Kyle Tippens's Comment Archive

  1. Kyle Tippens on 4.25.18
    2:49 pm, 04.25.18

    I vote in favor of all three motions.

  2. Kyle Tippens on 11.8.17
    4:08 pm, 11.09.17

    I’m in favor of approving this also.

  3. Kyle Tippens on 11.8.17
    4:49 pm, 11.08.17

    One more thing — I wondered if there were any prerequisites for the course? That is not an issue if there were (since this is part of the “University Requirements” part of the catalog), but I just wondered about that.

  4. Kyle Tippens on 11.8.17
    4:46 pm, 11.08.17

    I’ll echo David and claim to be a new-ish member of the UGEC also.

    I went back and looked at the precedents for approval for the Historical Literacy menu. On 3/23/16, the UGEC approved THEA 490 for the menu. My reading of that proposal was that it was very similar to the one we have to consider here, in that the “Part B” of the “UGEC Criteria for the Historical Literacy Menu” was met in depth, but the “Part C” (dealing with SLOs/Assessment) was not addressed much. On 4/12/17, the UGEC discussed the addition of HIST 280 to the Historical Literacy menu. When I review that proposal, I would say that “Part B” of the UGEC Criteria was effectively missing (at least the explanation of how those criteria were to be met by the course), while “Part C” of the UGEC Criteria were addressed in the proposal, at least partially. (The UGEC approved that proposal also.)

    I know Dan, and I too would like to sign up for the course, and I have no doubt that it will be an excellent course and the SLOs will be great and assessment will be wonderful. I have no problem agreeing to this course being added to the Historical Literacy menu. But I suggest that either the UGEC takes their “UGEC Criteria for the Historical Literacy Menu” seriously (and more literally), or we approve courses with the understanding that they appear to meet the spirit of the criteria. The precedent to date suggests that the UGEC has taken the latter approach. I think we should attempt to be consistent.

    Also, I learned that “lynchpin” is an acceptable spelling. I thought it could only be “linchpin.”

  5. Kyle Tippens on 4.26.17
    4:48 pm, 04.26.17

    I approve the proposal. I think James will do a great job at it!