ASCnet

Details

Date

2007-03-30

Time

Location

Agenda

9:00-11a.m., Bricker 200

Agenda:
1. Approval of meeting minutes: Feb. 9, 23 and March 9

2. Updates from the Chair

3. ASC 710 (document below) - Graduate Introduction to the Study of Sexuality - Guests Debra Moddelmog, Associate Dean, Humanities and Tanya Erzen, Assistant Professor, Comparative Studies

4. Consideration of Changes to ASC Degree Requirements
*Data may be found on the intranet
https://ascnet.osu.edu/reports/gec/graduation_statistics.cfm
Paper copies were provided at the March 9 meeting. If you did not receive a copy, please contact Jessica Mercerhill.1

     1. Definition of free electives and number of hours required
     2. Number of hours of courses outside of ASC allowed
     3. Activities Credit
     4. Tech Credit
     5. Upper Division hour required for graduation
     6. Maximum hours allowed in a single registrar's listing (currently 80)
     7. Use of Pass/Non-Pass option in GEC
     8. B.A. Math Requirement
     9. University Definition of Basic Education

Notes

Present: Adelson, Andereck, Hobgood, Krissek, Trudeau, Vasey, Yerkes, Dutta, Mercerhill, Mockabee, Mumy, Oltmann, Highley, Lemberger, Florman, Harvey, Harder, Francis

 

1. Updates from the Chair:
1. CAA reviewing the BA & BS templates, 181, and Professional College proposals over the next month
2. Nina Berman, Jay Hobgood, and Ed Adelson met with Mabel Freeman and Nina Hoppes regarding AP credit, update will happen at a future meeting
3. Sub B and Sub C will be working on updating GEC guidelines, update will happen at a future meeting
4. Definitions of BA and tagged degrees will be initiated
2. ASC 710 – Guests Debra Moddelmog and Tanya Erzen
1. Required course for the GIS in the Study of Sexuality
2. GIS oversight committee will determine who will teach course
3. Similar to a current undergraduate course
4. Question of whether the course content will be common experience for students if the topics of the course might be slightly different based on the instructor – noted that any instructor will teach the same history of the field and then move beyond to examine a more interdisciplinary way
5. Question of how difficult it will be to recruit students for an ASC course versus one housed in a department – there are lists of students interested in Sexuality Studies, website is available, advertising will be done in colleges across campus; a new brochure about Interdisciplinary Programs is being created
6. Vote:  12 yes, 0 no, 0 abstention
3. Approval of Feb. 9, 23 & March 9 minutes – approved with one abstention
4. Discussion of Free Elective requirement
1. With new BS template, which does not have drop a GEC, students will be well over 181.
2. One option is to make requirement for BS elective hours 10 to allow for exceptions for especially heavy majors as required by accreditation
3. Noted that a number of major programs in the sciences would still be largely over 181 even if free elective requirement for BS is reduced to 10 hours.
4. Suggested that free electives should be simplified by only being imposed on students who have not met the 181 minimum requirement
5. Question of what is best for the student – are they not making choices to pursue the program they do?
6. One argument in favor of retaining requirement for free electives is to persuade majors not to grow too large
7. Noted that within a Physics degree there is room to choose to pursue other interests. But if you completely remove the notion of free electives will programs expand to fill out the hours required to degree?
8. Question of how the current requirement would be enforced for students – advising would have to check for it before graduate applications are completed
9. Question of whether it is of value to the students to require them to stay longer to complete elective hours, especially if it means they will be over 181 hours
10. Noted that students have the freedom to take elective hours within their majors
11. Noted that students are likely to take courses they are truly interested in despite any requirements for elective hours.
12. Suggested that to address concern about inflating of majors without elective hour requirement majors requesting to add hours will have to be reviewed scrupulously by this committee, decisions being made based on why the request is being made
13. Question of why the need to police majors – expansion is either a growth in the field or ploy for money, students will chose the program/university in reflection of this
14. Question of what kinds of courses students are taking as free electives

Motion (Hobgood) – eliminate required free elective hours for both the BA and BS degrees

Second (Vasey)

Amendment (Yerkes) – encourage diverse choice in student electives through advising

1.      Discussion: noted that departments do not discuss free electives when they are discussing the structure of their majors

2.      Major hours represent a minimum to 181 as well

3.      Disincentive for growing a major is the scheduling challenges additional requirements create for students – as courses are added to a major, it becomes more difficult for students to create course schedules that allow them to complete the degree in a timely way.

4.      General feeling from student member is that students understand that it is not currently enforced so they do not worry about the requirement

5.      Question of whether we should more strongly encourage students to take a minor – noted that many students are already double-majoring and minoring, advisors actively encourage double-majors and minors currently

6.      Concern expressed over PR created by eliminating electives but requiring minors since it actually increases hours – noted that discussion was to encourage minors, not require them

 Vote:  12 yes, 0 no, 0 abstention

5. Number of courses allowed from outside of ASC
1. Current rule: no more than 15 hours of non-ASC courses can be taken by ASC students – therefore all non-ASC minors must be approved by ASC
2. Rule was created to prevent students from taking courses that were deemed as less rigorous than ASC
3. Concern expressed that some colleges still have courses that are questionable
4. Suggested that CCI could request that OAA send concurrence requests to us for all minor proposals even if CCI no longer needs to approve non-ASC courses
5. Noted that tracks in the Geography major allow students to take courses in other colleges, therefore opposition is expressed to not allowing any courses from outside ASC to count toward degree
6. The current rule does not count major requirements and courses contained as a part of approved minors; advisors will approve some courses outside ASC if they have ASC pre-reqs or the course has been used in ASC majors
7. Student member suggested that the rule might seem like ASC is just upholding this rule for  financial purposes, and that electives should be left as electives
8. Most students who encounter this rule as a problem are those who transfer into ASC from a Professional College – these cases are usually treated with petitions

Committee affirms this rule.

6. Activities Credit
1. Current requirement restricts hours to 6 hours
2. Suggested that rule should be reduced to 0 hours allowed toward 181
3. Noted that the university is currently paying faculty & staff to be more physically active; concern over the rise in obesity
4. Noted that students have to have physical activity credits to get a High School degree
5. Students in the sciences take the courses knowing they will not count toward their major
6. Opportunity to explore activities that promote physical well-being and take the knowledge with them for the rest of their lives
7. Many of the courses have texts and teach methodology

Committee affirms this rule.

7. Technical credit – limited to 12 hours
1. Technical credit is credit for technical courses usually taken at other institutions such as police coursework  
2. Such credit is accrued by a tiny minority of transfer students

Committee affirms this rule.

8. Upper Division hours required for graduation
1. Current requirement is 60
2. Current overwhelming numbers of lower level GECs influence how many hours beyond 60 students take
3. Upper Division courses are defined as all courses at the 300 level or above, Philosophy 250, all courses taught by MAPS at the 200 level, and foreign language courses taught in the language at the 200 level
4. Raising the upper division hours required would seriously affect the Middle Childhood major
5. Concern that raising the hours might require more pre-requisites – in Humanities, some programs do not have pre-reqs, but some of the sciences would be affected
6. Noted that students in Earth Sciences have to take a number of 100 level pre-reqs – they could be encouraged to take upper level GECs though
7. Question of if the 60 hour limit is high enough for the current student population, given the increase in student ability level since the rule was imposed
8. Desire to encourage an increase in higher level GECs expressed
9. Question of if there are enough upper level GECs to meet the demand if students have a new requirement
10. Request for list of upper level GEC courses that have no pre-reqs
11. Request for time to think about this requirement and return to it at next meeting
12. Request for how many students the upper level GEC courses can accommodate
13. Discussion tabled until April 13 meeting, pending addition of above data