|
TO FACULTY AND STUDENTS: During the summer of 1999, Alex LaGatta and Renee Takesue organized a comprehensive survey of the DEES curriculum. They received 51 responses from 94 students. The results were compiled during the fall of 1999, and delivered to Paul Richards and me on 4 January, 2000, as faculty co-chairs of curriculum reform. They were also made available to the curriculum reform committee, and discussed at some length by that committee last spring. The conclusions and advice embodied by the survey are abundant, diverse, and hard-hitting. They remain pertinent, and are timely because the DEES faculty at its last meeting expressed its support for a major effort at curriculum reform. Therefore, we have decided to make the survey results available to the entire faculty and graduate student body. Key findings are as follows: 1) Are you satisfied with the current DEES course offerings in each of the subdivisions? [10 students answered YES; 35 NO.] 2) If overlap of material is an issue, are there any courses that could be consolidated? [A range of responses were received, the most general being to rework the entire curriculum, and restructure each course to avoid overlap.] 3) Which two courses were most valuable to you? Why? [Student responses were varied, according to backgrounds and needs. Amongst those deemed most valuable by the greatest number of students are: Quantitative Methods of Data Analysis; Advanced General Geology; and Introduction to Atmospheric Science.] 4) Which courses were not very useful? Why? [The most often cited reason for a poor classroom experience was disorganized/inefficient instruction. This included outdated, illegible or confusing materials; topics already covered in other courses; classes too narrowly focused towards the instructor’s research interests; classes that were too general in deference to students with insufficient backgrounds; and instruction lacking real-world examples.] 5) How could these courses have been made more worthwhile for you? [Some common suggestions included more enthusiastic teaching style; use of legible materials; distribution of a well-defined syllabus; and use of lab. exercises to teach students how to apply concepts and techniques.] 6) Should there be a set of basic courses required of all DEES students? [There is a consensus for core requirements; ~30 YES; ~10 NO; ~3 MAYBE. Many of the No votes expressed concern over imposition of core requirements on students not needing specific courses. If some flexibility were permitted, the sentiment is in favor of core offerings.] 7) Alternatively, should basic requirements be tailored to each of the subdivisions of the Department? [~21 students answered YES; ~15 NO. The responses reflect the dual need for basic broad-based instruction, and the usefulness of flexibility in course selection.] 8) Does the total LDEO experience provide the best training for a wide range of careers? How could DEES better prepare its students for the post Ph.D. world? [The consensus response to the first question is NO. Also needed are courses that teach basic skills in computing, teaching, technical writing and speaking; more training in how to be a good teacher/TA; and more exposure to the outside world via internships, experience in other labs., involvement with other departments, etc.] 9) What single change would markedly improve the existing curriculum? [The responses are broad and far-reaching.] Alex and Renee’s efforts are greatly appreciated, along with all who took the time to respond. Nicholas Christie-Blick |