Apathy about Core Classes at UChicago

JHS
Sat, 15 Dec 2012 16:09:14 +0000

Five years ago, I was at something where David Archer gave a 90-minute talk that was a simulated lecture from the course and a talk about the course itself. I thought it was superb – interesting, rigorous, informative, well-designed, and, yes, also easy. I was also among the least enthusiastic of the 30 or so parents in the room. Several leapt to their feet and applauded at the end. One of them asked, “I know you said only non-science majors take this course, but it’s so inspiring, do you ever get students changing their minds because of it and becoming scientists?”

Archer said, “To be honest, I don’t think I’ve gotten any scientists out of this course. I can probably claim three or four environmental lawyers, though.”

He was frank about the challenges of a course exclusively for non-science majors, and he seemed really thoughtful about how it was designed. Essentially. the core of the course was building a model to predict the climate change effects of man-made environmental changes, such as increased carbon emission. The course really had three levels – it was a course on how to build a predictive model and what it’s good for, it was a course on the physics and chemistry of the various reactions being modeled, and of course it was a course on climate change.

The course seemed likely to be easy because (a) Archer clearly wasn’t interested in hiding the ball or tripping people up. He was very systematic about presenting his material, and committed into doing it in a way that highlighted most what he most wanted students to know. (b) He had turned the course into a book that pretty much had everything he had to say in it.

Anyway, I was completely enthusiastic about Archer and the course. My daughter, who was taking it at the time, thought Archer was annoying and the course mildly interesting but too easy.