General Education Committee Minutes, 2/27/13
Members present: H. Ausland, R. Baker, L. Calderon, S. Caro, L. Frey, K. Huthaily, J. Randall, K.
Reiser, N. White
Members Absent: L. Frey, F. Rosensweig
Guest: S. Bradford
The minutes from 2/13/13 were approved
Communication Item:
•
The forms are in and available on the website for Historical and Cultural (34), Science (26
with lab, and 31 without lab), and Mathematics (7 plus exams). There may be two forms for
courses offered both at the Mountain campus and Missoula College.
•
The Business Technology department insists that it was not aware of the social science
course review last spring/fall even after the messages initially sent were resent. It requests
that the Committee review two courses so they do not lose the general education status
which would have a detrimental impact to their students. These forms are also available on
the website.
The Committee was asked whether they had any suggestions for a better notification system
that would make chairs/faculty more responsive. One suggestion was to publish a calendar.
Camie will work on something over the summer.
Business Items:
•
The Workgroup on Indigenous & Global and American & European presented its findings. It
solicited comments regarding the intent of the criteria from the subcommittee members that
served when the criteria were approved. At also researched other universities general education
programs. It offered the following options.
Option 1: Eliminate category
Pros
Criteria are not well-defined
Learning goals are problematic
Small number of course in group
Overlaps with other areas
Cons
Existing courses would be affected
Potentially controversial
Option 2: Fix criteria and learning goals with minor changes to clarify criteria
Pros
Preserve current structure
Address ambiguous learning objectives
Existing courses and faculty minimally
affected
Cons
Group still overlaps with other areas
Criteria and learning objectives still weakly
defined
Purpose of group not clear
Option 3: Realign Group with other groups to address overlap with other areas and
clarify alignment of groups with MUS core.
Pros
Preserve most of current structure
Reduce overlap among groups
Cons
Affects some existing groups and courses
Option 4: Review entire General Education Framework
Pros
Greater coherence for students
Eliminate overlap
Provide greater alignment to MUS core
& graduate school requirements
Cons
Workload
Controversy
The committee discussed these in addition to how the two perspectives fit with the MUS core.
Many Universities have broad categories with options and allow students to choose.
Humanities is a common category. One category that is included in the MUS core that is
missing at UM is Diversity. This is also a category required by medical schools and a public
issue of the world today. Would a Diversity requirement (exposure to compassionate
understanding of other) better serve students in their future lives? Aren’t many of the required
general education courses taught from an American & European (western/ hegemonic) point of
view?
The criteria and learning goals should be clear with little overlap with other groups and easily
understood by both faculty and students. There’s concern that no matter how clear the criteria,
the reviewers prejudices will be a factor. Unfortunately, it is rarely the case that courses are
designed specifically for general education, but rather are courses offered by the discipline that
are made to fit general education to increase enrollment.
Members should think more about the dilemma and a solution that would cause the least amount
of contention across campus. The committee might take into account the general education
preamble, the Global Initiative, the University’s strategic plan, and how this may tie into the
next topic of discussion – incentives for students to take language courses, as well as how UM’s
general education courses fit within the MUS Core. Currently all the Indigenous and Global
Courses are listed under Diversity.
The meeting was adjourned at 5:38 PM.