1

AP-006-034, Proliferation of G.E. Synthesis Courses

CALIFORNIA STATE POLYTECHNIC UNIVERSITY, POMONA

ACADEMIC SENATE

ACADEMIC PROGRAMS COMMITTEE

REPORT TO

THE ACADEMIC SENATE

AP-006-034

Proliferation of G.E. Synthesis Courses

Academic Programs Committee Date:

Steering Committee

Received and Forwarded Date: 1/21/04

Academic Senate Date: 1/29/04

First Reading

2/18/03

Second Reading

Background

At the same time that we are concerned about assessment of General Education, there are numerous faculty who are concerned with the perceived proliferation of synthesis courses. The original spate of course proposals for the new synthesis areas has now abated somewhat, but plans for still others demands a closer appraisal than their predecessors.
Each new proposal should be examined rigorously not only from the standpoint of its academic integrity, but also for its logistic feasibility.

Resources Consulted:

Steve Bryant, George Rainy, Elhami Ibrahim, K. Harcharik, L. Young, D Caffey

Discussion

The Committee first struggled with determining the real issue. The fact is that all the courses on the current G.E. Synthesis list had been thoroughly examined by the G.E. Committee of the Academic Senate and approved by a vote of the Senate. The Committee felt that the current policy for the addition of courses in the G.E. Synthesis list is a valid policy. All the courses listed in the G.E. Synthesis got there by a policy approved by the Senate. All courses on the G.E. Synthesis list were approved by a vote of the Senate. With these two facts in mind, the Program’s Committee felt that any policy that addresses proliferation of G.E. Synthesis courses must be a policy that somehow systematically removes ‘deficient’ courses from the G.E. Synthesis list while leaving those ‘non-deficient’ courses in the catalog. This raises the question of what is a ‘deficient’ synthesis course. Currently, the only way a G.E. Synthesis course can be removed from the catalog would be if the course had not been offered in the last three years which is a violation of another policy already approved by the Senate.

The Committee also came to the conclusion that one could argue that not enough G.E. Synthesis courses were being offered. All Synthesis courses are upper division courses, so these courses will have to be taken at Cal Poly Pomona. Assuming that it takes five years for the average student to graduate, then during any one Academic Year there must be enough sections of G.E. Synthesis Courses offered so that those students graduating, 20% of the undergraduate student body by assumption, can complete the G.E. Synthesis requirement. A recent study by the Office of Academic Programs based on proposed course offering schedule revealed that for the 2003/2004 Academic Year showed that

B4 Minimum Enrollment = 5779 Maximum Enrollment = 7856

C4 Minimum Enrollment = 1620 Maximum Enrollment = 2765

D4 Minimum Enrollment = 2050 Maximum Enrollment = 4617

Assuming an undergraduate enrollment of 18,000 students, enough sections must be offered so that 3600 students can meet the Synthesis Requirement. The above data indicates that not enough sections of C Synthesis courses are scheduled to be offered. The data is inconclusive about the number of D Sections offered being also deficient. Any policy adopted by the Senate must not make it impossible for students to graduate. General Education Courses must be ‘generally available.’

The Program’s Committee felt than any policy it recommends should not limit the academic freedom or academic innovation of any faculty member, department or College. Furthermore, no proposed policy should limit the accessibility of students to a reasonable diversity of synthesis courses. Thus any new proposed policy that limits the number of Synthesis courses a department may have on the books or propose should not be an issue.

Taking the above information into account and after consulting with several Associate Deans, the Program’s Committee felt that any policy directed towards the ‘apparent’ proliferation of G.E. Synthesis courses must address the frequency of how often a course is taught. An examination of already approved courses within the College of Science indicated some were offered every quarter and some had not been offered in the last two years. The Program’s Committee felt it was axiomatic that ’general education courses must be generally available.’ Those College of Science courses not offered in the last two years are not ‘generally available.’ After much discussion it was felt that a G.E. Synthesis course must be taught, not merely listed in the schedule of courses to be offered, at least once per Academic Year. Interdisciplinary Synthesis courses offered by more than one department or College were felt to be under an even stronger obligation to be offered. It is recommended that any interdisciplinary course offered by more than one department or College must be successfully offered, that is actually taught, at least once per year by two or more distinct Colleges or departments. The proposed sanction for any G.E. Synthesis course not meeting this minimum requirement is the removal of this course from the list of approved G.E. Synthesis courses. This sanction would be implemented starting Summer Quarter 2005 in order to give all Colleges or departments a full year to successfully offer these synthesis courses. This proposed sanction does not remove these courses from the university catalog. There is an already existing policy for this situation.

The Program’s Committee tried to get wide consultation for this issue. The attached memo was circulated. The list of names consulted lists only those individuals who responded in some direct manner.

Recommendations

1.The Academic Programs Committee recommends adoption of the following policy with regards to G.E. Synthesis Courses:

  1. Any G.E. Synthesis course offered by only one department must be taught, as opposed to offered, at least once per year. Interdisciplinary G.E. Synthesis course that is offered by only one department must be taught, as opposed to offered, at least once per Academic Year.
  2. Any inter-disciplinary G.E. Synthesis course offered by more than one department must be taught, as opposed to offered, at least twice during the Academic Year.

2.The Associate Provost for Undergraduate Affairs shall remove any G.E. Synthesis course that does not meet this requirement from the list of approved G.E. Synthesis courses during the Summer Quarter following the Academic Year where they failed to meet the policy outlined in recommendation 1 of this report..

November 17, 2003

To:Dr. Tomas Morales, Provost

Associate VP For Programs

College Deans

College Curriculum Chairs

Steering Committee, Academic Senate

Chair, Academic Senate G.E. Committee

From:Dr. Bruce P. Hillam Copy: Programs Committee

Chair, Academic Programs Committee

Subject:Review of G.E. Synthesis

The Academic Programs Committee is currently reviewing the development of GE Synthesis courses. There are numerous faculty who are concerned with the perceived proliferation of synthesis courses. There are concerns about the scope, quality, spirit, and proliferation of these courses. There seems to be a feeling that ‘General Education’ means that the components of GE Synthesis courses be general, as opposed to specific, in nature.

Complicating this desire for ‘generality’ is the fact that the totality of the approved offerings must exceed a pre-determined minimum FTES. Every student entering Cal Poly, as either freshmen or transfer, must take these three courses. Preliminary projections based on intended course offerings indicate that their will be a wide choice of ‘B’ offerings, a possibly severe shortage of ‘C’ offerings, and the ‘D’ offerings being adequate but tight during the 2003-04 academic year. The projected shortage of ‘C’ approved synthesis courses is severe enough to affect graduation rates. The Academic Programs Committee has been asked to investigate and make recommendations if needed.

As background information the current synthesis courses replaced the old category 7 ‘theme and depth.’ packages and the more recent category 5 courses. Criticisms of these courses and packages included:

1.The many upper division courses in category five had little coherency with the lower division courses they would supposedly cap off.

2.There was no coherency, or the connection was missing, between category five courses in any given area, and the "core experience" Cal Poly students were expected to achieve. These courses lacked the stamp of something distinctive from Cal Poly.

3. Many courses and packages were offered irregularly and infrequently so that students could not rely on many of the supposed offerings.

4. The motive in many cases for proposing category five courses and category seven packages was primarily to garner FTES for budgetary reasons, not academic worthiness and/or logistic considerations appeared to be secondary concerns.

5.Some category five offerings and category seven packages were disingenuous circumvention of the spirit of General Education by allowing the use of these GE courses to satisfy core or support course requirements, i.e. double counting.

Below is a list of questions or proposals related to new GE Synthesis Course offerings. Please respond to me via either campus mail or email by January 1, 2004. My email address is .

The original rush of GE Synthesis course proposals has now slowed somewhat, but plans for more courses demands a closer appraisal than their predecessors. Among the things that have been proposed to the committee are:

1.Each new proposal should be examined rigorously not only from the standpoint of its academic integrity, but also for its ‘offerability.’

2. Courses perceived as department or faculty vanity courses should be rejected. Thus if a proposed synthesis course has only a forced relationship to the rest of the department/program curriculum; or if only a single individual on the regular tenure track in that department is qualified or capable of teaching the course, the course should not be allowed. Specifically if a lecturer would have to be brought in to teach the course, the course should not be approved.

3.If at least 2 sections of the course cannot be offered annually, then the course would lose its synthesis status after two years. The course would still be in the catalog provided at least one section is offered every three years. This requirement is not a replacement for the requirement that a course be offered at least once every three years or be removed from the catalog.

4.If a synthesis course is or becomes a major/accreditation requirement by being transferred to GE in order to help make a unit fit for the major core of the department or other department as a ‘removed’ support course, the course should lose its synthesis status. In other words courses should be core, service, or GE, and these three sets should be disjoint.

5.There should be a cap on the maximum number of synthesis courses any department can have ‘on the books’ in any one catalog.

Please respond to any of the above points or to other ideas not yet considered. Based on your response, the Academic Programs Committee hopes to circulate a second memo. You are, of course, welcome to meet with the committee in person. We typically meet Wednesdays at 3:00 pm.

Thank you for your prompt response.