Joint Boards Articulation Commission
Student Transfer Committee

Meeting Summary Notes
January 29, 2003
OIT Metro
Portland, OR

Members Present
Dave Phillips, Clatsop Community College, Chair
Jim Arnold, Oregon University System
Mary Brau, Lane Community College
Mickie Bush, Concordia University
John Duarte, Oregon Institute of Technology
Pat North, Eastern Oregon University
Martha Pitts, University of Oregon
Terry Rhodes, Portland State University
Glenda Tepper, Clackamas Community College
Diane Watson, Linn-Benton Community College
Elaine Yandle-Roth, Department of Community Colleges & Workforce Development

Dave Phillips called the meeting to order at 10:15 a.m.

1. Introductions, Announcements, and Suggestions for the Agenda

Members introduced themselves. There were no suggestions for the agenda. Jim Arnold shared a copy of the group photo taken at the last Transfer Committee meeting.

2. Minutes of the October 23, 2002, Meeting

The minutes of the October 2002 meeting were approved as submitted.

3. Transfer Activity in Oregon Postsecondary Education, 1996-97 to 2000-01

Arnold indicated that the Transfer Activity report, discussed at the last meeting, was now complete. It was delivered to the Joint Boards Articulation Commission on December 18, 2002, and the full version of the report, including all appendix material, is now online (as a PDF file) at

Members agreed that the report demonstrates the health of transfer activity in the state. Interesting in these data is the performance of transfer students, demonstrated to be comparable to OUS native students. Glenda Tepper observed that the Portland CRC (Portland State University and community colleges research consortium) has their own research agenda pertaining to transfer students in the metro area.

4. Report from the AACRAO Transfer Task Force Meeting (Washington, D.C., January, 2003)

Arnold reported that he attended the first meeting of the national “transfer task force” convened in Washington, D.C. January 24-26, 2003. This is a group of eleven individuals, selected by AACRAO, to “explore what constructive role AACRAO may be able to play in facilitating the transfer of academic credit and in providing assistance to both the sending and receiving institutions.” The meeting began, however, with a discussion of the current lobbying efforts by the Career College Association, and the prediction that “credit transfer” will likely be addressed in Congress’ current deliberations on the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act. AACRAO’s position is the federal legislation is not necessary in this area, and that it may be a good idea to educate members of Congress and their staffs about credit transfer. Among the outcomes of the weekend, were (1) the agreement by members to review the Transfer Credit Practices portion of the AACRAO website, (2) to express commitment to develop a transfer guidelines document/manual; a statement of principles; and to compile best practices/case studies in the area of transfer; and (3) to plan a workshop for Congressional staff members, perhaps coincident with the AACRAO national meeting in early April. Arnold will keep the Student Transfer Committee and JBAC up to date on the work of this task force.

5. Status of the AS/OT-Bus

Arnold described the current status of the Associate of Science Oregon Transfer Degree in Business (AS/OT-Bus). The degree proposal was finalized by the statewide Business Chairs and University Deans group last October, and subsequently endorsed by the community colleges’ Council of Instructional Administrators in November and the OUS Academic Council in December. A draft version of the docket item for the Board of Education has been drafted. The “prerequisites/recommendations” section (page 3) of the degree proposal must be finalized before taking the proposal to the Board (only WOU and SOU need to approve their entries at this point; all other campuses have submitted their information). Board of Education approval is expected some time this spring, though after approval of the statewide transfer degree each individual college wishing to offer the degree must submit its own degree proposal.

Some comments, questions and concerns were raised about the impending degree, including:

A motion was made (Brau) and seconded (North) that:

The Student Transfer Committee recommends to the Joint Boards Articulation Commission that they make the recommendation to the Board of Education that the AS/OT-Bus be adopted by community colleges “in full” or “not at all.” For colleges who adopt and offer the AS/OT-Bus, no additional requirements or modifications should be allowed.


The motion passed with one dissenting vote.

This motion will be reported to the JBAC at the February meeting. It may be possible to take the degree to the State Board as early as March. (It must be emphasized that individual colleges will still need to have their own degrees approved after that.)

6. Proposed AA/OT Guiding Principles and SP 111

Yandle-Roth referred members attention the October 23, 2002, meeting minutes of the Transfer Committee and the May 15, 2002, meeting minutes of the JBAC. Yandle-Roth and Jim Buch had been charged with finding documents related to the establishment of the AA/OT in order to research the “oral communication” requirements issue.

Yandle-Roth distributed copies of two documents, a 1988 draft of the requirements for the AA/OT degree and a “review of discussions by the JBAC (1987-1994) related to the oral communication requirement.” The history of the speech issue is outlined in the latter document, including the 1994 attempt to include language specifying a speech course “in which the student is required to make public oral presentations.” This language never was adopted for the AA/OT oral communication requirement. For the “skills courses” issue, there is not much written history. Yandle-Roth suggested that for both issues, we keep in mind what it is we want for future policy, not necessarily what was done in the past.

Comments included:

With regard to the inclusion of so-called “skills courses” in the AA/OT:

The ultimate goal from these activities is to develop a set of revised “notes and clarifications” for the AA/OT degree.

7. The Generic AS/OT and “The Broken AA/OT”

Arnold called attention to the document distributed with the agenda materials: “Do We Need to ‘Fix’ the Associate of Arts/Oregon Transfer Degree?” This document outlines some of the current limitations of the AA/OT, as well as proposing some options for addressing these limitations. Arnold noted that one possible option, missing from the proposed list, is that of a statewide, transferable general education core curriculum that is “sub degree”, that is, an agreed-upon general education core that does not require an associate’s degree in order to receive credit (as is the case with the AA/OT). Other states have implemented such a practice, among them Illinois and Arizona.

Comments on this proposal included:

Can this concept be brought up at the February JBAC meeting? Yes, this will be included in the Transfer Committee report, and Arnold will be responsible for compiling some accompanying materials (from Illinois and Arizona).

8. Adjournment and Next Meeting
The meeting was adjourned at 2:05 p.m. The details of the next meeting are as follows:

Wednesday May 21, 2003
10:00 a.m. - 2:00 p.m.
OIT Metro, Room 139

Prepared by Jim Arnold
OUS Academic Affairs
February 11, 2003