Mary Nielsen
March 24, 2009 at 11:34am

Item 3 is simply absurd.  If the System will allow transfer students to receive humanities/fine arts credit for a math course, why even bother to have any areas at all!

3. Require that, with some exceptions, all core courses must transfer, even if a core area is not
completed and even if it means giving transfer credit across areas (e.g., credit for a math
course in humanities/fine arts area or vice versa).

Brenda Blackwell
March 24, 2009 at 11:40am

I concur with Mary Nielsen’s comment.  I have only skimmed the policy, but this just jumps out at me.  If the goal is to ensure that students gain basic skills and a core broad knowledge base across these key areas, then allowing students to take courses only in the areas they are interested in at one institution then forcing another institution to accept them in other areas of the core will not reach this aim.  I’m baffled by this one.

Bill Allison
March 24, 2009 at 11:42am

At Line 80 Learning Goals II Global Perspectives, it would be useful to consider adding a similar line as in the US section:

Students understand the history of world civilizations and can see the effect of this history on contemporary global societies.

Marsha Mathews
March 24, 2009 at 12:11pm

CONCERNING QUESTION 3,

Core courses should NOT transfer if a core area isn’t completed, unless there’s a provision mandating the completion and a time frame for that compleltion.

Kathleen Comerford
March 24, 2009 at 12:17pm

After all this time and all these comments, I still fail to see the virtue in combining humanities and fine arts.  Granted, fine arts are the first on the chopping block in high, middle, and primary schools, but one wonders which is chicken and which is egg—have we cut the fine arts because they are considered unimportant or does no one recognize their importance anymore because we always cut them first?

No one wants a core of 128 credit hours, of course, but let’s reconsider the purposes of a college and/or university education.  If it’s not broad-based understanding, communication, critical thinking, etc. then we are all just teaching in some form of technical college, developing a program to “get students better jobs” or to steer them into specific fields.  There’s nothing inherently wrong with such jobs; indeed, community colleges are an extremely important educational sector which is vastly underappreciated in both the academic and public spheres.  But let’s be honest about what we do.

I won’t bore anyone with the “what is life without art” question.  What I am talking about here is a real education—one which teaches students how to give change in McDonald’s, which educates them on how to build and manage new McDonald’s around the world, AND which allows them to appreciate our and other cultures on a meaningful level.  How, in conscience, can we send businessmen, engineers, or reporters into war zones or developing countries without giving them the basic tools of adaptation to the world—the abilities to listen to and appreciate other cultures in their own milieux, not in comparison to the US?  Is it practical, in other words, to force a student to choose only 6 credits from these disciplines?

Robert A. McTyre
March 24, 2009 at 2:14pm

Combining Fine Arts with Humanities does reinforce the historical and communicative elements of the Arts; however, it seems to deny the mathematical elements so essential in all the Arts.  Visual art creates three-dimensional illusions on a two-dimensional surface; Theatre creates varieties of images in three-dimensional space; Music creates tension and release with the mathematical relationship of sound frequencies.  Perhaps the greatest value in the Fine Arts is the ability to combine learning from all other areas of study in the creation of beauty.

Michael Bodri
March 24, 2009 at 2:46pm

“At least” 7 hours suggests to me that students will opt for the minimum 7 hours in the natural sciences, math, and technology section (area D).  Considering the weakness of many of our students, and that of society in general in math and science, why contribute to further decline?  STEM (science, technology,engineering, mathematics) education is a huge concern right now, what message would we as a system be sending by decreasing the requirements?  I’d recommend keeping this area at 11 hours.

Brian W. Schwartz
March 24, 2009 at 3:27pm

From the draft:

“14 All institutions must assess their learning outcomes using national best practice methods as
15 applied to their specific circumstances. [Should there be a more detailed explanation here? More
16 about “best practices” and “specific circumstances”?]”

Yes - please do provide a more detailed explanation of best assessment practices.  Also consider providing references that are freely available.  At many institutions, committees composed mostly of faculty are responsible for the core curriculum, and we don’t necessarily have knowledge of these best practices.  Also, offices of institutional effectiveness are sometimes underfunded and not able to provide the assessment support that is needed.

If the new cores are to be assessed, the system needs to provide as much support as possible (including, I think, a budget), and it needs to monitor the individual universities’ assessment programs.

Brian Schwartz
March 24, 2009 at 3:41pm

In response to Mary Nielson’s and Brenda Blackwell’s comments above:

I also was initially alarmed by the item requiring that receiving institutions transfer courses across areas.  However, I think the reasoning is that all students will end up meeting the system’s minimum requirements in each area, even if they don’t all meet the receiving institution’s unique requirements.

For example, a student might transfer in an extra humanities course (that met a core requirement at the sending institution) in place of an Area D math that is required at the receiving institution.  The student still is required to do one math in Area A and therefore meets the systems’ minimum math requirements.

The receiving institution might not like having its second math replaced with a humanities course, but it seems that is the price that we will pay for allowing institutions some flexibility in designing their own cores. 

If the cores are different and we want students to be able to transfer all core classes, then receiving institutions will have to be somewhat flexible in transferring these courses.

I guess the balance will be that some institutions will be transferring humanities courses into math slots while other institutions are putting math courses into humanities slots.

Brian W. Schwartz
March 24, 2009 at 3:45pm

Last comment (for now).

“Learning Goals” should be changed to “Learning Areas,” or something similar.  “Natural Sciences” and “Humanities” are not learning goals.  Learning goals within areas are more akin to the listed outcomes.

David Strickland
March 24, 2009 at 7:54pm

Concern = Problems with the Area E Requirements

Item # 2 suggest that at least 6 hours would be required in area E. However, it makes no mention of the US history and government requirements. Am I correct in the belief that the University System must require US history and government credits in order to comply with national and state legislative requirements or was that requirement simply a USG initiation?

Do the more flexible Area E guidelines suggested in this draft mean that future students would be able to graduate without having taken any US history or government? If only 6 hours of social science are required and US history and government have lost their required and paramount status, then the typical Georgia graduate may have insufficient knowledge of these important areas.

I believe that US history and government should be required because, based on discussions in my classes, I have observed that entering freshmen know far too little about these subjects.

Alternatively, if US history and government remain paramount (i.e. not simply one of many equally viable options) and only 6 hours of social science are required, then the typical student’s exposure to other social science disciplines would be dangerously diminished. In this scenario the 6 required hours in area E would automatically become US history and government: an unacceptable limitation.

I believe that a college graduate should know more about the area of social science than what is learned in US History and government alone.
Sociology, for example, is particularly suited for teaching critical thinking (consistent with item #5) and has broad practical applications in almost every type of professional career for which a college degree is required.

PROPOSED SOLUTION

One solution to this challenge that would retain the flexibility factor but would also encourage a well rounded exposure to social sciences would be to require at least 9 hours in Area E, 3 of which must include an American history or government course.

David Strickland
March 24, 2009 at 8:00pm

POSITIVE ASPECTS:

Positive aspects of this draft include:
emphasis on critical thinking (item#5);
the requirement that all core courses must transfer (item#3); and
the marriage of transferability and institutional flexibility.

CONCERNS:

Concern = Item#4 is a little vague.

Item#4 suggests that some courses would be designated as a US perspective course and some courses would be designated as a global perspective course. What are the criteria for these designations? Based on this guideline could an institution designate some courses, such as sociology, as both US and global in perspective so that such a course could meet either requirement? Based on this new policy, would some courses carry a global or US perspective designation at one institution but not at another? What would be the rule regarding application of a transferred course toward graduation if the designations differ between institutions? If we combine the principles of transferability (item#2) and institutional designation (item#4) then does it follow that a course designated as global perspective by a transferring institution must be accepted as global perspective in the receiving institution even if the receiving institution has not designated that course as global in its own catalogue?

Concern = the “with some exceptions” clause on item#3

It is already true that all core courses transfer with some exceptions. The ability of this policy to enforce ease of transferability is compromised by the “with some exceptions” phrase. Either the courses transfer or they don’t. They should transfer.

Michelle Haberland
March 24, 2009 at 10:56pm

While I am relieved to see that there is still at least some emphasis on the importance of creating a global perspective among our students, I am concerned about the way the Learning Goals are divided.

The “U.S. Perspectives” Learning Goal is defined too narrowly.  Instead, I recommend that the statement in Learning Goals II that requires that students be able “to explore the place of the US in the diverse realm of societies across the globe” be moved to the Learning Goal I category. 

US History is all too often taught as a single narrative, with nary a mention of other nations’ influences on the US and the ways in which the US influenced other cultures.  In these times, we simply cannot afford to reinforce this simple-mindedness.

Mary Nielsen
March 25, 2009 at 7:54pm

I disagree with Brian Schwartz’s interpretation of item 3, at least as item 3 is currently written.  If an institution requires only 6 hours in area C and is forced to accept 3 credit hours of math—or 6 for that matter—then the student will end up with no real area C courses.

Robby Williams
March 27, 2009 at 1:37pm

I think that Area E needs to be at least 9 hours.

For math and science majors, I think that Area D needs to be 11 hours system-wide. Otherwise, it will be very difficult for some of these programs to fit within 120 hours. We already have slightly different cores for math/science majors and non-math/science majors so this would just continue existing practice for these majors.

June Goyne
March 30, 2009 at 3:36pm

I’m not sure I’m interpreting this correctly, but since AREA A-E “remains at 42 hours” and as changed ... the minimum credit hours in areas A-E only add up to 31 hours, does it mean a student may take the other 11 hours in anything they wish?  Can programs not specify requirements for these other 11 hours?

I agree with comments Mary and Brenda made about item #3.  Why even have institutional requirements if students can avoid them by transfeering in.  Right now in nursing, we require CHEM 1151 and 1152 sequence in accordance with previous curriuclum guidelines. This means we teach our nursing courses as if all students have had the chemistry sequence.  When students transfer in without chemistry (physics or biology sequnce is also allowed in Area D), they are not as prepared as our native students are for our nursing courses unless they are also required to take CHEM sequence…which we are not supposed to require. This is especially true when the USG holds programs (like nursing) accountable, by institution, for program graduation rates and licenisng exam pass rates. If accountability is required, then determining the requirements should be up to the program at each institution and not subverted by transfer students. 

I also agree that at least 3 hours each should be given back to Areas D and E. That would still leave 5 hours to be placed anywhere (if I am reading this right).

roger
April 10, 2009 at 6:26pm

http://www.aaup.org/AAUP/involved/join/

Zodiac Webster
April 17, 2009 at 10:22am

Allowing institutions to choose fewer hours of Science, Math, and Technology would be a backwards step for the state of GA in a time when critical thinking is so valued. Science and lab science especially are very valuable for enhancing inquiry skills.

I would like to see at a minimum the wording of Area D changed to say “At least 4 hours of a lab science course.”

I would prefer to see the Natural Sciences be separated from the Technology and Math so that there are at least 2 natural science courses (D1) and then at least one additional math or a technology course (D2).

Tim Howard
April 21, 2009 at 1:55pm

Lines 14 and 15 of Draft 3 include the statement “All learning outcomes must be collegiate level, not skills-based, and broadly focused.”  I appreciate the sentiment but wonder if the term “collegiate level” has much practical value.  Many would argue that the learning outcomes addressed in College Algebra are high school level outcomes.  I wonder if the committee can add some specificity to its statement.

Tim Howard
April 21, 2009 at 2:02pm

An earlier draft of the Core Curriculum Policy mused about the possibilities of accepting symbolic logic or introductory statistics to fulfill the A2 Quantitative Outcomes requirement.  Subsequent drafts have excluded these courses from A2.  For the record, the Regents Advisory Committee on Mathematical Subjects entertained two motions regarding these substitutions.

First, with 21 votes for and 0 votes against, the ACMS voted to oppose giving the option of using symbolic logic for the A2 requirement.

Second, the ACMS voted on a motion to permit the use of statistics in A2.  We had 2 votes in favor and 19 votes opposed.

On behalf of the ACMS I want to thank the USG Core Curriculum Committee for adopting the language excluding these two courses from A2.

Tim Howard
Chair, ACMS

Ed Mondor
April 21, 2009 at 2:32pm

I am deeply concerned about cutting the number of hours in Natural Sciences.  I completely agree with Michael Bodri, if we use the phrasing “at least” or “miniumum” the students will frequently take the minimum number.

As science is becoming increasingly important in our everyday lives (climate change, genetics, bioengineering, etc.) why would we want to reduce students’ understanding of these topics?!

Brian W. Schwartz
April 21, 2009 at 3:58pm

Do I understand correctly the latest draft proposal to be requiring implementation of new cores in Fall 2010? 

That doesn’t seem to allow enough time for campuses to engage in significant reforms if they want to do that.  Significant reform would involve rewriting, approving locally, and getting state approval of learning outcomes as well as designing, approving locally, and getting state approval of new curricula.  New courses might have to be designed and approved.  All of this would have to be done by early spring in order to schedule classes for fall.  I hope that new courses won’t require new faculty that would have to be hired.  There wouldn’t be time to do it.

I don’t think implementation in Fall 2010 would allow for anything more than tweaking current core curricula.

Brian W. Schwartz
April 21, 2009 at 4:19pm

In response to Mary Nielsen’s note on March 25:

The policy and transfer rules designed carefully so that transfer students will have to take at least the minimum number of hours specified in each area.

If students have an extra math that met a core requirement at the sending institution and is not required at the receiving institution, the extra math will be placed in an area in such a way that the student will meet the System’s minimum requirements in each area, which includes at least 6 hours of Area C humanities/fine arts.

Rosa Williams
April 21, 2009 at 4:22pm

I agree with many above that the 7-hour requirement in Science, Math, and Technology is insufficient.  If the three are lumped together, then they should total at least 11 hours.  I agree with Dr. Webster that at least 2 natural science courses (at least 1 with lab) and one math/technology course are the minimum required for students emerging into a modern, technological world.

I agree with Dr. Bodri that it is highly counterproductive to cut science education at a time when the decline in understanding of science (and STEM generally) is a matter of considerable public concern.  At the same time, there is an increasing need for scientifically literate citizens in the workplace.  I also agree that it seems a contradiction for the state of Georgia to attempt to encourage STEM education on the one hand, while cutting back on minimum core requirements on the other.

Kimberly Shaw
April 22, 2009 at 8:14am

I am concerned that this flexibility could lead to a ‘lowest common denominator’ effect in which students attend schools with Core areas that match their interests and then transfer to schools where the area they were avoiding is larger (i.e. a science phobic student avoids the school with 11 hours of Area D for requirements in favor of attending a school with 7 hours of Area D for requirements but then transfers to the school with 11 hours of Area D by putting area C courses in Area D).

These changes may not change the track of students who enter college as science majors, but may reduce the exposure the non-science majors have to science and reduce the likelihood of students changing to a science major.

It would also be possible for a science major to avoid writing, communications, and humanities classes!

George Rainbolt
April 22, 2009 at 9:27am

The following comment was emailed directly to me.  I am posting it to the blog so that interested faculty may comment.

I have a question “about MATH 1001 (Quantitative Skills and Reasoning) in relation to Area A2 of the core.  Whether MATH 1001 is permissible needs to be clearly stated in the final version of the core revision document.  MATH 1001 has been being counted in Area A2, yet it is a liberal arts math course (set theory, logic, probability, data analysis, modeling).  To be consistent, we need to either remove the restriction about not having liberal arts math courses in Area A2 or remove MATH 1001 as an option in Area A2.”

Robby Williams
April 23, 2009 at 10:44am

Math 1001 was approved by the Advisory Committee on Mathematical Subjects a few years ago and has been approved at several system schools. The committee may want to contact schools that have been offering Math 1001. If their results are positive, then I think Math 1001 should remain an option in Area A2.

The committee may want to look at the wording used in lines 164-166 which state that Math 1101, Math 1111, and Math 1113 must be placed in area A2. Some institutions currently offer both Math 1111 and Math 1101 (or Math 1001), but some do not offer both courses. To me the wording in lines 164-166 seems to imply that institutions would be required to offer both Math 1101 and Math 1111 - I’m guessing that this was not the intent?

Rick McGrath
April 30, 2009 at 10:46pm

I am concerned about the inclusion of “field studies” in lines 252 and 253 of the most recent revision. AASU includes global perspectives in Area B, and has a number of study abroad programs that fulfill this requirement. The statement on lines 252 and 253 could be interpreted as excluding many study abroad programs from the core. I thought the university system wanted to promote study abroad?

What’s wrong with learning about the rest of the world while actually seeing the rest of the world?

Tim Howard
May 2, 2009 at 2:08am

At least five USG institutions list MATH 1001, but not MATH 1101, in their mathematics offerings for Area A.  There are also at least two other institutions that offer MATH 1001 as a choice for Area A math credit.  Further, the ACMS has endorsed the use of MATH 1001 in Area A.  It seems that 1001 should be listed among the acceptable courses in the proposed new core curriculum policy.

George Rainbolt
May 5, 2009 at 8:42am

To: Dr. George Rainbolt, Chair, Core Curriculum Evaluation Committee

4 May 2009

Dear Dr. Rainbolt,

We appreciate the time you spent with the Arts & Sciences Academic Advisory Committee (ASAAC) on 27 April 2009, which afforded us the opportunity to ask specific questions about the recommendations being developed by the Core Curriculum Evaluation Committee (CCEC).  We greatly appreciate the time the CCEC has taken to thoughtfully review the existing core, and we find many of the committee’s recommendations intriguing, some of which have the potential to vitalize the core.  Following your presentation, the ASAAC does have three specific recommendations for the CCEC. 

First, and most importantly, we fully believe that setting Area D to a minimum of seven hours is not an acceptable option.  Student learning in the areas of Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) must be improved in the United States; this can be gleaned from numerous reports, most notably “Rising Above the Gathering Storm”, a 2007 jointly written report by the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine.  In the State of Georgia, our secondary students do not yet perform at even the average national level in STEM disciplines, hence to downplay the requirements for STEM in the USG, would be a mistake for the future of our students, our State, and our Nation.  The unanimous recommendation reached by A&S deans is that a 10 hour minimum should be assigned to this area, and should be divided as follows: one science class with a laboratory, one mathematically-related class, and one other class in math, science, or technology.  This would still allow USG institutes eight hours for flexible assignment among areas of the core. 

Second, we strongly agree with the recommendation that Area A courses would need to be completed prior to a student completing the first 60 hours of their degree program.  Further, once this was implemented across the USG system, we believe this requirement should be reduced to 42 hours, then 30 hours, each separated by a few years to allow staffing within the USG to be adjusted accordingly.  Before the recommendation for area A completion can be fully implemented, we would need to review the additional number of students who would be seeking Area A courses each year at each university; a large increase in student demand may require a delayed introduction of this requirement, so universities could increase their staffing in anticipation of students demand for these courses. 

Third, we agree with the recommendation that rollout of the revised curriculum could occur in Fall 2010 at state, regional and research universities.  We recommended two exceptions to this timeline.  The Critical Thinking course and its assessment should not be placed into core until fall 2011 to allow adequate discussions about critical thinking to occur on campuses; this specific topic will be debated hotly on campuses, and each campus should have the opportunity to carefully define this student learning outcome and its implications for the remainder of the institute’s core.  Also, two-year colleges should not be required to roll-out their new core curriculum until fall 2011; this will allow them to adapt their offerings to follow the changes in core made at their primary (or numerous) state, regional, research partner university(s) and avoid going through the process twice in 2010 then again in 2011.

We have highlighted the issues of most importance concerning the core curriculum from the perspective of the Arts and Sciences across the State.  You are welcome to contact me or any other A&S AAC Member to discuss our viewpoints.

Sincerely,
Bret S. Danilowicz, Ph.D.
Dean
Chair of the Board of Regents Arts & Sciences Academic Advisory Committee

CC:   
Dr. Linda Noble, Liaison to the Arts & Sciences Academic Advisory Committee
Deans of Arts and Sciences of the University System of Georgia
Vice President’s of Academic Affairs of Two-Year Colleges of the University
System of Georgia

Bill Allison
May 7, 2009 at 8:13am

It’s odd that the tone of the draft is that we really aren’t changing things, which is not true, and which also begs the question then why are we doing this?

Also, the Learning Goals for Humanities and Fine Arts seems overtly long on Fine Arts and short on Humanities - more balance is needed. The Learning Goals for Global Perspectives does mention a historical component - it is stunning that with all the trends toward “Global Citizens,”, etc., that the comparative history of human societies is not included among these goals.

As to the articulation of the core, this invites chaos. It will take some time to get this sorted out if implemented. By letting each institution have so much flexibility across the core, articulation is going to be a nightmare. Perhaps, and I am not fully convinced of this, we just need to make sure the current core is fully transferable (you complete the core at one institution, you are complete at all institutions, including any sort of 1-2 hours First Year Experience requirements) - and leave it at that.

I still fall back on the issue of if it ain’t broke, why are we trying to fix it? And I offer that observation with full recognition of the hard and thankless work the committee has been doing. There are many other more productive things that the members of this committee could have been doing with their limited and valuable time than this.

Robby Williams
May 7, 2009 at 8:40am

Lines 170-172 read as follows:

“If offered, Math 1111, Math 1113 and either Math 1001 or Math 1101 must be placed in this area. These courses may also be placed in Area D. Other approved courses may be placed in this area. (See below for course approval rules.)”

The sentence “these courses may also be placed in Area D” appears to be new language in this draft. Math 1113 is an appropriate area D course. I do not think that Math 1001, Math 1101, and Math 1111 are appropriate in area D.

See page 3 of the minutes of the Council on General Education from March 26, 2004:

“After a lengthy discussion, the Council recommended that neither Math 1101 nor Math 1111 be included as an option in Area D.”

http://www.usg.edu/academics/comm/gen_ed/actions0304.pdf

I think the Advisory Committee on Mathematical Subjects should also be consulted on this issue.

Jon D. Hoekstra
May 7, 2009 at 3:24pm

Picking up the thread on Natural and Social Science…  These are the two areas with significantly reduced minimum requirements in the new Core.  Some commenters have failed to see the clear indications that individual institutions will have flexibility here: they may elect to keep strength in both of these sciences, shift requirements among them, or weaken them and place more emphasis in other areas.

What are administrators likely to do, given this new “flexibility?”  There will be pressure from each academic unit to maintain or expand existing requirements in each Area, so perhaps nothing will change.  Maybe the outcome will just depend on the political balance of power in each school.

However, I predict that funding considerations will strongly tilt toward reduced support for lab science courses.  Natural science labs require special inputs, including dedicated space, costly materials, limited group sizes, extra instructor work hours (both contact hours and preparation).  It will be cheaper to do away with some of these labs, and even natural science instructors will be torn on the issue - because teaching labs can be an exhausting chore at times.

Absent strong leadership and commitment at the College level, most units will likely weaken their lab science requirements for nonmajors from the existing two-course sequence to the new minimum of a single lab science course.  Not, in my view, a good trend for the quality and richness of education in our State.

Science labs, properly done, are a unique opportunity for students to gain concrete experience and to exercise critical thinking skills through hands-on hypothesis testing.  The Core should maintain existing minimum requirements in Natural and Social Sciences.  “Flexibility” sounds nice, but it really only enables a systematic deterioration in the integrity of the Core.

Kimberly Shaw
May 7, 2009 at 4:47pm

A further comment, to be sure what many are saying in hallways is stated clearly here. 

The Governor just signed legislation with the goal of recruiting more science and math teachers throughout K12.  The state and our nation acknowledge repeatedly that we should be educating more math and science majors.  We repeatedly document how poor the levels of scientific literacy are among our citizens.  But we are planning to cut the minimum number of math and science hours that our students must take?  Does it strike anyone else that decreasing our students exposure to these topics might mean that we decrease the number of students choosing to major in them?

Jennifer Wunder
May 8, 2009 at 11:20am

Perhaps I am misreading this, but I find it extremely troubling that the draft released this week still indicates that while ‘minimums’ in various core areas exist, those minimums will be ignored for transfer students.  Schools should not be required to accept a math course as fulfilling the requirement for humanities and fine arts, and vice versa.  Being forced to pretend that a math class fulfills a humanities requirement, or a humanities requirement fulfills a science one, undercuts and negates efforts to have outcomes based general education programs. 

How, if we are to be outcome based, can we say that a student who has met the outcomes for a math class should have his credits accepted as meeting the requirements and thus the outcomes for humanities and the arts?  That transfer student will move through a core in which he is not meeting all the outcomes we claim our students will meet.

I would also argue against what appears to be a suggested policy in which key courses such as English 1101 and English 1102 cannot be required as prerequisites for other classes. 
“No course used to satisfy an Area A-E requirement may
be a prerequisite for any course outside Areas A-E.  Except as noted elsewhere in this policy, no course in one area (A-E) may be a prerequisite for any course in any other area (A-E).”

Perhaps I am misreading this?  If not, an exception for basic communication courses such as ENGL 1101 and 1102 is desperately needed.  Communication courses such as those are vital to students’ success in other college level classes.  To remove them as prerequisites would have serious ramifications.

If I’m misreading these elements, I’d much appreciate some clarifications.

Thanks.

Judy Ginter
May 8, 2009 at 4:17pm

The main premise of the proposed core curriculum policy, that it must not impose any additional costs on institutions, is ignored by the proposal.

The amount of hours required to determine which courses meet the new learning goals is a cost. Tracking whether or not students met the new learning goals is a cost. How an institution develops a plan to insure that students acquire critical thinking skills is a cost.  Since these plans will not be the same at each institution, there will be no plan for students who transfer.  And the new way Areas A-E courses may transfer depending upon the different criteria is an enormous cost.  Transfer evaluations will take much longer, programs will have to be re-written, and students, faculty and staff will have to be trained and re-trained.

The system continues to cut our resources and personnel.  All the additional costs from this proposal are simply unacceptable.

Rob Wingfield
May 11, 2009 at 9:54am

I can’t understand how this proposal would simplify anything. It will make transfer evaluation a nightmare as well as significantly increasing costs. I have difficulty guiding some of our advisors with the core we have in place this will only make matters worse.