GT Institute Review Committee
College of Sciences Conference Room, Tech Tower
The meeting was called to order at 10:05 a.m. Members present included Steve Usselman, Paul Wine, Ron Arkin, Farrokh Mistree, Joe Hughes (liaison from the UCC), Jim McClellan, Andy Peterson (liaison from IGC), John McIntyre, and Russell Gentry.
Committee Role in Follow-up:
- When their report comes back to the IRC, the recommendations from their reviews are folded into the report that goes forward to the provost.
- Like the semester conversion process.
- One person on each committee will examine documents and bring to committee.
- JH to explore model.
- Devote one meeting to program.
- Helps to close the loop.
4. Russell—Closing the loop is part of institutional memory.
5. Andy—Bring up issue of meeting and getting guidelines, rundown to IGC and UCC
6. Need format for April 15.
- who will be there
7. After April 15, programs will have opportunity to make changes if there are documenting deficiencies that the
- What was set up for documentation?
- What process did they go through?
- Tell us how you assembled it.
- How did you deal with the criteria?
- What information was hard/easy to find?
- Critique of our process.
- Critique of any deficiencies.
1. Memorandum Contents
- Purpose: BOR, external accreditation, duties of chair
- Bullets: Rich’s proposal
- Key person: Covered in scheduling at most, a bulleted list
- Key documentation: Report—ask for additional documents as necessary
- Type of questions: might be too much—usurping
2. Memorandum Format
1. Russell—Review Committee Charge
First four bullets we’re doing. Others are process-oriented.
The meeting was adjourned at 11:00 a.m.