News, Views and Careers for All of Higher Education
Feb. 23, 2006
Smoothly overhauling the undergraduate curriculum at a university of 50,000 is about as easy as, well, getting a bunch of academics to agree.
In October, the University of Texas at Austin’s Task Force on Curricular Reform issued a report with recommendations that seek to standardize the first-year experience and bring coherence to general education. Faculty members have had time to digest the report, and commenting season is now open. And science and engineering faculty members, have opened fire.
The report calls for a mandatory interdisciplinary course in each of the first two years, and the establishment of University College, a new division that all freshmen would enter before going on to discipline-specific colleges.
Ben G. Streetman, dean of the College of Engineering, said that “it would be disastrous for us if we lost our freshman class.” Streetman said that administrators in the college spend a lot of time recruiting, doing things like hosting dinners for students who have high SAT scores and their parents. Those students, he said, want to go straight into the College of Engineering, not University College, which wouldn’t have its own exclusive set of faculty members.
The task force anticipated Streetman’s concern, and recommended that colleges be allowed to grant “pre-admission,” or reserve a spot in the second year for students who want to enroll in a specific program. But he isn’t sold. Students who look to Texas for engineering “will say, ‘I’ll go somewhere where I can be admitted right away,’” Streetman said. “In a field like engineering, a student has to get started right away. It seems to me the proposal would inevitably add a year to graduation time.”
Students would be able to take some courses toward a science or engineering major, but would have to save room for the “signature course,” large, full-time faculty member taught, interdisciplinary courses with discussion sections. Evan Carton, a Texas English professor and a member of the task force, said that such courses would be a great way to introduce students fresh out of high school, who are used to discipline specific courses, to a higher level of intellectual exploration. Linda Henderson, a Texas art history professor told The Daily Texan that the first-year signature course – “Inquiry Across Disciplines: Nature” – will “wow” freshmen with some of the university’s most esteemed professors.
John Durbin, a Texas math professor and former head of the Faculty Council, said he’s “a little dubious” about the “wow” factor. “Are people who are doing serious research going to teach these courses very often?” he asked. “And the top teachers around … are going to be teaching anyway.”
Durbin said that the emphasis in defining a curriculum shouldn’t be on impressing students or creating a new college – which some faculty members have lamented as just another layer of bureaucracy – but on “what the content of the course should be,” he said. “There are certain things you want students to know, and that’s what the emphasis should be.”
Enough sections of a signature course would have to be created for all freshmen and sophomores, and the content would, according to the report, depend on “the particular interests and expertise of the faculty who design and teach them.” Faculty members from the humanities and sciences would be encouraged to collaborate to design courses.
Some professors raised concerns about how signature courses would be constructed in the University College system. In written comments that the Faculty Council is collecting, two faculty members questioned whether “intelligent design” might sneak into a course where professors are teaching outside of their own disciplines.
“To present such a course and have it be possibly the only ‘scientific’ course that a liberal arts student would be exposed to would be a gross failure,” wrote David Crews, a professor of psychology and zoology. “This is but one scenario under these guidelines. There needs to be some qualification that the collaborating faculty actually represent the disciplines that are being taught.” The task force suggested forming committees of experts to vet courses before they are offered.
Many of the dissenting faculty members’ comments — which back a minority report written by David Hillis, a biology professor and task force member — suggested that time and money would be better spent on more personal advising that would encourage students to explore when they have a chance, and improving teaching in the colleges.
Andrew Carls, who graduated from Texas as a government major in December and is a member of the task force, thinks that answers to many of the concerns will become clear as meetings are held for faculty members in coming weeks. For his part, Carls, who began as a biology major, said he “would have loved to come into the University College to explore.” Carls also said he would have liked the “flags” system, which identifies skill areas and tags departmental courses as qualifying for a particular flag, like “writing.”
Paul Woodruff, a philosophy professor and task force member, acknowledged that some changes might have to be made for majors like engineering. Woodruff, who is also the director of the interdisciplinary Plan II Honors Program which takes about 180 of Texas’ top students each year, was adamant that interdisciplinary classes can be rigorous.
He said a geologist and an engineer are currently talking about developing a sustainability course that can be a signature course pilot for next year. “One of our main goals is to give students ways of looking outside of the boundaries of departments,” Woodruff said. “I wouldn’t expect someone who spent his life teaching basic math courses to grasp” what kind of courses do that, Woodruff added, referring to Durbin, his close friend.
Want it on paper? Print this page.
Know someone who’d be interested? Forward this story.
Want to stay informed? Sign up for free daily news e-mail.
Advertisement
When I hear the word “standardized” I think of the FCAT in Florida. For those of you who are unfamiliar with the FCAT, I will simply say that it serves not to expand the minds of children, but to teach them how to pass a test. Now we see some universities are looking at creating a standardized first year, where all students have the same academic experience. How lame is that idea??? Will American colleges start to look like Florida high schools before too long? I hope not.
Colleges and universities need to come to realize that students have specific interests when they seek their diplomas. Those interests unfortunately do not always carry over to a broad spectrum of disciplines. While this might vex those in ancient languages department, it’s a fact that some students only want to broaden their horizons as they see fit. Because of that, most student majors require that a student take a physical or social science, math, political science, history or economics. In fact, when I obtained my BA, I had taken two arts classes, and a scuba class! You can’t broaden my horizons any more than that.
So what is a university to do to broaden a student’s college experience? Maybe it starts with how the material is presented in the class? Or maybe it’s the subject matter? After all the history of the Latin language class sounds only so good to some students. So common, wake-up and realize that maybe its how the class is presented that is preventing students from getting that well rounded education these schools are looking to provide.
VG, adjunct at APU, at 12:10 pm EST on February 23, 2006
I have recently been associated with a small private university that spent the last two years creating a general education curriculum. For the most part the exercise was inspired by a regional accrediting association – that’s one strike against it to begin with – but the committee charged with the task really got into it. As soon as the GE requirements were in place, I submitted two business school courses for satisfaction of “analytical skills” requirements and they sailed through with flying colors. If I’m not mistaken, one of our courses in business ethics satisfies a requirement that I thought should be addressed by a philosophy course.
In one sense it was pretty damned funny ... and in another, very sad.
Back in the day, I went to a small, church affiliated, liberal arts college that took “general education” very seriously ... although one would have been laughed out of the room if one had used that phrase. I recall that while I was a student there, two faculty groups proposed the introduction of a small number of courses in psychology and accounting into the curriculum. Those proposals inspired a tremendous debate amongst both faculty and students since many thought neither discipline was consistent with the “liberal arts.” As it was, psychology was approved and accounting was not (although that college now has an MBA program and more than a few accounting courses).
At that college, all students – did you hear that, ALL students – were required to take four courses that were team taught [Note: in those days an interdisciplinary course could actually be taught by a single person whose scholarship and intellect were interdisciplinary. Today such courses tend to be taught by a bevy of faculty, some of whom may have only a passing knowledge of what the others are doing. In other words, the courses I took were interdisciplinary because the teachers were interdisciplinary.] Since the college was church-supported, we were required to take Old Testament Survey and Life of Christ. At the time – and even though the professors were terrific – that requirement seemed quite awful. In retrospect, however, it inspired me to spend a lifetime thinking about various components of those courses and ultimately paved the way for my becoming the terminal agnostic I am today.
The other required courses were History of Western Culture and History of Scientific Thought, two truly wonderful courses (HST, for example, was facilitated by a philosopher who pulled things together in a manner that reminds me of Bill Bryson’s “A Short History of Nearly Everything” and individual topics were examined in depth by a parade of mathematicians, physicists, chemists, and biologists.
Of course we were required to take two years of a foreign language, some math, science, history (political science wasn’t invented yet and no one thought to put a word like science after social), literature and writing, etc. ... and you may be certain no one would ever have confused a course in business statistics with mathematics.
So, what’s my point? I guess what I’m suggesting is that I much prefer a well-thought-out core curriculum to a potpourri of general education requirements. With the former it is easy to dictate and oversee a body of knowledge that should be common to anyone who claims to be educated. With even the best of the latter, it’s all hit and miss. When I hear the argument that core curriculum requirements are “distracting,” I wonder, “distracting from what? ... becoming an educated person?”
RWH, at 1:50 pm EST on February 23, 2006
My friend Paul Woodruff has underestimated John Durbin, a devoted math professor, who teaches advanced as well as “basic” math courses. John will know a great freshman level interdisciplinary course when he sees one. Many of us believe such a course has a far greater chance of success at the senior level, when students at least know something about one discipline.
Mel Oakes, at 2:05 pm EST on February 28, 2006
There are enough substantive educational issues in redesigning the core curriculum at a major university, that I think we’d be better without clashes of personality. In In In singling out John Durbin, my esteemed colleague has chosen the worst possible example; John has been through it all, from writing math texts for liberal arts to to to directing our Graduate Studies.
I believe the point about interdisciplinary courses is a serious one: students with weak skills will now have to think critically in two disciplines. It is certainly a daunting task. If it’s decided this is the best education for our entering classes, it will not be easily implemented.
kathy Davis, Distinguished Teaching Professor at UT Austin, at 10:45 am EST on March 1, 2006
Advertisement
or search for jobs directly.
PART-TIME TEMPORARY FACULTY FOR SOCIOLOGY COURSES Central Michigan University seeks qualified part-time temporary instructors ... see job
This posting is on ongoing pool for Oceanography. The department is currently seeking to fill vacancies for the Spring 2008 ... see job
Situated on rolling hillsides in southern Pennsylvania, Cheyney University, established in 1837, the oldest institution of ... see job
School of Medicine Department of Pediatrics Child Development Center Division Position: Assistant Adjunct Professor This ... see job
Job Description: The Director of Title V Project: Accelerated Content-based English (A.C.E.) is responsible for providing the ... see job
General Purpose
Reporting to the Executive Director of Facilities Operations Infrastructure, and with broad ... see job
Join the Pack! A community with nearly 8,000 faculty and staff, and 30,000 students. NC State is one of the largest employers ... see job
The University of Minnesota is a premier employer and a talent magnet attracting leading faculty and staff from around the ... see job
Hillsborough Community College is a public, comprehensive multi-campus, state-supported community college located in the ... see job
Loyola College in Maryland Assistant Professor, Fine Arts, American Kod?ly specialist LOYOLA COLLEGE IN MARYLAND seeks a ... see job
Vacation time for faculty
Efforts to “standardize the first-year experience” of general education at UT-Austin is an on-going enterprise of certain faculty members on that campus.
These are faculty members found primarily in certain Liberal Arts departments, such as the Philosophy Department, who, under rubrics just mentioned along with “giving students ways of looking outside of the boundaries of departments, “ really want only to further enhance their own bailiwick.
Their past efforts to create such “first-year experiences” have been utter failures in giving students much of anything, though they did provide for their own on-campus vacation time. If these faculty members, especially those in the Philosophy Department were really concerned about broadening student learning experience, they would best attend to doing that in their own departments.
AB, at 10:35 am EST on February 23, 2006