Linda Lade welcomed all participants and self-introductions were made.

Jerry Johnson distributed and summarized the September 26 meeting notes. He made particular mention of the following: The Board of Trustees approved the amendment to Policy 3.17 adding the Associate in Fine Arts Degree, MnTC Oversight Committee mission and purposes (may be found at www.mntransfer.org/Councils.html ), the most current (FY 02) transfer research showing growth in student transfer activity (students, transactions, & credits), interest of the committee in performing research, and discussion of developing a definition of general education.

Jerry Johnson reviewed the FY 05 MnTC implementation procedure and asked committee members to inform stakeholders of the change.  As a result of the change the select college web site will no longer be used effective June 30.  These select institutions will be instructed to maintain MnTC course information in their college catalogs, web sites and DARS.

Larry Selin (consultant to the Office of the Chancellor) presented his report which summarized stakeholder (System faculty members, students, administrators and staff members) perspectives on the MnTC.  He found that no one advocates a major overhaul of the MnTC and that stakeholders felt the existing curriculum is better than what existed in the past.  Overall, most respondents spoke favorably about the MnTC.  There are, however, inherent tensions resulting from differing missions, governance, and public expectations. 

Larry Selin asked respondents to share their perspectives on what works well with the MnTC and what needs improvement.   In his report, he made no attempt to reflect frequency of responses or sense of priority.  He also included in the report a suggested set of broad steps to advance further discussion on moving ahead with the MnTC. 

Several comments were then made about students taking classes at community colleges to avoid taking a particular course from a state university (taking an “easier” class).    Colleges and universities specify different requirements for goal completion and students will shop to find a way to avoid taking certain courses by taking advantage of these differences.  This has implications for students taking subsequent courses.

Some felt that once a student matriculates to a university that he/she should be bound to a specified curriculum.  Members were cautioned that students may have valid reasons for taking courses outside of those offered by a particular university (e.g., taking classes at home while on summer break).  A comment was made that students ought to obtain permission to take courses from other colleges or universities.  However, in the case of MnTC courses, someone commented that seamless transfer must occur.  Thus students don’t have to obtain permission to transfer a MnTC course from one institution to another (it must transfer per Minnesota State law and Board of Trustees policy).

The MSCF office has developed a list of courses offered by the colleges and it would be useful to add the state university courses to this list.  Some concerns were expressed about the extensiveness of the existing inventory of MnTC courses and that many courses may not belong in the curriculum.

A suggestion was made that the System may need to investigate developing a means to assess MnTC outcomes across Minnesota State Colleges and Universities. 

Comments were made that discipline discussions have resulted in recommendations, but not all campuses have necessarily implemented the recommendations.

The idea of using a general education definition as the first factor in evaluating courses placed in the MnTC was discussed.

Linda Lade explained that she initially was hired to analyze implementation of the MnTC by the community colleges and state universities and that she had done so two years in a row.  She reported that colleges and universities had not, in many cases, made modifications to their MnTC in concurrence with her recommendations.

She has recently conducted a global review of the MnTC and identified several implementation issues for discussion. 

• Uniform use of the ten goal model
  Comments:
  The same goal area names are not used by all institutions.
  Students have trouble understanding MnTC and general education “crosswalks.”
  Demanding use of the ten goal model seems to be a “top down” philosophy.
  It will be politically difficult to implement at some institutions.  Concerns were stated about the impact of university staffing if changes are made to the general education curriculum.
  Meaning of belonging to a system has implications for uniformity.
  Specific complaints and problems need to be identified.
  Discussion should be held with the IFO Academic Affairs leadership.
  Institutions should work with the Office of Program Collaboration and Transfer.
  
  Further Consideration:
  Further determine the level of the problem or degree of confusion and student impact of MnTC crosswalks.  Further discussion should be held in the IFO Academic Affairs Committee.
  
  
• Upper division courses
  Comments:
  Suggestion was made that MnTC is a subset of general education.
  The current definition of the MnTC is lower division general education.
  Some state university faculty desire to have upper division courses in their MnTC.  
  The University of Minnesota includes upper division general education in their MnTC.
  There may be implications for two year colleges to expand their MnTC upper division courses are included.
  Further Consideration:
  Further discussion needs to be held with various stakeholders (including U of M).
  
  
• Placement of world languages
  Comments:
  Per U of M agreement, and Minnesota State Colleges and Universities first year world languages are to be left out and second year languages are to be only in goal 8. 
  Some feel all colleges and universities should comply with the agreement, and others disagree.
  There is a concern for integrity and consistency if some colleges and universities do not comply.
  Further consideration:  
  Need further discussion.

• Clean-up of certain discipline/courses
  Comments:
  It was suggested that the Office of the Chancellor meet with faculty to make changes, however, concerns were expressed that interventions by outsiders are sometimes not effective. The university faculty needs to review curriculum on their own and take self-action to remove extreme course outliers.
  Further Consideration: 
  Needs further discussion.
  
  There was not adequate time available to discuss the following additional issues which had been identified by Linda Lade: Placement of courses in discrete areas, Placement of increasingly specialized courses in the MnTC, Credit parameters in MnTC goal areas (minimum and maximum).  Also, there was not adequate time to review and discuss the Proposed Institutional Self-Evaluation for the Minnesota Transfer Curriculum.

Ray Anschel presented MSCF’s Academic Affairs Committee Report on General Education and the Minnesota Transfer Curriculum (041604).  The document specifies a general education definition which could be used as one of the factors to evaluate existing courses and proposed courses for incorporation into the MnTC. 

Prior to adjourning the meeting it was decided that select representatives will meet with the Office of the Chancellor Program Collaboration and Transfer staff to further discuss the issues which have been identified and suggest next steps.

*Information found on this web site can be made available in alternative format to individuals with disabilities by calling
651-296-8012, 1-888-667-2848 or TTY: 651-282-2660