I think there are still a number of programs out there where students can graduate without any courses dealing with what goes on outside the cell membrane.
> 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 >
