Liberal Studies Committee
Annual Report
2011-2012
Members 2011-2012:
Chair: Mark Paulsen; Vice Chair: Jonathan Allen; Secretary: Katie Menard; Members: Michael
Joy, Gary Brunswick, Amy Hamilton, Mollie Freier, Mits Oba, Brent Graves; Ex Officio members: none.
The committee spent most of the year trying to finish a proposal to reorganize and reform some aspects
of the current Liberal Studies program. This effort was at the specific instruction of the Senate Executive
Committee. A preliminary proposal had been previously drafted based on outcome assessment data,
faculty and staff surveys, consultation with outside groups and investigation of general education
programs at other universities. This effort represented effort by the LSC over several years. The LSC
organized two campus forums and a senate presentation in the fall outlining the proposal. The
committee reviewed feedback from the forums and from senators and departments. The LSC informed
the Senate Executive Committee that the proposed reforms appeared to lack support and that it was
premature to move the proposal forward. However, the Senate Executive Committee requested that
the proposal be forwarded to the Academic Senate where it was overwhelmingly defeated.
The committee also oversaw an assessment of student outcomes for World Cultures course. A report
was prepared and submitted to the Senate and interested departments for their review. HS 105 (World
History) was also recommended for transfer from Division IV to Division II effective Fall of 2012.
The LSC feels that the outcome of the Senate vote on the reform proposal highlights several systemic
flaws in the just concluded reform process that must be addressed before a new reform effort is
launched. The committee notes that the administration was disengaged from the reform effort. No
administration representative has been appointed to LSC in many years as an ex officio member. Such a
liaison would have been useful in helping the committee more clearly understand the reform priorities
of the administration at NMU. For the 2011-2012 academic year, an ex officio member was specifically
requested by the committee and yet none was appointed. This lack of engagement resulted in the
drafting of a proposal that did not have the support of the administration. Secondly, LSC received
insufficient guidance from the Academic Senate. While the charge to the committee several years ago
implied that everything was on the table with respect to the shape of a reformed curriculum, it is quite
clear from the discussions this year that in actuality, any reform proposal capable of receiving Senate
support would have to represent a modest incremental change from the current system. Since the
broad outlines of the proposal were well known some time ago, the Executive Committee of the Senate
should have advised LSC to move in a different direction at that time rather than directing the
committee to elaborate a proposal that could not garner support.
The LSC is also concerned that although we have been charged with outcome assessment for the Liberal
Studies program, the structure of the assessment effort is not designed to facilitate effective
assessment. In particular, the LSC by itself cannot “close the loop” on assessment. This concern about
NMU’s current approach to assessment of Liberal Studies was also noted in the consultant report
discussed recently in Senate. While the results of our assessment are shared with the Senate and
affected departments, there is no mechanism in place to even inform LSC or the Senate whether or not
any changes were implement in response to recommendations from the committee. This glaring flaw
makes the entire effort suspect. Even if communications were improved, there is no mechanism to
require any of the recommendations regarding student outcomes to be adopted by particular courses or
departments. While, LSC retains the prerogative of recommending that a course be dropped from the
program entirely, this sanction may often be inappropriate when strengthening a course or courses
rather than dropping them is the preferred goal. The LSC strongly feels that a different approach to
outcome assessment is essential and urges the Senate and the administration to work with the LSC and
affected departments to solve this problem.