Minutes of the GSG Meeting, 18 September 2002

Summary of the Minutes

1. Call to order
2. Approval of previous minutes
3. Officer reports I
   • Parliamentary Secretary's report
4. Guest: Provost Amy Gutmann
5. Officer reports II
   • Treasurer's report
     • Account status
     • Funding requests
       • Moon festival
       • Capoeira
       • Butler wine and cheese night
       • Princeton Peace Network
   • Chair's report
6. Old Business
   • First Chance Dance
   • Housing construction status
   • Shuttle update
7. New Business
   • International student concerns
8. Scheduling of next meeting
9. Adjournment

MINUTES OF THE GSG MEETING, 18 September 2002

Attendance

Representatives Present: ANT Riaz Tejani; ACM Cynthia Rudin; ARC Zach Ridley; AOS Anita Adhitya; CEE Sinéad Mac Namara; CHE Eric Adelizzi; CLA Meredith Safran; EAS Brigitta Lee; ELE Bill Jordan; ENG Kerry Bystrom; FIT Juliet O'Brien; GER Micahel House; MAE Brendan McAndrew; MAT Lior Silberman; MOL Dave Shrom; MUS Emily Snow; OPR Patrick Gerland; ORFE Mike Ludkovski; PHY Tamar Friedmann; POL Jason Casellas; SOC Donnell Butler; WWS Tony Fiori

Delegates Present: GCHC Lior Silberman; Butler Huiyan Yang; ACSS Fei Sun; Women's Centre Heather White; BGC Ade Artis

Councillors Present: CPUC, PriComm Toni Fiory (WWS); CPUC, RRR Tamar Friedmann (PHY); CPUC, Exec Scott Miller (CHE); CPUC, Exec Brigitta Lee (EAS); CPUC Lior Silberman (MAT); CPUC Huiyan Yang (AOS); Gov Anita Adhitya (AOS); Jud Heather White (REL)

Others Present: Provost Amy Gutmann; Associate Provost Jed Marsh; Dean Bill Russel; GC RLC Lisa Sherov; Lauren Hale (WWS); Weining Man (PHY): ACSS, IC; Elliot Ratzman (REL); Traci Schlesinger (SOC); Samir Succar (ELE): Princeton Capoeira; Cindy Tobery (MOL); Lee Worden (PACM): "Another World is Possible"; Lie Xu (ELE)

Officers Absent:

Representatives Absent: CHM Rahul Deshpande; ECO Tanjim Hossain; EEB Sarah Smith; PPPL Ethan Schartman; PSY Cara Talaska; REL Josh Dubler;

Delegates Absent: Lawrence Radhika Wijetunge; CIGS Rahul Deshpande

The following representative seats were vacant: ART, AST, CHM, COM, COS, GEO, HIS, HOS, NES, PHI, SLA, SPO

The following delegate seats were vacant: Hibben-Maggie, Millstone, Off-Campus.

1. CALL TO ORDER

   • The meeting was called to order at 6pm by Scott Miller, Chair

2. APPROVAL OF PREVIOUS MINUTES

   • Several typographical errors had been found in the draft minutes of the August meeting. Kerry Bystrom made a motion to approve the minutes on correction of these errors, seconded by Lior Silberman. The motion passed with no opposition.

3. OFFICER REPORTS I

   3.1 Parliamentary Secretary's Report -- Lior Silberman

   • Mr. Silberman announced that David Shrom was the newly elected representative for Molecular Biology, and that Michael House was the new Germanic Languages & Literatures representative.
   • Mr. Silberman recalled that, in the previous meeting, the Assembly had agreed to vacate the seats of those representatives [who had not attended a meeting since March] who did not respond by 31 August to the second email enquiring into whether or not they were still interested in remaining representatives. No response to the second email had been received. The seats of Joseph November (History) and David Brenner (Near Eastern Studies) were therefore declared vacant.
   • Mr. Silberman announced that the new CIGS delegate was Rahul Deshpande.

4. GUEST: PROVOST AMY GUTMANN

   • Mr. Miller introduced Provost Amy Gutmann to the Assembly. Provost Gutmann was in attendance to inform the Assembly of the findings of the university Post-Enrollment committee.
   • Provost Gutmann introduced Dean Bill Russel and Associate Provost Jed Marsh, whom she had invited to join her at this meeting, to the Assembly. She thanked the GSG for their invitation to attend an Assembly meeting.
   • Provost Gutmann informed the Assembly that, last May, President Tilghman had asked her to form the post-enrolment committee to look into what they could do to make recommendations for changes that would ideally decrease the time to degree, reduce the administrative hurdles and remove the indignities of the immediate post-enrolment. The committee consisted of graduate students, past and present Directors of Graduate Studies, and staff. The committee commenced meetings late in the academic year and had worked over the summer.
   • Provost Gutmann stated that she would proceed to inform the Assembly of the outcome of the committee's work, noting that the Assembly was the first group to which the outcomes would be presented. The information would be sent by email to department Chairs and Directors of Graduate Studies the next day. Provost Gutmann announced that the committee had unanimously approved the changes that would be made. She acknowledged that not all problems would be solved; the current report should not be viewed as the end of work on post-enrolment, but rather the beginning. Provost Gutmann emphasised that the proposals were in some ways an experiment that needed to be tracked over time. Also, the proposed changes involved work on the part of the Graduate School to bring them to function.
   • Provost Gutmann informed the Assembly that there were three initiatives of different sorts:
     1. A document outlining best practices will be released in final form at the end of fall. The best practices will especially consider post-generals graduate students. Best practices of different departments will be collected, and departments will be asked to consider how they can improve. It is proposed that not only a dissertation advisor, but also a small committee take responsibility for graduate students. Better-defined benchmarks and mentoring will be recommended.
     2. Information about post-enrolment will be collected and placed on a web page. It is envisioned that this will provide a single source of information that students can see from the beginning of their studies. This will reduce miscommunication and help students plan. Provost Gutmann thanked Associate Provost Marsh for bringing this together.
     3. A new status, Degree Candidacy Continues (DCC), will be established. This is an unenrolled status lasting one year, conferred on those who reach the end of their enrolled period but are continuing to work on their dissertation. The aim of this status is to facilitate progress towards time to degree and not increase it. It allows students one year to finish their dissertation and, in this period, allows them access to university services. The new status also aims to remove the indignities of the initial part of post-enrolment.
   • Provost Gutmann stated that President Tilghman had approved the recommendations of the committee, which would be implemented assuming the GSG considers it progress. She informed the Assembly that the university would be working to make this available next month, but cautioned that there might be problems initially.
   • Provost Gutmann informed the Assembly that The Associate Dean of the Graduate School for Academic Affairs (currently David N. Redman) will be responsible for monitoring DCC status. An ID card will be issued by the ID card office, indicating DCC status and the expiration date. If the student is eligible for an employee card, that will be issued in place of the DCC card. International students are eligible for an F1 or J1 visa under the DCC status. The DCC status allows library privileges (including borrowing privileges) and a parking permit; an athletics permit can be purchased at the faculty/staff rate. The DCC status will continue to allow students to extend the Student Health Plan (SHP) for one year beyond the student's enrolment period, as is currently the case. Students will be charged at the reduced (group) fee. Special conditions associated with extending the SHP include: continuous enrolment requirement and residency in Princeton or the immediate vicinity. The optional dental and vision plans can also be extended for a year. A new DCC mailing list will be created for DCC students, allowing them to receive all relevant mailings. Faculty/staff dining points can be purchased. Graduate student housing, if available, can be obtained and the post-enrolment surcharge will be abolished.

   • Questions and comments were invited.
   • Elliot Ratzman asked how the changes would affect Princeton-specific fellowships that required you to be enrolled. Provost Gutmann replied that this would depend on the fellowship. For example, the Centre for Human Values fellowships have an enrolment requirement and thus DCC students would not be eligible for these; however, they would be eligible for the Woodrow Wilson fellowships.
   • Mr. Silberman asked if the reason for the DCC status being only for one year was because it would extend the time to degree. To this, Provost Gutmann said yes; the university wanted to start in a way that would maximise their ability to claim success of the new status. Regarding best practices, there would be follow-ups in departments in which the gap between time of enrolment and time to degree is greatest and work would be done to develop ways to narrow the gap. Provost Gutmann stated that what Princeton is doing is superior to peer institutions with respect to time to degree.
   • Lauren Hale asked what role the new DCC status would play in allowing students to defer student loans. Provost Gutmann replied that student loan deferment was a serious concern and that the Graduate School would write letters to the loan agencies explaining the status, as they currently do with ETDCC status.
   • Sinead MacNamara enquired into the situation of those students who take longer than a year past their enrolment period to complete their degree, noting that it would involve three different statuses and asking if this was seen as a problem. Provost Gutmann replied that the DCC status was for a year because the university wanted to encourage graduate students to finish within a year after their enrolment finishes. Departments in which the gap is smallest could say it is counterproductive. Provost Gutmann noted that the students on the committee did say that departments have to implement best practices and that students did want to finish.
   • Mr. Silberman asked about the difference between the new and old status. He noted that things like extension of the Student Health Plan for one year were already available, and basically this new status seems to consist of very little but small administrative changes like ID cards. Associate Provost Marsh stated that the university wanted to make the process as seamless as possible. There would be no termination form between enrolment and DCC. The university ID card would give students access to the library and so on.
   • Mr. Silberman asked if one is considered an enrolled student under the DCC status, to which Provost Gutmann replied, 'no'. Provost Gutmann stated that students wanted to work on ending the indignities of the post-enrolment period and that the DCC had been created as a transition status. Dean Russel stated that an advantage was that students would remain in the system. Mr. Silberman asked if we should not keep students in the system regardless of their status.
   • Additionally, Mr. Silberman noted that the time required to complete a degree might have increased over time. Whereas is the past it was possible to complete a Ph.D. in, say, three years, today it would take longer. Mr. Silberman noted that it is not clear that departments can shorten the time to degree. Provost Gutmann stated that the university did not want to follow its peers in allowing an indefinite enrolment period, as this would mean a longer time to degree.
   • Meredith Safran stated that the best practices recommendation was a great step forward because the greater involvement of faculty is very important. This was made especially clear by an informal survey that the GSG had conducted prior to tonight's meeting, in which departmental representatives were asked to find out where their constituents were obtaining post-enrolment information. Ms. Safran stated that there were a range of responses. Most respondents cited a variety of sources, primarily other students sometimes in other departments, departmental administrators, and sometimes the Director of Graduate Studies. In at least one case, a DGS did not feel any imperative to be involved in the process of informing their students of post-enrolment. Ms. Safran questioned whom students should be notified by. Ms. Safran also noted that it was important to ensure that post-enrolment and its ramifications were understood by the university community. Ms. Safran noted the example of students in science/engineering whose advisors post-enrol and make them pre-doctorals in order to save money on tuition, without realising that the post-enrolment status would mean that they would likely lose their housing.
   • Provost Gutmann responded by saying that a handbook resource would be given to departments. The best practices would send a clear signal to departments that the university would like to focus on this issue. Dean Russel stated that he expected that departments and Directors of Graduate Studies would feel a responsibility to students who are post-enrolled. Dean Russel said that the transition from enrolled to DCC status would be made in the same way that readmissions are done. Things like summer stipends in the humanities and social sciences will be incorporated into this readmissions process.
   • Ms. Safran stated that the needs to be some kind of understanding as to who is responsible for notification of students, and asked if this was discussed on the committee. Provost Gutmann stated that the importance of departments taking great responsibility for their students was discussed. The committee had talked about making the DCC status as unbureaucratic as possible, and quasi-automatic. Provost Gutmann stated that the handbook to disseminate information about post-enrolment would be updated over time by the university and would make all details accessible. She stated that it was essential that all in the university see a mutual responsibility for this. Responsibility would, however, rest with the Graduate School.
   • Lee Worden, following up from the previous discussion, noted that the problem of not finishing on time was not always the fault of the graduate student and that departments could also be partly responsible. Yet, post-enrolment was pursuing only graduate students. Mr. Worden asked what the plan to shift the burden to departments was. Provost Gutmann said that she did not think it was automatically possible, nor was the university shifting responsibility.
   • Provost Gutmann stated that the university did not have the budget to give more fellowships. The incentive is disseminating and updating best practices. Faculty want to do things better. Before, the focus was on other things but now the focus would be on this issue.
   • Donnell Butler said that this was progress, but that the comments that had arisen showed that students were still concerned. Mr. Butler noted that it is clear that there are situations in which the difference between time of enrolment and time to degree is not small, for example two or more years, and that there are situations in which department chairs say students need to be here for 5, 6, 7... years. However, students are not told this when they first get here. Mr. Butler noted that if the enrolment period were to be increased, the number of incoming students that a department can accept would decrease due to the limited number of fellowships provided to the department by the university. However, it is attractive for a department to maintain a larger graduate student cohort. Mr. Butler noted that he had been told this by faculty members, i.e. that the reason for a short time-to-degree was to allow the department in question to use its fellowships to increase cohort size, not because anyone was expected to graduate in the enrollment period. Mr. Butler asked what incentive there was for departments to ensure that time of enrolment and time to degree were equal by increasing the enrolment period.
   • Provost Gutmann responded by saying that the university did not have a solution for the two times to be equivalent. However, Provost Gutmann stated, the university does have plenty of data and a consensus that an increase in the enrolment period would lead to an increase in the time to degree, rather than the two times being equal. This was a partial answer to the question of how long it would take and what the university would have to do to narrow the gap.
   • Mr. Butler asked how the university would ensure that departments take responsibility for their students, and if there would be any penalties in place. Dean Russel stated that it was a complicated issue and that maybe expectations were too high. Also, there was variability with individual students and advisors. Dean Russel said that work was needed on all of these issues, and that pressure needed to be put on faculty. Provost Gutmann mentioned the Department of Politics as an example. She had met with departmental chair, Jeff Herbst, and had a strong sense that the politics department did not have any best practices after generals. Provost Gutmann suggested that if the chair says that they would like to focus on the post-enrolment issue, there is no need for any more incentive. Provost Gutmann stated that the university wanted to focus on strengthening the Graduate School, to make it more of a model and to integrate it with the university community. She said that the University was using its financial resources in other areas of graduate student life, such as the Lawrence construction. Housing had been presented as an urgent issue, and the university was acting on that.
   • Leonard Pease asked firstly about tracking of students beyond DCC, and secondly about whether or not the post-enrolment committee would be disbanded. Provost Gutmann informed the Assembly that the committee would continue to meet to fine-tune the changes, adding that it was not a standing committee. Dean Russel stated that the Graduate School did not have any way of tracking students past post-enrolment would be asking Directors of Graduate Studies for mechanisms that departments have.
   • Mr. Adelizzi noted that there was a perception that the stated time of enrolment was somewhat arbitrary in some departments. He raised the example of students with a good record and whose advisors were happy with their progress but who considered it would require a few more years to finish, being post-enrolled by the Graduate School. Mr. Adelizzi stated that he had received comments to this effect from students, in his capacity as Corresponding Secretary. Mr. Adelizzi suggested that the time of enrolment sometimes seemed 'accidental' or constrained by financial situations rather than being an accurate representation of the time required to complete a degree. Mr. Adelizzi asked whether the departments could be asked to decide how long it should take a student to get a PhD before attempts were made by the University to encourage graduate students to finish within the time of enrolment. Dean Russel said that this was an idea that was worthy of consideration, but there were no plans to do this currently.
   • Mr. Adelizzi noted that all departments had a time of enrolment of 4 or 5 years, and reiterated his earlier suggestion that the enrolment period seems to have been set somewhat arbitrarily. Mr. Adelizzi said that in some departments, faculty inform graduate students that they shouldn't graduate within the enrollment period, but should take additional years. He asked whether the views of the faculty shouldn't be considered in determining what a reasonable time-to-degree is. Provost Gutmann stated that Princeton's philosophy considers only full-time students as students. If some departments require a few years of teaching after the enrollment period, students should not be considered enrolled during that period.
   • Ms. Hale stated that she was pleased to hear that post-enrolled students would be tracked, and that she was very happy to hear post-enrolment students being referred to as students. Ms. Hale compared this to the previous situation in which post-enrolment students went unacknowledged as if they did not exist. Ms. Hale commented on the strangeness of the DCC status only being for one year. She suggested that the new status does not make it any easier to prolong working towards your degree, instead it simply eases the transition into the unenrolled state, and there's no reason to have students face these burdens in their second year of unenrolment.
   • Traci Schlesinger suggested that the correlation between time of enrolment and time to degree within the university itself should be looked at, rather than comparing us to peer institutions. She noted that, within the university itself, departments with a low time of enrolment do not necessarily have a low time to degree.
   • Ms. Hale also raised the issue of student loans, which can no longer be deferred once students are no longer 'students'. Ms. Schlesinger pointed out that some students' loans were of the order of $400/month. She noted that students would have to teach more to pay back their loans, resulting in less time spent in research. This would extend the time to degree.
   • Provost Gutmann replied that time to degree varies much more consistently by field: one cannot compare chemical engineering and anthropology, for example. It was suggested by Ms. Schlesinger that one could nonetheless make comparison within the sciences and within the humanities.
   • Tamar Friedmann suggested that, until the post-enrolment handbook becomes available online, students would not know about the benefits afforded by the changes and asked where students should go for information. Provost Gutmann stated that it was hoped that the changes would be implemented in a month's time. Ms. Hale enquired about the termination form. Dean Russel advised students to see the Graduate School.
   • Mr. Butler noted that after DCC status has expired, students are back to the situation of post-enrolment. Mr. Butler then raised two issues: first, beyond the first year of ETDCC under the current situation, there is no healthcare for students; second, no ID means that students cannot, for example, work in their offices late at night, or attend lectures on campus such as those held in McCosh or Murray-Dodge. Provost Gutmann stated that the changes would end the indignities of post-enrolment for a year, but would do not do everything. Mr. Butler noted that visiting researchers, faculty and students were all given ID cards, but that ETDCC students were not. Provost Gutmann informed the Assembly that the university subsidises costs to students -- for example, the SHP is subsidised -- and that deficits were predicted under the new DCC status. She stated that some time was needed to put the changes into place, and asked for support in enabling it to move forward.
   • Mr. Miller asked if students would still be eligible for extension of healthcare in their first year of ETDCC status once the new DCC status is implemented, to which Associate Provost Marsh replied that students would not. [This would mean no additional costs to the university would be created due to the DCC status].
   • Mr. Miller re-raised the issue of ID cards, noting the problems with Public Safety and working in their office after hours that students without ID cards faced.
   • Mr. Ratzman imparted some philosophical wisdom, to which these minutes do not do justice, and noted that we live in an imperfect world. He raised the suggestion, tongue-in-cheek, that students would, of course, wish to stay at Princeton as long as possible. Mr. Ratzman suggested that the post-enrolled students amongst us would no doubt have a wealth of survival strategies and 'local knowledge' to share, and that it would do well to incorporate these into a post-enrolment website or pamphlet. Provost Gutmann stated that the post-enrolment information would go to the Graduate School and appear somewhere on their website. Dean Russel said that the web site was not intended to be interactive, but he thought it was reasonable to expect that students could submit suggestions for additions to the site. Mr. Ratzman suggested that we of course want the process to be deliberatively democratic so that we, with our local knowledge, can point out the blindspots in any official information that emerges from the University.
   • At some point in the discussion, Provost Gutmann indicated that she thought it would be reasonable to revisit the changes in 2-3 years to evaluate the effects.
   • Mr. Miller drew a conclusion to the post-enrolment discussion, due to time constraints. He thanked Provost Gutmann, Dean Russel and Associate Provost Marsh for attending the meeting, and stated that they would have the support of the GSG in any changes that would improve the quality of life of post-enrolled students. Mr. Miller noted that the GSG had intended to invite Dean Russel to the October Assembly meeting and proceeded with the invitation, which was accepted by Dean Russel. Mr. Miller also invited our guests to stay for the remainder of the meeting.
   • Before leaving, Provost Gutmann informed the Assembly that the Lawrence construction had been approved by the Delaware and Raritan Canal Commission. It was thus one step closer to starting, and still on schedule.

   • Following the departure of Provost Gutmann, Dean Russel and Associate Provost Marsh, Mr. Silberman made three summary comments. First, that there was essentially no change to the current system except for a new name for the first year past enrolment. Second, in the long range it would be good if the time of enrolments were extended. Third, Mr. Silberman wished the Provost's statement, "We do not want a student status not supported by a stipend," noted by the assembly. While the university indeed gives excellent support to enrolled students, this furnishes a weak argument for post-enrolment and, in fact, clashes with the common practice of making the stipends of enrolled students conditioned on them teaching.
   • Bill Jordan informed the Assembly that he was one of the students on the Post-Enrolment committee. He invited comments, offering to raise them at the next meeting of the committee. Mr. Jordan can be contacted at wjordan@

5. OFFICER REPORTS II

   5.1 Treasurer's report -- Donnell Butler

   5.1.1 Account status

   • Mr. Butler informed the Assembly that the current balance of the GSG account was $7343.26.

   5.1.2 Funding requests

   • Mr. Butler informed the Assembly that three funding requests had been submitted.
   5.1.2.1 Moon Festival
   • The Association of Chinese Students and Scholars (ACSS) had requested funding for the moon festival celebrations to be held on Sunday 22 September. The request was for $250-$300 and approximately 250 graduate students were expected to attend. Mr. Butler commended the budget submitted by ACSS, stating that they had presented the best budget he had ever seen from a student organisation!
   • Fei Sun informed the Assembly that the moon festival celebrations would be held Saturday and Sunday 21-22 September. They would include Chinese pictures on the 100 level of Frist and a movie night (Saturday); and a party, karaoke contest and reservation of the pool table (Sunday).
   • Weining Man informed the Assembly that although ACSS had managed to secure funding from several bodies -- $300 from the Graduate School, $150 from the School of Architecture, $100 from Electrical Engineering, and $700 from co-hosting the event with the Chinese Students Association and the Hong Kong Students Association -- they still did not have enough money for the celebrations. Ms. Man outlined several budget cuts that ACSS had made, including reducing the cost of labour in Frist and not providing dinner for actors in the show, and stated that, despite these budget cuts, ACSS still required further funding. ACSS was seeking co-sponsorship from the GSG, although Ms. Man noted that ACSS did not expect that GSG co-sponsorship would cover the entire remaining costs. Upon questioning, Ms. Man informed the Assembly that ACSS had approximately 280 graduate student members, plus less than 100 faculty/staff members.
   • After presentation of many budgetary details, it was established that the original ACSS budget was $2025, the reduced budget was $1800, and the amount of funding already procured was $1250.
   • Mr. Butler recalled that the GSG usually offers sponsorship of the order of $3/student. From the number of expected graduate student attendees, of the order of 250, this would mean that a co-sponsorship of $750 was entirely reasonable. Ms. Man stated that all graduate students were welcome to the event and that it would be friendly to English-speaking students.
   • Mr. Ratzman enquired about the different Chinese student organisations and mainland/non-mainland constituencies. Ms. Man informed him that there was the Association of Chinese Students and Scholars (ACSS), whose membership included mostly graduate students, post-doctorals and faculty from mainland China, Taiwan, Hong Kong; the Chinese Students Association (CSA) which consisted mostly of undergraduate, who were largely American-born and of Chinese descent; and the Chinese Graduate Student Association (CGSA), consisting of approximately 50 members, mostly from Taiwan.
   • Anita Adhitya, with respect to Ms. Man's invitation that all graduate students were welcome, mentioned that she had attended the CSA moon festival celebrations last year and that the event had indeed been accessible to non-Chinese speaking students. Ms. Adhitya also noted that the moon festival was a reasonably significant event in Chinese culture.
   • Somewhere in this discussion, a motion was made to provide $750 of co-sponsorship to ACSS. Ms. Friedmann enquired into the amount of funding ACSS had received in the past for the moon festival; the figure was not readily available. The motion to co-sponsor the ACSS moon festival celebration by $750 was passed with none opposed.
   • Mr. Silberman reminded ACSS that they should send an email to the GSG so that the event could be advertised on the gsg-global mailing, and that they were required to state on their advertisements that co-sponsorship by the GSG had been provided.

   5.1.2.2 Capoeira

   • Mr. Butler announced that the second funding request was from Capoeira, for their Batizado 2002; 25-30 graduate students were expected to attend. Samir Succar informed the Assembly that this estimate was likely to be lower than the actual number of graduate student attendees, since it only counted those graduate students who had attended every Capoeira class over the summer. Capoeira classes are held in Dillon Gym. Mr. Succar informed the Assembly that Capoeira was an art form started by African slaves in Brazil. He informed the Assembly that the Batizado event was a big (but secular) Baptism ceremony in which students advance to the next level. Teachers from around the world, including Brazil, Hawaii, Connecticut, Cape Cod and Washington, D.C., would be in attendance. Mr. Succar stated that the event would include Brazilian shows, professional African-Brazilian dances from New York, and workshops. Mr. Succar hazarded a guess that 300 people might attend. Mr. Succar stated that Capoeira needed $4000, of which $2000 was expected in T-shirt and ticket sales. It was also expected that funding would be procured from the International Centre. Ms. O'Brien suggested that the Spanish and Portuguese Languages and Cultures department might also be a source of funding. In response to Ms. Friedmann's question, Mr. Succar informed the Assembly that the event would be held this weekend.
   • Ms. Bystrom made a motion to co-sponsor the Capoeira event by $300. Mr. Silberman suggested $200. A vote was held on Ms. Bystrom's motion for $300 co-sponsorship; the motion passed with none opposed.
   • Mr. Worden stated that the Princeton Peace Network would like to make a funding request. Discussion of this request was postponed until after the third pre-submitted funding request.

     5.1.2.3 Butler Wine and Cheese Night

     • Mr. Butler announced that the third funding request was from the Butler Committee for a cheese and wine night to be held on 16 November. Huiyan Yang informed the Assembly that the budget for the event was $600. Ms. Yang stated that the cheese and wine event had been held for the first time last year and that the Butler Committee had paid for all the costs. The event proved to be one of the most popular.
     • Mr. Silberman asked how many people who were not residents of Butler attended.
     • Ms. Safran recalled that the GSG was in favour of encouraging events that were not always GC-centric.
     • Ms. Friedmann asked what fiscal year the $7000 account balance was for. Mr. Butler stated that this was the fiscal year ending in October. He informed the Assembly that the GSG currently has approximately $5000 left, and that it should be spent.
     • Ms. Friedmann made a motion to fund the request for the Butler cheese and wine night by $300. The motion passed with none opposed.

     5.1.2.4 Princeton Peace Network

     • The meeting returned to Mr. Worden's request. Mr. Worden informed the Assembly that the Princeton Peace Network would like to request co-sponsorship for a speaker series. Mr. Silberman informed Mr. Worden that he should submit the request to the Treasurer prior to an Assembly meeting.

   5.2 Chair's report

   • Mr. Miller informed the Assembly that he had spoken at the welcome reception for new graduate students, of whom there were approximately 550.
   • Mr. Miller reminded the Assembly that the GSG had funded the welcome BBQ at the GC. GSG key chains had been distributed at the BBQ; a number of key chains were left over.

6. OLD BUSINESS

   6.1 First Chance Dance

   • Ms. Bystrom reminded the Assembly that the First Chance Dance would be held at the Carl A. Fields Centre, formerly the Third World Centre, on Friday 27 September. Arrangements had been made for a DJ, food, and so on. Ms. Bystrom made a request for volunteers to check ID at the door and to help set up and clean up. Messrs. Miller and Silberman readily volunteered. Ms. Bystrom sent around a volunteers sign-up sheet.
   • Ms. Bystrom informed the Assembly that Dean F. Joy Montero of the Graduate School had offered co-sponsorship for half the costs, up to $1800. The total budget for the event was $2300. Ms. Bystrom made a request to the Assembly to allow a budget of $1400 for the dance instead of the $1200 approved at the previous meeting. It was recalled that, when the previous amount was approved, it was understood that the number might change.
   • A short discussion of advertising arose. It was suggested that advertising could be placed in GC mailboxes.
   • Mr. Silberman made a motion to increase the dance funding by $200, to $1400, seconded by Ms. Safran. The motion passed with no opposition.

   6.2 Housing Construction Status

   • Mr. Miller informed the Assembly that the Lawrence construction had been unanimously approved by the Planning Board, with two caveats relating to trees and the timing of lights. The first caveat is a Township matter; the second is both a Township and Borough matter. Mr. Miller noted that there were still further administrative hurdles to overcome; approval from the canal commission, which Provost Gutmann had earlier announced had been received, was one of them. Mr. Miller stated that these were all scheduled for September, and that if approval was granted at the first instance then construction could start in October.

   6.3 Shuttle Update

   • Mr. Miller informed the Assembly that the university had committed to a daytime shuttle. The shuttle would service the main graduate student residences and wherever graduate students wanted to go. The GSG would be determining what stops were required and when the rush hours were. Mr. Miller informed the Assembly that the daytime shuttle would be run not by Public Safety but by GMTA. Mr. Miller pointed out that this meant the shuttles would be driven by professionals as opposed to undergraduates who, from experience with the night shuttle, tended to be unreliable. Mr. Miller stated that discussions with Public Safety were currently taking place.
   • Mr. Miller informed the Assembly that a web survey would be held to determine how best to service graduate student needs. The shuttle would run every 15 minutes in peak periods and less frequently at other times. Mr. Miller noted that this was a pilot programme, and that it would have to be successful for the shuttle to continue. David Shrom asked if the shuttle would service only graduate students or also post-docs and others. Mr. Silberman noted that one of the graduate student residences is Hibben-Magie, which also houses non- graduate students.
   • Ms. Safran recommended initially keeping the route tight so that the shuttle would be effective. She proposed the following times as possible peak periods: 8:30-9:30am, 12:30-1:30pm, 4:30-6:00pm.
   • Mr. Miller acknowledged the work of Ms. Safran and Mr. Adelizzi in conjunction with Pam Hersh, Director of Community and State Affairs, in making the shuttle a reality. Mr. Miller also acknowledged the work that had been put into writing the GSG's Parking and Transportation Report, and thanked Ms. Safran and Mr. Adelizzi.
   • Ms. MacNamara mentioned that she had previously worked as a transportation engineer and had volunteered in a past meeting to be on the Parking and Transportation committee. Ms. Safran recalled Ms. MacNamara's interest and informed her that it had not been forgotten; rather, the committee had not met for a while. Mr. Miller noted that the survey would need to be sent out this week; work needed to be done on that.
   • Mike Ludkovski asked if the Millstone apartments would be served by the shuttle. Ms. Safran suggested that, since the goal was to run the shuttle every 15 minutes, it might not be a good idea to do so in the pilot programme. If it is proven that the shuttle works, then perhaps the route can later be extended. It was suggested that Millstone residents could use the towpath, and that they could catch the shuttle from Butler. Mr. Silberman asked how long it takes to travel from Millstone to Butler. Ms. Adhitya noted that it took her 15-20 minutes to bike between Butler apartments and Forrestal campus; therefore it should take less from Millstone. It was pointed that this time, however, was for a bicycle rather than on foot. 15 minutes was estimated as the walking time from Millstone to Butler.
   • Mr. Miller noted that once Public Safety realised that they did not have to run the shuttle, they were behind the idea. Mr. Butler pointed out that, if the shuttle fails, we would likely never get a shuttle. Ms. MacNamara echoed the importance of keeping the shuttle running every 15 minutes. She said that studies had shown that 15 minutes is the longest people will wait for something.
   • Ms. O'Brien asked about the frequency of the shuttle outside peak hours. Mr. Miller did not know, but suggested every half hour. Ms. O'Brien raised the issue of graduate students who did not have offices and who had to teach on campus. These students would have to commute between home and campus to work and teach. Also, those that worked from home also had the desire to commute between home and the library.
   • Ms. O'Brien also raised the issue of installing a pedestrian crossing at Butler apartments. Mr. Miller recalled that the Butler Committee was dealing with this issue earlier in the year and that there had been a petition for a crossing at Butler.

7. NEW BUSINESS

   7.1 International Student Concerns

   • Lei Xu stated that he had read the latest Graduate Student Life Initiative (GSLI), which had been sent to Assembly for comment, and noted that the section on International Student Concerns was very brief. In particular, he noted that the English language programme received only one sentence of comment in the report. Mr. Xu stated that it was a serious issue for international students.
   • Mr. Xu informed the Assembly that the first formal English language programme began in 2000. There had been complaints about the programme and an appeal letter. Mr. Xu informed the Assembly that approximately 100 students take the test and approximately 60-70 take the class. He stated that, for all students who have not passed the POPT test and need to take the test, there was a policy in which teachers have determined that, if a student does not take the class or misses 3 classes, they will not be allowed to take the test and have to take the language class next emester or during summer. Mr. Xu asserted that this was unfair, as different people have different ways of learning. For example, he suggested that other ways of learning included by way of tutoring and watching movies.
   • Mr. Xu noted that the test was to assess whether or not international students can be AIs. Mr. Xu suggested that the class should not be regarded as a prerequisite for taking the test, and that students should be encouraged to explore other ways of learning English. Mr. Xu informed the Assembly that, when asked, teachers informed students that the reason for making the class compulsory was because of the effort and costs associated with the class.
   • Mr. Xu stated that he had spoken with Dean Bogucki, Associate Dean of Undergraduate Affairs in the engineering school, who considered it the case that most international students did not have communication problems. Mr. Xu noted that Dean Bogucki considered the attitude of AIs towards their students, for example attention and caring, to be more important than communication obstacles.
   • Mr. Xu noted that some departments had their own policies for students who did not pass the test. He informed the Assembly that there were departments -- in including Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering and Chemical Engineering -- in which Ph.D. candidacy was not granted if this was the case; students would have to leave or could only receive a Masters degree.
   • Mr. Xu informed the Assembly that the POPT also involved undergraduates. DGSs could also sit in on the test, but their opinion was not considered.
   • Mr. Silberman suggested that the class was required because it was believed that the class by itself is important. Mr. Silberman suggested that he considered it reasonable to demand English competency. He noted that different departments have different policies, but that they don't necessarily explain them ahead of time.
   • Mr. Miller proposed that there are two independent problems: first, that the programme mandates the way people must learn; second, that there are departments that require students pass the test, which is designed to assess prospective AIs, in order to remain as students in their department.
   • Ms. Man stated that her advisor had informed her that the university gave priority first to undergraduates, followed by faculty, then graduate students. Mr. Man noted that undergraduates complained about their AIs. Mr. Man stated that her DGS had been present at her English exam and had told her she had presented the material in a most interesting way; however, the people who designed the programme were English teachers who did not listen to departments or undergraduates.
   • Ms. Man proposed a survey of international student opinions, consisting of questions such as: is the test fair, can test results accurately represent spoken English ability, and is the class helpful? Perhaps undergraduates could also participate in the survey.
   • Ms. MacNamara recounted being informed by a faculty member in her department that, at the beginning of the year, undergraduate freshmen would complain about being taught by international students. However, by the end of the year, they would come to appreciate the contribution of international students to the university community. Ms. MacNamara stated that her Dean was supportive of international AIs.
   • Ms. Bystrom suggested these issues be dealt with by the International Student Concerns committee.
   • Mr. Miller stated that the brevity of mention of international student concerns in the GSLI was not because the GSG regarded these concerns as unimportant, but because the GSG did not know enough about the issues to be able to compile a more thorough report.

8. SCHEDULING OF NEXT MEETING
   • The next Assembly meeting will be held at 6pm on 9 October, in Frist 309. Dean Russel will attend.

9. ADJOURNMENT
   • The meeting was adjourned at 8:30pm.
   
   Respectfully submitted,

   Anita Adhitya
   Recording Secretary