How might transfer opportunities be enhanced though Core Curriculum revision?
Comments
Robby Dittmann November 5, 2008 at 8:00pm
Transfer opportunities could be enhanced by creating a single, statewide core, so that transfer credit is never an issue.
Donna Gosnell November 6, 2008 at 10:01am
Having a uniform core seemed to be achieved when we switched to semesters in the 90’s. However, with UGA doing a new core on their own this year, easy transfer has been lost. As an example, our pre-pharmacy students now need an additional 9 credit hours in World languages and culture to be accepted at UGA.
We should stick to a unified state core.
Brian Schwartz November 6, 2008 at 5:17pm
I agree that the “common core” should be common to all institutions in the USG. How was UGA allowed to create their own core? How might other institutions go about getting permission to do the same thing?
I notice that students completing the core at Columbus State will have no trouble transferring to UGA, but students completing the core at UGA will not have met our core requirements. Will this inhibit students from transferring to our institution, or do we have to accept the core they completed at UGA, even though they don’t meet our requirements?
Joe Thomas November 7, 2008 at 3:59pm
The problem with the “core” as interpreted at my institution is that it has far too many specific course requirements. All students MUST take World Lit, for instance. This creates massive problems in transferring, because there are not good equivalents for some of the courses at all institutions. It’s also heavily biased towards social science, where students take 3 to 4 times as many courses as in the arts.
We need more of a simple distribution requirement rather than a core curriculum, where any number of courses in various disciplines can be used to satisfy general education.
Christopher Wozny November 20, 2008 at 8:47pm
I have read all comments posted thus far for all topics. I think a significant issue that has been missed by some (and understandably so) is the importance of the two-year institutions and state colleges when discussion the Core.
Robert Maxwell brought up discipline-specific outcomes in the context of a major under Topic I: Learning Outcomes, and Ed Green asked, “Shouldn’t we be focusing on the final product i.e. the outcomes for students receiving a bachelor’s degree?” later on under that same topic.
But the Fall 2009 USG statistics show that 46% of freshman and sophomores are enrolled in our Community and State Colleges: 68,500 students out of 148,800 total. For us, the Associate’s Degree is the terminal degree! Our two primary degrees are Associate of Arts and Associate of Science, and 42 hours out of 60 are the Core.
(Since our state colleges offer a limited number of four-year degrees, I hope they don’t mind me including them with our CC’s.)
So if an Associate’s degree is to have meaning—and for many of our students, walking across the stage to the loud cheers of family and friends is a *really* big deal, as well as the end of their higher education—then it must be 60 hours of semester credit according to SACS and the other accrediting associations. And if an Associate’s degree is to have meaning within the University System, then it MUST be possible to complete the AA or AS at a two-year school or state college and finish a Bachelor’s degree in two more years (preferably) at an appropriate academic institution.
Sorry, four-years, but it’s not fair for you to focus only on your home-grown students and assume that all juniors entering your program will have taken a carefully selected set of courses in their first two years. It becomes even worse for your transfers if required courses are uniquely offered by you. I can empathize with your frustration, but as Hugh Hudson stated so elegantly, we are a university system. And once agin, the numbers show that transfer students are a significant portion of your clientele.
Edward H Conrad December 1, 2008 at 2:39pm
Although core courses in Science and Math may have the same topics covered, they are by no means the same in terms of rigor. Students at GT commonly take Physics I and II courses at local colleges so they do not have to pass more rigorous versions of the same course at GT. In other words, irregardless of assessment, students vote with their feet as to which institutions offer easier or harder versions of the same core courses. While we cannot change transferability from institution A to B, we can demand that students enrolled at B should not be allowed to take courses at A for transfer credit.
Another problem is online versions of a course. I do not think they should be transferable with in class versions unless (by common exam) they can be proven equal.
After reading all of these entries, which allow us to look at this five-point star of an issue from every angle, it takes me back to the beginning and Robby Dittmann’s comment. I concur that a single, statewide core would benefit many of our state’s college students.
Christopher Wozny argues that, because associate degrees are such a large part of the state’s student population, transfer credit problems requires a uniform core curriculum. This argument does not hold water. Education is not a numbers game. All state institutions are not the same. A four year school’s reputation determines a graduate’s job possibilities and salary. This demands that higher standards must be kept in place at these institutions. Saying that all students are equal and can thus take the same level of course rigor is the argument that has run our high school science and math curricula into the ground. The fact is that there are differences in student’s abilities and interests. Students who’s abilities and hard work get them into the State’s more prominent institution should not be penalized by diluting the core curricula at their institution so that anyone from a two year school can transfer credits. There is no way to guarantee equivalency in these course short of testing.
I am sorry but assuming that all students and institutions are the same is naive and jeopardizes high standards for Georgia’s premier institutions. I can guarantee that supposedly identical math and science courses in some two year institutions are not the same as many of our four year institutions. The proof is that in our four year institutions many students go to their neighboring two year institutions to pass core course that they cannot pass at their four year school. Is it fair that a student you toughs it out at the four year school watches while some of his/her peers breezes through and transfers an “equivalent” summer course at two year school?
William C. Bogner December 15, 2008 at 9:32am
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 “Transfer” comments, the Council thinks that to the extent the Core loses its uniformity, the opportunities for smooth and efficient transfer will be reduced for both students and institutions.
Thank you for consideration of these comments; additional comments are included in the other sections of this blog.
Bryan Davis January 12, 2009 at 11:46am
I may be a little dim, but I fail to see how not describing learning outcomes will make transferability easier. How will one evaluate the core at another institution?
Bill Bailey January 13, 2009 at 11:03am
I was troubled by the statement that core courses would be transferable UNLESS the student changes majors. I would suspect that a large number of students (2 yr transfers aside) transfer BECAUSE they want to change majors.
I strongly believe that all schools in the system should have unfettered transferability. For a model, look at the North Carolina System where all community colleges and universities have the same core curriculum, and common course numbers. Think of the hours saved in evaluating transcripts.
Regarding Edward Conrad’s contention that allowing easy transferability for students from 2 year schools will dilute his schools reputation; the gateway should be admission, not transfer credit. I more readily expect success from a 2 yr student who earned A’s in the core courses than a student at one of our top universities who earned C’s. Is there a difference between UGA and a two year school, certainly. But if a transfer student meets entry requirements and is accepted, then their classes should be as well. One could even make the argument that given their emphasis on teaching, 2 year schools might do a better job on the core curriculum than research universities where teaching is sometimes and afterthougth to research and lower level courses are often taught by graduate students.
Harriet Jardine January 14, 2009 at 4:56pm
In terms of transferability, it seems that Area B and Area F are the biggest stumbling blocks. In advising students I, of course, urge them to complete an area before transferring, but…
Edward Halper January 14, 2009 at 7:44pm
The idea that students would take the bulk of the core in one institution and then transfer to another institution to complete a degree may be fiscally sound, but I do not think it is educationally sound. A course may have the same number and content at two institutions, but it is not likely to be taught in the same way. For example, whereas most introductory philosophy courses at the University of Georgia are taught with original philosophical works, my impression is that the same course at many other institutions in the system is taught with philosophy textbooks. As a result, students who take introductory courses at another institution and transfer to UGA move into upper level courses in philosophy at a serious disadvantage. It is unfair to them, and it is equally unfair to ask them to retake introductory courses. Why should all the institutions in the system be offering the same basic core curriculum? The beauty of a system with multiple institutions is that each can develop programs to serve a particular segment of the student population.
True, there are basic skills that all college graduates should have, but these are skills that do not come from one or two courses in an area. Rather, they come with a concentrated study over a period of time. Learning to read a text, find its argument, and assess that argument is critical for philosophy and all the humanities, but one best acquires this skill by reading texts in many different courses. It does not work well to start with one course that talks about these skills and then transfer to another that assumes a degree of proficiency with them.
Let me say that I am not at all against granting transfer credit, and some students have good reasons to transfer from institution to another. However, I think there should be some recognition that courses at one institution are not going to be same as those at another nor should they be and that, consequently ts into courses for which they are prepared.transfer is intrinsically difficult for students and should be discouraged.
I don’t want to see the problem handled by denying credit, but by getting students into courses for which they are prepared.
In reading through the various posts it seems that some speak with experience that transfer students they have observed from other institutions did not meet their standards. Which might mean that we need more explicit standards for courses so students can transfer seamlessly. A standard core with explicit standards should insure that students can transfer effectively.
I read that 4-year faculty look down on me since I TEACH at a 2-year college (however long we may exist,) transferability may be moot if the 2-year colleges blend with the technical colleges and transferability becomes nill.
I look back on my education at two fine universities and feel my education (Ph.D from the University of Pittsburgh) is just as good as those of you who now teach at 4-year institutions. I feel if I emulate the education I recieved from my degree granting institutions that my students are getting the same as I and it should be sufficient as an introductory course at the 4-year USG schools. So a geology course at Georgia Perimeter College is equivalent to one at UGA, GA Southern, GSU, etc unless these USG schools feel that the University of Pittsburgh or Bowling Green State University did not prepare me well enough to teach geology at a USG school.
Something we need to consider is why does a student start at one institution and transfer to another after completing 10, 30, 60, etc. college credits? Could it be that the 2-year college is less expensive and the student does not have the funds needed to attend the 4-year institution for 4 years? Could it be that the student did not apply themself in high school so did not earn the Hope Scholarship, but after working for a few years realizes that they now want a college education so they begin at a 2-year college get 10, 30, 60 credit hours under their belt and then transfer to the 4-year college or university to earn a B.S. or beyond? Should we not be looking into why students transfer and find a way for the courses taken at the institution they begin at to tranfer?
Let’s make the core curriculum transferable. Let’s make the core inclusive not exclusive. Let’s come together and determine what a student graduating from an institution of higher education in the state of Georgia needs to solve the problems of the 21st century. Let’s prescribe what that student needs and teach it at all 35 institutions of the University System of Georgia.
Roger Marietta February 9, 2009 at 9:14am
I think that the draft report “Tough Choices for Tough Times” does not adequately anticipate Murphy’s Law of unintended consequences toward transfer of credits from combined techical and community colleges.
Karen B. McCarron February 9, 2009 at 11:56am
How many undergraduate students really major in philosophy?
No one talks about the quality of teaching the students at 4-year colleges get from graduate students in the introductory classes in many subjects. Why must anyone assume that a graduate student is a better teacher than a PhD who teaches at a two-year college?
It is the transfer student’s responsibility to prepare for the courses (s)he will take at the 4-year college. Most of us who teach at 2-year colleges make every effort to teach with as much rigor as the 4-year college instructors. After all, we have gone through graduate school ourselves, and we know a little about the subjects we teach. If our transfer students find they are not prepared for upper-level course work, they must do the work to catch up.
There are many reasons a professor teaches at a 2-year college rather than a 4-year college. It is unjust to assume that it is because we are inferior in any way to our colleagues at 4-year colleges.
Raymond Chambers February 19, 2009 at 6:23pm
I am troubled by the arrogance reflected in a few comments (and “irregardless” is not a word!). Students may perceive certain teachers as being “easier” or “harder” but their perceptions frequently are wrong. Two-year colleges are student oriented and others may be more research oriented. That two-year colleges may be more successful in bringing students up to four year standards than four year college instructors may be due to culture, language, and interest. There is nothing “easier” or “harder” involved; just an understanding of student learning styles and backgrounds.
Now, as to the central issue of the Core. The University of Georgia must be forced to accept what sending institutions (two year or otherwise) say fits in the appropriate areas of the core. If two-year institutions/instructors are to be expected to respect the senior institutions, then they must respect their colleagues - occasionally who they taught - at the sending institutions.
Tom Manning March 24, 2009 at 12:21pm
To echo Raymond Chambers perspective from a different angle. Doesn’t UGa have the highest percentage of grad assistants teaching core classes (least experienced instructors) - as well as the largest lecture sections (poorest teacher/student ratio’s)? Neither of these practices should be the starting point for a new core or a break away core that can directly or indirectly impact us all.
While there is the sense of “best” and “lesser” that permeates this argument, the vast majority of college grads, from RN’s to teachers, that are employed in the state did NOT graduate from a research oriented school.
Sarah Pallas May 8, 2009 at 4:38pm
This new version of the core document contains some very strange things. For example, cross-area transfer is bizarre. If institution B requires 12 hrs of science and institution A doesn’t, then B has to give science credit for art courses?! How does e.g. physics transfer to fine arts or vice versa?
Comments
Robby Dittmann
November 5, 2008 at 8:00pm
Transfer opportunities could be enhanced by creating a single, statewide core, so that transfer credit is never an issue.
Donna Gosnell
November 6, 2008 at 10:01am
Having a uniform core seemed to be achieved when we switched to semesters in the 90’s. However, with UGA doing a new core on their own this year, easy transfer has been lost. As an example, our pre-pharmacy students now need an additional 9 credit hours in World languages and culture to be accepted at UGA.
We should stick to a unified state core.
Brian Schwartz
November 6, 2008 at 5:17pm
I agree that the “common core” should be common to all institutions in the USG. How was UGA allowed to create their own core? How might other institutions go about getting permission to do the same thing?
I notice that students completing the core at Columbus State will have no trouble transferring to UGA, but students completing the core at UGA will not have met our core requirements. Will this inhibit students from transferring to our institution, or do we have to accept the core they completed at UGA, even though they don’t meet our requirements?
Joe Thomas
November 7, 2008 at 3:59pm
The problem with the “core” as interpreted at my institution is that it has far too many specific course requirements. All students MUST take World Lit, for instance. This creates massive problems in transferring, because there are not good equivalents for some of the courses at all institutions. It’s also heavily biased towards social science, where students take 3 to 4 times as many courses as in the arts.
We need more of a simple distribution requirement rather than a core curriculum, where any number of courses in various disciplines can be used to satisfy general education.
Christopher Wozny
November 20, 2008 at 8:47pm
I have read all comments posted thus far for all topics. I think a significant issue that has been missed by some (and understandably so) is the importance of the two-year institutions and state colleges when discussion the Core.
Robert Maxwell brought up discipline-specific outcomes in the context of a major under Topic I: Learning Outcomes, and Ed Green asked, “Shouldn’t we be focusing on the final product i.e. the outcomes for students receiving a bachelor’s degree?” later on under that same topic.
But the Fall 2009 USG statistics show that 46% of freshman and sophomores are enrolled in our Community and State Colleges: 68,500 students out of 148,800 total. For us, the Associate’s Degree is the terminal degree! Our two primary degrees are Associate of Arts and Associate of Science, and 42 hours out of 60 are the Core.
(Since our state colleges offer a limited number of four-year degrees, I hope they don’t mind me including them with our CC’s.)
So if an Associate’s degree is to have meaning—and for many of our students, walking across the stage to the loud cheers of family and friends is a *really* big deal, as well as the end of their higher education—then it must be 60 hours of semester credit according to SACS and the other accrediting associations. And if an Associate’s degree is to have meaning within the University System, then it MUST be possible to complete the AA or AS at a two-year school or state college and finish a Bachelor’s degree in two more years (preferably) at an appropriate academic institution.
Sorry, four-years, but it’s not fair for you to focus only on your home-grown students and assume that all juniors entering your program will have taken a carefully selected set of courses in their first two years. It becomes even worse for your transfers if required courses are uniquely offered by you. I can empathize with your frustration, but as Hugh Hudson stated so elegantly, we are a university system. And once agin, the numbers show that transfer students are a significant portion of your clientele.
Edward H Conrad
December 1, 2008 at 2:39pm
Although core courses in Science and Math may have the same topics covered, they are by no means the same in terms of rigor. Students at GT commonly take Physics I and II courses at local colleges so they do not have to pass more rigorous versions of the same course at GT. In other words, irregardless of assessment, students vote with their feet as to which institutions offer easier or harder versions of the same core courses. While we cannot change transferability from institution A to B, we can demand that students enrolled at B should not be allowed to take courses at A for transfer credit.
Another problem is online versions of a course. I do not think they should be transferable with in class versions unless (by common exam) they can be proven equal.
Linda Hughes
December 2, 2008 at 3:09pm
After reading all of these entries, which allow us to look at this five-point star of an issue from every angle, it takes me back to the beginning and Robby Dittmann’s comment. I concur that a single, statewide core would benefit many of our state’s college students.
Edward H Conrad
December 4, 2008 at 8:43pm
Christopher Wozny argues that, because associate degrees are such a large part of the state’s student population, transfer credit problems requires a uniform core curriculum. This argument does not hold water. Education is not a numbers game. All state institutions are not the same. A four year school’s reputation determines a graduate’s job possibilities and salary. This demands that higher standards must be kept in place at these institutions. Saying that all students are equal and can thus take the same level of course rigor is the argument that has run our high school science and math curricula into the ground. The fact is that there are differences in student’s abilities and interests. Students who’s abilities and hard work get them into the State’s more prominent institution should not be penalized by diluting the core curricula at their institution so that anyone from a two year school can transfer credits. There is no way to guarantee equivalency in these course short of testing.
I am sorry but assuming that all students and institutions are the same is naive and jeopardizes high standards for Georgia’s premier institutions. I can guarantee that supposedly identical math and science courses in some two year institutions are not the same as many of our four year institutions. The proof is that in our four year institutions many students go to their neighboring two year institutions to pass core course that they cannot pass at their four year school. Is it fair that a student you toughs it out at the four year school watches while some of his/her peers breezes through and transfers an “equivalent” summer course at two year school?
William C. Bogner
December 15, 2008 at 9:32am
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 “Transfer” comments, the Council thinks that to the extent the Core loses its uniformity, the opportunities for smooth and efficient transfer will be reduced for both students and institutions.
Thank you for consideration of these comments; additional comments are included in the other sections of this blog.
Bryan Davis
January 12, 2009 at 11:46am
I may be a little dim, but I fail to see how not describing learning outcomes will make transferability easier. How will one evaluate the core at another institution?
Bill Bailey
January 13, 2009 at 11:03am
I was troubled by the statement that core courses would be transferable UNLESS the student changes majors. I would suspect that a large number of students (2 yr transfers aside) transfer BECAUSE they want to change majors.
I strongly believe that all schools in the system should have unfettered transferability. For a model, look at the North Carolina System where all community colleges and universities have the same core curriculum, and common course numbers. Think of the hours saved in evaluating transcripts.
Regarding Edward Conrad’s contention that allowing easy transferability for students from 2 year schools will dilute his schools reputation; the gateway should be admission, not transfer credit. I more readily expect success from a 2 yr student who earned A’s in the core courses than a student at one of our top universities who earned C’s. Is there a difference between UGA and a two year school, certainly. But if a transfer student meets entry requirements and is accepted, then their classes should be as well. One could even make the argument that given their emphasis on teaching, 2 year schools might do a better job on the core curriculum than research universities where teaching is sometimes and afterthougth to research and lower level courses are often taught by graduate students.
Harriet Jardine
January 14, 2009 at 4:56pm
In terms of transferability, it seems that Area B and Area F are the biggest stumbling blocks. In advising students I, of course, urge them to complete an area before transferring, but…
Edward Halper
January 14, 2009 at 7:44pm
The idea that students would take the bulk of the core in one institution and then transfer to another institution to complete a degree may be fiscally sound, but I do not think it is educationally sound. A course may have the same number and content at two institutions, but it is not likely to be taught in the same way. For example, whereas most introductory philosophy courses at the University of Georgia are taught with original philosophical works, my impression is that the same course at many other institutions in the system is taught with philosophy textbooks. As a result, students who take introductory courses at another institution and transfer to UGA move into upper level courses in philosophy at a serious disadvantage. It is unfair to them, and it is equally unfair to ask them to retake introductory courses. Why should all the institutions in the system be offering the same basic core curriculum? The beauty of a system with multiple institutions is that each can develop programs to serve a particular segment of the student population.
True, there are basic skills that all college graduates should have, but these are skills that do not come from one or two courses in an area. Rather, they come with a concentrated study over a period of time. Learning to read a text, find its argument, and assess that argument is critical for philosophy and all the humanities, but one best acquires this skill by reading texts in many different courses. It does not work well to start with one course that talks about these skills and then transfer to another that assumes a degree of proficiency with them.
Let me say that I am not at all against granting transfer credit, and some students have good reasons to transfer from institution to another. However, I think there should be some recognition that courses at one institution are not going to be same as those at another nor should they be and that, consequently ts into courses for which they are prepared.transfer is intrinsically difficult for students and should be discouraged.
I don’t want to see the problem handled by denying credit, but by getting students into courses for which they are prepared.
John Anderson
January 19, 2009 at 2:52pm
In reading through the various posts it seems that some speak with experience that transfer students they have observed from other institutions did not meet their standards. Which might mean that we need more explicit standards for courses so students can transfer seamlessly. A standard core with explicit standards should insure that students can transfer effectively.
I read that 4-year faculty look down on me since I TEACH at a 2-year college (however long we may exist,) transferability may be moot if the 2-year colleges blend with the technical colleges and transferability becomes nill.
I look back on my education at two fine universities and feel my education (Ph.D from the University of Pittsburgh) is just as good as those of you who now teach at 4-year institutions. I feel if I emulate the education I recieved from my degree granting institutions that my students are getting the same as I and it should be sufficient as an introductory course at the 4-year USG schools. So a geology course at Georgia Perimeter College is equivalent to one at UGA, GA Southern, GSU, etc unless these USG schools feel that the University of Pittsburgh or Bowling Green State University did not prepare me well enough to teach geology at a USG school.
Something we need to consider is why does a student start at one institution and transfer to another after completing 10, 30, 60, etc. college credits? Could it be that the 2-year college is less expensive and the student does not have the funds needed to attend the 4-year institution for 4 years? Could it be that the student did not apply themself in high school so did not earn the Hope Scholarship, but after working for a few years realizes that they now want a college education so they begin at a 2-year college get 10, 30, 60 credit hours under their belt and then transfer to the 4-year college or university to earn a B.S. or beyond? Should we not be looking into why students transfer and find a way for the courses taken at the institution they begin at to tranfer?
Let’s make the core curriculum transferable. Let’s make the core inclusive not exclusive. Let’s come together and determine what a student graduating from an institution of higher education in the state of Georgia needs to solve the problems of the 21st century. Let’s prescribe what that student needs and teach it at all 35 institutions of the University System of Georgia.
Roger Marietta
February 9, 2009 at 9:14am
I think that the draft report “Tough Choices for Tough Times” does not adequately anticipate Murphy’s Law of unintended consequences toward transfer of credits from combined techical and community colleges.
Karen B. McCarron
February 9, 2009 at 11:56am
How many undergraduate students really major in philosophy?
No one talks about the quality of teaching the students at 4-year colleges get from graduate students in the introductory classes in many subjects. Why must anyone assume that a graduate student is a better teacher than a PhD who teaches at a two-year college?
It is the transfer student’s responsibility to prepare for the courses (s)he will take at the 4-year college. Most of us who teach at 2-year colleges make every effort to teach with as much rigor as the 4-year college instructors. After all, we have gone through graduate school ourselves, and we know a little about the subjects we teach. If our transfer students find they are not prepared for upper-level course work, they must do the work to catch up.
There are many reasons a professor teaches at a 2-year college rather than a 4-year college. It is unjust to assume that it is because we are inferior in any way to our colleagues at 4-year colleges.
Raymond Chambers
February 19, 2009 at 6:23pm
I am troubled by the arrogance reflected in a few comments (and “irregardless” is not a word!). Students may perceive certain teachers as being “easier” or “harder” but their perceptions frequently are wrong. Two-year colleges are student oriented and others may be more research oriented. That two-year colleges may be more successful in bringing students up to four year standards than four year college instructors may be due to culture, language, and interest. There is nothing “easier” or “harder” involved; just an understanding of student learning styles and backgrounds.
Now, as to the central issue of the Core. The University of Georgia must be forced to accept what sending institutions (two year or otherwise) say fits in the appropriate areas of the core. If two-year institutions/instructors are to be expected to respect the senior institutions, then they must respect their colleagues - occasionally who they taught - at the sending institutions.
Tom Manning
March 24, 2009 at 12:21pm
To echo Raymond Chambers perspective from a different angle. Doesn’t UGa have the highest percentage of grad assistants teaching core classes (least experienced instructors) - as well as the largest lecture sections (poorest teacher/student ratio’s)? Neither of these practices should be the starting point for a new core or a break away core that can directly or indirectly impact us all.
While there is the sense of “best” and “lesser” that permeates this argument, the vast majority of college grads, from RN’s to teachers, that are employed in the state did NOT graduate from a research oriented school.
Sarah Pallas
May 8, 2009 at 4:38pm
This new version of the core document contains some very strange things. For example, cross-area transfer is bizarre. If institution B requires 12 hrs of science and institution A doesn’t, then B has to give science credit for art courses?! How does e.g. physics transfer to fine arts or vice versa?