Common Core and higher ed

[TracyP]

Yes, more Common Core. Sorry. :tongue_smilie:

 

I have lukewarm feelings about Common Core. I am hopeful that it could be a really good thing. At the same time, I tend to think this is just another govt' attempt to fix the US education system that won't work. That is all beside the point, but I wanted to put it out there. I'm neutral but cautiously optimistic regarding CC.

 

I was listening to an interview with Watson Scott Swail: President and CEO of the Educational Policy Institute. They were talking about a completely different topic but CCS came up. Mr. Swail and his institute are involved with the CCS. He said that the goal is to have higher education adopt its own Common Core with standardized curricula. The interview is here. You can start at minute 23 to hear what he said.

 

Mr Swail is asked, "Are you saying that we should transfer CC into higher ed in a way that curricula are more universal?"

 

He replies, "That is where we hope it goes. That is what the whole intent is."

 

I think this sounds like a horrible idea. This is the first CC issue that has had me worked up. Don't we want a degree from Harvard to be different than a degree from University of MN? I know that I would expect the classes at Harvard to be at a higher level. Am I wrong to expect that? Or am I misunderstanding? What say you?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[regentrude]

You can have a common core to grant minimum standards, and a better institution would be free, and expected, to exceed those minimum expectations.

[TracyP]

You can have a common core to grant minimum standards, and a better institution would be free, and expected, to exceed those minimum expectations.

 

I get that, but then what is the point? I imagine that Calculus at a local community college compared to state university compared to MIT looks very different. I think this is a good thing. Not everyone is cut out for MIT. If the minimum is what a so-so community college is already doing, then what is the point? If the minimum is what a decent state college is already doing, then what about those students who simply don't have the ability to do math at that level?

 

[Lanny]

Yes, the Common Core states will, hopefully, have their High School graduates meet *minimum* standards.  Will each Common Core state be required to have the High School students pass E.O.C. (End of Course) examinations, as Texas requires, to get a High School diploma, from a public  high  school? Will those E.O.C. examinations be written by the individual Common Core states, or, be national exams? Will they be as difficult as the E.O.C. exams in Texas, harder, or easier?  Many questions. And, if that were to happen, in higher education, as regentdue wrote, it would be a very *minimum* standard. Then, there is the topic about testing for public school teachers, to at least verify that they have total understanding of the subject they are teaching in public schools.  Many teachers do not know the subject, or, they know the subject, but they don't know how to teach the subject. That's OT here...

[redsquirrel]

There has been noise about that for a while. A four year education is a big investment. People want to know that it is worth what they paid. I have seen things like national university exit exams floated as a possibility. What a great way for a corporation to make even more money.

[Mergath]

 

 

I think this sounds like a horrible idea. This is the first CC issue that has had me worked up. Don't we want a degree from Harvard to be different than a degree from University of MN? I know that I would expect the classes at Harvard to be at a higher level. Am I wrong to expect that? Or am I misunderstanding? What say you?

 

I don't know about that.  I went to the U of MN (Duluth campus) in person for five years, and I've watched more recorded classes from Ivy League universities over the internet than I care to think about.  As far as the actual classes go, the level of teaching seems to be about the same.  At least in universities like the U of MN, you almost always get a real professor and not a TA teaching the classes.

 

People go to Ivy League schools for the networking, not for the education.

[In The Great White North]

You can have a common core to grant minimum standards, and a better institution would be free, and expected, to exceed those minimum expectations.

 

You can do this at the K-12 level also, but it defeats (one of the) supposed purposes of the Common Core - that kids can move around the country and be at the same level.

[bolt.]

 

 

I imagine that Calculus at a local community college compared to state university compared to MIT looks very different. I think this is a good thing. Not everyone is cut out for MIT. If the minimum is what a so-so community college is already doing, then what is the point?

I suppose the point is to define what can and can't be called a calculus course, and to perhaps standardize what a "100" level looks like, and that a "200" level must include different/more topics or skills, or specific topics. You would know, for transfer students, that you are accepting/expecting a certain minimal attainment. MIT may cover the minimum and so much more, but there's something about knowing at least minimal content.

 

 

 

If the minimum is what a decent state college is already doing, then what about those students who simply don't have the ability to do math at that level?

They should take college classes in subjects where they have the aptitude to achieve at a college level, and not sign up for college classes that exceed their ability (nor the degrees that require said classes). Isn't that what college education is for?

[Catherine]

I get that, but then what is the point? I imagine that Calculus at a local community college compared to state university compared to MIT looks very different. I think this is a good thing. Not everyone is cut out for MIT. If the minimum is what a so-so community college is already doing, then what is the point? If the minimum is what a decent state college is already doing, then what about those students who simply don't have the ability to do math at that level?

I don't believe that the course quality at Ivies will always, or maybe even consistently, exceed that of state schools or community colleges. Yes, that seems to be what the "system" wants us to believe, but the limited experiences I've had haven't corroborated that at all. I think the quality of a given course depends most on the professor. And I suspect there are duds at Harvard and stars at some CCs. Students go to Harvard because they can, not because they choose it for the better quality of education. It provides them with a lifelong "door opener" and with connections. Sometimes, they will have superior educational experiences, sometimes not.

[TracyP]

I suppose the point is to define what can and can't be called a calculus course, and to perhaps standardize what a "100" level looks like, and that a "200" level must include different/more topics or skills, or specific topics. You would know, for transfer students, that you are accepting/expecting a certain minimal attainment. MIT may cover the minimum and so much more, but there's something about knowing at least minimal content.

 

 

 

They should take college classes in subjects where they have the aptitude to achieve at a college level, and not sign up for college classes that exceed their ability (nor the degrees that require said classes). Isn't that what college education is for?

 

On the one hand I can completely understand why it would be important to have [whatever]101 mean the same thing thing across the board 1) for the sake of transfer students and 2) so that when people complete their degree it means the same thing. But if a good college is going to go beyond the minimum it won't make one bit of difference. Transfer students will still struggle if their courses only met the minimum. So either everyone needs to dumb down so they can get on the same page or it isn't solving the "problem" it sets out to solve.

 

As far as your second paragraph, this is where I see a real problem. Right now we have a system where if you want an AA in welding, you have to complete a certain number of generals. What happens when they have the aptitude to be a stellar welder but can't cut it in Comp II? Community colleges fill a gap for those students by having classes that tend to be (IME) on the easier side. I think this is a good thing even though it causes issues as seen on the HS board thread.

 

I don't know. I really am torn about what to think.

[bolt.]

I'm not American, and I don't have a ton of awareness of our system -- but I think stuff like welding would be done at a polytechnic, and don't imagine it would require any unrelated subjects for the degree. Maybe it would have electives, but you'd pick those based on your interests and solitude, and there wouldn't be so many that you'd be pushed beyond your comfort zone just to get "enough".

[bolt.]

I think a transfer student would probably know if his/her destination school was had higher standards than the prior one.

[Hen]

okay, maybe the welding subject was just a quick example, but there is no AA -at least what I am familiar with, it's a tech course, you get a certificate.  The welder could work to get an AA in something else, so then you would need other general classes. Dh took a welding class so that as a building inspector he would have a better idea of the "art" of it, and to be able to pick out when someone is fudge-ing it.  It was just a certificate class.

While this is great fun to argue about, and rile everyone up, perhaps first he should clarify what this would even mean.  CCSS only covers Math and English in K-12 now, and describes what students should know at each grade level.

 

What would the equivalent be at the College level?  There's just a lot less in "Common" in College than in High School, even within the same campus. What should a third year journalism student study? Will curriculum be broken down for each major?  I think my big state U offers  three different Calc 1 classes (one for Math majors, one for Engineers, one for business school) Will this define requirements for BA/BS?

 

Regardless of whether this is a good idea, I just don't see it ever happening, defining these things and playing the politics across 100s of universities is just intractable.

[regentrude]

While this is great fun to argue about, and rile everyone up, perhaps first he should clarify what this would even mean.  CCSS only covers Math and English in K-12 now, and describes what students should know at each grade level.

 

What would the equivalent be at the College level?  There's just a lot less in "Common" in College than in High School, even within the same campus. What should a third year journalism student study? Will curriculum be broken down for each major?  I think my big state U offers  three different Calc 1 classes (one for Math majors, one for Engineers, one for business school) Will this define requirements for BA/BS?

 

There are certifications of degree programs already. In engineering, degree programs are certified through ABET which creates a minimum standard. I find this immensely sensible and important for employers who can then know that degree holders from an accredited ABET program have a certain minimum skill set.

 

Here is an article explaining how ABET works: http://www.aps.org/units/fed/newsletters/summer2009/cryer.cfm

 

It evaluates the entire degree program, not a particular department. For example, the physics courses for engineering majors are evaluated as part of the engineering degree programs, even though they are not taught by the actual engineering departments.

[Lanny]

There are certifications of degree programs already. In engineering, degree programs are certified through ABET which creates a minimum standard. I find this immensely sensible and important for employers who can then know that degree holders from an accredited ABET program have a certain minimum skill set.

 

Here is an article explaining how ABET works: http://www.aps.org/units/fed/newsletters/summer2009/cryer.cfm

 

It evaluates the entire degree program, not a particular department. For example, the physics courses for engineering majors are evaluated as part of the engineering degree programs, even though they are not taught by the actual engineering departments.

 

This!   IEEE has been involved in this, for many years. In the mid 80's, I worked, twice, under contract, on temporary assignments, where I was paid by the hour, in a large aerospace corporation, in the Pacific Northwest. At that time, I was told the corporation had a list, of approximately 50 universities in the USA. If someone had an engineering degree, from a university that was not on their list, their badge did not have the title "Engineer" on it.  Although I do not have a degree, my badge had "Engineer" on it, since I was a contractor, being paid by the hour.

 

All degree programs are *not* equal and the above is simply the recognition, by one huge corporation, of that very sad fact.

[TracyP]

I'm not American, and I don't have a ton of awareness of our system -- but I think stuff like welding would be done at a polytechnic, and don't imagine it would require any unrelated subjects for the degree. Maybe it would have electives, but you'd pick those based on your interests and solitude, and there wouldn't be so many that you'd be pushed beyond your comfort zone just to get "enough".

 

At least in my state, it is very common to get a vocational degree. There are certificate and diploma options available, but the degree will open more doors and offer higher starting wages. Here is a page that shows different degree options for jobs such as machinists, welders, diesel and heavy equipment, etc. These degrees require a bare minimum of general requirements in math and english. Most here (on the WTM boards) have kids who could sleep through the classes and get great grades. But these are difficult for some of the students. That is exactly why some may choose to be a welder. It is better than flipping burgers and they know full well that they couldn't cut it at a 4 year university.

 

 

I think a transfer student would probably know if his/her destination school was had higher standards than the prior one.

 

Totally agree.

[TracyP]

While this is great fun to argue about, and rile everyone up, perhaps first he should clarify what this would even mean.  CCSS only covers Math and English in K-12 now, and describes what students should know at each grade level.

 

What would the equivalent be at the College level?  There's just a lot less in "Common" in College than in High School, even within the same campus. What should a third year journalism student study? Will curriculum be broken down for each major?  I think my big state U offers  three different Calc 1 classes (one for Math majors, one for Engineers, one for business school) Will this define requirements for BA/BS?

 

Regardless of whether this is a good idea, I just don't see it ever happening, defining these things and playing the politics across 100s of universities is just intractable.

 

I agree. I have a hard time seeing this ever happening.

 

Standards within industries makes sense. The employers, colleges, and students can all get on the same page regarding how they want the system to look. To have one body do this for all majors seems impossible. I guess I'll just wait and see if there is ever a proposal on the table and judge it at that time. There is too much unknown at this point.

[G5052]

I doubt that it will happen.  The federal government has always been minimally involved in higher education beyond student loans, grants to the colleges for special programs/research, etc.  The bulk of funding outside of student payments for higher education comes from state and private sources.

 

Going to a "national curriculum" would require a huge infrastructure that isn't currently there.  It is very different from PK-12 where there is an existing infrastructure nationally that has of course grown and grown over the years.

 

And FWIW, the think tank that this comes from has a long history of proposing things that aren't terribly realistic even if they have their political connections.

 

[eloquacious]

I don't know about that. I went to the U of MN (Duluth campus) in person for five years, and I've watched more recorded classes from Ivy League universities over the internet than I care to think about. As far as the actual classes go, the level of teaching seems to be about the same. At least in universities like the U of MN, you almost always get a real professor and not a TA teaching the classes.

 

People go to Ivy League schools for the networking, not for the education.

As a Yalie, I would have to respectfully disagree. The biggest mistake here is equating recorded lectures with the quality of education. Most of our learning happened in seminars, or labs for the science folks. All lecture courses also have 2-3 hours of seminars per lecture hour, only some of which happened with TAs. (I had almost exclusive access to my professors, only in French did I have a TA.)

 

Even in the seminars, the quality of my fellow students helped to ramp up the level of discussion. Some of my absolute favorite courses were mixed with undergraduates, grad students, law students, alumni, and even professors from other fields.

 

Even the quality of our readings differed. I had a health issue one semester where I took off from Yale and lived with my parents, during which time I took a class at the college where my dad taught in New York. This was one of only two textbooks I used during my entire college career. (Once again, not counting French... But even there, my professor was the author of the textbook.) All the readings in my other courses were primary sources and "regular" trade books, or readers compiled for the course by the professor. Our library collections were second only to the Library of Congress and Harvard (grr), and as an undergraduate I had access to anything I wanted, even the rare books and manuscripts.

[Mergath]

As a Yalie, I would have to respectfully disagree. The biggest mistake here is equating recorded lectures with the quality of education. Most of our learning happened in seminars, or labs for the science folks. All lecture courses also have 2-3 hours of seminars per lecture hour, only some of which happened with TAs. (I had almost exclusive access to my professors, only in French did I have a TA.)

 

Even in the seminars, the quality of my fellow students helped to ramp up the level of discussion. Some of my absolute favorite courses were mixed with undergraduates, grad students, law students, alumni, and even professors from other fields.

 

Even the quality of our readings differed. I had a health issue one semester where I took off from Yale and lived with my parents, during which time I took a class at the college where my dad taught in New York. This was one of only two textbooks I used during my entire college career. (Once again, not counting French... But even there, my professor was the author of the textbook.) All the readings in my other courses were primary sources and "regular" trade books, or readers compiled for the course by the professor. Our library collections were second only to the Library of Congress and Harvard (grr), and as an undergraduate I had access to anything I wanted, even the rare books and manuscripts.

 

For the record, many of the good state universities have much the same thing (though one could argue about the "quality" of the students, I suppose) with a much smaller price tag. ;)  I've taken classes at three different colleges over the years, and it's fairly common to work in smaller discussion groups and read from primary sources over textbooks.  And ironically, the best class I've taken was at a tiny community college.  It was Anatomy and Physiology, and there were a whopping four of us in the class.  It's amazing how much you can learn when you get your own full human skeleton to use for the duration of the class and have a 4:1 student/teacher ratio.  The U of MN was great, but nothing ever topped that class.  

[TravelingChris]

I don't see how this would work for most degrees-  there is no agreement on what approach an economics department should take- for example.  THere are at least three different schools of economic thought and I don't know that if I, as a University of Chicago grad in economics, would have done so well argueing for a Keynesian approach.  Yes, we all would have taken micro and macro and money policy and stuff like that but our philosophies would be totally opposite.

 

I think it would be even worse in departments like history.  HOw do you compare someone who took a bunch of Ancient history courses with someone who took American history to someone who spent their time doing mostly social history?   THey each did history and may have gotten a good education but there is nothing common there except possibly their approach to finding and using primary sources.  You can see the same difficulties with English and many other subjects.

 

Engineering is different since there are agreed minimums that students should learn.  I could see that with a number of sciences.  I mean a Chemistry degree should mean they could pass a chemistry exam with questions from the basic chemistry classes that all chemistry students take.  Same thing with physics.  BUt it would necessarily be much of a minimum standards since only the most basic classes are actually the same everywhere.

 

My dh also graduated from the U. of Chicago and he had a head start in grad school because he had already taken a few of the courses both in math and in physics that were required for the masters.  Then he also got a head start in his PhD program since he already took some of those classes in his masters and so he ended up with more education.