Report of MIT Task Force on the Undergraduate Educational Commons

Hey,
Since Caltech is similar to MIT in so many respects, I thought that it
might be helpful to look over the report of MIT's Task Force on the
Undergraduate Educational Commons (which proposed changes to MIT's core
curriculum) as we reassess our own Core. Here it is:
http://web.mit.edu/committees/edcommons/documents/task_force_report.html

-Neal Bansal

Post to Blog

Hi,
I thought that the following site might be of interest:
http://www.princeton.edu/integratedscience/.
Princeton University recently established an optional Integrated Science
program for any undergraduate considering a major in the sciences or
engineering. It is an interdisciplinary introductory science curriculum
taken during the freshman and sophomore years, and I was reminded of
Professor Murray's suggestion (echoed by many others) to integrate our
core subjects in a cross-disciplinary manner. The Princeton curriculum
sounds like a good experiment, but I would like to find out more about it
before I form an opinion. I am very interested in the idea of giving our
core curriculum more continuity and relating individual subjects to each
other, but at the same time, I believe that each subject should be taught
rigorously at a fundamental level without the constant need to find
applications. Just thought that I'd put it up for others to think about.

-Neal Bansal

Improving teaching

From the previous unknown poster (again, if you post via email please sign your name or it all looks like it is coming from me!):
Improving teaching quality and faculty advising is not in the charge of our committee, but we are all interested in it.


Improving teaching quality and faculty advising is high on the list of things we are charged with! Spending all of this time worry about exact what should be in the core without worrying about how to make sure it (and everything else) is taught well would be a colossal waste of everyone's time, I think.

-Mike B

Some resources for improving teaching quality and faculty advising

Improving teaching quality and faculty advising is not in the charge
of our committee, but we are all interested in it. It is a major
emphasis of the Caltech Council on Undergraduate Education (CUE):
http://cue.caltech.edu/ , and Melany Hunt has been bringing in
visitors and speakers.

Last spring she brought in Dr. Rohan Abeyaratne, Head, Department of
Mechanical Engineering, MIT, who gave a nice talk (you can find it
here: http://www.mechse.uiuc.edu/media/pdfs/about/seminars/schaller_fa2007.pdf
).

In his talk, Prof Abeyaratne highlighted the work of Carl Weiman and Eric Mazur.

Eric Mazur's Science Education website is here:
http://mazur-www.harvard.edu/education/educationmenu.php

Here's Carl Weiman's very influential article, "Why Not Try a
Scientific Approach to Education?"
http://www.cwsei.ubc.ca/resources/files/Wieman-Change_Sept-Oct_2007.pdf

Here's Carl Weiman's very interesting blog:
http://www.scientificblogging.com/cwieman

And his Physics Education technology web site
http://phet.colorado.edu/index.php

Mike Brown has met with folks from the Stanford Center for Teaching
and Learning:
ctl.stanford.edu .

Finally, if you really want to know what a university education is
worth, down the line, Prof Abeyaratne suggests you learn from Father
Sarducci: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kO8x8eoU3L4

"Core" versus "Gen Ed"

Here's a "big picture" point that I think we should consider before we
drill down into specific issues and proposals about the core.

I think (with no data to support it) that virtually all liberal-arts
colleges and universities have "general education" requirements (what
Fiona called "distribution requirements"). Only a small number (how
many? who?), including Caltech, require all students to take a set of
specific courses. I guess this is the essence of "The Core" at
Caltech.

Of course, liberal-arts colleges are not focused on training the
world's best scientists and engineers, as we at Caltech are.

The canonical "pro" argument: "The Core (is one of the things that)
makes Caltech special!"

The canonical "con" argument: "The Core (is one of the things that)
makes Caltech suck!"

Of course, only some people will voice either argument, but many will
voice both! Do we really want to be special in that way?

So, before we drill down into what we want the core to be, we must
first consider whether we really want to continue with the core.

There is something to be said for "general education" requirements,
which can run the gamut from a broad range of easy courses to a narrow
range of deep and challenging courses.

But surely, all Caltech students should know lots of math, and lots of
physics, and lots of HSS, and lots of ... well, everything else. The
question is, does the one-size-all nature of the core serve this?

The core isn't just specific courses. Student choose from a (limited)
menu of HSS courses and science menu courses. One of the biggest
complaints I get from students is that the list is so limited. For
example, we currently offer 6 menu courses (Ay 1, Ch/APh 2, ESE 1, Ge
1, IST 1, or IST 4). Personally, I think 15 or 20 would be more
appropriate. The HSS selection is broader.

As a physicist, surely I believe that all Caltech students should take
two years of physics, right? Well, it pains me to talk to Caltech
undergrads who learned to hate my beloved subject by being forced to
take our core offerings. I can easily imagine a range of optional
physics courses, designed for the non-physicist, that could be much
more interesting and fun.

But who would teach all these Gen Ed courses? Caltech profs often
don't even want to teach in-depth courses in their field. Well, as I
mentioned in our meeting today, when I was an undergrad in the
mid-70's, Harvard big-shot professors were forced to teach gen-ed
courses. Many failed miserably. Some rose to the challenge and did
brilliantly (maybe after an iteration or two). Personally, I think
Caltech profs can also rise to the challenge, brilliantly.

Well, I don't want to be the advocate for replacing the glorious
Caltech Core with garden-variety Gen-Ed. But I do think our committee
should consider this big-picture choice, early on in our
deliberations. I'm tired of hearing "Core sucks!" and wondering what
it would take to turn that around.

On another topic: it goes without saying that the 4-page description
of the core in the Caltech Catalog, pp.176-179 (
http://pr.caltech.edu/catalog/pdf/catalog_08_09.pdf ) is required
reading for all us committee members. All Caltech undergrads, and most
Caltech faculty advisors, know these pages well.

- Alan W

googling the semester-vs-quarter debate

After our meeting today, I tried googling the semester-vs-quarter
debate. There's a lot out there on the web, but not much substantial.
It seems like it's largely a matter of personal taste.

Anyway, some of the basics are covered in wikipedia (see especially
the references at the bottom):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academic_quarter_(year_division)

If you want to see how it's done in other countries around the world:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academic_term

and there's some interesting chatter here:
http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/college-life/31512-quarter-vs-semester.html

This is actually a substantial pro/con discussion at ucla, here:
http://www.senate.ucla.edu/SenateVoice/Issue3/Debate_Semesters_Or_Quarters.htm

There's LOTS more, of course, and I encourage browsers to post the
most substantive links.

- Alan W

Welcome & Purpose of the Committee

Welcome to the Caltech Core Curriculum Task Force Blog. All members of the task force are able to post on the blog. Commenting is freely open to anyone.

We'll use this blog to generally update the committee and the entire Caltech community on our deliberations.

As with any committee, we are given an official charge, written in officialese. Here is ours:

Charge to the Core Curriculum Task Force:


The Core Curriculum comprises the Institute requirements for undergraduates for all options and is a defining feature of the Caltech undergraduate experience. A recent study of the Student Experience at Caltech made a convincing argument that a rethinking of the current Core is in order. The Ad Hoc Core Curriculum Task Force will define the purpose and goals of the Core, the desired learning outcomes (what students learn from the Core), and a process by which the success of the Core Curriculum can be assessed. The committee will report their conclusions to the Faculty Board along with recommendations for energizing the curriculum through new content and/or approaches. It is expected that to achieve these goals extensive internal and external consultation will be required.

The scope of the committee’s deliberations should include, but need not be limited to:

1. Formulating the learning outcomes associated with the core curriculum and specifically investigating the possibility that there be a more flexible core that does not require that every student have the same knowledge but that they prepare for each field in similar fashion;
2. Recommending curricula (and how to deliver them) that will support the learning outcomes, with specific attention to how we may capitalize, in a way we have never done before in the Core, on the research orientation of the faculty;
3. Defining mechanisms to assess the level of student achievement (breadth and depth) and the quality of the student experience;
4. Recommending ways of improving professorial teaching in the Core;
5. Recommending ways that research and/or independent activities can be brought into the curriculum at the earliest stages of the Core Curriculum;
6. Recommending ways of optimizing student/faculty interactions (class attendance and mentoring/advising)
7. Considering a restructuring of the academic calendar to improve how the students go about their education and to enhance the student experience;
8. Recommending other changes or innovations to strengthen the Core Curriculum experience, such as trial courses, technology in the classroom, or variations in the pass-fail grading system.


Here are my translations of what these 8 tasks really mean:
1. What should a student learn in the core?
2. What classes should be taught?
3. How do we know it is working?
4. How can we make sure it is taught well?
5. Can research be brought into the core?
6. Can we fix advising?
7. Should we switch to semesters?
8. Anything else?


Finally, here are the Core Curriculum Task Force members. Feel free to track them down and tell them what you think at any time!

Co-chairs: Mike Brown and Scott Fraser

Committee Members:
Pamela Bjorkman, Harry Gray, Mitchio Okamura, Warren Brown, Ralph Adolphs, Fiona Harrison, Danny Calegari, Shuki Bruck, Niles Pierce

Alan Weinstein, former chair Curriculum Committee, ex officio
Paul Bellan, Academic Policies Committee, ex officio

Students: Neal Bansal (Junior)
Thomas Gwinn (Junior)
Andrea Dubin (Senior)