This content is password protected. To view it please enter your password below:
The requirement of a 3.7 GPA — which is above an A- average — seems a bit high to me. I understand that we only want students who have demonstrated that they are doing well at Pratt to get into the custom minor-making process, but I can easily see how this very high GPA requirement might exclude some students who would excel at creating and completing their customized minor.Reference
I agree that a 3.7 GPA is quite high for a minor especially since current Minors can be achieved by taking targeted professional electives. Also, students with specific interests may not have high GPA’s but prove to be great professionals. Since the standard for maintaining a Merit Scholarship is 2.5; perhaps the GPA’s should align.
I believe the purpose of Minors is to fulfill a personal interest and/or create a niche specialty.Reference
Agree with Chris and Regina on the GPA question, but it’s great to have this level of clarity in the overall process, and to ease some of the requirements around 100 and 200 level courses. That gives students a greater possibility of declaring a minor even earlier in their Pratt career.Reference
I agree about 3.7 GPA being a bit high and appreciate the articulation and clarity about the process, very important.
Question: who is or would be the Customized Minor director? A meeting would be required with this person and the student’s Academic Advisor, correct?
Who, in any given department, decides which faculty members or new faculty hires will be selected to participate in a specific ‘new’ Minor?
*Are faculty ‘Initiators’ of a new Minor considered to be ones who teach it (are they self-appointed?) and if so, do they, in turn, suggest faculty to teach in this new Minor (or not)? The question here is to keep the faculty options and participation truly open to a democratic process.
It might make more sense to just say there are three categories, and then give customized its own bullet point.Reference
Add a period to the end of the last sentence.Reference
Why restrict to matriculated students? Shouldn’t a dropout be able to show a prospective employer that they have completed a minor if they have paid for the credits and completed the requirements?Reference
Why isn’t the department curriculum committee represented here?Reference
I agree – the dept currently comm better understands the demands and benefits to the students currently pathwayReference
should this follow normal program change procedures?Reference
shouldn’t it be also reflected back into the dept goals and outcomes?Reference
IE how will it benefit their degree?Reference
just wondering – does the concept proposal need “ok” before submitting the minor forms???Reference
Maybe for clarity….”existing” course are not required with the proposal form. This needs to be more explicit regarding new courses and the submission process…..etcReference
Will advisors be responsible for writing goals and outcomes…etc and assist the student in a “student” driven minor???Reference
At the request of SGA representatives, the Provost’s Office suggests amending this to 3.0, in parallel with other minors.Reference
I too appreciate the clarification of the structure of the Minors. Will there be an opportunity for the current Minor coordinators to meet and discuss this? This also raises important questions as to what Institute supports and resources are in place for Minors ? for the Minor Coordinators?
Several of my colleagues from the larger minors that already exist in our department (SSCS) have been discussing expectations for minor coordination, especially if our overall goals are to build more pathways for curricular cross-fertilization across the Institute, and support students in making connections between studio and academic studies. There is quite a lot involved in establishing minors of this caliber; and, especially if they are successful in attracting a large number of students, a lot of labor in advising and organizing classes. I agree that we need an opportunity for minor coordinators to discuss aims and expectations associated with the process of coordination, alongside formalization of minor standards.
Also agree with DanW that dept. curriculum committees should have a role in the vetting process.
• A webpage dedicated to Pratt Minors: on it, description and rationale of the Minor; list of all courses that count towards it; requirements and contacts; names and descriptions of the faculty who offer courses in the Minor; what sort of things would you expect to study if you sign up for this Minor; suggestions of Majors and Minors that work well together, with reasons.
• Each Minor should have a brochure outlining everything that is on the webpage, plus quotes and pictures describing it.
• Procedures for proposing and approving Minors: the new document is very sound, but has a few gaps. Minor proposals should be presented first to Departmental meetings and discussion made possible, either in public or through written comments. I believe Minor proposals should also go through the Department or Schools, so that other colleagues are in the picture and given a chance to contribute; at the moment this happens through the insights or knowledge of the proposer, but that can be restrictive. Minor Proposals need to go through Departmental and School Curriculum Committees: that is already the case in SLAS, but worth making official for all Minors. The process of public exposure can also help a Minor to become more interdepartmental and interdisciplinary, whether or not that was part of its initial conception.Reference