The first amendment to the US Constitution guarantees freedom of speech, religion, the press and the right to assemble. Another right guaranteed in the US in academia is academic freedom. But, what does this mean in the context of the student/faculty relationship? Research freedom aside, I think the student has the academic freedom to pursue their studies without fear that their opinions, biases, culture, etc. will hinder their academic pursuit. But, how do we navigate instances when personal belief and academics come into conflict?
I was raised in a very liberal, non-religious but culturally Jewish, education-forward and scientific household. So, my education normal is to observe the facts and make judgments based on science rather than faith. It has always been easy for me to accept evolution as truth and show compassion, tolerance, acceptance, and friendship to people of different faiths, ethnicity, etc. I believe that hate is hate and cannot be justified by religion. To me, it's obvious: if a person has no tolerance for and is not willing to accept another human being based solely on sexual orientation, then they probably shouldn't pursue a counseling degree at a public university.
Case Study: An Augusta State student will not be granted a degree in psychology unless she takes a remedial course in diversity training. This stems out of her refusal to council LGBT students and stating her neo-conservative view that homosexuality is a choice that should be transitioned out of someone. The American Psychiatric Association (after 1973) disagrees with her religious assessment and affirms that homosexuality is not a choice and is in fact natural and innate and cannot be "taught out of a person." Should she be allowed to pursue her degree of choice and not have to compromise her religious freedoms? On the other hand, if part of her requirements in the curriculum is to learn how to appropriate council the LGBT community, shouldn't she be held to the same standards of every other student despite her radical beliefs?
For me, the answer is simple. If she councils that homosexuality is a sin and choice that should be "trained out" of a person then she is committing malpractice based on APA standards. If the university grants her a degree knowing that she could potential practice this dangerous behavior and does nothing to remedy the situation then they are negligent. I believe the university has the responsibility to provide diversity training and remediation in her case. If she refuses this requirement then she is making the conscious choice to take an incomplete.
However, based on our conversation on Monday, I am conflicted about the situation. Despite the fact that my gut tells me that her intolerance is deplorable and she would make a lousy, dangerous, and despicable counselor since she obviously doesn't understand basic human tolerance, doesn't she have a right to religious freedom? Does this case come into conflict with the student's right to academic freedom? Or, is it not a matter of academic freedom and more a concern of morals/ethics? I am curious to see the legal outcome of this case and it's ramifications on conflicts of religion and academics in the public sector.
Monday, March 28, 2011
Tuesday, March 22, 2011
A Global Education
As a continuation of our discussion last week, this week we delved further into international education systems. I've already written about how I feel about my American education (re: An American Education) with respect to residential life, but this week, I think I'll comment on the academic side of things: tracking, narrow scope, and government influence.
One of the most stark contrasts between the American primary/secondary school education and those abroad seems to be tracking at an early age. That is, in the tween years when most U.S. students are primarliy concerned with choosing Team Edward or Team Jacob (google "Twilight"), tweens around the world are choosing career paths. Let me clarify. They may not choose specific careers (i.e., heart surgeon, chemical engineer, sociologist), but they choose a broad path (i.e., math, science, humanities). This choice at the ripe age of 12-14 potentially impacts what university you attend, your major and eventually, your career path. In contrast, in the U.S. we have a very broad education up through the 2nd year of college where you finally choose your major and thus path.
My major concern is narrowing education so much. I am an advocate for general education courses and taking requirements outside of your major. In fact, I'd go so far to say that I'd love to see a requirement to do a minor in some other college well outside the scope of your major. For instance, as an engineering major, I would have to also minor in classics, literature, business, etc. I think that having a broad education allows us to explore many different facets of learning. If I just wanted to learn a skill set, I would be better off getting a two-year associates degree or going to a vocational school. The idea of higher education shouldn't just be about developing career professionals... what about developing life long learners? What happens if we have a job market full of engineers who cannot write or writers who cannot manage finances? How do we expect to be the future developers, thinkers, creators, and innovators if we only look at a small niche of the bigger picture?
Yet, on the other hand, is it worth it for parents and students alike to go into massive debt, take out tens if not hundreds of thousands in loans, max out credit cards and start life in a deep financial hole for the U.S. residential college experience? Furthermore, globally, these international systems seem to have better outcomes (i.e., higher test scores, better primary/secondary education). Is this just a problem with assessment? Why is it, then, that so many people seek out an American education? I'm not sure which is a better system, or if one is even better. They are just different.
One of the most stark contrasts between the American primary/secondary school education and those abroad seems to be tracking at an early age. That is, in the tween years when most U.S. students are primarliy concerned with choosing Team Edward or Team Jacob (google "Twilight"), tweens around the world are choosing career paths. Let me clarify. They may not choose specific careers (i.e., heart surgeon, chemical engineer, sociologist), but they choose a broad path (i.e., math, science, humanities). This choice at the ripe age of 12-14 potentially impacts what university you attend, your major and eventually, your career path. In contrast, in the U.S. we have a very broad education up through the 2nd year of college where you finally choose your major and thus path.
My major concern is narrowing education so much. I am an advocate for general education courses and taking requirements outside of your major. In fact, I'd go so far to say that I'd love to see a requirement to do a minor in some other college well outside the scope of your major. For instance, as an engineering major, I would have to also minor in classics, literature, business, etc. I think that having a broad education allows us to explore many different facets of learning. If I just wanted to learn a skill set, I would be better off getting a two-year associates degree or going to a vocational school. The idea of higher education shouldn't just be about developing career professionals... what about developing life long learners? What happens if we have a job market full of engineers who cannot write or writers who cannot manage finances? How do we expect to be the future developers, thinkers, creators, and innovators if we only look at a small niche of the bigger picture?
Yet, on the other hand, is it worth it for parents and students alike to go into massive debt, take out tens if not hundreds of thousands in loans, max out credit cards and start life in a deep financial hole for the U.S. residential college experience? Furthermore, globally, these international systems seem to have better outcomes (i.e., higher test scores, better primary/secondary education). Is this just a problem with assessment? Why is it, then, that so many people seek out an American education? I'm not sure which is a better system, or if one is even better. They are just different.
Tuesday, March 15, 2011
An American Education
This week, I'm posting a 2-for-1 special! In class, there were two distinct discussions: 1) the online GLC (prompting post #1 for this week) and 2) international universities and education. Both of these topics got me thinking (and journaling). I assumed there would be differences in the actual administrations, classroom dynamics, application processes, and assessment pieces to international universities as compared to the U.S. system, but I did not realize just how DIFFERENT the college/university experience is abroad.
Even in the most urban of universities in the U.S. (NYU, BU, Pitt, etc.) you still find campus life (re: dorms, greek system, residential life, intramural sports, college athletics, leadership, community service, etc. etc. etc.). Even at the community college level there is a large focus on university life aside from academics and coursework. In fact, I'd say my life outside of academics not only influenced where I chose to go school, but also was what I take away most from my university experience. When I applied to school, I only applied to two schools: 1. the University of Florida and 2. Georgia Tech. I got into Georgia Tech first (they have a rolling admission while Florida does it in the spring) and was adamant about going there. After all, they are one of the top engineering schools in the country. Then, I started researching the "outside of academic" side of Georgia Tech. My whole family has been greek at school. Georgia Tech only had 2 sororities. While GT football is a division 1 school, their athletics is small compared to UF. I was raised on college football with alumnae from the University of Miami, UF, and Florida State all in my family. I am the fifth generation (at least... our records only go back to Russia where they were subsequently burned in the revolution) to go to higher education. College and collegiate life is in our blood. All of this "other" stuff was in UF's favor. Not to mention in-state tuition, an equally as good engineering school, and Florida Bright Futures (thank you, lottery, for paying for my tuition). Had my decision been on school ranking alone, I might have chose different.
My collegiate experienced was loaded with extra-curriculars. From treasurer in my sorority to chair of the board of managers for the student union, director of speech and debate tournaments to civil engineering clubs and everything in between. There were intramural sports, residential life (I lived in the dorms for two years and my sorority house for another two), football, basketball, softball, gymnastics, and every other sport you could imagine, and of course, hours upon hours of community service. This, on top of a full course load. Oh, and if time allowed, there was studying to do.
When I think back on my college experience its the non-academics I remember with vivid clarity. It is sorority recruitment, late-night ice cream parties in the dorm, 32-hours on my feet at Dance Marathon for the Childrens' Miracle Network, waiting on baited breath to see if I was tapped into Florida Blue Key, and building a concrete canoe with my engineering friends. College did more than prepare me for a career as an engineer. It built character. It connected me to a network of lifelong friends. It prepared me for life.
Maybe this is a very "American" view of college, but I am glad that I had the opportunities to experience it this way.
Even in the most urban of universities in the U.S. (NYU, BU, Pitt, etc.) you still find campus life (re: dorms, greek system, residential life, intramural sports, college athletics, leadership, community service, etc. etc. etc.). Even at the community college level there is a large focus on university life aside from academics and coursework. In fact, I'd say my life outside of academics not only influenced where I chose to go school, but also was what I take away most from my university experience. When I applied to school, I only applied to two schools: 1. the University of Florida and 2. Georgia Tech. I got into Georgia Tech first (they have a rolling admission while Florida does it in the spring) and was adamant about going there. After all, they are one of the top engineering schools in the country. Then, I started researching the "outside of academic" side of Georgia Tech. My whole family has been greek at school. Georgia Tech only had 2 sororities. While GT football is a division 1 school, their athletics is small compared to UF. I was raised on college football with alumnae from the University of Miami, UF, and Florida State all in my family. I am the fifth generation (at least... our records only go back to Russia where they were subsequently burned in the revolution) to go to higher education. College and collegiate life is in our blood. All of this "other" stuff was in UF's favor. Not to mention in-state tuition, an equally as good engineering school, and Florida Bright Futures (thank you, lottery, for paying for my tuition). Had my decision been on school ranking alone, I might have chose different.
My collegiate experienced was loaded with extra-curriculars. From treasurer in my sorority to chair of the board of managers for the student union, director of speech and debate tournaments to civil engineering clubs and everything in between. There were intramural sports, residential life (I lived in the dorms for two years and my sorority house for another two), football, basketball, softball, gymnastics, and every other sport you could imagine, and of course, hours upon hours of community service. This, on top of a full course load. Oh, and if time allowed, there was studying to do.
When I think back on my college experience its the non-academics I remember with vivid clarity. It is sorority recruitment, late-night ice cream parties in the dorm, 32-hours on my feet at Dance Marathon for the Childrens' Miracle Network, waiting on baited breath to see if I was tapped into Florida Blue Key, and building a concrete canoe with my engineering friends. College did more than prepare me for a career as an engineer. It built character. It connected me to a network of lifelong friends. It prepared me for life.
Maybe this is a very "American" view of college, but I am glad that I had the opportunities to experience it this way.
Monday, March 14, 2011
Virtual Ethics?
Today we were talking about the virtual GLC and an interesting conversation emerged about morals and ethics of online use. It was suggested that people have an online persona where FLAME, online bullying, coarse behavior or other harsh communications could take place behind the "guise" of an avatar. However, when told that the principles of community and honor code would apply there was a suggestion that this should be visible to curb this "bad" behavior. This got me thinking about ethics and morals as they relate to the virtual world. As academy goes more online with Twitter, wikis, etc. being used in the classroom, how do we, as future faculty, deal with this online world where otherwise reasonable people deteriorate into madness?
As we navigate this virtual world, I think there needs to be a multifaceted dialogue with our students about what it means:
1. CHARACTER. Your character should not change just because you've logged-on. Why would you say something online that you wouldn't say IRL? Online bullying is still bullying and if you participate in this behavior you are in fact a BULLY. The internet is not a free pass to be morally reprehensible. Your actions still have consequences. So, why does the online GLC need a caveat that the honor code applies? Shouldn't this be obvious? Maybe there needs to be more conversation about moral character and less about how to avoid getting into trouble.
2. REPUTATION. My parents are on facebook. My boss is on facebook. My grandma doesn't use a computer, but my best friend's does. Your professor is on facebook. There is permanence to the internet. If you wouldn't want your father, mother, boss, religious leader, etc. to see a photo or hear you say something, DO NOT POST IT on the internet. Once it's out there, it's out there FOREVER.
3. ACADEMIC INTEGRITY. The same is true for academic responsibility. Just because it's on the internet, or you blog about something rather than write it in a formal paper, plagiarism, copyright infringement, cheating, and the like all still count.
4. ONLINE CLASSROOM STILL MEANS CLASSROOM. Just because the forum of discussion is online, if is part of the coursework, it is still the classroom. You are still graded and the forum is probably not anonymous. Thus, you are still responsible for your conduct. Why would this change, anyway? (see Character)
The online world is becoming increasingly popular in academics. If we let the students loose in this forum without framing the discussion appropriately and setting ground rules, it could get widely out of hand. New technology and social media can have a place in the classroom, but as we help shape our students' academic future, we should also open up dialogue about online responsibilities and integrity. A person's integrity and character do not just apply to face to face communications.
As we navigate this virtual world, I think there needs to be a multifaceted dialogue with our students about what it means:
1. CHARACTER. Your character should not change just because you've logged-on. Why would you say something online that you wouldn't say IRL? Online bullying is still bullying and if you participate in this behavior you are in fact a BULLY. The internet is not a free pass to be morally reprehensible. Your actions still have consequences. So, why does the online GLC need a caveat that the honor code applies? Shouldn't this be obvious? Maybe there needs to be more conversation about moral character and less about how to avoid getting into trouble.
2. REPUTATION. My parents are on facebook. My boss is on facebook. My grandma doesn't use a computer, but my best friend's does. Your professor is on facebook. There is permanence to the internet. If you wouldn't want your father, mother, boss, religious leader, etc. to see a photo or hear you say something, DO NOT POST IT on the internet. Once it's out there, it's out there FOREVER.
3. ACADEMIC INTEGRITY. The same is true for academic responsibility. Just because it's on the internet, or you blog about something rather than write it in a formal paper, plagiarism, copyright infringement, cheating, and the like all still count.
4. ONLINE CLASSROOM STILL MEANS CLASSROOM. Just because the forum of discussion is online, if is part of the coursework, it is still the classroom. You are still graded and the forum is probably not anonymous. Thus, you are still responsible for your conduct. Why would this change, anyway? (see Character)
The online world is becoming increasingly popular in academics. If we let the students loose in this forum without framing the discussion appropriately and setting ground rules, it could get widely out of hand. New technology and social media can have a place in the classroom, but as we help shape our students' academic future, we should also open up dialogue about online responsibilities and integrity. A person's integrity and character do not just apply to face to face communications.
Monday, March 7, 2011
Teaching vs. Education: Do we need a degree?
There was a lot of talk in last weeks class about teaching versus education. That is, when we teach a course, how do we know we are in fact educating our students? There was talk that you should not be able to teach without a teaching degree. But, can a teaching degree qualify you to teach subjects in higher education?
I don't think you need a teaching degree to be a quality educator. In fact, while learning theory may help you to understand your students, how can getting your B.A., M.A., or Ph.D. in education alone prepare you to teach a higher ed course in physics, engineering, fine arts, or philosophy? the reality is that it can't. While you may have the foundations in math, science, art, english, etc. a teaching degree alone cannot give you the depth of knowledge in on core curriculum to teach. Is it really practical that we ask our engineers, lawyers, physicians, philosophers, etc. to also get an education degree in addition to their advanced degrees in their field of study? We already suffer from a lack of teachers, this would make it nearly impossible to fit the bill.
This does not mean, however, that I don't see the value in some sort of teaching certificate, continuing education requirements, or on-going teaching education. While I think it is ridiculous to enforce that every professor gets a full-blown teaching degree, I think it is perfectly reasonable for professors to follow nearly every other professional field in requiring continuing education credits in their field of interest (in this case, education in general).
This idea, however, was met from great resistance from the class. "Teachers don't have the time!" was repeated several times. I think that's hogwash. If it is a contractual obligation to take 2-3 CEUs (continuing education units) per year, then professors will do it. It's just part of the job. Most every other field requires CEUs, so why is it that professors are too busy to do what is asked of surgeons, engineers, dental hygienists and primary teachers? Come on! It's not like we're suggesting a 4-year degree, here! CEUs can be in the form of webinars, seminars, workshops, webcasts, etc. and they can be highly mutually beneficial. For example, a course on how to integrate new technologies (wikis, blogs, etc.) into a course could really help a professor make their course more efficient.
I don't nderstand why CEUs were met with such resistance in class. If a professor wants to only devote their time to their research, then they should take a pay cut and demotion. There is certainly a place for research in being a faculty member, but it is just a PIECE of the puzzle. Teaching is another piece to that puzzle. In other industries, if you make excuses for one part of your job or flat out refuse to step-up, you will likely lose your job. Why is there a different standard for professors? I think we heard to many weak excuses in class. I say, just build it into the job description, and it will happen.
I don't think you need a teaching degree to be a quality educator. In fact, while learning theory may help you to understand your students, how can getting your B.A., M.A., or Ph.D. in education alone prepare you to teach a higher ed course in physics, engineering, fine arts, or philosophy? the reality is that it can't. While you may have the foundations in math, science, art, english, etc. a teaching degree alone cannot give you the depth of knowledge in on core curriculum to teach. Is it really practical that we ask our engineers, lawyers, physicians, philosophers, etc. to also get an education degree in addition to their advanced degrees in their field of study? We already suffer from a lack of teachers, this would make it nearly impossible to fit the bill.
This does not mean, however, that I don't see the value in some sort of teaching certificate, continuing education requirements, or on-going teaching education. While I think it is ridiculous to enforce that every professor gets a full-blown teaching degree, I think it is perfectly reasonable for professors to follow nearly every other professional field in requiring continuing education credits in their field of interest (in this case, education in general).
This idea, however, was met from great resistance from the class. "Teachers don't have the time!" was repeated several times. I think that's hogwash. If it is a contractual obligation to take 2-3 CEUs (continuing education units) per year, then professors will do it. It's just part of the job. Most every other field requires CEUs, so why is it that professors are too busy to do what is asked of surgeons, engineers, dental hygienists and primary teachers? Come on! It's not like we're suggesting a 4-year degree, here! CEUs can be in the form of webinars, seminars, workshops, webcasts, etc. and they can be highly mutually beneficial. For example, a course on how to integrate new technologies (wikis, blogs, etc.) into a course could really help a professor make their course more efficient.
I don't nderstand why CEUs were met with such resistance in class. If a professor wants to only devote their time to their research, then they should take a pay cut and demotion. There is certainly a place for research in being a faculty member, but it is just a PIECE of the puzzle. Teaching is another piece to that puzzle. In other industries, if you make excuses for one part of your job or flat out refuse to step-up, you will likely lose your job. Why is there a different standard for professors? I think we heard to many weak excuses in class. I say, just build it into the job description, and it will happen.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)