Motion to Increase Science and Technology in the Proposed General Education Reform

From: the Department of Computer Science

e-mail:

Why is wrong to add a tech requirement because it will increase the number of credits transfer students have to take (via MACRAO), but it is okay to require 6 credits of Arts, which would also increase number of credits transfer students would have to take?!! (Check)

The general education review committee is to be commended for the immense amount of effort which they have obviously provided in the creation of their report. The proposed program makes significant strides toward satisfying the stated desiderata for a modern program. The overall concept of the proposed program is excellent.

One of the primary goals for the new program was to reduce the total number of credit hours needed to complete it. To that end, the new program requires only 40 credit hours, as opposed to 50+ in the old program. The problem is that this decrease in credit hours has been achieved disproportionately at the expense of the scientific and technological disciplines.

That science and technology disciplines disproportionately account for the overall decrease in the number of hours in the proposed general education program can be easily seen through an analysis of the worksheet entitled “General Education—Old and New Program Comparison”, taken from the January draft. (See Appendix A. The requirements in the final draft are virtually identical to those of the January draft, vis-à-vis this worksheet.) The worksheet provides columns for the current and proposed programs, with the disciplines aligned roughly next to each other in the columns.

In the existing (or “old”) program, science, technology, and mathematics courses accounted for 16 of the 50 overall credits, or 32%, as shown in the figure below.

In the proposed program, however, these disciplines, combined, account for only 10 of the 40 overall credits, or 25%, as shown below.

The Need for Science and Technology in Higher Education is Greater Now than Ever:

The provost’s original charge to the committee was to “modernize” the general education program. Do we honestly feel that science and technology are less relevant today than they were in 1987? Over and over again we have heard industry spokespeople, the media, and our elected officials decry the state of scientific and technological education in our country. We are constantly told that US students compare very unfavorably with students of other countries in terms of their science and math skills. In a speech in Detroit last December, 2003, Governor Granholm stated that:

“Our economic growth is linked inextricably to education. If this country is to maintain and increase its manufacturing base, its work force must be skilled and steeped in innovation and entrepreneurship… We’ll give tomorrow’s work force the skills it needs by improving math, science and reading ability.”[1]

In March, the Governor created the Commission on Higher Education and Economic Growth, chaired by Lieutenant Governor John Cherry. The primary goal of the committee is to improve the training of the citizens of Michigan to allow them to better compete in the modern economy. The Governor charged the committee to:

“Ensure that Michigan's system of higher education furnishes our citizens with the general and specific skills they need to embrace the jobs of the 21st century.”[2]

During the commissioning, the Lieutenant Governor explained:

“The demand for college educated labor over the next 10 years necessitates that we do everything we can now to strengthen our higher education system and maximize its connection to economic growth. Michigan is projected to have shortages in many skilled and technical labor fields, which will make it difficult to create and retain good-paying jobs in advanced manufacturing, engineering, and high-tech sectors.”

The state is investing millions of dollars into the life sciences complex in Ann Arbor. The Pfizer Corporation and other biotechnology firms are large employers in our area. The automobile and other regional manufacturing industries are constantly griping about how under prepared college graduates are. The need for technologically savvy graduates is greater now than it has ever been.

It must be noted that two of the biggest proponents of science and technology on the committee retired in the spring. Consequently, of the 14 remaining committee members, only one was from a scientific or technical discipline when the final report was completed. It could well be that without those two dissenting voices it was harder for the committee to see the need to incorporate more science and technology into the curriculum.

Proposed Amendment:

Apportion Three More Credits to Science and Technology:

While the overall structure of the proposed general education program is excellent, three more credit hours should be apportioned to the scientific and technological disciplines. This can be accomplished via a few changes to the proposal:

·  Referring to page 14 of the report: after “two courses in the Arts (6 credits)” add “one course in Science and Technology (3 credits)….”

·  Referring to page 16: create a new section between the existing “e” and “f” sections labeled, “e1. Outcomes for the Science and Technology Course”.

If this action is taken, science, math and technology will account for 13 of the 43 overall credits in the general education program, as shown in the figure below. As a percentage of the overall general education program, this is still a decrease (1%) over the existing program, but not by so much as would be the case if this proposal were not adopted.

If it is desirable that the number of credit hours in the overall program should be maintained at the proposed 40, the number of credits assigned to the Arts could be decreased from 6 to 3 (the amount allocated to that field in the current general education program). This would require the following change to the proposal:

·  Referring to page 14 of the report: change “two courses in the Arts (6 credits)” to “one course in the Arts (3 credits); one course in Science and Technology (3 credits)….”

If this action is taken, science, math and technology will account for 13 of the 40 overall credits in the general education program, as shown in the figure below. As a percentage of the overall program, this is a 1% increase over the current program.

Ad-Hoc Advisor Committee to the Provost to Define Outcomes:

It is assumed that courses from many different departments will satisfy the outcomes of the Science and Technology course. The most likely unifying theme of these courses would be a significant use of technology and/or scientific methodologies. The specific wording of the desired outcomes for the new “Science and Technology Course” will be provided by an ad-hoc committee consisting of a member of the general education reform committee as well as a representative from the College of Technology, the College of Health and Human Services, the departments of computer science, and computer information systems, as well as a member of the Science Subcommittee and of the Arts Subcommittee of the College Advisory Council from the College of Arts and Sciences. The committee will report to the Provost’s office by the end of January, 2005.

Conclusion

A primary goal of general education is to assure that all graduates have been sufficiently exposed to the spectrum of academic disciplines. We feel that the proposed general education program’s science and technology component is insufficient in this regard, especially in light of the State of Michigan’s need to generate more scientifically and technologically savvy graduates.

[1] Crain’s Detroit Business, December 15, 2003.

[2] From a transcript of a speech by Governor Granholm and Lieutentant Governor Cherry. Taken from the official state web-site: http://www.michigan.gov/ltgov/. See Appendix D.