Reinvention 7 – Should I be thankful or concerned?
Thankful that we have an excellent team from HWC working on these pathways.
Concerned that the monumental task should be done during the Fall and Spring semester when faculty are readily available to provide input.
Concerned that one size fits all will be the driving force instead on the individual needs of our students.
In any case, just reblogging ’cause A) wanted to see how this rebloggin’ thingy worked and B) thought this was important enough to do so.
The Harold Lounge 
I appreciate the hard work that the Reinvention team is doing on creating these. I have commented in e-mail to the Reinvention team about the map for Chemical Technology, and I’d like to invite my colleagues to consider the following:
1. On a positive note, I welcome the opportunity to codify the advice we want advisors to give students about courses. For example, take Organic I and Organic II in Fall/Spring ideally – that’s not something that appears in the catalog, but I always advise students of this. Also, advice about when some courses are offered, if they are not offered every semester. That can really help with planning.
2. They maps seem to include specific courses (e.g. Humanities 201) where the requirement is one of several courses for a distribution requirement. This is a problem – it will mean students will be guided to that one course, which might be difficult to schedule, rather than choosing from a list of acceptable courses. Why not list all of the courses, or at least indicate that the one listed is an example of several options?
3. If these maps have *any* differences from the catalog, they must be approved through the normal academic process. Will the Reinvention teams submit these maps to the faculty committees? I am very concerned that the current process is circumventing the approved committee vetting.
Hi, Charlie.
Items 1 through 3 sound perfectly reasonable.