Minutes of the Faculty Senate Meeting April 11, 1985 Present: Bennett, Coyne, Grams, Combs, Farzanegan, Williams, Comer, Ruiz, Hollingsworth, Greenawalt, Betts, Shoaf, Stern, Wengrow, Dorr, Downes, Seitz Visitors: Gillum, Cadle, Cochran, Browning, Ready, Kormanik, Perry Nickless, Wilsman, Huang, Brotak, Bernhardt, Bramlett, Bares, Bruce, Howard, Bowen, Lang, Mr. Hudson, Blue Banner Representative Dr. Comer called the meeting to order and announced that the purpose of the meeting was to discuss and ultimately vote on the proposed changes to the general education program at UNCA. Mr. Hudson, (a Chemistry Major): Argued against increasing the number of credits required in general education since it would mean that students in disciplines like chemistry would be left with few, if any electives outside the major. He suggested eliminating the proposed course in Critical Thinking, the 6 credits in Social Sciences, and the Art course. He felt that the foreign language requirement penalized departments that already required languages at the intermediate level. Mr. Bernhardt: Stated that while at Davidson his "liberal" education was impeded by the heavy requirements of that university and was only obtained by his exempting from as many of them as possible. He, therefore, would like to see fewer credits required. He strongly opposed the science requirement as proposed. In his view the required course to include "teaching" the scientific method will be superficial and watered down science. He expressed the opinion that the proposed requirement was more a gimmick than a program for science education. He suggested that a 6 hour foreign language requirement was ridiculous because nothing of value could be accomplished in only 6 credit hours. Once again the Senate is asking for too many things that can't be accomplished in the time available. He was disturbed that the clear voice of the majority of the science faculty members was not heard by the Senate due to the chance representation from the sciences on the Senate. He was not so much concerned whether a student gets biology, or chemistry, or physics, but that students get some science in sufficient depth to be of value. Dr. Gillum: Too many hours! While he suppported the use of a strong core curriculum he believes that there are serious problems associated with having a 55 hour core. Transfer students in particular may have difficulty with the new core requirements. Since many students have a negative attitude toward required courses we may find the irritation factor building up. He proposed that the number of specific courses required be reduced to 48 with the provision that the 12 hours between 48 and 60 must be taken in "liberal arts" electives. Dr. Gillum suggested the following deletions: one hour off Hum 414, one hour off Art, and one hour off Math, drop the Critical Thinking course, and perhaps one of the social science courses could be dropped. We are in danger of beating our students to death with our good intentions. Dr. Ready: Was concerned that the Third World is entirely ignored by the general education requirements. Dr. Perry: Agreed with Mr. Bernhardt. He cited a review of the report "Integrity in the College Curriculum: that indicated that science could be most effectively taught in "highly circumscribed" courses, not broad science courses. He expressed confidence that if a 5 credit course in science was required that the science departments would do a superlative job, but that he did not believe that that was the most effective route to follow. He reminded the Senate of the financial and personnel costs of requiring a lab for the introductory biology course. These were estimated to be 2 faculty positions and $20,000+ per year in supplies and equipment. The Biology Department is in favor of offering a laboratory, but wishes to make sure that the Senate is aware of the costs of such a program. Dr. Grams: Pointed out that 20 of the 55 required hours involve choice on the part of the student (science, social science, and foreign language); and that the purpose of requiring courses throughout the curriculum is to assure that students will sample broadly, something they often do not do when choosing freely. Also, the concerns of the Third World and American History are found in the Humanities sequence so that they are in the proposed curriculum. Dr. Comer: Read a letter from Cathy Mitchell expressing opposition to the large number of credit hours in the proposal and to the Critical Thinking course. She was sympathetic to the desire to have students take the many valuable courses offered on this campus, but there had to be some stopping point. This was suggested to be particularly critical for interdisciplinary programs such as Communications. Dr. Dorr: It is the case that our average graduate has 127 hours, not 120 hours, and takes 5 years, not 4, to finish. Dr. Comer: Concerns have been voiced about the large number of credits in the proposal, perhaps being as many as 60 credits. Such a calculation based on a properly prepared student comes to only 48 hours in general education. It seems to be the case that we are requiring a lot of specific courses only of those students who come in with deficiencies, otherwise the requirements are no more burdensome than at the present time. Such an approach is entirely appropriate. Complaints have been made that the Humanities courses were supposed to do art and critical thinking and that the need to have special courses suggests that Humanities is failing in its obligation. A 1966 catalogue confirmed this to be the case; however the catalogue confirmed that the Humanities sequence was 20 credit hours rather than 16 as it is now. Mr. Bernhardt: Reiterated the concern for transfer students, both those coming into UNCA and those planning to leave UNCA. Dr. Lang: Added his concern about the size of the program vis-a-vis the transfer student. Particularly thought that critical thinking element was fostered elsewhere. Dr. Bennett: Objected to the view expressed by some of the speakers that he and Dr. Ruiz had plotted to go against the unanimous vote of the rest of the science faculty. The second best supported model within the sciences was a model involving a 3 credit interdisciplinary course and a 5 credit hour course in Chemistry, Biology, or Physics. The 5 hour course did not arise out of thin air. Kormanik: Responded to Dr. Bennett's comment that the science faculty had voted for the current program. He said that what the science faculty had supported was the currently used format for the science requirement, but that it was understood that there had to be changes in the content of the general education courses to meet the goals expressed by the General Education Task Force. It was not the science faculty's desire to keep things as they are, rather they felt that the goals of general education could best be met within the format now in place. Dr. Combs: Reminded the group that students could take a two course sequence in lieu of the 5 credit course, so no student would be prohibited from taking courses on the present format. Mrs. Cadle: Wondered whether the Senate should discuss the problems associated with scheduling a 5 hour course or additional 4 hour courses. Dr. Comer: Without a specific proposal from a department about how the additional credits are going to be used it would be inappropriate and impossible to speculate on scheduling. Dr. Combs: Mentioned that natural science majors would double count the 8 credits in science, as part of general education and as part of their major. The same strategy could be utilized by social science majors for 3 credits. This would lower the credits in general education. Dr. Dorr: Wondered whether the senators had received the tally of the vote in the science building. Dr. Comer: Said they had. Dr. Comer clarified the nature of the natural science requirement for Dr. Bruce. Dr. Ruiz: Stated that the Physics Department is already running a 5 hour course. Dr. Perry: Wanted confirmation of Dr. Combs statement that an 8 hour sequence could replace the 5 hour course for the major, and wondered what happens to the student who takes the 5 hour course and decides he wants to major in biology. Dr. Comer: Said he thought that each department would decide on that. Dr. Combs: Suggest an editorial change to Number 1 under Natural Science, second sentence to read: "This course must include a laboratory, must treat the historical development of the science, must explicitly employ and discuss the scientific method, must be interdisciplinary where feasible, and may not be designed as the first course in a sequence taken by majors." Dr. Comer: Made a motion to accept and adopt the report from the committee of the whole. (Bennett seconded) Dr. Combs: Offered an editorial change to the last page of the proposal: "Physical Education" should read "Health Promotion and Physical Education." Dr. Williams: Encouraged flexibility on the part of the APC in dealing with the requirement for transfer students. Dr. Betts: Made a motion to delete the Critical Thinking course. (Hollingsworth seconded) Dr. Coyne: Argued against the amendment-1) exemption exams would certainly be given and reduce the G.E. requirements 2) The data and arguments presented against the course are attacking something entirely different from the kind of course we would be offering. 3) There is a highly developed body of knowledge in how to approach criticizing someone's thinking, and it represents an analytical skill that belongs in every educated person's arsenal. Dr. Combs: Reminded the Senate that it had voted for a 60 hour cap and expressed concern it was now rushing in to make cuts that put the program well below that limit. He expressed the opinion that there are 60 credits in every student's program in addition to general education and that students flexibility could just as well come from those 60 hours, or more, that's fine, but then majors can expect to take an extra year. Dr. Hollingsworth: A liberal education is important to Management majors because it is important to success in business. Critical thinking is particularly important, but it is now a part of the major's curriculum-it's what they teach-it's what management is. Dr. Stern: The elements to be included in general education should be those elements we agree are most important, the Critical Thinking Course does not have that kind of support and therefore he cannot vote for it. Dr. Lang: Addressed the transfer student question again. He was under the impression that critical thinking in the major was insufficient to teach critical thinking; however he had just heard that exemptions would be freely available through examination or course substitution. If the latter was true, then he didn't think there was a need for the course. Dr. Grams: Argued that there was good reason to suppose that critical thinking within a discipline does not imply that there is nothing to be learned from training in critical thinking as a skill or process. Dr. Coyne: A check of class standing against grades in my logic course suggests that there is no relationship between being a freshman, sophomore, junior or senior and performance. The question was called on the amendment to delete Critical Thinking from the proposal. The amendment passed. Dr. Betts: Moved that one hour be deleted from the Mathematics requirement. (Wengrow seconded) Dr. Grams: Argued that with the removal of Critical Thinking the need for a sufficient mathematics requirement was even more important. Dr. Stern: Concurred with Dr. Grams. If anything 4 hours was skimpy. Dr. Betts: Fewer hours of contact does not necessarily mean less content, the distinction between 3 hour and 4 hour courses is rather arbitrary sometimes. Dr. Grams: Disagreed with the idea that you can teach the same amount of math in 3 hours that you can in 4. Dr. Williams: Suggested that, perhaps, Management majors with statistics have sufficient mathematics training. Dr. Bennett: Said he thought the math course was probably not a place to cut hours. Question called on the amendment to drop 1 s.h. fromt the math requirement. The amendment failed. Dr. Coyne: Made a motion to add a course in Ethics and Human Values to the general edcation requirements. (Grams seconded) There was a brief discussion of the level of the course and student interest. Question called on the amendment to add an Ethics and Human Values course. The amendment failed. Dr. Ruiz: Moved that the studio portion of the Arts course be dropped, thereby reducing it to 3 s.h. (the motion was seconded) There was a general discussion which clarified the role of the studio part of the course. Question called on the amendment to reduce the Arts Course from 4 s.h. to 3 s.h. The amendment failed. Dr. Ruiz: Made a motion to reduce Humanities 414 from 4 s.h. to 3 s.h. (Farzanegan seconded) Dr. Hollingsworth: Seemed to him that there was a growing depth of knowledge in the Humanities sequence and that it would be a mistake to cut back there. Dr. Downes: If there is no ethics and values course requirement, then 414 is a place where students can get that. Question was called on the amendment to reduce Humanities 414 from 4 s.h. to 3 s.h. The amendment failed. Question was called on the amended proposal for changes in UNCA's General Education Requirements. The amended proposal was adopted 13-2. The meeting was adjourned at 5:35 p.m.