Purpose of a required, principles-level class

[jimddoyle]

In your opinion, what is the purpose of a required, principles-level class? I am particularly asking about a course that students from a number of concentrations are required to take; students from one of the concentrations will go on to take additional courses in the specific discipline. If you are teaching a course like this, what is it that you basically seek to accomplish (rigor, detail, etc.)?

[polly_mer]

I don't understand what kind of course this is.

Do you mean something like General Chemistry that is taken by many majors that use chemistry, but then branch out into chemistry of various specialties (organic, physical, biochemistry, analytic), chemical engineering (uses chemistry, but isn't at all like a chemistry major), and materials engineering (again, uses chemistry, but is not like chemistry or chemical engineering)?

Or do you mean something like Intro to Engineering where the point is to work like an engineer on bitsy projects and teams to weed out people who want the money of an engineer without having thought through the type of work that one would do?

[Aster]

They are usually the first steps in the degree plan for the academic major. They serve as gatekeeper courses, dip-your-toes-in-the-water courses (for people interested in the major), foundational topics courses, and introductory courses.

[marshwiggle]

They are usually the first steps in the degree plan for the academic major. They serve as gatekeeper courses, dip-your-toes-in-the-water courses (for people interested in the major), foundational topics courses, and introductory courses.

These are two different purposes; if the goal is to generate interest among people not in the major, the goals wil be different than if it's the introductory course for people in the major. In the former case, the content choice is more flexible. In the latter, the content has to cover the range and depth expected for the rest of the major.

[downer]

Classes serve many purposes. And sometimes they serve no real purpose.

The idea that there is some kind of Platonic, given purpose for any particular kind of class across the world seems dubious. Better to focus on the recommendations of the relevant curriculum committee.

Of course, from my point of view, the main purpose of any class is for me to make money and keep myself entertained.

[dr_codex]

As Poly says, It depends.

Sometimes these courses are truly foundational, and until you pick up the basics you will really struggle in the follow on courses. These courses need to be rigorous, for the benefit of the students. (I.e.: time for summer school if you want to stay on track.) Comp I fulfills that role for any program with a lot of writing; Calc I for many of the sciences; Intermediate / translation courses for programs in foreign languages.

Sometimes the courses are gateway courses for the discipline, and are a way to systems check before students are allowed on to the end. Statics is that course in Engineering at my place; it's the gateway to the upper division, and to degree specialization. It has a high failure rate, and my colleagues use it as a way to gauge progress, and to weed out the students who really aren't going to be Engineers.

Sometimes, as Poly also notes, the courses are really exposure to the discipline. The first course that I taught on my own as a T.A. was a section of the gateway course in my Humanities field. All students took it, and then went on to branch out into an area of specialization. The Professor in charge emphasized that part of the goal was to encourage cohort formation; one goal was to get the students to bond. If they bonded against me, that was fine. Rigor in evaluation was emphasized, but tough grading was not, in part because we were supposed to push students out of their comfort zone, and to try things that they had never really done before. Task failure was expected, and encouraged.

Those of you of a certain age might remember The Paperchase, and those of you who went to law school probably read Scott Turow's One-L.

If this course really is crucial in your curriculum, you really should ask around where you are about the norms and expectations.

[Aster]

They are usually the first steps in the degree plan for the academic major. They serve as gatekeeper courses, dip-your-toes-in-the-water courses (for people interested in the major), foundational topics courses, and introductory courses.

These are two different purposes; if the goal is to generate interest among people not in the major, the goals wil be different than if it's the introductory course for people in the major. In the former case, the content choice is more flexible. In the latter, the content has to cover the range and depth expected for the rest of the major.

They are not different purposes, because the course is not trying to drum up interest in the major. The course is merely giving people an opportunity to see if the academic major is the right fit for the interested student. If they are interested, they will continue in the major. If they are not, they will select another major.

[downer]

In your opinion, what is the purpose of a required, principles-level class? I am particularly asking about a course that students from a number of concentrations are required to take; students from one of the concentrations will go on to take additional courses in the specific discipline. If you are teaching a course like this, what is it that you basically seek to accomplish (rigor, detail, etc.)?

Jimmy, did you get your answer then?

[marshwiggle]

They are usually the first steps in the degree plan for the academic major. They serve as gatekeeper courses, dip-your-toes-in-the-water courses (for people interested in the major), foundational topics courses, and introductory courses.

These are two different purposes; if the goal is to generate interest among people not in the major, the goals wil be different than if it's the introductory course for people in the major. In the former case, the content choice is more flexible. In the latter, the content has to cover the range and depth expected for the rest of the major.

They are not different purposes, because the course is not trying to drum up interest in the major. The course is merely giving people an opportunity to see if the academic major is the right fit for the interested student. If they are interested, they will continue in the major. If they are not, they will select another major.

If it's rigorous enough to be the introductory course in the major, then that would presumably mean a lot of the unsure ones would drop the course once they get a taste of it. There may be some who do well enough but decide it's not for them, but I'd guess most students leave a program because it's much harder than they imagined. (The ones who are really interested will enjoy the work, even if it's challenging.)

[Aster]

They are usually the first steps in the degree plan for the academic major. They serve as gatekeeper courses, dip-your-toes-in-the-water courses (for people interested in the major), foundational topics courses, and introductory courses.

These are two different purposes; if the goal is to generate interest among people not in the major, the goals wil be different than if it's the introductory course for people in the major. In the former case, the content choice is more flexible. In the latter, the content has to cover the range and depth expected for the rest of the major.

They are not different purposes, because the course is not trying to drum up interest in the major. The course is merely giving people an opportunity to see if the academic major is the right fit for the interested student. If they are interested, they will continue in the major. If they are not, they will select another major.

If it's rigorous enough to be the introductory course in the major, then that would presumably mean a lot of the unsure ones would drop the course once they get a taste of it. There may be some who do well enough but decide it's not for them, but I'd guess most students leave a program because it's much harder than they imagined. (The ones who are really interested will enjoy the work, even if it's challenging.)

Yeah. The first "majors level" courses taken are usually referred to as "weed-outs" or "gatekeepers" because of this. I teach a lot of these kinds of these courses, and my pass rates are almost always far lower than for the follow-up courses that they mate with. And that's normal and expected.

Part of the purpose of college is for people to figure out what they want to professionally do with their life, while *they're still in college*. That means that they are going to sample the waters. Lots of college students try different courses out, and *should* try different courses out. The average college student changes majors 1-2 times before they graduate. Often, it's a bad match with the first majors-level course that steers a student somewhere else. Fortunately, most all of the first-semester majors courses are interchangeable as general electives in most U.S. public institutions, so even if you decide to ditch the major, you don't waste your academic credits towards your overall degree. An academically diverse transcript may also (arguably) lead to a better overall college experience. Most of the private university models certainly subscribe to that theory.