One Semester General Chemistry and the Brain Attic

There is currently a discussion on the Council on Undergraduate Research list serve about one semester general chemistry courses designed and targeted to specific degrees and/or careers.  One view of the debate is that students should not waste time on anything that is not specifically needed on the job, day one after graduation.  The issue is timely for me in that I was involved in a debate this week about transfer credit for organic courses to serve our bio majors.  The argument was put forward that we really shouldn't be testing the transferring students competency through an ACS exam, because the ACS exam covers material not needed in biochemistry.

I am not sure to what extent this attention to minimalist education is a consequence of the current economic and political climate, or something else.  Rather than give in to addressing those issues, I will play my traditional role of cautionary observer.

Many students either don't know or only have a vague idea of what career they hope to enter, or they are deluded as to what career they have a shot at, based on their capabilities.  Also, even if a student knows and is able to achieve a specific career, that does not mean that they will be secure in that career over a lifetime.  A broader knowledge base might aid them in changing careers.  How many articles have been written about how today's students will have multiple careers rather than a single one like their parents or grandparents.  Add to all of this the need to be able to work effectively across disciplines that ally with ones chosen career and we really do need to consider if ten different general chemistry courses, each focused to a specific career makes sense.

In the larger picture, while narrowly focused training may be appropriate for technician based careers, we must consider if it is appropriate for true higher education.  I have often thought that as the percentage of American high school graduates going to college has increased the percentage that really want a higher education has remained about the same.  The difference is the number of students who really only want and/or need a technical training.  We need technicians, so why not offer that minimalist and focused training separate from the bachelors degree.  This might address some of the grade inflation pressure educators feel from students who argue that they don't really need to knowledge, just the degree.

T.S. Hall

Left Hand, Meet Right Hand

The California Legislative Analyst has called for guaranteed access for California students to their local California State University campus.  This is in response to the increases in campuses declaring themselves impacted, which allows them to ignore local access priority and then pick the best qualified students from anywhere in the state.  Setting aside the meritocracy issues, the CLA report says, "We believe that ensuring local access to all eligible students is more important than maintaining equal admissions criteria for all applicants."

One must keep in mind that admissions are a less-than-zero-sum game in this system, where budget cuts and space limitations have left the system unable to accept all qualified students.

On the other hand, the system Chancellor of the CSU, Charles Reed, has stated that given the impact of budget cuts, "We can no longer justify offering practically every major at every campus . . ."  The targets for program cuts would be based on lower enrollment programs.  With state funding cuts for next year predicted to be on the order of eighteen percent, one wonders what the definition of "lower enrollment" might become.

What happens when both plans come together?  If a prospective student lives near a campus where the program they are interested in is cut, but outside the region of the campus where the program survived, should they change career aspirations?  Should we put out maps of regions of the state where physics or geology are still studied for parents to move to for the benefit of their children who want to study in those areas?  It should be interesting to see how this works out.

T.S. Hall

Gainful Employment - Part II

Last week I began this topic by discussing the issue of the potential for "gainful employment" requirements in higher education.  These requirements would demand that the incomes of graduates cover the costs of the education students receive.  The emphasis so far is on for-profit colleges and universities, but they may well trickle down to those of us in the non-profit education business.  As promised, today I will look at some possible ways gainful employment might be measured.

Option A: Average income of the institution's graduates - The simplest option, this would spread out the highs and lows of degree cost over the entire student population.  So long as the average income is acceptable, high cost degrees in the STEM fields would be covered by the lower cost degrees in other fields.  This will encourage forming larger institutions where income averages can remain more steady.  Of course this will do little to improve smaller individual programs which are shielded from the gainful employment standard by the mass of student outside the program.

Option B: Global average income per specific degree - This would involve determining the average pay of the newly minted degree holder nationally, regionally, or state and then assessing the cost of the degree at the particular institution.  If the tuition/income ratio is acceptable funding would be made available for that program.  The advantage would be that schools would be encouraged to get rid of degrees that really don't pay for themselves.  Of course, since in some fields boom and bust cycles are common some leeway would be be needed so that programs are not opening and closing with the boom and bust of the economy.

Option C: Institutional average income per specific degree - The Option A funding scheme does not allow for assessment of the value added by a specific school's program.  If my school's graduates are highly sought after and earn above average salaries post graduation, my tuition/income ratio should not be evaluated based on average income in a specified geographic region.  Of course this means that tracking of individual students would have to be accomplished.  Those of us involved in student development grants know how difficult this can be.  Schools would need to add to their costs by hiring people to track students.  The advantage of this option would be that the individual program would reap the rewards of producing a higher valued product.

I am sure there are other options, but I think my point is made that the practical issue of "gainful employment" standards is worth considering and discussing before it is imposed on higher education.

T.S. Hall