College Senate
Minutes of the meeting of May 1st, 2000
Chair Gee called the meeting to order at 4:06 PM.
Chair Nancy Gee: First of all, I would ask that you please raise your hand, and I will call on everyone who has a comment or a question. If you speak out of turn, I may be forced to interrupt you and call on someone who does have their hand raised, so please do raise your hand. Also, state your name prior to making your comments, so we can have accurate minutes.
Number two is that we are under strict time constraints for this meeting. So, we are going to go through the worksheet that you all have and we are going to spend five minutes per item. That's all we have. So I just want to warn you that we are under time constraints and we are going to be using this [timer] to indicate the end of the five-minute period. Please keep your remarks brief. If you are going on and on, I may again be forced to interrupt you. Also I'd like to remind you to keep your comments focussed on the point under discussion. Don't go off on other things, let's stay on track.
And the third thing I want to talk about is today's vote. All of the votes that we take today with regard to each of these items are to be considered straw votes. They are non-binding votes. The idea is just to give the committee a consensus of the senators. So, with all of that said, may I have a motion to approve the agenda?
1. The proposed agenda was approved unanimously.
2. Discussion of General College Program Issues:
Chair Gee: So to begin, Dr. Hefner has requested just a couple of minutes to make a commentary, and he will be followed by Dr. Reck.
President Hefner: Yes, I was sent an e-mail and also sent a letter asking if I would comment on resources and GCP. So I just thought I would say just a word or two.
To me, what we do is is that we use programs and it is the programs that drive the resources, not the other way around. We want to make sure we do the right thing, that we put good programs in place. My goal is that whatever program we put in place is going to be as good a program as we can possibly make it. If we put a program in place, we will put resources behind the program. Now, that doesn't mean that we should go off and make more commitments than we could possibly fund. I mean I'm a realist when it comes to budgets, but I did at least want to make that comment. I know that there have been some e-mails going around and concerns that resources are driving it and that we have to stay within 36 credits. We don't have to stay within 36 credits. I don't think we can go to 56 credits, quite frankly, but somewhere in between there there's got to be something that is reasonable and doable and I think it depends on what we have here. But we do reallocate resources on an annual basis. That is something that happens. I consider budgets to be living documents that are reviewed each and every year. But I just wanted to say those few words, and I know that Vice President Reck wanted to say a word or two on budgets as well, so, go ahead.
Vice President Reck: Well, first of all I would like to thank the GCP Committee and all of the faculty and staff who contributed to this process. That's what has made it meaningful--the discussion that has taken place--and I'm glad to see so many people involved in this discussion.
And I would like to reiterate, as I've said before in a previous meeting, that the desire for us is to have a comprehensive, quality general education program which our students and faculty definitely can be proud of, a program that compliments a student's major, and contributes positively to the over education of all of our students.
With regard to resources and budgets, I did refer to this topic at the March 13th meeting. Sometimes when we talk about budgets and resources people begin to feel negatively inside their bodies. They always tend to think of that as "OK, that's the reason why we can't do something". I would like to think of that as the reason why we can do something because we are going to think about the resources that we have in a knowledgeable fashion. Currently, as you know, there are no new current resources for general education. However, there are possibly new avenues in the future that Dr. Hefner and I will definitely pursue, as avenues do become available to us. We do have the Title III grant with which we have put new resources behind the GCP program. We also have applied for mission review monies. Those are avenues that we have applied for in the past and there will possibly be new avenues.
Again, I see a budget as being fluid in terms of it's not compartmentalized, it's not stagnant. And also, I hope that we understand that whatever program we do adopt we have to look at a comprehensive plan for implementation.
Chair Gee: OK, so we're going to now begin discussion of each of the points. And in so doing, I'd like to invite the committee to come up so that they can field questions. Again, remember I'll recognize those people asking questions and Cheryl will recognize those people who will be answering the questions.
There has been a suggestion that perhaps we treat items 1 through 6 as one discussion point because we feel there is some consensus on those items. So I would like to now open up the field for questions on items 1 through 6.
Joe Chilberg: I saw a question mark under arts. It has one course in AR/MU/TA/ and CM presently under the GCP is taught in the social sciences. There was a question mark about that particular course in CM. It would probably be more appropriate as an option under the social sciences as it is presently conceived and taught.
Cheryl Drout: I think I would probably best respond to that. The reason that we have CM listed there is that someone in the department suggested that there was a new course under development, and so we had it there with a question mark as something that might be considered in the future.
Chilberg: I'm not sure of a new course.
Ted Schwalbe: Also, there was a question that I brought up in an earlier meeting because according to the state mandates, and I emailed this to you, that there are specific departments that were listed as suggested, as strongly suggested, as departments that present courses in those areas. Communications is not listed anywhere. And so coming out of our department was the idea that Communications courses are appropriate in a number of different areas and that's why they're listed here. Again I'm not quite sure what the question mark represents except at that time you said something to the effect that you needed to check back with the state or something to that effect.
Drout: I can clarify some of the information. I might need to ask Steve Stahl for additional information. It is my understanding that the communications course that we presently have under the humanities has been okayed with our current program being approved by the Provost's Advisory Council, so we no longer need the question mark under the humanities. Under social science, I haven't seen the final outcome on that, but I believe that course has also been okayed. Is Steve Stahl here?
Chair Gee: No. I don't see him.
Drout: No? I don't see him at the moment. I think he could best provide the clarification on that. I believe that our current communications course under social science was included in what we approved with the Provost's Advisory Council. From what I have heard so far, there were initially some questions raised and I have not heard the response of yet.
Bill Graebner: Could you clarify the status of history? There were a couple of question marks here, about how the History Department fits in these two categories at the moment.
Drout: Again, this is a similar question. I believe that the history in the current GCP under humanities has been approved under the humanities area. Under social science, again, I just haven't seen the final document. But I believe that we submitted to the Provost's Advisory Council our history courses that were currently under the social science area. There were initially some questions raised. I hear our program has been approved, and I think that those courses have been accepted.
Graebner: So we can take out the question mark under humanities and leave in the one... same thing as for communications?
Drout: Right.
Michael Grady: I have a question about Math 104. It says eighty-two percent waiver. Does that mean that eighteen percent of our students will be taking Math 104? It seems like way more than we have currently taking that course.
Bob Rogers: The waiver on there is talking about how many students pass third year Regents.
Grady: Is that going to mean a big increase in the number of students in Math 104? There is currently only one section taught.
Rogers: I don't know.
Drout: I'm not sure what the increase would be, but it would likely be an increase from what we currently have.
President Hefner: Following up on that statement, I would suggest, and I think that I suggested this to the committee as well, that the math requirement for the GCP should be listed as a college level math course. True, if a student comes in and they don't have the prerequisites, they may have to take a prerequisite, but it seems to me when we're trying to identify courses that would then get an eighteen unit block under the simple mandates and would make sense. Those are all worthwhile areas, and I think that would be a better way to go. I know that's not up there on the board, but that would be the suggestion.
Rogers: Also, the businesses about the third year Regents. Even now the Regents are changing this to a Regents A and a Regents B. My understanding of this is that the Regents B is intended for any student who is going on to college. Regents A is for all students that have to take it.
Chair Gee: So, time's up! We need to move on to a vote. First of all I suppose we should decide whether we are going to modify the math requirement, so let's vote on that first. All in favor of modifying the Math requirement to the college level only and drop MA 104 off of this please say "Aye." Let's do it by hand.
Roger Byrne: I don't understand what we are doing.
Jan McVicker: I don't understand.
Gee: OK, what the President has suggested is that we drop MA 104 and just say "college level."
Byrne: Then just say three instead of three to six?
McVicker: Can I just make a clarification. That assumes that if the students don't come in ready to do college level math they are going to have to do MA104. Everyone understands that, right? So for some students it really will be six hours.
Byrne: I think it's clear the way it is.
Gee: Ok, then you should vote against. If you're voting for, we're changing it. If you're voting against, we're keeping it as MA104 plus college level.
Vice President Reck: Point of question. Does that mean that you're requiring all students to take 104 and a college level math?
Gee: It says third year Regents 82% waiver, so they can waive MA104.
Reck: Assuming that we have 82, but people who have not met the Regents would have to take six hours.
Gee: That is correct.
Modification of the math requirement to "college level" by dropping MA 104 was passed by a majority vote.
Bill Graebner: You're not going to count the votes?
Gee: No. We're going to vote on the whole thing.
Graebner: I know, but...
Gee: It was 18 to 6 in favor.
Graebner: So you're not keeping votes or you are?
Gee: Well the numbers don't matter because they're straw votes anyway. We're just going to go with it passed or it didn't. So now we are going to vote on all six with the modification of the math requirement to read "college level."
Items 1 through 6 with the modification of the math requirement to read "college level" was passed by a majority vote.
Charles Telly: Can I just ask one question on that? What was the alternative to picking those six? There wasn't any alternative was there?
Gee: That's why we were voting on them as a group because we had consensus prior to this meeting.
Moving on to point number 7, which is the American History issue. So, we will now take questions on point number seven.
Joe Chilberg: Question. "Receive 70% waiver." Question: Can anybody speak to that?
George Browder: Again, this is the Regents course high school track record of our students based on a sample we looked at. It is about 70%. Once again this is another moving target. Already apparently PACGE has said that we don't have to go from Columbus to Clinton any more. They will take any reasonable period history course to meet the requirement. Consequently we are not going to have to create this new 107 History, we'll just simply be able to offer the usual two-semester sequence and the students can take either to meet the requirement. Consequently, this means that, rather than adding three to six hours with a waiver of 70%, we can just have a three-hour requirement. If they didn't pass Regents, they'll have to take the history sequence. If they passed Regents, then they'll be able to take any course that's in the America and Self category.
Chilberg: So that 30% who have not tested out would be doing a sequence.
Browder: One of the sequence courses.
Charles Telly: You mean America and Self they won't have to do?
Jackie Swansinger: Yeah.
Browder: These courses will be in America and Self. If they did not pass the Regents, they will have to take a history course in America and Self. If they pass the Regents, they can take any course that's in America and Self.
Chilberg: So this is an "either this course or option".
Browder: That's correct. If they passed the Regents, they have the option.
Mae Reck: I think that everyone needs to understand that if they pass the Regents, and I'm probably saying the same thing George said, if they pass the Regents, then they take what I call a specialized history course or what PACGE is calling specialized history to meet the other part of the standard. If they don't pass the Regents, they have to take an American History course that has a significant portion of American History plus a specialized course. They will be taking two.
Browder: They're still saying they have to take two?
Reck: Yes.
Browder: OK.
Chilberg: You mean the second option isn't viable? I thought the second option was viable on the sheet.
Browder: I did too.
Reck: They either have to take... oh, I see what you're saying...
Browder: The history courses...
Reck: I'm sorry, you're right. They would take only the American History. Right.
Browder: The history courses we are proposing are going to meet all the requirements.
Reck: Right. Right.
Bill Muller: What is this America and Self course all about? I've heard various interpretations ranging from a straight history course, to the development of American Values, to why America is better than everybody else, to ...
Browder: It's not a course. It's a category of courses.
Jan McVicker: It's a category, and potentially there are several departments and interdisciplinary programs that could contribute courses that would satisfy something that puts American culture in relation to other kinds of traditions.
Browder: Basically the humanities and social science departments are going to have to contribute something to this to help History, because History cannot staff anywhere near enough seats to meet this requirement for all of our students.
Cheryl Drout: And, if it would be helpful, I could just briefly quote the Provost's Advisory Council's guidelines, "beyond the American History Narrative, our knowledge of common institutions of American Society and how they have affected different groups and understanding of America's evolving relationship with the rest of the world." Those are some of the things they identified beyond the basic narrative. So that's the kind of thing they are expecting in that category.
Roger Byrne: So, if a student comes here with a background in American History, they will be required to take one more course in American History. If a student comes in here without that background, they'll have to take what is essentially a remedial course in American History and no further course.
Browder: Well it's not going to be a remedial course. It's going to be one of the two semesters of college level American History.
Drout: The student who comes in with the background can select any course from that America and Self or American Studies type of category and it may be in a discipline completely different from history.
Michael Grady: I just want to clarify. A student who does pass the Regents could still take your American History course if they wanted to.
Browder: Yeah, sure.
Joe Chilberg: So, if the Communication Department decided to create a course in the history of media, that might be a candidate for this America and Self category?
Browder: History of the American media, and its relationship to society and America's place in the rest of the world. Yes.
Amin Sarkar: In the simple mandates, history is also included as a humanities course and is also included as a social science course. So History is in two items, in humanities and social science under simple mandates. And now we have another history under item number seven, which is specific American History. So the history under simple mandates under humanities and social science, what kind of history are those? Are they American History and , if they have anything to do with American History, this number seven is redundant?
Gee: Ok, I'm going to have to interrupt. That's actually relevant to what we've already voted on, and time is up, so we really do need to proceed to a vote; I'm sorry.
George Browder: The courses that have been approved, apparently, by PACGE for these two categories are the courses that are going to have to be used for these history mandates, so the courses that have been approved presently cannot be in those upper categories. Those would have to be other history courses that the History Department would have to create for those categories, and I don't think the History Department is going to have resources to do that and staff these courses. Maybe in the future; who knows? In other words, it is a department that could have courses in those categories, but not the same courses that are in the history mandates.
Sarkar: In that case, can we drop history as appears under simple mandates and then it will be added as and when time allows?
Bob Rogers: The question is why?
Sarkar: Because that is very confusing and it is a duplication and it is too much history anyway.
Jan McVicker: The point is, though, that the Trustees are the ones who have mandated the American History requirement. One of those courses must be taught by the History Department, according to the Board of Trustees. To take history out of the humanities and the social sciences seems to me is to say that this discipline doesn't exist as a humanities or social sciences. It only fits this one particular mandate. I think if your major wants to tell your students through advising, "you should fill your humanities and social science categories with courses other than history," then your department should do that, absolutely. But, to simply exclude them as a campus, it seems to me is...
Gee: I'm really sorry, but if we continue to go we won't have time to address all of the issues. So we really do need to proceed. So, .let us move to a vote on point number 7.
Jan McVicker: There are two versions.
Gee: Will you clarify which one we're going to vote on?
George Browder: It's down at the bottom, "one of either."
Dennis Hefner: We're talking about three credits.
Cheryl Drout: Students take either an American History course from the History department or an America and Self course from a variety of disciplines.
Gee: Is everybody all set on number 7?
Bill Muller: No.
Drout: What we're voting on right now is a proposal of...
Muller: I'm not voting, I've been told I've been disenfranchised.
Gee: Ok, then I think everyone else is pretty well set. [laughter]. So, will everyone please raise their hand if they are in favor of point number 7?
Charles Telly: Point of information. When our Academic Vice President spoke I wasn't even sure what the heck we're talking about. Are we talking about three, six or nine?
Mae Reck: Three.
Telly: What's this P-A-C-G-E approval? What does that mean?
Cheryl Drout: The Provost's Advisory Council on General Education.
Jan McVicker: This is a board that the Provost has set up to approve every campuses' gen. ed. program.
Telly: OK, so that means you could take nine units here.
Drout: No. Originally we were anticipating that PACGE would require more of this, but we have recently learned that we can have just three credits.
Telly: So we strike that last...
Drout: Yes, because we have heard from them.
Chair Gee: So, then, let us move now to a vote.
Point number 7 was approved by a majority vote.
Gee: OK, we're moving on to point number 8.
Ted Schwalbe: Again I would like to ask the committee for clarification. How is this similar and how is this different, for example, from our current part III.B? I know there appears to be more of an emphasis on history here than our current III.B, which is multicultural or international. Do all of the courses under this new 8 or in either of those categories... is the history component critical to both of them or one of them in terms of comparative to our current GCP III.B?
George Browder: Apparently, we can get away without the courses having to be history courses. They can be...
Schwalbe: But they have to have an element or strong element of history within the courses.
Browder: Yes; that's the way it reads. Basically, well, you've got the...
Schwalbe: I went through the list of courses, and it appears to me that many of them, which are probably Part III or Part III.B, obviously without knowing the courses in particular, but a lot of them look like they may not have a heavy emphasis on history, so that's why I'm asking that.
Browder: If you look at the handout, you have what the Provost's Advisory Committee says those courses are supposed to cover. Any course you can take and describe as covering those criteria could be submitted and if they approve it, it'll will be offered. That's all we can tell you.
Minda Rae Amiran: I just want to point out that according to the current GCP guidelines , all courses in Part III are supposed to have a historical component. They are supposed to look at the history of whatever they're talking about.
Browder: Basically, the real difference between this and Part III is that this is supposed to be introductory and most of the courses in Part III are intermediate or advanced. And so, if they are going to fit here, there will be some problems unless they are brought down.
Dennis Hefner: I just wanted to follow up. I think that is something that, as we get to a final vote, we'll want to address because my feeling would be that even in the simple and the complex mandates that we could allow some courses that might be upper division, if they're upper division courses that don't have prerequisites and there may be some. I don't know how many, but there may be some, to allow both upper and lower to fit within that category. That would give us a little more flexibility on campus. It certainly is not a problem in terms of what the Board of Trustees passed, or what the System-Wide Taskforce had in place. So, I think there could be both lower and upper division courses here. The prerequisite would be the key.
Browder: Even more complicated. We could conceivable have courses with prerequisites. For instance they could take the prerequisite in a social science or humanities course and then take an upper level course here. Upper level in not excluded from this, but we can't count on it carrying most of the seats. We can't count on just shifting all those courses over.
Roger Byrne: Just as a point of information, the biology course in emerging diseases was approved for the other-civilizations category, so this is fairly broad interpretation.
Ellen Litwicki: Is there a similar thing the Board of Trustees approved that we can just do one half of U.S. History, is there a similar thing for Western Civ and World Civ?
Browder: We don't know yet. Both we and Brockport are talking about submitting both semesters of a West and the World course to meet both categories. How are they going to read that in? What happens if they take one of those and one of something else... we'll see. It's another one of these moving targets.
Litwicki: It seems like if they did it for...
Browder: Yes, it does seem logical that they will follow through. Take, for instance, Modern Western Civ., to meet the Western Civ. requirement, and something else to meet the Other World. Something like that, we hope.
Chair Gee: Are you ready to move to a vote?
Point 8 was approved by a majority vote.
Chair Gee: On now to number 9, which is foreign language. Questions? Comments?
Ted Steinberg: I just wondered. I had sent this suggestion to the committee, and I would just like to give it here. That instead of having foreign language be given credit, that we have a basic minimum that students should have to meet. I would suggest that that would be at least 215. Students who can do that would not have to take a foreign language, other students would, but it wouldn't count against the hours for GCP.
Cheryl Drout: The committee has generally been proposing a level of proficiency, but trying to indicate for the campus a number of credits that might be involved. But you're suggesting that we could just indicate a level of proficiency and not consider the credits actually be a part of the General Education Requirement.
George Browder: That's something we thought about in committee, and it got shot down.
Joe Chilberg: Point of information. I notice that this waiver obviously has been anticipated and considered. So this means that someone who waives in at the 215-level could just take 215 or not at all if you have the competencies demonstrated through, I assume, the Regents exams.
Jan McVicker: There is some amount of discussion about that in terms of if there will be a local placement in order to determine that because the Regents tests are becoming unreliable. PACGE approval is uncertain at this point.
Drout: But the most recent word is that we will be able to use the Regents scores.
Chilberg: To determine what level they come in at.
Mae Reck: We would not need a local placement if they score 85.
George Browder: 85.
Reck: 85.
Dennis Hefner: I'll mention what I sent to the committee. I think that over time we'd like to get to the 116 level. If we're going to have a foreign language we should have a year requirement. But what I have suggested is that we start with a 115 in this first year-- that would be fall of 2001, and then two years after that, after we have some experience, then look at going to add in the 116.
And the only reason I'm suggesting that is that I truly don't know how many students will be exempt initially. We have no data on any of the transfer students and we normally have between four hundred and four hundred and sixty transfer students each year that come in. The odds are, most of them will not have it. If they didn't have it in high school, they're not getting it in community colleges, because as near as we can tell, virtually none of the community colleges are going to provide any of the foreign language training in this state. They were given an exemption, so that's all going to fall on us, and so at the moment we don't have any foreign language in the GCP, so I was suggesting we go in a building block fashion, and so that's what I've suggested to the committee.
Browder: With what Mae just said, an 85% waiver, that means approximately 75% will waive out completely and approximately 90% will waive out of 115 only and will have to take 116, but that's just our freshman.
Hefner: That's just freshmen.
Browder: As the president says, transfer students are going to be another ball of wax.
Ruth Antosh: I guess the only thing that worries me about that plan is that that means we'll have some students coming through under this extremely low minimum requirement which really, I don't know, really doesn't make our GCP look very rigorous, and I worry about the type of quality judgments that may be made about our GCP in that period. And I'm wondering if we had such a large number who would waive out anyway, why we couldn't extend that requirement to include a more meaningful...Well, I would prefer to see it much higher, but at least a real year-long course to begin and possibly hope to phase in a 215 requirement.
Charles Telly: Is that practical with what the president is saying? Can we handle it with our resources at this time?
Cheryl Drout: Well in one of the estimates that the GCP Committee came up with and discussed with the Dean and the chair of the department, there were only something like 75 seats that might be needed. But that estimate was based on a sample of students and we were not able to get much information on transfer students, so it's quite a bit of estimating and guessing. We really don't have solid data on exactly what number of additional seats we'll need. But the committee's best estimate was something like seventy-five additional seats to cover the requirement.
Ted Schwalbe: A couple of minutes ago you mentioned about the Regents being used a point of distinction. If they pass the Regents would that basically mean they come in at the 215 level or would that mean that they completed the 215 requirement? What does passing the Regents mean in terms of a waiver?
Drout: Actually, it depends on the specific scores that they had in terms of where they place in. So, when they take the Regents exam, I believe to place into 215...
McVicker: Can we expect more really fast observations on the part of the committee? I know it's contentious. We thought that if we could come, as a campus, to say that college level math was an important statement to make, that college-level foreign language skills were also an important statement to make... Minimally, college level language would be 116. That was one thing. The second thing was that since the State Ed. requirement requires that its students have at least one year of foreign language, we felt that since that was already an exceptionally large population of our students, we felt confident in saying that that could be made across-the-board for the whole campus.
Mae Reck: One other thing. All the Board of Trustees is asking for the requirement is the 85 in checkpoint B. That point, then that person has met the requirement, which is equivalent to a 115 one-semester course. If they don't have the 85, according to the Board of Trustees, all they would have to do is take the 115 course.
Drout: Could I just add that according to the Provost's Advisory Council the 85 at checkpoint B completes 115, but our understanding from our local department is that that would actually place a student at 116, the B range score on that exam. So, I'm not sure why there is a discrepancy.
George Browder: That's three full years of high school.
Chair Gee: Ok, we should probably proceed to a vote. Would you like to vote on this line by line? We'll take the top line, we'll vote on that. We'll take another vote on the second line, and on the third line. So let's start with the top line which is FL 115.
Ted Schwalbe: That's the limit. 115 is the limit?
Dick Reddy: We can vote on all three.
George Browder: Each person should only vote on one.
Chair Gee: OK, we'll start with 215. OK, so we'll start at the bottom line and work up on the sheet.
Ted Schwalbe: Does that include the "phased in," that part of it?
Gee: I assume it does, yes. That's what's on the sheet.
Charles Telly: Immediately or with a three year phase-in period?
Gee: With a three year phase-in period. OK, you should all only vote once. We are going to take three votes. You have the choice. OK, we are going to start with 215.
OK. So we have two votes for 115, we have 14 for 116, and we have 13 for 215, so the 116 got the majority by one.
Chair Gee: You realize that you can only vote if you are a Senator. Only Senators should be voting.
Ellen Litwicki: What? Then why are we here?
Chair Gee: We're getting a consensus of the opinions of the Senators. Those who are not Senators should give their opinion to their Senators. Only the Senators are allowed to vote. That's according to Robert's Rules. Here's our Parliamentarian.
Dick Reddy: This is so.
Chair Gee: OK, since we kinda messed up then, only Senators are going to vote and we going to do it all over again.
Jon Kraus: I think you have the authority to ask the several members you've invited what their opinions are as well as asking for a vote of the Senators.
Chair Gee: You're absolutely right, but the committee wants to get a consensus of those who will be voting on the final document.
Cheryl Drout: We wouldn't mind, if time allowed us, to do both.
Dick Reddy: Robert's Rules does not have guests vote. It just plain old doesn't. The only people who are eligible to vote are people who are members of the body.
Jan McVicker: While it is true that we want to get a sense of where the Senators are going to be voting , we do want to have everybody who's here state an opinion as well. I think the committee wants feedback.
George Browder: We've got everybody's vote. Now let's get the Senate's vote.
In the second vote , there were 15 votes for 116, 11 votes for 215 and no votes for 115.
Chair Gee: Moving on point number 10. Questions? Comments?
Joe Chilberg: Information management has been designated as the, I guess, what, area of study?
Jan McVicker: It's a competency.
Chilberg: Ok, and I guess it goes then we have it across the curriculum and majors are one source in communication and tech literacy. So this is a kind of competency area and we're looking for some sort of courses that might satisfy this?
McVicker: What we're looking for is if those on campus wish to demonstrate the competency across the curriculum through gen. ed. plus courses in the students' majors. In other words, students would get it in various kinds of gen. ed. courses as well as courses in many of their majors. Or do we want to designate one particular course like the way we've done in English comp?
Chilberg: And we're doing in other areas. These courses would be considered acceptable to this area.
Mae Reck: In our current interim program we have been approved as across the curriculum, integrated within the curriculum for this competency.
Mike Grady: Do you happen to have any idea how many courses a student would have to be taken in the across the curriculum thing? Could one particular course be just designated to meet this requirement?
Cheryl Drout: It was suggested to us in the departmental consultation that we might allow departments to identify either a single course taken by all of their majors or the department could identify a set of courses that they felt developed these skills which would be taken by their majors so we wrote that to include both possibilities.
Chilberg: I better understand than maybe the committee, who has been in the middle of all this. In "information management" we're looking to achieve, or become, or learn to? Fill in the blank for me... Certainly a course in MIS would clearly fit.
Drout: It's really a mix of potential skills and competencies rolled into one group.
Chilberg: The concern is that I don't understand what BOT means by information management and how to know a course does this.
Drout: Can I read their description?
Chilberg: Please, I want to move on this obviously.
Drout: Perform the basic operations of personal computer use; understand and use basic research techniques; locate, evaluate, and synthesize information from a variety of sources.
Chilberg: So a research methods course would be OK?
Chair Gee: Any other comments?
Chilberg: So across the curriculum there could be a course that has something on doing research for their assignments, critical thinking or something and this might be tagged as a possible course. This has yet to be determined or discovered but it is out there.
Randy Gadikian: Various colleges are handling this mandate in different ways. For example, Plattsburgh has both one- and three-credit courses that are offered in information literacy, as does Oswego. Here on this campus, there is a history course, I believe it's called Doing History, that would seem to fit quite nicely. There is also an upper division English course that would appear to do a very good job at this.
Jan McVicker: So the vote is whether you want it to be across the curriculum with the majors also, or do you want a specified course that would take care of this?
Gee: So this is an either or vote.
Drout: This is an either or vote.
Gee: So we need to vote on them separately.
The "across the curriculum" passed by a majority vote.
Gee: OK, so across the curriculum passed. OK, let's move on then to point number eleven.
Ted Steinberg: I'd like to address points 11, 12A, and 12B. I would suggest that what we require is that students take a course in two of those areas outside of their major area, so if a student is majoring in natural science, that student will take one from 12A and one from 12B for instance. For social science, too, you would take one from 11 and one from 12B.
Bob Rogers: Actually the way I see it, it's going to be no different than what we're talking about that some of these can be fulfilled in the major anyway. So, it's just that whatever major your in you're going to be doing the other.
Roger Byrne: I would support that if things were clear, other than saying it wouldn't be in the major.
Michael Grady: I would like to point out that, if you look at our current GCP, history is included in social science and humanities, and we're adding the three history courses. So I think it may be overkill to add additional social science or humanities in this section. We've already done it.
George Browder: Can I speak in support of that? He's absolutely right, you're going to have to take social science, history, or humanities courses to meet those three complex mandates already, and we're already up to 27 hours minimum, 36 hours maximum. Now you're starting to add more hours beyond what's mandated without getting to any advanced level courses.
Patrick Jones: Actually we're at 33 with a full year of language.
Bill Muller: Why aren't you adding math and computer science to this? Does this mean the committee doesn't know what it's doing? PACGE doesn't know what it's doing? Or are we just confused?
Cheryl Drout: The question was about math and computer science in this natural science area. I think that's a real local campus question. Once we have taken care of the three-credit natural science required by PACGE, this is our own discussion if we'd like an additional natural science. I think it's up to us if the additional natural science will include math and computer science. So I think that's open to discussion.
Chuck Telly: Why do we need the one social science or the arts and humanities? Why don't we have two natural sciences there? That would take care of the natural sciences.
Drout: Just to clarify, we do have one natural science. We have three credits in place of math. This would be, "Do we want to add additional?"
Telly: Why not just have one natural science and drop the others? What do we need those for?
Bob Rogers: This is basically in response to what we had gotten from the natural and social science chairs, part of their wish list.
Jon Kraus: As I understand it, the 11, 12A, 12B, as it now stands can be taken in the major, and the import of the amendment was, in fact, that they cannot be taken in the major. They should be taken in another field. In an entirely other field, not just in another discipline. If you're a social science major, you take a natural science. Is that correct?
Cheryl Drout: When you said the amendment, are you referring to what Ted Steinberg discussed?
Kraus: Yes I am.
Drout: I think that sounds accurate.
Patrick Jones: I'd just like to tack onto what George said. Actually we've already adopted 33 credits. Our current GCP is 36. Oh, the student has to take a remedial math. OK, 36.
The discussion here has implications from the next table under perusal. What we're talking about is, what are we going to add on top of that 36? How many credits are we going to add on top of the 36 we've already adopted? So I don't think we can look at just 11, 12 A, and 12 B, without looking at 13 through 16.
George Browder: We have a minimum of three hours to add to meet the PACGE mandate.
Jones: But we can add more?
Browder: We can add anything beyond that we want to add.
Michael Grady: I would like to suggest that we should add a natural science course. In keeping with what we already have, we already have a two natural science course requirement and I think there is a good reason for that: to expose everyone to more than one natural science. So I think there is a good reason to have an additional natural science course. As far as the others are concerned, I think we have already included a second social science and humanities courses in the civilizations category. So there is maybe a little difference between 11 and 12 A and 12 B.
Jan McVicker: Can I just clarify Mike? When you say that you're keeping the MA's, yes, in number 11, because that's what part IIa does now?
Michael Grady: I don't know, I guess....
Jan McVicker: I just want you to clarify, when you say "natural sciences".....
Michael Grady: Not necessarily.
Steve Stahl: I just have one question. What would prevent 12 A, 12 B, and possibly actually 11 in some cases being double dipped against 7, 8, and 9? In other words, that would in effect get the hours down and not effect arguments on 13 through 18 B.
George Browder: That's why we said, don't even bother to add them.
Stahl: If you're just saying consider this, we're already at 33 hours and these next three hours would get us up to 36.
Browder: You mean, in other words, if they take them, it double dips. That would be fine, but think of the complications of advising. You've cross-listed courses in your course offerings bulletin. Two different categories, and advisors have got to make sure that they're taking courses that meet both categories or they will be taking extra courses if they screw up.
Stahl: But my understand is of what I'm doing now when I am advising students is that I've got things showing up in a couple different areas, and I get this nice printout that has things coming out. I would think it wouldn't be that difficult, particularly that with Banner all things are possible.
Cheryl Drout: I think there are very few current courses that show up in multiple...
Stahl: No, but I get a printout that talks about where things are going. I think there are probably a few things that count double, but there are some things that, for example on the social science side, that are intro courses like the course Roger brought up, Emerging Diseases, that could count as a natural science and world civilization. I can see where that can happen and will happen quite frequently with the America and Self , between the social sciences and arts and humanities.
Bill Muller: I hate to call on another campus, but apparently not only does Oneonta not have mandatory advising, but many of their general ed. courses fall under at least two different categories and there is a very complex grid that apparently their students can figure out. Maybe Oneonta students are better than Fredonia students; I know one is.
Chair Gee: Roger, and then we need to move to a vote.
Roger Byrne: I just need some information here. My addition of the simple mandates, complex mandates, up through including 10 for somebody with math competencies and language competencies is only 27 hours.
George Browder: That's if they don't waive out of anything. That's right, they're up to 27 if they waive out of everything.
Chuck Telly: I agree with the science department. If we don't add a natural science we're left with only one natural science for all of them and we're always complaining that natural science and math and language our students aren't efficient in and we're going to cut down that natural science two to one? It just doesn't seem...
Bob Rogers: Actually, in point of fact now, nobody is required to take any natural science if you exclude computer science and mathematics. So actually putting in one that's non-mathematics or computer science is a step up.
Telly: That's what I am saying, we are just cutting the natural sciences....
Chair Gee: OK, President Hefner has a comment and then we're going to vote.
Hefner: I was just going to say that I do think the program is thin on both natural sciences and on social sciences. I think a student who comes through with only one that one social science out of their entire GE program and have only had one natural science, it's not a very good program. So I think there is a good argument to be made to put that in on an educational basis. I would like to see students have a little more exposure.
Gee: OK, so we need to vote on two things. We need to vote on the amendment, which is to suggest that they must take it outside of their major, so we'll vote on that first and then we'll vote on each of the three...
Jon Kraus: I understood the Rogers amendment was not outside of the major, it was outside of the field.
Bob Rogers: Yeah, outside of the field.
Jon Kraus: I would like to make an amendment that it only be outside of the major.
Gee: So we have two amendments to vote on.
Cheryl Drout: For both amendments we're talking about two courses.
Gee: Two additional courses?
Drout: I think that was Ted's proposal.
Gee: Yes, that was Ted's proposal. Ted is proposing that they take two courses outside of the field.
Ted Steinberg: I would like to see a social science student take something outside of the social sciences in natural science and the arts and humanities.
Gee: And to compare that to Jon's, Jon is saying that you must take it outside of your major, but a social science person could take it in social science as long as it isn't in their major.
So, let's vote on Ted's first, which is outside of the field, two classes outside of the field.
Ok, so technically, we have three things you can vote on. Keep it as it is, so you can double dip, you can select that. You can select Jon's option, which is two outside of the major. Or you can select Ted's option, which is two outside of the field.
Bill Muller: Point of information. 12 B, what does that mean exactly?
Gee: Well, we actually haven't gotten down to 12 B yet.
Muller: Oh, I thought we were voting on 11, 12 A and 12 B.
Gee: You guys need to decide if that's what you want to do.
Muller: That's what we said what we're doing.
Gee: Right now we have to vote on the amendments before we can vote on each of those.
Ted Schwalbe: Don't do that!
Cheryl Drout: No.
Gee: You have options.
Schwalbe: If you're voting on the amendment, you're assuming that we are in a sense passing the requirement that those three be taught. For example there are those who think we should just go with one natural science requirement and eliminate the social science and arts and humanities, then the amendment is irrelevant.
Gee: OK, then we will vote on 11 as is and then we'll go back and vote on the amendment. So, we'll start on 11. We're going to vote on each one separately for clarity. So we're going to start with 11.
Ted Steinberg: This makes no sense at all. If we vote on 11, 12 A and 12 B, then there's no point of having any amendments because....
Gee: The amendment would amend what you just passed. So we have to vote on each of them first and then the amendment.
Drout: Because if there are no credits there to be amended, I think that's what we're saying...
Gee: That's what we were doing. There were 17 votes in favor. Opposed, please raise your hand. No one is opposed.
11, one natural science course, was passed by a unanimous vote.
Gee: So now we are going to vote on 12 A, which is one social science course.
12 A, one social science course, was defeated by a majority vote.
Gee: OK, so this changes our amendments.
Gee: OK, so let's vote on 12 B.
Bill Muller: Point of information on 12 B. Could you please explain what "and/or" means? And means two, or means one. Now what are you recommending?
Cheryl Drout: The committee wasn't actually recommending this. We were trying to incorporate a question that would cover all of the recommendations that we've had from across the campus. So we weren't absolutely certain if some people wanted just arts and if some wanted just humanities or if they wanted both. I guess we have to vote separately on them.
Mac Nelson: Would the chair be pleased to entertain a motion to strike the word "and" from this so we'll know what we're voting on?
Gee: We could do that, or we could vote separately, so we could vote on the "and" or the "or". We could vote on arts and then we could vote on humanities.
Minda Rae Amiran: I think that the last time it was said that there is a resource problem with the arts providing a course that we've already mandated. I wonder if it is at all realistic to talk about them providing two.
Cheryl Drout: I think the majority of those who provided us feedback about additional introductory course work beyond the natural and social sciences, I think most we're talking about the humanities. So if we're in agreement, I think we could simplify that or we could follow your recommendation.
Mac Nelson: What are you suggesting?
Drout: I'm suggesting that consistent with what Minda Rae is saying about resources that it may be most important to emphasize the humanities area here rather than the arts.
Mac Nelson: So moved.
Gee: Ok, the 'and' is out of there, let's vote on the 'or'.
Muller: Wait, you've got to vote on that.
Gee: Alright, all in favor of striking the "and," please raise your hand. Opposed?
The 'and' was stricken by a majority vote.
The vote for one arts or one humanities and three credits only was defeated by a majority vote.
Gee: So the amendments are now moot. They may be moot. Would you wish to propose your amendment?
Ted Schwalbe: If we follow logically, his amendment should now say that natural science majors could be waived from this requirement. That would be the logical conclusion of making the amendment consistent with the situation.
Bob Rogers: No.
Ted Schwalbe: They have to take a natural science outside of either their field or outside of their major.
Bill Muller: It depends on which amendment you're talking about.
Mae Reck: In terms of math and computer science in number eleven. Was it determined in any vote here?
Nancy Gee: It has not. So the question is, should we leave math and computer science in number 11 or remove them? We haven't made a determination on that.
Nancy Boynton: I think obviously that they should be, because they are two disciplines. Computer Science is not anywhere else in this general education. Math is in the simple mandates, but in a skills connotation, not in a introduction to the discipline type connotation. And so I think that they belong there. I do think that the field should be outside the student's major.
Amin Sarkar: It looks like the way we're progressing, a student can graduate from Fredonia without taking any social science at all. For example, under simple mandate, a student under social science heading can take a class in communication and a student never took any class in economics or any class in political science or sociology or any other social science discipline. I don't think we'd want our own children to come out of college without having any exposure to political science or to economics or to sociology.
Ted Schwalbe: Or to communication.
Jan McVicker: But there is a social science mandate.
Sarkar: Social science itself is so much different. You cannot compare very much between economics and, let's say, anthropology. These are totally two different disciplines, two different methodologies we apply. In the real world, these students they have to make economic decisions every time. It doesn't matter what a student is doing here. The same thing goes to political science.
Nancy Gee: OK, let me interrupt here. I must interrupt because we're talking about the math and computer science issue for point number 11. We're actually not on point number 12 A right now. Let's focus on that issue: leave it in or take it out.
Jon Kraus: I certainly support leaving in computer science.
Patrick Jones: I would also support leaving them in, because they are not in the natural sciences early on in number 3.
Chuck Telly: You're talking about both of them?
Jones: Yeah, I would leave them both in.
The motion to leave math in number 11 was passed by a majority vote.
The motion to leave computer science in number 11 was passed by a majority vote.
Jon Kraus: Just as a point of information, under the simple mandates under social science you have an SH, what does that stand for?
George Browder: Speech and hearing.
Kraus: I would just second what Mr. Sarkar said. It didn't occur to me, because I didn't look down that communications and speech and hearing were also there. It is entirely possible for somebody to go through and take history courses for the simple mandate and take another history course and never have a social science course.
Nancy Gee: So we can now come back to that issue. We can reconsider the social science issue if you like.
Bill Graebner: For a long time history was in the social sciences. I know people disagree on whether it's a social science or a humanities. As a point of information, people are pretty likely to get history under this curriculum. [laughter]
Mae Reck: Quite likely!
Jane Romal: The way you define things, education, and speech and hearing are professional studies here, they are not social sciences. I think they should not be in there.
Cheryl Drout: They were proposed under our current GCP and the Provost Advisory Council viewed them as social sciences, just as clarification.
Ted Schwalbe: I'd still like to know, getting back to this natural science one, are we going to vote on an amendment which says that for those people who are majoring in a natural science, that the requirement for 11 be outside either of their department or their major.
Nancy Gee: OK; let's come back to that issue. We definitely need to consider that. Let's finish considering the social science issue.
Schwalbe: We did vote on it.
Gee: We did vote on it, but it has been brought back to the table, because it appears you can get through without taking sociology, psychology....
Joe Chilberg: I assume that when we decide which anthropology or psychology, or even communication course that we're going to identify those that are social science driven. In the case of communication, a 101 course is basically derived on social research across and within the discipline. I guess to me the issue here is, if there is going to be a speech and hearing course that's considered social science or physiological science, that content has to be examined for its appropriateness. It would still be a social science, although on the applied end. But that's my thinking at this point.
Ted Schwalbe: I would also agree with Joe and disagree with what Amin is saying. I mean, to say that one out of any of these disciplines is more important for our graduates than another, I think is just an invalid argument. I think in many ways they all are and we're looking at getting students experienced in a social science. Each course needs to be looked at to see that it fits in here as a social science. To say that any one is more important than another is to me an irrelevant argument.
Bill Muller: Part of the intellectual bankruptcy of this whole proposal, of course, is that it names departments without naming courses. The point being made here is that courses within departments differ. History courses: some are social sciences, some are humanities; psychology courses: some are social science, others are biological science. And to simply list departments this way is simply nonsense.
Cheryl Drout: The listing of departments is based on the current GCP. So, when we have psychology listed under social science, it is psychology offerings under social science in the current GCP and that was the basis. We can discuss changing that, but there is a basis.
Ted Schwalbe: But there are some departments like history that are listed under both.
Drout: Right, right....
George Browder: It's not bankrupted until somebody approves a course that really doesn't belong in the category. It's only now saying that these departments are eligible to contribute courses if they are approved.
Bill Muller: But you are saying that other departments are not eligible.
Jan McVicker: We have it as a local requirement that students take two different social sciences under their simple mandate under number 4 and if we pass 12 A as a requirement, that 4 and 12 A would have to be from two different disciplines under social science. We can do that as a campus if you ask. These are all things that can be hammered out in the fall.
Nancy Gee: We really do need to move on, would you like to vote on the social sciences issue again? If we do vote on it again, then the amendments become very relevant one more time if it passes.
Telly: Are they voting on number 4 or number 12?
Gee: We would be voting on 12 A. OK, let us vote on 12 A.
Ruth Antosh: Point of information. Could you explain why we're voting again?
Gee: Just because new issues were raised. That new issues were raised that indicated that some...
Antosh: A vote in favor of this would mean what?
Gee: It means that we would add a social science course in.
Minda Rae Amiran: Just a point of information. Under 8, just to ask again, under 8 there will be some social science courses and choices?
Amin Sarkar: That can be also science classes if they want to offer a science history like history of physics.
Michael Grady: In 12 A, we would be able to double count against 7 and 8 or not?
Gee: My understanding is yes.
Grady: So it doesn't have to be a different social science.
Gee: So it doesn't necessarily add any more credit hours.
Grady: I think that should be explicitly stated somewhere. That's got to be explicit.
Gee: So when you all bring it to the Senate you should state that.
Dennis Hefner: I would just repeat what I a few minutes ago. I think that this program is really thin on social sciences. It is incredibly heavy on arts and humanities and very, very thin on social sciences as I read it. I think that we would be giving students a very, very narrowly focused general education program if it was only three credits for social science. And, I agree, just looking at it, we have more foreign language than we have social science up there.
Gee: OK, let's proceed to a vote then.
Michael Grady: I think you have to answer my question. Is it allowed to double count against...?
Gee: We did answer your question; the answer is yes. It is allowed to double count.
Bob Rogers: Which in that case what's the point?
Michael Grady: Because somebody could take all history.
Gee: Do you all understand what we're voting on?
The re-vote of 12 A, to add another social science course was defeated fourteen to seven.
A motion to continue until six o'clock was moved, seconded and passed by a unanimous vote.
Gee: Did anybody want to discuss the amendments? If so, could you state them clearly?
Joe Chilberg: I withdraw mine.
Ted Schwalbe: I withdraw.
Nancy Boynton: I would amend the natural science requirement to say that it has to be from outside the student's major.
George Browder: So they're going to take two natural science courses and both of them have to be outside the major?
Gee: No, just number 11.
Browder: So the mandated one, the simple mandated one can be in the major?
Gee: That's how I understand it. Is that correct? So only amend number 11 so that it must be outside the major.
Ted Schwalbe: Does outside the major mean, for example, that a biology major could take another biology science if they are not using it for their major? Is that what that means? Or does it mean totally out of the major?
Joe Chilberg: Totally outside of the major.
Schwalbe: What's the difference between out of the major then and out of the department?
Cheryl Drout: A department can require a course from another department in the major, so it's outside of the department, I think, that we are actually saying.
Gee: Nancy, do you want to clarify?
Boynton: Well it may be outside, like for math majors you could say computer science, but they couldn't take another math class for that?
Gee: So that's outside of the department.
Boynton: Well, math and computer science is one department.
George Browder: Outside of the discipline.
Boynton: Discipline. Yeah, that would work.
Bill Muller: I think you would have to put it outside of the major and the department to clarify this.
Gee: We were just suggesting changing it to outside of the discipline.
Browder: We have some double departments and that...
Muller: Could you define a discipline, please?
Gee: George, define discipline, please.
Browder: Anthropology is a discipline. Alright? A department is the Department of Sociology and Anthropology. OK?
Muller: That's not within the discipline.
Browder: That's the point. That' what I just said. Anthropology is a discipline; sociology is a discipline, but there is a Department of Anthropology and Sociology. So you want to say that the requirement is outside of the discipline, not outside of the department because we move these disciplines around and combine them in departments.
Gee: Nancy, is that what you want your amendment to be?
Boynton: Yes!
Gee: Outside of the discipline. OK, so her amendment is in reference to number 11, the course must be taken outside of the discipline.
Paul Schwartz: Outside the discipline can still be within the major. For example, chemistry majors are required to take a physics course.
Browder: Because that's outside the discipline.
Gee: Yes, that's correct.
Browder: That's right because it is outside of the discipline.
Amin Sarkar: But in any case a student majoring in chemistry or physics or even math they have to take some courses in any of the other disciplines. Maybe a biology student may not take a heavy load of math or physics, but a student in physics and chemistry, they ought to have heavy loads of math. That would be double triple counting.
Patrick Jones: Point of information. I think we're getting dangerous to try and mandate that out. I think we should leave it up to the departments in advising their majors to determine which natural science they take.
Vince Courtney: Is this going to be a list of courses, like the current list of GCP courses in 11, or is it going to be any science course the student wants to take?
Cheryl Drout: The committee's assumption is that it would be a set of approved courses that would have been submitted.
Courtney: So not all courses that a science student would take in their major department would in fact be in this list?
Drout: Right.
Gee: Any other questions on the amendment?
The amendment was passed by a majority vote.
Gee: OK, let's move on to the next classification: number 13. So, start the clock, here we go.
Mae Reck: Is this where critical thinking would be, the competency critical thinking?
Cheryl Drout: Not necessarily, specifically.
Reck: Where is critical thinking, then , I guess...
Drout: Our feeling is that it really should be addressed throughout most of the gen. ed. coursework.
Reck: So it would be across the curriculum?
Drout: Yes.
Reck: OK, well this wasn't stated here.
Joe Chilberg: My understanding, though, is that the creativity and thinking course would be a critical thinking type course?
Jan McVicker: All of the courses will be critical thinking type courses.
Chilberg: Well, that's probably the case of everything we do, but whether it be a development is another matter.
George Browder: It's not supposed to be a course in critical thinking.
Chilberg: I see.
Jan McVicker: It's like info management. It's a competency according to the Trustees.
Browder: Critical thinking is.
Bill Muller: All these additional intermediate to upper division local requirements, are these part of the Board of Trustees mandates, or are these something we've dreamed up on our own?
Cheryl Drout: These are local requirements. These are locally suggested requirements.
Muller: Well, that's what I thought.
Browder: Basically were up now to 30 hours minimum. All of our students would take 30 hours, and if they haven't passed any of these Regents then they'll be taking 39 hours. What we're talking about now is whether we will require intermediate, upper level courses beyond the 30 hours mandated by the Board of Trustees.
Jon Kraus: I'd like to recommend that we assume that the GCP just approve courses that would examine, I assume, both the science courses in the simple mandate and the upper division one in scientific thinking, that at least they assure that at least one of them does.
Jan McVicker: Jon, can I just clarify? What we approved under 11, 12 A and B is not upper division. They are very plainly lower division. OK? We are now moving up to intermediate to upper division. That's what we're on now: 13 through 16. Does that make sense to you?
Ted Steinberg: I would just like to, again as I've noted to the committee, I've never been in favor of the idea of a spine. I'm not in favor of these particular upper level courses. I think that the committee might want to recommend that departments institute capstone courses, and coming off my experience at Banner registration, I think we might have handled this by urging either this committee or some committee to recommend that introductory courses and a large percentage of seats in such courses should be reserved for freshmen and that would prevent upperclassmen from taking too many of them. It seems to be a concern. It would also make sure that our freshman can get into the lower level courses.
Bob Rogers: Actually though, the idea of the spine, this flowchart, was to address that, so that things will be taken sequentially.
Steinberg: That's not my concern. I don't see any possibility of that working.
Jan McVicker: I hope the campus really does take up the idea that intro-level courses would be restricted to freshmen and transfers. Obviously that's a huge problem. But, I don't think you intend that to be...
Steinberg: No. No. No. No. But I'm just saying that if you do something like that, that might help ease peoples worries about upper classmen taking too many intro courses.
George Browder: But you really can't do that, because many of our majors cannot get these 100-level courses out of the way in their freshman year. Some of them can't even get them out of the way in their sophomore year.
Nancy Gee: I'd like to just point out that we now are not going to have time to devote five minutes to every item remaining on the list, so we are going to have to shorten the discussion if we wish to get to all of the items. So, I'm going to have to close discussion at that point and let's move to a vote.
Dennis Hefner: It seems to me that there are a couple of issues that need to be decided upon. Should there be any upper-division general education requirement? That's the first question that needs to be addressed. And, if the answer to that is yes, then it seems to me the question is, should it be a three or six credit requirement? And, after that, I would let the committee, then, play with whatever the credits are and come back with something that is appropriate. All of the items that are up there were put together based on other assumptions. Now we have some other assumptions there. I'd say talk about three or six credits and decide how you're going to do it, assuming that there is agreement that there should be an upper division that kind of pulls a little bit of the general education together.
George Browder: Well, actually, it's three, six or nine.
Hefner: Quite frankly, I don't think you're going to reach nine. Counting up the credits we already have here, I think nine is probably off the table, but you can take a vote on it.
Bill Muller: I'm not sure about the specific categories we have here, but I am strongly in favor of requiring that every student have a minimum of 30 hours at the 300-level or above, preferably 45 hours.
Cheryl Drout: If I could clarify, that comes up in item 18 A.
Nancy Gee: Let's wait until we get to that. Let's address these two issues first.
Jane Romal: Evidently it's no longer possible for a transfer student with an A.S. degree to waive these things. Is that true?
Dennis Hefner: Transfer students with A.S. degrees are probably only going to be coming in with twenty-one credits of general education completed, so they are now going to have to be taking the remainder of the lower division, plus whatever you have as upper division. The Board did away with the guaranteed transfer.
Nancy Gee: So, I suppose the first question is, "Do we want an upper level requirement?" Let's address that issue first.
Paul Schwartz: About ten years ago, I did a study, actually two studies that came together, one was quality institutions. What makes an institution we perceive as having a high quality? And, independently, I was doing a study of models of general education and they came together. Those schools that have integration, synthesis, capstones as interdisciplinary course work as part of their general education program are perceived as being well made institutions.
Joan Burke: I just have a reminder. What we're really talking about on mentioning 30 and 36 is that 30 represents at most only 26 percent of our students if your waivers are correct here.
Bob Rogers: No.
George Browder: No, no, no.
Burke: 75 could be waived, so 26 would be the only... oh, 26 would be the only ones that would go to 39.
Dennis Hefner: The numbers of the paper aren't correct here.
George Browder: Only about 1% would go all the way to 39. Statistically, about 15 would go to 36, and about 30 would