General Education Committee Minutes 2/7/05

Members Present: J. Eglin, S. Greymorning, K. Hill, S. Kalm, T. Manuel, S. Miller D. Pletscher, G. Smith, R. Welsh

Members Absent/Excused:

Ex-Officio Present: L. Carlyon, A. Walker-Andrews

Chair Eglin called the meeting to order at 3:10 PM.

The minutes from 11/29/04 and 1/31/05 were approved.

Communication:

§ Chair Eglin met with ECOS to discuss changes to the committee’s charge. The April 2005 deadline to present a report to the Senate for vote has been lifted. A completed statement of purpose is still required. The charge addressing internal and external factors was modified with: “in accordance with the spirit of the recommendations of the 2005 Legislative Transfer Audit.”

§ Although several committee members were nominated to serve on the Board of Regents workgroups, none were appointed. However, the Provost invited Chair Eglin to sit in on the General Education Core Workgroup teleconference to get a better sense of how the Regents will clarify and enforce compliance with the general education core transfer policy.

Old Business:

Comparison of the general education core to UM’s general education requirements:

§ One obvious problem is the foreign language/symbolic systems competency.

A possibility would be to move this requirement under the majors. There are currently 11 majors that specify students take the foreign language requirement and several stipulate the symbolic systems component. However, there are several majors that do not specify either. According to the Registrar’s Office this would be problematic for students because they change majors frequently.

An alternative might be to change the foreign languages requirement to an option under the diversity requirement. Then possibly the symbolic systems component could be included in the math competency.

§ It seems that there should be a better way to approach general education, rather than simply moving courses around. The courses need to be teaching what is expressed in the statement of purpose. Do general education courses align with the preamble and the learning outcomes?

§ The committee has to work within the realm of the current political reality. The required compliance to the core policy could be an opportunity to redefine the intent of the perspectives.

§ Perhaps UM could adopt a three tier system: 1) core / fundamental; 2) supplemental / breadth; and 3) specialization in preparation for the major. The supplemental requirement could be the piece that makes UM unique.

The supplemental requirement wouldn’t necessarily have to be upper-division. Many courses in the foreign language/symbolic systems and the ethics requirement are lower-division.

§ Most majors want students to have taken an ethics course, but there is a reluctance to move any additional courses into the majors.

§ In some situations there could be a problem with how a perspective is defined. Also some courses seem to meet the criteria for more than one perspective, but credit is not allowed for both.

The meeting was adjourned.