Beverly Tran Wayne State Board of Governors

8437 Lumpkin 656 West Kirby

Hamtramck, MI 48212 Room 4231 FAB
313.522.8213 Detroit, MI 48202
tranbeverly@gmail.com

January 3, 2010

DELIVERED VIA EMAIL

GREETINGS TO ALL:

NOW I COME, Beverly Tran, to respectfully request the Wayne State University
Board of Governors to hear my grievances and to grant my requests for intervention in
the matters set forth herein.

Insomuch as the Department of Political Science Graduate Advisor, Summer

2008 notified me that I did not successfully complete my Masters compulsory
examination in Public Policy for the third time, I was informed that I may petition to
retake the exam.

In order to properly petition, one must know what it is that is being petitioned and
its process.

Pursuant to the Wayne State University Board of Governors Statutes Students

Rights it states in part:

2.31.01.040 Student Rights

Each student has the right to be considered for admission, advancement, degrees,
honors, and all academic and co-curricular activities and benefits without regard
to ancestry, religious or political belief, or country of origin.

To date, I have not been afforded these aforementioned considerations. Arbitrary

and capricious reviews of my studies in Child Policy have dismissed my research as
unqualified and suspect, reflected in the unsuccessful completion of my compulsory
examinations.1

Pursuant to the Wayne State University Board of Governors Statutes Students

Rights it states in part:

2.31.01.050 Each student has the right to know the rules by which he/she is

1
Previous two compulsory examinations completed were under severe scrutiny by other graduate students,
which resulted in the PSGSO addressing examination reform. Resolution of compulsory examination
policy was never established between the graduate student organization and the department (TAB A and
B). This is the only published effort of policy discussion for the Department of Political Science.

1
 governed--insofar as a written set of specific rules is possible--through the
medium of a clear and precise written exposition of the rules, given proper
publicity. Each student has the right to advocate changes in any
rule by which he/she is governed.

To date, through exhaustive efforts, I have been unsuccessful in obtaining written

intra-departmental policies for the Department of Political Science; therefore I
respectfully ask this body to intervene in this matter.

Whereas, I am a mother of two young boys, who has completed the program
under horrific and historic circumstances, I have not been provided any accommodations
or considerations; therefore, I respectfully ask this body to assist me in requesting an
equitable tolling of the statutes for completion of advanced studies of the graduate
school;

Whereas, I have been without any advisement or counsel in these matters, I

respectfully ask this body to amend and revise the Statutes of Students Rights to establish
inclusive provisions to adapt to the rapidly growing demands of non-traditional students
and single parent families to include hardship provisions;

Whereas, Child Policy has been omitted, nationally, from the discipline of
political science, I respectfully ask this body to engage the Department of Political
Science to encourage the study of this area of public policy;

Therefore, for reasons stated, I respectfully ask this body to assist all students in
pursuit of academic studies by inquiring why uniform policies to successfully complete
compulsory examinations, to receive advisement and to petition have not been
established by the Department of Political Science, so that I may graduate.

With sincerity and serenity,

/s/Beverly Tran/
Beverly Tran
An Original Source

Cc: Wayne State President’s Cabinet

Wayne State Department of Political Science
U.S. Congressman John Conyers. Jr.
MI Representative Bert Johnson
Chiketa Palmore, Esq.

2
TAB A

3
November 6, 2007

To: The Political Science Graduate Student Organization

From: The Graduate Studies Committee

The Graduate Studies Committee met on October 18 to discuss the PSGSO Statement
concerning the comprehensive examination process. This meeting followed the
presentation of the PSGSO Statement to the Committee on October 5. In the course of its
discussion the Committee expressed its appreciation to the PSGSO for raising important
issues, and it arrived at a number of recommendations and conclusions. In addition to
several specific areas of concern mentioned below, the Committee wished to clarify any
general misconception about the nature and purpose of “comprehensive” examinations.
They are not thematically tied to dissertation topics, but rather are a demonstration of the
student’s overall mastery of the literature and thought of a particular subfield. Such
mastery is necessary in order to certify that the student completing the program is indeed
qualified to teach in the subfield. Clarification of these points should become part of the
annual graduate student orientation conducted by the Department, probably through PS
7610, as discussed below.

1. Exam scheduling. We agree that there is a need for convenient exam scheduling,
timely exam grading, and equitable grading standards. The system begun this past year is
a step in the right direction and should be allowed to play out over a longer period for
assessment. The use of three-member grading committees for each subfield seems to
have promoted equitable standards, and in some cases it has shortened turnaround time.
To address concerns about exam availability, we recommend modifying this system by
introducing a scheduled examination three times a year (once in the fall, winter, and
spring/summer semesters), preferably early in each term. For students with special
needs, such as meeting a Graduate School deadline or rewriting part of an exam, the
Director of Graduate Studies can also schedule exams for individual students between
these official exam dates, as is occurring this semester.

2. Exam grading. Turnaround time can be addressed by careful monitoring of faculty

grading committees, including among other measures the stipulation of a specific date,
not later than three weeks after the last exam, by which all exams must be graded. For
example, if exams were given over four weeks in September, then the due date for grades
would be approximately October 20. Failure to submit a grade by this date would give a
student the right to petition the Director of Graduate Studies for other graders or an
alternative expedited grading procedure.

3. Exam format and content. The Committee discussed alternative format and content
for exams (take-home options, 24-hour exams, content based upon potential dissertation
topics) and concluded that the present arrangements would be difficult to replace, given
the current structure of the exam process and the desire to protect anonymity and
maintain uniform standards across subfields. We agree, however, that the faculty should
conduct a biennial review and updating of exam questions, sample questions, and reading

4
lists. Such a review should take into account expectations concerning breadth and depth
of coverage. Responsibility for the review could be assigned to the three-member
grading committees in each subfield.

4. Reading Lists. The PSGSO statement suggests that it would be useful to have
annotated bibliographies prepared by the student available during the written exams. The
Committee discussed this proposal, but without reaching agreement. Reservations were
expressed regarding the suitability of such an arrangement. There was some sentiment
expressed that our current system has worked well, with students now having access to
bibliographies organized by categories, though not to annotated reading lists.

5. Mentoring. We agree that faculty mentoring of graduate students is a good idea.

However, the Department has tried a formal mentoring program in the past, and it has not
worked especially well. Instead of such a program, we recommend a voluntary
mentoring program, coordinated by the Director of Graduate Studies. Early in their
program of studies students should be encouraged to choose a faculty mentor/advisor in
their major field and to work out appropriate visitation schedules with that
mentor/advisor.

6. Professional development seminar. Some of the concerns about the form and
content of comprehensive exams and students’ overall experience in the program can be
addressed (and are addressed) in the professional development seminar, PS 7610 (1
credit, pass/fail), that was introduced this year, based on a similar discussion of these
issues in 2006. The seminar should be offered once a year, preferably in the fall
semester. We recommend that this seminar be required for students in the doctoral
program, starting with those entering in winter 2008.

7. Workshops. We agree that workshops can be a useful supplement to normal advising

and seminar instruction. We suggest that the Director of Graduate Studies work with the
PSGSO to schedule one or two workshops during the academic year on appropriate
topics. The topics could change from year to year, depending on student needs and
interests.

Submitted for the Committee:

Dr. Lawrence Scaff, Director of Graduate Studies

5
TAB B

6
November 8, 2007

To: The Graduate Studies Committee

From: The Comprehensive Examination Reform Sub-Committee

The Comprehensive Examination Reform Sub-Committee is charged by the Political

Science Graduate Student Organization (PSGSO) to address the matter of comprehensive
examination reform. To this end, the Sub-Committee is acting within its mandate in
delivering a response to the Graduate Studies Committee’s (GSC’s) memo of November
6th concerning the PSGSO Statement of Intent to Reform the Graduate Comprehensive
Examination Process. The following document was drafted with the advice and
consideration of the PSGSO membership and the larger graduate student community
based upon GSC’s reply.

PSGSO generally, and the Sub-Committee particularly, thank the GSC for allowing
representatives to address the October 5th GSC meeting. We appreciated the opportunity
to present our concerns in person and we valued the GSC’s openness and forthrightness
in its response. These concerns regarding the comprehensive examination process and
broader departmental issues are shared by both PSGSO membership and the graduate
student body at large. The PSGSO shares with the GSC the goal of improving the
graduate program by creating a superior comprehensive exam process. Establishing
policies that produce a more informed, engaged, and professionally competitive student
body not only produces stronger doctorial graduates but additionally, strengthens the
national academic standing of Wayne State University’s Political Science Department.

With these goals in mind, the Sub-Committee offers the following comments and
suggestions regarding the GSC’s recent memo:

Examination scheduling: The Sub-Committee is heartened by the GSC’s recognition of

the difficulties created by the current exam schedule. We applaud the GSC’s decision to
reinstate the fall exam period and its consideration of “special needs” situations. A
number of questions, however, require further attention:

• The GSC has suggested that the system begun last year “be allowed to play out
over a longer period for assessment.” The Sub-Committee requests clarification of
this statement.
• The three-member grading committees are said to promote “equitable standards.”
While we have no reason to doubt this statement as it pertains to an individual
committee’s grading practices, our requests for uniform grading standards across
different grading committees (within the same subfield) remains unaddressed.
Simply because one set of three graders is forced to come to agreement on a
certain question does not mean that a second set of three graders will come to the
same conclusion when addressing the same question. As consistency and
predictability continue to be a concern without a common grading rubric, the
dilemma remains a key issue for the Sub-Committee.

7
 • Three-member grading committees are identified as resulting “in some cases
[of]…shortened turnaround time” for examinations. While this may indeed occur
in some cases, overall reporting results still do not meet commitments made by
the GSC last year. While students exchanged a third testing period for a
commitment to cap turnaround times, realization of that commitment is elusive.
While some exam results may have been provided in a timelier fashion, other
students have waited almost three months for outcomes. Additionally, while a
correlation between the grading committee system and turnaround times may
exist, causation is not evident. Therefore the Sub-Committee continues to seek
further guarantees regarding exam turnaround times so as to avoid unnecessary
financial hardship for graduate students.
• Examinations are offered in the summer semester. The GSC’s proposal for
grading exams states that results will be delivered “not later than three weeks after
the last exam.” Therefore, the Sub-Committee expects that grading will occur
during the summer semester. For example, exams taken in the month of June
would be graded by approximately July 20. Further assurance that this would
indeed be the case is required.
• We request both a clearer and more concrete definition of the term “special
needs” and articulation of the circumstances in which testing outside of the preset
dates is allowed. Such clarification will enable the PSGSO to effectively advise
graduate students of their comprehensive examination rights.

Exam Grading: The Sub-Committee supports the proposal of a three week grading
turnaround time beginning after the last exam is completed. However, the proposed
method of enforcement is potentially problematic for the following reasons:

• It is doubtful that a student petitioning the Graduate Director for exam results
would prove any more effective at enforcing deadlines than the Graduate Director
acting alone. Also ineffective, it appears, are deadlines without meaningful
enforcement tools. As stated above, there are students who have waited almost
three months for exam results. We are uncertain where the responsibility lies for
these excessive turnaround times. We do not seek to lay blame; however, if the
Graduate Director is aware of this problem and has requested that the grading
committee expedite its work, this means of enforcement has proven ineffective.
• A student’s request that the Graduate Director appoint new graders will only serve
to lengthen the process. A new grading committee will likely encounter the same
problems that plague the initial grading committee, i.e. establishing a time that all
are able to meet to perform the task. Under this scenario a doubling of turnaround
time could result, paradoxically, from a request to enforce time limits.
• Would a grading committee that was charged with grading a particular exam
willingly cede the task to others because a student wished to enforce established
standards?
• A petition for grades on the student’s part endangers anonymity – both of the
student and the graders.
• Who would conduct “careful monitoring of faculty grading committees,” and
what would the enforcement mechanisms include?

8
 • Further clarification is requested for the phrase “including among other measures”
of enforcement. What are these other measures?
• The Sub-Committee desires a stronger form of enforcement vis-à-vis exam
turnaround times.

Exam format and content: The Sub-Committee welcomes a biennial review and
updating of exam and sample questions and reading lists. We appreciate the GSC’s
response to our concerns regarding the breadth and depth of exam coverage. With this in
mind, we offer the following questions and concerns:

• Would the current arrangements be “difficult” to replace or “impossible” to

replace? The Sub-Committee interprets the GSC’s statement to mean that change
cannot occur in the “current structure of the exam process” because of the current
structure of the exam process. We remain unconvinced that the status quo should
be protected because of the difficulty of change. We are confident that alternate
arrangements can be found that are more efficient, effective, and equitable than
the current system.
• We cannot agree with the GSC’s assertion that take-home exams would endanger
anonymity any more than does the current structure. The use of intermediaries in
the delivery process would provide a resolution of this concern.
• We remain concerned about the lack of contemporary scholarship in some
graduate courses. We desire a more topical and timely discussion of the current
state of the various sub-disciplines. This should also be reflected in exam and
sample questions.

Reading lists: We believe that, given the breadth and depth of the possible exam
material, a short annotated bibliography is both reasonable and useful. The Sub-
Committee offers the following comments in light of the GSC’s statement:

• What are the GSC’s reservations concerning annotated bibliographies? We look

forward to understanding and addressing those concerns.
• Regarding the statement that our current system has “worked well,” an
operational definition of this phrase would prove helpful. The PSGSO maintains
that the current policy could be improved in a way that would maintain the
academic rigor required by the graduate program.
• As there was no consensus reached by the GSC regarding the permissibility of
annotated bibliographies, we look forward to discussing this issue further.

Mentoring: The Sub-Committee is pleased to find agreement with the GSC on the
importance of a mentoring program. It is understandable how a formal mentoring
program could prove inefficient. A voluntary mentoring program with formalized
introduction and utilizable tools for students could prove more productive. With this in
mind we offer a few suggestions:

9
 • The mentoring program’s existence and mechanics should be introduced to
students in the first semester of their program, preferably – and probably most
effectively – in PS 7610.
• New students may find useful a reference list of the faculty and their major fields
of study and research.
• Consideration should be given to students who begin the program in the winter
semester.

Professional development seminar: The Sub-Committee agrees that PS 7610 should be

required of all students and would best operate in the fall semester. We view this course
as a positive and meaningful advance towards our goal of a well-informed graduate
student body. In that spirit we offer three additional suggestions:

• We request PS 7610 be required in the first semester of study (assuming a fall

entry).
• The course should always be taught by the Graduate Advisor.
• Some form of accommodation must be developed and provided to those entering
the program in the winter semester.

Workshops: This year the PSGSO is planning to continue the tradition of offering
workshops on a variety of topics. The PSGSO is pleased to retain the responsibility for
the planning and organization of academically-progressive events. We look forward to
and value assistance from the Graduate Director. Additionally, we require participation
from the general faculty community, without whom we could not conduct meaningful
and well-informed seminars. Therefore, we require faculty participation in these events
to further ensure student success.

The Sub-Committee hopes that it has offered a thoughtful, sincere, and constructive
response to the GSC’s proposals. We again thank the GSC for addressing our initial
document in a timely and open fashion and look forward to further discussion of ways to
strengthen our department. We hope you agree that progression on these issues is time
sensitive and wish you to understand a response by November 30th is considered
important by the Sub-Committee.

Submitted for the Sub-Committee:

Kenneth Lindow,
Vice-President – PSGSO
Chair – Comprehensive Examination Reform Sub-Committee

Comprehensive Examination Reform Sub-Committee Membership:

Rachel Kirkland
Kenneth Lindow
Maggie Lippens
Williams Yamkam

10