MHCC/COCC Meeting on Gen Ed Transfer Module

November 9, 2004, 1:30p – 3:00p

INTRO: Why a Gen Ed Transfer Module?

There was difficulty in defining the problem that the transfer module addresses.

It was made clear that there is a need for community colleges and four-year schools to work collaboratively to provide a solution to ease a perceived loss of credit for the transfer student.

Although, there is no hard data to support the definition of a problem, (only anecdotal), the perceived problem, nonetheless, must be addressed.

There is a false assumption that the module will improve advising.

In truth, the module will require extensive advising.

MHCC faculty did identify problem areas….

(Pam Shields)

Many community college students are 1st generation college students and unfamiliar with degree terminology and options. Use the module as a gateway

1. the module should cause the students to focus earlier than the usual 2^nd year to select a career path.

2. the presence of 2 modules (one for BA, one for BS) would provide a basis for students to become aware of degree differences early on.

(Joan DeYoung)

Suggest a common 36 credits with 9 credits specific to career path or degree path. As currently written the module requires 1 extra course in Arts and Letters/Social Science than is useful for a BS. If the purpose is to prevent waste of credits, address this from the beginning.

Provide flexibility within Introduction to Disciplines. Allow for the student to feed into a BS OR a BA degree.

(Pam Shields)

It’s a matter of training as well (in reference to the need to address BA/BS differences). The presence of 2 gen –ed modules (or at least flexibility within the module) will acknowledge the difference between the BS and BA degree and provide a basis for students to become aware of the differences early on.

(Comment)

A flexible module (BS or BA track within the Introduction to Disciplines) will provide for better management of credits, less waste.

(Brenda Houchen)

(In response to discussion of “swirling” students – students concurrently taking courses on multiple campuses) If students “swirl” , who is to award the module? Our degree requirements state that a student must have a minimum of 24 MHCC credits to obtain an MHCC degree. Shouldn’t that also be considered as criteria for award of the module?

(Sarah Boone)

Truth in advertising problem. Students think of gen-ed as any non-major requirement, not realizing that there can be additional university requirements beyond gen-ed and major requirements. Leads to potential disappoint with the module.

With good advising, one doesn’t need a transfer module.

The module presents one more layer of terminology for the student to understand. If students know where they are headed – where is the benefit?

(Pam Shields)

K-12 has been saddled with the CIM and CAM, we need to be proactive in this case. But where have students been involved in the process?

(Comment)

Why are we encouraging students to leave (community college) after the 1st year?

(Malcolm McCord)

Will a year’s focus on gen-ed aggravate the retention problems? Slugging through gen-ed is not exciting; it doesn’t provide a chance to “taste” their major.

Student’s perception is that anything outside the major is gen-ed. They are not aware of other impending degree requirements. – would this lead to disappointment with the module.

(Patricia Martin)

We are not seeing growth in the AAOT. Students do not know how to use this in transition from HS to University. We need to create the connection, we all know when there is no major declared there is a higher drop-out rate.

Take advantage of existing co-horts (CC to 4-year) and encourage additional cohorts.

(Kathleen Walsh, COCC)

If you take the community college out of the equation – what is the advantage of the module for OUS - for lateral movement amongst the 4-years?

(David Todd)

We need to have room in the first year for discipline specific courses to keep student interest, i.e. increase retention.

(Shannon Valdivia)

Module provides potential for boredom which in turn causes a drop in retention.

Module requires better advising, which burdens an already stressed advising staff and overflows onto faculty. Ironically, we are in this boat because of greater need for advising in the first place.

(Malcolm McCord)

Is the student going to be satisfied with the module once they get to the 4-year school? No. They have more gen-ed to do. Now they are as unhappy with the module as they were before the module. Do they go back to the legislature with further complaints? Will the module backfire? Possibly unless the 2nd sentence of the module be made VERY CLEAR. (“Upon transfer, the receiving institution may specify additional Gen Ed course work that is required….”)

(Peter Gilkey, U of O)

Module is not a complete package for gen-ed, but rather a start for gen-ed – a “common” start.