| To: | Faculty Senators |
| From: | Robert Wismer, Chemistry Department |
| Date: | 16 June 2005 |
| Re: | Biology BSE Proposal--Original Version |
I have read with care the proposal of the Biology Department to resolve its dilemma regarding the 126-credit mandate of the SSHE Board of Governors. (Briefly, for BSEd BIOL majors the proposal advocates allowing the Professional Education block to satisfy the Perspectives requirement of GenEd.) In fact, I have been involved peripherally in the Biology discussions. Furthermore, I have been extensively involved in similar discussions within the Chemistry Department. Accordingly, I support the goals of the Biology Department proposal. I believe that the overall result of the proposal for the students involved is minimal damage to their academic program.
In contrast, I believe that the methods of the proposal insult both the General Education curriculum and University Governance, specifically the course approval process. I have an alternative, which achieves the same goals as the proposal and avoids both insults.
The insult to General Education springs from the criteria for a Perspectives course. Criterion E is that a Perspectives course "May not have a narrow technical, professional, or career orientation." Of course the Professional Education block has exactly a "professional...orientation."
The insult to the course approval process has at least two aspects. The first is that none of the courses in the professional block are approved for Perspectives course or GenEd status, nor is such status sought. The second is that the Biology Department proposal is indirectly proscribing the content of courses within another department, by specifying that those courses fulfill the Perspectives requirement.
I propose instead that the Biology Department be granted a waiver of the Perspectives Requirement by Faculty Senate. The waiver would be based on a similar rationale to the BIOL proposal, acknowledging that the Professional Education block fulfills most, but not all of the criteria of a Perspectives course. The waiver would specifically state that it is being granted to comply with the credit limitations imposed by the Board of Governors. It would be implicit in the waiver that, if the content of any of the courses in the Professional Education block were to change (as recently was the case with the content of EDFN 241), the waiver would have to be reconsidered.
The waiver I propose has the advantage of avoiding both insults. In addition, it continues to make the Biology Department responsible for the content of courses taken by its majors. Finally, it avoids tampering with the present GenEd curriculum, and makes it evident that there is yet another problem that any revision of GenEd needs to solve.
The waiver of the Perspectives requirement lowers the total GenEd credits for a BSEd biology student from 51 to 48. The SSHE mandate is for 40% of a student's total credits, which we have taken to mean 40% of 120 credits, or 48 credits. One can easily conclude that the Biology proposal also lowers the total GenEd credits to 48, as none of the courses in the professional Education block have received GenEd approval.
Senators should be aware that both Chemistry and Physics face similar dilemmas in their BSEd curricula to that of Biology.
| To: | Faculty Senators |
| From: | Robert Wismer, Chemistry Department |
| Date: | 16 June 2005 |
| Re: | Biology BSE Proposal--Amended Version (Amendment in Bold) |
I have read with care the proposal of the Biology Department to resolve its dilemma regarding the 126-credit mandate of the SSHE Board of Governors. (Briefly, for BSEd BIOL majors the proposal advocates allowing the Professional Education block to satisfy the Perspectives requirement of GenEd.) In fact, I have been involved peripherally in the Biology discussions. Furthermore, I have been extensively involved in similar discussions within the Chemistry Department. Accordingly, I support the goals of the Biology Department proposal. I believe that the overall result of the proposal for the students involved is minimal damage to their academic program.
In contrast, I believe that the methods of the proposal insult both the General Education curriculum and University Governance, specifically the course approval process. I have an alternative, which achieves the same goals as the proposal and avoids both insults.
The insult to General Education springs from the criteria for a Perspectives course. Criterion E is that a Perspectives course "May not have a narrow technical, professional, or career orientation." Of course the Professional Education block has exactly a "professional...orientation."
The insult to the course approval process has at least two aspects. The first is that none of the courses in the professional block are approved for Perspectives course or GenEd status, nor is such status sought. The second is that the Biology Department proposal is indirectly proscribing the content of courses within another department, by specifying that those courses fulfill the Perspectives requirement.
I propose instead that the Biology Department be granted a waiver of the Perspectives Requirement by Faculty Senate. The waiver would be based on a similar rationale to the BIOL proposal, acknowledging that the Professional Education block fulfills most, but not all of the criteria of a Perspectives course. The waiver would specifically state that it is being granted to comply with the credit limitations imposed by the Board of Governors. It would be implicit in the waiver that, if the content of any of the courses in the Professional Education block were to change (as recently was the case with the content of EDFN 241), the waiver would have to be reconsidered.
I propose instead that the Biology Department be granted a waiver of the Perspectives Requirement by Faculty Senate. The waiver would be based on a similar rationale to the BIOL proposal, but instead alleging that the already broad requirements of the Biology BSEd curriculum, as mandated in part by the Pennsylvania Department of Education, [specifically the course in Ecology,] meet the criteria for a perspectives course. The waiver would specifically state that it is being granted to comply with the credit limitations imposed by the Board of Governors. It would be implicit in the waiver that, if the content of any of the courses in the Biology BSEd were to change substantially, the waiver would have to be reconsidered."
The waiver I propose has the advantage of avoiding both insults. In addition, it continues to make the Biology Department responsible for the content of courses taken by its majors. Finally, it avoids tampering with the present GenEd curriculum, and makes it evident that there is yet another problem that any revision of GenEd needs to solve.
The waiver of the Perspectives requirement lowers the total GenEd credits for a BSEd biology student from 51 to 48. The SSHE mandate is for 40% of a student's total credits, which we have taken to mean 40% of 120 credits, or 48 credits. One can easily conclude that the Biology proposal also lowers the total GenEd credits to 48, as none of the courses in the professional Education block have received GenEd approval.
Senators should be aware that both Chemistry and Physics face similar dilemmas in their BSEd curricula to that of Biology.