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 represented effort by the LSC over several years. The LSC organized
two campus forums and a senate presentation during the Fall 2011 semester 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 courses. 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 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 can be
launched in a meaningful way. The committee notes that the administration was disengaged from the
reform effort. Regrettably, 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 outcomes assessment for the
Liberal Studies program, neither the relatively small size of the committee nor the structure of the
assessment effort is designed to facilitate effectiveness. In particular, as was noted in the consultant
report discussed recently at Senate, the LSC by itself cannot “close the loop” on assessment. While the
results of the LSC assessment are shared with the Senate and affected departments, there is no
mechanism in place to even inform LSC or the Senate whether changes were implemented in response
to recommendations from the committee. This glaring flaw makes the entire effort suspect. Moreover,
even if communications were to be 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. We feel that without real cooperation on this issue, the LSC’s hands
are effectively tied with regard to outcome assessment.
We have a system for management of the Liberal Studies Program that is hopelessly flawed. The
responsibility for design, assessment, and maintenance is left to a nearly powerless committee. The
actual implementation of the program is left to two dozen different departments and the
administration, each with its own agenda and perspective. We pay lip service to achieving educational
goals, but the driving force in the decision making process is student credit hour production. A new
model for management of the Liberal Studies Program is needed.