University of Minnesota, Morris
Morris, MN

 

 

 

MINUTES 2001-2002 CURRICULUM COMMITTEE MEETING # 3

October 18, 2001, 8:00 a.m. Behmler Conference Room

 

Present            Schwaller, Nellis, Mooney, De Jager Carlson, Lee, Korth, Strand, Gooch, Mullin, Hollerman, and Johnson.

Absent            Kissock, Evans, Urness, Thielke, Demos, and DeVries

 

 

APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Schwaller asked for a motion to approve the minutes from

October 4, 2001.

 

            MOTION:      (Carlson, Nellis) To approve minutes from October 4, 2001.

 

            VOTE:            Unanimous in favor (7-0-0)

 

 

PROPOSED APPROVAL OF COURSES:

Mgmt 4501, Variable Topics in Global Business: Globalization and Business Strategy, Mgmt 4502 Variable Topics in Global Business: Technological Change, Labor Market, and Skill Formation, and Mgmt 4503 Variable Topics in Global Business: Stabilization and Development in Latin America.

 

Motion:          (Korth, Lee) To approve Mgmt 4501, Mgmt 4502 and Mgmt 4503.

 

Approved:       Unanimous (7-0-0)

 

DISCUSSION OF DUAL GER DESIGNATORS FOR CLASSES:

Schwaller asked for a history of the program. Strand was asked to give the background information to the CC; she and DeJager were on the committee for Gen Ed for semester conversion. Strand stated that a thorough review was done on general education requirements in comparison to the Twin Cities and Duluth campuses. There was considerable discussion of “double dipping” because it was allowed under the quarter system. Strand recalled that one reason for not allowing “double dipping” was the fact that there were fewer GER categories under the semester system and therefore less of a need for a course to meet more than one GER requirement. UMM was moving from a criteria based Gen Ed program to a category based Gen Ed program. Strand noted that she was not familiar with what was discussed among the divisions at the time of conversion. She stated that the system under quarters was confusing and the fact that a course would only meet one GER simplified things. DeJager noted that the committee was mandated to reduce and simplify the General Education Requirements and quoted a section from the General Education Program Proposal dated April 25, 1997 from the May 12, 1997 Campus Assembly meeting. “The purpose of the one course/one category constraint is to assure, as far as possible, that students will satisfy their general education requirements by taking courses in as many disciplines and from as many different instructors as possible. The purpose is to assure breadth of experience, which requires a degree of rigidity in the structure of the program.. At the same time, the requirements are not conceived as being narrowly disciplinary. However, if all restraint is thrown aside, if single courses can satisfy many categories, or courses in a single discipline can span most of the categories, then opportunities arise for satisfying many requirements by taking courses from a few faculty in a few disciplines.” The proposal went forward requiring every course to have one GER designator. One member stated that a major issue at the time was abuse of the system; that one course could fit many GER requirements. It is important to make sure the system is not abused again.

 

Schwaller asked if every course does have a GER. Mooney noted that at this time no; there are some education courses that are not considered liberal arts and also many English courses do not have GER designators.

 

A member asked if courses could carry two GER designators and simply state one or the other. A member noted that in 1988 they went to two designators per class then three and so on. It didn’t just stay at two. Another member also brought up the idea that if they do have two GER designators students will question why they can’t have both and then may petition to the Scholastic Committee. A member questioned if having multiple GER designators per class would actually solve the problem of the issue raised by Thielke at the last meeting that students are having difficulty fulfilling their GER requirements because of class limitations. Another member noted he had not seen evidence that there is a problem, however, if Global Village is the GER where there is a problem why not eliminate that GER requirement all together? Another option would be to alternate GER requirements among classes; lower division classes meeting one GER and also satisfying prereqs for upper division courses, which would then meet a different GER. A student member noted that even though there are fewer GER category requirements under the semester system there are also fewer classes and multiple designators per class may ensure the students ability to graduate in 4-5 years. One member stated that when trying to decided what GER to use for a course they would use the one that would fit best; an example being a science course that would fit both the Sci and Envt requirement but fits better with Sci. Another member noted this same type of idea in Social Science with management and econ classes.

 

The discussion came back to the fact that UMM was trying to simplify the situation because the other system had become to complex. Schwaller stated that Thielke is doing a study about our GER requirements and after the study we can see where the problems lie, right now the issue will be tabled for continued discussion.

 

 

Meeting adjourned 8:50 a.m.

Submitted by Karen Van Horn

 

Send comments to Karen Van Horn at vanhornk@morris.umn.edu

Send comments to Curriculum Committee at curriculum@morris.umn.edu