Nomination for Chancellor’s Customer Service
Excellence Award- Team
The Core Curriculum Evaluation Committee
Helpful: Ensuring Student Success in a Rapidly Changing
World
The Core Curriculum Evaluation Committee was formed to address a number of important
questions which have arisen in recent years about the effectiveness of the current USG Core:



In a world that is increasingly interconnected and technology-driven, does the USG
Core Curriculum offer students the global perspective needed for success?
Is the Core sufficiently flexible to meet the diverse needs of students at widely differing
institutions?
How can the Core’s common learning outcomes be updated to ensure students are
prepared to contribute in a complex global environment?
Efforts to answer these questions also raised some significant concerns:



Would core revision negatively impact transferability?
Was there truly a System-wide consensus that such changes were needed?
Would faculty have a voice in the process?
Knowledgeable: a Widely Experienced Group of Faculty
and Administrators
Nominations were solicited from every System institution, and the following members were
selected to serve on the Core Curriculum Evaluation Committee:










George Rainbolt, Georgia State University, Chair
Virginia Carson, South Georgia College
Emmanuel Konde, Albany State University
Virginia Michelich, Georgia Perimeter College
Jere Morehead, University of Georgia
Thomas Mundie, Georgia Gwinnett College
Ralph Rascati, Kennesaw State University
Elizabeth Watts-Warren, Gordon College
Linda Noble, System Office
Robert Vaughan, System Office
Executive Vice Chancellor Susan Herbst charged the committee and asked them to come up
with a revised policy within an academic year.
Accessible: an Open and Transparent Process
From the outset, the committee worked to ensure that the process of revising the Core was
a transparent one. Faculty members and administrators throughout the system were invited
to subscribe to a listserv and to participate in a blog (Web log) accessed through the website.
Minutes of all the committee’s meetings have been made accessible on the web page within 24
hours of each meeting. Not only that, a System-wide survey was immediately conducted,
allowing faculty and administrators the opportunity to help set priorities for core revision. The
survey received almost 2000 responses.
The committee also researched higher education systems nationwide. Discussions with
administrators and faculty across the U.S. immediately revealed one definite conclusion: the
USG’s current core curriculum provides its students with an ease of transfer between
system institutions that is almost unrivaled.
Responsive: Improvements that Address Changing
System Needs
The Committee’s final recommendations addressed each one of the significant questions
identified at the beginning of the process:
Development of learning goals: Each institution will develop learning outcomes for the
Core’s five areas which align with its own mission. Institutions will also be required to
add a Critical Thinking learning goal and to develop a plan to assess critical thinking.
Institutional flexibility: One of the USG’s strengths is in the diversity of its institutions,
and that diversity will be enhanced by allowing institutions the freedom to concentrate
more on specific areas of the core that better fit their individual missions. To ensure
that flexibility, the new Core requirements specify minimum requirements in each core
area Instead of System-wide requirements in each area.
Addition of global perspective: In recognition of the fact that the USG Strategic Plan
indicates that “the USG will ensure that its institutions are providing students with the
knowledge and abilities they need to meet the challenges of our rapidly evolving,
technologically interconnected global world,” the revised core policy will require
institutions to designate courses in their institutional requirements that will enhance
students’ global perspectives. Institutions will also identify courses that focus on the
government and/or history of the United States.
Ease of Transfer: Though the new core policy does offer institutions the opportunity to
“tailor” the general education experience to better fit their unique missions, it also
requires that all core courses must transfer, even if a core area is not completed and
even if it means giving transfer credit across areas (e.g., credit for a math course in
humanities/fine arts area or vice versa).