On 25 Mar 2003 10:34:21 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dennis Roberts) wrote: > At 12:54 PM 3/25/03 -0500, Rich Ulrich wrote: > > - But I do see big flaws, > >some of them quite "objective": for example, I saw several > >young teachers in their first years of teaching; and most > >courses did fail to finish their textbooks by the end of the year. > > if college courses were judged by this standard ... then most college > courses would fail miserably ...
- A phrase that comes to mind, relating to el-hi courses, is "integrated curriculum". I was in Texas, where the state is notorious for its vetting and screening process. My impression is that other states, as states, also make selections -- Texas and California are big markets, and many other states follow their lead. The fundamentalist/ religious sensitivities in Texas are responsible for the "dumbing-down" of texts in biology (evolution) and social sciences (multi-culturalism). One course in a sequence presumes that the students covered the previous material, even it they did not learn it well. > > most texts are NOT designed for any specific course ... in fact most are > designed for all kinds of courses ... depending on how the course is configured > > take any decent intro stat textbook ... there is NO way an instructor can > cover all that stuff in one term ... I don't remember any statistics textbooks that I did not keep for long-term reference. And I am happy that they were designed for dual purpose. I kept most of my other textbooks, too, at least for a while. The state owned all the textbooks for my first twelve years. No underlining allowed, and turn them back in at the end of the year. -- Rich Ulrich, [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.pitt.edu/~wpilib/index.html . . ================================================================= Instructions for joining and leaving this list, remarks about the problem of INAPPROPRIATE MESSAGES, and archives are available at: . http://jse.stat.ncsu.edu/ . =================================================================
