Roberta Lacefield
November 19, 2008 at 4:20pm

On your Nov 24 agenda, I see this item:
4. Discussion of Survey
a. When to do it? Prior to much work (to get feedback before beginning) or after a draft report
(so that comments can be more substantial).
1

If you want an unsolicited opinion, I recommend the survey first. Otherwise, you are likely to get a lot of “But why did you say…” and “Why didn’t you include…” comments. If you use the survey to shape the document, you have an answer.

Susan Mattern
November 19, 2008 at 11:07pm

Please consider finding some way to include formal and systematic faculty representation from, ideally, all USG institutions in this process.  Faculty should design the curriculum, not administrators.

Donald Butts
December 1, 2008 at 2:10pm

In the November 24th minutes under the discussion of the size of the core, why is the committee not considering requiring programs like education to keep their programs under the 120 hour limit by re-examining their course requirements?

Joe Thomas
December 2, 2008 at 12:32pm

I second Donald Butts’ idea.  Education programs are overloaded nationwide, not just in Georgia. We could be a real leader by bucking the trend to constantly expand course loads in Education.  I have found that NCATE requirements are often interpreted as course requirements instead of content; that is, a separate course for everything instead of integration into existing courses. In my limited experience, that’s not what NCATE requires.

Joe Thomas
December 2, 2008 at 12:38pm

Also, what about a section for specific suggestions on revision to the current core?  For instance, I think some of those areas could be satisfied by flags instead of separate courses, such as Area B.  Why not have a social science course that deals with this count as social science as well?  And what about the bias toward social science in the distribution of courses?

Byron Brown
December 2, 2008 at 4:15pm

Astronomers speak of each star’s “habitable zone,” the range of possible orbits in which life is possible. The CCEC’s task, of course, is to define the “habitable zone” in which USG core curriculum courses can revolve and still support the life of its general education program.  The impulse to replace detailed learning “outcomes” with broad learning “goals” is understandable. However, defining these goals with single phrases could, I fear, prove fatal to the idea of a shared general education experience.  More practically, doing so will complicate rather than simplify course transfers in the core curriculum.

The five current Outcomes are too narrowly defined by too many Benchmarks (aka “ability” statements). They try to hold the core in too narrow an orbit.  To the extent that institutions paid attention to them, they feel more like a straitjacket than a “habitable zone.” However, naming goals without defining them may be more dangerous—if a shared, transferable general education experience is still a USG goal.

Here are some potential problem areas I see: 
(1)  The proposed change increases the number of Outcomes from 5 to 8.
(Outcome 4 actually embraces four separate outcomes, as the designations 4A, 4B, 4C, and 4D acknowledge. They increased the number of required categories and decline to define any of them. Our students will have more words in common and fewer common skills.) 
(2)  They waver between skills and content in a slightly disorienting way.
(Outcomes 1, 2, 3, and 5 target 4 essential skills. Outcome 4—“Arts and Sciences”—identifies 4 required content areas: fine arts, humanities, natural sciences, social sciences. It would be better, I think, to phrase all 8 in terms of skills. But that’s a small matter.)
(3)  If Outcomes are reduced to a set of shared phrases (e. g. Critical Thinking) that each local campus defines as it will, they will inevitably become too broad to be meaningful.  As Humpty Dumpty says, “When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less.” A meaningful core must have a degree of shared substance as well as a common vocabulary.

If there is no shared agreement about what the core outcomes really mean, then we materially change the nature of the core curriculum. It can and will no longer as a stable foundation of general education upon which degree programs are built. Instead, core courses become general “enhancement” or “enrichment” experiences that have little or nothing to do with degree programs that follow them.

I hope the CCEC will offer at least a one sentence definition of each Outcome.  We certainly don’t need 6 to 12 “ability” statements to provide the necessary guidance! However, if we don’t take reasonable steps to ensure reasonably consistent expectations, then course transfers will be complicated—as Donna Gosnell pointed out in the “Transfer” blog in a compelling way.  The effect of that will be to discourage enrollment in two-year institutions at a time when more students should be enrolled on those campuses for budgetary reasons if for none other.

Susan B. Brown
January 12, 2009 at 1:57pm

I may have skimmed the material too quickly - but I did not see an emphasis on technology and information literacy, visual literacy, etc.

Christopher Ide
January 12, 2009 at 4:42pm

Should there be a distinction between “teaching” and “research” institutions”?

Green T. Waggener
February 2, 2009 at 2:19pm

If you were to trim Area E (Social Sciences) down to the same as Area C (Humanities and Fine Arts) you would “hit THREE birds with the same stone”: you could add those six hours to the major, you would have students who didn’t know the difference between poetry / prose / e-text, and you would have students who didn’t care. There should be some way to balance these two Areas that are, afterall, important enough to be considered academic Areas.

Matthew Grober
February 7, 2009 at 3:27pm

In terms of the Science core, I find that the proposed changes ignore one of the largest gaps in US science education.  Evolutionary theory is the accepted scientific basis for the diversity of life on earth and the structure and function of living things, including humans.  In spite of this, our country ranks near the bottom in the WORLD with regard to the percent of our populace that accepts, let alone understands, this fundamental area of science.  If the core is to make our students competitive in a national or global market, we need to address areas where our system is not providing the required level of education.  The data on Evolution clearly make this point, yet our core continues to under emphasize this problem.

Chad Stephens
February 8, 2009 at 5:11pm

Has there been any discussion as to how First Year Seminars (FYS) will fit into the core?  Is introduction of more FYS courses a priority for USG?  Is going to a mandatory FYS in some situations, such as a retention tool, being considered?

Thomas E. Rotnem, on behalf of the Political Scien
February 9, 2009 at 2:25pm

The Political Science Regents’ Advisory Council supports the efforts to evaluate and reconsider the USG core curriculum.  However, the membership of the council strongly urges and recommends that the proposed Learning Goal #5 be subdivided into two sub-goals, i.e., one pertaining to U.S. “Civic Engagement” learning objectives and one advancing students “global engagement.”  The first sub-goal would emphasize that all USG undergraduate students be expected to acquire an understanding of the American and Georgian constitutions and political systems, including institutions, policymaking processes, electoral processes, and citizen political participation.  These objectives can best be achieved through a system-wide USG core curriculum requirement that POLS 1101 American Governnment, or its successor, be required at all USG institutions of all undergraduate students.  The second sub-goal would emphasize many of the other globally-related learning outcomes already included in Learning Goal #5…. 

Furthermore, we believe that, while it is imperative that future generations of citizens and civic leaders be conversant in the fundamental elements of the American Political System/Georgia Constitution and Government and be knowledgeable concerning vital issues affecting the world, one course that serves both larger goals will be woefully inadequate.
Respectfully submitted,
Political Science Regents’ Advisory Council membership

Kristina Watkins Mormino
February 19, 2009 at 12:29pm

Flexibility in the Core

“Every institution must designate some courses in Areas A-E as US courses and some as
GL courses. (Some course may have neither designation.) As they are fulfilling the
requirements of Areas A-E, every student must take one US course and one GL course.” 

If an institution decided that its objective under the global goal was that every student would have proficiency in a second language, could it limit its GL courses to only foreign language courses, even though there are other courses that clearly address global issues?

Tom Rotnem, on behalf of the POLS Regents' Advisor
February 25, 2009 at 11:48am

On behalf of the Political Science Regents’ Advisory Committee, I submit the following learning goal (for Learning Goal 5: U.S. Perspectives) to be considered by the committee for inclusion in the draft USG General Education Learning Goals document (issued after its most recent meeting):

“Students understand the constitutional principles and related political, social, and institutional developments and governmental processes fundamental to an understanding of American democracy and political participation, from colonial times to the present.”

Anthony J. Giovannitti
March 17, 2009 at 10:09am

Looking at the draft for the new core, I am concerned with the following:

Prerequisites
218 Except as noted below, no course in Area A-E may be a prerequisite for any course outside
219 Areas A-E.
220 STEM and health professions majors may require courses in Areas A2 and D as prerequisites for
221 courses in their Area Fs.

Why not allow these courses to be prerequisites.  I see that the exception will allow math majors to proceed without problems, but what about (for example) students who take a psych course in the core that can be used as a prerequisite for other psych courses?  I say remove this and you will have greater flexability.

Beth Jensen
March 24, 2009 at 11:26am

USG Faculty and Staff,

The Tough Choices or Tough Times Committee is quietly maneuvering as it prepares its final recommendation for Governor Perdue.  Our forceful response against the December 15 Tough Choices proposal to consolidate the two-year colleges with the technical schools may have prevented an immediate merger.  If we had done nothing, many believe the merger would be a “done-deal.” We are now concerned that our recent silence may be viewed as complacency.

It appears that the Chair of the Higher Education Committee, Senator Seth Harp, in consultation with Lt. Gov. Cagle, will permit House Bill 294 to die in committee. (We supported HB 294 because it required legislative approval to change the technical schools, a deterrent to the merger.)

We need to remind our governor, lieutenant governor, Higher Education Chair Seth Harp, and our state representatives that we do not support the removal of the two-year colleges from the USG and their merger with the technical schools. This time, however, we need to CALL and e-mail. Below are the phone numbers for each party along with their e-mail addresses.

Summary of our opposition to the merger:

1.  The Tough Choices or Tough Times Committee did not have DIRECT two-year college representation.

Its membership consisted of politicians, commissioners, businesspeople, teachers and administrators from K-12, an executive director from the Governor’s Office, and three high-ranking tech school officials: Carl Swearingen, Chair of the Technical College System of Georgia Board; Ron Jackson, Commissioner, Technical College System of Georgia, and Dean Alford, the committee’s Co-Chair and current member of the Technical College System of Georgia Board.  The two members of the USG (an associate professor from Georgia State and the Executive Vice-Chancellor with oversight over research institutions) are not DIRECT representatives of two-year colleges.
   
  The two-year colleges have much at stake, and one of their presidents should have   represented our interests.

2.  Missions of a tech school and a two-year college differ.

Two-year colleges prepare students for their junior and senior years. They teach students to think critically. Technical schools prepare students for immediate entry into the workplace. They teach students a specific skill.

3.    Two-year colleges are the only point of access to the four-year institutions for many students (non-traditional students; remedial students; ESL students; students who have made poor choices). Without this point of entry, many Georgia students will be denied a USG education.

4.  In Kentucky, a merger identical to the one The Tough Choices Committee is recommending has resulted in a notable decline in the number of students transferring to four-year institutions from the comprehensive community college system which formed ten years ago.

  In Kentucky, university requirements make it difficult to transfer academic credits; the   community college system lacks sufficient financial aid and advisors to help students   transition to the four-year institutions; and the four-year schools are reluctant to recruit   community college students. In essence, a caste system has formed.

  In Kentucky, the academic value of the two-year colleges has decreased in this tech   school/liberal arts hybrid.

5.    The effect this will have on the four-year institutions.

  Two-year colleges in Georgia transfer approximately 50,000 students a year to four-year   colleges and universities. Transfers will decrease, resulting in a decline in the number of   classes offered and in the budgets received at the USG four-year institutions. As a result,    faculty and staff may lose their jobs.

  Some also view this as an assault on tenure since the tech school system does not offer   tenure to its instructors. We already have one four-year institution that does not offer   tenure.  Now, hundreds of faculty may lose their tenure if the “merger” occurs.

Please CALL (leaving a voicemail is fine) and e-mail the following to express your views today:

1.  Governor Perdue

Call: 404-656-1776
.(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)

2.  Lt. Gov. Cagle
       
  Call: (404) 656-5030

.(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)

3.    Sen. Seth Harp, Chair, Higher Education Committee

Call: 404-463-3931

.(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)

 
4.  Your state representative and senator at Congress.org
(Be sure to tell them you are their constituent.)

This is like voting. Don’t count on the person down the hall to call or to write, and please don’t think that your calls and e-mails don’t matter because we have proof that they do.

Thanks,

Beth

Beth Jensen, Ph.D.
Professor of English
Georgia Perimeter College
GPC Online
678-584-0459

Beth Jensen
March 27, 2009 at 12:48pm

USG Faculty and Staff,
Here is the February 23 draft from Governor Perdue’s Tough Choices or Tough Times Committee that is currently circulating. It has not been released to the two-year college community, but fortunately, we have obtained a copy.  I have included the portion that will affect the two-year colleges:
New Version 2/23/09

A.    Either (a) create a comprehensive community college system by merging the technical colleges and two-year colleges so there is a seamless entry point for all students, or, if the two systems are to maintain their separate identities, (b) create and enforce pathways for student transfer between institutions and systems by forming comprehensive articulation agreements that clearly establish procedures governing the transfer of credits from one institution or system to another and (c) ensure that all duplication of teaching and administrative resources between TCSG and USG institutions has been removed.

You may still be responding to my previous e-mail when I asked you to object to the “merger” of the two-year colleges with the tech schools. Even if you have called and e-mailed Governor Perdue, Lt. Governor Cagle, and your state representatives this week, please take the time to do so again in light of this additional information.  If you have not contacted anyone to date, please use this opportunity to do so.

Tell Governor Purdue, Lt. Governor Cagle, and your state representatives that after reading section “A.” in the February 23 draft from the Tough Choices or Tough Times Committee, you say
1. NO to “a” (forming a comprehensive community college)
2. NO to “c” (eliminating duplication of teaching and administrative resources)
This mandate treats the two institutions as if they were one. Since the tech schools and the two-year colleges are autonomous, each will have its own student body.  Most students will prefer to remain at one institution for their first-two years. Some will want to complete their first-two years at a USG institution. Having a single transcript further reduces the potential for confusion when the student transfers to a four-year college.  Similarly, duplicative administrative services cannot be eliminated because the institutions are independent.  Each institution has a unique mission that is pursued by its administrative body.
The manner in which “c.” is stated in the February 23 draft leaves the door open for the wholesale merging of duplicative services across the board between two separate institutions. 
3. Yes to “b” (creating comprehensive articulation agreements)
We say Yes to “b” because some of the two-year colleges already have local or,  in the case of Georgia Perimeter College, statewide transfer agreements with tech schools.

I’ve included a small sample list of the courses GPC accepts from Albany Tech.
SACS-COC Accredited DTAE Transfer Credit List
Note: Science courses include lab
Albany Technical Inst——————————————-Transfer School Course Georgia Perimeter College Equivalent
BIO 191: Biology I——————————————————BIOL 1402: Cell Biology and Genetics
BIO 193: Anatomy & Physiology I———————BIOL 1611: Human Anatomy & Physiology I
BIO 194: Anatomy & Physiology II———-——-BIOL 1612: Human Anatomy & Physiology II
BIO 197: Introduction to Microbiology———- BIOL 1913: Microbiology
CHM 191: Chemistry I————————————————CHEM 1151: Survey of Chemistry I
ENG 191: Composition and Rhetoric I———-ENGL 1101: English Composition I
ENG 193: Composition and Rhetoric II———-ENGL 1102: English Composition II
MAT 190: Mathematical Modeling——————MATH 1101: Intro to Mathematical Modeling
MAT 191: College Algebra————————————MATH 1111: College Algebra
MAT 194: Precalculus————————————————- MATH 1113: Precalculus
PSY 191: Introduction to Psychology————- PSYC 1101: Intro. to General Psychology
SOC 191: Introduction to Sociology——————- SOCI 1101: Introduction to Sociology
SPC 191: Fundamentals of Speech———————- COMM 1201: Public Speaking

Please call and e-mail the following to express these views:

1.  Governor Perdue

Call: 404-656-1776
.(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)

2.  Lt. Gov. Cagle
       
  Call: (404) 656-5030

.(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)

3.  Your state representative and senator at Congress.org
(Be sure to tell them you are their constituent.)

(In summary, the “Tough Choices or Tough Times” 2/23 draft offer two options, but “c.” of option two is problematic.  Our concern is that the governor will say we can remain autonomous while eliminating duplicative teaching and administrative services. (The removal of duplicative services between two autonomous institutions is just another attempt to move towards a merger.) So we reject “a” outright; and we accept “b” but without “c.”)

I know this takes time and effort on your part, but I speak confidently when I say we still have the ability to initiate change, but only if we respond boldly and persistently. 

Thanks for your support,

Beth

Beth Jensen, Ph.D.
Professor of English
Georgia Perimeter College
678-584-0459

TOM CAIAZZO
March 28, 2009 at 8:52pm

I am writing today because every citizen in Georgia should flood Gov. Perdue (.(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)), Lt. Gov. Cagle (.(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)), and state Sen. Seth Harp (chairman, Senate Higher Education Committee — .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)) with e-mails against the merger of Georgia’s two-year colleges with the technical schools. Please consider three bullet points:
1) Unlike technical schools, two-year colleges prepare students for junior and senior college years. They also teach students to think critically, become engaged scholars and produce leaders in the community. Technical schools also play an important role in Georgia’s education, but it is different. They prepare students for immediate entry into the workplace. They teach students a specific skill. Both are needed and need to maintain their separate roles for Georgia’s students.

2) Two-year colleges are the only point of access to four-year institutions for many students (non-traditional, remedial, ESL, and students who have made poor choices). Without this entry, many Georgia students will be denied a University System education. As a product of the two-year college system, I am a testament of its results.

3) Two-year colleges in Georgia transfer approximately 50,000 students a year to four-year colleges and universities. Transfers will decrease, resulting in a decline in the number of classes offered and in the budgets received at the USG four-year institutions. Faculty and staff may lose their jobs.

I thank you for your time and please ask that you write your state senator and the aforementioned officials and ask that they do not approve the merger of Georgia’s two-year colleges with its technical schools.

TOM CAIAZZO

Statesboro

Beth Jensen
April 3, 2009 at 8:12pm

Four-year colleges and universities are threatened by systemic changes to dismantle 2-year colleges in the USG

USG Faculty:

I was recently invited to speak about the proposed “merger” of the two-year colleges with the tech schools at the USG Faculty Council meeting at the BOR. I explained our concerns about Governor Perdue’s committee Tough Choices or Tough Times and its December 15, 2008, recommendation to dismantle the two-year colleges and to merge them with the technical schools. I am pleased to say we received unanimous support from the council’s thirty-five members. They voted to forward a recommendation to the Board of Regents supporting our opposition to the removal of the two-year colleges from the USG and to their “merger” with the tech schools. We thank them for their support.

During our meeting, we spoke with USG representatives Dr. Susan Herbst, who is actively communicating with the Tough Choices or Tough Times Committee, and Dr. Robert Vaughan.  Dr. Vaughan relayed one announcement that should alarm us all:

The USG in its discussion with the governor’s Tough Choices or Tough Times Committee is considering the expansion of the mini-core offered at the tech schools. The “mini-core” represents the five general education courses that the technical schools may transfer to USG institutions (two English and three math). Under consideration is the expansion of the mini-core from fifteen hours (five classes) to thirty hours, in other words, the first full year. Simply stated, students may attend a technical school rather than a two-year college for their first year of general education courses. Tech school tuition is lower and their courses are perceived as less rigorous, both incentives for students. We are concerned that this is merely another indirect attempt to dismantle the two-year colleges. We asked Dr. Herbst to explain the rationale, and she declared it was a “gesture of good faith” and an effort to “help the systems work together.”

Dr. Vaughan later confirmed that students under this model would enroll in a technical school for their first year, transfer to a two-year college for their second year, and transfer to a four-year institution for their last two years.  He stated that this was a political decision. This proposed model is troubling for several reasons:

1.  Offering the first year of general education courses at the tech schools could have a devastating effect on the enrollment at the two-year colleges. Theoretically, the enrollment could decline by over 50%. Dr. Vaughan acknowledged that this decision would have a “significant” impact on the enrollment at two-year institutions. If a college lost a third of its enrollment, for example,  it would have to lay off a third of its faculty and staff.  Such a decrease would be particularly detrimental to our smaller two-year colleges, such as Waycross or South Georgia College, institutions we fear may be offered as a “bone” to the tech schools for temporary appeasement.

2.  This model creates a transfer nightmare for the students and for those who will assist them.  Presently, most two-year students who want to attend a four-year institution transfer once.  Under this new model, they transfer twice. Their materials will transfer from the tech school to the two-year college to the four-year institution. The potential for confusion is limitless.  We will need additional staff to assist students who are navigating through this transitional maze. It may also negatively impact the transfer of students into the four-year institutions.  Kentucky reports a decrease in transfers from the state’s Comprehensive Community College to the four-year institutions because of a paucity of advisors to assist students. Now, in Georgia, we may add an additional layer to the process. Chancellor Davis recently said, “If there was ever a time for systemic focus on cost-effective customer service, this is it!  If ever there was a time for process simplification, this is it!”  Implementing a plan that would increase the number of transfers per student and increase the need for additional staff contradicts the Chancellor’s recommendation. This plan is also a peculiar means to achieve the “efficiencies” the governor promotes.

3.    To “help the systems work together”? We are already accomplishing this goal. At GPC alone, we accept the credits for a total of 286 courses from schools within the Technical College System of Georgia. Other two-year colleges have developed their own transfer agreements with local tech schools.

If implemented, the plan to expand the mini-core at the tech schools will dismantle the two-year colleges. It may take longer than an immediate merger, but ultimately, it will achieve the same goal. 

Why should four-year institutions care? A year ago, if anyone asked if we were concerned that the governor would appoint a committee which would recommend that the two-year colleges be removed from the USG and absorbed by the Technical College System of Georgia,  we would have said no.  GPC alone has over 2,000 employees and over 23,000 students, and its enrollment is growing.  It would have been inconceivable to see the institution dismantled and absorbed by DeKalb Tech, a school enrolling 4,000 students, yet that is exactly what would have happened (and still may) if we had not voiced our opposition.

The USG is under assault and the two-year colleges may only be the first casualty. I spoke with my state representative in January when we first learned about the potential “merger.”  He emphatically said that the two-year colleges would not remain in the USG. He said the legislators would remove all the schools from the USG if they could because “the Board of Regents considers itself the fourth arm of government.” Last year, legislators introduced a bill to dissolve the BOR.  This attitude is further reflected in the fate of House Bill 294: Even though it passed last month with an overwhelming majority in the House (158:1), once it arrived in the Senate, Senator Seth Harp of Columbus killed it in committee. As chair of the Higher Education Committee, he chose not to introduce a bill that would prevent the “merger” of the two-year colleges with the tech schools without legislative approval.  Meanwhile, the Senate is maneuvering to pass HB 700, which removes control of all USG facilities (budget and construction dollars) from the USG and presents it to a state authority. Bit by bit, they are chipping away at the USG.  While the tech schools have significant political favor statewide, the University System of Georgia does not.

Who’s next? USG institutions that were formerly two-year colleges and are now limited-mission four-year institutions?  Could colleges that grant few bachelor’s degrees each year revert to their former two-year status and fall into the tech school maelstrom as we have? Maybe as a “gesture of good faith,” thirty required hours for programs at UGA or GSU might be taught at the University of Phoenix. The removal of the two-year colleges from the USG sets a precedent. Additionally, the number of students (approximately 50,000) who transfer from our two-year colleges to four-year institutions will decline.  Classes, budgets, and jobs at the four-year colleges and research universities will follow suit. 

What can you do? I asked Dr. Vaughan how we should voice our opposition to the mini-core expansion. He recommended e-mailing Dr. Susan Herbst and copying him. In an e-mail, Dr. Herbst also agreed that we could send our concerns to her. We ask for the support of all our fellow USG faculty and staff at two-year, four-year, and research institutions.  If Drs. Herbst and Vaughan receive a significant number of e-mails from USG members statewide, they can report to the governor and to the Tough Choices or Tough Times Committee that the faculty and staff across the system object.  Please send your e-mails to the following addresses:

.(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)

.(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)

This is our only means of communicating our thoughts since two-year colleges have no direct representation on the Tough Choices or Tough Times Committee. The tech schools, on the other hand, have three high-ranking board members, one of whom serves as co-chair. 

The two-year colleges want to fulfill their mission and serve their students: they do not want to be removed from the USG; they do not want to be absorbed by the Technical College System of Georgia; they do not want to have their freshman class enrollment decimated. If the interest were sincerely to create “synergies and efficiencies,” the technical colleges would be absorbed by the USG, creating one strong, seamless educational system. Instead, the Tough Choices or Tough Times Committee is trying to force the two-year colleges, one way or the other, into the Technical College System of Georgia.

Our students and our institutions should not be sacrificed to appease the Technical College System of Georgia or the Tough Choices or Tough Times Committee. The tech schools and the two-year colleges have different missions, both of which should be independently pursued to serve all of Georgia’s students.

Unfortunately,  this is about politics now, not education. And that’s the problem.

Thanks for your support,

Beth

Beth Jensen, Ph.D.

Professor of English

Georgia Perimeter College

678-584-0459

Glenn and Janet Stracher
April 8, 2009 at 1:30pm

The letter below was sent by Professor Glenn B. Stracher and Registrar Janet L. Stracher on March 30, 2009 to a number of Georgia legislators and USG officials.                        March 30, 2009
Dear Georgia Legislators and USG Officials:
We are aware of the proposal to merge USG two-year institutions into the Technical College System of Georgia.

We would like you to know our opinion about this topic, because we believe a merger would result in a negative-long term impact for the State of Georgia. As is often the case, people seek quick fixes during difficult-economic times. This is what our nation recently witnessed with the “Wall Street bailout.” It turned out not to be the solution that everyone hoped would energize an ailing economy. In fact, most Americans are wondering what happened to the bail-out money given to banks and other institutions. 

We fear that our legislature does not fully comprehend the importance of Georgia’s two-year colleges to the health of the state’s economy.  We noticed, by looking at the web pages of USG two-year institutions, that many have a significant number of faculty with doctorates and that many of these faculty members engage in collaborative-research with faculty members at four-year USG schools and elsewhere. In addition, some faculty members at two-year USG institutions are internationally known for their scholarship.  Faculty members at USG two-year institutions have helped set the standard of excellence for which the University System of Georgia is known. 

Student’s in USG two-year colleges benefit from small classes and professors willing to go the extra distance to ensure their success, thereby making the transition of these students and the likelihood of their successful completion of a four-year USG degree both a pleasant and successful experience. Neither we nor our associates in the business or academic communities where we live and across the state believe that a technical college system would satisfactorily meet the needs of many students in need of a USG education in preparation for their career goals. 

If USG two-year colleges are absorbed into the Technical College System of Georgia, then the citizens of this state will witness an intellectual drain because some distinguished faculty will seek employment out of state or leave academia, where they have had an important impact on the success of Georgia’s college students.
Many of our friends sent their children to USG two-year institutions for a variety of reasons, especially for the high-quality education available without having to travel and live some distance from home during their freshman and sophomore years. In rural communities, this saves hard working families a significant amount of money in preparation for their children’s transition to a USG four-year school. Many two-year USG graduates from rural communities throughout Georgia are now grade-school and college teachers, nurses, lawyers, physicians, engineers, and business entrepreneurs with international experience.

We oppose any proposal for the dissolution of USG two-year institutions and their merger into the Technical College System of Georgia

      Sincerely,
      Glenn B. Stracher
          Professor of Geology and Physics;
      Janet L. Stracher, Registrar
      East Georgia College
          Swainsboro, Georgia 30401

Roger Marietta
April 10, 2009 at 6:37pm

this article shows what can happen in a state where technical and community colleges merge:
http://chronicle.com/news/article/6130/kentucky-community-college-board-abol

Trino J. Prados
April 17, 2009 at 11:49am

The Foreign Language Academic Advisory Committee made to two recommendations at its 2009 meeting held on April 6th at Macon State College:

1)  In light of the University System of Georgia’s commitment to globalization of its curriculum, the FLAAC recommends at least six hours of foreign language be required for all curricula where one of the courses is at the 2001-level or above, or its equivalent.

2)  The FLAAC recommends that the University System of Georgia maintain diversity of foreign language offering in spite of the economic challenges.

Alex Olvido
April 21, 2009 at 5:18pm

Why reduce Area D required hours from 10-11 hrs to 7 hrs in the new curriculum.  It seems like a step backward, especially when one considers just how important science and technology is in the 21st century and beyond.  What could possibly be the rationale for the short-sighted reduction in Area D.  Shouldn’t we looking to INCREASE Area D hours?