if we are required to make the move to 120 hours (which seems more
likely than not...), the most critical issue is clearly where those
hours come from. i agree with joe, and others who have stated the same,
that most departments, ours included, there aren't eight hours to give
up. yet somehow implicit in the debate thus far has been the assumption
that gen-ed and the university requirements are somehow sacred and
exempt from this cut. given that (at least a part of) the broader
context of all of this is to establish some parity between system
schools to facilitate transfer students, it seems logical to establish
that parity first and foremost in the gen-ed curricula (the most
commonly shared coursework among transfers), and that there, as well,
may be the most obvious place to find those eight hours.

while i appreciate (and even share) some of joe's concern about how
this may effect the quality or a liberal arts education, i also
remember that 6 or so years ago we had a gen-ed requirement that
amounted to 33 total hours, 7 less than the now required 40. add to
this the new university requirements which amount to 11 hours and we're
talking about a difference of 18 hours. i was not a part of the gen-ed
revision, and here i completely defer to those who know more about it
than i do...but i seem to remember that the good efforts of that
committee were driven not by a general and agreed upon sense that the
requirements needed changing, or (more specifically) that there needed
to be more hours, but rather by administrative mandate.

at the time of that change, many departments had to make some
cuts/adjustments to degree programs to find room for the additional
courses while still allowing for the possibility of a 4-year degree
(vs. 5). this, of course, makes it that much more difficult to now
embrace or absorb additional programmatic cuts. adding salt to the
wound is the fact that the university has yet to provide anything close
to the necessary funding or resources to adequately staff many of the
new and additional courses that must now be offered in order to meet
the new gen-ed/univ requirements (other posts regarding contingent
faculty speak more directly to this issue).

so here we are, looking at another mandate, this time legislative. i
don't pretend to know where best to find these 8 hours, but if forced
to compare the value of 8 hours within our own degree program and 8
hours from the sum total of 51 gen-ed/university requirements, i start
to think that 8 less from the second is more responsible that 8 hours
from the first.

matt greenwell
art




Begin forwarded message:

> From: Joe Dumas <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Thu Nov 6, 2003  1:27:23 PM US/Eastern
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [UTCSTAFF] responses
> Reply-To: Joe Dumas <[log in to unmask]>
>
> Billy Harris wrote:
>
>>> it valorizes 128 as magical. (Why not 127 as the index of education
>>> or 146
>>> or 25?
>>
>> I agree with you that there is nothing magical about the number 128.
>> My
>> undergraduate program in electrical (computer) engineering required a
>> minimum of 132 hours with fewer general education requirements.
>
> Indeed.  My undergraduate program required 132 as well.  I actually
> graduated with something like 176 (presaging my career as a
> "professional student" and then faculty....
>
>> I agree with Dr. Dumas that it harms the quality of our CS program if
>> we have
>> to abide by a fiat-limited number of hours, especially since that
>> maximum
>> limit is lower than our existing program as well as lower than
>> comparable
>> programs at other universities.
>
> Yep.
>
>> One our concentraion areas can be fixed
>> by removing technical electives. This alone would reduce the quality
>> of the
>> program because our graduates would have less bredth of coverage.
>
> I am sure neither the employers of our graduates nor the graduate
> schools some of them go on to attend would particularly favor this.
>
>> Our other
>> concentration areas can not be as easily fixed, and I share Dr.
>> Dumas's
>> scepticism that we could justify a reduction in course requirements
>> to our
>> acrediting board.
>>
>> The problem isn't looking at 128 hours and removing 8 of them. Unless
>> the
>> general education / university requirements change, the problem is
>> looking
>> at the 78 hours most relevant the major, and removing 8 of them. In
>> most
>> cases there will be far fewer than 78 hours to pick the victims from.
>
> Yes.  I'm not sure what other areas English or other majors are
> required
> to take courses in, but in CPSC and ENGR there is a lot of math and
> science required.  Cut that and you jeopardize accreditation.  What's
> left to cut?  General education?  I guess we can always choose to turn
> out technically prepared but less well-rounded students, but I don't
> think that's what most faculty want.
>
>>> Why hold on to the sacred 3 hours (i.e., 2.5 hours) of classroom
>>> time per week? These things are matters of convention and usage, not
>>> matters of quantity of time equating to quality of learning. So, the
>>> 128
>>> seemed romanticized.
>>
>> If you gain approval to count the 2.5 hours of classroom time per
>> week as
>> only a 2-credit hour rather than 3 credit hour, establish with
>> finalcial
>> aid and INS parties that 4x2 = 8 hours is a full time academic load,
>> and
>> convince the acceditation board that the two hour class has the same
>> depth
>> of coverage as the old three hour class, then I will drop my
>> objection to the
>> 120-hour rule.
>>
>>> experience of the BA- or BS-seeking student. One doesn't need 128
>>> hours of
>>> English to be an English major--only 39; more than that for computer
>>> science, but not 128.
>>
>> I don't know the structure of your program, but how upset would you
>> be if the
>> 8 hour reduction had to come from the 39 hours to be an English major?
>>
>>> We should be looking for ways to improve whatever undergraduate
>>> program
>>> we're able to maintain, not fretting over its exact clock-time.
>>
>> I agree that we should have as strong a program as possible. Your
>> wording
>> "...able to maintain" is particularly appropriate as we have been
>> ordered
>> to reduce it.
>>
>>> Finally, your comment, "maybe there are 8 credit hours of coursework
>>> in
>>> *your* major programs in which the students learn nothing of value,"
>>> assumes, dangerously, I think, that we all know and agree upon what
>>> is
>>> worth learning, what is "of value."
>>
>> At the risk of putting words in Dr. Dumas's mouth, I don't think he
>> was
>> claiming to know what English courses were "of value." I think his
>> claim was
>> that if you can remove 8 hours from your program without impacting
>> the quality
>> of the program, then obviously those 8 hours had no value toward the
>> degree
>> (if they had, then the degree would have lower quality after you
>> removed them).
>
> My mouth is fine with those words :)
>
>> The computer science department has no such collection of 8 hours
>> than can
>> be removed without impacting the degree.
>
> Nor, I imagine, do many other programs.  Some might do just fine, but
> to
> mandate it across the board is a real step down in quality.
>
> Thanks, Billy, for your support and elucidation of the issues.
>
> Joe
>