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.

Team Discussion comment on revised gep model proposal Use the Team Discussion list to hold newsgroup-style discussions on topics relevant to your team. // <![CDATA[ _spBodyOnLoadFunctionNames.push("setupPageDescriptionCallout"); // ]]>

Team Discussion comment on revised gep model proposal

Use the Team Discussion list to hold newsgroup-style discussions on topics relevant to your team.