The General Education Dilemma

 

Summary of the discussions held in the General Education Requirements Dilemma session at the 2003 Articulation and Transfer Conference.  Topics have been grouped under headings to attempt to add some coherence to a complex issue. 

 

Part 1: What are the issues in current practice regarding general education requirements?

 

Sequences

 

Ø    Sequences are hard to do and some courses are only available once a year

Ø    Sequences don’t meet discipline objectives/requirements

Ø    Some colleges require sequences, others do not

 

Courses

 

Ø    Need to have class numbering consistency and equivalency

Ø    Non-standard course numbering/content

Ø    Lack of common numbering system (lack of system!)

Ø    Course numbers differ (same content, different number)

Ø    Different curriculum for same number course (same number, different content)

Ø    Differing credits for same courses

Ø    Use of upper division course work to met general education distribution requirements

Ø    Credits versus content – measure general education by number of credits or by course content

Ø    Lack of course equivalency (SP111 may not equal SP111)

Ø    Lack of current complete database of courses

Ø    Co-requisites/Pre-requisites

Ø    Many variable prerequisites required for 200 level science classes – wide disparity

Ø    Not accepting credit earned in High School (dual credit, College Now, etc)

 

College perspectives

 

Ø    Complexity of advising

Ø    Every institution has different general education requirements

Ø    Every campus has a different mission in sense of general education

Ø    The requirements for the AA/OT are not the same on each community college campus

Ø    Community College does not always offer all general education requirements

Ø    Some colleges require proficiency exit exams

Ø    The quarter system

Ø    Writing (and math) requirements different for AS and AAS degrees

Ø    For a “liberal arts” degree, the AA/OT requires too much math and science and is a discouragement for students pursuing majors that do not require math (e.g. PSU English Major)

Ø    In some majors (Computer Science, all sciences and business) it benefits students to transfer without a degree (or AS degree if destination is known

After Transfer

 

Ø    Unwrapping AA/OT (challenging what constitutes college level courses)

Ø    Double dipping restrictions: difficult to anticipate how AA/OT will be used towards non-general education requirements

 

Students

 

Ø    Students who self-advise

Ø    Students changing minds about where to transfer

Ø    Students not aware that some privates (Marylhurst) recognize the AA/OT

Ø    Getting classes

Ø    Economy – fewer students can afford to start at 4-year institutions

 

The AA/OT

 

Ø    AA-OT is not an adequate solution for all students

Ø    “Right-size” the AA/OT

Ø    AA/OT acts like a terminal degree rather than a transfer degree

Ø    Earning an Associates has become a “fall back” degree not a stepping stone

Ø    No perceived benefit to getting an AA/OT

 

In summary:

The current variations among community colleges with regard to the AA/OT  (distribution requirements) and  the lack of a common system for lower division course standards has made the AA/OT of little benefit as a viable general education approach to students seeking to transfer to an OUS institution. 

Part 2:  What are the solutions?

 

Mandated General Education Requirements

 

Ø    General Education – Consistent General Education requirements by state mandate

Ø    Chancellor’s office take leadership to create outcome-based General Education requirements for OUS schools allowing community college system to create common course numbering and credit amount

Ø    Appoint dictator to require common course numbers and content

Ø    Standardize statewide AA/OT

 

Standardized course numbering and content

 

Ø    Common course numbering and content – 1) audit and highlight where courses are equivalent, and 2) host curricular conversations among disciplines to create common or comparable content

Ø    Consistency in numbering and content

Ø    Define common course number and content outcomes and credits with OUS and community colleges

 

Solution finding strategies

 

Ø    Joint planning curriculum with community colleges and 4-year schools

Ø    Develop degree audits for AA/OT with specific OUS institution

Ø    Recognize problem with numbering system -- it is not as big a problem for the school as it is for the student

Ø    Who has dealt with this problem and what solutions have been discovered?

Ø    Discussion between universities and community colleges to look for solutions.

Ø    Redefine general education requirements

 

Alternative General Education transfer options

 

Ø    Transfer core 45 credits leads to certificate additional 45 leads to AA (for BA) or AS (for BS)

Ø    Universal general education core (=55 credits) = certificate?

Ø    Use the A.S.

Ø    TWEAK

 

Sequences

 

Ø    Move away from sequences – encourage breadth of study by requiring courses from more than one department

Ø    If we keep sequences then allow more flexibility for students who transfer in with semester credits that overlap two courses

Ø    Replace sequence with depth requirement – two in same subject area within discipline

Ø    Challenges of transferring between community colleges and working on AA/OT. Example: Distribution area requiring sequences at some community colleges.

Ø    3 credits at community college transfers to 4 credits at 4 year

 

In summary:

Move Oregon to adopt common degree standards such as mandated general education requirements and standardize course numbering and content at the lower division levels.