Members Present: J. Eglin, S. Gaskill, K. Hill, D. Pletscher, K. Shanley, G. Smith R. Welsh, C. Winkler
Members Excused/
Absent: S. Kalm, T. Manuel, A. Walker-Andrews
Ex-Officio Present: L. Carlyon
Chair Winkler called the meeting to order at
The minutes from
Garon Smith informed the committee that he was successful in bidding for the 24th National Conference on Undergraduate Research (NCUR) conference in 2010. This time the Provost is on board and excited about the event.
Chair Winkler asked the committee to comment on how it could
make more efficient progress. One hour a
week is not enough time to get things done.
It was suggested that a subcommittee structure be used to draft
documents. The first document will be
advantages and disadvantages of the current, MUS core, and Task Force’s
model. Professor Smith and Pletscher,
and Associate Registrar Carlyon volunteered for the subcommittee.
The committee then discussed advantages and disadvantages to assist the
subcommittee in their task. Although
the Task Force’s model is unworkable it does contain some elements that could
be included in a more reasonable model. It does seem to meet many of the ideals
outlined in the preamble. The consolidation of expressive arts and literature
could be incorporated into a scaled down model. Aesthetic values could be
blended with other perspectives.
Democracy and ecology are both included in the model. Perhaps a citizen perspective could be
created. Other disadvantages are that
social science is missing from US or Global History and Culture and there is no
technology component.
The MUS core is not comprehensive or cohesive.
It is consistent with the Regents mandate, in contains a small number of
credits, and is realistic and limited to lower division.
The current model doesn’t meet the preamble and although there are a good
variety of courses, in terms of a liberal education there are large holes. The program is not fulfilling its purpose and
lacks assessment measures. However it is a known entity and would cause no
upheaval in departments. Students can
graduate in four years.
It will be impossible to develop a model that will meet all of the goals. What is important is how the foundation is built on. A simple program is preferred. Concepts need to run throughout the curriculum.
The political reality must be considered. The Regents want transferability, but don’t
want the universities to be the same.
They want students to receive a good foundation and be well educated
within financial limits (120 credits).
Language must be developed to show that the needs are being met.
A BA/ BS system could be implemented where a BA degree includes foreign
language and a BS degree does not.
Perhaps rather than a competency, foreign language could be included in
a perspective (Human Diversity, Global Society and Culture). Reading foreign language courses could be
taught for three credits. These are
ideal for students going on to graduate school.
Ideally foreign language requirement should be funded, it helps students
thinking.
There is also the sentiment that to best serve the students for future well being, a health and wellness component should be included in the program.
The meeting was adjourned.