Faculty Congress Forum on General Education
April 13, 2015
Approximately 25 people attended that Faculty Forum to gather feedback about the
UHH General Education (GE) Program. In a WASC visit several years ago, it was
recommended that UHH develop a comprehensive general education program because
the program that existed at the time lacked rigor. A comprehensive program was
established and it has served the university well. However, with any system, it is
important to evaluate it from time-to-time and recommend improvements. During the
past year, some complaints (from faculty and administrators) have surfaced and the
forum was intended to gather input about the strengths and weaknesses of our current
GE program. Following are the issues that were identified.
1. The GE issue is complex and there was general consensus that we need to be
aware that there are at least two different major issues.
a. First, UHH is getting some pressure to align its GE program with the rest
of the system. It appears that the two programs are not that different.
One attendee (Jean Ippolito) provided a summary of how close the two
programs are. She believes that with a slight reorganization, we would be
aligned.
b. Second, there are a large number of waivers that are used to work
around the existing system. There was discussion about whether the
waiver problem is a result of GE or whether the waivers are due to
Program-related issues. Data will be gathered (Kainoa Ariola) to provide a
summary of the breakdown of waivers into two categories: GE related
waivers and non-GE academic program waivers. The WASC report
seemed to confuse these two types of waivers and we need to make sure
that the problem is in fact related to GE.
2. It was recognized that we do treat 4-year students differently than 2-year transfer
students in our GE program. UHH accepts almost any lower division course as a
GE course while our 4-year students are required to take GE courses from a
specified list.
a. To deal with a limited number of certified GE courses, some of our 4-year
students are taking a course required in their major at a UH community
college so that it will satisfy a major requirement and a GE requirement at
the same time, eliminating the need to take an additional course. We
cannot verify that the course taken at the community college has the same
stringent requirements as our GE courses (i.e., 5 pages of writing).
b. On the other hand, this may be more an issue of departments needing to
certify additional GE courses.
3. There was a general belief that a myth is being circulated that Community
College advisors are not recommending that students transfer to UH-Hilo
because of our cumbersome GE program.
a. Since UHH accepts almost any lower-division course as a GE course, this
should not be a problem.
b. If their concern is related to our GE not matching UH-Manoa’s (and the
Community Colleges other than HCC), there seems to be a few tweaks
that could be made to our GE program that would align UHH more closely
with the rest of the system.
4. Courses that have been certified for GE may not have been GE in the past or
may lose GE certification in the future. It is hard to know when the course was
offered as GE. The system is not seamless for the students and there is
confusion at times.
a. It was recognized that the GE committee has made progress this year in
streamlining the recertification process.
b. It was suggested that a course be allowed to be certified GE retroactively
in the situation where the course met the required rigor in the past even
though it was not certified GE.
c. There was a suggestion that the GE committee handle exceptions that
come up. So, if the course was taught with the rigor of a GE course in a
semester when it was not certified GE, it would be helpful for the student
to be able to petition for an exception. It was also recognized that this
would represent a lot of work for the GE committee and maybe it was
better to provide a faculty member with a 1 credit course overload to
handle all exceptions during the year.
5. Other general concerns raised:
a. Since GE is designed to make students well-rounded, is it necessary for
students to take the GE courses in their discipline areas. For example,
should a student in the sciences be required to complete the GE-Natural
Science course requirements when they will be presumably be wellversed in natural sciences when they complete their major.
b. Should UHH require a non-English/second language requirement as part
of GE?
c. There is an issue related to double-dipping. For integrative requirements,
students can double dip but for core and area requirements they cannot.
This is confusing for students and faculty. It is also possible to quadruple
dip if a student takes a course that is certified for HPP, GCC, and WI as
well as an integrative requirement. Students, who are not aware of these
issues, become upset when they find out they could have taken fewer
courses and possibly graduated earlier.
d. Students have commented that they wish GE was more utilitarian and
pulled together more courses from multidisciplinary perspectives so they
are better prepared for the future. These students feel that GE has to be
more value-added. Suggestions of course areas include Business
Planning and Innovation Hubs, Understanding Human Dimensions and
Sustainability, Policies to Address Local and Global Challenges.
6. Next Steps
a. Gather data to evaluate course waivers. Is this a problem related to GE or
is it largely a problem related to academic program requirements.
b. The 2015-16 Faculty Congress General Education Committee will
evaluate the data and take a look at changes required to align our GE
program with the system as a whole.