 "Photo:")
Natural science professors on Tuesday blasted a set of core curriculum proposals that would reshape the way UT teaches undergraduates.
More than a dozen faculty members criticized an October report's recommendations to create a new freshman college and add two interdisciplinary courses to the core curriculum.
"I think it's seriously flawed, the whole report," said John Durbin, a professor of mathematics. "I think the faculty should reject it."
The proposals have ignited a polarizing policy debate across campus, and the University's faculty and top administrators disagree about what should be done to the curriculum of courses that all students must take.
Supporters of an October task force report say the core curriculum needs constant attention from someone with clout, which they say would be provided by the University College and its dean.
Several natural science professors said a new freshman college is untested and would only increase bureaucracy. Others said proposed interdisciplinary courses would be 200- or 300-student lectures relying mostly on teaching assistants.
Many of their arguments echoed a dissenting report written by one of the task force members, biology professor David Hillis.
"The proposed [college] is redundant with the University of Texas," Hillis wrote. "We also already have an office that is in charge of academic programs, including the core curriculum [namely, the Provost's office]."
Bruce Palka, a mathematics professor, asked if there was consensus that "the structures proposed in this report are not acceptable." The audience responded with widespread applause.
UT President Bill Powers, who chaired the task force, said Monday that many of the criticisms are based on misconceptions. Powers and other members have said the proposed structure would barely affect students' first year, and selection of courses would not be at all limited.
At least two deans disagree.
Business Dean George Gau said last week that UT can improve undergraduate education without a new college. Ben Streetman, dean of engineering, said a new college would be an expensive "disaster" and would deter top high school students from selecting UT.
Task force members have said the name "University College" is confusing to some because it would not have its own faculty and would not grant degrees. It would have a dean and faculty committees, who would oversee the core the curriculum and implement any changes.
All freshmen would enter the University College and would declare a major and transfer out their second year, under the task force's plan.
But the only noticeable change for freshmen, proponents say, would be the new Signature Course. That course, said art history professor Linda Henderson, would be designed to "wow" students with UT's most engaging professors.
Task force members have complained that critics haven't read their report carefully.
Desmond Lawler, a professor of engineering and task force member, presented a 20-minute overview of the proposals. His last slide linked to the report, saying, "Please read it!!"
I don't know what page this 'vast bureaucracy' is on," Brent Iverson, a chemistry professor and task force member, told the group Tuesday.
Lawler, Henderson and Iverson answered questions and defended the report to a room full of people seemingly opposed.
Iverson headed a subcommittee that examined structures to oversee the core curriculum, including an alternative to the University College. Tentatively dubbed a University Academy, that structure would have been smaller and would not have included all incoming freshmen, Hillis said.
In the coming weeks, other colleges will hold forums, and some plan to issue their own recommendations.
The faculty council is collecting comments from faculty members and has posted some on its Web site. Its Educational Policy Committee will come up with a plan to implement any changes to the core curriculum.
Be the first to comment on this article!