February 12, 2018 Article Published

So my original plan was to get this little post out before my first two classes of the day. Unfortunately, I wound up having a more stressful morning than anticipated when I realized at about 10 a.m. that I had forgotten to print the assignment that was due in my 11 a.m. class.

Needless to say, after that there was a good amount of time spent running around in the library working to print the assignment out in time. Didn’t really help that the two computers I tried first did not work, which just kind of compounded the stress.

Seriously Pollak Library, I really appreciate your open computers and print options, but I would appreciate them a lot more if everything worked correctly.

But that’s enough complaining for now. After all, anyone who isn’t reading this post while it’s still timely and relevant would even notice the later posting time.

So let’s jump into the meat and potatoes:¬†Academic Senate.

Though I had not expected to go to last Thursday’s meeting until… Well, last Wednesday I believe… It wound up being a relatively straight forward meeting to cover.

After about 45 minutes worth of continuing the conversation started at the body’s last meeting that covered department faculty evaluation committees (a topic I might dive into once more concrete decisions are made), a substantial portion of the time was spent discussing changes to university general education policies.

See, last year CSU Chancellor Timothy P. White put out an Executive Order requiring sweeping changes to general education policy across the system as a means of improving student graduation rates. Some of these mandated changes were widely disapproved, such as the elimination of certain remedial courses, but others seem to have more positive ramifications.

One of those changes was the primary subject of one of the two documents that were amended at the meeting: University Policy Statement 411.202 to be exact. There was a back-and-forth about clarifying the fact that with the Chancellor’s changes, you can take a given upper division course so long as you’ve taken (at a minimum) the “golden four” core competency classes and whatever prerequisites are listed, whereas before you needed to have at least 60 units no matter where you were in terms of preparedness.

The second document, University Policy Statement 411.200, essentially just received a clause saying that all general education courses which haven’t been offered in at least five years must have their GE status taken away. A smaller change, but one that I believe will just make the classification process easier, if I were to postulate on the subject without actually doing any interviewing about it.

Really, that’s about the breadth of what I covered. Governmental meetings are always a little complicated and dry, even at the school-level, so I’m overall I’d say I’m pretty proud of how my piece turned out. Granted, there were some edits I had to make on it that I personally feel detracted from the story a little bit, but that’s just part of the job in the end.

Luckily, online I was able to rectify some of those issues by linking out to all the documents specified in the piece. So check out the story online to see it with some extra research detail involved.

Speaking of, if you want to read the article in its entirety, you can see it here. Or you can check out my whole archive of work for the Daily Titan over on the right!

Seems like Academic Senate is slowly but surely becoming my beat this semester, so we’ll see how that goes going forward.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s