Last night, undergraduate student senators questioned proposed changes in the Ohio Transfer Module, the statewide transfer course policy, and an accompanying proposal to change how the University accounts for BG Perspective and interdisciplinary courses.

Stephen Langenforder, director of BG Perspective, told senators that current statewide guidelines make transferring difficult for students because the state’s guidelines that determine whether courses are transferable aren’t broad enough. The University’s proposal for change would allow more classes to transfer between universities, but senators questioned the complications that could arise from the proposed changes.

“In our experience, [the current guidelines] have been too restrictive,” Langenforder said.

Currently, the state requires that courses must be “broad survey” courses to be able to transfer between Ohio’s public universities.

But the BG Perspective Advisory Committee, which wrote the proposal, wants innovative and interdisciplinary courses to be able to transfer as well.

The proposal originated because such University courses were declared nontransferable statewide.

One course in particular that was rejected was the Residential Center (RESC) 220 course, Science Journeys, taught by W. Robert Midden.

Students in the course build instruments and test the quality of Bowling Green underground water that could be affected by old oil wells, according to Langenforder.

“It was apparent to the people in Columbus that it should be included because it’s a phenomenal course,” Midden said afterward.

According to Midden, the course was rejected because it did not fit current requirements for the Transfer Module.

But the course would be considered transferable under the new proposal.

The University’s proposal would change how the state categorizes and approves transferable courses. The Committee wants the state to examine courses based on their learning objectives and outcomes rather than simply the courses” subject matter.

Learning objectives include helping students “communicate effectively” and logically analyze arguments, according to the proposal.

Another proposal by the Advisory Committee is to change how the University counts general education requirements.

Right now, the University requires students to take a certain number of BG Perspective, formerly known as General Education, courses.

But the Committee proposed requiring a certain number of BG Perspective credits hours based on the learning objective courses.

Credit for courses would covered under more than one discipline requirement. For example, A ‘#38; S 250, Great Ideas, would count as one credit of English and one credit of Arts and Humanities.

But this would not affect current proposals, only those created after its approval.

Still, senators voiced concern about the possible changes.

Rene Bailey, public relations chair, and Anthony Calabrese, speaker, were afraid the proposal could simply complicate an already difficult procedure.

As a transfer student herself, Bailey knows firsthand the problems that can arise in transferring if advisors are not well trained because she was advised to take two classes she later found out she didn’t need.

Baiely fears that the new proposal could make it even difficult for advisors.

Calabrese voiced a similar opinion.

“It seems like a lot for a relatively untrained advisor to have to do,” Calabrese said.

Langenforder acknowledged that training for advisors would need to improve if the proposal was passed.