��«����Ƶ

October 31, 4:00

Faculty Forum on Core Curriculum

The discussion began with the observation that, while we are the only Colorado university without a campus core, there is not, in fact, as much difference between the general education requirements of the various schools and colleges.  It was pointed out that this in part arises from the fact that the state sets certain curricular requirements.  All the schools and colleges have writing and mathematics requirements along with some set of social science, natural science, and arts and humanities requirements.  Some have a diversity requirement.  Arts and Sciences has the largest core.  Conversation turned to what kinds of courses people should have, and various people suggested writing, mathematics, digital literacy, U.S History/civics, and critical thinking.

Participants then discussed different models for a core curriculum, including the differences between general education and certain kinds of cores.  There was some discussion of the so-called Chicago model, where all students take a common set of course.  Most thought this would be too difficult to deliver at CU, both others noted that we could have a modified version where departments are asked to create new courses specifically for the core, so that, say, each science department would one or more designed core courses.  The core should match our expectations about what we want our students to look like when they graduate.  It was also noted that there is a difference between common requirements (say, two humanities courses) and common experiences (particular shared courses).

There were various answers to the question, what is the advantage of a campus common core:

1.  It would make it easier from students to move from college to college; in particular, it would be good for ACO students.
2. It would provide a common set of experiences and traditions.
3. It might contribute to inclusive excellence by having all students included in a common general education.

The question was also asked, whom does a core serve?  Employers?  Then they want communication skills in particular.  Students?  Then they want jobs?  The ideal of a generation education?  Then we need to have a broad core. 

The point was raised that the “tyranny of domain content” which demands that students take a great number of courses in a particular department works against the idea of a core or general education.  It was suggested that we not have students declare a major until their second year. 

Other comments included:

1. Don’t ghettoize general education by handing it off to contingent faculty
2. General education should take account of different epistemologies in different fields.
3. Need depth as well as breadth, so don’t discount majors.
4. Is the core a floor or something more?
5. Need to insure a vertical dimension to the core on the model of writing requirements.  There should be upper division classes.
6. We shouldn’t overly limit student choices; assembly is required for a good, individually designed core.
7. We need to think about how to fund non-SCH generating units that contribute to education including the Libraries, the museums, and the writing center.