Section 6: University-Wide Initiatives
 

1.    Creation of an Office of General Studies

The director of this office will be responsible for the oversight of: 

• FYE program

• General education program

• Advising Center

• Learning Center

• Advising, probations, & dismissals of undeclared majors

• Advising of all “Pre” majors

• Weekend College

• The academic component of First-Year and Transfer Orientation
  (Academic Advising/Registration Days)

• Remedial course offerings and budgeting for these as service courses across all schools
   

2.    Revision of General Education 

General Education: We identified a number of problems and objectives for General Education, as well as a proposed modification.
 

Problems:

• There has been an inordinate demand for 100-level courses due to the current structure of General Education, leading to over-spending of our part-time budgets that is inconsistent with the priorities we now attach to our majors and minors relative to General Education (see Section 2, above)
   

• We are unable to meet student demand for lower division courses given our budgets for part-time faculty.
   

• We are depending too heavily on part-time faculty for the bulk of General Education courses
   

• There has been a proliferation of study and skill areas, approaching the level of the previous General Education program, making the program difficult for students to conceptualize in terms of stated goals, and making advising onerous and time consuming.

Objectives:

• We want to reinforce the notion of General Education as liberal arts education by focusing on content courses, with "skills" removed from General Education and reconfigured as Proficiency Requirements, which can be fulfilled through a satisfactory proficiency test score.
   

• We want a broader conception of General Education beyond the merely introductory level, including upper division courses for which prerequisites have been met.
   

• We seek greater choice and flexibility for students, by including all courses in a department in the area under which the department falls, thereby simplifying advising and the transfer of credits.
   

• We want to simplify the number of areas to: (1) humanities and fine arts, (2) social and behavioral sciences, and (3) natural and mathematical sciences. These basic areas are universally recognized.
   

Modification:

The proposed reorganization of General Education, as suggested in the planning document for the retreat, and taking into account the discussion of proficiency courses (including English 110), the following proposal met with general consensus, subject to further discussion: 

• that General education be reorganized into three natural subject areas, exclusive of remedial or proficiency courses, as follows: Humanities and Fine Arts; Natural and Mathematical Sciences; and Social and Behavioral Sciences; with 12 credits required in each area, from at least two different departments; for a total of 36 credits in General Education
   

• that all courses in a Department satisfy General Education, subject to student satisfaction of prerequisites or instructor's permission. Departments will have the option of designating specific courses for “majors only”
   

• that there be three university proficiency requirements for students, not part of General Education, as follows: English to the English 110 level; Math to the Math 101 level; and a Modern Language to the 112 level, or to be satisfied by three years of a language at the high school level (including a possible year at the middle school level)
   

• that courses satisfying the proficiency requirements not be included in General Education (i.e., English 099, 110; Math 099, 101; and Modern Language courses at the 111, 112 and 118 levels)
   

• that FYE be satisfied as a university requirement by specifically designated and designed courses in all four undergraduate schools
   

General Education Model
 

This model needs further elaboration, including definition of the goals of the three subject areas. However, at the very least, we will eliminate referring to the areas by their number, without any reference to their content (as most students and faculty now do).

It was noted that there is a proposal under discussion that would require portfolio evaluation of General Education. The chairs unanimously rejected portfolio assessment of General Education as unnecessarily costly in terms of time and energy of faculty, whose efforts should be focused on first priority items (see Section 2, above), and inappropriate for most students, who need to focus on their major and minor. 

Upper Division Requirement:  The problem of incessant demand for 100-level courses, and pressure to cancel "under-enrolled" upper division courses was discussed. Should this trend continue, students will be short-changed on the upper division experiences essential for their majors and minors, and the School will more and more resemble a four-year community college. Faculty will be unable to teach in their specialties, and students will be unable to prepare for graduate work.

It was agreed unanimously:

• that we propose an upper division requirement of at least 40% of classes or 48 credits of courses at or above the 300 level (whichever is least; (the final percentage to be revised after a review of actual student enrollment patterns)
   

• that this rule would apply to those courses taken at CCSU by entering high school graduates and transfer students alike, based on the number of remaining credits they require to graduate
   

• that the rule cover all areas of courses a student takes: in their major, minor, general education and electives, with the percentage distributed over all four areas.
   

3.      Funding of academic programs
 

At the A&S strategic planning retreat held January 17, 2003, charts were presented indicating the variations of funding for the School of Arts and Sciences over time, and in comparison with the other Schools. The trend of underfunding and diminishing support was noted both relative to the past (with budget dollars per FTE falling from $158 in 1997-98 to $130 in 2002-2003), and in comparison with other Schools (with $2,963 per faculty allocated for Arts and Sciences, compared with mid $5,000 for both Business and Education, and $16,123 for Technology). Also noted was the trend to greater departmental budgetary responsibility through decentralization of purchasing, phone expenses, etc. and cost center budgeting for part-time faculty. At the same time, enrollments in Arts and Sciences have increased (from 5,496 FTEs in 1998 to 6,198 in 2002, a total more than double the other schools combined).
 

We need a more realistic way to allocate funds to academic programs. There does not seem to be any rational basis for the distribution of dollars to the four undergraduate schools. The formula appears to be based on some historical allocation rather than FTEs, number of majors, number of faculty or a combination of these variables. The general rule of thumb is that when Academic Affairs receives a certain percentage budget increase, the allotment to each of the academic schools increases by the same percentage. Providing each school with a fixed share of the resources does not afford a mechanism to fund new or expanding programs. New programs are sometimes accompanied by a temporary infusion of funds, but the following year the budget falls back to its previous level. This creates a reluctance on the part of Arts & Sciences departments to propose new initiatives.
 

The allocation formula should include quantitative variables such as the number of departments, faculty, majors and students served. It should take into account programs with high per student costs such as Music, Chemistry, Design, etc. There should also be discretion in support of new or expanded programs. When a school assumes new responsibilities that are endorsed by Academic Affairs, funding for that program should be made a continuing part of the school’s budget. Political and economic cycles impact on university funding, and internal budgets cannot be immune to these factors. However, across-the-board proportional increases and decreases do not take into account the very different needs in our many academic programs.
 

4.      Admissions and Capping of Programs

Students should indicate the school and program they are applying to for admission. A procedure needs to be put in place that allows programs to limit the number of new students they accept.