There is no reason that accreditation must define exactly what the courses offered must be. It could easily just define what is necessary for specific tracts within biology. ESA could even do the ecology/organismal tract, then SETAC do the Environmental studies/env science tract, and so on. Accreditation can be very liberal, it need not define every single detail, but rather take into account broad far-reaching ideas and needs. For most programs it would be a rubber stamp. For some programs, it would simply require the institution to finally anty up. But in certain critical situations, the institution would actually need to establish a program with sufficient resources to offer the major. THis is really where they butter hits the bread for me.
Example: Sufficient faculty to offer a major/minor in biology (number/diversity) Minimum diversity of course necessary to offer a biology degree vs ecology, vs genetics, etc. Minimum classrooms needed? Instrumentation required for specific courses to be offered. Business accreditation is incredibly defined to a fault. THey even have size of offices defined, the number of pubs in CABLE journals published in a rolling time frame for the faculty to be qualified. Biology, I think, changes much faster than business. But, I'm not sure that this kind of detail is necessary or even useful. Maybe this is the problem with accreditation thus far. Biology is not really a major anymore nor is it a discipline. It is far more diverse than say English or Chemistry. Really, it is as broad as is business. What school would as a marketer to teach accounting or visa versa? Would they get accreditation? Likewise, what qualifications does a human geneticist have to teach ecology or ichthyology? I'm sure there are individuals who can, but most would be teaching from the book at best...and messing it up. The inverse is also true. However, we have institutions that require just this, especially where there is little faculty governance. In many cases, the admin do not possess the guidelines or the backgrounds to accurately assess needs for biology. Thus, these decisions are made based on either perception that any biologist can teach anything. They also result in small programs becoming established with poorly thought out strategies and meager resources that most of you would not even consider possible. I'm not saying that accreditation is the answer, but certainly it would go a long way to giving programs at very small schools a chance at serving the students. Currently, there are a few papers that suggest there is a common core to biology, beyond that, a school can start a program with a room and a professor...any professor with an MS or PHD in any biological area. This was fine in 1930, its not in my opinion fine in 2013. Biology programs should not be thought of as a cheap, easily established science program, few biological discplines can be done on the cheap. On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 6:52 AM, David L. McNeely <[email protected]> wrote: > ---- george middendorf <[email protected]> wrote: >> For a wider list of disciplines with programmatic accreditation, >> including several >> of those listed by earlier responders, take a look at the CHEA (Council for >> Higher Education Accreditation) website <http://www.chea.org/** >> {stuff cut} >> I’d like to suggest that ecologists interested in developing an accreditation >> system for biology step cautiously. There’s been quite a bit of discussion >> over the past two decades regarding establishment of foundations and >> standards in the discipline—not all of which have been favorable to >> ecology, evolution, organismal biology, and natural history. > > American Institute of Biological Science has led some efforts at accrediting > undergraduate biology programs. Those attempts have failed, mostly breaking > down due to lack of agreement as to what constitutes the "core" of biology as > a discipline. From my perspective, the failure has been because too many > folks really don't see what the essential substance of the core is -- > evolution, genetics, ecology, biodiversity. But some folks in biology seem > to focus on how organisms are structured and work, especially at the cellular > level. Ironically, so far as institutional offerings are concerned, the > institutional programs that are broadest and most complete with respect to > the spectrum of the discipline appear to be at regional institutions, where a > "general" biology program is still usually offered. But some of those can > be, where a focus on preparing students for medical school has dominated, > quite limited. > > If undergraduate biology program accreditation appears to be seriously > considered again, I would encourage ESA to become involved. ESA is large, > has credibility, and a presence on most campuses (at least a member or two). > If no ecological organization participates, then we stand a chance of being > read out of programs because other groups dominate. > > I continue to be amazed at the number of biologists who see ecology as > peripheral to their science. But then, biodiversity courses have totally > disappeared from many campuses. They persist mainly in large institutions or > as service courses to resource management programs. > > mcneely -- Malcolm L. McCallum Department of Molecular Biology and Biochemistry School of Biological Sciences University of Missouri at Kansas City Managing Editor, Herpetological Conservation and Biology "Peer pressure is designed to contain anyone with a sense of drive" - Allan Nation 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! The Seven Blunders of the World (Mohandas Gandhi) Wealth w/o work Pleasure w/o conscience Knowledge w/o character Commerce w/o morality Science w/o humanity Worship w/o sacrifice Politics w/o principle 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.
