Being a new professor here in the University System of Georgia, I only have one suggestion that I believe would strengthen the core curriculum of classes. USG supports student success courses, a health course, and 2 physical education courses. I would recommend that we also require one course in personal finance or consumer economics. Among other things, there is a big need especially for first year students to get an understanding about credit, financial planning, budgeting, taxation, and insurance planning. These are essential life skills that they need, and if they don’t obtain the knowledge in college then they will typically learn it the hard way. We all know that there are many adults who don’t have a full understanding about retirement, 401ks, or insurance. I believe this will strengthen the entire student body, because it will balance out their knowledge of personal health as well as financial health in the “long-run”.
Brian W. Schwartz November 5, 2008 at 6:24pm
An obvious administrative weakness of the current core curriculum is that it has not been adequately assessed. As far as I know, there never was a plan for assessment. Indeed, it would be hard or maybe not possible to assess some of the current outcomes.
Another weakness is that the learning outcomes are not tied to specific areas of the core. The outcomes expected of courses in each area need to be defined so that we can ensure that every student completing the core has encountered every learning outcome.
A new core curriculum should define clearly which outcomes will be addressed by courses in each area, and there should be an assessment plan.
Tom November 5, 2008 at 10:31pm
1. There are common courses that are 3000 level at universities/4 year colleges and 2000 level at community colleges. It’s the same course with the same text. Students can’t transfer classes like this simply because of the number selection (and the common case I’m thinking of costs cc transfer students 8 contact hours).
2. If a specific class (1000, 2000) is required for a common major at USG institutions, it should be offered at many of the 4 year programs or be dropped. I’ve seen classes offered/required at the frosh/soph levels that are based on the whim of 1 or 2 faculty - while no other school in the USG offers the same required class. This not only impacts transfers but raises questions about the validity of the class.
3. I realize this may fall more to SAACS than USG core policies but labs in the sciences for 1000 and 2000 level classes (science requirement) should have more flexibility in who teaches them. R1 schools use recent BS students (in 1st year of grad school) to teach courses like chemistry and biology labs. This is all that is needed - as schools like GT and UGa demonstrate. Putting a full professor in a freshmen lab is a poor use of resources - and there is no real evidence that the professor out-performs the grad student in that scenario. There is proof that it costs more in salaries and negatively impacts staffing of upper level courses. Imagine the boost to science education in middle schools and high schools in Georgia if all MS Science Education candidates had to teach 3 college level labs per semester for 2 semesters - they’d learn a tremendous amount and draw a salary (18-20K/yr?). Imagine the overall savings to universities! There is something to be said to having young, fresh faces around on a regular basis (I’m an old guy saying this).
Hope this helps some - Warmest regards!
Tom November 5, 2008 at 10:46pm
Here is a controversial suggestion: Do away with athletics at all colleges and universities that are not *completely* self supporting. These sports impact a low number of students and draw tremendous resources, from $$ to space to faculty positions, away from academic activities.
How does this impact the core? Require all students to play a fitness oriented intramural sport for at least 4 semesters, be a ref for at least one semester, and help with logistics for at least one semester. Sports like cross-country, track, 3 on 3 BB, softball, swimming and flag football would be the focus and others, from bowling to mountain biking, considered. Determine a champion every semester at each school (3 week preseason, 6 week season, than playoffs) and have the champions from around the state meet for a “state champion” tournament. This would do FAR more to promote lifetime fitness, improve retention, teach teamwork, raise school spirit, etc than most athletic teams do on campuses. These intramural experiences would count as a 1 credit core class and students could switch sports and teams every semester.
This extensive program would do more to promote the positive attributes college grads need (fitness and energy level, teamwork, dealing with pressure, etc) that can’t always be taught in a classroom. Want to see the number of kids staying on campus over weekends dramatically increase - really increase the size and visibility of intramural sports (note - there could be A,B,C level leagues for different abilities).
P.S. The athletics one is my pet peeve - I see kids in grammar schools taking 1 gym class a week and that anti-PE mindset works its way up the line. In Georgia diabetes is an epidemic (15% of adult population has it) and the easiest solution to that disease (and many others) - activity - isn’t promoted across the board on college campuses.
Therese November 6, 2008 at 11:57am
I’m in Biology at Georgia State and we do exclusively use graduate TAs to teach all of our labs. While its true that there is a faculty member’s name as the instructor of record, they do not teach the labs. I’m not sure how the other science departments do their labs though.
Roger Marietta November 11, 2008 at 3:15pm
I think one of the USG’s greatest strengths are the Constitutional requirements in History and Political Science. Many of our students are not prepared to be good citizens and need this emphasis.
Kathryn Kemp November 11, 2008 at 7:21pm
Many of these comments have strayed away from the topic of the core curriculum that is required of all students. As a faculty member who provides academic advisement to students, I find that the core as it stands is generally satisfactory, providing general education to all students. The one problem that I wonder about is that all USG institutions do not have identical organization, particularly in the area of humanities and social sciences. A history course, for example, may fall in the social sciences area at one institution and be classified as part of humanities in another. How is this managed?
Tim Woltering November 12, 2008 at 10:13am
An administrative strength of the current core is the ease of transferability of core classes within the USG system. The current structure allows all students, including those at USG junior and state colleges, to make progress toward their intended bachelor’s degrees without potentially losing credits. This waste of time, money and effort as seen by the students can sometimes discourage them from continuing their education.
The current core allows institutions some flexibility in Area B-Institutional Options. The common threads running through other areas of the core help maintain consistency across system institutions.
Joe Thomas November 13, 2008 at 5:34pm
At Kennesaw the Core is often interpreted as everyone taking the exact same classes. So in Arts and Humanities, everyone has to have World Lit. Period. Some of the other areas have just a very limited number of courses available. And specific course in US History and Government are required for all. I don’t know why it has been interpreted this way, since the System guidelines just have subject areas.
In my opinion, the only specific courses required for all should be Comp and Math. Everything else should be on a menu with many available courses. That way, students who are more advanced are not blocked from taking more challenging material.
The problem is that departments can get territorial about these courses and perceive attempts to create flexibility as removing their “authority.” Change needs to come from the system level to be successful.
PS—way too much social science. How come it’s considered so much more important than everything else?
PPS—has anyone considered handling any of these requirements via flags rather than course credits?
Hugh Hudson November 18, 2008 at 10:04am
For students, the Common Core has been one of the most important aspects of attending the University System of Georgia. Unlike many state “systems,” students in Georgia have been assured that upon completion of the Core at any of our institutions, they could readily transfer those credits to another institution in the System and progress to their major and graduation. There are clearly those who, for the perceived interests of their own institution or perhaps merely their own program, would prefer to end the Common Core. Although an argument might be made for how this would benefit their unit, the fact remains that this would be a huge loss to those tens of thousands of students in the System who transfer. This question raises the fundamental issue—for whom the University System of Georgia? If we are interested solely in what benefits our individual units, then we have no System and we certainly should have no Common Core. Students can fend for themselves, and if it takes an extra year for them to graduate, so be it. I, however, believe that such shortsightedness has no place in our System.
Allen Fromherz November 18, 2008 at 2:00pm
I concur with the comments by Hugh Hudson. I have brought up the topic of Core Curriculum in class and have noted clear, supermajorities of students in favor of the system and the freedom to transfer between institutions. In particular, several students mentioned the great benefits of the core during the current financial crisis. Being able to transfer from one institution to another where jobs are available in the community where that institution is located is ESSENTIAL for students who are currently facing severe financial problems. Students should not be forced to choose between employment and study. They would be forced to make this decision, however, if the Core Curriculum is not kept in place. Forcing a catch 22 choice on students (a choice between work and getting a degree) would rightly lead to public outcries and dissent, leading to less popular support for the public university system as a whole. Remember that it is not simply students in the traditional age categories who vote on bonds and other issues relevant to the University System in general. Many high-quality, non-traditional students, who form a backbone of the system and who take advantage of the core standardization to provide flexibility and movement, would be put at a great disadvantage without a strong and rigorous core.
Roger Marietta November 19, 2008 at 11:00am
It surprises me that professors want to do away with the classic liberal arts portion of the core that has served our higher education system so well. The students who exit the college preparatory curriculum are unprepared to be good citizens - there is a lack of knowledge of Georgia and American Government - this has been documented through testing. I support the Georgia General Assembly’s legislative requirement to teach Georgia History and Georgia Government in Political Science and history courses.
Don Butts November 19, 2008 at 11:05am
I also agree with Hugh. If we are to be a system that serves the needs of its students we need to have a common core that makes transfer as easy as possible. Given the level of preparedness of many of our students, the core must also be as straightforward as possible. I deal with many first generation college students who are already baffled by the simple core we have in place.
Thomas Cooksey November 19, 2008 at 11:26am
I’m concerned that neither our current core nor proposals for revision include anything about foreign langauges. If we are serious about our claims for globalism then some background in a foreign langauge is essential. It is also important for the comprehension of English.
Tom Manning November 19, 2008 at 11:52am
In terms of comments focused on history and political science and other areas of liberal arts and social sciences- don’t most/all students graduating from Georgia high schools already take classes on US History and the US political system? Our students can finish a core and know nothing about China, India, Russia, Brazil, etc in terms of culture, economics, history, technology. Even when they study the UK, France, Japan, etc - it is in relation to US history. Likewise - students can take a science class (my area) and do some problem solving work - but learn nothing about modern topics in science.
When you look at globalization and the world our students will enter, how many of them can answer the following five questions:
1. What is the capital of India?
2. What is a stem cell?
3. What energy area is Brazil investing in?
4. What is a Hedge fund?
5. Who is Carlos Slim and how did NAFTA impact him? and you?
I raise these issues because I see students reading Faulkner, studying the Civil War for the 3rd or 4th time in their academic careers, memorizing the Krebs cycle, and taking several years of foreign language (between HS and core) and not coming close to being able to speak it.
I’d like to suggest our students take five classes in the CORE (with sample topics):
1. Current issues in Science and Technology
(learn about stem cells, nanotechnology, satellites, etc.) – not a calculation/problem solving class – but – what is the rest of the world doing and why!
2. Current issues in Foreign Economic Development Policies. (How does China’s government manage their economy? Do India and NATO countries trade? How is Brazil using ethanol for energy?)
3. Current issues in Health Care Practices and Care. (Why is Cuba’s life expectancy higher than Georgia’s? What does socialized medicine mean? The diabetes epidemic in Georgia – where is it?)
4. Current issues in US Foreign Relations
(Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, Oil from Canada, Immigrants from Mexico, etc.)
5. The US Economy (How do Auto Unions impact our economy? What is a Hedge Fund? How does the stock market work?, etc)
Also, as mentioned in a previous posting (Tom), take a PE class(s). The recommended content along with citations can be determined by a summer meeting of faculty leaders from around the state. With electronics, it wouldn’t be hard to put together an annual text/outline and distribute it. Looking at my university, I think a course in a large auditorium (200-300 students) on one of these topics would stimulate more people than a small class reading Shakespeare.
I realize this is a wish list – but – is our CORE prepping students for the world they will compete in?
Ray Whiting November 19, 2008 at 12:13pm
While I generally support the idea of a flexible core I think some courses must be required. Basic English, Math and Government courses are a must. So many of our students come with little to no understanding of these areas. Any core that did not require at least two English, one Math and American Government would be a disaster. These are the basic foundations for a competent and educated citizen and the core must reflect the essential nature of these courses. Beyond that, the core should have a structure that encourages students to take a variety of courses. College is not high school. Our students must be exposed to areas they know nothing about.
Harold Cline November 19, 2008 at 1:22pm
One area where both the present K-12 curriculum and USG core fail miserably is in personal finance and consumer economics. An emphasis on this subject area will significantly raise the standard of living and the personal wealth of our graduates. A knowledge and understanding of how to obtain the best terms on a home mortgage and the lowest price on a new automobile, of what to do with 457, 403 and 401 plans, or how to invest in stocks and mutual funds will do more to enhance the economic prosperity of our graduates and all Georgians in the long run than any other body of knowledge.
Teresa Hutchins November 19, 2008 at 3:16pm
I think that the Core, in general, provides a broad-based education for the students in the University System of Georgia. I do feel, as Mr. Whiting does, that some courses are an absolute must. Courses like English, Math, and American Government are a good place to start.
Now, I may be biased because I teach American Government, but it is a course that is necessary in order to make sure that our students understand how government and its policies can affect their lives. It is also important that our students understand how they can participate in the political process to bring about change in those government policies. It is true, as Mr. Manning states, that our students take American Government in high school. I have discovered, however, that these students gain very little knowledge out of their high school American Government classes. Most of my students indicate that their high school Government class was taught by the high school football coach and they learned very little, if anything.
We need to stick with a broad-based Core that will offer students the opportunity to get a “taste” of different disciplines while allowing them to concentrate on their area of expertise. This is one of the strongest points to the current system. If we want to increase how many disciplines a student “tastes”, perhaps we should think about increasing the number of courses required to fill each area. Perhaps it is just my view, but it does feel like we are trying to re-invent the wheel.
Also, as someone that has experienced public higher education systems in two states, Georgia students should consider themselves lucky that it is so easy to transfer between schools within the University System. This is a luxury that is not granted college students in other states. I know, on a personal level, the difficulties that arise when trying to transfer between institutions that are part of the same system. The way that the Core is currently designed allows our students this flexibility. It is also, in my view, what makes the University System of Georgia unique.
Kathleen Comerford November 19, 2008 at 3:43pm
Tom Manning asked:
“In terms of comments focused on history and political science and other areas of liberal arts and social sciences- don’t most/all students graduating from Georgia high schools already take classes on US History and the US political system? Our students can finish a core and know nothing about China, India, Russia, Brazil, etc in terms of culture, economics, history, technology. Even when they study the UK, France, Japan, etc - it is in relation to US history.”
The core history courses include a World History course. If this is taught in relation to US history, it’s not the fault of the core, but of the faculty member teaching the course. However, I strongly suspect that this is not the case anywhere in the system. Your statement that nothing is taught except in relation to US history is baseless.
GA high school students do indeed study history. They also study math, literature, and science; let’s not isolate one discipline. To suggest that they need not repeat any of these would be foolish; the content and methods are very different. If not, why are we teaching anything at all? Simply for the purposes of specialization?
Back to the larger issue, though: has anyone done a comparison between the core curriculum in Georgia and in other states? If so, what did this comparison show? If not, why not?
George Rainbolt November 19, 2008 at 3:46pm
The core curriculum of several other states can be found on this web site. On the menu bar above, click on “Documents” and then “State Docs.”
Fred Cohen November 19, 2008 at 4:56pm
I think consideration for decreasing the number of requirements in the core—however it is eventually defined—-should be given for professional degrees, such as Bachelor of Music or Bachelor of Fine Arts. These degrees should be in compliance with national accrediting standards, but there is no need for a single, one-size-fits-all core requirement for all undergraduate degrees. Our current approach puts everyone in the System at a disadvantage when students compare our programs with those of private or other state systems. Additionally, unless the core subjects are more coherently organized and linked, the “buffet-style” array of choices—most of which have no direct link with the educational vector in the professional degree programs—serve as an educational disincentive for self-selected and -motivated students in the professional degree programs.
Herbert Chandler Haamond November 20, 2008 at 1:24pm
The ideal of a liberal arts education that such an education enables student to a higher standard of understanding the world in which they live and to apprciate their responsibility to contribute to society is under constant attack. Education as simply technical training for economic gain is ever more dominant. The later is the prime motive of the vast majority of my students. Were critical thinking no longer a requirement students would voluntairily choose ignorance. As watered down as such critical concepts as the common fallacies are in high school programs the university would be guilty of gross negligence if the requirement was not maintained.
Peter Swanson November 21, 2008 at 11:04am
I agree with Thomas Cooksey’s comment about foreign language learning. If we are to truly speak about globalization and internationalization of the curriculum, the inclusion of foreign language is necessary. Foreign language study is part of the National Education Goals 2000 and is arguably one of the most important skills an individual in the 21st Century can have. The literature is replete with quality studies documenting the cognitive and academic benefits of foreign language learning. At a time when it appears cultural understanding is critical, one must remember that language learning is cultural learning.
Tim Crimmins November 22, 2008 at 3:10am
The strength of the current core is that it provides a framework for most of the system institutions to offer course selections for their students that will serve them in programs at their institution or as transfer students in other system colleges or universities. The problem with tinkering with the distribution requirements of the core is that this will require a great deal of faculty time and energy at the institutional level to implement the change. This should be done only if there is a compelling reason to make a change. I see nothing that suggests the need for a change in the system core distribution requirements.
David Sehat December 1, 2008 at 11:53am
The main strength of the current core is the ease with which students can transfer within the system. It does this in part by utilizing a two year curriculum that can integrate two-year colleges in the system with their four-year counterparts. The community college system, coupled with easy transfer into a four-year university, is essential to continuing to raise the enrollment percentage among college-aged students. The other good thing about the core is that it maintains the USG system as a system, rather than just a confederation of loosely affiliated universities vying for resources. If the goal is to raise the educational participation of the college-aged population in GA in order to lay the groundwork for an educated workforce for the 21st century, then a two-year core seems pretty essential to the system acting as a system to accomplish that end. The current core might need some tweaking to allow greater flexibility, but it seems to me that its current size (~60 credit hours) is a big strength in integrating two and four-year institutions, which benefits the students by creating a comprehensive educational system for the state of Georgia.
Jared Poley December 1, 2008 at 12:13pm
I would like to add my voice in support of a common core. I think transparency of requirements and transferability of credits are two key virtues of the system as it exists (or did until very recently) and any improvements or changes to the core must maintain these components. A core curriculum links the institutions together into a system – as students take courses at two-year institutions they may move that education with them to four-year institutions. It is unconscionable that students could be penalized both in time and tuition simply because their credits could not transfer easily from one institution to another. Having a system that acts as a system would seem to be an obvious “administrative strength.” As for the intellectual validity of the core, a wide-ranging education that covers not just the trivium but also the quadrivium has worked well for more than a thousand years. Learning about other disciplines of a more recent vintage – say things like history, politics, and natural science – has been producing well-rounded citizens for the past half-millennium. And since nothing succeeds like success, I would be hesitant to modify our core too much; after all, the basis of the core is to be found in these well-established systems of education.
Kristina Watkins Mormino December 1, 2008 at 5:13pm
What is the purpose of a university education? What is the purpose of a liberal arts education? I’ve seen too many comments that suppose the USG exists primarily to address obstacles that prevent Georgians from being healthy, wealthy, and well informed. It seems to me that this is a radical revision of the purpose of higher education. We are not Richard Simmons, Clark Howard, or Katie Couric.
Of course, we do want our graduates to be healthy, wealthy, and well informed. The core can address these goals. But the core has also been a vehicle to demonstrate that USG students are receiving liberal arts educations. again I ask, what is the purpose of a liberal arts education? Is the core insuring that all students in all majors and all institutions get a true liberal arts education?
Joe Thomas December 2, 2008 at 12:21pm
Transferability: the current core (at least at Kennesaw) is a DISASTER for transferability because it requires specific courses in so many areas. Comp, Math, and Government, I can see. Maybe health. But not World Lit and American History. Let students take what they want. If it’s an area requirement instead of a course requirement, there’s more flexibility. And it’s not just within Georgia that students are transferring, after all. Let’s be a little less insular in our focus. Don’t we want to be competitive nationally?
I need some definitions. In other places I’ve worked, “Core” referred to a group of specific courses that all students took in common. Usually it was English Comp, basic math, government, maybe a freshman seminar. Sometimes it was more extensive. What we seem to be dealing with here is actually “General Education” or something like that. It’s the distribution of skills and knowledge courses in arts and sciences that make up a traditional liberal arts education. It can be met many different ways.
But at least at KSU, “general education” has included a “core” of about about 8-10 specific required courses. This is what I think needs to be looked at. Is it the same way elsewhere? Is everyone requiring World Lit of every student all over Georgia?
Kimberly Shaw December 2, 2008 at 12:35pm
I feel that it is important for our students to see the benefits of a liberal arts education, but question whether we can’t find more effective ways of delivering this. My prioritized list for USG graduates does involve having our students understand government. I also feel that our students should graduate with a better understanding of personal finance and our country’s economic system, better critical thinking skills than they currently have, and we must be graduating scientifically literate students if we want our economy to continue to compete. To me, this means that we need to have our students touch on natural science, mathematics, business/economics, communications/freshman composition, and perhaps civics. A humanities or fine arts course would add some rounding out, as would a course on global issues.
Robin Huff December 8, 2008 at 11:42am
The current core has suffered significant losses during the conversion to semester system. In my field, for example, the foreign language requirement was reduced from 4 quarters to 2 semesters for many majors. Then the complaints came that students weren’t learning the language and should perhaps go abroad. We support this idea, of course, but in the context of stateside training to ensure a successful experience. The rich variety in our GSU overseas programs and international exchanges attest to this commitment. With our university’s emphasis on globalization, a new major in International Economics and Modern Languages and a pioneering Master’s in International Business, the core would be enriched by a return to a more pedagogically sound four semester requirement.
Jesse G. Christiansen December 9, 2008 at 2:18pm
I would like to speak to a strength of the current core curriculum (Area C) that I believe is neglected in the comments above, and, may be neglected by many assessments of the core curriculum in general.
Several comments above refer to English Comp, Math, and Government as core courses that “must” remain. What about Critical Thinking?! The ability to write clearly, perform at least basic computations, and understand the fundamentals of government pose obvious value to a student’s academic and professional careers, but what good are they without the ability to organize and present his or her thoughts accurately and effectively?
I have always found it tragically appauling how underestimated and overlooked basic reasoning skills are, especially when they underlie almost every discipline a student will ever encounter. One of the greatest advantages I see to the core curriculum as it stands now is that it may be the last bastion of defense for a course such as Critical Thinking. Whatever changes are made to enhance the core curriculum, I beseech decision makers to protect students from perhaps the greatest error of reasoning we, as educationalists, could ever committ: failing to continue to make Critical Thinking at least a choice on the core curriculum. I believe this same argument can be extended to other basic philosophy courses, such as Intro to Philosophy and Ethics.
Meg Pearson December 10, 2008 at 4:28pm
I appreciate all these comments, particularly Tom Manning’s wish list. I am the one stimulating that small Shakespeare seminar on my campus, but I love the idea of a CORE that can contain large and dynamic lectures on topics like “contemporary issues in science” in addition to smaller classes that teach oral and written communication in a rigorous manner. I’m good at my job, but even I can’t make 250 students good readers and writers from a podium! Those skills must not slip through the cracks any more than they already have.
It seems so obvious that the CORE should be common across USG campuses, and yet I teach at UWG, where there is *no* literature requirement for CORE. Apart from producing illiterate Georgians, the current system too often undermines the progress of students between schools.
Rob Page December 11, 2008 at 2:36pm
I agree with Hugh Hudson and others of like mind in the threads that the Core represents the fundamental elements of a true liberal arts education. Core classes are those in which we teach not only a broad base of knowledge; but, perhaps more importantly, the broad skills of critical thinking, information competency, effective and thoughtful reading and writing, etc. These are the foundation upon which our students will build, not only as they progress through upper level classes, but as they move forward into the rest of their lives as citizens, workers, and neighbors.
Students come into our system with varying levels of content mastery and analytical skills. This is particularly true for those entering two-year institutions. The argument for the reduced Core fails to fully recognize and accommodate these varied “tiers” of students. As things stand, students who have a higher level of knowledge and ability can receive credit for Core courses or test out, in some cases, using instruments such as the SAT, CLEP, IB, and so forth. This ensures that while the students who need it will receive the benefits of the full Core, those who are more advanced can move forward. This seems to be a logical and rational set up that works for everyone.
One of the current great strengths of the USG Core Curriculum is the ability of students to transfer relatively seamlessly from one institution to another. It is important that we keep that characteristic if, as Hudson points out, our goal is to be a truly integrated “system,” and not simply a rag tag assemblage of institutions.
On a related note, an attitude that I think needs to be addressed from the two-year school perspective, and the system as whole, is represented by one contributor who made the statement in the “Transfer” thread that, “although core courses in Science and Math may have the same topics covered, they are by no means the same in terms of rigor,” referring to the discrepancy he perceives between the quality of education at Georgia Tech and two-year schools in the USG. The statement comes from a limited perspective, and one that does not address the function of a core curriculum. Ideally, a Core class taught at GT should cover the same material and produce the same outcomes as the same Core class taught at a two-year school; meaning, there should be no significant difference in what it takes to pass the course at either institution. Conrad fails to mention variables that might contribute to a student passing (he uses the term “breeze through”) a course in the two year setting when he/she was unable to succeed in the same course at Tech, such as: being taught by an instructor who holds an advanced degree and has years of teaching experience rather than GTAs in a number of cases, smaller class sizes leading to greater individual attention, and in the case of summer school, more intense, focused classes when the student typically has a lighter course load, and can focus his/her energies on the course. That said, I’ll concede that different levels of rigor for the same class probably do exist in the USG; but, this is a structural problem that can be addressed by establishing system-wide standards through our academic advisory committees for outcomes specific to each course, standardized testing, and the like.
Where individuals get sidetracked, I believe, is in their conception of the subjects taught within their disciplines in the Core. They fail to see that the Core represents a program of study, not a major. Its larger intent is to provide those broad skills mentioned at the outset of this message.
I also noted that some bloggers assailed Area E as being too big in relation to others. Some courses were mentioned as expendable, based on the assumption that students have learned in high school the same material they would learn in, say, a Core History course in college. It is simply not true. Many students come into USG Core courses content deficient, despite having taken similar courses in a particular subject matter in high school. In most cases, if they have acquired any knowledge, it is in a majority of cases, the absolute fundamentals. Hopefully, we can build on this very basic foundation to discharge our role in shaping good citizens and neighbors by adding to that foundation higher level analytical skills. For example, if you address the current Area E, it becomes clear why it is critical to focus on higher-level basics. As citizens, our students need to understand from a critical perspective our government and its functions (American Government). One cannot become a thinking, active citizen in a republic without understanding key issues from an analytical perspective , and the social, economic, and political background of who we are as a nation (US History). To understand and participate in the current discussions on multiculturalism and globalization, it’s necessary to understand where the United States stands in a global context; to understand the rest of the world from the perspectives of different nations and cultures; and how those societies and cultures have interacted with others, and the outcomes of those interactions (World and Western Civilizations). And what about learning to understand how society functions; or how the individual functions; or the critical place of economics in the modern world; or the role of religion, ethics, or logical systems of thinking in shaping the world? My question in all of this is: Exactly where is the “fat” in Area E? That question, “Where is the fat?” extends, obviously, beyond my bailiwick and into all the areas of the Core. I’m quite sure that my colleagues in other areas of expertise could make similar arguments for the courses that fall under their purview.
I realize that much of this response has turned into a defense of the current core. I am not against possible restructuring, but I think we need to be careful of sacrificing the strong basis of a liberal arts education in favor of particular programs. I believe that if we are going to address the system-level outcomes in any sort of systematic way, then the structure of the Core needs to be reflective of a logical progression towards the expressed USG outcomes for the Core (which, by the way, I am in agreement with those in the blogs that say it should have far fewer outcomes. See: http://www.usg.edu/academics/programs/core_curriculum/outcomes.phtml). I would actually be more in favor of a progressive structure that focuses on outcome acquisition, with built-in assessments of skill attainment, such as capstone courses or tests that would reflect that achievement. Right now, students can take any courses in any order throughout the Core (prerequisites excluded of course), with no logical sense of achieving the higher outcome that transcends the content focus of the individual courses. If we want to have a Core that truly meets those outcomes, then it needs to be structured in such a manner where components of those larger skills are built upon in individual courses, and the established outcomes made much more explicitly apparent through the coursework, the assessments, and the program of study that is the Core. The Core needs to provide a launching point for students into their majors as well-rounded students, prepared to take the skills acquired in a Liberal Arts Core into their specific fields, and their lives.
William C. Bogner December 15, 2008 at 9:28am
The Undergraduate Program Council of the J. Mack Robinson College of Business (Council) would like to make the following comments with respect to the issues that the USG Core Evaluation Committee (Committee) was asked to consider for their report to Susan Herbst, Executive Vice Chancellor and Chief Academic Officer of the University System of Georgia. The undergraduate Core is of particular interest to the Robinson College due to the large number of transfer students that enter the College each semester. Further, the Council has worked extensively with two-year institutions that matriculate a large number of students to the Robinson Collage to assure that uniform content and standards exist for Area F courses. The Council, therefore, would like to add those comments to those already posted here for consideration by the Committee.
With respect to the request for “Current Core” comments, the Council supports the current core as an important part of creating an integrated education system in the State of Georgia and doing so in a way that both optimizes the student learning experience and does so in an efficient manner. The Council sees this as a question of whether a Core should exist at all for the University System and we address the issues of the size and content of the Core in the next paragraph below. In that light the Council thinks that the discontinuation of the current Core would deprive students of essential elements in a well-educated citizen. The breadth of knowledge captured by the areas of the current Core are seen by the Council as critical to the intellectual fitness of our graduates. The uniformity of the Core across institutions allows students to obtain their academic credits in a manner that is most efficient for them and facilitates easy transfer among institutions for both the student and the transferring institution. All of these are important benefits that would be lost if the standardized Core was discontinued.
Thank you for consideration of these comments; additional comments are included in the other sections of this blog.
Laurel Robinson December 18, 2008 at 1:14pm
It was interesting, and perhaps a bit disheartening, to read virtually nothing of substance concerning the value of the Arts in our core in the majority of comments by colleagues above.One might contemplate the notion that great civilizations are more often known by the art they produced (visual, literary, musical, theatric etc) than by the merchants that helped fund them! A recent study has actually shown that students who had regular exposure to museums and analytic tools to look at visual arts scored far better on critical thinking skills than those who had not.
Our required appreciation courses are also a necessary part of the core curriculum to assure additional depth and at least a beginning to cultural/historical/artistic literacy. Perhaps even better would be integrated history courses that included all of the arts in their historical moments whether Western or Non-Western.
After 30 years in the system (and clearly in the visual arts), I support maintaining a common core curriculum that is periodically reviewed and assessed for remaining current and relevant. I just felt compelled to remind everyone of the importance of the arts.
Dan Ross January 2, 2009 at 3:56pm
I agree with others on the importance of a common core. I do think, however, that we need to ask hard questions about whether our core speaks to the needs of students today. It does seem to me that traditional disciplines could adapt some courses to give students a more global perspective. To take my own discipline, English, as an example, I would favor adapting the second composition course to allow for a focus on writing about global issues. Similarly, courses in the fine arts (Art Appreciation, Music Appreciation, and so on) should not be limited to Western or European perspectives. Anyone who has traveled abroad realizes that our students lag too far behind many others in their understanding of a world that exists outside our borders. I see ways to make the core more global without destroying the traditional emphasis on the liberal arts.
Dana January 12, 2009 at 2:04pm
With the push for globalization, it seems to me the Foreign Language requirements should be strengthened. We are lagging behind other countries in this area as it is, and it will only get worse unless USG students are required to demonstrate proficiency in a foreign language at the undergraduate level.
Monica January 12, 2009 at 3:42pm
Tom Manning raises some very important points, and generally, I agree with needing some kind of course to better prepare our students to deal with global realities, questions and controversies. I would never sacrifice any of the current elements of the core for it. I advocate a rigorous core, one built and taught by faculty committed to inclusion of students who may be first-generation college students, but that still maintains high standards of academic progress and success. These courses are necessary, but they must not be dumbed down to provide accessibility. The whole core fails if we don’t maintain those standards.
As an English professor, however, I suggest to Tom Manning, that the Humanities has historically provided a platform for discourse in the history of varying places, cultures, languages and conflicts and the Western world’s reaction to (and place within)them. Careful of getting rid of Shakespeare too early. Much of our discussion of global life has come from those who entered the discussion through art and literature. I would like to see a space, though, where the discussion of our world is accessible through our current core without fears of academic freedom infractions.
Harriet Jardine January 14, 2009 at 4:53pm
My main frustration with the current core comes in Area F. I am in Psychology and while I am supportive of the current breadth focus, I get a lot of student complaints about not being able to take more psych courses in “their major”.
Also from the perspective of advising, especially transfer students, I frequently find that I need to use “Liberal Studies” as a hotch potch major so students can finish. This is hardly ideal pedagogy.
Margee Bright Ragland January 30, 2009 at 6:29pm
I agree with Laurel’s comments about the importance of the Fine Arts to our society and to the core curriculum. Our earliest records of human activity are represented in painting, sculpture and architecture. The arts inform all the learning outcomes we hope to instill in our students. Art, Music and Theatre should remain a vital part of our core curriculum.
Therese February 9, 2009 at 3:36pm
I used to teach the nonmajors biology class and I noticed that most of the nonmajors had a better global perspective on problems than biology majors. So even though our majors were taking core classes, it appears that the types of skills I would like to see, were not as developed as I would expect.
I like the idea of focusing on skills for the core, rather than specific content.
But this raises the problem of specifying specific skills for different courses (or all skills in all courses). And it would likely make transferring credits extremely difficult.
DONNA KAY SLEDGE March 24, 2009 at 2:48pm
It is my belief that education is leaving out the individual learner. We teach job skills and information needed for careers, some where in the mix we as educator need to teach individuals how to live. In our country, we have 66% of our population are overweight. 40% of adults in America are physically inactive (CDC-center of disease control). We have decreased the number of Physical education activity courses in middle school and high school and now we dont even list physical activities as required as a part of higher learning.
I can not help but wonder have we missed value of the individual learner and the longevity of their life. When we fail to include courses which enhance and elongate the lives of those instructed.
The center for Disease Control and Prevention 2005 and journal of the american Medical Association 29(3):293-294.Mokdad,A.H. et al2004. Actual causes of death in the United States 200.Journal of the American Medical Association 291(10):1238-1245. Rank 1st Tobacco related 440,000 deaths per year and then 2nd Obesity related 112,000 death. There was a note to this research which presented a controversy, were the ranges 112,000 death or were they 365,000 death associated with obesity. For me either is to high.
it is my hope for Physical Activity to be a part of all studies at the college level. I believe the individual has to be healthy to have a higher quality of life.
Most individuals do not learn how to take care of their health, wellness and Physical activity from their work invironment, should we not instruct them before they get to the work place.
Donna Kay Sledge March 25, 2009 at 8:42am
DONNA KAY SLEDGE
March 24, 2009 at 1:48pm
It is my belief that education is leaving out the individual learner. We teach job skills and information needed for careers, somewhere in the mix we as educator need to teach individuals how to live. In our country, we have 66% of our population are overweight. 40% of adults in America are physically inactive (CDC-center of disease control). We have decreased the number of Physical education activity courses in middle school and high school and now we don’t even list physical activities as required as a part of higher learning.
I cannot help but wonder have we missed value of the individual learner and the longevity of their life. When we fail to include courses which enhance and elongate the lives of those instructed.
The center for Disease Control and Prevention 2005 and journal of the American Medical Association 29(3):293-294.Mokdad, A.H. ET al2004. Actual causes of death in the United States 200.Journal of the American Medical Association 291(10):1238-1245. Rank 1st Tobacco related 440,000 deaths per year and then 2nd Obesity related 112,000 deaths. There was a note to this research which presented a controversy, were the ranges 112,000 death or were they 365,000 death associated with obesity. For me either is too high.
It is my hope for Physical Activity to be a part of all studies at the college level. I believe the individual has to be healthy to have a higher quality of life.
Most individuals do not learn how to take care of their health, wellness and Physical activity from their work environment, should we not instruct them before they get to the work place.
DONNA KAY SLEDGE March 26, 2009 at 2:58pm
President Obama,
With the current state of the Economy is there not a greater need for Health Physical Education (both education and activities) in our school systems. With 40% of our current population are not active and 60%-66% are overweight or obese.
We know stress and the increase production of cortisol are directly related to increase size and weight of individuals. During the tough economic times we have higher stress and with the higher stress we will see individuals size increase. This increase in size will in turn place our citizens at increased health risk. We know Change in jobs, change of living status and change in financial health may cause increases in weigh some times as much as 10%. Don’t we need more physical education in our school systems elementary, middle school and high schools? Don’t we need to make the Core Curriculum in higher education address the benefits of being Physically Active, aware of nutrition and food consumption and means by which to decrease stress?
There is documentation which supports that the individuals with higher education maintain physically active lives and are able through activity decrease their stress and reduce risk to chronic disease. Should we not through our government supported school systems address the factors that increase longevity of life, decrease risk factors contributing to chronic health problems which increase our economic debt and yield more health care cost.
It is my belief that education is leaving out the individual learner. We teach job skills and information needed for careers, somewhere in the mix we as educator need to teach individuals how to live. In our country, we have 66% of our population are overweight. 40% of adults in America are physically inactive (CDC-center of disease control). We have decreased the number of Physical education activity courses in middle school and high school and now we don’t even list physical activities as required as a part of higher learning.
I cannot help but wonder have we missed value of the individual learner and the longevity of their life. When we fail to include courses which enhance and elongate the lives of those instructed.
The center for Disease Control and Prevention 2005 and journal of the American Medical Association 29(3):293-294.Mokdad, A.H. ET al2004. Actual causes of death in the United States 200.Journal of the American Medical Association 291(10):1238-1245. Rank 1st Tobacco related 440,000 deaths per year and then 2nd Obesity related 112,000 deaths. There was a note to this research which presented a controversy, were the ranges 112,000 death or were they 365,000 death associated with obesity. For me either is too high.
It is my hope for Physical Activity to be a part of all studies at the college level. I believe the individual has to be healthy to have a higher quality of life.
Most individuals do not learn how to take care of their health, wellness and Physical activity from their work environment, should we not instruct them before they get to the work place.
Comments
Jermaine Whirl
November 5, 2008 at 1:10pm
Being a new professor here in the University System of Georgia, I only have one suggestion that I believe would strengthen the core curriculum of classes. USG supports student success courses, a health course, and 2 physical education courses. I would recommend that we also require one course in personal finance or consumer economics. Among other things, there is a big need especially for first year students to get an understanding about credit, financial planning, budgeting, taxation, and insurance planning. These are essential life skills that they need, and if they don’t obtain the knowledge in college then they will typically learn it the hard way. We all know that there are many adults who don’t have a full understanding about retirement, 401ks, or insurance. I believe this will strengthen the entire student body, because it will balance out their knowledge of personal health as well as financial health in the “long-run”.
Brian W. Schwartz
November 5, 2008 at 6:24pm
An obvious administrative weakness of the current core curriculum is that it has not been adequately assessed. As far as I know, there never was a plan for assessment. Indeed, it would be hard or maybe not possible to assess some of the current outcomes.
Another weakness is that the learning outcomes are not tied to specific areas of the core. The outcomes expected of courses in each area need to be defined so that we can ensure that every student completing the core has encountered every learning outcome.
A new core curriculum should define clearly which outcomes will be addressed by courses in each area, and there should be an assessment plan.
Tom
November 5, 2008 at 10:31pm
1. There are common courses that are 3000 level at universities/4 year colleges and 2000 level at community colleges. It’s the same course with the same text. Students can’t transfer classes like this simply because of the number selection (and the common case I’m thinking of costs cc transfer students 8 contact hours).
2. If a specific class (1000, 2000) is required for a common major at USG institutions, it should be offered at many of the 4 year programs or be dropped. I’ve seen classes offered/required at the frosh/soph levels that are based on the whim of 1 or 2 faculty - while no other school in the USG offers the same required class. This not only impacts transfers but raises questions about the validity of the class.
3. I realize this may fall more to SAACS than USG core policies but labs in the sciences for 1000 and 2000 level classes (science requirement) should have more flexibility in who teaches them. R1 schools use recent BS students (in 1st year of grad school) to teach courses like chemistry and biology labs. This is all that is needed - as schools like GT and UGa demonstrate. Putting a full professor in a freshmen lab is a poor use of resources - and there is no real evidence that the professor out-performs the grad student in that scenario. There is proof that it costs more in salaries and negatively impacts staffing of upper level courses. Imagine the boost to science education in middle schools and high schools in Georgia if all MS Science Education candidates had to teach 3 college level labs per semester for 2 semesters - they’d learn a tremendous amount and draw a salary (18-20K/yr?). Imagine the overall savings to universities! There is something to be said to having young, fresh faces around on a regular basis (I’m an old guy saying this).
Hope this helps some - Warmest regards!
Tom
November 5, 2008 at 10:46pm
Here is a controversial suggestion: Do away with athletics at all colleges and universities that are not *completely* self supporting. These sports impact a low number of students and draw tremendous resources, from $$ to space to faculty positions, away from academic activities.
How does this impact the core? Require all students to play a fitness oriented intramural sport for at least 4 semesters, be a ref for at least one semester, and help with logistics for at least one semester. Sports like cross-country, track, 3 on 3 BB, softball, swimming and flag football would be the focus and others, from bowling to mountain biking, considered. Determine a champion every semester at each school (3 week preseason, 6 week season, than playoffs) and have the champions from around the state meet for a “state champion” tournament. This would do FAR more to promote lifetime fitness, improve retention, teach teamwork, raise school spirit, etc than most athletic teams do on campuses. These intramural experiences would count as a 1 credit core class and students could switch sports and teams every semester.
This extensive program would do more to promote the positive attributes college grads need (fitness and energy level, teamwork, dealing with pressure, etc) that can’t always be taught in a classroom. Want to see the number of kids staying on campus over weekends dramatically increase - really increase the size and visibility of intramural sports (note - there could be A,B,C level leagues for different abilities).
P.S. The athletics one is my pet peeve - I see kids in grammar schools taking 1 gym class a week and that anti-PE mindset works its way up the line. In Georgia diabetes is an epidemic (15% of adult population has it) and the easiest solution to that disease (and many others) - activity - isn’t promoted across the board on college campuses.
Therese
November 6, 2008 at 11:57am
I’m in Biology at Georgia State and we do exclusively use graduate TAs to teach all of our labs. While its true that there is a faculty member’s name as the instructor of record, they do not teach the labs. I’m not sure how the other science departments do their labs though.
Roger Marietta
November 11, 2008 at 3:15pm
I think one of the USG’s greatest strengths are the Constitutional requirements in History and Political Science. Many of our students are not prepared to be good citizens and need this emphasis.
Kathryn Kemp
November 11, 2008 at 7:21pm
Many of these comments have strayed away from the topic of the core curriculum that is required of all students. As a faculty member who provides academic advisement to students, I find that the core as it stands is generally satisfactory, providing general education to all students. The one problem that I wonder about is that all USG institutions do not have identical organization, particularly in the area of humanities and social sciences. A history course, for example, may fall in the social sciences area at one institution and be classified as part of humanities in another. How is this managed?
Tim Woltering
November 12, 2008 at 10:13am
An administrative strength of the current core is the ease of transferability of core classes within the USG system. The current structure allows all students, including those at USG junior and state colleges, to make progress toward their intended bachelor’s degrees without potentially losing credits. This waste of time, money and effort as seen by the students can sometimes discourage them from continuing their education.
The current core allows institutions some flexibility in Area B-Institutional Options. The common threads running through other areas of the core help maintain consistency across system institutions.
Joe Thomas
November 13, 2008 at 5:34pm
At Kennesaw the Core is often interpreted as everyone taking the exact same classes. So in Arts and Humanities, everyone has to have World Lit. Period. Some of the other areas have just a very limited number of courses available. And specific course in US History and Government are required for all. I don’t know why it has been interpreted this way, since the System guidelines just have subject areas.
In my opinion, the only specific courses required for all should be Comp and Math. Everything else should be on a menu with many available courses. That way, students who are more advanced are not blocked from taking more challenging material.
The problem is that departments can get territorial about these courses and perceive attempts to create flexibility as removing their “authority.” Change needs to come from the system level to be successful.
PS—way too much social science. How come it’s considered so much more important than everything else?
PPS—has anyone considered handling any of these requirements via flags rather than course credits?
Hugh Hudson
November 18, 2008 at 10:04am
For students, the Common Core has been one of the most important aspects of attending the University System of Georgia. Unlike many state “systems,” students in Georgia have been assured that upon completion of the Core at any of our institutions, they could readily transfer those credits to another institution in the System and progress to their major and graduation. There are clearly those who, for the perceived interests of their own institution or perhaps merely their own program, would prefer to end the Common Core. Although an argument might be made for how this would benefit their unit, the fact remains that this would be a huge loss to those tens of thousands of students in the System who transfer. This question raises the fundamental issue—for whom the University System of Georgia? If we are interested solely in what benefits our individual units, then we have no System and we certainly should have no Common Core. Students can fend for themselves, and if it takes an extra year for them to graduate, so be it. I, however, believe that such shortsightedness has no place in our System.
Allen Fromherz
November 18, 2008 at 2:00pm
I concur with the comments by Hugh Hudson. I have brought up the topic of Core Curriculum in class and have noted clear, supermajorities of students in favor of the system and the freedom to transfer between institutions. In particular, several students mentioned the great benefits of the core during the current financial crisis. Being able to transfer from one institution to another where jobs are available in the community where that institution is located is ESSENTIAL for students who are currently facing severe financial problems. Students should not be forced to choose between employment and study. They would be forced to make this decision, however, if the Core Curriculum is not kept in place. Forcing a catch 22 choice on students (a choice between work and getting a degree) would rightly lead to public outcries and dissent, leading to less popular support for the public university system as a whole. Remember that it is not simply students in the traditional age categories who vote on bonds and other issues relevant to the University System in general. Many high-quality, non-traditional students, who form a backbone of the system and who take advantage of the core standardization to provide flexibility and movement, would be put at a great disadvantage without a strong and rigorous core.
Roger Marietta
November 19, 2008 at 11:00am
It surprises me that professors want to do away with the classic liberal arts portion of the core that has served our higher education system so well. The students who exit the college preparatory curriculum are unprepared to be good citizens - there is a lack of knowledge of Georgia and American Government - this has been documented through testing. I support the Georgia General Assembly’s legislative requirement to teach Georgia History and Georgia Government in Political Science and history courses.
Don Butts
November 19, 2008 at 11:05am
I also agree with Hugh. If we are to be a system that serves the needs of its students we need to have a common core that makes transfer as easy as possible. Given the level of preparedness of many of our students, the core must also be as straightforward as possible. I deal with many first generation college students who are already baffled by the simple core we have in place.
Thomas Cooksey
November 19, 2008 at 11:26am
I’m concerned that neither our current core nor proposals for revision include anything about foreign langauges. If we are serious about our claims for globalism then some background in a foreign langauge is essential. It is also important for the comprehension of English.
Tom Manning
November 19, 2008 at 11:52am
In terms of comments focused on history and political science and other areas of liberal arts and social sciences- don’t most/all students graduating from Georgia high schools already take classes on US History and the US political system? Our students can finish a core and know nothing about China, India, Russia, Brazil, etc in terms of culture, economics, history, technology. Even when they study the UK, France, Japan, etc - it is in relation to US history. Likewise - students can take a science class (my area) and do some problem solving work - but learn nothing about modern topics in science.
When you look at globalization and the world our students will enter, how many of them can answer the following five questions:
1. What is the capital of India?
2. What is a stem cell?
3. What energy area is Brazil investing in?
4. What is a Hedge fund?
5. Who is Carlos Slim and how did NAFTA impact him? and you?
I raise these issues because I see students reading Faulkner, studying the Civil War for the 3rd or 4th time in their academic careers, memorizing the Krebs cycle, and taking several years of foreign language (between HS and core) and not coming close to being able to speak it.
I’d like to suggest our students take five classes in the CORE (with sample topics):
1. Current issues in Science and Technology
(learn about stem cells, nanotechnology, satellites, etc.) – not a calculation/problem solving class – but – what is the rest of the world doing and why!
2. Current issues in Foreign Economic Development Policies. (How does China’s government manage their economy? Do India and NATO countries trade? How is Brazil using ethanol for energy?)
3. Current issues in Health Care Practices and Care. (Why is Cuba’s life expectancy higher than Georgia’s? What does socialized medicine mean? The diabetes epidemic in Georgia – where is it?)
4. Current issues in US Foreign Relations
(Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, Oil from Canada, Immigrants from Mexico, etc.)
5. The US Economy (How do Auto Unions impact our economy? What is a Hedge Fund? How does the stock market work?, etc)
Also, as mentioned in a previous posting (Tom), take a PE class(s). The recommended content along with citations can be determined by a summer meeting of faculty leaders from around the state. With electronics, it wouldn’t be hard to put together an annual text/outline and distribute it. Looking at my university, I think a course in a large auditorium (200-300 students) on one of these topics would stimulate more people than a small class reading Shakespeare.
I realize this is a wish list – but – is our CORE prepping students for the world they will compete in?
Ray Whiting
November 19, 2008 at 12:13pm
While I generally support the idea of a flexible core I think some courses must be required. Basic English, Math and Government courses are a must. So many of our students come with little to no understanding of these areas. Any core that did not require at least two English, one Math and American Government would be a disaster. These are the basic foundations for a competent and educated citizen and the core must reflect the essential nature of these courses. Beyond that, the core should have a structure that encourages students to take a variety of courses. College is not high school. Our students must be exposed to areas they know nothing about.
Harold Cline
November 19, 2008 at 1:22pm
One area where both the present K-12 curriculum and USG core fail miserably is in personal finance and consumer economics. An emphasis on this subject area will significantly raise the standard of living and the personal wealth of our graduates. A knowledge and understanding of how to obtain the best terms on a home mortgage and the lowest price on a new automobile, of what to do with 457, 403 and 401 plans, or how to invest in stocks and mutual funds will do more to enhance the economic prosperity of our graduates and all Georgians in the long run than any other body of knowledge.
Teresa Hutchins
November 19, 2008 at 3:16pm
I think that the Core, in general, provides a broad-based education for the students in the University System of Georgia. I do feel, as Mr. Whiting does, that some courses are an absolute must. Courses like English, Math, and American Government are a good place to start.
Now, I may be biased because I teach American Government, but it is a course that is necessary in order to make sure that our students understand how government and its policies can affect their lives. It is also important that our students understand how they can participate in the political process to bring about change in those government policies. It is true, as Mr. Manning states, that our students take American Government in high school. I have discovered, however, that these students gain very little knowledge out of their high school American Government classes. Most of my students indicate that their high school Government class was taught by the high school football coach and they learned very little, if anything.
We need to stick with a broad-based Core that will offer students the opportunity to get a “taste” of different disciplines while allowing them to concentrate on their area of expertise. This is one of the strongest points to the current system. If we want to increase how many disciplines a student “tastes”, perhaps we should think about increasing the number of courses required to fill each area. Perhaps it is just my view, but it does feel like we are trying to re-invent the wheel.
Also, as someone that has experienced public higher education systems in two states, Georgia students should consider themselves lucky that it is so easy to transfer between schools within the University System. This is a luxury that is not granted college students in other states. I know, on a personal level, the difficulties that arise when trying to transfer between institutions that are part of the same system. The way that the Core is currently designed allows our students this flexibility. It is also, in my view, what makes the University System of Georgia unique.
Kathleen Comerford
November 19, 2008 at 3:43pm
Tom Manning asked:
“In terms of comments focused on history and political science and other areas of liberal arts and social sciences- don’t most/all students graduating from Georgia high schools already take classes on US History and the US political system? Our students can finish a core and know nothing about China, India, Russia, Brazil, etc in terms of culture, economics, history, technology. Even when they study the UK, France, Japan, etc - it is in relation to US history.”
The core history courses include a World History course. If this is taught in relation to US history, it’s not the fault of the core, but of the faculty member teaching the course. However, I strongly suspect that this is not the case anywhere in the system. Your statement that nothing is taught except in relation to US history is baseless.
GA high school students do indeed study history. They also study math, literature, and science; let’s not isolate one discipline. To suggest that they need not repeat any of these would be foolish; the content and methods are very different. If not, why are we teaching anything at all? Simply for the purposes of specialization?
Back to the larger issue, though: has anyone done a comparison between the core curriculum in Georgia and in other states? If so, what did this comparison show? If not, why not?
George Rainbolt
November 19, 2008 at 3:46pm
The core curriculum of several other states can be found on this web site. On the menu bar above, click on “Documents” and then “State Docs.”
Fred Cohen
November 19, 2008 at 4:56pm
I think consideration for decreasing the number of requirements in the core—however it is eventually defined—-should be given for professional degrees, such as Bachelor of Music or Bachelor of Fine Arts. These degrees should be in compliance with national accrediting standards, but there is no need for a single, one-size-fits-all core requirement for all undergraduate degrees. Our current approach puts everyone in the System at a disadvantage when students compare our programs with those of private or other state systems. Additionally, unless the core subjects are more coherently organized and linked, the “buffet-style” array of choices—most of which have no direct link with the educational vector in the professional degree programs—serve as an educational disincentive for self-selected and -motivated students in the professional degree programs.
Herbert Chandler Haamond
November 20, 2008 at 1:24pm
The ideal of a liberal arts education that such an education enables student to a higher standard of understanding the world in which they live and to apprciate their responsibility to contribute to society is under constant attack. Education as simply technical training for economic gain is ever more dominant. The later is the prime motive of the vast majority of my students. Were critical thinking no longer a requirement students would voluntairily choose ignorance. As watered down as such critical concepts as the common fallacies are in high school programs the university would be guilty of gross negligence if the requirement was not maintained.
Peter Swanson
November 21, 2008 at 11:04am
I agree with Thomas Cooksey’s comment about foreign language learning. If we are to truly speak about globalization and internationalization of the curriculum, the inclusion of foreign language is necessary. Foreign language study is part of the National Education Goals 2000 and is arguably one of the most important skills an individual in the 21st Century can have. The literature is replete with quality studies documenting the cognitive and academic benefits of foreign language learning. At a time when it appears cultural understanding is critical, one must remember that language learning is cultural learning.
Tim Crimmins
November 22, 2008 at 3:10am
The strength of the current core is that it provides a framework for most of the system institutions to offer course selections for their students that will serve them in programs at their institution or as transfer students in other system colleges or universities. The problem with tinkering with the distribution requirements of the core is that this will require a great deal of faculty time and energy at the institutional level to implement the change. This should be done only if there is a compelling reason to make a change. I see nothing that suggests the need for a change in the system core distribution requirements.
David Sehat
December 1, 2008 at 11:53am
The main strength of the current core is the ease with which students can transfer within the system. It does this in part by utilizing a two year curriculum that can integrate two-year colleges in the system with their four-year counterparts. The community college system, coupled with easy transfer into a four-year university, is essential to continuing to raise the enrollment percentage among college-aged students. The other good thing about the core is that it maintains the USG system as a system, rather than just a confederation of loosely affiliated universities vying for resources. If the goal is to raise the educational participation of the college-aged population in GA in order to lay the groundwork for an educated workforce for the 21st century, then a two-year core seems pretty essential to the system acting as a system to accomplish that end. The current core might need some tweaking to allow greater flexibility, but it seems to me that its current size (~60 credit hours) is a big strength in integrating two and four-year institutions, which benefits the students by creating a comprehensive educational system for the state of Georgia.
Jared Poley
December 1, 2008 at 12:13pm
I would like to add my voice in support of a common core. I think transparency of requirements and transferability of credits are two key virtues of the system as it exists (or did until very recently) and any improvements or changes to the core must maintain these components. A core curriculum links the institutions together into a system – as students take courses at two-year institutions they may move that education with them to four-year institutions. It is unconscionable that students could be penalized both in time and tuition simply because their credits could not transfer easily from one institution to another. Having a system that acts as a system would seem to be an obvious “administrative strength.” As for the intellectual validity of the core, a wide-ranging education that covers not just the trivium but also the quadrivium has worked well for more than a thousand years. Learning about other disciplines of a more recent vintage – say things like history, politics, and natural science – has been producing well-rounded citizens for the past half-millennium. And since nothing succeeds like success, I would be hesitant to modify our core too much; after all, the basis of the core is to be found in these well-established systems of education.
Kristina Watkins Mormino
December 1, 2008 at 5:13pm
What is the purpose of a university education? What is the purpose of a liberal arts education? I’ve seen too many comments that suppose the USG exists primarily to address obstacles that prevent Georgians from being healthy, wealthy, and well informed. It seems to me that this is a radical revision of the purpose of higher education. We are not Richard Simmons, Clark Howard, or Katie Couric.
Of course, we do want our graduates to be healthy, wealthy, and well informed. The core can address these goals. But the core has also been a vehicle to demonstrate that USG students are receiving liberal arts educations. again I ask, what is the purpose of a liberal arts education? Is the core insuring that all students in all majors and all institutions get a true liberal arts education?
Joe Thomas
December 2, 2008 at 12:21pm
Transferability: the current core (at least at Kennesaw) is a DISASTER for transferability because it requires specific courses in so many areas. Comp, Math, and Government, I can see. Maybe health. But not World Lit and American History. Let students take what they want. If it’s an area requirement instead of a course requirement, there’s more flexibility. And it’s not just within Georgia that students are transferring, after all. Let’s be a little less insular in our focus. Don’t we want to be competitive nationally?
I need some definitions. In other places I’ve worked, “Core” referred to a group of specific courses that all students took in common. Usually it was English Comp, basic math, government, maybe a freshman seminar. Sometimes it was more extensive. What we seem to be dealing with here is actually “General Education” or something like that. It’s the distribution of skills and knowledge courses in arts and sciences that make up a traditional liberal arts education. It can be met many different ways.
But at least at KSU, “general education” has included a “core” of about about 8-10 specific required courses. This is what I think needs to be looked at. Is it the same way elsewhere? Is everyone requiring World Lit of every student all over Georgia?
Kimberly Shaw
December 2, 2008 at 12:35pm
I feel that it is important for our students to see the benefits of a liberal arts education, but question whether we can’t find more effective ways of delivering this. My prioritized list for USG graduates does involve having our students understand government. I also feel that our students should graduate with a better understanding of personal finance and our country’s economic system, better critical thinking skills than they currently have, and we must be graduating scientifically literate students if we want our economy to continue to compete. To me, this means that we need to have our students touch on natural science, mathematics, business/economics, communications/freshman composition, and perhaps civics. A humanities or fine arts course would add some rounding out, as would a course on global issues.
Robin Huff
December 8, 2008 at 11:42am
The current core has suffered significant losses during the conversion to semester system. In my field, for example, the foreign language requirement was reduced from 4 quarters to 2 semesters for many majors. Then the complaints came that students weren’t learning the language and should perhaps go abroad. We support this idea, of course, but in the context of stateside training to ensure a successful experience. The rich variety in our GSU overseas programs and international exchanges attest to this commitment. With our university’s emphasis on globalization, a new major in International Economics and Modern Languages and a pioneering Master’s in International Business, the core would be enriched by a return to a more pedagogically sound four semester requirement.
Jesse G. Christiansen
December 9, 2008 at 2:18pm
I would like to speak to a strength of the current core curriculum (Area C) that I believe is neglected in the comments above, and, may be neglected by many assessments of the core curriculum in general.
Several comments above refer to English Comp, Math, and Government as core courses that “must” remain. What about Critical Thinking?! The ability to write clearly, perform at least basic computations, and understand the fundamentals of government pose obvious value to a student’s academic and professional careers, but what good are they without the ability to organize and present his or her thoughts accurately and effectively?
I have always found it tragically appauling how underestimated and overlooked basic reasoning skills are, especially when they underlie almost every discipline a student will ever encounter. One of the greatest advantages I see to the core curriculum as it stands now is that it may be the last bastion of defense for a course such as Critical Thinking. Whatever changes are made to enhance the core curriculum, I beseech decision makers to protect students from perhaps the greatest error of reasoning we, as educationalists, could ever committ: failing to continue to make Critical Thinking at least a choice on the core curriculum. I believe this same argument can be extended to other basic philosophy courses, such as Intro to Philosophy and Ethics.
Meg Pearson
December 10, 2008 at 4:28pm
I appreciate all these comments, particularly Tom Manning’s wish list. I am the one stimulating that small Shakespeare seminar on my campus, but I love the idea of a CORE that can contain large and dynamic lectures on topics like “contemporary issues in science” in addition to smaller classes that teach oral and written communication in a rigorous manner. I’m good at my job, but even I can’t make 250 students good readers and writers from a podium! Those skills must not slip through the cracks any more than they already have.
It seems so obvious that the CORE should be common across USG campuses, and yet I teach at UWG, where there is *no* literature requirement for CORE. Apart from producing illiterate Georgians, the current system too often undermines the progress of students between schools.
Rob Page
December 11, 2008 at 2:36pm
I agree with Hugh Hudson and others of like mind in the threads that the Core represents the fundamental elements of a true liberal arts education. Core classes are those in which we teach not only a broad base of knowledge; but, perhaps more importantly, the broad skills of critical thinking, information competency, effective and thoughtful reading and writing, etc. These are the foundation upon which our students will build, not only as they progress through upper level classes, but as they move forward into the rest of their lives as citizens, workers, and neighbors.
Students come into our system with varying levels of content mastery and analytical skills. This is particularly true for those entering two-year institutions. The argument for the reduced Core fails to fully recognize and accommodate these varied “tiers” of students. As things stand, students who have a higher level of knowledge and ability can receive credit for Core courses or test out, in some cases, using instruments such as the SAT, CLEP, IB, and so forth. This ensures that while the students who need it will receive the benefits of the full Core, those who are more advanced can move forward. This seems to be a logical and rational set up that works for everyone.
One of the current great strengths of the USG Core Curriculum is the ability of students to transfer relatively seamlessly from one institution to another. It is important that we keep that characteristic if, as Hudson points out, our goal is to be a truly integrated “system,” and not simply a rag tag assemblage of institutions.
On a related note, an attitude that I think needs to be addressed from the two-year school perspective, and the system as whole, is represented by one contributor who made the statement in the “Transfer” thread that, “although core courses in Science and Math may have the same topics covered, they are by no means the same in terms of rigor,” referring to the discrepancy he perceives between the quality of education at Georgia Tech and two-year schools in the USG. The statement comes from a limited perspective, and one that does not address the function of a core curriculum. Ideally, a Core class taught at GT should cover the same material and produce the same outcomes as the same Core class taught at a two-year school; meaning, there should be no significant difference in what it takes to pass the course at either institution. Conrad fails to mention variables that might contribute to a student passing (he uses the term “breeze through”) a course in the two year setting when he/she was unable to succeed in the same course at Tech, such as: being taught by an instructor who holds an advanced degree and has years of teaching experience rather than GTAs in a number of cases, smaller class sizes leading to greater individual attention, and in the case of summer school, more intense, focused classes when the student typically has a lighter course load, and can focus his/her energies on the course. That said, I’ll concede that different levels of rigor for the same class probably do exist in the USG; but, this is a structural problem that can be addressed by establishing system-wide standards through our academic advisory committees for outcomes specific to each course, standardized testing, and the like.
Where individuals get sidetracked, I believe, is in their conception of the subjects taught within their disciplines in the Core. They fail to see that the Core represents a program of study, not a major. Its larger intent is to provide those broad skills mentioned at the outset of this message.
I also noted that some bloggers assailed Area E as being too big in relation to others. Some courses were mentioned as expendable, based on the assumption that students have learned in high school the same material they would learn in, say, a Core History course in college. It is simply not true. Many students come into USG Core courses content deficient, despite having taken similar courses in a particular subject matter in high school. In most cases, if they have acquired any knowledge, it is in a majority of cases, the absolute fundamentals. Hopefully, we can build on this very basic foundation to discharge our role in shaping good citizens and neighbors by adding to that foundation higher level analytical skills. For example, if you address the current Area E, it becomes clear why it is critical to focus on higher-level basics. As citizens, our students need to understand from a critical perspective our government and its functions (American Government). One cannot become a thinking, active citizen in a republic without understanding key issues from an analytical perspective , and the social, economic, and political background of who we are as a nation (US History). To understand and participate in the current discussions on multiculturalism and globalization, it’s necessary to understand where the United States stands in a global context; to understand the rest of the world from the perspectives of different nations and cultures; and how those societies and cultures have interacted with others, and the outcomes of those interactions (World and Western Civilizations). And what about learning to understand how society functions; or how the individual functions; or the critical place of economics in the modern world; or the role of religion, ethics, or logical systems of thinking in shaping the world? My question in all of this is: Exactly where is the “fat” in Area E? That question, “Where is the fat?” extends, obviously, beyond my bailiwick and into all the areas of the Core. I’m quite sure that my colleagues in other areas of expertise could make similar arguments for the courses that fall under their purview.
I realize that much of this response has turned into a defense of the current core. I am not against possible restructuring, but I think we need to be careful of sacrificing the strong basis of a liberal arts education in favor of particular programs. I believe that if we are going to address the system-level outcomes in any sort of systematic way, then the structure of the Core needs to be reflective of a logical progression towards the expressed USG outcomes for the Core (which, by the way, I am in agreement with those in the blogs that say it should have far fewer outcomes. See: http://www.usg.edu/academics/programs/core_curriculum/outcomes.phtml). I would actually be more in favor of a progressive structure that focuses on outcome acquisition, with built-in assessments of skill attainment, such as capstone courses or tests that would reflect that achievement. Right now, students can take any courses in any order throughout the Core (prerequisites excluded of course), with no logical sense of achieving the higher outcome that transcends the content focus of the individual courses. If we want to have a Core that truly meets those outcomes, then it needs to be structured in such a manner where components of those larger skills are built upon in individual courses, and the established outcomes made much more explicitly apparent through the coursework, the assessments, and the program of study that is the Core. The Core needs to provide a launching point for students into their majors as well-rounded students, prepared to take the skills acquired in a Liberal Arts Core into their specific fields, and their lives.
William C. Bogner
December 15, 2008 at 9:28am
The Undergraduate Program Council of the J. Mack Robinson College of Business (Council) would like to make the following comments with respect to the issues that the USG Core Evaluation Committee (Committee) was asked to consider for their report to Susan Herbst, Executive Vice Chancellor and Chief Academic Officer of the University System of Georgia. The undergraduate Core is of particular interest to the Robinson College due to the large number of transfer students that enter the College each semester. Further, the Council has worked extensively with two-year institutions that matriculate a large number of students to the Robinson Collage to assure that uniform content and standards exist for Area F courses. The Council, therefore, would like to add those comments to those already posted here for consideration by the Committee.
With respect to the request for “Current Core” comments, the Council supports the current core as an important part of creating an integrated education system in the State of Georgia and doing so in a way that both optimizes the student learning experience and does so in an efficient manner. The Council sees this as a question of whether a Core should exist at all for the University System and we address the issues of the size and content of the Core in the next paragraph below. In that light the Council thinks that the discontinuation of the current Core would deprive students of essential elements in a well-educated citizen. The breadth of knowledge captured by the areas of the current Core are seen by the Council as critical to the intellectual fitness of our graduates. The uniformity of the Core across institutions allows students to obtain their academic credits in a manner that is most efficient for them and facilitates easy transfer among institutions for both the student and the transferring institution. All of these are important benefits that would be lost if the standardized Core was discontinued.
Thank you for consideration of these comments; additional comments are included in the other sections of this blog.
Laurel Robinson
December 18, 2008 at 1:14pm
It was interesting, and perhaps a bit disheartening, to read virtually nothing of substance concerning the value of the Arts in our core in the majority of comments by colleagues above.One might contemplate the notion that great civilizations are more often known by the art they produced (visual, literary, musical, theatric etc) than by the merchants that helped fund them! A recent study has actually shown that students who had regular exposure to museums and analytic tools to look at visual arts scored far better on critical thinking skills than those who had not.
Our required appreciation courses are also a necessary part of the core curriculum to assure additional depth and at least a beginning to cultural/historical/artistic literacy. Perhaps even better would be integrated history courses that included all of the arts in their historical moments whether Western or Non-Western.
After 30 years in the system (and clearly in the visual arts), I support maintaining a common core curriculum that is periodically reviewed and assessed for remaining current and relevant. I just felt compelled to remind everyone of the importance of the arts.
Dan Ross
January 2, 2009 at 3:56pm
I agree with others on the importance of a common core. I do think, however, that we need to ask hard questions about whether our core speaks to the needs of students today. It does seem to me that traditional disciplines could adapt some courses to give students a more global perspective. To take my own discipline, English, as an example, I would favor adapting the second composition course to allow for a focus on writing about global issues. Similarly, courses in the fine arts (Art Appreciation, Music Appreciation, and so on) should not be limited to Western or European perspectives. Anyone who has traveled abroad realizes that our students lag too far behind many others in their understanding of a world that exists outside our borders. I see ways to make the core more global without destroying the traditional emphasis on the liberal arts.
Dana
January 12, 2009 at 2:04pm
With the push for globalization, it seems to me the Foreign Language requirements should be strengthened. We are lagging behind other countries in this area as it is, and it will only get worse unless USG students are required to demonstrate proficiency in a foreign language at the undergraduate level.
Monica
January 12, 2009 at 3:42pm
Tom Manning raises some very important points, and generally, I agree with needing some kind of course to better prepare our students to deal with global realities, questions and controversies. I would never sacrifice any of the current elements of the core for it. I advocate a rigorous core, one built and taught by faculty committed to inclusion of students who may be first-generation college students, but that still maintains high standards of academic progress and success. These courses are necessary, but they must not be dumbed down to provide accessibility. The whole core fails if we don’t maintain those standards.
As an English professor, however, I suggest to Tom Manning, that the Humanities has historically provided a platform for discourse in the history of varying places, cultures, languages and conflicts and the Western world’s reaction to (and place within)them. Careful of getting rid of Shakespeare too early. Much of our discussion of global life has come from those who entered the discussion through art and literature. I would like to see a space, though, where the discussion of our world is accessible through our current core without fears of academic freedom infractions.
Harriet Jardine
January 14, 2009 at 4:53pm
My main frustration with the current core comes in Area F. I am in Psychology and while I am supportive of the current breadth focus, I get a lot of student complaints about not being able to take more psych courses in “their major”.
Also from the perspective of advising, especially transfer students, I frequently find that I need to use “Liberal Studies” as a hotch potch major so students can finish. This is hardly ideal pedagogy.
Margee Bright Ragland
January 30, 2009 at 6:29pm
I agree with Laurel’s comments about the importance of the Fine Arts to our society and to the core curriculum. Our earliest records of human activity are represented in painting, sculpture and architecture. The arts inform all the learning outcomes we hope to instill in our students. Art, Music and Theatre should remain a vital part of our core curriculum.
Therese
February 9, 2009 at 3:36pm
I used to teach the nonmajors biology class and I noticed that most of the nonmajors had a better global perspective on problems than biology majors. So even though our majors were taking core classes, it appears that the types of skills I would like to see, were not as developed as I would expect.
I like the idea of focusing on skills for the core, rather than specific content.
But this raises the problem of specifying specific skills for different courses (or all skills in all courses). And it would likely make transferring credits extremely difficult.
DONNA KAY SLEDGE
March 24, 2009 at 2:48pm
It is my belief that education is leaving out the individual learner. We teach job skills and information needed for careers, some where in the mix we as educator need to teach individuals how to live. In our country, we have 66% of our population are overweight. 40% of adults in America are physically inactive (CDC-center of disease control). We have decreased the number of Physical education activity courses in middle school and high school and now we dont even list physical activities as required as a part of higher learning.
I can not help but wonder have we missed value of the individual learner and the longevity of their life. When we fail to include courses which enhance and elongate the lives of those instructed.
The center for Disease Control and Prevention 2005 and journal of the american Medical Association 29(3):293-294.Mokdad,A.H. et al2004. Actual causes of death in the United States 200.Journal of the American Medical Association 291(10):1238-1245. Rank 1st Tobacco related 440,000 deaths per year and then 2nd Obesity related 112,000 death. There was a note to this research which presented a controversy, were the ranges 112,000 death or were they 365,000 death associated with obesity. For me either is to high.
it is my hope for Physical Activity to be a part of all studies at the college level. I believe the individual has to be healthy to have a higher quality of life.
Most individuals do not learn how to take care of their health, wellness and Physical activity from their work invironment, should we not instruct them before they get to the work place.
Donna Kay Sledge
March 25, 2009 at 8:42am
DONNA KAY SLEDGE
March 24, 2009 at 1:48pm
It is my belief that education is leaving out the individual learner. We teach job skills and information needed for careers, somewhere in the mix we as educator need to teach individuals how to live. In our country, we have 66% of our population are overweight. 40% of adults in America are physically inactive (CDC-center of disease control). We have decreased the number of Physical education activity courses in middle school and high school and now we don’t even list physical activities as required as a part of higher learning.
I cannot help but wonder have we missed value of the individual learner and the longevity of their life. When we fail to include courses which enhance and elongate the lives of those instructed.
The center for Disease Control and Prevention 2005 and journal of the American Medical Association 29(3):293-294.Mokdad, A.H. ET al2004. Actual causes of death in the United States 200.Journal of the American Medical Association 291(10):1238-1245. Rank 1st Tobacco related 440,000 deaths per year and then 2nd Obesity related 112,000 deaths. There was a note to this research which presented a controversy, were the ranges 112,000 death or were they 365,000 death associated with obesity. For me either is too high.
It is my hope for Physical Activity to be a part of all studies at the college level. I believe the individual has to be healthy to have a higher quality of life.
Most individuals do not learn how to take care of their health, wellness and Physical activity from their work environment, should we not instruct them before they get to the work place.
DONNA KAY SLEDGE
March 26, 2009 at 2:58pm
President Obama,
With the current state of the Economy is there not a greater need for Health Physical Education (both education and activities) in our school systems. With 40% of our current population are not active and 60%-66% are overweight or obese.
We know stress and the increase production of cortisol are directly related to increase size and weight of individuals. During the tough economic times we have higher stress and with the higher stress we will see individuals size increase. This increase in size will in turn place our citizens at increased health risk. We know Change in jobs, change of living status and change in financial health may cause increases in weigh some times as much as 10%. Don’t we need more physical education in our school systems elementary, middle school and high schools? Don’t we need to make the Core Curriculum in higher education address the benefits of being Physically Active, aware of nutrition and food consumption and means by which to decrease stress?
There is documentation which supports that the individuals with higher education maintain physically active lives and are able through activity decrease their stress and reduce risk to chronic disease. Should we not through our government supported school systems address the factors that increase longevity of life, decrease risk factors contributing to chronic health problems which increase our economic debt and yield more health care cost.
It is my belief that education is leaving out the individual learner. We teach job skills and information needed for careers, somewhere in the mix we as educator need to teach individuals how to live. In our country, we have 66% of our population are overweight. 40% of adults in America are physically inactive (CDC-center of disease control). We have decreased the number of Physical education activity courses in middle school and high school and now we don’t even list physical activities as required as a part of higher learning.
I cannot help but wonder have we missed value of the individual learner and the longevity of their life. When we fail to include courses which enhance and elongate the lives of those instructed.
The center for Disease Control and Prevention 2005 and journal of the American Medical Association 29(3):293-294.Mokdad, A.H. ET al2004. Actual causes of death in the United States 200.Journal of the American Medical Association 291(10):1238-1245. Rank 1st Tobacco related 440,000 deaths per year and then 2nd Obesity related 112,000 deaths. There was a note to this research which presented a controversy, were the ranges 112,000 death or were they 365,000 death associated with obesity. For me either is too high.
It is my hope for Physical Activity to be a part of all studies at the college level. I believe the individual has to be healthy to have a higher quality of life.
Most individuals do not learn how to take care of their health, wellness and Physical activity from their work environment, should we not instruct them before they get to the work place.