College of Engineering Faculty Forum Summary Report (PDF)
Faculty Comments:
Anonymous
Although this may be outside our remit, I believe that curriculum
reform must also be involved with K-12. I continue to be astonished
that we as an undergraduate institution continue to have to teach
such basic concepts as calculus to undergraduates!
David Hull, professor, aerospace engineering
I
am opposed to the concept of the University College. Some of my
reasons are the following:
a. The students would be better off being advised within the smaller environment
of their colleges. If there are colleges that do not have organized advising,
etc., they should be encouraged to develop them.
b. It would require a complete reorganization of the advising, etc. activities
throughout the University. This is no small undertaking, and the expense would
be considerable.
c. One of the justifications of this college concerns the fact that so many students
change majors. I am not at all surprised. At eighteen years of age it is difficult
to decide what they want to do for the rest of their lives. I do not think that
the small amount of counseling in this regard that will be given by the University
College will help. What difference does it make if a student enters the university
(1) in a major he thinks he likes and then changes to a major he thinks he likes
better, (2) and is assigned to a major for accounting purposes and then switches
to a different major, (3) enters UT as an undecided and then changes to
a named major. In all cases there is a change, regardless of what you call it.
I am opposed to the creation of the signature course. Some of my reasons are
the following:
a. The cost is enormous, and the return is small. Students can forget what
they learned in a signature course just as fast as they can forget what they
learned in history, government, and so on
b. We used to have a signature course in English, but it no longer exists. I
do not remember all of the details, but I think the course contained three parts:
say 1/3 literature, 1/3 drama, and 1/3 poetry. This course just required three
professors and three sections. A few courses like this could help students get
a broader view of things without creating just one signature course.
c. Junior colleges would have a difficult time teaching such a course so transfer
students would have to go back and take a freshman course.
In conclusion, I am in the College of Engineering, and I feel that it takes good
care of its freshmen in advising, counseling, and other student services. If
there is a problem in the University, it is that not all colleges have the same
commitment to their students. If such colleges exist, they should change, not
the whole University.
Also, I do not think that the General Education Requirement (GER) is broken;
it may need some refinement. In fact, the signature course proposal seems to
be the GER with one course replaced by the signature course.
Russell Johns, associate professor, petroleum and geosystems engineering
After reading the proposal and attending the engineering forum, I am
very much opposed to many of the curricular reform proposals. My
basic reasons are
1) The proposal was poorly written and as such gives me little
confidence that the issues were well thought out.
2) The Freshman College will drain resources from other areas and I
can think of better uses for the money, such as hiring additional
faculty. For example, our student-faculty ratio in petroleum
engineering is now about 30 to 1. Further, no one has outlined
clearly where the large amount of money for an endowment will come from.
3) The new college could eventually grow unchecked. In my view, we
have too many administrative personnel at UT already and this only
adds to the burden.
4) The signature courses would not appeal to me if I were a
student. I never liked large courses where TA's do most of the teaching.
5) The premise of the proposal is that every student should have the
same common experience. Why? No one has outlined why this should be
so. I do not view people as robots - everyone has different
interests and should be able to choose from a variety of courses.
In short, the proposal is a bad idea that appears to be rushed
through for the sake of doing something. I would prefer that we
address head on the legislative mandate of two government and history
requirements, which I my opinion should be reduced by half. I would
add foreign language requirements and a general elective for
engineering students. Each college could have their own broadening
core requirements.
Brian Korgel, associate professor, chemical engineering
Here is my feedback about the 5 recommendations from the Task Force on
Curricular Reform:
Recommendation 1 (recommendation that all students take a specially
developed course in each of their first two years called "Signature
Courses."): The "Signature courses" strike me as being new and
interesting in that they are "interdisciplinary" courses that span
departments and colleges. Many of the interesting problems lie at the
intellectual interfaces that are difficult to address in the
conventional departmental approach. In this respect, I think that the
development of cross-departmental and cross-college courses is a good
idea. However, the "requirement" that all undergraduates must follow
a
prescribed formula of such courses strikes me as a bad idea. There is
a lot of value in students taking a deep introductory course that lies
within a specific discipline--in fact, this is the best way to learn
about a new field that might be totally new to the student and could be
life-changing. A core course does not need to be a skin-deep collage
of material to be interesting and useful. In my opinion, all students
should not be required to take "signature courses." I think students
should have the flexibillity to follow their passions and have options,
within some loose meaningful framework. The best way to engage
students is to let them follow their heart and study what interests
them. We should simply help guide them and let them know what their
options are, then let them decide.
Recommendation 2 (Core courses should be coordinated into "thematic
strands."): Sounds fine to me.
Recommendation 3 (Undergraduate students should have adequate
opportunities to explore different areas of study before declaring a
major.): I think having the option to enter UT as "undeclared" is
essential for undergraduates. However, mandating that every incoming
student enter as "undeclared" strikes me as problematic, unnecessary,
and limiting for most students. Additionally, in the College of
Engineering (my home college), I think this would probably be
unworkable.
Recommendation 4 (Establishment of a "University College."): This
idea
is in my opinion a very bad one. I don't believe that the resources
are there for such a college. Second of all, I don't believe it is a
tenable idea--I do not believe it will be possible to have a
functioning College without faculty hired into that particular
unit--who exactly will have a stake in the success of the College? One
of the goals of faculty at a world-class teaching institution is the
advancement of knowledge--its faculty should not only be disseminating
knowledge, but also advancing fields of knowledge. What knowledge will
this University College advance? The University College seems
unnecessary and I believe that there are many better ways to organize
the undergraduate curriculum that makes use of the tremendous
intellectual resources at the university.
Recommendation 5 (Generate additional financial resources for the core
curriculum and undergraduate education): Sounds great! I believe the
primary obstacle to improved undergraduate education is the lack of
financial resources needed to lower the student/faculty ratio. I think
it's obvious: The only way to improve undergraduate education at the
University of Texas at Austin is to convince the state to increase its
investment in higher education so that more faculty can be hired and
the student/faculty ratio can be cut. This should be the priority of
the Task Force on Curricular Reform in my opinion.
