You are woefully misinformed.

1. the courses at QCC are three credits already. They meet for four hours however. Currently that fourth hour is paid for by the college.

2. QCC follows the exact same schedule as the rest of CUNY, thus there is no additional two weeks. It’s 28 class meetings for a class that meets twice a week, plus finals, just like BC, Hunter, or Baruch.

3. The extra hour in class is a vital opportunity to practice basic skills through writing and editing workshops.

4. capitulating to Pathways would result in less time for these students to practice their writing skills. Why is that so hard to understand? Punishing these faculty would ensure that future faculty are sufficiently scared as to neglect entirely their duties to set curriculum, which in turn would hurt the quality of that curriculum, since these are the people who spend the most time with the students and know best what they need.

However, QCC English faculty needs to consider a few things:

1) Their 4 credit comp classes are out of whack with most of the academic world, most importantly, the SUNY system, which is 3 credits. That additional credit will do them no good if/when the transfer to the most likely suspect in this scenario, a SUNY school.

The answer to (1) is, “But these students need the extra attention!”

2) I won’t dispute that. However, if the QCC faculty are going to say that extra credit is because their students need extra attention, they need to demonstrate that ALL faculty teaching these courses are properly trained in ESL and developmental writing/learning. Otherwise, they’re just blowing smoke. Some, I’m sure, know how to do a great job working with such challenged students. Some, I’m equally sure, haven’t a clue. In any case, these developmental considerations are not a part of the course as it’s described, and should be left to the classes/instructors specifically designed/trained to teach them.

(Keep in mind the national community college standards keep students in class about 2 weeks extra compared to 4 year schools. In other words, the “extra need” of CC students is already included in the equation).

3) That oddball credit isn’t going to fix anything. Very few students challenged in the ways suggested aren’t going to be helped by one more hour/week in the classroom. They need something more in-depth. If the school doesn’t provide such classes, that’s appalling, but it’s equally appalling that the English dept thinks it can fix a systemic problem with an itty-bitty credit.

4) I find the “firing these faculty members punishes at risk students” to be disingenuous. If the faculty is so concerned about them, they’d continue to teach under the new system. THey’d also think about why they were asking students to pay for a credit that has no value, transfer-wise.

Finally, right or wrong, the “Pathway” initiative simply won’t pay for credits that don’t contribute directly to a student graduating. It may be BS, but no amount of outrage will change that. The QCC English department, certainly, can’t change it. This is not the right fight to pick. If faculty members are truly concerned about the students, they’d acknowledge the reality of the situation, move on, and work on where they can truly make a difference.