I 134 Affidavit of Support Download Form by iko76169

VIEWS: 102 PAGES: 37

I 134 Affidavit of Support Download Form document sample

More Info
									Fall Meeting - October 7, 2010
   Objectives:
     Increase Discussion and DGS/Coordinator Input
     Broaden context to include USM, Region, Nation

   Agenda:
     Announcements
     Admissions Update
     Discussion: Graduate Learning Outcomes Assessment
     Discussion: English Proficiency


   Handouts:
     Upcoming Events
     Council of Graduate School: A Path Forward
   Associate Dean for Fellowships and Awards: Dr. Tita Chico

   Associate Dean for Academic Student Success: Dr. Arthur Popper

   Dr. Valerie Woolston (International Fellowships)

   International Admissions
     Megan Van Son
     Angela Mazur

   GS Postdoctoral Associates

     Dr. Tamara Wilds Lawson
     Dr. Kristen Hodge
   New website up

   BETA version

   Send us comments
    and corrections

   Update any program
    website links to GS
    website
   Graduate School Post-Doctoral Associates

   McNair Graduate Fellowships

   David C. Driskell Center Training Fellowship

   University Distinguished Dissertation Award
   Parental Accommodation Policy

   Wylie Dissertation Fellowships/Health Benefits

   Enhanced Goldhaber Travel Awards

   International Travel Award

   Graduate Student Spaces in McKeldin Library
   Post-Doctoral Scholars Collaboration with VP-R and AP-FA

   Task Force on Graduate Student Writing

   Task Force on Responsible Conduct of Research and
    Scholarly Ethics

   Graduate Learning Outcomes Assessment
   Pending review, adjust University and Dean’s Fellowships program to
    address initial concerns.

   Work with programs and colleges to set, enable, monitor, and enforce
    student and program benchmarks, including use of dedicated initiatives,
    incentives, rewards, and penalties.

   Continue to promote and strive for overall excellence in graduate
    education.
   Two Overall Rankings: S and R (using 20 characteristics)

   Three Dimensional Rankings (using subset of characteristics)
     Research Activity
     Student Support and Outcomes
     Diversity of Academic Environment



   61 UM doctoral programs were reviewed
   56 UM programs were ranked
   5 UM programs were considered emerging fields and unranked
   36 UM programs were ranked among the top 25 in their fields (90% certainty)
   Report is most comprehensive collection of data from research-doctorate
    institutions since 1995.

   Report will provide first-time detailed comparative data on individual graduate
    programs across institutions.

   Report will enable programs and campus to explore:
     Comparisons with peers and others on key metrics and benchmarks;
     Program characteristics that have improved/held steady/declined since 2005/06.


   Report will enable us to identify areas of success and areas for increased
    investment.

   Report may enhance recruitment of faculty and students.
                      AY 09/10   AY 10/11   Change
Domestic               13,472    14,384     + 6.75%
           Maryland    2,909      3,175      + 9%
                USA    10,675    11,285     + 5.75%


International          8,836     10,236     + 16 %


Total
                      22,658     24,923     + 10%
Applications*


*On 8/1/10
                 Ethnicity                  AY 10/11
American Indian or Alaska Native               20
Asian                                        1,227
Black or African American                    1,648
Hispanic                                      566
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander      10
Multiple                                      239
Unknown                                      1,253
White                                        8,363
    Academic
                        AY 09/10   AY 10/11*   Change
    Programs
      ECON                642        875       + 36%
       EDCI               300        448       + 49%
      ENCE                307        398       + 30%

*Unofficial Megs Data
   Programs recommend international applicant for admission.

   Graduate School staff reviews file and clears for admission.

   Graduate School staff admits applicant.

   Applicant receives immediate e-notice that decision can be
    viewed on secure website.

   OIS staff follows up with hard-copy letter with I-20.
   DGS /Coordinators use PI exclusively for applicants they want to admit ASAP.

   Files must include specific documents when placed on the PI list:
     Transcripts
     English scores (if required)
     Financial Documents, including recruitment package details
     Visa documents (for applicants already in USA)


   An incomplete file:
     Triggers an email to the applicant requesting missing documents
     Moves application into a pending status
     Delays admission
   Official transcripts are preferred and be bi-lingual or
    translated

   Unofficial transcripts will trigger a provisional admit

   Transcripts must demonstrate a Bachelors degree from a 4
    year program

   Transcripts must demonstrate applicant had a 3.0 GPA or
    better

   All of the applicants’ transcripts are required
In order to receive an I-20 and visa to enter the country:

Applicant must demonstrate at least $40,250 in available funds for tuition and fees,
rent, and food for first year – more if differential tuition is a factor.

Assistantships, fellowships, scholarships, if reported by the academic unit, are
included in the financial review and enable many students to meet the threshold.


STUDENT SUBMITS:                              PROGRAM SUBMITS:
   Bank statements                               Assistantship/Fellowship/
   Certificate of Finances                        recruitment package
   Form I-134, Affidavit of Support               information
    (indicating support from relatives or
    sponsors in USA)
   We encourage academic unit to contact applicant for
    required information.

   Effective November 2010, applicant will receive a bar code
    that can be downloaded and attached to all documents to
    expedite matching.

   Effective November 2010, a fax server in ESO will allow
    applicants to fax documents with the bar code. Documents
    will enter applicant’s file within 24 hours of receipt.
Academic programs use PE for international applications under active consideration
   when the program has questions about documentation. Only applications under
   active consideration for admission should be put on PE.

   PE reviews materials to determine:
     Authenticity of transcripts
     Validity of bachelors’ degree
     Reputation of undergraduate institution
     Interpretation of English proficiency scores.


   Following PE review, applications are returned to academic programs for further
    review and recommendation for acceptance or rejection.

   PE review will be available until January 15, 2011, during the Fall 11 admission cycle.
    Following January 15, it will be provided on an “as time permits” basis.
   Academic program submits complete application to PI for
    expedited admit.

   Graduate School contacts academic program if and when
    problems occur.

   Graduate School strives to review, clear, and admit within 3
    to 5 days.

   IES immediately prepares I-20 to be sent to admitted
    international applicant.
   Brown Bag Training Sessions, Q &A Sessions
     October 20 – 12:00 noon to 2:00 p.m.
     November 18 –2:00 to 3:30 p.m.
     December 14 – 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 noon
     Locations TBA - Refreshments served


   International Admission Tip Sheet in October via Global Grad

   Individual training upon request

   Contact drgrad@umd.edu for assistance
   Middle States Commission on Higher Education

   Provost’s Commission on Learning Outcomes Assessment

   Excellence in Graduate Education and Research
                                      ASSESSMENT OF STUDENT
   INSTITUTIONAL CONTEXT
                                            LEARNING

The institution has developed and    Assessment of student learning
implemented an assessment            demonstrates that, at graduation,
process that evaluates its overall   or other appropriate points, the
effectiveness in achieving its       institution’s students have
mission and goals and its            knowledge, skills, and
compliance with accreditation        competencies consistent with
standards.                           institutional and appropriate higher
                                     education goals.
1. Developing clearly articulated written statements,
   expressed in observable terms, of key learning outcomes.

2. Designing courses, programs, and experiences that provide
   intentional opportunities for students to achieve those
   learning outcomes.

3. Assessing student achievement of those key learning
   outcomes.

4. Using the results of those assessments to improve teaching
   and learning.
 Goals of Graduate LOA:
   Make the invisible  visible
   Understand success and less than success
   Create an explicit feedback loop for improvement
   Comply with internal and external reporting requirements

 Process:
   GS to oversee Graduate LOA (UGST Undergraduate LOA): Associate Dean Popper on point
   Working group to design flexible and simple rubrics
   Focus groups to review rubrics and LOA flowchart
   Programs to conduct LOA on ongoing basis
   Graduate LOA Committee to review LOA on ongoing basis
   What are the positives and negatives of LOA in the graduate, and
    especially doctoral, context?

   What would be a meaningful but simple LOA process?

   What would persuade DGSs and graduate faculty that LOA is valuable?
   So that international graduate students obtain the full benefit of their
    academic and cultural experience while at the University.

   So that IGS are able to engage in scholarly discussions with their professors
    and other students.

   So that IGS are able to produce academic materials that meet the standards of
    a Carnegie I Research University.

   So that IGS impact on undergraduate students is positive and productive and
    reflects well on the University.
   Federal Immigration Law requires that we assess English proficiency upon
    admission.

   The Law requires that we apply consistent admission standards with regard to
    English proficiency.

   State Department regulations require the university to correct any English
    deficiency.

   The State Department routinely audits our international admissions.

   Non-compliance with laws and regulations can result in our losing the ability to
    issue student visas.
   TOEFL and IELTS download scores directly to UM.

   TOEFL minimum scores (for unconditional admission)
     Listening   Reading   Writing    Speaking   Total

     26          26        26         22         100


   IELTS minimum scores (for unconditional admission)
     Listening   Reading   Writing    Speaking   Overall
     7           7         7          6.5        7

   Students may submit new TOEFL or IELTS scores through August 1.
   Evaluate new proficiency tests that have been developed and are in use
    at other research universities.

   Survey peer graduate schools to learn how they evaluate proficiency.

   Develop pilots to test new approaches to evaluating proficiency.

   Review the current MEI exam process for students admitted with
    language provisions.
   What are the pros and cons of requiring standard tests of
    English proficiency?

   What alternatives to these tests should we consider?

   What alternatives to our current means for correcting
    deficiency should we consider?

								
To top