| Chronology | Current Month | Current Thread | Current Date |
| [Year List] [Month List (current year)] | [Date Index] [Thread Index] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] | [Date Prev] [Date Next] |
I don't think the question is whether Astronomy should be listed as a=_______________________________________________
physics course, the question seems to be whether a specific person i=
s qualified.
=20
Sort of like having someone with a background in vocal music trying t=
o teach piano. Sure, piano will be a music course, and sure the voca=
l instructor is a musician, but that doesn't automatically make them =
qualified to teach a specific instrumental course. The instructor sh=
ould reasonably show expertise (either through coursework or experien=
ce or demostration to some qualified expert) that they could teach th=
at specialty.
=20
I know plenty of physicist that would have a tough time if they were =
asked to teach astronomy. I don't think it at all unreasonable to as=
k that a generic physicist show competence in astronomy before being =
allowed to teach.
=20
Tim Folkerts=20
________________________________
=46rom: Forum for Physics Educators on behalf of Bernard Cleyet
Sent: Tue 6/21/2005 2:23 PM
To: PHYS-L@LISTS.NAU.EDU
Subject: Re: SACS question
My nasty comment is, if one must justify to SACS this, they (SACS) ar=
e
unqualified to accredit.
bc
David Bowman wrote:
Regarding Aaron's question:
We are undergoing accreditation review by SACS. We have to document
the qualifications of various faculty for teaching certain courses.
I personally teach astronomy and I often hire physicists to teach
astronomy.
How have others argued that physicists are qualified to teach
introductory astronomy?
Aaron
We have always had our Intro Astronomy course have a physics-
prefixed course number & it's been taught by physicists all along.
There has never been any question about that from SACS.
David Bowman