From: Gabriel, Jodi Sent: Wed 5/3/2006 7:20 AM To: Merrill, Michael; Anderson, Sandy Cc: Cozzetto, Don (Regent Fellow) Subject: FW: Course sequencing -- again!
Sandy & Mike ~ AAC looked at this in April and that is how the policy is interpreted. If the Registrars/MOCC wish to come forward with a policy change recommendation, please let me know by June 9 for inclusion on the agenda for discussion. Thanks, Jodi
From: Cozzetto, Don (Regent Fellow) Sent: Wednesday, May 03, 2006 8:16 AM To: Gabriel, Jodi Subject: RE: Course sequencing -- again!
Sandy’s interpretation was affirmed by AAC last meeting and so no reason to bring the item back for discussion. Thanks.
From: Anderson, Sandy Sent: Tuesday, May 02, 2006 4:45 PM To: Gabriel, Jodi; Merrill, Michael Cc: Anderson, Sandy Subject: RE: Course sequencing -- again!
Jodi,
I am forwarding this to Mike Merrill, chair of MOCC.
Mike, I don’t think MOCC has a recommendation. Registers asked for a clarification of BOR policy 2:7 and need AAC to let us know if Ranny’s interpretation is how they intended the policy to be enforced-
Sandy, my interpretation of the above is that the student is required to take 6 hours from the courses listed. There is no statement in the BOR policy that states these six hours are to be a sequence and there is no statement that the student cannot take two introductory courses. This has nothing to do with MCR 2 but is the way the Fall 2005 System General Education Core was written and approved by AAC and the Board of Regents. With no clarification or specification on which 6 hours of courses listed would count, the interpretation is that any course listed in Goal 6 taught at any of the six Regental universities will meet the requirement. The only requirement is that the student complete 6 credit hours.
Sandy Anderson Registrar Dakota State University Madison, SD 57042 (605) 256-5144 [email protected] From: Gabriel, Jodi Sent: Tuesday, May 02, 2006 3:51 PM To: Anderson, Sandy Subject: FW: Course sequencing -- again!
Hi Sandy ~ I currently have this item on the May AAC agenda. Do you think a recommendation will come from the MOCC group in time for the meeting or should I move the discussion to June? Mailout is tomorrow. Thanks~ Jodi
From: Cozzetto, Don (Regent Fellow) Sent: Monday, April 17, 2006 6:21 PM To: Wittmayer, Cecelia Cc: Gabriel, Jodi Subject: RE: Course sequencing -- again!
OK. That sounds like a reasonable plan. Let's get the recommendation from her group by May AAC. Thanks.
From: Wittmayer, Cecelia Sent: Mon 4/17/2006 5:25 PM To: Cozzetto, Don (Regent Fellow) Cc: Gabriel, Jodi Subject: Course sequencing -- again!
As you’ll recall, I raised the question of science course sequencing at an earlier AAC meeting and then we discussed it again last Thursday. When I relayed the decision (or the reiteration of the decision made in MRC 2) to our registrar, she indicated that MCR2 was intended to deal with academic history and not general education science course sequencing.
I’ve suggested to her that she raise the issue with MOCC again and that the group forward a revision to us, if the other registrars feel as she does.
Cecelia From: Anderson, Sandy Sent: Monday, April 17, 2006 4:01 PM To: Wittmayer, Cecelia; Engbrecht, Kathy Cc: Slaughter, Susan; Anderson, Sandy Subject: RE: Course sequencing
Cecelia,
The student, Serina Banek, is following the 2001 catalog which specifically states the student can not use both BIOL 101 and BIOL 151 for the general education requirement, so she needs another science.
I was looking for a clarification on the current website and since 2:7 lists specific sequences for sciences, I will continue to deny students using 2 beginning courses for the requirement.
MCR #2 dealt with academic history and not general education science sequence.
Sandy Anderson Registrar Dakota State University Madison, SD 57042 (605) 256-5144 [email protected]
From: Wittmayer, Cecelia Sent: Monday, April 17, 2006 8:48 AM To: Anderson, Sandy; Engbrecht, Kathy Cc: Slaughter, Susan Subject: RE: Course sequencing
Sandy – Jodi had dug out MCR 2 and indicated to us that the MOCC recommendation was that the sequence requirement be removed.
Do you still have access to MCR 2, with the recommendations from MOCC? If yes, then maybe you should go back through that and ask your registrars to reconsider. It’s possible that AAC misinterpreted the January 2004 recommendation from MOCC.
Cecelia From: Anderson, Sandy Sent: Monday, April 17, 2006 8:37 AM To: Wittmayer, Cecelia; Engbrecht, Kathy Cc: Slaughter, Susan Subject: RE: Course sequencing
Cecelia,
I am very disappointed since this changes the way the sciences have been since I was in the Registrar’s Office. Even though they are not the same course, they are both the first course in a sequence. So, this means students can take CHEM 106 and CHEM 112 or PHYS 111 and PHYS 113 as their science sequence, plus BIOL 101 and BIOL 151.
Sandy Anderson Registrar Dakota State University Madison, SD 57042 (605) 256-5144 [email protected]
From: Wittmayer, Cecelia Sent: Friday, April 14, 2006 8:55 AM To: Anderson, Sandy; Engbrecht, Kathy Cc: Slaughter, Susan Subject: Course sequencing
AAC discussed the course sequencing process again. The discussion hinged on MCR 2 and agreed that the earlier decision would stand. This affects the student who is being required to take a second science course this summer? That decision will need to be reversed and credit accepted for BIOL 101 and 151, I think – can’t remember the student’s name but you probably do.
Cecelia
3A1. Sequencing of courses -- BIOL, CHEM, & PHYS MCR 2 Equates was brought to AAC in January 2004. At that time, AAC concurred with the MOCC group that we would remove the equates from the common courses in question and agreed that all attempts of the courses will calculate into the cumulative grade point average and into cumulative completed credits Degree audit will control which courses get counted toward completion of degree requirements.”