# data[].attributes.headline
Competencies / Levels / Distribution Matrix 

# data[].attributes.subject
Competencies / Levels / Distribution Matrix 

# data[].attributes.headline
Crosswalk of Current Gen Ed to Recommended Framework

# data[].attributes.subject
Crosswalk of Current Gen Ed to Recommended Framework

# data[].attributes.body
Many of us in English feel strongly that the second theme remain "Equity, Culture, and Identity"

# data[].attributes.body
Will there be guidance about prerequisites (or lack thereof!) for 25xx courses?

# data[].attributes.body
Recommendation more than question: David was using the language Global/Local. The latter dilutes/distorts what "Equity, Community, and Identity" would focus on. I would encourage consistent language from the committee that represents the actual proposal.

# data[].attributes.body
I heard the distribution notion of not more than one Theme course from a major. I understand that impulse, but I wonder about it in relation to sustained inquiry. I wonder if it might be better to think about precluding Theme courses from a student's major rather than the number of Theme courses from a single major.

# data[].attributes.body
It seems plausible many students could make it through the proposed gen ed revision with only natural sciences and social sciences and English but no other humanities.

# data[].attributes.body
How will the new workings of this program be administered? Is there a commitment not to expand what we already have as administrative support? And to what extent will faculty be involved in accessing the competencies being offered in the various courses?

# data[].attributes.body
This seems complicated, with multiple different groups trying to attack it. Seems primed for conflicting priorities

# data[].attributes.body
Thinking about how to incentivize small groups of faculty who will be offering/developing Theme courses so that they have some kind of coherence and substance.

# data[].attributes.body
Students find it confusing the way it is set up in DegreeWorks right now. I would recommend putting upper level gen ed under the "major" subsection of DegreeWorks. For example: some students try to take "Any W course" just to check the box even though there is a specific major required course that covers that gen ed requirement.

# data[].attributes.body
How can distribution requirements be put into place so that students are having a broad array of curricular experiences--specifically, how are we making sure that students are being exposed to humanities courses? Or, to say it another way, how to they push them out of the comfort zone of their majors?

# data[].attributes.body
A lot of our discussion in our room about introducing a "no double dipping" rule for the theme courses

# data[].attributes.body
Our facilitator mentioned task force discussion re: highlighting and fostering team-teaching in Gen Ed. I am a HUGE supporter of team-teaching, especially for general education. If this is a value of the task force, then it should be more clearly foregrounded in the documents and conversations, and having satellite groups work out how that could happen on a larger scale.

# data[].attributes.headline
The language used to structure the curriculum makes explicit competencies and disciplinary practices in some areas (natural sciences, data analysis, etc) whereas others, crucial areas/practices that are arguably at the core of a college education are absent, and only implicitly acknowledged in. The absence of a term such as "Humanistic thinking" (or variations thereof) is glaring for a few reasons. A humanistic approach to one's education and career is crucial for our students. Humanistic thinking is already under-represented in the culture at large, if not under fire. Finally, students need to see this kind of language in the very structure of the Gen Ed curriculum to be motivated and curious about the learning opportunities offered to them in the humanities.

# data[].attributes.subject
The language used to structure the curriculum makes explicit competencies and disciplinary practices in some areas (natural sciences, data analysis, etc) whereas others, crucial areas/practices that are arguably at the core of a college education are absent, and only implicitly acknowledged in. The absence of a term such as "Humanistic thinking" (or variations thereof) is glaring for a few reasons. A humanistic approach to one's education and career is crucial for our students. Humanistic thinking is already under-represented in the culture at large, if not under fire. Finally, students need to see this kind of language in the very structure of the Gen Ed curriculum to be motivated and curious about the learning opportunities offered to them in the humanities.