Subcommittee on Core Curriculum Minutes 2015-01-23

Present: Roberta Gorham, Mary Magoulick, Patrick Simmons, Amy Sumpter, Dana Wood, Ruth Carter, Cara Meade, Joe Mocnik, Brandon Samples, Sheryl Winn
Regrets: Nancy Beasley, Kay Anderson, Julia Metzker

I) Approval of Agenda: Agenda approved

II) Approval of Minutes: Minutes from Nov. 7 and Jan. 16 approved

III) Core survey results: We should be in the process of reviewing those results. Julia will try to assemble a group of us to analyze data and report. A suggestion was offered to seek student input through a survey and include this in report. We will work on this task as well. We have an opportunity to move forward towards a more distinctive core and part of our work this semester will be to provide a recommendation/ ‘white paper’ on the “State of the Core” for what we anticipate will be a task force put together and charged by Dr. Kelli Brown.

IV) Integration of Ingress (eCore): You can find detailed info in the minutes from 01/16/15. Amy provided a quick recap of the information presented at the last meeting.

V) 4th hour discussion – Summary of discussion from 01/16/15 meeting. This will come up again. Please be prepared to discuss further at a later meeting.

VI) Area B modification form – It is posted to the web. We will officially approve this next week. Please review it and come prepared to vote on the form.

VII) MSCM 3379: Consider proposal for a Global Overlay.
After short discussion, the course was approved unanimously.

VIII) GC2Y: Math in the House of Wisdom
Extensive discussion regarding the process by which the committee has undergone in regards to considering this course. As a point of order, it was decided that while the subcommittee heads the initial review of the course and brings forth its recommendation (collectively), the review responsibilities for courses actually fall on the committee as a whole. The team leader cannot withhold a review if the committee as a whole decides to consider it. In addition, it was discussed that a course proposer can request that the course be considered ‘as is’ if they so desire, and the committee cannot refuse to review and consider it. A proposal may be tabled if suggestions or questions are sent to a proposer and no response is received, however, if the proposer acknowledges the suggestions and chooses not to address them yet rather asks to have the course reviewed as submitted, it is SoCC’s responsibility to review the proposal at that point.

Committee voted whether or not to consider this proposal at this time. Seven voted to consider the proposal, 3 against. The proposal was brought to the table for discussion and consideration.

To facilitate the review, it was suggested that we go through the team leader’s concerns and comments one by one and decide if the committee votes, item by item to return said feedback and concerns to the proposer.

Item analysis and vote:

1. Suggestion to reconsider the title of the course. Discussion. Vote 7/3 not to send this as a recommendation to the proposer. Overall the committee decided that the title was appropriate and aptly discussed in the syllabus which explains how the title relates to the content of the course.

2. Suggestion to make the course more ‘accessible’ given a concern that the course may not be accessible to non-majors. Discussion. Brandon (representing Math, A2, D2) provided a great explanation as to how this course will be accessible and how the content is likely being judged without sufficient understanding of the course as being presented. This vote will be held next week, as it was time for the meeting to end.

Decision was made that we’d continue through the subcommittee’s feedback at the next meeting. Committee members are asked to come prepared to the next meeting to discuss the remaining items for feedback. We’ll also consider any other feedback regarding the course from any other team member.

Adjourned