General Education Board Minutes

Academic Year 2002-2003

Minutes of Board of General Education meeting, 20 August 2002

Present: R. Ballentine, D. Bozak, R. Cole, D. Deal, G. Klatsky, C. LaLonde, R. Mohammadi, K. Shaw, J. Smith

The meeting was called to order at 2:00 pm.

D. Deal made announcements concerning tasks that remain on the Board's agenda from the spring semester. Only one Board member's term has expired (LaLonde); he plans to run for re-election. Interim Director of General Education Robert Cole and Associate Provost Rhonda Mandel will be attending as ex officio members in 2002-03, while D. Deal is on sabbatical leave. Deal has been meeting with Cole and Mandel to effect a smooth transition.

1. PSY 342: The issue of taking PSY 342 off the Intellectual Issues list was discussed, along with guest Thomas Darvill, chair of Psychology. The instructor (P. Brand) had sent Deal an e-mail message requesting (and explaining the reasons for wanting) the delisting of the course; Darvill supported the request and provided additional details from his vantage point as department chair. The chief reasons included: difficulties in assuring Psychology and Public Justice majors priority access to the course; difficulty in maintaining an appropriate amount of assigned writing for an Issues course; and faculty development issues. Board members questioned whether student needs are best served by taking the course off the approved list. Does the Public Justice Department support delisting? Unless new information relevant to the case emerges, the Board must grant the Psychology Department's request that PSY 342 be taken off the Intellectual Issues approved course lists for GE1998 and GE2000 by the end of the fall 2002 semester.

2. ANT courses for Human Diversity (2): The Board voted to confirm the e-mail consensus of midsummer that three ANT courses (331, 366, and 368) should be approved for both Human Diversity (Global Awareness) under GE1998 and Human Diversity (Non-Western Civilizations) under GE2000, provided that each course outlines be revised to emphasize the way non-Western cultures and their history are addressed. ANT 331 was approved by a vote of 5-1-0; 366 by a vote of 6-0-0; and 368 by a vote of 6-0-0.

3. MUS 316 for American History and Human Diversity (1): The course outline, revised by the new instructor M. Smiley, was distributed in advance. After lengthy discussion, MUS 316 was approved (6-0-0) for the American History requirement under GE2000 but not (3-0-3) for Human Diversity. Board members could see a number of diversity-related topics scattered throughout the outline, but were not persuaded that the focus on tolerance and intolerance was substantial and consistent enough (i.e., running through the entire course as a main focus) to warrant approval for this requirement. If this is indeed a main focus of the course, some revision of the outline should be enough to make it approvable.

4. GER 125/126 for Foreign Language: Deal conveyed to the group the responses of Modern Languages chair John Lalande to our earlier questions about these two courses (re prerequisites for 126 and differences between the two). GER 126 should indeed list GER 125 as a prerequisite. The former (126) both continues the study of written German that begins in the latter (125), and it goes beyond the first semester by requiring a research project tailored to the student's major discipline (or main area of interest) and student investigation of grants, scholarships, and other funding opportunities in this area (mastery of written German for research). Rather than approve the courses solely on the basis of Deal's report, the Board decided to postpone making a decision until revised outlines for the two courses are submitted by the department.

5. EDU 245 for Computer Literacy: Discussion focused on the need for this course. Could some special sections of CSC 101 accomplish the same thing? The outlines for the two courses are quite similar. Will UCC approve the course or decide that it presents too much duplication of an existing course (CSC 101)? The Board decided to table the course until that UCC decision is made.

6. Meeting time for fall semester: After some discussion, it was decided that regular fall meetings will be held on Thursdays from 3 to 5 pm in the English Department Library, except when department meetings interfere; on those occasions, the Board will meet instead on Wednesday from 3 to 5 pm (same place). The next meeting is scheduled for Thursday September 12 from 3 to 5 pm in the English Department Library. Members should make sure their spring schedules all include a free block of time on Tuesday afternoon (roughly 2 to 5, but 3 to 5 at least).

The meeting was adjourned shortly after 4 pm.

Respectfully submitted,

D. Deal

Minutes of Board of General Education meeting, 12 September 2002

Present: R. Ballentine, D. Bozak, R. Cole, G. Klatsky, C. LaLonde, R. Mandel, R. Mohammadi, K. Shaw, J. Smith

The meeting was called to order at 3:00 pm.

Sidney Kasle met with the Board to discuss the status of Communication Across the Curriculum

The reported status was:

This requirement, mandated by the Board of Trustees has not been implemented at Oswego.
The reasons for the lack of implementation were:

1. Reluctance to change

2. Unwillingness to modify the existing curriculum

3. Departments to not have a liaison for this activity

4. Departments are currently implementing this requirement and do not need to provide a plan

5. There are no incentives to develop the plan for the requirement

6. Departments do not want to provide additional General Education courses.

Kasle stated that a strong position by the General Education Board would be an indication of the support for this program by the University

She also indicated that the development of a Communication Lab that supported both oral and written communication would be needed to implement the Communication Across the Curriculum program.

After Kasle left the meeting, there was a prolonged discussion of the Communication Across the Curriculum program. This discussion lead to the following points:

There needs to be varied plans that meet the needs of individual departments.
The outcomes of this program need to be defined
Proficiency must be defined by each discipline

The oral communication skills required for the students in each department must be identified
The objectives for the program must be identified for individual departments

Bozak mentioned that he would be attending the SUNY Arts and Sciences Deans meeting and would attempt to determine how the other campuses are meeting this requirement.

Lab:

Prior to supporting the development of a communication lab complete definitions of the oral communication requirements and specific departmental needs must be identified. Following that activity an evaluation of how a lab would support those goals can be determined

G. Klatsky

General Education Board 19 September 2002

Present: R. Ballentine, R. Cole, G. Klatsky, C. LaLonde, R. Mandel, R. Mohammadi, K. Shaw, J. Smth

Minutes of 12 September 2002 were moved and seconded, thanks to Smith and Shaw, and approved.

We turned our attention to Art 361: Art, Poetry, and Religion in Japan. Smith moved and Mohammadi seconded approving the course for Human Diversity—Non-Western Civilization. There was little need for discussion. The motion was approved 5-0-0.

We then turned to a consideration of the course as an Intellectual Issues offering. Mohammadi moved provisional approval of the course as an intellectual issue offering, Smith seconded. We wondered what, precisely, the issues were here. Discussion followed, as one might expect, and a vote was taken, as one might hope: 5-0-0 for provisional approval.

Mohammadi moved rejecting PHL 317 as a critical thinking offering, Klatsky seconded, and the motion passed 5-0-0. Briefly, the course does not meet the institution’s understanding of the sort of course students can take to fulfill this general education requirement.

We determined that we needed clarification on PHL 307, and charged Cole with requesting same, given that we do not see that the course before us is a revision of the earlier version of PHL 307 that was not approved by the Board (see minutes of 21 May 02)

We turned to a discussion of math learning disability accommodations. We mused upon whether or not substitution is an option. The critical points are that the substitution speaks to the spirit of the requirement and that the student has a documented math learning disability.

Turning to Foreign Language disability accommodations, and I’m lagging behind, we talked about option #3—a list of culture courses from which students may choice one to link with LIN 100 as an accommodation for the foreign language requirement.

It was moved and seconded that Bozak, conspicuously absent, would come up with a list of such courses. I cannot begin to tell you how resounding was the support for this motion: thunderous, thunderous.

We talked about, well, us: our identity as a board, or committee, or council. That was fun.

We adjourned at 4:35.

With the Byrds, (for the birds?) I remain,

Chris LaLonde

General Education Board 19 September 2002

Present: R. Ballentine, R. Cole, G. Klatsky, C. LaLonde, R. Mandel, R. Mohammadi, K. Shaw, J. Smth

Minutes of 12 September 2002 were moved and seconded, thanks to Smith and Shaw, and approved.

We talked about, well, us: our identity as a board, or committee, or council. That was fun.

We adjourned at 4:35.

With the Byrds, (for the birds?) I remain,

Chris LaLonde

SUNY Oswego

Board of General Education

September 26, 2002

Minutes

Present: B. Balentine, D. Bozak, B. Cole, G. Klatsky, C. Lalonde,

R. Mohammadi, K. Shaw,

I. Meeting was called to order at 3:00.

II. Minutes of September 19 were approved.

III. Motion on Minutes.

Lalonde made the following motion and Mohammadi seconded:

Minutes will reflect the name of members who make a motion and 2nd it; the

substance of the deliberations will be included in the minutes and not the

particulars; and minute takers will keep consistent with these guidelines.

Motion passed 5-0-0.

IV. Assessment Plan.

Lalonde suggested that having a copy of the Assessment Plan will be useful

for the members records; Cole will check with Deal.

V. SUNY Deans Meeting.

Bozak reported on the SUNY Deans meeting he attended recently. Attendance

was light. General Education Assessment Plans were discussed.

Components such as Critical Thinking are infused in the curriculums and

those colleges intend to assess if its working by administering a test

to 1st-year students and again to them when they are seniors.

Determining satisfactory completion of mandated Gen Ed components when

transfers enter without a 2-year degree is a problem. For most schools

Oral Competency is infused and no clear plans for assessing it.

Some colleges are changing their own Gen Ed program to mirror

the SUNY mandated Gen Ed.

Most Colleges are taking a minimalist approach to assessing Gen Ed.

VI. PHL 307

We had discussed PHL307 in May, but it has been determined that no memo was

written to the Philosophy Department letting them know about the decision

of the board. Minutes of our 5-21-02 meeting had all the reasons for

the course being sent back; Cole will use that info to formulate a letter

to that department.

VI. PHL 317

Mohammadi moved to approve the course for Self & Society; Balentine seconded.

The motion did not pass with 0-4-1 vote. The following comments should

articulate the reasons for the courses not being passed:

The issues dealt with in the course are not clear; studying religion

from the perspective of different disciplines is not an issue by itself.

It seems the course author presupposes what the answers to the

Philosophical questions about religion and its legitimacy are; the

course as authored, does not leave things open-ended for an

Intellectual Issues course.

VII.WST250.

We determined that the course was already approved for Human Diversity under

both GE98 and GE00. The course was left out of the on-line list of approved

courses for GE00. The correction will be made.

VIII. Governance Proposed Changes for GE.

FA has approved conversion of the Gen Ed Board into a FA Council. This

proposal still needs to be approved by the General Faculty. For the most

part, this change along with the other changes in Governance are expected

to increase communication between various components of Governance. The

membership of the Gen Ed Council will follow the pattern used for other

councils. A couple of thoughts and concerns were voiced:

Having representatives from subdivisions may provide for a

better way for representation all faculty.

If the change results in many more meetings for the chair and

directory to attend, this change will not be a positive one.

The meeting adjourned at 4:30.

Respectfully submitted by Rameen Mohammadi.

General Education Board Minutes – October 3, 2002

Attendance: R. Ballentine, D. Bozak, R. Cole, C. Lalonde, R. Mandel, R. Mohammadi, J. Smith

Minutes from September 26, 2002 were approved with minor revisions.
Question from Chair: Should PHL 496 Joint Seminar in Philosophy Psychology be approved for Intellectual Issues – Culture and Civilizations since the colisted course PHY 475H has been approved for Culture and Civilizations?

After brief discussion, Mohammadi moved to approve PHl 496 Joint Seminar in Philosophy Psychology for Intellectual Issues – Culture and Civilizations. Ballentine seconded the motion. The motion was approved 3,1,0.

Question from the table: Should the Honors program courses be approved for

the various areas of GE? Mandel reported that Norm Weiner is currently working to bring the courses in line.

Director’s Report: Cole reported that Walter Opello, Chair of Personnel

Policies Council has been invited to the 10/10/02 meeting to discuss GE Board becoming a Council of FA.

Cole distributed an alphabetical listing of the approved courses for GE 2000.

Cole also presented a draft copy of a letter to departments encouraging them to move forward with completion of the Oral Communication plans required for GE 2000. Board members made suggestions for editing. Cole will revise letter and get it to appropriate departments.

Cole questioned the status of WAC. There was a brief discussion that

determined that WAC no longer is in existence. All new writing plans or

modifications of current major writing plans should be forwarded directly to

the Board so that they can be approved prior to printing in the catalog.

There is a need to review which majors have completed this task and which

have not. Cole will check and report back to the Board.

GER 126 German for Research: Discussion for approval as an approved

language course for GE 2000. Smith made a motion to approve GER 126 German for Research for the GE 2000 language requirement. Mohammadi seconded. The motion was approved 4, 0, 0. The Chair was asked to note in the memo to department indicating approval that this course also needs to be placed in the catalog.

Bozak presented a list of courses with descriptions for approval as the cultural

accompaniment to LIN 100 as the third language completion option for GE 2000 for students with disabilities. After discussion of the courses, Lalonde made a motion to approve ANT 344 Language and Culture to pair with LIN 100 as the third option for accommodation for students with learning disabilities. Ballentine seconded. The motion was approved 4, 0, 0.

Meeting was adjourned.

Minutes reported by J. Smith

SUNY Oswego

Board of General Education

October 10, 2003

Minutes

Present: B. Ballentine, D. Bozak, J. Smith, G. Klatsky, C. Lalonde, R. Mohammadi, K. Shaw, R. Mandel

I. The Board meeting in the last week of October is rescheduled from Thursday, October 31^st to Wednesday, October 30^th due to departmental meetings.

II. R. Mohammadi moved we pass the minutes of the October 3^rd meeting. R. Ballentine seconded and the Board unanimously voted to accept the minutes of the October 3^rd meeting.

III. W. Opello, representing the Office of International Education was in attendance. R. Cole asked him to explain the reasoning behind changing the Board to a college council. There was some discussion about whether one or more members of the “Council” of General Education would need to be members of the Faculty Assembly. There was also some discussion about adding student representation to a Council. R. Cole will send a memo to the Personnel Policies Council regarding changes in the wording regarding the Board of General Education.

IV. W. Opello began a description of discussions being undertaken with Huron University’s London campus to come under the aegis of SUNY Oswego for the purposes of accreditation. The Huron London campus is currently affiliated with Marlboro College and is therefore accredited by the Northeast Association but for various reasons they would like to seek a new partner. We will need to contact Middlestates for their approval of any relationship. We will also need to be sure that Huron’s General Education program matches up with ours. If the ‘merger’ were agreed to, the Huron students would actually be granted a SUNY Oswego degree. Many questions were asked of Opello. Among them were:

Would Oswego oversee the academic programs at Huron/London?

Would Oswego oversee some/all of the financial matters?

Would Oswego oversee the hiring of permanent faculty and/or adjunct faculty?

Would Oswego oversee the admissions process?

Answers to these and other questions indicated that talks about a proposed merger are very much in the preliminary stages. The Board decided not to put much discussion in to the topic unless and until the talks are much further along. R. Cole will make a presentation about our Gen Ed program to faculty and administrators from Huron who will be visiting the Oswego campus next week.

V. Art 366 has been proposed for Human Diversity and the Cultures and Civilizations component of the Intellectual Issues requirement. J. Smith moved approval of the course for Human Diversity. R. Mohammadi seconded the motion. There was no discussion and the motion carried unanimously. G. Klatsky moved the course be approved as an Intellectual Issues course. C. Lalonde seconded the motion. The course was accepted as an Intellectual Issues course on a provisional basis. The vote was unanimous. R. Cole will contact the Art department to request that the course outline more closely resemble the Undergraduate Curriculum Committee format and that the issues in the course be thrown in to greater relief.

VI. A discussion was begun regarding our foreign language requirement being through the 101/102 level rather than through the 201/202 level. R. Mandel suggested that she, D. Bozak and R. Cole should compile the enrollment numbers and be prepared to report to Faculty Assembly that the Board is recommending we keep the requirement as it is currently, through the 101/102 level.

Submitted by K. Shaw

SUNY Oswego

Board of General Education

October 17, 2002

Minutes

Present: Ballentine (recorder), Bozak, Cole, Klatsky, LaLonde, Mandel, Mohammadi, Shaw, Smith

I. Minutes of 10 October 2002

J. Smith moved approval of the minutes of 10 October 2002; seconded by G. Klatsky. The motion passed 6-0-0.

II. Math Department Concerns Regarding Requirements for Transfer Students

T. Tiballi raised some questions about how to determine math proficiency especially for

students who transfer into SUNY Oswego. Discussion focused on the following areas:

a) Does MAX 100, or its equivalent at another college, constitute math proficiency?

b) Which transfer students should be required to take the math proficiency exam?

R. Cole stated that the Math Department will submit a proposal in a week or two

dealing with this problem. R. Mohammadi moved to table consideration of the math requirements pending receipt of the math proposal; seconded by K. Shaw. Passed 6-0-0.

III. Intellectual Issues Seats for Spring 2003

D. Bozak circulated a summary of Intellectual Issues seats available for Spring 2003 as

compared to enrollments for Fall 2002. An additional 243 seats are available in Explorations in the Natural Sciences (ENS) and an additional 115 seats in Cultures and Civilizations (C&C) and Self and Society (S&S) combined. The ensuing discussion included the following points:

a) Only four courses in S&S will be offered in Spring 2003 and probably only eight courses in Fall 2003 since PSY 342 has been delisted.

b) Students should have a ‘healthy’ selection of S&S or C&C courses. Should R. Cole

attempt to recruit more courses in these areas? Can existing social sciences courses be

modified to fit Intellectual Issues?

c) Is the shortage of courses due to retirements or other faculty departures?

d) C. LaLonde pointed to the possibility of merging C&C and S&S into a single category. R. Mohammadi suggested waiting to find ‘where we stand’ in II before making changes.

e) R. Mandel pointed out that while the total number of seats appears to be adequate, there is a problem with the distribution. There are plenty of ENS seats, but since the majority of students will have satisfied ENS, they will need something in C&C/S&S. There is, or will be, a backlog in the nonscience area of II.

IV. Assessment of General Education

R. Mandel pointed out that assessment teams for this year need to get started and the teams

for next year will need to chosen soon. The ensuing discussion included the following points:

a) What is the status of our request for funds from the Provost? R. Mandel indicated that any such requests will need to be very specific and indicate the hours and duties to be carried out by the team members. The proposal submitted last Spring requested nearly $50,000 for assessment in Year 1 (including about $33,000 for Institutional Research), but when the proposal went to PPC, they asked that the budget page be removed. No action has been taken to provide funding for Year 1 assessment.

b) Should there be a member of the Gen Ed Board on each team as suggested in the Assessment Plan p.2, part II, No. 3? After a brief discussion, it was the consensus of the Board that it is not necessary to have a board member on each team. Rather, the teams should ‘tie into’ R. Mandel as the representative of the Gen Ed Board.

c) How should we proceed to assess critical thinking next year? This is complicated since a wide variety of courses qualify for critical thinking. Can we use the exemption exam as an assessment vehicle? Should the assessment team for critical thinking develop a post-test and use the exemption exam as a pretest? C. LaLande suggested using course- embedded material as much as possible. Can we use a single question (for example, on a topic in biology) as an assessment measure? We expect that as students progress, their responses to the question should indicate a more ‘in depth’ and insightful analysis.

d) Assessment of general education requirements that are unique to Oswego will be

integrated over time.

e) It will be very important to make sure that the results of assessment get back to the

appropriate departments to help them meet the goals of general education. Assessment is

easier to ‘sell’ to faculty in the professional schools since accreditation is involved, but it

may be harder to motivate some faculty in Arts and Sciences.

f) SUNY wants aggregate results of assessment. Some faculty may fear that SUNY

Oswego has different motives. We should try to convince faculty that they have nothing

to fear and that confidentiality will be maintained. Faculty should be encouraged not to

‘teach to assessment’.

g) Will faculty participation in assessment be a consideration for DSI? This will not be

much of an incentive if there is no DSI next year.

h) The following is a partial summary of requests by departments for Year 1 support:

American History: $1800 plus release time for faculty participants

Mathematics:

English (Writing): $4840 (readers $3825, coordinator $765, expenses $250) for five readers to read 160 portfolios

Performing Arts: $4200 (leader $2400, three associates at $600 each)

A memo from the Associate Provost and the Gen Ed Board will be sent to all departments which have faculty who teach courses to be assessed next year. The memo will ask for specific ideas on how to assess these courses.

Respectfully submitted,

Robert Ballentine

SUNY Oswego

Board of General Education

October 30, 2003

Minutes

Present: B. Ballentine, D. Bozak, R. Cole, G. Klatsky, R. Mandel, R. Mohammadi, K. Shaw, J. Smith,

I. Mohammadi moved to approve the minutes of 0/24/02. Shaw seconded. Minutes were APPROVED Y-5 N-0.

II. There was discussion about which exemptions majors from Art, Music and Theatre were entitled to. The nature of the required courses for each major was considered, and it was decided that the following exemptions should apply:

A. ART: Exempt from FINE & PERFORMING ARTS. Exempt from HUMANITIES.

B. MUSIC: Exempt from FINE & PERFORMING ARTS. Exempt from HUMANITIES.

C. THEATRE: Exempt from FINE & PERFORMING ARTS.

III. Cole related a problem with Continuing Education publicizing in the course bulletin and on the web that PBJ360: WORKPLACE DISCRIMINATION satisfies General Education.

Deviations for this course were allowed by D. Deal on a one-time basis in Spring, 2002 with the understanding that the course would be submitted to the GE Board for review. No course submittal has been forthcoming, but students might be registering under the belief that they will get GE credit. Cole asked the instructor of record, Tom Ingram, to initiate Program Deviation forms for students seeking GE credit in Spring 2003, and to submit a course outline as soon as possible.

IV. The Broadcasting Program Writing Plan was reviewed. Concerns were raised that no learning objectives were provided. Likewise, there was no clear indication of why some courses were elementary, some intermediate, and others advanced/research based.

There was also some discussion of whether the Broadcasting submission was not a full plan but rather a response to questions raised in a memo to F. Messere from D. Deal dated 11 April, 2000. In that memo Messere was told that “before giving final approval to the plan…” followed by a series of questions and a request for elaboration/clarification, and a conclusion “Please try to provide answers to these questions as soon as possible, so that the plans can be given final approval.” It was concluded that an original Broadcasting Writing Plan was submitted, but not now in the Board’s possession, and that the Board was now reviewing the follow up from Broadcasting, dated 11 March, 2002 to the 11 April, 2000 memo.

A suggestion was made that provisional approval be given until a complete plan was received from Broadcasting. Mohammadi moved for unconditional approval of the Broadcasting Writing Plan. Ballentine seconded. The Plan was APPROVED Y-4 N-1.

Cole will request that a clean copy of the Broadcasting Writing Plan be submitted for Gen. Ed. records.

V. The Writing Plans for Communication, Public Relations and Journalism were brought up for discussion. There is no evidence that plans for these majors were approved, and nothing new appears to have been submitted since the memo of 11 April, 2000.

In the memo accompanying the Broadcast Writing Plan, dated 11 March, 2002, is a quote from F. Messere that says, “It is my understanding that you have already approved the writing programs for Human Communication, Public Relations and Journalism.” Since this statement is at odds with the Board’s understanding, the Communication Studies Department will be asked to resubmit the three plans and demonstrate that they satisfy the concerns of D. Deal’s memo of 11 April, 2000.

VI. The Writing Plans for VTP were reviewed. It was noted that there was no clear breakdown of courses by category, nor was there an indication of how progression was to take place.

Mohammadi moved and Smith seconded that the VTP Writing Plan be sent back to identify courses by the three categories. The motion PASSED Y-5 N-0. The VTP Writing Plan was NOT approved.

Cole will ask VTP to elaborate on which course fall into the categories of Basic, Intermediate, and Advanced. Clarification will also be requested on where feedback and rewrite opportunities occur, where there is critique of self and others, and where longer writing assignments and the research component appear.

VII. The Oral Communication Plan for VTP was discussed. It was noted that oral communication was embedded in all the courses at the level of 25% and that VTP312 provided students the opportunity to evaluate oral discourse. Some Board members felt that having an Oral Communication plan that also called for the cognates of COM210/COM212/COM240 was unnecessary since oral proficiency was gained through coursework in the major. There was disagreement on whether the listing of Communication courses should remain in the VTP Oral Communication Plan.

Mohammadi moved and Smith seconded acceptance of VTP’s plan for the Oral Component of Basic Communication requirement. The motion FAILED Y-2 N-3.

Klatsky moved and Smith seconded to accept VTP’s listed courses as sufficient in meeting the Oral Component of Basic Communication requirement. The motion PASSED Y-4 N-0.

VIII. Ballentine moved to adjourn. Klatsky seconded.

IX. Next meeting is schedule for 11/7/2002.

Respectfully submitted by R. Cole.

Minutes of Board of General Education meeting, November 7, 2002

Present: R. Ballentine, D. Bozak, R. Cole, G. Klatsky, C. LaLonde, R. Mandel, R. Mohammadi, K. Shaw, J. Smith

The meeting was called to order at 3:00 pm.

Minutes of October 30, 2002 were approved

Schedule of meetings for remainder of the fall 2002 semester was reviewed

Thursday, November 14

Wednesday, November 21

Thursday, December 5

Wednesday December 11

R. Cole discussed the status of PBJ 360. This course, submitted by Tom Ingram, was approved only for one offering as a Human Diversity, Tolerance and Intolerance in the US. The course, however, is currently listed on the Web in that category. It was agreed that students currently taking that course will receive appropriate credit. A letter will be sent to the PBJ department indicating that a revised outline must be submitted.

IST 190/390 (Hart Hall) Global Awareness course was reviewed as fulfilling a Human Diversity requirement. Students are required to take four, 1 S.H. sections of this course while a resident of Hart Hall. Mohammadi moved that the 4-course sequence of IST 390 fulfill the GE 98 Global International and Geographical Awareness requirement, Smith second the motion. The motion was approved unanimously

A discussion ensued regarding whether the IST 390 sequence can be reconceptualized as an Intellectual Issues course. Mandel said the recommendation should be brought to the Hart Hall Council.

R. Cole reported on the Math department proposal to drop the proficiency requirement for access to the Math competency exam. It was noted that the SUNY Board of Trustees requirement for math includes a test of math proficiency and successful completion of the required math course.

Klatsky moved that representatives of the Math department be invited to the next General Education Board meeting to discuss that proposal. Motion was second by Mohammadi and approved unanimously.

The writing plan for Wellness Management was discussed. As that plan is being rewritten the discussion will be continued at the next meeting

The oral communication plan for Biology was discussed. It was noted that the student evaluation component was missing from the plan. Smith moved to approve the plan with the addition of the student evaluation component, Ballentine second. The motion was approved unanimously

There was discussion of the Philosophy oral communication plan. R. Cole to write a letter to the Philosophy department acknowledging their current use of PHL 442 as part of their plan but the General Education Board is waiting for the submission of the formal plan

At 4:40 Klatsky moved to adjourn, second by Ballentine. Unanimously approved

SUNY Oswego

Board of General Education

November 14, 2002

Minutes

Present: B. Ballentine, B. Cole, G. Klatsky, R. Mandel, R. Mohammadi,

K. Shaw, J. Smith.

I. Meeting was called to order at 3:05.

II. Minutes of November 7th were approved with minor corrections.

III. Met with representatives from Math Dept.

M. Groman and T. Tiballi represented the Mathematics Department to discuss

possible elimination of the General Education Mathematics Proficiency test.

A formal proposal was submitted to the Board in writing a week earlier by

the Math dept regarding the elimination of the Proficiency test.

Doug Deal had written an email in response to a request from Math

to articulate how students' transfer courses in mathematics be evaluated

as it relates to proficiency. This email from Doug was certainly a draft

and did not represent the opinion of the Board. Two components of this

letter concerned the Math Department:

1. The allowance of MAX-like courses from other schools in satisfying

the math proficiency, which is different than the stated policy

in the catalog about the determination of transfer student

proficiency.

2. Having any math course that satisfies the SUNY Gen Ed's Math

requirement identifying the student as proficient in Math.

The Board position was articulated as follows:

We have no interest in telling the Math department how to determine

proficiency.

If a student already has a MAT course that satisfies SUNY's Gen Ed

at another institution, they don't need to take a math course for

Gen Ed here at Oswego. Such a student's proficiency has nothing to do

with gen ed; it is only relevant if the student has further

math requirements, such as, a cognate. We (the Board) do not believe

that we need to be involved in making policy in such cases.

MAX-like courses at other institutions should only be accepted at Oswego

for identifying the student as proficient if the Math Dept has already

reviewed the course and finds it to be acceptable for that purpose.

The Math department agreed to continue to administer the Proficiency test

for math. Math proficiency is, in part, how our students satisfy the

SUNY-wide math requirement. So, until such time that we have a more

quantitative version of MAT102, we (SUNY Oswego) have to continue to

administer this test and ensure that all students are proficient in math.

Any changes in Gen Ed requirements would have to go through the

governance process and passed by SUNY.

Our Assessment Plan requires us to assess what we currently do. We will need

to meet the SUNY-wide learning objectives for math, without the proficiency

component we can not do so; the current version of MAT102 is simply not

adequate.

The Math Department intends to update MAT102 so that we no longer need the

proficiency test in satisfying the SUNY's learning outcomes for math. It was

suggested to make such changes in MAT106 as well and not subject those students

to the proficiency test.

IV. Announcements.

Cole reported that a link has been added to the General Education web site

to provide the information on the exemption exams (Writing, Computer

Literacy, and Critical Thinking).

Next meeting will be on Wednesday, November 20 at 3:00 in the School

of Business conference room.

V. VTP Writing Plan.

Sue Camp through an email provided additional information requested by the

Board. Mohammadi moved to approve the VTP Writing Plan, Ballentine seconded.

The Plan was approved 5-0-0.

VI. Proper evaluation/documentation of transfer students infused

competencies (critical thinking and computer/information literacy).

The following question was raised:

At what point does the concept of infusion go into effect for transfer students?

Our Admissions counselors need some type of directive to evaluate transfer

students from colleges that handle some requirements through infusion.

Mohammadi made the motion to accept infusion under two circumstances:

1. Infusion has been transcripted on the GETA report from another

institution for the student.

2. The student has completed the degree at another institution that

has an approved SUNY Gen Ed program where one or more components

are identified as infused.

Ballentine seconded. Klatsky moved to table the motion and Smith seconded.

The motion to table was passed 4-0-0.

Mohammadi move to adjourn Ballentine seconded; the meeting adjourned at 4:40.

Respectfully submitted by Rameen Mohammadi.

-Rameen Mohammadi

mohammad@oswego.edu

http://www.cs.oswego.edu/~mohammad

voice: (315)312-2689

fax: (315)312-5424

General Education Board Meeting

20 November 2002

Present: B. Ballentine, D. Bozak, G. Klatsky, C. LaLonde, R. Mandel, R. Mohammadi, K. Shaw, J. Smith

We came to order shortly after 3:00 p.m. in the conference room of the School of Business. The minutes were moved, seconded, and approved by a vote of 5-0-1.

R. Mandel presented an update on our assessment plans for 2002-2003 and 2003-2004. Each area being assessed this year will receive a $2000 budget. Mandel will strive to ensure that each assessment team does not do more than $2000 worth of work. Mandel also noted that our goal is to have plans submitted from the 2003-2004 groups by the end of next year.

Klatsky moved, LaLonde seconded, and the Board voted to take from the table the 14 November 2002 motion on our policy with regard to infusion. The motion was amended to read as follows:

Effective for students admitted for fall 2003, infusion will be accepted under two circumstances: infusion has been transcripted on the GETA report from another institution for the student; the student has completed the degree at another institution that has an approved SUNY Gen Ed program where one or more competencies are identified as infused.

Klatsky moved acceptance, LaLonde seconded, and the motion passed 6-0-0.

We adjourned at 4:27 p.m. with questions about competency, making change, and McDonald’s at Plovdiv.

Submitted,

C. LaLonde

Minutes of General Education Meeting

December 5, 2002

Present: R. Mohammadi, R. Cole, G. Klatsky, R. Ballentine, D. Bozak, J. Smith, R. Mandel, C. LaLonde, K. Shaw

Meeting commenced at 3:10 PM

1. R. Cole reported to the Board that the 30 credit hour infusion rule for transfer students was a ‘rule of thumb’ that was devised by Doug Deal to give Admissions transcript evaluators some guidance on how to properly evaluate potential transfers. R. Cole advised the Board that we were free to change this guidance if we though it advisable.

2. Discussion commenced on the proposed Procedures for Submitting Undergraduate Course Proposals document that has been circulated. There is some sense of urgency that the General Education Board make its position known because discussion regarding adoption of this document is to take place in Faculty Assembly on Monday, December 10^th. It is conceivable that a vote might be taken at that meeting to adopt or reject this proposed change. Several members of the committee voiced their opinions as to how we have come to this point on campus where there is a strongly held belief that we need a new course proposal form to streamline the approval process. G. Klatsky made the point that the proposed form might cause more problems than we have now because the current form is more precise. C. LaLonde made a motion that the General Education Board recommend that a separate Course Objectives section be added to the proposed course approval template. Much discussion ensued regarding the kinds of information the Board uses in making its recommendations regarding courses submitted for various General Education requirements. The consensus was that we need the objectives information not only to adequately conduct our responsibilities to recommend General Education courses but also to facilitate outcomes assessment of the General Education program. R. Ballentine seconded the motion and it was passed unanimously.

3. Discussion ensued regarding the advisability of adding back a Course Justification section to the proposed template. There was much discussion around the issue of determining frequency of course offering and proposed class size. G. Klatzky made a motion to include data on the estimated class size in the proposed template R. Ballentine seconded this motion and it was approved unanimously.

4. Discussion began regarding recommending a stronger articulation between the Course Description section and the Course Objectives section of the proposed template. R Mohammadi made the point that it would facilitate the work of the Board in trying to ascertain whether a particular course did or did not fulfill the requirements of various General Education areas. The discussion then slued to various opinions regarding whether or not having a check off box on the proposed template regarding whether or not the proposed course would be submitted as a General Education course was a good idea or not. It was initially decided that R. Cole would recommend a change in the wording in the check off box. R. Mandel made a strongly reasoned argument that we recommend the check off box be deleted. R. Cole opined that we could deal with some of these issues after discussion and voting on the proposed template had taken place. For instance, we could meet with the Undergraduate Curriculum Committee and propose some changes in the routing procedures for course approval and General Education category approval. C. LaLonde moved that we recommend the check off box be deleted. K. Shaw seconded the motion. It passed with 5 yes votes and one abstention.

5. J. Smith asked R. Mohammadi and R. Cole to attend the December 6^th meeting of the Academic Policies Committee to speak to some concerns about the Intellectual Issues component of General Education. They agreed to attend.

Meeting adjourned at 5:16 PM

Submitted by K. Shaw

Minutes General Education Board Meeting December 11, 2002

Attendance: Cole, Mandel, Mohammadi, Klatsky, Shaw, Smith

1. Minutes from December 5 meeting approved.

2. R. Cole will email all members some meeting times in an effort to set a meeting during the semester break. The purpose of the meeting will be to approve writing and communication plans as well as the remaining courses that have been distributed.

3. Report from meeting with APC. R. Cole and R. Mohammadi reported on their meeting with APC. They noted that APC was concerned about the number of seats, prerequisites for II, as well as the rigor of the II 300 and 400 level courses.

4. Report from meeting with Priorities and Planning Council. D. Bozak reported on a meeting of P&PC that he attended with Dean Varhus. P&PC is examing the costs of various aspects of the programs on campus with GE being one of the first to be examed. He distributed a chart with the various element of GE listed along with an estimate of the

cost. There was much discussion about the meaning of the chart in respect to each element of GE, should the Board recommend just the SUNY GE, cost of the many transfers that teach specifically in the GE Program, and the cost of individual GE courses depending on whether of not they double dip with majors and minors. There were no conclusions about the manner in which to handle the cost issues.

Meeting adjourned at 3:55 due to lack of quorum. Minutes General Education Board

SUNY Oswego

Board of General Education

Minutes of January 6, 2003

Present: Ballentine (recorder), Bozak, Cole, Klatsky, Mandel, Mohammadi, Shaw, Smith

1. Minutes of 11 December 2002

J. Smith moved approval of the minutes of 11 December 2002; seconded by R. Mohammadi.

The motion passed 5-0-0.

2. Native American Studies 100 (Introduction to Native American Studies) for HD/NWC

NAS 350 was approved last year for Tolerance/Intolerance, but NAS 100 was not acted upon.

R. Mohammadi moved to approve NAS 100 for Human Diversity/Non-western Civilizations;

seconded by K. Shaw. The motion passed 5-0-0.

3. History Oral Communication Plan

Although listed in the plan, HIS 308 (Writing History: Historiography) has not been approved at

this time. J. Smith moved to approve the plan subject to the following:

a. A note should be included in the plan to deal with current history majors who will not

be able to enroll in HIS 308 but who will graduate on or before May 2004.

b. The plan should include an explanation about how students will evaluate an oral

presentation whether it be another student’s presentation or, for example, a video tape.

Motion seconded by R. Ballentine; passed 5-0-0.

4. Mathematics Oral Communication Plan

The Capstone presentation is quite flexible (e.g., seminar on an independent study project or

internship, student teaching, etc.). While this puts a lot of responsibility on the advisor, it should

be feasible because of the small number of majors. G. Klatzky moved approval of the plan;

seconded by J. Smith. Motion passed 4-0-1. A suggestion was made to copy our response to this

plan to the registrar since this is a non-course-related requirement.

5. Music Oral Communication Plan

Although there is no clear-cut course plan, most students will complete the requirement in their

applied studio courses. Faculty should explain how they plan to document their students progress.

This should be feasible since there are a small number of majors. Since this is a non-course-related

requirement, a copy of our response should be sent to the registrar. G. Klatzky moved approval of

the plan, R. Ballentine seconded; approved 5-0-0.

6. Wellness Management Oral and Writing Plan (minor revision)

K. Shaw moved to accept, J. Smith seconded; passed 5-0-0.

7. Political Science Oral Communication Plan

Some members of the Gen. Ed. Board observed that the developmental structure was not clear,

and that the length of presentations was not specified. Other members noted that the Board has

no guideline specifying a minimum length of oral presentations. J. Smith moved approval of the

plan subject to removal of POL 120 and POL 211 since they are lower-division courses. Motion

was seconded by K. Shaw. It passed 5-0-0.

8. Zoology Oral Communication Plan

It is similar to Biology plan which was approved last year. J. Smith moved approval; seconded

by R. Mohammadi, passed 5-0-0.

9. Modern Language Oral Communication Plan

Students spend much time speaking. Faculty will have assessment forms. Motion by K. Shaw to

approve the plan seconded by J. Smith; passed 5-0-0.

10. Theatre Oral Communication Plan

Speaking is an integral part of the program. Motion by J. Smith to approve the plan seconded by

R. Ballentine; passed 5-0-0.

11. Music 413 (Beethoven) for the Writing Plan

The Music Department would like to add Music 413 – Beethoven to the approved list of

writing courses. Motion to accept by R. Mohammadi seconded by G. Klatzky; passed 5-0-0.

12. Art 208 (Introduction to Digital Imaging) for Computer Literacy

This course is required for the relatively small number of non-BFA Graphic Arts majors. Some

members of the Board questioned whether there was enough breadth in the course, but a similar

course, Art 207, was approved previously. G. Klatzky moved approval, K. Shaw seconded. Motion

passed 4-0-1.

13. Art 361 (Art, Poetry, and Religion in Medieval Japan) for Intellectual Issues/Cultures and Civ.

This is a resubmission after provisional approval. Motion to approve by J. Smith seconded by

G. Klatzky. Motion passed 5-0-0.

14. Art 366 (Japanese Ink Painting) for Intellectual Issues/Cultures and Civilizations

It is not clear what the issues are in this course, and why there are prerequisites. Motion to send

back by J. Smith seconded by G. Klatzky. Motion to send back passed 5-0-0.

15. Honors Program

The question here is how to deal with the general education status of students who drop out of

the Honors Program. Although the courses available to Honors students were an acceptable match

for the ‘old’ General Education program, they do not match up very well with the current Gen. Ed.

requirements. Board members feel that students should be able to leave the Honors Program with a

clear understanding of where they stand with respect to our Gen. Ed. requirements. Currently, the

Director of the Honors Program meets with students in an attempt to make an equivalence with their

Honors courses and courses meeting the Gen. Ed. requirements. Some Board members believe that

there should be a mechanism for these students that doesn’t require them to meet with the Director.

Since SUNY requires that all students meet the Gen. Ed. requirements, we need make sure that

students who leave the Honors Program meet the requirements. It was suggested that the Director of

the Honors Program might establish a list of courses which meet current the Gen. Ed. requirements.

Should we ask for course descriptions? What about assessment? No action was taken on this issue.

Meeting adjourned at 4:01 PM

Respectfully submitted by Robert Ballentine

General Education Advisory Council

Minutes of January 30, 2003

3:00 PM

Present: Ballentine, Bozak, Cole, Lalonde, Mohammadi, Shaw, Smith

Handouts:

* Agenda

* SUNY GER update from Provost Salins, 1/2/03

* Oswego Gen Ed web page

* Advisor's Brief Guide to GE2000

* Forbes memo

* English Department Oral Competency plan

* CLEP exam information

* Kasle summary of SAC initiative

Minutes of January 6, 2003 were approved, with the addition that Biology 112 was approved for Knowledge Foundations (Mohammadi moved, Smith seconded), 4-0-1.

1) Spring 2003 schedule will be each Thursday from 3-4:30 with the exception of Wednesday February 19, 2003 and April 2, 2003 in place of 2/20 and 4/3.

2) Advisor's Brief Guide (and links on updated web page) were used for WinterSession training and will be used during this semester for additional training sessions, especially for new faculty. Some minor modifications were suggested: number of liberal arts hours required should be added to the bulleted list in part I; Transfers who matriculated prior to Fall 2000 and who lack a degree need to be added as a category of student to consider. Depending upon how long ago they began, the appropriate Gen Ed program would be at the discretion of the Director.

3) Forbes' memo was reviewed. While the focus of the memo was not within the Board's review, there were related issues:

(1) Instructors were reviewing student's gen ed situation and kicking out students who have not completed Basic Skills and Knowledge Foundations. This is, strictly, the minimum prerequisites required for Intellectual Issues courses, so we have no basis to complain.

(2) The course caps were dropped to zero and add/drops were controlled by the instructors. This is the only method available for instructors to control enrollment using waiting lists.

(3) The course was removed from the Web for add/drop. While this should only be done at the behest of the chair of a department, it again allows for more control over access by the instructor.

The concern of the Board would be that given the shortage of seats in II courses, if (2) is being used to reduce capacity and functionally remove any chance of adding students, then the instructor is not acting responsibly with respect to enrollments and the needs of the General Education Program. The enrollments in these courses will be reviewed by the Director in the coming weeks and if few or no adds have taken place, a letter expressing our concerns will be sent and an explanation requested of the instructor.

4) The Program Deviation Log was presented. Since nobody wished to micromanage this aspect of the Director's work, the Council merely oohed and ahhed and remarked on the productivity of the Director.

5) The English Oral Competency plan is basically an infused plan. Many faculty have checklists for evaluation of oral presentation/discussions and students are given those rubrics and asked to use them, especially in the 400-level courses. The plan's conciseness was praised. The plan was approved (Mohammadi moved, Ballentine seconded), 4-0-1.

6) The Communication Studies oral plan was pulled, so we skipped this agenda item.

7) The Council has received Sydney Kasle's 1.5 year-end report on the oral competency initiative. Some discussion ensued regarding those with impairments (physical or psychological) with respect to speaking (in public) and what accommodations might take place. Discussion also revolved around how much or little a student can complete of an oral component of a course and yet still pass the course. Once we are in the position of enforcing oral performance it is expected we will see requests for accommodation/deviation.

8) GE Course Approval Guidelines are requested by Salins' office by March 19, 2003. A question was raised over a rumor concerning statewide standardized testing. As best as is known, that is only a rumor, though a statewide assessment of portions of SUNY-GER was part of the original GER proposal.

Mohammadi moved, and Ballentine seconded, that we adjourn.

So we did. 4:27 PM.

Respectfully submitted,

David Bozak

SUNY Oswego

Board of General Education

Minutes of February 6, 2003

Present: Ballentine, Cole, Klatsky, Mandel, Mohammadi, Shaw, Smith

1. Minutes of 30 January 2003 approved 3-0-1.

2. R. Cole noted that he would be going to London as part of a group from Oswego who is working with Huron University to build a formal relationship between the two schools. Cole will be discussing General Education. Others also going on the trip include W. Opello, S. Varhus, L. Karnes, S. Rosow, and H. Zakin.

3. Discussion took place regarding Provost Salin’s request that local campuses submit course approval guidelines be sent to System Administration by March 19, 2003. Roster changes will also need to be submitted to the Provost’s office. Courses approved by local campuses, but questioned by the Provost, will be forwarded to the Advisory Council on General Education, who will then approve the course or mediate.

R. Cole suggested that the guidelines we develop and submit to the Provost should consist of three sections.

Section 1 would be a statement of the composition and charge of Oswego’s GE Board. The wording would be largely drawn from the Faculty Bylaws.

Section 2 would discuss the operating procedures of the GE Board. This section would contain information about the frequency of Board meetings, the format in which courses are to be received by the Board, and the timeframe within which the Board will render a decision on course proposals. This section of the guidelines would also contain category-specific instruments the Board would use to evaluate course proposals. The instruments would list the SUNY-GER learning outcomes and be used as a “scorecard” for determining a course’s fit within the category for which it is submitted. The evaluation instrument would also contain cross-category items that would allow the Board to consider non-learning outcome elements (e.g., frequency of offering, staffing, resources, UCC approval, etc.).

Section 3 of the Board’s guidelines would detail how the GE Board reported the outcomes of their deliberations. In the case of approved courses, the provost’s office would be notified, as would the campus registrar, faculty assembly and departments. In the case of courses not approved, departments would be notified.

The Board asked that R. Cole develop these guidelines immediately!

4. R. Mandel gave an update on assessment. With respect to this year’s components, she reported that assessment of English (writing) was moving along well, with Michael Murphy spearheading their efforts. Math is presently designing a test to use for their assessment plan. In the area of Fine & Performing Arts, all four departments are at work. Art and Music have plans in place; Theatre is in the middle of a program review, but will soon submit a plan, as will English Writing Arts. The History department has developed exam questions to assess American History.

Representatives for categories undergoing assessment next year met with Rhonda: Social & Behavioral Sciences, Natural Sciences, Critical Thinking, and Information Management. She feels that we have good teams at work on a tricky task. Especially difficult will be assessing Information Management because two of the learning outcomes are diffused across courses. Matrices will be developed for each course to evaluate how well they meet GE goals & objectives.

Percentages of students “exceeding,” “meeting,” “approaching,” and “not meeting” the learning outcomes will be aggregated by category. To the extent possible, individual courses and instructors will not be singled out. Assessment efforts need to be practical, given constraints such as time, money, and so forth. We will do the best job we can.

5. R. Mohammadi will pull a list of Advanced-level writing courses for possible sampling for Information Management learning objectives.

6. R. Mohammadi will pull a list of programmed GE exemptions by major for review by the Board.

Meeting adjourned at 4:31 PM

Respectfully submitted by Robert Cole

SUNY Oswego

Board of General Education

Minutes of February 19, 2003

Present: Ballentine, Cole, Klatsky, LaLonde, Mandel, Mohammadi, Shaw,

1. Minutes of 2/6/03 approved 4 – 0 – 1

2. R. Mandel announcedR. Cole was asked and agreed to continue the position of General Education Director for two additional years.

3. Memos from R. Sego regarding his perceived problems with General Education were passed out.

4. Course development submittal guidelines were passed out

5. Writing Across the Curriculum plans for the Department of Communications Public Relations and Human Communications majors were discussed

Mohammadi moved to approve, Ballentine second

Plans were approved 5 – 0

6. General Education exemptions by major were discussed.

Points discussed were:

The area of exemption for interdisciplinary majors and majors with cognates

Should Education majors be exempt from the Social and Behavioral Sciences knowledge foundations. Education departments should present a proposal indicating how the courses in that major meet the Social and Behavioral Sciences learning objectives

Mohammadi moved to exempt Vocational Teacher Preperation majors from the Social and Behavioral knowledge foundation requirement on the basis that all students are entitled to one exemption.

Klatsky second

Approved 3 – 1 – 0

7. Klatsky moved to adjourn

Second by Mohammadi

Submitted by G. Klatsky

General Education Board Meeting

27 February 2003

Present: Ballentine, Bozak, Cole, Klatsky, LaLonde, Mandel, Mohammadi, Shaw, Smith

First comment, in response to the minutes from 20 February 2003: “I love these minutes.”

Mohammadi moves that we accept the minutes, Ballantine seconds, and the motion passes unanimously.

Operating guidelines for Gen Ed were passed out, read, and ruminated upon. These guidelines are to be sent on to Albany. “It works for me” is heard.

We wondered what to call the courses that are rejected. We settled upon “Courses not approved.”

We talked about tinkering with the Appendix in order to have a single field for Learning Outcomes, rather than, say, three.

We would also like to add a fifth column for that which is not applicable.

Following discussion, Mohammadi moved approval, Smith seconded. Additional discussion led to the suggestion that we call Appendix A the following: “course evaluation worksheet.”

We next moved to the letter from Professor Seago. Here, and with apologies for your humble recorder cannot resist, rumination centered on the issue of prerequisites for intellectual issues courses and any practice of closing admission to these courses. We want to be certain that students do not find themselves in the unseemly position of having to drop a course at the beginning of the semester because they do not have the necessary prerequisites. How we can be certain that they do not find themselves in that position is, shall we say, tricky.

We agreed that we need more information regarding current practices.

We turned to the SUNY Oswego General Education 2000 checklist and wondered about whether or not we need to make clear what exemptions have been earned by transfer students with various degrees from SUNY two-year units. It seems it would make the checklist too messy, too cumbersome.

The last labor was to look at the general education exemption(s) granted in each major. “None” presents something of a problem; “Two” too is something we need to be careful about.

Mohammadi moved to adjourn, several seconded, and we adjourned at 4:30 p.m.