Minutes of 2001-2002 Meetings

Minutes from the most recent Gen Ed Implementation meeting are listed first.
Scroll down to view minutes of earlier meetings.

 

Minutes of 5/14/02 and 5/21/02 Gen Ed Implementation meetings

Minutes are in Microsoft Word format - download here.

 

Minutes of 5/7/02 meeting - subgroup of Gen Ed Implementation Committee

Attending: L. Abate, C. Altmansberger, P. Anderson, C. Brunt, J. Finlay, H. Pasquale, S. Santobuono, J. Seymour, J. Sullivan, A. Wawrzusin

This discussion was a continuation of the issues brought up at the 4/30 Gen Ed Implementation Committee: how to code the Gen Ed foreign language policy that allows the following: "Third year high school language with a grade of 65 or a Regents score of 65 equals the second semester of that language; the requirement is completed with a third semester of the same language or the second semester of another language."

Following is a summation of what was decided. If anyone on the full Implementation committee would like to bring up issues related to this, please do so at the next meeting (5/14). If no one has raised any problems with the subgroup's decision by the end of the 5/14 meeting, we will go ahead with implementing what is outlined below.

We would like to be able to see if a student's record has been "touched." In order to do this, Admissions will use the first AC10 screen. On this screen, one of the following codes can be entered:
N - no high school transcript
F - final high school transcript
7 - 7th semester high school transcript
6 - 6th semester high school transcript
Patty will change this screen so that entering something here does not require you to enter something on the second screen. DARS will prompt the student for a final high school transcript if anything other than "F" is entered on this screen. If "N" is entered on this screen, all "Ds" (for deficient) must be entered on the next screen.

On the second screen, Admissions indicates deficiency/proficiency for Math, American History, and Foreign Language.

For Math, the options will remain D (deficient) or blank (proficient).

For American History, the options will remain D (deficient) or blank (proficient).

For Foreign Language, the options will be as follows:
** D - deficient
** blank - proficient
** Letter code (see below) for students who earned between 65 and 84 on the Regents FL exam or equivalent, as per the policy above. This letter code will represent the particular foreign language completed and will be picked up by DARS. For example, if a student earns a 70 on the Regents FL exam in high school French and the letter code of F is entered, DARS will pick this up as FREN 111 & 115 for 0 credit and a grade of "HS." This would allow the student to take SPAN 111 & 115 to complete her language requirement. Admissions will enter these foreign language codes for entering freshmen. When transfer students become subject to the foreign language requirement, advisors will enter these codes.

As we discussed last week, a note could be added to DARS for all students subject to Gen Ed 2000 indicating that students who scored 65 to 84 on the Regents have the option of either the third level of the same language or two levels of a second language and should contact their advisor for more information. For those 2000 and 2001 entering students interested in the "2+2 option," the advisor could then enter the codes for the levels completed in high school, allowing DARS to reflect high school work as two semesters of one language. We would hope that the new programming would be in place so that Admissions could code the records of the Fall 2002 entrants.

Following is a list of foreign language codes that we discussed yesterday. Patty will be sending a finalized list to anyone who would need to enter the codes.

A - Arabic
C - Chinese
F - French
G - German
H - Hebrew
I - Italian
J - Japanese
L - Latin
R - Russian
S - Spanish
X - Greek
O - Other

-----------------------------------------------------------
Submitted by Liz Abate, Assistant for Undergraduate Education

 

Minutes of 4/30/02 Gen Ed Implementation meeting

This meeting was called to discuss issues related to coding of the Gen Ed Foreign Language requirement. Specifically, if a student earns between 65 and 84 on the FL Regents, that student may opt to count that score as two semesters of a foreign language, thus enabling that student to take two semesters of a second language rather than a third semester of the same language. In addition, with changes in the Foreign Language requirement coming soon, coding this "2+2 option" may become more of an issue.

The system used for the old Harpur College foreign language requirement used units completed in high school rather than Regents score. Students were marked as proficient based on units completed. If a student had 2 units of French, DARS functioned as if the students had French 2, for 0 credits. If a student had 3 units of a language, the student was marked as proficient.

For Gen Ed 2000, students were either deficient or not, based on the Regents score. For deficient students, DARS indicated that they needed to complete a foreign language through the third level. Foreign language departments assisted with placement at orientation. It was thought at the time that most students would choose the third level of the same language rather than starting a second language.

A change in programming is now suggested so that DARS can deal with students who score between 65 and 84 on the Regents and wish to pursue a second language rather than completing the third level of the language they studied in high school. DARS would show two units in high school as two non-credit courses with a grade of "HS" and then direct students to either the third level of the same language or to two levels of a second language. Watson CS and Decker students would not need a coding change, as deficient students in those programs would only need one course at the college level. Watson Engineering students would also not need a change, as they are exempt.

In order for this to happen, Admissions would need to input codes indicating the level of a language taken in high school (i.e., F2 for French level 2), which would then correlate to a course for DARS. (Admissions would only need to look for the highest level completed.) The current default on the Foreign Language evaluation screen is blank, which indicates proficient, with a D indicating deficient. Admissions has indicated that they would like to be able to mark each screen so they know a student's folder has been reviewed. Changing this so that Admissions can choose to input a P for proficient would solve this problem: P or blank would mean proficient, and D would indicate a deficiency. This system would allow Admissions to see if they had "touched" a record.

Any student subject to Gen Ed 2000 would be able to be marked for levels of language completed in high school. This proposal would be written so that advisors could go back for any student subject to Gen Ed 2000 to input the codes; this would be how we would handle students entering in Fall 2000 or Fall 2001. A note could be added to DARS indicating that students who scored 65 to 84 on the Regents have the option of either the third level of the same language or two levels of a second language and should contact their advisor for more information. For those students interested in the "2+2 option," the advisor could then enter the codes for the levels completed in high school, allowing DARS to reflect high school work as two semesters of one language. We would hope that the new programming would be in place so that Admissions could code the records of the Fall 2002 entrants.

The next step is to discuss this with a representative from Admissions (Harri Pasquale) and with the advisors who could not attend today's meeting (Jill Seymour, Brian Perry, Jim Finlay) to see if this plan would work for them. This "subgroup" meeting will also include Patty Anderson, Cindy Altmansberger, Kathy Brunt, Sharon Santobuono, and Liz Abate. We will attempt to call this subgroup to meet on May 7, with a possible full Gen Ed Implementation meeting on May 14 if further discussion is needed.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submitted by Liz Abate, Assistant for Undergraduate Education.

 

Minutes of 4/2/02 Gen Ed Implementation meeting

BRIEF ANNOUNCEMENTS:

A letter was sent to Albany just before Spring Break requesting a two-year exemption for incoming transfer students from the O requirement and the "PH" requirement (although transfer students would still need to take a regular P course). We will let you know as soon as we hear of a decision.

Administrative oversight of non-degree students will be moving to Continuing Education and Summer Programs. CESP will handle suspension/dismissal/24-credit limit paperwork and routine advising for these students (including late adds, late drops, withdrawals, Stafford/GSL, etc.) and will also serve as a "first contact" for these students. Students will be referred to the appropriate advising office when they have questions about matriculating into the school or taking courses with the aim of selecting a specific major. Tom Kowalik, Director of Continuing Education and Summer Programs, will meet with advisors at a later point to go over this in more detail.


GETA ISSUES:
Cindy Altmansberger shared a draft of our GETA with a question of how GETA should handle the Pluralism/US History requirement. It was noted that the GETA should accept either option: the "P" course for students who are not deficient, or the "PH" course for students who are deficient, as both non-deficient students taking a P and deficient students taking a PH are considered to have met the SUNY Gen Ed for US History. In looking over the GETA, it was also noticed that a course with an "N" and a "P" was counting in both sections. Only the C, O, and J are allowed to double-count, so this needs to be corrected.

FOREIGN LANGUAGE ISSUES:
Liz Abate brought up a Harpur policy which she was unaware of -- that students who score between 65 and 84 on the FL Regents are considered to have achieved level 2 in that language and can take either level 3 in that language or 2 semesters in a second language. This was discussed, and it was noted that this had been decided previously in an email exchange between Don Blake and Steve Straight. The group agreed that this option should hold for all students. Since not all advisors may be aware of this policy, it is included so that advisors in all schools can be aware of it (and thus inform their students):

"Third year high school language with a grade of 65 or a Regents score of 65 equals the second semester of that language; the requirement is completed with a third semester of the same language or the second semester of another language."

Another foreign language issue was raised by Brian Hazlett: If a student is exempt from a foreign language in high school because of a learning disability, is the student also exempt when he or she enters college? The answer was that the student's claim must be verified by the Services for Students with Disabilities Office.


DISCUSSION OF NEW TAG FOR "PH" COURSES:

It has been suggested several times (and most recently by the History Department and by Randy McGuire, Chair of the FSEC) that we develop a separate Gen Ed tag for the "PH" courses (called "U" for the purposes of our discussion). We discussed the pros and cons. The primary advantages are that students who only needed a P might steer away from the U course, thus freeing up capacity for students who needed the U, and that it would be easier for deficient students to find the course they needed. The primary disadvantages are that most students would need to be advised that they did not need the U, and that it might cause confusion if students felt another requirement was added. It is also possible that taking the P tag off of these courses might serve to actually lower enrollments in these courses -- that students who formerly took them for the P would not, and that not enough students would take them for the U to make up this need. If departments are looking for enrollments, this could be a disincentive to creating the new tag.

To handle the advising issue, it was suggested that DARS be programmed for a U for all students, but that non-deficient students would immediately show that course as completed. For deficient students, the U course would then fulfill both the U and P requirements. It was felt that this probably could be done through DARS, although it would have to be investigated.

It was decided that the next step should be to raise all of these issues with History (since they had suggested the separate tag) and to see what their thoughts on these pros/cons were. The co-chairs of the UUCC will be meeting with the Chair and Undergraduate Director of History soon and will bring up these concerns.

Another issue raised was that some students take these History PH courses for the C, not the PH, and then it was asked if History could be asked to remove the C for a while to dissuade students from taking these courses for the C (again, to relieve capacity issues). This will need to be discussed with both History and Harpur College.

---------------------------------
Submitted by Liz Abate, Assistant for Undergraduate Education



Minutes of 3/4/02 Gen Ed Implementation meeting

There were two main issues on the table:

1. Who will evaluate high school transcripts for transfer students?
2. Can we reset registration priorities to restrict O courses to students who need them?


Transfer Student Issues

Since transfer students will be held to the new Gen Ed as of Fall 2002, their high school transcripts will need to be evaluated to see if they have hit the Regents cutoffs for several of the categories, specifically Math, Foreign Language, and American History. We are assuming that the GETA will reflect this for students transferring in from SUNY schools, but we will still need to do this for students from non-SUNY schools.

There is a timing issue here. The original assessment is done early so that students can decide whether to come here. Since high school transcripts are not required for transfer admission, advisors would not necessarily have them during the early assessment but might have them during the final assessment (done sometime in June so that credits can be evaluated for Orientation).

It was asked whether it would be possible for Admissions to handle this, as they do transcript review for the freshmen beginning in July. This would mean that someone would need to be hired earlier in the summer (May-June), and the funds are not available for that.

To facilitate the evaluation of the high school transcript, the Admissions letter has been changed so that transfer students are told that the high school transcript is required before enrollment. The specific language which appears on the preliminary transfer credit evaluation sheet is: "If not already mailed, an official final high school transcript is required. Several Binghamton University general education requirements can be satisfied through certain grades in high school courses, Regents tests, or AP exam scores. Please have the high school transcript and AP Score Report mailed to the Office of Undergraduate Admissions prior to enrollment. Evaluation of these documents is necessary for proper course selection."

After all these issues were discussed, it was decided that there was no obvious alternative to having the advisors handle the transcript review for transfer students. If it poses a problem this summer, it was suggested that perhaps Admissions hire someone to do this next summer.


Specific Issues

The discussion then moved to specific issues in transfer evaluation.

"PH" deficiency: It was noted that putting in a "P" for a course would not necessarily erase the deficiency for the "PH," or American History requirement. This will need to be done by hand. For the next two years (assuming that Albany accepts the waiver passed by our Faculty Senate), transfer students only need to fulfill the "P," not the American History portion, even if they have a deficiency. Thus, this is not an issue for now, but at some point in the future, we need to discuss how to get the system to pick up the PH deficiency.

Courses with a D: Another problem that might arise is that the GETA will show a Gen Ed requirement as complete even if it was passed with a D. For those students, the Gen Ed requirement will then need to be waived via DARS exception (since we do not accept D transfer courses -- we would essentially accept the Gen Ed, but not the course). It was asked if we could have a coding change to pick these courses up automatically; the advice was that we track this issue this summer to see how many students we are talking about/how big of a problem this is.

Basic Communication: If a student's GETA shows the learning outcome for Basic Communication as complete, what Gen Ed indicators should they be given? Since "Basic Communication" covers both our C and O, these students should be given a "J" (regardless of whether one or two courses was used to fulfill the Basic Communication requirement on the GETA).

Foreign Language Requirement: Tomorrow, the Faculty Senate will consider a request to hold transfer students only to the SUNY-wide foreign language requirement, which is an 85 on the Regents exam or one course at the college level, for two years. Until we know the results of that deliberation, we will not be sure how to proceed. If the waiver passes, transfer students who did not make the Regents cutoff will be held to one course (taken either here or elsewhere); if it does not pass, transfers who did not make the cutoff will need to take up to level 3 foreign language (taken either here or elsewhere). If the waiver passes, DARS will need to be programmed differently for transfer students in the foreign language section so that it only looks for one course.

High School Transcripts: It was decided that if Admissions receives a high school transcript for a transfer student after the file has been sent to an advisor that they will send the transcript to the advisor.


O Courses

Considering the shortage of seats in O courses that we are facing, it was asked whether we could restrict registration in O/J courses to students who have not yet taken the O and are required to take one. It was felt that this might create other problems, for example among students who would like to take a particular course because they're interested in the topic or students who are required to take a particular course. It was suggested that departments might be asked to "save" a certain number of seats in O courses to be filled by petition only; the drawback is that this would be very time-consuming for the departments.


----------------------------------------

Submitted by Liz Abate, Assistant for Undergraduate Education


Minutes of 1/10/02 Gen Ed Implementation meeting

Attending: L. Abate, C. Altmansberger, P. Anderson, D. Blake, D. Eckert, B. Hazlett, S. Masters, J. McDonald, J. Miller, J. Monroe, H. Pasquale, B. Perry, J. Schorr, F. Srnka, H.S. Straight, L. Wells

---------------------------------------------------

The meeting began with brief updates on several issues:

J. Schorr reported that other SUNY schools have the GETA ready and noted that ours is ready to send out, although not all of the mechanics are set.

S. Straight reported that Buffalo is asking to temporarily postpone certain requirements for transfer students due to time and money issues -- American History, World Civilization, and Art. He also noted that the Provost indicated she was unaware that SUNY presidents (but to the best of our knowledge, not ours) had signed a letter requesting that Gen Ed be waived for transfer students with associate degrees. This has not yet been responded to by SUNY Central. The Provost was noncommittal on what her response would be.

D. Eckert reported that the Faculty Senate would next meet on February 5 and would look at the Foreign Language requirement.

B. Hazlett reported that transfer numbers have been on a steady downward trend but have started to go up. The mandate by SUNY Central that transfers be held to Gen Ed could affect these numbers again. Our colleagues at the community colleges are assuming students will have a seamless transfer. We need to look at what our competitors are doing.

------------------------------------------

Discussion then moved to a proposal by D. Blake:

A Proposal for Transfers for 2002

I. If 57 or more credits earned, waive our new (2000) and old Gen Ed system of requirements.

RATIONALE:
1. It's what SUNY said to do in the 1970s and 1980s.
2. SUNY is uncertain now (cf Peter Gold)
3. Transfer enrollments are soft
4. Buffalo wants to do this (and perhaps others) which would put us at a competitive disadvantage.
5. Because of our 4-credit system, transfers have 15 course choices, not 20.
6. What about academic standards? Answer: FACT OF LIFE

II. If less than 57, must meet our 2000 Gen Ed system. (minus some categories, such as O and PH, because of supply problems?)

1. Gen Ed requirements met on the GETA satisfy our Gen Ed except in the case of
G, where 2 courses are required.
2. Transfer courses not on GETA should be measured against our Gen Ed criteria, as is
the case now. (Our liberal AP policy continues.)


------------------------------------------

Issues raised during the discussion of this proposal follow:

** What if a course transfers with a D but fulfills Gen Ed on the GETA?
We will take the Gen Ed but not the transfer credit. This will have to be done as a DARS exception.

** If a "D" satisfies Gen Ed, why can't a "P"?
The policy states that Gen Ed courses must be taken for a grade unless P/F is the only option. It was felt that allowing students to choose the "P" creates the incentive for low effort. It does seem that we can forbid Ds -- Ds count for Gen Ed as a default. No one made a decision to accept Ds; it just happened. The state requirement says nothing about forbidding P/F grades -- our GETA and other school's GETAs will show P/F courses.

** What about transfers from non-SUNY schools with Ds or Ps?
After much discussion, it was decided to treat everyone the same -- we will accept transfer Ds or Ps for Gen Ed but not for transfer credit. We need to figure out how DARS can do this.

** What about matriculation date?
We propose that our policy on transfer students will be governed by the date a student starts at Binghamton, not by matriculation date elsewhere.

NEXT STEPS:
The proposal next goes to the UUCC. The UUCC will recommend that the Faculty Senate Executive Committee consider the proposal on 1/29 and the Faculty Senate on 2/5. Based on recent discussion of a foreign language waiver by the Executive Committee, it was felt that we might need to come up with a number other than 57 credits for this proposal. One year's worth of transfer credits, or 24 credits, was suggested as a possible cutoff. It was noted that until this is considered by the Senate, we cannot make any announcement about this new policy. Prospective transfer students will, for the time being, need to be told that they will be held to the new Gen Ed.

--------------------------------------------------
Submitted by Liz Abate, Assistant for Undergraduate Education

 

Minutes of 12/18/01 Gen Ed Implementation meeting

Attending: L. Abate, C. Altmansberger, D. Blake, K. Brunt, R. Eckert, J. Finlay, B. Hazlett, S. Masters, J. McDonald, J. Miller, J. Monroe, H. Pasquale, J. Schorr, J. Seymour, J. Sullivan, L. Wells

IMPLEMENTATION OF NEW GEN ED FOR TRANSFERS:
S. Masters announced that all incoming transfer students will be subject to the new Gen Ed requirements as of Fall 2002 (actually Summer 2002). The UUCC decided that it was not possible to establish new Guidelines for handling transfer students now and get them through the Faculty Senate and into the Bulletin. Thus, we suggest that advisors use their discretion in applying transfer credits to meet the Gen Ed requirements, particularly for those with large numbers of credits. He asked that advisors keep track of problems and make recommendations that the UUCC can use in writing proposed Guidelines to be presented to the Faculty Senate. It was noted that the UUCC will hear appeals from students on transfer courses counting for Gen Ed only after the students have spoken with the advising offices and have had their appeals turned down by the advising office.

NOTE RE: FOREIGN LANGUAGE REQUIREMENT:
The UUCC presented a proposal to the Faculty Senate Executive Committee on 12/11/01 regarding the implementation of the foreign language requirement for transfer students. This proposal recommended that transfer students who have not passed the foreign language Regents exam with a score of 85 or better be subject only to the SUNY-wide requirement of one semester of college-level study. The Executive Committee passed a motion to approve this exemption for a period of two years for transfer students in Harpur College, SOM, and SEHD who enter with at least 57 credits, and within the year decide to proceed after that. The matter will be placed on the agenda of the next Senate meeting on 2/5/02.

SUNY GEN ED TRANSCRIPT ADDENDUM:
J. Schorr noted that the SUNY registrars are working on developing the Gen Ed Transcript Addendum (GETA), which will show the SUNY Gen Ed categories and the courses or exams used to meet the requirements.

ISSUES RAISED:
There were many issues raised in discussion of the implementation of the new Gen Ed for transfer students.

** Waivers at one university/college
The question was asked as to whether requirements waived by one university or college will appear on the GETA as waived for all SUNY schools. It was noted that the rule is that something accepted by one university or college has to be accepted by another. It is unclear whether this applies to program waivers -- for example, a Watson student who transfers to Harpur will have to take foreign language. What if a Watson student transfers to another SUNY school's liberal arts program? The SUNY registrars have not yet addressed this issue.

** Areas of divergence
There are several areas of divergence between the SUNY Gen Ed and Binghamton's Gen Ed. Discussion ensued on how best to handle this.

P Courses - The SUNY Gen Ed has American History, not Pluralism in the US. It was felt that any US History course that met the SUNY Gen Ed would probably have sufficient pluralism content (the "three groups") that we should accept any US History course that met the SUNY Gen Ed as our Pluralism course.

G Courses - Binghamton's G courses meet two state requirements -- Western Civilization and Other World Civilizations. If a student meets both State requirements, we should consider him/her to have met our G requirement. If a student has met only one of them, he/she will need to take a G course.

M Courses - Our Math requirement is stiffer than the SUNY requirement, which stipulates only algebra/trigonometry (essentially pre-calculus).

L Courses - Our Lab courses require a laboratory or field exercise component; this is not required for the State Gen Ed's Natural Sciences courses (although it is listed as "highly desirable").

It was noted that the UUCC would not be looking over advisors' shoulders to see what they were approving. A need for consistency was expressed, though, and the suggestion was raised that one person look at Gen Ed courses at all feeder schools and evaluate them for Gen Ed designations. Questions were raised as to whether this should be handled by the UUCC or by one person. It was later suggested that all schools could use the information on the transfer articulation screens which Harpur has made available to the professional schools. There is a space on those screens for Gen Ed tags, although they are not currently used.


MATRICULATION DATE:
Matriculation date is important here. The State is holding transfer students who matriculated as of Fall 2000 to the SUNY Gen Ed requirements (regardless of where they matriculated). For our purposes, this would mean:

* Students who matriculated in or after Fall 2000 have to meet the new Gen Ed, regardless of number of transfer credits taken (or where they matriculated)

* Students who matriculated prior to Fall 2000 and who have fewer than 57 transfer credits would be subject to the old Gen Ed

* Students who matriculated prior to Fall 2000 and who have more than 57 transfer credits would not have to meet Gen Ed requirements

This means that advisors will need to look at matriculation dates in addition to the transfer courses.


ISSUES OF TRANSFER ADMISSIONS:
It was pointed out, by several people, that this could have a tremendous impact on transfer admissions. It is confusing to have SUNY Gen Ed and Binghamton Gen Ed. The community colleges are working under the assumption that their students are meeting the SUNY Gen Ed and will thus be finished with their Gen Eds when they arrive at Binghamton.

After much discussion, two proposals on how to move forward were presented and discussed:


PROPOSAL #1:
It was suggested that we present a proposal to the Faculty Senate that we essentially hold transfer students to the SUNY Gen Ed requirements -- that we waive the parts of the Binghamton M and L requirements that are "over and above" the SUNY Gen Ed by accepting a student's completion of the SUNY Math or Natural Sciences requirements as having met our M or L requirements. It is felt that the P and G can be handled more informally (see above) and thus don't present as much of an issue. This could possibly be raised on the floor as part of the discussion on the foreign language exemption for transfers on 2/5/02 (see above) rather than going through formal channels. There would likely need to be a credit limit set, whether it's set at transfers with 57 credits or 24 (or some other number). If we do this, we would need to provide information on how implementation of the new Gen Ed would hurt transfers (and thus transfer admissions).

PROPOSAL #2:
It was suggested that we delay implementing the new Gen Ed for transfer students. Essentially, we simply keep the status quo and do exactly what we are doing now. This would mean that all transfers with fewer than 57 credits would be subject to Binghamton's old Gen Ed and that transfers with more than 57 credits would be exempt from Gen Ed.
Arguments for delaying and sticking with status quo:
1. Admissions is talking to transfer students now and thus there are problems with implementing the new Gen Ed on such short notice.
2. The GETAs may not be ready until the end of next Fall semester. This would mean that advisors would have to evaluate transfer credits for next Fall without the help of the GETA. J. Schorr noted that she needs to verify when the GETAs will be ready.
Arguments against this plan:
1. This would mean ignoring the state mandate.
2. We would need to find out if the administration would be willing to back this plan of action.

THE NEXT STEP:
The next step, before the committee recommends a plan of action, is to gather more information.
1. J. Schorr will talk to her counterparts and verify when the GETAs will be available.
2. L. Abate will discuss the proposals with S. Straight and note that the committee recommended he discuss this with M. A. Swain.
3. B. Hazlett will compile information on how the implementing of the new Gen Ed would affect transfer students and transfer admissions.

NEXT MEETING:
We will meet again during the week of 1/7/02 to discuss the information gathered and our next step(s).

Happy holidays to all!

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submitted by L. Abate, Assistant for Undergraduate Education

 

Back to the Gen Ed Policies main page Last updated 7/12/02 by Liz Abate