http://offleash.csusm.edu/ en Copyright 2008 Mon, 19 May 2008 11:28:30 -0800 http://www.sixapart.com/movabletype/ http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss Below you will find my final thoughts on the year. Before I say goodbye, I want to thank you all for your support, your patience and (when I needed it) your criticism. Although I didn't get the quiet, uneventful year, I was hoping for, it was nonetheless fun. I owe the Senate Officers, the entire Executive Committee, the Senate and especially Marcia Woolf more thanks than I am able to express for helping me through it. I know you will help Janet as much as you have helped me (oh, and by the way, she still needs a vice-chair!) So, Gus, it's that time. Say goodbye, goodnight and good luck! In Labrador, of course. WOOF!]]> http://offleash.csusm.edu/2008/05/say_goodnight_gus_1.html http://offleash.csusm.edu/2008/05/say_goodnight_gus_1.html Mon, 19 May 2008 11:28:30 -0800 THE GOOD I am also very proud of a lot of what we did this year. (For those of you who were at the last Senate meeting, some of this will be repetitive, but not, I hope, all). In no particular order: we passed a humane and workable book adoption policy to serve the needs of students with visual impairments. It’s a policy that focuses on educating faculty and working with them to move towards early adoption of print materials for their classes to help students with visual impairments – rather than punishing faculty (or threatening to punish them). AS sent a representative to every single ASI meeting – this is a first and in consequence we learned more and built better relations with our students. I doubt if it will increase the numbers of students who serve on faculty committees – there are too many barriers to that which we have no control over – but it was a good start. We started the process of rethinking how and when lecturer and other part-time faculty need to be included more fully in the life of the institution. Part of this process saw the recognition of lecturer/pt faculty with a new President’s Award. Many of the committees wrestled with difficult issues that sparked lively and lengthy debate at Senate. In particular, I want to acknowledge the work of the Program Assessment Committee who labored on trying to develop a new Program Review Policy this year. Since things always pass our Senate, I’m sure PAC sees the defeat of the new policy as disappointing. Now, I’ve never been known for my Pollyanna-ish tendencies, but I think the defeat of the policy was a good thing – and an opportunity – on several grounds. I thought it was positive that few people, if any, objected to the policy because they objected either to doing program review or the accompanying assessment. I think it was also positive that faculty have started to push back against the piling on of tasks coming not only from the administration but also from ourselves, especially in the absence of any recognition, resources or reward for doing so. Maybe it is time to have a discussion about what indeed constitutes service and why faculty are somehow expected to do it, but not to ‘count’ it when it gets to a certain point as part of their workload. I hope the defeat of the Program Review Policy will initiate a more intensive dialogue about expectations for faculty and about the place of assessment in program review. Some of the pushback against the Program Review policy revealed a more serious problem, I think. Our programs are small for the most part and many have shrunk in size (as least as regards tenure track faculty) since 2004, despite the fact that our enrollments have skyrocketed ---- remember we started the year proclaiming how ‘hot’ we were. THE BAD Which brings us to the budget and the budget process. I think another of the Senate’s successes this year was how well the Senate reps on the University Budget Committee worked together. Although you never heard it at the Provost’s Town Hall on the AA budget, we did convince UBC to mitigate some of the cuts of to AA. Not many and not enough, but at least we achieved something. Instead of a 7.5% reduction in sections, we are now talking more like 4-5%. I think UBC works well on many levels, not the least of which is that it does encourage collaboration among various units in the university. And I have nothing but praise for and good feelings towards my fellow UBC members. We all tried to understand each others’ points of view and largely succeeded in doing so. We ‘fought’ with each other in support of the interest of those we represented, but never in an ugly way. The nature of the task we faced, however, made no sense. I know there are some who disagree with the necessity of even entertaining cuts given that the whole CSU-alliance thing asked us to portray any and all cuts as impossible to take. I know others believe the fight should be centered on the overall distribution and allocation of funds to AA. How is it that we keep growing (necessitating, one might assume, more classes and more faculty) but that our programs keep falling behind and don’t get the resources they need to offer rigorous (and in some cases, even viable) curriculum? While I have sympathy for these points of view, I need to reiterate to you that this was not the task that UBC was asked to engage in. What you need to know is that UBC doesn’t actually deal with the CSUSM ‘budget’. We look at something called the multi-year budget model which projects income (mainly from enrollment increases) and expenses. We see these figures in aggregated sums. In past years, we’ve only ever played around with a very small amount (usually no more than 1.5% of the overall university budget) that represents growth funds not already spoken for. That’s the process you may be familiar with from the last couple years where people advocated for what were essentially ‘projects’ to spend the pitiful amount of money not claimed by ongoing expenses or unfunded mandates. To be fair, AA in these ‘salad days’ was the only division that got funds automatically (presumably to hire faculty but in reality to also do everything else associated with having more students --- so no, we don’t actually hire a new faculty person for every 20 new FTES) as a result of enrollment growth ----- but you get the idea. This year, however, there was no ‘growth money’ and the challenge was to cut. However the process of doing this was peculiar. As you remember, each division got assigned a pro rata share of the overall permanent cut assigned to this campus by the CO, plus additional cuts to address divisional structural deficits. What came before UBC was a list of cuts that VPs thought they could make to meet that pro rated amount. At some level this makes sense, since presumably the VPs know what cuts they think will be less damaging to their sense of what they want to be doing. I really do understand that. However, where I think this falls down is that the university community as a whole (as represented in UBC) never gets to examine the spending priorities of the university as a whole and make recommendations about the necessity and wisdom of those priorities. I don’t think UBC should do this every year, else we’d be zero-based within an inch of our lives, but we sure ought to do it regularly, however that is defined (maybe, like Program Review, it should happen every 5 years). It’s not just that I’m dying to find out (still) why in the name of the goodness of dogs we pay for so many Blackberries on this campus, but I think it’s important to ask why we spend money on what we spend money on. And, perhaps understandably as a faculty member, I think this discussion can’t just be had by the VPs with the President. Another thing that was annoying about UBC was that it was never clear what people would stop doing as a result of the cuts. People identified where they would take permanent cuts, but then say, but we might still do this activity, but fund it in some other way. I’m not the most budget savvy person there is, but I never got a complete picture of what will be different as a result of taking so many cuts. As a result, the process seemed tactical ---- where can I find X-million dollars NOW – rather than strategic – given the budget we have to live with, what things must we do and what activities must regrettably and permanently stop? If the UBC budget process makes no sense, the AA one makes even less. The Senate, through BLP has a constitutional right to participate in the development of the AA budget [see our constitution and by-laws which were accepted and approved by the President]. Sheesh, we don’t even get to look at it and make comments about its priorities. I personally (though CFA and the Senate was in agreement with me about this) think this can’t happen unless the Senate Chair is included among the AA leadership team -- at least some of the time. One thing in particular illustrates this. At one UBC meeting, someone from another division asked about faculty efficiency [in case you didn’t know, no other divisions create similar measures of their productivity and efficiency for their employees – so yes, we’re the only ones ‘measured’ in this way]. At the next UBC meeting, the provost handed out a document comparing our SFR, average WTU, class size, etc.with our sister campuses to UBC. I and my other faculty colleagues on UBC only saw that document for the first time the day before. To my knowledge neither BLP nor FAC were given the document and it goes without saying that they thus never had a chance to talk with the administration about its implications for budget, workload, assignments, etc. In any world where the AS was seen as a real partner in AA, these discussions would have taken place. I hope my successor can make some headway here, but unless the Senate is involved with these sorts of discussions and with the people who talk about this stuff on a regular basis, then ‘shared governance’ is a meaningless idea. I am sure that some will point out that in most of the colleges and library, some faculty were consulted about pending budget plans. That’s great and I hope it continues ----- but that’s different than seeing the ‘whole’ and bringing an elected, representative voice to continuing discussions about planning and priorities at the divisonal level. Lots of other weird things about the whole UBC process. Like why is there a committee anyway if all the VPs (not all of whom are on the committee) show up for and participate in the deliberations? Why is there so much overlap and redundancy between UBC and the President’s Executive Council? Why do we only meet once a month – though I guess if all you’re doing is doling out the uncommitted ‘growth’ money that may be all you need? THE UGLY One of the things I said at Senate on May 7 was that I am concerned that we have more management than leadership and way more process than we have vision. I didn’t want to denigrate either good management or the importance of process --- both are vital and necessary things. But I do feel we work really hard at both those things and not hard enough on vision and leadership. Instead, we have strategic goals so broad that you don’t even need a shoe horn to make them fit whatever you or anyone else might be doing and despite having so many processes for so many things, the place still feels quasi-feudal in the way decisions are made, the way things get done or the way people get rewarded and the way funds are allocated. I want to end with some reflections on the whole concept of having a ‘university-first’ perspective. First, I want to applaud the good that this idea has done for the university. No one wants to go back to the days of internecine conflict among the divisions and their VPs. Indeed, one of the good things (as I said above) about sitting on UBC this year was the cooperative, collegial and empathetic atmosphere in the room. The notion that we are all a part of something bigger than ourselves, that putting on this ‘show’ we call a university requires effort from many segments and that we have a responsibility to help our colleagues all over the university do their jobs in support of a community that educates students is a good thing. But. One of things I’m working on in my research is an examination of post-WWII notions of cosmopolitanism. I’m interested in how this thing we now call ‘international or global civil society’ got created and it’s pretty clear that cosmopolitan ideas (and ideals) are central to some it. And yet . . . . Cosmopolitanism, our sense of connectedness to and responsibility for all the world’s inhabitants, our notion that every person, no matter where she or he lives, deserves to live a life of dignity and significance is a lot easier as an ideal than as a basis for actual policy or action in the real world. One need only read the current discussion of how the UN doctrine on the ‘Responsibility to Protect’ (R2P) might apply to the situation in Burma to see how complicated it is to actually act in ways consistent with cosmopolitan ideals. In essence, the notion of an ‘all university’ perspective is a version of institutional cosmopolitanism. It sounds good, it is good --- but unless it can appreciate and deal with the fact that most people’s loyalties, commitments and relationships are local ones, it can’t work. Thus, what sometimes feels like the constant weighing of peoples' success and performance by how much of a ‘university perspective’ they have always seems a bit soviet to me. Fail university perspective and it’s off to re-education camp for you!!! Not willing to shut up about the things you and your unit need to do your jobs? Stop being so whiny and so parochial!! Except . . . . People live and work ‘locally’. They might understand that this year isn’t the year that they get everything they need to do their jobs, address their crises, etc. – that the powers-that-be have other pressing needs that need addressing. And most of us accept that. But what if your needs or my needs are NEVER pressing enough to be addressed or recognized by those same powers-that-be? How is that consistent with an ‘all-university’ perspective? It’s all well and good to recognize the equivalency of other missions and other needs but what if one begins to expect and believe (as I think we are now in danger of some people and units coming to expect and believe) that ‘all university’ merely means what a small group of people say it means at any point in time to justify what they want to do and to shut other people up. I believe in cosmopolitanism and I believe in seeing the success of our students as the sum of many contributions – I think I do have an all-university perspective (at least most of the time). But I do live and work ‘locally’ in the division of Academic Affairs, in the College of Arts and Sciences, in the Dept of History and in the subfields of European and International History as well as in Global Studies. Each of those more local ‘identities’ are ones to which I am also loyal and about which I care deeply. Each one of us here has similarly multiple identities and loyalties to them. Unless those identities are fed, nurtured, appreciated and championed (by someone), it becomes impossible to maintain any robust all-university identity. And that’s the part of all-university we need to get better at appreciating and talking about. Soon. So, I wish we could stop using the notion as a cudgel or as a meaningless catch phrase that makes people roll their eyes with cynicism and instead find a way to really use 'all university' as a set of ideals that informs all our identities --- and vice versa. ]]> http://offleash.csusm.edu/2008/05/the_very_long_goodbye_or_youll.html http://offleash.csusm.edu/2008/05/the_very_long_goodbye_or_youll.html Mon, 19 May 2008 11:10:01 -0800 Chronicle of Higher Ed via the CSU's Daily Clips here Some more serious news from yesterday's meeting of CSU Academic Senate Chairs later. I'm traveling today, that is if United Airlines cooperates and isn't hit by the chaos that has plagued American all week. Fingers crossed.]]> http://offleash.csusm.edu/2008/04/for_your_amusement.html http://offleash.csusm.edu/2008/04/for_your_amusement.html Fri, 11 Apr 2008 09:20:56 -0800 not taking no for an answer and they suggested I stiffen up my spine a bit. So, we went ahead and formed the task force and asked the Provost to please bring us info on how much it might cost (if she had ready access to such info) --- which she kindly did. The cost, while not insignificant, falls into the realm of what around here (in less budgetarily stringent times) used to commonly be termed 'chump change', 'money I found vacuuming the sofa cushions' and what my sometime colleagues at Quantico call 'decimal dust'. Anyway the process moves forward. The reason I brought this up was because within 6 hours of having received the Office of Communications email yesterday about the opening of the new University Store on the 5th floor of Craven (looking out into Founders' Plaza), I got several emails pointing out that the "Creative Naming Committee" at CSUSM has been at it again. So, not to confuse anyone, the old University Store will now be known as the University Bookstore and the new University Store will be known as the University Store. Well, at least they are located relatively near one another, so that students, visitors and delivery people won't suffer too much when the confusion kicks in. Still, this is not the Senate's business or our purview ------ we'll just have fun saying "we told you so". I had a peek into the store yesterday. One of the interesting developments on campuses since I started my undergraduate career decades ago is, of course, that university (book)stores make much more money selling logo'd stuff and junk, office supplies and drug store sundries than they make selling books. It's probably even more true these days with the advent of online bookstores, etc. More power to them -- and I hope ours is very, very successful I do wish though that the powers that be will ---- at least during the week before and the couple weeks after semesters begin --- rethink their announced plans to keep the University Bookstore closed on Fridays and only open to 3 on M-Th. After all, shouldn't it be a bit easier to buy a book on a college campus than a to buy a t-shirt -------- at least right before classes start???? I honestly don't care if students wear a CSUSM hoodie to my first class, but I would like them to have a copy of the first book we're going to read.]]> http://offleash.csusm.edu/2008/04/deja_vu.html http://offleash.csusm.edu/2008/04/deja_vu.html Tue, 08 Apr 2008 07:41:00 -0800 wasn't at CSUSM; 2) I'm getting a refund (however small); 3) I had a chance to read a few good novels; 4) I started the break out at a very interesting conference in a very fun city (SF). And, for a very (very) fleeting moment, I was on top of the NCAA brackets --- but having picked neither of the final two teams, I expect to be dethroned by someone much more prescient than I am about hoop matters. Ah well . . . . This week is a busy one. We have a Senate meeting ---- the agendas are starting to get crowded, so please try to read your agenda and the accompanying packets before the meeting. If you are giving a report, please keep it short --- we have lots of business that has to get done. We can always come back to reports if we speed through the rest of the agenda. Also, I have to go to the Chancellor's Office. The various academic senate chairs from the other campuses are getting together to compare notes. I'll know more at the end of the week about how the budget stuff is working at other campuses and report on that then. Early information sharing suggests a wide variation across the system about how involved (as opposed to how 'represented' and how 'present') faculty senates are at the budget tables on other campuses. I hope to learn a lot. Actually, I hate going to Chancellor's Office. For all the benefits (and maybe someone could remind me what these might be) of being in a big system, there is a stultifying centralizing tendency (not to mention a feeling of umerited superiority, in part because they take themselves soooooo seriously) that emanates from Golden Shore. One is expected to feel like country cousin in visiting and to marvel at central CSU wisdom. Fat chance. Oh well, I'm sure I'll survive. Only 5 weeks more of being Senate Chair. One thing that spring break hammered home was how much I want this year to be over. More later.]]> http://offleash.csusm.edu/2008/04/hi_ho_hi_ho.html http://offleash.csusm.edu/2008/04/hi_ho_hi_ho.html Mon, 07 Apr 2008 08:50:08 -0800 Quick report on yesterday's open Faculty Forum with the President. Not much to report, only 4 faculty attended (including me) and all were members of the Senate Exec committee. President Haynes was gracious, as ever, and stayed to hear our concerns which were primarily about the budget process and about how the system is planning (oxymoron?) to deal with near term realities. I want to thank her and Matt Ceppi for taking time out of what are very busy schedules to come talk with us. I think the sentiments in the comments which followed an earlier email announcement of this forum are shared widely; hence, perhaps, the low attendance. Three AA administrators also attended -- which is fine, they are nice people with good questions, the more the merrier and we would never ask them to leave or kick them out. But it does beg a question about many meetings administrators have which faculty are not welcome at or never hear of (even if the fate of faculty is being discussed) . If you look at the Constitution and By-Laws of the Senate, all our committees are inclusive in various ways in that they invite students, administrators and some staff to attend. Indeed the ONLY meeting that the Senate holds in a normal week to which no administrators are invited is the 30 minute agenda-setting meeting that Senate officers hold each week to (duh!) put the agenda together for the next Senate Exec and/or Senate meeting. http://offleash.csusm.edu/2008/03/forum_with_the_president.html http://offleash.csusm.edu/2008/03/forum_with_the_president.html Fri, 21 Mar 2008 08:20:42 -0800 pace Monty Python: "my brain hurts; it will have to come out!") --- that post will have to wait for another day, but it will come --- but no, this is more of a pet peeve and a really frivolous one at that. Anywaaaay -- I was filling out my brackets for the NCAA pool and I was ruminating for a moment on how much I regret that CSUSM became the Cougars. Boooooring. Today we have the (ok, really MY) Hoyas playing the UMBC (University of Maryland Baltimore County) Retrievers --- as in Chesapeake Bay, like woof, woof ------- now how cool is that? It's all I can do to root against them with a name like that. But basically, wouldn't it just have been more fun to remain the Tukwat ---- and be one of the more memorable names in college sports. Ok, it's not the UCSC Banana Slugs, the Maryland Terrapins, the Manhattan Jaspers (which I have no idea what it means, but like anyway) or the UConn (get it, Yukon) Huskies or my personal favorite that came in second in the referendum to rename Stanford's sports teams sometime in the 1980s the Robber Barons (much better than The Cardinals) --- but it would have demonstrated some real creativity. Oh yeah, remember when and under whom the name change was enacted. Sigh. BTW -- Hoyas take it all!!! Hoya Saxa! ]]> http://offleash.csusm.edu/2008/03/march_madness.html http://offleash.csusm.edu/2008/03/march_madness.html Fri, 21 Mar 2008 08:08:07 -0800 Inside Higher Education -- an article on the CSU's Lower Division Transfer Project. Harder to do than you might think .. . .]]> http://offleash.csusm.edu/2008/03/item_of_interest.html http://offleash.csusm.edu/2008/03/item_of_interest.html Fri, 21 Mar 2008 08:06:12 -0800 Today, Wednesday, March 19 -- 4-5:30, Kellogg Reading Room --- reception for adjunct/part time/lecturer faculty (invitation only) ---- Please RSVP if you haven't yet. Hope to see you there. My thanks to the Provost for arranging this event to thank our great part time faculty for their contributions to CSUSM. Thursday, March 20 -- 12-1 -- Open forum with the President. Markstein 101. Q & A. Some of you have made really good points in the comments to a previous post about how frustrating attendinng these things are because administrators are now as practiced as politicians as spinning, avoiding answering, and (shall we say in generous way) mistating the reality. I can't disagree with that -- in fact those comments mirror my reaction to many of the meetings I go to. So yes, at some point this is all bad political theatre, but I continue to believe that one of the only weapons that faculty continue to have as we fight to maintain quality and integrity at CSUSM is to show that they/we are paying attention to what's going on and to keep asking questions and making it clear what they/we think about things. So I hope you will come, despite how frustrating it is. You're all very creative people and I trust you all to find ways of asking (and keep asking again and again and again) questions that can't be side-stepped or dodged or avoided. Spring Faculty Colloquium Dinner -- 5ish (I don't have the invite to hand), Clarke Field House. This semester's presenter Professor William Burns, COBA. For details contact the Faculty Center.]]> http://offleash.csusm.edu/2008/03/reminders.html http://offleash.csusm.edu/2008/03/reminders.html Wed, 19 Mar 2008 04:04:07 -0800 Thursday, March 20 during University Hour (12-1), President Haynes will hold an open forum with faculty (as part of her continuing commitment to speak directly to all constituencies at least once a semester) . The forum will be held in Markstein Hall 101 which holds 45 students. The Alliance for the CSU meeting this week was NOT the place to ask questions about what's going on with things internal to CSUSM. This forum, however, IS such a place. I hope you will come and ask the question you've been dying to ask. I'll bet you that we are all awaiting an answer to your questions, whatever they are. Let's fill the place!!!]]> http://offleash.csusm.edu/2008/03/open_faculty_forum_with_presid_1.html http://offleash.csusm.edu/2008/03/open_faculty_forum_with_presid_1.html Wed, 12 Mar 2008 08:28:38 -0800 link to the Channel 8/KFMB report on the rally held Monday. Along with the piece from the NC Times I linked to yesterday, it gets the word out. If you want to know what you can do to help, check out the website of the Alliance for the CSU, where there are suggestions for how you can act. PLEASE commit to do something! If you want to write or call your state senator or assembly person and don't know who they are, you can check out the CFA web page where you can find out. Here's the link. Don't be embarrassed that you don't know, be embarrassed that you don't act to help our students and higher ed in California.]]> http://offleash.csusm.edu/2008/03/more_on_the_alliance_to_save_t.html http://offleash.csusm.edu/2008/03/more_on_the_alliance_to_save_t.html Wed, 12 Mar 2008 08:02:12 -0800 North County Times did not print a story about the event, but the web page carried this video. Although it's only a couple minutes long, those of you who could not attend should get a sense of the event. What's missing from the video, though, is the message stressed by each of the speakers: we weren't sitting in ARTS 111 just to learn more about how budget cuts would impact the system, we were also there to commit ourselves to ACT on behalf of the CSU. Call state legislators, write a letter to the editor, put up a lawn sign ---- check with your union reps if you want to know more. We need to stand up for the CSU and make sure that the public -- but also our state senators, assembly representatives, and the governor -- 'get it', that they know that "THE CSU IS THE SOLUTION" to California's economic problems. We are a major engine of the state economy. Our health is intimately connected to the state's economic health. Please do something.]]> http://offleash.csusm.edu/2008/03/budget_alliance_ii.html http://offleash.csusm.edu/2008/03/budget_alliance_ii.html Tue, 11 Mar 2008 15:29:59 -0800 I was not able to attend the Academic Affairs Town Hall meeting last Thursday (I have a long overdue book review to write -- which sort of requires actually reading the book AND the tides were great for a dog beach afternon . . . . ) but Marshall Whittlesey, Chair of the Senate's General Education Committee asked me to post this account of the meeting --- which was about GE -- and to ask readers for some comments and discussion of the topic. I am happy to oblige: Says Marshall: "Sharon and Marshall each took 25 minutes to discuss several different issues. Sharon summarized what is going on with assessment of GE on campus. Her goals include for key bullet points : to have a simple process, provide useful information, allow for faculty feedback and give something back to faculty. She began by compiling the goals of the GE program as discernable from the GE policy documents that we have. Some of these (based partly on responses to a form she handed out at the beginning) seem not to be the goals that today's faculty would emphasize. So far assessment has been done in areas A2 (Writing), A3 (critical thinking), B4 (quantitiative reasoning), Dh (US History), D and D7 (lower division social sciences). She explained the rubric used to judge written communication: several areas (thesis, organization, mechanics) are judged on a 5 point scale. Similarly, attainment of certain student learning objectives are measured for information literacy. She emphasized that if faculty members want to assess something they are interested in, she is more than willing to assist in this. She provided some tables with results on students. Then the faculty, chairs and GEC are to consider the implications of these data. She listed some future goals: creation of a web site, and e-asessment database, evaluating GE documents for revision, and engaging the university in a dialogue Marshall handed out a 'quiz' designed to be a launch for discussion about various issues facing the GE program. The major issues brought up were: (1) large overlap between electives and GE courses in areas CC and DD - are we okay with this as a faculty, or not? Is GEC doing what the faculty wants by allowing a large number of 'major' courses (i.e., those courses which count as an elective in some major) also to be GE courses? (2) size of the GE program - currently 51 units, it was not reduced when, several years ago, the size of the undergraduate degree was reduced from 124 units to 120. Marshall explained that it was simpler to 'spread the pain' around the various majors, rather than concentrate the reduction in one or two areas in GE. Marshall claimed that in some cases this has created problems for majors trying to get in under 120 units, resulting in some courses being proposed for GE that weren't originally designed to be GE. So, the question is: are the faculty okay with this situation? We could, theoretically, reduce the GE program by as much as 3 units, per state guidelines. Also, the Chancellor has asked the CSU to reduce the state-wide GE package to 45 units. (3) Area E courses - Marshall gave the entire list of existing GE courses and asked if this was what faculty thought area E should look like. The GEC has been discussing the makeup of area E for over a year. GEL 101. The Student, The University, The Community SOC 203. The Child in Society GEL 110. Quantitative Skills & College Success SOC 204. Human Relationships Across the Life Course GEL 120. Reading & Writing for College Success SOC 303. Families and Intimate Relationships KINE 306. Exercise Fitness and Health SOC 309. Aging and Society PE 203. Physical Education for Elementary School Children SOC 315. Gender in Society PSYC 104. Psychology for Living SOC 317. Youth and Society GEL 200. The Student in an Information Society (4) Marshall pointed out that the campus GE Philosophy statement requires information and computer literacy in most lower division GE areas, not just area E. Is this what we want? A discussion ensued. A key comment from Michael M. - regarding item (1) - was that we've never really come to a consensus as a campus about whether our GE curriculum is a core curriculum, or a distribution requirement." http://offleash.csusm.edu/2008/03/whither_general_education.html http://offleash.csusm.edu/2008/03/whither_general_education.html Sat, 08 Mar 2008 16:04:20 -0800 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_2rBUWBqn3w ]]> http://offleash.csusm.edu/2008/03/allcsu_budget_alliance_summit.html http://offleash.csusm.edu/2008/03/allcsu_budget_alliance_summit.html Thu, 06 Mar 2008 07:29:43 -0800 Research Colloquium-William Burns Thursday, March 20, 2008 beginning at 5:30pm in the Field House The Faculty Center Spring Research Colloquium speaker, William Burns (COBA), will be discussing “Managing Fear: Business Models for Managing Disasters.” Tickets are $20. Please RSVP to the Faculty Center, KEL 2400, x4019. Make checks payable to CSUSM Foundation. The colloquium is a faculty professional development activity, and so is limited to CSUSM tenure-track faculty, adjunct faculty, and ad­ministrators with faculty rank. ]]> http://offleash.csusm.edu/2008/03/support_faculty_research.html http://offleash.csusm.edu/2008/03/support_faculty_research.html Thu, 06 Mar 2008 07:25:09 -0800