Guest Post: Major Pathways Failure at LaGuardia Community College


 
Last week LaGuardia was notified that the CUNY Central Office had rejected the Social Science Department's proposed revisions in its A.A. program in Psychology to accommodate the Pathways curriculum. The problem was two courses, both part of the existing A.A. program, that the Psychology faculty inserted in the Required Core in the "Life and Physical Sciences" and "Mathematical and Quantitative Reasoning" categories: SCB203, Human Anatomy and Physiology, and MAT120, Elementary Statistics.  The University objected that these were STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics) courses and therefore could not be included in an A.A. curriculum.

 

The University*s decision left the Psychology faculty with two choices. They could, on the one hand, convert the program to an A.S. degree, which would require approval by the CUNY Board of Trustees and the State Education Department.  This lengthy process could not be accomplished before Pathways goes into effect in September and would therefore necessitate suspension of new admissions to this popular program for at least a year. The other alternative was to substitute a non-laboratory science and a less rigorous math course.

 

The University's decision is based upon a misunderstanding of the difference between an A.A. degree and an A.S. The distinction, according to the New York State Board of Regents, is not one between arts and sciences, but between liberal arts and sciences, on the one hand, and occupational or professional programs, on the other. An A.A. program must contain at least 45 credits (75 percent) of liberal arts and science, while an AS degree need contain no more than 30 credits (50 percent) of liberal arts and science.

 

More troublesome than this technical issue is the idea of the University administration, or its hired faculty committees (all faculty members serving on Pathways committees receive stipends over and above their contractual salaries for their service) dictating to our Ph.D. psychologists which math or science courses are most appropriate to their field. Our faculty members are stripped of their professional status to decide the appropriate educational qualifications in their field of expertise. We are, as one psychologist complained to me in despair, merely civil servants. Curriculum design, once an integral part of our responsibilities, is now in the hands of  administrators, who may or may not be trained in an academic discipline but  answer to a politically appointed board, and the individual professors whom  they pay by the task to implement their ideas of curriculum and give those  ideas professional credence.

 

Another reason to vote next week:  no confidence in Pathways.

 

George D. Sussman, Ph.D.

Professor of History

Social Science Department

LaGuardia Community College, CUNY

 

Comments

Post a Comment

Comments are moderated just to make sure they are not spam! We aim to review and publish within 24 hours.

Popular posts from this blog

CUNY First Computer System to Aid Administrative Control over Colleges at the Expense of Efficiency and Effectiveness

Guest Post   Every once in a while I get a question, either privately or in a department meeting, regarding CUNYFirst. Here is what I know of CUNYFirst, based on a few years of working with the project as a "training liaison" (which is a fancy term for room-scheduler). (1) The idea of CUNYFirst is a good one: to have a unified, integrated "enterprise"-scale system that encompasses all university/campus business processes. Such a system could, in principle at least, have saved a lot of expenditure on maintaining dozens of disparate, redundant, barely cooperating third-party systems. Such a system could have offered information access that would have benefited the administration, the staff, the faculty, and students. (2) CUNY Central's motives in pursuing CUNYFirst were dominated by an agenda that has nothing to do with such benefits however. Rather, CUNY Central sought absolute control over all college activity, including curriculum. Think of it: whoev
Read more

CHAPTER LETTER CAMPAIGN: to President Michelle Anderson

Image
In the Fall of 2023, we asked all departments or units to write and sign letters to the college President, Michelle Anderson. We wanted her to know what our colleagues do well. We wanted her to hear our vision for work and mission at Brooklyn College. We wanted her to understand what we all need to thrive. We wanted to model a mission-driven discourse, not a workplace lead by austerity.  We wanted our President to hear us. Professor Naomi Braine reads the Sociology Dept Letter Professor Jillian Cavanaugh reads the Anthropology Letter     Twelve letters, signed by 100s of our colleagues were submitted—although many more were penned (many felt uneasy about being visible in this way). 1) Synthesis letter signed by over 80 faculty and staff 2) Sociology Department , 26 signatures 3) Anthropology Department, 16 signatures 4) Accounting Department , 14 signatures 5) Library , 28 signatures 6) PRLS , 6 signatures 7) Psychology Department , 30 signatures 8) English Department , over 100 signat
Read more

93% Vote No Confidence in Pathways

The referendum votes have been tallied: a total of 4,322 votes were cast, out of a total number of 7,202 possible votes: a 60% turnout. Of those, 3,996 full-time faculty agreed that they have No Confidence in Pathways, with only 323 voting Disagree (and 3 void ballots). An absolute majority of the full-time faculty are on record as having no confidence in Pathways. That is a stunning rebuke to the new curriculum and the coercive process used to implement it. I will send a longer message to the entire membership shortly, but for now I want to congratulate you all on your extraordinary collective effort in defense of our students' right to a rigorous education. Equipped with this result, we can take the campaign to a new level in the fall. In solidarity, Barbara Bowen
Read more