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.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
|
