Frontiers of Science-the most recent addition to Columbia’s Core Curriculum-is undergoing its review after its initial five-year period to determine if it should still remain in the Core, and will most likely be renewed.
Frontiers, the required science course in the Core, was developed by astronomy department chair David Helfand and Darcy Kelley, the Harold Weintraub Professor of Biological Sciences. It piloted during the 2002-2003 academic year to “introduce students to exciting ideas at the forefront of scientific research” and to “inculcate in them the habits of mind common to a scientific approach to the world,” according to the program’s Web site. The course became a part of the Core in 2005, and is taken by freshmen.
According to Kathryn Yatrakis, Dean of Academic Affairs for Columbia College, the University’s review process to evaluate how the course meets Core standards “has not yet been completed but the expectation is that Frontiers of Science will be renewed.” In addition, she said that the committees conducting the review-the Committee on Science Instruction, the Committee on the Core, and the Committee on Instruction-are working with the faculty leaders of Frontiers of Science, who continuously revise the course each semester.
Donald Hood, chair of Frontiers and the James F. Bender Professor of Psychology, said the general objectives and format of the course have not changed since the beginning. But, he said, they have “constantly modified various aspects” of the course each semester-including the lectures, the readings, and the weekly assignments—based on student feedback.
The course includes a weekly lecture given by one of four different scientists, who each give three lectures in different disciplines-ranging from evolution to astronomy to neuroscience to climate change-throughout the semester. This lecture is supplemented with a small seminar class each week, which is capped at about 20 students. The seminar section includes weekly assignments and readings that culminate in a midterm and final exam.
Last year, Hood said that students complained they were not prepared for the assignments, which were too long and complex. So this year, Frontiers assignments are “shorter” and “cleaner,” and have a “much smaller effect on the grade” in an effort to focus on their “pedagogical value.” Hood said that these assignments now mainly assess students based on “their participation in seminar and their performance on quizzes.”
Still, many students remain critical. Derek Turner, CC ’12, a student who took the class during the fall of 2008, believes that “unless the entire course is overhauled, Frontiers of Science is a major detriment to the Core.”
He added, “Its structure makes the class into a rotation between dull lectures about potentially fascinating ‘big picture’ concepts and lengthy discussion sections that revolve around nit-picky homework assignments that don’t really relate to the large concepts put forth in lecture.”
Hood said he wished that he had taken a course like this when he was in college and that it probably would have changed his major from neuroscience to the physical sciences. Being able to teach the course and learn about the other aspects of science has “substantially increased my enjoyment of the news and the newspapers I read,” he said, while adding that he finds something in the paper every day relating to something he learned from Frontiers.
But according to Turner, “Frontiers stands out to me as my least enjoyed class I’ve had at Columbia. I am sure there is a place for science in the Core, but Frontiers is not fitting the bill. The more general science requirement does the job fine.”
David Kagan, CC ’02 and a postdoctoral science fellow for Frontiers since the fall of 2007, said that when he was an undergraduate, he “felt it was odd that the Core had such a strong program in the humanities and a relatively weak science component.” He thought at the time that “a strong science-based component to the Core could help reinforce the other elements of the Core.”
Now, “from an instructor’s perspective” he believes “the course is phenomenally stimulating.”
“I went from having a pretty narrow specialization in a very popular, but esoteric area of physics [string theory], to learning a tremendous amount about many other fascinating subjects, and I continue to do so from semester to semester,” he said, adding that “The course is not perfect, of course. It is ambitious and novel, teaching not only ‘what science is,’ but how science fits into our world, and how we can use scientific frames of thinking to deal with problems.”
Although Kagan has heard “more compliments than complaints” about Frontiers, he believes that “most frequent criticism” he hears from students is that they do not understand how the different parts of the course relate to one another. He believes that this is “the major issue that the faculty contends with.”
Another criticism Kagan said that he has heard from the “more science-oriented students” is that the course is “too broad” because it doesn’t “go deeply into any one area.” But, he said that “the flip-side is that some students feel there is too much detail and that we should approach things even more broadly.”
Shane Strumwasser, CC ’12, who took Frontiers in fall 2008, felt that the discussion sections seemed too long, saying he “didn’t find the two hours to be necessary.” He also thought that the “applications of the skills we learned seemed random.”
Still, in all, Strumwasser feels that Frontiers was a “cool experience.”
COMMENTS
Comments will be moderated in accordance with our comment policy