Transfer Oversight Committee
Room 304,
MEETING NOTES
(Revised 11/22/04)
Present: Nancy Black, Monte Bute, Joan Costello, Jean Evens, Derek Hudyma, Betsy Ingram-Diver, Debra Japp, Jerry Johnson, Linda Lade, Greg Mulcahy, Anne O’Meara, Larry Oveson, Annette Schoenberger, Steve Whipple, Gregory Wright, Larry Selin
Not Present: Ray Anschel (on sabbatical), Leah Haddad (meeting conflict), Michael Spitzer (meeting conflict)
A concern was expressed about duplicative discussions (e.g., grades) being facilitated/held by various Office of the Chancellor departments (including the Collaboration and Transfer Office). Nancy Black is talking to Linda Baer about this. Related to this discussion, the charge of the Transfer Oversight Committee was reviewed.
1. Information item: Accounting Discipline Work Plan:
Larry Selin summarized Linda Baer’s Accounting
Transfer Issues Project memorandum and the 2004-2005 Accounting Transfer
Issues Project Plan which were sent to CAOs on
Larry Oveson reported that he had surveyed accounting faculty and found a very mixed response with the idea of establishing two different tracks (preparer and user) for accounting courses. He advised transfer and collaboration staff to consider this feedback and he will send his report to the transfer and collaboration office.
A suggestion was made to approach the Carlson School
of Management to ascertain their perspective on preparer and user tracks.
Also, it is not known if principles of accounting courses transfer from
2. Review meeting notes from last Oversight Committee
meeting held on
Copies of the April 30th meeting notes were distributed and summarized by Jerry Johnson.
3. Review meeting notes from MnTC Oversight Committee
workgroup meeting held on
Copies of the
After review of these minutes a comment was made that institutions initially were authorized to develop the MnTC in an autonomous way, but that approach was impacted by Senator Kinkle’s amendment. We may now need to stress increased uniformity in goal areas across the System.
One member reflected that important policy stances need to be codified and based upon MnSCU policies and procedures.
It was stressed that the February 1994 agreement established the MnTC as lower division general education. It is noted that most of the state universities incorporate 300 level courses in the MnTC and they believe it is appropriate to do so. In so doing, state universities believe their 300 level courses classified as MnTC must transfer to the two-year colleges.
4. Report on progress toward establishing a definition of general education:
It was reported that the planned joint MSCF academic affairs committee and IFO academic affairs committee meeting has not been held. It was decided that a small MSCF/IFO workgroup, rather than a joint meeting of the full committees, will meet to work on the general education definition. Nancy Black and Larry Oveson will determine representation in this workgroup. In the meantime we will use an existing Higher Learning Commission definition (NCA, 09/97) as a placeholder in our discussions.
As originally envisioned, the MnTC focused on developing competencies in the goal areas.
A perspective was shared that many campuses did not know that general education should be used as a filter to determine if courses are to be placed in the MnTC.
It was noted that Program Collaboration and Transfer staff have assisted campuses in the past in evaluating MnTC implementation including identification of course anomonolies.
Members of the Transfer Oversight Committee reaffirmed that decisions need to be student centered.
5. Review issues impacting the integrity of the MnTC:
Larry Selin’s MnTC research summary was distributed. He commented, from an overall perspective, that no one advocated major overhaul of the MnTC.
Linda Lade distributed a copy of the Summary of MnTC Implementation Issues which is a compilation of issues she had previously identified through desk review.
The Survey on Inclusion of 300 level courses in the
MnTC at MnSCU State Universities was distributed and summarized by Larry
Selin. In Larry Selin’s report he noted that Linda Ellinger at
the
After this discussion on 300 level courses being incorporated by state universities in the MnTC, the following action was taken by consensus of those present at the Transfer Oversight Committee:
Action by Consensus:
The MnSCU Oversight Committee recommends that the Division of Academic and Student Affairs take action to implement the following:
Students’ interests may be served by allowing students to use designated upper-division courses as one means of meeting the lower division requirement(s).
Rationale:
This is an explication of the statement “All competencies will be achieved at an academic level appropriate to lower-division general education” (MnTC, 1994). It is realistic to accept that there are upper division courses that actually meet these competencies.
Intent:
The intent is to have Linda Baer communicate this position to the campuses. The Collaboration and Transfer Staff will draft a letter for Larry Oveson’s and Nancy Baer’s review and recommendations for improvement prior to distribution.
6. Review criteria to be included in a “sieve” or “screen” for MnTC institutional self-evaluation:
The Checklist of evaluation criteria for courses to be included in the MnTC and The Guidelines for the Review and Design of a Minnesota Transfer Curriculum were distributed.
These documents were discussed and it was stressed that the MnTC goals and competencies must be a significant emphasis of the course. Colleges and universities may need assistance in defining “significant.”
A suggestion was made that a comparative analysis component be included in the self-evaluation. Comparative analysis of MnTC courses has been used by the Program Transfer and Collaboration staff when providing advice to campuses.
7. Plan steps and timeline for MnTC institutional self-evaluation:
The Proposed Institutional Self-Evaluation for the
MnTC was distributed. Changes have been made to the previous version
of this document based on the discussions that were held on
It was suggested that an alternative approach to the self-evaluation might be to inventory all courses by goal area and determine patterns of MnTC course goal assignment. Courses anomalies that do not align with the patterns that are identified through this process could then be brought to the attention of the campuses.
Discussion was held on general education and the perspective that general education is not related to vocational or professional preparation. Historically the common knowledge, intellectual concepts and attitudes needed by an educated person were, in many cases, provided through a narrower or core offering of general education courses and not broad inventories of courses like that currently contained in the MnTC.
It was noted that the Higher Learning Commission has
developed a new definition of general education (HLC, 10/03) which doesn’t
include the “technical, vocational, or professional preparation”
language. The Checklist dated
It was decided that the workgroup (same as the June 2004 workgroup) will be brought back together for work on the MnTC institutional self-evaluation process and evaluation criteria. The workgroup’s recommendations are to be presented at the January 21 Transfer Oversight Committee meeting.
8. Discussion of “D” grades:
A concern was raised about Linda Baer’s letter
dated
It was noted that the FAQ for Transfer Specialists
dated
It was expressed by the student representative that students believe they should be able to transfer a "D" grade if their GPA is 2.0 or higher. In response, several committee members cautioned that D grade transfer has many implications such as grade requirements for transfer into the major, etc.
9. Other business
There were no additional items added to the agenda.
Prepared by
Jerry J. Johnson