"It's time to prioritize what students want and need over what we want to teach"

[Hibush]

Changes in Educational Attainment, 1940 to 2018

Courtesy Jon Boeckenstedt, enrollment management guru extraordinaire.

The disclaimer at the top of the article says "some data on this appears to be slightly askew,... So don't cite it."

[Wahoo Redux]

Changes in Educational Attainment, 1940 to 2018

Courtesy Jon Boeckenstedt, enrollment management guru extraordinaire.

The disclaimer at the top of the article says "some data on this appears to be slightly askew,... So don't cite it."

For some reason, some posters have developed an agenda. 

[spork]

Bumping this thread to point to this article about a decline in master's degree program enrollments:

https://www.insidehighered.com/digital-learning/article/2019/12/20/probing-slowdown-masters-degree-growth.

Looks like Generic MBA Program is not as likely to be the cash cow that saves Mediocre Tiny University as people thought it was.

This is why I keep asking senior admins "What if the projections are wrong?"

[apl68]

Bumping this thread to point to this article about a decline in master's degree program enrollments:

https://www.insidehighered.com/digital-learning/article/2019/12/20/probing-slowdown-masters-degree-growth.

Looks like Generic MBA Program is not as likely to be the cash cow that saves Mediocre Tiny University as people thought it was.

This is why I keep asking senior admins "What if the projections are wrong?"

There seems to have been a proliferation of MLS programs in recent years too.  Wonder how much cash those new programs managed to milk?

[spork]

Arguments against distribution model gen ed requirements:

https://www.insidehighered.com/views/2020/02/10/higher-ed-needs-redesign-gen-ed-real-world-opinion

https://www.insidehighered.com/blogs/confessions-community-college-dean/why-checklist-model-survives.

[marshwiggle]

Arguments against distribution model gen ed requirements:

https://www.insidehighered.com/views/2020/02/10/higher-ed-needs-redesign-gen-ed-real-world-opinion

https://www.insidehighered.com/blogs/confessions-community-college-dean/why-checklist-model-survives.

As someone for whom the whole "gen ed" idea is, literally, foreign, I find certain things completely baffling. From the first article:

Often, a particular curricular expectation can be met via a dozen different options. One requirement for philosophical thinking I encountered offered 12 different topics appropriate for meeting the requirement goals, including human nature, scientific reasoning, theories of cognition, social obligations and constraints, and applied ethics. Just to be clear: that list of 12 doesn't cover the courses that count for this requirement, only the topics. Assuming there are at least a dozen courses that address each of those broad topics, we're talking about an explosive list of options -- most science classes, for instance, include scientific reasoning, and I've yet to teach a literature course that doesn't address social obligation, human nature and ethics.

I have no idea what the point is, (other than "turf protection", as noted in the article.) For instance, if students were supposed to develop "mathematical reasoning", what they would get would vary dramatically  depending on their choice of calculus, statistics, or number theory, for example. (And if they could not do basic algebra, I'd be hard to credit them with "mathematical reasoning" at all.)

My strong hunch is that people only accept the idea about all kinds of things qualifying when speaking of disciplines other than their own. For anyone's own discipline, they will have a much more specific idea of basic knowledge and skills required as fundamental.

[tuxthepenguin]

Arguments against distribution model gen ed requirements:

https://www.insidehighered.com/views/2020/02/10/higher-ed-needs-redesign-gen-ed-real-world-opinion

https://www.insidehighered.com/blogs/confessions-community-college-dean/why-checklist-model-survives.

As someone for whom the whole "gen ed" idea is, literally, foreign, I find certain things completely baffling. From the first article:

Often, a particular curricular expectation can be met via a dozen different options. One requirement for philosophical thinking I encountered offered 12 different topics appropriate for meeting the requirement goals, including human nature, scientific reasoning, theories of cognition, social obligations and constraints, and applied ethics. Just to be clear: that list of 12 doesn't cover the courses that count for this requirement, only the topics. Assuming there are at least a dozen courses that address each of those broad topics, we're talking about an explosive list of options -- most science classes, for instance, include scientific reasoning, and I've yet to teach a literature course that doesn't address social obligation, human nature and ethics.

I have no idea what the point is, (other than "turf protection", as noted in the article.) For instance, if students were supposed to develop "mathematical reasoning", what they would get would vary dramatically  depending on their choice of calculus, statistics, or number theory, for example. (And if they could not do basic algebra, I'd be hard to credit them with "mathematical reasoning" at all.)

My strong hunch is that people only accept the idea about all kinds of things qualifying when speaking of disciplines other than their own. For anyone's own discipline, they will have a much more specific idea of basic knowledge and skills required as fundamental.

If the goal is for kids to get exercise, basketball, football, soccer, cross country, swimming, and tennis are all reasonable substitutes. No reason to force them to do one particular sport. One practical reason to offer multiple options is because some faculty, and even departments, don't do a good job. Calculus and statistics are typically taught by different faculty in different departments. That's a good thing.

[marshwiggle]

If the goal is for kids to get exercise, basketball, football, soccer, cross country, swimming, and tennis are all reasonable substitutes. No reason to force them to do one particular sport.

How about archery? Croquet? Golf? (And if golf is OK, can they use a golf cart?) What about chess? (People have advocated for chess to be in the Olympics.)

"Exercise" is a virtually meaningless term depending on how many activities are allowed. Does it require cardio? Endurance? Flexibility? If there are no specific requirements, then it's pointless.

One practical reason to offer multiple options is because some faculty, and even departments, don't do a good job.

Of what don't they "do a good job"? That definition (of what they are supposed to do well) is what needs to be specified.

Calculus and statistics are typically taught by different faculty in different departments. That's a good thing.

Statistics are usually taught in math departments. Many other departments may have their own statistics courses, but usually math would prefer to teach them all (in my experience).

[spork]

At my institution (< 3,000 students) there are at least eight different courses with "ethics" in the title. Yet only the "ethics" courses taught by the philosophy department count as gen ed requirements. As for the rest, each is a required course in a different major. It's nothing but a competition to fill seats so that faculty members in different departments are able to teach full contractual loads.

[tuxthepenguin]

If the goal is for kids to get exercise, basketball, football, soccer, cross country, swimming, and tennis are all reasonable substitutes. No reason to force them to do one particular sport.

How about archery? Croquet? Golf? (And if golf is OK, can they use a golf cart?) What about chess? (People have advocated for chess to be in the Olympics.)

"Exercise" is a virtually meaningless term depending on how many activities are allowed. Does it require cardio? Endurance? Flexibility? If there are no specific requirements, then it's pointless.

Where I've worked, the committee is responsible for defining the goals, and they add a few courses that obviously meet the criteria. Departments that want courses added have to make the case that their course meets the goals of the requirement.

One practical reason to offer multiple options is because some faculty, and even departments, don't do a good job.

Of what don't they "do a good job"? That definition (of what they are supposed to do well) is what needs to be specified.

Teaching. It's tempting to put the bad teachers in classes students are forced to take. There's an incentive to fail students and force them to drop if students have to take a specific class. That doesn't work when the students can take a class in another department.

Calculus and statistics are typically taught by different faculty in different departments. That's a good thing.

Statistics are usually taught in math departments. Many other departments may have their own statistics courses, but usually math would prefer to teach them all (in my experience).

That's true at some universities, but not all. The places I've worked (research universities) have always had statistics departments. The math department wouldn't be able to teach a stats course even if they wanted to. The point is nonetheless that it's good for students to have a choice.

[downer]

At my institution (< 3,000 students) there are at least eight different courses with "ethics" in the title. Yet only the "ethics" courses taught by the philosophy department count as gen ed requirements. As for the rest, each is a required course in a different major. It's nothing but a competition to fill seats so that faculty members in different departments are able to teach full contractual loads.

I think you have pointed out at several times in the past that some departments would not be able to exist if it were not for gen ed. I expect that is true at plenty of schools.

But however things are organized, won't there competition between departments for students? Gen ed reduces student freedom to choose courses compared to a completely unstructured approach. But most ways of arranging bachelors degrees don't give students much freedom, and these days gen ed gives students quite a lot of freedom -- more than I had back in the day.

I'm having a hard time seeing what the problem is.

[spork]

As Handstedt, Reed, and some commenters on this thread point out:

• Distribution requirements often are a repeat what was already studied in high school.
• The courses often don't transfer because every institution has its own "special" gen ed requirements (designed to force in-house course enrollments).
• The above results in higher costs to students because of lengthened time to degree (underlying purpose: more tuition revenue for the university).
• Courses are primarily staffed by the low-paid adjunct army.
• Curricular sequencing sends the message "the faster you get your gen ed requirements out of the way, the more quickly you can enroll in the important courses you are interested in."
• Lack of in-depth study and hence knowledge of any of the disciplines that populate the distribution requirements.

Para's edit: FTFY.

[dr_codex]

At my institution (< 3,000 students) there are at least eight different courses with "ethics" in the title. Yet only the "ethics" courses taught by the philosophy department count as gen ed requirements. As for the rest, each is a required course in a different major. It's nothing but a competition to fill seats so that faculty members in different departments are able to teach full contractual loads.

Many professional programs require, as a condition laid down by accreditors, a specific ethics course. These are not, by definition, gen ed.

They also don't seem to have done much to cut down on cheating in B Schools, but that's a different matter.

[marshwiggle]

At my institution (< 3,000 students) there are at least eight different courses with "ethics" in the title. Yet only the "ethics" courses taught by the philosophy department count as gen ed requirements. As for the rest, each is a required course in a different major. It's nothing but a competition to fill seats so that faculty members in different departments are able to teach full contractual loads.

I think you have pointed out at several times in the past that some departments would not be able to exist if it were not for gen ed. I expect that is true at plenty of schools.

But however things are organized, won't there competition between departments for students? Gen ed reduces student freedom to choose courses compared to a completely unstructured approach. But most ways of arranging bachelors degrees don't give students much freedom, and these days gen ed gives students quite a lot of freedom -- more than I had back in the day.

I'm having a hard time seeing what the problem is.

The university president could require campus snow clearing to start at his/her driveway every time. Since the whole campus needs to be cleared, it's something that needs to be done anyway. But it's still self-serving.

[spork]

Enrollment decline as climate change:

https://www.insidehighered.com/blogs/confessions-community-college-dean/enrollment-decline-climate-change.