Attachment G

Faculty Senate Minutes

3 December 1996

1. Under the goal of simplification, the task force suggests that some of its recommendations, such as eliminating label requirements, will improve the advising process. Several members of our committee felt it might have precisely the opposite effect by accelerating an already existing tendency to see the advising process as simply a card-signing process, rather than as an opportunity for faculty advisors to explain requirements to students, and assist students in focusing on their own objectives in getting an education.

2. Throughout the report, some saw little evidence that serious cost/benefit analysis had been done to validate any of its claims that its proposals would save money, and that it would do so without negatively impacting educational quality.

3. While the committee found the distinction between Phase 1 and Phse 2 useful, some found puzzling the task force's desire to implement substantive changes during Phase 1, given that some or all of these might be inconsistent with the changes which are certain to follow in the wake of Phase 2. Phase 2 involves a serious revision of the goals and objectives of general education, a task which our committee began almost two years ago, but had to shelve due to other demands which were placed on us since then. It is the committee's belief that these changes should guide the process of reforming general education. For this reason, during Phase 1, our committee mainly supports those recommendations which involve little change from the status quo.

1. After some discussion, it was agreed that #1 and #2 represent small changes and seem relatively unproblematic. The rationale under #1a makes little sense as it stands, and it is assumed that the fourth block is just a gathering together of requirements that don't fit under other blocks, presumably for the purpose of making advising easier? #6 was also seen as a continuation of the present de facto system, and hence as representing only a minor change. However, concern was expressed that it should be understood that this change ought not be construed as one which makes w-courses easier to teach, and consequently, should not serve as an excuse to continue to raise the size of w-classes.

2. Various members of the committee saw serious difficulties with recommendations #3, 4, and 5. All were perceived as major changes which could erode educational quality. In particular:
a. #3 was puzzling, as, if few students have difficulty satisfying this requirement, how will eliminating it make graduation easier or save the university money? The task force also did not discuss the original rationale for requiring C and Q courses. We believe it would be better to consider this issue as part of the Phase 2 process, after we have redefined general education objectives.
b. Apparently, as regards QARC courses, the task force was working on the false assumption that only math and computer science courses count as QARC. Several other departments teach QARC courses, including Geography, Philosophy, and Economics. To discourage other departments from teaching QARC courses would be completely inconsistent with the task force's recommendation under Phase 2, #3, that other departments be encouraged to develop advanced writing courses. In addition, it is difficult to see how makeing fewer QARC courses available to students will make it easier for them to graduate in a timely fashioin, nor how it will save the university money. Again, we recommend this label be reconsidered only as part of the Phase 2 process.
c. Recommendation #5 is questionable on two counts. First, is it likely to save the university money? How many students would actually take only three upper level courses, even if only three were required, given the number of required related courses many students take, plus the four w-course requirement. Second, assuming that a fair number of students do end up taking only three upper-level courses, would this be educationally desirable? After all, requiring only four out of twelve gen ed courses to be above the 100 level is a pretty weak requirement laready. Further, when the present system was instituted, both administrators and faculty agreed that the present requirement would definitely represent a more demanding system that would pay off in educational quality. What evidence does the task force have that this is no longer true? Finally, the assumption that the best place to increase class size in in 100-level classes, taken mainly by freshmen, runs contrary to the most recent studies, which suggest that freshman learning and retention are significantly improved by putting them in smaller classes.

1. Several members agreed that as we move towards assessable objectives and goals, we need to remember that not every educational objective will be measurable, and we need to be careful not to lose sight of this.

2. Recommendation #4 under this phase (eliminating the use of labels to designate requirements) might be acceptable as a possibility to be considered during Phase 2, but it would seem foolish at this point to tie the hands of the committee undertaking the Phase 2 process. Perhaps the task force is simply recommending that, during the Phase 2 process, serious attempts be made to find ways of achieving general education objectives, as redefined, without resorting to the cumbersome present system of requiring courses by labels. If so, our committee would not find this recommendation problematic.

3. To avoid confusion, under the PROPOSED CURRICULUM on p. 4, it would be best to specify that this is what it would look like at the end of the adoption of Phase 1. After all, we don't know what the curriculum might look like after the Phase 2 process is completed. We would also propose that it explicity include other requirements, such as the 4 courses per block, two from one department, a lab course, etc., so that it is clear on what exactly we are voting.