Return-path:
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 1997 12:01:50 -0500
From: Phil Jos
Subject: Group 12 Feb 24 mtg
X-Sender: jos@cofc.edu (Unverified)
To: Gened@cofc.edu
Errors-to: gened-error@cofc.edu
Reply-to: GENED@cofc.edu

Group 12 Meeting February 24, 1997
George Hopkins, Discussion Leader

Comments On Final Ad Hoc Version of Goals

*goal 4: there was some discussion of whether the "develop effective" language adequately conveyed the fact that students should already have many of these basic skills when admitted to the College. Our charge is to improve existing skills. Others felt that the word "effective" in the above phrase adeqately conveyed this idea.

*goal 4: the phrase "in a language other than English" is a bit misleading since students can demonstrate fluency in a language (e.g. Swedish) and not receive credit from the College. What we really mean is we aim for proficiency in certain languages certified by the College of Charleston.

*goal 7: some discussion of whether or not we can or should develop the ability to achieve "personal" goals. Should we claim anything beyond facilitating academic or vocational goals? In some ways, a commitment to helping students meet academic goals entails a commitment to supporting the "whole person" (and some felt it important to hold ourselves accountable for adequate support services like the health center and student counseling). Nonetheless, perhaps the word "personal" should be dropped or clarified.

On Discussion Questions II: To What Extent does the existing Gen. Ed. experience meet the above goals?

*agreement that we do not adequately foster interdisciplinary studies and perspectives (goal 2). Too much compartmentalization remains. Several different strategies were discussed, including a rule that would prohibit a Gen. Ed. course from being required for a major (to highlight that the primary purpose of the course is to serve general education goals rather than to provide the "beginning of the major" experience) and to require that some of the required Gen. Ed. courses be explicitly interdisciplinary courses. These ideas were discussed but no specific recommendation was agreed upon.

*agreement that General Education should be a "cafeteria style" menu of courses. Some emphasized that seeing the relationships among courses is something that happens slowly, and its not something that can be forced from the top down. Others felt that students need more explicit signposts to find these interrelationships, that we need to be more thoughtful about how to ensure that students arrive at the end of the line with a balanced meal.

*agreement that a world history approach is more appropriate than european history to meeting goal #3. Some endorsed World History as a requirement, others favored giving the students a menu choice between World History and European History. By the end of this conversation Maggie Pennington indicated that she deeply regretted introducing the cafeteria metaphor.

*discussion of the impact of advising (or the lack thereof in the age of the computer) was begun but held over till next meeting, along with a consideration of how well we are pursuing other goals (4, 7, 9 were mentioned).

*next meeting: March 24th 2pm

Phil Jos