2001-2002 - April 24, 2002
Faculty Senate Minutes
April 24, 2002
Present: David Batuski, Darlene Bay, Martha Broderick, Kathrine Carter, Steve Cohn, Richard Eason, Bill Farthing, Ed Ferguson, Matthew Gagnon (represented by Sarah Knight), Alla Gamarnik, Paul Grosswiler, Don Hayes, Dianne Hoff, Mike Howard, Dana Humphrey, Keith Hutchison, Edward Jadallah, John Jemison, Joseph Kelley, Robert Kennedy, Carol Kim, Dennis King, Roger King, Irv Kornfield, Diana Lawson, Ngo Vinh Long, Daniel Lux, John Maddaus, Chuck Maguire, Kathleen March, Stephen Marks, Kim McKeage, Howard Patterson, Bryan Pearce, Glenn Reif, Robert Rice, Linda Rottmann, Douglass Ruthven, Christa Schwintzer, Frederick Servello, Phillip Silver, Owen Smith, Andrew Thomas, Roy Turner, Jim Warhola, Gregory White, Dave Yarborough
Absent: Jim Acheson, Seanna Annis, Robin Arnold, Douglas Bousfield, Thomas Brann, Richard Cook, Paul Creasman, Scott Dunning, Daniel Dwyer, Charles Forshee, Sandy Gardner, Peter Hoff, Richard Jagels, Melvin Johnson, Harvey Kail, Dorothy Klimis-Zacas, Judy Kuhns-Hastings, Phil Locke, Ivan Manev, Jim McClymer, Charles Moody, Ali Ozluk, Dan Sandweiss, Bruce Segee, Sarah Vidito
Welcome and Signing in
The meeting was called to order at 3:17pm.
II. Approval of minutes from the March 27, 2002 meeting
Motion to approve was made by Steve Cohn, seconded by Owen Smith. The motion passed.
A) Oscar Remick (presented by Michael Howard)
A memorial statement for Oscar Remick was read to the Senate by Michael Howard:
Oscar E. Remick, Adjunct Professor of Philosophy, died March 25, 2002, after a short illness. Professor Remick joined the faculty four years ago, after a distinguished career as an ordained Presbyterian minister, a professor of philosophy and religion, and a university administrator. Immediately before retiring to Ellsworth, Maine (where he had graduated from high school in 1950) and joining the University of Maine faculty, he served as President and Chancellor of Westminster College for 10 years.
He earned a B. A. from Eastern College, a B. D. from Eastern Baptist Theological Seminary, and Masters Degrees from the University of Pennsylvania, Columbia University and Union Theological Seminary. After further graduate studies in philosophy and religion from Andover Newton and Harvard Divinity Schools, he earned a Ph. D. in philosophy from Boston University. With two Fulbright scholarships, he studied at Heidelberg University and in India. Professor Remick began his administrative career in 1968 as the vice president and academic dean of Assumption College, an appointment, as a Protestant minister in a Catholic college, so notable that it was covered in Time magazine. (Those who know Oscar will recognize already here his remarkable capacity to reach out beyond conventional stereotypes and boundaries.) He went on to serve as President of the Chautauqua Institution, as dean of Arts and Humanities at the State University of New York at Fredonia (1977-1980), and as president of Alma College, Alma, Michigan (1980-1987), before becoming President at Westminster College. Upon retiring to Maine he wanted above all else to return to teaching.
Since joining the faculty at the University of Maine, Professor Remick regularly taught two courses per semester in philosophy, and was a beloved teacher who inspired some to major in the philosophy, and many others to love it. He took an interest in the lives and well being of his students, above and beyond the call of duty, such that many counted him not only a favorite teacher but also a friend. Professor Remick’s course evaluations were not only incredibly positive, with students consistently evaluating his teaching at the very highest level, but they were remarkable for their personal responses. Students noted how Professor Remick had inspired them, how he was such a compassionate and caring human being, how he had challenged and then supported them to bring out the best in them, and how he had often related to them personally in ways that profoundly transformed their lives in the most positive ways. Oscar Remick, although a part-time faculty member, was a truly exceptional philosophy colleague who was sensitive and thoughtful about the needs of others, was remarkably cooperative, and was deeply concerned about how he could best serve to enhance the well-being of the Department of Philosophy and the University of Maine. Professor Remick set a very high standard for public service. He chaired a fundraising committee for the Honors Program, advised the President of the University, and worked with the development office. He taught and served as interim dean at the Bangor Theological Seminary. He served on several Boards of Directors for: The Abbe Museum, Woodlawn Museum (Black House), The Grand Auditorium, and the Ellsworth High School Alumni Association. He had earlier served as chair of the Council of the Arts in New York, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. He was advisor to several governors and to Congress on higher education, and was appointed to Pennsylvania Governor Tom Ridge┬Æs Keystone Committee to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of state government through reforms in the areas of education, health care, economic development and welfare. He was honored twice with the Paul Harris Fellow award for public service.
Oscar Remick is remembered among family, friends and colleagues for his sense of humor and hearty laugh, his kindness, his wide learning, his wisdom and experience as a leader, his hopefulness and inclusivity, his grace, and his loyalty and devotion to the many individuals and communities fortunate to have him among them. In such a short time here he touched so many people – students, faculty, staff, and administrators – also deeply that he will be missed and remembered fondly for a long time to come.
Submitted for the record by Michael Howard, Department of Philosophy.
Jim Warhola moved that the statement be added to the minutes; second was by Roger King. The motion passed unanimously.
A) Invited guest for May 8th meeting: Chancellor Joseph Westphal
The Chancellor will join us at our May 8th meeting at his request. He talked to (Senate President) John Maddaus last week. Chancellor Westphal will meet with the Executive Committee immediately prior to the Senate meeting.
John Maddaus passed out copies of a motion to eliminate Winter Term and to modify the calendar. This will be taken up at the next meeting, and will be in the agendas for both the Elected Members and the Full Senate meetings.
President Hoff sent the Senate a letter about the Children’s Center; copies of the letter were available at the meeting.
Reports were made at previous meetings about the on-going discussion of evaluating administrators. This will be taken up at the May meetings. Two motions are upcoming about interdisciplinary studies, one the ad hoc committee has been working on, and another to re-authorize the ad hoc committee. There are two upcoming motions from the General Education Review Committee. That committee met last Friday; the motions will be coming forward in May.
Senate members received some correspondence from Professor Henry Porgorzelski; this will be discussed at the Elected Members meeting.
V. Questions to the Administrators
Q [Owen Smith to Provost Kennedy:] Can you give us update on faculty workload committee’s work?
A [Kennedy deferred to Assoc. Vice President for Academic Affairs Doug Gelinas:] The committee hasn’t met in the interim. They have talked about connecting workloads to budgeting. There is only a working document. There is no recommendation to the Provost yet.
Q [Follow-up from Smith:] There is some concern with lack of availability of section funds, and some concern that it might be tied to workloads.
A [Gelinas:] There is no connection. It was connected only to budgetary concerns.
A [Kennedy:] Canceling sections is a major concern. Most of those are back on track, though.
A [Gelinas:] some of them back on track. Sections of courses for which no instructors were listed were funded by section funds. It is not clear how those will be funded, though they are still working on this. A lot of the section money disappeared, and they’re trying to find other sources of money. The enrollments for those classes were set to 0; they were not eliminated.
Q [Douglass Ruthven to Interim Chief Financial Officer Mark Anderson:] He inquired about whether Anderson has an answer to the question raised last Senate meeting about requiring Social Security Numbers on travel forms. He wonders why the change was introduced.
A [Anderson:] The whole travel policy at the System level is under wholesale review. The reason the SSN was put on there was the requirement that each form be checked to determine if the payments are to an employee or non-employee, and the SSN is used to check the employee status of traveler. They are trying to figure out if there’s an alternate way.
Q [Ruthven:] They could just have a box to check about employee/non-employee status. [Anderson:] You would be amazed at the different interpretations of employee status.
Q [Andy Thomas:] There have been some articles in the Bangor Daily News about possible cuts to some athletic programs, and now there are TV crews on campus. What is the status?
A [Anderson:] Some period of time about a year ago, the Athletic Advisory Board was asked for recommendations for strategies to reduce the structural deficit in Athletics. That report was issued to President Hoff in the past couple of weeks. In addition to the budget cuts as part of the overall process, three or four different possible strategies were outlined, and he thinks that is what has triggered the discussion. It is just a discussion now. There is a formal process for eliminating a sport. Some of the recommendation involved eliminating some sports. We have a consent order for Title IX that we have to be cognizant of when doing this.
A [Kennedy:] There is a whole process, even if were thinking of eliminating any sport, and we’re a long way from any final decision.
VI. Committee reports
A) Judy Kuhns-Hastings, University Environment
Not present; no report.
B) Keith Hutchison, Research and Public Service
Nothing to report.
C) Christa Schwintzer, Finance and Institutional Planning
No report other than the motion on the agenda.
D) Bryan Pearce, Academic Affairs
He met this morning with George Markowsky (chair of Math Dept.) and Linda Rodman
Met this morning with Markowsky and others. The Committee is going to try to come up with a motion on writing and math competency.
E) Howard Patterson, Committee on Committees
Not present; no report.
F) Bob Rice, Constitution and By-laws
The Committee met and discussed the upcoming motion from the General Education Review Committee ["Motion to Amend the By-Laws to Create a Special Committee, to be Called the General Education Outcomes Committee", see below.]. The recommendation from the Committee was handed out. The Committee was unanimous that it should not pass.
G) Kathleen March, Library Advisory
The Committee met last week and discussed the journal cuts that need to be made. The list of journals with “number 2’s” from the last rating went out on Monday to the deans; chairs and faculty should be getting them soon. See the Library folder, serials cancellation link.
[Or go to http://library.umaine.edu/colldev/serials2002.]
The Committee is still working on plans for an endowment.
Everyone has now gotten the Library News, which should become a source of information about the Library. The Committee thinks they gave that a little push and hopes the campus finds it useful.
H) Owen Smith, General Education Review
The Committee met for the last time last Friday. They discussed the discussion in Elected Members meeting and the Constitution and By-Laws Committee. They decided not to be self-censoring, and so they will bring forward the two motions as previously presented. [John Maddaus:] A survey about General Education was attached to the agenda. [Smith:] Unfortunately it is not the whole survey data; it was predominantly from Engineering and Social Sciences.
I) Jim Warhola, Interdisciplinary Programs
The Committee met several times since last Senate meeting. They produced a draft document of general guidelines for the development of interdisciplinary programs. This will be discussed at the May 1 meeting, and it will be submitted to the May 8 full Senate meeting. A draft motion to reauthorize the committee will also come forward in May.
J) Dana Humphrey, Board of Trustees Representative
The next meeting of the Board will be May 19–20 at USM. No report otherwise.
VII. New Business:
A) Elections for 2002-2003 (one year terms):
Bryan Pearce was the only candidate for Vice President/President-Elect, and Jane Smith was the only candidate for Secretary.
B) Elections for 2002-2005 (three year term):
Votes were taken for faculty representative to the Board of Trustees. Dana Humphrey remains the representative.
C) Faculty Appointments: Proposed policy
Proposed policy for a vote: FACULTY APPOINTMENTS – Submitted by Peter Hoff and Robert Kennedy (distributed at the full Senate meeting on 2/27/02, and previously discussed by Elected Members Committee on 3/6/02 and 4/10/02)
Effective immediately, all regular, tenure-track faculty appointments must be made in an existing academic department. In the case of the College of Education and Human Development where there are no departments, appointments are made in the College. Further, the standard procedures for formulating a peer committee, as addressed in departmental promotion and tenure criteria and, if appropriate, criteria for joint appointment, need to be followed for all faculty appointments.
The Executive Vice President/Provost will begin discussions immediately with the appropriate deans to secure regular departmental affiliations for all tenure-track faculty currently holding interdisciplinary appointments.
This was moved by Howard Patterson and seconded by Christa Schwintzer.
An amendment was offered by Bill Farthing to add “new” between “all” and “regular”, and to add a line saying that the department must approve appointment by a majority vote of the tenured and tenure-track faculty. This was seconded by Bryan Pearce.
Discussion of amendment:
[Farthing:] Have already discussed the problem existing in the psych dept. Could avoid this in future by voting when admin might decide to hire someone, then place them in a dept.
Vote on amendment:
23 in favor, 8 opposed, 4 abstained. Amendment passed.
Irving Kornfeld offered another amendment: substitute “department or school” for “department”. Second by Andy Thomas.
Discussion of amendment:
[Diane Hoff:] Asked about whether voting in departmentless college would be for whole college. John answered that the College of Education and Human Development operates like a department.
[Owen Smith:] Point of discussion: Given amendment language of first paragraph, the second paragraph is inappropriate.
[John Maddaus:] They are two separate issues.
Vote on amendment:
33 in favor, no opposed, 5 abstained. Amendment passed.
The Parliamentarian advised that we need to amend again for the second paragraph.
Bill Farthing so moved, Mike Howard seconded.
27 in favor, 7 opposed, 5 abstained. Amendment passed.
Effective immediately, all new, regular, tenure-track faculty appointments must be made in an existing academic department or school. In the case of the College of Education and Human Development where there are no departments, appointments are made in the College. Further, the standard procedures for formulating a peer committee, as addressed in departmental promotion and tenure criteria and, if appropriate, criteria for joint appointment, need to be followed for all faculty appointments. The department or school must approve the appointment by a majority vote of the tenured and tenure-track faculty.
The Executive Vice President/Provost will begin discussions immediately with the appropriate deans to secure regular departmental affiliations for all tenure-track faculty currently holding interdisciplinary appointments. The department or school must approve the appointment by a majority vote of the tenured and tenure-track faculty.
VOTE ON MOTION
33 in favor, none opposed, 5 abstained. Motion passed.
D) Peer Committees for Joint Appointments: Proposed Policy
Proposed Policy for a vote: PEER COMMITTEES FOR JOINT APPOINTMENTS – Submitted by Peter Hoff and Robert Kennedy (distributed at the full Senate meeting on 2/27/02, and previously discussed by Elected Members Committee on 3/6/02 and 4/10/02; new sentence added in bold in the handout)
All tenure-track faculty with joint appointments must have a home with an academic department. For tenure and promotion of research faculty, joint peer committees consisting of peers from the research unit and the home academic department need to be appointed by the academic department chair in consultation with the center director. No less than 50% of the joint committee shall be from the academic department. The peer committee makes its report to the department chair and the director of the research unit. The director forwards his/her recommendation to the Vice President for research. The department chair forwards his/her recommendation to the dean. In turn, the Dean and the Vice President for Research send their recommendations to the Executive Price President/Provost. After review and discussion by the Administrative Promotion and Tenure Review Committee, the EVP/Provost forwards his/her recommendation to the President for action.
Motion was made by Bill Farthing; Kathleen March seconded.
[Farthing:] In view of the changes in previous policy, first sentence should be eliminated. He proposed this as an amendment. Ed Ferguson seconded.
Discussion of amendment:
[Dana Humphrey:] If we eliminate the first sentence, it would start off with “For tenure and promotion of research faculty”, which would make the policy apply to all research faculty, and that was not the intent.
[Provost Kennedy:] There are a couple of operative words in first sentence – if we lose words “joint appointments”, that loses what it applies to.
[Farthing:] Proposed that we change the title, and modify the second line to read “tenure track research faculty”.
[Parliamentarian:] This has to be a separate motion.
[Farthing:] Can the amendment be withdrawn?
[Parliamentarian:] No, it has already been seconded.
Vote on amendment:
2 in favor, 29 opposed, 7 abstained. Amendment fails.
Kim McKeage pointed out (in the form of an amendment) that the third line should read “Vice President” rather than “Price President”. This does not require an amendment, and John Maddaus assured the Senate that the typo will be corrected.
[Ed Ferguson:] We still need to address Dana’s point about research faculty – the first line stands alone, so we still need an amendment to only apply to tenure-track faculty.
[Mike Howard:] Can we include a change to the title as an amendment? [Parliamentarian agreed.] Howard so moved. There was a second by Don Hayes.
Discussion of amendment:
[Bill Farthing:] Is this supposed to apply to everyone with joint appointments?
[Bob Rice:] When this was drafted, it was the operational practice for research faculty, and Dan Dwyer drafted it. It went through many drafts, but the word “research” remained. He thinks it applies to all joint appointments.
[Keith Hutchison:] So if someone has a 25% appointment in one dept, 75% in another, they’d have 50–50 representation in each department?
[Provost Kennedy:] It could be.
[John Maddaus:] There are references to “research” in the document, so there would have to be some changes throughout.
It was pointed out that it could be tabled.
Motion to table:
Bob Rice so moved, Kim McKeage seconded.
Vote on tabling:
32 in favor, no opposed, one abstained. Motion is tabled.
E) Motion: Solid Waste Minimization Committee
Motion for a vote, TO CREATE A SOLID WASTE MINIMIZATION COMMITTEE, submitted by the Finance and Institutional Planning Committee
During recent years earlier advances in waste minimization were lost. Currently the University is recycling only 39% of mixed office paper and magazines (includes newspaper), 54% of cardboard, and 2% of organic cafeteria waste. Since July 1, 2001 the University has had a Sustainability Officer whose responsibilities include waste minimization. However, this one individual cannot do all the work required. At an earlier time the University had an ad hoc committee on Waste Management. In May 1999, the President Symanski sent a letter to President Hoff recommending that the Waste Committee be made permanent although the Senate had not passed a formal motion to that effect. In a letter dated 30 January 2000, President Hoff replied “Solid Waste Committee. Although there was not a formal motion on this, we concur with the sense of the Senate that the Solid Waste Committee should stand as an official committee.” At present this committee does not exist.
A Committee of the Administration known as the Solid Waste Minimization Committee should be established as soon as possible, but no later than September 2002, to work with the Sustainability Officer in finding ways to minimize production of solid waste and to maximize recycling of solid waste in a cost effective manner. Such solid waste includes but is not limited to paper, glass, metals, organic cafeteria waste, and other solid waste identified by the Sustainability Officer. The committee membership should include faculty and staff with expertise in relevant areas such as composting. The committee should have six members, one of whom is a member of the Faculty Senate. It should be appointed by the President in consultation with the Sustainability Officer and the President of the Faculty Senate.
Motion was introduced by Christa Schwintzer. Scott Wilkerson, the Campus Sustainability Officer, was introduced. Christa noted that there was such a committee on an ad hoc basis at one point, and Wilkerson would like the advice of a more permanent committee. The intent is that solid waste is only one responsibility of the Sustainability Officer, but it makes sense for this area to have a committee, even though President Hoff is suggesting broader committee in addition.
Motion was seconded by Roger King.
[Gregory White:] He questioned restricting this to solid waste management and asked if it is feasible for this committee to look at energy, etc., as well? He does not see a compelling reason to limit the scope.
[Schwintzer:] The logic is that the President is planning to appoint a larger committee (announced yesterday). The idea of this is that this committee would advise on this particular subset of problems.
[White:] Given that this was announced yesterday, is this the best idea?
[Schwintzer:] The Committee did discuss this, and decided to proceed.
[Wilkerson:] He said he could absolutely use the assistance and guidance. He does not know what the makeup of the new committee [that the President announced] will be like. He envisions it will look at energy, green building issues, etc. He sees smaller groups feeding information to the larger group. He does not see them as being competing or overlapping, but more as feeding each other.
26 in favor, one opposed, two abstained. Motion passes.
VIII. Information item:
Proposed Amendment to the Faculty Senate By-laws, to be voted on May 8, 2002. This motion was received from the ad hoc General Education Review Committee, submitted to the Secretary of the Senate on March 21, 2002, and forwarded by him to the Chair of the Constitution and By-laws Committee, and announced in the agenda of March 27, 2002 and in this agenda, in accordance with the By-laws, Article VI AMENDMENT. Following the motion is the recommendation of the Constitution and By-laws Committee, as required in the By-laws.
MOTION TO AMEND THE BY-LAWS TO CREATE A SPECIAL COMMITTEE, TO BE CALLED THE GENERAL EDUCATION OUTCOMES COMMITTEE
The New England Association of Schools and Colleges (NEASC), which is the accreditation agency for the University of Maine, announced in Fall, 1998, that the post-secondary institutions it accredits will be required to develop student outcomes assessment plans for general education. Since then, a number of committees at the University of Maine have examined this issue, but little progress has been made. Many university faculty are familiar with outcomes assessment through professional programs accreditation procedures and/or work with K-12 schools, so the expertise exists among the faculty to make the necessary changes. Strong faculty leadership, guided by a committee of the Faculty Senate, is needed to make significant progress on this issue in time for future accreditation actions. Since the development and monitoring of student outcomes and assessments will be a long-term process, and since NEASC is seeking institutionalization of the outcomes assessment process, the creation of a Special Committee of the Senate is an appropriate organizational change. The Special Committee will work in consultation with the Undergraduate Program Curriculum Committee and the Center for Teaching Excellence
The Faculty Senate By-laws, Article V, Special Committees, is hereby amended by the addition of a new section 2:
Section 2 General Education Outcomes Committee
A. Function: The General Education Outcomes Committee reviews and makes recommendations to the Senate regarding the assessment of student outcomes and related issues of general education. It works in consultation with other appropriate campus committees to develop, monitor and revise as needed statements of student outcomes and assessment procedures for the general education requirements. In addition, the committee promotes the use of such outcomes statements and assessment procedures among faculty teaching courses that meet general education requirements.
B. Membership: The members of the General Education Outcomes Committee are one faculty member from each college, the Director of the Honors College (or his/her designee), the Executive Vice President and Provost (or his/her designee), and a representative of undergraduate student government. The chair of the committee shall be chosen by the President of the Senate. At least one member of the committee shall be a member of the Senate.
As required by the by-laws, the report of the Committee on Constitution and By-Laws is included:
April 22, 2002
Dr. John Maddaus, President
104 Shibles Hall
As required by the By-laws to the Constitution of the Faculty Senate, the Constitution and By-laws Committee met to discuss the proposed motion to modify the By-laws and incorporate a Special Committee of the Senate charged with general education outcomes assessment.
The Committee met and reviewed the history of the General Education Review Committee, discussed the mandate of NEASC and developed a recommendation regarding the proposed motion. Although outcomes assessment must be done, we believe that the motion should not pass and that the function should remain with the Academic Affairs Committee. The vote against the proposed amendment was unanimous.
R. W. Rice
Chair, Constitution and By-laws Committee
General Education Survey Form
Total number of forms = 133
Question 1. Very easy Somewhat Easy Somewhat Difficult Very Difficult No Response
29 48 54 2 1
Question 2. 22 55 46 7 1
|Question #3||Very Easy||Somewhat Easy||Somewhat Difficult||Very Difficult||N/R||Total|
|Artistic & Creative Exp.||40||61||25||6||3||135|
|Cul. Diver. & Internl.||37||54||33||8||2||134|
|Population & Environ.||29||59||36||6||4||134|
|Social Cont. & Institu.||35||64||33||3||3||138|
|Western Cul. Tradition||36||50||39||5||1||131|
Question 4. Which of the following have you contacted when you have a question about General Education? (Check all you have contracted)
Academic adviser 103
Major department support staff 46
Other faculty in major department 29
College administrators 12
Faculty teaching general education crs. 6
Other students 75
Any other faculty 8
Other (please specify) 11
Question 5. Has your advisor helped you select appropriate courses for meeting General Education requirements?
Yes, always Yes, sometimes No, not usually No response
37 58 35 3
Question 6. Have you had to forego courses you wanted to take to meet the General Education requirements?
No Yes (please describe) No response
73 59 1
Question 7. What have you most enjoyed about your General Education experience?
Answers: Being well rounded
Diversity in learning
Large classroom size compare to majors; meet more people
I enjoyed my religion course (anthropology)
Getting a broad range of education
The diversity of materials and information I was exposed to
I got a chance to take some classes that I never would have thought to take
I learned a lot about other areas besides business.
Variety of classes that I would have never thought of taking
I enjoyed learning different things. I feel more knowledgeable as a whole.
Wide variety of classes
Exploring different courses in different majors
Taking social sciences
Experiencing the different areas of study
Able to learn a variety of things
I enjoyed learning about subjects that were not offered in my high school such as Astronomy, psychology, oceanography, and anthropology.
I liked having to take classes in other disciplines.
The fect that I completed them
Learning about different majors
The French classes I took
The one out of 10 or 50 neq’d
Roundness of educational experience
You can usually pick and chose course that interest you
It gave me a taste of different subjects
I have taken classes outside my major that have been somewhat interesting.
Gettting to learn about a variety of topics
Having he excuse to take a course that isn’t business related
The broad range of topics covered.
They make the students very well rounded
Not much, it was very repetitive, not consistent nor very fluid
Haven’t really enjoyed it
For the most part, except for the work load in some classes
Economics, sustainable agriculture, political geography
The diversity of classes offered
Nothing, except a history class I took, but that is like one out of 20 classes
Psychology and art
I did learn about many aspects outside of business
They have given me a chance to learn about broader subjects than just my major
I really enjoyed InT 105 (environmental policy), it allowed me to have a different view, by taking courses offered by other departments
A couple of the courses were interesting.
That I go to have some experience in areas that previously I may not have wanted or thought about studying
All exept having to take anthropology courses. I don’t see the point. France Vs. Meso America?
The variety of classes
Learned different things, but they are mostly a waste of time
The people that I got to meet outside my major
Learning about things I would have never have otherwise chose to
Learning about other topics that interest me
I got to learn about a variety of areas
I have not enjoyed a dam thing about courses like FSN 101 or MAT 215
Taking classes I would not have taken if it was not required
Getting a diverse background
I took art history and enjoyed it! I thought I would hate it. Now I am an art history buff.
I liked have the choices and flexibility of my class schedule
It forced me to take dance and choir I enjoyed the creative freedom
Huge class room
Courses in different areas
Taking these courses makes the semester a little bit easier
They were different from civil courses and Beme I found very interesting
Nothing, waste of money and time. Ploy of university to suck money from students
Technology & society course
Much more interesting than engineering classes
Low class work load
Variety of experiences
Different classes outside major
Makes you think outside of your major or shows how your major impedes in different areas depending on the course
Nothing at all. Waste of time
Was easy to determine what was needed
Easier than classes in major
Generally it is an opportunity to interact with students of other majors
No, But they are GPA boosters
Seeing girls in my classes
Learning different experiences
Forced to expend educational horizon
The different type of classes offered
Interesting w/ non-engineers for a change we are w/ the same 25 kids everyday.
I didn’t enjoy any of them. I am intellegent enough to form my opinions and thoughts about the world without an instructor testing me on his viewpoints.
Nothing, I hated every one that I took
Learning different cultures
Educational experience, it’s a good change of pace from courses in my major
I did not enjoy any Ge. Ed. Course listed in #9.
They are a break from traditional engineering classes.
The change of pace from engineering courses.
I took them at another school
Not much at all
Meeting other people outside of engineering
I haven’t enjoyed it.
Getting an education in overall classes
I learned more about tech writing than I thought I would.
That some classes count for more than one requirement
Getting done w/ them
Some subjects out of my major were very enjoyable
They’re pretty easy
Easy credit, usually not much work involved
Easier than MEE course
Taking some classes that I wouldn’t have normally taken, but enjoyed them
Provided me w/ a break from all the courses in my major/new subject material
A difference in atmosphere
Question #8. What have you most disliked about your General Education experience?
Courses that should meet GED and they didn’t
Difficult in obtaining courses
Teachers more informal, harder to reach
I disliked how hard it was to find a population & the environment requirement
Worrying about how to meet certain requirements
In a sense, I feel like I have wasted some credits when I could have used something else
Some of these had no meaning or is going to be useful in my life. But maybe I’m wrong
Having to take classes that I never would have taken
Some of the courses H have taken have been not interesting at all
Some of the classes were not made exciting
The classes were too large
The fact that class that don’t relate to your major can bring down your GPA
Having no choice but to take a bad class
I didn’t enjoy taking courses that were not interesting to me, for example history
Taking regular science courses, and having to concentrate more on them than my BUA courses
Western Cultural tradition
Have to take classes your not interested in
I did not like taking some of the required classes because they did not interest me, and I do not feel they benefited me.
Question #9. If you could make a change(s) to improve the General Education requirements, what would that change(s) be?
Question #10. What do you think is the purpose(s) of the General Education requirements?
Question #11. What is the most important thing(s) you’ve learned from the courses you’ve taken to meet General Education requirements?
Question #12. Other Comments:
Meeting was adjourned at 4:40pm.