Hi there, I think that we may be able to compromise the watering down while getting back to something close to what we had before (e.g., having our 101 class being a Gen Ed class as well as a gateway class for majors). I believe that we can get away with a 2 lecture and 3 hour lab for 3 credits without turning off too many students. In fact, I would love to go back to the 3 lecture hours and 3 lab hours, but to have it only as 3 credits could turn off a bunch of students. That is unless all the natural sciences agree to do it that way, so the students have to accept it and deal with it. Are there any plans for the chairs & faculty of the natural sciences to discuss this as a group? If so, I would enjoy being part of that discussion. Best, Steve Professor Stephen Pekar School of Earth and Environmental Sciences Queens College 65-30 Kissena Blvd. Flushing, NY 11367 Tel.: 718-997-3305 Email: stephen.pekar@qc.cuny.edu Web Site: http://qcpages.qc.edu/EES/pep/pekar.html Offshore New Harbor Project website: http://qcpages.qc.cuny.edu/offshore_new_harbor/index.htm Adjunct Research Scientist Lamont Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University Palisades, NY 10694 On 2/10/14 11:39 PM, "Christopher Vickery" <Christopher.Vickery@qc.cuny.edu> wrote:
Hi PoKay,
Students can use 4-credit courses for LPS only if they also satisfy a requirement for a major. But we still must offer a “sufficient number” of 3-credit courses so that no student is forced to use a 4-credit course to satisfy the requirement.
So the “thaw” still means that we can’t get back to the national norm of six contact hours for 4 credits for all LPS courses. That’s why in my response to George I mentioned a watered down version of the national norm: 2 LEC; 2 LAB; 3 CR. We can add more contact hours, but can’t go above the 3 credit limit. I didn’t mean to suggest that structure as a rule, just as a possible example. A department could decide to use any number of lecture/lab/recitation/etc contact hours (including fractional hours for any components), provided the number of credits is 3. Of course some crazy 12 LEC; 7 REC; 5 LAB; 3 CR course isn’t going to attract any students, but it would be allowed under the new rules if the Senate were to approve it.
So, GenEd lab science courses still have to be watered down compared to traditional gateway to the major lab science courses. As I said in my reply to George, requiring gateway to the major courses for the LPS GenEd requirement looks to me like a very tough political battle to pick. The strongest argument against it is probably the low success rate for many of those courses. The natural sciences, arguably, are as strong as they are exactly because of the selective filtering those introductory courses provide. But if that filter is applied to all students, institutional enrollment will drop more than the college, university, or state legislature is willing to allow.
I do understand that what the natural sciences might like to do is to offer 3 LEC; 3 LAB; 4 CR courses that are not necessarily the first course of the major and which have the high success rate the politics demand for GenEd courses. But at least for now we’re stuck with the 3 credit limit and the need to deal with transitioning students who take such a course into the major without “wasting” a course.
It’s a thorny issue, and I don’t claim to know the best answer. But the constraints we have to work with are pretty clear.
Chris
On 2/10/14, 10:37 PM, "Pokay M Ma" <Pokay.Ma@qc.cuny.edu> wrote:
Hi Chris:
I second George’s proposal.
The national norm is 3 hours of lecture, 3 hours of lab, for a total of 4 credits. This is what we should restore. Is the Chancellor’s directive the first step in this direction? If not, it does not make any sense.
If I understand you correctly, (a) the LPS courses are still worth 3 credits, and (b) we must offer a 3-hour version, although (c) we may also offer a 4-hour version. If we give a 3-hour, 3-credit course and a 4-hour, 3-credit course the same value, viz. fulfilling LPS requirements, and offer both simultaneously, who in his or her right mind will opt to take the 4-hour course? It looks like the levels of insanity and nuttiness have not changed!
PoKay
________________________________________ From: qcsenate-bounces@lists.qc.cuny.edu [qcsenate-bounces@lists.qc.cuny.edu] on behalf of Christopher Vickery [Christopher.Vickery@qc.cuny.edu] Sent: Friday, February 07, 2014 14:02 To: George Hendrey; qcsenate@lists.qc.cuny.edu Cc: Marc-Antoine Longpre; Nicholas G Hemming; Gregory D Omullan; Nick COCH; Jeffrey A Bird; Allan Ludman; Ashaki A Rouff; Timothy Eaton; Bill Blanford; Chuixiang Yi; Cecilia M Mchugh; Stephen Pekar; Yan Zheng; Jeff Marsh Subject: [QCsenate 0072] Re: Change in Pathways policy on contact hours
George --
While I agree with you on the “some sanity” point of view, I’m sorry to say it’s not as sane as we would like. The only thing the chancellor has loosened is the number of contact hours, not the number of credits that Pathways courses can carry. There are several people who had the same misconception about the number of course credits, so I double-checked with the University’s Acting Vice Chancellor (Julia Wrigley) to make sure I’ve got it right. She confirmed: it’s only the restriction on the number of contact hours that has been loosened. The three-credit rule still applies, and getting that changed is going to require getting the Board of Trustees to change their original resolution. I have no idea what the politics of that move will be.
But meantime, things are now slightly less ridiculous. What I would suggest is that departments review their newly-minted 3 hour LPS courses, and to submit proposals to the UCC to change them to “2 hr Lec; 2 hr Lab; 3 cr.” or whatever structure most closely approximates the types of lab courses the departments would like to offer, while ending up with the 3-credit restriction.
The University is still requiring us to provide enough of these 3-credit courses so that no student is forced to take a 4-credit course to satisfy the LPS (or any other) Pathways requirement.
Another point needs to be reiterated: Any student who wants to can take a 4+ credit course to satisfy the LPS requirement provided the course satisfies a requirement for a major (any major) under the “STEM variant” rule. But we can’t simply, for example, drop ENSCI 99 and offer only ENSCI 101 or drop GEOL 99 and offer only GEOL 101.
If anyone has any questions, please feel free to get in touch with me.
Chris
On 2/7/14, 1:42 PM, "George Hendrey" <George.Hendrey@qc.cuny.edu> wrote:
The message from Chris, about the ³3 contact hour rule² (below) represents some sanity in an otherwise nutty situation. This semester SEES is offering Ensci99, with 1 hour of lecture and 2 hours of lab a week, total 3 contact hours. The SEES faculty HATES this. We put it together under duress and by any standard it is a serious dumbing down of a science laboratory course, despite our best efforts to include serious content. I propose that this format not be approved for future LPS courses. A more typical format for a science lab course is 3 hr lecture and 3 hour lab each week for 4 credits and I propose that this be a standard at QC for laboratory course LPS designations. George Hendrey
On 2/5/14, 2:47 PM, "Christopher Vickery" <Christopher.Vickery@qc.cuny.edu> wrote:
All ‹
As the email below indicates, Pathways courses need no longer adhere to the ³3 contact hour rule² that caused so much consternation when the whole Pathways initiative was being forged into existence. This has particular implications for English composition, foreign language, and laboratory science courses. GEAC, the UCC, deans, and most (if not all) departments have already received copies of this announcement. But the senate at large should be aware of the change so it can start developing a coordinated response.
Chris Vickery -- Dr. Christopher Vickery, Director Office of General Education The College http://gened.qc.cuny.edu<http://gened.qc.cuny.edu/>
To: College Presidents and Deans
As you will recall, the June 2011 Board of Trustees resolution on Pathways stipulated that all of the ³Pathways policies and processes, including the Common Core, be reviewed and evaluated each year for three years beginning in 2013, and every three years thereafter, to modify them as necessary to improve them or to meet changing needs.² This year, we did not yet have the data for a full review, but it was possible to consider implementation policies.
To that end, we arranged last fall for an informal review involving faculty members from the key disciplines of the natural sciences, English, and the humanities, as well as representation from the University Faculty Senate. Participants were asked to consider areas in which implementation could be improved at this still-early stage in Pathways adoption while adhering to the original Board resolution. Participants quickly reached consensus on three changes:
1) The University will no longer specify a limit on course hours in Common Core areas. The Common Core model calls for a 30-credit curriculum, and this will remain in place. However, beginning in fall 2014, colleges can determine how many hours to allocate to courses in the Common Core and will have discretion to allocate hours to courses as they choose, in keeping with college practices.
2) To date, colleges have been able to seek a waiver if a major or degree program cannot be accommodated within the Common Core framework. Such waivers have been generated by the CUNY Office of Academic Affairs. Waivers have been sought in particular in the cases of certain STEM programs or licensed programs of various kinds, where it has proven to be unusually difficult to accommodate 30 credits of general education spread across the eight areas of the Common Core. In such cases, programs can be helped by allowing the designation of particular courses within the Common Core areas or the College Option. This practice will continue; efforts will be made to ensure that every college is fully aware of the waiver process.
3) Faculty members serving on the CUNY-wide Common Core Course Review Committee (CCCRC) will be chosen through college governance processes, beginning with those identified to serve during the 2014-2015 academic year.
I believe these changes are consistent with conversations we have had about Pathways. Interim Executive Vice Chancellor Julia Wrigley will be in touch with your chief academic officers to provide additional guidance on implementing these changes. The ongoing review of Pathways will continue next year when more data are available.
William P. Kelly Interim Chancellor|The City University of New York 205 East 42nd Street, 18th floor|New York, NY 10017 646 664-9100 tel|646 664-3833 fax _______________________________________________ QCsenate mailing list QCsenate@lists.qc.cuny.edu To unsubscribe or change your preferences goto http://lists.qc.cuny.edu/mailman/listinfo/qcsenate
_______________________________________________ QCsenate mailing list QCsenate@lists.qc.cuny.edu To unsubscribe or change your preferences goto http://lists.qc.cuny.edu/mailman/listinfo/qcsenate