Edited: 3/12/2009 1:09 PM | |  | |
| | Comment on Revised GEP Model Proposal
Please use this space to offer comments and suggestions regarding the Revised GEP Model Proposal. To begin, click the "Reply" button to the right. (If you don't see this button, click the "Sign In" icon in the upper right corner of the screen.) You may respond directly to this message or to any posted below. | |  /_layouts/15/images/person.gif" alt="Picture Placeholder: Summers, Greg" /> | | Summers, Greg |
|
Please use this space to offer comments and suggestions regarding the Revised GEP Model Proposal. To begin, click the "Reply" button to the right. (If you don't see this button, click the "Sign In" icon in the upper right corner of the screen.) You may respond directly to this message or to any posted below. | | | | | 24 | 3/12/2009 1:08 PM | 3/12/2009 1:09 PM | | | Posted: 3/13/2009 12:01 PM | | | |
| | I have a simple question. What's going to happen to my WE, EL environmental journalism course under this plan? Will I have to decide whether I offer it only as WE, or only as EL? Will students have to decide, or be able to decide, which requirement they meet? Has the committee dealt with the implications of existing silver bullets and their continued presence in a new system? | | | /_layouts/15/images/person.gif" alt="Picture Placeholder: Hill, Steve" /> | | Hill, Steve |
| I have a simple question. What's going to happen to my WE, EL environmental journalism course under this plan? Will I have to decide whether I offer it only as WE, or only as EL? Will students have to decide, or be able to decide, which requirement they meet? Has the committee dealt with the implications of existing silver bullets and their continued presence in a new system? | | | | | 0 | 3/13/2009 12:01 PM | 3/13/2009 12:01 PM | | | Edited: 3/13/2009 8:05 PM | | | |
| |
Steve,
Your question is actually a bit complicated. Given that we are building the new GEP from the top down--from mission and program outcomes toward specific courses, we don't yet know what the new GEP requirements will be, let alone whether some of these requirements will resemble either WE or EL. Such things will be a part of our Step 4 proposal. As a result, your question is impossible to answer at the moment.
Our silver bullet proposal at present is more philosophical than particular. It does not refer to specific courses.
Greg
| | | /_layouts/15/images/person.gif" alt="Picture Placeholder: Summers, Greg" /> | | Summers, Greg |
|
Steve,
Your question is actually a bit complicated. Given that we are building the new GEP from the top down--from mission and program outcomes toward specific courses, we don't yet know what the new GEP requirements will be, let alone whether some of these requirements will resemble either WE or EL. Such things will be a part of our Step 4 proposal. As a result, your question is impossible to answer at the moment.
Our silver bullet proposal at present is more philosophical than particular. It does not refer to specific courses.
Greg
| Steve,
Your question is actually a bit complicated. Given that we are building the new GEP from the top down--from mission and program outcomes toward specific courses, we don't yet know what the new GEP requirements will be, let alone whether some of these requirements will resemble either WE or EL. Such things will be a part of our Step 4 proposal. As a result, your question is impossible to answer at the moment.
Our silver bullet proposal at present is basically philosophical rather than referring to specific courses.
Greg | | | | 0 | 3/13/2009 8:03 PM | 3/13/2009 8:05 PM | | | Posted: 3/15/2009 3:56 PM | | | |
| | | | | /_layouts/15/images/person.gif" alt="Picture Placeholder: Hill, Steve" /> | | Hill, Steve |
| | | | | | 0 | 3/15/2009 3:56 PM | 3/15/2009 3:56 PM | | | Posted: 3/17/2009 11:10 AM | | | |
| | I noticed that the "silver bullet" portion of the reccomendation remains. I strongly disagree with this. Unless the new requirements are VERY narrowly defined.
In principle I disagree with the concept altogether because I think it reinforces the "silo" and "department" mentality rather than encouraging cross-disciplinary work. Our future leaders are going to need to be able to work across discipline and skill sets---not just work on one skill set or within one relm at a time. The World is becoming more complex, and the problems of the future are going to need integrated solutions. Suggesting a particular course only enhances a students knowledge and skill set in a particular area is demeaning. For examle students can, and do, acquire a lot of content knowledge about a wide range of topics as they participate in WE courses.
The stated purpose of the GEP requirements is to have students be well-rounded. It therefore seems to me to make sense to attempt to have these GEP requirements tied to particular disciplines. That seems to be the purpose of having multiple courses that "count" for a particular GEP--the distribution model you propose. If more than one course can meet the requirements of a particular GEP why shouldn't it be allowable to create a course that integrates various GEP requirements into one offering? If I am allowed to combine history and writing (e.g., a discipline created WE GEP course) why can't I combine foreign language and writing (two possible GEP requirements)? | | | /_layouts/15/images/person.gif" alt="Picture Placeholder: Carlton, Ginny" /> | | Carlton, Ginny |
| I noticed that the "silver bullet" portion of the reccomendation remains. I strongly disagree with this. Unless the new requirements are VERY narrowly defined.
In principle I disagree with the concept altogether because I think it reinforces the "silo" and "department" mentality rather than encouraging cross-disciplinary work. Our future leaders are going to need to be able to work across discipline and skill sets---not just work on one skill set or within one relm at a time. The World is becoming more complex, and the problems of the future are going to need integrated solutions. Suggesting a particular course only enhances a students knowledge and skill set in a particular area is demeaning. For examle students can, and do, acquire a lot of content knowledge about a wide range of topics as they participate in WE courses.
The stated purpose of the GEP requirements is to have students be well-rounded. It therefore seems to me to make sense to attempt to have these GEP requirements tied to particular disciplines. That seems to be the purpose of having multiple courses that "count" for a particular GEP--the distribution model you propose. If more than one course can meet the requirements of a particular GEP why shouldn't it be allowable to create a course that integrates various GEP requirements into one offering? If I am allowed to combine history and writing (e.g., a discipline created WE GEP course) why can't I combine foreign language and writing (two possible GEP requirements)?
From: Summers, Greg
Posted: Thursday, March 12, 2009 1:09 PM
Subject: Comment on Revised GEP Model Proposal
Please use this space to offer comments and suggestions regarding the Revised GEP Model Proposal. To begin, click the "Reply" button to the right. (If you don't see this button, click the "Sign In" icon in the upper right corner of the screen.) You may respond directly to this message or to any posted below. | I noticed that the "silver bullet" portion of the reccomendation remains. I strongly disagree with this. Unless the new requirements are VERY narrowly defined.
In principle I disagree with the concept altogether because I think it reinforces the "silo" and "department" mentality rather than encouraging cross-disciplinary work. Our future leaders are going to need to be able to work across discipline and skill sets---not just work on one skill set or within one relm at a time. The World is becoming more complex, and the problems of the future are going to need integrated solutions. Suggesting a particular course only enhances a students knowledge and skill set in a particular area is demeaning. For examle students can, and do, acquire a lot of content knowledge about a wide range of topics as they participate in WE courses.
The stated purpose of the GEP requirements is to have students be well-rounded. It therefore seems to me to make sense to attempt to have these GEP requirements tied to particular disciplines. That seems to be the purpose of having multiple courses that "count" for a particular GEP--the distribution model you propose. If more than one course can meet the requirements of a particular GEP why shouldn't it be allowable to create a course that integrates various GEP requirements into one offering? If I am allowed to combine history and writing (e.g., a discipline created WE GEP course) why can't I combine foreign language and writing (two possible GEP requirements)? | | | | 0 | 3/17/2009 11:10 AM | 3/17/2009 11:10 AM | | | Posted: 3/20/2009 6:52 PM | | | |
| |
Williams, Michael Retired, English
|
| My own opinion is that the committee's proposal, while seeming to offer simplicity in place of the former (alleged) complexity, now threatens to open the possibility that each department / functioning unit will define what a BA or a BS means independently and add to the pre-requirements of their major. This will defeat one of the declared purposes of the GDR revision (clarity, simplicity, etc. Try explaining to a transfer student, well, yes, a BA means this if you are a Philosophy major, but this if you are in Sociology, and that if you are in History). I admit this is not necessarily the case, but it is one possible scenario.
It seems to me to be far more sensible to follow the model of, say, Eau Claire, and have:
1) The university-wide Gen Ed requirements, simple and assessable--the cat's whiskers required by the HLC.
3) Requirements in the Major.
Where's 2)? that's a middle ground between university-wide General Education and the requirements of a Major field.
So 2) is where you decide what courses are added to the Gen Ed requirements in order to distinguish between a BA and a BS. These credits are not considered Gen Ed requirements, but degree requirements. These distinguishing credits should be decided at the university level, as are the Gen Ed requirements.
|
Williams, Michael Retired, English
| | /_layouts/15/images/person.gif" alt="Picture Placeholder: Williams, Michael" /> | | Williams, Michael |
| My own opinion is that the committee's proposal, while seeming to offer simplicity in place of the former (alleged) complexity, now threatens to open the possibility that each department / functioning unit will define what a BA or a BS means independently and add to the pre-requirements of their major. This will defeat one of the declared purposes of the GDR revision (clarity, simplicity, etc. Try explaining to a transfer student, well, yes, a BA means this if you are a Philosophy major, but this if you are in Sociology, and that if you are in History). I admit this is not necessarily the case, but it is one possible scenario.
It seems to me to be far more sensible to follow the model of, say, Eau Claire, and have:
1) The university-wide Gen Ed requirements, simple and assessable--the cat's whiskers required by the HLC.
3) Requirements in the Major.
Where's 2)? that's a middle ground between university-wide General Education and the requirements of a Major field.
So 2) is where you decide what courses are added to the Gen Ed requirements in order to distinguish between a BA and a BS. These credits are not considered Gen Ed requirements, but degree requirements. These distinguishing credits should be decided at the university level, as are the Gen Ed requirements.
From: Summers, Greg
Posted: Thursday, March 12, 2009 1:09 PM
Subject: Comment on Revised GEP Model Proposal
Please use this space to offer comments and suggestions regarding the Revised GEP Model Proposal. To begin, click the "Reply" button to the right. (If you don't see this button, click the "Sign In" icon in the upper right corner of the screen.) You may respond directly to this message or to any posted below. | My own opinion is that the committee's proposal, while seeming to offer simplicity in place of the former (alleged) complexity, now threatens to open the possibility that each department / functioning unit will define what a BA or a BS means independently and add to the pre-requirements of their major. This will defeat one of the declared purposes of the GDR revision (clarity, simplicity, etc. Try explaining to a transfer student, well, yes, a BA means this if you are a Philosophy major, but this if you are in Sociology, and that if you are in History). I admit this is not necessarily the case, but it is one possible scenario.
It seems to me to be far more sensible to follow the model of, say, Eau Claire, and have:
1) The university-wide Gen Ed requirements, simple and assessable--the cat's whiskers required by the HLC.
3) Requirements in the Major.
Where's 2)? that's a middle ground between university-wide General Education and the requirements of a Major field.
So 2) is where you decide what courses are added to the Gen Ed requirements in order to distinguish between a BA and a BS. These credits are not considered Gen Ed requirements, but degree requirements. These distinguishing credits should be decided at the university level, as are the Gen Ed requirements.
| | | | 0 | 3/20/2009 6:52 PM | 3/20/2009 6:52 PM | | | Posted: 3/23/2009 10:51 AM | | | |
| |
Nandrea, Lorri Professor, English
|
| I would like to point out that many universities add additional layers of General Education Requirements at the level of the college or school (see, for example, Madison and Eau Claire). If one compares the total number of credits in our old GDR program to the *university-wide* GDR requirements at other universities, our GDR program does appear larger than average. However, if one considers the total number of Gen Ed credits actually required of students at those universities for graduation, including the extra layers of college and/or degree requirments, it is clear that our existing GDR program is *not* unusually large. Indeed, if we reduce our existing GDR requirements without adding such an extra layer, some of our degree programs (especially our low to mid credit majors) will become _significantly less_ structured and directed than those at other well respected universities. In some cases, the reduction will leave students with a very large number of elective credits. If the GDR is reduced to 45 credits, an English major, for example, would go from having a minimum of 16 electives to having a minimum of 37 electives (the actual numbers will be larger in both cases). It seems quite difficult to foresee the results of leaving such a large percentage of the Bachelor's degree program entirely in the hands of the individual students.
I would urge the committee to consider the possible advantages of allowing each _college_ to decide whether or not to add a layer of requirements that exceed those of the university as a whole (as at Madison and Eau Claire). While such extra requirements might occasionally inconvenience students switching from one college to another, they would not impede a change of majors within a college. Without replacing or undermining the goals and structure of the university-wide Gen Ed requirements, this plan would allow each college to have some flexibility in determining the most suitable learning objectives and credit load for General Education programs in their particular fields. This approach would seem to carry much less potential for chaos and confusion than leaving all of these decisions to individual departments.
Thanks again for all your work,
Lorri Nandrea |
Nandrea, Lorri Professor, English
| | /_layouts/15/images/person.gif" alt="Picture Placeholder: Nandrea, Lorri" /> | | Nandrea, Lorri |
| I would like to point out that many universities add additional layers of General Education Requirements at the level of the college or school (see, for example, Madison and Eau Claire). If one compares the total number of credits in our old GDR program to the *university-wide* GDR requirements at other universities, our GDR program does appear larger than average. However, if one considers the total number of Gen Ed credits actually required of students at those universities for graduation, including the extra layers of college and/or degree requirments, it is clear that our existing GDR program is *not* unusually large. Indeed, if we reduce our existing GDR requirements without adding such an extra layer, some of our degree programs (especially our low to mid credit majors) will become _significantly less_ structured and directed than those at other well respected universities. In some cases, the reduction will leave students with a very large number of elective credits. If the GDR is reduced to 45 credits, an English major, for example, would go from having a minimum of 16 electives to having a minimum of 37 electives (the actual numbers will be larger in both cases). It seems quite difficult to foresee the results of leaving such a large percentage of the Bachelor's degree program entirely in the hands of the individual students.
I would urge the committee to consider the possible advantages of allowing each _college_ to decide whether or not to add a layer of requirements that exceed those of the university as a whole (as at Madison and Eau Claire). While such extra requirements might occasionally inconvenience students switching from one college to another, they would not impede a change of majors within a college. Without replacing or undermining the goals and structure of the university-wide Gen Ed requirements, this plan would allow each college to have some flexibility in determining the most suitable learning objectives and credit load for General Education programs in their particular fields. This approach would seem to carry much less potential for chaos and confusion than leaving all of these decisions to individual departments.
Thanks again for all your work,
Lorri Nandrea | | | | | 0 | 3/23/2009 10:51 AM | 3/23/2009 10:51 AM | | | Posted: 3/23/2009 7:28 PM | | | |
| |
With respect to the GEP proposal, I offer the following thoughts.
I am generally fine with the proposed path, but do have some concern about the potential for placing a fair number of credits that are currently in the GDR requirements into the major requirements as a result of university-wide GEP requirements. If those GEP requirements include subjects beyond those presently in the GDRs the potential is there to increase the number of credits toward a given major if those “transferred to the major” credits are to remain part of the major – and that is where my concern in that regard lies.
I also understand that in the new system, any given course can be used to fulfill just one GEP requirement. I am generally okay with that notion. However, I do believe that some courses should be able satisfy more than one GEP requirement area based on how the student wishes to apply it. In other words, course A can be used to satisfy wither GEP area 1 or GEP area 2, but not both.
The reasoning behind that suggestion is as follows. First, by making any given course fit just one GEP area, the campus would subliminally be telling students that each course is a silo in and of itself and that there is no such thing as cross disciplinary courses in the GEP. On a campus that strives for integration and demonstrating the interconnectedness of subject matter – I question whether that notion carries through to the proposed model.
Second, if courses can be used in more than one GEP area (again with the restriction that any one course can only be applied to one GEP area based on the students choice) a student might be able to identify some subject area(s) he/she likes and then can string some GEP courses that meet the GEP requirements but still be “themed” to a subject area of interest to the student.
I am also philosophically opposed to the use of the phrase “silver bullet” as applying that phrase like it often is in the GDR program implies that a student is “getting away with something” or that it is a “shortcut”. I don’t think such terms should ever be applied to the GDR or the GEP – it sends a very bad message to students – that the GDR or the GEP is something just to get out of the way…
In summary then, I generally agree that a single course should be used toward a single GEP area, however, I do not believe that any given course should have its use, or GEP area label if you will, restricted to one and only one GEP area. Cross-disciplinary courses should and do exist – why would we want to give that up and more importantly, say to our students, particularly our lower division students, that such things do not exist? | | | /_layouts/15/images/person.gif" alt="Picture Placeholder: Doruska, Paul" /> | | Doruska, Paul |
|
With respect to the GEP proposal, I offer the following thoughts.
I am generally fine with the proposed path, but do have some concern about the potential for placing a fair number of credits that are currently in the GDR requirements into the major requirements as a result of university-wide GEP requirements. If those GEP requirements include subjects beyond those presently in the GDRs the potential is there to increase the number of credits toward a given major if those “transferred to the major” credits are to remain part of the major – and that is where my concern in that regard lies.
I also understand that in the new system, any given course can be used to fulfill just one GEP requirement. I am generally okay with that notion. However, I do believe that some courses should be able satisfy more than one GEP requirement area based on how the student wishes to apply it. In other words, course A can be used to satisfy wither GEP area 1 or GEP area 2, but not both.
The reasoning behind that suggestion is as follows. First, by making any given course fit just one GEP area, the campus would subliminally be telling students that each course is a silo in and of itself and that there is no such thing as cross disciplinary courses in the GEP. On a campus that strives for integration and demonstrating the interconnectedness of subject matter – I question whether that notion carries through to the proposed model.
Second, if courses can be used in more than one GEP area (again with the restriction that any one course can only be applied to one GEP area based on the students choice) a student might be able to identify some subject area(s) he/she likes and then can string some GEP courses that meet the GEP requirements but still be “themed” to a subject area of interest to the student.
I am also philosophically opposed to the use of the phrase “silver bullet” as applying that phrase like it often is in the GDR program implies that a student is “getting away with something” or that it is a “shortcut”. I don’t think such terms should ever be applied to the GDR or the GEP – it sends a very bad message to students – that the GDR or the GEP is something just to get out of the way…
In summary then, I generally agree that a single course should be used toward a single GEP area, however, I do not believe that any given course should have its use, or GEP area label if you will, restricted to one and only one GEP area. Cross-disciplinary courses should and do exist – why would we want to give that up and more importantly, say to our students, particularly our lower division students, that such things do not exist?
--
Paul Doruska
Associate Professor of Forestry
College of Natural Resources
Univ. of Wisconsin-Stevens Point
800 Reserve Street
Stevens Point, WI USA 54481
vox: 715-346-3988
fax: 715-346-4554
email: pdoruska@uwsp.edu
From: Summers, Greg Posted: Thursday, March 12, 2009 1:09 PM Subject: Comment on Revised GEP Model Proposal
Please use this space to offer comments and suggestions regarding the Revised GEP Model Proposal. To begin, click the "Reply" button to the right. (If you don't see this button, click the "Sign In" icon in the upper right corner of the screen.) You may respond directly to this message or to any posted below. |
With respect to the GEP proposal, I offer the following thoughts.
I am generally fine with the proposed path, but do have some concern about the potential for placing a fair number of credits that are currently in the GDR requirements into the major requirements as a result of university-wide GEP requirements. If those GEP requirements include subjects beyond those presently in the GDRs the potential is there to increase the number of credits toward a given major if those “transferred to the major” credits are to remain part of the major – and that is where my concern in that regard lies.
I also understand that in the new system, any given course can be used to fulfill just one GEP requirement. I am generally okay with that notion. However, I do believe that some courses should be able satisfy more than one GEP requirement area based on how the student wishes to apply it. In other words, course A can be used to satisfy wither GEP area 1 or GEP area 2, but not both.
The reasoning behind that suggestion is as follows. First, by making any given course fit just one GEP area, the campus would subliminally be telling students that each course is a silo in and of itself and that there is no such thing as cross disciplinary courses in the GEP. On a campus that strives for integration and demonstrating the interconnectedness of subject matter – I question whether that notion carries through to the proposed model.
Second, if courses can be used in more than one GEP area (again with the restriction that any one course can only be applied to one GEP area based on the students choice) a student might be able to identify some subject area(s) he/she likes and then can string some GEP courses that meet the GEP requirements but still be “themed” to a subject area of interest to the student.
I am also philosophically opposed to the use of the phrase “silver bullet” as applying that phrase like it often is in the GDR program implies that a student is “getting away with something” or that it is a “shortcut”. I don’t think such terms should ever be applied to the GDR or the GEP – it sends a very bad message to students – that the GDR or the GEP is something just to get out of the way…
In summary then, I generally agree that a single course should be used toward a single GEP area, however, I do not believe that any given course should have its use, or GEP area label if you will, restricted to one and only one GEP area. Cross-disciplinary courses should and do exist – why would we want to give that up and more importantly, say to our students, particularly our lower division students, that such things do not exist? | | | | 0 | 3/23/2009 7:28 PM | 3/23/2009 7:28 PM | | | Posted: 3/25/2009 1:59 PM | | | |
| |
In reviewing “Step 3” I fear that allowing the additional degree requirements after the GEP for BA, BS, etc. to be decided by major will truly only complicate things further. It would, with roughly 100 majors available on campus, create a very large and confusing network to navigate, especially for students who decide to change majors or those who transfer in. I can see the attractiveness of this approach and the way it allows departments to individually tailor their programs. I worry, however, that this same great variation complicates, both for students and the outside world, what a BA (at the very least a BA from UWSP) truly means. There’s value in being able to say that all students with a certain degree have had some uniformity in their education and that a specific degree type from UWSP means something to students and employers as students graduate. I only foresee students changing majors and questioning why a BA in English is different from a BA in any number of different majors, a response that will be no convoluted as I attempt to provide an answer than it presently is to explain the current GDR structure. It seems to me, therefore, that some level of uniformity is needed. If that uniformity doesn’t happen at the university level I’d suggest, as the committee has noted in the other available options, that there be a third level, preferably established by the university, but at the college level at the very least.
It’s short, I know, but that’s my two cents. Thanks for all of the work that you and the committee have done and will continue to do on our behalf. It’s sincerely appreciated.
Best,
-David
David Roloff
Instructor of English | | | /_layouts/15/images/person.gif" alt="Picture Placeholder: Olsen, Gary" /> | | Olsen, Gary |
|
In reviewing “Step 3” I fear that allowing the additional degree requirements after the GEP for BA, BS, etc. to be decided by major will truly only complicate things further. It would, with roughly 100 majors available on campus, create a very large and confusing network to navigate, especially for students who decide to change majors or those who transfer in. I can see the attractiveness of this approach and the way it allows departments to individually tailor their programs. I worry, however, that this same great variation complicates, both for students and the outside world, what a BA (at the very least a BA from UWSP) truly means. There’s value in being able to say that all students with a certain degree have had some uniformity in their education and that a specific degree type from UWSP means something to students and employers as students graduate. I only foresee students changing majors and questioning why a BA in English is different from a BA in any number of different majors, a response that will be no convoluted as I attempt to provide an answer than it presently is to explain the current GDR structure. It seems to me, therefore, that some level of uniformity is needed. If that uniformity doesn’t happen at the university level I’d suggest, as the committee has noted in the other available options, that there be a third level, preferably established by the university, but at the college level at the very least.
It’s short, I know, but that’s my two cents. Thanks for all of the work that you and the committee have done and will continue to do on our behalf. It’s sincerely appreciated.
Best,
-David
David Roloff
Instructor of English | | | | | 0 | 3/25/2009 1:59 PM | 3/25/2009 1:59 PM | | | Edited: 3/28/2009 5:02 PM | | | |
| |
Bowman, Mary Professor, English
|
|
It seems to me that in the revised proposal the committee is still making an argument against allowing silver bullets that is based on indirect effects this will have. I would rather see us deal with those issues directly, and I would really like us to have a discussion about the educational issues involved in the silver bullet policy.
The proposal mentions student complaints about "silver bullet" courses that don't really do what they are supposed to for all the GDR designations they carry. I agree that's problem--but I submit that the solution is the clear and assessable learning outcomes that you are working so hard to create. If we are assessing the program (as we will be) we should be able to identify categories of courses, and even specific courses, that aren't doing what we want them to. We can then make changes to those courses, and possibly remove designations from courses that aren't accomplishing the Gen Ed objectives. This is true whether or not silver bullets are allowed, and will address the problem regardless of how many designations a course has. After all, if a course can get a second designation that it really shouldn't have, it can get a first designation it shoudn't have. Assessment can address that; the silver bullet policy does nothing about courses that don't adequately meet their one-designation goals.
The possibility was raised of a student using silver bullets to get most of their Gen Ed credits within their major. As I said before, the way to avoid that with certainty is to meet it head-on, by setting a minimum number of Gen Ed credits that must be earned outside the major. If a major can offer courses in (let's say for example) two-thirds of the Gen Ed categories using silver bullets, it can probably offer courses covering the same number of categories without silver bullets. It may be that a no-silver-bullet policy will reduce the number of students who can get all of those Gen Eds in because of the total number of seats in those courses, but there's nothing to stop individual students (who through determination or chance get into all the courses with Gen Ed designations) from still getting those 2/3 of the requirements in the major.
Other than these issues that can be dealt with in more direct ways, what are the arguments against silver bullet courses? I've seen some good points made against the proposed policy (from Steve Hill, the Sociology Dept., Paul Doruska and Ginny Carlton, for example--I'm still working on the new metaphor, Paul!) but I haven't seen any for the policy. I really think we need to have this substantive conversation as a campus before we settle on a policy. What is that we will gain pedagogically from saying that Environmental Journalism, for example, is an appropriate course for students to take to meet the environmental goals of the Gen Ed program, but not one that develops their writing skills (or vice versa)? What harm comes from recognizing that it does both, provided that we have a threshold number of credits required? (These are genuine questions, by the way.)
I also think we need a better sense of what this will mean in practice. I respect the committee's point that we don't know what the structure is going to be yet, but could the committee share what you have in mind? Let's say hypothetically there is something like the current WE requirement, and something like the EL requirement in the new program. Will Steve, or the Comm Dept., be asked to decide which category they will list Environmental Journalism under? Will that decision be made by the administrator and/or committee that is overseeing the program? Or does GEPRC anticipate that we will have requirements defined in such a way that no course is really going to be able to meet two categories? (In which case the silver bullet policy is a moot point.) Without having at least a vague sense of how this is going work, it's hard to have a well-informed opinion on the policy.
Or could we, perhaps, leave this part out of the final proposal for step 3 and include it in step 4 when we'll have a better idea of what we're talking about? (The committee's charge for step 3 doesn't explicitly include this issue.)
From: Summers, Greg
Posted: Thursday, March 12, 2009 1:09 PM
Subject: Comment on Revised GEP Model Proposal
Please use this space to offer comments and suggestions regarding the Revised GEP Model Proposal. To begin, click the "Reply" button to the right. (If you don't see this button, click the "Sign In" icon in the upper right corner of the screen.) You may respond directly to this message or to any posted below. |
Bowman, Mary Professor, English
| | /_layouts/15/images/person.gif" alt="Picture Placeholder: Bowman, Mary" /> | | Bowman, Mary |
|
It seems to me that in the revised proposal the committee is still making an argument against allowing silver bullets that is based on indirect effects this will have. I would rather see us deal with those issues directly, and I would really like us to have a discussion about the educational issues involved in the silver bullet policy.
The proposal mentions student complaints about "silver bullet" courses that don't really do what they are supposed to for all the GDR designations they carry. I agree that's problem--but I submit that the solution is the clear and assessable learning outcomes that you are working so hard to create. If we are assessing the program (as we will be) we should be able to identify categories of courses, and even specific courses, that aren't doing what we want them to. We can then make changes to those courses, and possibly remove designations from courses that aren't accomplishing the Gen Ed objectives. This is true whether or not silver bullets are allowed, and will address the problem regardless of how many designations a course has. After all, if a course can get a second designation that it really shouldn't have, it can get a first designation it shoudn't have. Assessment can address that; the silver bullet policy does nothing about courses that don't adequately meet their one-designation goals.
The possibility was raised of a student using silver bullets to get most of their Gen Ed credits within their major. As I said before, the way to avoid that with certainty is to meet it head-on, by setting a minimum number of Gen Ed credits that must be earned outside the major. If a major can offer courses in (let's say for example) two-thirds of the Gen Ed categories using silver bullets, it can probably offer courses covering the same number of categories without silver bullets. It may be that a no-silver-bullet policy will reduce the number of students who can get all of those Gen Eds in because of the total number of seats in those courses, but there's nothing to stop individual students (who through determination or chance get into all the courses with Gen Ed designations) from still getting those 2/3 of the requirements in the major.
Other than these issues that can be dealt with in more direct ways, what are the arguments against silver bullet courses? I've seen some good points made against the proposed policy (from Steve Hill, the Sociology Dept., Paul Doruska and Ginny Carlton, for example--I'm still working on the new metaphor, Paul!) but I haven't seen any for the policy. I really think we need to have this substantive conversation as a campus before we settle on a policy. What is that we will gain pedagogically from saying that Environmental Journalism, for example, is an appropriate course for students to take to meet the environmental goals of the Gen Ed program, but not one that develops their writing skills (or vice versa)? What harm comes from recognizing that it does both, provided that we have a threshold number of credits required? (These are genuine questions, by the way.)
I also think we need a better sense of what this will mean in practice. I respect the committee's point that we don't know what the structure is going to be yet, but could the committee share what you have in mind? Let's say hypothetically there is something like the current WE requirement, and something like the EL requirement in the new program. Will Steve, or the Comm Dept., be asked to decide which category they will list Environmental Journalism under? Will that decision be made by the administrator and/or committee that is overseeing the program? Or does GEPRC anticipate that we will have requirements defined in such a way that no course is really going to be able to meet two categories? (In which case the silver bullet policy is a moot point.) Without having at least a vague sense of how this is going work, it's hard to have a well-informed opinion on the policy.
Or could we, perhaps, leave this part out of the final proposal for step 3 and include it in step 4 when we'll have a better idea of what we're talking about? (The committee's charge for step 3 doesn't explicitly include this issue.)
From: Summers, Greg
Posted: Thursday, March 12, 2009 1:09 PM
Subject: Comment on Revised GEP Model Proposal
Please use this space to offer comments and suggestions regarding the Revised GEP Model Proposal. To begin, click the "Reply" button to the right. (If you don't see this button, click the "Sign In" icon in the upper right corner of the screen.) You may respond directly to this message or to any posted below. | It seems to me that in the revised proposal the committee is still making an argument against allowing silver bullets that is based on indirect effects this will have. I would rather see us deal with those issues directly, and I would really like us to have a discussion about the educational issues involved in the silver bullet policy.
The proposal mentions student complaints about "silver bullet" courses that don't really do what they are supposed to for all the GDR designations they carry. I agree that's problem--but I submit that the solution is the clear and assessable learning outcomes that you are working so hard to create. If we are assessing the program (as we will be) we should be able to identify categories of courses, and even specific courses, that aren't doing what we want them to. We can then make changes to those courses, and possibly remove designations from courses that aren't accomplishing the Gen Ed objectives. This is true whether or not silver bullets are allowed, and will address the problem regardless of how many designations a course has. After all, if a course can get a second designation that it really shouldn't have, it can get a first designation it shoudn't have. Assessment can address that; the silver bullet policy does nothing about courses that don't adequately meet their one-designation goals.
The possibility was raised of a student using silver bullets to get most of their Gen Ed credits within their major. As I said before, the was to avoid that with certainty is to meet it head-on, by setting a minimum number of Gen Ed credits that must be earned outside the major. If a major can offer courses in (let's say for example) two-thirds of the Gen Ed categories using silver bullets, it can probably offer course covering the same number of categories without silver bullets. It may be that a no-silver-bullet policy will reduce the number of students who can get all of those Gen Eds in because of the total number of seats in those courses, but there's nothing to stop individual students (lucky enough to get in all the courses with Gen Ed designations) from still getting those 2/3 of the requirements in the major.
Other than these issues that can be dealt with in more direct ways, what are the arguments against silver bullet courses? I've seen some good points made against the proposed policy (from Steve Wall, the Sociology Dept., and Ginny Carlton, for example) but I haven't seen any for the policy. I really think we need to have this substantive conversation as a campus before we settle on a policy.
I also think we need a better sense of what this will mean in practice. I respect the committee's point that we don't know what the structure is going to be yet, but could the committee share what you have in mind? Let's say hypothetically there is something like the current WE requirement, and something like the EL requirement in the new program. Will Steve, or the Comm Dept., be asked to decide which category they will list Environmental Journalism under? Will that decision be made by the administrator and/or committee that is overseeing the program? Or does GEPRC anticipate that we will have requirements defined in such a way that no course is really going to be able to meet two categories? (In which case the silver bullet policy is a moot point.) Without having at least a vague sense of how this is going work, it's hard to have a well-informed opinion on the policy.
Or could we, perhaps, leave this part out of the final proposal for step 3 and include it in step 4 when we'll have a better idea of what we're talking about? (The committee's charge for step 3 doesn't explicitly include this issue.) | | | | 0 | 3/28/2009 4:48 PM | 3/28/2009 5:02 PM | | | Posted: 3/29/2009 12:17 PM | | | |
| |
The Committee is clearly tackling some very difficult issues here, and it is certainly to be commended for its hard and often thankless work! After reading everyone’s comments, and reflecting on the matter, however, I remain uncomfortable with the proposals that no additional degree requirements be set at the college or university level and that no course be allowed to fulfill more than one general education category.
Michael Williams, Lorri Nandrea, and David Roloff have all leveled strong arguments in favor of setting degree requirements at the college or university level, and I find these arguments to be convincing. Allowing departments to determine degree types – especially if departments are required to articulate separate degree tracks if they offer both B.A. and B.S. degrees – can be expected to result in complex degree structures that are confusing to students, burdensome to departments, and unfriendly to double majors. In contrast, setting degree requirements at the college or university level is simpler (see Williams and Roloff) and will not result in a bloated degree structure (see Nandrea). Furthermore, even with degree requirements set at the college or university level, departments can continue to require courses from other departments for their majors so important departmental autonomy will be preserved. I suggest, therefore, that degree requirements should be set at the college or university level.
I also agree with the strong arguments in favor of allowing courses to fulfill more than one general education category, and I would urge the committee to very carefully consider the thoughtful feedback on this issue that has been articulated by Mary Bowman and others. It seems to me that Mary Bowman’s suggestion that only a certain percentage of general education credits be allowed to fall within a student’s major, coupled with the requirement that all students take at least 45 credits of general education classes, satisfactorily addresses the concern that allowing “silver bullets” will result in a pernicious narrowing of a student’s educational experience. Furthermore, disallowing silver bullets could very well cultivate exactly the sort of “silo thinking” that we want to avoid. I suggest, therefore, that courses be allowed to satisfy more than one general education category, with the proviso that students be allowed to take no more than a certain number of general education credits within their major and that all students be required to take a given number (say 45) of general education credits.
Thank you, once again, for soliciting and incorporating campus feedback!
| | | /_layouts/15/images/person.gif" alt="Picture Placeholder: Warren, Dona" /> | | Warren, Dona |
|
The Committee is clearly tackling some very difficult issues here, and it is certainly to be commended for its hard and often thankless work! After reading everyone’s comments, and reflecting on the matter, however, I remain uncomfortable with the proposals that no additional degree requirements be set at the college or university level and that no course be allowed to fulfill more than one general education category.
Michael Williams, Lorri Nandrea, and David Roloff have all leveled strong arguments in favor of setting degree requirements at the college or university level, and I find these arguments to be convincing. Allowing departments to determine degree types – especially if departments are required to articulate separate degree tracks if they offer both B.A. and B.S. degrees – can be expected to result in complex degree structures that are confusing to students, burdensome to departments, and unfriendly to double majors. In contrast, setting degree requirements at the college or university level is simpler (see Williams and Roloff) and will not result in a bloated degree structure (see Nandrea). Furthermore, even with degree requirements set at the college or university level, departments can continue to require courses from other departments for their majors so important departmental autonomy will be preserved. I suggest, therefore, that degree requirements should be set at the college or university level.
I also agree with the strong arguments in favor of allowing courses to fulfill more than one general education category, and I would urge the committee to very carefully consider the thoughtful feedback on this issue that has been articulated by Mary Bowman and others. It seems to me that Mary Bowman’s suggestion that only a certain percentage of general education credits be allowed to fall within a student’s major, coupled with the requirement that all students take at least 45 credits of general education classes, satisfactorily addresses the concern that allowing “silver bullets” will result in a pernicious narrowing of a student’s educational experience. Furthermore, disallowing silver bullets could very well cultivate exactly the sort of “silo thinking” that we want to avoid. I suggest, therefore, that courses be allowed to satisfy more than one general education category, with the proviso that students be allowed to take no more than a certain number of general education credits within their major and that all students be required to take a given number (say 45) of general education credits.
Thank you, once again, for soliciting and incorporating campus feedback!
From: Summers, Greg Posted: Thursday, March 12, 2009 1:09 PM Subject: Comment on Revised GEP Model Proposal
Please use this space to offer comments and suggestions regarding the Revised GEP Model Proposal. To begin, click the "Reply" button to the right. (If you don't see this button, click the "Sign In" icon in the upper right corner of the screen.) You may respond directly to this message or to any posted below. |
The Committee is clearly tackling some very difficult issues here, and it is certainly to be commended for its hard and often thankless work! After reading everyone’s comments, and reflecting on the matter, however, I remain uncomfortable with the proposals that no additional degree requirements be set at the college or university level and that no course be allowed to fulfill more than one general education category.
Michael Williams, Lorri Nandrea, and David Roloff have all leveled strong arguments in favor of setting degree requirements at the college or university level, and I find these arguments to be convincing. Allowing departments to determine degree types – especially if departments are required to articulate separate degree tracks if they offer both B.A. and B.S. degrees – can be expected to result in complex degree structures that are confusing to students, burdensome to departments, and unfriendly to double majors. In contrast, setting degree requirements at the college or university level is simpler (see Williams and Roloff) and will not result in a bloated degree structure (see Nandrea). Furthermore, even with degree requirements set at the college or university level, departments can continue to require courses from other departments for their majors so important departmental autonomy will be preserved. I suggest, therefore, that degree requirements should be set at the college or university level.
I also agree with the strong arguments in favor of allowing courses to fulfill more than one general education category, and I would urge the committee to very carefully consider the thoughtful feedback on this issue that has been articulated by Mary Bowman and others. It seems to me that Mary Bowman’s suggestion that only a certain percentage of general education credits be allowed to fall within a student’s major, coupled with the requirement that all students take at least 45 credits of general education classes, satisfactorily addresses the concern that allowing “silver bullets” will result in a pernicious narrowing of a student’s educational experience. Furthermore, disallowing silver bullets could very well cultivate exactly the sort of “silo thinking” that we want to avoid. I suggest, therefore, that courses be allowed to satisfy more than one general education category, with the proviso that students be allowed to take no more than a certain number of general education credits within their major and that all students be required to take a given number (say 45) of general education credits.
Thank you, once again, for soliciting and incorporating campus feedback!
| | | | 0 | 3/29/2009 12:17 PM | 3/29/2009 12:17 PM | | | Edited: 3/29/2009 6:49 PM | | | |
| | Overall, it appears that the proposal does promise to make assessment of GEP easier; however, it seems to go so far in the direction of simplifying matters as to relinquish control of things that the university ought to strive to maintain: uniformity of what constitutes a degree and overall rigor. The proposal conflates a university-wide set of requirements--which need not be overly complicated, but could maintain rigor and uniformity across departments--with degree requirements set by individual colleges, then complains that we would necessarily end up with four-different sets of requirements, when one could be developed.
I would advocate in favor of University-wide degree requirements beyond GEP so as to maintain consistency across departments, to enable better assessment of GEP, and to ensure that the education provided by UWSP is broad, rigorous, and well-respected.
Some concerns and observations:
- The idea that the GEP would simplify matters for students seems unlikely when you have each individual department setting what constitutes a BA, BS, BM, BFA, etc., as it is likely that major requirements will vary more rather than less under the proposed revisions. I also think that shifting the definition of what degrees mean to departments might have the unintended consequence of devaluing all UWSP degrees because they are no universal standards.
- If the goals of the GEP are to prepare students for the world as global citizens, etc., shouldn't some level of complexity be expected or even encouraged? I don’t think that “complexity” in and of itself should be something we strive to work against.
- The continued use of the current GDR requirements linked to the conclusion that we require too many credits is disingenuous. The chart on page 6 gives a range of 67-71 required credits as a maximum, and the rest of the report treats this number as true for all students, when a cursory glance at the appendix reveals that because of "magic bullets," testing-out, and AP credits, the "real" number of current GDR credits is significantly lower, and not far from the proposed revisions. This manipulation is clear on page six when the proposal states that "the majority of students are required to take as many as 66-71 credits to complete the general education curriculum" while page seven provides a very different conclusion: "students appear to reduce the GDR's to an average of 58 credits." | | | /_layouts/15/images/person.gif" alt="Picture Placeholder: Davis, Matthew" /> | | Davis, Matthew |
| Overall, it appears that the proposal does promise to make assessment of GEP easier; however, it seems to go so far in the direction of simplifying matters as to relinquish control of things that the university ought to strive to maintain: uniformity of what constitutes a degree and overall rigor. The proposal conflates a university-wide set of requirements--which need not be overly complicated, but could maintain rigor and uniformity across departments--with degree requirements set by individual colleges, then complains that we would necessarily end up with four-different sets of requirements, when one could be developed.
I would advocate in favor of University-wide degree requirements beyond GEP so as to maintain consistency across departments, to enable better assessment of GEP, and to ensure that the education provided by UWSP is broad, rigorous, and well-respected.
Some concerns and observations:
- The idea that the GEP would simplify matters for students seems unlikely when you have each individual department setting what constitutes a BA, BS, BM, BFA, etc., as it is likely that major requirements will vary more rather than less under the proposed revisions. I also think that shifting the definition of what degrees mean to departments might have the unintended consequence of devaluing all UWSP degrees because they are no universal standards.
- If the goals of the GEP are to prepare students for the world as global citizens, etc., shouldn't some level of complexity be expected or even encouraged? I don’t think that “complexity” in and of itself should be something we strive to work against.
- The continued use of the current GDR requirements linked to the conclusion that we require too many credits is disingenuous. The chart on page 6 gives a range of 67-71 required credits as a maximum, and the rest of the report treats this number as true for all students, when a cursory glance at the appendix reveals that because of "magic bullets," testing-out, and AP credits, the "real" number of current GDR credits is significantly lower, and not far from the proposed revisions. This manipulation is clear on page six when the proposal states that "the majority of students are required to take as many as 66-71 credits to complete the general education curriculum" while page seven provides a very different conclusion: "students appear to reduce the GDR's to an average of 58 credits." | | | | | 0 | 3/29/2009 6:48 PM | 3/29/2009 6:49 PM | | | Posted: 3/29/2009 7:55 PM | | | |
| | Like many before me, I appreciate the effort that has gone into this proposal. I do support the inclusion of requirements at the University level that define the various degrees. My comments below emphasize what I see as underlying theoretical implications of the proposal as currently structured.
Concluding that because different institutions have different criteria for various degree types means that they "function simply as labels" suggests that they are without meaning and is a dangerous conclusion. And while I don’t imagine the committee actually believes this, the implication is there.
Instead, I would argue that creating the simplest possible definition of a baccalaureate degree would in reality make the degree less meaningful. A university degree should not be acquired simply.
The proposal's, likely inadvertent, conclusion that "complicated" equals bad also seems misguided, especially since a university-wide set of degree requirements beyond the GEP would not need to be complicated (or certainly not as complicated as the imagined degree requirements by college).
Finally, requiring students to take a wide range of classes that give breadth and depth to their education should be seen as a good thing; students will not be served (nor will they end up well-rounded or liberally educated) if our overall goal becomes merely minimizing requirements. This model seems, dangerously, to produce trained versus educated students.
Thank you for the forum to offer these concerns.
| | | /_layouts/15/images/person.gif" alt="Picture Placeholder: Barnett, Rachael" /> | | Barnett, Rachael |
| Like many before me, I appreciate the effort that has gone into this proposal. I do support the inclusion of requirements at the University level that define the various degrees. My comments below emphasize what I see as underlying theoretical implications of the proposal as currently structured.
Concluding that because different institutions have different criteria for various degree types means that they "function simply as labels" suggests that they are without meaning and is a dangerous conclusion. And while I don’t imagine the committee actually believes this, the implication is there.
Instead, I would argue that creating the simplest possible definition of a baccalaureate degree would in reality make the degree less meaningful. A university degree should not be acquired simply.
The proposal's, likely inadvertent, conclusion that "complicated" equals bad also seems misguided, especially since a university-wide set of degree requirements beyond the GEP would not need to be complicated (or certainly not as complicated as the imagined degree requirements by college).
Finally, requiring students to take a wide range of classes that give breadth and depth to their education should be seen as a good thing; students will not be served (nor will they end up well-rounded or liberally educated) if our overall goal becomes merely minimizing requirements. This model seems, dangerously, to produce trained versus educated students.
Thank you for the forum to offer these concerns.
| | | | | 0 | 3/29/2009 7:55 PM | 3/29/2009 7:55 PM | | | Posted: 3/29/2009 9:23 PM | | | |
| |
Fish, Jesse A
|
|
Greetings,
I took a university course in which we read and studied the plays and literature of African, American, and African-American Black women dramatists. We read a lot, we took turns presenting the literature to the class. My group presented Hansberry's A Raisin in the Sun. We learned about the African folk tradition of Ananse stories. We read Fires in the Mirror by Deavere-Smith, who tells the real accounts of Jewish and Black tensions in NYC during race riots. There was much more, but the point is that it was a great course, truly covering both literature and ethic studies - 2 GDRs. To label it otherwise benefits only the administration and is an insult to the instructor. Not everything in life fits nicely into one category.
I read some reasons for 'no silver bullets' in the proposal:
“Perhaps most important, the practice of allowing courses to fulfill more than one GDR requirement contributes to a pervasive “check-the-box” culture of general education in which fulfilling requirements becomes more important than the content or pedagogical value of the courses themselves.”
There will still be requirements to meet, boxes to check, with or without 'silver bullets'.
“Some students we spoke with reported resenting the existence of “silver bullets”: although they take such courses out of necessity in order to minimize their time-to-degree,”
A student who has a virtuous motivation for minimizing their time-to-degree will not be helped by disallowing ‘silver bullets’. Time-to-degree will be longer. If a student has the academic standing to get an open seat, if the ‘silver bullet’ course truly meets what it is labeled to meet, and if the student would rather earn some of their 120 credits with another course, then I believe the responsible student should be allowed to make the choice.
“they sometimes find that the courses fail to deliver the multiple GDR perspectives they are intended to satisfy.”
Then the problem is not the course, but the designation. All courses should carry valid degree requirement labels, regardless of how many degree requirements they meet.
“allowing such courses creates an inappropriate incentive for faculty and departments to add additional GDRs to their courses in order to increase enrollment, not necessarily because it is pedagogically warranted."
Again, adding GDRs to courses should not be an arbitrary process. GDR requirements of a course should be reviewed and validated. Quality courses which do meet multiple GDR requirements meet them whether or not they are labeled as such in the timetable. The problem in this case is faculty and staff who choose to abuse GDR course labeling without regard to scholarship.
“We hope to avoid this in the new GEP. Second, the current practice creates a similar inappropriate incentive among students to shop for “silver bullets” in order to minimize the number of courses they take, not necessarily because students need or wish to take the class.”
A student who takes a course because it meets a GDR is taking the course because they ‘need’ it. This practice will continue as long as there are GDRs, with or without ‘silver bullets’. This is not a bad thing. A narrow minded student does not ‘wish’ to learn about another culture. GDRs exist in order to give each student a broader perspective before they graduate.
I have cited many of the above arguments in order to give myself credibility. The truth is that I feel negative undertones when I read words like ‘undermining’, ‘inappropriate’, and ‘deterrent’ in the proposal. As a student I enjoy the luxury of not fearing retribution when speaking on matters of University policy. I understand that there are personalities, agendas, and financial concern in play, but I can speak from a point of purely academic concern. A course is what it is, based on content, regardless of GDR notation. If you find that UWSP students are too lazy or unmotivated to make good choices about their education, then look at the advising, recruitment and retention processes. The same goes for the faculty and staff. The idea that a single course must have a single GDR notation is artificial. Deciding that it is necessary is probably evidence of a deeper problem. Mandating that a single course have a single GDR notation masks that problem and allows it to go on.
I do appreciate the people who take the time to work out the problems that we face as a university. My ideas may be off, but they are genuine, and maybe unique at your proceedings, so I thought that I should give them. My only hope is that whatever is decided on the GEP model is done so with the long term benefit of the university in mind.
Cheers,
Jesse Allen Fish UWSP ‘10
|
Fish, Jesse A
| | /_layouts/15/images/person.gif" alt="Picture Placeholder: Fish, Jesse A" /> | | Fish, Jesse A |
|
Greetings,
I took a university course in which we read and studied the plays and literature of African, American, and African-American Black women dramatists. We read a lot, we took turns presenting the literature to the class. My group presented Hansberry's A Raisin in the Sun. We learned about the African folk tradition of Ananse stories. We read Fires in the Mirror by Deavere-Smith, who tells the real accounts of Jewish and Black tensions in NYC during race riots. There was much more, but the point is that it was a great course, truly covering both literature and ethic studies - 2 GDRs. To label it otherwise benefits only the administration and is an insult to the instructor. Not everything in life fits nicely into one category.
I read some reasons for 'no silver bullets' in the proposal:
“Perhaps most important, the practice of allowing courses to fulfill more than one GDR requirement contributes to a pervasive “check-the-box” culture of general education in which fulfilling requirements becomes more important than the content or pedagogical value of the courses themselves.”
There will still be requirements to meet, boxes to check, with or without 'silver bullets'.
“Some students we spoke with reported resenting the existence of “silver bullets”: although they take such courses out of necessity in order to minimize their time-to-degree,”
A student who has a virtuous motivation for minimizing their time-to-degree will not be helped by disallowing ‘silver bullets’. Time-to-degree will be longer. If a student has the academic standing to get an open seat, if the ‘silver bullet’ course truly meets what it is labeled to meet, and if the student would rather earn some of their 120 credits with another course, then I believe the responsible student should be allowed to make the choice.
“they sometimes find that the courses fail to deliver the multiple GDR perspectives they are intended to satisfy.”
Then the problem is not the course, but the designation. All courses should carry valid degree requirement labels, regardless of how many degree requirements they meet.
“allowing such courses creates an inappropriate incentive for faculty and departments to add additional GDRs to their courses in order to increase enrollment, not necessarily because it is pedagogically warranted."
Again, adding GDRs to courses should not be an arbitrary process. GDR requirements of a course should be reviewed and validated. Quality courses which do meet multiple GDR requirements meet them whether or not they are labeled as such in the timetable. The problem in this case is faculty and staff who choose to abuse GDR course labeling without regard to scholarship.
“We hope to avoid this in the new GEP. Second, the current practice creates a similar inappropriate incentive among students to shop for “silver bullets” in order to minimize the number of courses they take, not necessarily because students need or wish to take the class.”
A student who takes a course because it meets a GDR is taking the course because they ‘need’ it. This practice will continue as long as there are GDRs, with or without ‘silver bullets’. This is not a bad thing. A narrow minded student does not ‘wish’ to learn about another culture. GDRs exist in order to give each student a broader perspective before they graduate.
I have cited many of the above arguments in order to give myself credibility. The truth is that I feel negative undertones when I read words like ‘undermining’, ‘inappropriate’, and ‘deterrent’ in the proposal. As a student I enjoy the luxury of not fearing retribution when speaking on matters of University policy. I understand that there are personalities, agendas, and financial concern in play, but I can speak from a point of purely academic concern. A course is what it is, based on content, regardless of GDR notation. If you find that UWSP students are too lazy or unmotivated to make good choices about their education, then look at the advising, recruitment and retention processes. The same goes for the faculty and staff. The idea that a single course must have a single GDR notation is artificial. Deciding that it is necessary is probably evidence of a deeper problem. Mandating that a single course have a single GDR notation masks that problem and allows it to go on.
I do appreciate the people who take the time to work out the problems that we face as a university. My ideas may be off, but they are genuine, and maybe unique at your proceedings, so I thought that I should give them. My only hope is that whatever is decided on the GEP model is done so with the long term benefit of the university in mind.
Cheers,
Jesse Allen Fish UWSP ‘10
| | | | | 0 | 3/29/2009 9:23 PM | 3/29/2009 9:23 PM | | | Posted: 3/30/2009 9:23 AM | | | |
| |
Hladky, Paul Retired, Chemistry
|
|
Don, Greg , GEPRC committee members, and other interested readers,
I agree with the choice of the distribution model and offer the following comments/observations concerning the three specific proposals.
(a)
I am open to the idea of a common Gen. Ed. Program. A single GEP may make it easier to reduce the number of GE credits and develop an assessment program. After all, the Higher Learning Commission will return for a “(f)ocused visit on assessment with a particular emphasis on the assessment and subsequent revision of the General Education program and General Degree Requirements.”
(b)
There has been some discussion about where the distinction between the various bachelor degrees should be made; department, college, or university. According to the 2007-2009 catalog, each college decides which degrees it offers: CNR - BS only; L&S - BA and BS; COFAC - BA, BS, BFA, BM depending on the major; CPS - no specifications that I could find. It is worth noting that the distinction between BFA and BM degrees seems to be made at the department level and not in the GDRs.
Since the colleges already decide which degree or degrees they will offer and in some cases the distinction is being made at the department level, separating the “degree distinction” from the GEP makes sense to me.
(c)
I would like to know what “silver bullet” means. I’m well aware that it is a term in common use but I suspect that it has more than one meaning. Of course, the idea of “silver bullets” may be a moot point depending on the committee’s proposals for steps 4 and 5 but it seems to be generating some debate. Let me add some observations.
I recently searched the UWSP website and can only find “silver bullet” in the minutes from two GEPRC meetings (1/05/09 & 1/12/09) and a memo from Dan Kellogg. The term “golden bullet” may be more official and appears in two places; (i) a one-page pdf from Academic Advising that compares BA and BS GDRs, and (ii) in the FIG Handbook for next year (see web addresses below). Interestingly enough, I can’t seem to find the Academic Advising pdf by going through their website which may mean that the link has been removed even though the pdf itself still exists.
http://www.uwsp.edu/advising/pdfs/DegreeTypeChart.pdf
http://www.uwsp.edu/resliving/pdfs/FIG%20booklet0910.pdf
I am confused by the table on page 6 of your proposal which shows the WE, MNS, and NW GDR requirements as 12 separate credits. I looked back at the 1989-91 catalog where Minority Studies first appears and it seems that the original intent was that a MNS class would not be an additional credit requirement but just another distributional aspect of the Cultural Awareness category. The same seems to be true of the NW and WE requirements. In light of this, I wonder why UWSP now has NW and MNS courses that don’t also satisfy HU or SS GDRs. Perhaps the “single purpose” courses should be called “duds” rather than glorifying the “dual purpose” courses as “silver bullets” when the “dual purpose” courses simply accomplish the original intentions. As an aside, if one were interested in tweaking the current GDRs, one could designate all of the Cultural Awareness courses as W (for western), NW, or MNS, and then require that students take at least one of each. Nothing changes credit-wise, but the notion of “silver bullets” might fade away.
A true “silver bullet” (or gold or platinum or palladium/iridium alloy bullet) might be defined as a 3 credit course that satisfies 6 credits of GDRs. The only place in the BS GDR section of the 2007-9 catalog where I see this happening is with some of the Environmental Literacy courses. Specifically, Chem 100, Geog 100, and Phys 100 satisfy NS and EL; Hist 366 satisfies HI and EL; Phil 380 satisfies HU3 and EL; Soc 360 satisfies SS1 and EL; and Nres 150 and Soc 355 satisfy SS2 and EL. There are a couple of EL courses, Nres 220 and Watr 220, that satisfy NW but they don’t have HU or SS designations so they only contribute 3 cr to a student’s GDR count. Interestingly enough, in the FIG Handbook, Soc 101NW and IA 150 NW are listed as “golden bullets” but they are no different than most of the other NW courses, Nres 150 is not listed as a “golden bullet” even though it satisfies SS2 and EL, and Nres 151 is listed as a “golden bullet” even though it doesn’t satisfy any GDRs. I would certainly favor eliminating any 3-credits-count-for-6-credits courses in the new GEP. |
Hladky, Paul Retired, Chemistry
| | /_layouts/15/images/person.gif" alt="Picture Placeholder: Hladky, Paul" /> | | Hladky, Paul |
|
Don, Greg , GEPRC committee members, and other interested readers,
I agree with the choice of the distribution model and offer the following comments/observations concerning the three specific proposals.
(a)
I am open to the idea of a common Gen. Ed. Program. A single GEP may make it easier to reduce the number of GE credits and develop an assessment program. After all, the Higher Learning Commission will return for a “(f)ocused visit on assessment with a particular emphasis on the assessment and subsequent revision of the General Education program and General Degree Requirements.”
(b)
There has been some discussion about where the distinction between the various bachelor degrees should be made; department, college, or university. According to the 2007-2009 catalog, each college decides which degrees it offers: CNR - BS only; L&S - BA and BS; COFAC - BA, BS, BFA, BM depending on the major; CPS - no specifications that I could find. It is worth noting that the distinction between BFA and BM degrees seems to be made at the department level and not in the GDRs.
Since the colleges already decide which degree or degrees they will offer and in some cases the distinction is being made at the department level, separating the “degree distinction” from the GEP makes sense to me.
(c)
I would like to know what “silver bullet” means. I’m well aware that it is a term in common use but I suspect that it has more than one meaning. Of course, the idea of “silver bullets” may be a moot point depending on the committee’s proposals for steps 4 and 5 but it seems to be generating some debate. Let me add some observations.
I recently searched the UWSP website and can only find “silver bullet” in the minutes from two GEPRC meetings (1/05/09 & 1/12/09) and a memo from Dan Kellogg. The term “golden bullet” may be more official and appears in two places; (i) a one-page pdf from Academic Advising that compares BA and BS GDRs, and (ii) in the FIG Handbook for next year (see web addresses below). Interestingly enough, I can’t seem to find the Academic Advising pdf by going through their website which may mean that the link has been removed even though the pdf itself still exists.
http://www.uwsp.edu/advising/pdfs/DegreeTypeChart.pdf
http://www.uwsp.edu/resliving/pdfs/FIG%20booklet0910.pdf
I am confused by the table on page 6 of your proposal which shows the WE, MNS, and NW GDR requirements as 12 separate credits. I looked back at the 1989-91 catalog where Minority Studies first appears and it seems that the original intent was that a MNS class would not be an additional credit requirement but just another distributional aspect of the Cultural Awareness category. The same seems to be true of the NW and WE requirements. In light of this, I wonder why UWSP now has NW and MNS courses that don’t also satisfy HU or SS GDRs. Perhaps the “single purpose” courses should be called “duds” rather than glorifying the “dual purpose” courses as “silver bullets” when the “dual purpose” courses simply accomplish the original intentions. As an aside, if one were interested in tweaking the current GDRs, one could designate all of the Cultural Awareness courses as W (for western), NW, or MNS, and then require that students take at least one of each. Nothing changes credit-wise, but the notion of “silver bullets” might fade away.
A true “silver bullet” (or gold or platinum or palladium/iridium alloy bullet) might be defined as a 3 credit course that satisfies 6 credits of GDRs. The only place in the BS GDR section of the 2007-9 catalog where I see this happening is with some of the Environmental Literacy courses. Specifically, Chem 100, Geog 100, and Phys 100 satisfy NS and EL; Hist 366 satisfies HI and EL; Phil 380 satisfies HU3 and EL; Soc 360 satisfies SS1 and EL; and Nres 150 and Soc 355 satisfy SS2 and EL. There are a couple of EL courses, Nres 220 and Watr 220, that satisfy NW but they don’t have HU or SS designations so they only contribute 3 cr to a student’s GDR count. Interestingly enough, in the FIG Handbook, Soc 101NW and IA 150 NW are listed as “golden bullets” but they are no different than most of the other NW courses, Nres 150 is not listed as a “golden bullet” even though it satisfies SS2 and EL, and Nres 151 is listed as a “golden bullet” even though it doesn’t satisfy any GDRs. I would certainly favor eliminating any 3-credits-count-for-6-credits courses in the new GEP.
From: Summers, Greg Posted: Thursday, March 12, 2009 1:09 PM Subject: Comment on Revised GEP Model Proposal
Please use this space to offer comments and suggestions regarding the Revised GEP Model Proposal. To begin, click the "Reply" button to the right. (If you don't see this button, click the "Sign In" icon in the upper right corner of the screen.) You may respond directly to this message or to any posted below. |
Don, Greg , GEPRC committee members, and other interested readers,
I agree with the choice of the distribution model and offer the following comments/observations concerning the three specific proposals.
(a)
I am open to the idea of a common Gen. Ed. Program. A single GEP may make it easier to reduce the number of GE credits and develop an assessment program. After all, the Higher Learning Commission will return for a “(f)ocused visit on assessment with a particular emphasis on the assessment and subsequent revision of the General Education program and General Degree Requirements.”
(b)
There has been some discussion about where the distinction between the various bachelor degrees should be made; department, college, or university. According to the 2007-2009 catalog, each college decides which degrees it offers: CNR - BS only; L&S - BA and BS; COFAC - BA, BS, BFA, BM depending on the major; CPS - no specifications that I could find. It is worth noting that the distinction between BFA and BM degrees seems to be made at the department level and not in the GDRs.
Since the colleges already decide which degree or degrees they will offer and in some cases the distinction is being made at the department level, separating the “degree distinction” from the GEP makes sense to me.
(c)
I would like to know what “silver bullet” means. I’m well aware that it is a term in common use but I suspect that it has more than one meaning. Of course, the idea of “silver bullets” may be a moot point depending on the committee’s proposals for steps 4 and 5 but it seems to be generating some debate. Let me add some observations.
I recently searched the UWSP website and can only find “silver bullet” in the minutes from two GEPRC meetings (1/05/09 & 1/12/09) and a memo from Dan Kellogg. The term “golden bullet” may be more official and appears in two places; (i) a one-page pdf from Academic Advising that compares BA and BS GDRs, and (ii) in the FIG Handbook for next year (see web addresses below). Interestingly enough, I can’t seem to find the Academic Advising pdf by going through their website which may mean that the link has been removed even though the pdf itself still exists.
http://www.uwsp.edu/advising/pdfs/DegreeTypeChart.pdf
http://www.uwsp.edu/resliving/pdfs/FIG%20booklet0910.pdf
I am confused by the table on page 6 of your proposal which shows the WE, MNS, and NW GDR requirements as 12 separate credits. I looked back at the 1989-91 catalog where Minority Studies first appears and it seems that the original intent was that a MNS class would not be an additional credit requirement but just another distributional aspect of the Cultural Awareness category. The same seems to be true of the NW and WE requirements. In light of this, I wonder why UWSP now has NW and MNS courses that don’t also satisfy HU or SS GDRs. Perhaps the “single purpose” courses should be called “duds” rather than glorifying the “dual purpose” courses as “silver bullets” when the “dual purpose” courses simply accomplish the original intentions. As an aside, if one were interested in tweaking the current GDRs, one could designate all of the Cultural Awareness courses as W (for western), NW, or MNS, and then require that students take at least one of each. Nothing changes credit-wise, but the notion of “silver bullets” might fade away.
A true “silver bullet” (or gold or platinum or palladium/iridium alloy bullet) might be defined as a 3 credit course that satisfies 6 credits of GDRs. The only place in the BS GDR section of the 2007-9 catalog where I see this happening is with some of the Environmental Literacy courses. Specifically, Chem 100, Geog 100, and Phys 100 satisfy NS and EL; Hist 366 satisfies HI and EL; Phil 380 satisfies HU3 and EL; Soc 360 satisfies SS1 and EL; and Nres 150 and Soc 355 satisfy SS2 and EL. There are a couple of EL courses, Nres 220 and Watr 220, that satisfy NW but they don’t have HU or SS designations so they only contribute 3 cr to a student’s GDR count. Interestingly enough, in the FIG Handbook, Soc 101NW and IA 150 NW are listed as “golden bullets” but they are no different than most of the other NW courses, Nres 150 is not listed as a “golden bullet” even though it satisfies SS2 and EL, and Nres 151 is listed as a “golden bullet” even though it doesn’t satisfy any GDRs. I would certainly favor eliminating any 3-credits-count-for-6-credits courses in the new GEP. | | | | 0 | 3/30/2009 9:23 AM | 3/30/2009 9:23 AM | | | Edited: 3/30/2009 1:39 PM | | | |
| |
I'm not sure when this round of commentary is closing, but I want to let others know that the Division of Communication curriculum committee has drafted a statement of concern over the suggested approach to silver bullets for consideration of the larger faculty. Unfortunately, last week's meeting was cancelled and we were unable to consider it as a group, although the committee has asked that this be done at a future meeting. I hope there will be another round of this discussion, as it allows us to document concerns that I personally believe still have not been addressed adequately. I need to note that this is my own opinion and not that of our faculty, but we should have a faculty statement soon.
Furthermore, I find the discussion of proper metaphors interesting, as I have studied metaphors and am well aware of their ability to either highlight or mask attributes of concepts or objects that they represent.
I have resisted, to date, calling single-outcome courses "lead bullets," which would be my preferred nomenclature if we're going to continue using the "kill the requirements" imagery. (I trust that hunters and others are well aware of the environmental implications of such bullets.) I think Paul Hladky's term "duds" above is also appropriate if we're going to deal in the kind of language that Jesse Allen Fish aptly described above.
But my preference would be that we describe these courses as what they are: single-outcome courses or multiple-outcome courses (or, if we prefer to be complete, single/multiple-outcome GEP courses). I think that keeps the focus more properly on what we're talking about here: meeting learning outcomes. Using that terminology, of course, highlights the question: Are multiple-outcome courses good things or not?
I think Dona Warren's suggestion is more than reasonable. I think Mary Bowman's thoughts are well considered. I agree with Jesse Allen Fish's remarks about the implications of assuming the worst about both students and instructors. And I agree with numerous others who have concerns about this recommended prohibition.
I believe the simple, if not elegant, solution is to require a certain number of hours outside of one's department and a minimum of 45 discrete classroom hours (or whatever number we decide on) of standalone GEP coursework. By "discrete" and "standalone," I mean that students would have to take 15 three-hour GEP courses, including X number outside their departments, regardless of whether those hours meet 45 hours of learning outcomes or 75. Thus, there is no discussion of three hours of classroom work for six hours of credit.
Work is work and learning is learning. The former is more easily measured, at least in semester hours. We should focus on encouraging the latter to the best of our ability, as that would seem to be our purpose.
| | | /_layouts/15/images/person.gif" alt="Picture Placeholder: Hill, Steve" /> | | Hill, Steve |
|
I'm not sure when this round of commentary is closing, but I want to let others know that the Division of Communication curriculum committee has drafted a statement of concern over the suggested approach to silver bullets for consideration of the larger faculty. Unfortunately, last week's meeting was cancelled and we were unable to consider it as a group, although the committee has asked that this be done at a future meeting. I hope there will be another round of this discussion, as it allows us to document concerns that I personally believe still have not been addressed adequately. I need to note that this is my own opinion and not that of our faculty, but we should have a faculty statement soon.
Furthermore, I find the discussion of proper metaphors interesting, as I have studied metaphors and am well aware of their ability to either highlight or mask attributes of concepts or objects that they represent.
I have resisted, to date, calling single-outcome courses "lead bullets," which would be my preferred nomenclature if we're going to continue using the "kill the requirements" imagery. (I trust that hunters and others are well aware of the environmental implications of such bullets.) I think Paul Hladky's term "duds" above is also appropriate if we're going to deal in the kind of language that Jesse Allen Fish aptly described above.
But my preference would be that we describe these courses as what they are: single-outcome courses or multiple-outcome courses (or, if we prefer to be complete, single/multiple-outcome GEP courses). I think that keeps the focus more properly on what we're talking about here: meeting learning outcomes. Using that terminology, of course, highlights the question: Are multiple-outcome courses good things or not?
I think Dona Warren's suggestion is more than reasonable. I think Mary Bowman's thoughts are well considered. I agree with Jesse Allen Fish's remarks about the implications of assuming the worst about both students and instructors. And I agree with numerous others who have concerns about this recommended prohibition.
I believe the simple, if not elegant, solution is to require a certain number of hours outside of one's department and a minimum of 45 discrete classroom hours (or whatever number we decide on) of standalone GEP coursework. By "discrete" and "standalone," I mean that students would have to take 15 three-hour GEP courses, including X number outside their departments, regardless of whether those hours meet 45 hours of learning outcomes or 75. Thus, there is no discussion of three hours of classroom work for six hours of credit.
Work is work and learning is learning. The former is more easily measured, at least in semester hours. We should focus on encouraging the latter to the best of our ability, as that would seem to be our purpose.
| | | | | 0 | 3/30/2009 1:33 PM | 3/30/2009 1:39 PM | | | Posted: 3/30/2009 3:09 PM | | | |
| |
Williams, Michael Retired, English
|
|
Members of the Department of English offer the following collective response to the GEPRC Proposal, Step 3. As a fairly large department, we inevitably differ among ourselves on most issues, but in this case our differences are only a matter of emphasis. We agree on the following:
1. Generally, we find your choice of a distribution model to be appropriate for the reasons you have stated. However, several members of the department did object to your having framed the options as mutually exclusive, and ask whether you considered a combination of core and distribution as offering most flexibility.
2. We agree with your proposal that a) The General Education Program should apply to all students regardless of degree type. We do not agree with your proposal that b) A baccalaureate degree at UWSP should be defined by the GEP requirements plus those of a major. (In other words, neither the university nor the colleges should establish separate and rigid sets of degree requirements.)
Sensible and powerful objections to this part of your proposal have already been offered by the departments of Sociology and Philosophy, the Academic Advising Center, and various interested individuals. The main virtue of your response is that it shows a willingness to engage in discussion and work through the process; unfortunately, however, it doesn’t significantly address those matters which cause us the greatest unease:
· You are correct to observe that a bachelor’s degree varies in definition from campus to campus, as do the grounds for the distinction between a BA and a BS. This says no more than the obvious—that the definitions are determined by context, in this case by the institutional context.
· We object to your suggestion that the degree types function simply as “labels” that departments can apply at will to the diplomas of their graduates.
· In part, our objection is based on the fact that, although these “labels” might have “no essential meaning” in and of themselves, they do signify strongly, conveying essential information about a student’s course of study. When you observe “In general the BS appears to be reserved for the more specialized, professionally oriented degrees,” you are registering that fact. We would add the corollary that a BA degree indicates its holder has received a substantial grounding in the liberal arts.
· You might agree, but then assert that it will be the responsibility of each department to ensure the label they choose to apply is appropriate, and that if they believe a graduate with, for example, a BS degree in their field should have more Math, then it is up to the department to include that requirement in their major—in effect to follow the example of those departments that already stack up their correlative requirements. This is just a matter of moving requirements out of the GDRs and into the majors. It is only a slight exaggeration to say that we run the risk of offering as many BA-types as there are traditional Liberal Arts programs, and as many BS-types as there are traditional Science or professional programs. Such an approach is likely to add a level of complexity that defeats the committee’s intent to “simplify” the General Degree Requirements, and will compound the problems faced by students transferring from other institutions or between majors.
· Our position is, bluntly, that a distinction between the degree types must be made, and it must be made on the university level. The specific requirements listed as components of the simplified distribution model will be the (simplified and assessable) General Education Requirements. Those additional courses required to distinguish the degree types may be given another name. We offer the following proposal:
· The distinction between BA and BS should be made on the basis of the number of credits required in the major. This is not as arbitrary as it sounds, since the higher-credit majors tend to be those majors traditionally identified with the BS designation, and the lower-credit majors with the BA. The high-credit BFA or BM programs could fit into this proposal with minimal adjustment.
o High credit majors (the 50cr mark seems an appropriate cut-off point) would be designated as BS degrees, denoting a more specialized course of study in a particular discipline. To earn these degrees, students would complete a) the university-wide General Education Requirements (45cr), and b) the requirements for the major (50cr+).
o Lower credit majors could be designated as BA degrees. To earn these degrees, students would complete a) the university-wide General Education Requirements (45cr), b) the requirements for the major, c) a set of courses in the liberal arts (to be determined at the university or, at least, the college level) . The BA degree would thus denote knowledge of the major field plus more substantial grounding in the liberal arts.
o It is conceivable that departments could offer their students a choice of tracks within their majors, one leading to the BS (more classes in the major), and the other to the BA (fewer classes in the major + the liberal arts requirement).
o A set of rules or procedures would need to be devised for students double majoring in, or transferring from, fields with different degree designations, but this problem is not insurmountable.
· We appreciate the difficulties faced by those departments with very high credit requirements—often set by external agencies—whose students must also negotiate the current GDRs, and we suggest that our proposal offers a way to ameliorate those difficulties while providing a logical and consistent way of giving meaning to while distinguishing between the degree types.
3. Finally, we would like to suggest that consideration of the so-called “silver bullet” issue is premature at present, and should be addressed at a later stage when the practical implications have become clearer.
Thank you for soliciting our opinion. We look forward to your response to our suggestions. |
Williams, Michael Retired, English
| | /_layouts/15/images/person.gif" alt="Picture Placeholder: Williams, Michael" /> | | Williams, Michael |
|
Members of the Department of English offer the following collective response to the GEPRC Proposal, Step 3. As a fairly large department, we inevitably differ among ourselves on most issues, but in this case our differences are only a matter of emphasis. We agree on the following:
1. Generally, we find your choice of a distribution model to be appropriate for the reasons you have stated. However, several members of the department did object to your having framed the options as mutually exclusive, and ask whether you considered a combination of core and distribution as offering most flexibility.
2. We agree with your proposal that a) The General Education Program should apply to all students regardless of degree type. We do not agree with your proposal that b) A baccalaureate degree at UWSP should be defined by the GEP requirements plus those of a major. (In other words, neither the university nor the colleges should establish separate and rigid sets of degree requirements.)
Sensible and powerful objections to this part of your proposal have already been offered by the departments of Sociology and Philosophy, the Academic Advising Center, and various interested individuals. The main virtue of your response is that it shows a willingness to engage in discussion and work through the process; unfortunately, however, it doesn’t significantly address those matters which cause us the greatest unease:
· You are correct to observe that a bachelor’s degree varies in definition from campus to campus, as do the grounds for the distinction between a BA and a BS. This says no more than the obvious—that the definitions are determined by context, in this case by the institutional context.
· We object to your suggestion that the degree types function simply as “labels” that departments can apply at will to the diplomas of their graduates.
· In part, our objection is based on the fact that, although these “labels” might have “no essential meaning” in and of themselves, they do signify strongly, conveying essential information about a student’s course of study. When you observe “In general the BS appears to be reserved for the more specialized, professionally oriented degrees,” you are registering that fact. We would add the corollary that a BA degree indicates its holder has received a substantial grounding in the liberal arts.
· You might agree, but then assert that it will be the responsibility of each department to ensure the label they choose to apply is appropriate, and that if they believe a graduate with, for example, a BS degree in their field should have more Math, then it is up to the department to include that requirement in their major—in effect to follow the example of those departments that already stack up their correlative requirements. This is just a matter of moving requirements out of the GDRs and into the majors. It is only a slight exaggeration to say that we run the risk of offering as many BA-types as there are traditional Liberal Arts programs, and as many BS-types as there are traditional Science or professional programs. Such an approach is likely to add a level of complexity that defeats the committee’s intent to “simplify” the General Degree Requirements, and will compound the problems faced by students transferring from other institutions or between majors.
· Our position is, bluntly, that a distinction between the degree types must be made, and it must be made on the university level. The specific requirements listed as components of the simplified distribution model will be the (simplified and assessable) General Education Requirements. Those additional courses required to distinguish the degree types may be given another name. We offer the following proposal:
· The distinction between BA and BS should be made on the basis of the number of credits required in the major. This is not as arbitrary as it sounds, since the higher-credit majors tend to be those majors traditionally identified with the BS designation, and the lower-credit majors with the BA. The high-credit BFA or BM programs could fit into this proposal with minimal adjustment.
o High credit majors (the 50cr mark seems an appropriate cut-off point) would be designated as BS degrees, denoting a more specialized course of study in a particular discipline. To earn these degrees, students would complete a) the university-wide General Education Requirements (45cr), and b) the requirements for the major (50cr+).
o Lower credit majors could be designated as BA degrees. To earn these degrees, students would complete a) the university-wide General Education Requirements (45cr), b) the requirements for the major, c) a set of courses in the liberal arts (to be determined at the university or, at least, the college level) . The BA degree would thus denote knowledge of the major field plus more substantial grounding in the liberal arts.
o It is conceivable that departments could offer their students a choice of tracks within their majors, one leading to the BS (more classes in the major), and the other to the BA (fewer classes in the major + the liberal arts requirement).
o A set of rules or procedures would need to be devised for students double majoring in, or transferring from, fields with different degree designations, but this problem is not insurmountable.
· We appreciate the difficulties faced by those departments with very high credit requirements—often set by external agencies—whose students must also negotiate the current GDRs, and we suggest that our proposal offers a way to ameliorate those difficulties while providing a logical and consistent way of giving meaning to while distinguishing between the degree types.
3. Finally, we would like to suggest that consideration of the so-called “silver bullet” issue is premature at present, and should be addressed at a later stage when the practical implications have become clearer.
Thank you for soliciting our opinion. We look forward to your response to our suggestions.
From: Summers, Greg Posted: Thursday, March 12, 2009 1:09 PM Subject: Comment on Revised GEP Model Proposal
Please use this space to offer comments and suggestions regarding the Revised GEP Model Proposal. To begin, click the "Reply" button to the right. (If you don't see this button, click the "Sign In" icon in the upper right corner of the screen.) You may respond directly to this message or to any posted below. |
Members of the Department of English offer the following collective response to the GEPRC Proposal, Step 3. As a fairly large department, we inevitably differ among ourselves on most issues, but in this case our differences are only a matter of emphasis. We agree on the following:
1. Generally, we find your choice of a distribution model to be appropriate for the reasons you have stated. However, several members of the department did object to your having framed the options as mutually exclusive, and ask whether you considered a combination of core and distribution as offering most flexibility.
2. We agree with your proposal that a) The General Education Program should apply to all students regardless of degree type. We do not agree with your proposal that b) A baccalaureate degree at UWSP should be defined by the GEP requirements plus those of a major. (In other words, neither the university nor the colleges should establish separate and rigid sets of degree requirements.)
Sensible and powerful objections to this part of your proposal have already been offered by the departments of Sociology and Philosophy, the Academic Advising Center, and various interested individuals. The main virtue of your response is that it shows a willingness to engage in discussion and work through the process; unfortunately, however, it doesn’t significantly address those matters which cause us the greatest unease:
· You are correct to observe that a bachelor’s degree varies in definition from campus to campus, as do the grounds for the distinction between a BA and a BS. This says no more than the obvious—that the definitions are determined by context, in this case by the institutional context.
· We object to your suggestion that the degree types function simply as “labels” that departments can apply at will to the diplomas of their graduates.
· In part, our objection is based on the fact that, although these “labels” might have “no essential meaning” in and of themselves, they do signify strongly, conveying essential information about a student’s course of study. When you observe “In general the BS appears to be reserved for the more specialized, professionally oriented degrees,” you are registering that fact. We would add the corollary that a BA degree indicates its holder has received a substantial grounding in the liberal arts.
· You might agree, but then assert that it will be the responsibility of each department to ensure the label they choose to apply is appropriate, and that if they believe a graduate with, for example, a BS degree in their field should have more Math, then it is up to the department to include that requirement in their major—in effect to follow the example of those departments that already stack up their correlative requirements. This is just a matter of moving requirements out of the GDRs and into the majors. It is only a slight exaggeration to say that we run the risk of offering as many BA-types as there are traditional Liberal Arts programs, and as many BS-types as there are traditional Science or professional programs. Such an approach is likely to add a level of complexity that defeats the committee’s intent to “simplify” the General Degree Requirements, and will compound the problems faced by students transferring from other institutions or between majors.
· Our position is, bluntly, that a distinction between the degree types must be made, and it must be made on the university level. The specific requirements listed as components of the simplified distribution model will be the (simplified and assessable) General Education Requirements. Those additional courses required to distinguish the degree types may be given another name. We offer the following proposal:
· The distinction between BA and BS should be made on the basis of the number of credits required in the major. This is not as arbitrary as it sounds, since the higher-credit majors tend to be those majors traditionally identified with the BS designation, and the lower-credit majors with the BA. The high-credit BFA or BM programs could fit into this proposal with minimal adjustment.
o High credit majors (the 50cr mark seems an appropriate cut-off point) would be designated as BS degrees, denoting a more specialized course of study in a particular discipline. To earn these degrees, students would complete a) the university-wide General Education Requirements (45cr), and b) the requirements for the major (50cr+).
o Lower credit majors could be designated as BA degrees. To earn these degrees, students would complete a) the university-wide General Education Requirements (45cr), b) the requirements for the major, c) a set of courses in the liberal arts (to be determined at the university or, at least, the college level) . The BA degree would thus denote knowledge of the major field plus more substantial grounding in the liberal arts.
o It is conceivable that departments could offer their students a choice of tracks within their majors, one leading to the BS (more classes in the major), and the other to the BA (fewer classes in the major + the liberal arts requirement).
o A set of rules or procedures would need to be devised for students double majoring in, or transferring from, fields with different degree designations, but this problem is not insurmountable.
· We appreciate the difficulties faced by those departments with very high credit requirements—often set by external agencies—whose students must also negotiate the current GDRs, and we suggest that our proposal offers a way to ameliorate those difficulties while providing a logical and consistent way of giving meaning to while distinguishing between the degree types.
3. Finally, we would like to suggest that consideration of the so-called “silver bullet” issue is premature at present, and should be addressed at a later stage when the practical implications have become clearer.
Thank you for soliciting our opinion. We look forward to your response to our suggestions. | | | | 0 | 3/30/2009 3:09 PM | 3/30/2009 3:09 PM | | | Posted: 3/30/2009 10:49 PM | | | |
| |
There has been some discussion regarding the distinction between a B.A. and a B.S., and questions as to whether employers prefer one degree type over the other. In the Career Services Office, we have found that employers generally do not indicate a preference for a BS versus a BA degree. Although employers in the arts may distinguish between the B.A., B.F.A., and B.M. degrees, generally, employers look at whether the student has a Bachelors degree, regardless of the designation. Employers also want to know whether the student has the skills and experience needed for the position, and whether the student can effectively articulate and apply these skills.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide this information and for your continued work on the GEP.
| | | /_layouts/15/images/person.gif" alt="Picture Placeholder: Kellogg, Angela" /> | | Kellogg, Angela |
|
There has been some discussion regarding the distinction between a B.A. and a B.S., and questions as to whether employers prefer one degree type over the other. In the Career Services Office, we have found that employers generally do not indicate a preference for a BS versus a BA degree. Although employers in the arts may distinguish between the B.A., B.F.A., and B.M. degrees, generally, employers look at whether the student has a Bachelors degree, regardless of the designation. Employers also want to know whether the student has the skills and experience needed for the position, and whether the student can effectively articulate and apply these skills.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide this information and for your continued work on the GEP.
From: Summers, Greg Posted: Thursday, March 12, 2009 1:09 PM Subject: Comment on Revised GEP Model Proposal
Please use this space to offer comments and suggestions regarding the Revised GEP Model Proposal. To begin, click the "Reply" button to the right. (If you don't see this button, click the "Sign In" icon in the upper right corner of the screen.) You may respond directly to this message or to any posted below. |
There has been some discussion regarding the distinction between a B.A. and a B.S., and questions as to whether employers prefer one degree type over the other. In the Career Services Office, we have found that employers generally do not indicate a preference for a BS versus a BA degree. Although employers in the arts may distinguish between the B.A., B.F.A., and B.M. degrees, generally, employers look at whether the student has a Bachelors degree, regardless of the designation. Employers also want to know whether the student has the skills and experience needed for the position, and whether the student can effectively articulate and apply these skills.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide this information and for your continued work on the GEP.
| | | | 0 | 3/30/2009 10:49 PM | 3/30/2009 10:49 PM | | | Posted: 3/31/2009 9:02 AM | | | |
| |
Dear GEPRC Committee Members:
On behalf of the Department of Psychology, we are commenting on the Revised Step 3 of the GEP Proposal. As our previous comments indicated, we are in favor of the distributed model and generally support the rationale for not allowing “silver bullet” classes. However, our department has shown little agreement on the question of whether degree type (i.e., B.A. or B.S.) should be made at the university or department level. Roughly a third of our department supports the current recommendation of the GEP Committee to have the degree type determined by department. Another third feels strongly that the university should set those requirements, even if that means adding another level of requirements in addition to the GEP and major requirements. Finally, the remaining third of our department is on the fence on the issue. Thus, at this time, our department is unable to clearly support or reject the recommendations of the GEP Committee regarding determination of degree types. One of our colleagues suggested that we may be less indecisive if we knew what the committee will propose for steps 4 and 5 of the GEP.
Robert Nemeth and Debbie Palmer | | | /_layouts/15/images/person.gif" alt="Picture Placeholder: Nemeth, Robert" /> | | Nemeth, Robert |
|
Dear GEPRC Committee Members:
On behalf of the Department of Psychology, we are commenting on the Revised Step 3 of the GEP Proposal. As our previous comments indicated, we are in favor of the distributed model and generally support the rationale for not allowing “silver bullet” classes. However, our department has shown little agreement on the question of whether degree type (i.e., B.A. or B.S.) should be made at the university or department level. Roughly a third of our department supports the current recommendation of the GEP Committee to have the degree type determined by department. Another third feels strongly that the university should set those requirements, even if that means adding another level of requirements in addition to the GEP and major requirements. Finally, the remaining third of our department is on the fence on the issue. Thus, at this time, our department is unable to clearly support or reject the recommendations of the GEP Committee regarding determination of degree types. One of our colleagues suggested that we may be less indecisive if we knew what the committee will propose for steps 4 and 5 of the GEP.
Robert Nemeth and Debbie Palmer | | | | | 0 | 3/31/2009 9:02 AM | 3/31/2009 9:02 AM | | | Posted: 3/31/2009 11:49 AM | | | |
| | The statement from the Department of English says very clearly just what I would like to say. I do feel strongly that the different degrees should have distinguishing requirements at the university level, and that the B.A. degree should indicate a thorough grounding in the liberal arts.
Barbara Dixson | | | /_layouts/15/images/person.gif" alt="Picture Placeholder: Dixson, Barbara" /> | | Dixson, Barbara |
| The statement from the Department of English says very clearly just what I would like to say. I do feel strongly that the different degrees should have distinguishing requirements at the university level, and that the B.A. degree should indicate a thorough grounding in the liberal arts.
Barbara Dixson
From: Summers, Greg
Posted: Thursday, March 12, 2009 1:09 PM
Subject: Comment on Revised GEP Model Proposal
Please use this space to offer comments and suggestions regarding the Revised GEP Model Proposal. To begin, click the "Reply" button to the right. (If you don't see this button, click the "Sign In" icon in the upper right corner of the screen.) You may respond directly to this message or to any posted below. | The statement from the Department of English says very clearly just what I would like to say. I do feel strongly that the different degrees should have distinguishing requirements at the university level, and that the B.A. degree should indicate a thorough grounding in the liberal arts.
Barbara Dixson | | | | 0 | 3/31/2009 11:49 AM | 3/31/2009 11:49 AM | | | Posted: 3/31/2009 2:09 PM | | | |
| |
Sommers, William A
|
| I must say that while reading the proposal I was slightly disappointed to see that one class can't work for more than one area. I studied at the University of St. Thomas and they had many of these types of classes. Namely ones that would fulfill more than one requirement. We called them double dips. Under this new model it is going to increase the amount of time and money students will have to spend because one class can't fulfill more than one requirement. Not a good idea. Got the us, the college students, out as soon as possible with as much education possible with the least amount of money. Under this new plan it is becoming less feasible to be a 4 year college and is working up to 5 and 6 years. How can we contribute in society if we can't get out of college? Help us get out sooner and make the difference we want to make. Side note- Just like one of the previous people posted, double dips help promote interdisciplinary communication which is so often lacking.
|
Sommers, William A
| | /_layouts/15/images/person.gif" alt="Picture Placeholder: Sommers, William A" /> | | Sommers, William A |
| I must say that while reading the proposal I was slightly disappointed to see that one class can't work for more than one area. I studied at the University of St. Thomas and they had many of these types of classes. Namely ones that would fulfill more than one requirement. We called them double dips. Under this new model it is going to increase the amount of time and money students will have to spend because one class can't fulfill more than one requirement. Not a good idea. Got the us, the college students, out as soon as possible with as much education possible with the least amount of money. Under this new plan it is becoming less feasible to be a 4 year college and is working up to 5 and 6 years. How can we contribute in society if we can't get out of college? Help us get out sooner and make the difference we want to make. Side note- Just like one of the previous people posted, double dips help promote interdisciplinary communication which is so often lacking.
From: Summers, Greg Posted: Thursday, March 12, 2009 1:09 PM Subject: Comment on Revised GEP Model Proposal
Please use this space to offer comments and suggestions regarding the Revised GEP Model Proposal. To begin, click the "Reply" button to the right. (If you don't see this button, click the "Sign In" icon in the upper right corner of the screen.) You may respond directly to this message or to any posted below. | I must say that while reading the proposal I was slightly disappointed to see that one class can't work for more than one area. I studied at the University of St. Thomas and they had many of these types of classes. Namely ones that would fulfill more than one requirement. We called them double dips. Under this new model it is going to increase the amount of time and money students will have to spend because one class can't fulfill more than one requirement. Not a good idea. Got the us, the college students, out as soon as possible with as much education possible with the least amount of money. Under this new plan it is becoming less feasible to be a 4 year college and is working up to 5 and 6 years. How can we contribute in society if we can't get out of college? Help us get out sooner and make the difference we want to make. Side note- Just like one of the previous people posted, double dips help promote interdisciplinary communication which is so often lacking.
| | | | 0 | 3/31/2009 2:09 PM | 3/31/2009 2:09 PM | | |
|