Specific suggestions for revisions to the current core.
Comments
Tom Rotnem (on behalf of the Political Science RAC December 4, 2008 at 9:52am
Whereas the Political Science Regents’ Advisory Council supports the timely effort to evaluate, assess, and reconsider the USG core curriculum, and whereas our membership has discussed with great thoroughness the core curriculum revision process at our two most recent annual Regents’ Advisory Council meetings in 2007 and 2008, the membership of the council strongly urges and recommends the inclusion of a “Civic Engagement” Learning Goal in any revised USG core curriculum. The Civic Engagement learning goal would emphasize that all USG undergraduate students be expected to acquire an understanding of the American and Georgian constitutions and political systems, including institutions, policymaking processes, electoral processes, and citizen political participation. These objectives can best be achieved through a systemwide USG core curriculum requirement that POLS 1101 American Governnment, or its successor, be required at all USG institutions of all undergraduate students. We believe that it is imperative that future generations of citizens and civic leaders be conversant in the fundamental elements of the American and Georgia political systems.
Respectfully submitted,
Political Science Regents’ Advisory Council membership
Don Butts December 8, 2008 at 1:42pm
One of the questions asked by many when this whole project began was whether or not the core needed to be changed. One group no one has thought to ask are our students. So as a start I asked my son who graduated from UGA a year ago and is currently in graduate school what his thoughts were. He said that the core curriculum did not seem to be lacking anything, but suggested the addition of a basic philosophy or logic course. Are there any plans to survey our graduates on the issue?
Reid Derr December 11, 2008 at 5:01pm
I encourage the addition (or substitution) of World Geography and some mandatory study of a foreign language. Having said this, I also think that keeping focus on Western Civilization is important. So often with the “global” and “multicultural” emphases of the age, students are exposed to powerful critiques of our culture before any rationale for our own.
Joe Thomas December 18, 2008 at 2:18pm
1. Discourage universities from requiring so many specific classes to fulfill distribution requirements. Limit specifically required classes to math, comp, and one or two others.
2. Use “flags” instead of specific courses for certain competencies. For instance, multicultural requirements, writing component classes, etc. (I’m surprised Georgia doesn’t have an upper-division writing component requirement.) Then, these flagged classes could simultaneously fulfill a distribution requirement and some other requirement.
3. Re-think Area F. I’ve never seen a “core” or “general Education” program that dictated or included courses in the major. The whole idea is supposed to be that gen ed courses are common to all students. Area F is not common to everyone—it varies a lot, because it’s in so many different majors. Also, it can be very difficult to figure out what to put there in order to add up to exactly 18.
Teresa Peeples January 12, 2009 at 12:26pm
I teach Physical Education, which I think is extremely important for our students and we are not even considered part of the core. We are listed as Area “G”. With the levels of obesity and the high risks of disease abounding in our country and nation, wellness and Physical Education would be a good focus for our new Curriculum. Area B lists “Wellness” as one of the components, yet most institutions do not have any wellness courses offered as an insitutional option in Area B. This would be a wonderful addition to our new Core Curriculum.
John Mascaritolo January 12, 2009 at 1:46pm
I have been an industry practitioner of global supply chain management for over 33 years and now that I am teaching logistics and supply chain management, I find it necessary to expose the students to this discipline earlier in their studies before their junior year of college. Supply chain and logistics management has been identified by the State of Georgia as being a strategy initiative in developing economic growth for the State. I would like to see a basic course on supply chain management as part of the state core curriculum program.
The core curriculum is the primary means for carrying out a liberal arts education and therefore should be evaluated. I would like to see our USG core consistently recognize that education not only involves the mind and the intellect; but also the body. Specifically, I would like to see a minimum of three semester units in core study addressing and applying content relative to: physical and mental health, wellness, stress management, nutrition, human behavior, sexuality and financial literacy.
Debbie van Tuyll January 13, 2009 at 9:05am
We live in an information-saturated world today. The core needs to address this reality with an information/media literacy component. As important as it is to understand the high culture expressive products addressed in humanities classes, even more important for our students today is understanding how popular culture productions influence individuals and society. This area of the core should address not only media literacy, but the reason it is important: maintenance of America’s system of self government.
Walter Thain January 13, 2009 at 10:47pm
The core should include an elective course in personal finance and it should be offered in *all* of the 4-year degree programs throughout the USG. I am certain this course would be extremely popular and if taught without political bias, it would be one of the most important courses that a university graduate would take. I only wish I had the opportunity to take such a course.
Besides this major omission in the existing core, I would say that, as a minimum, the core should have the following educational outcomes:
1. Effective written and oral communication using the English language.
2. Working knowledge of the U.S. Constitution, U.S. government, and U.S. history.
3. Working knowledge of mathematics through the level of college algebra.
4. Basic knowledge of one or more international cultures and its interaction with U.S. culture.
Critical thinking is important for everyone and when taken in its entirety a student’s university education should provid ample opportunity to develop it. Relying on the core to provide most instruction in this area should not be necessary.
One final comment. There is an obvious attempt to steer the core toward an emphasis on multiculturalism. This subject must be treated very carefully. In my opinion, allowing multicultural education to manifest as ethnocentrism is a serious mistake. While there are valuable, useful, and important aspects to any culture, these qualities are in short supply in some. Simply examine which countries people try to emigrate from and see which ones they immigrate to. Emphasizing the value of cultures and nations people attempt to leave in large numbers is counterproductive.
harriet jardine January 14, 2009 at 5:02pm
I agree wholeheartedly with Joe Thomas. In the CA state system, from which I came, they had a Writing Proficiency course. Every major was required to have several courses that met the WP requirement so a student could accomplish this learning goal in multiple ways. Certainly the Regents Test doesn’t do this..
I also like Debbie van Tuyll’s remarks. I think all the critical thinking in any area we can give our students the better.
As an applied psychologist I would like to see some life skills classes, but I realize this may not be our mission.
laura guglani January 15, 2009 at 1:48pm
The core would be improved by added some sort of concrete foreign language requirement. Foreign language is not only becoming an increasingly critical skill in the work place, but also naturally fulfills other objectives, such as cross-cultural awareness and the development of communication skills.
Georgia’s foreign language requirement lags far behind that of other states. Because many other states have a fl requirement at the university level in both public and private universities, transfer students would benefit especially from this addition.
The requirement could vary according to major, for example at one public university where I previously taught, all students had a 2 semester requirement, and English majors a 4 semester requirement.
Robin Huff January 16, 2009 at 9:11am
I believe that Humanities and Fine Arts are crucial if the focus in the twenty-first century is to be on globalization, multicultural awareness, critical thinking and communication. Foreign Languages are critical in this process. Germany for example has over 350 corporate affiliates in Georgia and a recent entourage from the Nürnberg government and Erlangen University visited GSU to seek American students and faculty for exchange programs co-teaching in Business and the Humanities. German alone has received a $20,000 Halle Foundation grant and a $50,000 endowment for the promotion of language and study abroad. As a research institution with a global perspective GSU needs to focus on those areas that support that ideal and not vague outcomes that defy definition.
While I agree that Economics/Personal Finance are important ingredients in a standard core, I strongly encourage the inclusion of Ecology/Environmental Science. We have way too many citizens who are clueless about the application of natural science to life on Earth. The proposed Natural Science outcomes are very weak with regard to the role of human interaction with the biosphere. The relationship of each individual with the ecosystem is every bit as complex and important as their relationship with the economy.
Greg Kordecki January 19, 2009 at 12:32am
Two consecutive semesters of foreign language should be required. Students should have equal opportunity of pursuing Asiatic language such as Mandarin, Japenese, or Korean versus the traditional European French, German, Spanish. Language and culture minors (beyond Areas A through F) should be encouraged to be built into programs in Schools of Business.
Amanda Rees January 19, 2009 at 12:53pm
I’m wondering that just as writing and critical thinking should be infused in our core curriculum whether themes such as environment and global litercy can also be infused in the core? As someone who enjoys the challenge of teaching writing in the core, I also want students to be writing about themes and issue relevant to global geography. I enjoy including business, the environment, spatial aspects of language etc. into my world geography course and seek to make my course relate to a variety of discplines.
Sarah Pallas January 19, 2009 at 11:49pm
What I see coming out of the sum of comments here is “teach them again what they should have learned in high school” and “require what I teach so my field will profit from the changes”. Until the K-12 situation improves a LOT, we and our students have plenty of basic work to do without adding frills. It is not our mission to act as a substitute for high school, the workout gym, or the yoga teacher. A primary goal for college and university faculty is to prepare students for a career and thus serve the businesses who will hire them.
U.S. scores on international testing, e.g. TIMMS, have made it very clear that U.S. students (and Georgia is low on the U.S. list) lag behind those of other countries especially in math and science.
According to our business leaders, the skill our students are particularly lacking is the ability to apply their classroom knowledge to real situations and to problem-solving. Critical thinking and quantitative skills are essential. They should be built into as many courses as possible, but I agree with Mr. Butts’ son that our students would benefit greatly from a course in logic and analytical thinking. High school seems to teach them to memorize instead of to think for themselves. Other than this I would rather see the core improve in content and level of expectation than to grow larger.
Other essential skills for the workplace include the ability to work collaboratively with many different types of people from all over the globe, and this is one reason why a multicultural perspective is so important. It’s hard to design and sell your product unless you understand the members of your global marketplace. It’s also hard to attain peace without understanding.
I agree with the basic learning outcomes framework established at GSU: communication, collaboration, critical thinking, contemporary issues, quantitative skills, and technology. I think a more difficult question is- How would we know if our students have achieved competence in these areas? Hearing back from employers that our former students can’t perform is not the type of outcome-based assessment that we need!
The proposed core curriculum goals are not much different from the current core. In my humble opinion, three important topics are missing in the current and proposed core curriculum: personal finance, ethic issues, and formal logic. At the wake of the financial crisis, the importance of ethical issues and personal finance are manifested. Twenty years ago, a MBA professor at Harvard University stated that the MBA students at the time lacked a sense of ethics. The attitude is that everything goes as long as you can make money. After twenty years, it is reflected in this financial disaster. Research shows that, just by teaching the ethical issues, the ethical problem will improve. This is why I propose to include ethical issues in the new core. The personal finance portion will teach students how to manage their personal finances, such as how to balance a checkbook, how to prepare for your retirement financially (401k, 403b, IRA, Roth IRA, etc), and more. These are the important skills that people do not learn in college (unless they are business majors). I believe everybody must be equipped with this knowledge. So, putting it in the core makes sense. The proposed core goals include critical thinking, in which we should add the formal logic training that could be offered by the math, computer science, and philosophy departments. The formal logic training can help students organize their thoughts, which is a very important aspect of living in the 21st century. I believe a college graduate must be able to form a coherent thought and express the thought logically.
Chad Stephens February 8, 2009 at 5:22pm
There is more and more evidence that First Year Seminar courses promote student success. Many systems allow for a FYS course in their core, or even require such a course. See http://www.unc.edu/fys/ for example. I thus recommend that a FYS course be considered as part of our new core.
Michael Redd February 9, 2009 at 10:51am
The First Year Seminar inclusion may be a good idea, but as people have pointed out in other discussions, the content may not be the same to allow for transfer.
As to revising the core in general, Area F needs to be renamed “Lower Division Major Requirements”.
Thomas E. Rotnem, on behalf of the Political Scien February 9, 2009 at 2:26pm
The Political Science Regents’ Advisory Council supports the efforts to evaluate and reconsider the USG core curriculum. However, the membership of the council strongly urges and recommends that the proposed Learning Goal #5 be subdivided into two sub-goals, i.e., one pertaining to U.S. “Civic Engagement” learning objectives and one advancing students “global engagement.” The first sub-goal would emphasize that all USG undergraduate students be expected to acquire an understanding of the American and Georgian constitutions and political systems, including institutions, policymaking processes, electoral processes, and citizen political participation. These objectives can best be achieved through a system-wide USG core curriculum requirement that POLS 1101 American Governnment, or its successor, be required at all USG institutions of all undergraduate students. The second sub-goal would emphasize many of the other globally-related learning outcomes already included in Learning Goal #5….
Furthermore, we believe that, while it is imperative that future generations of citizens and civic leaders be conversant in the fundamental elements of the American Political System/Georgia Constitution and Government and be knowledgeable concerning vital issues affecting the world, one course that serves both larger goals will be woefully inadequate.
Respectfully submitted,
Political Science Regents’ Advisory Council membership
Stephen Lahr February 11, 2009 at 5:04pm
It seems to me that few if any significant changes have been suggested to actually improve the education of students in the Core. Much of the University System Core will continue to be remedial in nature. The general outline of courses and disciplines being suggested does not reflect or address what the literature tells us about changes needed in higher education to prepare our students for the future. For example visual thinking (i.e. Daniel Pink) has become one of the hot topics and I really don’t see that this is being addressed. What about critical and creative thinking skills? Where are these being addressed in the Core Curriculum? I see more math and science, and social science, etc. More of the same is not better. The nature and content of many courses in the Core disparately need to be altered in fundamental ways that are not being addressed or even discussed. To leave these decisions to individual institutions is an extremely naïve approach in my opinion. The purpose of higher education should be to produce citizens who think and act at higher levels, should it not? More math, science, and social science is not the answer. But, better instruction, well designed comprehensive courses, and a breadth of disciplines that address a dynamic and changing society and world could be part of the answer. The exercise that is being gone through now is discouraging at best.
Joe Thomas February 19, 2009 at 12:03pm
Can I just say . . . the suggestions regarding changes in core flexibility look GREAT! Especially because it addresses the previous bias toward social science at the expense of everything else.
I don’t think the transferability thing is that big of a deal, but I’m not in favor of transferring across areas. I think if one school asks for an extra humanities class compared to another, the extra class should just transfer as a free elective.
Barbara Hunt February 20, 2009 at 12:39pm
“We want people who can write and communicate” is what I hear all the time from prospective employers concerning college graduates. By reducing the required English classes in Area A from two to one class (minimum), we will be graduating students with even weaker writing skills. This move makes no sense at all.
Crawford Elliott March 16, 2009 at 12:46pm
As for global perspectives, introductory geography (human geography) courses are useful to help convey basic and important concents describing people (e.g. political and spatial ideas) in courses having global perspectives.
As for the two-course science sequence, I see advisement and content issues (problems, not intractable) if only one of a two course sequence and a three credit course comprise the minimum. For example, a student might want to take the second course in the sequence in the FA semester and that course builds on material in the first course of the sequence typically offered in FA. I can not see to take GEOL 1122 without first taking GEOL 1121. Or for that matter, can you take CHEM 2 without having first taken CHEM 1. The first course then must be made more available and maybe dilute the ability to teach the second course.
Chad Stephens March 16, 2009 at 1:59pm
Re transfer of First year seminars: it is true that actual content will not be the same at different institutions. The exact content of different First Year Seminars is not even the same on a single campus. What is the same is the broad range learning objectives for the course (that go beyond exact content), which can be established at a state level. There is a lot of literature on how FYS courses can improve a student’s outlook on learning, thereby improving student success and retention. Accordingly, there are also a large number of schools in this country that require a FYS as part of the core. Would seem that the idea should at least be on the table in some format.
Hubert van Tuyll March 24, 2009 at 10:52am
I don’t see how this works. Right now, if a student completes CORE AREA C or any other at USG university 1, then they have completed CORE AREA C at university 2, 3, etc. Now, that won’t fly because if one school has 6 hours minimum in an area and another has 18, they are no longer equivalent.
Chris Booker March 24, 2009 at 12:50pm
I don’t see how anyone can believe that the core is slanted in favor of the social sciences. If anything, the social sciences seem to be the red-headed stepchild in the university system. If we are encouraging more critical thinking and multicuturalism, then there is no better approach than sociology, anthropology, and political science.
A liberal arts education for young people is the best investment we can make in our future. Informed citizens with highly developed cognitive skills is what the university system produces. Unfortunately, you cannot put a dollar value on this sort of investment, and as we all know, if you can’t assign a monetary value to something, then it is apparently worthless.
Do you really want the the people who are going to be 40 and 50 when you are 80 and 90 to only have specialized technical skills or do you want them to be informed citizens who value learning for its own sake and understand the value of an involved informed citizenry?
If you agree with the latter, then I suggest supporting core requirements such as sociology, political science, and economics.
Debra Sabia March 25, 2009 at 10:45am
I completely agree with the position of the Political Science Regents’ Advisory Council that the inclusion of a “Civic Engagement” Learning Goal be included in any revised USG core curriculum. The Civic Engagement learning goal would emphasize that all USG undergraduate students be expected to acquire an understanding of the American and Georgian constitutions and political systems, including institutions, policymaking processes, electoral processes, and citizen political participation. POLS 1101 American Governmebnt, or its successor, should be required of all undergraduates at all USG institutions. Higher education must require a basic level of political literacy as such knowledge is critical to the future survival of American democratic practices.
Glynn Elllis March 25, 2009 at 1:39pm
I am concerned about the change in status of United States History (HIST 2110) and American Government (POLS 1101) from required to optional. Do we really want the future leaders of our communities, businesses, and nation to become college graduates without learning the basics of our government or where we as a nation came from? Won’t this be a major deficiency in their education?
Kathleen Comerford March 26, 2009 at 4:40pm
It seems that people are more concerned with the US history and government requirements than with the world history and cultural aspects, and I am convinced that this is a fundamental and very damaging mistake. How, exactly, are we supposed to achieve the goal of global perspectives from US courses alone? Is it any wonder that our students do not want to take foreign languages or that we have low participation in study abroad programs, if we give them the impression that global knowledge depends on questions of how this affects the US?
Adam Bossler March 28, 2009 at 7:46pm
If we are truly interested in well-rounded students who will become the leaders of tomorrow, then American Government (POLS 1101)must remain a mandatory class. College is not simply a place to acquire technical skills and get ready for a job. We are not simply technical colleges teaching skills. We are places of higher learning. We want students who understand the world around them and can critically think about how the world should be (whatever conclusion they come to) and then go make it happen.
If we are going to have this much flexibility, let’s just go all the way then. Let’s require 1 Math course, two English courses, 36 hours of your major, and then the rest can be pure electives. If our goal is to give the students as much flexibility as possible, make it simple to transer, etc., this would be a great option.
But if we want to have a say so in the people who will be in charge, let’s require them to know something about our government.
Charles Derby March 30, 2009 at 9:05am
Today’s society requires science literacy. We are placing increased emphasis on quality education in the STEM area (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math) because knowledge in this area is critical for high tech jobs, quantitative skills in most jobs, and even being a good citizen (such as evaluating information on a jury, or deciding what advertisements to believe).
Thus, I am disappointed that the new core reduces the science requirement. In particular, it reduces by 50% the number of required laboratory sections, from 2 to 1. The lab sections are where students have the most training in learning the scientific method, how one uses science to know something, and technical skills.
To have a 50% reduction in laboratory experiences for our students will, in the long run, have negative impact on the preparation of our students for future jobs in Georgia and elsewhere, and for our Georgia employers who are looking for scientificially literate employees.
Robert McTyre March 30, 2009 at 9:07am
Core area F should allow the following types of courses: studio, performance, field study, and internship. These types of courses are essential in Fine and Applied Arts education.
David A. Cook March 30, 2009 at 9:43am
This is excellent—especially for new colleges that are struggling to develop arts programs or that are struggling to maintain arts programs. All around it is something students neeed that will encourage retention.
Jeff LeMieux March 30, 2009 at 12:28pm
If Georgia colleges are going to include the humanities as an important area of study, then performance-based courses in the Area F of those disciplines is essential to that task. While reading and speaking about art is necessary to the training of educated arts professionals it is not sufficient. Granting arts degrees without performance courses would be like awarding driver’s licenses based only on written test scores.
ron jackson March 30, 2009 at 5:42pm
The current draft asks whether wellness courses should be allowed in the core, in Area B; specifically, whether such courses would be consistent with the requirement that Area A-F courses must be college-level. My sense is that wellness-type courses, while addressing important concerns, are not sufficiently rigorous to meet this requirement. There appears to be a way for an institution to require such a course outside the core; see lines 235-253 of draft document. Indeed, wellness would seem to be a natural part of the phyical education/health course that can be required outside the core; see lines 235-241.
Robert Cook April 11, 2009 at 10:13am
Area D
Even though Area D has three titles, the lab course is restricted to the Natural Science topics. I think that this is short-sighted.
I recommend that the restriction to ONLY Natural Sciences be deleted. If necessary, add requirements on expectations for the content of the lab component.
Pamela Gore April 13, 2009 at 12:31am
The Science requirement is listed as:
116 Area D Natural Science, Mathematics, and Technology At least 7 hours
117 Courses that address learning outcomes in the sciences,
118 mathematics, and technology.
119 At least 4 of these hours must be in a lab science course.
________
In light of the critical need for the U.S. to regain its global competitiveness in science, it is imperative that instead of two science lectures and one lab, that we need to have TWO science labs. Lab is the place where students actually DO science, use inquiry skills and think critically, evaluate competing hypotheses, and learn how the world works.
In lecture the students only learn “about” science. In view of the national importance of having a scientifically literate population, we need to go back to having TWO REQUIRED SCIENCE LABS. We haven’t had 2 labs required in more than 10 years, and in those 10 years, the U.S. has fallen behind most of the world in science test scores. We have some catching up to do, and re-establishing the importance of science is one way to do it.
With more exposure to science, we are likely to have more students find that they actually like science, and hopefully they will become science teachers, which this state urgently needs.
EVERY science lecture should be accompanied by a required science lab so that we no longer have students sitting in lecture “looking in from the outside” without having had any meaningful science experience. No wonder they think it is boring. They don’t get to have any fun with it, and by not requiring labs, we are indicating that doing science is not a priority.
This is a chance to correct this oversight and require labs with every science lecture. Area D needs to be 8 credits, not 7. (If we say “at least 7”, students will always take the easiest way out and do the bare minimum.
Thanks.
Dr. Joe Trachtenberg April 14, 2009 at 12:10pm
The Political Science Regents Advisory Council expresses its concern that a six (6) hour Area E may result in students at some University System of Georgia institutions not taking POLS 1101 American Government; we also are concerned with the proposal that the Georgia Constitution and Government Legislative Requirement might be satisfied by students taking one of a number of courses other than POLS 1101 and not truly learning about our state’s constitution and government. Neither the prospect of students attending a U.S. university and failing to take a course in American government, or students enrolled at a state institution in Georgia and not learning about Georgia’s constitution and government from those with the disciplinary expertise to due so in a comprehensive manner provides us with much confidence that the next generation of voters will have the knowledge required to be informed participants in our political process. We recommend that POLS 1101 be required across the system in Area E and that the Georgia Constitution and Government Legislative Requirement be taught only in that course at all system institutions. In deed, it is quite possible that a student might experience either U.S. History or American government at a given institution and not be required to experience both courses; this too would be counter to the objective of educating future generations of educated citizens and informed voters.
Deborah Sauder April 17, 2009 at 10:25am
This post is reporting a vote taken the morning of April 17th at the Joint Meeting of the Chemistry and Physics Academic Advisory Committees
The motion was approved by a vote of 31-2 with no abstentions:
The Physics and Chemistry Academic Advisory Committees jointly recomend to the CORE Curriculum Committee that there be at least 8 hours of laboratory science courses required in Area D. This would: minimize transfer problems and prepare students for the 21st century.
Subsequent discussion higlighted the role of lab science courses in meeting the Learning goals in critical thinking, and in response to the USG STEM initiative.
J.B. Sharma April 17, 2009 at 10:38am
I strongly suggest that the science requirements for non-science majors be at least a minimum of 8 hours consisting of 2 lab courses.
This is what most USG institutions are doing and that science literacy for the non-science major is critical in the 21st century. Science literacy for all has deep economic implications for the future.
I do hope that the Core Curriculum committee will be cognizant of the critical nature of science literacy in the information age and will give serious consideration to this suggestion. Reducing science requirements for non-scientists is the wrong direction to go in this day and age.
Valerie Miller April 20, 2009 at 8:41am
Having read these posts over and over I am still concerned that we are “fixing” something that we have not even determined is broken and our “fixes” have a tendency to be along “party lines” if you will. As a mathematician I obviously would suggest students take more math - however that is not the purpose of this post.
I have chaired the Student Discipline Committee at GSU for several years and I am appalled at the number of students who plagiarize/cheat without remorse. They think nothing of searching the web and cutting and pasting their paper/test together. We no longer are creating students who can think for themselves or read for comprehension.
The students we have seem to be getting weaker and weaker in basic skills. They can’t pass existing courses so new (and more often than not) less rigorous are put in so that we can decrease our DWF rates.
A new core isn’t going to “fix” anything. Holding students responsible for their own learning and actions will create more educated and ethical citizens.
Richard M. Prior April 20, 2009 at 1:52pm
The current Area D of the Core Curriculum calls for two science courses plus a math or technology course. The proposed new Area D calls for at least 7 hours of science, math and technology. If this is adopted, the de facto common denominator will likely be one science course and one math or technology course.
In the 21st century our students need more science literacy, not less. There is great irony that in the USG we are actively pushing a STEM initiative on one hand while proposing to reduce general science literacy on the other.
Robert Pirro April 21, 2009 at 1:46pm
The 1975 state legislation that required all students at publicly funded institutions of higher education in Georgia to complete successfully a course (or exam) in American/Georgia state government seems premised on the idea that we have an obligation to provide students with the information and conceptual tools to enable them to understand and appreciate the duties, benefits, and prerecs of citizenship. The urgency of that task is no less today than it was in the wake of the social movements of the Sixties, Watergate and Vietnam. Until we establish a better way of fulfilling that task than the POLS 1101 course requirement, I would urge that we stick with POLS 1101 as a universal requirement.
In general, I think the current core provides the right mix of choice and direction, breadth and depth. It might need tweaking here and there (especially to faciliate credit transferability) but a wholesale change seems a bit extreme.
Mariam Dittmann April 21, 2009 at 2:02pm
I am concerned when I look at the comparison of the current core to the new core. I recognize the importance of flexibility in the core. However, for the most part, the new-found flexibility in the core is coming from Science/Math and Social Sciences. As a scientist, I must express my dismay at this. In a time when Georgia students are going to be required to take additional science classes in order to graduate so that they are better prepared for life in the 21st century, the University System responds by reducing the amount of math and science required in the core? Under the new proposed core, institutions may choose to minimize any area. I fear that some, in this time of tight budgets, will elect to minimize the science/math area as science labs are expensive to build and operate. This will be to the detriment of our students who must live and work in the new technological age in which we find ourselves.
Dawn Sherry April 21, 2009 at 4:35pm
I am writing to express my concern at the proposal to drop the requirement for Area D down to at least 7 hours. Having taught Biology for several years, I can attest to the need for quality science education in the state of Georgia. I think that dropping the lab course requirement down to only one is a terrible mistake. In this day and age, scientific literacy is important for decisions about healthcare and the technology we encounter everyday. It is also important to having a basic understanding of how the world works. I would argue that this runs counter to the STEM initiative. Finally, it seems that there is a general misunderstanding about the value of labs. First, they give the students an opportunity to collect data and use the data to come to conclusions. Students are able to perform experiments using equipment/tools used by scientists, giving them a familiarity and increased comfort level with these things. Finally, for those students who learn best by doing, this is the perfect place, without having to go to special lengths for this type of student to learn best. Why take that opportunity away? For a better Georgia, keep the requirement at 10-11 hours.
Michael Pangia April 22, 2009 at 5:45am
Suggestion I. Please rethink the proposal of transferring courses across areas. Where’s the logic in, as in the example in the current draft, accepting credit for a math course in the humanities/fine arts area?
Suggestion II. Currently pre-calculus is being specifically proposed as the Area A2 requirement for science majors. A colleague at a recent joint meeting of the USG Chemistry & Physics advisory committees pointed out that that doesn’t allow more advanced level students to start in on Calculus I or even II, as appropriate. Please consider this.
Michael Pangia May 7, 2009 at 8:03am
From searching the 5-6-09 proposed document, I found the phrase “lab course” in most occurrences in regard to Area D, but in one occurrence, “lab science course” is used. I suggest you use the phrase “lab science course” in all occurrences to avoid confusion.
Ginny Bass May 7, 2009 at 4:00pm
The proposed core specifies 31 hours in Areas A-E and an additional 18 hours in Area F for a total of 49 hours. I propose using free electives for transfer students for the additional 11 hours and strongly oppose giving transfer credit across areas. The use of free electives allows for differences at USG schools and moves us closer to the goal of ease of transfer-both for the student and the advisor.
Sarah Pallas May 8, 2009 at 4:44pm
It looks like the sciences really suffered in this core. In light of the US’s and especially Georgia’s poor standing in science and technology competency compared to other nations, and the dependence of the economy on R&D, this seems crazy. Likewise lab experiments are the most likely place for students to put their critical thinking skills into action. What can possibly be the motivation? Has anybody asked employers about this? Or is the goal just to make 19 year olds happy?
Michael Redd May 10, 2009 at 10:06pm
To begin, what is so wrong with the current core setup? I agree with the not broke, don’t fix it crowd.
Prerequisites - lines 273-279 limit the ability of a degree to allow specific courses that match outcomes in the proposed Core to be prereqs for Area F courses - (ie, MATH 1111 prereq for ACCT 2100). Lines 289-292 allow for 9 such hours, only if this decreases the number of required hours for the degree. Why? I guess I don’t understand what is so wrong with requiring basic skills for Area F.
Lines 159-161 put a time limit on ENGL 1101 and 1102. Why put a time limit on any part of the Core? Is this so students go lockstep through the university? Why not just hand Freshmen a four year plan that they are locked into on their first day? As to the specifics of ENGL 1101 and 1102, why not put the Regents’ Test to rest since these two courses are supposed to fulfill the expected learning goals in lines 26-37?
Transferability - While it is commendable to allow a student who completes the Core at one USG institution to have that same area completed at all USG institutions, I must agree with my collegues that “cross-transferability” is nonsensical.
Barbara Bateman May 13, 2009 at 7:23pm
Global competition? Communication? What better way to establish relationships with others in the world than to speak directly to them in their language? Foreign Language should be considered with as high importance as English in the core curriculm.
As others have stated, an Ethics course in Business or in Communications should be of equal concern as well.
Additionally, Music and Art without application is like studying language without the speaking component.
Comments
Tom Rotnem (on behalf of the Political Science RAC
December 4, 2008 at 9:52am
Whereas the Political Science Regents’ Advisory Council supports the timely effort to evaluate, assess, and reconsider the USG core curriculum, and whereas our membership has discussed with great thoroughness the core curriculum revision process at our two most recent annual Regents’ Advisory Council meetings in 2007 and 2008, the membership of the council strongly urges and recommends the inclusion of a “Civic Engagement” Learning Goal in any revised USG core curriculum. The Civic Engagement learning goal would emphasize that all USG undergraduate students be expected to acquire an understanding of the American and Georgian constitutions and political systems, including institutions, policymaking processes, electoral processes, and citizen political participation. These objectives can best be achieved through a systemwide USG core curriculum requirement that POLS 1101 American Governnment, or its successor, be required at all USG institutions of all undergraduate students. We believe that it is imperative that future generations of citizens and civic leaders be conversant in the fundamental elements of the American and Georgia political systems.
Respectfully submitted,
Political Science Regents’ Advisory Council membership
Don Butts
December 8, 2008 at 1:42pm
One of the questions asked by many when this whole project began was whether or not the core needed to be changed. One group no one has thought to ask are our students. So as a start I asked my son who graduated from UGA a year ago and is currently in graduate school what his thoughts were. He said that the core curriculum did not seem to be lacking anything, but suggested the addition of a basic philosophy or logic course. Are there any plans to survey our graduates on the issue?
Reid Derr
December 11, 2008 at 5:01pm
I encourage the addition (or substitution) of World Geography and some mandatory study of a foreign language. Having said this, I also think that keeping focus on Western Civilization is important. So often with the “global” and “multicultural” emphases of the age, students are exposed to powerful critiques of our culture before any rationale for our own.
Joe Thomas
December 18, 2008 at 2:18pm
1. Discourage universities from requiring so many specific classes to fulfill distribution requirements. Limit specifically required classes to math, comp, and one or two others.
2. Use “flags” instead of specific courses for certain competencies. For instance, multicultural requirements, writing component classes, etc. (I’m surprised Georgia doesn’t have an upper-division writing component requirement.) Then, these flagged classes could simultaneously fulfill a distribution requirement and some other requirement.
3. Re-think Area F. I’ve never seen a “core” or “general Education” program that dictated or included courses in the major. The whole idea is supposed to be that gen ed courses are common to all students. Area F is not common to everyone—it varies a lot, because it’s in so many different majors. Also, it can be very difficult to figure out what to put there in order to add up to exactly 18.
Teresa Peeples
January 12, 2009 at 12:26pm
I teach Physical Education, which I think is extremely important for our students and we are not even considered part of the core. We are listed as Area “G”. With the levels of obesity and the high risks of disease abounding in our country and nation, wellness and Physical Education would be a good focus for our new Curriculum. Area B lists “Wellness” as one of the components, yet most institutions do not have any wellness courses offered as an insitutional option in Area B. This would be a wonderful addition to our new Core Curriculum.
John Mascaritolo
January 12, 2009 at 1:46pm
I have been an industry practitioner of global supply chain management for over 33 years and now that I am teaching logistics and supply chain management, I find it necessary to expose the students to this discipline earlier in their studies before their junior year of college. Supply chain and logistics management has been identified by the State of Georgia as being a strategy initiative in developing economic growth for the State. I would like to see a basic course on supply chain management as part of the state core curriculum program.
Alan Kramer
January 12, 2009 at 11:23pm
The core curriculum is the primary means for carrying out a liberal arts education and therefore should be evaluated. I would like to see our USG core consistently recognize that education not only involves the mind and the intellect; but also the body. Specifically, I would like to see a minimum of three semester units in core study addressing and applying content relative to: physical and mental health, wellness, stress management, nutrition, human behavior, sexuality and financial literacy.
Debbie van Tuyll
January 13, 2009 at 9:05am
We live in an information-saturated world today. The core needs to address this reality with an information/media literacy component. As important as it is to understand the high culture expressive products addressed in humanities classes, even more important for our students today is understanding how popular culture productions influence individuals and society. This area of the core should address not only media literacy, but the reason it is important: maintenance of America’s system of self government.
Walter Thain
January 13, 2009 at 10:47pm
The core should include an elective course in personal finance and it should be offered in *all* of the 4-year degree programs throughout the USG. I am certain this course would be extremely popular and if taught without political bias, it would be one of the most important courses that a university graduate would take. I only wish I had the opportunity to take such a course.
Besides this major omission in the existing core, I would say that, as a minimum, the core should have the following educational outcomes:
1. Effective written and oral communication using the English language.
2. Working knowledge of the U.S. Constitution, U.S. government, and U.S. history.
3. Working knowledge of mathematics through the level of college algebra.
4. Basic knowledge of one or more international cultures and its interaction with U.S. culture.
Critical thinking is important for everyone and when taken in its entirety a student’s university education should provid ample opportunity to develop it. Relying on the core to provide most instruction in this area should not be necessary.
One final comment. There is an obvious attempt to steer the core toward an emphasis on multiculturalism. This subject must be treated very carefully. In my opinion, allowing multicultural education to manifest as ethnocentrism is a serious mistake. While there are valuable, useful, and important aspects to any culture, these qualities are in short supply in some. Simply examine which countries people try to emigrate from and see which ones they immigrate to. Emphasizing the value of cultures and nations people attempt to leave in large numbers is counterproductive.
harriet jardine
January 14, 2009 at 5:02pm
I agree wholeheartedly with Joe Thomas. In the CA state system, from which I came, they had a Writing Proficiency course. Every major was required to have several courses that met the WP requirement so a student could accomplish this learning goal in multiple ways. Certainly the Regents Test doesn’t do this..
I also like Debbie van Tuyll’s remarks. I think all the critical thinking in any area we can give our students the better.
As an applied psychologist I would like to see some life skills classes, but I realize this may not be our mission.
laura guglani
January 15, 2009 at 1:48pm
The core would be improved by added some sort of concrete foreign language requirement. Foreign language is not only becoming an increasingly critical skill in the work place, but also naturally fulfills other objectives, such as cross-cultural awareness and the development of communication skills.
Georgia’s foreign language requirement lags far behind that of other states. Because many other states have a fl requirement at the university level in both public and private universities, transfer students would benefit especially from this addition.
The requirement could vary according to major, for example at one public university where I previously taught, all students had a 2 semester requirement, and English majors a 4 semester requirement.
Robin Huff
January 16, 2009 at 9:11am
I believe that Humanities and Fine Arts are crucial if the focus in the twenty-first century is to be on globalization, multicultural awareness, critical thinking and communication. Foreign Languages are critical in this process. Germany for example has over 350 corporate affiliates in Georgia and a recent entourage from the Nürnberg government and Erlangen University visited GSU to seek American students and faculty for exchange programs co-teaching in Business and the Humanities. German alone has received a $20,000 Halle Foundation grant and a $50,000 endowment for the promotion of language and study abroad. As a research institution with a global perspective GSU needs to focus on those areas that support that ideal and not vague outcomes that defy definition.
Doug R. Oetter
January 17, 2009 at 7:00pm
While I agree that Economics/Personal Finance are important ingredients in a standard core, I strongly encourage the inclusion of Ecology/Environmental Science. We have way too many citizens who are clueless about the application of natural science to life on Earth. The proposed Natural Science outcomes are very weak with regard to the role of human interaction with the biosphere. The relationship of each individual with the ecosystem is every bit as complex and important as their relationship with the economy.
Greg Kordecki
January 19, 2009 at 12:32am
Two consecutive semesters of foreign language should be required. Students should have equal opportunity of pursuing Asiatic language such as Mandarin, Japenese, or Korean versus the traditional European French, German, Spanish. Language and culture minors (beyond Areas A through F) should be encouraged to be built into programs in Schools of Business.
Amanda Rees
January 19, 2009 at 12:53pm
I’m wondering that just as writing and critical thinking should be infused in our core curriculum whether themes such as environment and global litercy can also be infused in the core? As someone who enjoys the challenge of teaching writing in the core, I also want students to be writing about themes and issue relevant to global geography. I enjoy including business, the environment, spatial aspects of language etc. into my world geography course and seek to make my course relate to a variety of discplines.
Sarah Pallas
January 19, 2009 at 11:49pm
What I see coming out of the sum of comments here is “teach them again what they should have learned in high school” and “require what I teach so my field will profit from the changes”. Until the K-12 situation improves a LOT, we and our students have plenty of basic work to do without adding frills. It is not our mission to act as a substitute for high school, the workout gym, or the yoga teacher. A primary goal for college and university faculty is to prepare students for a career and thus serve the businesses who will hire them.
U.S. scores on international testing, e.g. TIMMS, have made it very clear that U.S. students (and Georgia is low on the U.S. list) lag behind those of other countries especially in math and science.
According to our business leaders, the skill our students are particularly lacking is the ability to apply their classroom knowledge to real situations and to problem-solving. Critical thinking and quantitative skills are essential. They should be built into as many courses as possible, but I agree with Mr. Butts’ son that our students would benefit greatly from a course in logic and analytical thinking. High school seems to teach them to memorize instead of to think for themselves. Other than this I would rather see the core improve in content and level of expectation than to grow larger.
Other essential skills for the workplace include the ability to work collaboratively with many different types of people from all over the globe, and this is one reason why a multicultural perspective is so important. It’s hard to design and sell your product unless you understand the members of your global marketplace. It’s also hard to attain peace without understanding.
I agree with the basic learning outcomes framework established at GSU: communication, collaboration, critical thinking, contemporary issues, quantitative skills, and technology. I think a more difficult question is- How would we know if our students have achieved competence in these areas? Hearing back from employers that our former students can’t perform is not the type of outcome-based assessment that we need!
JF Yao
January 23, 2009 at 12:30pm
The proposed core curriculum goals are not much different from the current core. In my humble opinion, three important topics are missing in the current and proposed core curriculum: personal finance, ethic issues, and formal logic. At the wake of the financial crisis, the importance of ethical issues and personal finance are manifested. Twenty years ago, a MBA professor at Harvard University stated that the MBA students at the time lacked a sense of ethics. The attitude is that everything goes as long as you can make money. After twenty years, it is reflected in this financial disaster. Research shows that, just by teaching the ethical issues, the ethical problem will improve. This is why I propose to include ethical issues in the new core. The personal finance portion will teach students how to manage their personal finances, such as how to balance a checkbook, how to prepare for your retirement financially (401k, 403b, IRA, Roth IRA, etc), and more. These are the important skills that people do not learn in college (unless they are business majors). I believe everybody must be equipped with this knowledge. So, putting it in the core makes sense. The proposed core goals include critical thinking, in which we should add the formal logic training that could be offered by the math, computer science, and philosophy departments. The formal logic training can help students organize their thoughts, which is a very important aspect of living in the 21st century. I believe a college graduate must be able to form a coherent thought and express the thought logically.
Chad Stephens
February 8, 2009 at 5:22pm
There is more and more evidence that First Year Seminar courses promote student success. Many systems allow for a FYS course in their core, or even require such a course. See http://www.unc.edu/fys/ for example. I thus recommend that a FYS course be considered as part of our new core.
Michael Redd
February 9, 2009 at 10:51am
The First Year Seminar inclusion may be a good idea, but as people have pointed out in other discussions, the content may not be the same to allow for transfer.
As to revising the core in general, Area F needs to be renamed “Lower Division Major Requirements”.
Thomas E. Rotnem, on behalf of the Political Scien
February 9, 2009 at 2:26pm
The Political Science Regents’ Advisory Council supports the efforts to evaluate and reconsider the USG core curriculum. However, the membership of the council strongly urges and recommends that the proposed Learning Goal #5 be subdivided into two sub-goals, i.e., one pertaining to U.S. “Civic Engagement” learning objectives and one advancing students “global engagement.” The first sub-goal would emphasize that all USG undergraduate students be expected to acquire an understanding of the American and Georgian constitutions and political systems, including institutions, policymaking processes, electoral processes, and citizen political participation. These objectives can best be achieved through a system-wide USG core curriculum requirement that POLS 1101 American Governnment, or its successor, be required at all USG institutions of all undergraduate students. The second sub-goal would emphasize many of the other globally-related learning outcomes already included in Learning Goal #5….
Furthermore, we believe that, while it is imperative that future generations of citizens and civic leaders be conversant in the fundamental elements of the American Political System/Georgia Constitution and Government and be knowledgeable concerning vital issues affecting the world, one course that serves both larger goals will be woefully inadequate.
Respectfully submitted,
Political Science Regents’ Advisory Council membership
Stephen Lahr
February 11, 2009 at 5:04pm
It seems to me that few if any significant changes have been suggested to actually improve the education of students in the Core. Much of the University System Core will continue to be remedial in nature. The general outline of courses and disciplines being suggested does not reflect or address what the literature tells us about changes needed in higher education to prepare our students for the future. For example visual thinking (i.e. Daniel Pink) has become one of the hot topics and I really don’t see that this is being addressed. What about critical and creative thinking skills? Where are these being addressed in the Core Curriculum? I see more math and science, and social science, etc. More of the same is not better. The nature and content of many courses in the Core disparately need to be altered in fundamental ways that are not being addressed or even discussed. To leave these decisions to individual institutions is an extremely naïve approach in my opinion. The purpose of higher education should be to produce citizens who think and act at higher levels, should it not? More math, science, and social science is not the answer. But, better instruction, well designed comprehensive courses, and a breadth of disciplines that address a dynamic and changing society and world could be part of the answer. The exercise that is being gone through now is discouraging at best.
Joe Thomas
February 19, 2009 at 12:03pm
Can I just say . . . the suggestions regarding changes in core flexibility look GREAT! Especially because it addresses the previous bias toward social science at the expense of everything else.
I don’t think the transferability thing is that big of a deal, but I’m not in favor of transferring across areas. I think if one school asks for an extra humanities class compared to another, the extra class should just transfer as a free elective.
Barbara Hunt
February 20, 2009 at 12:39pm
“We want people who can write and communicate” is what I hear all the time from prospective employers concerning college graduates. By reducing the required English classes in Area A from two to one class (minimum), we will be graduating students with even weaker writing skills. This move makes no sense at all.
Crawford Elliott
March 16, 2009 at 12:46pm
As for global perspectives, introductory geography (human geography) courses are useful to help convey basic and important concents describing people (e.g. political and spatial ideas) in courses having global perspectives.
As for the two-course science sequence, I see advisement and content issues (problems, not intractable) if only one of a two course sequence and a three credit course comprise the minimum. For example, a student might want to take the second course in the sequence in the FA semester and that course builds on material in the first course of the sequence typically offered in FA. I can not see to take GEOL 1122 without first taking GEOL 1121. Or for that matter, can you take CHEM 2 without having first taken CHEM 1. The first course then must be made more available and maybe dilute the ability to teach the second course.
Chad Stephens
March 16, 2009 at 1:59pm
Re transfer of First year seminars: it is true that actual content will not be the same at different institutions. The exact content of different First Year Seminars is not even the same on a single campus. What is the same is the broad range learning objectives for the course (that go beyond exact content), which can be established at a state level. There is a lot of literature on how FYS courses can improve a student’s outlook on learning, thereby improving student success and retention. Accordingly, there are also a large number of schools in this country that require a FYS as part of the core. Would seem that the idea should at least be on the table in some format.
Hubert van Tuyll
March 24, 2009 at 10:52am
I don’t see how this works. Right now, if a student completes CORE AREA C or any other at USG university 1, then they have completed CORE AREA C at university 2, 3, etc. Now, that won’t fly because if one school has 6 hours minimum in an area and another has 18, they are no longer equivalent.
Chris Booker
March 24, 2009 at 12:50pm
I don’t see how anyone can believe that the core is slanted in favor of the social sciences. If anything, the social sciences seem to be the red-headed stepchild in the university system. If we are encouraging more critical thinking and multicuturalism, then there is no better approach than sociology, anthropology, and political science.
A liberal arts education for young people is the best investment we can make in our future. Informed citizens with highly developed cognitive skills is what the university system produces. Unfortunately, you cannot put a dollar value on this sort of investment, and as we all know, if you can’t assign a monetary value to something, then it is apparently worthless.
Do you really want the the people who are going to be 40 and 50 when you are 80 and 90 to only have specialized technical skills or do you want them to be informed citizens who value learning for its own sake and understand the value of an involved informed citizenry?
If you agree with the latter, then I suggest supporting core requirements such as sociology, political science, and economics.
Debra Sabia
March 25, 2009 at 10:45am
I completely agree with the position of the Political Science Regents’ Advisory Council that the inclusion of a “Civic Engagement” Learning Goal be included in any revised USG core curriculum. The Civic Engagement learning goal would emphasize that all USG undergraduate students be expected to acquire an understanding of the American and Georgian constitutions and political systems, including institutions, policymaking processes, electoral processes, and citizen political participation. POLS 1101 American Governmebnt, or its successor, should be required of all undergraduates at all USG institutions. Higher education must require a basic level of political literacy as such knowledge is critical to the future survival of American democratic practices.
Glynn Elllis
March 25, 2009 at 1:39pm
I am concerned about the change in status of United States History (HIST 2110) and American Government (POLS 1101) from required to optional. Do we really want the future leaders of our communities, businesses, and nation to become college graduates without learning the basics of our government or where we as a nation came from? Won’t this be a major deficiency in their education?
Kathleen Comerford
March 26, 2009 at 4:40pm
It seems that people are more concerned with the US history and government requirements than with the world history and cultural aspects, and I am convinced that this is a fundamental and very damaging mistake. How, exactly, are we supposed to achieve the goal of global perspectives from US courses alone? Is it any wonder that our students do not want to take foreign languages or that we have low participation in study abroad programs, if we give them the impression that global knowledge depends on questions of how this affects the US?
Adam Bossler
March 28, 2009 at 7:46pm
If we are truly interested in well-rounded students who will become the leaders of tomorrow, then American Government (POLS 1101)must remain a mandatory class. College is not simply a place to acquire technical skills and get ready for a job. We are not simply technical colleges teaching skills. We are places of higher learning. We want students who understand the world around them and can critically think about how the world should be (whatever conclusion they come to) and then go make it happen.
If we are going to have this much flexibility, let’s just go all the way then. Let’s require 1 Math course, two English courses, 36 hours of your major, and then the rest can be pure electives. If our goal is to give the students as much flexibility as possible, make it simple to transer, etc., this would be a great option.
But if we want to have a say so in the people who will be in charge, let’s require them to know something about our government.
Charles Derby
March 30, 2009 at 9:05am
Today’s society requires science literacy. We are placing increased emphasis on quality education in the STEM area (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math) because knowledge in this area is critical for high tech jobs, quantitative skills in most jobs, and even being a good citizen (such as evaluating information on a jury, or deciding what advertisements to believe).
Thus, I am disappointed that the new core reduces the science requirement. In particular, it reduces by 50% the number of required laboratory sections, from 2 to 1. The lab sections are where students have the most training in learning the scientific method, how one uses science to know something, and technical skills.
To have a 50% reduction in laboratory experiences for our students will, in the long run, have negative impact on the preparation of our students for future jobs in Georgia and elsewhere, and for our Georgia employers who are looking for scientificially literate employees.
Robert McTyre
March 30, 2009 at 9:07am
Core area F should allow the following types of courses: studio, performance, field study, and internship. These types of courses are essential in Fine and Applied Arts education.
David A. Cook
March 30, 2009 at 9:43am
This is excellent—especially for new colleges that are struggling to develop arts programs or that are struggling to maintain arts programs. All around it is something students neeed that will encourage retention.
Jeff LeMieux
March 30, 2009 at 12:28pm
If Georgia colleges are going to include the humanities as an important area of study, then performance-based courses in the Area F of those disciplines is essential to that task. While reading and speaking about art is necessary to the training of educated arts professionals it is not sufficient. Granting arts degrees without performance courses would be like awarding driver’s licenses based only on written test scores.
ron jackson
March 30, 2009 at 5:42pm
The current draft asks whether wellness courses should be allowed in the core, in Area B; specifically, whether such courses would be consistent with the requirement that Area A-F courses must be college-level. My sense is that wellness-type courses, while addressing important concerns, are not sufficiently rigorous to meet this requirement. There appears to be a way for an institution to require such a course outside the core; see lines 235-253 of draft document. Indeed, wellness would seem to be a natural part of the phyical education/health course that can be required outside the core; see lines 235-241.
Robert Cook
April 11, 2009 at 10:13am
Area D
Even though Area D has three titles, the lab course is restricted to the Natural Science topics. I think that this is short-sighted.
I recommend that the restriction to ONLY Natural Sciences be deleted. If necessary, add requirements on expectations for the content of the lab component.
Pamela Gore
April 13, 2009 at 12:31am
The Science requirement is listed as:
116 Area D Natural Science, Mathematics, and Technology At least 7 hours
117 Courses that address learning outcomes in the sciences,
118 mathematics, and technology.
119 At least 4 of these hours must be in a lab science course.
________
In light of the critical need for the U.S. to regain its global competitiveness in science, it is imperative that instead of two science lectures and one lab, that we need to have TWO science labs. Lab is the place where students actually DO science, use inquiry skills and think critically, evaluate competing hypotheses, and learn how the world works.
In lecture the students only learn “about” science. In view of the national importance of having a scientifically literate population, we need to go back to having TWO REQUIRED SCIENCE LABS. We haven’t had 2 labs required in more than 10 years, and in those 10 years, the U.S. has fallen behind most of the world in science test scores. We have some catching up to do, and re-establishing the importance of science is one way to do it.
With more exposure to science, we are likely to have more students find that they actually like science, and hopefully they will become science teachers, which this state urgently needs.
EVERY science lecture should be accompanied by a required science lab so that we no longer have students sitting in lecture “looking in from the outside” without having had any meaningful science experience. No wonder they think it is boring. They don’t get to have any fun with it, and by not requiring labs, we are indicating that doing science is not a priority.
This is a chance to correct this oversight and require labs with every science lecture. Area D needs to be 8 credits, not 7. (If we say “at least 7”, students will always take the easiest way out and do the bare minimum.
Thanks.
Dr. Joe Trachtenberg
April 14, 2009 at 12:10pm
The Political Science Regents Advisory Council expresses its concern that a six (6) hour Area E may result in students at some University System of Georgia institutions not taking POLS 1101 American Government; we also are concerned with the proposal that the Georgia Constitution and Government Legislative Requirement might be satisfied by students taking one of a number of courses other than POLS 1101 and not truly learning about our state’s constitution and government. Neither the prospect of students attending a U.S. university and failing to take a course in American government, or students enrolled at a state institution in Georgia and not learning about Georgia’s constitution and government from those with the disciplinary expertise to due so in a comprehensive manner provides us with much confidence that the next generation of voters will have the knowledge required to be informed participants in our political process. We recommend that POLS 1101 be required across the system in Area E and that the Georgia Constitution and Government Legislative Requirement be taught only in that course at all system institutions. In deed, it is quite possible that a student might experience either U.S. History or American government at a given institution and not be required to experience both courses; this too would be counter to the objective of educating future generations of educated citizens and informed voters.
Deborah Sauder
April 17, 2009 at 10:25am
This post is reporting a vote taken the morning of April 17th at the Joint Meeting of the Chemistry and Physics Academic Advisory Committees
The motion was approved by a vote of 31-2 with no abstentions:
The Physics and Chemistry Academic Advisory Committees jointly recomend to the CORE Curriculum Committee that there be at least 8 hours of laboratory science courses required in Area D. This would: minimize transfer problems and prepare students for the 21st century.
Subsequent discussion higlighted the role of lab science courses in meeting the Learning goals in critical thinking, and in response to the USG STEM initiative.
J.B. Sharma
April 17, 2009 at 10:38am
I strongly suggest that the science requirements for non-science majors be at least a minimum of 8 hours consisting of 2 lab courses.
This is what most USG institutions are doing and that science literacy for the non-science major is critical in the 21st century. Science literacy for all has deep economic implications for the future.
I do hope that the Core Curriculum committee will be cognizant of the critical nature of science literacy in the information age and will give serious consideration to this suggestion. Reducing science requirements for non-scientists is the wrong direction to go in this day and age.
Valerie Miller
April 20, 2009 at 8:41am
Having read these posts over and over I am still concerned that we are “fixing” something that we have not even determined is broken and our “fixes” have a tendency to be along “party lines” if you will. As a mathematician I obviously would suggest students take more math - however that is not the purpose of this post.
I have chaired the Student Discipline Committee at GSU for several years and I am appalled at the number of students who plagiarize/cheat without remorse. They think nothing of searching the web and cutting and pasting their paper/test together. We no longer are creating students who can think for themselves or read for comprehension.
The students we have seem to be getting weaker and weaker in basic skills. They can’t pass existing courses so new (and more often than not) less rigorous are put in so that we can decrease our DWF rates.
A new core isn’t going to “fix” anything. Holding students responsible for their own learning and actions will create more educated and ethical citizens.
Richard M. Prior
April 20, 2009 at 1:52pm
The current Area D of the Core Curriculum calls for two science courses plus a math or technology course. The proposed new Area D calls for at least 7 hours of science, math and technology. If this is adopted, the de facto common denominator will likely be one science course and one math or technology course.
In the 21st century our students need more science literacy, not less. There is great irony that in the USG we are actively pushing a STEM initiative on one hand while proposing to reduce general science literacy on the other.
Robert Pirro
April 21, 2009 at 1:46pm
The 1975 state legislation that required all students at publicly funded institutions of higher education in Georgia to complete successfully a course (or exam) in American/Georgia state government seems premised on the idea that we have an obligation to provide students with the information and conceptual tools to enable them to understand and appreciate the duties, benefits, and prerecs of citizenship. The urgency of that task is no less today than it was in the wake of the social movements of the Sixties, Watergate and Vietnam. Until we establish a better way of fulfilling that task than the POLS 1101 course requirement, I would urge that we stick with POLS 1101 as a universal requirement.
In general, I think the current core provides the right mix of choice and direction, breadth and depth. It might need tweaking here and there (especially to faciliate credit transferability) but a wholesale change seems a bit extreme.
Mariam Dittmann
April 21, 2009 at 2:02pm
I am concerned when I look at the comparison of the current core to the new core. I recognize the importance of flexibility in the core. However, for the most part, the new-found flexibility in the core is coming from Science/Math and Social Sciences. As a scientist, I must express my dismay at this. In a time when Georgia students are going to be required to take additional science classes in order to graduate so that they are better prepared for life in the 21st century, the University System responds by reducing the amount of math and science required in the core? Under the new proposed core, institutions may choose to minimize any area. I fear that some, in this time of tight budgets, will elect to minimize the science/math area as science labs are expensive to build and operate. This will be to the detriment of our students who must live and work in the new technological age in which we find ourselves.
Dawn Sherry
April 21, 2009 at 4:35pm
I am writing to express my concern at the proposal to drop the requirement for Area D down to at least 7 hours. Having taught Biology for several years, I can attest to the need for quality science education in the state of Georgia. I think that dropping the lab course requirement down to only one is a terrible mistake. In this day and age, scientific literacy is important for decisions about healthcare and the technology we encounter everyday. It is also important to having a basic understanding of how the world works. I would argue that this runs counter to the STEM initiative. Finally, it seems that there is a general misunderstanding about the value of labs. First, they give the students an opportunity to collect data and use the data to come to conclusions. Students are able to perform experiments using equipment/tools used by scientists, giving them a familiarity and increased comfort level with these things. Finally, for those students who learn best by doing, this is the perfect place, without having to go to special lengths for this type of student to learn best. Why take that opportunity away? For a better Georgia, keep the requirement at 10-11 hours.
Michael Pangia
April 22, 2009 at 5:45am
Suggestion I. Please rethink the proposal of transferring courses across areas. Where’s the logic in, as in the example in the current draft, accepting credit for a math course in the humanities/fine arts area?
Suggestion II. Currently pre-calculus is being specifically proposed as the Area A2 requirement for science majors. A colleague at a recent joint meeting of the USG Chemistry & Physics advisory committees pointed out that that doesn’t allow more advanced level students to start in on Calculus I or even II, as appropriate. Please consider this.
Michael Pangia
May 7, 2009 at 8:03am
From searching the 5-6-09 proposed document, I found the phrase “lab course” in most occurrences in regard to Area D, but in one occurrence, “lab science course” is used. I suggest you use the phrase “lab science course” in all occurrences to avoid confusion.
Ginny Bass
May 7, 2009 at 4:00pm
The proposed core specifies 31 hours in Areas A-E and an additional 18 hours in Area F for a total of 49 hours. I propose using free electives for transfer students for the additional 11 hours and strongly oppose giving transfer credit across areas. The use of free electives allows for differences at USG schools and moves us closer to the goal of ease of transfer-both for the student and the advisor.
Sarah Pallas
May 8, 2009 at 4:44pm
It looks like the sciences really suffered in this core. In light of the US’s and especially Georgia’s poor standing in science and technology competency compared to other nations, and the dependence of the economy on R&D, this seems crazy. Likewise lab experiments are the most likely place for students to put their critical thinking skills into action. What can possibly be the motivation? Has anybody asked employers about this? Or is the goal just to make 19 year olds happy?
Michael Redd
May 10, 2009 at 10:06pm
To begin, what is so wrong with the current core setup? I agree with the not broke, don’t fix it crowd.
Prerequisites - lines 273-279 limit the ability of a degree to allow specific courses that match outcomes in the proposed Core to be prereqs for Area F courses - (ie, MATH 1111 prereq for ACCT 2100). Lines 289-292 allow for 9 such hours, only if this decreases the number of required hours for the degree. Why? I guess I don’t understand what is so wrong with requiring basic skills for Area F.
Lines 159-161 put a time limit on ENGL 1101 and 1102. Why put a time limit on any part of the Core? Is this so students go lockstep through the university? Why not just hand Freshmen a four year plan that they are locked into on their first day? As to the specifics of ENGL 1101 and 1102, why not put the Regents’ Test to rest since these two courses are supposed to fulfill the expected learning goals in lines 26-37?
Transferability - While it is commendable to allow a student who completes the Core at one USG institution to have that same area completed at all USG institutions, I must agree with my collegues that “cross-transferability” is nonsensical.
Barbara Bateman
May 13, 2009 at 7:23pm
Global competition? Communication? What better way to establish relationships with others in the world than to speak directly to them in their language? Foreign Language should be considered with as high importance as English in the core curriculm.
As others have stated, an Ethics course in Business or in Communications should be of equal concern as well.
Additionally, Music and Art without application is like studying language without the speaking component.