The following are my notes of points made during the discussion of JBAC’s GETM after IFS President Peter Gilkey presented the proposal and the environment in which it is being offered and discussed. Note that this proposal is intended to be operating at the start of the fall term, 2005.
1. Ed Watson – LBCC when OSU changed their gen ed, LBCC went along and adopted the same
Being student oriented means getting the students there
This effort is political first & curricular 2nd
Argued for defining outcomes in GETM
2. Andy Duncan SWCCC 90 hour AAOT is huge, prefers closer to 65 hours
Wide range in LD hours required for majors: WOU Sci major – 78 LD hours PSU music – 45
We’re telling the students that if you complete the AOT you enter OUS as a Junior
3. Carol Harding WOU English GETM is a reasonable compromise
4. Bob Turner WOU Biology LD is not the same as GE, some LD are prerequisites or part of some majors
Some GE courses are not acceptable as LD for some majors
We should not be telling the students that if you complete the AOT you enter OUS as a Junior
It is not true that 45 hour GETM means entry into any OUS major as a sophomore (and 90 hour AAOT
= entry as a Junior) – some majors need four years of courses
Better advising is an absolute necessity and faculty rewards system has to have effective advising built into it
On GETM proposed by JBAC: replace “Introduction” to the discipline with “Exposure” to the discipline
5. Jem Spectar WOU Provost
Agree with BT
Asks what else is going on with the GETM and the students
6. E W What does a core look like that will not be wasted?
Students are “swirling” and the needs of these students must be accommodated
7. Peter Gilkey IFS President not all GE courses are the same w respect to Introduction to the major
Swirling students are in poor shape (UO faculty) – the student needs to progress along a coherent program
8. CH What if A. adopt GETM
B. Each department list GE courses that would best benefit their major
9. Dave McDonald PUS Chancellor’s Office
9.B. is an automatic for inclusion in the proposed statewide data system
Source of OUS entering year students: 60% HS & “swirl” 20% cc 20% other 4 yr Univ
10. Diane Tarter WOU Art WOU art is listing cc courses that will transfer
11. Joe Sendelbagh WOU Grad Studies How can we insure that swirling students are not repeating/missing course
content in courses with different names & numbers?
12. CH – consistent, unified course numbers?
13. PBG – not the topic of this proposal, and deliberately so, in order to craft something that is acceptable and can start by
fall 2005
14. Anne Bliss WOU English swirling students WILL confront different courses above GETM
But JBAC’s GETM is better than what will probably be proposed by legislators
15. PBG - the loss of tuition income is a wash (with reference to the CC vs. OUS features of GETM vs AAOT)
16. Kristina Frankenberger WOU Business several questions? Aren’t we know listing the specific GE courses needed for
particular majors?
17. AD “Isn’t there a set of foundation courses that can be taken before any major?”
18. BT – repeat the “4 years of courses needed for a Biology major” argument
19. CH – we do need to get away from calling (any 45 hours) “the first year”
20. AB – GETM = et students out sooner from OUS once they start at CC & then move to OUS
21.EW CCs are winning and losing swirling students OUS and CCs need to cooperate more
Better advising is essential
| Web page spun on 20 October 2004 by Peter B Gilkey 202 Deady Hall, Department of Mathematics at the University of Oregon, Eugene OR 97403-1222, U.S.A. Phone 1-541-346-4717 Email:peter.gilkey.cc.67@aya.yale.edu of Deady Spider Enterprises |