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