COLLEGE OF ARTS AND SCIENCES, OFFICE OF THE DEAN
MEMO
To: Eric Ruckh, Chair, BRIDGE
From: Kent Neely, Dean, College of Arts and Sciences
Subject: BRIDGE Proposals - College of Arts and Sciences response
Date: 2 March, 2007
The College recognizes and appreciates the significant effort that went into the development of
each of the three Phase II BRIDGE proposals. The design teams are certainly to be commended
for the professional manner in which they approached this important task, and for the quality of
the proposals that resulted from their efforts.
The College has some observations with respect to the three proposals. These comments are
based upon conversations at the dean's level, and a series of conversations with the Chairs and
Directors of our units, who in turn consulted with their faculty.
Proposal 1: Students’ Integrated and Universal Essential Education (SIUE Education)
The College believes that this proposal has several clear advantages over the other two.
Specifically:

This proposal appears to be the most thoroughly developed of the three.

It would present fewer challenges to implement at the disciplinary level than either of the
other two models.

It represents some clear improvements over the existing General Education program, in
that it:
o
It incorporates a Quantitative Literacy requirement
o
It clearly distinguished between BA versus BS requirements
o
It clarifies the role of introductory courses
o
It requires a laboratory science
o
The laboratory science requirement is flexible (LES, PS, or SS)
o
It requires a public speaking class
o
It reduces the size of interdisciplinary classes
o
It promotes analytical reading and writing.
o
It provides for appropriate overlap of course work

This design is flexible and efficient.

The linking of courses is possible but not required

It incorporates the Freshman Seminar nicely.

The College feels this proposal could serve us well in the coming years.
Campus Box 1608
Tel: 5047
Fax: 5050
There were some relatively minor problems noted. Calling an area within the breadth
requirement HELP would seem to invite comment, and it is out of line with the acronyms for the
other areas. An acronym such as LPH might be more suitable. In addition, the rationale for
requiring students to take a higher level course if they successfully proficiencied out of lower
level courses in language was not clear. Nor was the mechanism with regard to proficiency
testing made clear.
It should be noted that while this proposal does discuss anticipated budgetary effects, the College
is not convinced that this would be the cheapest proposal to implement. Additional faculty
would be necessary, as would additional space including offices, classrooms, and laboratories,
and additional equipment.
Proposal 2: Integrated Core
This proposal does have some strengths such as building on the existing tradition of
interdisciplinary courses, the flexibility to be tailored to each major, and the inclusion of
quantitative literacy and the Freshman Seminar. However, this proposal would be difficult to
implement for various reasons including:

We are unsure whether there will be sufficient faculty in the College who would be
prepared to teach the envisaged integrated core courses.

Some faculty teach in subject areas that do not lend themselves to an integrated
curriculum, and some do not enjoy or perform well in a team-teaching setting.

Linking classes would be logistically problematic on several counts
o
It would be difficult for students taking a single class or significantly less than a
full load
o
Scheduling on a mass scale would be extremely difficult
o
Large classrooms are not available; this is a serious issue not easily solved

The Integrated LAS courses are entirely too specifically defined. Some departments have
faculty who could teach within these courses as described but many do not.

The perspectives and approaches within various disciplines do not seem to be understood
and integrated into the proposal.

There would be a considerable administrative load associated with this model

It would be difficult to deal with transfer issues (IAI)
We note that this proposal does not include any serious discussion of anticipated budgetary
effects, which would be considerable.
Proposal 3: Learning Communities
This proposal does have some positive aspects including that it reduces the size of
interdisciplinary courses, the inclusion of quantitative literacy and the Freshman Seminar, and
that it might be relatively easy to implement. However, there are some fundamental concerns
about the proposal of this design.

While the term 'learning community' is well recognized within the literature, the term is
ill-defined within the proposal.
Campus Box 1608
Tel: 5047
Fax: 5050







There is no mechanism suggested whereby these learning community linkages will be
established and maintained.
Some faculty teach in subject areas that do not lend themselves to an integrated
curriculum, and some do not enjoy or perform well in a team-teaching setting.
Both linked courses and gateway courses are possible within the current General
Education program and are possible within Proposal 1.
This model seems aimed at traditional full-time students who complete their degree in a
standard four years. For other students, such as those taking a single course, it is
problematic.
The emphasis on skills at the expense of content-based courses is problematic.
The focus on creating professionals and professional practice is not central to a number of
disciplines within Arts and Sciences.
A health and wellness requirement does not appear to be included in the objectives for
General Education within a Baccalaureate Education at SIUE. Healthful living is
mentioned in the General Education front matter but not in the formal objectives. A
health and wellness component within General Education should be encouraged, not
required.
The College would like to reiterate its position with respect to implementation of the new general
Education program. No matter which proposal is selected, implementation will be a complex
task that will require significant additional resources. The selected General Education model
cannot be successfully implemented without the necessary budgeting, human, and capital
resources. The College will likely play a primary role in the delivery of the selected General
Education model, and must be fully a part of discussions concerning implementation.
Campus Box 1608
Tel: 5047
Fax: 5050