Faculty Comments:
Christine Hawkes, assistant professor, Section of Integrative Biology
Having read through the recommendations of the Task Force on Curricular
Reform, I would like to register my opinion (though it is not clear
that additional faculty input will be included). I believe the
goal of strengthening the undergraduate core curriculum is both
laudable and necessary. However, I must agree with the dissenting
opinion that the development of a 'University College' and 'Signature
Courses' is not the best approach. Both of these would be a heavy
drain on available resources with very little evident benefit.
The development of a stronger core curriculum can and should be
done through existing colleges.
Bill Mark, assistant professor,
computer sciences
I'm a faculty member (assistant professor) in the computer
sciences department. I want to quickly register my
opinion about the proposed curriculum reforms.
After reading the report from the task force, I am opposed to many of the recommendations.
In particular, I strongly agree with the Minority Report's criticisms of the
Task Force recommendations.
Anonymous
I would like to take a moment to provide some unsolicited
comments on the Report of the Task Force on Curricular
Reform. In particular, I want to express reservations
about the proposed Signature Courses, and about some
of the administrative aspects of the proposed University
College. These comments are largely but not entirely
in line with the alternative recommendations of Dr.
David Hillis. I'll start with a couple of very general
comments, then point out some specific thoughts about
the proposals that arise from my experience teaching
the UTeach Research Methods course, which is an inquiry-based
course whose performance has some bearing on some of
the curricular goals. I give these opinions with the
caveat that I am relatively new to UT, and so there
may be aspects of the current curricular organization
that I am not fully familiar with.
First, I wish to say that I am in full support of the idea of encouraging students
to delay declaring their major and becoming associated with a particular department
or college. This is a practical recognition of what is already widespread: college
freshman are rarely prepared to commit themselves to a particular educational
track, and 65% end up changing majors. From my experience at other colleges where
students delay major declaration, I expect that an even larger fraction would
consider alternative majors if the barriers to changing were lowered. I consider
this a good thing, as college serves as a critical time for students to broaden
their horizons, and they should be free to pursue unanticipated directions.
Having students select majors at the start of their second year is a good step
in that direction, conditional on appropriate advising support for freshmen.
This advising support must come from an entity that transcends individual colleges
if it is to give sound advice to students who are wavering among colleges. I
do not see this preventing more motivated and directed students from starting
down their major's path in their freshman year, particularly if they had the
option of accessing advice from either the University-wide advising structure,
or a specific college's advising system.
While I have reservations about the signature courses (more on that, below),
I do believe that such interdisciplinary courses will help expose students to
new academic disciplines. I therefore find it odd that one of the two courses
be slated for their second year, after they have declared their major.
Next, I am in strong support of organizing the existing smorgasbord of core courses
into thematic strands, as long as students have the right to deviate from those
strands.
I am, however, concerned about the signature courses, and the proposed University
College. These concerns are similar to David Hillis' comments, with the caveat
that I
do support delays to declaring majors, and advising structures
that can aid students interested in multiple colleges. In particular, I agree
that the additional administrative structure of the University College is not
well justified given the more productive outlets for new funds (smaller
classes, emphasis on inquiry-based learning). I also feel that the signature
courses are unlikely to create a "shared experience" or sense of community,
given their large class size and the probable diversity of courses falling under
that name. Finally, unless the university is willing to commit to intensively
training TAs in how to tutor students in writing, I do not anticipate the signature
courses being effective in conveying such skills.
I want to close with a few comments on curriculum content, inspired by my experiences
with the UTeach students in Research Methods. As you likely know, the UTeach
program is designed to provide undergraduate science majors with additional training
in teaching, so they can qualify to teach K-12 math and science. (As an aside,
I should note that I have encountered a significant number of UTeach students
who switch majors and even colleges) The Research Methods course aims to provide
intensive experience in experimental design, data analysis, and a basic introduction
to statistical reasoning. The majority of students in the course (mostly juniors
and senior science majors) have no grasp of what statistics are
for. Almost
none of the students have had experience designing their own research, or analyzing
data in a non-cookbook manner. This highlights a vital gap in our current undergraduate
training, that will not be filled by the large signature courses. Filling this
gap requires very small class sizes and a level of teaching resources not acknowledged
in the Task Force's Report. This is because each student, if they are to learn
these skills, needs to devise and execute an independent project. This requires
individual attention. To give you an idea of these demands, the Research Methods
course is divided into three sections of roughly 15-20 students, each taught
by a separate professor plus one TA. In our 2-hour laboratory sessions, this
gives each instructor (professor or TA) roughly 12-15 minutes per student per
week. Imagine having 12 minutes to consult with a student on their first-ever
experience with designing an experiment, touching on issues of the basic concept
of the study, sample size, calibrating measurements, building the appropriate
apparatus, and data analysis. Our experience is that many students require 30-60
minutes of interaction per week to develop effective inquiry-based projects,
and as a result the 3 professors and multiple TAs regularly attend eachother's
laboratory sessions to lend a hand and make this all possible. The point is,
any serious commitment to inquiry-based learning, or hands-on experience with
applying quantitative reasoning, is going to require more than a TA session in
a signature course, and require more than simply mandating that departments develop
courses with inquiry-based components to satisfy 'flag' requirements. I agree
with all of the
aims of the Task Force report, but some of the costlier
recommendations (the University College, and the signature courses) are likely
to conflict with these aims by diverting resources from where they are needed:
developing smaller more challenging courses within the existing framework.
Thanks for taking the time to consider my input. Again, I realize I am new here
and may miss some of the history and details of some of the issues. On the other
hand, I hope to be at UT for quite some time, so I felt obliged to add my two-cents
worth.
Kathrin Stanger-Hall, research fellow, Section of Integrative Biology
The proposed University College will have minimal impact on the quality of education
at UT (see Report of the Commission: minority opinion by David Hillis). To improve
the quality of undergraduate education, resources should be directed to educators,
not to administrators. I propose the following:
1. Invest in quality teaching. Teaching
is only as good as the teachers. The University
should attract and select the best and most motivated
teachers in the country by establishing tenure-track
teaching positions. Tenure-track positions are
not only an incentive for the best teachers to
come to UT, but also show the commitment of the
University to undergraduate education. Depending
on the need of the different colleges at UT,
tenure track teaching positions could be either
based on a combination of teaching and teaching
research (e.g. University of Georgia system,
Duke University), or combine teaching with non-teaching
research (e.g. University of Florida system),
or a mix of both. UT is primarily a research
University. Research faculty best serve the University
by pursuing quality research, attracting funding,
educating graduate students, and providing research
opportunities for undergraduate students. To
educate the large number of undergraduate students,
additional faculty are needed, who are highly
motivated and committed to top quality teaching.
2. Invest in classrooms. Most
classrooms at UT are traditional classrooms for
large lecture classes. They are not designed
for interactive activities between students and
do not facilitate the use of the most efficient
teaching and learning tools as suggested by recent
teaching and learning research.
I. New classrooms: When designing individual
new classrooms, the architects need to consult
with experienced teaching faculty that will actually
use these rooms, and that are aware of the different
teaching and learning methodologies. In addition
to new technology (for PC+Mac), the desired features
for different classrooms may include:
a. Lecture halls that allow for enough space that instructors can walk between
seat rows and interact with individual students (this will also reduce cheating
during exams).
b. Alternative classrooms with round tables that seat about 8 students each,
and enough space for instructors to walk between tables. The projection screens
in these new classrooms should be on at least two sides of the room.
c. More lab rooms so that labs (e.g. in Natural Sciences) can be offered for
all students in parallel to the introductory lecture sequence and reinforce active
learning and higher level understanding of the material.
II. Old classrooms: better lighting is needed (most are too dark even
with full lighting). Maintain functional blackboards and add projection technology
and class response systems. Ensure that all classrooms have PC+Mac access and
have all the needed software installed.
I believe that by implementing these two solutions, UT could become one of the
top US institutions for quality undergraduate education, and the long-stated
commitment to excellence in teaching and learning will finally become reality.
John R. Durbin, professor, mathematics
Thanks for the invitation to comment on the recommendations of the Task Force
on Curricular Reform. My apologies if this is too long.
I think the report of the Task Force is seriously flawed, and I endorse the
minority report of Professor Hillis.
The report was supposed to be about the core curriculum. But it has
no core. What is does have, in my opinion, is an over designed and expensive
plan—signature courses, flags, strands, and a new college—surrounded
by an excessive amount of disconnected and often meaningless rhetoric.
The proposal for signature courses essentially asks the faculty to sign a
blank check for their content. As an example, consider this from page
7: "Another topical section (possibly entitled 'Conceptions of Nature
in Science and Art') might investigate how scientists and artists construct
theories and visions of the natural world." That is at least one
interdisciplinary course too many. How could it be viewed seriously as
part of the core?
Please indulge me as I try to make a point that should be obvious. I
appreciate that Cézanne, one of my favorite painters, saw the natural
world differently than almost everyone else. But that appreciation comes
from auditing courses in art history and spending hundreds of hours in museums,
not from anything I know about mathematics and science. In the same way,
what I know about mathematics comes from studying mathematics seriously, not
from a forced connection with art or from a superficial exposure to great ideas.
Under the structure proposed by the report, decisions about signature courses
would be made largely by faculty active in the new college. That would
likely take us in a direction represented by the thinking in this report, perhaps
some kind of Plan II Lite. All this would occur out of sight of most
of the faculty. That should be a cause for concern; trust me, I have
had lots of experience with how faculty committees and faculty governance work.
The talk about "flags" and "strands" suggests that we
might be dealing with PR as much as with content. Are we trying to impress
others (alums? prospective students? those who rate programs?) or are we trying
to put together a simple, substantive plan that will work in a very large diverse
university?
Except for technology, the basic challenges of the world haven’t changed
as much as the report might lead one to believe.
Core curricula have, for many years and in good universities, been built from
a fairly standard list of fields. Today, obviously, technology would
be essential, and study abroad would be desirable. We do not need grand
plans and buzzwords and a costly new administrative structure to deal with
the details, just serious thought and debate.
The General Faculty and the administration should ask individual schools and
colleges to report very specifically on how they can improve their offerings
of core courses, and see that they get the resources to do what seems sound. The
Task Force report does provide ideas worth considering.
We are told our goal is to make this one of the very best universities in
the country. It seems some people think we can become Harvard/UC Berkeley/MIT
in research and Williams/Swarthmore/Amherst for undergraduates; using TAs for
most of the personal contact rather than the best undergraduate teachers that
money can buy; admitting many students who cannot write or who are not skilled
in algebra; with 50,000 students and with decreasing support from the taxpayers;
and now with more resources being proposed just to administer a new college
built on Pollyanna-like thinking.
We should improve undergraduate education, but we cannot be everything. UT
Austin is one of the few public institutions in the country that can be among
the world's top places in research. That is important, both for the country
and for Texas, and it will take focus to take advantage of it.
We should play to our strengths and be realistic. We should turn out
graduates who are well qualified in their majors; we can do that well, by the
nature of our faculty. And we should build from time-proven ideas to
give our students breadth.
All members of the General Faculty should read both the report and the minority
report by Professor Hillis. I hope the outcome would ultimately be a plan
that is more sensible and less radical than what has been produced by the Task
Force.
David Crews, professor, psychology and zoology
Under the present guidelines outlined
in the Task Force on Curricular Reform it is possible that courses in a given
area might be taught by
professors uneducated in the discipline. Namely, the possibility
that intelligent design/creationism might find its way into becoming
a "signature course" is of particular concern. In this particular
arena it is my hope that UT would adhere to the Jones decision in the
case of Kitzmiller v Dover Area School District (December 20, 2005).
To present such a course and have it be possibly the only"scientific" course
that a liberal arts student would be exposed to would be a gross failure of this
university to broadly educate our
students. This is but one scenario under these guidelines. There
needs to be some qualification that the collaborating faculty
actually represent the disciplines that are being taught; that is, it
would be appropriate were philosophy and religion present a course on
the controversy (e.g., Science and Religion: from Galileo to the
Present), but have it be represented as a valid scientific
controversy.
Peter Stone, assistant professor, computer sciences
I read the Task Force report with interest.
I think the biggest opportunity for having a strong impact with the
recommended changes would be to ensure that all the signature courses
in a given year share some subset of their curriculum. That way ALL
students in a given class will have some shared experience.
Personally, I would like to see 1/4 of the course remain (roughly)
constant from year to year, 1/4 be the same in any given year, and
leave 1/2 of the course up to the individual instructors, or sets of
instructors. That would still give some freedom to the instructors to
shape the courses based on their own thoughts and ideas.
That being said, I also do find many of the arguments in the minority
report to be quite compelling.
Norma Fowler, professor, Section of Integrative Biology
As a graduate of a small, selective college with a strong core
curriculum myself (U Chicago), I am in considerable sympathy with what I
take to be the goals of the Task Force, and I appreciate all the time
that the Task Force contributed to the report. I do not think, however,
that the net effect of implementing the suggested changes in the
curriculum will achieve those goals, for a number of reasons.
(1) class size. Given the present faculty:student ratio, the new
Signature Courses will be either quite large, or taught by graduate
students. It is difficult for me to believe that either option would
provide the kind of intellectual experience the Task Force envisions.
(2) additional requirements. I can only speak with authority about the
biology degree plans. All of these degree plans are already extremely
crowded, since our students have to have math, physics, and chemistry as
well as biology training, and of course the required history and
government courses, etc., plus a good training in modern biology. Adding
more courses to the curriculum would conflict with the goal of
shortening the number of semesters that students are undergraduate
students here.
(3) creating a new college. I completely agree that the sooner we can
get students actively engaged with their education the better it is for
them. However, I believe that the recommendations of the Task Force will
delay this, not encourage it. In practice, for UT science students
intellectual engagement primarily happens in two ways: moving into a
major where they are part of a relatively small group of students, and
doing undergraduate research in a lab. Undergraduate research generally
requires at quite a bit of course work before a student is ready for it.
Therefore, anything that delays their entry into a major and their
readiness for research is going to postpone their best opportunities to
find an ‘intellectual home’ at UT.
I am also quite skeptical that having a new college will increase the
attention given to core undergraduate education. Based on my experience
with the effects of the re-organization of the biological sciences at
UT, which took undergraduate courses out of the (relatively small)
departments and put them into the hands of the (much larger) School of
Biological Sciences, I would predict that a new college will actually
decrease the involvement of faculty with undergraduate education.
I would suggest that there are better ways to invest resources to
achieve the goals of the Task Force. The career counseling centers could
be expanded and the training and range of career experience of their
staff enhanced to meet some of the stated goals about career choice.
Resources could be put into improving the ‘gateway’ freshman
courses
that are most alienating and discouraging for our students. For example,
discussion sections for freshman calculus (requiring more TAs) or,
better yet, smaller calculus classes (i.e., more faculty hired to teach
calculus) would be an enormous improvement, judging by what I hear from
students. Smaller biology and chemistry classes would help, too. More,
better prepared staff advisors could help students select courses that
allowed them to try out majors while keeping their options relatively
open, by identifying courses that meet requirements in multiple majors.
All of these, although expensive, seem to me to be of higher priority
than most of the recommendations of the Task Force.
Mel Oaks, professor emeritus, physics
I agree with most of the comments in David Hillis' minority report.
This change will reduce contact of freshman with their departments
and knowledgeable major advisors. For the student who is dedicated
to a degree plan, particularly in the sciences, this will be an
unnecessary diversion. The focus should have been on making our
existing general education courses better.
Doug Burger, associate professor, computer sciences
I have
a few thoughts from the discussion in today's faculty council meeting on signature
courses.
I apologize for the comments that are (a) obvious, (b) already discussed, or
(c) bad ideas.
1. Getting great TAs in the sciences will be quite difficult. Our TAs
are often quite junior, and the best students are often moved quickly into
research assistant positions. To
get good TAs, recruiting
from the ranks of senior students who are planning to apply for academic positions,
as a one-year
hiatus from their GRA funding, might be a win-win. Anything that this position
could do to explicitly
enhance the job application of these students would increase its success at recruiting
top and mature
graduate students in the sciences.
2. To repeat my comments from today's meeting, I would very much like for the
signature courses
to be a part of answering "what knowledge should ALL UT students have upon
graduation"? In that
vein, I think a "great ideas in the sciences and humanities" course
would help to address that issue,
making sure that the students were familiar with the most important scientific
concepts and debates.
3. I think these courses will be most successful (esp. with freshmen) if the
material is taught as"living material", rather than strictly conveying
information (this is generally true of teaching, but is
particularly critical here for success). Exposing the students to current
debates, and having them perhaps argue both sides, would greatly facilitate
their engagement in the course and discussion
sections. Exposing them at least to great historical debates (perhaps settled,
perhaps not) might
be the necessary balance. They should certainly be exposed to some questions
(again, for the science part of it) that are currently unknown or unanswered.
4. (Here I am honing my skills as a burgeoning curmudgeon) If we really
want to do this program
right, we should be having faculty, not TAs, lead the discussion sections. A
$60M endowment would
generate enough annual income to pay salary supplements to the 300-odd faculty
needed to lead
these sections for an hour per week (i.e. a $10K salary supplement for faculty
taking a section on as
an extra responsibility). *** curmudgeon mode off *** But I'm sure
the program will work great with
TAs.
Thanks for reading, and best wishes for a wonderful, productive semester.
Mona Mehdy, associate professor, molecular, cellular, and developmental biology
I am writing with several comments on the report of the Task Force on
Curricular Reform. I have reviewed parts of it, read about it in
newspapers and heard a discussion of it at a faculty meeting. My comments are:
1. I agree with the goals to strengthen student general education by
exposure to more interdisciplinary courses and to strengthen students'
writing abilities. As a faculty teaching a Substantial Writing Component
course since 1987 to primarily seniors and some juniors, I can attest to
observing a profound drop in writing competency over these years of teaching.
2. I disagree with the approach of having large enrollment "Signature" courses
as the stated mechanism to improve writing. While the Signature courses may bring
interesting new interdisciplinary topics to fulfill
general education requirements, the writing to be taught in the discussion
sections seems a poor choice. Were the Rhetoric and Composition faculty
consulted in developing this plan and how does this plan improve on the
much more focused Rhetoric and Composition classes that involve much more
professional faculty contact with the students? The small army of TAs with
very mixed backgrounds who will teach for each Signature course will have a
range of writing skills. This plan is likely to result in having many TAs
not qualified to teach writing and with such a large number of TAs and
students, little chance for the instructor to exercise guidance and
effective oversight. I strongly suggest consultation with Rhetoric and
Composition faculty and faculty who teach Substantial Writing Component
courses to develop a more effective plan to improve writing in the general
education curriculum.
3. As follow-up to freshman level courses with greater writing, I believe
there needs to be more writing incorporated throughout all levels of our
undergraduate instruction extending to the senior year. Clearly,
opportunity for practice and improvement of writing skills needs to be a
significant consideration throughout undergraduate education. I have
noticed an excessive reliance on multiple choice and short answer tests by
faculty in many lower and upper division courses. While this format makes
grading easy, I would strongly urge that the Task Force consider having
Colleges and Departments examine their teaching, assess the existing
writing in their courses and come up with specific plans to enhance writing
through exams and/or reports, including giving students guidance and
feedback on their writing. The results of this review would then be
communicated back to the University administration with opportunity for
feedback and revision over time.
4. Lastly, I'm not in agreement with the proposed new level of
administration, the University College, because of the large expenditure of
scarce funds and space to support this new enterprise. I would instead
urge having advising continue in the existing Colleges.
Klaus Kalthoff, professor, molecular, cell, and developmental biology
I am very sympathetic with your overall goal of providing
undergraduates with a core curriculum that will allow them to
function as educated citizens, not just as pre-professionals.
However, based on my experience as faculty advisor for a popular
degree plan (B.S. Biology, Option II: Human Biology), I am afraid
that major elements of your proposal as written will miss the goal or
even be counterproductive. I will focus on four concerns and then
mention a few alternative proposals.
Concern 1. No review of other institutions' recent attempts at
curriculum reform.
The first paragraph of your report states that the forces of
increased specialization, advanced research, and graduate study have
made it necessary to reinvent undergraduate education and cites the
1998 Boyer commission's report to say that UT Austin is not alone in
this. Is there a more recent review, or have you done some informal
inquiries, on what comparable institutions have tried, successfully
or not, to reform their undergraduate curricula?
Concern 2. Need to engage freshmen
We compete for the time and attention of our undergraduates with
hundreds of highly trained marketing specialists who consider the
same students as potential customers for their apparel, cars, drugs,
entertainment, etc. If we do not engage our freshmen then many of
them will pick up jobs, buy cool things, and try to pass their early
courses with minimal effort and shrewd guessing. When these kids
reach our upper division courses they notice they are poorly
prepared, but many find it difficult to catch up because they have
grown accustomed to life styles that require them to hold down jobs
during the academic year. So the last thing we want to do is to
greet freshmen with courses they can guess and manipulate their ways
through.
Concern 3. Signature courses
The proposed new signature courses are much too large for meaningful
student-faculty contact to occur and therefore rely critically
teaching assistants. These are graduate students who are at a stage
of their career development where they learn the essential methods of
their chosen discipline. Only in this regard are they a step ahead
of the undergraduates in their discussion sections. The TAs do not
normally have the broad knowledge, life experience, wisdom, and
poise/humor/charisma that it takes to engage freshmen in "big
questions" and "inquiry across disciplines". It is not realistic,
and it is not fair, to expect TAs to pick up these qualification in a
few hours of "special training" from their assigned faculty members.
Again, the goal of the signature courses is very laudable, but
attempts to do it on a grand scale with TAs will end in
disappointment, and will fail to engage our freshmen (concern 2).
Concern 4. University College
I agree with the arguments laid out in David Hillis' minority report.
The University College does not serve any function that the Provost's
Office could not deliver in a more economical fashion.
Now let me just briefly mention a few alternative proposals.
Proposal 1. More flexibility
Instead of making the curricular reform a Procrustean bed that every
freshman will be forced into, offer choices and incentives. As you
describe in Section V of your report, incoming students are at
different stages of finding their way. Those who know what field
they want to be in - and show evidence that they can succeed - should
be allowed to declare their major. Those who need more time should
be offered orientation courses that cover wide ranges of topics and a
combination of faculty and staff advisors who will meet students
periodically to review their course grades, levels of enthusiasm, and
future choices.
As incentives for student to take such orientation courses, credit
towards the 42-hour core curriculum mandated by THECB should suffice.
Incentives for faculty to develop and teach such courses, and to
serve as faculty advisors for undeclared freshmen, could be teaching
credits, salary bonuses, or simply recognition.
Proposal 2. Modified signature courses.
If you feel that two signature courses are needed for the sake of an
intellectual community, I suggest that they be complementary, one
science-oriented and one humanities-oriented as you propose.
However, I feel strongly that the scope of each course must be
limited so that a graduate student can feel comfortable leading a
discussion section in it. As topics for a science-oriented signature
course I suggest the scientific method, study design, and analysis of
quantitative data. This course would be interdisciplinary in the
sense that it represents an approach to the world that is taken not
only by the natural sciences but also by sociologists, psychologist,
and others traditionally affiliated with the college of liberal arts.
I am sure that colleagues from the humanities can find a similarly
unifying topic that epitomizes their view of the world and is defined
enough for graduate students to teaching it in a way that will
engage freshmen.
In the spirit of proposal 1, I urge you to offer these courses as
choices, not as requirements, at least until we have collected some
experience with them.
Proposal 3. Interdisciplinary courses.
Again I agree with your goal of exposing students to current issues
where scholars separated by a major cultural divide are challenged to
find common ground. As an example, I think of putting price tags on
the services of ecosystems to human communities. Serious research
on this issue requires familiarity with ecology and economy. The
same goes for teaching if it goes beyond the level of what anyone can
read in Time Magazine. So courses on this and other truly
interdisciplinary topics should be team-taught by two faculty with
complementary expertise who attend each other's lectures and together
lead a discussion period with all students after lecture. Other
formats involving more student participation may be appropriate if
students have taken introductory courses in at at least one of the
disciplines involved. Discussion sections with student presentations
should likewise be led by teams of two TAs, one from each discipline.
I envision this kind of course for sophomores and juniors, NOT for freshmen.
Proposal 4. Research projects
As you point out, the range and quality of research at UT is an
enormous asset that should be better harnessed for teaching. I have
not talked to a single student yet who had regrets about long hours
spent in a research laboratory. What's needed is more researchers
willing to deal with the training needs and safety issues involved.
Here again I think incentives are the best tools. Liability
coverage, allowances for incidental costs, and recognition for
supervising faculty come to mind.
Surely there are more ways to make the undergraduate experience at UT
more educational and well-rounded. In many instances, it may just be
necessary to strengthen and scale up efforts that are already going
on. This will require additional funds, but I suspect they will
amount to less than the costs of establishing and maintaining a new
university college.
Curricular reform is an important issue. Feel free to contact me if
you wish to further discuss any of my comments and suggestions.
Jim Daniel, professor, mathematics
I support improving undergraduate education. I support improving
undergraduate advising. I support improving the core curriculum. [I
chaired the old Faculty Senate when the current core curriculum was
established.] I do _not_ support the recommendations to accomplish these
goals via Signature Courses and a University College.
SIGNATURE COURSES.
When I was Math Department Chair eons ago, I experimented with teaching
freshmen business math in sections of 250. Since hardly any faculty
members would volunteer to teach such sections, I taught one myself each
semester. I had the best TAs. As a member now of the Academy of
Distinguished Teachers, I'm confident that I did a good job of teaching
the class. And the class definitely did not go well---we discontinued
the practice of teaching such large sections.
I am very doubtful that the proposed huge Signature Courses would be
successful, and I feel strongly that huge classes should not be seen as
the "signature" of UT-Austin's first two years. I would rather see
the
resources necessary to support the proposed Signature Courses go instead
to support such programs as the FIGs.
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE.
The report seems to justify the University College as the only workable
way to keep a focus on the core curriculum and to improve advising. I
disagree.
CORE CURRICULUM.
The report states that the Task Force considered
having a university committee responsible for the core curriculum on a
continuing basis, but stated that a committee would lack the "gravitas" needed
for success. If the committee reports to the Provost and has deep pockets
full of money to improve the core curriculum, it will have that
needed "gravitas"---money talks, and lots of money talks loudly.
ADVISING.
University-wide advising was eliminated in the late 1990s
because the colleges and schools were closer to the interests of most
students. Most colleges and schools have improved their advising
significantly, and I believe that my College of Natural Sciences is
exemplary in that regard. I would like to see additional resources
provided to the colleges and schools to improve advising, with financial
incentives for them to do so. And I'd like to see a first-rate advising
system---the Transitional Academic Center (rather than Undeclared
Liberal Arts)---established outside the colleges and schools for the
moderate number of students not attracted to a particular college or school.
In other words---take the resources necessary for the proposed
University College and expend it on improving the core curriculum and
improving advising within the current administrative structures.
Working 25 years ago with Peter Flawn, Jim Vick, and the Faculty Senate
on reforming undergraduate education at UT-Austin was one of the biggest
challenges and also one of the highlights of my career here. I hope that
the Faculty Council comes out of this process feeling that they too have
accomplished something significant.
Harry Swinney, professor, physics and Center for Nonlinear Dynamics
I object strongly to the creation of a new bureaucracy, University
College. Many of our students are well served already. Rather than
establishing another administrative unit, we should fine tune the existing
system of advising to catch those who may now fall in the cracks.
I think the two proposed courses whose content is unspecified will dilute
rather than strengthen the education of our students. A few of the
multiple sections may be well taught and provide a treasured experience,
but it is unrealistic to think that most of the many sections of such an
ill-defined courses will provide an exceptional experience for freshman.
The opposite seems more likely.
The proposed changes are massive. I strongly feel that any changes that
are adopted should, as stated on a bottle of spot remover, be tried on
a
small hidden portion of the garment before applying the change to the
whole garment.
Efraim Armendariz, professor and chair, mathematics
The Task Force makes 5 recommendations:
1. establish 1st year "Signature Courses" designed to address
broad issues from various disciplinary perspectives;
2. establish a new set of requirements, organized in clusters or "thematic strands";
3. establish a university-wide advising system to promote better
academic and career choices;
4. establish a new college, called "University College" as the "single portal" for all University freshmen;
5. establish fund-raising to support these initiatives.
The Report also includes a Minority Report prepared by David Hillis,
Professor of Integrative Biology.
It is difficult to argue with the goals for undergraduate education
that the Task Force is hoping to achieve through its proposed
revisions. One must go beyond the goals, however, and concentrate on
the implementation process. For this reason, I urge you to read
Hillis' minority report; it is a carefully reasoned argument that
examines the implications for engineering and the sciences, as well
as the University, in terms of demands on students, cost to the
University, and impact on faculty appointments and promotions. The
analysis provided by Hillis is in stark contrast to the very broad
non-specific philosophical language employed by the Task Force.
Task Force Members, President Powers and Members of the Faculty
council should take heed of comments coming from CNS faculty. I
imagine that just about every current tenured faculty in the College
has had to read and evaluate a great number of research proposals.
It's probably fair to say that the commentary generated is based on a
critical reading the Report as if it were a proposal or pre-proposal.
Thus I think that it would be disingenuous for anyone to claim that
the Task Force Report is being misinterpreted or misread. That is
far from what has happened. The Report has been critically read,
evaluated and found wanting by a large number of people who have a
great deal of experience in performing such evaluations.
Hillis' report enforces my view and and that of almost every
Mathematics faculty member, that the Task Force Report has serious
deficiencies. In essence, the Report is the result of having
like-minded people examine an issue without consulting those outside
their sphere of interactions. Indeed, the meetings now taking place
should have precluded the preparation of the report. The end result
might have been the same, but at least the Task Force would have
known of the serious objections that might arise and the great demand
on resources that implementation requires.
My greatest concern is the establishment of "University College".
It
is a new administrative structure whose purpose is to administer
courses and a curriculum to be established. It will attempt to
provide career counseling and academic advising for all entering
freshmen. Anyone who has been involved with advising knows that the
best advisors and counselors in academia are persons with specific
knowledge about a discipline. University-wide advising was tried
before in the late 80s and was abandoned because it was largely
ineffective. The College of Natural Sciences has developed an
excellent advising system (as has Engineering and Business) that
relies on having persons with scientific knowledge rather than
generalists. I find it difficult to imagine someone without
considerable mathematics knowledge, for example, providing more than
superficial advising for a first-year student about careers in
mathematics, but that is in essence what would develop. And if it
goes beyond that, that is, advisors from the disciplines would be
involved, why the need for a new administrative structure to do what
is already being done?
The proposed "University College" presumes to draw faculty
from all
current Colleges to teach its (as yet unspecified) curriculum. In
doing so, it will likely draw resources from the academic
disciplines. There are many well-managed programs, similar to what
is being proposed, that already exist at the University (Equal
Opportunity in Engineering and FIGs in the College of Engineering,
UTeach, Emerging Scholars, Texas Interdisciplinary Plan, Turing
Scholars and Dean's Scholars in the College of Natural Science,
ConneXus in the Provost's Office). The key to the success of such
programs has been, and will always be, the presence of rigorous
academic content geared to enabling academic success within
disciplines. These programs will suffer if item 4 becomes a reality.
The general premises on which the Report is founded are
unsubstantiated. There is a serious lack of understanding of the
type of student that attends the University. It takes a lot of
personal belief in one's ability and a great deal of motivation to
choose UT Austin rather than any of the other state schools. The
Report doesn't give our students enough credit for their own
initiative and background.
I could continue with other deficiencies, but I believe that I can
summarize the entire report as lacking considerable credibility about
providing any true revision or enhancement of the current core
curriculum.
If an entity such as "University College" is needed, it would
be much
more credible to establish it within an existing College, such as
Natural Sciences, that has demonstrated through involvement in
various initiatives designed to enhance the freshmen experience that
one can improve success rates for students who are at risk. Such an
entity should not be a "single portal" for all entering freshmen,
but
rather a gathering place for those who are uncertain about what paths
to pursue in academic studies.
Placing it within Natural Sciences has an added advantage in terms of
interdisciplinary studies. You should note that the commonality in
signature courses is the need to address science and technology as it
relates to other disciplines. There is no great push to see how
poetic structure is prevalent in architectural design, for example.
The 21st century is already a century dominated by scientific and
technological development and there is little reason to believe that
that dominance will abate. Every faculty members at the University
should join with scientists and engineers in pushing for better
training in scientific thought and technological understanding. We
can not settle for training that enables our students to use phrases
and terms without true understanding of the concepts. The danger
with interdisciplinary courses such as those proposed has always been
that they produce individuals who are extremely good at talking about
problems without actually producing solutions. The type of student
we strive to produce should be of the second kind.
There is a another reason why it makes sense to work from the
standpoint of Natural Sciences (or with science and mathematics as
the basic foundation.) One can develop excellent writing and
communication skills by working entirely within a discipline, but
it's difficult to achieve significant quantitative skills without
exposure to mathematics and scientific content. Thus it is little
wonder that every college recognizes that their students need
training in mathematics and science that their own discipline cannot
provide. As a result, Natural Sciences already has the foundation to
provide the type of experience which the Task Force hopes to achieve,
especially if one takes advantage of the College's outstanding
research faculty, experience and resources.
Jim Bull, professor, integrative biology
A major difficulty with the Task Force report is that it proposes
significant changes to undergraduate education and an addition to the
administrative bureaucracy at UT, but it is vague about the
implementation of those changes. Thus, an optimist can imagine the
good things that may come from such changes, a pessimist can imagine
bad things that may come from such changes, and there is no substantive
means of resolving the differences of opinion. The dissenting
opinion from Hillis provides several examples of legitimate concerns
that cannot be countered by anything in the report.
At the heart of this reform is a somewhat new type of course,
designated a Signature Course. If Signature Courses could be
implemented to help achieve the Report's stated goals, then several
of the concerns about the Report go away (concerns about inflation
of adminstrative bureaucracy may not go away but are somewhat
outweighed by the good that such classroom reform would provide).
On the other hand, if Signature Courses would not achieve the stated
objectives, then there seems to be no value gained from any aspect
of the proposed reform.
Hillis outlined several concerns with the Signature Course plan.
In addition, the Signature Course plan is offered without any
reference to a model class already taught, in which student and
faculty feedback have been solicited. This failure to include
student input, if real, seems to be a serious shortcoming of the
new plan. However, since the recommendations of the Report cannot
be implemented at a substantial level in the next couple years,
it seems that UT could try out a few versions of the Signature Course
concept, enlisting student feedback and perhaps including peer
evaluations by faculty. It would even be possible to offer one or
two such courses next fall and have the input by December, for a
more informed decision about the plan. While it may be undesirable
to delay such an important decision for so long, the adoption of
some form of trial period may help alleviate concerns about getting
locked into an inflexible system that could fail.
Richard Willis, professor, human ecology
I agree with the Minority Report as filed by Dr. Hilis but would add
the following concern under his "Signature Courses" "(3)".
The campus is currently short on the number of large classrooms to
meet current demand. The addition of 14 (or 28 if you include both
courses) large lecture classes per semester will displace an equal
number of large lecture courses currently offered. Either a major
and costly construction project to build a large new teaching center
will be required or the displaced courses will not be offered. The
latter will have significant impact on the progress of students
through a number of majors on campus.
Continue to
page 2.
