For those who are making arguments for intro-to-the-major courses, you have my best wishes and all my sympathy.
When the Careers course was proposed by a departmental committee as part of a big curriculum review and reform about 10 years ago, we had all of these discussions in the department and again when the course went through the campus curriculum review process. The course was criticized for being too fluffy and not having any "real" content. I admit, it is almost entirely an academic skills course and this criticism reflects the deeply held belief that courses are all about content. Interestingly, some of the criticism came from individuals who argued that the course was *too demanding *and had too many learning outcomes for a 1 sh credit course! Go figure. There were similar discussions on campus about the Academic Foundations course (an introduction to college life, study skills, time management, etc. for first year students). The university advising center (which controls this course) had been tracking student success and persistence for students who do and do not take this course. It is an elective course that is strongly advised for students entering with weaker academic credentials (lower SAT scores, lower HS GPA, other flags for problems transitioning to college). At the end of the first year, students who completed this course have higher GPAs (even with lower overall predictive scores on admission) than the students who don't take this course. (They now offer a special section of this course for students in the Honors program, but this is the same course taught to a cohort of Honors students.) Yes, many students manage to learn these skills through trial and error and maybe the intervention of a outstanding academic advisor or mentor (as did those of us on this list, I would guess). Speaking from my own experience, I was plenty clueless about what one needed to do to prepare for graduate school. I just thought I had to be smart and have great grades. (very clueless!) But I also suspected that I maybe wasn't getting everything I needed at the first school I attended, even though I couldn't say what I was looking for. Then, mostly by sheer dumb luck, found what I needed through the behavioral models of grad students at the school I transfered to. Far too often, academic advisors fail to give students appropriate guidance. I taught research methods for many years and was astonished by the number of outstanding students who enrolled in that course in the term in which they planned to graduate. They wanted to go to graduate school but hadn't signed up for the GRE and certainly had not engaged in any meaningful research experiences. When I talked to them about why they had waited so long, they would tell me their advisor and the student grapevine advised letting the research course wait until they were well into the major because it was such a demanding course (!) This problem carried a lot of weight in arguing for the creation of this course. Students just weren't being served with a system that relied on luck for acquisition of these skills. I also disagree with the idea that letting students fend for themselves on these matters allows the "real cream" to rise to the top. This smacks of the "talent mindset" that Dweck talks about and identifies as an obstacle to persistence when students hit difficult spots in their academic work. These metacognitive skills are learnable (and teachable) skills of academic life. Many smart, capable kids hit walls they don't even know exist because someone thinks that if they don't already know the secret handshake, they aren't cut out for academia. What a waste. Claudia Stanny --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [email protected]. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=9608 or send a blank email to leave-9608-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
