Subject: FW: Comments in regard to the Transfer Modules
Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2004 18:13:56
From: "Malcolm McCord" (mccordm@mhcc.edu)
To: (gilkey@darkwing.uoregon.edu)

Peter, thanks for coming by and meeting with us a Mt. Hood C.C.

Despite the concerns that we share of what the legislature may do given tight budget and complaints from constitutions about difficulties transferring, I am still dubious that this current proposal will, in the long run, help with this political problem. You made several comments to the effect that the transfer module may wind up being something good, but at worst would not be something bad. It is certainly not apparent to me or many others that that is necessarily the case.

I am reading the description of the political climate that is motivating this as something along the lines of there being a great desire for political leaders to show that "government works". In this case it may be specifically to show that different parts of state programs, namely state colleges and universities work, together and are not just patch work of disjointed fiefdoms.

If that is the climate I could see how the proposed module could actually backfire. I see that voters are weary of ineffective government that is often driven more by political infighting than the needs of consumers. In many ways this proposal has the appearance of something that is being done for show. As you say we really don't have any clear information or empirical data on what the real problems students experienced transferring that is supposedly driving this. Yet we have created this elaborate response to a problem that is still barely defined and based on hearsay and anecdotes. How are we expected to be taken seriously on this basis? If this is not really a data driven decision how are we not to be accused of merely are making spasmodic reactions to some vague hysteria about problems transferring. Isn't that exactly the kind of thing the voters are sick and tired of seeing in government? I think we are underestimating the public to think that they may not ultimately perceive this as more an effort for improved public relations rather that really improved effectiveness in government. If we are seen to be responding to real problems with mere posturing we may run the greater risk in the long of losing whatever remaining credibility we have with the public with the potential for much more dire outcome for higher ed.

One of the arguments for this was that too many students were arriving at universities without the AAOT. If that is such a problem it is not entirely obvious to me why creating a "baby" AAOT would solve this. Don't we first need to learn more about the problems, if there are problems, with current AAOT first? If students don't want the whole AAOT, can we be so confident that they are eager fort 1/2 an AAOT?

This focus on gen. ed as this "package" divorced from the context of the students' goals and majors I believe is hugely misguided. Already our student tend to discredit gen. ed., often seeing it as useless fluff that ivory tower types force them to take on the way to preparing for a vocation. Yet all the trends from the labor market tell us the linkage between the general education and the major is of utmost importance and it is essential for students to choose specific gen. ed courses that make the individuals needs. But the module creates the implication, which our students already tend to harbor, that general education is generic, that is makes no difference what you take and it is unrelated to your major or your goal. And unfortunately often our very busy students take that as an invitation to follow the path of least resistance a take what ever gen. ed. is "easiest" and convenient merely to knock off these seemingly irrelevant courses as quick as possible. For example foreign language courses are perceived to be challenging and students will sometimes avoid them if they can take other gen. ed. course instead. Yet in the work world knowing a foreign language is highly valued and students often later regret that they did not think more deeply about gen. ed. could help them later in life and what course would really have the most benefit for them.

I know there is wording in the proposal that this module is not a substitute for advising and warnings that you need make sure to appropriate course for your major. But you know what, our students pay about as much attention to those disclaimers as they do the warnings on cardboard boxes not to use the holes that look like handles as handles. On the face of it the module looks like a neat and tidy package that just takes care of gen. ed so that is exactly how they attempt to use it. There is a great danger that will result in dumbing down of students thinking about their education in an individual and thoughtful way, may will just grab for convenient pre-made mix of module courses.

Some have suggested that this is being driven by a desire for the four year colleges to maintain their separate identities and unique gen. ed system, by giving a relatively superficial appearance of working better together. Others have suggested, perhaps cynically, that this is a thinly veiled attempt by universities to siphon off students early from community colleges. I don't know, but there is little in this that seems to make sense at the community college level. I don't know how it was that this project got so far along with virtually nobody in my institution knowing about it. But at this point many of us certainly feel like we are being asked to sign on to a proposal that was cooked up by others, apparently with little understanding of community college context. We don't feel we have had an opportunity to be an active participant in crafting a real solution to purported problem.

Despite the grim political climate I would much rather see us go back to the drawing board and really approach this problem seriously with data with a determination understand and address the problems, not to chalk up quick political points.