[QCsenate 0078] Re: Change in Pathways policy on contact hours
Allan Ludman
Allan.Ludman at qc.cuny.edu
Tue Feb 11 14:11:40 EST 2014
It was my understanding that Hunter tried to combine LPS with Scientific World in order to keep 3 hrs lec, 3 hrs lab. I tried that but the QC Pathways Task Force vetoed it. I believe that CUNY disallowed the Hunter College option -- best to check before moving forward.
-----Original Message-----
From: George Hendrey
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2014 1:59 PM
To: Christopher Vickery; Pokay M Ma; 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; Robert R Engel; Jeff Marsh
Subject: Re: [QCsenate 0072] Re: Change in Pathways policy on contact hours
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
>
More information about the QCsenate
mailing list