I don’t know how many EMU faculty have participated in the HERI (Higher Education Research Institute) survey. There are a few questions at the end of the survey dealing with specific EMU issues — e.g., should faculty evaluate academic leadership (DH, dean, provost, president) regularly — that are worthwhile. I suppose it’s a good idea to take the survey, even if just for the final few EMU-related questions.
A big HOWEVER, however!
The questions on curriculum drove me nuts — the survey’s curricular questions had way too much emphasis on service-learning, community service, students as “agents of change”, women studies, gender studies, ethnic studies, blah blah blah. If this is indicative of some nation-wide fad, or if Eastern is headed down that path, then I say, “stop right there!”
I’m telling you folks in the greater world who think that university curricula should be informed by assorted sociology-related disciplines, history-related disciplines or community service to just forget it until you earn a B or better in calculus. I am unimpressed with feel-good. You need to impress me with your intellectual chops. Let’s see your bona fides in multiple disciplines (and disciplines in the same paradigm don’t count!) before you push to infuse your particular passion throughout the curriculum.
Personally, I think the core informing principle of university education should be mathematics and the scientific method, not global whatevers (sociology), not US whatevers (sociology), not community service, and not as being a change agent. But you don’t see *me* agitating for a computational core (“computation in quatrocento art?”) to everything, do you? That’s because that would be crazy — just like sociology as the core of everything is crazy.
Sue,
You do bring up good point HOWEVER, you are missing the fact that in this global world we live in that our graduates need to show that they are willing to give back to their communities and show they have a god grasp on Social Justice Issues. They need to be able to interact with people face to face not just through technology. Students need to know how to work with people outside of the little office. Understanding society is the only way our graduates will compete in the world market today.
I guess if you are not willing to be open minded to the discussion you will not be able to shape the discussion. As a person who claims to want to teach students to be better people, I am surprised to see you are not willing to try new ways of teaching. Change is not a bad thing, it is those who do not participate in a process of change which makes a bad thing.
Here is the thing about attacks against the person — it doesn’t MATTER if I am the most close-minded person on the face of the earth (“I guess if you are not willing to be open minded to the discussion”) and it doesn’t MATTER if I “am not willing to try new ways of teaching” — such arguments are IRRELEVANT to the truth or falsity of the proposition.
And when used in the the context of “being able to interact with people” and of “work[ing] with people outside of the little office,” such a poor argumentation strategy only weakens the position of the person using them, and when used against the weak-minded (which I am not) only pisses off the target (while I am the target, I am not pissed off) and annoys observers.
Tssk!
So…should all students be math majors? Or be required to work their way up to calculus before they can consider the math portion of their gen-ed complete? ‘Cause if that were the case I think I’d still be working on my degree at this point.
I really hope I’m mis-reading this post, because I would hate to think that anyone in this community thinks that an education that focuses on the “feel-good” humanities lacks intellectual chops. (But then again, perhaps I am mis-reading it because of my lack of intellectual-ness?)
No, Angela, I’m not saying that.
I’m saying that the notion that the social sciences are *more important* than the other disciplines is wrong.
The point of a liberal education is a well-rounded, cross-discipline education. When people think that only the social sciences are of value, or, as is apparently happening now, when the social sciences are stressed to the weakening of the natural sciences, the humanities, the arts and mathematics, or when the non-social science disciplines are validated only in how they relate to social science issues, then we have a big problem.
I am a big believer in liberal education. That, to me, means everyone takes two classes *at the college level* in each of mathematics, experimental science, humanities (e.g., history), foreign language, arts (e.g., literature).
I don’t see the sciences and the maths people trying to “water down” the social sciences with natural science and math. But I do see it going the other way. I see a lot of pressure to include social issues in computing, for example.
And I’m going to continue to put my foot in it here.
In my not very humble opinion — doing good and significant work in the social sciences is far, far harder than doing good and significant work in computer science (for example).
People who think they can’t understand calculus are indulging themselves. Calculus is easier to grasp than trying to understand conflicting influences on cultures (for example). And I do not buy the argument that I happen to be “better at math.” My verbal SAT scores were significantly higher than my math SAT scores.
I try to read widely and be educated across disciplines, but I would not presume to place my discipline over any of the social sciences, etc.
Chris, you assert that it is a “fact that in this global world we live in that our graduates need to show that they are willing to give back to their communities and show they have a god grasp on Social Justice Issues.” While as a citizen I may tend to agree with you, as an educator I think the claim is lame. We should set educational goals based on what students need to know – in general (hence, general education) and in given fields and occupations as well, for given programs of study. People should know about the world’s complexity of cultures and its past because those are important subjects – by any measure. BUt educators do not have the right to assert what students will or should do with that knowledge — what you call “to give back to their communities”. For example: I teach the history of the civil rights movement, and I introduced a course on gay history to the EMU curriculum; but those are historical subjects. I have no right, and no need, to assert that a student taking those classes reach any particular conclusion, other than a mastery of the relevant history.
A given professional field of study can define its own professional rules in the appropriate ways; social work can discourage, say, a Nazi from entering that caring profession, just as I can flunk a student who claims that there was no Holocaust. But these are professional needs, not general goals for all college level education. A Nazi could, to extend the analogy, take my civil rights class and do well, if he learned the material and wrote the papers adequately. I could not flunk him for his politics, and would not want to. If by learning about civil rights, he reformulated his Nazi ideas, fine and good; but such would be his choice, not my course’s requiremets. Your comment, Chiris, seems to imply that my courses should make people into better people – but who is to say what’s better? Don’t think for a minute that students will cede that autonomy to the faculty or anyone. Nor should they. Let’s focus on what universities can do, educate, and put aside this liberal prescriptive ambition, which is unobtainable anyway (given the literature on student values i think it’s absolutely clear that college courses can affect what students know, but not what they believe politically or spiritually).
Thanks for the post, Prof. Haynes! And yeah, i think it’s a shame that the scientific method is not front and center as part of a meaningful First Year curriculum at EMU.
As someone who teaches in a social science-y field I happen to agree with Susan’s assessment. I would like all of my students to have a better grasp of math and science, just as I would like them to be able to read and comment thoughtfully on a poem or piece of literature, make a coherent argument and dissect others’ arguments, have a good grasp of historical context, and have exposure to different thought patterns via music, art, and foreign language training.
The latest version of the gen-ed has some strengths. I certainly think it is more flexible than the “old” gen ed requirements were, and I like the idea that a student could choose from a variety of courses for some of the categories, instead of being forced into a single course in most instances. There are places where I think this falls down, and one glaring example is the removal of a civics/government course of some type from the requirements. I don’t think it is a good idea to have a whole country full of people who do not understand their own government. But the gen ed cannot be all things to all people and I accept that.
I’m still undecided about the “learning beyond the classroom” element of the gen ed. On one hand, much of the intellectual stimulation that I remember being part of college life happened beyond the confines of the classroom, attending lectures, participating in student activities and organizations, and plain & simple “bull sessions” late at night, and that’s certainly a valuable experience. It is also one that seems to be lacking for many of our students who do not live on or even near campus, who do not have time in their lives to engage in intellectual conversation or exploration, and (for some) who view education as a commodity to “get” instead of a lifelong habit of mind to be cultivated. So to the extent that the LBC can encourage students to take a broader view of knowledge and education as a process to be enjoyed instead of a thing to be purchased, I’m for that. On the other hand, I am not at all sure that we can artifically CREATE that atmosphere via gen ed requirements. And in that regard I find myself somewhat swayed by Prof. Haynes’ argument about the softening of education.
But it is a little too late at this point to be worrying about this because the Gen Ed is what it is. Maybe I’m wrong? But I don’t expect another overhaul to occur anytime in the near future.
For the record I am all about the math and science. Having a BS in Ag Sci I am all about Scientific Method. However, we need to produce well rounded students.
As it stands now a EMU graduate can go through their whole program and not take a single Comp Sci Class – which I think is really wrong. However, I feel they also need to take the Humanities as well.
I just feel there are many “turf wars” happening. I wish EMU will have a REAL discussion on what Education really means.
First off, as a former English major and current college professor who feels like he is a pretty well-educated and well-rounded person, I find it kind of offensive that I should “just forget it” until I get a B in calculus. If that had been the litmus test for a college education when I went to school, I would simply not be here today.
I struggled mightily with math and do so to this day, and, as a result of having taken some classes like Trigonometry in high school, getting very lucky on the math section of the ACT (which placed me out of gen ed math in college), and my choice of major, I didn’t take any math course in college. Not a one. I don’t know if this proves my “intellectual chops” or not, but like I said, I get by.
Second, I think it is silly to think of mathematics and the scientific method as the “core” of higher education. It would be just as silly for me to suggest that we ought to put the study of rhetoric, language, and literature as the “core” of higher education. Certainly <b>all</b> of these things should be a part of a college education, which is why they are a part of our general education program at EMU, and why math and “first year writing” are courses that are almost universally required of college students. But for me, to say that the “core” of higher education ought to be math and the scientific method is another way of saying that we have no reason to study literature, history, philosophy, religion, culture, gender, race, painting, music, sculpture, etc., etc., etc. That is not only goofy; it’s kind of insulting to scholars like me who are invested in these fields.
Third, speaking to the “learning beyond the classroom” issue. Like EMU Lecturer pointed out, this train has left the station, and it is curious to me that this tiny and quite easily satisfied requirement still seems to come up every once in a while as a bone of contention. But beyond that, I think a lot of it boils down to what you see as the role of higher education in this country. In part, public education in general has traditionally been seen as important for educating citizens to be informed about the “workings” of our country and the world, which is rather important in a democracy. If we had a king, it wouldn’t really matter how many of the people were illiterate, ill-informed, and/or disconnected with the world because the king makes the decisions and that’s that. In a democracy, where people vote for things, this is not true. So if you see education as something that is supposed to benefit society as a whole and that is not simply about proving how big your intellectual bone is or just getting a job, then it seems to me that the “learning beyond the classroom” component fits quite well within the general education program.
I’ll respond in reverse order in a big hurry.
Steve: I’m glad, of course, that you agree so completely with me on the evil effect and seriously flawed premise of having a disparate, and arguably disjoint discipline validating another one.
On the math thing, though, you are telling me that because of HIGH SCHOOL you have given up on the most pure knowledge accessible to the human mind? GIVING UP?!! No, no, this cannot be permitted! No giving up on beauty allowed! Here’s my suggestion — give John Derbyshire’s _Prime Obsession_ a read through. It’s a terrific book in every way and has opened the eyes of all the math phobes I know that have read it. Go ahead and read it. I promise it won’t hurt. Come and talk to me about logarithms some time, but bring your family along.
EMU Lecturer: I appreciate your comments on Gen Ed and the dilemma posed by the LBC requirement. I also have a problem with the LBC requirement. It seems to me that, if the experience is any good, the students will come. If we have to force them, then I fear we’re doing something wrong. And I especially appreciate your comments about your desire for your students to “have a better grasp of math and science, just as I would like them to be able to read and comment thoughtfully on a poem or piece of literature, make a coherent argument and dissect others’ arguments, have a good grasp of historical context, and have exposure to different thought patterns via music, art, and foreign language training.” I am totally there. I am convinced that people who can think in different ways and appreciate the different patterns in music, art, literature, foreign language, etc, are FAR and AWAY better engineers and better computer scientists. If I could force all my students to take great books, a foreign language, and music theory (and music composition!), I would in an instant. It’s not just because it makes them well rounded, it’s because it also makes them better in the discipline itself.
And yeah, I also think the train has left the station on the Gen Ed thing. I figure 5 years before we can take another stab at the problem. Why it was approved when support for it was so divided and it didn’t achieve at least one of its major objectives (the transfer credit one), I cannot figure out.
Dr Higbee:
Believe it or not, I am in total agreement with you on every point you’ve made.
And you’re welcome on the post. It’s part of my resolution to throw more cherry bombs at emutalk. ; – )
Nope, no math for me. From my point of view, I instead went on to study the two most important things you can study in the university, first literature as an undergraduate student and then rhetoric as a PhD student. The knowledge of math can be programmed into the machine; the knowledge that comes from texts and the interactions among people cannot, and thus is more pure and complex.
Or something like that. Anyway, my story and I’ll stick to it.
C.P.Snow strikes again! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Two_Cultures
I’m with sitedad on this one: I failed math twice in high school, only making it to Advanced Algebra. I made a lot of lucky guesses on the ACT, I guess, because I got out of doing math in college. I know that if I had been required to take math in college I would have had to waste at least one semester on the 098 level or whatever level of math they have that doesn’t even count for credit. I got off track on math in roughly 6th grade – I went to that Sylvan learning center place for a while in high school where they tested me to figure out where everything went wrong.
To me, part of the beauty of college is that I got to be a largely self-directed learner. Whiile some gen ed categories had more options than others, I was rarely locked into a class that I absolutely hated. So I got to focus my education on literature and communication – both disciplines that taught me the same sort of skills that a math class would, in a way that is actually applicable to my life and doesn’t leave my throwing heavy text books across the room.
Ultimately, the core of a college education, for me, is about applicability. I worked too hard for too long to get to college only to be forced to pay for classes in math that I will quite honestly never use. And this argument could easily be applied to the LBC requirement. I never had to fulfill that requirement, so I don’t really have an opinion on it otherwise.
Or to summarize: I’m sticking with sitedad’s story.
I think C.P. Snow’s essential points are solid, and I will always remember reading him in my first year undergrduate history course, the idea of Progress. Only humanists assign Snow, I’ve been told. But I think, Prof Hayes, that there’s a greater danger in American culture today than the lack of comprehension between the “two cultures” — and that’s the rise of the “no culture’, the idea that one need not really learn anything in depth — that the assertion of something in loud enough terms by a person in “authority” is sufficient to settle all things. I think the sciences are better understood by the humanists, and vice versa, than either are understood by the decision makers of our society and of our campus.
The mentioning of f C.P. Snow reminds me of a really horrid “talk” that an interim dean of my college gave a couple of years ago. I recall it as being a talk without focus or thesis, but lots of name dropping, and much display of self importance by way of inappropriate autobiographical stories, without any real insight into Snow’s ideas or relevance; and one colleague affirmed that it was a mere cut and paste job from sources on the internet. Don’t know if was a cut and paste bit of plagiarism, but it was an example of Snow being misused, in my view. His actual book is not all so pro science side and lambasting the humanities side, as it’s often made out to be. And he was too much a traditionalist in terms of what humanities he valued, and his sense of what science is doing is way, way out of date: Even sophisticated scientists are llikely to be wholly unaware of major new findings in other sciences, for science is very very specialized today – and was then, 50 years ago, to a greater extent than Snow allowed for in his call for all educated people to keep well informed of the newest research. Knowledge is moving too fast for that.
and all the scientists i know are better read in literature, and have a deeper appreciation of cultural complexity, than do most Americans, just as all the humanists and social science types and artists i know have more insight into, say, the theory of evolution and the value of empirical research. So that’s why i think the real problem is the “no cultures” trend.
EMU should sponsor a conference on C. P. Snow – the uses and misuses of his famous essay, and on his relevancy for today.
I wonder what the results of a study of the math level of people who got taken by the subprime lending scams would show. Anybody want in on the grant? I remember when they put the numbers is front of me, it was blantantly obvious I was about to get screwed.
I think I’ll stick with math while catching up on my reading.
And remember sitedad and angela, somebody has to program the machine.
JP
This is true about the programing JP, but I have met many a computer geek who had my level of math skills.
And I also agree with Mark’s take, too. The kind of work I do as a teacher and as a scholar are not at all “purely” humanistic and is certainly not at all literary. I do a lot of writing, thinking, and teaching about stuff having to do with technology, both in the sense of how to do various computer things that are especially important to writers and to teachers of writing, and in the sense of talking about theories of technology. There’s nothing pure about the work I do or the work that most people in my field.
I wish I was better at math, btw. I also wish I could have been a rock star. Neither is likely to happen anytime soon.
This entry has been an extremely interesting read for me as I’ve watched the comments pile up.
When JP mentioned that “somebody has to program the machine,” along with some of sitedad’s comment, it made me think about my POV a little bit more.
I’m like sitedad – stopped taking math in high school as soon as I could. I found that while I swore I understood the concepts, the actual solving of the problems or doing the math just boggled me. I never did as well as I thought I did, and that carried over into my chem and physics work when I took those classes (which I took in part because I stopped math so early!). And it made me sad, because I like science, and math fascinates me – I know there’s beauty in it, but I can’t seem to access that beauty.
But, now to my opinion, lol: I get what you’re saying, and think there does need to be distinct focus on math and sciences in US schools and universities, but it needs to be in balance with humanities. I don’t think everyone needs to know how to do advanced mathematics, but there should be an appreciation for it, and for the skills that it promotes; just as there needs to be an appreciation of the humanities and social sciences, and the skills they promote. Not everyone needs to know how to do everything.
I don’t know how to code and program and run computers and servers and such, but I appreciate the work and knowledge that my parents (and many people on emutalk!) have in that field, and I’m glad that they have those skills that I don’t.
Kayla — right on!
I think EMU, and most universities, are seriously lacking in science curricula for people who aren’t gonna do science. Math is vital, but too often it’s turned into a barrier for the non science students. I learned more science since finishing college by reading science writers who write for the lay public of intelligent readers, than in formal courses. Scientists can’t do science without seriously advanced math, but intelligent citizens can understand far more science than most do without having to also know the advanced math. So, I am for a two prong science curriculum — one for the scientists, and another gen ed science set of core requirements for the non-science majors, but this second curriculum would have to be a true CORE curriculum, not a “menu” of gen ed choices. I think the gulf between the “two cultures” of well educated people would be reduced by such a two prong science curricula, one of which I’d love to go back and take myself: A real intro to the sciences that does not predicate intellectual success on a high level of math skills.
(Self disclosure: I never got past high school algebra, and intro to biology was my last science course. Not bragging, and not defending those facts, just reporting them. Requirements have been toughed up since my day, but too often in ways that just create new barriers.)
Back now to reading student papers on Martin Luther King. Thanks for the break, Kayla!
I am a reformed math hater.
Like so many other people I came to dislike math intensely, somewhere in middle school. I can still name each of my middle school math teachers and I don’t do so with any fondness. When I got the requisite math classes out of the way in 9th grade, I refused to do more. In college I again took one (fairly basic) math class as a freshman and figured I was done for life! I was fine with that, really. I chose as majors and minors, subjects that (in my view) had absolutely nothing to do with math – history, a foreign language, and government. My disinterest in math also meant I did the bare minimum amount of science and struggled even with that because of my math phobia. And I was ok with that too.
Only then… I went to grad school in a social science discipline. And my first year there, I found that not only was I required to take still more math (statistics!), but that I also had to earn A’s in TWO graduate statistics courses in order to maintain my scholarship and stipend. No pressure, right? I was pretty sure I was doomed to flunk out and the only consolation was that many of my classmates felt the same way. I approached each class with a bottle of aspirin and a large cup of coffee.
So imagine my great surprise when I discovered that not only could I survive these classes, but I actually did rather well and even came to really *enjoy* learning statistics and the math behind it! I grew to appreciate the way that one can use data and numbers to represent more abstract ideas and relationships. I found it exciting that I could test my assumptions about different aspects of my field of study, through statistics. And even though much of my own research is perhaps better labeled as “thick description” and/or “comparative case studies” I continue to appreciate the value of understanding and being able to communicate using numbers today. Just like studying art, literature, and languages open up new avenues of thought and new ways of seeing, the same is true of studying math.
More pragmatically, I landed my first academic job largely on the strength of my statistical background and ability to teach such material to reluctant undergrads. Who’d have guessed learning a little math (in a non-math/science field) would pay, literally speaking?!
Along the way I’ve reached the conclusion that most people who are turned off to math didn’t actually learn much mathematics anyway. They never got past arithmetic. I don’t mean that in a derogatory way, just that the way most of us probably “learned” (which I use loosely here) math in school prevented us from really mastering what’s going on beyond the basic numerical manipulation. We didn’t get to see the real meaning, power, and excitement behind the numbers. No one taught us to view math as a way of thinking, instead of some horrid chore to be endured. No wonder we as a society don’t care much for math then!
I never in a million years would have thought this way, or believed it either, if someone had told me this prior to my own experience. So I suppose few people here will be convinced of the truth of what I’m saying, but maybe one or two people will at least file it away in the back of their minds for later consideration.
Refocusing on the roles of math, science, social science, and humanities in the gen-ed and in academic life more generally: To my way of thinking, part of being an academic is nurturing a sense of intellectual curiosity about the world and how it works. Specialization is one thing, but closing off a whole approach is not consistent with that, for all that I can understand why some of us might choose to do it. Looking back, I find myself wishing that I had been encouraged/pushed/forced into more math and science in my undergrad days. I doubt it would have changed what I have chosen as a profession, but it probably would have enhanced my ability to think theoretically from an earlier time, and it certainly would help me understand my son’s chemistry and physics homework these days!
Mark – you’re welcome, lol.
EMU Lecturer – I really appreciated your story! I know I have to take math at some point soon, but I’m absolutely terrified; I’m actually planning on taking social stats, so it was nice reading your story.
Bob Moses, the great and courageous civil rights activist who did so much with so many other brave people in Mississippi 45 years ago to change the nation and put an end to segregationism, wrote a book 6 or 7 years ago called RADICAL EQUATIONS. It’s about the method of teaching math and especially algebra that he developed in the 1970s — and for which he won a MacArthur “genius” prize. The book also has some chapters on the 1960s civil rights struggle, and he makes a parallel, convincingly, between the denial of voting rights to African Americans and the lack of access to numerical literacy among poor Americans today – especially among African Americans. Voting then was the key to access, and in today’s economy, numerical literacy serves a very similar function: without it, you’re likely to be excluded from the mainstream of American life.
It’s a great book (cowritten with Charles Cobb, I believe, published by Beacon Books, a small volume). Moses founded a group called The Algebra Project which provides an alternative and apparently highly effective method of teaching algebra; it’s gotten lots of attention for its success at improving test scores but also, more importantly, for transforming students’ lives by showing them that they can learn, and that learning is directly relevant to their lives. The method is not readily embraced by most K-12 school teachers or school officials — it’s too “bottom up,” too student centered, it’s not what’s taught in the ed schools, it does not fit the lesson plans and it’s too chaotic. But effective.
One of the points Moses makes in this book, the one I thought of a moment ago when reading Kayla’s and EMU Lecturer’s comments, was about what bad “math” – or arthmetic, really – teachers can do to young students. And Moses shows that most K-12 math teachers have had only a minimal exposure to the real principles of mathematics; they cannot explain much to students because too many of the math teachers didn’t have more than a minimal math education in the first place. It’s comparable to what most states in the US require to be certified to teach high school history – almost no history courses. (Michigan, fortunately, is tougher.)
The Algebra Project is still at it, teaching math to kids the society basically says are too dumb to learn math. And as Moses points out, to be poor and Black and numerically illiterate in our society is 3 strikes against you, and then they’ll put you in jail.
EMU could bring living heroes of the civil rights movement to campus. When proposed, the idea gets vetoed by the powers than be.
I read that book!
Lat year, when I took a UNIV 179 class called Math in a Global Society – it was a good read, and very informative. Great intro to social injustice and some ways to combat it; and the issues you outlined are a great social injustice.
It’s been interesting reading these comments.
I have thought of another recommendation for those who would like to access something of the elegance and beauty of math, but don’t want to be mugged by mathematical notation: watch the Teaching Company lecture series “The Joy of Thinking . . .” given by Michael Starbird and Edward Berger. 24 lectures, 30 minutes each.
Here’s a link to it: http://www.teach12.com/ttcx/coursedesclong2.aspx?cid=1423 . Get it from the library (inter-library loan if necessary).
I showed the part on how to generate the spiral to an artist friend who was very taken with it. It’ll make a nifty quilt pattern. Personally, I liked the paper-folding part (fractals!) best, but it was all interesting. It has the best explanation of the Monty Hall Problem (from the early game show “Let’s Make a Deal”) that I’ve seen.
Just because you mentioned quilt potential, I have to watch those now.
Fractals are interesting too; the reason I learned about them, and became interested? Reading Crighton’s Jurassic Park and Lost World! The mathematician character stole my nerdy science heart with his “explanations.”
Monty Hall Problem? Is that something like how to figure out which door to pick to get the best prize? Because that’s what I think of when I think of “Let’s make a Deal.” Or am I totally wrong and thinking of a different show?
Three semi-connected thoughts:
1) There’s an op-ed piece by Nicholas Kristof in today’s NY Times on how our society views knowledge these days, and the generally anti-intellectual mood in the US. It is on the back page of the Week in Review.
2) Mark, although we may be unable to convince various powers that be of the value of bringing speakers like Bob Moses to campus (wow, that would be cool though), there is nothing stopping us from hosting our own discussions and events as colleagues. I know a couple of depts. who are beginning to hold informal brown-bag events for themselves, where they examine similar sorts of issues. Why not? I, for one, would love to see this happen. It would go a long way toward improving the academic environment on campus, not to mention maybe breaking down a few barriers between members of different departments. Intellectual interaction among colleagues is one thing I find I miss here at EMU. We all get so hung up in our day-to-day affairs, heavy teaching/service loads, and frustrations with mis-management, that this just doesn’t happen much. (And by the way I think a focus on the AP would be really interesting as part of black history/women’s history/latino/hispanic history month(s) next year)
3) Every college and university in the US that I’ve ever interacted with has a college of arts and sciences. I’ve never seen one with a “college of humanities” and a separate “college of math and science.” Maybe we need to consider more closely, why “arts and sciences” have traditionally been partnered, and whether this pairing still makes sense today? Not that I expect to see anything different at EMU as a result, but it is worth asking, I think, why we have a separate “college of technology” and what our various “arts and sciences” disciplines have in common with each other, in comparison to the other “colleges” on campus.
cyblone wrote,
“Understanding society is the only way our graduates will compete in the world market today. ”
Unfortunately the last place on Planet Earth where I would go to learn about society is at a College or University like Eastern that is 90+% liberal.
These Sociology curriculum have a single minded liberal agenda that they cram down the minds of EMU Students regardless and do it in the falsehood of “Fairness.”
This is MULTICULTURALISM taken to the extreme and it serves the opposite effect of its intent. Instead of multiculturalism you have these classes that basically say WHITE, ANGLO, SAXXON, PROTESTANTS are evil and “Insert Race….Insert Ethnicity….Insert whatever” are Good.
At least that’s what I got out of the Forced Credit Hours of Multiculturalism.
One can’t take EMU seriously on multiculturalism when they resemble the exact opposite of that by BANNING…. rather than Welcoming… the Huron Namesake and thus the Huron tribe.
Bring back the HURON namesake and maybe EMU will be seen as “Multicultural.” But for now the only people who think EMU = Multicultural are liberals.
“AGENT FOR CHANGE” as if automatically the CONSERVATIVE agenda is wrong….
“AGENT FOR COMMON SENSE, NO CHANGE” when can we see that????? Try Never!
Not when there’s Universal Healthcare….Not when there’s so many Communist ideas to further. I worked in the Economics Department back when I was an undergrad and eye balled some Test Questions which didn’t shock me based on what kind of Distorted World View Professors were forcing their students to have to agree with.
Not as long as EMU remains 90+% liberal and unwilling to even remotely treat their Conservative Students with any respect.
No one asked us Conservatives what WE thought of “general education” requirements much less this Political Incorrect General Education Requirements. I mean people take some of these classes like “Female Gender Equality Courses” or whatever just for the fact you get a lot of hot babes who are in those classes and not because you actually believe a single word coming out of your professor’s mouth.
One thing Professor/Liberals don’t understand or refuse to even care about is that us Conservative Undergraduate Students simply….flatout…..do not believe a single word coming out of your mouth. We are just in it for the Grade and the Diploma and to get the heck out of Dodge.
Why don’t we agree with you on anything? Because the premise is 180 degrees opposite of who we are! We don’t believe in disecting and labeling people and separating people into their GENDER… Their RACE…. Their ETHNICITY…. .Whether they are an “Agent of Change” or what have you….
We believe Philosophy has to do with substance…. Not… This….Ridiculous garbage where it’s somehow WRONG to be Gender/Race/Ethnicity/Religiosity Blind.
Oh, I get it, Jeff. April’s Fool joke.