OSU Town Hall Meeting

21 October 2004

 

Comments/questions

 

George’s comments:  Board and Chancellor’s Office very appreciative of faculty senates work on this.  Need a module that will work for the students.  In the end, this should make it more effective to move among institutions and more efficient.  Very important to the Governor and the legislature.  Need to stop the disinvestment that resulted from Measure 5 decisions.  Show us you are effective at meeting the state’s goals for education.  Each campus is somewhat different and the faculty on each campus is saying what will work and how we can make it happen.

 

OCCC.  Heavily invested in AAOT.  Important to allow diversity of OUS campuses.  Advising is a very important part of this process.

 

LBCC.  Montana has a similar module, but among a much smaller number of institutions.  It works there, but contains a very uniform.

 

BAC core at OSU has particular skills that we believe that each student should have.  Students that come to us from other institutions, may have a compromised program.  Will this actually help our students that move among institutions?  Students make decisions outside of this module, that will not help.

 

Writing will require that students must take specific courses.  WR 111, 121 are examples of courses that are accepted across the CCs and OUS.

 

Issue is ways to develop a proper subset.  There are some major got yahs.  Student may come and realize 6 extra courses that a colleague might not have to take.  Issue is that they come in with a bundled group of course that might not meet their needs for a particular major.

 

Transfer students from our OUS have greater duplication than transfers elsewhere.  So, it is a problem.  The ability to require certain courses by number should not be taken away for individual programs.  Major requirements can overlap with Bac Core, but going the opposite direction can cause programs.

 

Advising at CC level would help solve the problem.  However, the biggest problems are among OUS institutions.

 

Is there adequate data to inform the discussion?

 

Where are we headed.  The current proposal is a JBAC proposal not endorsed by IFS or the Provosts at each campus.  Top-up is allowed, that each campus would add additional classes.  How do you refine and refocus the GETM so that it will work among all campuses.  The “swirling” is a particular issue for students that attend multiple institutions.

 

If a student takes Psyc 100 in the GETM and then comes to major in Psyc, then we cannon require an additional class.  Duel enrollment agreements take care of this.

 

Legislature had developed an interest in engineering and some folks are not going to be satisfied with the module not meeting engineering requirement.  Can we not develop the GETM and tell students that it will work for as 70% of the majors.

 

Why not unbundled the AAOT or the GETM. 

 

Want a grade 13.  Students need individual learning at this level.  Going to common denominator is bad policy.

 

Who will pay for the advising for this?

 

Whould it be possible to do multiple transfer modules (e.g., science, engineering, liberal arts).

 

OCCC.  We currently have lots of savy students that are doing a Gen Ed advising themselves.  This student based.

 

Concern is that this is more and faster, but not better.  Concern that this is a hidden agenda that we will make a lower division and upper division system.  This will simply create another set of problems that we have not conceived of at this time.

 

Idea works well for CCs if it meets the needs of students.  Think of this GETM as a subset of the Bac Core at each institution, not a substitution.

 

A lot students will not actually complete the module and we will be in the same boat with student just coming.  OSU has pulled out the DPD courses, which the AAOT does not.

 

How set in stone is the 45 number.  Can we go to a smaller number.  CCs have a limited number of degree completions.  45 is an official designation that allows CCs to certify a degree or certificate.  Important to have “completers.”

 

No one from OSU on JBAC.  Would like to see someone on that Committee.  OSU has done a good job at developing articulation agreements.  “Wasted credits” is a poor choice of words because students should be encouraged to explore ideas and opportunites.

 

This will help students that have not figured out what they want to do, but they can still make significant progress.  That sounds more like the 13^th year.

 

Comments on both sides make sense.  Will these things automatically be tallied for them when they transfer?  In the UC system, lots of students did not actually complete the total module, and they did not get credit.   The swirling student must end up certifying the person’s module.

 

Will we be able to determine which courses?  No.

 

We want to make sure that the folks have the appropriate courses when they come to our programs.

 

How well do students do with the AAOT?  Statewide they do as well or better than self-advised students.

 

This is something new not the AAOT.  Why will this make a better quality student?

 

Students will rise to the challenge, and some will fall through the cracks.  This is not the silver bullet.

 

LBCC transfer success with the articulation agreements.