITI course completion record will be returned to the student and will not be processed. Delays in the advancement to candidacy limit the students actual time as a candidate and may jeopardize his or her full eligibility for the Deans Normative Time Fellowship, if in a qualified major.

Please be aware of this new requirement and advise your faculty and graduate students accordingly.

Appendix 11: Best Practices For Faculty Mentoring of Graduate Students Approved by the Graduate Council: March 6, 2006

Mentors, as defined by The Council of Graduate Schools, are:

Advisors, people with career experience willing to share their knowledge; supporters, people who give emotional and moral encouragement; tutors, people who give specific feedback on one’s performance; masters, in the sense of employers to whom one is apprenticed sponsors, sources of information about, and aid in obtaining opportunities; models of identity, of the kind of person one should be to an academic¹.

More succinctly, effective mentoring must be built on a commitment to providing every student with individual access to professional, collegial and supportive guidance throughout their enrollment in graduate program at UC Berkeley.

The university’s rules and regulations govern many issues relating to the relationship between mentors and students. In addition, many of the functions that mentors often voluntarily provide are in fact the responsibility of the appropriate unit, such as the student’s department or school. Our goal is to supplement these rules and responsibilities, and to provide campus units, faculty, and staff with guidelines for effective mentoring, and to offer a framework for discussing mentoring among themselves and with students. This document is based on our own faculty experiences at Berkeley, as well as and informed by related reports from other institutions. Its purpose is to help with the assessment and improvement of mentoring by identifying priorities and characterizing “best practices” that are appropriate to the diverse disciplinary and departmental cultures, student needs, and individual working styles found on our campus. It should be noted that the following guideline is directed at the entire community of graduate students and that each of the individual discipline is encouraged to develop its own specialized set of related guidelines.

In general, good mentoring in all its forms involves treating students respectfully and fairly, providing reliable guidance, and serving as a role model for upholding the highest ethical standards.

More particularly, faculty mentoring of graduate students should be provided in three broad areas:

1. Guiding students through degree requirements.

____________________

¹Zelditch, M. (1990). Mentor Roles, Proceedings of the 32nd Annual Meeting of the Western Association of Graduate Schools. Cited in Powell, R.C..& Pivo, G. (2001), Mentoring: The Faculty-Graduate Student Relationship. Tuscon, AZ: University of Arizona.

• Advising graduate students on developing a program plan, including appropriate course work, research or creative activity, and defining a timeline for their completion.

• Providing regular feedback on the progress of graduate students toward degree requirements. This should include advising them on their preparedness to take the qualifying exam, as well as any departmental “comprehensive” (“prelims”, “PhD entrance”, etc.) exam(s).

• Providing feedback and advice about the student’s performance in coursework, where appropriate.

• Providing for supervision and advising of graduate students when the faculty advisor is on leave or extended absence.

II. Guiding students through thesis or dissertation research.

• Advising graduate students on the selection of a thesis or dissertation topic that offers realistic prospects for successful completion within an appropriate time frame, and on the formation of the thesis or dissertation committee.

• Providing training and oversight in the design of research projects, in rigorous research methodologies, in theoretical and technical aspects of the thesis or dissertation research, and in professional integrity.

• Encouraging graduate students to stay abreast of the scholarly literature and of cutting-edge ideas in the field.

• Providing regular feedback on the progress of graduate students toward degree completion, including timely feedback on research, creative activities, and teaching, and constructive criticism if the student’s progress does not meet expectations.

• Evaluating clearly and explicitly the strengths and weaknesses of the student’s research.

• Encouraging an open exchange of ideas, including pursuit of the student’s ideas.

• Providing and discussing clear criteria for authorship of collaborative research.

• Assisting in finding sources to support dissertation research; such as, teaching assistantships, research assistantships, internal and external fellowships, etc.

• Being aware of the student’s research needs and providing assistance in obtaining required resources.

• Encouraging and constructively criticizing oral and written communication.

III. Guiding students through professional development.

• Guiding and/or supervising students’ development as teachers, helping them find suitable employment as instructors on campus or elsewhere, visiting their classes, and providing constructive commentary and advice.

• Encouraging participation in professional meetings of regional groups as well as of learned societies.

• Facilitating interactions with other scholars, on campus and in the wider professional community.

• Helping graduate students develop into successful professionals and colleagues, including encouraging students to participate and disseminate results of research or creative activities in the appropriate scholarly or public forums.

• Facilitating career development, including advising graduate students on appropriate job and career options, as well as on the preparation of application materials for appropriate fellowships, scholarships, and other relevant opportunities.

• Assisting with applications for research funding, fellowship applications, field placements, and other applications as appropriate for the respective discipline.

• Being the student’s advocate in academic and professional communities as appropriate in the professional judgment of the mentor.

• Providing career guidance and support, including assistance in preparation of a CV and job applications, writing letters of recommendation in a timely manner, and helping the student prepare for interviews and other recruitment procedures.

• Providing guidance, if asked, about the intersection of concerns around physical and mental health, dealing with stress, or disability with the development of the student as a professional. This requires being cognizant of campus resources that address these issues.

• Helping graduate students to develop professional skills in writing reports, papers, and grant proposals, making professional presentations, establishing professional networks, interviewing, and evaluating manuscripts and papers.

In addition, it is of great importance for the mentor to demonstrate willingness
to communicate with and to understand each student as a unique individual. In
particular:

• Mentors should recognize and seek to understand the various cultures of their students.

• Mentors should build trust and create a comfortable working environment, especially for members of underrepresented groups in the program.

• With respect to family responsibilities, mentors should be alert to students who need extra support when having a child, raising a child alone, returning to school after child-rearing, caring for an elderly parent, etc. If a student holds an appointment as a Graduate Student Researcher (GSR) and is unable to fulfill his or her duties, every effort should be made to modify the GSR’s
duties for the remainder of the semester. If family responsibilities prevent the GSR from performing any duties, it is strongly urged that the student continue to receive a stipend from the department, contract or grant (if allowed by the funding agency) for the leave period.

As partners in the mentoring relationship, graduate students also have
responsibilities. In particular students should:

• Be aware of their own mentoring needs and how these change through their graduate student tenure. Graduate students should discuss these changing needs with their mentors. If concerns arise about physical or mental health, dealing with stress, or disability, these may be brought to the attention of the mentor for advice on campus resources. Students should not expect mentors to deal with longstanding health issues or major emotional events that are more properly the
province of professional counselors, physicians, and psychotherapists.

• Recognize that one faculty member may not be able to satisfy all of a student’s mentoring needs. Seek assistance from multiple individuals/organizations to fulfill the mentoring roles described above.

• Recognize that their mentoring needs must respect their mentor’s other responsibilities and time commitments.

• Become aware of—and meet—the deadlines associated with the degree program.

• Maintain and seek regular communication with their mentors, especially their major professor.

• See to it, in cooperation with the Head Graduate Adviser in the program, that all parties are informed if a change of advisor is contemplated. If specific research plans have been agreed with one advisor, see these through if possible before changing to another advisor.

Finally, both mentors and students should be aware of some general common-sense
guidelines, as follows:

• Entering a mentoring relationship is voluntary. Mentors and students should discuss their expectations of the mentoring relationship upon entering it.

• Either party has the right to withdraw from the mentoring “contract” if, despite genuine attempts to make it work, the relationship is not satisfactory.

• While often the mentor will have more experience of life or an aspect of work, the relationship should be one of partners who jointly make decisions

• Meetings should be held in a quiet environment (or environments, for telephone meetings) where both parties feel they can speak freely without being overheard.

• Meetings should be long enough and paced so as to allow the two people to get to know and feel comfortable with each other.

• Information shared in mentoring meetings is subject to standard rules of professional confidence (see below).

• Commitments made should be honored. If meetings are canceled or delayed, adequate warning of non-availability or delay should be given. A postponed meeting should be re-booked promptly.

• Either party has the right to ask for a review of how the mentoring is progressing, or for agreements or plans made at an earlier stage to be reviewed.

• If either party feels unclear about the current status of the mentoring, that party should seek to clarify the views and wishes of the other party.

• Mentors should recognize their limitations and avoid working with the student in ways that exceed those limitations.

• Should either party sense there is a conflict of interest between the mentoring and any other role, this should be made known to the other as soon as is practicable.

References

The guidelines are based on the following:

Mentoring Guidelines, Graduate Council, University of California, Davis,
http://gradstudies.ucdavis.edu/gradcouncil/mentoring.pdf
In addition, the following sources were consulted:

Advisor, Teacher, Role Model, Friend, National Academy of Sciences, National Academy
of Engineering, Institute of Medicine,
http://www.nap.edu/readingroom/books/mentor/

Guideline for Faculty Mentors, University of California, San Francisco,
http://statusofwomen.ucsf.edu/resources/studentresources.php

Faculty Mentoring Handbook, The Rackham School of Graduate Studies, University of
Michigan,
http://www.rackham.umich.edu/downloads/publications/Fmentoring.pdf

Appendix 12: Filing for Graduate Degrees in Summer Session

Berkeley: Office of the Dean of the Graduate Division

May 1, 2007

To: Deans, Directors, and Department Chairs

From: Joseph J. Duggan, Associate Dean

Re: Filing for Graduate Degrees in Summer Session

As has been the case since summer, 2002, students may file for graduate degrees during the Summer Sessions if they are registered and enrolled. Degrees for which students file in Summer Sessions will be awarded as of the end of the following fall semester.

As of summer 2007, Summer Sessions enrollment for filing purposes must be for a minimum of three units. Previously the requirement was four units.

The current fees for Summer Sessions are accessible on the web at summer.berkeley.edu/mainsite/fees.html

Questions may be referred to me at grdean.acad@berkeley.edu or 642-5472.

cc: Head Graduate Advisers

Management Services Officers

Graduate Student Affairs Officers

Appendix 13: Minimum Enrollment Requirements for Graduate Students

Berkeley: Office of the Dean of the Graduate Division

May 1, 2007

To: Deans, Directors, and Department Chairs

From: Mary Ann Mason, Dean of the Graduate Division

Re: Minimum Enrollment Requirements for Graduate Students

At its meeting of April 2, 2007, the Graduate Council decided that the minimum enrollment requirement for all graduate students who are not yet advanced to doctoral candidacy will be 12 units per semester regardless of their employment status.

Students who are advanced to doctoral candidacy and are registered and enrolled are presumed to be working full time on their dissertations regardless of the number of units in which they are enrolled.

All courses in which the student is enrolled will count in this total of 12 units, including special studies courses, individual studies courses (601, 602), and courses on preparation for teaching (300-level). Please note that while no more than 8 units of 600-level courses are allowed per semester, the previous limit of 16 units of this type of course during a student’s graduate career is no longer in effect.

Students should be enrolled by the end of the third week of classes each semester.

Programs wishing to explore the possibility of establishing teaching practicum courses should consult with the Committee on Courses of the Academic Senate.

In requiring full-time enrollment of all graduate students, the Berkeley campus is following the practice of all other campuses of the University of California. The purpose of the new minimum enrollment limit is not to increase student workload, but to ensure that the campus receives proper budgetary credit from the systemwide administration for the work of its graduate students. This will result in more available funding for graduate student support. Most programs on the Berkeley campus already have all their graduate students enroll for 12 units if they are not advanced to candidacy.

The minimum enrollment limit will be enforced for the whole campus beginning fall semester, 2007. If your unit expects to experience difficulties conforming to it, please consult with Carolyn Chee, Director of Graduate Services of the Graduate Division, at 642-5779 or cjchee@berkeley.edu.

Appendix 15: Workload Modifications in the New UC-UAW Contract

Berkeley: Office of the Dean of the Graduate Division

November 15, 2007

To:       Deans and Department Chairs

From:   Joseph J. Duggan, Associate Dean

Re:       Workload Modifications in the New UC-UAW Contract

The new contract between UC and the UAW for ASEs (GSIs, Readers, and Tutors) is now in effect. The official language of the contract has not yet been published, but it is known that the provisions for workload are changed from those that applied in the previous contract. In the new contract, there is no Workload Dispute Resolution Process.

If an ASE complains to the faculty supervisor (usually the faculty member teaching the course) that it is not possible to perform the assigned work within the limitations set by the percentage of appointment (for a 50% GSI appointment, 340 hours per semester, and pro-rated for other percentages of time), the supervisor must respond in writing to the ASE as soon as feasible. If the supervisor does not so respond, the ASE’s grievance may be submitted under the Grievance and Arbitration provision of the contract for a determination on the issue of non-response.

The supervisor’s response may have one of three outcomes: 1) a modification of the duties such that the workload falls within the limits of the ASE’s contract; or 2) an increase in the percentage of time for the ASE’s appointment; or 3) denial of the claim of excessive workload. Increases in percentage of time up to 50% may be made only with the approval of the Chair of the unit in which the course is taught. Increases in percentage of time beyond 50% may be made only with the approval of the Chair, Head Graduate Adviser, and of the Dean of the Graduate Division through the normal process for approval of exceptional appointments. Please note that international students on certain visas may in no case hold appointments that exceed 50% time. There may be other restrictions that apply (for example, if the student also holds a fellowship). In case of doubt, please consult with the appropriate staff of the Graduate Division or the Berkeley International Office (formerly known as Services for International Students and Scholars / SISS).

Please distribute this memo to all faculty, both Senate and non-Senate, who are teaching courses for which ASEs are employed.

Appendix 16: Partial Fee Remission for Undergraduate Teaching Assistants

Berkeley: Office of the Executive Vice Chancellor and Provost

March 10, 2008

To: Deans, Department Chairs, and Chief Administrative Officers

From: George W. Breslauer, Executive Vice Chancellor and Provost

Re: Partial Fee Remission for Undergraduate Teaching Assistants

Colleagues:

The recent bargaining agreement negotiated between UC and the United Auto Workers (UAW) for Academic Student Employees extended the benefit of partial fee remission to eligible registered undergraduate students. Eligible undergraduate students are those appointed in Teaching Assistant (TA) title codes with appointments totaling 25% or more of full-time for a given semester. Academic departments employing undergraduate TAs must bear the responsibility for funding this expense.

With only minor exceptions, Berkeley is the only campus that employs undergraduate TAs. The largest departmental users of undergraduate TAs were advised during contract negotiations of this proposed provision, and were also informed that they might need to cover the cost. This possibility also was announced at the January 17, 2008 Graduate Advisors’ meeting.

The contract terms became effective for the Spring 2008 semester. Note that the partial fee remission applies only to the University Registration Fee and the Educational Fee. For the 2007-08 academic year, the remission amount for a resident undergraduate TA is $3,318/semester and for a non-resident undergraduate TA is $3,594/semester.

The Spring 2008 undergraduate fee payments initially were handled in the same way as the graduate student fee payments and were credited to the students’ CARS accounts at the beginning of the semester. Though graduate student fee remissions will continue to be charged back to departments in three installments during the semester, the expense for undergraduate student fee remissions will be financially transferred to Departments for Spring 2008. Departments will be charged for the remissions in March for all those students whose fees have been paid up through that date. A second charge will occur in May for any late appointments that may have occurred since March. The undergraduate fee remissions, which appear as employee benefit costs on departmental ledgers, will not be covered by central campus benefits allocations.

Beginning with the Fall 2008 semester, departments will need to pay the fees for the undergraduate students directly through the Departmental Student Award System (DSAS). Departments will need to process these fee payments at the beginning of the semester to ensure the terms of the bargaining agreement are met. Late payment could trigger grievances to which the department would have to respond. Instructions on how to use the DSAS system for fee remissions will be circulated prior to the beginning of Fall semester.

cc: Chancellor Birgeneau

Vice Chancellor Brostrom

Dean Szeri

Associate Vice Chancellor Jenny

Associate Vice Chancellor Ellis

Appendix 1: Revised Filing Fee Regulations

Berkeley: Office of the Dean of the Graduate Division

April 5, 2002 (revised May 28, 2002)

To: Deans, Directors, and Department Chairs

From: Mary Ann Mason, Dean

Joseph J. Duggan, Associate Dean

Re: Revised Filing Fee Regulations

The Filing Fee is a reduced fee for graduate students who have completed all requirements for the degree except for filing the master’s thesis or doctoral dissertation or taking the final comprehensive examination for the master’s degree or the Final Examination for the doctorate. The Filing Fee is not a form of registration or equivalent to registration. If students wish to use University services that are supported by registration fees, they must pay those fees.

The current amount of the Filing Fee is $178.25, which is equal to one-half the University Registration Fee.

In the past on the Berkeley campus there have been two types of filing fee: one for students who do not hold academic appointments and another for those who do hold such appointments. This second type of filing fee is contrary to University employment policy, which requires that all students holding academic appointments be registered and enrolled in eight units of course work in the terms in which they hold those appointments.

Consequently, in fall semester, 2002, those who are on Filing Fee, and thus are not registered and enrolled, will not be approved for academic student appointments.

Beginning in fall, 2002, all students holding academic student appointments at 25% or more – Graduate Student Researcher, Graduate Student Instructor, Acting Instructor, Reader, Tutor, Nursery School Assistant, and Community Teaching Fellow – will be entitled, as a benefit of employment, to full remission of the Registration Fee, the Educational Fee, and the Health Insurance Fee, covered by the salary source by which the students are paid. The academic student employee will pay other campus-based fees unless they are qualified to have those fees covered by another funding source.

Henceforth, the Filing Fee will apply for the length of the semester for which Filing Fee status has been approved, up to the deadline for filing for a degree in that semester. These dates vary from year to year, but are approximately December 20 and May 25 of each year.

The Filing Fee may be used only once. However, students currently in graduate programs who have used the Filing Fee to file for a master’s degree in spring semester, 2002, or in a prior semester, will be permitted to apply for Filing Fee for the doctoral degree.

Students may file for graduate degrees during the Summer Sessions if they are registered and enrolled. Degrees for which students file in Summer Sessions will be awarded as of the end of the following fall semester. Summer Sessions enrollment, for purposes of the regulations covered in this memo, must be for a minimum of four units. The current fee for Summer Sessions is $114 per unit for an undergraduate course and $142 per unit for a graduate level course.

As in the past, to be approved for the Filing Fee, students will have to have been continuously enrolled during all periods of study and research that have required use of University facilities or faculty consultation. Two semesters of approved withdrawal are permitted, but the student must be registered in the semester (or in a Summer Session) immediately preceding the one for which Filing Fee status is requested.

Students must apply for the Filing Fee by the end of the first week of classes of the semester in which they intend to file.

Appendix 1A: Qualifications for the Appointment of Undergraduates as Graduate Student Instructors (GSIs)

Berkeley: Office of the Dean of the Graduate Division

May 28, 2002

To: Deans, Directors, and Department Chairs

From: Joseph J. Duggan, Associate Dean

Re: Qualifications for the Appointment of Undergraduates as Graduate Student Instructors (GSIs)

Departments in some schools and colleges have been recommending to the Graduate Division the appointment of undergraduate students in the title Graduate Student Instructor. These appointments have resulted from a shortage of graduate student applicants for GSI positions. Undergraduates may indeed be proposed for GSI positions under exceptional circumstances, but only if no qualified graduate student from the appointing department or from other departments is available.

University policies for the appointment of graduate students as GSIs are well developed, but the same is not the case for undergraduate appointees to this title. The Graduate Division will begin enforcing a set of standards for such undergraduate appointees that is identical to the standards adopted earlier this academic year by the deans of the College of Letters and Science.

Undergraduate candidates for GSI positions must, under the proposed standards,

1. be registered in the semester in which they are teaching;

2. be enrolled in no fewer than eight units of course work;

3. have upper division status when they begin teaching;

4. have an overall GPA of 3.1 or higher; and

5. have previously taken the course for which they are being appointed, its equivalent, or a more advanced course, with a grade of A- or better.

Like graduate student GSI appointees, undergraduate appointees who do not speak English as a native language must satisfy the English Language Proficiency requirement before they can teach.

All departments have a responsibility to provide on-going mentoring and oversight for undergraduates who teach in their departments. During the semester in which they are teaching, undergraduate GSIs must be enrolled in a 300-level course or the equivalent, for purposes of training.

cc: Dean Mary Ann Mason

Vice Provost Christina Maslach

Chair Michael Hanemann, Graduate Council

Director of Appointments Stuart Fryer

Appendix 2: Revised Instructions for Fellowship Recipients

Berkeley: Office of the Dean of the Graduate Division

August 2, 2002

To: International Student Fellowship Recipients

From: Graduate Fellowships Office

Re: Revised Instructions for Fellowship Recipients

International students who receive any support through the University beyond payment of registration fees and/or nonresident tuition are required to submit the following documents. Please come to our office at 318 Sproul Hall when you arrive in Berkeley.

1. A Statement of Citizenship and Federal Tax Status form must be filed with the University every semester. The form must include an address in your country, an address in the United States, your date of entry into the United States and your visa type. Include your U.S. Social Security Number, if available, or ITIN (see paragraph 2 below). We cannot process your award if this form is incomplete. In December or early January, you will need to file another Statement of Citizenship Status for the spring semester.

2. An Individual Taxpayer Identification Number must be obtained. International students who are fellowship recipients will no longer be eligible to apply for a Social Security Number. Instead, fellowship recipients must now complete the Individual Taxpayer Identification Number (ITIN) application process by following these steps as soon as they arrive on campus:

a. Complete IRS Form W-7.

b. Call 510-642-3002 to make an appointment with Marcia Johnson in the Disbursements Office, 451B University Hall.

c. Bring passports and I-20 or IAP-66 to the appointment with Marcia Johnson.

3. A Certification of Tax Exemption for Student Grants and Awards and a W-8BEN form must be completed if your country has a tax treaty with the United States that exempts its citizens from withholding tax. Otherwise, federal taxes will be withheld from your stipend payments at a rate of 14%. Depending on other income you receive and your tax status, you may be eligible for a refund of some or all of the taxes withheld when you file income tax returns. Please read carefully the enclosure entitled “Graduate Student Support and the Tax Reform Act of 1986.”

Unless indicated differently in your award letter, fellowship payments will be made in two installments, August 20, 2002 and January 25, 2003. If the Statement of Citizenship and Federal Tax Status, Certification of Tax Exemption, W-8BEN and an ITIN application have not been submitted by August 1, 2002, and January 1, 2003, your payments may be delayed up to one month following submission. Please make certain you have enough funds to support you until fellowship payments are made.

Thank you for your cooperation.

Appendix 4: Applicant Review and Ranking Procedure

Berkeley: Office of the Dean of the Graduate Division

September 16, 2002

To: Chairs of Departments and Head Graduate Advisers

From: Joseph J. Duggan, Associate Dean

Re: Applicant Review and Ranking Procedure

Rankings provide one of the few objective measures of why a department recommends admission or denial for a particular candidate. The applicant’s rank enables the Graduate Division to be quite specific about the faculty’s judgment of an individual’s qualifications compared with competing applicants. If a disappointed candidate takes legal action or asks for a detailed explanation, the rankings help substantiate the department’s recommendation. For these reasons, departments must rank all applicants, even those who are clearly unacceptable.

The Graduate Division maintains a file of descriptions of the departmental procedures used to evaluate applicants for admission. We review the departmental procedures to assure that the fairness of the admissions process can be documented. We also use the information to respond to candidates who have been denied and who wish further information on the process. We last updated our information in 1999 and would again like to review your procedures.

Please send to Betsy Livak, Director, Graduate Admissions, a complete description of your applicant review and ranking process by November 15, 2002. Please include the following:

• a list of your admissions criteria

• the relative weights given to these criteria

• an approximate schedule of the review cycle

• the ranking system used

• a brief description of your committee membership as well as how the department selects the committee members

• a sample of any notification letters routinely used

• your GRE requirements (time frame, general or subject, all applicants or domestic only, etc.)

You may wish to refer to “Ranking of applicants” and “Methods of ranking” in the Admissions section of the Graduate Adviser’s Handbook for a description of the acceptable methods to rank applicants. Departments that use direct comparison ranking must rank individually those applicants who fall just above and below the cutoff point for admission. Rank in set need be given only for the rank set in which the cutoff point occurred. There is no need to individually rank the applicants in the highest and lowest groups.

If your review procedures or ranking system change at any time, please remember to provide us with a copy of the updated information.

cc: Graduate Assistants

Appendix 5: Appointments and Mentoring of Graduate Student Instructors

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY

Graduate Council

Revised March 5, 2012

The education and preparation of Graduate Student Instructors (GSIs) at Berkeley are essential to the educational mission of the campus. Faculty supervision and preparation of GSIs improves the preparation of graduate students for their future roles as teachers in academic institutions. The important role that GSIs play in education on this campus also means that effective preparation of GSIs will improve the quality of education at Berkeley.

DEFINITIONS

This policy addresses the preparation of all first-time and continuing GSIs. First-time GSIs are those teaching for the first time at Berkeley (even though they may have teaching experience at other universities). First-time GSIs normally assume responsibilities associated with roles (a) and (b) below. Continuing GSIs are all GSIs who have completed at least one semester of teaching as a GSI at Berkeley.

There are four different GSI roles, each giving the GSI a different level of course responsibility. (These roles are not equivalent to GSI steps that are based on experience or advancement to candidacy.)

Role (a): GSI who teaches secondary sections of a larger course. This is the most common type of GSI position.
Role (b): GSI who functions as the instructor of one of a number of courses in which the curriculum is prescribed, but the GSI is responsible for selecting readings, for how the material is presented, and for grading
student work. Examples of this may include language, studio, or Reading and Composition courses.
Role (c): Head GSI who functions as coordinator of other GSIs and/or performs other teaching or administrative duties.
Role (d): Acting Instructor-Graduate Student (AI-GS) who has sole responsibility for curriculum, textbook, and assigning grades. These appointees are the Instructors of Record in the courses they teach.

POLICIES

I. Recruitment and Appointment.

The procedures for recruiting and selecting GSIs should be public, transparent, and managed at the department level, rather than be controlled by private arrangements between course instructors and GSIs.

A. At the time of recruitment, the department Chair must make available the criteria required for appointments to GSIships and the criteria involved in determining the selection of GSIs.
B. The Chair is responsible for ensuring that postings are widely circulated within the eligible pool and are in compliance with the ASE contract.
C. The Chair is responsible for making GSI appointments.

II. Guiding Principles Determining Workload.

A. The Chair and the Faculty Adviser for GSI Affairs are responsible for explaining principles associated with workload in accordance with departmental needs and the current union contract.

B. It is the responsibility of the supervising faculty member to ensure that workload is consistent with the appointment percentage.

III. Preparation of GSIs for Teaching.

A. Responsibilities of First-time GSIs

  1. Every first-time GSI must attend the Teaching Conference sponsored by the GSI Teaching and Resource Center on the Friday before classes begin. First-time international GSIs (IGSIs) must also attend the International GSI Teaching Conference, scheduled on the Thursday before classes begin in the fall semester. International GSIs who anticipate being appointed in the spring semester must attend the international GSI conference in the fall.
  2. Every first-time GSI must successfully complete, no later than the end of the second week of classes, the online course Professional Standards and Ethics for GSIs.
  3. Every first-time GSI must either have completed or be enrolled in a 300-level semester-long pedagogy seminar on teaching in the discipline offered by the GSI’s department. The pedagogy seminar may only be taken in another department with the advice and approval of the Faculty Adviser for GSI Affairs in the teaching department and with the consent of the 300-level course instructor in the other department. First-time GSIs who fail to pass the 300-level course must retake and pass the course before they are eligible to teach again.

B. Responsibilities of First-time and Continuing GSIs

  1. All graduate students who teach require faculty supervision. At the beginning of the semester, all GSIs in roles (a), (b), and (c) are required to meet with the faculty member responsible for the course to go over the course syllabus, to clarify GSI responsibilities in the course, and, in the case of discussion sections and labs, to discuss the relationship of sections to lecture.
  2. First-time and continuing GSIs in roles (a), (b), and (c) must also meet regularly throughout the semester with the faculty member in charge of the course to discuss the logistics of curriculum, assignments, tests, grades, etc., and pedagogical matters related to their teaching of the course or sections of the course.
  3. GSIs must abide by other department-specific obligations that may include attendance at lectures or GSI meetings and meeting with faculty mentors to discuss more effective ways of teaching.
  4. Continuing GSIs whose 300-level course did not include the development of skills needed to teach Reading and Composition (R&C) courses must enroll in either a 300-level course in another department tailored to the teaching of R&C or the short course taught in the spring by the GSI Teaching and Resource Center prior to or concurrent with teaching an R&C course.

C. Departmental Responsibilities

  1. Departments must include the teaching preparation requirements for first-time and continuing GSIs in GSI letters of appointment and ensure that the requirements are met.
  2. All departments that hire GSIs must offer a semester-long 300-level seminar on teaching in the discipline, frequently enough so that first-time GSIs can take the course in or before their first semester of teaching. If a department has fewer than four new GSIs in any given year, the department may make arrangements for the GSIs to take the course in another department. If a department does not plan to offer a 300-level course in the spring semester, GSIs to be appointed in the spring for the first time should be advised to take the 300-level course in the preceding fall.The course must:
    • be taught by a faculty member;
    • address the practical and theoretical knowledge needed by new GSIs in the specific discipline;
    •  have a syllabus that specifies topics week by week, identifies readings, and describes the basis for evaluation;
    •  have a meaningful number of units and student contact hours (2-4 units);
    •  have a course reader or textbooks;
    •  have specific assignments for which GSIs are accountable and on which GSIs will be graded.

    The GSI Teaching and Resource Center can assist departments in developing 300-level courses through consultations, workshops, and grants.

    Departments are required to apprise the Graduate Division each semester of the name of the faculty member teaching the course and to submit a copy of the 300-level course syllabus to the Graduate Division’s GSI Teaching and Resource Center each time the course instructor changes.

    Departments must schedule 300-level courses so as to minimize scheduling conflicts with other graduate-level courses. The departmental Faculty Adviser for GSI Affairs is responsible for resolving remaining schedule conflicts for the 300-level course.

  3. In the case of GSI role (b) appointment, in which a GSI may have primary responsibility for curriculum, textbook selection, and evaluation of student work, a Senate faculty member or members must oversee andapprove all course descriptions and reading lists in keeping with the needs and standards of the University.
  4. GSIs with the title of Acting Instructor-Graduate Student (role d) serve as the Instructor of Record and have full course responsibility. However, all course descriptions and representative reading lists must be overseen and approved by a Senate faculty member or members within the relevant department before submission of a graduate student’s appointment to the Graduate Division and the Committee on Courses of Instruction for approval.
  5. Departments must make a faculty mentor available to GSIs holding the title Acting Instructor- Graduate Student (role d).
  6. Departments are responsible for taking steps to ensure that GSIs receive feedback on their teaching. These steps may include observation by a faculty member, the review of mid-term evaluations of teaching, or other steps appropriate to the discipline.
  7. The Department Chair is responsible for providing regular departmental practices for the review of end-of-semester GSI evaluations.

D. Responsibilities of Faculty Members who Teach with GSIs

  1.  All graduate students who teach require faculty supervision. At the beginning of the semester, the faculty member responsible for the course is required to meet with GSIs (roles a, b, and c) to go over the course syllabus, to clarify GSI responsibilities in the course, and, in the case of discussion sections and labs, describe the relationship of sections to lecture.
  2. All faculty members who teach with GSIs must meet regularly with new and continuing GSIs in roles (a), (b), and (c) to discuss the logistics of curriculum, selection of topics, assignments, tests, grades, etc., and pedagogic matters related to their teaching of the course or sections of the course.

IV. Rewarding Faculty for the Systematic Preparation of GSIs for Teaching

A. Departmental reviews should include an assessment of GSI mentorship in their assessment of faculty teaching performance. B. Budget Committee reviews should include an assessment of GSI mentorship in their assessment of faculty teaching performance.

V. Policy Dissemination

A. Departmental Chairs should provide faculty members a copy of these policies or the URL where they are located along with specific department guidelines at the beginning of each semester in which they teach courses with GSIs.

B. A copy of these policies or the URL where they can be located, along with specific department guidelines, should be included in each GSI letter of appointment. Assistance in developing guidelines for mentoring GSIs
can be obtained by consulting the GSI Teaching and Resource Center. Nothing in this policy shall be construed to alter the provisions of the UC-UAW contract. The contract is available at http://hrweb.berkeley.edu/labor/ase.htm.

Appendix 6: Modification of the Oral English Competence Testing Policy

Berkeley: Office of the Dean of the Graduate Division

May 29, 2003

To: Deans, Directors, and Department Chairs

From: Joseph J. Duggan, Associate Dean

Re: Modification of the Oral English Competence Testing Policy

At its meeting of May 5, 2003, the Graduate Council approved a change in the Oral English Competence Testing policy for prospective Graduate Student Instructors (GSIs). Since Fall 2000, the policy has stipulated that each graduate student who does not speak English as a native language must pass an English oral proficiency examination before being eligible for appointment as a GSI.

Based on the results of research conducted by the GSI Teaching and Resource Center that examined the passing rates of individuals with a B.A. or B.S. from U.S. institutions, the Graduate Council has approved the revision of the Oral English Competence Testing Policy, which now is as follows:

All prospective GSIs who do not speak English as a native language must pass a test of their proficiency in spoken English before they can be appointed to GSI positions. Exempted from this policy are those who hold a B.A., B.S., or other bachelor’s level degree from an institution in the United States. The policy applies to all prospective GSIs, whatever their citizenship, country of origin, or residency status, and whatever subject they will be teaching.

Each summer the GSI Teaching and Resource Center sends the names of those incoming graduate students who need to be tested prior to being appointed as GSIs to the departments. This list will no longer include those whose bachelor’s level degree is from an institution in the U.S.

The testing vehicles remain the same: 1) The Test of Spoken English (TSE), taken before the student comes to Berkeley, or 2) the SPEAK test or the Oral Proficiency Test which are administered by the GSI Teaching and Resource Center. Departments are urged to encourage potential GSIs to whom the policy applies to take the TSE before they arrive in Berkeley.

Please note that the Oral English Competence requirement also applies to undergraduate students who are appointed as GSIs.

Please contact the GSI Teaching and Resource Center at gsi@uclink.berkeley.edu should you have any questions about the policy.

Appendix 7: Graduate Council Student Parent Policies (Revision of May 1998 Statement)

2003–2004 Graduate Council

Berkeley Division of the Academic Senate

September 2003

GRADUATE COUNCIL STUDENT PARENT POLICIES (Revision of May 1998 statement)

New parenthood is a common experience for graduate students. The Graduate Council recognizes that parenting is a very time-intensive task, particularly in the early years. Students are often reluctant to ask for a special exception to deal with parenting demands. Academic units may be inconsistent or inflexible in the way they deal with this issue. The Graduate Council, therefore, requires that each academic unit adopt a minimum leave policy to accommodate new parents.

The student requesting an extension of time for childbearing leave must have substantial responsibility for the care of a newborn child. Each request for extension must include a statement written by the student certifying that he/she has substantial responsibility for the care of the child or children. As with all other such matters, the Head Graduate Adviser’s endorsement is required when the request is sent to the Graduate Division.

Additional Flexibility in Deadlines for Passing Preliminary and Qualifying Examinations and for Normative Time to Completion of Degree

While graduate student parents should be encouraged to take and pass the preliminary and Qualifying Examinations as soon as possible, students who need extra time based on parenting demands must be granted extensions for passing these exams. Parenting demands include childbirth and may include the serious illness of a child or other exceptional circumstances relating to a child. Each case, other than childbirth, will be reviewed and approved by the unit.

Because of the physical demands of childbearing, a woman who has taken time to accommodate childbirth or other serious parental demands may receive an extension of up to one extra year for passing preliminary examinations (in units that require these examinations); a man may receive a six-month extension. And, any woman who has taken time to accommodate childbirth or other serious parental demands may receive an extension of one extra year for passing Qualifying Examinations; a man may receive a six-month extension. Following Qualifying Exams, an extension of one extra year toward Normative Time completion may also be granted.

An extension (for the preliminary exam, qualifying exam, or post-candidacy Normative Time clock) is granted, regardless of the number of semesters the student was on withdrawal status. The provision to stop the pre- or post-candidacy Normative Time clocks may be invoked even if a student with substantial childcare responsibility does not take a formal leave (withdrawal) or have a modification of duties.

The total additional time granted by this policy may not exceed two years, no matter how many children are involved. Units must acknowledge these extensions in their calculations of Normative Time both before and after Qualifying Examinations.

International Students

The Student Parent Policy also applies to international students. However, a student’s visa status may be jeopardized by a time extension. He or she must consult with the Services for International Students and Scholars (SISS) regarding the implications of an extension on visa status.

Graduate Student Parent Support

It is recognized that each unit handles the issue of student support differently. Nevertheless, it is suggested that each unit be as generous as possible in dealing with student parents, particularly in the event of accommodating childbirth.

Appendix 9: Admission and GSI Appointment Scores

Berkeley: Office of the Dean of the Graduate Division

November 8, 2005

To: Deans and Department Chairs

From: Joseph J. Duggan, Associate Dean

Re: Admission and GSI Appointment Scores on the iBT/Next Generation TOEFL

The new version of the Test of English as a Foreign Language (TOEFL) became available in the United States in September 2005 and will be phased in elsewhere in the world later this year and in 2006.

Graduate Admission

Educational Testing Services is in the process of phasing out both the paper test and the computer-based test (CBT). The Graduate Division will, however, continue to accept paper and CBT scores as long as these tests are available and the scores are not out-of-date under existing Admissions policy. For example, for the 2006–2007 admissions cycle, scores are valid for all tests taken after June, 2004. Students taking the previous versions of the TOEFL will continue to be required to meet the aggregate score of 570 on the paper-based test or 230 on the CBT.

I appointed three standard-setting committees to recommend the minimum scores for those who are required to take the iBT Next Generation TOEFL for admission to graduate studies at Berkeley. The committees consisted of Senate faculty (at least half of each committee), non-Senate faculty, staff with expertise in second language learning or graduate admissions, and students. The minimum scores recommended by those committees were approved by the Graduate Council at its meeting of October 10, 2005.

The minimum aggregate Next Generation TOEFL score to qualify for admission to graduate study at Berkeley will be 68. This score will be enforced as a condition of admission by the Graduate Division. Although the minimum scores on the four sections of the test that together gave the score of 68 do not need to be reached, they were, for your information: 18 for writing, 17 for speaking, 16 for listening, and 17 for reading. On each section the maximum possible score was 30. In making decisions about admission, departments may decide to set their own minimum scores on one or more of the sections as long as this does not result in a total score below the Graduate Division minimum or to set a higher aggregate score.

As in the past, to be exempt from taking the TOEFL students must have already completed at least one year of full-time academic course work with a grade point average of B or better at a university in the United States. They must show that all full-time course work was conducted in English. Courses in English as a Second Language, courses in a language other than English, on-line courses, and courses that will be completed after the student applies for admission will not satisfy this requirement. Please consult the Admissions chapter of the Guide to Graduate Policy (www.grad.berkeley.edu/policies/guide.shtml), Chapter B: Admission, for further details.

Appointment as a Graduate Student Instructor (GSI)

Since the Next Generation TOEFL, unlike the previous version, includes a speaking component, it will also serve as the primary test to determine whether the English of students who do not speak English as a native language is sufficient to justify their appointment as Graduate Student Instructors. Eventually, then, the Test of Spoken English (TSE) will no longer serve as the primary screening for this purpose if the student has passed the TOEFL with a speaking score high enough to justify appointment as a GSI. The relevant standard-setting process committee recommended 26 as the minimum speaking score to be monitored by the Graduate Division, and this score was approved by the Graduate Council at its meeting of October 10, 2005. Hiring units may wish to establish a higher minimum speaking score on the Next Generation TOEFL for their appointees, in which case the higher minimum must be monitored by the hiring unit.

A student scoring from 22 to 25 on the speaking component of the Next Generation TOEFL will, after arriving in Berkeley, have to pass the Oral Proficiency Test (OPT), administered by the GSI Teaching and Resource Center, before being appointed as a GSI. Students scoring 22 may complete a semester-long Language Proficiency Program course (100A) before taking the OPT. Students scoring below are required to complete a semester of the Language Proficiency Program (LPP 100A) before taking the OPT.

If the student was exempted from taking the TOEFL for purposes of admission to graduate standing, but does not speak English as a native language, the student must take the SPEAK test administered on the Berkeley campus by the GSI Teaching and Resource Center and pass it with a score of 50 before being appointed as a GSI. In the event that the student scores 40 or 45 on the SPEAK test, the student will be able to demonstrate proficiency by passing the OPT. Students who score 40 may complete LPP 100A before taking the OPT. Students who score below 40 on the SPEAK are required to complete LPP 100A before taking the OPT. Students who fail the OPT are strongly encouraged to complete LPP 100A, at the conclusion of which they will be retested.

Students who do not take LPP 100A after failing the OPT must wait six months before being retested.

Please consult the Appointments chapter of the Guide to Graduate Policy (www.grad.berkeley.edu/policies/guide.shtml), Chapter H: Appointments, for further details.

cc: Members of the Graduate Council

Head Graduate Advisers

Faculty Advisers for GSI Affairs

Professional Developers

Graduate Assistants

Appendix A

Academic Progress Evaluation, Academic Standing, and

Appeals Procedures for Graduate Students

Approved by Graduate Council, November 1982

 

Also, see Graduate Appeal Procedure (Approved by the Graduate Council, April 27, 1998)

(http://www.grad.berkeley.edu/policies/pdf/gradappeal.pdf).

1. Introduction

Graduate study at Berkeley is expected to be both a rewarding and a highly demanding academic experience. Its rewards are obvious, whether they take the form of increased opportunities for employment or professional advancement, or of a sense of personal achievement in mastering a broad field of knowledge and practice, or of collegial relationships established between the student and his or her faculty mentors. At the same time, graduate study is extremely demanding of a student’s time and abilities. The work is intense and often quite difficult and the standards of performance high. This is to be expected. The value of a graduate degree exists in proportion to the standards that govern its award; if those standards are low, then the worth of the degree to all its recipients is reduced accordingly.

The rigors of a graduate education place burdens on students and faculty alike. On the part of the student, there is the expectation that technical requirements for the award of the degree will be met in a timely manner and in accordance with the standards of performance established by the Graduate Council and program faculty. On the faculty’s part, there is the expectation that recommendations for admission to graduate standing will be limited to applicants who show a reasonable likelihood of being able to complete successfully a rigorous program of graduate study, that each student’s progress will be reviewed and evaluated on a regular basis, and that students will be afforded reasonable advice and counsel regarding the content of their programs and the quality of their work.

Despite the best efforts of program faculty and the Graduate Division to limit admission to those who show promise of successful completion, and despite all reasonable attempts at review and counseling, situations will inevitably arise in which students encounter academic problems serious enough to call into question either their ability to complete requirements for the degree, or their ability to meet the standards of academic performance established for graduate students in general or for a given program in particular. In many cases, persistence of the problem may lead to probation, to lapsing or termination of candidacy for a higher degree, or to eventual disqualification and dismissal from graduate standing. While it is hoped that such measures will not become necessary, the Council recognizes the need for their existence, both to protect the quality of graduate education at Berkeley and to protect students against the added time and expense of prolonging an ultimately unsuccessful period of study.

In the sections to follow, the Graduate Council sets out policies regarding academic progress for graduate students at Berkeley, general standards for the award of graduate degrees, the conditions and procedures that govern academic standing and degree candidacy, and the procedures to be followed by students, faculty, the Graduate Division, and the Graduate Council in cases of dispute over actions that impede or terminate a student’s progress toward his or her degree goal. This document does not address itself to grades received in approved courses of instruction, nor does it consider matters of student employment, discipline, sexual harassment, or faculty misconduct, except as provided for in Section 10, below. These issues are addressed in separate publications available from the Office of the Academic Senate and the Office of the Chancellor. Additional information on policies and procedures regarding graduate standing and graduate student progress can be found in the General Catalog and in the Graduate Studies Handbook (available for review in most department offices, in the Graduate Division, and in the offices of the Graduate Assembly) .

2. General Requirements for Higher Degrees

While there is considerable variation among graduate programs with regard to the specific requirements for award of a graduate degree, all degree programs have in common: (a) a period of pre-candidacy studies, typically focused on intensive coursework and a training in the basic skills of research, scholarship, and professional practice appropriate to the discipline, (b) a period of post-candidacy studies in which pre-candidacy work is applied toward the completion of final degree requirements, and (c) a final demonstration, either through submission of an acceptable thesis or dissertation, or the passing of a final comprehensive examination, that the student has met the scholarly, research, and/or professional standards necessary for award of the degree in question. The transition from the first to the second of these stages is referred to as “advancement to candidacy” for the degree; achievement of the final stage will be referred to as “completion of degree requirements.” The following sections describe the basic steps involved in progressing through these stages as laid down in policies of the Academic Senate, the Graduate Council, and the Graduate Division. Technical details pertaining to unit and residency requirements, specific course requirements, and so forth, are spelled out in the General Catalog and in the program descriptions of individual departments, schools, colleges, and graduate groups.

A. The Master’s degree:

In the case of students working toward a Master’s degree, advancement to candidacy normally requires that the student’s record be reviewed by the Graduate Adviser and the Graduate Division and that the student be certified as ready to proceed toward the completion of final degree requirements. In other than exceptional circumstances, only students in good standing may be advanced to candidacy for the Master’s degree (see section 9.A., below). This should be regarded as a critical point in the student’s progress through the degree program; a student with outstanding deficiencies (e.g., below minimum GPA, incomplete grades in required courses, or inadequate preparation for the thesis, Master’s project, or comprehensive examination) should not be advanced until such deficiencies are corrected. Graduate Division policy requires that a student apply for and receive advancement to candidacy prior to completion of degree requirements (i.e., before admission to the comprehensive examination or submission of the thesis or project). Completion of requirements for the Master’s degree is subject to review by a committee of faculty members who act on behalf of the Administrative Committee of the Graduate Council. In the case of committees appointed to conduct the final comprehensive examination, membership will normally consist of at least two members of the faculty, one or more of whom will be members of the Berkeley Division of the Academic Senate. Master’s thesis committees will normally consist of three members, at least two of whom will belong to the Berkeley Academic Senate.

B. The Doctoral degree:

In the case of Doctoral students (those working toward the Ph.D. or a professional Doctorate), advancement to candidacy takes place only when the student has taken and passed an oral qualifying examination conducted by a committee of four faculty members (at least one of whom is from outside the student’s major discipline) appointed by the Graduate Division on behalf of the Administrative Committee of the Graduate Council. Admission to the qualifying examination requires (a) that the student be in good academic standing, (b) that all language requirements have been fulfilled, (c) that the student be registered, and (d) that at least one term of academic residence has been completed.

The purpose of the Qualifying Examination is to test the student’s general mastery of his or her field of study. At the time the Application for Admission to the Qualifying Examination is prepared for submission to the Graduate Division, the Adviser and the student should decide which general areas of the student’s discipline will be covered during the oral examination. Although the exam should give the student an opportunity to demonstrate his or her ability to synthesize the factual information and training in techniques learned through course work and seminar research, it should also be designed to reveal the extent of the student’s knowledge as to breadth, depth, and sophistication of reasoning. The faculty should determine whether the candidate is ready to enter the research phase of graduate studies, but the exam is not to be concerned solely with the proposed dissertation research.

Once the examination has been passed and the report of the examining committee has been received by the Graduate Division, the student should apply for advancement to candidacy. This should be done as soon as possible following the examination, but in no case later than the end of the regular academic term following the one in which the examination was conducted. (Delays in advancement could jeopardize the student’s eligibility for Fee Offset Grants under the Normative Time Program or, if sufficiently prolonged, render the results of the examination invalid.)

At the time of advancement to candidacy, a committee for guidance of the dissertation will be appointed by the Graduate Division on behalf of the Administrative Committee of the Graduate Council. The Dissertation Committee will normally consist of three members of the Berkeley Academic Senate (five members for students held to a final defense of the dissertation), at least one of whom must be from outside the student’s major discipline. Once the student has submitted an acceptable dissertation, has obtained the necessary signatures, and has passed the final defense (if required), he or she will ordinarily be assumed to have completed all requirements for the Doctorate. (This assumption will not pertain if it is determined that specific technical requirements for the Doctorate have not been met.)

The names of students who have completed all preliminary requirements for Master’s or Doctoral degrees will be forwarded to the Academic Senate Committee on Graduation for final voting and award of degrees. While the Graduate Division will ordinarily honor requests for a Certificate of Completion once preliminary requirements have been fulfilled, actual award of the degree will not take place until it has been formally approved by the Committee on Graduation.

No student should expect the Master’s or Doctoral degree to be awarded simply in recognition of his or her having met the technical requirements for a degree program. The completion of specific courses, satisfaction of residence requirements, and maintenance of a minimally acceptable record of course work and independent study are certainly preconditions for award of the degree; but they are not sufficient for such an award in and of themselves. In each case there is the additional requirement that the student demonstrate, in a context other than that of ordinary coursework, mastery of a broadly defined field of knowledge and the scholarly methods, research techniques, or professional practice appropriate to it. At the Master’s level, this is the principal function of the comprehensive examination, the thesis, or the Master’s project.

At the Doctoral level, such mastery is demonstrated through the qualifying examination, which should also attest to the student’s critical abilities and powers of analysis and synthesis within his or her chosen field. The dissertation that culminates a program of Doctoral study should provide a final demonstration of the student’s scholarly, research, and/or professional abilities; it should provide an original contribution to knowledge in the student’s field; and it should accord with the cannon of method and presentation appropriate to that discipline.

In brief, completion of the technical requirements of a degree program certify that the groundwork for advanced study has been properly laid; the further requirements of examinations, a thesis or project work, and the dissertation are intended to attest to the quality of what has been built upon this groundwork and as such represent the most crucial points in the evaluation of graduate student progress.

3. Committees for Higher Degrees

All committees appointed to conduct the Master’s comprehensive or Doctoral qualifying examination and to pass upon the merits of the Master’s thesis, Master’s project, and Doctoral dissertation (including the committee for final defense) are in principle ad hoc committees acting on behalf of, and reporting to, the Administrative Committee of the Graduate Council. In practice, the Administrative Committee delegates the authority to appoint such committees to the Dean of the Graduate Division, who is in turn asked to insure that such committees are constituted in accordance with Graduate Council policy. In the case of Master’s committees (for examination, thesis, and project), the Dean has in turn delegated substantial authority to Graduate Advisers in making the necessary appointments.

Notwithstanding the delegation of authority in committee appointments, the basic principle remains that such committees act on behalf of the Graduate Council, and the decisions made bv such committees are decisions made on behalf of the Council, not the instructional unit in which the student is enrolled.

The appointment of faculty committees for higher degrees is initiated within the student’s home department, school, or graduate group. Except where examination procedures preclude such consultation, it is normally anticipated that student preferences regarding the constitution of committees will be solicited and taken into account by the Graduate Adviser before appointments are made (in the case of certain Master’s committees) or before a recommendation for appointment is forwarded to the Graduate Division. That the student’s preferences are normally solicited is not to say that the student has the authority to appoint members to a committee or to veto such appointments. If the Graduate Adviser judges that a particular appointment would be appropriate or inappropriate on academic grounds, he or she has the responsibility to act in accordance with such judgement, and to make or recommend appointment of a committee that meets the legitimate academic intent underlying its formation.

It is normally expected that any committee for a higher degree will remain in service until its obligations to the student and to the Graduate Council are fully discharged. On occasion, however, it may become necessary or desirable to alter the composition of a committee because one or more of its members become unavailable for continued service, because of major changes in the direction of the student’s thesis or dissertation research, or because of other legitimate factors unforeseen at the time of the committee’s original appointment (e.g., the development of irreconcilable differences between the student and a member of his committee). Any reconstitution of a committee for a higher degree must ordinarily be agreed to by the member(s) being released from service, by the new member(s) being recommended for appointment, and by the Graduate Adviser, as being in the best academic interests of the student and the program involved. Reconstitution must be approved by the Dean of the Graduate Division, acting on behalf of the Administrative Committee of the Graduate Council.

Under extraordinary circumstances, the Administrative Committee may act to reconstitute a committee for a higher degree without the formal concurrence of the faculty member(s) being replaced and/or the Graduate Adviser, if it deems such action to be in the best interests of the student and program involved. Such a step will normally be taken only upon consideration of a formal appeal for reconstitution, and only after all efforts to remedy the problem have been exhausted at the departmental, school, college, or group level.

4. Normal Progress

Campuswide policies concerning the progress of graduate students in meeting specific requirements are intentionally flexible. While the Graduate Division has established upper limits on time in candidacy for different programs, and for the validity of course work offered in satisfaction of degree requirements, the definition of adequate progress is to a great extent left in the hands of program faculty. It is the policy of the Graduate Council that faculty expectations concerning satisfactory progress, whether applied to a program in general or to individual student programs in particular, be made known to those students affected through departmental publications, through written evaluations of student progress, or both.

For students in professional and academic Doctoral programs, the schedule for normal completion of degree requirements submitted by program faculty under the Normative Time and Fee Offset Grant Program may be used as a guideline for expectations of normal progress.

5. Departmental Requirements

Apart from general, campuswide degree requirements, individual departments, schools, colleges, or graduate groups may, with the approval of the Graduate Council, institute additional progress require- ments for students in programs under their jurisdiction. Such requirements may include, but need not be limited to:

(a) Maintenance of a cumulative grade point average (GPA) in excess of the 3.00 minimum required by Academic Senate legislation;

(b) Completion of specific courses at or above a given level of performance;

(c) Completion of requirements for a specified Master’s degree enroute to the Doctorate;

(d) Passage of departmental “preliminary” or “permission to proceed” examinations before admission to the Qualifying Exam;

(e) Submission of an acceptable thesis or dissertation prospectus prior to advancement to candidacy;

(f) Acceptance of the student by a regular faculty member from the department, school, or group able and willing to supervise the student’s dissertation research and to serve as Chair of the dissertation committee;

(g) Completion of certain general requirements (e.g., passage of the Qualifying Examination, completion of the Master’s thesis, etc.) within a clearly specified period of time.

These requirements, which may have specific time limits attached to their completion, are under the jurisdiction of program faculty. Prior approval by the Graduate Council must be obtained before instituting such requirements.

6. Evaluation of Student Progress and Performance

It is the policy of the Graduate Council that the progress of each student actively pursuing a graduate degree be evaluated formally by program faculty at least once during each academic year. The evaluation process may serve a variety of functions, but its primary goals should be: (a) to give program faculty a formal opportunity to review the performance and progress of each student in the program, and (b) to provide each student with timely information concerning the faculty’s evaluation of his or her progress, performance, and standing within the program. The Council suggests that the results of all such evaluations, favorable as well as unfavorable, be communicated in writing to the students concerned.

If the faculty reviewing a student’s record determines that there exists a particularly serious deficiency in the rate of progress or in the quality of work performed—that is, a deficiency which, if left uncorrected, could lead to a recommendation for dismissal, refusal of permission to proceed to the Doctorate, lapsing or termination of candidacy, or other action of similar severity—then the Council requires that the student be informed in writing of:

(a) The nature of the problem or deficiency;

(b) Steps that should be taken to correct the deficiency;

(c) A reasonable period of time in which the student is expected to correct the problem or to show improvement acceptable to program faculty; and

(d) The approximate date at which the student’s record will next be reviewed.

Except under the most unusual circumstances, the Dean of the Graduate Division will not approve a recommendation for dismissal, for termination of candidacy, or other action of similar severity, unless the foregoing requirements have been met. It is the opinion and policy of both the Council and the Graduate Division that no student should be subject to action of such a drastic nature unless he or she has been given adequate written warning and a reasonable opportunity to correct the deficiency. (Exceptions may be made in the case of failed preliminary, comprehensive, or qualifying examinations in which the examining committee recommended unanimously that the student not be permitted a second attempt. (See Section 7.B., below.)

7. Evaluation of Performance on Graduate Examinations

The following sections briefly summarize the policies and procedures adopted by the Graduate Council and the Graduate Division to govern the evaluation of student performance on Master’s comprehensive examinations, Doctoral qualifying examinations, and those examinations required by individual departments, schools, colleges, or graduate groups as part of an approved program of graduate study. (Additional information is available in the Graduate Studies Handbook.)

A. Membership of Examination Committees:

The Master’s Comprehensive Examination: The Master’s comprehensive examination is normally administered by a committee of three, at least two of whom should be members of the Berkeley Division of the Academic Senate. In the case of departments, schools, colleges, or groups that have been given permission by the Graduate Council to substitute a Master’s project or equivalent work for the comprehensive examination, it is expected that a committee of at least two members of the regular faculty will be appointed to review and approve the student’s project.

The Doctoral Qualifving Examination: The Doctoral qualifying examination is normally administered by a committee of four members of the Berkeley Division of the Academic Senate. At least one of the ,four (the so-called “outside” member) serves as the Senate’s representative on the committee and may not be from the student’s major, department, school, or graduate group. When adequate justification exists, the Graduate Adviser may recommend appointment of one non-Senate member to serve as an “inside” member of the committee. Such appointments require explicit approval by the Dean of the Graduate Division. The chair of the examination committee and the “outside” representative must be members of the Berkeley Division of the Academic Senate. Exceptions to the above have been granted to a few special programs, such as the Interdisciplinary Degree Program, and alternative arrangements have been made available to graduate groups that find it difficult or impossible to meet the usual “outside member” requirement. (See the Graduate Studies Handbook for details on such exceptions.)

Examinations in Defense of the Dissertation: Students completing a program of Doctoral studies under Plan A are required to stand for an examination in defense of the dissertation following its submission. The committee to conduct the examination is appointed at the time of the student’s advancement to candidacy. It will normally consist of five members, three of whom are appointed to review and pass upon the dissertation in accordance with rules governing the constitution of dissertation committees. The remaining two members will normally be drawn from the student’s major department, school, or graduate group.

Departmental Examinations: As described above in Section 5(d), examinations that form part of the requirements for specific degree programs are under the jurisdiction of the instructional unit involved. The Graduate Council nevertheless requires that such examinations, especially if passage is a prerequisite to continuation in a program, be administered by a committee ot at least three members of the regular faculty, and that the general policies of the Council regarding re-examination following a first failure be followed by the department or group concerned.

B. Evaluation and Re-examination:

A single policy governs most matters pertaining to the evaluation and reporting of student performance on examinations for higher degrees. In general, the result of any such examination is determined by vote of the committee appointed to administer the examination. (Differences in voting requirements are discussed below.) If, on the first attempt at an examination administered under the auspices of the Graduate Council, the committee vote is for a “not pass” or “failure,” this outcome is reported to the Graduate Division along with a recommendation for or against re-examination. If the committee recommends against re-examination, the student becomes subject to dismissal at that point. If it is recommended that the student be permitted a re-examination, and if this recommendation is approved by the Dean of the Graduate Division, then the student will be permitted to stand for a second examination following a reasonable delay for additional preparation (normally, no less than three months). If the second examination is also voted a failure, then the student becomes subject to dismissal. A third attempt is not permitted.

In certain cases, a first examination may be ruled a “partial failure” by the committee in charge. In this instance, the committee may request that the re-examination (if recommended) cover only the material for which the student was judged deficient on the first attempt. The first examination will nevertheless be ruled a “first failure”; a failure on the re-examination, even if it is restricted to a subset of the original topics, will be regarded as a second and final failure of the examination in question.

In general, reconstitution of examination committees following a failure is not permitted. Exceptions may be made only when circumstances render it impossible for one or more of the original members to serve on the committee at the time of re-examination.

The following sections describe aspects of voting and reporting procedures specific to the different types of examinations required by the Graduate Councilor by individual departments, schools, colleges, or graduate groups.

The Master’s Comprehensive Examination: The result of the Master’s comprehensive examination should be determined by vote of the committee appointed to administer the examination. The voting procedure to be used (majority vote or unanimous decision) is determined by program faculty; the Council requires only that the procedure be uniform in its application. In the case of a Master’s project, or equivalent work submitted in lieu of the comprehensive examination, unanimous approval by the committee appointed to review the project (or other work) is required.

The Doctoral Qualifying Examination: The Graduate Council expects a unanimous vote by the examining committee concerning the student’s overall performance on either the first or second attempt at the Doctoral qualifying examination. For further information on voting procedures and reporting requirements, please refer to the Graduate Council’s “Policy on Doctoral Qualifying Examinations,” issued during the Fall Quarter 1982.

Examination in Defense of the Dissertation: The requirements are the same as for the Doctoral qualifying examination, except that the delay between a first and second attempt at the defense need not be as long as three months if the committee and the student agree that a shorter delay would be adequate for preparation of a successful defense.

Departmental Examinations: Voting and reporting procedures used in conjunction with examinations specific to individual departments, schools, colleges, or graduate groups are determined by the instructional units. The Graduate Council requires, however, that students failing such examinations on the first attempt be provided an opportunity for re-examination following a reasonable delay for additional preparation, unless the quality of the student’s performance was so low as to preclude any reasonable possibility of passing the examination within an acceptable period of time. If a student is recommended for dismissal on the basis of a first failure of a departmental examination, the Graduate Division will request that the Graduate Adviser indicate in his or her recommendation to the Dean why a second attempt was not permitted.

C. Use of Examinations for More than One Degree

It is the policy of the Graduate Council that a single examination for a higher degree may not be used to satisfy the requirements for more than one degree, nor for a degree other than that for which the examining committee was originally appointed. Exceptions to this general principle may be made only under the following circumstances: A student who has passed the qualifying examination and has been advanced to candidacy for the Doctorate may petition for withdrawal of Doctoral candidacy and for retroactive reconstitution of the examining committee as a committee for the Master’s comprehensive examination. Such a petition should be accompanied by an application for advancement to candidacy for the Master’s degree and a detailed justification from the Graduate Adviser in support of this action. If approved by the Dean of the Graduate Division, and assuming that all other requirements for the Master’s degree have been met, the student may then be recommended for award of that degree. In general, such a step will be approved only in the case of students who, for one reason or another, must discontinue their studies for the Doctorate. If the student later decides that he or she wishes to continue Doctoral studies, then a new qualifying examination and readvancement to candidacy will be required.

Under no circumstances, however, may a failed qualifying examination be offered in fulfillment of the requirements for a Master’s degree.

Following a petition to, and approval by, the Graduate Council, a department, school, or graduate group may be permitted to conduct concurrent examinations for the Master’s degree and the Doctorate. Committees appointed to conduct such examinations are constituted as committees for both the Master’s comprehensive and the doctoral qualifying examinations. Such an arrangement will be permitted only if the Council is fully convinced that the academic intent of both examinations can be met by committees sitting in single session, and only if there are distinct academic advantages to be obtained through a concurrent examination procedure. If such an examination is voted a “pass,” the student will be judged as having met the examination requirements for both degrees. If the examination is voted a failure, then the student will be judged to have failed the examination for both degrees. Re-examination, if permitted, may take the form of a Master’s comprehensive, a doctoral qualifying, or a concurrent examination, as recommended by the committee and approved by the Dean. A student must be advanced to candidacy for the Master’s degree before he or he will be admitted to a concurrent examination.

8. Review of Dissertations and Theses

A committee of three faculty members, acting on behalf of the Administrative Committee of the Graduate Council, is appointed to review and pass upon the merits of each Doctoral dissertation and Master’s thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for a higher degree. A detailed discussion of the Council policies governing the constitution of such committees is contained in the Graduate Studies Handbook.

At least two of the individuals appointed to each dissertation or thesis committee should be members of the Berkeley Division of the Academic Senate. Under certain circumstances, a non-Senate member may be appointed if the Graduate Adviser determines that the individual in question offers expertise not otherwise available among the regular faculty, and if the Dean of the Graduate Division concurs in that judgement. At least one member of the committee should be drawn from a unit other than the student’s major department, school, or group. On occasion, a non-Senate member may be appointed to co-chair a thesis or dissertation committee if this assignment is shared with a Senate member. The chair of a dissertation committee may not be the same individual who chaired the qualifying examination committee.

It is intended that the conduct of research leading to the thesis or dissertation and the actual reporting of the results that follow from such research be conducted in a collegial manner, with regular consultation between the student and the committee appointed to guide his or her work. The entire purpose of this phase of graduate training is defeated when the student works in isolation from his or her committee. The more serious problems that arise when committee approval is finally sought typically arise through a lack of adequate consultation. While it is the committee’s responsibility to offer advice, criticism, suggestions for improvements in the research or the written document, and to provide the necessary opportunities for consultation, it is largely the student’s responsibility to initiate and maintain regular contact with his or her committee members. Failure to maintain such contact, unless it is clearly the fault of the committee itself, cannot be accepted as grounds for appealing the committee’s judgement of the quality of the work performed.

The Graduate Council requires the committee’s unanimous approval of the dissertation or thesis before it can be accepted in fulfillment of degree requirements. When a near-final draft of the thesis or dissertation is submitted to the committee, it is to be expected that final approval may be withheld pending editorial changes, the inclusion of additional material, and other modifications that can be accomplished with relatively little added time and effort. So long as the committee finds the work to be basically sound in nature, in terms of content, the research or scholarly methods employed, and the mode of presentation, the process of revision and re-submission may continue through several rounds without calling into question the student’s ability to complete an acceptable piece of work within a reasonable period of time. Eventual approval of the document is typically not an issue in this situation.

On occasion, however, the committee may find in the student’s work problems of such severity as to raise doubts about his or her ability to complete an acceptable thesis or dissertation given a reasonable amount of additional time and effort. If, upon submission of a near final draft of the document, the committee concludes that the work is not likely to be accepted without major alterations in either the research or the written presentation, then the Graduate Council requires that the following steps be taken:

(a) The committee members, either individually or as a group, should meet with the student and attempt to reach an understanding as to the nature of the changes that will be required before the work can be accepted.

(b) The results of these discussions should be communicated to the student in writing, with informational copies forwarded to the program’s Graduate Adviser and to the Graduate Division.

(c) The student should be provided a reasonable period of time in which to make the requested changes and to submit a draft acceptable to the committee (i.e., a draft in need of no more than the usual editorial revisions). The definition of “reasonable time” is left to the committee, but it should take into account the magnitude of the changes being requested, the amount of additional research, if any, that may be required, and so on. In general, six to twelve months should be adequate. The deadline for re-submission should be communicated to the student in writing, as part of the communication mentioned in (b), above.

(d) If, upon re-submission, the draft is still judged unacceptable (barring minor revisions), or if the student fails to submit a revised draft within the period specified, then the committee may request the Administrative Committee of the Graduate Council, via the Graduate Adviser and the Dean of the Graduate Division, to rule the committee’s obligations fulfilled and to discharge it from further responsibility to the student. If approved by the Administrative Committee, such action will normally result in termination of the student’s candidacy for the degree.

In the event that the committee is divided in its opinion concerning the eventual acceptability of the thesis or dissertation (on the grounds described above), and if the committee is unable to come to a consensus on the changes to be requested, then the matter should be referred, via the Graduate Adviser and the Dean of the Graduate Division, to the Administrative Committee for a decision. In such cases, the Dean will request a written evaluation of the student’s work from each of the committee members involved, as well as the Graduate Adviser’s recommendation for disposition of the case.

9. Academic Standing

In general, any graduate student may be classified as (a) in good standing, (b) on some form of probation, or (c) as subject to dismissal. The nature of these statuses depends in large part upon the type of program in which the student is enrolled, and the stage to which his or her studies have progressed. This section describes the three basic classifications, the conditions leading to a student being assigned to one or another classification, and the implications of such assignment.

A. Good Standing:

A graduate student is judged to be in good standing if he or she is making adequate progress toward the completion of degree requirements, has a GPA of at lease 3.00, does not have more than the maximum permissible number of incomplete grades, and is not on probation or subject to dismissal for any reason. Only students in good standing may be admitted to examinations (Master’s comprehensive or Doctoral qualifying), be advanced to candidacy, hold an academic appointment, receive a graduate fellowship, or be eligible to receive an advanced degree. Students not in good standing are regarded as either on probation or as subject to dismissal.

B. Probation:

Probation is intended to provide a student whose performance is less than fully satisfactory a period of time in which to remove deficiencies and to bring his or her performance up to a level consistent with the minimum standards enforced by the Graduate Division and/or the program in which he or she is enrolled. A student may be placed in probationary status only by the Dean of the Graduate Division. Similary, a student may be removed from probation and returned to good standing (or become subject to dismissal) only by the Dean. A student may not remain in probationary status for an indefinite period of time.

When a student is placed on probation, he or she will be informed of the fact in writing and will be provided a reasonable period of time in which to correct the deficiencies that led to this action. If, at the end of the specified period, all deficiencies have been removed, and no other circumstances warranting probation have developed in the interim, the student will be returned to good standing. If the deficiencies have not been corrected by the end of this period, the student may become subject to dismissal.

Probation may be initiated by the Dean of the Graduate Division, generally through failure of the student to meet the technical requirements of good standing, or by recommendation of the Graduate Adviser in the student’s major department, school, college, or graduate group. In all cases, the Dean will consult with the student’s Graduate Adviser before taking such action.

Probation may be initiated by the Dean of the Graduate Division, generally for one or more of the following reasons :

I) Failure to maintain an adequate level of performance (e.g., as measured by GPA or the quality of written work) in courses central to the student’s program of study;

2) Failure on departmental “preliminary” or “permission to proceed” examination, or failure to stand for such examinations in a timely manner;

3) Failure to proceed to the comprehensive or qualifying examination within a reasonable period of time;

4) Failure to make adequate progress in meeting other stated program requirements (e.g., submission of an acceptable dissertation prospectus, passage of required language examinations, etc.):

5) Failure to make adequate progress in thesis or dissertation research and/or writing.

Students in probationary status may not be admitted to examinations (Master’s comprehensive or Doctoral qualifying), nor be advanced to candidacy, nor hold an academic appointment, nor receive a graduate fellowship, nor be eligible to receive an advanced degree.

C. Lapsing of Candidacy:

Lapsing of candidacy is a form of probation applicable only to students who have been advanced to candidacy for the Master’s degree or for the Doctorate. At the time of advancement, each student is informed of the amount of time allowed for the completion of degree requirements in his or her program of study. If requirements are not completed within this period of time, the student’s candidacy for the degree may be lapsed by the Dean of the Graduate Division.

A student whose candidacy has been lapsed will not be admitted to the Master’s comprehensive examination, nor will he or she be permitted to file a Master’s thesis or Doctoral dissertation with the Graduate Division. Students whose candidacy has been lapsed are subject to the general restrictions pertaining to students on probation (Section 9.B.). (An exception will normally be made in the case of Doctoral students whose candidacy for a Master’s degree has lapsed. So long as such students are in good standing with respect to the Doctoral program, lapsing of candidacy for the Master’s degree will not result in probation.)

Students whose candidacy for the Doctorate has been lapsed cannot be awarded the Candidate in Philosophy (C. Phil.) degree, nor will the Graduate Division issue for such students certificates of candidacy for the Doctorate. Candidacy for the degree may be reinstated upon recommendation of the Graduate Adviser if there is clear evidence of renewed progress toward the completion of degree requirements, and if requirements previously completed are judged still to be valid. In the case of Master’s students, this will require certification by the Graduate Adviser of the residual validity of course work offered for the degree, submission of a complete draft of the thesis (for students on Plan I), and approval by the Dean of the Graduate Division. For Doctoral students, this will require submission of a complete draft of the dissertation, certification by the Graduate Adviser that the results of the qualifying examination are still valid, certification of continued competence in any required foreign languages, and approval by the Dean of the Graduate Division.

In the case of both Master’s and Doctoral students, the thesis or dissertation draft must be textually complete and sufficiently close to its final form as to permit the committee in charge to certify to the likelihood of its acceptance and formal submission to the Graduate Division by the immediately following deadline for filing of theses or dissertations.

Failure to achieve reinstatement of candidacy within a reasonable period of time after lapsing may result in the student’s candidacy for the degree being terminated. Unless otherwise specified in the Graduate Division’s formal notice of lapsing, termination will normally take place at the end of the regular academic term in effect two years after the date of notification.

To assist Graduate Advisers in counseling their students, the Graduate Division annually distributes lists of long-time degree candidates whose candidacy is in jeopardy of being lapsed during the current academic year and of those whose candidacy may be lapsed in the following year if degree requirements are not completed in time. For those students in immediate danger of lapsing, the Adviser is asked to recommend extensions of candidacy where academic circumstances warrant or to permit candidacy to lapse where an extension is not justified. Students on the second list (i.e., those whose candidacy may be lapsed in the following year) should, where possible, be reminded of this fact by the Graduate Adviser. Consultation between the Graduate Adviser and the chair of the thesis, project, or dissertation committee (or the student’s faculty adviser) would be appropriate in all such instances.

D. Termination of Candidacy:

Termination of candidacy for the Master’s degree or Doctorate represents a form of probationary status more severe than that of lapsing, but still short of formal dismissal. Candidacy may be terminated by the Dean following consultation with program faculty, when there is substantial reason to believe that the student in question no longer demonstrates the qualifications regarded as appropriate for award of the degree, or when the continued lack of progress calls into serious question the student’s ability to complete an acceptable thesis or dissertation within a reasonable period of time.

In the case of students whose candidacy for the Doctorate has been lapsed, termination may occur upon continued lack of progress on the dissertation (normally two years after formal lapsing of candidacy), or when the qualifying examination was taken so long ago as to render it invalid as an indication of current knowledge and skills within the discipline. Faculty administering the various degree programs are to set appropriate time limits and submit this information to the Graduate Council for approval.

Candidacy may also be terminated if the student fails to correct, within the time specified, major deficiencies in a dissertation previously submitted for committee review (see Section 8 above).

Termination of candidacy for the Master’s degree may occur when course work offered in fulfillment of degree requirements was taken so long ago as to call into question its validity as an indication of current knowledge and skills, or when there is continued lack of progress in completion of the Master’s thesis (for students on Plan I).

A student whose candidacy for the degree has been terminated is regarded as on probation and is subject to the restrictions normally applied to such students. In order for candidacy to be restored and probation lifted, the student will have to recertify his or her qualifications for the degree in question. In the case of Doctoral students, this will require a new qualifying examination, recertification of required languages, and a new application for advancement. Master’s students will be required to take additional course work sufficient to replace the units judged no longer valid, and to submit a new application for advancement. Doctoral students whose candidacy for a Master’s degree has been terminated, so long as they are in good standing with respect to their Doctoral studies, will not be regarded as on probation, although reinstatement of Master’s candidacy will still require completion of the steps listed above.

E. Subject to Dismissal:

A student becomes subject to dismissal on academic grounds if, following a reasonable period of probation, the student has not corrected the deficiencies that originally led to probationary status. If, upon review of the case, the Dean of the Graduate Division determines that there is adequate justification for permitting the student to remain in graduate standing, he or she may extend the period of probation by an appropriate amount. If the Dean determines that there is no such justification, he or she may impose formal dismissal and so inform the student and the Office of Admissions and Records (Office of the Registrar). (This will result in a notation to that effect being entered on the student’s transcript of record.) Alternatively, the Dean may recommend to the student that he or she withdraw from graduate studies with the understanding that readmission will be permitted only under exceptional circumstances and only after a thorough review of the student’s record by both the Dean and program faculty.

A student who has been dismissed from graduate standing will no longer be permitted to register. Once dismissed, a student is granted access to campus resources, including faculty time, only to the degree that such access is accorded the general public.

Under regulation 904 of the Academic Senate, the “disqualification [dismissal] of graduate students is at the discretion of the Dean of the Graduate Division concerned.” While Graduate Advisers may recommend that a student be made subject to dismissal, neither they nor other program faculty are empowered to carry out such action. The Graduate Council interprets Regulation 904 as pertaining to any action that is functionally equivalent to dismissal. In particular, Graduate Advisers are not permitted to prevent registration through refusal to sign a study list that meets the necessary unit requirements and is consistent with the general course requirements of the program involved, unless such action has been specifically approved by the Dean.

Appendix AA100: Late Changes in Study List for Graduate Students

BERKELEY: OFFICE OF DEAN OF THE GRADUATE DIVISION
October 22, 1998
To: Graduate Advisers and Assistants
From: Joseph J. Duggan
Associate Dean
Re: Late Changes in Study List for Graduate Students

Currently, petitions to add a class after the fifth week of classes or drop a class or change the grading option after the eighth week of classes require approval of the Associate Dean, in addition to the approval of the graduate advisor chair. Graduate Division staff have been entering the changes, once approved, on OLADS (On-Line Add-Drop System).
Effective immediately, changes to the study list through the last day of classes require only the approval of the graduate adviser chair. OLADS can be used in the departments and groups for changes to graduate student study lists through the last day of classes.

The procedure for late changes in the study list after the last day of classes will remain the same. These changes require approval of the Associate Dean. Please let me know of any concerns or questions you may have regarding this change in procedure.

Appendix AA101: Changes in Policies Concerning Readmission

BERKELEY: OFFICE OF DEAN OF THE GRADUATE DIVISION
October 26, 1998
To:Graduate Advisers and Assistants
From: Joseph J. Duggan
Associate Dean
Re: Changes in Policies Concerning Readmission

The new policy on readmission, issued on December 24, 1997, did not make the 1998 edition of the Graduate Adviser’s Handbook. On page 62, please replace the second paragraph in the section on readmission with following two paragraphs:

Readmission applies to all students who have ever been registered as graduate students in any program at Berkeley. Any student who has registered at Berkeley as a graduate level student, no matter how long ago, applies for readmission, not admission, when he or she returns. In addition to the readmission application, students who have been away from the University for more than five years must submit the same documentation to the department as those applying for initial admission. This documentation, including letters of recommendation, a statement of purpose, copies of academic recommendations, transcripts of work completed in the interim, and any other internal department requirements, must be submitted by the deadline set by the department. Students applying for readmission may be compared in competition with applicants for admission, at the option of the department.

All students who apply for a change of major must submit transcripts of all college-level work, a statement of purpose, and three current letters of recommendation to the department.

Appendix AA111: Problems of Late Registration by Students

BERKELEY: OFFICE OF DEAN OF THE GRADUATE DIVISION
August 23, 1999
To: Head Graduate Advisers
From: Joseph J. Duggan, Associate Dean
Z. Renee Sung, Associate Dean
Problems of Late Registration by Students

We are requesting your assistance in solving a serious budgetary problem for the campus. Part of the annual campus budget is determined by the number of students officially enrolled by the end of the third week of classes each semester. In addition, the Office of the President uses fall enrollment counts to determine campus allocations of University Student Aid Program (USAP) funds. As you may know, USAP funds are an important component of department block grant support; thus, registration numbers are directly linked to campus graduate student support funds. This year the total number of undergraduate and graduate students registered beyond our budgeted projections will generate an additional $8,000 per student in income for the campus plus $700 per student in USAP funds.

We ask for your help in ensuring that graduate students register by the established University deadlines for registration and enrollment, but no later than by the end of the third week of classes (September 10, 1999). Please remind your graduate students that to be considered registered they need to (1) enroll in at least one class, (2) pay at least 20% of their fees, and (3) have no blocks on their registration. For your convenience, during the second week of classes we will send you a list of students in your major who have still not satisfied the registration requirements for fall 1999. We would greatly appreciate your following up and notifying each student to register immediately. We remind you that registration and enrollment have always been required criteria for holding an academic appointment and for receiving fee remissions and fellowship support.

Because of the serious budgetary consequences of late registration and enrollment, we must require that students comply with campus policy. Students must be registered and enrolled in at least eight units by the end of the third week of classes in order to maintain their eligibility for any fee remission or fellowship. Students who are not registered by September 10, 1999 will lose their fall 1999 fee remissions; fellowship holders will lose the payment of fees.

If you have questions regarding these issues, please contact Graduate Degrees, 2- 7330; Graduate Appointments, 2- 7101; or Graduate Fellowships, 2-0672. We will send this memo via email to the graduate assistants as well for your convenience in forwarding to graduate students.

cc: Graduate Assistants

Appendix AA114: Deferral of Admission

BERKELEY: OFFICE OF DEAN OF THE GRADUATE DIVISION
October 20, 1999
To: Head Graduate Advisers
From: Joseph J. Duggan
Associate Dean
Re: Deferral of Admission

I have recently reviewed our policy on deferral of admission and want to clarify three main points. Departments may defer an applicant only once, applicants admitted by exception may not be deferred, and any applicant wanting to be considered for a multi-year fellowship must be ranked with the current applicant pool. If a deferred applicant does not register, you may still consider the applicant for a future semester, but you must compare and rank the applicant with newly submitted applications for that term.

Recommendation for deferred admission. Departments can recommend that an applicant’s admission be deferred one time only if the applicant has been admitted but is unable to enroll on schedule and wants to begin graduate school in a later semester. Departments that admit only for fall semester can recommend to defer an admission only until the next fall semester; those admitting for both semesters can recommend to defer until spring or the following fall.

Deferred admission may be offered only to superior applicants. Applicants admitted by exception may not be deferred. Such applicants must be reviewed and ranked with the current applicant pool, and may be offered admission if they rank above the cutoff point for admissions. Under no circumstances can deferred admission be offered to an international applicant who has not yet received a basic degree or whose scholarship, preparation. or English proficiency is questioned by Graduate Admissions.

How departments request deferred admissions. To request a deferred admission, the graduate adviser should write a short memo to Graduate Admissions, justifying the reason for the deferral. Graduate Admissions will review the request and notify the department of the decision.

An applicant offered deferred admission to another academic year (i.e., fall to fall) must submit a new application (Form A) and updated transcripts. If the standardized test scores are out of current date range, new test scores must be submitted. Graduate Admissions will issue a letter of admission for the new semester only after we receive a new application and any required updated records and test scores. If the applicant has asked to be considered for the University multi-year awards, the department must review and rank the applicant with the current applicant pool.

The department should remember to hold allotment slots for anyone for whom it has requested a deferral.

cc: Graduate Assistants

Appendix AA120: New Testing Policy for the Oral English Competence of Graduate Student Instructors

Berkeley: Office of the Dean of the Graduate Division
December 1, 1999
To: Deans, Directors, Department Chairs
Head Graduate Advisers
Professional Developers of GSIs
Faculty Advisers for GSI Affairs
From: Joseph J. Duggan
Associate Dean
Re: New Testing Policy for the Oral English Competence of Graduate Student Instructors

Pursuant to a decision of the Graduate Council, the policy under which potential Graduate Student Instructors are tested for competence in oral English has been changed.

Beginning with fall semester 2000, all those who are not native speakers of English must pass a test of their proficiency in spoken English before they can hold GSI positions. This policy applies to all prospective GSIs, whatever their citizenship and residency status, and whatever subject they will be teaching.

For this purpose, proficiency in spoken English must be demonstrated by passing with a minimum score: (1) the Test of Spoken English (TSE) before coming to Berkeley, or (2) the SPEAK test or the Oral Proficiency Test which are administered by the GSI Teaching and Resource Center. Departments are urged to encourage potential GSIs who are not native speakers of English to take the TSE before they arrive in Berkeley.

Graduate students who have been accepted to UC Berkeley for admission in fall 2000 must respond to the question on the Statement of Intention to Register form:
Do you speak English as a native language?

The Graduate Division will register the responses in its database where the GSI Teaching and Resource Center will have access to them. Reports will be sent to campus units periodically so that you will be aware of the names of students who need to pass a test of oral English proficiency before being permitted to teach.

The new policy is reflected in the Graduate Division publications Graduate Study at Berkeley, Where To Begin, Addendum to the Graduate Adviser’s Handbook 1999–2000, General Catalog 1999–2000, and in the Graduate Application for Admission and Fellowships, 2000–2001. Information on the new policy can also be found on the Graduate Division Web Site under Admissions in the section on Student Employment and under Academic Appointments.

For further information contact the Graduate Student Instructor Teaching and Resource Center at 642-4456 or gsi@uclink4.berkeley.edu.

cc: Graduate Assistants

Appendix AA122: University Predoctoral Humanities and Regents Intern Fellowships

BERKELEY: OFFICE OF DEAN OF THE GRADUATE DIVISION

December 17, 1999

To: Department Chairs

Humanities and Social Sciences

From: Joseph Cerny, Dean

Re: University Predoctoral Humanities and Regents Intern Fellowships

I am writing to announce revisions to two multi-year award programs, the University Predoctoral Humanities Fellowships and the Regents Intern Fellowships. As you know, these programs provide four years of support for entering domestic and international graduate students. Currently, these fellowships provide two years of stipend support with coverage of in-state fees and nonresident tuition (if necessary), and two years of departmental support with coverage of partial fees and nonresident tuition (if necessary). Nonresident tuition for domestic students is restricted to one year .

Unfortunately, because our funding has not increased, we find it necessary to restrict the Graduate Division’s nonresident tuition coverage from four years to two years for international students. As before. one year of nonresident tuition will be covered for domestic students. Therefore, effective with the 2000–2001 fellowship competition, these fellowships will be offered as follows:

University Predoctoral Humanities Fellowships:

• year 1: $12,500 stipend and full fees with nonresident tuition for domestic and international students

• year 2: $12,500 stipend and full fees, and nonresident tuition for international students only. (In previous years the second stipend year was held until the dissertation year; however, that has been changed to the second year of study.)

• year 3: departmental support in the form of a GSI or a GSR, with Graduate Division paying the remainder of the in-state fees after fee remission*

• year 4: departmental support in the form of a GSI or a GSR, with Graduate Division paying the remainder of the in-state fees after fee remission*

Regents Intern Fellowships:

• year 1: $11,000 stipend and full fees with nonresident tuition for domestic and international students

• year 2: $11,000 stipend and full fees, and nonresident tuition for international students only

• year 3: departmental support in the form of a GSI or a GSR, with Graduate Division paying the remainder of in-state fees after fee remission*

• year 4: departmental support in the form of a GSI or a GSR, with Graduate Division paying the remainder of in-state fees after fee remission*

For all students who have already received one of these awards, the Graduate Division will pay nonresident tuition as indicated in their award letters.

I regret having to announce these changes, however, they are necessary for the following reasons:

• The Graduate Division has not received any significant new funding during the last several years, while, at the same time nonresident tuition has increased.

• It is imperative that we use some of our current funding to increase the stipends of the Berkeley Graduate Fellowship and the Chancellor’s Opportunity Predoctoral Fellowship in order to remain competitive with our peer institutions. The Berkeley stipend will be raised from $13,000 to $15.000 and the Chancellor’s Opportunity stipend will go from $12,000 to $14,000 beginning with the 2000–2001 fellowship competition.

*NOTE: Recently there was some confusion concerning the Graduate Division’s policy on the payment of fees for these two programs in the departmental years of support. It has always been the intent to pay the remainder of in-state fees after fee remission has been paid during the years of departmental support. The program was never budgeted to cover full fees in the support years.

cc: Graduate Assistants

JC/JJD/DB

Appendix AA74: Reduced Nonresident Tuition for Qualified Graduate Students

BERKELEY: OFFICE OF DEAN OF THE GRADUATE DIVISION

January 24, 1997

DEANS, DIRECTORS AND DEPARTMENT CHAIRS

I am very pleased to inform you that at their January 17, 1997, meeting, the Regents adopted a new policy, providing a reduction in assessed nonresident tuition for graduate students advanced to candidacy for the doctoral degree.

Essentially, the policy is:

For graduate students who are advanced to candidacy for the Ph.D. or professional doctorate, beginning fall 1997, and after, nonresident tuition will be reduced by 75% for up to three years. Graduate students who are already advanced to candidacy in fall 1997 would also be eligible, but only for the remainder of three years from the date of their advancement to candidacy; and

For graduate students who do not complete their doctoral degree within three years after advancement to candidacy, and still need to register, the nonresident tuition will be reinstated to its full amount.

The Office of the President is working on implementation guidelines, which the Council of Graduate Deans will review during their February meeting. We hope to distribute these to you in March.

The campus strongly supported this change, since it will bring UC in line with the practice of our comparison universities, all of which have reduced tuition in the later years of a graduate student’s career.

Joseph Cerny

Dean

Appendix AA77, Attachment

Graduate Division, April 16, 1997

IMPLEMENTATION OF REDUCED NONRESIDENT TUITION FOR STUDENTS
ADVANCED TO DOCTORAL CANDIDACY

At their January 1997 meeting, the Regents adopted the following policy regarding the reduction in nonresident tuition for graduate students advanced to candidacy for the doctorate.

Effective with the Fall term 1997, for graduate doctoral students who have been advanced to candidacy, the annual nonresident tuition fee is reduced by 75 percent, subject to the understanding that:

(a) a graduate doctoral student may receive the reduced nonresident tuition rate for a maximum of three years; and

(b) any such student who continues to be enrolled or who re-enrolls after receiving the reduced fee for three years will be charged the full nonresident tuition rate that is in effect at the time.

Questions and Answers

The following questions and answers are intended to provide guidance on implementation of the reduced nonresident tuition for graduate doctoral students.

1) Q: By how much is the nonresident tuition reduced?

A: The annual nonresident tuition fee is reduced by 75 percent for a maximum of three years after the student is advanced to candidacy. The full nonresident tuition fee for 1997–98 is $8,984; students eligible for the reduced rate would be assessed $2,246 in 1997–98 ($1,123 per semester). In addition, students will continue to be assessed the Educational Fee, the University Registration Fee, the Student Health Insurance Fee, campus miscellaneous fees and, if applicable, the Fee for Selected Professional School Students.

2) Q: Will the reduced nonresident tuition fee remain at the same amount for the duration of time that a student is in candidacy? For example, a student who is advanced to candidacy in July 1997 is charged $2,246 for nonresident tuition for the 1997–98 academic year; then, for 1998–99, the Regents increase the nonresident tuition fee. Would the student who was advanced to candidacy in 1997–98 continue to be assessed only $2,246?

A: No. An eligible student will be assessed 25 percent of the prevailing nonresident tuition fee.
3) Q: Who will calculate the reduced nonresident tuition fee?
A: The Office of the President will calculate the fee. Each year, when the Office of the President
notifies campuses of the amount of nonresident tuition, it will also include the amount of the reduced nonresident tuition to be charged to students who have been advanced to candidacy.

4) Q: Is the reduced fee actually a lower fee, or are eligible students assessed the full nonresident tuition and then given a tuition waiver for 75 percent of the full amount?

A: Eligible students will be charged a lower fee.

5) Q: Why is a reduced fee charged rather than charging the full amount and providing a fee waiver?

A: To be consistent with the practices of the University’s public comparison institutions which currently charge nonresident tuition at reduced rates for doctoral students in the latter years of their academic programs, a reduced fee is charged. This action also brings the University’s practices in line with state policy on the adjustment of nonresident tuition.

6) Q: Who is eligible for reduced nonresident tuition?

A: A registered Ph.D. or professional doctorate student who meets all of the following criteria is
eligible for reduced nonresident tuition:

a) is classified as a nonresident (domestic or international) for tuition purposes; and

b) is registered in a doctoral program or professional doctorate program that has an advancement-to-candidacy requirement; and

c) has been approved by the campus to be advanced to doctoral candidacy as of the first day of the academic term, as determined by the campus, for which the reduced tuition is assessed. At Berkeley, we are interpreting “as of the first day of the academic term” to mean “on or before the first day of instruction.”

7) Q: Who is NOT eligible for the reduced tuition?

A: Graduate students enrolled in master’s programs and professional doctoral programs that do not have an advancement-to-candidacy requirement are not eligible for reduced nonresident tuition; for example, professional school students in law (J.D.) and optometry (O.D.).

8 ) Q: Are the three years of eligibility for the reduced nonresident tuition measured by the number of enrolled academic terms or by calendar years?

A: Eligibility for the reduced nonresident tuition is measured in calendar years and begins with the first academic term following advancement to candidacy. For example, a student who is advanced to candidacy in November 1997 would be eligible for the reduced nonresident tuition in the academic term beginning January 1998. The student’s eligibility would end three years later with the Fall 2000 term.

9) Q: Do academic terms during which an eligible student is not registered count in the three-year limit?

A: Yes. Eligibility for the reduced nonresident tuition begins with the first academic term following advancement to candidacy and ends three calendar years later. Normally, eligibility for the nonresident tuition reduction would not be extended simply because a student did not enroll. A request for an extension may be approved by Associate Dean Joseph J. Duggan, but will be granted only for exceptional circumstances. All requests for extensions will be reviewed on an individual basis and should be addressed to the Associate Dean, c/o Graduate Degrees, 302 Sproul Hall.

10) Q: What happens to the nonresident tuition assessment when a Ph.D. candidate does not complete the Ph.D. degree within three years in candidacy?

A: The student is assessed the full amount of the prevailing nonresident tuition for every academic
term during which he or she registers after three years in candidacy.

11) Q: What happens when a student has filed for the degree (paying only the Dissertation Filing Fee) and then, at a later time, must reregister? Would the student be eligible for the reduced nonresident tuition?

A: Yes, provided that time remains on the three years of eligibility following advancement to candidacy.

12) Q: Since the reduced nonresident tuition is effective with the Fall term 1997, will nonresident Ph.D. candidates who were advanced to candidacy prior to the Fall 1997 academic term be eligible for three full years of reduced tuition?

A: No. Students will lose eligibility for reduced tuition after three years in candidacy. For example, a student who was advanced to candidacy by the first day of the Fall 1995 term will have one year of eligibility (1997–98) remaining for the reduced nonresident tuition.

13) Q: Will students working on a joint Ph.D./professional degree or a joint Ph.D./master’s degree at UC be eligible for the reduced nonresident tuition?

A: Yes. Once a student working on a such a joint degree program is advanced to candidacy for the
Ph.D. portion of his or her degree, the student is assessed the reduced nonresident tuition for the terms in which he or she is registered as an advanced doctoral candidate.

14) Q: Will students working on a joint Ph.D. degree program with another institution (for example, CSU or GTU) be eligible for the reduced nonresident tuition?

A: The nonresident tuition reduction applies only to students enrolled at the University of California. A student would be eligible for the reduced nonresident tuition only if he or she is advanced to candidacy and is registered and assessed fees at UC. The maximum eligibility of three calendar years as described above continues to apply.

15) Q: Is a qualified student who receives funding from an outside agency to cover the cost of nonresident tuition eligible for the reduced nonresident tuition, or should the student be charged the full nonresident tuition?

A: The student should be assessed the reduced tuition if he or she meets the eligibility criteria. The
source of a student’s funding is not relevant to any fee assessment.

16) Q: When does the advancement-to-candidacy form need to be in the Graduate Degrees office?

A: The advancement-to-candidacy form must be received in the Graduate Degrees office by the first day of instruction each semester in order to qualify for the reduced nonresident tuition for that semester. (The submission deadline for the Fall 1997 term is August 25, 1997. If the advancement form is received after August 25, 1997, the first term of reduced nonresident tuition will be Spring 1998.)

17) Q: If the student will have a GSR appointment, title code 3284, how much will be charged to the grant?

A: The nonresident tuition amount that is assessed to the student will be charged against the grant, either $4,492 or $1,123. Depending on when the reduced fee information is reflected in CARS, an adjustment to the grant may be needed. For students who have already been advanced to candidacy, the amount of the adjustment should be charged against the grant.

18) Q: How will the department know who is currently eligible for the reduced fee?

A: Each major department will be sent a list of currently advanced doctoral students. The list will
indicate which students may be eligible for the reduced fee and the last term of possible eligibility. The list will also contain citizenship and advancement-to-candidacy information. Some of the citizens may be non-residents and registration status will affect eligibility for the reduced fee.

Eligibility for Reduced Fee

19) Q: How will the information on eligibility be passed to CARS?

A: Information on all currently advanced students has been sent to the Student Information System. The reduced nonresident tuition amount of $1,123 per semester is reflected in CARS for all eligible students. Students will now be advanced to candidacy as of the date the advancement-to-candidacy form is received in the Graduate Degrees office. As the forms are processed and approved data will be passed weekly from the Graduate Degrees database to the Student Information System. The reduced nonresident tuition will be reflected in CARS by the Monday that follows the transfer of the data.

20) Q: Whom do I call with questions or problems?

A: Call the Graduate Degrees Office, 642-7330.

Appendix AA77: Reduced Nonresident Tuition for Doctoral Students Advanced to Candidacy

BERKELEY: OFFICE OF THE DEAN OF THE GRADUATE DIVISION

April 16, 1997

To: Graduate Advisers

From: Joseph J. Duggan

Associate Dean

Re: Reduced Nonresident Tuition for Doctoral Students Advanced to Candidacy

As announced earlier in the Deans and Directors memo of January 24, 1997, students who have been advanced to candidacy for the Ph.D. or professional doctorate, are nonresidents for fee purposes and have been advanced for less than three years are eligible for a seventy-five percent reduction in the nonresident tuition effective fall 1997. This fee reduction will be reflected in most students’ fee bills by April 19, 1997. I wish to inform you, for planning purposes, of the students in your major who may be eligible. In addition, I am including a series of questions and answers to help clarify the policy.

cc: Graduate Assistants

Attachment

Appendix AA88, Enclosure 1

Berkeley: Office of the Dean of the Graduate Division

April 7, 1997

To: Deans, Directors, Chairs, and Faculty Advisers for GSI Affairs

From: Joseph J. Duggan

Associate Dean

Re: Graduate Council Policy on GSI Appointments and Mentoring

Enclosed is a copy of the policy statement on GSI Appointments and Mentoring that the Graduate Council adopted in December, 1996.

I call your attention to the Council’s policies on the publication of criteria, on advertisement of GSI positions, on principles concerning workload, including letters of appointment, on GSI training, on the responsibilities of faculty and graduate student appointees to discuss logistics and pedagogical matters, on faculty incentives, and on appeal mechanisms. Regular meetings between faculty and the GSIs teaching in their courses are an integral part of the educational process of the graduate students holding appointments.

Please note that the policy statement makes no changes in the requirements for appointments in GSI title codes or for advancement within the GSI series. Departments continue to have the flexibility to consider factors such as the recruitment of new graduate students through support packages that include GSI appointments, the need for academic training, and the assignment of GSIs on the basis of length of experience remain in place. A department may still choose whether to hire into GSI positions only graduate students who are degree candidates in that department or to make positions accessible to students from outside the unit.

Those in the titles of Reader, Tutor, and Acting Instructor, which are subject to collective bargaining, are not affected by these policies to the extent that the terms and conditions of their appointments are concerned.

Students who hold GSI appointments have recourse to appeals through section 140 of the Academic Personnel Manual for employment issues and through the Graduate Appeals Procedure for academic issues to the extent that the issues fall under the scope of those procedures.

cc: Faculty Developers of GSIs

Graduate Assistants

Appendix AA88, Enclosure 2

Berkeley Division of the Academic Senate

1996–97 Graduate Council

March 18, 1997

Graduate Council Policy on Appointments and Mentoring of GSIs

There are two reasons to improve the education and training of GSIs at Berkeley. First, we need to prepare our students better for their roles as teachers as they take positions in academic institutions. Second, we need to ensure that the undergraduates on this campus are receiving the best possible education. GSIs, along with faculty, play a central role in that endeavor.

It appears that too many GSIs experience a lack of clarity in the departmental process of recruitment, selection, and preparation of GSIs. GSI workload expectations are often unclear. While a number of departments are doing an admirable job in their preparation and mentoring of GSIs, it is apparent that a more explicit policy on this topic is long overdue.

At its meeting on December 2, 1996, the Graduate Council unanimously passed the following policies regarding faculty mentoring of GSIs.

Mentoring of Different Types of GSIships

Preparation and guidance of GSIs in their teaching roles depends in part on a GSI’s level of experience and the level of responsibility for teaching a particular course. In trying to describe these levels, we have found that there are often substantial discrepancies between the level of appointment (GSI 1 to 4) and the function of the GSI in the course. Here we provide a brief description of four general types of GSIships, each giving the GSI a different level of responsibility for the course.

(a) Beginning GSI; first appointment – no previous undergraduate teaching experience; primarily leads discussion sections or labs;

(b) More experienced GSI; leads discussion sections or labs;

(c) GSI who functions as the instructor of one of a number of courses in which the curriculum and texts are prescribed, but the GSI is primarily responsible for how the material is presented and for grading students;

(d) Graduate students who have sole responsibility for curriculum, textbook, and grading students.

These types, rather than GSI appointment levels are referred to in Sections A-E below.

Policies

A. Recruitment and appointment.

The process of recruiting and selecting GSIs should be open and centralized, rather than controlled by private arrangements between course instructors and GSIs. In the following statement of principles, our definition of “fairness” refers to the clarity and equity of the process, not to the equal distribution of GSIships to all graduate students.

1. The responsibility for making GSI appointments rests with the Chair. He or she may delegate this responsibility to a faculty committee, but the Chair should make certain that fair recruitment and selection processes are in operation in the department.

2. All departments should post notices about available GSI positions in the following ways: (i) A well-marked notice on a bulletin board indicating that GSI positions are available, see [designated person] in the department office for information; (ii) notices in department email; (iii) notices on the department web site. Information should state whether the unit is willing to consider appointing students from outside the department. When appointments outside the department are acceptable, bulletin-board and electronic notification of openings should be provided and an announcement and description should be forwarded to Career and Graduate School Services, 2111 Bancroft Way, MC4350.

3. GSI vacancies that occur during the first week of instruction and that must be filled on an emergency basis should be posted for at least two full working days, unless the department is prepared to fill them on the basis of a previously established waiting list of GSI applications.

4. Criteria required for appointments to GSIships, and criteria involved in determining selection of students must be made available to graduate students in advance of the appointment. Different criteria may be appropriate for different types of GSIs. At the beginning GSI level (Type a above), if the department can assume that all entering graduate students have basic preparation in the course material, issues of distributing student support may be primary. For appointments that involve more active planning and teaching responsibilities, issues of previous experience in teaching and competence in the subject matter may be primary.

B. Guiding principles determining workload.

1. Clear descriptions about the nature of the GSI position (leading discussions, grading homework, lecturing, etc.) and the expected workload should be conveyed to the graduate student before he/she is appointed.

2. All students appointed as GSIs should receive an appointment letter specifying the title, the beginning and ending date, and the percent time. Many departments do this. For those that do not, we recognize that it will be an additional burden on administrative staffs, but it is an important step in the appointment process. Appointment letters should also describe in detail the responsibilities of GSIs, including expectations, including the number of sections to be taught by each GSI, and the maximum expected number of students in each section.

3. Given that GSI appointments ordinarily do not exceed half time, the expectation should be that, on the average, GSIs should not spend more than 20 hours per week in conformity with Academic Personnel Manual (APM) and Graduate Council stated policy. Many GSIs believe that they cannot do justice to their students within this time frame. The issue of hours worked is made more complex because circumstances vary depending on whether the GSI has taught the course before. We believe that the faculty member in charge of the course should advise and support GSIs in balancing their teaching responsibilities with other responsibilities involved in graduate education.

4. Each department should specify, in advance of the first class, maximum limits on sections appropriate to the discipline and the specific course. If prospective enrollments are higher than expected, additional GSIs should be hired, the enrollment should be limited to specified section size, or the workload of the GSIs (e.g., number of assignments to be graded) should be adjusted accordingly.

For procedures to resolve issues concerning workload see Section E.

C. Preparation of GSIs for teaching.

In this section we define policies and procedures that describe the mutual responsibilities of faculty and GSIs in making certain that undergraduate students receive the best possible educational experiences, and GSIs receive the best possible pedagogical training.

1. Because leading discussion sections or teaching stand-alone sections requires complex teaching skills, first-time GSIs require training in both the logistics and pedagogical issues of how to teach undergraduates. Resources for this purpose include campuswide GSI orientations, department GSI orientations, and ongoing department 300 courses. The Graduate Council in collaboration with the GSI Teaching and Resource Center will circulate a list of resources available for preparing new GSIs.

Each department must inform the Dean of the Graduate Division and the Graduate Council about the specific ways in which it provides GSIs with appropriate preparation before they enter the classroom for the first time and during their first year of teaching.

2. New and continuing GSIs (GSIship types a and b) are entitled to regular meetings with faculty who are responsible for the course to discuss the logistics of curriculum, selection of topics, assignments, tests, grades etc.

3. New and continuing GSIs (GSIship types a and b) are entitled to regular meetings with faculty who are responsible for the course to discuss pedagogic matters related to their teaching of the course or sections of the course.

4. GSIs with primary responsibility for the course content are entitled to regular meetings with a faculty member designated by the Chair to discuss course logistics and pedagogical issues.

5. Co-incident with faculty responsibilities to prepare GSIs are GSI obligations to prepare themselves for teaching roles. Included in these obligations are: attendance at classes, lectures, and GSI meetings, meeting with faculty mentors to discuss more effective ways of teaching undergraduates, seeking out opportunities for guidance and feedback concerning teaching, attending courses on pedagogy offered in the department or in the University.

D. Increasing faculty incentives to play a central role in mentoring graduate students as teachers.

1. Departmental reviews should include an assessment of GSI mentorship, when applicable, in their assessment of faculty teaching performance.

2. Budget Committee reviews should include an assessment of GSI mentorship, when applicable, in their assessment of faculty teaching performance.

3. Faculty using GSIs should be provided with a copy of these policies along with specific department guidelines at the beginning of each semester that they teach courses with GSIs. Assistance in development guidelines for mentoring GSIs can be obtained by consulting the GSI Teaching and Resource Center.

4. Students should be provided with a copy of these policies along with specific department guidelines at the beginning of each semester of their appointment.

E. Mechanisms to resolve issues arising in the appointment and mentoring of GSIs.

Individual GSI concerns:

1. Once the semester has begun, GSIs with concerns about their workload or other aspects of mentoring should discuss them with the instructor of the course (Types a and b) or with faculty designated by the Chair (Types c and d).

2. If Step 1 does not produce satisfactory results, the GSI should meet with the Chair or with the Faculty Advisor for GSI Affairs, or with a department committee of faculty and graduate students designated to oversee GSI issues.

3. If Step 2 does not produce satisfactory results, the GSI can use the grievance procedures outlined in Section 140 of the Academic Personnel manual. Students should observe all stated time limits on grievance procedures.

Department-wide GSI concerns:

4. If GSIs feel that the department as a whole is not abiding by these new guidelines, they should try Steps 1 and 2 above. If these do not produce satisfactory results, the GSIs should outline their concerns to the Chair of the Graduate Council and to the Dean of the Graduate Division.

Prepared by Phil Cowan, Graduate Council Chair

Appendix AA88, Enclosure 3

Guidelines for Letters of Appointment

Departments need to provide an appointment letter to all students who are appointed as GSIs in any given semester which includes the following information:

1. GSI title (e.g., GSI I, II, III, IV)

2. beginning and ending date

3. percent time

4. a description of the GSI’s responsibilities

5. the expected number of sections to be taught by the GSI

6. the maximum number of students permitted in each section

A copy of the Graduate Council Policy on Appointing and Mentoring of GSIs should be included as an attachment.

Appendix AA88: Departmental Responsibilities Regarding Graduate Council Policy on GSI Appointments and Mentoring

Berkeley: Office of the Dean of the Graduate Division

March 9, 1998

To: Deans, Chairs, and Faculty Advisers for GSI Affairs

From: Mary Ann Mason

Associate Dean

Re: Departmental Responsibilities Regarding Graduate Council Policy on

GSI Appointments and Mentoring

On April 7, 1997, Associate Dean Joseph J. Duggan sent you, on behalf of the Graduate Council, the new policy on GSI appointments and mentoring. Some of the important actions mandated in this document include but are not limited to: a fair and open system of hiring; guidance as to GSI workload; an appointment letter spelling out the terms and conditions of the work; and pedagogical preparation for beginning GSIs, through either a 300 level course or its equivalent.

As you know, you are required to distribute this policy to all faculty and GSIs. We trust that the GSIs are receiving the policy accompanied by their letters of appointment. A full description of the requirements of the memo may be found in the document on the Graduate Division Web site in the Graduate Student Instructor (GSI) Teaching & Resource Center page (www.grad.berkeley.edu/gsi/index.shtml).

Faculty mentoring for new and continuing GSIs has been stipulated in the policy. As an incentive, the Graduate Council has directed chairs and the Budget Committee to recognize faculty for mentoring in promotion decisions.

According to the Graduate Council your department is obliged, by May 3, 1998, to provide me with the following:

1) the specific way in which your unit provides GSIs with preparation before and during their first year of teaching,

2) a copy of a typical letter of appointment, including the duties required of the GSI and the number of hours the GSI is required to work.

The GSI Teaching and Resource Center (http://gsi.berkeley.edu) is available to work with departments and individual faculty to support your efforts to prepare and mentor GSIs. Among the resources available are sample syllabi and readers for 300 level courses from programs on campus, information on classroom observation, video consultation, and GSI assessment, materials on how to begin the GSI teaching portfolio, and materials from the six seminars for faculty teaching with GSIs. The center can be reached at 2-4456 and by e-mail at gsi@berkeley.edu.

If you have questions concerning the policy, you may e-mail Professor Jeffrey Reimer, Chair of the Advisory Committee of GSI Affairs, a subcommittee of the Graduate Council at reimer@berkeley.edu.

Thank you for your cooperation.

cc: Graduate Council

Graduate Assistants

Enclosures: Associate Dean Joseph J. Duggan Memo (April 7, 1997)

Graduate Council Policy on Appointments and Mentoring of GSIs

Guidelines for Letter of Appointment

Guidelines for Letters of Appointment

Departments need to provide an appointment letter to all students who are appointed as GSIs in any given semester which includes the following information:

1. GSI title (e.g., GSI I, II, III, IV)

2. beginning and ending date

3. percent time

4. a description of the GSI’s responsibilities

5. the expected number of sections to be taught by the GSI

6. the maximum number of students permitted in each section

A copy of the Graduate Council Policy on Appointing and Mentoring of GSIs should be included as an attachment.

Appendix AA91, Enclosure

Academic Senate

320 Stephens Hall

University of California, Berkeley

May 1998

GRADUATE COUNCIL STUDENT PARENT POLICIES

Additional Flexibility in Deadlines for Passing Preliminary and Qualifying Examinations

New parenthood is a common experience for graduate students. The Graduate Council recognizes that parenting is a very time-intensive task, particularly in the early years. Students are often reluctant to ask for a special exception to deal with parenting demands. Academic units may be inconsistent or inflexible in the way they deal with this issue. The Graduate Council, therefore, requires that each academic unit adopt a minimum leave policy to accommodate new parents.

While graduate student parents should be encouraged to take and pass the preliminary and Qualifying Examinations as soon as possible, students who need extra time must be granted extensions for passing these exams based on parenting demands. Parenting demands include childbirth and may include the serious illness of a child or other exceptional circumstances relating to a child. Each case, other than childbirth, will be reviewed and approved by the unit.

Any student who has taken time to accommodate childbirth or other serious parental demands may receive an extension of up to one extra year for passing preliminary examinations (in units that require these examinations). And, any student who has taken time off to accommodate childbirth or other serious parental demands may receive an extension of one extra year for passing Qualifying Examinations. Following Qualifying Exams, an extension of one extra year toward Normative Time completion may also be granted. The total additional time granted by this policy may not exceed two years, regardless of the number of children involved. Units must acknowledge these extensions in their calculations of Normative Time both before and after Qualifying Examinations.

Graduate Student Parent Support

It is recognized that each unit handles the issue of student support differently. Nevertheless, it is suggested that each unit be as generous as possible in dealing with student parents, particularly in the event of accommodating childbirth.

Examples of Graduate Student Parent Support Policies may be obtained from the Graduate Division.

Appendix AA91: Graduate Council Student Parent Policies

Berkeley: Office of the Dean of the Graduate Division

May 15, 1998

To: Deans, Directors, Department Chairs, Chairs of Graduate Groups, Graduate Adviser Chairs

From: Mary Ann Mason

Associate Dean

Re: Graduate Council Student Parent Policies

At its meeting on April 27, 1998, the Graduate Council adopted a policy statement regarding graduate students who are parents. The Council recommends that graduate students who are coping with childbirth or other serious parental demands be granted additional time to meet established deadlines for passing preliminary and/or Qualifying Examinations and completing their dissertations.

I am enclosing a copy of the policy statement. Please distribute copies to your colleagues and graduate students. Thank you.

cc: Graduate Assistants

Enclosure

Appendix AA92: Changes in DCP/Medicare Policies for Student Employees

BERKELEY: OFFICE OF financial and Business Services

May 18, 1998

DEANS, DIRECTORS, DEPARTMENT CHAIRS, AND ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICERS

Re: Changes in DCP/Medicare Policies for Student Employees

I have good news to announce for student employees! Under new IRS guidelines, undergraduate and graduate student employees who are registered and enrolled in courses at least half time will now be exempt from withholding for Medicare and the Defined Contribution Plan. Under previously announced (March 29, 1995) policies student employees had to be enrolled full time and have a total combined appointment percentage of 50% or less in order to be exempt. This is now changed.

NEW POLICY

Undergraduate and graduate students must be registered and enrolled in a minimum of 6 units during the Academic Year in order to qualify for the exemption. During Summer Session, the exemption will require registration and enrollment in 6 units by undergraduate students and 2 units by graduate students. Student employees who do not meet the half-time enrollment requirement will continue to be required to contribute 7.5% of their earnings to the Defined Contribution Plan (DCP) and 1.45% to Medicare.

OTHER HIGHLIGHTS OF THE NEW POLICIES

• No limit is imposed on the number of hours that a student may work and be eligible for the exemption from withholding.

• In general, withholding is not required during academic term break periods.

• Graduate students registered and enrolled and approved for advancement to doctoral candidacy are also exempt from withholding.

These changes are effective with May 1998 earnings paid in June 1998.

Later this month, departmental administrative officials will receive detailed procedures implementing the new IRS guidelines, as well as answers to frequently asked questions. In the meantime, if you have questions about these revised policies please contact Jim Hensler at 642-2851 (hensler@uclink).

Alison McGill

Controller and Executive Director

Financial and Business Services

Appendix S, Enclosure 1

Academic Senate

320 Stephens Hall

University of California, Berkeley

November 22, 1989

Dean Joseph Cerny

Graduate Division

California Hall

Campus

Dear Dean Cerny:

At its most recent meeting, the Graduate Council considered the responsibility of faculty in signing dissertations and/or abstracts. This matter was brought to the attention of the Council following the recent meeting of the Administrative Committee where the case of a faculty member who wished to withdraw his signature from the title page and from the abstract of a student dissertation was considered as part of an appeal by the student involved. In considering this issue, it came to the attention of the Administrative Committee that policies of the Graduate Division are not explicit on this issue. The Council considered the recommendation of the Administrative Committee that faculty should be advised that their signature on a dissertation and/or abstract is binding and cannot be withdrawn once given. Furthermore, faculty should not sign dissertations and/or abstracts until the faculty member is convinced that the work by the student has been completed to the satisfaction of that faculty member. The Council unanimously endorsed this position and requested that the Graduate Division place a section in the Graduate Adviser’s Handbook making the above statement of policy explicit.

As a consequence of this policy on signing dissertations and/or abstracts, the Final Report currently submitted by departments following the filing of a dissertation should be revised. It is the position of the Council that once a student is advanced to candiacy, he/she is under the guidance of a dissertation committee which is appointed on behalf of the Administrative Committee of the Graduate Council. The Final Report, in its current form, is therefore not necessary. The department is to monitor the progress of students but the completion of the dissertation is the responsibility of the student working with his/her dissertation committee. However, a Final Report should be submitted by the department for all Plan A students who must present a defense of the dissertation as well as for those Plan B students for whom a defense is required, The Council requests that the Graduate Division modify the current Final Report form to conform to these guidelines. I will include the revised Final Report form as an information item for the Council when it is ready.

Yours truly,

Thomas Duncan

Chair, Graduate Council

Appendix S, Enclosure 2

University of California Graduate Division

Berkeley, California 94720 Graduate Degrees

STATEMENT OF PROGRESS TOWARD COMPLETION OF THE DOCTORAL DEGREE

This is to inform you that John J. Doe was advanced to candidacy on 03/05/90, for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, with a major in Economics.

At this stage of a doctoral student’s career, he or she comes under the jurisdiction of the dissertation committee appointed on behalf of the Administrative Committee of the Graduate Council. The student’s final requirement, the doctoral dissertation, must satisfy the dissertation committee members. However the student’s home department, group, or school is still responsible for overseeing the student’s progress in the degree program.

At this juncture, it is necessary for the Graduate Adviser Chair to certify that all departmental requirements, except the dissertation, have been met. Please do so by signing this form and returning it to the Graduate Division.

Graduate Adviser Chair Date

The candidate’s committee is as follows:

Jones, Albert (Chair)

Mitchell, Barry J

Canseco, David

The department will be notified at a later date that the student has filed the dissertation and received the degree.

ATTENTION GRADUATE ASSISTANT:

Please return this form to Graduate Degrees & Petitions, 302 Sproul Hall, and retain a copy for your files.

Sent by:

Date: June 24, 1991

10068064

Appendix S: New Procedures for Final Report

Berkeley: Office of the Dean of the Graduate Division

March 15, 1990

To: Graduate Adviser Chairs

From: Dean Joseph Cerny

Re: The Final Report for Doctoral Students

In November, 1989, the Graduate Council had occasion to review the Graduate Division’s procedures regarding the Final Report for doctoral students. As you know, the Graduate Degrees Section has, in the past, sent to departments, schools and graduate groups, Final Reports for all students immediately after they file their dissertations in the Graduate Division. The form asked that the graduate adviser chair certify that all departmental requirements for the degree had been met.

As noted on the attached letter from Professor Thomas Duncan, Chair of the Graduate Council, to Dean Joseph Cerny, the Council has ruled that “once a student is advanced to candidacy, he/she is under the guidance of a dissertation committee which is appointed on behalf of the Administrative Committee of the Graduate Council. The Final Report, in its current form, is therefore not necessary. The department is to monitor the progress of students, but the completion of the dissertation is the responsibility of the student working with his/her dissertation committee.

Therefore, the Graduate Division was asked to modify the Final Report as it applies to students under Plan B. In the future, the Final Report will be sent to departments at the time students are advanced to candidacy instead of after they file the dissertation. Departments will be asked to certify, at that time, that all course work, or other individual requirements, have been completed. From that time forward, students will be under the authority of the Graduate Council rather than the individual departments, schools, or groups.

A new version of the Final Report is enclosed for your information. Please let me know if you see any problems with this new procedure. If all goes well, the new procedure will begin in September l990.

For students under Plan A (defense required), the previous procedures will be followed.

As an added note, the letter from Professor Duncan also includes a statement regarding the finality of signatures on title pages which you should communicate to your faculty.

Enclosure: 2

cc: Graduate Assistants

Section 1

Section 1 of this chapter includes selected appendices from the Appendix to the Graduate Adviser’s Handbook that are referenced in Guide to Graduate Policy. The complete Appendix contains detailed policy statements issued by the Graduate Council and the Graduate Division between 1982 and April 2001. Please see your departmental graduate assistant or contact Graduate Degrees (642-7330) if you would like to consult the Appendix to the Graduate Adviser’s Handbook.

Appendix A: Academic Progress Evaluation, Academic Standing, and Appeals Procedures for Graduate Students (November 1982)

Appendix S: New Procedures for Final Report (March 15, 1990)

Appendix AA74: Reduced Nonresident Tuition for Qualified Graduate Students (January 24, 1997)

Appendix AA77: Reduced Nonresident Tuition for Doctoral Students Advanced to Candidacy (April 16, 1997)

Appendix AA88: Departmental Responsibilities Regarding Graduate Council Policy on GSI Appointments and Mentoring (March 9, 1998)

Appendix AA91: Graduate Council Student Parent Policies (May 15, 1998)

Appendix AA92: Changes in DCP/Medicare Policies for Student Employees (May 18, 1998)

Appendix AA100: Late Changes in Study List for Graduate Students (October 22, 1998)

Appendix AA101: Changes in Policies Concerning Readmission (October 26, 1998)

Appendix AA111: Problems of Late Registration by Students (August 23, 1999)

Appendix AA114: Deferral of Admission (October 20, 1999)

Appendix AA120: New Testing Policy for the Oral English Competence of Graduate Student Instructors (December 1, 1999)

Appendix AA122: University Predoctoral Humanities and Regents Intern Fellowships (December 17, 1999)

Section 2

Section 2 of this chapter contains the most recent policy statements issued by the Graduate Council and the Graduate Division.

Appendix 1: Revised Filing Fee Regulations (April 5, 2002 [revised May 28, 2002])

Appendix 1A: Qualifications for the Appointment of Undergraduates as Graduate Student Instructors                 (May 28, 2002)

Appendix 2: Revised Instructions for Fellowship Recipients (August 2, 2002)

Appendix 3: Increase in Graduate Application and Readmission Fee (August 5, 2002)

Appendix 4: Applicant Review and Ranking Procedure (September 16, 2002)

Appendix 5: Appointments and Mentoring of Graduate Student Instructors (May 29, 2003)

Appendix 6: Modification of the Oral English Competence Testing Policy (May 29, 2003)

Appendix 7: Graduate Council Student Parent Policies (Revision of May 1998 statement) (September 2003)

Appendix 8: Academic Student Employee (ASE) Contract – October 1, 2004 Wage Adjustment                        (October 13, 2004)

Appendix 9: Admission and GSI Appointment Scores on the iBT/Next Generation TOEFL (November 8, 2005)

Appendix 10: CITI Requirement for Advancement to Candidacy (December 15, 2005)

Appendix 11: Best Practices for Faculty Mentoring of Graduate Students (Approved by the Graduate Council, March 6, 2006)

Appendix 12: Filing for Graduate Degrees in Summer Session (May 1, 2007)

Appendix 13: Minimum Enrollment Requirements for Graduate Students (May 1, 2007)

Appendix 14: Applications for Graduate Admissions and Fellowships in PDF Format (July 30, 2007)

Appendix 15: Workload Modifications in the New UC-UAW Contract (November 15, 2007)

Appendix 16: Partial Fee Remission for Undergraduate Teaching Assistants (March 10, 2008)