General Education Committee Minutes 4/18/05

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

Members Absent/Excused: S. Kalm, T. Manuel, S. Greymorning,

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

Chair Eglin called the meeting to order at 3:12 PM.

The minutes from 4/11/05 were approved. The notes from the evening meeting were amended and approved.

Communication:

§ The preamble was approved by the Senate.

§ There was considerable debate about the draft General Education transfer policy pertaining to the creation of the General Education Council to approve courses that satisfy the MUS Core. The sentiment is that the Council should be advisory and members should be nominated by the various faculty governance bodies of the units. The Faculty Senate chair will be sending a letter to the Board of Regents. It is unknown whether they will accept the recommendations.

§ The Provost announced at the Senate meeting that the Regents have eliminated the American Indian Education course requirement from the policy because of resource issues. A group has been assigned to evaluate the issue and come up with a recommendation.

§ Another issue that was debated at the Regents was allowing a minimum grade of C for general education transfer courses. This could be problematic for UM because of plus minus grading, so the Senate Chair is proposing an amendment C-. Perhaps the committee might consider this a requirement for passing all general education courses.

§ It seems there are not a lot of students exempting out of competency courses. Associate Registrar Carlyon provided the data for the spring graduating class: Out of 1544 undergraduate degree candidates, 18 were exempt from ENEX 101 by the writing placement examination. The report did not differentiate between first-time freshmen and transfer students. She doesn’t believe there has ever been a student exempted out of the math competency.

§ The committee needs to determine what to communicate to the Faculty Senate at the May meeting. Should models be presented or just a year-end report? The May meeting is devoted mostly to seating the new senators and the election of a new ECOS, so it was agreed not to present the models at the meeting. The report might include information that the committee has agreed is important to consider such as carrying the foundations throughout the four years and incorporating something into orientation that explains the purpose and philosophy of the general education program.

Old Business:

§ Various aspects of the models were discussed. It doesn’t seem that anyone is interested in changing the structure in a major way. A complete overhaul would be too much work and cause too much upset. However, there does need to be a component that pulls the various foundations together for students. It was suggested that there could by 3 or 4 different ways to engage the new students (freshmen and transfers). The requirement would be a choice of the options. Perhaps there could be discussion seminars implemented to serve students that are not in other programs such as figs, or there could be something integrated into a course, or a volunteer experience. Pharmacy has an integrated studies course that helps students connect the disciplines to an elected topic. However, it has added work for the faculty. This type of effort has to be incorporated into the departmental culture for it to be successful.

§ It is important to remember that many of the programs are very concerned about the credit requirement for general education courses. Perhaps the committee could look at a way to reduce the requirement by allowing for multi-functioning courses.

The meeting was adjourned.