Review and Comment for Proposed Amendments to Board Policy 3.1, 3.21, 3.38 and Procedure 3.38.1

To:        Presidents, Cabinet, Chief Academic Officers, Chief Student Affairs Officers, Deans

Colleagues,

Chief academic officers, chief student affairs officers and deans are asked to forward this correspondence to students, faculty, administrators and college and university staff for review and comment. If you have any comments or questions regarding these proposed amendments, please contact Gary Hunter, or 651-201-1659

Review and comment has been extended until the end of November 2015.

Policy 3.1 Review and Comment – Students Rights and Responsibilities

Policy 3.21 Review and Comment – Undergraduate Course Credit Transfer

Policy 3.38 Review and Comment – Career Information

Procedure 3.38.1 Review and Comment – Career Information

Sincerely,

Ron

Ron Anderson, Ph.D.
Vice Chancellor for Academic and Student Affairs
Minnesota State Colleges & Universities
30 7th Street East, Suite 350 |St. Paul, MN 55101
(651) 201-1498
Susan Platt, Executive Assistant | 651-201-1652

One thought on “Review and Comment for Proposed Amendments to Board Policy 3.1, 3.21, 3.38 and Procedure 3.38.1

Add yours

  1. My concern is in the determination about what courses are equivalent and what courses are not. Part 2 subpart A.
    First – it doesn’t state who it is that will be making the determination. Secondly – It appears that the only thing these unidentified people will look at is learner outcomes and that they match 75% of the way. If everyone wrote perfect learner outcomes and the people making the decisions were faculty teaching that course then I could accept this. But most people don’t write perfect learner outcomes and the people making the decision are rarely experts in that field. If the learner outcomes are not written well and the person reviewing them doesn’t teach in that filed it will be very difficult to make good comparisons for disciplines in which similar outcomes are covered again and again but at different levels. For example we cover functions in Intermediate Algebra, College Algebra, and in Calculus. There is a learner outcome related to functions on all three course outlines. But what we do with them, the level we work with them, etc is vastly different.
    I’m not sure there is an easy solution. Adding a line about comparing pre-requisites may help. A course with an intermediate algebra pre-requisite is going to be very different than a course with a pre-calculus pre-requite.

    Sara Van Asten – Mathematics Faculty at North Hennepin Community College

Leave a Reply

Up ↑

%d bloggers like this: