Re: LOs

[Sam Black <samuelb@sfu.ca>]

I think there are multiple reasons for having sought  NCAA membership. I'm hardly an expert but:

1) SFU athletes were too good for their divisions and were rubbishing the competition.

2) Varsity athletics are a character building experience and perhaps being on the big stage will enhance this.

3) The NCAA covers the costs of teams who make it to the finals e.g. Men's soccer is playing in the top 4 in Arizona on the NCAA tab.

4) Membership in the NCAA enhances the prestige and name recognition of SFU. (It might thereby attract more or better students to SFU, or even donations.)

5) A lot of the academic excesses are in Division 1 schools and we are not Division 1.


There are some possible downsides too:

1) Varsity athletics (whether NCAA or not) are expensive. But NCAA involvement seems to suggest that our Varsity sports budget will at the very least not contract in the future.

2) The NCAA is an organization that exploits certain athletes -- primarily in football and basketball -- in Division 1 schools. (Here I am treading into controversial waters, so rather than get into an argument with anyone let me suggest that they read Buzz Buzzinger's work or listen to him debate on Intelligence Squared podcasts.)

3) The NCAA requires LO's.


Since I believe there are upsides and downsides to NCAA membership, the facts in this debate -- including the facts about the cost and efficacy of LO's -- matter to me.  


We have a new Academic Director at SFU and I think he'd do a much better job of explaining the benefits of NCAA membership to this forum. Some day he may have to. 

Best,

Sam

 
----- Original Message -----
From: Ronda Arab <ronda_arab@sfu.ca>
To: Martin Hahn <mhahn@sfu.ca>
Cc: academic-discussion@sfu.ca
Sent: Fri, 07 Dec 2012 13:00:04 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: LOs


Thank you, Sam, for bringing up the point about the cost of sports programs at SFU. And, excuse me if this just sounds naive, but if there is no intention to recruit US students, why is the university seeking NCAA accreditation? Is this some attempt to fashion SFU into a sports-oriented university? That seems so far from what our strengths and current identity are... 


Ronda 


Ronda Arab 
Associate Professor of English 
Simon Fraser University 
8888 University Drive 
Burnaby, BC V5A 1S6 

ronda_arab@sfu.ca 
778.782.8506 (Burnaby) 
778.782.5164 (Surrey) 
----- Original Message -----

From: "Martin Hahn" <mhahn@sfu.ca> 
To: academic-discussion@sfu.ca 
Sent: Friday, 7 December, 2012 15:41:13 
Subject: Re: LOs 

A big win would be nice. But , at a recent chairs and directors meeting, the following emerged: 

International students can solve our budget crisis, but SFU is trying to limit their numbers. Presumably, this is because they are a drain on the system since they come with ESL and other educational background problems. It turns out the vast majority of our international students are Asian, mostly Chinese and,understandably, need to do some adjusting when they come to a North American university. The six most common countries of origin of our international students are: China (60%), Hong Kong (5.6%), Korea (5.5.%), India (2.6%), US (2.3%) and Taiwan (2%). 

I asked Jon Driver whether, with NCAA and accreditation, SFU had any plans to recruit US students more actively, since they do not have the ESL and cultural barriers to overcome. The short answer was: "No". 

So the big win is not even being contemplated. 

All we get from LOA is NCAA, a huge amount of work and expense, and. at best, silly pretend quantification of what we do anyway: expect students to come out with something from our courses. At worst, we get a wholesale, top-down intrusion into our teaching methods. 

Cheers 

MH 


On 07/12/2012 11:27 AM, JD Fleming wrote: 



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. 
----- Original Message -----

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