DATE:            October 29, 2004

TO:                 Peter Gilkey

FROM:           Ron Severson, Chair UO UG Council

RE:                  UO Undergraduate Council’s Discussions about the Transfer Module

 

 

The University of Oregon Undergraduate Council met twice to discuss the JBAC transfer module proposal and once to discuss advising issues related to transfer modules.  The following letter summarizes the main points from our discussions. 

 

In general, the council supported the module as a way to allow students to transfer a coherent block of courses after one year of study.  The council also recognized the following advantages of the module:

 

1)    It could reduce concerns transfer students sometimes have about the transferability of individual courses and, thereby, ease the transition for transfer students. 

2)    It would allow community colleges and their students another way to count completion and progress toward degrees.

3)    It would allow room for students to take additional courses at receiving institutions in order to fulfill the particular general education mission of each institution.

4)    It would serve students who would benefit from transferring earlier from a 2-year to a 4-year institution.

5)    It could lead to productive conversations among institutions about the nature and content of general education courses.

6)    It would not replace advising and could enhance early advising if the right advising systems were in place.

 

The council also identified a few problems related to the proposal as it currently stands.  The section below summarizes those problems and the recommendations of the council related to each:

 

1)    Due to differences in the 3 or 4 credit course systems at various institutions, counting credits for completion of the module could lead to new inefficiencies in the transfer process if the credits earned did not match the credits required for the same block of courses at the receiving institution.

 

Recommendation:

In cases such as this, the council recommended that students could add electives at the sending institution to bring the total number of credits up to the level needed to match the requirements of the receiving institution.

 

2)    Again due to the differences in the 3 or 4 credit course systems at various institutions, counting courses could allow transfer students to complete significantly fewer general education credits than required of native students at the receiving institution.

 

Recommendation:

In such cases, the council recommended that some students would be required to take additional coursework in specified areas at the receiving institution to bring the number of credits up to a level comparable to native students.

 

3)    When counting courses, the council recognized the importance of stipulating a minimal number of credits and a minimal passing grade for courses counted in the module.

 

Recommendation:

The council recommended that no course with fewer than 3 credits be accepted and that students be required to earn a C- or better to have the course count within the module.

 

4)    Several concerns were raised about how credits originating with programs such as Advanced Placement, College High, or on-line universities would figure into the module.

 

Recommendation:

The council generally wanted to protect the high quality of general education at the University of Oregon.  More specifically, the council recommended that a note be added to the proposal requiring that all credits originate from a regionally accredited institution.  Council members also recommended that more inter-institutional conversations occur to gain consensus about the applicability of College High credits and about the levels of AP scores that correspond to particular levels and kinds of college credit.  Furthermore, the council recommended a move toward greater transparency in transcripting so that the origins of courses are evident. 

 

5)    Council members recognized the important relation between the notes of the JBAC proposal and the proposal itself.  The notes provide a framework for interpreting key points in the proposal.

 

Recommendation:

The council recommended that the notes become part of the proposal itself rather than an addendum to the proposal.

 

6)    The council recognized that the effectiveness of this transfer module depends upon the effective delivery of advising services. To complete this module in a year, students would need to receive accurate advising very early in their program. Furthermore, this advising must clearly articulate the relations between the module and the requirements of potential receiving institutions.

 

Recommendation: 

In general, the Council expressed concerns that the central database, as currently discussed within statewide committees, will not adequately address advising needs of transfer students.  More specifically, the Council strongly supports the development of a linked, statewide degree audit system, similar to the CAS system, which would allow advisors and students from one campus to access all of the relevant information needed to help students intending to transfer to other institutions.  More particularly, the Council strongly encourages support for implementation of a pilot program that would link the degree audits at some two-year and some four-year institutions which currently use DARS or a similar degree audit system on their campuses.  This pilot program would allow relevant groups throughout the state to assess the advantages of expanding a linked degree audit system to include all institutions in the state over time.  (For further information on this recommendation, please refer to the attached proposal drafted by Jeanne Coe and others from the University of Oregon.)

 

A Final Note:

 

Throughout our conversations about the JBAC proposal for a one-year transferable general education module and about improving our systems for advising transfer students, several references were made to the successes achieved in Ohio on these issues.  As a final note, the Undergraduate Council of the University of Oregon urges further exploration of the Ohio model as a set of best practices that may help the State of Oregon make comparable progress.

 

Ron Severson

Chair, UO Undergraduate Council

College of Business