Attending: H. Chereck, J. Earl, H. Gerdes, J. Long, K. Nicholson, J. Nicols, M. Partch, S. Ponder, S. Pratt, J. Rice, M. Smith, R. Zimmerman

Absent: F. Chadwell, P. Engelking, M. Gleason, W. Gottshall, R. Koch, A. Leavitt

Guests: James Buch (Associate Vice President for Student Academic Affairs) David Hubin (Executive Assistant to the President)

The meeting began at 8:05 am with introductions.

J. Buch indicated that he was asked to attend a UC meeting to explain or clear up admissions issues dealing with evaluation, mainly about evaluation of transfer credits. He indicated that this is a legitimate concern and the UC should be involved. He also indicated that this is a troubling issue, and at the present time there is no place where Admissions can go to get advice. He noted that the Academic Requirements Committee (ARC) gives Admissions guidance in the form of student petitions; but since the ARC is not a policy-setting body, where does Admissions go? What should Admissions look for to constitute baccalaureate credit?

Buch cited some examples of vocational and technical credit students have received at other institutions and when they come to the UO and change their major, what happens to those credits? But he did indicate that the state allows up to 12 credits to be transferred as a block. Buch also noted that it used to be easy to distinguish transfer from baccalaureate credit from community colleges because they had alpha and numerical indicators, but they have abandoned that system and now all credits have alpha and numerical indicators.

Another item Buch spoke about was the articulation agreements with the community colleges. The community colleges give Associate of Arts Oregon Transfer (AAOT) degrees, and the students who have these degrees meet a common set of standards. In the late 1980's, the legislature set up a Joint Board of Articulation Commission composed of high level administrators. One of the rules set was that if a student achieves an AAOT and transfers to a four-year institution, the degree may not be "unwrapped", and it is considered that all general education requirements are satisfied. But, if a student matriculates at the UO, is here for a year, then goes to a community college and completes the AAOT, and returns to the UO, the UO rules must apply because the student matriculated here. In this instance, the UO does not recognize the AAOT. The UO is the only institution of the OUS that has that rule. Another problem that arises is credit for experiential learning. In this case, the UO does not transfer credit.

Buch also spoke about the issues of articulation at the departmental level. Each department establishes its own requirements for the major and some do not accept transfer credit. In addition, in many instances, the UO does not accept remedial credit, and problems arise for Admissions in these cases. With all of these problems, Buch was seeking an answer as to whom Admissions should turn for advice.

J. Earl summarized the points talked about as being two issues: one about a general policy for transfer packages, and the other case-by-case problems. He indicated that the general policy should be reviewed.

Another issue Buch raised was that of college-high. There is a policy that is still on hold stating that if credit is received in high school for college courses taught by high school teachers, it has to be validated by a third party (for example, a statewide test), or the student must demonstrate competence on campus.

Buch indicated that he will give the UC a copy of the AAOT requirements. He also indicated that for the AAOT, Speech is required along with three terms of writing. Buch suggested that the UC have a further discussion about transfer policies, and J. Nicols suggested having a subgroup of the UC work with Buch to develop an agenda. J. Earl was opposed to a subcommittee, and indicated since he is on the ARC, he would volunteer. Other volunteers were Hilary Gerdes and Herb Chereck.

At this point, Buch asked what specifically the UC wanted to know. J. Long replied that the UC was reviewing the Accreditation Team's report to see if we have complied with their findings in the area of general education requirements. The UC has created a purpose statement and a list of regulations that departments must follow when submitting new courses for general education requirements. Have we satisfied the team's recommendations? D. Hubin indicated that when the team reviews the UO again, we can show them that we have taken steps to follow their recommendations for coherence in our requirements. One of the concerns the UO has is that if we haven't complied with the recommendations and we do not get accredited, we will not receive federal dollars, thus no financial aid and grant money for students. Some of the questions each institution has to answer is, "What is our education plan?" and "Are we effective in what we want to achieve?" How do we get our faculty to "buy into" general education requirements? Do we have too many courses which satisfy the requirements without demonstrating coherence? Are these courses just FTE driven? How do we remove the competition between the departments?

D.Hubin indicated that after five years, a member of the accreditation team will return to see what we have done to comply with their recommendations. But some members were afraid that they would pick up the "bitterness and anger" at the department level because of cost cutting. How do we make the departments feel comfortable? Regarding cost cutting, J.Rice suggested that the number of courses be cut but raise the number of students in each course, or perhaps have more sections of each course.

Buch noted that the commission is concerned about the university as a whole, not individual departments. From the general education requirements, what are the outcomes that all students will have mastered?

It was decided that more discussion was needed on this subject, and the UC will continue discussions in January.

This motion (US99/00-4) will probably come before the Senate in January. The ASUO is requesting the enrollment period for internships be extended to 12 days instead of 8. H. Chereck indicated that internships should be planned before the term begins. Some students do not plan early enough and that is why the extension is being requested. One solution would be for the student to enroll for one credit and then increase the number of credits. The Registrar's Office will work with the departments and exempt the few students from the $15 fee to add a course. It was decided that the UC would oppose extending the number of days.

Meeting adjourned at 9:30 am

Minutes submitted by Carol White

Next meeting: December 2, 8:00 am, Johnson Hall Conference Room.