[QCsenate 0077] Re: Change in Pathways policy on contact hours

Tue Feb 11 13:59:11 EST 2014

Hunter used the College Option to finesse this problem, perhaps we could
reconsider it.  AND, would Bill Kelly listen anew to a discussion of the
issues Pathways has raised, particularly for LPS courses?

A-pro-pos cost: With a 1-2, or 2-2  most of the cost is in the grad
teaching assistants/adjunts who teach the lab sections. We require
adjuncts to maintain office hours and attend the lecture section with the
1-2, so they get 3 hrs of workload per section and would do the same with
a 2-2 format.  With a 3-3 the lecture section relieves the necessity of
the adjuncts doing as much of the concept teaching so we do not increase
their workload, it remains 3-hr per section.  If LPS has a 3-3 4credit
format, the added cost is offset in the tuition for the 4th hour.
George

On 2/10/14, 11:39 PM, "Christopher Vickery"
<Christopher.Vickery at 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 at 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 at lists.qc.cuny.edu
>>[qcsenate-bounces at lists.qc.cuny.edu] on behalf of Christopher Vickery
>>[Christopher.Vickery at qc.cuny.edu]
>>Sent: Friday, February 07, 2014 14:02
>>To: George Hendrey; qcsenate at 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 at 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 at 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 at lists.qc.cuny.edu
>>>>To unsubscribe or change your preferences goto
>>>>http://lists.qc.cuny.edu/mailman/listinfo/qcsenate
>>>
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>QCsenate mailing list
>>QCsenate at lists.qc.cuny.edu
>>To unsubscribe or change your preferences goto
>>http://lists.qc.cuny.edu/mailman/listinfo/qcsenate
>