Comments from Participants and Others

The following comments and suggestions are paraphrased from emails from participants and from conversations with mathematics faculty at various meetings. They are in no particular order. Some suggest possible next steps for resolving concerns about how to use the new policy to the benefit of our students and our institutions. [Compiled by ACC]

1. The transfer agreement says that by definition county colleges cannot offer 300-level courses and elsewhere lists some courses that are taught at 300-level at some four-year schools. Does that mean that we can no longer offer a course we has long offered at 200-level if some college in the state offers a course with the same name at 300-level? [from a chair at a community college]

2. In the past students transferring in with an AA degree have not brought with them sufficient course-work in mathematics to complete a mathematics major within two years at a reasonable course-load. We need to find a way to get students and advisors in -2-year schools to recognize the highly structured nature of a mathematics major and to prepare realistically. [emails for participants at 4-year colleges]

3. The same comment as in 2. above has been made with respect to students planning to major in many of the disciplines that require substantial mathematics course-work, either as part of their major or as prerequisites to required courses in the major in those disciplines. [from faculty at 4-year colleges]

4. The term "college algebra" is used around the country to refer to courses ranging from Algebra 2 to Pre-calculus. It would help if we could get some greater consistency about the meaning some common course titles -- especially since the new policy suggests that "same title means same course" for transfer credit and prerequisite purposes. [from CUPM committee deliberations; from discussions of quantitative literacy at national meetings, and discussions at MAA meetings]

5. Some states have long lists of course titles, course numbers, and course descriptions, for example Texas and Maryland. This list might, for example, list different numbers for courses in one general topic with distinctly different content. Would it help to look at those lists and see if we could adapt the idea to N.J.? Examples of such topics might be linear algebra, differential equations, and introduction to sets and reasoning. [from several people familiar with transfer articulation agreements]

6. It might be helpful to have regional conversations among four-year schools and their local 2-year schools. [from chats about the new Transfer Agreement at the Joint Math Meetings and from Planning Committee]

7. It might be good to have some working committees follow up on some of these ideas using list-serves and/or workshops at professional meetings. [from discussions at MAA and at the Joint Math Meetings]

8. Can we get NSF money to support some follow up conferences and/or to work on ways to help departments move to common titles for common course content and different titles for courses with different course content of strikingly different emphases? [from a Dean]

9. It sometimes seems that courses vary not so much because of content but because students are asked to do different kinds of work. Some schools stress calculators; others discourage them. Some schools stress computational facility; others want verbal explanations of reasoning. Could we post moderately old final exams and other examples of required work so students -- or at least faculty -- could get an idea of what is wanted around the state? [from a Rutgers colleague]

Maintained by acc@math.rutgers.edu and last modified 4 Feb 08.