Year-End Report and Recommendations (2003-2004)
The following members served on the General Education Committee during the academic year 2003-2004:
Steve Reece, chair (HUM)
Dana Gross (NSM)
Robert Smith (FA)
Terry Fitzgerald (SAS)
Chris Chiappari (IGS)
Erik Fosheim (Student Voting Member)
Brittany Larson (Student Member)
Solveig Zempel (Associate Dean, IGS), ex-officio
Mary Cisar (Registrar), ex-officio
GEC continued the practice, begun last year at the request of Mary Cisar, of having a representative from the registrar's office - usually Katherine Baker - at every meeting. She served as an excellent resource during deliberations, and this arrangement kept the lines of communications between GEC and the Registrar's Office much more open and clear than in the past. The Dean's office was well represented by Associate Dean Solveig Zempel, who provided, along with her wise advice, some much needed institutional memory to an otherwise fairly new group of committee members. She was also able to keep GEC updated on the progress of the General Education Task Force. Saint Olaf students were well represented by two committed and conscientious student members. The committee was able to attend, with fairness and efficiency, to its function of advising faculty and students about GE attributes, facilitating the submission of course proposals, and considering course proposals and student petitions. The committee also made several changes of a procedural nature to two of the guiding documents of GEC: "Accreditation of Off-Campus Work" and "Accreditation of Transfer Work." Details of the committee's deliberations can be found in the minutes posted on the GEC webpage at:
http://www.stolaf.edu/committees/gec/
Dana Gross has been elected chair for next year. Steve Reece will be replaced by Karl Fink, Erik Fosheim by Maggie Snetting, Brittany Larson by Katherine Schouten.
Some items of high priority for next year: Early in the year we will remind all chairs, and all new faculty, to consider the document "The St. Olaf College General Education Curriculum Requirement Descriptions, Guidelines, and Comments," which is posted on the GEC webpage. We would like for all chairs to become better acquainted with the procedures for proposing new GE attributes, and we would like for them to mentor their new faculty, especially short-term faculty, in the underlying philosophy of the GE curriculum. This is critical when the new faculty member is taking over a course that already has GE attributes attached.
We will consider a proposal from the Registrar for revisions regarding transfer of the PHA attribute in GEC documents "Accreditation of Off-Campus Work" and "Accreditation of Transfer Work." The current wording of these documents is unclear and perhaps self-contradictory.
We will consider a proposal from two faculty members for revisions in the descriptions of MCS-D and MCS-G in light of political and social changes in the world over the last decade.
We will keep a close eye on the larger courses that have sprung up across the college, and especially on whether or not these courses are able to continue to meet the guidelines of the ORC and WRI attributes.
We will keep a close eye on the trend that has started to develop over the last three years of faculty failing to attach GE attributes to courses for which they are appropriate, and of withdrawing GE attributes from courses for which they remain appropriate. This appears to be a response to the increasing size of the student body combined with the decreasing size of the faculty. In the past faculty members were eager to attach GE attributes to their courses in order to attract students. Now, in some cases, faculty members are shunning GE attributes in an effort to discourage enrollment in their courses by "general-education students." This seems to GEC counter to the spirit of general education at a liberal arts college. Moreover it creates a burdensome task for GEC, which then finds itself in the position of having to consider petitions for retroactive GE attributes from students who took these courses.
We will consider ways in which the GE requirements at Saint Olaf can be presented in a more positive light: in the catalog; by RA's, JC's, and by student and faculty advisors. The perception that GE requirements are exceptionally onerous at Saint Olaf is not borne out by the facts (see, e.g., J. Scott Lee's recent "Institutional Profile and Comparative Analysis of Saint Olaf"). We will participate, as appropriate, in the general review of the curriculum by the General Education Task Force.
Steve Reece Chair, GEC
Associate Professor
Department of Classics
