Interim Pima Community College Provost Suzanne Miles sent an email out to the PCC governing board on the Higher Learning Commission’s questions regarding the college’s new admissions standards. She’s coming to the board with recommendations and ask that that they reexamine the standards and how the college is preparing students:

From: Miles, Suzanne
Sent: Friday, March 22, 2013 11:52 AM
To:
Cc: Migler, Jerry
Subject: Recommendation on Placement Standards

Dear Members of the Board of Governors,

As you know, the Higher Learning Commission has raised serious questions regarding the College’s new admissions standards. The HLC report echoes concerns expressed by members of our community. These concerns persist, as we heard at the March 20, 2013 Board meeting.

Due to these circumstances, Provost Migler and I recommend suspension of the provisions in Admissions and Registration Standard Practice Guide 3501/AA requiring minimum levels on college assessment examinations.

At this time, we believe it would be in the best interests of the College to step back and re-examine how we ensure that our students are appropriately prepared for the rigors of college level work and equipped with the tools necessary to succeed. These goals were the primary motivations for revising the standards and we should take additional steps to make sure we are on the right track.

Prior to making this recommendation, the Provost and I consulted with the Faculty Senate earlier this week. Although the Faculty Senate unanimously supported the change to standards that were made, most Senators understand the wisdom of pausing to further consider this issue at this critical time.

We recommend the suspension remain in effect for the 2013-2014 academic year. This would allow sufficient time for the new Chancellor to get up to speed and weigh in on this important issue. We also feel that the work on the Prep Academy should continue because it provides a valuable service to our students and offers one means of improving student preparation, regardless of the admissions standard.

We are hoping to discuss these recommendations with you at your working session on March 25. In addition, we want to share a number of valuable suggestions from Faculty Senate, including the enforcement of pre-requisites and expanding access to our Student Success classes.

Respectfully, Suzanne & Jerry

Suzanne L. Miles, Ph.D.
Interim Chancellor

This article appears in Mar 21-27, 2013.

5 replies on “PCC’s Miles on Higher Learning Commission Questions”

  1. Miles, her Administrative/Faculty minions, and this complicit BOG must be removed from PCC…COMPLETELY. A criminal investigation needs to be initiated.

    Miles, her Administrative/Faculty minions, and the BOG did not fall out of the sky. In the first instance, they were appointed by a BOG that were elected by the Voters of Pima County.

    Until the Citizens/Voters of Pima County take more of an interest in the PCC BOG elections, and elect individuals with a strong background and commitment to Education, and no questionable connections to the Institution…NOTHING WILL CHANGE!!

    The silence of newly elected BOG Member Sylvia Lee is deafening!

    Has she been co-opted by this complicit BOG?…or…because of her connection with PCC as a former Campus “President” is she simply part of this corrupt PCC System.

    Sylvia Lee needs to contact the Media and make a public statement completely separating herself from this complicit BOG calling for their immediate removal.

  2. Susan, I saved you the trouble and sent the commissions report to the Oregon College you think you merit and a couple of Portland newspapers.

    Respectfully, Bob

  4. I am NOT “against” Sylvia Lee.

    She campaigned against this BOG and was elected. She owns her supports a public statement completely separating herself from this complicit BOG calling for their immediate removal/resignation.

  5. As a recent graduate from PCC (AAS Network Administration) I feel adaquately educated to comment on just what is going on at PCC in regards to prepping students for the real world.My degree is utterly useless,as are a great many of “2 year degrees”. Some of the reason for my degree being useless is not the fault of PCC as it has to do with a glut of “papered people” in the IT business,the employeers want people with Bachelor Degrees.I could go on to Uof A South (the only place any of my credits have value) spend around 45K and end up with a Bachelors degree. PCC has us for a period of time and in this period maximum preparation of the student for the workplace should occour,this did not happen during my time at PCC.PCC is not willing to evaluate and change the course material so that it is both harder and of more value.Every student that leaves the Network Administration program should be CCNA ready (the CCNA is a base level certificate given by CISCO). It is very hard (but not impossible) to pass your CCNA exam from CISCO and still not know what you are doing.It is not a stated goal of PCC to make students “CCNA ready” upon graduation and this is a mistake.A Network Administrator needs this base education (as it is fundemental) to set him (or herself) on the path of their choice within the IT world.Having a strong grasp on the fundementals is one more thing that employeers are asking that applicants have.

Comments are closed.