April 1, 2011

Interim General Education Oversight Committee (GEOC)
Date of Meeting: 
Thursday, April 1, 2010
Location of Meeting: 
Student Center, Rm. 228, 11 a.m. – 1 p.m.
Members Present Ex-Officio Present Guests Present
Ruth Beattie Richard Greissman  
Jane Jensen Nikki Knutson  
Roxanne Mountford Mike Mullen  
Karen Petrone Bill Rayens  
David Royster Mike Shanks  
Ben Withers Debbie Sharp  
Ernie Yanarella Leah Simpson  





        1.   Minutes from March 04, 2011 (last meeting) were approved.

2.   Rayens asked the group to be prepared to vote on MCL 324, CME 455, and possibly MNG 592 by way of email once the courses are fully vetted and the vetting results are posted.

3.   Associate Provost Mike Mullen gave a brief overview of his recent presentation to University Senate on the evolving General Education Transfer agreement for the State of Kentucky.   Dr. Mullen provided some background and context and presented the basic tenants that are likely to be in the final agreement.    Dr. Royster brought up the issue of transients versus transfers and a lengthy discussion ensued.   General tenor of that discussion was that transients may end up with the same freedom to transfer as transfers.   To keep this from undermining the integrity of Gen Ed it was suggested that the University be proactive, especially with Advising, so that students understand the cohesive nature of the new Gen Ed program and are advised against subverting its intent by taking courses elsewhere and transferring them in.  The discussion had to be cut short because of a need to vote on some items before some voting members had to leave.     Discussion ended with a recommendation that a subcommittee be formed, overlapping with IGEOC, containing Advisors, and charged with studying some of the issues that were raised.

4.   GLY 151 and PS 210 were on the Consent Agenda and passed without objection.

5.   HIS 112 was presented to the Committee for approval with the caveat that Dr. Petrone had needed to break a tie in the opinions of the outside reviewers.  IGEOC voted to approve the course.

6.   Voting IGEOC members had been asked to rank potential names for the new Gen Ed program that had been submitted for consideration by way of a special submission portal set up by the University. Nine of eleven voting members participated and the top six (below) were recorded and sent to Associate Provost Mike Mullen by Rayens.

UK Core

The U.K. Core: 21st Century Studies


Building Leaders through Undergraduate Education (BLUE)


Core Curriculum

Gen Ed

7.   The discussion returned to transfer equivalence issues, led a this point by Associate Registrar Mike Shanks.  Mr. Shanks indicated that one of his primary goals was to surface some of the problems ahead and to begin to articulate the role IGEOC should play in the process to their resolutions. Issues discussed included:

a)   Updating any and all current course equivalencies to Gen ED courses.

b)   Process by which GEN ED exceptions are approved.

c)     Whether these decisions be made by IGEOC, the DUS, both, or other?

8.   Dr. Beattie led the discussion on whether limits should be imposed on the number of Gen Ed courses that students can take within their own Department or Program.

Dr. Beattie opened by citing examples wherein large numbers of Gen Ed courses were set to be taken within a single program or a set of very closely aligned programs. Considerable discussion and disagreements ensued.   In the end, there was strong general approval for:

•    Providing some general language suggesting that taking too many Gen Ed courses in too narrow an area is not in line with the spirit of the Gen Ed program and should be discouraged.

•    Once this policy guideline is in place, stay vigilant and if this becomes a real issue down the road, look into making the guideline binding.

•    In the interim Dr. Withers noted that Undergraduate Council should watch for and flag such issues if they arise and perhaps use IGEOC to help find a constructive solution.

9.   There was not time to have a substantive discussion on course review progress and likely timetables for completion. Dr. Withers suggested that it was important for us to meet and discuss this issue without the complication of other agenda items. Rayens agreed to try and set this up.

Download the minutes: 
Download the agenda: 
Academic Year: