{ title: 'The Spectrum (Buffalo, N.Y.) 1955-current, January 19, 1979, Page 2, Image 2', download_links: [ { link: 'http://www.loc.gov/rss/ndnp/ndnp.xml', label: 'application/rss+xml', meta: 'News about NYS Historic Newspapers - RSS Feed', }, { link: '/lccn/np00130006/1979-01-19/ed-1/seq-2/png/', label: 'image/png', meta: '', }, { link: '/lccn/np00130006/1979-01-19/ed-1/seq-2.pdf', label: 'application/pdf', meta: '', }, { link: '/lccn/np00130006/1979-01-19/ed-1/seq-2/ocr.xml', label: 'application/xml', meta: '', }, { link: '/lccn/np00130006/1979-01-19/ed-1/seq-2/ocr.txt', label: 'text/plain', meta: '', }, ] }
Image provided by: University at Buffalo
N n year tale of four course load examined I E 3 hour policy (Carnegie Unit) and directed UB to do the same. by Brad Bermudez A til. Special Ft aturet Editor most departments — Social Sciences and Humanities simplv upped credit hours from three to four or added an extra hour of class time. Major curriculum changes occur in Engineering and Management departments. End of 1969-70 academic year - Majority of courses have reverted to four credits. 1970-1977 - Continuing debate over in-depth vs. broad study. Issues: I) Keep course work the same and put faith in the students to enrich their studies on their own or increase depth of studv and enrich course work 2) the effect of four course load on Division of the Budget (DOB) appropriations (the number of credit hours generated annually is a primary consideration in how much money UB Fall 1976 — Faculty Senate organizes the Soringer Committee chaired by Engineering Professor Robert Springer to investigate the merits of the four course load and recommend steps necessary to implement a one credit/one contact hour system. Called for departmental evaluations of existing curricular structure. November 1977 - Faculty Senate Committee on Curricular Structure releases Springer report, a foundation for flexible credit-contact hour policy with one credit per one hour of class. Report stated: l)the University is not being forced to shift to a three credit three hour policy; extra credit may be justified with increased work load 2) the majority of students at this University are taking four courses while at other schools five is the norm 3) persistent pressure has been applied by the DOB to justify increased allocations resulting from increased credit hours generated 4) predicted increase in class size with aggravated busing and scheduling problems 5) suggested gradual move away from present system. For nearly ten years the four course load ( .'our credit for three hour class) has been the subject of considerable controversy. Adopted in the Fall of 1969, the four credit-three hour system was mver totally accepted by all circles of the University. Following extensive debate and pressure from the State Division of the Budget (DOB), the Faculty Senate here adopted a one credit for one contact hour policy last, known as the Carnegie Unit. Steps toward implementation of the Carnegie Unit as a University standard are slated to begin next Week. The following is a capsulized history of the four course load (4 credit/3 hour policy). receives. April 197.1 - Departmental reviews of the four course load begin to show negative results. A Faculty Senate Report comparing Graduate Record Exam scores showed they had been unchanged or lower than in previous years. They also demonstrated a significant decline in the breadth of education. The report stated, “If the recorded performance of our students is measured against the goals set, it must be admitted that this pattern has been a failure.” I.ale I960's- Oeneral trend in education toward specialization of study. Feb. /960-Chairman of Faculty Senate Curriculum Committee Claude Welch appoints a committee to investigate the implications of a four course load for undergraduate education. Spring 196S — Curriculum Committee releases the results of its study and finds: a general trend at major Universities to make distribution requirements less stringent to allow students to take a narrower range of courses. Freshmen are entering college better prepared and more well rounded, therefore diversity isn’t needed, and the five course system has produced a rigid classroom experience with little time lor outside study. October IVfif* - Barber Report drawn up by the Faculty Senate on how to implement a four course system. Resolutions; I ( four courses to become a normal full time program beginning September I96d. 2) requirement for BS degree set at 24 courses or % credit hours, requirement for a BA set at 12 courses or 48 credit hours, and distribution requirements set at 8 courses outside main area of concentration from three major academic groups; Humanities, Social Sciences, and Science & Technology. 3) four credits to be granted for three contact hours of class. December 1977 - Springer Report adopted by the Faculty Senate, March 1978 - Following student criticism, Vice President for Academic Affairs Ronald Bunn announces the formation of a steering committee comprised of students, faculty, and administrators to investigate the feasibility of implementing the one credit/one hour policy. Summer-Sept. 1978 — Committee has not met, decreased pressure from DOB to change, departmental reviews not yet completed. September 1973 - Debate continues. Faculty Senate: the four course load has “drastically hampered both the quality and quantity of learning.\ Proponents; no decline in the breadth or quality of the BA degree, class size lower, contact between faculty and students increased, C, RF scores are no indication of the quality of undergraduate education, group discussions in place of impersonal lectures. The Faculty Senate favors a more flexible system of assigning credits based on amount of course work. November IS, 1978 — Departmental reviews to respective Faculties due. Early 1974 - Academic Affairs Council proposes a system which will assign one credit for each class hour as a result of persistent call from faculty and administration to equalize the number of credits granted and the amount of course work. January IS, 1979 — Faculty curricular reviews due in Dean of Undergraduate Education John Peradotto’s office. January 19, 1979 — Courses requesting exception to Carnegie Unit will be evaluated by a committee headed by Dean Peradotto in near future. Committee headed by Assistant Dean of Undergraduate Educatioii Walter Kunz will investigate logistics of implementing the Carnegie Unit. June 197 6 SDNY Vice Chancellor for Academic Programs Bruce Dearing issues a memorandum stating that entire SUNY system has adopted one credit per one class lull IV69 — Barber Repurl adopted and implemented. Impact barely noticeable in Four course load continued from page 1- Unit. new system will create along with the impact the change will have on students’ academic careers. no students were placed on the Springer Committee. He urged the I acuity Senate to delay approval of the document while logistical problems could be studied. Other students warned the Senate that students’ workloads are already overbearing, especially in the hard sciences. The report was passed almost unanimously by the Senate, despite strong objections from then Student Association President Dennis Delia that it was impossible to implement, given busing woes, scheduling problems and limited classroom space.•> The Faculty generally agreed that students had nut shown a willingness to tackle wuik independent of instructor's assignments - a hope that stirred enough hearts ten years ago to grant one more credit (16) for one less course (4) than most undergraduates in SUNY take. The Kun/ committee will begin work within the month, although its success in working out the expected myriad of problems is by no means assured. Kunz said his group will contemplate “grandfather clauses” for students in the middle of their academic careers. Such clauses will probably lower the number of credits needed to graduate, since many students have been planning on course schedules suddenly worth fewer credits: And Karl Schwartz. Student Association President this year, has harshly criticized the University’s intentions to go ahead with Springer. (See box this page.) With degree requirements suddenly altered for most students and courses running from two to six credits, academic advisors will probably be in heavy demand next fall Self-disco very? Despite the looming confusion. I’eradollo feels the decision to implement the new system for the fall had to be made. “Nothing will be solved by putting it off,” he said. “I’m hoping for aslillle grief as possible. “It’s going to lake a lot of wisdom and patience from a lot of people.” The Dean said that the new system should increase the breadth ot undergraduate programs by exposing students to more courses over their academic careers. “I believe firmly that student should he exposed to as many knowledge areas as possible.\ 1‘eradolto said. But student leaders have never been conformable with the Springer report. Delia complained loudly last year that The four course load was put into place by the Faculty Senate in 1969, at a time when universities across the country were loosening control over students’ academic careers - easing requirements, liberalizing grading policies and placing faith in students’ self-discipline in learning. The four course load, it was hoped, would allow students to delve deeper into their subjects and would stimulate self-discovery in learning. But while the Faculty grew increasingly skeptical of the validity of the four course load, the potent State- Division of Budget' (DOB) raised objections that SUNY Buffalo was being funded too heavily, since faculty here teach fewer courses and generate more credits in the process. Marilou Mealy, Director of Undergraduate Advisement, said she foresaw no special problems dealing with the new mass of confusion. Her office has 12 adivsors. each handling about K00 students. “It’s already an overload,” she said, “but we’re working on involving the faculty so we can concentrate on lower division students (freshmen and sophomores).” Crossroad coming Still, what appear to be immense scheduling problems remain. Departments have been asked to have completed class listings for the fall semester by January 26. But courses that are slated as exceptions to the Carnegie Unit must be approved by a special curriculum committee which will not complete work before the end of the month. I’eradotlo said. Also, whatever courses arise out of the emerging General tducation Plan must be tacked on after the bulk of scheduling is completed. The massive change comes at a time when the University is approaching a number of crossroads in its academic future. The f aculty Senate. — which generally sets policy on academic issues — will debate and approve some sort of General bducation plan this semester for implementation also in the fall. Carnegie Unit condemned Also, SUNY Vice Chancellor for Academic Programs Bruce Dearina had issued a memo to all SUNV units in 1976 strongly urging (hat they adopt the Carnegie Unit as a standard. This increased pressure to abandon the four course load across SUNY, although Binghamton refused to buckle under completely and has yet to adopt the Carnegie Unit. ' Student Association (SA) President Karl Schwartz, has blasted the University’s quickening plans to implement the Carnegie Unit system, asserting that other more sophisticated approaches were left unexplored by the Administration because of a lack of initiative. The Springer Committee report did nol fully mandate how the Carnegie Unit was to be applied at SUNY Buffalo, but rather allowed individual departments to develop their own'plans within certain guidelines. Schwartz, charged that “hours spent in the classroom” is an arbitrary and unreliable indicator of educational value. The Carnegie Unit mandates that one credit be granted for each hour of classroom instruction per week. That plan, still being prepared by the Senate’s General Education Committee, will probably mandate a set of courses in various subject areas designed to give students a broader, more cohesive education. Any new courses that grow out of the General Education Committee work must fit within the Carnegie Unit system. Both General Education and implementation of the Carnegie Unit will take bold within the broader context of Vice President for Academic Affairs Ronald F. Bunn’s Academic Plan — which sets priorities and general goals for the next five year*. Delia objects Those plans, almost a year in the making, are now nearly complete and according to Peradotto, - the University is committed to implementing the Springer report for the fall of 1979 - although no one expects the transition to be a smooth one. Delia’s objections a year ago succeeded in convincing Vfce President for Academic Affairs Ronald F. Bunn that implementation of the new system would create massive headaches for students. Bunn responded bv forming a new committee - headed by Associate Dean of Undergraduate Education Walter TCuriz — tti study the logistical snarls the “There are a lot more relevant approaches that could have been used,” Schwartz said, “and the reason they weren’t is that they’re complex, sophisticated and difficult to grapple with.” “Classroom time is merely the least common denominator,” he continued. “It would be loo much time and loo muqh intellectual effort to come up with a system based on appropriate criteria,” Schwartz said, speculating on why the University opted for the Carnegie Unit. h.dilor’s Note: In subsequent issues The Spectrum will explain what the Carnegie Unit system will mean to students in various defurtments.
