Just to put on the table the 'other side' of the argument--Can we really
justify giving a degree in Physics (Chemistry, Engineering, Psychology,
etc.) to someone who has only a superficial sense of the BREADTH of the
subject? Depth of understanding is of course important, but how _Little_ is
still enough to say one is a B.S. Physicist (or whatever). Are we really
teaching 'more' content in Physics than we did 25 years ago (or is it
already less)? The 'more is less' philosophy is simpler to apply to
service courses (although how much physics is enough for a Chemist?) I'm
not taking a stand here, just pointing out the flip side.
As to another note on this topic, I won't buy into the 'but everybody in the
States takes the tests so that dillutes the results'. We've been using that
excuse too long now to make it valid even at the College/University level,
but we've always (in this century) educated everyone at the elementary and
secondary level. The median level of academic performance is going down
(not the top, but the middle) and that decline is real. Indiana (where my
wife is principal of an elementary school) has a state proficiency test
taken at various levels. Passing is only at the 26% level but at many
elementary schools failure rates are approaching 50%. Many reasons why
(some even valid) but the simple fact is that the performance IS GETTING
WORSE!
rick
-----Original Message-----
From: Ian Macdonald <imacdonald@swin.edu.au>
About time this topic was reconsidered. I have just come back from
doing some work in Thailand, where they have exactly the same
problem that Australian Universities have, and now it is explicitly
suggested that American Universities have: We all seem to be teaching
too much and the students are not coping. However, everyone just
looks around at what other universities are doing, and what other
countries are doing, and says "we are no different, so it is not our
problem".