UNIVERSITY WIDE IMPACT COMMITTEE

Minutes of Thursday, Sept. 20, 2001
University Student Center, Room 206

Present:  Frank Harris (chair), Rosalyn Amenta, Shelly Bochain, Sandy DiFrancesco, Marty Hartog, Megan Macomber, Kathy Swenson

Recorder:  Frank Harris

Call to Order:  9:35

AUR Courses and Departments
The meeting was devoted to discussing the issue of departments, to varying degrees, selecting the AUR courses that their majors can take.   Last spring, the committee agreed that departments do have a right to select AURs for their department.  However, upon reexamining the topic, the issue has become more complex with pros and cons.  Each member had a perspective that could make an argument for departments selecting AUR's, selecting AURs under special conditions, as well as leaving the selection to the students.  There was also the idea that departments incorporate previously ''hidden'' requirements into the stated requirements for their majors, and then ''deduct'' those AURs from the CPR form. 

In addition to the discussion among the members, there was a look at the letters from Troy, Jon Bloch, and Jim Tait on the topic.  Later in the meeting, it was suggested that UWIC confer with the committee that has been studying General Education requirements.  This committee is an offshoot of UWIC and its members consist of Jim Tait, Mike Shea, Lisa Lancor and David Chevan.  We found them in another room, invited them over and discussed the issue, as well as their findings.

Though the goal of UWIC's meeting was to discuss and come up with a recommendation, the nature of the topic and ensuing discussion did not enable us to do that before time to adjourn. We'll try it again.  As a recap, at issue seem to be the following points:

1. The original purpose of AURs:  Originally they were designed to insure students received the opportunity to sample a variety of courses that will provide them with a broad base of knowledge, as well as grant them the opportunity to sample courses in fields they might otherwise not take.

2. Departments' selection of AURS for their majors:  There are some who believe that departments should have autonomy to determine if a particular course in the AURs is relevant to their students, and that departments are best equipped to know what courses would be best suited to advancing their students forward in their field.

3. Students' freedom to choose:  One view is that by departments specifying which AURs their majors must take, they are limiting students' choice and in effect, countermanding the original purpose and philosophy behind AUR's and general education.  A counter point is that students can still gain the exposure to other courses in various disciplines by taking desired courses as electives.  However, the counter to that is that some majors, such as nursing and educations, leave little room for electives.

4.  Special cases for AURs being selected:  It was suggested that maybe there could be a special case for education and nursing, as well as other departments that must meet state mandates for courses.  That is, the selection of AURs for their students be allowed for them, but not for other disciplines.

5.  Departments changing CPR forms without approval:  Everyone agreed that this needs to be ceased, though it is unclear how many departments are doing this. 

Adjournment
10:50 a.m.