[2611] in Discussion of MIT-community interests
Re: [Mit-talk] Recommendations for new GIRs
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Laura Nicholson)
Mon Oct 16 19:23:15 2006
Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 19:21:59 -0400
From: Laura Nicholson <lnicks@mit.edu>
To: Tim Abbott <tabbott@mit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.62L.0610132318420.1706@tabbott.mit.edu>
Cc: random-hall-talk@mit.edu, ec-discuss@mit.edu, mit-talk@mit.edu,
bc-talk@mit.edu
Errors-To: mit-talk-bounces@mit.edu
Originally, I was really pleased with summary of the HASS suggestions- I
was glad that someone with the power to change things said, "hey guess
what, the HASS requirements make everyone want to eat lead! We should
fix that." However, the more I read of the actual recommendations, the
less I liked. It seems to me that they've basically taken the concept
of the "HASS-D," narrowed the number of choices in class and timing
associated with it, turned them all into CIs, and then renamed them
"foundational electives." Yuck.
Of course, the most upsetting of the proposed changes is the "HASS First
Year Experience," which in my opinion promises to make students hate the
HASS requirements more than the current overly-complicated guidelines.
Throughout the entire report, the task force promotes a theme of
"unifying" the first year, which bothers a lot of people. While reading
the report, I was kind of bothered by the underlying question, "Why is
it so important to "unify" the first year?" And reading between the
lines, I found something of an answer that in turn *really* bothered me.
The report list several fundamental "themes" that comprise the
educational philosophy of MIT, namely a persistent passion for learning,
intellectual diversity, an innovative approach to core knowledge,
collaborative learning, and education for responsible leadership. On
page I-23, the report goes on to claim: "Our early consultations with
our colleagues and students confirmed our strong initial sense that
themes such as these are not sufficiently well communicated to MIT
undergraduates. Ideally, the first year will begin with a dialogue
between new students and faculty about this philosophy. More
importantly, students must be encouraged- and given the time- to reflect
on this philosophy and become active participants in the educational
process throughout their tenure as undergraduates."
Are they serious? With the exception of the "innovative approach to
core knowledge" (which strikes me as some obligatory tip of the hat to
those who think TEAL works), those were the reasons I *applied* to MIT.
And I imagine that's true for a lot of people here. But according to
the task force, undergraduates are unclear about MIT's educational
philosophy, so they should be forced into cookie-cutter first year
classes to learn how to be MIT students.
Am I completely reading this wrong? Am I nitpicking about something
weird? Or does this bother anyone else?
-Laura
> On Fri, 13 Oct 2006, Jessica H Lowell wrote:
>
>> The Task Force on the Undergraduate Educational Commons (the task
>> force that was
>> reforming the GIRs) released its final report today.
>>
>> Full Report (158 pages):
>> http://web.mit.edu/committees/edcommons/documents/TF_FullReport.pdf
>>
>> Summary & Recommendations (11 pages):
>> http://web.mit.edu/committees/edcommons/documents/TF_SumRecs.pdf
>>
>> There are some things I like in there, and some things I don't. I'm
>> distressed
>> that, despite the fact that no student that I've spoken with favored
>> the idea
>> (and many left comments on the feedback site to that effect), the Task
>> Force
>> kept in their idea of a Freshman Experience humanities class - and in
>> general,
>> I find the trend to regard freshmen as separate from the rest of the
>> undergrads
>> disturbing. For the science core, there seem to have been two
>> proposals favored
>> by some faction of the Task Force, and I like the one that they chose
>> not to
>> endorse, that would have combined their computation & engineering GIR
>> and their
>> project-based experience GIR and still required everyone to take, for
>> instance,
>> chem and bio, better.
>>
>> On the other hand, I like the idea of more streamlined procedures for
>> students
>> to follow who want to study abroad, and merging the HASS distribution
>> and CI-H
>> requirements.
>>
>> What do others think?
>>
>> - Jessie
>>
_______________________________________________
MIT-talk mailing list
MIT-talk@mit.edu
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/mit-talk
