This article expresses a point of view that is widely held in academic, that it is important that courses following one another conform to something like a standard approach in order to allow for a smooth transition from one to the next. "becuase there is no consistency between different sections of the same course, the student suffers. The problem is that the student enrolled in what they thought would be a consistent two course sequence, only to find they enrolled in two very different courses with very different expectations. This is what happens when there are no standards in curriculum design." Well maybe, but what happens when a graduate moves from one company to the next. Should they expect the same smooth transition? Of course not. So we have to ask: is a smooth transition approporiate? Sure, it's easier for the student, but easier is not always best. Standardized curriculum design achieves greater interoperability, but at the cost of diversity. While I would be the first to agree that there ought to be some consistency (first year chemistry courses should not cover advanced aerodynamics, for example) variations in expectations, workloads, course format and more should not only be allowed, they should be encouraged.
Today: 3 Total: 3 [Direct link] [Share]
