Meeting Summary Notes
October 9, 2002
Mary Kay Tetreault, Portland State University, Chair
Jim Arnold, Oregon University System
Craig Bell, Portland Community College
Vickie Fleming, Oregon Department of Education
Wendy Mitchell, University of Oregon (for Karen Sprague)
Dave Phillips, Clatsop Community College
Michele Sandlin, Oregon State University
Harris Shelton, Eastern Oregon University
Glenda Tepper, Clackamas Community College
Elaine Yandle-Roth, Community Colleges and Workforce Development
Ruth Keele, Oregon University System
Mary Kay Tetreault called the meeting to order at 10:45 a.m.
1. Introductions and Announcements
Tetreault introduced herself as chair of the JBAC for the coming year and indicated that she was looking forward to the experience. The remaining members then introduced themselves.
Jim Arnold had a few announcements:
2. Minutes of the June 12, 2002, Meeting
The minutes of the June 2002 meeting were approved as submitted.
3. The Work and Charge of the Joint Boards Articulation Commission
Arnold directed members’ attention to the new operating guidelines of the Commission, put into place last spring by agreement of the OUS Chancellor and the CCWD Commissioner. The charge to the group is similar to the previous language and the major change overall is in the composition of the group membership. Campus presidents are no longer part of JBAC; senior academic officers will now provide leadership for the group. Tetreault indicated that with burgeoning enrollments at the community colleges and OUS campuses, good and productive relationships between sectors are important. Phillips reinforced the notion that inter-sector communication is important, especially with the retirement of many of the individuals who were, for example, present when the AA/OT was created.
Tetreault indicated that she had met with Dave Phillips, Jim Arnold, and Elaine Yandle-Roth in September to discuss goals and plans for JBAC in the coming year. Among the issues addressed were:
4. AS/OT-Bus and the Proposed Generic AS/OT
Arnold explained the process and the product of the July 2002 (Business Chairs and Deans appointed) AS/OT Task Group meeting. After two day-long meetings of the statewide Business Department Chairs and University Deans during the year (in February and May), the Chairs/Deans appointed a smaller task group to meet over the summer to address lingering issues associated with the development of the degree. That group met on July 23rd at Chemeketa Community College and produced another draft of a proposed AS/OT-Bus. That draft was distributed with meeting materials. The current proposal calls for an AS/OT-Bus that offers the same guarantees as the AA/OT (completion of lower-division general education requirements and ability to register as a junior), but does not guarantee entry into the OUS business school of choice. Part of the “notes and clarifications” section of the degree would be the additional requirements for entry into each OUS business program.
Yandle-Roth offered that the various meetings this year on this topic have been very similar, with the reservations about the degree needing to be addressed at the beginning of each meeting. However, the community college representatives have very clearly indicated their desire for an associate’s degree with the “business” designation. Such a degree would have marketability for a student in the workforce, much more so than the current AA/OT. Business schools are all so different, that no way was found to be able to accommodate the needs of everyone. What results is a good guide to students and a very workable degree proposal.
Wendy Mitchell indicated that this has been a very productive process, even though it was somewhat contentious at first. The series of meetings changed that, however. A different product than what was expected of the process eventually emerged, primarily due to the difference in programs that the Business Schools want to keep.
Yandle-Roth further clarified that this proposed degree was not to be considered a “terminal degree.” This degree would be most useful for students who are employed, desire a degree with a “business” designation, and, at some point, expect to pursue a baccalaureate. Some students may, of course, be better served by an AAS degree, which IS considered terminal, but this current proposal is for students interested in transferring at some point.
Dave Phillips offered a short history of this process toward and AS/OT-Bus. At the December 2000 Articulation and Transfer Conference (held at Western Oregon University), many participants expressed the view that something like an AS/OT would be very desirable. Upon this recommendation, the Student Transfer Committee and the JBAC started to work studying this matter. Arnold compiled a list of requirements, at the lower-division level, for several science disciplines, as well as Business. During an intense day long meeting, the Transfer Committee produced an initial proposal for an AS/OT in Business, which won preliminary endorsement from the academic officers of both sectors as well as, conceptually, from the Board of Education. The proposal was received by the statewide group of Business Department Chairs and University Deans at the beginning of the year and they met in February and May to consider it. A follow-up meeting was conducted by a small task group in July. While a degree that would guarantee admission to a Business School would have been nice, the proposal that evolved appears to be sound. The degree (and its notes) will communicate what is needed to students and situate them well for eventually pursuing a baccalaureate degree.
Craig Bell indicated that the concept for this degree came from counseling and advising staff and they believe that this is responsive to students’ needs. The “business” designation on the degree is (will be) important for all students, including those already in the workplace, as well as transfer students.
What is the process for this proposal now? Arnold replied that the proposal, in its current form, will again be considered by the full statewide business group (on October 25th) as well as the joint meeting of the OUS Academic Council and community college Chief Academic Officers (on November 14th). From either group, more work may be recommended, or it may be forwarded to JBAC with full support. Arnold is working to ensure that all OUS business schools have had an opportunity to participate in the deliberations. (To date, two OUS campuses have not been represented.)
Mitchell, having spoken to the Business Chairs/Deans perspective and the work of the task group, then represented the UO viewpoint. UO administration has reservations about the proposed degree, given that the AA/OT has worked well for students transferring to the UO. UO does not want students to focus on specialized (major) areas during their lower division work, but rather encourages a broad liberal arts education. Rather than another degree, what would work better is better articulation and working on improving communication between community colleges and OUS campuses. However, despite their reservations, the UO would like to see this work.
The OSU perspective is different, believing that the AA/OT has not served students well. Students transferring to OSU are better advised to pursue an AS degree, if they want an associate’s degree, rather than the AA/OT.
This proposal was originally brought to the JBAC last spring by OSU. Because of the nature of OSU programs, community colleges advise students into AS tracks, not the AA/OT. OSU has AS block transfer agreements in place with the community colleges in the state of Washington, and is in the final stages of having such an agreement with the state of Hawaii. The current proposal for a generic associate of science transfer degree has been taken to community college enrollment officers, the OUS admission officers, and the community college Council of Instructional Administrators. All groups have been largely supportive.
Phillips reported that the discussion at CIA this past summer was lively, focusing on the differences between the AS/OT proposal and the current AA/OT. This conversation is being undertaken to determine if, in doing this, student transfer may be enhanced for those interested in science programs. What are the differences between the AA/OT and the generic AS/OT? The AS/OT follows the proposal for the AS/OT-Bus in terms of math requirements. Humanities credit requirements are three hours less, with more credits required in the science track. Then there are discipline-specific requirements as well, in a particular science field.
Members expressed confusion over the process for considering this degree, as this proposal went out for consideration by outside groups with no endorsement from JBAC. The Student Transfer Committee is meeting later his month and will again take up the fine points of the discussion. Ultimately a recommendation to JBAC will come from the STC regarding this degree. A report will be made at the next JBAC meeting.
Yandle-Roth indicated the statewide group of computer science department chairs will be meeting in November and one of their agenda items is a discussion of a possible AS/OT in computer science.
Tepper and Arnold indicated that they still have some more questions about the generic AS/OT proposal that they will pursue in the Transfer Committee forum.
5. Transfer Activity in Oregon Postsecondary Education
Arnold had distributed a draft copy of “Transfer Activity in Oregon Postsecondary Education, 1996-7 to 2000-01” to JBAC members prior to the meeting. This report will be presented to JBAC in its final form as soon as next month, depending on comments about the draft. The full report will not go to the Joint Boards because of its length; rather, a shorter version will be developed that includes recommendations from JBAC based on the data presented here.
Arnold requested that any comments on the draft be forwarded to him in the next two weeks. Comments on the draft included the observation that the numbers of simultaneously-enrolled students was lower than would have been predicted, with the question arising whether those numbers included students involved in distance education pursuits. Arnold further encouraged members to think about possible policy recommendations arising from this report.
Ruth Keele from Institutional Research Services in the Chancellor’s Office was in attendance to present the results of the recently published report “Where Have Oregon’s Graduate’s Gone?” Among the points that Keele made were:
7. Data Sharing with OICA Institutions
Yandle-Roth reported that not much has happened since the last report on this topic in the spring. Mickie Bush (Transfer Committee member and registrar at Concordia University) has contacted Gary Andeen (Executive Director of the Oregon Independent Colleges Association, OICA) to further explore data-collection capabilities. Andeen was not sure about the ability of OICA campuses to forward the desired data to a central location. This topic is on the agenda for a November meeting of OICA representatives, though, and more should be known after that event. The plan would be to aggregate data centrally at OICA which would then be forwarded to CCWD and matched in the same manner as the OUS-CCWD data match is peformed.
8. JBAC Workplan Review
Arnold explained that the current version of the workplan is a carryover from last year’s work of the JBAC. Points made during the discussion of the workplan included:
9. Meeting Schedule and Adjourn
Given the conflicts some members have with the next scheduled meeting (November 13th), the meeting was cancelled. The next meeting will be the conference call in December.
The meeting was adjourned at 1:45 p.m.
The remaining meetings for the year are as follows:
December 18, 2002 9:00 - 11:00 Conference Call
January 15, 2003 9:00 - 11:00 Conference Call
February 19, 2003 10:00 - 2:00 at OSU
March 19, 2003 9:00 - 11:00 Conference Call
April 16, 2003 9:00 - 11:00 Conference Call
May 14, 2003 9:00 - 11:00 Conference Call
June 11, 2003 10:00 - 2:00 at OIT Metro
Prepared by Jim Arnold
OUS Academic Affairs
October 21, 2002