Newsfeed
Printer-Friendly ModeClass inconsistencies counterproductive
December 12, 2005 —
With enrollment continuing to increase at the University, a number of issues have been addressed that have come about because of expansion. Housing has been built, classrooms have been added and new faculty members have been hired to fill the need more warm bodies create on campus. While these issues may be easily recognizable, one that has seemed to develop under the radar as a result of our growing campus is a variance in course standards.
The addition of classes has left many sections of the same course taught by different instructors and in different ways. And while it is important that each instructor bring their own personality and beliefs to a course, it is discouraging to see that some of this variance borders on unacceptable.
It is understood that most courses have certain guidelines or descriptions they follow. For example, the course description for English 300: Writing in the Professions reads, "emphasis on transaction writing-writing to get things done. Focuses on purpose, audience analysis, and writing as problem solving, but also includes work in organization in editing." Yet, other than the description itself, it seems the various sections of English 300 have little in common.
According to Cardinal Direct, there are 14 sections of English 300 this semester taught by 10 different instructors, meaning the majority of professors teach just one section of the course. This becomes problematic when each instructor teaches and emphasizes different things. One section this semester requires students to spend several weeks creating an in-depth research guide for their major. Students are asked to locate and review such things as Web sites, specialized dictionaries and government publications, leaving it just shy of being a three credit scavenger hunt. Meanwhile, the course spends less time teaching such topics as business letters and resumes, things that could be potentially useful in the future.
"Useful" is indeed the key word in this debate, as the subjective term seems at the heart of the issue. While some already knowledgeable in the correct ways to draft a resume may enjoy their $500 Easter egg hunt, those clueless on how to best create a document that could mean the difference between the assembly line and the unemployment line are left in the dark.
Meanwhile, another section of English 300 could be spending multiple classes working on more practical projects like business letters and those stuck writing abstracts on government Web sites can only bow their heads and admit they lost the crap-shoot that is signing up for a class with over a dozen sections.
What's ironic is that a class like English 300 is a prerequisite for a number of other courses. Take for example the one section of English 390: Advanced Writing Projects being offered in the winter semester. Students wishing to take English 390 must have first completed English 300, meaning students who enrolled and so desperately needed the vital information from the prerequisite would have received that information from one of ten different people.
In the end, the answer to this dilemma could be in stricter standardizing. It's unfair that students signing up for courses like English 300 or English 111 (which has 49 sections this semester) have little more than Cardinal Direct course descriptions or ratemyprofessor.com to give them an idea of what they'll learn in class. Determining ahead of time what will be taught and holding instructors to higher standards while teaching it - especially in courses with multiple sections - will only benefit the students and University in the long run.