I gave a somewhat jocular response to this question a day or so ago, but my point was that we have a lot of diversity, and probably want it that way. Here's what I said: "Because ACS is more union-like than any professional biology organization is? Because biology programs are so much more diverse than chemistry programs? Because biologists are less conformist than chemists?"
Despite my joking, and despite the great diversity that we have and that we offer, it is practical to set up a curriculum that many can agree on as effective and that provides a minimal level of training, if training is what we are after. Most regional public colleges (mostly now called universities) have installed something like this, requiring for a general biology program something like the following: Principles of Biology 8 sch (or Botany 4 sch, Zoology 4 sch), Cell Biology 3 or 4 sch, Genetics 3 or 4 sch, Ecology 3 or 4 sch, a physiology course focusing on a broad taxon such as vertebrates or plants 3 or 4 sch, and an investigative course of some kind (often a seminar), with enough elective hours in some biological science to make up to something like 36 to 40 sch. Some require a research experience. Support courses usually include at least General Chemistry 8 sch, and may include Organic Chemistry 8 sch, and perhaps Biochemistry 4 or 8 sch, plus 8 sch of General or Engineering Physics and 6 sch of mathematics including a semester or two of calculus. Some also include a statistics course or allow statistics in lieu of one calculus course. This would compare to the professional major in chemistry. On the other hand, a lot of liberal arts colleges, where a disproportionately high number of eventual Ph.D. graduates come from, generally require fewer hours (30 sch is common) in the major, and fewer support courses, in keeping with their expectation of broader exposure in humanities and social sciences. Some programs also specify such things as at least one course in "organismic biology," which means different things at different places but is usually focused on a taxon such as vertebrates, angiosperms, or insects. If we developed an accreditation in biology, it would have to take into account the broad diversity of offerings, the differing purposes and expectations of programs, and differing needs of students. We do have a staggering array of subject matter, and certainly we should not lose that. It is in the specialized offerings that many undergraduates find their focus. David McNeely ---- malcolm McCallum <[email protected]> wrote: > I think we can agree that there is much diversity in what a biology or > environmental science program is. However, there are also bare minimums in > supporting programs, faculty and student resources that certainly must be in > place for a program to not only be viable but also adequately supported to > ensure student success. > > Hence my question. > > I don't think that a biology accreditation program could be as regimented as > the one in chemistry. However, I also think that we as biologists have a > civic responsibility to monitor our own field. The world of higher > education is rapidly changing, and new programs are popping up all over. > Something to think about? > > So, maybe I should reword my question! > > What are the bare minimum resources that a biology program should have in > place? > What kind of faculty curricular diversity and numbers should there be? > What laboratory resources are necessary and should be in place before the > program is started? > What supporting programs are critical? > > This is cosmetic and academic at most institutions, but not all. > > > On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 9:11 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Chemistry has standardized the undergraduate curriculum to a few standard > > subjects- organic, physical, biochemical, inorganic. We've got an astounding > > diversity of college-level biology courses taught; would accreditation mean > > giving that up to create standard curricula? That might not be a bad thing, > > but its pretty far from where we are. > > > > > > > > Quoting malcolm McCallum <[email protected]>: > > > > Chemistry currently has accreditation, why not biology? > >> > >> Malcolm > >> > >> -- > >> Malcolm L. McCallum > >> Managing Editor, > >> Herpetological Conservation and Biology > >> > >> 1880's: "There's lots of good fish in the sea" W.S. Gilbert > >> 1990's: Many fish stocks depleted due to overfishing, habitat loss, > >> and pollution. > >> 2000: Marine reserves, ecosystem restoration, and pollution reduction > >> MAY help restore populations. > >> 2022: Soylent Green is People! > >> > >> Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any > >> attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may > >> contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized > >> review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not > >> the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and > >> destroy all copies of the original message. > >> > >> > > > > > > Daniel (Max) Taub > > Associate Professor and Chair of the Biology Department > > Southwestern University > > 1001 East University Ave > > Georgetown TX 78626, USA > > > > email: [email protected] > > phone: (512) 863-1583 > > fax: (512) 863-1696 > > > > > > -- > Malcolm L. McCallum > Managing Editor, > Herpetological Conservation and Biology > > 1880's: "There's lots of good fish in the sea" W.S. Gilbert > 1990's: Many fish stocks depleted due to overfishing, habitat loss, > and pollution. > 2000: Marine reserves, ecosystem restoration, and pollution reduction > MAY help restore populations. > 2022: Soylent Green is People! > > Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any > attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may > contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized > review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not > the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and > destroy all copies of the original message. -- David McNeely
