Actually, I think Matt had it right. The Chancellor, who is now on a SACS
board or something like it, said to the Senate that there never was a
requirement for specific courses, and he stressed that the issue was
whether or not we could demonstrate that we do what we claim to do in those
three skills areas.

Of course none of us wants to redefine a college education as 120 hours,
but at least we can thank SACS for that minimum level, for I suspect our
legislature (and the taxpayers they "serve") might go for 100 hours, or
even 90 if hard pressed for money. The point is, no department or program
would have to drop the requirements as now stated, but they might have to
give up three classes in the major. How many departments are willing to do
this? On the other hand, departments, especially in the School of Business
-- if Betsy's sources are correct -- could require oral and writing
assignments as well as computer work in all their classes. I suspect many
already do.

Another route would be to lower the Gen Ed  requirements, but that too
would be a loss of education somewhere and perhaps some of the same skills
that are explicitly addressed in the three courses under discussion.  There
is no easy solution to yet another unwelcome and ill considered mandate
from our educational and political leaders in this state.

Richard


t 10:56 AM 2/26/2004 -0500, Matt Greenwell wrote:
>unless i completely misunderstood what the senate was told (which
>perhaps i did...), i  was led to believe that the competencies were
>recommendations only.
>
>my apologies.
>
>matt greenwell
>
>
>On Feb 26, 2004, at 12:38 PM, Stephen Kuhn wrote:
>
>>Clarification: The quoted statement, "The institution must demonstrate
>>that
>>its graduates of degree programs are competent in reading, writing,
>>oral
>>communication, fundamental mathematical skills and the basic use of
>>computers," can be found in the SACS Commission on Colleges Criteria
>>for
>>Accreditation (modified December1997, 11th ed 2nd printing) section
>>4.2.2,
>>Undergraduate Completion Requirements, p. 27, lines 29-32
>>(http://www.sacscoc.org/SectIV.htm). These are SACS mandated and not
>>self-imposed, as Matt suggests. Precisely HOW we meet these criteria is
>>flexible but meeting them and demonstrating to SACS that we meet them
>>is
>>not.
>>
>>-Stephen Kuhn, Mathematics
>>
>>----- Original Message -----
>>From: "Matt Greenwell" <[log in to unmask]>
>>To: <[log in to unmask]>
>>Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2004 5:40 AM
>>Subject: Re: [UTCSTAFF] university graduation requirements
>>
>>
>>>as a point of clarification, and without making a case for or against
>>>the university requirements...
>>>
>>>it was made clear to the faculty senate (someone will correct me if
>>>i'm
>>>wrong) that the following criteria, "The institution must demonstrate
>>>that its graduates of degree programs are competent in reading,
>>>writing, oral communication, fundamental mathematical skills and the
>>>basic use of computers." is not actually a sacs mandated criteria, it
>>>is rather a self imposed criteria to meet a sacs recommendation.
>>>however, as long as we, as an institution, SAY we do these things, we
>>>must be able to prove to sacs that we actually do them, or face
>>>reprimand. saying we do things, and proving that we do them are two
>>>very different things in light of the state's unwillingness/inability
>>>to fund the necessary lines to teach these courses, and, in the case
>>>of
>>>departments who would attempt to (and, i would argue, many already do)
>>>fold these requirements into their curriculum, the lack of any clear
>>>internal mechanism to approve and monitor these courses for
>>>compliance.
>>>
>>>that said, i don't think that anyone would disagree that there is any
>>>educationally sound reason for forcing us to drop to 120 hours. what
>>>seems clear is that we are being forced, and that as a faculty we are
>>>struggling to find a solution that does the least possible harm to the
>>>university and its individual programs. what that solution should be
>>>is
>>>clearly a matter of debate.
>>>
>>>matt greenwell
>>>art
>>>
>>>On Feb 26, 2004, at 4:22 AM, Stephen Kuhn wrote:
>>>
>>>>There is no educationally sound reason for forcing us to drop to 120
>>>>hours for graduation - it's a bad decision but is being forced on us
>>>>from the outside by people who have less interest in real education
>>>>than those of us whose job it is to educate.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>But dropping the university graduation requirements of Intensive
>>>>Writing, Oral Communication, and Computer Literacy by our own choice
>>>>strikes me as collaboration with the enemies of education in the
>>>>state
>>>>of Tennessee and will damage our students now and after they
>>>>graduate.
>>>>What is the educationally sound rationale for dropping these
>>>>requirements? I understand that dropping these requirements makes it
>>>>easier for some departments to meet the undesirable but required
>>>>120-hour maximum, but where is the educational value in that
>>>>decision?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>There is another question that requires an answer if we vote to drop
>>>>these requirements. How do we demonstrate that we satisfy the
>>>>following SACS criteria? "The institution must demonstrate that its
>>>>graduates of degree programs are competent in reading, writing, oral
>>>>communication, fundamental mathematical skills and the basic use of
>>>>computers."  (The italics are mine, but the bold must is from SACS.)
>>>>Surely we don't believe that our students come to us with these
>>>>skills
>>>>and therefore we have no need to teach them. Nor should we believe
>>>>that two courses in freshman composition are sufficient, regardless
>>>>of
>>>>how well these courses are taught.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>When we approved the current General Education program we made a bold
>>>>and intelligent decision to include these requirements because we
>>>>believed that they were critical for the functioning of every college
>>>>graduate. Are we now saying that we no longer believe this?  If so
>>>>what has changed in the world that makes these skills no longer
>>>>necessary?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>I suggest that we keep these three requirements as they are and
>>>>strongly encourage, instead of simply allow, departments to integrate
>>>>them into their major programs in ways that are appropriate for their
>>>>own majors. In the long run this path may very well be better for the
>>>>students and our programs than having them take several separate
>>>>courses in other departments.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>I urge all faculty members to vote against the proposed elimination
>>>>of
>>>>these three university graduation requirements.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>