I would like to know if you would consider Gross Anatomy and Physiology as one of the choices of core courses in Area D for Communication Sciences and Disorders Majors. As a speech-language pathologist, we work with many different individuals who have neuromuscular disorders that affect communication and swallowing. This class will be a wonderful addition to the core courses in Area D.
Zodiac Webster November 5, 2008 at 10:14pm
I would like to see two changes to the USG core. These might actually
be very similar changes in the end.
1) I*d like to see the number of units reduced to make it easier for
secondary education majors to be certified in 4 years and have a
sufficient grounding in their content major.
2) I*d like flexibility for science majors so that they don*t have
to take un-necessary lab science courses just to meet the core
requirements. (Ditto for psychology or history.) If you are going to
take nearly a dozen or more lab classes for your major, do you need two
more that are in different areas than you major to meet the
requirements? It would seem that you can achieve some breadth by taking
one lab science in a different area, (e.g. physics for a chemistry
major) without having to take 2 totally unrelated courses. Or.. to put
it another way, can we remove the stipulation that you can*t use core
classes in the major
Brian Schwartz November 6, 2008 at 5:11pm
I agree with Dr. Webster that science programs should be allowed to stipulate for their majors what they take as Area D lab sciences. For example, we would like to require our biology majors to take introductory biology in Area D, but USG guidelines keep us from doing so.
Reducing the size of the core would mean a significant reduction in the number of students in the USG.
Why? Many students (particularly at non-elite campuses) come with very limited preparation. They are not stupid. They just have not gotten the knowledge and perspectives we would hope for.
If you want a smaller core, there are several things you can do;
(1) have a smaller core for selective campuses and programs.
(2) allow colleges to offer a smaller core to students in their honors programs.
(3) Split up Area F; give half of it to the core, and the other half to the major. Many departments just use Area F as a means of expanding their major, which is legal but does not really fit with the original intent of Area F.
(4) Simplify the core. Before the last reform, the core consisted of 4 areas; the system ruled that it had to be divided into 6. Leaving aside Area F, which did not change, it actually turned 3 areas into 5—which immensely increased the complexity, especially when transfer issues arose. Going back to a simpler schema would reduce errors, redundancies, etc.
(5) Simplify requirements in general. Complexity in majors affects the core—because many majors have their own rules affecting even Areas A through E. Example: Education.
(6) Don’t assume that the core is the problem. Some majors and programs have grown ceaselessly. Example: Education. Secondary Education now has more hours in Education than in substantive courses. Is this good?
Bottom line; the complexity of the core can be reduced. The size can’t, unless we are willing to either (a) educate a far smaller pool of students, or (b) lower our standards and the value of a USG degree.
Hugh Hudson November 18, 2008 at 10:15am
It is extremely easy to look solely at the “needs” of our programs and thus make the claim that we should reduce the Core in order to add additional hours to our majors. That, however, denies the fact that a university education is intended to do more than prepare a student for a career. Students will likely change careers many times; they are citizens but once. The Core is the primary means for carrying out liberal education—preparing the students to be more than an employee, preparing them to be active citizens in a democracy. Many outside academe would scoff at such an idea. We should never. Two years of general education is the least we can do to expose students to knowledge outside their major, exposing them to “unnecessary” knowledge that might well assist them in living a more informed and thus more empowered life. Narrowing knowledge to that which is “necessary” to obtain a license or complete a major is to undermine the very foundation of the university and to turn the university into a trade school. As professors, we owe our students more than that.
Mary Wolfe November 19, 2008 at 3:43pm
The size of the core is fine. If our intent is a liberal arts core—our current core does that well.
Area F cannot be reduced in size. As it is now, we can barely fit in the freshman/sophomore mathematics pre-requisites to the upper level mathematics courses.
If any degrees at some places are using area F for fluff, then their advisory committees need to re-evaluate those areas. But I don’t know of any fluff area F’s in the degrees that my college offers.
I personally think we have a strong liberal arts core. Maybe what we need to look at is updating some courses (required or elective) rather than changing the structure or size or the core itself.
Roberta Lacefield November 19, 2008 at 4:36pm
After reading the other comments, I had a thought. If the purpose of the core is to create an informed and well-rounded student, then subject that is also an Area F subject does not need to be included in Area A-E for a particular student. For example, a science major should not have any core science requirements because that student will get PLENTY of science—the science is not needed for the student to be well-rounded. Similarly, the social science student needs science and other subjects but surely does not need a core social science requirement. So, as a way to cut the requirements, graduate students in 4 years, and still honor the integrity of the “core” idea, could we allow students a “pass” on their subject areas?
Allan Hagerstrand November 19, 2008 at 4:40pm
The core is fine. Leave it alone. Students need to have a good liberal arts background. If the present core is getting in the way of an area of study maybe we should change area F.
Paula Schwanenflugel November 19, 2008 at 8:14pm
(1) The current core is too broad for students at UGA. They simply don’t need it at all or a much simpler one. These students already come to us with pretty strong backgrounds overall. The current core is so broad and intense, it is punishing and destructive to student motivation to learn. It hinders their ability to finish college within four years and it crowds out things such as research opportunities and intensely delving into a major.
(2) Honors students shouldn’t be required to take the core at all, or extremely little of it, particularly at UGA.
David Rock November 20, 2008 at 5:30pm
I would like to see the number of credits reduced by 9 to enable teacher education majors the opportunity to complete a 120 hour degree program. Due to national accreditation and state program approval requirements, most teacher education programs are much greater than 120 hours.
Fred Cohen November 21, 2008 at 1:00pm
I believe there ought to be special consideration for reduced core requirements in professional programs (Bachelor of Music, Bachelor of Fine Arts, etc.). As currently configured, our core requirements consume more of our students’ curriculum than mandated by national accrediting bodies (thus more than most institutions), which puts us at a disadvantage when recruiting students who can choose among colleges beyond USG. Simply coming into compliance with national accrediting standards would be a big step!
Allen Fromherz December 1, 2008 at 11:22am
Who was Homer? What is the meaning of ethnocentrism? What is the historical and political importance of Central Asia? Why was the invention of gunpowder important? What are the basic tenants of Islam? Who was Socrates and why did he die? These, and many more, are topics covered in my core world history courses. As you can see, there is, even in most introductory history courses, already a striking interdisciplinary dimension built into the course. When it comes to both teaching and research, interdisciplinarity happens most convincingly and most coherently within a disciplinary category or framework. It is imperative that the disciplines be allowed to continue to do their work.
Some of our lucky students may have a vague idea about Islam, about gunpowder, and even about Socrates and Central Asia, but most of them have never thought in depth about these topics. Some who have just gotten by with the minimum requirements or specializations at high school, however, have barely even heard, or thought of globally important topics. Should we send out students educated with a Georgia degree who might think Islam is only that which is preached by Osama bin Laden? Who think that Socrates was killed by a dictator, not the Athenian democracy? Who think that Central Asia is meaningless and that gunpowder was just another invention? Should we be held responsible if/when our own democracy condemns a future Socrates? Would we be responsible if/when Osama bin Laden inspired communal violence here at home? Would we be responsible if/when we send our young out to die in Central Asia with no notion of the culture and background of the people whose nation they are supposed to help build?
I would be very wary of calling a student not exposed to a rigorous core curriculum an “educated” member of society, a qualified community leader, or even a competent employee/solider/manager/voter. Keep a robust core curriculum as is.
David Sehat December 1, 2008 at 11:55am
I think the core should remain at its current size in order to integrate two and four year institutions in the system. If it were less than a 2-year curriculum, the place of 2-year colleges becomes awkward and the easy transferability to a 4-year from 2-year institution is lost.
Stephen Taylor December 1, 2008 at 1:37pm
I must disagree with David Rock’s suggestion. To reduce the core requirements for education majors is to emphasize technique at the expense of content area knowledge. Many of us believe that process has already gone too far.
Kristina Watkins Mormino December 1, 2008 at 5:41pm
Shall we make every USG graduate less well-rounded in order to accomodate education majors? As it is, the core is only broad enough if area F includes a diversity of courses rather than primarily courses within the major field narrowly defined. If the core needs to be reduced to accomodate pre-professional majors, we should have two different cores, dependent on whether the student is pursuing a BA or a BS.
The biggest deficit of the core right now is the lack of a clear requirement in either the arts or foreign languages (despite the existence of system-wide requirements in math, English comp., natural sciences, social sciences, and history).
I support the idea that certain courses should be waived in areas A-E if the student has a related major. Let science majors take Chinese instead of an area D lab science. Let Spanish majors skip world history in area E, if it is required in area F. Yes, it’s a more complicated system. But it’s the only way to reduce the core without narrowing the broad knowledge base a USG graduate should have.
Joe Thomas December 2, 2008 at 12:28pm
I don’t understand why people always want to cut general education because they’ve overloaded their major requirements. I’ve never understood the need for SO many different courses in Education (for instance) in teacher training programs. Students I’ve spoken with (and faculty as well) often complain that they’re repetitive. I actually think keeping general education (core) where it is in terms of credits is a good thing because it keeps programs from getting bloated.
Kimberly Shaw December 2, 2008 at 12:46pm
Everyone seems to be doing the popular thing and jumping on education (David Rock’s comments). What doesn’t seem to be acknowledged in these comments is that the coursework that education majors are taking is required by (1) NCATE - the accrediting body for education programs - not negotiable! and (2) the disciplines, which often already see the coursework taken by education majors as insufficient, and therefore treat education majors in the disciplines as second class citizens.
Additionally, education is not the only professional bachelor’s degree that has problems with getting their students through required coursework in 120 hours and still being professionally accredited.
We have options here. We can own up to the fact that professional degrees really ought to be more than 120 hours, and find ways to make that happen for our students. We can creatively find ways to give our students the quality liberal arts education that most of us agree is necessary to educate citizens who will be, to use the buzz word, life-long learners. Or we can keep to the status quo of having lots of core classes, and make it difficult for students in professionally accredited programs (education, fine arts, music, chemistry to name a few….) to complete their degree programs and cast around for someone else to blame.
My vote is for creative thinking on how to usefully provide a slimmer liberal arts core that still serves the goals that we all value.
Rob Jenkins December 2, 2008 at 4:06pm
This debate over the core speaks to the very purpose of a college “education”: is it, in fact, to educate students—that is, to teach them how to think for themselves and give them the intellectual foundation such thinking requires—or is it, after all, merely to train them for professions? Once, students spent years immersing themselves in the classics of literature, history, philosophy, science and mathematics, and only then began their professional training. Our current core curriculum is the only remaining vestige of that system, and during my career it has been constantly under assault. Meanwhile, “critical thinking” has become a popular buzzword in higher education circles, as if it were something we could simply add to the curriculum like salt to a stew. But those of us who teach core courses in the liberal arts have been teaching critical thinking for years. That’s what we do in those courses and the reason they exist; and without them I fear we will produce teachers and managers and even doctors and lawyers who know the literature in their fields but can’t deal with situations the literature never addressed—who can’t, in short, think for themselves, because they lack the foundation for doing so.
Bottom line: we may tweak the core from time to time to address the changing needs of new generations of students, but cutting it drastically would be, in my opinion, a terrible mistake.
Kathleen Lowney December 2, 2008 at 10:45pm
I disagree with Ms. Mormino and Ms. Lacefield that, for example, science majors should not have to take Area D, and so on.
My disagreement concerns the fact that many students do not decide on their major in the first two years—many “try on” several. So students might start with biology (and thus not take Area D), then end up in Nursing and eventually come to my department - Sociology - where if this became the rule, they would have to take Area D now but if they took Area E while a science or nursing major, then courses in Area E would not be needed, etc.
I have majors who are on their 4th or even 8th major. This could complicated very quickly.
Their idea might work in an ideal scenario where students enter with a major in mind and never deviate from it—but that is not typical, at least at my school.
I think this would be a nightmare to administer.
Joe Thomas December 8, 2008 at 3:05pm
Re: NCATE—
My experience has been that Education departments tend to interpret NCATE mandates as specific courses, when actually NCATE is just mandating competencies and coverage. When I’ve pointed this out to Education faculty at my previous institution, they blinked and stammered as though I’d just popped in from another dimension.
Sorry, I don’t mean to pile onto Education because I know many fine, dedicated people teach there, but I too teach in a professional degree program with specific accreditation mandates and have gotten the requirements down to 120 credits.
Dee McKinney December 10, 2008 at 1:45pm
A brief correction: Students wanting to teach secondary education (high school) now must obtain a BA or BS in the given subject area (math, English, history, Spanish, Latin, chemistry, biology, etc.) They certify either through additional courses or through the MAT degree. We teacher educators are quite cognizant of the fact that all K-12 teachers need both strong content and strong pedagogical training.
Rick McGrath December 10, 2008 at 6:03pm
The size of the core is fine. I agree very much with Joe Thomas on the NCATE issues, I heard the same complaints from students. Steve Taylor also makes a great point about content courses in education.
As for science students taking extra science labs in area D, a simple statement in Area F helps: “If already taken in Area D of the core, the student may substitute another course with the approval of the department head.” This gives flexibility to those who entered the major from the start without penalizing those who switched in.
I’ve always viewed area F as preparation for the major where students get their lower division prerequisites beyond the rest of the core. Micro, macro, calculus, statistics, and two language or accounting courses doesn’t seem like fluff to me.
Sarah Pallas December 11, 2008 at 1:45am
It is interesting to me that the states with the most highly regarded K-12 programs have large cores. See MN, IA, NC, MA as examples.
I am of the strong opinion that a quality liberal arts education is a critical component of a democracy. I am a scientist and I benefited greatly from arts and humanities courses in college. I learned to think and to write in those courses. College prepares generalist minds. Technical school and post-graduate school can address further career prep. Teachers in most states have master’s degrees, correct?
Reid Derr December 11, 2008 at 11:15am
In short, I’m with Hugh Hudson (11/7), Hubert van Tuyll (11/18), and Rob Jenkins (12/2)on the importance of the core curriculum. Perhaps it can be simplified, however.
Rosa Williams December 11, 2008 at 4:03pm
I also support the idea of a strong core curriculum - I think it’s vitally important that students have exposure to “foundational” subjects. I really wouldn’t want to cut the core areas of coverage much, if at all. However, I’m also in sympathy with the fact that the current level of core requirements may cut into time for necessary major-related work.
I agree with posters above that one way to save time without sacrificing breadth is to allow students to “credit” their major-related courses toward their core requirements. If you’re taking introductory physics courses for your major, you may not need to take biology for Area D (or vice versa).
Kathleen Lowney expresses a valid concern that waiving, e.g. Area D requirements may become an issue when students change majors. However, if instead of “waiving” anything we allow students to count major-related classes toward those requirements, that may suffice without these additional complications.
For instance, using Kathleen Lowney’s student who starts in biology: the student presumably takes introductory biology courses at the beginning of their major. These are then credited toward Area D. When the student transfers to Nursing, the Area D is already met. Then perhaps some Nursing coursework could be credited to Area E. The student then comes to Sociology with Area D and E coursework already met - which will leave more time for Sociology coursework toward the new major! This seems win-win to me… am I missing something?
William C. Bogner December 15, 2008 at 9:30am
The Undergraduate Program Council of the J. Mack Robinson College of Business (Council) would like to make the following comments with respect to the issues that the USG Core Evaluation Committee (Committee) was asked to consider for their report to Susan Herbst, Executive Vice Chancellor and Chief Academic Officer of the University System of Georgia. The undergraduate Core is of particular interest to the Robinson College due to the large number of transfer students that enter the College each semester. Further, the Council has worked extensively with two-year institutions that matriculate a large number of students to the Robinson Collage to assure that uniform content and standards exist for Area F courses. The Council, therefore, would like to add those comments to those already posted here for consideration by the Committee.
With respect to the request for “Size of Core” comments, the Council supports the current size of the Core in general and Area F in particular. The Council recognizes the difficulties that the current core presents to students. The Robinson College has majors in which it is difficult for students who do not make a disciplined commitment to a major in the first semester of their Sophomore year to finish in four years without attending summer school or taking in excess of 15 hours per semester. However, we think that the benefits that students gain through the current Core’s range of courses and the size of the Area F, Preparation for a Major, are critical to sustaining the quality of the University Systems programs. The Council expresses concern that there may be some motivation to trim the Core in general and Area F in particular to improve various measurements used by external rating and ranking organizations rather than to serve the students’ best interest.
Thank you for consideration of these comments; additional comments are included in the other sections of this blog.
Kathleen Lowney December 18, 2008 at 11:47am
Ms. Rosa Williams—could I query you more about something you wrote in your post above, in part a response to something I had written earlier?
How are Nursing courses social-scientific? Why should Nursing courses meet a social science requirement? Perhaps some might if the course is more about dealing with a patients and understanding cultural differences about health, etc., but that seems to me to be a minority of Nursing courses—most are more scientific and math-related. So why should those count in Area E just because a student has already taken them? I would appreciate if you could elaborate on your thinking here so I could better follow it.
1. The Core is fine. Leave it alone. It does what it is supposed to. It helps us get students up to college speed without resorting to remediation. It provides a solid foundation of basic knowledge that all university students should acquire, regardless of the degree they ultimately pursue. Compared to many states’ general education requirements, Georgia’s is straight-forward and effective. It ain’t broke.
2. Many of you have commented on Education requirements. We will just now begin to see the impact of the content-based undergraduate degree combined with the MAT certification degree - I think it will be an improvement for secondary teachers in particular, and we will see that improvement as we get better prepared students in university, who will be better prepared to get through the core. Give it time to work.
Ed Bagley January 12, 2009 at 12:47pm
My major concern is there seem to be not enough flexibility between areas. For example the total number of hours is about correct. However, I’d suggest a 6 hour minimum in each core group A to E but allow those interested in a particular area to take more courses in that core group. Example, a student interested in Fine Arts or Humanities could take more classes in that field where as a Science or Math major would take more classes in those core groups.
Flexibilty should be a major consideration to help the most students possible instead of forcing students to take 12 hours in a core group where they have little interest or need, where as 6 hours would give them exposure to that core group.
Some states already do this.
dale murphy January 16, 2009 at 2:38pm
If you want effective literature and English teachers at any level, have them pursue English and literature courses. With a Masters in English Education at UGA I later pursued a doctorate at Emory, in liberal arts (not education) and allowed courses in world literature, the the general fare of BRIT-AMERICAN ‘called’ all of literature in our state. But I was not required to use college time for education courses. I cut my teeth at Emory, not in Education Courses at UGA. I know the differences so, Please. Keep the emphasis on the materials, not the method for teaching and you will create young scholars with a mind for the subject they share. Otherwise, you have a bland over-ripe group of ‘educators’ lacking any skill but crowd control.
Joe Thomas January 30, 2009 at 4:00pm
I have a comment on the proposed draft of changes.
From my own experience, making exceptions in gen ed to allow for what is perceived to be accreditation requirements is not necessary.
In most cases the accrediting agencies are mandating competencies and skills, NOT courses. At most they’ll typically say that a certain percentage of credits need to be in a particular area. But traditionally many disciplines (particularly Education in my experience) have interpreted this as a bunch of separate courses. But when you go back and look at the actual requirement, a separate course is not necessary. Many competencies and skills can be put in one course, or incorporated into other courses.
Just my two cents.
Hugh D Hudson Jr January 30, 2009 at 7:01pm
The recommendation regarding the size of the core recognizes that the primary purpose of the University System of Georgia is to create a better educated Georgia, not simply a better trained Georgia. That is, the committee recognizes that a General Education (a liberal education) is central to creating an educated citizenry who can preserve and expand a democratic society. The recommendation also acknowledges that there are particular demands on some programs that necessitate some modification of the present core. This is a reasonable compromise and is indicative of the ability of faculty to reason effectively. I congratulate the committee on its work.
Richard Vengroff January 31, 2009 at 6:31am
I think that the size of the core is less important than assuring that students have a wide variety of options. In some of our programs the core is so defined that it is closer to an extension of the major. Students need opportunities to choose courses from areas and fields they no nothing about or find interesting and exciting. As long as that is assured I am on board.
Deborah Robson January 31, 2009 at 1:15pm
Speaking strictly to the size of the core, I firmly believe that we have a responsibility to deliver a core that prepares our students (particularly those coming from Georgia public schools)to be productive citizens, able to make informed decisions in all areas of their lives, and contribute to society beyond their professional capacities. We should not ingnore these responsibilitis. Regarding the content of the core, a case can readily be made for different options than those currently available, particularly in the area of communication, critical thinking, and writing where many of our students are woefully lacking. But that is another issue, which can be discussed elsewhere.
Fred Cohen February 7, 2009 at 1:34pm
I remain completely convinced that requiring the same size core of professional curricula—such as the Bachelor of Music degree—and liberal arts programs—such as the Bachelor of Arts—reduces our competitiveness in attracting/retaining outstanding students, reduces our ability to deliver the professional curricula and meet national standards, and increases the likelihood that excellent faculty will head elsewhere to teach since they are unable to deliver the quality of instruction they are charged (and very much want) to deliver. Our required core for professional programs is as much as twice the size of a number of top ranked state universities and systems, putting us at a considerable disadvantage in every possible measurement.
Timothy Renick February 8, 2009 at 11:18pm
It seems odd to talk of reducing the size of the common core at a time when our students are asked to prepare more broadly to be citizens in a global society. Many respondents have already well articulated why a substantial and diverse core is necessary pedagogically. I agree with these arguments thoroughly. But I would like to add an important practical consideration for maintaining the current size of the core. Over 30,000 students transferred within the USG system during the past academic year. For these students, a smaller core might seem appealing at first, but would it really be in their academic interests? The smaller the common core, the more opportunity there is for these transfer students to lack the same course preparation, curriculum, and academic background as their new classmates. While I recognize that we might want to allow, in rare programmatic cases, exceptions to the common core, there is a good practical reason for why the core is common and substantial. It gives transfer students a better chance to succeed at their new institutions. Especially as we struggle as a system with issues of retention and graduation, we should not lose sight of this fact. I can imagine changes to strengthen or redirect the core, but I think it would be a hardship to these 30,000 students annually to reduce its size.
David Washburn February 9, 2009 at 10:40am
In an age where access to information is at an unprecedented high, it is increasingly important for students to know how to evaluate, organize, and use information. I believe that the data favor a broad and varied education for producing generalized and relational styles of learning. Reducing the size of the core might streamline the training of students to be employees, but may undercut our basic aim of educating students to be learners and thinkers.
Teresa Hutchins February 16, 2009 at 3:42pm
The size of the core curriculum seems to be too small, in all areas, to me. As someone mentioned above, this is perhaps the consequence of moving from a quarter system to a semester system. When I was an undergraduate, I attended a university that was on the quarter system. I had to take significantly more hours in each area in order to meet the general education requirements. Just as an example, I had three science courses with a lab and three additional science courses that did not have a lab. I wasn’t even a science major! Compare this to our core, where a student is only required to take only one science sequence. That means for non-science majors, a student is only getting, at most, two science courses with a lab. I realize that perhaps some folks struggle to meet Area F requirements in time to graduate in four years. However, I do not think that we should sacrifice the breadth and depth of the core as it currently exists. The core, as it currently exists, barely seems to scratch the surface of how disciplines relate to one another and how, regardless of what your major is, disciplines, such as art, English, math, science, history, and government, will all have an impact on our lives and the lives of our students. Rather than shrinking the size of the core, perhaps we need to think about expanding it, so that students are adequately prepared, with a broad-based education, to face the global society.
Tim Howard February 19, 2009 at 12:14am
If the USG adopts the Feb. 12 draft of “Recommendation Regarding the Size of the Core”, it appears we will eliminate the present policy of requiring students in mathematics programs to take pre-calculus or higher mathematics to fulfill the Quantitative Skills Goal (per recommendations E and F).
I urge that we maintain this requirement requirement for pre-calculus or higher in mathematics (and science) programs in any revision of the general education core.
Kristina Watkins Mormino February 19, 2009 at 12:09pm
I understand the size of the core suggestions coming out of the February meeting, but I do question the following: “G. The courses required n Areas A-E must be available to and count in areas A-E for all students, not just those in the degree program.” If special programs need special exceptions to the core, that is understandable. But this policy would suggest that a single program with particular needs would determine the parameters of the core for all students in all majors for an entire institution. Three or four departments, though each limited to 9 hours of exceptions, would have huge power over determining the choices in the core.
Robby Williams March 16, 2009 at 10:59am
I agree with Tim Howard about continuing to requre Math 1113 or higher in area A for math and science majors.
I am very concerned about the idea of having a minimum number of hours in each area, but allowing the hours in each area to vary by institution. From the most recent transfer report available on the site, almost 17,000 students transferred within the system in 2006-2007. It also seems to me that students transfer in every conceivable direction - the 2006 summary report notes significant numbers of reverse transfers (from a 4-year school to a 2-year school or from a more selective school to a less selective school) and a significant number of “lateral” transfers.
I am concerned that administering transfer students when the number of hours in each area varies by institution will be a logistical nightmare.
Rosa Williams March 16, 2009 at 12:37pm
I agree with Robby Williams that allowing the number of core hours to vary by institution has the potential pitfall of putting some transfer students at a severe disadvantage. There is also the “institution shopping” possibility, which circumvents the whole reason for a core curriculum in the first place.
Another question: the Area D: Natural Science goal states, “At least 7 hours of which 4 must be in a lab”. Does this mean this could be filled by taking, e.g., one lecture course and one lecture-lab course? Or does it mean 4 hours must be spent in lab itself?
Comments
Ruth Renee Hannibal
November 5, 2008 at 7:42pm
I would like to know if you would consider Gross Anatomy and Physiology as one of the choices of core courses in Area D for Communication Sciences and Disorders Majors. As a speech-language pathologist, we work with many different individuals who have neuromuscular disorders that affect communication and swallowing. This class will be a wonderful addition to the core courses in Area D.
Zodiac Webster
November 5, 2008 at 10:14pm
I would like to see two changes to the USG core. These might actually
be very similar changes in the end.
1) I*d like to see the number of units reduced to make it easier for
secondary education majors to be certified in 4 years and have a
sufficient grounding in their content major.
2) I*d like flexibility for science majors so that they don*t have
to take un-necessary lab science courses just to meet the core
requirements. (Ditto for psychology or history.) If you are going to
take nearly a dozen or more lab classes for your major, do you need two
more that are in different areas than you major to meet the
requirements? It would seem that you can achieve some breadth by taking
one lab science in a different area, (e.g. physics for a chemistry
major) without having to take 2 totally unrelated courses. Or.. to put
it another way, can we remove the stipulation that you can*t use core
classes in the major
Brian Schwartz
November 6, 2008 at 5:11pm
I agree with Dr. Webster that science programs should be allowed to stipulate for their majors what they take as Area D lab sciences. For example, we would like to require our biology majors to take introductory biology in Area D, but USG guidelines keep us from doing so.
Hubert van Tuyll
November 7, 2008 at 2:08pm
Reducing the size of the core would mean a significant reduction in the number of students in the USG.
Why? Many students (particularly at non-elite campuses) come with very limited preparation. They are not stupid. They just have not gotten the knowledge and perspectives we would hope for.
If you want a smaller core, there are several things you can do;
(1) have a smaller core for selective campuses and programs.
(2) allow colleges to offer a smaller core to students in their honors programs.
(3) Split up Area F; give half of it to the core, and the other half to the major. Many departments just use Area F as a means of expanding their major, which is legal but does not really fit with the original intent of Area F.
(4) Simplify the core. Before the last reform, the core consisted of 4 areas; the system ruled that it had to be divided into 6. Leaving aside Area F, which did not change, it actually turned 3 areas into 5—which immensely increased the complexity, especially when transfer issues arose. Going back to a simpler schema would reduce errors, redundancies, etc.
(5) Simplify requirements in general. Complexity in majors affects the core—because many majors have their own rules affecting even Areas A through E. Example: Education.
(6) Don’t assume that the core is the problem. Some majors and programs have grown ceaselessly. Example: Education. Secondary Education now has more hours in Education than in substantive courses. Is this good?
Bottom line; the complexity of the core can be reduced. The size can’t, unless we are willing to either (a) educate a far smaller pool of students, or (b) lower our standards and the value of a USG degree.
Hugh Hudson
November 18, 2008 at 10:15am
It is extremely easy to look solely at the “needs” of our programs and thus make the claim that we should reduce the Core in order to add additional hours to our majors. That, however, denies the fact that a university education is intended to do more than prepare a student for a career. Students will likely change careers many times; they are citizens but once. The Core is the primary means for carrying out liberal education—preparing the students to be more than an employee, preparing them to be active citizens in a democracy. Many outside academe would scoff at such an idea. We should never. Two years of general education is the least we can do to expose students to knowledge outside their major, exposing them to “unnecessary” knowledge that might well assist them in living a more informed and thus more empowered life. Narrowing knowledge to that which is “necessary” to obtain a license or complete a major is to undermine the very foundation of the university and to turn the university into a trade school. As professors, we owe our students more than that.
Mary Wolfe
November 19, 2008 at 3:43pm
The size of the core is fine. If our intent is a liberal arts core—our current core does that well.
Area F cannot be reduced in size. As it is now, we can barely fit in the freshman/sophomore mathematics pre-requisites to the upper level mathematics courses.
If any degrees at some places are using area F for fluff, then their advisory committees need to re-evaluate those areas. But I don’t know of any fluff area F’s in the degrees that my college offers.
I personally think we have a strong liberal arts core. Maybe what we need to look at is updating some courses (required or elective) rather than changing the structure or size or the core itself.
Roberta Lacefield
November 19, 2008 at 4:36pm
After reading the other comments, I had a thought. If the purpose of the core is to create an informed and well-rounded student, then subject that is also an Area F subject does not need to be included in Area A-E for a particular student. For example, a science major should not have any core science requirements because that student will get PLENTY of science—the science is not needed for the student to be well-rounded. Similarly, the social science student needs science and other subjects but surely does not need a core social science requirement. So, as a way to cut the requirements, graduate students in 4 years, and still honor the integrity of the “core” idea, could we allow students a “pass” on their subject areas?
Allan Hagerstrand
November 19, 2008 at 4:40pm
The core is fine. Leave it alone. Students need to have a good liberal arts background. If the present core is getting in the way of an area of study maybe we should change area F.
Paula Schwanenflugel
November 19, 2008 at 8:14pm
(1) The current core is too broad for students at UGA. They simply don’t need it at all or a much simpler one. These students already come to us with pretty strong backgrounds overall. The current core is so broad and intense, it is punishing and destructive to student motivation to learn. It hinders their ability to finish college within four years and it crowds out things such as research opportunities and intensely delving into a major.
(2) Honors students shouldn’t be required to take the core at all, or extremely little of it, particularly at UGA.
David Rock
November 20, 2008 at 5:30pm
I would like to see the number of credits reduced by 9 to enable teacher education majors the opportunity to complete a 120 hour degree program. Due to national accreditation and state program approval requirements, most teacher education programs are much greater than 120 hours.
Fred Cohen
November 21, 2008 at 1:00pm
I believe there ought to be special consideration for reduced core requirements in professional programs (Bachelor of Music, Bachelor of Fine Arts, etc.). As currently configured, our core requirements consume more of our students’ curriculum than mandated by national accrediting bodies (thus more than most institutions), which puts us at a disadvantage when recruiting students who can choose among colleges beyond USG. Simply coming into compliance with national accrediting standards would be a big step!
Allen Fromherz
December 1, 2008 at 11:22am
Who was Homer? What is the meaning of ethnocentrism? What is the historical and political importance of Central Asia? Why was the invention of gunpowder important? What are the basic tenants of Islam? Who was Socrates and why did he die? These, and many more, are topics covered in my core world history courses. As you can see, there is, even in most introductory history courses, already a striking interdisciplinary dimension built into the course. When it comes to both teaching and research, interdisciplinarity happens most convincingly and most coherently within a disciplinary category or framework. It is imperative that the disciplines be allowed to continue to do their work.
Some of our lucky students may have a vague idea about Islam, about gunpowder, and even about Socrates and Central Asia, but most of them have never thought in depth about these topics. Some who have just gotten by with the minimum requirements or specializations at high school, however, have barely even heard, or thought of globally important topics. Should we send out students educated with a Georgia degree who might think Islam is only that which is preached by Osama bin Laden? Who think that Socrates was killed by a dictator, not the Athenian democracy? Who think that Central Asia is meaningless and that gunpowder was just another invention? Should we be held responsible if/when our own democracy condemns a future Socrates? Would we be responsible if/when Osama bin Laden inspired communal violence here at home? Would we be responsible if/when we send our young out to die in Central Asia with no notion of the culture and background of the people whose nation they are supposed to help build?
I would be very wary of calling a student not exposed to a rigorous core curriculum an “educated” member of society, a qualified community leader, or even a competent employee/solider/manager/voter. Keep a robust core curriculum as is.
David Sehat
December 1, 2008 at 11:55am
I think the core should remain at its current size in order to integrate two and four year institutions in the system. If it were less than a 2-year curriculum, the place of 2-year colleges becomes awkward and the easy transferability to a 4-year from 2-year institution is lost.
Stephen Taylor
December 1, 2008 at 1:37pm
I must disagree with David Rock’s suggestion. To reduce the core requirements for education majors is to emphasize technique at the expense of content area knowledge. Many of us believe that process has already gone too far.
Kristina Watkins Mormino
December 1, 2008 at 5:41pm
Shall we make every USG graduate less well-rounded in order to accomodate education majors? As it is, the core is only broad enough if area F includes a diversity of courses rather than primarily courses within the major field narrowly defined. If the core needs to be reduced to accomodate pre-professional majors, we should have two different cores, dependent on whether the student is pursuing a BA or a BS.
The biggest deficit of the core right now is the lack of a clear requirement in either the arts or foreign languages (despite the existence of system-wide requirements in math, English comp., natural sciences, social sciences, and history).
I support the idea that certain courses should be waived in areas A-E if the student has a related major. Let science majors take Chinese instead of an area D lab science. Let Spanish majors skip world history in area E, if it is required in area F. Yes, it’s a more complicated system. But it’s the only way to reduce the core without narrowing the broad knowledge base a USG graduate should have.
Joe Thomas
December 2, 2008 at 12:28pm
I don’t understand why people always want to cut general education because they’ve overloaded their major requirements. I’ve never understood the need for SO many different courses in Education (for instance) in teacher training programs. Students I’ve spoken with (and faculty as well) often complain that they’re repetitive. I actually think keeping general education (core) where it is in terms of credits is a good thing because it keeps programs from getting bloated.
Kimberly Shaw
December 2, 2008 at 12:46pm
Everyone seems to be doing the popular thing and jumping on education (David Rock’s comments). What doesn’t seem to be acknowledged in these comments is that the coursework that education majors are taking is required by (1) NCATE - the accrediting body for education programs - not negotiable! and (2) the disciplines, which often already see the coursework taken by education majors as insufficient, and therefore treat education majors in the disciplines as second class citizens.
Additionally, education is not the only professional bachelor’s degree that has problems with getting their students through required coursework in 120 hours and still being professionally accredited.
We have options here. We can own up to the fact that professional degrees really ought to be more than 120 hours, and find ways to make that happen for our students. We can creatively find ways to give our students the quality liberal arts education that most of us agree is necessary to educate citizens who will be, to use the buzz word, life-long learners. Or we can keep to the status quo of having lots of core classes, and make it difficult for students in professionally accredited programs (education, fine arts, music, chemistry to name a few….) to complete their degree programs and cast around for someone else to blame.
My vote is for creative thinking on how to usefully provide a slimmer liberal arts core that still serves the goals that we all value.
Rob Jenkins
December 2, 2008 at 4:06pm
This debate over the core speaks to the very purpose of a college “education”: is it, in fact, to educate students—that is, to teach them how to think for themselves and give them the intellectual foundation such thinking requires—or is it, after all, merely to train them for professions? Once, students spent years immersing themselves in the classics of literature, history, philosophy, science and mathematics, and only then began their professional training. Our current core curriculum is the only remaining vestige of that system, and during my career it has been constantly under assault. Meanwhile, “critical thinking” has become a popular buzzword in higher education circles, as if it were something we could simply add to the curriculum like salt to a stew. But those of us who teach core courses in the liberal arts have been teaching critical thinking for years. That’s what we do in those courses and the reason they exist; and without them I fear we will produce teachers and managers and even doctors and lawyers who know the literature in their fields but can’t deal with situations the literature never addressed—who can’t, in short, think for themselves, because they lack the foundation for doing so.
Bottom line: we may tweak the core from time to time to address the changing needs of new generations of students, but cutting it drastically would be, in my opinion, a terrible mistake.
Kathleen Lowney
December 2, 2008 at 10:45pm
I disagree with Ms. Mormino and Ms. Lacefield that, for example, science majors should not have to take Area D, and so on.
My disagreement concerns the fact that many students do not decide on their major in the first two years—many “try on” several. So students might start with biology (and thus not take Area D), then end up in Nursing and eventually come to my department - Sociology - where if this became the rule, they would have to take Area D now but if they took Area E while a science or nursing major, then courses in Area E would not be needed, etc.
I have majors who are on their 4th or even 8th major. This could complicated very quickly.
Their idea might work in an ideal scenario where students enter with a major in mind and never deviate from it—but that is not typical, at least at my school.
I think this would be a nightmare to administer.
Joe Thomas
December 8, 2008 at 3:05pm
Re: NCATE—
My experience has been that Education departments tend to interpret NCATE mandates as specific courses, when actually NCATE is just mandating competencies and coverage. When I’ve pointed this out to Education faculty at my previous institution, they blinked and stammered as though I’d just popped in from another dimension.
Sorry, I don’t mean to pile onto Education because I know many fine, dedicated people teach there, but I too teach in a professional degree program with specific accreditation mandates and have gotten the requirements down to 120 credits.
Dee McKinney
December 10, 2008 at 1:45pm
A brief correction: Students wanting to teach secondary education (high school) now must obtain a BA or BS in the given subject area (math, English, history, Spanish, Latin, chemistry, biology, etc.) They certify either through additional courses or through the MAT degree. We teacher educators are quite cognizant of the fact that all K-12 teachers need both strong content and strong pedagogical training.
Rick McGrath
December 10, 2008 at 6:03pm
The size of the core is fine. I agree very much with Joe Thomas on the NCATE issues, I heard the same complaints from students. Steve Taylor also makes a great point about content courses in education.
As for science students taking extra science labs in area D, a simple statement in Area F helps: “If already taken in Area D of the core, the student may substitute another course with the approval of the department head.” This gives flexibility to those who entered the major from the start without penalizing those who switched in.
I’ve always viewed area F as preparation for the major where students get their lower division prerequisites beyond the rest of the core. Micro, macro, calculus, statistics, and two language or accounting courses doesn’t seem like fluff to me.
Sarah Pallas
December 11, 2008 at 1:45am
It is interesting to me that the states with the most highly regarded K-12 programs have large cores. See MN, IA, NC, MA as examples.
I am of the strong opinion that a quality liberal arts education is a critical component of a democracy. I am a scientist and I benefited greatly from arts and humanities courses in college. I learned to think and to write in those courses. College prepares generalist minds. Technical school and post-graduate school can address further career prep. Teachers in most states have master’s degrees, correct?
Reid Derr
December 11, 2008 at 11:15am
In short, I’m with Hugh Hudson (11/7), Hubert van Tuyll (11/18), and Rob Jenkins (12/2)on the importance of the core curriculum. Perhaps it can be simplified, however.
Rosa Williams
December 11, 2008 at 4:03pm
I also support the idea of a strong core curriculum - I think it’s vitally important that students have exposure to “foundational” subjects. I really wouldn’t want to cut the core areas of coverage much, if at all. However, I’m also in sympathy with the fact that the current level of core requirements may cut into time for necessary major-related work.
I agree with posters above that one way to save time without sacrificing breadth is to allow students to “credit” their major-related courses toward their core requirements. If you’re taking introductory physics courses for your major, you may not need to take biology for Area D (or vice versa).
Kathleen Lowney expresses a valid concern that waiving, e.g. Area D requirements may become an issue when students change majors. However, if instead of “waiving” anything we allow students to count major-related classes toward those requirements, that may suffice without these additional complications.
For instance, using Kathleen Lowney’s student who starts in biology: the student presumably takes introductory biology courses at the beginning of their major. These are then credited toward Area D. When the student transfers to Nursing, the Area D is already met. Then perhaps some Nursing coursework could be credited to Area E. The student then comes to Sociology with Area D and E coursework already met - which will leave more time for Sociology coursework toward the new major! This seems win-win to me… am I missing something?
William C. Bogner
December 15, 2008 at 9:30am
The Undergraduate Program Council of the J. Mack Robinson College of Business (Council) would like to make the following comments with respect to the issues that the USG Core Evaluation Committee (Committee) was asked to consider for their report to Susan Herbst, Executive Vice Chancellor and Chief Academic Officer of the University System of Georgia. The undergraduate Core is of particular interest to the Robinson College due to the large number of transfer students that enter the College each semester. Further, the Council has worked extensively with two-year institutions that matriculate a large number of students to the Robinson Collage to assure that uniform content and standards exist for Area F courses. The Council, therefore, would like to add those comments to those already posted here for consideration by the Committee.
With respect to the request for “Size of Core” comments, the Council supports the current size of the Core in general and Area F in particular. The Council recognizes the difficulties that the current core presents to students. The Robinson College has majors in which it is difficult for students who do not make a disciplined commitment to a major in the first semester of their Sophomore year to finish in four years without attending summer school or taking in excess of 15 hours per semester. However, we think that the benefits that students gain through the current Core’s range of courses and the size of the Area F, Preparation for a Major, are critical to sustaining the quality of the University Systems programs. The Council expresses concern that there may be some motivation to trim the Core in general and Area F in particular to improve various measurements used by external rating and ranking organizations rather than to serve the students’ best interest.
Thank you for consideration of these comments; additional comments are included in the other sections of this blog.
Kathleen Lowney
December 18, 2008 at 11:47am
Ms. Rosa Williams—could I query you more about something you wrote in your post above, in part a response to something I had written earlier?
How are Nursing courses social-scientific? Why should Nursing courses meet a social science requirement? Perhaps some might if the course is more about dealing with a patients and understanding cultural differences about health, etc., but that seems to me to be a minority of Nursing courses—most are more scientific and math-related. So why should those count in Area E just because a student has already taken them? I would appreciate if you could elaborate on your thinking here so I could better follow it.
Thank you!
Bill Allison
December 18, 2008 at 11:48am
1. The Core is fine. Leave it alone. It does what it is supposed to. It helps us get students up to college speed without resorting to remediation. It provides a solid foundation of basic knowledge that all university students should acquire, regardless of the degree they ultimately pursue. Compared to many states’ general education requirements, Georgia’s is straight-forward and effective. It ain’t broke.
2. Many of you have commented on Education requirements. We will just now begin to see the impact of the content-based undergraduate degree combined with the MAT certification degree - I think it will be an improvement for secondary teachers in particular, and we will see that improvement as we get better prepared students in university, who will be better prepared to get through the core. Give it time to work.
Ed Bagley
January 12, 2009 at 12:47pm
My major concern is there seem to be not enough flexibility between areas. For example the total number of hours is about correct. However, I’d suggest a 6 hour minimum in each core group A to E but allow those interested in a particular area to take more courses in that core group. Example, a student interested in Fine Arts or Humanities could take more classes in that field where as a Science or Math major would take more classes in those core groups.
Flexibilty should be a major consideration to help the most students possible instead of forcing students to take 12 hours in a core group where they have little interest or need, where as 6 hours would give them exposure to that core group.
Some states already do this.
dale murphy
January 16, 2009 at 2:38pm
If you want effective literature and English teachers at any level, have them pursue English and literature courses. With a Masters in English Education at UGA I later pursued a doctorate at Emory, in liberal arts (not education) and allowed courses in world literature, the the general fare of BRIT-AMERICAN ‘called’ all of literature in our state. But I was not required to use college time for education courses. I cut my teeth at Emory, not in Education Courses at UGA. I know the differences so, Please. Keep the emphasis on the materials, not the method for teaching and you will create young scholars with a mind for the subject they share. Otherwise, you have a bland over-ripe group of ‘educators’ lacking any skill but crowd control.
Joe Thomas
January 30, 2009 at 4:00pm
I have a comment on the proposed draft of changes.
From my own experience, making exceptions in gen ed to allow for what is perceived to be accreditation requirements is not necessary.
In most cases the accrediting agencies are mandating competencies and skills, NOT courses. At most they’ll typically say that a certain percentage of credits need to be in a particular area. But traditionally many disciplines (particularly Education in my experience) have interpreted this as a bunch of separate courses. But when you go back and look at the actual requirement, a separate course is not necessary. Many competencies and skills can be put in one course, or incorporated into other courses.
Just my two cents.
Hugh D Hudson Jr
January 30, 2009 at 7:01pm
The recommendation regarding the size of the core recognizes that the primary purpose of the University System of Georgia is to create a better educated Georgia, not simply a better trained Georgia. That is, the committee recognizes that a General Education (a liberal education) is central to creating an educated citizenry who can preserve and expand a democratic society. The recommendation also acknowledges that there are particular demands on some programs that necessitate some modification of the present core. This is a reasonable compromise and is indicative of the ability of faculty to reason effectively. I congratulate the committee on its work.
Richard Vengroff
January 31, 2009 at 6:31am
I think that the size of the core is less important than assuring that students have a wide variety of options. In some of our programs the core is so defined that it is closer to an extension of the major. Students need opportunities to choose courses from areas and fields they no nothing about or find interesting and exciting. As long as that is assured I am on board.
Deborah Robson
January 31, 2009 at 1:15pm
Speaking strictly to the size of the core, I firmly believe that we have a responsibility to deliver a core that prepares our students (particularly those coming from Georgia public schools)to be productive citizens, able to make informed decisions in all areas of their lives, and contribute to society beyond their professional capacities. We should not ingnore these responsibilitis. Regarding the content of the core, a case can readily be made for different options than those currently available, particularly in the area of communication, critical thinking, and writing where many of our students are woefully lacking. But that is another issue, which can be discussed elsewhere.
Fred Cohen
February 7, 2009 at 1:34pm
I remain completely convinced that requiring the same size core of professional curricula—such as the Bachelor of Music degree—and liberal arts programs—such as the Bachelor of Arts—reduces our competitiveness in attracting/retaining outstanding students, reduces our ability to deliver the professional curricula and meet national standards, and increases the likelihood that excellent faculty will head elsewhere to teach since they are unable to deliver the quality of instruction they are charged (and very much want) to deliver. Our required core for professional programs is as much as twice the size of a number of top ranked state universities and systems, putting us at a considerable disadvantage in every possible measurement.
Timothy Renick
February 8, 2009 at 11:18pm
It seems odd to talk of reducing the size of the common core at a time when our students are asked to prepare more broadly to be citizens in a global society. Many respondents have already well articulated why a substantial and diverse core is necessary pedagogically. I agree with these arguments thoroughly. But I would like to add an important practical consideration for maintaining the current size of the core. Over 30,000 students transferred within the USG system during the past academic year. For these students, a smaller core might seem appealing at first, but would it really be in their academic interests? The smaller the common core, the more opportunity there is for these transfer students to lack the same course preparation, curriculum, and academic background as their new classmates. While I recognize that we might want to allow, in rare programmatic cases, exceptions to the common core, there is a good practical reason for why the core is common and substantial. It gives transfer students a better chance to succeed at their new institutions. Especially as we struggle as a system with issues of retention and graduation, we should not lose sight of this fact. I can imagine changes to strengthen or redirect the core, but I think it would be a hardship to these 30,000 students annually to reduce its size.
David Washburn
February 9, 2009 at 10:40am
In an age where access to information is at an unprecedented high, it is increasingly important for students to know how to evaluate, organize, and use information. I believe that the data favor a broad and varied education for producing generalized and relational styles of learning. Reducing the size of the core might streamline the training of students to be employees, but may undercut our basic aim of educating students to be learners and thinkers.
Teresa Hutchins
February 16, 2009 at 3:42pm
The size of the core curriculum seems to be too small, in all areas, to me. As someone mentioned above, this is perhaps the consequence of moving from a quarter system to a semester system. When I was an undergraduate, I attended a university that was on the quarter system. I had to take significantly more hours in each area in order to meet the general education requirements. Just as an example, I had three science courses with a lab and three additional science courses that did not have a lab. I wasn’t even a science major! Compare this to our core, where a student is only required to take only one science sequence. That means for non-science majors, a student is only getting, at most, two science courses with a lab. I realize that perhaps some folks struggle to meet Area F requirements in time to graduate in four years. However, I do not think that we should sacrifice the breadth and depth of the core as it currently exists. The core, as it currently exists, barely seems to scratch the surface of how disciplines relate to one another and how, regardless of what your major is, disciplines, such as art, English, math, science, history, and government, will all have an impact on our lives and the lives of our students. Rather than shrinking the size of the core, perhaps we need to think about expanding it, so that students are adequately prepared, with a broad-based education, to face the global society.
Tim Howard
February 19, 2009 at 12:14am
If the USG adopts the Feb. 12 draft of “Recommendation Regarding the Size of the Core”, it appears we will eliminate the present policy of requiring students in mathematics programs to take pre-calculus or higher mathematics to fulfill the Quantitative Skills Goal (per recommendations E and F).
I urge that we maintain this requirement requirement for pre-calculus or higher in mathematics (and science) programs in any revision of the general education core.
Kristina Watkins Mormino
February 19, 2009 at 12:09pm
I understand the size of the core suggestions coming out of the February meeting, but I do question the following: “G. The courses required n Areas A-E must be available to and count in areas A-E for all students, not just those in the degree program.” If special programs need special exceptions to the core, that is understandable. But this policy would suggest that a single program with particular needs would determine the parameters of the core for all students in all majors for an entire institution. Three or four departments, though each limited to 9 hours of exceptions, would have huge power over determining the choices in the core.
Robby Williams
March 16, 2009 at 10:59am
I agree with Tim Howard about continuing to requre Math 1113 or higher in area A for math and science majors.
I am very concerned about the idea of having a minimum number of hours in each area, but allowing the hours in each area to vary by institution. From the most recent transfer report available on the site, almost 17,000 students transferred within the system in 2006-2007. It also seems to me that students transfer in every conceivable direction - the 2006 summary report notes significant numbers of reverse transfers (from a 4-year school to a 2-year school or from a more selective school to a less selective school) and a significant number of “lateral” transfers.
I am concerned that administering transfer students when the number of hours in each area varies by institution will be a logistical nightmare.
Rosa Williams
March 16, 2009 at 12:37pm
I agree with Robby Williams that allowing the number of core hours to vary by institution has the potential pitfall of putting some transfer students at a severe disadvantage. There is also the “institution shopping” possibility, which circumvents the whole reason for a core curriculum in the first place.
Another question: the Area D: Natural Science goal states, “At least 7 hours of which 4 must be in a lab”. Does this mean this could be filled by taking, e.g., one lecture course and one lecture-lab course? Or does it mean 4 hours must be spent in lab itself?