What shall we do about the SEBS Core Curriculum Dilemma? The SEBS Core Curriculum includes Social Analysis (SCL) (3 credits), Economic Analysis (ECN) (3 credits) and Governance and Regulation (GVT) (3 credits). The Core Curriculum committee drafted these three explicit requirements and the SEBS faculty ratified them. The committee/faculty also ratified the intent that “a single course may be used to meet multiple goals.” The question before us is whether we should create policy forbidding SEBS students from satisfying SCL requirement by taking an ECN or GVT course (doubling‐up). Our task is to interpret what the core curriculum drafting committee INTENDED as we develop policy over Core Curriculum implementation. Background Review for certification of Core courses was given over to the Rutgers New Brunswick‐wide Core Requirements Committee (CRC). The SEBS Core differs from the SAS Core by having two additional requirements in ECN and GVT. The CRC decided that ECN or GVT will be reviewed and certified as SCL. The implication of this decision is that students from SAS or SEBS can fulfill their SCL requirement by taking an ECN/GVT certified course. So far our academic and advising office has assumed the above policy‐‐ that students will be permitted to double‐up required credits by having an ECN/GVT course count also for SCL. However, some SEBS faculty have argued that: 1. The ECN/GVT SCL double‐up has undermined the intent of the Core Curriculum drafting committee. 2. The SCL requirement affirms SEBS historic commitment to multicultural elements, politics, and economics, which were always three independent requirements. 3. The double‐up weakens the attractiveness of our SCL certified courses to SEBS students. 4. The decision was made by the CRC without faculty approval‐ essentially changing the Core Curriculum without due process. On the other side of the argument: 1. The Core Curriculum drafting committee fully intended that certain courses could fulfill more than one requirement (so no change was made to the Core). 2. If we forbid double‐up for ECN/GVT and SCL it will constitute a change to the Core curriculum and will require faculty approval. Moreover, it is doubtful whether we can do so selectively for ECN/GVT‐SCL. To be consistent, we must forbid all use of one course for multiple Core goals‐‐‐ shouldn’t we? 3. The incoming class of students are now being advised and all of the instructional material describes that: “a single course may be used to meet multiple goals.” We need to make a decision quickly if we are to change policy. We risk confusion if we are not decisive. 4. SEBS students already must take 9 credits of combined SCL/ECN/GVT requirements, whereas SAS students are required to take only 3 SCL credits. The bottom line is that SEBS students must take 6 more required credits than SAS students. 5. SEBS majors are generally requirement‐intense. Will we really attract more students by adding more requirements? 6. If we forgo CRC management of Core courses, we will need to establish a SEBS committee to certify our ECN/GVT courses specifically for our students. Do we have the time and resources for such work? Is the effort worth it when our independent ECN/GVT certification would impact only SEBS students?