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
7 comments:
Another related comment:
When I came to Caltech 20 years ago, I *believe* that the most popular Option by far was Physics, and very few Biology majors. Tom Everhart had recently been installed as the first non-physicist to serve as president of the Institute (these are my recollections; I may not have it right!).
We have now had 20 years of leadership by non-physicists, and although Physics remains the most popular option, it is now essentially tied with ME and Biology. CS and Ch are close behind. Taken as a whole, most students choose options in the EAS Division.
We still don't graduate too many students in Ancient Urdu or Fine Arts, but Caltech is now FAR more heterogeneous than it has been in the past.
The Core, as designed and tweaked in previous decades, was rightfully geared towards math and physics, and I hope it served most undergrads well.
I wonder whether it is possible to re-design the Core in *any way* that could really serve the needs of our now much more heterogeneous community.
- Alan W
I thoroughly agree that we should be starting from scratch and first asking the question: do we need a core at all? I would say that is definitely within the realm of what we should be considering.
I like the idea of having a core set of topics (or at least areas) that a Caltech-educated student should know. For example, I think all Caltech students should have a year each of physics, chemistry, biology and information science, along with two years of foundational mathematics. This will enable them to be productive scientists and engineers throughout their careers.
How those foundational topics are taught could vary by student. For example, one group of students might satisfy this by taking an integrated course on the physics, chemistry, biology and regulation/signalling of the cell. Through this, they should learn the key concepts of statics, dynamics, thermodynamics, chemical kinetics, transcription/translation, signal coding, etc.
My sense of the current core is that it doesn't have enough biology or information science, but that these topics could be integrated with other areas so that we actually decrease the core rather than increase it. It also doesn't allow much flexibility in how you satisfy the requirement. You more or less have to take Ch 1ab/Ch 3 to learn chemistry, for example.
Concrete "gen ed" requirement suggestion:
* One year physics, including lab
* One year chemistry, including lab
* One year biology, including lab
* One year information science, including lab
* Two years mathematics
Richard, I like that idea very much. I can imagine the physics faculty teaching two or three different "one year of all of physics" courses, each suited to different students' interests. I think it would be much more fun and rewarding than what we have now.
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
The Core, as designed and tweaked in previous decades, was rightfully geared towards math and physics, and I hope it served most undergrads well.
Core Drilling
I too agree with the fact that we should be starting from scratch..And your idea is great..
Post a Comment