From: "Karen Sprague" (ksprague@molbio.uoregon.edu)
To: "'Peter B Gilkey'" (gilkey@darkwing.uoregon.edu)
Subject: RE: Input concerning JBAC proposal on Gen Ed
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2004 12:45:30 -0700

Dear Peter-

I've been thinking about the question of General Education nomenclature, and it seems to me that a nomenclature that limits "General Education" is one of the reasons we have trouble communicating what General Education is all about, and why a lot of it seems arbitrary to students and their parents. Not knowing that "General Education" in Oregon was supposed to refer only to introductory coursework in the 3 disciplinary areas, I've been presenting a more global view of General Education to parents and incoming students in orientation sessions for the last four years. I've included writing, math, foreign language, multicultural study, and introduction to the disciplines -- that is, everything that is not coursework intended for a major or elective coursework.

Marilyn Linton, Director of First-Year Programs here, has been doing the same thing, and this accident has produced a good result. Students now are excited about the great courses they "get to take" (yes, they really talk this way) within the General Education curriculum, and they include classes in writing, math, foreign language, and multicultural issues among those they find appealing. Parents tell me over and over again how much they enjoy hearing about UO General Education at orientation. The reactions from both students and parents are entirely different from those I observed during orientation in earlier years, when General Education was presented as a set of loosely-connected requirements that needed to be checked off for graduation.

If we were to adopt the broader definition of General Education throughout Oregon, we'd be in very good company. Colorado and Ohio both use the broad definition, and have effective websites that are clearly intended to communicate the fundamental importance and relevance of General Education to the lay public. They also have links intended for faculty, or others who want to understand the thinking behind the design of courses in all areas of General Education. This kind of thing helps faculty who teach General Education courses anywhere in those states understand that they are part of something significant. This is a loose federation, of course, but I think it encourages the kind of conversations that increase the quality of General Education at all schools. It also inspires confidence that this central part of the undergraduate educational experience has been thought through with care and imagination. I don't think that the Colorado and Ohio messages would be clear or compelling if "General Education" were >restricted to introduction to the disciplines, and the other coursework required of all, or nearly all, students were categorized in some other way.

I suspect that the Oregon nomenclature system that relies on "General Education" plus "Degree Requirements" has historical and political origins. That's completely understandable, and is probably true of most nomenclature systems. I'd suggest that we have an opportunity, as we introduce the Transfer Module, to revise the nomenclature to serve an educational purpose. I think we'd be doing each institution, as well as the state as a whole, a service.

-Karen