Lab course credit units

While I am sure that this blog has become too higher ed policy wonky for many, some policy issues have more impact on the day-to-day lives of academics than others.  Today's issue may be one of those.

The federal government, in an effort to more evenly assess the value to the level of instruction, academic rigor, and time requirements of course work is pushing toward a clearer standard for the academic unit.  The main goal is to define the unit for purposes of financial aid.

The proposed standard relies on the Carnegie classifications in which the minimum requirement for one unit is defined as an hour of direct faculty instruction and a minimum of two hours of out-of-class student work each week for approximately 15 weeks for one semester or trimester, and adjusting for quarters or differing amounts of time.  For labs, internships, practica, etc. and "equivalent amount of work" is required.

Between my student days and my faculty days I have been associated with six different institutions.  Five of those institutions assigned the organic lab courses one unit for a three hour lab.  The other university assigned 1.5 units.  Under the definition of a unit, assigning one unit to three hours of lab suggests that in terms of time, the minimum for a unit has been met by the in lab activity only in the organic lab course.  Those extra minutes preparing prelabs and lab reports represent effort beyond the minimum.  When one considers research units and all the lab courses a science major takes, the effort expended to earn a science degree is substantially greater than the minimum.

Our students often complain about the workload of science degrees.  I believe that the workload discourages some students from pursuing STEM degrees.  It also makes it more likely that a STEM student will take longer than four years to complete their degree, particularly if that student must work to pay for their education.  Additionally, the nerd stereotype, which also discourages STEM focus among students, suggests that our students have no time for social lives.  A unit analysis supports the stereotype, if our units require more effort than those of other disciplines.

I doubt that many of us would suggest lowering the workload to earn a STEM degree.  Increasing the number of units would also increase the time to a degree.  With the public expectation being that a college degree should be only four years/120 units makes increasing the units for a degree is problematic.

If we want to improve our STEM recruitment and graduation rates we may need to rethink our approach to educating STEM students.  This may require touching third rails of higher education, such as the general education curriculum and our lower level core courses which occupy a large portion of our units.

T.S. Hall

Organic Chemistry A & B - Why?

I just finished grading my second exam of the semester.  Teaching a Chem and Biochem majors organic course has advantages and disadvantages, both of which are clear upon grading an exam.  The are a few students who really care and show a clear desire to understanding of the material and go beyond it.  There are also a uncomfortably large number of students who make me suspect that they have never heard of general chemistry let alone organic chemistry.  (I am not sure how this can be the case in the second semester of organic, but it is.)  This later group are only chemistry majors as a stepping stone to pharmacy school or are biochemistry majors who believe that biochemists don't need to know organic chemistry.

During the bout of mild depression that follows grading I find myself struggling with the balance between a life-of-the-mind approach to education and technical training.  In the life-of-the-mind approach I try to teach my students to think like scientists, with an emphasis on applying that thinking to organic chemistry topics.  In the technical training approach I try to give the student just those tools they need to move forward in their careers.

The technical training approach is very much in vogue today lead primarily by those who appear to believe that we have reached the end of scientific advancement and our graduates will never see anything that is not already known. Obviously, I see this, in its purest form, as a shortsighted and detrimental focus to education.  I don't understand how scientists can embrace an approach so antithetical to the idea of the scientific method.  This mode of teaching creates good technicians, not good scientists.

The life-of-the-mind approach is demeaned in our anti-intellectual society as being an ivory tower perspective, which it is, in its purest form.  Often I find myself wondering why we are covering some of the outdated and, for practical modern day purposes, useless chemistry we see in organic courses.  I can see a rationalization that points toward a training of the mind, although I am suspicious of such arguments.  This method creates people who can think-tank a problem, without dealing with the practical realities.

As I am sure many readers will agree, I think the key to a good educational system is to balance the two views.  This leads me to a questions for which I have no answers.  In a fundamental sense, what is the balance we trying to convey to students in the two semester organic course?  Do our texts and examination methods reflect that balance?

With the increased reliance on multiple choice exams and larger class sizes I fear that we are moving increasingly toward credentialing to the technical training side.  I don't believe that this approach will make either our graduates or our economy competitive in the future.

I look forward to the thoughts of readers.

T.S. Hall

No Compromise America

Every time I have started to write a blog entry over the last few weeks I have found myself drifting back to the same off topic issue, so I am just going to get this off my chest and move on.

A few weeks ago I was listening to an interview with a member of a state legislature talking about budget issues and how to close a large budget gap.  This elected representative stated that the source of budget problems is "compromise".  He then went on to argue that there should be no compromise.  He suggested that the only solution is to silence all who disagree and have one party (his) make all the rules.  No surprising for today's politicians, but increasingly we see evidence of politicians acting to silence all who disagree.

Being a radical moderate, I don't care and won't tell, which party this person was from.  It does not matter. The movement to the extremes is a recipe for destruction.  When we refuse to negotiate, when facts don't matter, when we salt the earth of our enemies in a civil war, we have sown the seeds of the end of civil society and at some future time will see revolution in our own land.

In my life I have see revolutions and genocides.  They begin when one group holds power and wealth and dictates to those who think or look differently that they will have no voice or power over their lives.  Look at Egypt and Libya, the populace are wage slaves who must suffer in silence as all power and wealth go to a few.

I was taught in elementary school and have always believed that part of the genius of the founders of the United States of America was that they set up a system requiring that even the minority opinions would have a voice and would be heard in the court of public opinion. When politicians act specifically to pursue a permanent majority by legislating the destruction of any means that those who disagree with them might use to have a voice, they undermine the foundations of the nation.

I am hopeful that the pendulum has reached the zenith of its swing and more sensible voices will soon speak up, but when I hear leaders like the legislator who is anti-compromise speak without fear of rebuttal or retribution I worry about the our collective future.

T.S. Hall