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.
>
>
>
>
>