Re: LOs

[Sam Black <samuelb@sfu.ca>]

John,

I have no problems with pragmatism in times of fiscal austerity. But calculations of the kind you describe require actual data. I know it is commonly assumed that (1) LO's and (2) NCAA membership (and Varsity sports in general) will be net revenue generators for SFU. But, like Chris, I am skeptical that that this will prove true. 

US kids and Chinese kids won't come here unless we have LO's and the NCAA? Vancouver, a fast track for Canadian citizenship, a reputation for great pedagogy (and the least inflated grades in Canada) are not enough? Perhaps, but show us the evidence before asking us all to take on a lot of potentially pointless work. 

BTW and independently from LO's, I have asked Jon Driver for a full cost accounting of our Varsity Sports programs. This includes estimating the financial returns on NCAA membership. That information is promised for the February Senate meeting. 

Best,

Sam



----- Original Message -----
From: JD Fleming <jfleming@sfu.ca>
To: Sam Black <samuelb@sfu.ca>
Cc: academic-discussion@sfu.ca
Sent: Fri, 07 Dec 2012 11:27:41 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: LOs

Great discussion. My complacent, but, I hope, pragmatic view: LOs are being driven by the accreditation process. No LOs, no accreditation. 


So I think the calculation is: 


Accreditation = big win. (Basically, mainline access to a body of students -- Americans -- that nobody else around here has.) 
LOs = small loss. (After all, at least some people of intelligence and good will seem to like or not mind them.) 


Big win minus small loss equals win. 


Thus, complacency. JD Fleming 


PS I regret the Blakean pun on loss but there it is. 
----- Mail original -----

De: "Sam Black" <samuelb@sfu.ca> 
À: academic-discussion@sfu.ca 
Envoyé: Vendredi 7 Décembre 2012 09:44:00 
Objet: My Reasons for Opposing LO's 


Dear Jon, 


I add my name to those faculty members who oppose the implementation of the Learning Outcomes initiative. This is for two reasons. 


(1) At Senate I opposed this initiative because despite the fact that the University is operating under conditions of fiscal austerity for the foreseeable future there has been next to no real discussion of the true cost of implementing LO. 

Those who have experience with LO’s at SFU indicate that its implementation is costly both in terms of faculty hours and the requirement for additional administrative staff. Given that LO’s are used at all NCAA affiliates it should be very easy to obtain hard numbers for the following: 

i) What is the initial and ongoing cost in faculty hours per student for implementing LO’s? 
ii) What is the initial and ongoing cost to existing administrative staff per student for implementing LO’s? 
iii) What is the number of new administrative staff per student that are hired to devise and assist in the ongoing implementation of LO’s (at the Department, Faculty and University levels respectively)? 


Furnishing these numbers is a precondition for a sensible discussion of whether the mandatory implementation of LO’s makes sense for the entire University. It’s only then that we will know what the LO initiative will cost SFU in terms of foregone research positions, lab space, larger classes, ect. 



(2) I am skeptical that much of the data gathered from this exercise will be useful to anyone. 

Speaking for my own discipline (Philosophy) it seems clear that no one will ever rely on the data collected in the LO exercise. Graduate schools in Philosophy certainly won’t, while most Law Schools in Canada at present will not even differentiate between majors, relying instead on GPA and the proprietary LSAT exam. 

As for parents and students, they have a right to know what skills and knowledge a degree aims to confer when choosing between programs. But it is very unlikely that LO’s will help them in that regard. This is because the data gathered between disciplines is strictly non-comparative. (Maureen Fizzel makes this point very forcefully in her YouTube presentation.) 

To illustrate: 
Will a Philosophy major have better powers of argumentation than an English or Economics major? Who will be better educated for citizenship? Or more able to communicate? The data collected by LO’s will shed no light whatsoever on these questions. Even assuming that Philosophy, Economics, and English decided to measure the same learning outcomes, they are simply not measuring the same skills in the same way. (Most economists I know have a very different idea of what is needed to educate a person for citizenship than do most philosophers.) 


Given the very uncertain benefits of this exercise, at the very least we should have a clear idea of its price tag. When the true cost of the program is available we will then be in a position to decide whether its promised benefits are worth pursuing. 


Sam Black 
Philosophy 





-- 
*********************************** 
*********************************** 
Sam Black 
Associate Prof. Philosophy, SFU 

-- 
*********************************** 
*********************************** 
Sam Black 
Associate Prof. Philosophy, SFU 

-- 
*********************************** 
*********************************** 
Sam Black 
Associate Prof. Philosophy, SFU 



-- 

James Dougal Fleming 
Associate Professor and Undergraduate Chair 
Department of English 
Simon Fraser University 
778-782-4713 

libberleeber.com 





-- 
***********************************
***********************************
Sam Black
Associate Prof. Philosophy, SFU