Con GE Task Force Report Comments:

Posted 4/02/07 by Alan Klima: I would appreciate it if faculty sometime, somewhere just once admitted the fact that TAs cannot be the solution to teaching writing. Even with "only" 25 students (in any case, an absurdly large number), they do not have the experience, for the most part, to handle this important task, which is shuffled off to discussion sections where faculty need not see hide nor hair of it again.

Any number of ingenious schemes can be devised to imagine our way around this fact. Why not face it?

Posted 3/29/07 by Charles Lesher: I would like to express my support for the efforts of the GE Task Force to formulate a new plan for General Education at UC Davis.  The vision is clear and the timing is right.  However, like others, I have concerns about the specific ways in which requirements will be satisfied.  I agree with many of my colleagues that basic instruction in a foreign language does not belong in Civic and Cultural Literacy - Global Cultures and is better placed within Literacy with Words and Images.  Additionally, the current plan calls for 6 units in American Cultures and relegates 3 units to matters of international scope.  While some may argue that 9 units for Civic and Cultural Literacy is insufficient, given the realities of unit caps and time-to-degree at the very least we should give our students the flexibility to choose where to place their emphasis within Civic and Cultural Literacy.  One way to achieve this, as proposed by Jean-Xavier Guinard, would be to require students to take 3 units each in American Cultures and Global Cultures, and permit each student to choose how to use the remaining 3 units towards either or both categories. This would increase the opportunities for fulfilling the requirements for Civic and Cultural Literacy since many courses are already >3 units and contain content dealing with domestic, as well as, global issues.  

I would also like to see the Task Force reconsider the work of the Academic Senate Committee on International Study and Exchange (CISE) who produced last year a proposal for a new GE requirement in Global Citizenship. By way of history, this proposal grew out of the recommendations of the 2004 Task Force on Internationalizing the Curriculum, action items resulting from the 2005 Chancellor's Fall Conference on Internationalizing the Campus, and the hard work of the 2006 3rd Davis Honors Challenge team studying “Global Citizenship as a potential GE requirement.”   The CISE proposal provides specific recommendations for fulfilling a new GE requirement focused on transnational issues that addresses many of the concerns raised in this forum about the proposed "Global Cultures" requirement .  Finally, I urge the Task Force to consider renaming “Global Cultures” to “Global Citizenship” to broaden its scope beyond “cultures”, as articulated in the 3rd year DHC report, as well as, the federal Lincoln Commission and the Senator Paul Simon Study Abroad Foundation Act of 2007 currently under consideration by Congress.  

Posted 3/27/07 by Charles Berger, Chair, Communication: Although several of the goals articulated in the report are highly desirable, from the Department of Communication’s perspective there are at least three problems with the proposed changes in the requirements.

First, given currently available resources, the kind of writing-intensive coursework within the major envisioned in the report could not be realized in the Communication major. At present, it would be impossible to implement upper division courses in which majors would have the opportunity to write and re-write papers in a classroom setting with no more than 25 students. The Department currently has no teaching assistants available for its upper division courses. Most upper division classes in the major enroll 100-130 students. Without a significant increase in the number of teaching assistantships, these upper division courses could not include small discussion sections in which the desired intensive writing could occur.

Second, the report does not consider how coverage of lecture material in extant upper division classes might have to be altered to allow time for writing-intensive activities in small discussion sections.

Third, although many UC Davis students need to hone their oral communication skills, an increase in student demand for the Department’s oral communication skills classes, occasioned by the proposed requirements, would require expansion of faculty and teaching assistantship lines for the two lower division courses offering communication skills instruction (CMN 1 and CMN 3). At present, these two courses each enroll approximately 200 students per quarter; however, every quarter a large number of students (70-100+) appear on the waitlists for each course. Increased demand for these two courses would exacerbate an already difficult situation.

In general, teaching resources would have to be increased significantly in order for the Department to be able to implement these kinds of changes in the requirements.

Posted 3/23/07 by Susan Mann, Chair, History: The History faculty emphasizes writing in our courses, and all of us, to varying degrees, include in each course some sort of writing guide or guidelines for the preparation of one or more substantial papers.  Teaching students to write well organized and properly documented analytical essays, using primary sources and secondary sources, is one of our most important goals.  Moreover, as a department we are “transnational,” and our major requirements are designed to draw students across areas and cultures.  We already benefit greatly from the present GE requirements’ emphasis on writing and on diversity.   Most of us were also positively disposed toward improving the GE requirements.  

1.  Pedagogically, there was some criticism of the micro-managerial aspects of the report.  It seems fine to dictate the nature of writing assignments down to the level of specificity in the report (every course must include one opportunity to rewrite, etc.).  But many of us teach courses that move through time and space quickly in a ten-week quarter, in which a re-write of a past assignment would be far less useful than demonstrated improvement in a new paper prepared for a subsequent assignment.  In fact, many of us have devised strategies to reward students for improvement in specific areas (organization, thesis paragraph, argumentation, documentation, etc.) that eschew rewrites in favor of demonstrated advancement or improvement in the next assignment, with “improvement points” retroactively applied to the previous paper where improvement is dramatic.
 
2.  Organizationally, there was some distress at the presumption that certain units or areas would be privileged and/or burdened by responsibilities that are not shared across the curriculum.  Thus, faculty who do not teach in U.S. fields were concerned that the new GE requirement may place too little emphasis on cultures outside the U.S.  Since most of our present non-U.S. courses in history satisfy GE requirements, we face the prospect of losing many of these students when the requirements change.  In this regard, none of us was persuaded that a mere ten weeks of foreign language study (3 units!) is a good way to acquire “global” cultural literacy.  Moreover, anyone who has taught first-year language knows full well that strewing these classes with people who are there only to fill a requirement is the kiss of death for morale and engagement.  (We will not even broach the problem of staffing.)   To many of us, some of the recommendations smacked either of programmatic self-interest or ignorance of the demands and resource inputs that such programs would generate. 
 
3.  Those of us who work with graduate students who act as TAs and whose native language is not English were especially concerned about how to deliver the kinds of writing courses demanded in the report.  Few graduate students whose native language is not English are prepared to assume the roles prescribed for teaching writing in the new GE proposal.  Moreover, many undergraduate students in our classes are also not native speakers of English, and their ability to rise to the standards proposed in the new requirements is seriously limited by staffing available for tutoring and mentoring.  (The Learning Skills Center is completely swamped all the time, as far as we can tell.)
 
4.  Many of us thought that the process of calculating which courses fulfilled how many units of which requirements in the new proposal would be a nightmare, though probably not the faculty’s nightmare.
 
5.  We couldn’t figure out how the 3-unit courses mentioned in the GE proposal would calibrate with our customary 4-unit courses, but we suspect that our courses would force students to take more than the required units.

Posted 3/23/07 by Bruno Nachtergaele, Chair, Committee on Planning and Budget: The Committee on Planning and Budget has reviewed the General Education Task Force Report Review proposal.  The Committee appreciated the work and members of the task force and the topical breadth arrangements of the proposal.  The Committee believes the proposal cannot go forward before a quantitative analysis is provided which clarifies the resources needed to implement the changes. It is not sufficient to just note that existing course offerings indicate that the campus is able to provide the right kind of courses.

It seems very unlikely (and in the case of some majors numerically impossible) that the proposed GE requirements can be fulfilled without increasing the average number of units per graduating student.  More units imply the need for additional FTE. In addition, the change in requirements is likely to bring along changes in the distribution of FTE needs over different departments. To the extent possible these should be identified and the implications for campus planning should be considered.

Another concern is that the increased number of units is likely to lead to a delay in graduation. Time-to-degree has long been an important concern for the campus. We should be careful not to undo the progress that is being made on this issue.

CPB recommends conducting a thorough resource analysis in order to understand the amount of additional teaching and other resources required to implement the plan. Perhaps, the task force may want to consider the possibility of putting more emphasis on competency rather than unit requirements.

For the reasons set out above, CPB does not support implementing the proposal at the present time.

Posted 3/22/07 by Robert Huckfeldt, Chair of Political Science; Stuart Hill, Director of Undergraduate Studies in Political Science; and Zeev Maoz, Director of the International Relations Program: We are submitting this statement under the negative category, not because we disagree with the proposal's goals, but rather because we believe that the proposal as it currently stands is poorly suited to achieving these goals. Our comments revolve around several sets of issues that have particular significance for the Department of Political Science and the International Relations Program.

First, we do not object to a writing requirement in principle, and the large majority of our courses routinely involve substantial writing requirements. Thus, while we agree with the motivation of the writing requirement, we object to the manner in which it would be forced on departments with little flexibility to accommodate local circumstances. This is not a case where one size (or design) fits all, and the proposal lacks a collegial appreciation of the challenges faced in the inclusion of writing within the varied courses offered on the campus.

Second, these writing activities, as they are proposed, will require substantial investments in additional TAs. That is, the number of students assigned to TAs will necessarily decrease given the design of the proposal. Unless there is a sufficient infusion of new resources, these TA resources would be diverted from other important pedagogical purposes. In addition, this would create undue pressure on departments to increase the size on their graduate programs in response to teaching needs rather than due to academic considerations. This may very well have the net result of reducing the quality of these programs.

Third, the proposed changes to create writing intensive courses will create major displacements and problems in terms of material being covered currently in courses. Departments will have no choice but to substantially alter their curricula in ways that will damage current coverage.

Our own view is that it would be much better to establish a broad writing requirement that provides departments with the opportunity and motivation to design their own institutional responses -- responses that adapt to the nature of the challenge within particular disciplines and departments. Moreover, while our own units are committed to substantial opportunities for students to develop their writing skills, it is not immediately apparent that every unit would need to be involved as deeply in this effort.

Finally, the civic and cultural literacy section was particularly vague in terms of determining what the authors have in mind. Colleagues in Political Science and International Relations have committed their careers to the study of governance and globalization, but the descriptions of these areas offered in the proposal were neither helpful nor enlightening. For example, we do not believe that three credits of a foreign language come close to satisfying "cultural literacy." International relations students are required to take up to 30 credits of a foreign language for what we define as "working knowledge" of that language. It may be more useful to substitute the language equivalent of cultural literacy with substantive courses from a wide range of courses on campus that offer a thorough understanding of foreign cultures.

In summary, while we are sympathetic to the goals of the proposals, we are perplexed by the proposals themselves. And we wonder whether there might be an alternative vehicles and forums for addressing these fundamentally important issues.

Posted 3/22/07 by Deborah Swenson: The ideas behind the proposed GE reform are laudable, as we can see the value in providing our students with an education that includes help with writing and communication. However, under current constraints it would be difficult for the economics major to provide the proposed courses which involve writing in the major. First, unless the writing requirement was so small that it could be easily shoehorned into a number of our upper division courses, we would need to create a new class to meet this requirement. And to provide a high-quality course, we would need to provide a writing class that is comparable in size to the writing-intense courses that are currently offered in other majors. To illustrate the costs of such a plan, I use data from the 2005-06 school year, when our department graduated 353 students and had a final enrollment comprising 7,172 upper division [ECN100-ECN190] student-courses in the 97 courses we offered between Fall 2005 and 2006 Summer Session II.

If our department were to support 350 graduating students each year, we would need to offer 14 twenty-five student classes in writing in economics. While students could use the new course to meet the requirements of our major, the difference in format would make it costly. During the 2005-6 school year our upper division courses had average final enrollments of 74 students. Thus, if each student replaced one old course with the new writing course, the economics department would need to offer at least 9.3 new faculty-taught courses each
year. However, the number would be larger yet if students in International Relations had the choice of using the economics course as an option for meeting their writing requirement. We could not delegate this task to TAs, as our TA resources are already stretched. In addition, since many of our graduate students come to UC Davis from overseas, many of them are not ideally suited to this task.

Since the Economics department provides its own students, as well as students in other majors, with courses that emphasize analytical skills and quantitative skills, the Economics department has contributed to other educational goals that are discussed in the new GE proposal. To this end, the department recently introduced a new course which is now required of all majors – analysis of economic data – which focuses on helping students learn how to use data to understand and interpret economic relationships. We placed department resources in this area, since we thought it was an area which builds on our strengths, and because these skills are important due to their contribution to critical thinking. I wonder whether it makes sense to ask all departments to provide within-major writing courses, when it is likely to draw resources away from instructional activities where the department is strong.

Finally, I am also worried about the general impact of this proposal on students who transfer to UC Davis from California community colleges. The IGETC (Intersegmental General Education Transfer Credit) program provides a clear method for students to fulfill their lower division GE requirements before they transfer to Davis, or most UC campuses. For example, the following handbook entry [http://www.deanza.fhda.edu/publications/catalog/2006-2007/ge-requirements.pdf] shows De Anza community college students the courses they can take to satisfy their GE requirements in anticipation of a transfer to a UC campus. Such a strategy is highly beneficial, since it allows transfer students to move quickly to their major and upper division work once they arrive at the UC campus. For this reason, if the transfer student plans well, it is currently possible for transfer students to complete a minor or to study overseas for a quarter. How would the new proposal work with IGETC? If the new requirements make IGETC unworkable for UC Davis transfers, I worry that transfer students could be faced with extra time to completion, and diminished ability to take advantage of the opportunities at UC Davis.

Posted 3/15/07 by Craig Warden: I agree with Jeff Sherman's comment that a Core Literacy requirement that gives scientific and visual literacy equivalent 3 unit requirements is imbalanced as it undervalues the importance of scientific literacy.

Posted 3/13/07 by Robert Blake: 1. Global Culture requirement-- There is no such thing as global culture (unless the reference is to corporate culture). This requirement should be called "World cultureS" or "intercultural communicative competence" requirement. Three units seems insufficient. The requirement should be stipulated as two language courses at the SECOND-year level or higher or , alternately, an experience with studying abroad (EAP, Summer Sessions, or Short Term Study Abroad).

2. The writing requirement should make it clear that it could be satisfied by writing in a non-English language as well. What is important is expressing oneself in written form, which is something the foreign language faculty stressed with their students as well. The process is the same, even if the language is different.

Posted 3/13/07 by Brenda Deen Schildgen: Below is the joint response of the Comparative Literature Program to the new GE proposal:

While the Comparative Literature Program thanks the committee for its hard work and for the decided improvement in its attention to strengthening writing experience and education in the humanities in the general education curriculum, we have two main concerns: 1) We do not consider a 1 year language requirement a satisfactory approach to language proficiency. Indeed, 1 year might as well be no years. We recommend that the committee make the language requirement much stronger. 2) We find a 3 unit requirement in "global cultures" as weak as the language requirement. There is no way to combat "ethnocentrism" and to facilitate "globalizing the curriculum" as spelled out by the Provost and Chancellor with a 3 unit requirement. At the very least, we would recommend one additional course and preferably two. Increasing the foreign language requirement would be one way to enhance a global cultures requirement.

Posted 3/11/07 by Sean Beecroft: I am currently a chemical engineering undergraduate student and am already required to take 180 specified units with little to no flexibility. Currently we are required to take 24 units of GE. However, with the additional requirements of this new GE requirement I would be unable to graduate in 4 years even though I am already ahead in several courses areas. In order to graduate in 4 years, many of us would have to drop the research groups we're involved in, take summer school, and not do internships. This leads to a higher cost for us in college and additionally will make it harder for us to secure jobs and graduate school positions thus compounding the problem of the debt. With these requirements pushing out research and internships we will be less successful individuals. And if you look to try compressing our coursework so that it becomes less, then you will find that it cannot be done. I firmly believe that if you spoke to the currently teaching professors in our department they would all agree that would be quite hard, if not impossible, for us to successfully graduate within four years. You say that there is enough overlap to make it accomplishable, however for us there certainly isn't enough. Implementation of any such plan, in order to be successful, should require each department to do an evaluation of the new GE impact on class scheduling and graduation times, that should not only be looked over by the faculty, but also by the undegrad advisors who have a closer connection to what students are expected to do. In addition, such a requirement should not be placed on any group of students that are already in progress with their degree to allow for a smooth transition. At earliest, only the class of 2011 can be expected to fulfill these requirements.

Posted 3/08/07 by Sherrill Futrell: I still don't think the university is demanding enough history or writing (composition). Hundreds of these graduates can't express themselves articulately and don't really know much about even the U.S., to say nothing about the rest of the world. Where's the rigor?

Posted 3/07/07 by Meghan Skaer: Though I'm graduating this June, I wanted to express my concern for the large amount of units that seem to proposed for the new GE requirements.  I transfered here last year, and have been able to complete ALL my GE units since then.  With the new requirements, I'm sure that would not have been the case, and I would have exceeded the preferred two-year completion of degree after transfer.

Posted 3/01/07 by Sue Ebeler: My comments largely concern the procedural issues of how classes will be designated as falling within the various GE areas. There is the potential that this process may require a huge amount of faculty and staff time to get this done, unless the current course approval process is in some way modified or significantly streamlined. The procedural issues were not addressed at all in the report as far as I could tell.

Posted 2/26/07 by Valerie Feria-Isacks: As a potential transfer who is an older student (mid-thirties) I feel many of these things are skill I have already earned through being in the work-force (which has become increasingly "global oriented") or through lower-division general ed course work I did the first time I was in college.

I also feel as many of these are already covered quite well in existant lower-division GE and in many cases taught better in "real life" than in a classroom setting.  That is why I feel it unnecessary to add them again in an upper-division form.

Furthermore with global realities changing often one "media and technology awareness" course would do far more than all the courses you are proposing combined because the person would then be able to digess changes as they happen in real-life whileas a battery of college courses would only handle what is "it" at that point and waste valuable instruction time.

Additionally the requirement in conjuntion with the maximum unit to graduate requirement will make it difficult for one to have two majors,  a minor, or do "study abroad"  without hitting the maximum units allowed. There is also no way listed (that I could see anyways) that one could way these requirements if one had mastered these skills already from real-life such as work, volunteer work, church, or even non-traditional course-work.

Just a few reasons why I'm against the new GE requirements proposed.

Please send your letters as text in the body of an email to gina.anderson@ucdavis.edu. Include any supporting documentation as an attachment or link. Please indicate which category your email should be posted in: Neutral, Pro, or Con.

To see posted comments click the links below:

Back to GE Task Force Report Main Page