Appendix
Chronology for the Core Curriculum
Dean Kathryn Yatrakis, Address to the senior class, Columbia College, 2005
Recent faculty reflections
Sample syllabus for Fall 2012
List oI instructors and lecturers: senior faculty in FoS
Columbia Science Fellows
Current course evaluation form
Assessment of Learning Gains survey
Response to the 2008 COSI review; faculty reflections
Budget!
Chronology for the Core Curriculum
1917
Student Army Training Corp "war issues" course at Columbia College
1919
January: Faculty proposes course in Contemporary Civilization.
1919
September: Contemporary Civilization commences.
1928
April: Faculty creates two-year Contemporary Civilization course
1932
September: Colloquium on Important Books established.
1937
Humanities A (later Literature Humanities) requirement begins.
Humanities B (music and fine arts) begins as optional sequence.
1950
Oriental Civilizations course established.
1960
October: "Report of the President's Committee on the Contemporary
Civilization Courses in Columbia College" issued (Truman Report).
1983
September: First women enter Columbia College.
1988
Report of the Commission on the Core Curriculum (de Bary Report).
1990
Extended Core (later Major Cultures) requirement established
1
10/2005
Kathryn Yatrakis
SCIENCE IN THE CORE: A Short History
On Monday, September 13, 2004 at 11 oclock in the morning, some five hundred
Columbia College first-year students, half of the class of 2009, assembled in Miller
Theater to hear Professor of Astronomy, David Helfand deliver the first lecture in
Frontiers of Science, the very first science course that was created to be part of
Columbias Core Curriculum. Perhaps it wasnt exactly at 11 a.m. Some technical
glitches put the start time closer to 11:15 a.m. But certainly Frontiers of Science was
first science course created to be part of Columbias Core. Or was it?
Over the years, Columbias science faculty would note with some regularity and
scholarly annoyance that Columbias core, the Colleges intellectual signature celebrating
the humanities, never included science. A glance at the Colleges 1934-1935 Bulletin,
however, suggests another story. Under the section titled Science the following
description appears:
:The course is designed for those studentswho desire a general acquaintance
with the chief fields of scientific investigation, a discussion of their dominant problems,
concepts, and theories, and an introduction to the techniques of experimental
methodsIts aim is to present as systematically as possible those themes of modern
science that are of general interest and significance. (p.103)
A general science course in 1934? Compare this description with that which proposes a
bold experiment in 2001:
The philosophy underlying this core science course is similar to the existing core
in that it would seek to introduce students to the major ideas in our fields of
inquiryWe intend to weave through the entire course some of the habits of
mind which characterize the scientific approach to problems and which
distinguish science from other odes of human inquiry (e.g. estimation, data,
2
models, hypothesis testing etc. (Injecting Science into Columbias Core 9 October
2001)
Some seventy years separate the two descriptions and the 1934 text was unknown to
those proponents of the 2001 experiment yet the one echoes the other. What could
account for the similarity in language?
The study of science has been a part of the College curriculum ever since its founding in
1754 when, in July of that year, all of the eight enrolled College students were required
to study pure sciences and mathematics. This requirement evolved over the years so that
by the beginning of the twentieth century all College students were required to complete
at least two years (four semesters) of science and/or math. This requirement remained in
place until the early 1970s when the two years were reduced to one (two semesters) and
math was dropped. It was again changed in 1989 when math was reinstated and the
two semesters were increased to three (note: actually, faculty voted to restore the science
requirement to the full two years, but agreed that in practice, only a three-semester
requirement would be feasible).
A cursory look at the curricular history would suggest that science was always
considered by the faculty to be a distribution requirement with students taking courses
offered in the various science departments. Further, that faculty were primarily, if not
exclusively, interested in debating only the number of semesters which should be
required for the study of science and whether or not mathematics should be included. A
closer look at the evidence, however, reveals quite a different account of the modern-day
3
debate which, according to Herbert Hawkes, Dean of the College 1919-1943, started in
1933. Ever since the course in Contemporary Civilization was offered fourteen years
ago, according to Hawkes, (when) the perennial question of the relation of the sciences
to this kind of course has been discussed. (Annual Report of the President and Treasurer
to the Trustees, June 30,1933. NY: Morningside Heights) Hawkes goes on to report that
the College faculty started debating the place of science in the College curriculum---not
as a general distribution requirement but as a central part of the Colleges evolving core--
-from the early years of the last century when the very concept of a core course was first
introduced.
By 1933, there was growing sentiment within faculty and administration alike that two
semesters of departmental science and math courses did not sufficiently prepare young
men for the second half of the twentieth century. So in the fall of that year Dean Hawkes
appointed a faculty committee to study the possibility of a foundational course in science
that would parallel Contemporary Civilization which, by this time was well established
within the College curriculum. The goal of paralleling CC was described by Hawkes in
his Annual Report of that year in which he said it had a twofold purpose: first, meeting
the need of all students for a fund of knowledge and a set of intellectual tools that would
be applicable in all of their thinking and that would better them as persons; and second, it
sought, by means of this foundation, to equip prospective scholars with an intellectual
context within which specialized study would be more profitable and more
meaningful.(Annual Report, 1933 p.58)
4
Whenever there is a proposal for substantive curricular change, faculty deliberations are
intense and vigorous, and 1933 was no exception. Centering on such issues as the length
of a general science course, its specific content, the availability of faculty equipped to
teach it, and perhaps most important, whether or not such a course should be required of
science and non-science students alike, faculty debate proceeded apace. The Committee
completed its work by the end of the academic year and described the proposed new
course as one which would afford students
a wider view of scientific subject-matter than is possible by a study of only one
or two sciences, and should produce a broader outlook in the student not only
upon the several sciences but upon those problems and ideas which the sciences
share with each other and with the other domains of contemporary thought.
(Annual Report of the Dean 1933 pp 75-76)
A wider view of scientific subject matter a broader outlooknot only upon the
several sciences but upon those problems and ideas which the sciences share with each
other language very similar to that defining Frontiers of Science as it speaks of
introducing students to such topics as neuroscience and human language, life cycles of
the stars, brain and behavior, quantum and nano worlds, biodiversity and rapid global
change, in short, providing students a broader outlook while at the same time
familiarizing them with scientific habits of the mind. (Frontiers of Science Program
Description, 20 August 2004)
The similarity of the disciplinary issues, academic debates, and curricular
concerns in 1933 with those of the early 2000, bespeaks the intellectual continuity which
defines a strong and evolving curriculum. Yet as remarkably similar as the faculty
debates and concerns seemed to be over the span of years, there were two substantive and
5
important ways in which the faculty in 2001 parted company with their long-gone
colleagues of 1933.
While the faculty proponents in 2001 were insistent that Frontiers of Science be
required of all Columbia College students:
both those students who intend to study science and those whose aspirations lie
elsewhere (such a course will)go a long way toward breaking down
distinctions between the two cultures (Frontiers of Science Program
Description 20 August 2004)
The 1933 Committee proposed that a general science course be optional and designed for
those who were not students studying science:
the students for whom the course should be designed primarily are those whose
chief interest lies outside the field of these sciences and who presumably take no
further courses in them. Hence the course must be primarily not a prerequisite for
advanced work in science, but an adequate presentation of a subject-matter that
has intrinsic significance and general education value for the layman. (pp 11-12)
As a result of the Committees recommendations, a two-year requirement, Science A and
Science B, was first offered in 1934 as an option for students not intending to pursue a
study of science. Since the faculty committee could not agree on what might be included
in one general course in science and did not have confidence that individual faculty could
teach such a general course, the requirement was designed not as one, but as four general
and interdisciplinary courses:
Science A1 Matter, energy, and radiation
Science A2 Chemical changes in matter
Science B1 The earth, its origin and physical history
Science B2 Living Organisms
6
This set of courses continued to be offered until 1941 when the College Bulletin starkly
announces that the two-year science sequence is not being offered during the war period
and refers students to other offerings in appropriate science departments.
After the wars end with the ushering in of the atomic age, the faculty turned once again
to the consideration of a general course in science. This time, a subcommittee of the
standing Committee on College Plans was charged with making recommendations to the
faculty on the feasibility of an interdisciplinary course in science, and once again,
vigorous faculty debate followed but this time the committees conclusions were very
different from those of the 1933 Report. The 1946 committee makes clear that the faculty
did not agree with the 1933 report neither on the assumptions underlying the design of
Science A and B nor on those students for whom the course should be required. In the
words of the Committee:
a specially constructed and well-integrated two-year course in the natural
sciences be a required course for all students who are candidates for a degree from
Columbia College, quite irrespective of whether such students plan to enter one of the
scientific professions or not; and in addition, that such a course be staffed by men who
are prepared to give competent instruction in all of it, and not simply in some
fragmentary portion of it. (A College Program in Action (New York, 1946), p.127)
The 1945 Committee was in fact quite emphatic about this general science course being
required of all students saying that if it were to restrict the course to non-science students,
it would amount to lowering the general standard of interest, enthusiasm, and
inquisitiveness, and hence to exclude those who would supply the chief stimulus to both
teachers and students. (A College Program in Action, p. 127)
7
So it was in 1945, some sixty years ago, that Columbia faculty agreed there should be
created a general and interdisciplinary course in science taught by faculty committed to
the entire course and that this course should be required of all students---scientists and
non-scientists alike. Why then was it then that such a general and interdisciplinary
course in science did not appear in the College Bulletin until 2004?
As reported in A History of Columbia College on Morningside (NY: Columbia
University Press, 1954; Buchler, Justus, Reconstruction in Liberal Arts, pp: 48-135) the
1945 Committee knew that it would be very difficult to have the general faculty adopt
such a general science course in part because of the skepticism they thought professional
schools would have toward such a course as well as the difficulty of identifying
appropriate faculty to teach it. After a number of informal faculty meetings called to
discuss the Committees recommendations, it became clear to then-College Dean, Harry
Carman that even though the course would be approved by the majority of faculty, most
of the science faculty strongly opposed it. Dean Carman well understood that a general
course in science, no matter how well conceived and necessary to the curriculum, could
not be mounted without the full and strong support of at least the majority of the
scientists on the faculty. He therefore appointed yet another faculty committee to
consider the issue in its entirety taking into consideration the ideas and objections raised
in the in several faculty discussions.
Reporting in 1948, this new committee agreed with those principles articulated by the
previous committee and reported that an introductory course in the natural sciences
8
should stress inclusive organizing principles of the sciences rather than special
techniques for mastering specialized subject matters and it should also provide students
with sound conceptions concerning the nature and broad significance of modern natural
science (A History of Columbia College on Morningside, p.60) It did not however
recommend that the course be required by all Columbia College students nor did it agree
that one faculty member should be responsible for the course in its entirety. In fact, the
1948 Committee believed that the reality of pre-professional requirements, combined
with the power of departments as well as the dearth of instructors willing and able to
teach such a course made it impossible to recommend anything other than what amounted
to a new version of Science A and B with disciplinary courses in astronomy and physics
offered in the first two semesters, a third semester in chemistry, and the final semester in
biology. When the faculty approved the committees recommendation to establish this
new version of Science A and B, the University was facing significant economic
challenges which led to the committee to recommend that even this slightly-altered
version of Science A and Science B be optional, and moreover, that it not be introduced
immediately, but at the earliest opportunity
It is clear that faculty deliberations about the place of science in the core did not begin at
the turn of the 21
st
century with discussions over Frontiers of Science. The roots of
this debate can be traced back at least seventy years if not to the earliest days of the core
itself. The questions that shaped faculty discussions about such a course in 1933 were
remarkably similar to those expressed in 1945, 1948, and again in 2004. What should be
the content and structure of such a course? How could science possibly be taught in an
9
interdisciplinary way? Who could teach such a course? Who should be required to take
such a course? In the 1940s and again sixty years later, the strongest faculty opposition
came from science faculty and science departments. There were also differences among
generations of faculty as to the feasibility of such a core science course and the
desirability of it being required of all College students, and this is as it should be as the
core continues to invent and reinvent itself. The questions which defined the debate over
Frontiers were not only necessary to the serious consideration of such an important and
radical curricular initiative, but also reflective of those questions posed years ago. It is to
the importance of these questions that successive generations of faculty have struggled to
fashion responses. Today, the conclusions are not yet clear, and the faculty have given
themselves five years to determine if Frontiers of Science will be successful. What is
clear, however, is that the earliest opportunity for a general and interdisciplinary course
in science to be offered which would be required of all students and taught by faculty
with responsibility for the entire course as debated in 1933, and envisioned in 1946 came
on September 13, 2004, at about 11:15 am when Professor David Helfand started
speaking.
Recent Faculty Reflections
Brian Greene - Departments of Physics and Mathematics, Author and Co-Founder, The
World Science Festival
Although this semester was my first direct encounter with Frontiers of Science, I sat on a
committee years ago that helped plan for this addition to the core curriculum. Naturally,
many on that committee had differing views regarding how best to bring an overview of
science each year to Columbia's Freshman class. But a central point of agreement was
that the course should give students a concrete sense of how scientists engage the world--
how through the rational evaluation of data and the careful construction of theory, science
can take great strides toward unravelling the mysteries of life, the world and the cosmos.
My experience this semester with Frontiers has convinced me that the course is well on
its way toward achieving this lofty objective. By striking a delicate but fruitful balance
between principles and details, students engage with some of the core insights of modern
scientific investigation (in my own module, this included the basics of special relativity,
general relativity and quantum mechanics) while learning the broader lesson that science
provides a potent pathway toward truth. The senior management does a spectacular job of
ensuring that all elements of the course--lectures, seminars, homeworks, exams-- work
together seamlessly toward this goal.
My understanding is that FoS is now being considered for permanent inclusion in the
Core Curriculum. While the course is still evolving, and learning to deal with unique
challenges (primary among these is the difficulty--surmountable--of enlisting a group of
young teaching fellows capable of handling such a broad range of science), it is surely
ready to shift into permanent status. A scientifically literate populace is vital to the future
of the world, and FoS can serve as a model for how universities nationwide can help
ignite broad scientific engagement.
David Helfand - Department of Astronomy (on leave), President, Quest University,
President, American Astronomical Society
When I arrived at Columbia in the 1970s, the College Course Catalog described the Core
Curriculum as the "intellectual coat of arms" of the College experience. While I was
delighted to see that Columbia's faculty had the temerity to state that there were ideas,
texts, and works of human creativity worthy of all students' time and attention,
irrespective of their individual interests and foci, I was simultaneously appalled to find
that that these ideas, texts, and works of creativity excluded mathematics and science.
After two abortive attempts to create a science component of the Core (Bob Pollack's
multidisciplinary course in the early 80's and my Universal Timekeeper course taught
jointly between Astronomy and DEES in the late 80s), Frontiers of Science was designed
to address this intellectually inexcusable lacuna.
The Core homepage now asserts that:
"The communal learning--with all students encountering the same texts and issues at the
same time--and the critical dialogue experienced in small seminars are the distinctive
features of the Core."
I agree. That is precisely why I regard a Core science course -- as distinct from lecture
courses mounted by individual departments -- as essential.
The webpage also states that:
"The habits of mind developed in the Core cultivate a critical and creative intellectual
capacity that students employ long after college, in the pursuit and the fulfillment of
meaningful lives."
Given that scientific habits of mind include distinctive features not common to the habits
of mind employed by the humanistic disciplines, and that we live in a world saturated by
the products of those habits, and confront global problems that will only find solutions by
employing such habits (in conjunction with those cultivated by the rest of the Core), I
believe it would be irresponsible in the opening years of this millennium to offer a Core
curriculum that excluded science.
Concern has been expressed that College students don't "like" Frontiers of Science.
Leaving aside the fact that popularity is a dubious criterion for thoughtful curriculum
design -- and the fact that, as the course is refined (through the constant experimentation
that is one of the habits it cultivates), student ratings have improved -- it is worth
considering the historical context of the course's adoption. First, as has been shown
elsewhere, the College admissions process a decade ago biased its acceptances toward
students oriented away from the sciences; coupled with the long-standing "branding" of
the College by the exclusively humanities-oriented Core, it is unsurprising that the target
audience was initially unreceptive.
It should also be recalled that the Frontiers of Science requirement was adopted in
January 2004, after roughly half the next September's class had been accepted and after
all had completed their applications to a school which they chose, at least in part, for its
humanities-centric curriculum. Given the initial imperfections in the course itself
(expected in any novel enterprise of this scope), the reception in the course's first year
was quite negative (although certainly not exclusively so). That reputation, once
established, had a significant half-life as Orientation scuttlebutt for each incoming class is
passed down based on the previous class's experience. Tracking the tone of Spectator
Editorials on the subject of Frontiers of Science from 2004 to today is but one measure of
the significant cultural shift in attitudes that including science in the Core has undergone.
I expect this trend to continue.
In summary, I would assert that the creation of Frontiers of Science as part of the Core
Curriculum is a significant institutional achievement. Having dozens of senior science
faculty working together across departmental boundaries to create a common intellectual
experience for College students is extraordinary. Involving a cadre of young scientists in
a program which prepares them for faculty careers using effective science pedagogy is a
national service. And equipping our undergraduates with the habits of mind to distinguish
sense from nonsense in this Disinformation Age, and to think critically about the
daunting global issues which science must be used to address in their lifetimes, is, and
should remain, a central feature of our educational mission.
Paul Olsen - Department of Earth and Environmental Science, Member, National
Academy of Sciences
I am relatively new to Frontiers of Science (FoS), having lectured for only the last
two fall semesters (2011, 2012), although I have been a professor at Columbia since
1984. During that time I watched from the sidelines as extremely dedicated and talented
professors and FoS staff develop the course. When I was asked, I joined in the effort
despite the fact that it was my impression that it is a challenging course to teach, and that
those that did teach it had to dedicate a great amount of time and effort to teach it well.
My impression was correct; it is the hardest course I have ever taught. Unique, in my
Columbia teaching experience, months in advance of the actual lectures, I gave them
multiple times to the FoS team, and because of their very candid and insightful criticisms,
those lectures were immensely improved. Because of the investment in my effort I chose
to postpone my sabbatical (among other reasons) to provide continuity in my teaching the
course. I have been well rewarded, not only by having some measure of success with the
students, but my own teaching skill being substantially enhanced in the process in a way
no other course has done.
We live in a time when a citizen has to make decisions as an individual and in
aggregate on problems that have a basis in Science and within a world-view that is, if not
formed by Science, certainly strongly influenced by Science. Our students have been and
promise to be among the most influential of citizens in the US and on the global stage,
and hence in a time like no other before, our students need to have Science demystified
and made familiar, and they need to be exposed to the modes of thought that have proved
so globally potent, even though they themselves will likely not continue in a Science-
based field. I teach FoS because I feel a deep responsibility to help be part of that
mission, a mission for which there is substantial evidence, based on tests and evaluations,
of mounting success. I profoundly enjoy teaching FoS for the same reasons.
My own three lectures each semester are titled: 1) Global Warming and
Paleoclimate; 2) Mass Extinctions; and 3) Birds and Dinosaurs. These translate to:
understanding the context of global change; the reality of past and present biodiversity
crises; and how we come to understand our evolutionary roots in deep past. Each of the
lectures focuses on a relevant, popular issue, for which the students already have some
context and prejudice, and engages them in seeing how Science provides answers and
insights even as it remains incomplete. The tools for this are part of the general course
habits of mind, such as back of the envelope calculations, and everyday hypothesis
construction and testing tools that are of general use in solving real problems all the
time.
I am proud and humbled to be part of this venture at Columbia. I know specific
students who have chosen Columbia because of the Core including, and sometimes
especially because of FoS and I am confident that the overall quality of the Columbia
experience has been enhanced because of our efforts. I already see it in the other classes I
teach, which are largely high-enrollment by Science standards. I do think it should be part
of the freshman experience and hope it will become a permanent part of the Core, which I
plan to remain involved with.
Terry Plank - Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences, 2012 McArthur Fellow
I have been teaching three Earth Science lectures in FoS for the past four years (2009-
2012): the Birth of the Earth, Magmas & Volcanoes, and Global Volcanic
Catastrophe. In these lectures, I develop themes on deep time, how data inspire models,
and the tensions that exist between communicating science and risk. I help to develop
some of the Scientific Habits: proxies, back of the envelope calculations, and
probability. These lectures have been well-evaluated by the students, and they are a
source of pride for me. The feedback from FoS faculty that I received during multiple
practice sessions are unique in my career and in their value. I like to say that these
lectures are the best that these students will experience at Columbia, and I think this is
true. Students generally don't recognize this as freshmen, but based on my conversations,
many do as upperclassmen.
In my opinion, the main goal of FoS should be to inspire students to want to become
scientifically literate. This should not be difficult given the challenges presented by the
natural world going into this next century. In Earth Science alone, this involves greater
risk from natural disasters, global climate change, and the limits of energy
resources. Students are naturally interested in these topics - most of them were likely
wondering like everyone else this fall how much Hurricane Sandy had to do with climate
change. Columbia students naturally want to be better informed than the average blogger.
This inherent interest is what FoS exploits, while also running against the anti-science
currents of our culture.
The current content and structure of FoS work well. The lectures are generally
successful; the seminars depend more on the individual talents of the seminar instructors.
The best ones manage to walk the tightrope between insulting students and losing
them. This is somehow a greater challenge in this course than others. Every student
knows what a graph is, and is easily insulted by an insinuation that they don't. And yet,
graphs can lie and are hard to make compelling, and yet are one of the greatest tools we
have in displaying and communicating information. So the material has to be presented
in a way that acknowledges the student's incoming intelligence, but also engages them in
a knowing way, to develop better scientific habits. I think the original Habits text was
brilliant, and describes exactly what we do as scientists. It has remained a challenge to
get the students to see this. I don't think FoS should be a freshman course. Students need
more maturity and confidence to embrace this unique course and its challenging goals.
FoS is critically needed to inspire students to take ownership of the important science
topics of the day, and to help them develop the tools they need to make rational decisions
as intelligent citizens. We need to continue to accept the challenge of this course. No
other course at Columbia College has this potential impact on its entire student body. I
strongly support the continued success of the Frontiers of Science in reaching these goals,
and will continue to dedicate my efforts to making it successful.
Robert Pollack - Department of Biological Sciences, Dean of Columbia College (1982-
89)
The Frontiers of Science program should be accepted as a permanent part of the
Columbia College Core Curriculum. It has proven its capacity to engage senior faculty
from a wide variety of disciplines; it has shown its ability to engage College students
with a novel mixture of lectures and seminars; it has generated a new community of
scientists, many from many disciplines and at many stages of careers, drawn together by
the shared obligation to provide every College student with a good understanding of the
processes by which science uncovers workings of the natural world. As these processes
include a study of the science that one day may explain mental states as well as human
choices, there is no question that the major frontier this program has entered is the linking
of current scientific facts and their origins, to the philosophical and historical matters at
the center of the College's historic Core. Finally, the course is becoming more
popular. Student surveys confirm that it has slowly but continually been adapted in
response to student criticism, so that it now enjoys a student rating not too far from the
ratings of the other components of the Core. I am pleased to be able to teach in it both
semesters of the upcoming calendar year.
Fall 2012 Brain & Behavior Unit Syllabus
Lecturer: Professor Don Hood
Lecture 1: The Basics, or What does your brain look like, and how does it work?
Here we address the general questions: What do we know about the relationship between
different parts of the brain and your behavior? How do we know it? The Astonishing
Hypothesis asserts that you, your joys, your sorrows, your feelings, etc. are no more than the
activity of a vast assembly of nerve cells! To understand what this means, we first review the
basic anatomy (structure) and physiology (function or how neurons communicate) of the
brain. Any explanation or hypothesis that addresses this question, including the Astonishing
Hypothesis, includes assumptions. Lecture 1 explores the measurement techniques used to
study the brain, as well as the assumptions that underlie both measurements and explanations.
Key questions addressed in the lecture:
1. What are the ABCs of brain anatomy?
2. What are the ABCs of brain physiology?
3. What does it mean that brain location is a code for function?
4. What is the Astonishing Hypothesis?
5. What is the role of assumptions in explanations/ models/ theories and in measurements?
Why was phrenology not a science?
Reading assignment:
1. Ramachandran, V. S., & Blakeslee, S. (1998). Phantoms in the brain. New York:
HarperCollins Publ. Inc., Ch. 1 & 2.
This book, written for a general audience, describes a neurologists insights into the
relationship between the human brain and behavior obtained from patients with unusual
problems. The first chapter reviews some basic information. The second, about amputees
who can feel their missing limbs, should get you thinking about what the Astonishing
Hypothesis means.
2. Statistics tutorial (up to statistical significance, confidence intervals and p-values).
3. Calculating with units tutorial.
Habits covered:
1. Proxies and assumptions (lecture, homework).
2. Back of the envelope (BOE) calculations (homework).
3. Calculating with units (homework).
4. Histograms, mean, standard deviation, random and systematic errors (activity).
2
Homework questions:
1. BOE exercises related to lecture.
2. Ramachandran & Blakeslee reading and key aspects of lecture.
Seminar activity:
In seminar, we will perform an experiment to measure your ability to discriminate 1 vs. 2
tactile stimuli to your thumb and forearm. The results will be discussed in the context of some
of the basic concepts from the lecture. The data will also be used next week to review
experimental design, measurement error and some elementary statistics.
Optional reading:
1. Petersen, R. S., & Diamond, M. E. (2002). Topographic maps in the brain. In
Encyclopedia of life sciences. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
3
Lecture 2: Studying the live human brain
Here we address the general questions: How can we study the live human brain? What is the
relationship between your visual perception of the world and your brain? The techniques for
studying (measuring) the structure (anatomy) and function (physiology) of the live human
brain are described and illustrated with examples involving visual perception.
Key questions addressed in the lecture:
1. What techniques are used to study brain anatomy? How do they work (what is being
measured vs. what do we wish to know)?
2. What techniques are used to study brain physiology? How do they work (what is being
measured vs. what do we wish to know)?
3. In addition to scanning techniques, name two other approaches discussed in lecture that
can be used to understand the workings of a human brain?
4. What is the current view of the relationship between visual perception and your brain?
What is the binding problem?
Reading assignment:
1. Ramachandran, V. S., & Hubbard, E. M. (2003). Hearing colors, tasting shapes. Scientific
American, May issue, 53-59.
This Scientific American article deals with synesthetes who see written numbers printed
in black and white as if they were printed in different colors. While illustrating the power
of simple experiments, it should also make you think about the implications of the
Astonishing Hypothesis.
2. Statistics tutorial (up to estimating statistical significance from graphs).
3. Logic of science tutorial.
Habits covered:
1. Proxies and assumptions (lecture, homework, activity).
2. Histograms, mean, standard deviation, standard error of the mean, confidence intervals
(homework).
3. Random and systematic errors, precision and accuracy (homework).
4. Correlation vs. causation (activity).
5. Experimental design, controls, sample size, sampling bias (activity).
6. What is science? (activity).
Homework questions:
1. Two-point threshold data and review of statistics.
2. Review of aspects of lecture and related Habits.
3. Ramachandran & Hubbard article.
Seminar activity:
The activity is designed to help you evaluate articles about science in the popular press.
Optional reading:
1. Gregory, R. L. (1970). The intelligent eye. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, Ch. 4 (67-78).
4
Lecture 3: Do the left and right halves of your brain differ?
or Do you have one brain or two?
How different is the left half of your brain from the right half? Wild claims about right- and
left-brained individuals can be found in thousands (probably hundreds of thousands) of
newspaper/magazine articles. In fact, it is commonly held that people differ in how much of
the left or right halves of their brain they use. This lecture explores the scientific evidence
behind this view. The general questions addressed are: Do the left and right halves of the
cortex differ? and Are there right-brain and left-brain individuals?
Key questions addressed in the lecture:
1. Describe the four techniques discussed in lecture used to study the differences between
the hemispheres. Why is it important to use multiple techniques to address this problem?
2. Is language located in the left hemisphere? How do we know?
3. Describe the evidence for differences between hemispheres for one of the following:
a) local vs. global perception; b) facial recognition; and c) musical ability.
4. What is the role of the interpreter in consciousness as described by Gazzaniga? Where
is the interpreter located?
5. Is the combined evidence convincing that the two hemispheres differ in function? How
does this scientific view differ from popular claims?
Reading assignment:
1. Turk, D. J., et al. (2002). Mike or me? Self recognition in a split-brain patient. Nature
Neuroscience, 5, 841-842. Read with Notes on Turk et al. Although both hemispheres
are involved in self-recognition, the left hemisphere has a special role. This is interesting
given the superiority of the right hemisphere in face recognition.
2. Notes on Turk et al.
3. Statistics tutorial (through estimating statistical significance from graphs).
4. Term paper guidelines.
Habits covered:
1. Reading graphs (lecture, homework, activity).
2. What is Science? (lecture, activity).
3. Statistical significance (homework).
4. Correlation vs. causation (activity).
5. Experimental design, controls, sample size, sampling bias (activity).
Homework questions:
1. Turk et al. article and a review of various habits, as well as the logic of split-brain
experiments.
2. Review of aspects of lectures, statistical significance, data interpretation etc.
Seminar activity:
We will continue the activity from the last seminar involving evaluation of articles about
science in the popular press. Following at-home research by the students, we will look at
scientific articles on the relevant topics.
5
Optional reading:
1. Gazzaniga, M. S. (2005). Forty-five years of splitbrain research and still going strong.
Nature Reviews/Neuroscience, 6, 653-659. This is a review by the person in the field.
Appointment
Type
(adjunts/lecture
rs, fellows,
faculty, director) faculty
Count of SectioColumn Labels
Row Labels 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 Grand Total
Broecker 1 1 1 1 1 5
Christie-Blick 1 1 1 1 4
Cornish 2 2
deMenocal 1 1 1 2 1 1 7
Eisenberger 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7
Fernandez 2 2 4
Firestein 1 1 1 1 4
Goldstein 1 1 1 3
Green 1 1
Helfand 3 3 3 3 2 2 16
Hemming 2 2 2 6
Hirsch 1 1 1 1 1 1 6
Hood 2 2 2 2 2 3 13
Hughes 2 3 1 6
Johnston 1 2 2 2 1 8
Kelley 2 1 2 2 1 8
Kelsey 1 2 3
Krantz 1 1 2
McManus 1 1 1 3
Melnick 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 15
Menke 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7
Mutter 1 1 1 3
Nuckolls 1 2 1 4
Olsen 1 1 2
Paerels 2 2 2 6
Plank 1 1 1 1 1 5
Pollack 2 3 3 3 2 1 14
Rabinowitz 2 1 3
Schiminovich 1 1 2
Simpson Jr 1 1 2
Stormer 2 2 2 2 8
van Gorkom 2 2 2 1 7
Grand Total 26 24 25 24 20 21 17 15 14 186
Unique Count 17 16 16 14 14 14 12 11 11
List of all tenured faculty who have taught in FOS either as a lecturer or seminar leader, 2004/05-2012/13
Appointment Type (adjunts/ faculty
Count of Instructor_Last_lumn Labels
Row Labels 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 Grand Total
Broecker
Lecture 1 1 1 1 1 5
Christie-Blick
Seminar 1 1 1 1 4
Cornish
Lecture 1 1
Seminar 1 1
deMenocal
Lecture 1 1 1 1 1 1 6
Seminar 1 1
Eisenberger
Seminar 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7
Fernandez
Lecture 1 1 2
Seminar 1 1 2
Firestein
Lecture 1 1 1 1 4
Goldstein
Seminar 1 1 1 3
Green
Lecture 1 1
Helfand
Lecture 2 2 2 2 2 1 11
Seminar 1 1 1 1 1 5
Hemming
Lecture 1 1 1 3
Seminar 1 1 1 3
Hirsch
Lecture 1 1 1 1 1 1 6
Hood
Lecture 1 1 1 1 1 2 7
Seminar 1 1 1 1 1 1 6
Hughes
Lecture 1 1 1 3
Seminar 1 2 3
Johnston
Lecture 1 1 1 1 4
Seminar 1 1 1 1 4
Kelley
Lecture 1 1 1 1 1 5
Seminar 1 1 1 3
Kelsey
Seminar 1 2 3
Krantz
Seminar 1 1 2
McManus
Seminar 1 1 1 3
Melnick
Lecture 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 9
Seminar 1 1 1 1 1 1 6
Menke
Seminar 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7
Mutter
Seminar 1 1 1 3
Nuckolls
Lecture 1 1 1 3
Seminar 1 1
Olsen
Lecture 1 1 2
Paerels
Seminar 2 2 2 6
Plank
Lecture 1 1 1 1 1 5
Pollack
Lecture 1 1 1 1 1 5
Seminar 1 2 2 2 1 1 9
Rabinowitz
Seminar 2 1 3
Schiminovich
Seminar 1 1 2
Simpson Jr
Seminar 1 1 2
Stormer
Lecture 1 1 1 1 4
Seminar 1 1 1 1 4
Stormer & Fernandez
Lecture 1 1 2
van Gorkom
Seminar 2 2 2 1 7
Grand Total 27 25 25 24 20 21 17 15 14 188
Former&Columbia&Science&Fellows&!(years!appointed):!
!
&
Summer&Ash!(Fellow!200862011;!Adjunct!201162012)!Assistant!Director,!Bridge!to!PhD!
Program!in!Natural!Sciences,!Columbia!University.!Outreach!Director,!Astronomy!
Department,!Columbia!University.!!
summer@astro.columbia.edu!
&
Fabiola&Barrios5Landeros!(Fellow!200862010)!Assistant!Professor!of!Chemistry!at!Yeshiva!
University!http://home.yu.edu/faculty/new/default.aspx?id=barriosl!
barriosl@yu.edu!
&
Nicolas&Biais!(Fellow!200662009)!Assistant!Professor,!Biology!Department,!Brooklyn!
College!(as!of!1/1/13)!nb2200@columbia.edu!https://sites.google.com/site/nicolasbiais/!
nb2200@columbia.edu!
&
Jennifer&Blanck&(Fellow!2004!6!2006)!!Science!teacher,!The!Collegiate!School,!NYC!
jenblanck@gmail.com!
!
Kerry&Brown!(Fellow!20046!2008)!Lecturer,!Geography,!Geology!and!Environment,!
Kingston!University,!London!U.K.!http://sec.kingston.ac.uk/about6
SEC/people/academic/view_profile.php?id=29!
!K.Brown@kingston.ac.uk!
&
Michelle&Buxton!(Fellow!200562007)!Associate!Research!Scientist!Department!of!
Astronomy!Yale!University!
http://www.astro.yale.edu/people/michelle6buxton!!
michelle.buxton@yale.edu!
!
Paul&Cadden5Zimansky!(Fellow!201062012)!Assistant!Professor,!Bard!Collge!!
http://www.bard.edu/academics/faculty/faculty.php?action=details&id=3205!
pzimansk@bard.edu!
paulcz@bard.edu!!
&
Yue&(Merry)&Cai&(Fellow!200862012)!Postdoctoral!Research!Scientist,!LDEO,!Columbia!
University.!!
yc2036@columbia.edu!
&
Damon&Chaky!(Fellow!200462006)!Assoc.!Prof.!of!Mathematics!and!Science,!The!Pratt!
Institute.!http://pratt.edu/~dchaky/!
!dchaky@pratt.edu!
!
Tzu5Chien&(Clara)&Chiu!(Fellow!200562006)!Assistant!Research!Fellow,!Institute!of!Earth!
Sciences,!Academia!Sinica,!Taipei,!Taiwan.!
tcchiu@ntu.edu.tw!
&
Jenna&Cole!(200562007)!Visiting!Professor!Western!Kentucky!University!
http://people.wku.edu/jennifer.cole1/research.html!!
jennacole13@gmail.com!
Matt&Collinge!(200662010)!John!Hopkins!University;!Advanced!Academic!Programs,!Zanvyl!
Krieger!Scholl!of!Arts!and!Sciences.!!http://advanced.jhu.edu/faculty/view/?id=1314!
mattcollinge1@gmail.com!
Alenka&Copic&(Fellow!200862012)!Biology!research,!France,!Institute!TBD!(currently!on!
maternity!leave)!
alenka.copic@gmail.com!
&
Elizabeth&Cottrell!(Fellow!200462005)!Curator/Research!Geologist!!Dept.!of!Mineral!
Sciences,!Smithsonian!Institution!http://mineralsciences.si.edu/staff/pages/cottrell.htm!!
cottrell@si.edu!
&
Hugh&Crowl&(Fellows!201062011)!Assistant!Professor,!Science!and!Mathematics,!
Bennington!College!
http://www.bennington.edu/Academics/Faculty.aspx?FacultyM=Y&MID=1027010356!
HCrowl@bennington.edu!
!
Kate&Detwiler&(Fellow!200962010;!Adjunct!201062011)!Asst.!Prof.!Antropology,!Florida!
Atlantic!University!http://fau.edu/anthro/K.%20Detwiler%202012.php!
kdetwile@fau.edu!
&
Angela&Gee!(Fellow!200862009)!Assistant!Professor!of!Biology,!Science!Department,!!Los!
Angeles6Trade!Technical!College!www.linkedin.com/pub/angela6gee/43/a75/37a!
angelagee@gmail.com!
!
&
Stuart&Gill!(Fellow!200562009)!Project!coordinator!of!the!Global!Facility!for!Disaster!
Reduction!and!Recovery!Labs!initiative!(GFDRR!Labs).,!The!World!Bank,!Washington,!D.C.!
blogs.worldbank.org/eastasiapacific/team/stuart6gill!!!
spdgill@gmail.com!
&
Robin&Herrnstein!(Fellow!200462005)!Science!education!consultant!
http://www.astro.columbia.edu/~herrnstein/!
herrnstein@astro.columbia.edu!
!
Andrea&Holmes&(Adjunct!2005)!!Assoc.!!Prof.!of!Chemsitry,!Doane!College!
http://www.doane.edu/Academics/Departments/Chemistry/Faculty/AndreaHolmes/8637!
andrea.holmes@doane.edu!
!
David&Kagan!(Fellow!200862011;!Adjunct!201162012)!Lecturer,!College!of!Engineering,!
University!of!Massachusetts,!Dartmouth!
dkagan@umassd.edu!
!
Sharmila&Kamat!(Fellow!200462008)!!Research!adjunct;!Columbia!University;!Teaching!in!
India!http://www.linkedin.com/pub/sharmila6kamat/0/b97/258!
shami71@yahoo.com!
&
Alison&Keimowitz!(Fellow!200662009)!Assistant!Professor,!Chemistry!Department,!Vassar!
College.!http://chemistry.vassar.edu/bios/alkeimowitz.html!!
alkeimowitz@vassar.edu!
&
Atanasios&(Tom&)&Koutavas&(Fellow!200462005)!Assoc.!Prof.,!Dept.!of!Engineering!Science!
and!Physics,!CUNY!College!of!Staten!Island!Island!
http://www.csi.cuny.edu/faculty/KOUTAVAS_ANTHANASIOS.html!
athanasios.koutavas@csi.cuny.edu!
&
Josef&Lazar!(Fellow!200662007)!Head:!Laboratory!of!Cell!Biology!at!!the!Institute!of!
Systems!Biology!&!Ecology,!Academy!of!Sciences!of!the!Czech!!Republic.!
http://kmb.prf.jcu.cz/en/people/people6at6dep/labhead/josef6lazar6ph6d.html!
lazar@nh.cas.cz!
&
Claire&LePichon!(Fellow!2007)!Senior!Research!Associate!Genetech!San!Francisco!
http://www.linkedin.com/pub/claire6le6pichon/5/9a0/b40!
clairelepichon@gmail.com&
&
P.&Timon&McPhearson!(Fellow!200562008)!Assistant!Professor!of!Ecology,!Eugene!Lang!
College,!The!New!School!for!Social!Research!
http://www.newschool.edu/public6engagement/faculty.aspx?id=78445!
Mcphearp@newschool.edu!
&
Elnaz&Menhaji&(Fellow!2009)!Senior!Scientist,!Pfizer,!Groton!CT.!
www.linkedin.com/in/elnazmenhajiklotz!
elnazie@hotmail.com!
Eleni&Nikitopoulos!(Fellow!200562006;!200862011)!Assistant!Professor,!Life!Science!
Department!at!New!York!Institute!of!Technology!http://www.nyit.edu/life_sciences!
enikitop@nyit.edu!
Beth&O'Shea!(Fellow!200762010)!Assistant!Professor,!Marine!Science!&!Environmental!
Studies!at!University!of!San!Diego!
http://www.sandiego.edu/cas/about_the_college/faculty/biography.php?ID=817!!
bethoshea@sandiego.edu!
&
Maulik&Parikh!(Fellow!200462006)!Assoc.!Professor!of!Physics,!Arizona!State!University,!
Tempe,!AZ!http://physics.asu.edu/home/people/faculty/maulik6parikh!!
Maulik.Parikh@asu.edu!
!
Patricia&Persaud!(Fellow!2004)!Visiting!associate!in!Geophysics;!Caltech,!Instructor!
Pasadena!City!College!http://www.gps.caltech.edu/~ppersaud/!!
ppersaud@gps.caltech.edu!
&
Ana&Petrovic!(Fellow!200762009)!Assistant!Professor,!Life!Science!Department!at!New!
York!Institute!of!Technology!http://www.nyit.edu/life_sciences/!
apetro01@nyit.edu!
&
Rachna&Kaushik&Rangan!(Fellow!200662008)!Program!Director!EPARG!(Emotions,!
Personality,!and!Altruism!Research!Group)!!Berkeley!CA!
http://www.eparg.org/people.html!
rachna.rangan@gmail.com!
&
Bruno&Tremblay!(Fellow!200462005)!!Assoc.!Prof.,!Atmospheric!and!Oceanic!Sciences,!
McGill!University!http://www.mcgill.ca/meteo/keyword/Bruno%20Tremblay!
bruno.tremblay@mcgill.ca!
!
Justin&Wright!(Fellow!200364)!!!Asst.!Prof.,!Department!of!Biology,!Duke!
http://www.biology.duke.edu/wrightlab/!!
justin.wright@duke.edu!
&
Eliza&Woo!(200862011)!Editor!in!a!Publishing!Company!publishing!science!education!books!
elizawoo@gmail.com!
!
Dashboard Gradebook control lookup
Frontiers of Science Fall 2012
Date: Dec-05-2012 Current Time: 4:13:27 PM
Excellent
Very Good
Good
Fair
Poor
1 2 3 4 5
Seminar Leader Effectiveness
1. Please select your seminar leader
2. Clear presentation of subject matter
3. Seminar Leader's ability to help clarify course material
4. Seminar Leader's ability to encourage student participation effectively
5. Seminar Leader's responsiveness to student questions
6. Seminar Leader's ability to stimulate intellectual curiosity
7. Seminar Leader's feedback
8. Seminar Leader's availability for assistance outside of class
9. Overall effectiveness of Seminar Leader
10.Comments on Seminar Leader Effectiveness
5
4
3
2
1
1 2 3 4 5
Lecture Attendance
1. Number of lectures attended (5 = 12 lectures; 4 = 10-11; 3 = 8-9; 2 = 6-7; 1 = less than 6. )
Excellent
Very Good
Good
Fair
Poor
1 2 3 4 5
Lecturer Evaluation
1. Evaluate the lectures by Prof. Hood (Brain and Behavior)
2. Evaluate the lectures by Prof. Greene (Physics)
3. Evaluate the lectures by Prof. Olsen (Earth Science)
4. Evaluate the lectures by Prof. Melnick (Biodiversity)
5. Clarity of common approaches to scientific problems across lectures
6. What were the best aspects of lecture?
7. What aspects of lecture could be improved?
Not Applicable
Excellent
Very Good
https://courseworks.columbia.edu/cms/input/eval/eval_view.cfm?user_k...
1 of 3 12/5/2012 4:13 PM
Good
Fair
Poor
1 2 3 4 5 N/A
Readings, Materials, Assignments, and Exams
1. Overall value of homework assignments
2. Overall value of the Tutorials
3. Overall value of the other reading assignments
4. Overall value of the term paper assignment
5. Overall value of the AMNH trip (answer only if you attended)
6. Fairness of grading
7. Clarity of expectations for student learning
8. Relevance of assignments and exams to course objectives
9. Comments on readings, materials, assignments, and examinations
Excellent
Very Good
Good
Fair
Poor
1 2 3 4 5
General
1. Compared to other Columbia courses you have taken this semester, how much time have you spent
on this course? (1. much less, 2. somewhat less, 3. about the same, 4. somewhat more, 5. much
more)
2. Contribution to your knowledge of the subject matter
3. Contribution to your capacity for critical evaluation of the subject matter
4. Contribution to your interest in science
5. Contribution to the development of your analytical and reasoning skills in general
6. Clarity of expectations for student learning
7. Overall value of the seminar
8. Overall value of the lectures
9. Integration of lectures with seminars
10.Overall quality of the course as you yourself experienced it
11.What were the best aspects of this course
12.Please comment on ways to improve the course
13.If you have used the help-room, please comment on its effectiveness
14.General comments
Excellent
Very Good
Good
Fair
Poor
1 2 3 4 5
https://courseworks.columbia.edu/cms/input/eval/eval_view.cfm?user_k...
2 of 3 12/5/2012 4:13 PM
Classroom Information
1. Condition and function of the lecture hall
School Affiliation
1.
5
4
3
2
1
1 2 3 4 5
Expected Grade
1. Please select expected grade 1=F, 2=D, 3=C, 4=B, 5=A
https://courseworks.columbia.edu/cms/input/eval/eval_view.cfm?user_k...
3 of 3 12/5/2012 4:13 PM
Dashboard Gradebook control lookup
Frontiers of Science Fall 2012
Date: Dec-05-2012 Current Time: 4:13:27 PM
Excellent
Very Good
Good
Fair
Poor
1 2 3 4 5
Seminar Leader Effectiveness
1. Please select your seminar leader
2. Clear presentation of subject matter
3. Seminar Leader's ability to help clarify course material
4. Seminar Leader's ability to encourage student participation effectively
5. Seminar Leader's responsiveness to student questions
6. Seminar Leader's ability to stimulate intellectual curiosity
7. Seminar Leader's feedback
8. Seminar Leader's availability for assistance outside of class
9. Overall effectiveness of Seminar Leader
10.Comments on Seminar Leader Effectiveness
5
4
3
2
1
1 2 3 4 5
Lecture Attendance
1. Number of lectures attended (5 = 12 lectures; 4 = 10-11; 3 = 8-9; 2 = 6-7; 1 = less than 6. )
Excellent
Very Good
Good
Fair
Poor
1 2 3 4 5
Lecturer Evaluation
1. Evaluate the lectures by Prof. Hood (Brain and Behavior)
2. Evaluate the lectures by Prof. Greene (Physics)
3. Evaluate the lectures by Prof. Olsen (Earth Science)
4. Evaluate the lectures by Prof. Melnick (Biodiversity)
5. Clarity of common approaches to scientific problems across lectures
6. What were the best aspects of lecture?
7. What aspects of lecture could be improved?
Not Applicable
Excellent
Very Good
https://courseworks.columbia.edu/cms/input/eval/eval_view.cfm?user_k...
1 of 3 12/5/2012 4:13 PM
Good
Fair
Poor
1 2 3 4 5 N/A
Readings, Materials, Assignments, and Exams
1. Overall value of homework assignments
2. Overall value of the Tutorials
3. Overall value of the other reading assignments
4. Overall value of the term paper assignment
5. Overall value of the AMNH trip (answer only if you attended)
6. Fairness of grading
7. Clarity of expectations for student learning
8. Relevance of assignments and exams to course objectives
9. Comments on readings, materials, assignments, and examinations
Excellent
Very Good
Good
Fair
Poor
1 2 3 4 5
General
1. Compared to other Columbia courses you have taken this semester, how much time have you spent
on this course? (1. much less, 2. somewhat less, 3. about the same, 4. somewhat more, 5. much
more)
2. Contribution to your knowledge of the subject matter
3. Contribution to your capacity for critical evaluation of the subject matter
4. Contribution to your interest in science
5. Contribution to the development of your analytical and reasoning skills in general
6. Clarity of expectations for student learning
7. Overall value of the seminar
8. Overall value of the lectures
9. Integration of lectures with seminars
10.Overall quality of the course as you yourself experienced it
11.What were the best aspects of this course
12.Please comment on ways to improve the course
13.If you have used the help-room, please comment on its effectiveness
14.General comments
Excellent
Very Good
Good
Fair
Poor
1 2 3 4 5
https://courseworks.columbia.edu/cms/input/eval/eval_view.cfm?user_k...
2 of 3 12/5/2012 4:13 PM
Classroom Information
1. Condition and function of the lecture hall
School Affiliation
1.
5
4
3
2
1
1 2 3 4 5
Expected Grade
1. Please select expected grade 1=F, 2=D, 3=C, 4=B, 5=A
https://courseworks.columbia.edu/cms/input/eval/eval_view.cfm?user_k...
3 of 3 12/5/2012 4:13 PM
1
11/15/09
To: COSI
From: Course Directors, Frontiers of Science
We write to respond to the report produced by the Committee on Science Instruction
(COSI) as its evaluation of Frontiers of Science (FoS). Our apologies for the delay in
responding. In the spring, we were in the middle of teaching FoS, a frantic time, and this
summer we suffered research-induced amnesia for other topics. We appreciate the time
and effort spent by COSI in examining FoS. Since the report was released, we have
undertaken a review of changes in student enrollments in 1000-level courses pre- and
post-FoS, and we include those data here.
We respond to the individual comments and recommendations of the report below, but
would also like to respond to the assumptions that seem to have guided its preparation.
These assumptions are very different from those that guided the establishment and
running of FoS, and it would be helpful as we continue discussions if these were spelled
out.
The first of our assumptions is that the Core Curriculum must include a science course
that is real, i.e. that reflects the way in which scientists think about and analyze the set of
problems that make up current research. One reason for this approach lies within the
concept of a Core Curriculum: a set of challenging courses taken by all students. We are
admonished by COSI that we must "ensure the students can meet or exceed their own
expectations"(p6), and not to trouble them with ambiguities because "it is probably
easier, and therefore more effective for first-year students..." (p12) to use only well-
established facts, and to provide a textbook because "Students are often most comfortable
with a textbook that includes the whole content of the course..." (p16). If we were to
present students as suggested with "only well-established facts" we would insult those
with a strong science background (who know that well-established facts have a way of
unravelling) and mislead students trained via the usual high school curriculum, the very
group that it is most important that we reach. In designing FoS, we made a conscious
decision to aim higher than the kind of course advocated by COSI. It is safe to say that
none of the 30 talented faculty who have contributed to FoS to date would have any
interest in constructing such a course.
The second assumption that guides the construction and continuing revision of FoS is
that, as pointed out in the COSI report, there is no accepted, effective way to teach
science in the context of a general education. Thus for the actual teaching of FoS we have
conducted a series of experiments over successive iterations and are tracking outcomes.
It is a shame that COSI did not consult with FoS faculty during the writing of the report
because many of their suggestions relate to experiments that we have already tried and
the outcomes of which are known. For example, COSI suggests that the lectures might
be more effective if given to a smaller group. We entertained this quite reasonable
hypothesis as well and ran an experiment using two sections last Fall with no observable
increase in student satisfaction (the lectures are usually ranked quite highly and values
2
did not differ from previous years with one large lecture). The lack of ongoing
communication between COSI and FoS faculty contributed to the perception that we are
pig-headedly determined to run the course our own way when in fact we are experimental
and data driven.
Finally, there appears to be an underlying assumption in the COSI report that it would be
better to have FoS tackle a single topic or a single discipline. Aside from student
comments (and remembering that these are strongly colored by high-school science, not
the model we are aiming for) we do not know why this approach, a priori, should be
superior to the multidisciplinary one currently in use. A course on a single topic with a
standard textbook with multiple-choice exams requiring rote regurgitation -- in short, a
high school science course -- might well be more popular with students who got into
Columbia because they perform well on such tasks. In designing FoS, we made a
conscious decision to instead provide Columbia students with the analytical tools needed
to reach decisions on difficult issues using available data. To do otherwise, we believe, is
a disservice to our students' education.
Response to specific comments in the report:
1. "In setting these ambitions and characteristics FoS faced two major sets of challenges:
recruiting and organizing faculty to teach enthusiastically and co-operatively with
appropriate administrative support, and actually improving science education of students.
. . . We now have some relevant data to evaluate the progress of FoS in meeting these
challenges. FoS has met the first challenge remarkably well, recruiting outstanding and
dedicated faculty, and developing an exceptionally functional administration and course
infrastructure for maintaining and improving standards."
We agree with COSI re faculty recruitment. Participating FOS faculty have included
every Natural Science Department (except Mathematics; Dan Rabinowitz from Statistics
just joined the faculty). One goal for FoS was to modify the Columbia science culture to
expand the concept of excellence to include introductory level teaching to all students (as
opposed to potential majors). Convincing senior faculty members to adopt new
educational approaches can be difficult. However, the collaborative nature of the course
development process and the very high quality of both the Fellows and full-time faculty
have proven to be an attractive combination both for recruiting new faculty to the
enterprise (for some this is a voluntary effort, often carried out in addition to teaching a
regular course load) and for introducing new pedagogical approaches. Senior faculty
members in FoS are among the most distinguished researchers and teachers in their
Departments as evinced by international and national awards for research (e.g., Nobel,
NAS) and Columbia awards for teaching (e.g., Mark van Doren Awards for Outstanding
Teaching in the College, Presidential Awards for Outstanding Teaching, Great Teacher
Awards from Society of Columbia Graduates, the Lenfest and Distinguished Teaching
award, and departmental teaching awards). A list of participating faculty members is
included in Table 1.
With respect to junior faculty development, new Columbia Science Fellows (a hybrid
lecturer and post-doctoral researcher position) are mentored in curriculum development
3
both by more senior faculty and by other Fellows. The Fellows work in teams with
senior faculty members to create seminar materials for each unit, weekly assignments,
and the midterm and final examinations. These teams include scientists both from within
the discipline of the unit (earth science, for example) and from other disciplines (ecology
and chemistry). The Fellows also lead a weekly seminar in how one might teach that
week's seminar, going through the suggested class exercises and discussing issues that
were raised in the Monday lectures.
We have 11 current Columbia Science Fellows and 23 former Fellows. Of the latter, 13
now hold tenure-track Assistant Professor positions or their equivalent, five hold non-
tenure track research positions, one is a high school science teacher, two work in
industry, one in policy and one in educational consulting. Some former Fellows (e.g.,
Damon Chaky) have launched FoS-like efforts at their new institutions. Details on
former Fellows are also included in Table 1.
Looking at the history of previous attempts to bring a science course into the Core
Curriculum (see Kathryn Yatrakis' paper, attached), the stumbling block was always the
initial opposition of the faculty. To have changed the course of our history, we believe, is
a substantial accomplishment and any approach to general science education at Columbia
will benefit from the positive experiences of members of the FoS faculty. A collection of
their reflections on FoS of Science is also appended.
2. "However, it is hard to imagine that FoS will have a positive impact on attitudes
towards science and facility with scientific thought if students are not enthusiastic about
FoS immediately after taking the course. Currently, student course evaluations and
personal conversations with students reveal that few have been inspired by FoS or
warmly applaud the course, while many have been frustrated, confused, and disappointed
with FoS to a greater degree than with the majority of other Columbia courses, including
required courses. The strikingly negative evaluations of FoS must be reversed
substantially for there to be a strong likelihood of long-term benefits and to maintain the
necessary, exceptionally high level of commitment from FoS faculty that is essential to
maintain the course."
FoS aims to provide all entering students with the scientific tools required to produce and
evaluate scientific evidence, and to provide students intent on majoring in a specific
scientific discipline with an introduction to the power of interdisciplinary approaches.
The entering class of Columbia College varies widely with respect to preparation in
science and mathematics; regardless of prior training, all first year students are taught
together both in seminar and in lecture. This approach, which parallels the rest of the
Core, poses especial challenges in teaching science, although the range of preparation for
other core course tends to be underestimated.
To develop an effective strategy for teaching students with diverse preparations, we have
used formative evaluation tools that include a course evaluation (>90% response), focus
group meetings with student groups each spring, tracking individual faculty curricular
innovations for seminars and their effectiveness and - for the pilot year 2003/4, in which
only a portion of entering students took FoS - a survey of scientific knowledge and
attitudes. In addition, we prepare a weekly report on student concerns revealed through
4
visits to the Help Room, a twice-weekly evening of support run by faculty and
undergraduates who have excelled in FoS. To follow the attitudes of science majors
towards their FoS experiences and towards interdisciplinary approaches, students taking
Stuart Firestein's course on Ignorance are surveyed each year (~60 seniors, 90% science
majors).
While the curriculum of FoS is established in broad outline, devising the most effective
teaching strategies is still a work in progress. Assessment is carried out on sequential
course iterations that have used different combinations of approaches. We continue to
work actively on how best to teach FoS. The approach is experimental (two or three
features of the course are changed each year) and is guided by the tools described above.
This semester, we have abolished the weekly letter grading of problems sets (a source of
great student anxiety) and have instituted short weekly quizzes (the effects of which we
will assess at semester's end). Student issues are tracked via a weekly Help Room report
that includes recommendations for solutions to student confusion for seminar leaders.
This semesters help room reports are appended.
3. "COSIs analysis of the reasons for poor evaluations of FoS suggest five major
categories:
concentration, interaction, and scheduling deficits associated with a long weekly
lecture at one time slot with 500 attendees in a room designed for purposes other than
teaching(Miller Theater)
We agree about Miller Theater and have changed venue. We are now using a much more
suitable auditorium at Teacher's College for Fall semester; student participation in the
lectures is facilitated.
4. " too many sharp transitions between topics (and lecturers), too much material per
topic, insufficient time per topic to understand the material or to generate a satisfying
understanding of major issues, debates, or strategies for enquiry"
First, of course, like many of the concerns, this is an opinion (or hypothesis) based upon
the extensive experience of members of CoSI. But it is an hypothesis without, as far as
we know, substantiating data on learning outcomes. As noted in the report, these
concerns follow from the structure of the course. Our aim (teaching methods of scientific
analysis across disciplines) is addressed by including topics across four scientific fields
(two in the physical sciences and two in the life sciences) each semester (presented as 12
weekly lectures) and by an intensive program of active learning in the small (22 student)
faculty-led seminars that are the heart of the course. The change in topics may be
difficult for some entering first-year students who are accustomed to a more leisurely
immersion in one particular discipline, the comfort of a textbook and the possibility of
simply memorizing enough material to get a good grade. The transition from high school
to college (coupled with student performance anxieties) adds to the challenges of
teaching FoS. Continuing experience with College helps. Stuart Firestein (who surveys
seniors in his Ignorance class) points out that attitudes of students towards FoS are
considerably warmer by the time they graduate. Deans Yatrakis and Quigley have
consistently cautioned us that the Core is best evaluated by alums years after they
graduate.
5
So while one may argue that it is better to teach FoS to seniors, one of the reasons for
including different disciplines in FoS is to inform choices that students make in
completing the other two courses for the science requirement. Before FoS, the typical
pattern for the three-course requirement was two courses in mathematics and one in
Chemistry (for former premeds) or courses in Psychology or Physical Anthropology (for
non premeds). At present, FoS fulfills one course requirement and the remaining two can
be from any Department. Figure 1 presents the change in enrollments in 1000-level
courses (directed at non-science majors) before and after FoS. The data for Pre-FoS are
averages are based on the 3 years (classes entering 2000 - 2003) before FoS and 2004/5
(the one year for which data are available following the introduction of FoS). The
available results suggest that, after FoS was introduced, enrollments in 1000-level
courses in the Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences (EES), in Ecology,
Evolution and Environmental Biology (E3B), and in Psychology (Psy: the Mind, Brain
and Behavior course) all increased; there was little effect on other Departments.
(Astronomy, Biology, Computer Science, Physics and Statistics; Chemistry does not
offer 1000-level courses directed at non-science majors), The three courses with the
largest shift are in subjects taught in FoS each year since inception and are new to most
students (few high schools offer neuroscience, biodiversity or earth science).
Figure 1: Change in enrollment of nonscience majors in science classes at CU pre- and
post FoS implementation; change in percent actual versus expected percentage
enrollments
Another goal of FoS was to increase awareness of multidisciplinary approaches to
science for majors. One possible outcome might be an increase in cross-departmental
majors and we are examining the number of seniors graduating in astrophysics,
biochemistry, and neuroscience and behavior (biophysics is excluded as major numbers
are at most 2/yr). The five-year pre-FoS percentages in cross-departmental majors
average 20% of all science majors (but vary from 14 to 24%); we are now collecting
data for graduating seniors from 2009 on as well as numbers of science majors within the
Departments (given the variability we will need an additional 4 years worth of data).
Approximately 30% of graduating seniors (300 students) majored in any science over
this period.
6
5. " lack of clarity in defining the content, that is, established scientific knowledge, that
students are expected to absorb"
FoS is not about "established scientific knowledge" (whatever that is, given the paradigm
shifts that occur from time to time), but rather about how scientific information is
acquired and analyzed. FoS is just that: breaking news. The misperception that science is
about settled facts is a myth that we wish to dispel for our students.
6. " lack of a sufficiently supportive text"
The text for FoS is "Scientific Habits of Mind", together with the weekly lectures. FoS
changes from semester to semester and evolves across years. There is no available
textbook that could support the course.
7. " incomplete integration of lecture, seminar, assignment, and exam components."
We agree that this is something on which we must continue to work. Students often do
not understand relations between the lecture, the readings and the seminar activities. In
the current year, we created separate syllabi for each week in which these relations are
made explicit for the students. Syllabi for this semester are attached. Integration was the
focus of an intensive effort this past summer and we will see if it pays off.
8. "There is no clear consensus or precedent concerning the best way to teach science to
college students. Nor indeed is there a simple way to assess the success of such
endeavors. FoS has, from the start, been considered an experiment and a work in
progress. While it will take longer to measure its impact accurately, COSI has used
current indicators to assess whether FoS is likely to provide the basis for an outstanding
science education at Columbia. We are not convinced that this point has been established.
However, we do find that FoS has made several achievements and has established a
strong organizational structure, which may allow it to develop into the cornerstone of an
outstanding science education. At present we therefore neither recommend that FoS
immediately be made a permanent part of the Core, nor do we recommend that FoS be
discontinued at the earliest opportunity. Instead, we recommend an extension of the trial
period for FoS of four years.
We do not agree with the recommendation for a four-year extension. Students will
conclude that there is little confidence in this effort and that it is to be wound down. This
conclusion will make our task much more difficult. At a minimum, the course should be
extended for five years with the endorsement of the CoI for our efforts and in the
expectation that the course will long be a part of the Core Curriculum. With anything
less, we believe that the faculty will be shooting down the only ongoing effort of this sort
without having provided any more effective alternative.
9. This section continues: However, COSI has a strong opinion that the basic design of
FoS must be re-evaluated as soon as possible, taking into account misgivings expressed
by COSI and by students, in order to realize the significant gains in its impact that will be
required to establish the course as a permanent part of the Core. This opinion is motivated
by the idea that FoS organizers are not currently inclined to alter two basic features of the
coursebig lectures and four topicsthat COSI believes are significant impediments to
greater success, and by the perception that several other features of the course have been
adjusted more slowly or less drastically than COSI would have recommended. Of course,
the success of this recommended path will continue to depend largely on the skills and
7
energy of FoS organizers and faculty, as well as on their willingness to respond to outside
opinions.
It is not only true that " FoS organizers are not currently inclined to alter two basic
features of the coursebig lectures and four topics; this opinion is shared by most FoS
faculty and is a major attraction of this course. We strongly disagree that the structure is
"an impediment to greater success"; a challenge perhaps, but science as it is now
practiced has a strong interdisciplinary cast and we aim at science now and future science
rather than an historical approach. It might be instructive for COSI to consider the
logistical challenges of, for example, teaching a core course in Chemistry to all entering
students. There would be greater unity of theme, a possible textbook and so forth, but
finding 18 faculty members to teach seminars and running 28 sections within a single
Department (each semester!) would presents an enormous burden to Chemistry which, as
is the case for most Science Departments, has substantial service obligations across
majors.
10. Finally this point concludes with: We do not prescribe any specific numerical
objectives for FoS as it approaches the end of an extended trial period. However, it would
be reasonable to require a change in the overall sentiment of student appreciation that
reflects satisfaction about what is learned and a substantial degree of excitement and
newly kindled interest in science. This can be evaluated in much the same way as COSI
has evaluated FoS to produce this report. Additionally, new data that reflect changes in
enrolments, competence, and attitudes in science, plus longer-term student feedback."
The recently revised evaluation form will enable us to track these issue in the context of
formative development. We are also in active discussion about the best way to assess the
development of analytical skills in our students. We agree that student appreciation needs
to be increased, although we should be careful not to let a popular vote decide what is
pedagogically best.
A. Recommendations of COSI:
1. LecturesPhysical Changes
"a. Offer the lectures at multiple times in a smaller lecture hall."
We tried this last Fall; it led to no improvement in student evaluations. The lecture room
at TC we are currently using may be an improvement; we will see.
b. Enhance the audio-visual capabilities in whatever lecture hall is used, to facilitate
closer engagement of students with the lecturer.
The acoustics of the Teacher's lecture hall are such that we do not need microphones for
the student questions, even when they are at the back of the balcony! In addition, slides
are projected onto auxilliary screens on the balcony. Why we do not have an
equivalently equipped auditorium for our own students is worth exploring.
2. LecturesContent Changes
"a. Within the current structure of the lectures, diminish the sharp transitions in topic,
substance, and presentation style between lecture units and between lecturers."
Short of having lectures on a single topic delivered by a single person; or on multiple
topics by a robot, this is not a feasible option. In any case, the lectures, by and large, are
well received.
8
"b. Change the structure of the lectures to implement a thematic organization around a
single broad topic each semester."
Another interesting hypothesis, but again one without empirical support. Imagine for a
moment that we chose the theme of light. Would it really help as a theme if there were 3
lectures by a physicist, 3 by an astronomer, 3 by an ecologist and 3 by a neuroscientist
(assuming you could get 4 superb lecturers interested in the same topic)? This approach
was attempted at Stanford (courses centered on light and water, respectively) and fizzled
(or dribbled away) after 3 and 1 semesters, respectively. FoS was initially planned by the
2002 COSI and we did quite substantial research into what similar approaches might
have been tried at other institutions; hence the data for Stanford.
"c. In whatever lecture structure, reduce the emphasis on topics at the forefront of current
scientific research, and add coverage of foundational areas of science."
The excitement of science is forefront, not foundations. Having said this, a careful
examination of the lectures will reveal considerable material that is foundational.
"3. SeminarsStructural Changes
a. Structure seminars with greater emphasis on lecture content and closer connection to
the lectures."
We agree and this has been a guiding principle of course revisions for two years now.
We have introduced a seminar for the seminar leaders on each week's topic. Seminars do
cover the main points of the lecture. We append one sample Instructors Guide that
illustrates this approach. A complete set is available upon request.
4. SeminarsContent Changes
"a. Reduce the emphasis on isolated methodological exercises and testing."
We are not entirely clear what is meant here. There are no methods that we can use in
common across topics. The two-point threshold is extremely informative in terms of
brain organization but useless for astronomy. The faculty of FoS are in strong agreement
on the necessity of emphasizing scientific reasoning and the seminar exercises are
designed to meet this aim.
"b. Implement a more varied use of mathematics and statistics."
It is not clear what "more varied" means here but we have recruited Dan Rabinowitz to
bring some coherence to the statistical approaches.
5. Course Materials
"a. Adopt and use a text, or an organized set of course materials, with a more
conventional format that can provide continuity through different lecture components and
that will extend the lecture material to a wider scope of science."
We cover our concerns about this point above. It is not clear to us how coverage of a
wider scope of science in a text (topics on topics not covered in FoS?) would help
student understanding. FoS does appear effective in increasing student exploration of
specific scientific topics (see Fig. 1).
b. Limit the use of assigned readings in the primary literature, and select for such
readings only seminal papers that are also intellectually accessible to students.
9
We agree in principle and tried this approach in the pilot version of the coure and in the
first year. However, given the pervasive jargon in use in the primary literature, each
paper needed an extensive set of notes and a glossary, and it was difficult to convince
students that the papers were directly accessible to them. To increase the engagement of
students planning to major in a science, for several years we also ran a journal club each
week in which a senior faculty member or Fellow discussed papers from the primary
literature. However, attendance was generally low (though often included students from
previous years of FoS ) and we concluded that this approach was not effective in reaching
its target audience. Again, it is regrettable that COSI was not in contact with FoS faculty.
This was a reasonable experiment and we tried it.
6. Examinations
a. Develop and use exams that test knowledge and understanding of lecture content as
well as testing methodological skills.
Our own experience jibes with this suggestion. Material from the lectures has been much
more strongly emphasized for the past three years.
C. From COSI: Criteria for Evaluation of the Frontiers of Science Course
COSI strongly recommends identification now of criteria on which FoS will be judged at
the full evaluation three years hence.
We strongly disagree with the recommendation on the time frame of evaluation (see
preamble).
COSI recommends these criteria:
1. Improvement in the course evaluations of FoS such that:
a. On the most important questions on these evaluations, "overall course quality" and
"overall course content," the Frontiers course receives scores at least comparable to
those that introductory science courses in biological sciences, chemistry,
mathematics, physics, and psychology receive.
We have been working towards improved student evaluations (see above). Using our
original evaluation form, scores were improving gradually (changes were statistically
significant for the last year we could use the original form). Working with Lois Putnam
on behalf of COSI, the new, College mandated, evaluation form has been revised and will
be a useful tool for this purpose.
It would also be useful to have a complete set of data for introductory science courses for
comparison using the revised FoS evaluation form. One major difference, however, is
that unlike FoS which is required, students choose to take these courses (or choose the
major which requires this course) and the context of evaluation will thus inevitably differ.
2. Substantiation in course evaluations or through other evidence that:
a. The integration of the lectures and seminars is effective.
This is an explicit item on the revised evaluation form.
b. If the current lecture structure is retained, that continuity through the lecture units is
being provided.
As described above, for the FoS faculty the most important goal is developing the
students ability to analyze scientific data. These analystical approaches are emphasized
throughout the lectures and in the seminars. We will be able to track success in students
10
perception of analytical approaches across units using the revised evaluation form.
c. Both development of methodological skills and acquisition of scientific knowledge
are being achieved by students.
See response to item B6 above.
d. A textbook, or an organized set of course materials, has been adopted and is being
effectively utilized to unify the content of the lectures.
See response to item B5 above.
e. Clear expectations for student learning and achievement, clearly explained to
students, are being established and used.
We agree; see the appended syllabi.
f. Assignments focus on, and examinations fairly test, student progress and achievement
in meeting these expectations.
We agree and an item in the revised evaluation form will track this goal.
3. Demonstration of a positive effect of the Frontiers course on:
a. The number of students interested in science.
There are two ways of tracking student interest in science. One is a direct questionnaire.
for example, one adminsitered before matriculation, just before graduation and 5 and 10
years post-graduation. We devised such an instrument for the pilot year of Frontiers
(2003/4) to compare the 350 students who took the course with the remaining students
that did not, and there was a preliminary suggestion one year out that FoS increased
student confidence in mathematical ability (this generally pluumets during the first year
in college). Given the many changes in FoS since the pilot year, it would be very
valuable to construct a new survey instrument and use it systematically and we strongly
encourage the College to undertake this, rather considerable, effort.
b. The number of students interested in science courses aimed at non-scientists.
The other way to address this issue is to look at the number of non-science majors taking
more than the required number of science courses. These data are currently available for
graduating seniors only through 2008 (without some idea of variability from year to year
we cannot yet assess any potential effects of FoS) but we intend to follow them annually.
We do see a pre- vs post-FoS shift in choice of 1000 level courses by non-science majors
(see Fig. 1) into subjects included in FoS since inception but not generally included in
high school curricula.
c. The scientific knowledge and skills of students pursuing non-science majors.
This is a very important goal and we are working on measuring these skills explicitly. It
is worth pointing out that this kind of evaluation would be valuable for all 1000 level
courses in the science departments and suggest that the effort should be collaborative.
d. The preparation of students for subsequent science courses.
11
We agree and welcome suggestions from the faculty teaching introductory courses in the
sciences about how this might be accomplished.
e. Students' perception of the value, importance, and utility of science in their lives.
See response to C. 3a above.
Our general response to the third portion of the COSI report (III. Evaluation
Considerations and Findings, p 4 to 18 of the COSI report) is included in the preamble to
this response; wed be happy to discuss specific comments as required.
Many thanks for your input; we look forward to continuing this conversation.
David Helfand
Don Hood
Darcy Kelley
Nicholas Christie-Blick
12
Table 1
Former Columbia Science Fellows 2003 - 2009 (# of years appointed Fellow):
Robin Herrnstein (2) Science education consultant
http://www.astro.columbia.edu/~herrnstein/
Justin Wright (1) Asst. Prof., Department of Biology, Duke
http://www.biology.duke.edu/wrightlab/research.htm
Patricia Persaud (0.5) Research position Caltech, Instructor Pasadena City College
http://www.gps.caltech.edu/~ppersaud/ ppersaud@gps.caltech.edu
Elizabeth Cottrell (1) Curator/Research Geologist Dept. of Mineral Sciences,
Smithsonian Institution http://mineralsciences.si.edu/staff/pages/cottrell.htm
Damon Chaky (2) Asst. Prof. of Mathematics and Science, The Pratt Institute
http://pratt.edu/~dchaky/ dchaky@pratt.edu
Tom Koutavas (1) Asst. Prof., Dept. of Eng Science and Physics, CUNY
http://www.csi.cuny.edu/faculty/KOUTAVAS_ANTHANASIOS.html
Andrea Holmes (0.5) Asst. Prof. of Chemsitry, Doane College
http://www.doane.edu/Academics/Departments/Chemistry/Faculty/AndreaHolmes/8637/
Maulik Parikh (3) Assistant Professor, Center for Astronomy and Astrophysics
(IUCAA), Pune, India
http://iucaa.ernet.in:8080/iucaa/jsp/People.jsp
Kerry Brown (3) Lecturer, School of Science & Technology, Nottingham Trent
University http://www.ntu.ac.uk/research/about/index.html
Jennifer Blanck (2) Science teacher, The Collegiate School, NYC
Sharmila Kamat (3) Research adjunct; Columbia University; Teaching in India
http://www.linkedin.com/pub/sharmila-kamat/0/b97/258
Bruno Tremblay (1) Asst. Prof., McGill University
http://www.mcgill.ca/meteo/staff/tremblay/
Michelle Buxton (2) Associate Research Scientist Yale University
http://www.astro.yale.edu/people/michelle-buxton
Stuart Gill (3.5) Disaster Risk Management, The World Bank, Washington, D.C.
spdgill@gmail.com
Clara Chui (1) Research Assistant Professor at the Earth Dynamic System Research
Center, National Cheng Kung University
P. Timon McPhearson (3.0) Assistant Professor of Ecology, Eugene Lang College, The
New School for Social Research
http://www.newschool.edu/lang/faculty.aspx?id=24954
Claire LePichon (0.5) Senior Research Associate Genetech San Francisco
http://www.linkedin.com/pub/claire-le-pichon/5/9a0/b40
Jenna Cole (3.0) Adjunct Ass't Professor Western Kentucky University
Rachna Kaushik Rangan (2.0) Clinical Research Scientist, Avon Company
Nicolas Biais (3.0) Associate Research Scientist, Department of Biological Sciences,
Columbia University
Josef Lazar (1.0) Head: Laboratory of Cell Biology at the Institute of Systems Biology
& Ecology, Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic.
http://www.usbe.cas.cz/index.php?node=230
13
Alison Keimowitz (3.0) Assistant Professor, Chemistry Department, Vassar College.
http://chemistry.vassar.edu/research/faculty/index.html
Angela Gee (1.0) Assistant Professor in the Biology Department at LaGuardia
Community College.
Senior Faculty in Frontiers and their Departments
Wallace S. Broecker Earth and Environmental Sciences
Julio M. Fernandez Biological Sciences
David J. Helfand Astronomy
Donald C. Hood Psychology
Darcy B. Kelley Biological Sciences
David H. Krantz Psychology and Statistics
Don J. Melnick Ecology Evolution and Environmental Biology
William H. Menke Earth and Environmental Sciences
Harry James Simpson Jr Earth and Environmental Sciences
Horst Stormer Physics
Jacqueline. Van Gorkom Astronomy
Peter B deMenocal Earth and Environmental Sciences
Steven L. Goldstein Earth and Environmental Sciences
John Colin Mutter Earth and Environmental Sciences
Robert E. Pollack Biological Sciences
Nicholas Christie-Blick Earth and Environmental Sciences
Peter Eisenberger Earth and Environmental Sciences
Frederik B Paerels Astronomy
Sidney R. Hemming Earth and Environmental Sciences
Joy Hirsch Psychology
Kathryn V Johnston Astronomy
Stuart J. Firestein Biological Sciences
Terry A Plank Earth and Environmental Sciences
Daniel Rabinowitz Statistics
Frontiers of Science Faculty on Frontiers of Science
Frontiers of Science was oered as a pilot course to 260 rst-year students in the fall
of 2003, and has been a required part of the Core Curriculum in Columbia College (and
open to GS students) since the Fall of 2004. Over the past four years 22 senior faculty and
26 Columbia Science Fellows have taught in Frontiers (as have several senior researchers
from Lamont). The faculty have come from all seven of the natural sciences departments:
eight from DEES, four each from Astronomy and Biology, two from Psychology, and one
each from E3B, Physics, and Chemistry, plus one from CUMC. The Fellows come from
a wide variety of backgrounds; their creativity and energy have added immeasurably to
the development of the course, and many have now gone on to faculty positions where
they are utilizing the experiences in, and materials developed for, in Frontiers in their new
institutions (see Appendix 1).
The faculty teaching Frontiers in any given semester meet for a total of 2.5 hours per
week to discuss the course; in addition, they meet several times per semester for two-hour
practice sessions for upcoming lectures. An Executive Committee consisting of ve faculty
members and one Science Fellow meet at irregular intervals to review and update course
policies, to conduct the Science Fellows selection process, etc. Finally, the course Directors
have had more than three dozen meetings with students from organized committees of
student government, ad hoc groups, and individuals in which their perspectives on the
course were recorded; some of these students comments have served as the impetus for
implemented changes in the course. The most notable example was a report prepared by
the Academic Aairs Committee of the Columbia College Student Council.
This intensive set of faculty interactions provides a venue for constant self-assessment of
the course and a lively forum for considering changes in policies and practices. In addition
to standard course evaluations, we have conducted two student surveys, one during the
pilot year and one in 06-07; the results of the latter are being analyzed in the Department
of Psychology and a separate report will be forthcoming describing the results. Meanwhile,
in response to a request from Dean Quigley, the current course Director solicited personal
assessments of the course from the senior faculty who have taught in it (as well as from a
couple of graduated Fellows). Their unedited responses are provided
Prof. Robert Pollack (Biological Sciences)
I will assess my own experience and my sense of the utility and success of the course in
the eyes of its students, in that order.
My experience: I have taught for two successive fall-semesters, under the directorships of
David Helfand and Don Hood, respectively. The course has enabled me to learn a host
of modern teaching tools, a bundle of new results in sciences distant from my own, and
a raft of unrecognized soft-spots in my own knowledge of how best to make a point to a
wholly naive group of new arrivals. FOS has delivered these benets to me through the
1
unexpected elegance and humbling cooperativeness of its teaching faculty. This past fall I
spent all day Monday and all day Tuesday on the lectures, the faculty lunches, the faculty
seminars to prepare ourselves for our seminar sections, and then my two sections. I did
not ever have the sense of wasting a moment. The student assessment of me as a lecturer
and as a seminar leader went up by a statistically signicant amount from the rst to the
second time I taught and I have every hope of further improvement on my part in the next
year; that is the gift of my colleagues to me, and through me, to my students. If there is
a faculty-level meaning to a curricular novelty deserving to be considered as a core course,
that would be my best example of it. It would also be the faculty-level reason to continue
FOS as a core course.
The experiences of my students: We provide students with the opportunity to acquire
strategies of inference and deductive thought, appreciation for the creative fertility of the
application of the scientic method to a question, respect if not awe for the complexity
and possible instability of the global systems on which life itself depends, and a chance to
have their own opinions on all these matters. We also oblige them to learn the languages
of science: statistical signicance, graph-reading and the like. This makes FOS a core
course, but unlike the others, it is taught not in translation but in the original language.
The faculty of FOS, as the agent of the evolution of this course, probably can diminish the
number of examples and texts without losing the essence of the course, and in so doing
make the course even more a member of the core curriculum.
Summary: this is a great experiment still in progress, very exciting and complex. I suspect
CC was like this in the early 1920s. FOS should receive continued support, funding, and
recognition as an essential part of the Colleges core curriculum. I would be very glad to
participate in its growth and stabilization in coming years.
Prof. Don Hood (Psychology)
For most of my 38+ years at Columbia, I taught a large lecture course that fullled the
science requirement. While this course was rated more favorably by students than FOS
has been thus far, FOS does a better job of teaching them about the nature of science,
as well as about how scientists think. Here is one of four emails I received this year from
my seminar of 20 students, the other three were similar in theme. I just wanted to thank
you for a great semester. It really helped me in terms of my transition from high school
to college academics. Not only that, but I also learned some great things in Frontiers. In
fact, just the other day, I did a back-of-the-envelope calculation in Rockerfeller center to
gure out how much money (in pennies) was stored in a giant shallow pool. It turned out
to be $2 million!
Prof. Wally Broecker (DEES)
Because I currently give only one fall term lecture in Frontiers, I really dont have my nger
on the courses pulse. I do however retain an extremely high regard for this eort. Whether
2
or not our Freshmen like it, they need it. An enormous eort by many gifted people goes
into making it a success. Last term Don Hood did an incredible job of cranking up both
faculty and students. I hope that David Helfand will take to heart Dons suggestions for
improvement.
Prof. H. James Simpson (DEES)
Impressions as a teacher in Frontiers of Science
My experience with the course consists of my having been a seminar leader of one sec-
tion during each of three fall semesters (2003, 2004, 2005), a member of the Executive
Committee during those years, and a recruiter of DEES postdocs.
Impacts on CU Science Faculty and Departments
There are very few activities at CU that integrate science faculty members from a number of
departments in a sustained eort involving direct contact with Columbia College students.
Frontiers exposes a number of science faculty to some of the best lecturers at the university,
on material that is intrinsically interesting but far beyond the range of expertise that
individual faculty are likely to have. Thus participating in the course should be helpful to
adding breadth of general science knowledge to faculty, and in exposure to the culture of
a number of other science departments. The professional lives of faculty at CU seem to
revolve, by necessity, around their own home departments (as well as research colleagues
at other universities), almost to the exclusion of interactions with faculty and students
from other science departments.
The structure of Frontiers, relying on a signicant number of postdocs from dierent science
elds to lead seminar sections, provides intensive undergraduate teaching opportunities
that should be helpful to the postdocs in gaining experience that helps them decide if they
want a career involving teaching. This experience should also be helpful in competing for
academic jobs after leaving Frontiers. The latter denitely seems to have been an asset for
a number of Earth & Environmental Science postdocs.
Leading seminars in Frontiers was one of the most dicult teaching situations Ive experi-
enced at Columbia, especially on topics for which I have very little professional expertise.
I dont know any obvious solutions which would have made a major improvement for me,
other than continuing to stay involved with the course long enough to have more depth of
knowledge in these outside elds.
Frontiers appears to have had a substantial positive impact on undergraduate interest
in earth and environmental sciences. We have signicantly higher enrollments in our
undergraduate courses now than prior to the introduction of Frontiers in Fall 2003, so
from the view of DEES, Frontiers has been one of the most important innovations at
Columbia College in a number of decades.
3
Impacts on Columbia College students
I think the logic for the value of some kind of core requirement in science for CC students
is sound, especially when it exposes all of the 1st year students to some of the very best
communicators on the science faculty at Columbia. I think exposure to a broad range of
science is probably more valuable to non-science majors at CC than more depth within
a single science discipline. Science and technology are at the heart of many of the most
dicult issues concerning the future of our civilization. Our citizens in the US are not
prepared to understand most of those issues, and as a result tend to make very poor
choices of leaders at many levels of government. If every graduate from Columbia College
has some comfort with a broad range of scientic and technical issues, they are more likely
to help raise the level of the dialogue in their future professional lives. And some of our
current graduates will probably have very inuential positions in the future, where better
understanding of science could make a major dierence.
The design of Frontiers is very dierent than most scientist faculty would be likely to
be comfortable with, in the abstract. My respect for the basic structure of Frontiers is
substantially higher now than prior to having been involved with the course. Some of
the most rewarding episodes for me were when students who had initially approached
the course like a visit to the dentist for root canal surgery volunteered that they had
actually learned some important and valuable things in the course (long after the grades
for the semester had been submitted). They were able to assimilate critical insights from
technically complicated material that previously would not have been accessible to them.
Suggestions and concerns
As currently structured, Frontiers depends very heavily on the energy and lecturing skills
from a small number of science faculty who are unusually gifted in communicating to large
audiences. It is not obvious that we will be able to keep recruiting to the course that level
of talent indenitely. The course takes a great deal of eort, especially for the lecturers.
I dont think well really know how successful the model will be until weve gone through
several generations of lecturers. This probably means continuing with the current structure
for at least another ve years, in my view.
I dont think we have gured out how to engage science major students in Frontiers in
the most eective way. It may be that subsequent summer and academic year research
experiences provide the best improvement alternative. From the viewpoint of our depart-
ment, I hope that Frontiers will be oered long into the future, with whatever evolution
in structure and content seems attractive.
Prof. Jacqueline van Gorkom (Astronomy)
I think I have taught more seminars than any other faculty member.
4
Negative: This is the least glamorous teaching assignment you can get. Going back to
being a TA at 60 is not that easy; besides you are competing with a bunch of good-
looking, young, smart Science Fellows, who seem to do this FULL time, not an option
for professors. After a while it gets hard to put up with the way other people give their
lectures.
Positive: You learn a ton of new things, good for old brains. It may be a cliche, but it
has made me think dierently about some things in astronomy. The team work is AMAZ-
ING.. who could imagine that at a so-called research university, faculty and fellows from
dierent departments would get together in weekly meetings to discuss TEACHING.
The net result must be positive. I always teach this in fall and every January I have
withdrawal symptoms: what, these guys are doing Frontiers again and I am not in it! This
year is worse, I wont even teach it next year.
This year for the rst time, I heard from ve dierent students that THEY were missing
Frontiers. We must have had a good time.
How are we doing?
I think by now I know how to engage the great majority of students in seminar. It works
best if they do things, read, discuss, present, select articles. I think we should not be
lecturing in seminar. We should let the students talk about what they learned, what they
did not understand and what else they want to learn. The lecture questions from last year
was a great way to get them started. This class has to be DIFFERENT and much more
interesting than your regular science class. Getting an opportunity to talk about what you
learn IS dierent.
I think homework assignments should be reading, preparing a debate, making your own
planet and so on, it should not be making calculations without them realizing what the
implications are of the numbers that they get. I would much prefer to try to make habits
an integral part of activities in seminar than to give these endless homework sets.
We have perfected the mechanics of giving problems, midterm and nal, and spending way
too much time and eort on it. I would be happy to get rid of it all. This course should
be about inspiring, not about evaluating.
I think this semester we nally got everything so well organized and prepared that the
students had nothing to complain about.. a major achievement, yet the students were not
thrilled by the course overall. I dont think that continuing to make small improvements
will ever make this a favorite class. We will have to change it drastically.
Lectures.. maybe we could do 13 dierent topics.. and only recruit the best and most
inspiring lecturers from Columbia and other places. Make seminars more geared toward
science and society.. we could do bigger things that go over several seminars and evaluate
students on their participation in seminar only.
we should not give up, but I think we should change. I do value student opinion. This year
5
we got many thoughtful remarks in the evaluations on how this course could be improved.
Several students remarked that we were trying to do something very dicult. Thats
probably true. In a sense I think it is pretty amazing how many good things have been
put in place, now we just need to make it even better.
Prof. Peter Eisenberger (DEES)
Teaching FOS for three years has been a great learning experience for me both as a
scientist and as a teacher. First and foremost it is clear FOS is providing for our Columbia
undergraduates a previously lacking and greatly needed scientic literacy component in
their education. So in my opinion FOS is essential for Columbia and the only issue should
be how it can be improved and whether we should not require a two semester version of it
for each student. I will not discuss the second issue here other than to assert that the need
for scientic literacy is great and it deserves more time than it is currently being given
within the Columbia core curriculum.
I have to admit at being very surprised, even shocked, at how desperately lacking all too
many entering Columbia students are in the basic skills to even analyze scientic results yet
alone explain anything using its principles. This raises a very important issue that we need
to clarify: What is the primary educational objective of FOS? Are we trying to increase
the interest of students in science in which case increasing numbers of science majors would
be a useful metric for success? Are we trying to provide basic scientic literacy skills in
which case the metric might be the ability for our students to be an informed citizen that
is able to evaluate the claims of diering views,(e.g., Is global warming a threat or not?)
and form an independent view themselves based upon knowledge rather than their biases?
In FOS there is a large gap between the scientically literate (less than 1/3) to which the
rst objective makes sense and the larger (more than 2/3) essentially scientically illiterate
group for which increasing scientic literacy is the only realistic objective to have. It is
very dicult if not impossible for one course to meet both objectives simultaneously. An
example of the problem is the diculty many students have to understand the dierence
between causality and correlations and therefore the conclusions one can come to from new
information.
When I was at Princeton we faced a similar challenge with the same frustrations on both
the faculty and students as in FOS when one attempted to provide one format to a very
large and diverse class in terms of their scientic capabilities. We decided to divide the
course into two groups with diering levels of depth on the same subjects which improved
the students evaluations and the faculties satisfaction with the course.
I am aware that having two tracts goes against the tradition of the Core but unless we
address the consequences of the great diversity in the capabilities of the class we will be very
constrained in the progress we can make and the frustrations will persist. I believe that the
demand for scientic literacy in modern society is growing and the social consequences of
failing to provide it are becoming increasingly serious. One could justify this perspective
in many ways but I will assume for this comment that there is a broad consensus about
6
it. Thus I conclude scientic literacy is an essential need for our students and consistent
with the general objectives and traditions of the Core curriculum. So I strongly encourage
that we focus on the scientic literacy objective but still enable the scientically literate
to have a challenging learning experience. Besides the two curricular approach one might
consider separating the sections of FOS into those with scientic literacy and those who
need the skill to be strengthened. One could have a common lecture but the class work and
assignments could dier. Alternatively one might consider focusing on scientic literacy in
mixed sections but providing some independent projects that challenged the scientically
literate student and could stimulate interest for them in a given area of science.
Thus in my opinion there is a great need for the course and that we need to be careful and
not confuse the reasons for diculties it has experienced. In my view those diculties will
persist until we nd a way to address the great gap that exists in the scientic literacy of
our students, which of course is itself a clear indication for the critical need for the FOS
course to be required for all undergraduates. I would be remiss if I did not comment on the
great debt we owe Darcy and David for their pioneering and arduous eorts in developing
this course. I am glad to contribute in a small way to this important eort.
Prof. Damon Chaky (former Science Fellow, now on the faculty at the Pratt Institute)
I am proud to say that Frontiers has had a profound eect on me both as an educator and
as a researcher. As an Assistant Professor at another institution, I am teaching a course
I which have directly modeled on Frontiers, and two others which have been inspired by
components of it. The uency which I gained through Frontiers on subjects outside my
own eld has opened up new research opportunities that allow me to break new ground in
my discipline and in my institution.
While Columbia students have a basic familiarity with science from their high school science
courses and for some students, a more thorough grounding from Advanced Placement
courses this education has not included exposure to the most compelling ideas at the
forefront of science today. The Frontiers unit on Nanotechnology, for example, presented
even the most science-inclined students with ideas not covered in a high school classroom.
The fact that these ideas were presented in a compelling way by a Nobel laureate and a
team of active postdoctoral researchers is something that only Columbia can oer to a
class of freshman students. Several students made the connection that Frontiers topics
would often receive coverage in the New York Times or other media; FoS provided the
grounding necessary to fully engage in these topics of our 21st century existence.
Although my own background is environmental chemistry a discipline most aligned with
the Climate Change material in the course my favorite students in Frontiers were often
at Columbia for study in the ne arts I believe that Frontiers provided these students with
an opportunity to discover that many of the concepts motivating state-of-the-art scientic
research are surprisingly understandable, if not inherently interesting. Undergraduates
who were not that into science had meaningful discussion on the potential of nanotech,
the insights provided by fMRI study of the living brain, and the condence of climate
7
change predictions. Even for the science majors, the exposure to the big questions and
the process of how we address them was largely new.
While the content of Frontiers was often fascinating, what truly sets Frontiers apart from
most non-major undergraduate science courses was the emphasis on science as a pro-
cess far more nuanced than the stepwise Scientic Method rote-learned in high school.
Frontiers helped illustrate the real complicated, big-issue research, where well-justied as-
sumptions and an understanding of the limits of data are necessary, and it did so with
real-world, ripped-from-the-headlines examples. For many students science majors in-
cluded I believe that Frontiers was the rst time that they were forced to consider these
Scientic Habits which are so crucial to research and general scientic understanding
of some of the more complicated science issues facing society today. Our science majors
leave Frontiers with a better understanding of commonalities with other disciplines, a more
thorough understanding of the power (and limits) of quantitative arguments, and examples
of what a scientist can possibly achieve at Columbia and in the larger world.
A common feeling among the faculty of the Frontiers program rst-year postdocs and
Nobel laureates alike was that participating in the course opened our eyes to incredi-
ble research in other scientic disciplines. All of us became more uent in the research
questions motivating other faculty, research groups, and departments at Columbia. The
existence of Frontiers has strengthened the sciences at Columbia by mere virtue of forcing
diverse faculty to share ideas for a common educational purpose.
In two years of teaching Frontiers, I wrote close to a dozen letters of recommendation
for students applying for internships, pre-med studies and law school admission. This
is a testament to the quality of the course: To perhaps a greater extent than other large
freshman-level science courses, students in Frontiers are expected to reason and to defend
their reasoning in a public forum. Students who have asked a Frontiers instructor to provide
a letter of recommendation for law school recognize the value of this educational model.
Although I am an earth scientist, Ive written two letters on behalf of students going into
biology. This is personally attering I interpret this as evidence that I was able to
demonstrate my genuine enthusiasm for another eld just as strongly as for my own
but also points to the fact that students recognize that science disciplines really do have
commonalities. (An insight that may have been lost by senior faculty not involved in the
course).
The course itself benets from the participation of all students, with all of their diverse
perspectives, in seminars. The largest science issues of today are broad by nature, and
require multiple perspectives to help identify the most promising avenues of research.
The study of climate change, for example, benets from the perspectives of atmospheric
chemists, oceanographers, geologists, biologists, ecologists, physicists, and astronomers (at
the very least). Furthermore, science such as this is carried out in a public forum, and has
societal implications. Frontiers provides the writing majors, the economists, the dancers
as well as the quantum physics majors to nd their own voice and join the discussion.
I strongly believe that FoS serves a valuable role at Columbia and in the Core Curriculum,
8
specically. With continued support from the administration, the course will continue to
improve and evolve. In its current incarnation, however, Frontiers presents topics which
resonate with the imagination and demand critical thinking. If the program continues to
attract participation of quality faculty with the ability to reach majors and non-majors
alike, the course will become a touchstone for a Columbia education. I feel fortunate
to have been associated with Frontiers in its introductory years, and look forward to its
continuing development within Columbias Core Curriculum.
Prof. Sidney Hemming (DEES)
Frontiers of Science is a great concept. Although my self esteem has suered from the
evaluations, I would continue to participate in the course in the future. I am not sure how
to x the negative reactions as it would be dicult to imagine more energy going towards
the goal of excellence in instruction.
Prof. Kathryn Johnston (Astronomy)
Frankly, my feelings about Frontiers are mixed.
Personally, I relished the opportunity to learn more about frontiers in other science elds,
and to get to know some of my colleagues in other departments. I think this type of course
should have a not-inconsequential impact on the cohesiveness of the science departments
across Columbia
Professionally, I was challenged to do things I have never done before (lecture in front of 500
students, and lead discussions of 20 students) - which was both exciting and overwhelming.
Again, the support of colleagues across the departments to help develop the material made
the experience unique and particularly useful for my growth as a teacher.
For these reasons alone - I am already signed up to teach Frontiers again.
The mixed part comes from not really being certain that I made a dierence to the
students, that I fullled the aims of the course in: (i) getting the students comfortable
with quantitative reasoning; and (ii) inspiring them to take more science courses. I am
hoping that I will get better at this with practice.
Prof. Frits Paerels (Astronomy)
Yes, the course should stay. I think the basic premise: contemporary science as it is
being discovered, so to say, taught by the people who are doing it, is brilliant. I am
prepared to argue with anyone who thinks it should be based on famous science from
the past, either through reading of famous works or through study of examples (i.e., the
list of counterarguments is too long to insert here). I also like the peripatetic format of
the seminars, and the possibility of conducting experiments. Paper studies and worked
9
examples worked much less eectively, in my experience. As far as reading papers from
the real literature is concerned, I think that doesnt work either; but I suspect it would
work very well if based on the Concept Mapping idea.
This has been the hardest class to teach, so far, solely for the reason that it turns out to
be dicult to engage 20 (40) students. Every time, and in nearly all groups, a certain
fatigue appears to be setting in after a few weeks of genuine enthusiasm. This could be
me; but I think this would improve a lot if the focus of the class is kept more strictly on a
smaller set of topics and ideas. Most objections I got all seem to be related to a perceived
shallowness of the class.
Prof. Darcy Kelley (Biological Sciences)
As a University, we must provide all of our students with the intellectual tools that they
need to understand how we learn about the natural world. Science is hard both to do and
to teach but to abrogate this responsibility would be a wretched failure.
Frontiers has been developed by a team of talented Columbia scientists who are dedicated
to making this dicult enterprise work. The course is an important new approach for
higher education and has attracted strong interest from our peer institutions. I intend to
contribute to Frontiers as long as I am at Columbia. The creation of Frontiers of Science
and the research contributions of my laboratory are the most important achievements of
my academic life.
Prof. Horst Stormer (Physics)
I believe Frontiers of Science is the most important class I am teaching. At the freshmen
level we can do so many things right and so many things wrong. I believe we are more
on the right than on the wrong side. There certainly is no lack of critical self-inspection
among the group, with the goal of becoming better yet.
Prof. Steve Goldstein (DEES)
I think it is an important course that gives Columbia students a proper perspective on
science (if not an appreciation of science) that will do them well in the future technological
world they will have to live in. Many dont realize it, but they are very lucky. Yes, I would
be willing to be involved again in the future.
Prof. Don Melnick (E3B)
For the students, Frontiers is an experience beyond what any other rst-year students get
at any peer institution. That is, access to the most senior scientists in the University,
10
subjects at the cutting edge of basic science and its application to real life, and a chance
to really understand science as a way of knowing, rather than a list of facts.
For the faculty, Frontiers has developed into an extraordinary scientic community with
all of the internal commitments, relationships and information exchange that exist in
any community. What makes it unique is that it is comprised of people from a culture,
academic science, that rewards a monastic existence of specialization, narrowness of focus,
and little regard for communication outside ones specialty. That a group of scientists from
post-doctoral teaching fellows, who are risking a lot to be a part of this community, to
senior faculty, who should be too rigid, too cranky, and too tired to try something new,
should form in this way, spend the hours they do together on a weekly basis, and delight
in learning each others science is the kind of workplace miracle we should all experience
once in our careers.
Two additional comments:
We should be proud of what weve done - it is unique, it is timely, and it is a service to
the students who attend the College.
If I were to change anything, I would make Frontiers a year long and double the number
of lectures we each give. In that way we would preserve the dynamic of the course, but
oer more substance in each area of inquiry and continuity in each semester.
Having said this, It would be my pleasure to continue to teach in this course in its current
form.
Conclusions
These remarks summarize the assessment of Frontiers of Science by those who have been
teaching in the course for the last four years. They suggest strong support among the
faculty most intimately involved with Frontiers for its continued inclusion in the Columbia
Core Curriculum. Most recognize the need for improvement...and are committed to work-
ing toward that end.
Attribution: Faculty comments were solicited and the report was compiled by this
semesters course Director, Prof. David J. Helfand, and was edited and approved by
the two previous course Directors, Profs. Darcy Kelley and Don Hood.
11
Budget
The current budget for Frontiers of Science includes operating expenses (e.g., rental of the
Teacher's College Auditorium, instructional materials), salary support for the Columbia Science
Fellows and staff support from the Center for the Core Curriculum, as well as funds to recruit
new Columbia Science Fellows. At present, the funding for these components resides in
Columbia College. Salary support for senior faculty participants resides in the Arts and
Sciences, as is the case for all other Columbia faculty, junior or senior.
The Columbia Science Fellows salaries constitute the major portion of expenses
associated with Frontiers of Science. There are currently 12 Fellows with salaries in the range of
50k annually (not including fringe benefits). The Fellows positions were originally conceived of
as teaching post-docs, a hybrid post-doctoral researcher/lecturer position. Until Fall 2011, each
Fellow's annual salary was supported at 70% from Columbia College and 30% from research
funds. However, a review by the Provost's office based on the teaching efforts of the Fellows (4
seminars annually), resulted in the recommendation that the position be shifted to "Lecturer-in-
discipline". Affirmative action requirements mandated that searches for Fellows be conducted
without explicit identification of a specific faculty research mentor and this in turn required
100% support of the Fellow for the initial year of appointment. By the end of Year 1 (end of
June) each Fellow must identify a research mentor and a source of support for the 30% annual
salary in years two and three. Detailed Buget information may be found in the Appendix.
Other funding for Frontiers of Science The pilot course for Frontiers of Science (Fall 2003) was
supported by funding from the Provost's Academic Quality Find: $25,000 for the Miller Theater
lectures and ~$200,000 for the Columbia Science Fellows, the use of the SIA auditorium and
other costs. The Course Directors provided all administrative support except for registration.
About 10 applications and inquiries have been submitted since 2003 for additional Frontiers
funding resulting in two gifts from individual donors, two awards from the Howard Hughes
Medical Institute and funding from the Dreyfus and Arthur Vining Davis Foundations. Most of
this funding has been used to support the 30% salary portion of Columbia Science Fellows,
which has turned out to be the most difficult part of the funding equation. The difficulty arises
from several sources. The first is that some scientific research areas covered in Frontiers receive
relatively little extramural funding to cover post-doctoral research. The second is that, especially
in the first year, Fellows typically have very little time to devote to research, creating a conflict
with research sponsors. Finally, the research interests of Fellows that are superb candidates for
the position may not match to a Columbia faculty member, or that faculty member may not have
funding for that particular project. This set of issues has been partly alleviated by the current
provision of 100% salary for new Fellows.
Website Frontiers of Science received funding to create its website, Frontiers of Science
Online, from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute. This site provides an entire semester's worth
of content including lectures, exams, instructor guides, seminar activities and readings to
educators or anyone; the site is free and freely available. While we do not explicitly track users,
the website appears to have been influential in the development of Frontiers-like courses at other
colleges and universities. Perhaps even more influential has been the radiation of former
Frontiers of Science Fellows to academic posts throughout the United States and abroad (See
Columbia Science Fellows, Appendix).
Appendix 3
Successful Transitions
to College Through
First-Year
Programs
SUMMER 2006 VOL. 8, NO. 3
Emerging trends and key debates in undergraduate education
A publication of the Association of American Colleges and Universities A publication of the Association of American Colleges and Universities
Successful Transitions
to College Through
First-Year
Programs
T
The usual approach to undergraduate science educa-
tion is to segregate science from non-science stu-
dents. Actual and potential science majors are pushed
into departmental programs to fulfill major require-
ments; non-science students make do with distribution
requirements. Recently, however, science educators
have envisaged courses that transcend traditional disci-
plinary boundaries. For example, the National
Research Councils report Bio2010 (2003) imagines a
truly interdisciplinary course used as an introductory
first-year seminar with relatively few details and no
prerequisites. This course is designed to introduce
students to many disciplines in their first year, and to
hold the interest of first-year students who are taking
disciplinary prerequisites. Similarly, the National
Research Councils 1999 Transforming Undergraduate
Education in Science, Mathematics, Engineering, and
Technology promotes introductory courses that explore
fundamental and unifying concepts and emphasize
evolving processes of scientific thought and inquiry.
Most students (science and non-science alike)
enter college having written essays and poems, solved
equations, and analyzed historical issues. Very few have
actually planned, carried out, and analyzed an actual
scientific experiment, in part because what scientists
really do is not included in most secondary school cur-
ricula. Students view science as a collage of facts to be
regurgitated on demand. In reality, however, science is
a way of thinking about and making sense of the world.
Real science is not what is known but what is to be
known. In addition, while the push to interdisciplinary
science courses is usually focused on students already
within a science trajectory, This perspective is equally
important for new students who do not see themselves
as connected to science. Frontiers of Science
Columbias new core curriculum science courseis
designed to address both of these issues.
The Challenges of Connecting All Students
to Science
Founded in 1754 as Kings College, Columbia College
is an undergraduate liberal arts college of Columbia
University. In 1919, the college began the development
of a set of courses that introduces students to essential
ideas of music, art, literature, philosophy, and political
thought. To foster active intellectual engagement,
courses in the core curriculum are taught as small sem-
inars beginning in the first year. As of 2003, the core
(specific courses taken by all students) included
Contemporary Civilization, Literature Humanities, Art
Humanities, Music Humanities, and University
Writing. The core curriculum is the hallmark of a
Columbia College education.
From the inception of the core, the omission of a
science course in the curriculum evoked comment. In
1933, Herbert Hawkes, then dean of the college,
Frontiers of Science and the Core
Curriculum of Columbia College
By Darcy Kelley, Howard Hughes Medical Institute Professor of Biological Sciences, codirector of Frontiers
of Science, Columbia University
14 AAC&U Summer 2006 peerReview
Summer 2006 peerReview AAC&U 15
stated, Ever since the course in
Contemporary Civilization was offered
fourteen years ago, the perennial question
of the relation of the sciences to this kind
of course has been discussed. It took
close to ninety years, however, for those
debates to bear fruit. Frontiers of Science
entered the core curriculum as a five-year
experiment in fall 2004.
Why did it take so long? Dean Hawkes
outlined several goals for a core science
course in the 1933 annual report: Meeting
the need of all students for a fund of
knowledge and a set of intellectual tools
that would be applicable in all of their
thinking and that would better them as
persons (58). Faculty fights over the new
science course erupted right away.
Content was a major issue:
What constitutes a real core
of knowledge in the sci-
ences? Which areas should
be included? What about
mathematics? Should sci-
ence students be educated
together with non-science students?
Since agreement on content could not be
reached, the faculty put together a roster
of four courses, half from the physical sci-
ences and half from the life sciences. All
were intended for non-science students,
none were required, and all courses
abruptly ended in 1941 as the war began.
The dormant issue of science in the
core arose again after the war ended. From
discussions, it became clear to then-
College Dean Harry Carman that even
though the course would be approved,
most of the science faculty strongly
opposed it and, since they would be
responsible, the original vision could not
work. The recommendation reverted to a
versionremarkably similar to the 1930s
sequenceto be offered at the earliest
opportunity; that opportunity never arose
(127). The science requirement eventually
returned to a distributional form: two sci-
ence courses in one department (for
depth) and one in another (for breadth).
Since that time, Columbias small, distin-
guished science departments have focused
on teaching large service courses and
smaller courses to their own majors. Many
departments did not even attempt to
mount a third, stand-alone course that
could fulfill the distribution requirement.
Breaking the Science Pyramid
If there is any place where adding science
to a general education requirement
should be feasible, it is Columbia, home
of the much-vaunted core curriculum.
Why was science left out? Why was (and
is) teaching a broad course in science so
hard? One factor was the general consen-
sus among the faculty about what a proper
science education should be, a consensus
adopted and reinforced by the profes-
sional schools, particularly medical
schools. This consensus has been most
vividly described by Princeton University
President Shirley Tilghmans metaphor
comparing traditional training in science
to a pyramid. In this model, students must
complete a foundation of introductory
science courses before they can progress
to more specialized courses and more
engaging scientific questions.
Lets say, for example, that a student
is interested in the way the brain han-
dles language. What must she do to take
a course on that subject? If she pursues
her interest via a biology perspective,
she must first take a year of chemistry,
then a year of introductory biology, an
introductory sequence in neuroscience,
and then, finally, she is allowed to enroll
in the course that interested
her in the first place.
However, that first year of
chemistry often discourages
all but the most determined,
which means our hypotheti-
cal student might never make
it to her original goal.
Suppose that we could break the
pyramid. Suppose that it were possible to
present the neurobiology of language in a
rigorous and insightful way along with
other topics at the frontiers of science:
global climate change, the origins of the
universe, quantum mechanics, molecular
motors. This attempt to break the pyra-
mid is a defining characteristic of
Frontiers of Science. It is at the heart of
faculty excitement about the course, but it
is also the aspect of the course that arouses
the strongest opposition from members of
the science faculty.
Steeped in the guild-like tradition of
the sequence of courses required to
become a physicist or a chemist or a biolo-
gist, many science faculty members think
that it is impossible to be both interesting
and rigorous in presenting difficult subjects
to entering students. Further, many view
the prospect of teaching outside of their
own disciplines (having a biologist teach
quantum mechanics or an astronomer
teach neuroscience) as either pointless or
extraordinarily difficult from the point of
view of faculty expertise. As a scientist
advances in training, his or her expertise
tends to become narrower and narrower.
For example, many astronomers, though
well versed in mathematics and physics,
have not taken a biology course since high
school.
What has changed recently is the
acceptance of the idea that, to be opti-
mally effective, scientists must acquire
cross-disciplinary skills. Nanoscience, the
realm of 10
-9
m (which is on the scale of
atomic diameters), is a superb example of
a cross-disciplinary forum: at this scale,
physics, biology, and chemistry meet and
scientific interactions can produce truly
novel insights. Most scientists would agree
on the importance of educating their
replacements; such an education will have
to be cross-disciplinary. Students at
Columbia can begin to be trained that
way through Frontiers of Science. This
kind of scientific collaboration, moreover,
can be tremendous fun for the faculty,
and teaching Frontiers provides a built-in
collaborative forum for some of
Columbias best scientists.
A second impetus for the creation of
Frontiers was provided by the realization
that all students should learn about the
analytical tools that scientists use. We all
need the ability to critically examine scien-
tific evidence if we are to make wise
choices about todays most pressing
issuesclimate change, stem cells, nuclear
technology, transplantsand the problems
that we cannot now imagine but that we
will have to solve in the future. This set of
tools is outlined in Frontiers codirector
David Helfands Web-based text, Scientific
Habits of Mind. This text provides a unify-
ing theme across the physical sciences and
life sciences components of the course.
The students meet in seminars to use these
analytical skills to tackle scientific problems
from the current literature. Their summer
reading list before matriculation now
includes Bill Brysons A Short History of
Nearly Everything.
The high school curriculum typically
focuses on the recognized pillars of science:
biology, chemistry, physics and mathemat-
ics. The college curriculum follows these
precepts for science students by requiring
courses in each discipline for its majors.
Modern science, however, is not limited to
these subjects and is now strongly cross-dis-
ciplinary. Understanding this synergistic
approach is as important for students who
pursue majors outside of science as it is for
the budding acolytes. By introducing stu-
dents to different areas of science together
with the analytical tools used by all disci-
plines, Frontiers of Science deals head-on
with the real challenges of understanding
science today. Students gain an appreciation
of areas outside of the traditional curricu-
lum (earth sciences, neuroscience) as well
as the way in which knowledge from one
desicipline can inspire another.
A running joke in Frontiers is that we
must have a New York Times spy; it is
uncanny how the papers weekly Science
Times section tracks Frontiers topics and
themes. This coincidence demonstrates that
it is possible to enrich faculty members
interdisciplinary knowledge while teaching
cutting-edge science to eighteen- and nine-
teen-year-olds. We acknowledge that the
caution of generations of Columbia science
faculty was well placed: teaching Frontiers
is probably the biggest educational chal-
lenge that any faculty member has ever
faced. A seminar that includes an Intel sci-
ence winner and a student who is afraid of
math is difficult to get right; it is worth
attempting, though, and is tremendous fun. I
Editors NoteThis article is based on a
plenary presentation given at the pre-con-
ference symposium at the 2006 AAC&U
annual meeting.
References
Columbia University. 1933. Annual report of the
president and treasurer to the trustees,
June 30, 1933. New York: Columbia
University.
. 1946. A college program in action. New
York: Columbia University.
National Research Council. 2003. BIO2010:
Transforming undergraduate education for
future research biologists. Washington,
DC: National Academies Press.
National Research Council. 1999. Transforming
undergraduate education in science, math-
ematics, engineering, and technology.
Washington, DC: National Academies
Press.
16 AAC&U Summer 2006 peerReview
AMERICAN ACADEMY OF ARTS & SCIENCES AMERICAN ACADEMY OF ARTS & SCIENCES
S
C
I
E
N
C
E
A
N
D
T
H
E
E
D
U
C
A
T
E
D
A
M
E
R
I
C
A
N
A
M
E
R
I
C
A
N
A
C
A
D
E
M
Y
O
F
A
R
T
S
&
S
C
I
E
N
C
E
S
Edited by Jerrold Meinwald
and John G. Hildebrand
Science and the
Educated American:
A Core Component
of Liberal Education
SCIENCE AND THE EDUCATED AMERICAN 218
THE PROBLEM
Practicing scientists have strong views about what constitutes good preparation
in a particular discipline. While these views shift as science evolves, every mo-
lecular biologist would agree that a student needs to understand the genetic
code and the way in which proteins are assembled, and every neuroscientist
would agree that a student needs to understand how an action potential is
generated and how information is transmitted at the synapse. When it comes
to preparing science majors outside their particular scientific discipline, we find
few areas of agreement; even more contentious is what constitutes science
education for non-science majors.
For the future parent, social worker, businessperson, senator, poet, or
economist, what should completion of a science requirement confer? Is it im-
portant to know facts (the distance to the sun) or to be able to assess whether
the facts averred (in the media, on the Internet) are plausible? Should all col-
lege graduates be expected to be able to read and understand a scientific arti-
cle (Watson and Cricks Nature paper on the structure of DNA) as they are
expected to read a piece of literature (Herman Melvilles Moby-Dick)? That is,
should they be able to explain the question the paper addresses, how the au-
thors address the question, as well as explain what the findings mean?
I believe that the most important skill a science requirement can develop
is the capacity for critical analysis. In episode twelve of the seventh season of
West Wing, a runaway nuclear reactor in California is producing radioactive gas
that has to be pumped into a building inadequate for containment. The gas is
vented, and the reading just above the smokestack is at first 569 millirems; it
then stabilizes (two readings) at 561 millirems. The safe level of exposure
is 500 millirems, so the American people are informed of the exact levels re-
Science for All in a Core
Curriculum: Frontiers of Science
at Columbia University
Darcy B. Kelley
CHAPTER 10
219 SCIENCE FOR ALL IN A CORE CURRICULUM
corded. Millions take to the highways. Is this a plausible scenario? Why is 500
millirems considered safe and anything greater not safe? What does exposure
mean? How great is the risk that the building will explode (said to occur at 50
psi)? As I watch this episode, I think, If I were there, should I stay home or
set sail? Which way will the Santa Ana winds blow?
Life has a way of turning hypotheticals into actuals. Your mother has a
breast lump; it is biopsied and found to be estrogen-receptor negative. Her
doctor prescribes a drug that antagonizes the effects of that hormone. Should
you look for a new doctor? The effects of exercise and eating a diet rich in
vegetables, fruit, and fish are independently beneficial for warding off Alz-
heimers disease. Does this mean you should choose one strategy or adopt both?
What is the probability of a meteor hitting Earth in your lifetime? If one were
to hit, where should you be? The ability to analyze data and understand scien-
tific knowledge is essential for an informed citizenry and thus for effective
government. How can we achieve this goal within the context of a university
education?
AN APPROACH
In 2001, a group of Columbia University faculty members began to develop a
one-semester course, Frontiers of Science, that is now taken by every entering
Columbia College student. The immediate impetus for developing the course
was a survey, undertaken by the Universitys Committee on Science Instruction,
of the courses students were choosing to satisfy the Universitys three-course
science requirement. The survey found, for example, that although more than
five hundred entering students each year expressed some interest in preparing
for a career in medicine, only seventy to eighty graduated having fulfilled the
necessary requirements. For the rest, the typical science experience consisted
of one introductory chemistry course and a year of calculus. Thus, the major-
ity received a science education that did not even remotely expose them to the
driving forces of modern science, such as exciting new discoveries about the
way the physical universe and biological worlds work and interact.
The survey found that even for science majors the kind of training typical-
ly offered within a given department bore little resemblance to the multidisci-
plinary flavor of current research. The guild-like mentality of science training
presumes that students need to reach the top of the disciplinary pyramid be-
fore they can grapple with anything real. To ascend the pyramid, they must
master a long series of preparatory courses. Because only a handful of majors
ever reach the top, only a small percentage of students get to experience how
science is really done in a given field and what problems the field is currently
investigating. What if we could break the pyramid for students both with and
without a professed interest in science? Introducing science across disciplines
at the level at which it is actually practiced could set the nascent scientist on
an interdisciplinary trajectory and bring the excitement of science to students
SCIENCE AND THE EDUCATED AMERICAN 220
whose major impression is that it involves simply memorizing a great many
facts and equations.
An introductory, multidisciplinary science course for all students is usu-
ally considered impossible. That Frontiers of Science was launched in its cur-
rent form is largely attributable to an existing curricular structure at Columbia
College called the Core Curriculum, a series of seminars aimed at critical eval-
uation of important ideas in philosophy, literature, society, art, and music. All
entering students take the Core: the poet takes Literature Humanities, the
concert pianist Music Humanities, the accomplished historian Contemporary
Civilization, the nascent cosmologist Frontiers of Science. The Core provides
the required prescription for Frontiers: the early stages of a university educa-
tion should include a common learning experience for a cohort of students
with wildly different preparations, gifts, and interests.
WHAT IS FRONTIERS OF SCIENCE?
Like other elements of the Core Curriculum, Frontiers of Science is taught in
small seminars of twenty-two students. However, Frontiers of Science is mul-
tidisciplinary, with half the subject matter taken from the physical sciences and
half from the life sciences. Thus, a number of faculty members are involved in
teaching Frontiers over the course of the semester. Which sciences are taught
from among physics, chemistry, astronomy, earth science, molecular and
evolutionary biology, biodiversity, and neurosciencechanges from semester
to semester and from year to year depending on the faculty involved. In addi-
tion to teaching science and non-science majors together, Frontiers faces the
challenge of faculty teaching across disciplines; a cosmologist might teach
about molecular evolution.
Each unit of Frontiers of Science runs for three weeks; in addition to week-
ly seminars, a senior faculty member presents a lecture series on exciting dis-
coveries in a particular field. No attempt is made to develop a single theme
across the semester. The analytical skills that cut across disciplines are present-
ed in the online text, Scientific Habits of Mind (http://www.fos-online.org/
habitsofmind/index.html). Seminar sections are led by either a senior faculty
member or a Columbia Science Fellow, a combined lecturer/postdoctoral
position established specifically to meet the teaching needs of Frontiers of Sci-
ence. The development of the curriculum is a joint faculty effort spearheaded
by the Science Fellows.
THE CHALLENGES OF FRONTIERS: TEACHING AND LEARNING
Frontiers of Science comprises twenty-eight seminar sections taught to 550
students each semester by (usually) sixteen members of the faculty. A course
director and an assistant director of the Center for the Core Curriculum man-
221 SCIENCE FOR ALL IN A CORE CURRICULUM
age the logistics and organizational challenges. Teaching Frontiers of Science
means mastering current research in at least three disciplines beyond a faculty
members area of expertise. For example, most astronomers have not had sig-
nificant exposure to biology since high school, and many neuroscientists have
never taken a geology course. In the tradition of the Core Curriculum, Colum-
bia does not segregate science majors from non-science majors within Frontiers
of Science. Teaching a small seminar with a diverse group of students (chemists-,
poets-, and economists-to-be) is a significant challenge. The future chemist is
chomping at the bit to get into preparative chemistry, and the future poet thinks
she has escaped science by choosing Columbia. The Core Curriculum, however,
mandates as an educational philosophy that entering students have a common
experience in critical analysis.
The two cultures of C. P. Snow are forged in kindergarten. That they are
so evident in college students is thus no surprise. Frontiers of Science is taught
from the perspective of the ways in which scientists carry out their explora-
tions, experiments, observations, and mathematical models; many students
are stunned to discover that the memorization skills they so carefully mastered
in high schoolskills that were instrumental in their gaining admission to
Columbiado not serve them in the course. Frontiers of Science emphasizes
analysis and problem-solving. Many units rely on mathematical skills (algebra
and statistics), and most students are not used to viewing math as a tool to
solve problems rather than as a self-contained subject matter. While university-
level scientific research is increasingly multidisciplinary, few high school courses
reflect this change. Students feel they have barely come to terms with one
topic (for example, volcanoes) before they must switch to another (for exam-
ple, the brain). Aspiring astronomers find three lectures too brief an introduc-
tion to the most important subject on the planet, and the assignments may
not seem challenging enoughwhile their classmates may not even know
where to begin. Students do not enter college with well-honed skills in group
learning, and the day when their classmate from the Frontiers seminar is presi-
dent of the United States and is responsible for deciding whether to vent that
containment building described above seems impossibly distant.
COLUMBIA FACULTY AND CORE COURSES IN SCIENCE
The Columbia science faculty began discussing a general science course in
parallel with discussions about Contemporary Civilization, the first Core
Curriculum course, which was launched in 1919. The motivation then for
establishing a core science course was similar to the motivation that drove the
development of Frontiers of Science beginning in 2001, but the courses that
eventually were launched in 1934 bear little resemblance to Frontiers. Those
courses, Science A (physics and chemistry) and Science B (geology and biol-
ogy), were to be taken only by non-science students and could not serve as
SCIENCE AND THE EDUCATED AMERICAN 222
prerequisites for any real courses in any science department. They were ter-
minated at the outbreak of war in 1941, and although we do not have course
evaluations for those seven years, the experience must have been unsatisfactory.
By 1945, with the Core Curriculum well under way, a general science course
was again under discussion, but this time the goal was to create a course that
would include all students. The idea was
that a specially constructed and well-integrated two-year
course in the natural sciences be a required course for all
students who are candidates for a degree from Columbia
College, quite irrespective of whether such students plan to
enter one of the scientific professions or not . . . [and] that
such a course be staffed by men who are prepared to give
competent instruction in all of it, and not simply in some
fragmentary portion of it.
1
In her May 2006 address to the Columbia College graduating class, Dean
Kathryn Yatrakis noted:
The 1945 Committee was in fact quite emphatic about this
general science course being required of all students saying
that if it were to restrict the course to non-science students,
it would amount to lowering the general standard of inter-
est, enthusiasm, and inquisitiveness, and hence to exclude
those who would supply the chief stimulus to both teachers
and students.
The new attempt apparently had general support from the faculty as a
whole but foundered on the antipathy of the science faculty. The resulting
1946 report amounted to a recommendation for the reinstatement of Science
A and Science B when the financial climate permitted. Apparently the climate
did not sufficiently improve between 1946 and 1983, the year in which a fac-
ulty committee again recommended a single course for all students. The see-
saw continued, however: in 1990 another faculty committee recommended
against a single science course but did recommend the creation of a standing
Committee on Science Instruction (COSI). This committee, in the end, pro-
vided the impetus for Frontiers of Science.
The university administration (especially the provost and the dean of the
college) was from the outset highly supportive of change. A working group
adopted the 1983 recommendation, its form was shaped by the members of
COSI, and the future directors went forth to sell the idea, first to the science
faculties and then to the faculties as a whole. As in 1945, the science faculty
was skeptical: one distinguished senior chemist even informed the vice presi-
1. Columbia College Committee on Plans, A College Program in Action: A Review of Working
Principles at Columbia College (New York: Columbia University Press, 1946), 127.
223 SCIENCE FOR ALL IN A CORE CURRICULUM
dent for arts and sciences that the course would be created over my dead
body. While such a high level of opposition was unusual, the concerns voiced
by members of the science faculty were thoughtful and well founded. But
from their meetings with the science departments, the course directors usually
emerged, like the Pied Piper of Hamlin, trailing at least one enthusiastic faculty
member, typically a scientist of extreme distinction with a passion for convey-
ing the beauty and power of science to the public. This initial group recruited
another group of more junior faculty members (the Columbia Science Fellows),
and after a pilot semester in Fall 2003, Frontiers of Science appeared as a five-
year experiment in the Core Curriculum in 2004, an experiment renewed for
an additional five years in Spring 2009. The chemistry department now feels
that Chemistry is too important not to be in Frontiers and Frontiers is too
important not to include Chemistry, as James Valenti, director of undergrad-
uate studies and former chair of the Department of Chemistry, put it.
Why the seesaw? What conditions in 1945, 1983, and 2001 made a single
course seem important enough to be a possibility, and what in 1933, 1946,
and 1990 engendered such grave reservations? The main factor was probably
leadership, from both faculty committees and the university administration.
However, world events may well have played a role in faculty opinions. In the
1940s, the atomic bomb and the nuclear arms race focused American attention
on the power of science, how it should be harnessed, and how it must be con-
strained. At the millennium, a widespread appreciation of a new threatglobal
warmingemerged. Determining the causes and consequences of warming
requires an extraordinary scientific effort to understand and political will to act;
that will must be an informed one. Finally, there is money. In 1933 and 1941,
funds for education (and all else) were in short supply because of, respectively,
the Great Depression and World War II. Dreams of inclusive education, no
matter how important, were a luxury. In the expansive economy of the early
2000s, the financial climate might have been relaxed enough for university
leaders to consider seriously the ambitious goals of Frontiers of Science.
FACULTY DEVELOPMENT AND FRONTIERS
A beginning science faculty member at a typical R1 university is expected to
develop a research program and a series of graduate and undergraduate courses.
Although the new faculty member has been training for the research program
for more than ten years, he or she has no explicit preparation for developing a
teaching program. Sink or swim is often an accurate summary of the new
faculty experience. One useful feature of Frontiers of Science is that beginning
faculty members are mentored in creating a curriculum and teaching small
seminars both by more senior faculty and by other Science Fellows. The Fellows
work in teams with other faculty members to create seminar materials for each
unit, weekly assignments, and the midterm and final examinations. The teams
SCIENCE AND THE EDUCATED AMERICAN 224
include scientists both from within the discipline of the unit and from other
disciplines. Seminar materials include computer simulations, experimental de-
sign, and data analysisall tied to the unit and that weeks lecture. The Fellows
also lead a weekly seminar in how one might teach that weeks seminar, going
through the suggested class exercises and troubleshooting issues that were
raised in the Monday lectures.
Columbia currently has eleven Science Fellows and twenty-three former
Fellows. Of the latter, thirteen hold a tenure-track assistant professorship or
its equivalent, five hold a non-tenure-track research position, one is a high
school science teacher, two work in industry, one in policy, and one in educa-
tional consulting. Some former Fellows have launched Frontiers-like efforts
at their new institutions. The network of former Fellows has great potential
as a resource for the development of new faculty. We have also prepared a web-
site (Frontiers of Science Online, or FOSO) with materials (lectures, seminar
guides, Scientific Habits of Mind) from four representative units in the Frontiers
of Science course. The site provides opportunities for faculty outside Columbia
to engage in substantive discussions of science education and to share materials
and approaches.
Frontiers of Science has also affected the educational approaches of the
senior faculty at Columbia. Twenty-six faculty members, representing all the
science departments at Columbia College, have taught the course, delivering
lectures and leading seminars. An example of the impact of Frontiers of Science
on their teaching is the weekly lecture that serves, together with Scientific
Habits of Mind, as a text for the course. The idea behind the lecture is to pre-
sent a cutting-edge topic in current research in a way that is comprehensible
to any entering student. This goal means that the lecture has to have a clear
road map and no jargon. The common themes of the course, embodied in
Scientific Habits of Mind, are highlighted as they appear.
I give lectures in a unit on neuroscience. The third lecture in this unit ex-
plores The Evolution of Language (http://www.fos-online.org/?q=node/
390). This one lecture required more than two hundred hours to prepare, in-
cluding review of any relevant papers that appeared the week before. All Fron-
tiers of Science lectures are extensively rehearsed and critiqued before and after
delivery by the Frontiers faculty members. Through this process (and by ob-
serving and critiquing the lectures of other Frontiers faculty), I have learned
an enormous amount about clearly and effectively presenting information,
lessons that have informed all the other courses I teach. Before my involve-
ment with Frontiers of Science, I was accustomed to lecturing but found the
small seminar format challenging. The Frontiers of Science seminar materials,
seminar practice, and tutorials on how to engage students in discussion (http:
//www.fos-online.org/?q=taxonomy/term/62,61) were a terrific help in
learning how to engage with twenty-two students effectively and collaboratively.
At this point you may wonder why any senior faculty member would
choose to teach Frontiers of Science. At Columbia, no department requires its
225 SCIENCE FOR ALL IN A CORE CURRICULUM
faculty to participate. All who teach Frontiers of Science are volunteers. The
faculty who volunteer do so for two major reasons, I believe. The first is that
learning about the science you never got to explore while climbing the disci-
plinary pyramid is enormous fun. Using gravitational lensing to peer back in
time to the origins of the universe: who knew? Those pyroclastic flows that
consumed Pompeii: awesome! Aside from learning new things (and sharpen-
ing ones intellectual skills to be able to teach them), arguing about how to
teach science with fifteen other extremely bright people from other disciplines
is also enjoyable. It is worth pointing out that I had never discussed how to
teach with fellow faculty members before Frontiers started, and I expect that
I am not alone in this experience. After Frontiers was initiated, we started a
periodic brown bag luncheon across the sciences to discuss new approaches;
the lunches are attended by a very large swath of the faculty from many differ-
ent disciplines as well as by postdocs preparing for teaching positions.
The second major reason Columbia faculty volunteer for Frontiers of Sci-
ence is the strong feeling among many of the faculty that Frontiers represents
a significant opportunity to influence how our graduates will view scientific
information and its uses in the future. Before Frontiers of Science, concerns
about Earths climate had led the Department of Earth and Environmental
Sciences to propose that all students be required to take a course on the planet.
This concern has translated into sturdy departmental support for Frontiers of
Science.
EVALUATING THE IMPACT OF FRONTIERS
Frontiers is still evolving as a course, and the major effort in evaluation is to
improve its effectiveness for all students. Students have difficulty determining
how to approach their assignments, they have difficulty seeing the common
threads of scientific analysis that run through different topics, and they find
the relation between course readings and course topics opaque. These are the
issues we are addressing using data from a thorough evaluation at the end of
each semester and from meetings with students who have suggestions for
course improvements. We are making progress, but much work remains.
The percentage of students majoring in science at Columbia has remained
steady at approximately 20 percent for the past ten years. Within the sciences,
we have seen some shift in the choice of courses taken by students to satisfy
the science requirement, most notably a doubling of enrollments in earth and
environmental sciences courses. We are currently gathering data on course
choices and number of science courses taken before and after Frontiers by male
and female Columbia College students not majoring in a science. Finally, a
group of faculty led by David Krantz developed an instrument to survey
changes in attitudes and aspirations toward science and scientific literacy. A
Web-based questionnaire (http://www.columbia.edu/cu/psychology/
SCIENCE AND THE EDUCATED AMERICAN 226
Krantzlabweb/Ques/Scienceideas04/scienceideas.html) was administered to
coincide with the pilot version of Frontiers of Science taken by one-third of
Columbias entering class in Fall 2003. The questionnaire was completed in
early Fall 2003 by some of the students enrolled in the course and by some
who were not enrolled; it was completed again in Spring 2004 by a separate
group of first-year students, again including some who had enrolled in the
course and some who had not. The questionnaire included a scale for mathe-
matics confidence, a scale for science confidence and positivity, an assessment
of interest in several different careers (some of which were science-related),
an assessment of important career goals (personal and social), and a test of
science literacy adapted in part from a former National Science Foundation
survey of scientific literacy.
Among students not enrolled in Frontiers of Science, mathematics confi-
dence scores were lower in Spring 2004 than for the group tested in early Fall
2003. The decrease in math confidence was much smaller for students who
were enrolled in Frontiers of Science. While this result suggests a positive ef-
fect of enrollment in the course, the sample was small, and the questionnaire
return rate was substantially higher among those enrolled in the course. At
Columbia College, approximately one-third of each entering class intends to
major in science, but at graduation the actual number is approximately 20
percent. Questionnaire results suggest that substantial attrition takes place in
the first year of college: openness to several science-related careers declined
between early Fall 2003 and Spring 2004. Because openness to these science-
related careers is related to math confidence, part of the attrition might be
explained by the decline in math confidence. If Frontiers of Science does
maintain math confidence in addition to stimulating interest in a variety of
scientific fields, it will help Columbia College realize more of its potential in
undergraduate science education.
FRONTIERS FOR ALL?
How to provide a university-level education in the sciences is a persistent
question for colleges as they periodically review their undergraduate curricula.
The relevant issues have been discussed at a number of recent conferences
(for example, http://www.aacu.org/meetings/engaging_science/index.cfm
and http://www.reinventioncenter.miami.edu/conference2006/proceedings
.htm) and are the subject of several studies, including the one sponsored by
the American Academy of Arts and Sciences that led to this publication (see
http://www.amacad.org/projects/sciLiberalArts.aspx). How an individual
college or university tackles this issue will differ dramatically depending on its
size, resources, students, faculty interests, and educational philosophy. What is
generally true, however, is that we need a wealth of approaches and educa-
tional resources to meet this challenge. Providing a forum in which those ap-
227 SCIENCE FOR ALL IN A CORE CURRICULUM
proaches and resources can be shared among us all is one of the goals of
Frontiers of Science Online. At Columbia, we hope to shape Frontiers of Sci-
ence using discussions and resources from other programs and look forward
to sharing what we develop.
2
2. The 1983 committee that raised the possibility of a great ideas in science course was
chaired by David Helfand, author of Scientific Habits of Mind. The committee on science in-
struction was chaired by Jacqueline van Gorkom during the period when Frontiers of Science
was initiated and shaped. Darcy Kelley and David Helfand were the initial course directors,
joined later by Don Hood and, in 2010, Nicholas Christie-Blick. Special thanks to them for
their useful comments on this essay. Establishing Frontiers of Science would not have been
possible without the strong support of Columbias then-provost, Jonathan Cole, and Columbia
Colleges then-dean, Austin Quigley, as well as the backing of David Cohen, vice president for
arts and sciences. The Office for the Core Curriculum, especially Assistant Director Elina Yuffa,
provides essential logistical, moral, and intellectual support. Special thanks are due to Dean
Kathryn Yatrakis not only for her guidance during various reviews but also for her research into
the history of science in the Core Curriculum. Frontiers of Science has a spectacular faculty who
make teaching and learning a joy. Last but not least, the students of Columbia College are a
special group who have freely shared their good ideas about how Frontiers of Science should
evolve.
Appendix 4
Frontiers of Science Visiting Committee Report
February 8, 2013
Frontiers of Science (FoS) at Columbia University is a one term Core
course taken by all Columbia students. FoS consists of three lectures and
three seminars on four science subjects typically in the areas of biology,
physics, geology and psychology (although other sciences have also
participated). The instructors of the lectures and the seminars prepare
extensively for their presentations. Grades are based on 40% seminar
preparation, 20% midterm exam and 40% final exam.
All faculty involved in FoS express the desire to continue teaching in this
program in spite of the very considerable demands made on their time.
Participation in FoS is voluntary and thus poses a significant course-
staffing problem for home departments because they must redistribute
the normal teaching load of FoS faculty.
FoS was first offered in 2003 on a five-year trial basis. In 2008 the
course was reviewed by Columbias Committee on Science Instruction
(COSI). The review was rather negative. It disagreed with the concept of
presenting four fields of science with four instructors. COSI
recommended a more conventional course emphasizing a single subject,
with a textbook and so on. This recommendation was based largely on
student and alumni evaluations, which were not as favorable as those in
other core courses. Nevertheless, COSI recommended that FoS be
continued for an additional four years. The second trial period is now
approaching its end. A recent student Town Hall echoed many of the
sentiments from the previous review. The purpose of this external
review is to consider the future of FoS in light of this history and on the
basis of the Visiting Committees observations.
Some of the recommendations of the COSI report were adopted as the
course proceeded after 2008. For example, the lectures were moved
from a theater into a proper lecture hall. COSI also recommended
increased emphasis on principles and concepts and less on methods
(concepts were largely taught in lectures, while the seminars
concentrated on methods). That balance has been somewhat adjusted.
The course retained its basic structure of four topics taught by different
lecturers despite the COSI recommendation. Lectures have, however,
become more student-centric which is reflected in improving student
evaluations.
The Visiting Committee was impressed by the dedication of both the FoS
senior faculty and the teaching fellows. The senior faculty present most
of the lectures and they teach some seminars, including ones far
removed from their own research fields. The teaching fellows do the
remainder of the teaching.
The only issue our committee identified that could argue against
continuation of the course is the student evaluations. The students were
unenthusiastic from the start, and they remain so. However, student
ratings of the course have steadily risen presumably reflecting
improvements that have been made as this new course learns, through
time and experimentation, what can and cannot be accomplished.
Indeed, the students rate the lectures and the seminars highly, but not
the course as a whole. This difficulty might be remedied at least in part
by making FoS a permanent part of the Core Curriculum, equal in all
respects to the rest of the Core. Students are acutely aware that FoS is
on trial and thus they do not embrace it in the same manner as the other
100 year old core courses.
The Visiting Committee is concerned, as was COSI, with sustainability.
Will there always be enthusiastic lecturers and fellows to continue once
the course transitions from a noble experiment to a standard course?
The other core courses have mechanisms to ensure longevity. The
Visiting Committee hopes an analogous system can be put in place to
ensure that FoS remains vibrant through time.
The following elaborates many of the points made above.
The Visiting Committee believes that:
1) Given the history and importance of the Core Curriculum at
Columbia College it is essential to have a core science course,
taken by all students at the college. The developers of FoS are to
be applauded for starting a course of this type. The Visiting
Committee hopes that when FoS is made a permanent part of the
core, the spirit of experimentation will remain a critical part of its
delivery.
2) Developing and sustaining a science course of this type (broad,
multi-disciplinary science course taught to students with varying
backgrounds and interests) is a huge challenge, one that many
other schools have undertaken with limited to no success. From
this perspective, the Visiting Committee views the current version
of FoS as an impressive proof of concept. It is by no means
perfect, but the view of the review team is that it succeeds in
many areas. These include the introduction of exciting
developments in science, the training of students in a number of
simple (but not yet ingrained) tools for the basic understanding of
scientific data, and the introduction of a seminar component in
science instruction. From the perspective of point 1) above, the
College is fortunate to have such a course in place from which to
build for the future.
3) FoS has been staffed by heroically dedicated faculty. Their
passion for the students, for improving their teaching, and for
communicating difficult but important ideas, as well as their
embrace of the Core concept for the college is exciting and
refreshing.
4) FoS benefits tremendously from a group of inspired Columbia
Science Fellows. Indeed, the Visiting Committee felt that its
meeting with the Fellows was the single most inspiring aspect of
the visit. Columbia undergraduate students are in extremely
capable hands with Fellows, and the long-term prospects for
impacting higher education in America through the Fellows are
quite good. To the extent that this portion of the Core is able to
continue, Columbia has the possibility to reshape how general
education science is taught.
5) Everyone with whom the Visiting Committee spoke is clearly
committed to students and student learning. This dedication was
an impressive display from a faculty who have many other
commitments and obligations on their time. Columbia University
should be celebrated for taking the education of undergraduates
seriously and it should widely advertise that its faculty works
diligently as teachers and to improve the excellence of courses.
6) Nevertheless, with any young course or component of the
curriculum it is impossible to get everything right at the outset.
Despite the many successes of FoS, the Visiting Committees noted
some areas that could be improved as well as hurdles to
undertaking these improvements. Areas that Visiting Committee
believe need to be addressed include:
a. The history of the course and its reviews,
b. The staffing of the course by faculty from departments,
c. The staffing and funding of Science Fellows by the College,
d. The grading policy in the course relative to the remainder of
the Core Curriculum,
e. The structure of the course, in particular the balance
between lecture and seminar,
f. The overall amount of material covered in the course,
g. The lack of autonomy of seminar instructors,
h. The disparity of student backgrounds and course
expectations,
i. The perceived repetition of material amongst readings,
lectures, and seminars,
j. The standardization of lecture material between fall and
spring semesters
7) Finally, the Visiting Committee noted the extreme lack of parity
between FoS and other core courses. The Visiting Committee
suggests a dramatic move to staff and direct the course through
mechanisms that parallel other core offerings. Adequate staffing
and support could require additional FTEs or support staff lines
associated with departmental commitments to course staffing.
Brief comments directed at the above topics:
- The history of the course and its reviews
o The course was generated by a few charismatic and
visionary people. This history automatically engenders
strong emotions both for and against the course and it tends
to work against change. Likewise, the COSI review and its
responses were well intended but led to rigidifying the
course structure of FoS. The College needs to find a way to
get beyond this history in order to let FoS evolve and thrive.
- The staffing of the course by faculty from departments.
o A College Core course should have faculty buy-in from most
if not all departments that fall under the rubric of this
section of the Core. That does not appear to have occurred
for FoS. In part, the mechanism by which FoS selects its
lecturers works against true collaboration with department
chairs. Further, the large number of hours spent on lecture
preparation is a deterrent to junior faculty participation as
well as to participation by especially busy senior faculty.
The Visiting Committees perception of student comments
was that the lectures are good, but not SO good that they
could not be prepared with somewhat less investment of
time. Indeed, the committee experienced an excellent
lecture, but each review committee member feels similar
quality lectures have been given in other contexts without
such laborious preparation, oversight, and practice.
The staffing and funding of the Science Fellows
o The 70% college funding model does not work. It puts an
undue burden on excellent Fellows to identify mentors.
Similarly, faculty/departments are required to fund part-
time postdocs. That might not be in the best interest of their
research programs especially in a tight funding climate. The
Fellows are among the true gems of the program and they
need to be fully funded by the college.
- The grading policy in the course relative to the remainder of the
Core.
o FoS gives many fewer As than other core courses. This
singular feature of the course sends a message that, Yes,
you were right, you are no good at science to the very
group of students FoS is trying to inspire. Were other core
course graded on a similar scale, that would be one thing,
but they are (most emphatically) not. This singular feature
could be responsible for much of the negative FoS
evaluations.
o Further, the course places significant weight on the two
exams and the research paper. This mechanism increases
student anxiety and it restricts the focus of the course to
problem solving at the expense of learning big ideas.
Additionally, homework and grading are significant burdens
for the students and the fellows with little outcome for
either. If homework counted for a significant portion of the
course grade (40%?), students would recognize that the
work they put into homework leads to a measureable payoff
in the class. In such a scenario, exams would become less of
a burden. Finally, if FoS wants to encourage discussion,
class participation in seminars needs to count for more
toward the final grade. Such reframing of the seminars,
gives seminar instructors more latitude, allows big ideas to
be discussed and evaluated, and sends the message that FoS
wants both the fellows originality and the students voices
to play a large role.
- The structure of the course with respect to lectures vs. seminars
o The lectures are marvelously thought out and delivered.
However, the current repetition of lecture material in
seminars combined with the large number of exercises
delivered during seminars has over-packed the seminar
period leaving little opportunity for discussion. FoS
students are clearly avid participants. They will embrace
the material to a greater extent if there is increased active
discussion. Adopting such a format will make FoS more
akin to other core courses. Increased discussion can only
occur if there are perhaps fewer lectures, and certainly less
material presented in seminar. The Visiting Committee
believes consideration should be given to limiting the
number of topics in the course and/or limiting the number
of lectures per topic to free time for discussion.
- Limiting the overall amount of material in the course
o No matter how much the instructors tell students not to
worry about the details, the fact is that a huge amount of
difficult detail is covered in lecture. In addition, there are a
significant number of Habits which serve as goals for the
course. These features combine to make the seminars serve
many purposes and appear to significantly limit instructor
autonomy. The Visiting Committee realizes that to some
extent the increase in material is a response to the COSI
review of 2008. However, in our view, the pendulum has
swung too far in the other direction. A less is more
rethinking of the lecture material and seminars is required.
- The autonomy (or lack thereof) of seminar instructors
o Intimately related to the amount of material covered. The
fellows are creative and excellent teachers. However, they
are constrained by the large amount of material they are
tasked to cover and by students desires to receive one of
the (relatively) few As given out. Fellows need to be freed
to experiment with methods for communicating science in
ever better ways and to talk deeply about scientific issues
rather than focusing on covering facts and habits that will
appear on exams. Such a transformation can only happen if
the amount of material delivered is reduced and/or if the
number of seminars is increased.
- The disparity of student backgrounds and course expectations
o Students have a variety of backgrounds entering the course.
Many science students are not challenged by the homework
whereas non-science students are often overwhelmed. The
Visiting Committee does not believe that the level of
material should be lowered, nor should the College consider
science and non-science tracks in FoS. However, the College
might consider two-track homework. One track would
mirror that offered now, the other would be more advanced.
Students may choose either, and let the chips fall. This
option would allow advanced students to demonstrate
mastery while keeping the spirit of the core in which all
students are enrolled in the same class.
- The perceived repetition of material amongst readings, lectures,
and seminars
o Students note that the readings reiterate the lectures, which
are then reviewed in seminar. Not in all cases but in many.
The Visiting Committee also felt that use of the seminar to
review lecture material is redundant and counter to the
other more creative uses that could be made of this time.
One could imagine offering after hours help sessions to
review lectures if needed, freeing seminars for other uses as
noted above.
o The Committee believes that some text is required for the
material presented, beyond lecture slides and similar
articles. Students learn in different ways and given the
work put into lectures, it would not be a stretch to construct
a text that could be used for a given unit from year to year
(updated for the latest Frontier).
- Standardization of lecture material between fall and spring
semesters
o Simple in principle. Teaching the same segments in fall and
spring will allow Fellows to exploit expertise gained in the
fall during the second semester. This change will also
generate a greater sense of commonality for the students in
a given year, thus matching more closely the remainder of
the core.
- A move to staff and direct the course in ways that parallel other
standardized core offerings.
o If Columbia wants science to be perceived as a central
component of the core, then FoS must be treated equally to
other core courses. FoS suffers because it functions on a
volunteer basis. Once it is adopted as a permanent core
course, FoS should receive the financial and administrative
support that other core courses enjoy. Most critically,
participating home departments should receive benefits
such as increased FTEs, redistributed teaching loads,
financial support, and political support. A benefit of this
approach will be increased participation from additional
science departments.
The Visiting Committee engaged with a significant number of
Columbia faculty during its visit. Faculty enthusiasm for
undergraduate education was infectious. We believe this
commitment can be harnessed to make a permanent FoS even
better, but this will take time and, we believe, cannot be dictated
by any central authority. It seems that a period of faculty
reflection on the goals of core science education, coupled with
open discussion about what FoS is and might become, would be
an appropriate place to start. the Visiting Committee was
impressed by the members of the EPPC and could easily imagine
EEPC guiding a faculty-wide discussion of where Columbia goes
next with FoS. One outcome could be increased faculty buy in as
FoS develops further.
To summarize: FoS was and is a noble experiment. We feel that
Columbia now needs to reshape and institutionalize such a
science as a permanent part of the Core.
Bonnie Bassler
Benedick Gross
David Goodstein
Robert Cave
Appendix 5
Academic Analysis and Planning
5/8/2013, A5a.course.evals.xlsx
Report 5a: Course Evaluations for Frontiers of Science with Possible Benchmarks, Fall 2004-Fall 2012
Scale: 1=poor, 2=fair, 3=good, 4=very good, 5=excellent. Unless otherwise noted.
FOS Classes
Seminar Leader
Effectiveness (mean)
# of Respondents
2012 Fall 4.33 436
2012 Spring 4.22 396
2011 Fall 4.18 471
2011 Spring 4.28 463
2010 Fall 4.02 511
2010 Spring 4.10 468
2009 Fall 4.17 511
2009 Spring 4.17 408
2008 Fall 4.09 522
2008 Spring 3.86 427
2007 Fall 4.21 411
2007 Spring 3.84 502
2006 Fall 3.91 481
2006 Spring 3.86 484
2005 Spring 3.93 428
2004 Fall 3.54 472
Grand Total 4.04 7391
Possible Benchmarks for Comparison
Comparison Science Classes
(Spring 2007 to Spring 2011)
Instructor
Effectiveness (mean)
Quality of Course
(mean)
# of
Respondents
# of courses
Designed for non-science majors only 4.25 4.08 784 31
Designed for non-science majors but also
required for a science major
3.86 3.82 683 10
Required introductory science course 3.72 3.73 3,793 71
Comparison Core Classes
Instructor
Effectiveness (mean)
Quality of Course
(mean)
# of
Respondents
# of courses
Literature Humanities
Spring 2012 4.45 4.35 944 59
Fall 2011 4.37 4.29 999 59
Spring 2011 4.47 4.30 1053 64
Fall 2010 4.32 4.16 1125 61
Contemporary Civilization
Spring 2012 4.30 4.19 865 60
Fall 2011 4.21 4.08 906 61
Spring 2011 4.44 4.34 965 64
Fall 2010 4.17 4.10 1025 64
*Scale: 1=Strongly Disagree, 2=Disagree, 3=Mixed Feelings, 4=Agree, 5=Strongly Agree
Note: In fall 2005, paper course evaluations were administered.
It was reported that there were no significant differences between the paper and the online evaluations.
A
c
a
d
e
m
i
c
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
a
n
d
A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
D
a
t
a
S
o
u
r
c
e
:
C
o
r
e
O
f
f
i
c
e
5
/
8
/
2
0
1
3
,
A
5
b
.
c
o
u
r
s
e
.
e
v
a
l
s
.
x
l
s
x
A
p
p
e
n
d
i
x
5
b
:
C
o
u
r
s
e
E
v
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n
s
f
o
r
F
r
o
n
t
i
e
r
s
o
f
S
c
i
e
n
c
e
,
F
a
l
l
2
0
0
4
-
F
a
l
l
2
0
1
2
*
S
c
a
l
e
:
1
=
p
o
o
r
,
2
=
f
a
i
r
,
3
=
g
o
o
d
,
4
=
v
e
r
y
g
o
o
d
,
5
=
e
x
c
e
l
l
e
n
t
.
U
n
l
e
s
s
o
t
h
e
r
w
i
s
e
n
o
t
e
d
.
N
o
t
e
:
I
n
f
a
l
l
2
0
0
5
,
p
a
p
e
r
c
o
u
r
s
e
e
v
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n
s
w
e
r
e
a
d
m
i
n
i
s
t
e
r
e
d
.
I
t
w
a
s
r
e
p
o
r
t
e
d
t
h
a
t
t
h
e
r
e
w
e
r
e
n
o
s
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
d
i
f
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
s
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
t
h
e
p
a
p
e
r
a
n
d
t
h
e
o
n
l
i
n
e
e
v
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n
s
.
G
r
o
u
p
i
n
g
o
f
q
u
e
s
t
i
o
n
s
i
n
t
o
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
i
s
b
a
s
e
d
o
n
F
a
l
l
'
1
2
c
o
u
r
s
e
e
v
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n
f
o
r
m
S
e
c
t
i
o
n
1
:
S
e
m
i
n
a
r
L
e
a
d
e
r
E
f
f
e
c
t
i
v
e
n
e
s
s
S
e
m
i
n
a
r
L
e
a
d
e
r
E
f
f
e
c
t
i
v
e
n
e
s
s
C
l
e
a
r
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
s
u
b
j
e
c
t
m
a
t
t
e
r
S
e
m
i
n
a
r
L
e
a
d
e
r
'
s
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
t
o
h
e
l
p
c
l
a
r
i
f
y
c
o
u
r
s
e
m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
S
e
m
i
n
a
r
L
e
a
d
e
r
'
s
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
t
o
e
n
c
o
u
r
a
g
e
s
t
u
d
e
n
t
p
a
r
t
i
c
i
p
a
t
i
o
n
e
f
f
e
c
t
i
v
e
l
y
S
e
m
i
n
a
r
L
e
a
d
e
r
'
s
r
e
s
p
o
n
s
i
v
e
n
e
s
s
t
o
s
t
u
d
e
n
t
q
u
e
s
t
i
o
n
s
E
v
a
l
u
a
t
e
y
o
u
r
s
e
m
i
n
a
r
l
e
a
d
e
r
'
s
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
t
o
s
t
i
m
u
l
a
t
e
i
n
t
e
r
e
s
t
i
n
t
h
e
s
u
b
j
e
c
t
S
e
m
i
n
a
r
L
e
a
d
e
r
'
s
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
t
o
s
t
i
m
u
l
a
t
e
i
n
t
e
l
l
e
c
t
u
a
l
c
u
r
i
o
s
i
t
y
S
e
m
i
n
a
r
L
e
a
d
e
r
'
s
f
e
e
d
b
a
c
k
S
e
m
i
n
a
r
L
e
a
d
e
r
'
s
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
t
o
r
a
i
s
e
c
h
a
l
l
e
n
g
i
n
g
q
u
e
s
t
i
o
n
s
S
e
m
i
n
a
r
L
e
a
d
e
r
'
s
a
v
a
i
l
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
f
o
r
a
s
s
i
s
t
a
n
c
e
o
u
t
s
i
d
e
o
f
c
l
a
s
s
2
0
1
2
F
a
l
l
4
.
3
3
4
.
3
8
4
.
3
0
4
.
0
3
4
.
4
3
4
.
0
8
4
.
3
3
4
.
5
7
2
0
1
2
S
p
r
i
n
g
4
.
2
2
4
.
2
4
4
.
2
5
3
.
8
7
4
.
3
3
3
.
9
4
4
.
1
4
4
.
4
5
2
0
1
1
F
a
l
l
4
.
1
8
4
.
2
4
4
.
1
5
3
.
8
7
4
.
3
8
3
.
9
5
4
.
1
4
4
.
4
0
2
0
1
1
S
p
r
i
n
g
4
.
2
8
4
.
2
5
4
.
2
4
4
.
0
2
4
.
3
6
4
.
0
8
4
.
1
9
4
.
4
1
2
0
1
0
F
a
l
l
4
.
0
2
3
.
9
9
3
.
9
6
3
.
8
0
4
.
1
9
3
.
8
1
4
.
0
4
4
.
4
1
2
0
1
0
S
p
r
i
n
g
4
.
1
0
3
.
9
8
4
.
0
0
3
.
8
9
4
.
2
9
3
.
9
0
4
.
0
5
4
.
3
9
2
0
0
9
F
a
l
l
4
.
1
7
4
.
1
4
4
.
0
8
3
.
9
4
4
.
3
4
3
.
9
2
4
.
0
6
4
.
4
1
2
0
0
9
S
p
r
i
n
g
4
.
1
7
4
.
2
1
4
.
1
2
4
.
0
2
4
.
3
0
4
.
0
0
4
.
0
2
3
.
9
8
4
.
3
6
2
0
0
8
F
a
l
l
4
.
0
9
4
.
0
1
3
.
9
1
4
.
2
5
3
.
9
4
3
.
8
3
4
.
4
8
2
0
0
8
S
p
r
i
n
g
3
.
8
6
3
.
8
7
3
.
8
3
3
.
7
5
4
.
0
3
3
.
7
7
3
.
5
8
3
.
7
8
4
.
0
8
2
0
0
7
F
a
l
l
4
.
2
1
3
.
9
0
3
.
8
0
3
.
7
9
4
.
4
0
2
0
0
7
S
p
r
i
n
g
3
.
8
4
3
.
5
5
3
.
5
8
3
.
4
9
3
.
9
6
2
0
0
6
F
a
l
l
3
.
9
1
3
.
5
8
3
.
5
4
3
.
4
9
4
.
0
7
2
0
0
6
S
p
r
i
n
g
3
.
8
6
3
.
5
4
3
.
5
1
3
.
5
2
3
.
9
0
2
0
0
5
S
p
r
i
n
g
3
.
9
3
3
.
6
1
3
.
6
2
3
.
5
5
4
.
1
4
2
0
0
4
F
a
l
l
3
.
5
4
3
.
2
8
3
.
2
2
3
.
1
8
3
.
8
2
G
r
a
n
d
T
o
t
a
l
4
.
0
4
4
.
1
4
3
.
8
9
3
.
7
7
4
.
2
9
3
.
5
0
3
.
9
4
4
.
0
4
3
.
8
8
4
.
2
6
S
e
c
t
i
o
n
2
:
L
e
c
t
u
r
e
r
E
v
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n
E
v
a
l
u
a
t
e
t
h
e
L
e
c
t
u
r
e
s
b
y
P
r
o
f
.
1
E
v
a
l
u
a
t
e
t
h
e
l
e
c
t
u
r
e
s
b
y
P
r
o
f
.
2
E
v
a
l
u
a
t
e
t
h
e
l
e
c
t
u
r
e
s
b
y
P
r
o
f
.
3
E
v
a
l
u
a
t
e
t
h
e
l
e
c
t
u
r
e
s
b
y
P
r
o
f
.
4
E
v
a
l
u
a
t
e
t
h
e
l
e
c
t
u
r
e
s
b
y
P
r
o
f
.
5
E
v
a
l
u
a
t
e
t
h
e
l
e
c
t
u
r
e
s
b
y
P
r
o
f
.
6
C
l
a
r
i
t
y
o
f
c
o
m
m
o
n
a
p
p
r
o
a
c
h
e
s
t
o
s
c
i
e
n
t
i
f
i
c
p
r
o
b
l
e
m
s
a
c
r
o
s
s
l
e
c
t
u
r
e
s
2
0
1
2
F
a
l
l
4
.
1
6
4
.
3
5
3
.
3
7
3
.
8
2
3
.
7
2
2
0
1
2
S
p
r
i
n
g
3
.
3
5
3
.
6
1
4
.
0
1
3
.
5
5
3
.
6
3
3
.
3
6
2
0
1
1
F
a
l
l
3
.
7
3
4
.
3
1
2
.
3
3
4
.
0
4
3
.
5
7
2
0
1
1
S
p
r
i
n
g
3
.
5
1
4
.
1
0
2
.
9
3
4
.
1
8
3
.
4
0
2
0
1
0
F
a
l
l
4
.
0
7
3
.
5
3
3
.
9
3
3
.
6
2
3
.
5
5
2
0
1
0
S
p
r
i
n
g
4
.
1
3
3
.
8
2
3
.
6
2
3
.
1
0
3
.
6
2
3
.
2
2
2
0
0
9
F
a
l
l
4
.
3
1
3
.
7
8
3
.
6
7
3
.
9
4
3
.
7
9
2
0
0
9
S
p
r
i
n
g
3
.
7
0
3
.
8
5
3
.
6
0
3
.
5
7
3
.
7
4
3
.
4
9
2
0
0
8
F
a
l
l
3
.
2
1
4
.
1
9
3
.
2
1
3
.
3
1
4
.
2
5
2
0
0
8
S
p
r
i
n
g
3
.
8
9
3
.
9
1
3
.
8
1
3
.
5
9
3
.
8
1
3
.
5
5
2
0
0
7
F
a
l
l
4
.
1
0
3
.
2
9
3
.
0
7
2
.
7
2
3
.
2
6
2
0
0
7
S
p
r
i
n
g
3
.
9
5
3
.
4
6
3
.
7
1
3
.
0
8
3
.
3
5
3
.
4
0
2
0
0
6
F
a
l
l
4
.
2
0
2
.
5
4
2
.
8
4
2
.
8
8
3
.
9
1
2
0
0
6
S
p
r
i
n
g
3
.
5
6
3
.
4
2
3
.
0
4
3
.
6
2
3
.
5
4
2
0
0
5
S
p
r
i
n
g
3
.
4
2
3
.
4
9
3
.
0
8
3
.
0
4
2
.
9
6
2
0
0
4
F
a
l
l
3
.
8
8
3
.
2
2
2
.
7
9
3
.
9
9
G
r
a
n
d
T
o
t
a
l
3
.
8
3
3
.
6
8
3
.
3
0
3
.
5
1
3
.
6
2
3
.
4
8
3
.
5
2
A
c
a
d
e
m
i
c
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
a
n
d
A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
D
a
t
a
S
o
u
r
c
e
:
C
o
r
e
O
f
f
i
c
e
5
/
8
/
2
0
1
3
,
A
5
b
.
c
o
u
r
s
e
.
e
v
a
l
s
.
x
l
s
x
S
e
c
t
i
o
n
3
:
R
e
a
d
i
n
g
s
,
M
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
s
,
A
s
s
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
s
,
a
n
d
E
x
a
m
s
O
v
e
r
a
l
l
v
a
l
u
e
o
f
h
o
m
e
w
o
r
k
a
s
s
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
s
O
v
e
r
a
l
l
v
a
l
u
e
o
f
t
h
e
T
u
t
o
r
i
a
l
s
O
v
e
r
a
l
l
v
a
l
u
e
o
f
t
h
e
o
t
h
e
r
r
e
a
d
i
n
g
a
s
s
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
s
O
v
e
r
a
l
l
v
a
l
u
e
o
f
t
h
e
t
e
r
m
p
a
p
e
r
a
s
s
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
O
v
e
r
a
l
l
v
a
l
u
e
o
f
t
h
e
A
m
.
M
u
s
.
O
f
N
a
t
.
H
i
s
t
.
t
r
i
p
F
a
i
r
n
e
s
s
o
f
g
r
a
d
i
n
g
C
l
a
r
i
t
y
o
f
e
x
p
e
c
t
a
t
i
o
n
s
f
o
r
s
t
u
d
e
n
t
l
e
a
r
n
i
n
g
R
e
l
e
v
a
n
c
e
o
f
a
s
s
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
s
a
n
d
e
x
a
m
s
t
o
c
o
u
r
s
e
o
b
j
e
c
t
i
v
e
s
O
v
e
r
a
l
l
v
a
l
u
e
o
f
t
h
e
c
o
u
r
s
e
t
e
x
t
S
c
i
e
n
t
i
f
i
c
H
a
b
i
t
s
o
f
M
i
n
d
2
0
1
2
F
a
l
l
3
.
5
0
3
.
1
1
3
.
1
0
3
.
1
9
3
.
8
5
4
.
0
5
3
.
7
8
3
.
7
0
2
0
1
2
S
p
r
i
n
g
3
.
4
3
3
.
0
0
2
.
7
3
3
.
1
0
3
.
7
7
3
.
4
1
3
.
4
3
2
0
1
1
F
a
l
l
3
.
6
1
3
.
0
4
3
.
2
6
3
.
9
0
3
.
5
4
3
.
5
8
2
.
6
2
2
0
1
1
S
p
r
i
n
g
3
.
3
6
3
.
0
0
3
.
6
8
3
.
2
9
3
.
4
0
2
.
2
7
2
0
1
0
F
a
l
l
3
.
4
3
3
.
1
0
3
.
7
0
3
.
4
1
3
.
5
1
2
.
5
6
2
0
1
0
S
p
r
i
n
g
3
.
0
4
3
.
0
1
3
.
6
2
2
.
9
8
3
.
0
4
2
0
0
9
F
a
l
l
3
.
3
1
3
.
1
8
3
.
8
8
3
.
4
8
3
.
5
0
2
.
6
5
2
0
0
9
S
p
r
i
n
g
3
.
1
8
3
.
1
7
3
.
9
6
2
.
3
5
2
0
0
8
F
a
l
l
3
.
2
5
3
.
1
8
3
.
8
2
2
.
6
7
2
0
0
8
S
p
r
i
n
g
3
.
0
9
3
.
1
9
3
.
6
4
2
.
4
8
2
0
0
7
F
a
l
l
2
.
7
5
2
0
0
7
S
p
r
i
n
g
2
.
6
1
2
0
0
6
F
a
l
l
2
.
8
0
2
0
0
6
S
p
r
i
n
g
2
.
6
7
2
0
0
5
S
p
r
i
n
g
2
.
6
5
2
0
0
4
F
a
l
l
3
.
0
1
G
r
a
n
d
T
o
t
a
l
3
.
3
2
3
.
0
6
3
.
0
7
3
.
1
9
3
.
8
5
3
.
8
0
3
.
4
1
3
.
4
5
2
.
6
3
S
e
c
t
i
o
n
4
:
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
C
o
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
t
o
y
o
u
r
k
n
o
w
l
e
d
g
e
o
f
t
h
e
s
u
b
j
e
c
t
m
a
t
t
e
r
C
o
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
t
o
y
o
u
r
c
a
p
a
c
i
t
y
f
o
r
c
r
i
t
i
c
a
l
e
v
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
t
h
e
s
u
b
j
e
c
t
m
a
t
t
e
r
C
o
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
t
o
y
o
u
r
i
n
t
e
r
e
s
t
i
n
s
c
i
e
n
c
e
C
o
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
t
o
t
h
e
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
o
f
y
o
u
r
a
n
a
l
y
t
i
c
a
l
a
n
d
r
e
a
s
o
n
i
n
g
s
k
i
l
l
s
i
n
g
e
n
e
r
a
l
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
S
e
c
t
i
o
n
:
C
l
a
r
i
t
y
o
f
e
x
p
e
c
t
a
t
i
o
n
s
f
o
r
s
t
u
d
e
n
t
l
e
a
r
n
i
n
g
O
v
e
r
a
l
l
v
a
l
u
e
o
f
t
h
e
s
e
m
i
n
a
r
O
v
e
r
a
l
l
v
a
l
u
e
o
f
t
h
e
l
e
c
t
u
r
e
s
I
n
t
e
g
r
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
l
e
c
t
u
r
e
s
w
i
t
h
s
e
m
i
n
a
r
s
O
v
e
r
a
l
l
q
u
a
l
i
t
y
o
f
t
h
e
c
o
u
r
s
e
2
0
1
2
F
a
l
l
3
.
4
2
3
.
3
3
3
.
2
3
3
.
1
3
3
.
3
8
3
.
5
5
3
.
6
0
3
.
7
2
3
.
2
8
2
0
1
2
S
p
r
i
n
g
3
.
0
6
2
.
9
9
2
.
8
1
2
.
6
8
3
.
4
3
2
.
8
7
2
0
1
1
F
a
l
l
3
.
2
6
3
.
2
2
3
.
0
6
3
.
0
3
3
.
5
5
3
.
0
9
2
0
1
1
S
p
r
i
n
g
3
.
0
4
2
.
9
7
2
.
8
9
2
.
7
6
3
.
4
0
2
.
9
0
2
0
1
0
F
a
l
l
3
.
3
0
3
.
3
0
3
.
0
2
3
.
0
7
3
.
3
2
3
.
0
8
2
0
1
0
S
p
r
i
n
g
2
.
8
9
2
.
7
3
2
.
6
2
2
.
5
7
3
.
0
7
2
.
5
9
2
0
0
9
F
a
l
l
3
.
3
6
3
.
3
1
3
.
1
3
3
.
0
5
3
.
4
3
3
.
1
3
2
0
0
9
S
p
r
i
n
g
2
.
9
2
2
.
7
8
2
.
6
1
2
.
6
2
2
.
6
9
2
0
0
8
F
a
l
l
3
.
1
7
3
.
0
4
2
.
8
6
2
.
8
3
2
.
9
0
2
0
0
8
S
p
r
i
n
g
3
.
0
2
2
.
8
0
2
.
7
7
2
.
6
8
2
.
6
1
2
0
0
7
F
a
l
l
3
.
0
0
2
0
0
7
S
p
r
i
n
g
#
D
I
V
/
0
!
2
.
6
4
2
0
0
6
F
a
l
l
2
.
7
8
2
0
0
6
S
p
r
i
n
g
2
.
5
4
2
0
0
5
S
p
r
i
n
g
2
.
2
3
2
0
0
4
F
a
l
l
2
.
7
6
G
r
a
n
d
T
o
t
a
l
3
.
1
5
3
.
0
6
2
.
9
1
2
.
8
5
3
.
3
8
3
.
5
5
3
.
6
0
3
.
4
1
2
.
8
2
Appendix 6
Academic Analysis and Planning
Data Source: OPIR 3/12/2013, A6.science.classes.before.after.FoS.xlsx
* These programs include: Business Management, Economics, Financial Economics, Economics-Operations Research, Economics-Philosophy,
Economics-Political Science, Education, Urban Studies Specialization in Education, Sustainable Development.
Notes: Excludes students who at some point were enrolled in SEAS.
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
%
o
f
C
o
l
l
e
g
e
N
o
n
-
S
c
i
e
n
c
e
S
t
u
d
e
n
t
s
# of Science Classes Taken
Chart 1a: % of College Non-Science Students Taking n Number of Science
Classes Pre- and Post-FoS,
(Classes of 2004/05-2006/07, 2009/10-2011/12)
Pre-FoS
Post-FoS
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
%
o
f
C
C
N
o
n
-
S
c
i
e
n
c
e
S
t
u
d
e
n
t
s
w
/
S
o
m
e
S
c
.
R
e
q
.
# of Science Classes Taken
Chart 1b: % of College Non-Science Students Who Declared Programs with
Some Science Requirements* Taking n Number of Science Classes Pre- and
Post-FoS
(Classes of 2004/05-2006/07, 2009/10-2011/12)
Pre-FoS
Post-FoS
0.00%
5.00%
10.00%
15.00%
20.00%
25.00%
30.00%
35.00%
40.00%
45.00%
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011121314151617181920212223242526
%
o
f
C
C
A
l
l
O
t
h
e
r
N
o
n
-
S
c
i
e
n
c
e
S
t
u
d
e
n
t
s
# of Science Classes Taken
Chart 1c: % of All Other College Non-Science Students Taking n Number of
Science Classes Pre- and Post-FoS
(Classes of 2004/05-2006/07, 2009/10-2011/12)
Pre-FoS
Post-FoS
A
c
a
d
e
m
i
c
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
a
n
d
A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
D
a
t
a
S
o
u
r
c
e
:
O
P
I
R
3
/
1
2
/
2
0
1
3
,
A
6
.
s
c
i
e
n
c
e
.
c
l
a
s
s
e
s
.
b
e
f
o
r
e
.
a
f
t
e
r
.
F
o
S
.
x
l
s
x
R
e
p
o
r
t
2
a
:
E
n
r
o
l
l
m
e
n
t
s
i
n
S
c
i
e
n
c
e
C
l
a
s
s
e
s
b
y
A
l
l
N
o
n
-
S
c
i
e
n
c
e
C
C
S
t
u
d
e
n
t
s
P
r
e
-
a
n
d
P
o
s
t
-
F
o
S
b
y
C
l
a
s
s
(
C
l
a
s
s
e
s
o
f
2
0
0
4
/
0
5
-
2
0
0
6
/
0
7
,
2
0
0
9
/
1
0
-
2
0
1
1
/
1
2
)
N
o
t
e
:
E
x
c
l
u
d
e
s
a
l
l
s
t
u
d
e
n
t
s
w
h
o
d
e
c
l
a
r
e
d
s
o
m
e
s
c
i
e
n
c
e
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
.
I
n
c
l
u
d
e
s
p
r
e
-
m
e
d
i
c
a
l
s
t
u
d
e
n
t
s
.
E
x
c
l
u
d
e
s
s
t
u
d
e
n
t
s
w
h
o
a
t
s
o
m
e
p
o
i
n
t
w
e
r
e
e
n
r
o
l
l
e
d
i
n
S
E
A
S
.
T
y
p
e
o
f
S
c
i
e
n
c
e
C
l
a
s
s
#
o
f
E
n
r
l
.
%
o
f
T
o
t
a
l
E
n
r
l
.
#
o
f
E
n
r
l
.
%
o
f
T
o
t
a
l
E
n
r
l
.
#
o
f
E
n
r
l
.
%
o
f
T
o
t
a
l
E
n
r
l
.
#
o
f
E
n
r
l
.
%
o
f
T
o
t
a
l
E
n
r
l
.
#
o
f
E
n
r
l
.
%
o
f
T
o
t
a
l
E
n
r
l
.
#
o
f
E
n
r
l
.
%
o
f
T
o
t
a
l
E
n
r
l
.
S
c
i
e
n
c
e
C
l
a
s
s
e
s
f
o
r
N
o
n
-
S
c
i
e
n
c
e
M
a
j
o
r
s
9
7
1
2
5
%
1
1
0
1
2
8
%
1
0
5
4
3
1
%
1
0
0
7
3
3
%
9
6
7
3
0
%
1
1
2
9
3
6
%
A
l
l
O
t
h
e
r
S
c
i
e
n
c
e
C
l
a
s
s
e
s
2
8
7
2
7
5
%
2
7
6
7
7
2
%
2
3
8
7
6
9
%
2
0
3
9
6
7
%
2
2
2
0
7
0
%
1
9
8
6
6
4
%
G
r
a
n
d
T
o
t
a
l
3
8
4
3
1
0
0
%
3
8
6
8
1
0
0
%
3
4
4
1
1
0
0
%
3
0
4
6
1
0
0
%
3
1
8
7
1
0
0
%
3
1
1
5
1
0
0
%
R
e
p
o
r
t
2
b
:
E
n
r
o
l
l
m
e
n
t
s
i
n
S
c
i
e
n
c
e
C
l
a
s
s
e
s
b
y
N
o
n
-
S
c
i
e
n
c
e
C
C
S
t
u
d
e
n
t
s
W
h
o
D
e
c
l
a
r
e
d
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
s
w
i
t
h
S
o
m
e
S
c
i
e
n
c
e
R
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
*
P
r
e
-
a
n
d
P
o
s
t
-
F
o
S
b
y
C
l
a
s
s
(
C
l
a
s
s
e
s
o
f
2
0
0
4
/
0
5
-
2
0
0
6
/
0
7
,
2
0
0
9
/
1
0
-
2
0
1
1
/
1
2
)
N
o
t
e
:
E
x
c
l
u
d
e
s
a
l
l
s
t
u
d
e
n
t
s
w
h
o
d
e
c
l
a
r
e
d
s
o
m
e
s
c
i
e
n
c
e
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
.
I
n
c
l
u
d
e
s
p
r
e
-
m
e
d
i
c
a
l
s
t
u
d
e
n
t
s
.
E
x
c
l
u
d
e
s
s
t
u
d
e
n
t
s
w
h
o
a
t
s
o
m
e
p
o
i
n
t
w
e
r
e
e
n
r
o
l
l
e
d
i
n
S
E
A
S
.
T
y
p
e
o
f
S
c
i
e
n
c
e
C
l
a
s
s
#
o
f
E
n
r
l
.
%
o
f
T
o
t
a
l
E
n
r
l
.
#
o
f
E
n
r
l
.
%
o
f
T
o
t
a
l
E
n
r
l
.
#
o
f
E
n
r
l
.
%
o
f
T
o
t
a
l
E
n
r
l
.
#
o
f
E
n
r
l
.
%
o
f
T
o
t
a
l
E
n
r
l
.
#
o
f
E
n
r
l
.
%
o
f
T
o
t
a
l
E
n
r
l
.
#
o
f
E
n
r
l
.
%
o
f
T
o
t
a
l
E
n
r
l
.
S
c
i
e
n
c
e
C
l
a
s
s
e
s
f
o
r
N
o
n
-
S
c
i
e
n
c
e
M
a
j
o
r
s
1
4
9
1
8
%
1
6
0
2
0
%
1
6
7
2
1
%
1
5
7
2
0
%
2
3
4
2
6
%
2
5
7
2
6
%
A
l
l
O
t
h
e
r
S
c
i
e
n
c
e
C
l
a
s
s
e
s
6
8
7
8
2
%
6
2
5
8
0
%
6
2
7
7
9
%
6
2
2
8
0
%
6
7
8
7
4
%
7
4
7
7
4
%
G
r
a
n
d
T
o
t
a
l
8
3
6
1
0
0
%
7
8
5
1
0
0
%
7
9
4
1
0
0
%
7
7
9
1
0
0
%
9
1
2
1
0
0
%
1
0
0
4
1
0
0
%
*
T
h
e
s
e
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
s
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
:
B
u
s
i
n
e
s
s
M
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
,
E
c
o
n
o
m
i
c
s
,
F
i
n
a
n
c
i
a
l
E
c
o
n
o
m
i
c
s
,
E
c
o
n
o
m
i
c
s
-
O
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
R
e
s
e
a
r
c
h
,
E
c
o
n
o
m
i
c
s
-
P
h
i
l
o
s
o
p
h
y
,
E
c
o
n
o
m
i
c
s
-
P
o
l
i
t
i
c
a
l
S
c
i
e
n
c
e
,
E
d
u
c
a
t
i
o
n
,
U
r
b
a
n
S
t
u
d
i
e
s
S
p
e
c
i
a
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
i
n
E
d
u
c
a
t
i
o
n
,
S
u
s
t
a
i
n
a
b
l
e
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
.
R
e
p
o
r
t
2
c
:
E
n
r
o
l
l
m
e
n
t
s
i
n
S
c
i
e
n
c
e
C
l
a
s
s
e
s
b
y
A
l
l
O
t
h
e
r
N
o
n
-
S
c
i
e
n
c
e
C
C
S
t
u
d
e
n
t
s
P
r
e
-
a
n
d
P
o
s
t
-
F
o
S
b
y
C
l
a
s
s
(
C
l
a
s
s
e
s
o
f
2
0
0
4
/
0
5
-
2
0
0
6
/
0
7
,
2
0
0
9
/
1
0
-
2
0
1
1
/
1
2
)
*
N
o
t
e
:
E
x
c
l
u
d
e
s
a
l
l
s
t
u
d
e
n
t
s
w
h
o
d
e
c
l
a
r
e
d
s
o
m
e
s
c
i
e
n
c
e
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
.
I
n
c
l
u
d
e
s
p
r
e
-
m
e
d
i
c
a
l
s
t
u
d
e
n
t
s
.
E
x
c
l
u
d
e
s
s
t
u
d
e
n
t
s
w
h
o
a
t
s
o
m
e
p
o
i
n
t
w
e
r
e
e
n
r
o
l
l
e
d
i
n
S
E
A
S
.
T
y
p
e
o
f
S
c
i
e
n
c
e
C
l
a
s
s
#
o
f
E
n
r
l
.
%
o
f
T
o
t
a
l
E
n
r
l
.
#
o
f
E
n
r
l
.
%
o
f
T
o
t
a
l
E
n
r
l
.
#
o
f
E
n
r
l
.
%
o
f
T
o
t
a
l
E
n
r
l
.
#
o
f
E
n
r
l
.
%
o
f
T
o
t
a
l
E
n
r
l
.
#
o
f
E
n
r
l
.
%
o
f
T
o
t
a
l
E
n
r
l
.
#
o
f
E
n
r
l
.
%
o
f
T
o
t
a
l
E
n
r
l
.
S
c
i
e
n
c
e
C
l
a
s
s
e
s
f
o
r
N
o
n
-
S
c
i
e
n
c
e
M
a
j
o
r
s
8
2
2
2
7
%
9
4
1
3
1
%
8
8
7
3
4
%
8
5
0
3
7
%
7
3
3
3
2
%
8
7
2
4
1
%
A
l
l
O
t
h
e
r
S
c
i
e
n
c
e
C
l
a
s
s
e
s
2
1
8
5
7
3
%
2
1
4
3
6
9
%
1
7
6
0
6
6
%
1
4
1
7
6
3
%
1
5
4
2
6
8
%
1
2
3
9
5
9
%
G
r
a
n
d
T
o
t
a
l
3
0
0
7
1
0
0
%
3
0
8
4
1
0
0
%
2
6
4
7
1
0
0
%
2
2
6
7
1
0
0
%
2
2
7
5
1
0
0
%
2
1
1
1
1
0
0
%
*
T
h
i
s
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
s
a
l
l
n
o
n
-
s
c
i
e
n
c
e
s
t
u
d
e
n
t
s
w
h
o
d
i
d
n
o
t
d
e
c
l
a
r
e
a
n
o
n
-
s
c
i
e
n
c
e
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
t
h
a
t
h
a
d
s
o
m
e
s
c
i
e
n
c
e
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
.
P
r
e
-
F
o
S
P
o
s
t
-
F
o
S
2
0
0
4
/
0
5
2
0
0
5
/
0
6
2
0
0
6
/
0
7
2
0
0
9
/
1
0
2
0
1
0
/
1
1
2
0
1
1
/
1
2
P
r
e
-
F
o
S
P
o
s
t
-
F
o
S
2
0
0
4
/
0
5
2
0
0
5
/
0
6
2
0
0
6
/
0
7
2
0
0
9
/
1
0
2
0
1
0
/
1
1
2
0
1
1
/
1
2
P
r
e
-
F
o
S
P
o
s
t
-
F
o
S
2
0
0
4
/
0
5
2
0
0
5
/
0
6
2
0
0
6
/
0
7
2
0
0
9
/
1
0
2
0
1
0
/
1
1
2
0
1
1
/
1
2
A
c
a
d
e
m
i
c
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
a
n
d
A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
D
a
t
a
S
o
u
r
c
e
:
O
P
I
R
3
/
1
2
/
2
0
1
3
,
A
6
.
s
c
i
e
n
c
e
.
c
l
a
s
s
e
s
.
b
e
f
o
r
e
.
a
f
t
e
r
.
F
o
S
.
x
l
s
x
R
e
p
o
r
t
3
a
:
E
n
r
o
l
l
m
e
n
t
s
i
n
S
c
i
e
n
c
e
C
l
a
s
s
e
s
b
y
A
l
l
N
o
n
-
S
c
i
e
n
c
e
C
C
S
t
u
d
e
n
t
s
P
r
e
-
a
n
d
P
o
s
t
-
F
o
S
b
y
C
l
a
s
s
b
y
D
e
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
(
C
l
a
s
s
e
s
o
f
2
0
0
4
/
0
5
-
2
0
0
6
/
0
7
,
2
0
0
9
/
1
0
-
2
0
1
1
/
1
2
)
N
o
t
e
:
E
x
c
l
u
d
e
s
a
l
l
s
t
u
d
e
n
t
s
w
h
o
d
e
c
l
a
r
e
d
s
o
m
e
s
c
i
e
n
c
e
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
.
I
n
c
l
u
d
e
s
p
r
e
-
m
e
d
i
c
a
l
s
t
u
d
e
n
t
s
.
E
x
c
l
u
d
e
s
s
t
u
d
e
n
t
s
w
h
o
a
t
s
o
m
e
p
o
i
n
t
w
e
r
e
e
n
r
o
l
l
e
d
i
n
S
E
A
S
.
T
y
p
e
o
f
S
c
i
e
n
c
e
C
l
a
s
s
b
y
D
e
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
#
o
f
E
n
r
l
.
%
o
f
T
o
t
a
l
E
n
r
l
.
#
o
f
E
n
r
l
.
%
o
f
T
o
t
a
l
E
n
r
l
.
#
o
f
E
n
r
l
.
%
o
f
T
o
t
a
l
E
n
r
l
.
#
o
f
E
n
r
l
.
%
o
f
T
o
t
a
l
E
n
r
l
.
#
o
f
E
n
r
l
.
%
o
f
T
o
t
a
l
E
n
r
l
.
#
o
f
E
n
r
l
.
%
o
f
T
o
t
a
l
E
n
r
l
.
S
c
i
e
n
c
e
C
l
a
s
s
e
s
f
o
r
N
o
n
-
S
c
i
e
n
c
e
M
a
j
o
r
s
A
s
t
r
o
n
o
m
y
2
7
3
7
%
3
0
4
8
%
2
5
6
7
%
1
2
3
4
%
1
0
4
3
%
1
5
1
5
%
B
i
o
l
o
g
y
3
1
1
%
1
9
0
%
1
2
0
%
1
4
0
%
1
0
0
%
8
0
%
C
h
e
m
i
s
t
r
y
0
%
0
%
0
%
0
%
4
0
%
5
0
%
C
o
m
p
u
t
e
r
S
c
i
e
n
c
e
2
2
1
%
1
7
0
%
2
3
1
%
3
7
1
%
3
7
1
%
2
2
1
%
E
a
r
t
h
a
n
d
E
n
v
r
.
E
n
g
.
0
%
0
%
3
0
%
3
4
1
%
3
3
1
%
2
1
1
%
E
E
E
B
2
0
1
%
2
9
1
%
5
3
2
%
5
1
2
%
4
2
1
%
5
5
2
%
E
a
r
t
h
a
n
d
E
n
v
r
.
S
c
i
e
n
c
e
s
6
1
2
%
8
6
2
%
7
8
2
%
1
5
8
5
%
2
0
9
7
%
2
4
4
8
%
E
l
e
c
t
r
i
c
a
l
E
n
g
.
0
%
0
%
4
0
%
1
9
1
%
1
5
0
%
1
7
1
%
E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g
*
*
4
3
1
%
1
0
2
3
%
1
5
5
5
%
2
6
1
%
2
8
1
%
3
8
1
%
P
h
i
l
o
s
o
p
h
y
6
0
2
%
5
7
1
%
9
8
3
%
7
7
3
%
7
3
2
%
9
2
3
%
P
h
y
s
i
c
s
9
7
3
%
8
2
2
%
7
3
2
%
4
7
2
%
4
1
1
%
4
2
1
%
P
s
y
c
h
o
l
o
g
y
3
3
6
9
%
3
8
2
1
0
%
2
7
1
8
%
3
6
2
1
2
%
3
3
3
1
0
%
3
9
4
1
3
%
S
t
a
t
i
s
t
i
c
s
2
8
1
%
2
3
1
%
2
8
1
%
5
9
2
%
3
8
1
%
4
0
1
%
A
l
l
O
t
h
e
r
S
c
i
e
n
c
e
C
l
a
s
s
e
s
A
p
p
l
i
e
d
P
h
y
s
i
c
s
a
n
d
A
p
p
l
i
e
d
M
a
t
h
.
2
0
%
2
0
%
1
0
%
1
0
%
0
%
2
0
%
A
s
t
r
o
n
o
m
y
7
0
%
1
3
0
%
1
5
0
%
5
0
%
5
0
%
9
0
%
B
i
o
c
h
e
m
i
s
t
r
y
3
0
%
1
0
%
2
0
%
0
%
1
0
%
0
%
B
i
o
l
o
g
y
2
8
1
7
%
2
9
2
8
%
2
1
6
6
%
2
2
6
7
%
2
5
6
8
%
1
9
7
6
%
C
i
v
.
E
n
g
.
A
n
d
E
n
g
.
M
e
c
h
a
n
i
c
s
2
4
1
%
2
5
1
%
1
3
0
%
9
0
%
1
0
0
%
1
8
1
%
C
h
e
m
i
s
t
r
y
4
5
2
1
2
%
4
6
8
1
2
%
4
2
2
1
2
%
3
5
9
1
2
%
3
9
5
1
2
%
2
7
7
9
%
C
o
m
p
u
t
e
r
S
c
i
e
n
c
e
4
3
1
%
4
5
1
%
2
5
1
%
3
7
1
%
6
9
2
%
6
8
2
%
E
a
r
t
h
a
n
d
E
n
v
r
.
E
n
g
.
0
%
2
0
%
2
0
%
9
0
%
7
0
%
1
4
0
%
E
E
E
B
1
9
1
5
%
1
9
8
5
%
1
3
2
4
%
4
6
2
%
8
0
3
%
9
6
3
%
E
a
r
t
h
a
n
d
E
n
v
r
.
S
c
i
e
n
c
e
s
5
9
2
%
5
8
1
%
3
0
1
%
6
7
2
%
7
8
2
%
8
1
3
%
E
l
e
c
t
r
i
c
a
l
E
n
g
.
6
0
%
1
0
%
0
%
2
0
%
0
%
2
0
%
I
E
O
R
7
0
%
6
0
%
9
0
%
1
7
1
%
8
0
%
1
9
1
%
M
a
t
h
e
m
a
t
i
c
s
9
8
8
2
6
%
9
5
4
2
5
%
8
4
3
2
4
%
6
5
8
2
2
%
6
7
6
2
1
%
6
5
0
2
1
%
P
h
y
s
i
c
s
2
7
3
7
%
2
8
6
7
%
2
4
3
7
%
1
7
2
6
%
2
1
6
7
%
1
7
2
6
%
P
s
y
c
h
o
l
o
g
y
3
3
6
9
%
2
2
5
6
%
1
9
9
6
%
1
7
6
6
%
1
8
9
6
%
1
6
0
5
%
S
t
a
t
i
s
t
i
c
s
2
0
0
5
%
1
9
1
5
%
2
3
5
7
%
2
5
5
8
%
2
3
0
7
%
2
2
1
7
%
G
r
a
n
d
T
o
t
a
l
3
8
4
3
1
0
0
%
3
8
6
8
1
0
0
%
3
4
4
1
1
0
0
%
3
0
4
6
1
0
0
%
3
1
8
7
1
0
0
%
3
1
1
5
1
0
0
%
*
*
T
h
e
s
e
c
o
u
r
s
e
s
(
p
r
i
m
a
r
i
l
y
S
C
N
C
W
1
0
0
5
E
n
r
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g
a
n
d
t
h
e
R
i
s
e
o
f
M
o
d
e
r
n
I
n
d
u
s
t
r
y
a
n
d
S
C
N
C
W
3
0
1
0
S
c
i
e
n
c
e
,
T
e
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
y
,
a
n
d
S
o
c
i
e
t
y
)
w
e
r
e
a
p
p
r
o
v
e
d
f
o
r
t
h
e
s
c
i
e
n
c
e
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
u
n
t
i
l
t
h
e
2
0
0
7
/
0
8
a
c
a
d
e
m
i
c
y
e
a
r
w
h
e
n
C
O
S
I
r
e
v
i
e
w
e
d
a
p
p
r
o
v
e
d
s
c
i
e
n
c
e
c
o
u
r
s
e
s
a
n
d
r
e
m
o
v
e
d
t
h
e
s
e
c
o
u
r
s
e
s
.
P
r
e
-
F
o
S
P
o
s
t
-
F
o
S
2
0
0
4
/
0
5
2
0
0
5
/
0
6
2
0
0
6
/
0
7
2
0
0
9
/
1
0
2
0
1
0
/
1
1
2
0
1
1
/
1
2
A
c
a
d
e
m
i
c
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
a
n
d
A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
D
a
t
a
S
o
u
r
c
e
:
O
P
I
R
3
/
1
2
/
2
0
1
3
,
A
6
.
s
c
i
e
n
c
e
.
c
l
a
s
s
e
s
.
b
e
f
o
r
e
.
a
f
t
e
r
.
F
o
S
.
x
l
s
x
R
e
p
o
r
t
3
b
:
E
n
r
o
l
l
m
e
n
t
s
i
n
S
c
i
e
n
c
e
C
l
a
s
s
e
s
b
y
N
o
n
-
S
c
i
e
n
c
e
C
C
S
t
u
d
e
n
t
s
W
h
o
D
e
c
l
a
r
e
d
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
s
w
i
t
h
S
o
m
e
S
c
i
e
n
c
e
R
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
*
P
r
e
-
a
n
d
P
o
s
t
-
F
o
S
b
y
C
l
a
s
s
b
y
D
e
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
(
C
l
a
s
s
e
s
o
f
2
0
0
4
/
0
5
-
2
0
0
6
/
0
7
,
2
0
0
9
/
1
0
-
2
0
1
1
/
1
2
)
N
o
t
e
:
E
x
c
l
u
d
e
s
a
l
l
s
t
u
d
e
n
t
s
w
h
o
d
e
c
l
a
r
e
d
s
o
m
e
s
c
i
e
n
c
e
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
.
I
n
c
l
u
d
e
s
p
r
e
-
m
e
d
i
c
a
l
s
t
u
d
e
n
t
s
.
E
x
c
l
u
d
e
s
s
t
u
d
e
n
t
s
w
h
o
a
t
s
o
m
e
p
o
i
n
t
w
e
r
e
e
n
r
o
l
l
e
d
i
n
S
E
A
S
.
T
y
p
e
o
f
S
c
i
e
n
c
e
C
l
a
s
s
b
y
D
e
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
#
o
f
E
n
r
l
.
%
T
o
t
a
l
E
n
r
o
l
.
#
o
f
E
n
r
l
.
%
T
o
t
a
l
E
n
r
o
l
.
#
o
f
E
n
r
l
.
%
T
o
t
a
l
E
n
r
o
l
.
#
o
f
E
n
r
l
.
%
T
o
t
a
l
E
n
r
o
l
.
#
o
f
E
n
r
l
.
%
T
o
t
a
l
E
n
r
o
l
.
#
o
f
E
n
r
l
.
%
T
o
t
a
l
E
n
r
o
l
.
S
c
i
e
n
c
e
C
l
a
s
s
e
s
f
o
r
N
o
n
-
S
c
i
e
n
c
e
M
a
j
o
r
s
A
s
t
r
o
n
o
m
y
4
9
6
%
4
4
6
%
5
2
7
%
3
1
4
%
3
8
4
%
4
8
5
%
B
i
o
l
o
g
y
4
0
%
2
0
%
1
0
%
1
0
%
0
%
0
%
C
h
e
m
i
s
t
r
y
0
%
0
%
0
%
0
%
0
%
2
0
%
C
o
m
p
u
t
e
r
S
c
i
e
n
c
e
8
1
%
5
1
%
3
0
%
8
1
%
9
1
%
4
0
%
E
a
r
t
h
a
n
d
E
n
v
r
.
E
n
g
.
0
%
0
%
0
%
1
1
1
%
2
0
2
%
8
1
%
E
E
E
B
2
0
%
4
1
%
2
0
%
4
1
%
7
1
%
1
1
1
%
E
a
r
t
h
a
n
d
E
n
v
r
.
S
c
i
e
n
c
e
s
4
0
%
1
6
2
%
1
0
1
%
1
8
2
%
4
6
5
%
5
0
5
%
E
l
e
c
t
r
i
c
a
l
E
n
g
.
0
%
0
%
1
0
%
4
1
%
1
0
%
3
0
%
E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g
*
*
1
3
2
%
1
5
2
%
2
3
3
%
7
1
%
1
6
2
%
1
4
1
%
P
h
i
l
o
s
o
p
h
y
1
4
2
%
1
2
2
%
2
2
3
%
2
3
3
%
2
4
3
%
2
7
3
%
P
h
y
s
i
c
s
2
1
3
%
1
2
2
%
7
1
%
7
1
%
9
1
%
8
1
%
P
s
y
c
h
o
l
o
g
y
3
3
4
%
4
9
6
%
4
5
6
%
4
0
5
%
5
7
6
%
7
9
8
%
S
t
a
t
i
s
t
i
c
s
1
0
%
1
0
%
1
0
%
3
0
%
7
1
%
3
0
%
A
l
l
O
t
h
e
r
S
c
i
e
n
c
e
C
l
a
s
s
e
s
A
p
p
l
i
e
d
P
h
y
s
i
c
s
a
n
d
A
p
p
l
i
e
d
M
a
t
h
.
0
%
0
%
1
0
%
1
0
%
0
%
2
0
%
A
s
t
r
o
n
o
m
y
3
0
%
2
0
%
4
1
%
0
%
0
%
4
0
%
B
i
o
c
h
e
m
i
s
t
r
y
1
0
%
1
0
%
0
%
0
%
0
%
0
%
B
i
o
l
o
g
y
4
6
6
%
2
8
4
%
1
7
2
%
1
6
2
%
1
2
1
%
2
2
2
%
C
i
v
.
E
n
g
.
A
n
d
E
n
g
.
M
e
c
h
a
n
i
c
s
9
1
%
2
0
%
0
%
1
0
%
3
0
%
7
1
%
C
h
e
m
i
s
t
r
y
7
2
9
%
7
0
9
%
4
2
5
%
4
1
5
%
4
7
5
%
3
1
3
%
C
o
m
p
u
t
e
r
S
c
i
e
n
c
e
1
5
2
%
2
0
3
%
6
1
%
2
0
3
%
2
0
2
%
2
7
3
%
E
a
r
t
h
a
n
d
E
n
v
r
.
E
n
g
.
0
%
1
0
%
1
0
%
6
1
%
7
1
%
1
1
1
%
E
E
E
B
1
0
%
7
1
%
4
1
%
1
5
2
%
4
1
4
%
4
1
4
%
E
a
r
t
h
a
n
d
E
n
v
r
.
S
c
i
e
n
c
e
s
4
0
%
1
4
2
%
9
1
%
2
7
3
%
4
6
5
%
5
2
5
%
E
l
e
c
t
r
i
c
a
l
E
n
g
.
0
%
0
%
0
%
2
0
%
0
%
1
0
%
I
E
O
R
6
1
%
5
1
%
6
1
%
1
6
2
%
5
1
%
1
2
1
%
M
a
t
h
e
m
a
t
i
c
s
3
1
3
3
7
%
2
7
5
3
5
%
3
3
1
4
2
%
2
8
9
3
7
%
2
9
1
3
2
%
3
1
0
3
1
%
P
h
y
s
i
c
s
5
9
7
%
5
1
6
%
2
3
3
%
1
1
1
%
2
2
2
%
2
7
3
%
P
s
y
c
h
o
l
o
g
y
3
6
4
%
2
7
3
%
3
2
4
%
3
0
4
%
3
2
4
%
5
0
5
%
S
t
a
t
i
s
t
i
c
s
1
2
2
1
5
%
1
2
2
1
6
%
1
5
1
1
9
%
1
4
7
1
9
%
1
5
2
1
7
%
1
5
0
1
5
%
G
r
a
n
d
T
o
t
a
l
8
3
6
1
0
0
%
7
8
5
1
0
0
%
7
9
4
1
0
0
%
7
7
9
1
0
0
%
9
1
2
1
0
0
%
1
0
0
4
1
0
0
%
*
T
h
e
s
e
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
s
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
:
B
u
s
i
n
e
s
s
M
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
,
E
c
o
n
o
m
i
c
s
,
F
i
n
a
n
c
i
a
l
E
c
o
n
o
m
i
c
s
,
E
c
o
n
o
m
i
c
s
-
O
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
R
e
s
e
a
r
c
h
,
E
c
o
n
o
m
i
c
s
-
P
h
i
l
o
s
o
p
h
y
,
E
c
o
n
o
m
i
c
s
-
P
o
l
i
t
i
c
a
l
S
c
i
e
n
c
e
,
E
d
u
c
a
t
i
o
n
,
U
r
b
a
n
S
t
u
d
i
e
s
S
p
e
c
i
a
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
i
n
E
d
u
c
a
t
i
o
n
,
S
u
s
t
a
i
n
a
b
l
e
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
.
*
*
T
h
e
s
e
c
o
u
r
s
e
s
(
p
r
i
m
a
r
i
l
y
S
C
N
C
W
1
0
0
5
E
n
r
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g
a
n
d
t
h
e
R
i
s
e
o
f
M
o
d
e
r
n
I
n
d
u
s
t
r
y
a
n
d
S
C
N
C
W
3
0
1
0
S
c
i
e
n
c
e
,
T
e
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
y
,
a
n
d
S
o
c
i
e
t
y
)
w
e
r
e
a
p
p
r
o
v
e
d
f
o
r
t
h
e
s
c
i
e
n
c
e
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
u
n
t
i
l
t
h
e
2
0
0
7
/
0
8
a
c
a
d
e
m
i
c
y
e
a
r
w
h
e
n
C
O
S
I
r
e
v
i
e
w
e
d
a
p
p
r
o
v
e
d
s
c
i
e
n
c
e
c
o
u
r
s
e
s
a
n
d
r
e
m
o
v
e
d
t
h
e
s
e
c
o
u
r
s
e
s
.
P
r
e
-
F
o
S
P
o
s
t
-
F
o
S
2
0
0
4
/
0
5
2
0
0
5
/
0
6
2
0
0
6
/
0
7
2
0
0
9
/
1
0
2
0
1
0
/
1
1
2
0
1
1
/
1
2
A
c
a
d
e
m
i
c
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
a
n
d
A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
D
a
t
a
S
o
u
r
c
e
:
O
P
I
R
3
/
1
2
/
2
0
1
3
,
A
6
.
s
c
i
e
n
c
e
.
c
l
a
s
s
e
s
.
b
e
f
o
r
e
.
a
f
t
e
r
.
F
o
S
.
x
l
s
x
R
e
p
o
r
t
3
c
:
E
n
r
o
l
l
m
e
n
t
s
i
n
S
c
i
e
n
c
e
C
l
a
s
s
e
s
b
y
A
l
l
O
t
h
e
r
N
o
n
-
S
c
i
e
n
c
e
C
C
S
t
u
d
e
n
t
s
*
P
r
e
-
a
n
d
P
o
s
t
-
F
o
S
b
y
C
l
a
s
s
(
C
l
a
s
s
e
s
o
f
2
0
0
4
/
0
5
-
2
0
0
6
/
0
7
,
2
0
0
9
/
1
0
-
2
0
1
1
/
1
2
)
b
y
D
e
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
N
o
t
e
:
E
x
c
l
u
d
e
s
a
l
l
s
t
u
d
e
n
t
s
w
h
o
d
e
c
l
a
r
e
d
s
o
m
e
s
c
i
e
n
c
e
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
.
I
n
c
l
u
d
e
s
p
r
e
-
m
e
d
i
c
a
l
s
t
u
d
e
n
t
s
.
E
x
c
l
u
d
e
s
s
t
u
d
e
n
t
s
w
h
o
a
t
s
o
m
e
p
o
i
n
t
w
e
r
e
e
n
r
o
l
l
e
d
i
n
S
E
A
S
.
T
y
p
e
o
f
S
c
i
e
n
c
e
C
l
a
s
s
b
y
D
e
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
#
o
f
E
n
r
l
.
%
o
f
T
o
t
a
l
E
n
r
l
.
#
o
f
E
n
r
l
.
%
o
f
T
o
t
a
l
E
n
r
l
.
#
o
f
E
n
r
l
.
%
o
f
T
o
t
a
l
E
n
r
l
.
#
o
f
E
n
r
l
.
%
o
f
T
o
t
a
l
E
n
r
l
.
#
o
f
E
n
r
l
.
%
o
f
T
o
t
a
l
E
n
r
l
.
#
o
f
E
n
r
l
.
%
o
f
T
o
t
a
l
E
n
r
l
.
S
c
i
e
n
c
e
C
l
a
s
s
e
s
f
o
r
N
o
n
-
S
c
i
e
n
c
e
M
a
j
o
r
s
A
s
t
r
o
n
o
m
y
2
2
4
7
%
2
6
0
8
%
2
0
4
8
%
9
2
4
%
6
6
3
%
1
0
3
5
%
B
i
o
l
o
g
y
2
7
1
%
1
7
1
%
1
1
0
%
1
3
1
%
1
0
0
%
8
0
%
C
h
e
m
i
s
t
r
y
0
%
0
%
0
%
0
%
4
0
%
3
0
%
C
o
m
p
u
t
e
r
S
c
i
e
n
c
e
1
4
0
%
1
2
0
%
2
0
1
%
2
9
1
%
2
8
1
%
1
8
1
%
E
a
r
t
h
a
n
d
E
n
v
r
.
E
n
g
.
0
%
0
%
3
0
%
2
3
1
%
1
3
1
%
1
3
1
%
E
E
E
B
1
8
1
%
2
5
1
%
5
1
2
%
4
7
2
%
3
5
2
%
4
4
2
%
E
a
r
t
h
a
n
d
E
n
v
r
.
S
c
i
e
n
c
e
s
5
7
2
%
7
0
2
%
6
8
3
%
1
4
0
6
%
1
6
3
7
%
1
9
4
9
%
E
l
e
c
t
r
i
c
a
l
E
n
g
.
0
%
0
%
3
0
%
1
5
1
%
1
4
1
%
1
4
1
%
E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g
*
*
3
0
1
%
8
7
3
%
1
3
2
5
%
1
9
1
%
1
2
1
%
2
4
1
%
P
h
i
l
o
s
o
p
h
y
4
6
2
%
4
5
1
%
7
6
3
%
5
4
2
%
4
9
2
%
6
5
3
%
P
h
y
s
i
c
s
7
6
3
%
7
0
2
%
6
6
2
%
4
0
2
%
3
2
1
%
3
4
2
%
P
s
y
c
h
o
l
o
g
y
3
0
3
1
0
%
3
3
3
1
1
%
2
2
6
9
%
3
2
2
1
4
%
2
7
6
1
2
%
3
1
5
1
5
%
S
t
a
t
i
s
t
i
c
s
2
7
1
%
2
2
1
%
2
7
1
%
5
6
2
%
3
1
1
%
3
7
2
%
A
l
l
O
t
h
e
r
S
c
i
e
n
c
e
C
l
a
s
s
e
s
A
p
p
l
i
e
d
P
h
y
s
i
c
s
a
n
d
A
p
p
l
i
e
d
M
a
t
h
.
2
0
%
2
0
%
0
%
0
%
0
%
0
%
A
s
t
r
o
n
o
m
y
4
0
%
1
1
0
%
1
1
0
%
5
0
%
5
0
%
5
0
%
B
i
o
c
h
e
m
i
s
t
r
y
2
0
%
0
%
2
0
%
0
%
1
0
%
0
%
B
i
o
l
o
g
y
2
3
5
8
%
2
6
4
9
%
1
9
9
8
%
2
1
0
9
%
2
4
4
1
1
%
1
7
5
8
%
C
i
v
.
E
n
g
.
A
n
d
E
n
g
.
M
e
c
h
a
n
i
c
s
1
5
0
%
2
3
1
%
1
3
0
%
8
0
%
7
0
%
1
1
1
%
C
h
e
m
i
s
t
r
y
3
8
0
1
3
%
3
9
8
1
3
%
3
8
0
1
4
%
3
1
8
1
4
%
3
4
8
1
5
%
2
4
6
1
2
%
C
o
m
p
u
t
e
r
S
c
i
e
n
c
e
2
8
1
%
2
5
1
%
1
9
1
%
1
7
1
%
4
9
2
%
4
1
2
%
E
a
r
t
h
a
n
d
E
n
v
r
.
E
n
g
.
0
%
1
0
%
1
0
%
3
0
%
0
%
3
0
%
E
E
E
B
1
9
0
6
%
1
9
1
6
%
1
2
8
5
%
3
1
1
%
3
9
2
%
5
5
3
%
E
a
r
t
h
a
n
d
E
n
v
r
.
S
c
i
e
n
c
e
s
5
5
2
%
4
4
1
%
2
1
1
%
4
0
2
%
3
2
1
%
2
9
1
%
E
l
e
c
t
r
i
c
a
l
E
n
g
.
6
0
%
1
0
%
0
%
0
%
0
%
1
0
%
I
E
O
R
1
0
%
1
0
%
3
0
%
1
0
%
3
0
%
7
0
%
M
a
t
h
e
m
a
t
i
c
s
6
7
5
2
2
%
6
7
9
2
2
%
5
1
2
1
9
%
3
6
9
1
6
%
3
8
5
1
7
%
3
4
0
1
6
%
P
h
y
s
i
c
s
2
1
4
7
%
2
3
5
8
%
2
2
0
8
%
1
6
1
7
%
1
9
4
9
%
1
4
5
7
%
P
s
y
c
h
o
l
o
g
y
3
0
0
1
0
%
1
9
8
6
%
1
6
7
6
%
1
4
6
6
%
1
5
7
7
%
1
1
0
5
%
S
t
a
t
i
s
t
i
c
s
7
8
3
%
6
9
2
%
8
4
3
%
1
0
8
5
%
7
8
3
%
7
1
3
%
G
r
a
n
d
T
o
t
a
l
3
0
0
7
1
0
0
%
3
0
8
3
1
0
0
%
2
6
4
7
1
0
0
%
2
2
6
7
1
0
0
%
2
2
7
5
1
0
0
%
2
1
1
1
1
0
0
%
*
T
h
i
s
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
s
a
l
l
n
o
n
-
s
c
i
e
n
c
e
s
t
u
d
e
n
t
s
w
h
o
d
i
d
n
o
t
d
e
c
l
a
r
e
a
n
o
n
-
s
c
i
e
n
c
e
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
t
h
a
t
h
a
d
s
o
m
e
s
c
i
e
n
c
e
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
.
*
*
T
h
e
s
e
c
o
u
r
s
e
s
(
p
r
i
m
a
r
i
l
y
S
C
N
C
W
1
0
0
5
E
n
r
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g
a
n
d
t
h
e
R
i
s
e
o
f
M
o
d
e
r
n
I
n
d
u
s
t
r
y
a
n
d
S
C
N
C
W
3
0
1
0
S
c
i
e
n
c
e
,
T
e
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
y
,
a
n
d
S
o
c
i
e
t
y
)
w
e
r
e
a
p
p
r
o
v
e
d
f
o
r
t
h
e
s
c
i
e
n
c
e
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
u
n
t
i
l
t
h
e
2
0
0
7
/
0
8
a
c
a
d
e
m
i
c
y
e
a
r
w
h
e
n
C
O
S
I
r
e
v
i
e
w
e
d
a
p
p
r
o
v
e
d
s
c
i
e
n
c
e
c
o
u
r
s
e
s
a
n
d
r
e
m
o
v
e
d
t
h
e
s
e
c
o
u
r
s
e
s
.
P
r
e
-
F
o
S
P
o
s
t
-
F
o
S
2
0
0
4
/
0
5
2
0
0
5
/
0
6
2
0
0
6
/
0
7
2
0
0
9
/
1
0
2
0
1
0
/
1
1
2
0
1
1
/
1
2
Appendix 7
Academic Analysis and Planning
alum.survey.exec.summary.v2.docx
1
Frontiers of Science Review
Alum Survey
December 18, 2012
Executive Summary
The Frontiers of Science (FoS) Internal Review Committee invited College alumni from the classes of
2008-2012 to provide their feedback via an online survey. All non-transfer College students in these
classes were required to take FoS. It was sent to 4,758 alumni who had taken Frontiers of Science; 1,048
responded, giving a response rate of 22%.
1
In addition to the initial invitation to complete the survey,
two reminder emails were sent. The survey ran from November 27 to December 10, 2012.
Below is a summary of the quantitative responses. Please note that the proportions are based on the
number of respondents to that question, which are indicated for each chart. Alumni were asked if they
had intended to declare either a science program or pre-med. Based on that self-reported response,
they were asked slightly different questions for part of the survey.
Representativeness of the Sample
In order to determine if the sample of respondents was representative, we looked at a number of
different demographic characteristics including the alums program declarations. We compared the
distribution of those invited to take the survey (n=4,758) to those who submitted it (n=1,048) to those
whose qualitative responses we summarized (n=346, because of the large number of respondents we
included only every third response) to, finally, those who did not submit the survey (n=3,710). For the
sample to be representative, we would expect the distribution for a given characteristic to be roughly
the same for each of these four groups. Overall, we believe that the response sample is representative
and that sample is not skewed although we explain exceptions in more detail below.
The distribution by graduating year is almost the same across these four groups. The sample for
the qualitative responses may have some bias. For example, of those invited, 22% were from
the class of 2010; of those who were included in the qualitative analysis, 25% were from the
class of 2010. For the group who submitted and the group who did not, the distribution mirrors
that of the invited alumni. (See Report 1)
There is a slight overrepresentation of women among the respondents. Of alumni invited to
participate in the survey, 52% were women, while of those who responded 56% were women,
and for those in the sample for the qualitative analysis, 59% were women. While there may be
some overrepresentation of women, it is unclear in what directions it would skew the results.
(See Report 2).
Survey respondents appeared representative based on race/ethnicity which is a self-identified
characteristic.
The average GPA for these four groups varies little although it should be noted that while the
average GPA for the invited group is 3.51, the average GPA for the respondents was 3.57. So it
may be that those students who did slightly better at Columbia were also more likely to
complete the survey. (See Report 3)
1
The survey was sent to College alumni who had transferred as well. Although very few transfer students take FoS
as the course is not required for this group, we allowed for those who did take the course to respond to the
survey.
Academic Analysis and Planning
alum.survey.exec.summary.v2.docx
2
We also grouped alumni based on their Math SAT scores, if available, and found that the four
groups have fairly similar distributions.
There is some overrepresentation of alumni who received higher grades in FoS. For example,
about 25% of alumni received an A in the course, while among respondents that proportion was
32%. It should also be noted that 15% of invited alumni received a B, while this proportion was
only 12% for respondents. Again, while this presents some possible bias, it is unclear what the
specific consequences are for the results of the survey. One should remember in reviewing the
results that these may be responses from a group of students who may have been slightly more
involved and invested in the course than the invited group overall. (See Report 4)
We then parsed students by the division of the programs, whether major or concentration, with
which they graduated.
2
(Note: A student with multiple programs may be in multiple groupings.
For example, an alum with a double major in mathematics and history would be in the science
group and in the social science group.)
o There seems to be some overrepresentation among those alumni who graduated with
at least one program in the sciences. For those invited, 31% had graduated with a
program in the sciences, while for those who responded that proportion was 35%. (See
Report 5a)
o There seems to be some underrepresentation among those alumni who graduated with
at least one program in the social sciences, with 47% of the invited alumni having
declared a social science program while the same proportion for respondents was 44%.
(See Report 5b)
o For those alumni who graduated with at least one program in the humanities/arts or
interdisciplinary programs, we found that the groups were fairly similar. (See Reports 5c
and 5d)
o Finally, we parsed students by pre-medical declaration and found that the four groups
were similarly distributed with one exception. There seems to be a slight
overrepresentation of alumni who graduated with at least one program in the sciences
and were not premed. For example, of those invited, 21% fell into this group, while of
those who responded, 25% fell into this group, further refining the result above of
overrepresentation among alumni who graduated with a science program. (See Report
6)
o It seems plausible that alumni who studied in the sciences might be more interested in
the course and its future; it may also be that this group is more likely to complete
surveys.
Survey Reponses: Questions for All Alumni
For those questions asked of all alumni, the number of responses ranged from 1,047 to 1,021 for a
specific question.
2
We could have also looked at students by their intended program, which is something they indicate on their
application to the College. But as the alumni are taking this survey in hindsight, we believe that their frame of
reference would be most influenced by the programs they graduated with rather than what they intended to study
before entering college or knowing that they would be attending Columbia College.
Academic Analysis and Planning
alum.survey.exec.summary.v2.docx
3
Most alumni responded that the core curriculum
3
prepared them well to be an informed and
thoughtful citizen, with 81% responding either to a great extent or to a moderate extent
with only 0.3% responding not at all. (See Question 1)
In comparison, alumni responded that FoS and the two other required science courses did not
prepare them as well, with 47% responding either to a great extent or to a moderate extent
with 16% responding not at all. (See Question 2)
Most alumni did think that science should be part of the Columbia College Core Curriculum with
84% responding strongly agree or agree. (See Question 3)
Alumni were much less positive about the idea of a uniform science course to be required of all
College students, with 37% of respondents saying they have mixed feelings - the most common
response. (See Question 4)
Survey Responses: Alumni with Science Programs
Alumni were asked if they intended to graduate with a major or concentration in science. The following
results apply to those who reported that they intended to graduate with a science program. For this set
of questions, there were between 393 and 395 responses per question.
The FoS course did not seem to influence this groups decision to pursue a program in the
sciences with 70% of respondents reporting either to a limited extent or not at all. (See
Question 5)
Most of the alumni in this group did not find that FoS provided scientific analytical skills that
were useful in their other science courses, with 86% reporting either to a limited extent or
not at all. (See Question 6)
Similarly, most of this alumni group did not find the content of FoS lectures and seminars useful
in their other science courses with 88% reporting either to a limited extent or not at all.
(See Question 7)
Survey Responses: Alumni with Non-Science Programs
The following results apply to those who reported that they did not intend to graduate with a science
program. For this set of questions, there were between 644 and 651 responses per question.
Almost no one in this group eventually graduated with a science program, so when asked if FoS
impacted the decision to major in science, 88% selected not applicable. Of all respondents to
this question, 8% responded that FoS did not influence their decision at all. (See Question 8)
This group also did not find that FoS provided analytical skills or scientific knowledge that has
been useful in further studies or their professional or everyday life with 81% reporting to a
limited extent or not at all. (See Question 9)
For this group, FoS also didnt seem to have an impact on the other two sciences courses that
these alumni had to take with 69% reporting not at all. (See Question 10)
Survey Reponses: Questions for All Alumni
For those questions asked of all alumni, the number of responses ranged from 1,047 to 1,021 for a
specific question.
3
The core curriculum was defined in the question to include Literature Humanities, Contemporary Civilization,
University Writing, Art Humanities, and Music Humanities.
Academic Analysis and Planning
alum.survey.exec.summary.v2.docx
4
When asked if particular aspects of the course were memorable, most alumni found neither the
lectures nor the seminars very memorable, with 72% and 79%, respectively, responding either
somewhat memorable or not memorable. (Note: This was a five point scale with
memorable as the middle option.) (See Questions 11 and 12)
Most alumni responded that FoS did not function very well as the basis for subsequent social
science courses they took, with 65% responding either somewhat ineffective or very
ineffective. (See Question 13)
Most alumni responded that FoS was ineffective in fostering their interest in science as an
intellectual endeavor, with 66% responding either ineffective or very ineffective. (See
Question 14)
Again, most alumni responded that FoS did not teach them valuable skills and information, with
64% responding either to a limited extent or not at all. (See Question 15)
Alumni dont seem to remember enjoying the course very much while taking it, with 63%
responding either to a limited extent or not at all. (See Question 16)
o Furthermore, their opinion since graduating from Columbia, does not seem to have
changed with 72% responding not changed. (See Question 17)
Survey Responses: Broken out by demographics and programs
We also tried to identify demographic variables that once included would lead to significantly different
answers than the aggregate results reported above. As the course changed over this time period, we
first looked at results broken out by graduating year but found that there were no noteworthy
differences.
We then looked at the division of program by graduation, especially as there was some bias in the
response sample by program division and did find some differences in the answers between the two
groups. We found that there were differences between those alumni who graduated with at least one
science program (science alumni) regardless of additional programs they pursued and those alumni who
graduated without a program in the sciences. We report here these differences for the central
questions of the survey. (Note: We did not find differences by comparing other divisions.) The number
of responses ranged from 1,047 to 1,038 for a specific question.
On the question of whether the core curriculum prepared the alum well to be an informed and
thoughtful citizen, 59% of the science alumni reported to a great extent while 68% of the non-
science alumni reported to a great extent. (See Question 1a)
Similarly, the science alumni felt more strongly that FoS plus the other two required science
courses prepared them well to be an informed and thoughtful citizen with 16% reporting to a
great extent while the equivalent was 10% for the non-science alumni. (See Question 2a)
The science alumni were much more likely to respond that science should be part of the core
curriculum with 80% responding strongly agree while only 50% of the non-science alumni
responded strongly agree. (See Question 3a)
Science alumni were also more likely to support a uniform science course with 23% responding
strongly agree while 15% of non-science alumni responded strongly agree. (See Question
4a)
Science alumni were more likely to respond that FoS succeeded in fostering their interest in
science as an intellectual endeavor with 42% of science alumni responding very effective and
effective while 29% of non-science alumni responded very effective and effective. (See
Question 14a)
Academic Analysis and Planning
alum.survey.exec.summary.v2.docx
5
Science alumni responded more frequently that they thought the course taught them valuable
skills and information with 41% responding to a great extent or to a moderate extent while
33% of non-science alumni responded so. (See Question 15a)
More science alumni responded that they enjoyed the course with 47% responding to a great
extent or to a moderate extent while 32% of non-science alumni responded so. (See
Question 16a)
But there were no differences between these two groups on the question of whether their
opinion of the course had changed since they took it with the vast majority responding that it
did not change. (See Question 17a)
Survey Reponses: Qualitative Questions
In order to begin understanding the qualitative responses provided by the 1,048 alumni who responded
to the survey, we looked at every third comment. The comments are sorted by an index number
assigned to an alumnis response in the order they accessed the survey. Therefore, the first alum to click
into the survey is given Submission Key #1, although that person may not submit their responses first.
This provided a randomized pool of the survey responses which were coded and grouped along themes.
Below we summarized the repeating themes from this set of comments.
Best Aspects of the Course: 265 alumni provided a response to the question of which aspects of
the course they viewed as best. The largest group, a third, spoke positively about the lectures.
They praised the prominence of the outstanding faculty being made accessible, some
particularly noting how exciting it was that these faculty were addressing first years. The next
most common response (15%) complimented the diversity of the topics covered in Frontiers of
Science and the broad exposure it provided students to cutting edge research. Nearly 10% of
responses were general negative remarks (i.e. I cannot recall enjoying anything about the
class), despite the question being intended to elicit positive feedback. Finally, approximately 5%
of responses addressed each of the following: Frontiers of Science provided a bonding
opportunity for members of the first year class, positive feedback regarding the seminars, and
the development of analytic thinking skills (specifically back-of-the-envelope calculations).
What Aspects Could Be Improved: 267 alumni provide a response to the aspects of the course
that could be improved. There was significantly more diversity in the responses, with no theme
comprising more than 10% of the responses. One of those themes is that it would be better to
eliminate the course rather than trying to improve the existing structure. Another common
theme addressed the quality of teaching in the seminars, specifically addressing the difficulty of
one instructor being knowledgeable about the numerous lecture topics. Alumni felt there was
unevenness to the seminars based on what was a particular instructors specialization. Alumni
also expressed that Frontiers of Science faces a challenging task of appealing to both science
and non-science students. Some alumni remarked that the course struggled with one or both of
these groups. Another common feedback from alumni was on the lack of cohesion, either
between topics or between the lectures and the seminars. This is an interesting juxtaposition
with the alumni above who felt the diversity of the topics was a strength of Frontiers of Science.
Another group of alumni expressed concern that the structure of the course, namely the large
class size with the lecture posted online, allowed students to either not attend or to use the
class time socially. Finally, a handful of alumni expressed disappointment that the topics of
Frontiers of Science were too new making the course different from the other parts of the
Core Curriculum that emphasize tradition by teaching the seminal texts of a field.
Academic Analysis and Planning
alum.survey.exec.summary.v2.docx
6
Additional Comments: Slightly less than a quarter of the alumni (83) provided additional
comments when given the opportunity to do so. The most common response (20%) was to
express support for the role of science in the core curriculum. A slightly smaller number of
responses were appreciative of the Colleges efforts to improve the curriculum, many of which
specifically complimented the effort around Frontiers of Science. Smaller groups of alumni (less
than 10%) expressed positive sentiments for portions of the Core outside of Frontiers of Science
or expressed reservations about Frontiers of Science itself. There were also a handful of alumni
who volunteered to be involved with this effort moving forward.
Q
u
e
s
t
i
o
n
s
A
s
k
e
d
o
f
A
l
l
A
l
u
m
n
i
6
7
8
3
2
1
4
1
3
0
.
0
%
1
0
.
0
%
2
0
.
0
%
3
0
.
0
%
4
0
.
0
%
5
0
.
0
%
6
0
.
0
%
7
0
.
0
%
T
o
a
g
r
e
a
t
e
x
t
e
n
t
T
o
a
m
o
d
e
r
a
t
e
e
x
t
e
n
t
T
o
a
l
i
m
i
t
e
d
e
x
t
e
n
t
N
o
t
a
t
a
l
l
Q
u
e
s
t
i
o
n
1
D
o
y
o
u
f
e
e
l
t
h
a
t
t
h
e
c
o
r
e
c
u
r
r
i
c
u
l
u
m
(
L
H
,
C
C
,
A
H
,
M
H
,
a
n
d
U
W
)
p
r
e
p
a
r
e
d
y
o
u
w
e
l
l
t
o
b
e
a
n
i
n
f
o
r
m
e
d
a
n
d
t
h
o
u
g
h
t
f
u
l
c
i
t
i
z
e
n
?
1
,
0
4
3
R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
s
1
2
5
3
6
5
3
9
2
1
6
3
0
.
0
%
5
.
0
%
1
0
.
0
%
1
5
.
0
%
2
0
.
0
%
2
5
.
0
%
3
0
.
0
%
3
5
.
0
%
4
0
.
0
%
T
o
a
g
r
e
a
t
e
x
t
e
n
t
T
o
a
m
o
d
e
r
a
t
e
e
x
t
e
n
t
T
o
a
l
i
m
i
t
e
d
e
x
t
e
n
t
N
o
t
a
t
a
l
l
Q
u
e
s
t
i
o
n
2
D
o
y
o
u
f
e
e
l
t
h
a
t
F
r
o
n
t
i
e
r
s
o
f
S
c
i
e
n
c
e
p
l
u
s
t
h
e
o
t
h
e
r
t
w
o
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
d
s
c
i
e
n
c
e
c
o
u
r
s
e
s
p
r
e
p
a
r
e
d
y
o
u
w
e
l
l
t
o
b
e
a
n
i
n
f
o
r
m
e
d
a
n
d
t
h
o
u
g
h
t
f
u
l
c
i
t
i
z
e
n
?
1
,
0
4
5
R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
s
6
3
0
2
4
6
1
2
7
2
3
2
1
0
.
0
%
1
0
.
0
%
2
0
.
0
%
3
0
.
0
%
4
0
.
0
%
5
0
.
0
%
6
0
.
0
%
7
0
.
0
%
S
t
r
o
n
g
l
y
A
g
r
e
e
A
g
r
e
e
M
i
x
e
d
F
e
e
l
i
n
g
s
D
i
s
a
g
r
e
e
S
t
r
o
n
g
l
y
D
i
s
a
g
r
e
e
Q
u
e
s
t
i
o
n
3
W
h
a
t
i
s
y
o
u
r
r
e
a
c
t
i
o
n
t
o
t
h
e
f
o
l
l
o
w
i
n
g
s
t
a
t
e
m
e
n
t
:
S
c
i
e
n
c
e
s
h
o
u
l
d
b
e
p
a
r
t
o
f
t
h
e
C
o
l
u
m
b
i
a
C
o
l
l
e
g
e
C
o
r
e
C
u
r
r
i
c
u
l
u
m
?
1
,
0
4
7
R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
s
1
8
9
1
8
7
3
8
8
1
5
0
1
3
2
0
.
0
%
5
.
0
%
1
0
.
0
%
1
5
.
0
%
2
0
.
0
%
2
5
.
0
%
3
0
.
0
%
3
5
.
0
%
4
0
.
0
%
S
t
r
o
n
g
l
y
A
g
r
e
e
A
g
r
e
e
M
i
x
e
d
F
e
e
l
i
n
g
s
D
i
s
a
g
r
e
e
S
t
r
o
n
g
l
y
D
i
s
a
g
r
e
e
Q
u
e
s
t
i
o
n
4
W
h
a
t
i
s
y
o
u
r
r
e
a
c
t
i
o
n
t
o
t
h
e
f
o
l
l
o
w
i
n
g
s
t
a
t
e
m
e
n
t
:
T
h
e
r
e
s
h
o
u
l
d
b
e
a
u
n
i
f
o
r
m
s
c
i
e
n
c
e
c
o
u
r
s
e
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
d
o
f
a
l
l
C
o
l
l
e
g
e
s
t
u
d
e
n
t
s
?
1
,
0
4
6
R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
s
A
c
a
d
e
m
i
c
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
a
n
d
A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
D
a
t
a
S
o
u
r
c
e
:
F
O
S
A
l
u
m
n
i
S
u
r
v
e
y
1
2
/
1
9
/
2
0
1
2
Q
u
e
s
t
i
o
n
s
A
s
k
e
d
o
f
A
l
u
m
n
i
W
h
o
I
n
t
e
n
d
e
d
t
o
D
e
c
l
a
r
e
E
i
t
h
e
r
a
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
i
n
t
h
e
S
c
i
e
n
c
e
s
o
r
P
r
e
-
M
e
d
8
8
2
6
2
4
9
1
0
2
0
.
0
%
1
0
.
0
%
2
0
.
0
%
3
0
.
0
%
4
0
.
0
%
5
0
.
0
%
6
0
.
0
%
7
0
.
0
%
T
o
a
g
r
e
a
t
e
x
t
e
n
t
T
o
a
m
o
d
e
r
a
t
e
e
x
t
e
n
t
T
o
a
l
i
m
i
t
e
d
e
x
t
e
n
t
N
o
t
a
t
a
l
l
N
o
t
a
p
p
l
i
c
a
b
l
e
Q
u
e
s
t
i
o
n
5
I
f
y
o
u
g
r
a
d
u
a
t
e
d
w
i
t
h
a
m
a
j
o
r
o
r
c
o
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
i
n
s
c
i
e
n
c
e
,
d
i
d
F
r
o
n
t
i
e
r
s
o
f
S
c
i
e
n
c
e
i
n
f
l
u
e
n
c
e
y
o
u
r
d
e
c
i
s
i
o
n
?
3
9
3
R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
s
1
0
4
4
1
3
3
2
0
8
0
.
0
%
1
0
.
0
%
2
0
.
0
%
3
0
.
0
%
4
0
.
0
%
5
0
.
0
%
6
0
.
0
%
7
0
.
0
%
T
o
a
g
r
e
a
t
e
x
t
e
n
t
T
o
a
m
o
d
e
r
a
t
e
e
x
t
e
n
t
T
o
a
l
i
m
i
t
e
d
e
x
t
e
n
t
N
o
t
a
t
a
l
l
Q
u
e
s
t
i
o
n
6
D
i
d
F
r
o
n
t
i
e
r
s
o
f
S
c
i
e
n
c
e
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
s
c
i
e
n
t
i
f
i
c
a
n
a
l
y
t
i
c
a
l
s
k
i
l
l
s
(
g
r
a
p
h
i
n
g
,
p
r
o
b
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
,
s
t
a
t
i
s
t
i
c
s
,
b
a
c
k
-
o
f
-
t
h
e
-
e
n
v
e
l
o
p
e
c
a
l
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
,
s
e
n
s
e
o
f
s
c
a
l
e
,
e
t
c
.
)
t
h
a
t
w
e
r
e
u
s
e
f
u
l
i
n
y
o
u
r
o
t
h
e
r
s
c
i
e
n
c
e
c
o
u
r
s
e
s
?
3
9
5
R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
s
7
4
0
1
1
2
2
3
6
0
.
0
%
1
0
.
0
%
2
0
.
0
%
3
0
.
0
%
4
0
.
0
%
5
0
.
0
%
6
0
.
0
%
7
0
.
0
%
T
o
a
g
r
e
a
t
e
x
t
e
n
t
T
o
a
m
o
d
e
r
a
t
e
e
x
t
e
n
t
T
o
a
l
i
m
i
t
e
d
e
x
t
e
n
t
N
o
t
a
t
a
l
l
Q
u
e
s
t
i
o
n
7
W
a
s
t
h
e
c
o
n
t
e
n
t
o
f
t
h
e
F
r
o
n
t
i
e
r
s
o
f
S
c
i
e
n
c
e
l
e
c
t
u
r
e
s
a
n
d
s
e
m
i
n
a
r
s
u
s
e
f
u
l
i
n
y
o
u
r
o
t
h
e
r
s
c
i
e
n
c
e
c
o
u
r
s
e
s
?
3
9
4
R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
s
A
c
a
d
e
m
i
c
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
a
n
d
A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
D
a
t
a
S
o
u
r
c
e
:
F
O
S
A
l
u
m
n
i
S
u
r
v
e
y
1
2
/
1
9
/
2
0
1
2
Q
u
e
s
t
i
o
n
s
A
s
k
e
d
o
f
A
l
u
m
n
i
W
h
o
D
i
d
N
o
t
I
n
t
e
n
d
t
o
D
e
c
l
a
r
e
E
i
t
h
e
r
a
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
i
n
t
h
e
S
c
i
e
n
c
e
s
o
r
P
r
e
-
M
e
d
4
1
0
1
0
5
4
5
6
6
0
.
0
%
1
0
.
0
%
2
0
.
0
%
3
0
.
0
%
4
0
.
0
%
5
0
.
0
%
6
0
.
0
%
7
0
.
0
%
8
0
.
0
%
9
0
.
0
%
1
0
0
.
0
%
T
o
a
g
r
e
a
t
e
x
t
e
n
t
T
o
a
m
o
d
e
r
a
t
e
e
x
t
e
n
t
T
o
a
l
i
m
i
t
e
d
e
x
t
e
n
t
N
o
t
a
t
a
l
l
N
o
t
a
p
p
l
i
c
a
b
l
e
Q
u
e
s
t
i
o
n
8
I
f
y
o
u
e
v
e
n
t
u
a
l
l
y
g
r
a
d
u
a
t
e
d
w
i
t
h
a
m
a
j
o
r
o
r
c
o
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
i
n
s
c
i
e
n
c
e
,
d
i
d
F
r
o
n
t
i
e
r
s
o
f
S
c
i
e
n
c
e
i
n
f
l
u
e
n
c
e
y
o
u
r
d
e
c
i
s
i
o
n
?
6
4
4
R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
s
3
5
8
6
2
1
2
3
1
8
0
.
0
%
1
0
.
0
%
2
0
.
0
%
3
0
.
0
%
4
0
.
0
%
5
0
.
0
%
6
0
.
0
%
T
o
a
g
r
e
a
t
e
x
t
e
n
t
T
o
a
m
o
d
e
r
a
t
e
e
x
t
e
n
t
T
o
a
l
i
m
i
t
e
d
e
x
t
e
n
t
N
o
t
a
t
a
l
l
Q
u
e
s
t
i
o
n
9
D
i
d
F
O
S
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
a
n
a
l
y
t
i
c
a
l
s
k
i
l
l
s
(
g
r
a
p
h
i
n
g
,
p
r
o
b
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
,
s
t
a
t
i
s
t
i
c
s
,
b
a
c
k
-
o
f
-
t
h
e
-
e
n
v
e
l
o
p
e
c
a
l
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
,
s
e
n
s
e
o
f
s
c
a
l
e
,
e
t
c
.
)
o
r
s
c
i
e
n
t
i
f
i
c
k
n
o
w
l
e
d
g
e
t
h
a
t
h
a
s
b
e
e
n
u
s
e
f
u
l
i
n
f
u
r
t
h
e
r
s
t
u
d
i
e
s
,
o
r
y
o
u
r
p
r
o
f
e
s
s
i
o
n
a
l
o
r
e
v
e
r
y
d
a
y
l
i
f
e
?
6
5
1
R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
s
2
5
4
3
7
6
4
4
2
5
8
0
.
0
%
1
0
.
0
%
2
0
.
0
%
3
0
.
0
%
4
0
.
0
%
5
0
.
0
%
6
0
.
0
%
7
0
.
0
%
8
0
.
0
%
T
o
a
g
r
e
a
t
e
x
t
e
n
t
T
o
a
m
o
d
e
r
a
t
e
e
x
t
e
n
t
T
o
a
l
i
m
i
t
e
d
e
x
t
e
n
t
N
o
t
a
t
a
l
l
N
o
t
a
p
p
l
i
c
a
b
l
e
Q
u
e
s
t
i
o
n
1
0
I
f
y
o
u
d
i
d
N
O
T
e
v
e
n
t
u
a
l
l
y
g
r
a
d
u
a
t
e
w
i
t
h
a
m
a
j
o
r
o
r
c
o
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
i
n
s
c
i
e
n
c
e
,
d
i
d
F
r
o
n
t
i
e
r
s
o
f
S
c
i
e
n
c
e
i
n
f
l
u
e
n
c
e
t
h
e
c
h
o
i
c
e
o
f
t
h
e
o
t
h
e
r
t
w
o
s
c
i
e
n
c
e
c
o
u
r
s
e
s
y
o
u
t
o
o
k
t
o
f
u
l
f
i
l
l
t
h
e
s
c
i
e
n
c
e
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
?
6
4
4
R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
s
A
c
a
d
e
m
i
c
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
a
n
d
A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
D
a
t
a
S
o
u
r
c
e
:
F
O
S
A
l
u
m
n
i
S
u
r
v
e
y
1
2
/
1
9
/
2
0
1
2
Q
u
e
s
t
i
o
n
s
A
s
k
e
d
o
f
A
l
l
A
l
u
m
n
i
1
7
1
3
0
2
0
6
2
3
1
4
3
7
0
.
0
%
1
0
.
0
%
2
0
.
0
%
3
0
.
0
%
4
0
.
0
%
5
0
.
0
%
6
0
.
0
%
V
e
r
y
e
f
f
e
c
t
i
v
e
S
o
m
e
w
h
a
t
e
f
f
e
c
t
i
v
e
M
i
x
e
d
f
e
e
l
i
n
g
s
S
o
m
e
w
h
a
t
i
n
e
f
f
e
c
t
i
v
e
V
e
r
y
i
n
e
f
f
e
c
t
i
v
e
Q
u
e
s
t
i
o
n
1
3
H
o
w
w
e
l
l
d
i
d
F
r
o
n
t
i
e
r
s
o
f
S
c
i
e
n
c
e
f
u
n
c
t
i
o
n
a
s
t
h
e
b
a
s
i
s
f
o
r
s
u
b
s
e
q
u
e
n
t
s
o
c
i
a
l
s
c
i
e
n
c
e
c
o
u
r
s
e
s
y
o
u
t
o
o
k
?
1
,
0
2
1
R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
s
3
3
9
1
1
6
9
3
4
5
4
0
1
0
.
0
%
1
0
.
0
%
2
0
.
0
%
3
0
.
0
%
4
0
.
0
%
5
0
.
0
%
6
0
.
0
%
E
x
t
r
e
m
e
l
y
m
e
m
o
r
a
b
l
e
V
e
r
y
m
e
m
o
r
a
b
l
e
M
e
m
o
r
a
b
l
e
S
o
m
e
w
h
a
t
m
e
m
o
r
a
b
l
e
N
o
t
m
e
m
o
r
a
b
l
e
Q
u
e
s
t
i
o
n
1
1
F
r
o
m
y
o
u
r
p
e
r
s
p
e
c
t
i
v
e
t
o
d
a
y
,
h
o
w
m
e
m
o
r
a
b
l
e
w
e
r
e
t
h
e
F
r
o
n
t
i
e
r
s
o
f
S
c
i
e
n
c
e
l
e
c
t
u
r
e
s
?
1
,
0
3
9
R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
s
2
5
6
3
1
3
1
2
4
7
5
7
3
0
.
0
%
1
0
.
0
%
2
0
.
0
%
3
0
.
0
%
4
0
.
0
%
5
0
.
0
%
6
0
.
0
%
E
x
t
r
e
m
e
l
y
m
e
m
o
r
a
b
l
e
V
e
r
y
m
e
m
o
r
a
b
l
e
M
e
m
o
r
a
b
l
e
S
o
m
e
w
h
a
t
m
e
m
o
r
a
b
l
e
N
o
t
m
e
m
o
r
a
b
l
e
Q
u
e
s
t
i
o
n
1
2
F
r
o
m
y
o
u
r
p
e
r
s
p
e
c
t
i
v
e
t
o
d
a
y
,
h
o
w
m
e
m
o
r
a
b
l
e
w
e
r
e
t
h
e
F
r
o
n
t
i
e
r
s
o
f
S
c
i
e
n
c
e
s
e
m
i
n
a
r
s
?
1
,
0
3
9
R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
s
A
c
a
d
e
m
i
c
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
a
n
d
A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
D
a
t
a
S
o
u
r
c
e
:
F
O
S
A
l
u
m
n
i
S
u
r
v
e
y
1
2
/
1
9
/
2
0
1
2
Q
u
e
s
t
i
o
n
s
A
s
k
e
d
o
f
A
l
l
A
l
u
m
n
i
1
2
2
2
6
8
3
4
3
3
0
7
0
.
0
%
5
.
0
%
1
0
.
0
%
1
5
.
0
%
2
0
.
0
%
2
5
.
0
%
3
0
.
0
%
3
5
.
0
%
T
o
a
g
r
e
a
t
e
x
t
e
n
t
T
o
a
m
o
d
e
r
a
t
e
e
x
t
e
n
t
T
o
a
l
i
m
i
t
e
d
e
x
t
e
n
t
N
o
t
a
t
a
l
l
Q
u
e
s
t
i
o
n
1
6
W
h
i
l
e
t
a
k
i
n
g
F
r
o
n
t
i
e
r
s
o
f
S
c
i
e
n
c
e
,
d
i
d
y
o
u
e
n
j
o
y
t
h
e
c
o
u
r
s
e
?
1
,
0
4
0
R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
s
8
4
2
6
7
3
6
0
3
3
0
0
.
0
%
5
.
0
%
1
0
.
0
%
1
5
.
0
%
2
0
.
0
%
2
5
.
0
%
3
0
.
0
%
3
5
.
0
%
4
0
.
0
%
4
5
.
0
%
5
0
.
0
%
V
e
r
y
e
f
f
e
c
t
i
v
e
E
f
f
e
c
t
i
v
e
I
n
e
f
f
e
c
t
i
v
e
V
e
r
y
i
n
e
f
f
e
c
t
i
v
e
Q
u
e
s
t
i
o
n
1
4
H
o
w
w
e
l
l
d
i
d
F
r
o
n
t
i
e
r
s
o
f
S
c
i
e
n
c
e
s
u
c
c
e
e
d
i
n
f
o
s
t
e
r
i
n
g
y
o
u
r
i
n
t
e
r
e
s
t
i
n
s
c
i
e
n
c
e
a
s
a
n
i
n
t
e
l
l
e
c
t
u
a
l
e
n
d
e
a
v
o
r
?
1
,
0
4
1
R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
s
8
1
2
9
1
3
9
0
2
7
6
0
.
0
%
5
.
0
%
1
0
.
0
%
1
5
.
0
%
2
0
.
0
%
2
5
.
0
%
3
0
.
0
%
3
5
.
0
%
T
o
a
g
r
e
a
t
e
x
t
e
n
t
T
o
a
m
o
d
e
r
a
t
e
e
x
t
e
n
t
T
o
a
l
i
m
i
t
e
d
e
x
t
e
n
t
N
o
t
a
t
a
l
l
Q
u
e
s
t
i
o
n
1
5
W
h
i
l
e
t
a
k
i
n
g
F
r
o
n
t
i
e
r
s
o
f
S
c
i
e
n
c
e
,
d
i
d
y
o
u
t
h
i
n
k
t
h
a
t
t
h
e
c
o
u
r
s
e
t
a
u
g
h
t
v
a
l
u
a
b
l
e
s
k
i
l
l
s
a
n
d
i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
?
1
,
0
3
8
R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
s
3
4
1
5
5
7
4
6
7
4
3
2
0
.
0
%
1
0
.
0
%
2
0
.
0
%
3
0
.
0
%
4
0
.
0
%
5
0
.
0
%
6
0
.
0
%
7
0
.
0
%
8
0
.
0
%
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
d
s
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
l
y
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
d
m
o
d
e
r
a
t
e
l
y
N
o
t
c
h
a
n
g
e
d
D
e
c
l
i
n
e
d
m
o
d
e
r
a
t
e
l
y
D
e
c
l
i
n
e
d
s
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
l
y
Q
u
e
s
t
i
o
n
1
7
H
a
s
y
o
u
r
o
p
i
n
i
o
n
o
f
t
h
e
v
a
l
u
e
o
f
t
h
e
c
o
u
r
s
e
c
h
a
n
g
e
d
s
i
n
c
e
g
r
a
d
u
a
t
i
n
g
f
r
o
m
C
o
l
u
m
b
i
a
,
r
e
l
a
t
i
v
e
t
o
w
h
e
n
y
o
u
t
o
o
k
t
h
e
c
o
u
r
s
e
?
1
,
0
4
1
R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
s
A
c
a
d
e
m
i
c
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
a
n
d
A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
D
a
t
a
S
o
u
r
c
e
:
F
O
S
A
l
u
m
n
i
S
u
r
v
e
y
1
2
/
1
9
/
2
0
1
2
Q
u
e
s
t
i
o
n
s
A
s
k
e
d
o
f
A
l
l
A
l
u
m
n
i
:
B
r
o
k
e
n
O
u
t
B
y
A
l
u
m
s
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
,
S
c
i
e
n
c
e
v
e
r
s
u
s
N
o
n
-
S
c
i
e
n
c
e
2
1
5
1
3
0
1
6
2
4
6
3
1
9
1
2
5
1
0
.
0
0
%
1
0
.
0
0
%
2
0
.
0
0
%
3
0
.
0
0
%
4
0
.
0
0
%
5
0
.
0
0
%
6
0
.
0
0
%
7
0
.
0
0
%
8
0
.
0
0
%
T
o
a
g
r
e
a
t
e
x
t
e
n
t
T
o
a
m
o
d
e
r
a
t
e
e
x
t
e
n
t
T
o
a
l
i
m
i
t
e
d
e
x
t
e
n
t
N
o
t
a
t
a
l
l
Q
u
e
s
t
i
o
n
1
a
D
o
y
o
u
f
e
e
l
t
h
a
t
t
h
e
c
o
r
e
c
u
r
r
i
c
u
l
u
m
(
L
H
,
C
C
,
A
H
,
M
H
,
a
n
d
U
W
)
p
r
e
p
a
r
e
d
y
o
u
w
e
l
l
t
o
b
e
a
n
i
n
f
o
r
m
e
d
a
n
d
t
h
o
u
g
h
t
f
u
l
c
i
t
i
z
e
n
?
1
,
0
4
3
R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
s
-
3
6
3
S
c
i
e
n
c
e
a
n
d
6
8
0
n
o
n
-
S
c
i
e
n
c
e
S
c
i
e
n
c
e
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
N
o
S
c
i
e
n
c
e
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
5
8
1
1
6
1
4
0
4
8
6
7
2
4
9
2
5
2
1
1
5
0
.
0
0
%
5
.
0
0
%
1
0
.
0
0
%
1
5
.
0
0
%
2
0
.
0
0
%
2
5
.
0
0
%
3
0
.
0
0
%
3
5
.
0
0
%
4
0
.
0
0
%
T
o
a
g
r
e
a
t
e
x
t
e
n
t
T
o
a
m
o
d
e
r
a
t
e
e
x
t
e
n
t
T
o
a
l
i
m
i
t
e
d
e
x
t
e
n
t
N
o
t
a
t
a
l
l
Q
u
e
s
t
i
o
n
2
a
D
o
y
o
u
f
e
e
l
t
h
a
t
F
r
o
n
t
i
e
r
s
o
f
S
c
i
e
n
c
e
p
l
u
s
t
h
e
o
t
h
e
r
t
w
o
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
d
s
c
i
e
n
c
e
c
o
u
r
s
e
s
p
r
e
p
a
r
e
d
y
o
u
w
e
l
l
t
o
b
e
a
n
i
n
f
o
r
m
e
d
a
n
d
t
h
o
u
g
h
t
f
u
l
c
i
t
i
z
e
n
?
1
,
0
4
5
R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
s
-
3
6
2
S
c
i
e
n
c
e
a
n
d
6
8
3
n
o
n
-
S
c
i
e
n
c
e
S
c
i
e
n
c
e
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
N
o
S
c
i
e
n
c
e
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
2
9
0
4
9
2
2
2
1
3
4
0
1
9
7
1
0
5
2
1
2
0
0
.
0
0
%
1
0
.
0
0
%
2
0
.
0
0
%
3
0
.
0
0
%
4
0
.
0
0
%
5
0
.
0
0
%
6
0
.
0
0
%
7
0
.
0
0
%
8
0
.
0
0
%
S
t
r
o
n
g
l
y
A
g
r
e
e
A
g
r
e
e
M
i
x
e
d
F
e
e
l
i
n
g
s
D
i
s
a
g
r
e
e
S
t
r
o
n
g
l
y
D
i
s
a
g
r
e
e
Q
u
e
s
t
i
o
n
3
a
W
h
a
t
i
s
y
o
u
r
r
e
a
c
t
i
o
n
t
o
t
h
e
f
o
l
l
o
w
i
n
g
s
t
a
t
e
m
e
n
t
:
S
c
i
e
n
c
e
s
h
o
u
l
d
b
e
p
a
r
t
o
f
t
h
e
C
o
l
u
m
b
i
a
C
o
l
l
e
g
e
C
o
r
e
C
u
r
r
i
c
u
l
u
m
?
1
,
0
4
7
R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
s
-
3
6
4
S
c
i
e
n
c
e
a
n
d
6
8
3
n
o
n
-
S
c
i
e
n
c
e
S
c
i
e
n
c
e
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
N
o
S
c
i
e
n
c
e
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
8
3
7
8
1
3
7
3
6
3
0
1
0
6
1
0
9
2
5
1
1
1
4
1
0
2
0
.
0
0
%
5
.
0
0
%
1
0
.
0
0
%
1
5
.
0
0
%
2
0
.
0
0
%
2
5
.
0
0
%
3
0
.
0
0
%
3
5
.
0
0
%
4
0
.
0
0
%
S
t
r
o
n
g
l
y
A
g
r
e
e
A
g
r
e
e
M
i
x
e
d
F
e
e
l
i
n
g
s
D
i
s
a
g
r
e
e
S
t
r
o
n
g
l
y
D
i
s
a
g
r
e
e
Q
u
e
s
t
i
o
n
4
a
W
h
a
t
i
s
y
o
u
r
r
e
a
c
t
i
o
n
t
o
t
h
e
f
o
l
l
o
w
i
n
g
s
t
a
t
e
m
e
n
t
:
T
h
e
r
e
s
h
o
u
l
d
b
e
a
u
n
i
f
o
r
m
s
c
i
e
n
c
e
c
o
u
r
s
e
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
d
o
f
a
l
l
C
o
l
l
e
g
e
s
t
u
d
e
n
t
s
?
1
,
0
4
6
R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
s
-
3
6
4
S
c
i
e
n
c
e
a
n
d
6
8
2
n
o
n
-
S
c
i
e
n
c
e
S
c
i
e
n
c
e
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
N
o
S
c
i
e
n
c
e
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
A
c
a
d
e
m
i
c
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
a
n
d
A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
1
2
/
1
9
/
2
0
1
2
D
a
t
a
S
o
u
r
c
e
:
F
O
S
A
l
u
m
n
i
S
u
r
v
e
y
Q
u
e
s
t
i
o
n
s
A
s
k
e
d
o
f
A
l
l
A
l
u
m
n
i
:
B
r
o
k
e
n
O
u
t
B
y
A
l
u
m
s
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
,
S
c
i
e
n
c
e
v
e
r
s
u
s
N
o
n
-
S
c
i
e
n
c
e
3
7
1
1
6
1
0
6
1
0
3
4
7
1
5
1
2
5
4
2
2
7
0
.
0
0
%
5
.
0
0
%
1
0
.
0
0
%
1
5
.
0
0
%
2
0
.
0
0
%
2
5
.
0
0
%
3
0
.
0
0
%
3
5
.
0
0
%
4
0
.
0
0
%
V
e
r
y
e
f
f
e
c
t
i
v
e
E
f
f
e
c
t
i
v
e
I
n
e
f
f
e
c
t
i
v
e
V
e
r
y
i
n
e
f
f
e
c
t
i
v
e
Q
u
e
s
t
i
o
n
1
4
a
H
o
w
w
e
l
l
d
i
d
F
r
o
n
t
i
e
r
s
o
f
S
c
i
e
n
c
e
s
u
c
c
e
e
d
i
n
f
o
s
t
e
r
i
n
g
y
o
u
r
i
n
t
e
r
e
s
t
i
n
s
c
i
e
n
c
e
a
s
a
n
i
n
t
e
l
l
e
c
t
u
a
l
e
n
d
e
a
v
o
r
?
1
,
0
4
1
R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
s
-
3
6
2
S
c
i
e
n
c
e
a
n
d
6
7
9
n
o
n
-
S
c
i
e
n
c
e
S
c
i
e
n
c
e
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
N
o
S
c
i
e
n
c
e
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
3
9
1
1
0
1
3
1
8
2
4
2
1
8
1
2
5
9
1
9
4
0
.
0
0
%
5
.
0
0
%
1
0
.
0
0
%
1
5
.
0
0
%
2
0
.
0
0
%
2
5
.
0
0
%
3
0
.
0
0
%
3
5
.
0
0
%
4
0
.
0
0
%
T
o
a
g
r
e
a
t
e
x
t
e
n
t
T
o
a
m
o
d
e
r
a
t
e
e
x
t
e
n
t
T
o
a
l
i
m
i
t
e
d
e
x
t
e
n
t
N
o
t
a
t
a
l
l
Q
u
e
s
t
i
o
n
1
5
a
W
h
i
l
e
t
a
k
i
n
g
F
r
o
n
t
i
e
r
s
o
f
S
c
i
e
n
c
e
,
d
i
d
y
o
u
t
h
i
n
k
t
h
a
t
t
h
e
c
o
u
r
s
e
t
a
u
g
h
t
v
a
l
u
a
b
l
e
s
k
i
l
l
s
a
n
d
i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
?
1
,
0
3
8
R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
s
-
3
6
2
S
c
i
e
n
c
e
a
n
d
6
7
6
n
o
n
-
S
c
i
e
n
c
e
S
c
i
e
n
c
e
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
N
o
S
c
i
e
n
c
e
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
6
5
1
0
5
1
0
5
8
7
5
7
1
6
3
2
3
8
2
2
0
0
.
0
0
%
5
.
0
0
%
1
0
.
0
0
%
1
5
.
0
0
%
2
0
.
0
0
%
2
5
.
0
0
%
3
0
.
0
0
%
3
5
.
0
0
%
4
0
.
0
0
%
T
o
a
g
r
e
a
t
e
x
t
e
n
t
T
o
a
m
o
d
e
r
a
t
e
e
x
t
e
n
t
T
o
a
l
i
m
i
t
e
d
e
x
t
e
n
t
N
o
t
a
t
a
l
l
Q
u
e
s
t
i
o
n
1
6
a
W
h
i
l
e
t
a
k
i
n
g
F
r
o
n
t
i
e
r
s
o
f
S
c
i
e
n
c
e
,
d
i
d
y
o
u
e
n
j
o
y
t
h
e
c
o
u
r
s
e
?
1
,
0
4
0
R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
s
-
3
6
2
S
c
i
e
n
c
e
a
n
d
6
7
8
n
o
n
-
S
c
i
e
n
c
e
S
c
i
e
n
c
e
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
N
o
S
c
i
e
n
c
e
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
1
2
5
8
2
6
3
2
2
8
2
2
9
7
4
8
3
5
2
2
4
0
.
0
0
%
1
0
.
0
0
%
2
0
.
0
0
%
3
0
.
0
0
%
4
0
.
0
0
%
5
0
.
0
0
%
6
0
.
0
0
%
7
0
.
0
0
%
8
0
.
0
0
%
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
d
s
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
l
y
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
d
m
o
d
e
r
a
t
e
l
y
N
o
t
c
h
a
n
g
e
d
D
e
c
l
i
n
e
d
m
o
d
e
r
a
t
e
l
y
D
e
c
l
i
n
e
d
s
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
l
y
Q
u
e
s
t
i
o
n
1
7
a
H
a
s
y
o
u
r
o
p
i
n
i
o
n
o
f
t
h
e
v
a
l
u
e
o
f
t
h
e
c
o
u
r
s
e
c
h
a
n
g
e
d
s
i
n
c
e
g
r
a
d
u
a
t
i
n
g
f
r
o
m
C
o
l
u
m
b
i
a
,
r
e
l
a
t
i
v
e
t
o
w
h
e
n
y
o
u
t
o
o
k
t
h
e
c
o
u
r
s
e
?
1
,
0
4
1
R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
s
-
3
6
3
S
c
i
e
n
c
e
a
n
d
6
7
8
n
o
n
-
S
c
i
e
n
c
e
S
c
i
e
n
c
e
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
N
o
S
c
i
e
n
c
e
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
A
c
a
d
e
m
i
c
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
a
n
d
A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
D
a
t
a
S
o
u
r
c
e
:
F
O
S
A
l
u
m
n
i
S
u
r
v
e
y
1
2
/
1
9
/
2
0
1
2
Appendix 8
A
c
a
d
e
m
i
c
A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
a
n
d
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
D
a
t
a
S
o
u
r
c
e
:
C
o
r
e
O
f
f
i
c
e
5
/
8
/
2
0
1
3
,
A
8
.
f
a
c
u
l
t
y
.
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
.
v
2
.
x
l
s
x
A
p
p
e
n
d
i
x
8
:
N
u
m
b
e
r
a
n
d
P
r
o
p
o
r
t
i
o
n
o
f
F
r
o
n
t
i
e
r
s
S
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
T
a
u
g
h
t
b
y
I
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
o
r
T
y
p
e
,
2
0
0
4
/
0
5
-
2
0
1
2
/
1
3
I
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
o
r
T
y
p
e
#
o
f
S
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
T
a
u
g
h
t
%
o
f
S
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
T
a
u
g
h
t
#
o
f
S
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
T
a
u
g
h
t
%
o
f
S
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
T
a
u
g
h
t
#
o
f
S
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
T
a
u
g
h
t
%
o
f
S
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
T
a
u
g
h
t
#
o
f
S
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
T
a
u
g
h
t
%
o
f
S
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
T
a
u
g
h
t
#
o
f
S
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
T
a
u
g
h
t
%
o
f
S
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
T
a
u
g
h
t
#
o
f
S
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
T
a
u
g
h
t
%
o
f
S
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
T
a
u
g
h
t
#
o
f
S
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
T
a
u
g
h
t
%
o
f
S
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
T
a
u
g
h
t
#
o
f
S
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
T
a
u
g
h
t
%
o
f
S
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
T
a
u
g
h
t
#
o
f
S
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
T
a
u
g
h
t
%
o
f
S
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
T
a
u
g
h
t
F
a
c
u
l
t
y
1
6
3
0
%
1
4
2
5
%
1
4
2
6
%
1
3
2
4
%
9
1
7
%
1
2
2
1
%
9
1
6
%
7
1
3
%
6
1
1
%
F
e
l
l
o
w
s
3
4
6
3
%
4
2
7
5
%
4
0
7
4
%
3
8
6
9
%
4
2
7
9
%
3
8
6
8
%
4
2
7
5
%
4
2
7
5
%
4
2
7
8
%
A
d
j
u
n
c
t
s
/
L
e
c
t
u
r
e
r
s
4
7
%
0
%
0
%
4
7
%
2
4
%
6
1
1
%
5
9
%
7
1
3
%
6
1
1
%
G
r
a
n
d
T
o
t
a
l
5
4
1
0
0
%
5
6
1
0
0
%
5
4
1
0
0
%
5
5
1
0
0
%
5
3
1
0
0
%
5
6
1
0
0
%
5
6
1
0
0
%
5
6
1
0
0
%
5
4
1
0
0
%
2
0
0
6
/
0
7
2
0
0
5
/
0
6
2
0
0
4
/
0
5
2
0
1
2
/
1
3
2
0
1
1
/
1
2
2
0
1
0
/
1
1
2
0
0
9
/
1
0
2
0
0
8
/
0
9
2
0
0
7
/
0
8
Appendix 9
A
c
a
d
e
m
i
c
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
D
a
t
a
S
o
u
r
c
e
:
C
o
r
e
O
f
f
i
c
e
3
/
1
2
/
2
0
1
3
,
A
9
.
f
a
c
.
b
y
.
d
e
p
t
.
x
l
s
x
A
p
p
e
n
d
i
x
9
:
C
o
u
n
t
o
f
a
l
l
t
e
n
u
r
e
d
f
a
c
u
l
t
y
w
h
o
h
a
v
e
t
a
u
g
h
t
i
n
F
O
S
e
i
t
h
e
r
a
s
a
l
e
c
t
u
r
e
r
o
r
s
e
m
i
n
a
r
l
e
a
d
e
r
b
y
d
e
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
,
2
0
0
4
/
0
5
-
2
0
1
2
/
1
3
F
a
c
u
l
t
y
'
s
D
e
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
a
l
A
p
p
o
i
n
t
m
e
n
t
2
0
0
4
/
0
5
2
0
0
5
/
0
6
2
0
0
6
/
0
7
2
0
0
7
/
0
8
2
0
0
8
/
0
9
2
0
0
9
/
1
0
2
0
1
0
/
1
1
2
0
1
1
/
1
2
2
0
1
2
/
1
3
G
r
a
n
d
T
o
t
a
l
A
s
t
r
o
n
o
m
y
/
A
s
t
r
o
p
h
y
s
i
c
s
3
2
3
3
2
3
1
2
1
2
0
B
i
o
l
o
g
y
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
7
C
h
e
m
i
s
t
r
y
1
1
1
1
4
D
E
E
S
6
7
7
5
6
5
5
4
5
5
0
E
3
B
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
8
M
a
t
h
1
1
P
h
y
s
i
c
s
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
7
P
s
y
c
h
o
l
o
g
y
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
8
S
t
a
t
i
s
t
i
c
s
1
1
2
M
e
d
i
c
a
l
C
e
n
t
e
r
(
P
s
y
c
h
o
l
o
g
y
)
1
1
1
1
1
1
6
G
r
a
n
d
T
o
t
a
l
1
6
1
5
1
6
1
4
1
4
1
4
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
2
3
Appendix 10
Appendix 10
Possible Models
In the course of its review, members of the Internal Review Committee heard many
suggestions for how to construct a seminar-centered science core course. Some of the models
suggested were very different from the current FoS course; some built on that course. Some
replicate all six of the components of the seminar-based core discussed above; some draw on
most but not all of those. We list these models here only as a spur to thought by the faculty
committee who will carry on with the work of curricular development.
a. First-Year Core Science Seminars
Most simply, the College could require every student to enroll in one of a large menu of
Freshman Science Seminars, numbering around twenty-seven a term with approximately twenty
students per section. Each instructor could choose the topic of the seminar, so long as it has a solid
introduction to some basic science, a well thought through effort to instill scientific habits and
practices of mind, and a serious discussion component. Science Fellows could teach such seminars
within their disciplines, as could faculty. Students would have some choice in selection among the
seminars.
For all its flexibility, such a scheme would do little to help scale the course: each instructor
would, to a great extent, be working individually. It would be enormously challenging to create a
collective pedagogical culture such as undergirds the mainstays of the Core Curriculum, with the great
benefits that culture affords throughout our curriculum. This model is also the most out of keeping
with the effort to create a common experience for students, which is a signal part of much of the core.
For this reason, the Internal Review Committee would not recommend adopting such a model at
Columbia.
b. A Limited Menu of First-Year Core Science Seminars
A superior option in our opinion would be for every first-year student to take a First-Year
Core Science Seminar chosen from a limited selection of topics. The College would offer multiple
sections of the seminars for each of these topics. From the start these seminars would be a group
effort: these seminars would initially be created by faculty in conjunction with a small team of science
fellows. Like Frontiers of Science and the other core courses, each of these topics could have its own
evolving pedagogical culture comprising a standing regular meetings of instructors as well as
collectively generated suggested syllabi, assignments, and other teaching materials. The set of
seminars on each topic could have a shared set of lectures, either sporadically or weekly, should the
instructors of the topic think necessary.
Such seminars could be problem-focused or primarily disciplinary in quality. Each of the units
in Frontiers, with its accompanying podcast lectures, readings, and supporting materials, would be an
excellent starting point for a semester-long seminar focused on the topic of the unit. Topics for
seminars, however, could easily emerge from a greater number of scientific and technological
disciplines than have predominated in Frontiers. Such openness would likely increase departmental
participation and buy in.
Such seminars would substantially reduce the burdens placed on Science Fellows and faculty
instructors to teach outside their disciplines in subjects that change from term to term. Science Fellows
would still gain the experience of teaching in the small seminar liberal arts format within a rich
pedagogical structure, but with much smaller start-up costs.
A model of this kind is especially attractive because it could draw on the strengths and work
that went into FoS. The current frontiers of a science or set of sciences, including their intellectual,
technological and social significance, could well serve to focus and motivate the seminar. A course,
for example, with a focus on climate change could use current frontiers, could motivate the
introduction of the basic science of climate, from fluid dynamics to ecological thinking, and serve as
the platform for students to develop their skills in reasoned and informed debate about fundamental
scientific issues. A seminar of this kind could be genuinely interdisciplinary, the creation of a group
of faculty from a set of disciplines motivated to work together. It would scale well, as faculty and
Science Fellows, from numerous fields could teach their own sections.
c. A Core Concepts in Science / Current issues in Science core seminar.
There is the option of seeking to create a coherent, semester-long, course aimed at teaching
basic concepts in science, a model based most fully on the analogy with the core. Alone of the options
above, this model has the potential to achieve what is accomplished by other core courses to create a
course that, fixed in syllabus and changing only slowly from semester to semester, could become a
focus of student conversation and common culture across the years. It does not seem impossible to us
to create such a course, in which students would engage with particular readings or with particular
podcast lectures used as texts. One science faculty member suggested to us, for example, the
possibility of taking half a dozen or a dozen key concepts and exploring one each week, so as to give
the students a common conceptual language in the same way that students gain a language from CC
and LH. For example the core scientific concepts of entropy, inertia, atomism, mutation with natural
selection, chaotic behavior, fields, diffusion, energy, heat, light, membranes, and many others that
could be discussed and decided upon by a science core committee could be used to build a stable
literature for the course. Each of these, and other concepts, could be presented either in its historical
context of discovery or in a modern application or both.
d. A Single Thematic Course
Yet another alternative that would still allow for change but over longer periods of time,
would be to choose a single topic for the semester and have it approached from many different
disciplines. An example might be water viewed from chemistry, biology, climate, astronomy,
physics (turbulence, flow, etc.), so that multiple disciplines can participate in building a semester long
syllabus. This could remain in place for years at a time or could change regularly to another topic
power, time, counting, etc. One or two faculty members active in FoS favored such a model,
suggesting that climate change might be the perfect subject, both because it could integrate many
disciplines and because it is a pressing subject of immediate interest which carries the same kind of
ethical weight as do many of the subjects discussed in CC. We note, however, that an effort to create
a course of this sort at Stanford ran into problems.