The primary arguments the GC at the U of M-Twin
Cities, to my way of thinking are:
1) The GC is important to preserve access for
underprepared learners. In the sense I am using it
here, "underprepared" refers to the fact that the GC
serves a group of students who would be otherwise not
admitted.
2) The students admitted by the GC are more diverse
than the general student body at the U, and to
eliminate the GC would decrease diversity at the U.
There are other arguments offered by GC supporters,
but I think that these two are the most pressing.
Argument about the GC's success relative to transfer
students from other institutions (primarily 2 yr
schools) are speculative and compare substantially
different student populations.
I hope that the supporters of the GC prevail,
personally. But at the very least, the proposal that
Bruininks plans to make to the Board of Regents could
include some assurances to make explicit what he has
been hinting at in his presentations to sell the GC
elimination.
1) At the very least, the effect of eliminating GC
admissions needs to be monitored for its impact on the
makeup of the student body in several dimensions (age,
income, ethnicity, geographic origin, etc.) Part of
any proposal to eliminate the GC needs to include
careful and transparent monitoring of the effects on
the makeup of the student body. This will allow the
public to hold the U accountable for the impact of the
decision.
2) If other schools (such as community colleges) are
to be the bridge for access to the U of M for
underprepared learners, then there should be concrete
agreements established with these schools to
facilitate transfer. For example, major programs at
the U can negotiate articulation agreements with two
year schools to ensure smooth transfer of courses. The
U could establish a transfer track for students who
are initially declined admission and who agree to earn
a specified number of credits at approved institutions
and a specified GPA. If the U is sincere about seeing
2 year schools as the bridge into admission, then they
should embrace making the process concrete,
transparent and cooperative.
At the very least, make the U administration back up
it's vague assurances with concrete initiatives.
aaron klemz
cooper
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Aaron Klemz, Minneapolis, Minnesota
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Yahoo! Mail
Stay connected, organized, and protected. Take the tour:
http://tour.mail.yahoo.com/mailtour.html
REMINDERS:
1. Be civil! Please read the NEW RULES at http://www.e-democracy.org/rules. If
you think a member is in violation, contact the list manager at [EMAIL
PROTECTED] before continuing it on the list.
2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait.
For state and national discussions see: http://e-democracy.org/discuss.html
For external forums, see: http://e-democracy.org/mninteract
________________________________
Minneapolis Issues Forum - A Civil City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn
E-Democracy
Post messages to: mailto:[email protected]
Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
