Some Comments on Enhancing Learning: The Aberdeen Approach -First Report of the Curriculum Commission - by Prof Joe Swierzbinski, Prof
Ioannis Theodossiou, Dr John Skatun and Prof Tim Barmby
The first part of these comments suggests an alternative approach for implementing
the Principal’s vision, set out in his letter to the academic community in February
2007, of enhancing the breadth and the distinctiveness of the University of
Aberdeen’s undergraduate programme. We hope the Curriculum Commission will
find these appealing. Our comments build on some of the proposals in the report but
also differs from these proposals.
The second part of these comments involves some specific comments and suggestions
concerning the proposals put forward in the report. The third part of these comments
involves some more general comments concerning the discussion contained in the
report.
It is worth noting that the First Report of the Curriculum Commission is only 15
pages long. Hence, any characterization of the policy approaches presented in the
report inevitably involves some conjecture as to what the various proposals in the
report might actually involve.
Executive Summary
Some of the major points made in these comments are as follows.
1. The introduction of a relatively small number of high quality courses with similar
objectives to the New Aberdeen Courses discussed in the Curriculum Commission
report may be a promising strategy for increasing the breadth and distinctiveness of
undergraduate education.
2. A large scale introduction of new interdisciplinary courses is not necessarily the
best strategy for introducing more breadth into undergraduate education.
3. The introduction of compulsory interdisciplinary courses at level 3 does, we feel,
present problems as it potentially restricts the ability to achieve appropriate depth in
the student’s chosen discipline.
4. A significant restructuring of undergraduate and masters degrees appears to be a
risky strategy that could result in a serious decline in enrolment if the proposed
changes do not find favour with prospective students or employers.
5. There appear to be significant costs, risks, and uncertainties associated with some
of the proposals in the Curriculum Commission report. The Curriculum Commission
has a responsibility to weigh carefully the benefits, costs, and risks of the proposals.
In the interests of transparency and peer review, the analyses of these benefits and
costs and any data on which they may be based should be freely available to all
interested parties.
6. The Curriculum Commission should consider the gradual introduction of proposed
changes on a trial basis in order to maximize the amount of information that might be
gained concerning the effectiveness of these changes and in order to mitigate, as much
as possible, the costs and risks associated with these changes. Some suggestions
concerning how changes could be made on a trial basis are briefly discussed.
7. The Curriculum Commission does not necessarily seem to be the appropriate
venue to discuss issues of retention rates, and it is not clear that curriculum reform is
the appropriate policy tool to address this issue.
8. Although some change may be desirable, we do not agree with a seemingly
negative view of current conditions at the University of Aberdeen which suggests that
urgent and major changes are necessary. Policy arguments based on the premise that
“any change is better than doing nothing” should be rejected.
Part I. An Alternative (or Complementary) Suggestion for Enhancing Breadth
and Distinctiveness
The First Report by the Curriculum Commission suggests the introduction of a
number of New Aberdeen Courses to enhance the breadth of undergraduate education.
“These courses would be designed to introduce, compare and apply to specific
problems, the fundamental modes, concepts and perspectives of a number of
disciplines. (p. 9)” The aim of such a course would be to “cover the essential
questions, problems and issues that disciplines seek to address, and how they do so.”
The goal of these courses is expressed as follows. “In short, New Aberdeen Courses
would show how disciplines work and, in doing so, would produce better informed
discipline graduates with a wider and more critical understanding.”
A second goal that is intended to be served by the introduction of such courses is to
enhance the distinctiveness of an undergraduate education at the University of
Aberdeen.
If the introduction of New Aberdeen Courses is to be a flagship element emphasizing
the breadth, quality and distinctiveness of a University of Aberdeen education, then it
is essential that these courses be easily recognized as innovative and very high in
quality. As the Principal observed in his Essay to the University Community of
February 2007, “Any review of the curriculum will have to ensure that we reflect the
characteristics and objectives of the University...” In that essay, the Principal pointed
to “excellence in teaching, research, and technology transfer” as leading
characteristics of the University of Aberdeen.
We agree with the conclusion of the Curriculum Commission report that the
introduction of such courses could significantly enhance the breadth and
distinctiveness of undergraduate education at the University of Aberdeen. On the
other hand, for reasons discussed at a number of points in these comments, we
disagree with the proposition that a large scale introduction of interdisciplinary
courses is desirable at this time. As outlined below, we would also urge the
Curriculum Commission to take a broad view of the various formats which the New
Aberdeen Courses might use to achieve their goals.
The following paragraphs list three possible formats that a New Aberdeen Course
might use to introduce the methods, concepts, and perspectives of one discipline to
students from other disciplines. The Curriculum Commission report mentions global
climate change as an example of a suitable focus for New Aberdeen Courses, so we
will also use that example in what follows.
One possible format for an interdisciplinary version of a New Aberdeen Course is the
format used by the Global Worlds, Global Challenges course offered at the University
of Aberdeen in the Winter 2007 term. In that format, a number of experts from
different fields discuss the contribution their discipline can make toward solving a
particular problem or related set of problems. In the case of the Global Worlds, Global
Challenges course, many experts gave only a single 1-hour lecture. However, in other
variants of this format, different experts might lecture on their discipline’s
contribution for one or two weeks.
Advantages of this format include relatively low cost for any one lecturer and the
opportunity for students to hear a wide variety of points of view. A disadvantage is
that there is little time for any one expert to go deeply into the methods and concepts
of his or her discipline.
A second possible format would pair two lecturers from different disciplines to
provide a course that considers the contrasts and similarities in how the two
disciplines approach a related set of issues. For example, an economist and a
psychologist could present a course on how each field deals with some of the issues
related to global climate change. The advantage of such a format is that it allows for a
deeper comparison of the methods and ideas of the two disciplines. One disadvantage
is that such a course will require substantially more effort in coordination. It will also
require two scholars with a mutual interest in a policy problem together with a respect
for and some knowledge of the other scholar’s discipline. A variant of this format
could involve three or more separate disciplines instead of two. However, we expect
that the difficulty of achieving a dialogue would increase very rapidly as the number
of disciplines increased.
A third format would involve one or more lecturers from a single discipline teaching a
course that self consciously attempted to expose the major ideas and methods of the
discipline to students from a range of other disciplines. Such a course might include a
focus on a particular problem like global climate change and might include explicit
comparisons with the approaches of other disciplines. Even though such a format
might not technically qualify as an “interdisciplinary course”, it deserves
consideration.
Innovative courses using this third format appear to have been developed. For
example, the book Is The Temperature Rising? The Uncertain Science of Global
Warming by S. George Philander is a book based on notes for an introductory course
on the science of weather and climate taught in the Department of Geosciences at
Princeton. Such a course could teach a wide range of undergraduates how physical
scientists think about problems. An example from the arts is a book by Richard
Neustadt and Ernest May, Thinking in Time: The Uses of History for Decision
Makers. This book is based on a course taught by the authors for mid-career
American policy makers at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government. Perhaps a
historian would be able and willing to teach a course on global climate change using
this book as one of the texts. Of course, the above examples are only illustrative.
The costs of preparing and delivering such innovative courses should not be
underestimated. The costs include the time and effort of preparing new and often
unusual lectures and locating or developing appropriate course material. There are
also the significant costs of engaging and coordinating with scholars from other
disciplines. America and England are not the only groups separated by a common
language. Finally, delivering an excellent interdisciplinary course probably requires
enthusiasm, patience, a breadth and depth of knowledge, and flair that together may
border on genius.
Providing the proper rewards as an incentive for scholars to come forward and teach
such courses is clearly essential. But even with the proper incentives, there will not be
an unlimited supply of scholars who can deliver such courses, even in a distinguished
faculty like that at the University of Aberdeen.
In light of the likely difficulties in producing excellent interdisciplinary courses, it
seems sensible to start modestly. Perhaps the programme of New Aberdeen Courses
could start with four courses. One or two more might be added in each of the
following years until a core of eight or so high quality courses is achieved. We
imagine that a typical course would be targeted mainly at first- or second-year
students, but perhaps someone will put forward an innovative idea for a more
advanced course. We can also imagine that several of the courses might have a
common theme such as global climate change.
Initially, we would envisage that the courses would be provided as options rather than
as a compulsory part of the curriculum. It makes little sense to make a course
compulsory, until it is sure that it will exist after a year or so. However, once a core of
high quality courses has been securely established, it might be considered whether
students in some or all undergraduate programmes should be required to take one or
even two such courses.
If the New Aberdeen Courses consisted of eight high quality, innovative courses, we
think they would be an impressive asset that could significantly improve both the
breadth and the distinctiveness of a University of Aberdeen education. It would be an
achievement that the University of Aberdeen community could point to and be proud
of.
Part II. Some Specific Comments and Suggestions.
Our reading of the First Report of the Curriculum Commission suggests that there are
other alternatives that would be worth considering seriously in addition to the
approaches stressed in the report.
Some of the sections below stress the contrast between the approaches emphasized or
suggested in the Curriculum Commission report and possible alternative approaches.
However, in many cases, these alternatives are not necessarily mutually exclusive but
may be complementary. For example, an attempt to broaden the education of
undergraduates beyond a single discipline could include both courses presented from
a disciplinary perspective and some courses with an interdisciplinary perspective.
1. Enhancing the breadth of undergraduate education by introductory courses
based primarily on a disciplinary perspective vs. courses such as the proposed
New Aberdeen Courses that emphasize many disciplines.
1a Discipline Perspectives
In the first paragraph on p. 8 of the Curriculum Commission report, the commission
asserts the rationale for expanding the breadth of undergraduate education. “In the
course of our evidence gathering, it became clear that there was a widespread view
that, during their degree study, students should continue to be exposed to material
beyond their chosen disciplines and that this should be enhanced. Our research
revealed international support for such an approach and examples of how it is
achieved in other countries.” The report further proposes “three main components” to
deliver this breadth. (1) existing provisions “whereby a student must normally select
courses, at pre-honours levels, beyond their intended degree discipline”,
(2) “Sustained Study programmes - similar to the existing combined `with’ degrees,
and (3) “New Aberdeen Courses”.
In this section, we accept the commission’s assertion that components (1) and (2) are
similar to existing programmes, (though we wondered whether since we are doing (2)
already whether full consideration had been given to how this may be enhanced), and
focus on the new component (3) – the New Aberdeen Courses.
Page 9 of the First Report by the Curriculum Commission describes the New
Aberdeen Courses as follows. “These courses would be designed to introduce,
compare and apply to specific problems, the fundamental modes, concepts and
perspectives of a number of disciplines.” The aim of such a course would be to “cover
the essential questions, problems and issues that disciplines seek to address, and how
they do so.” The ultimate goal of these courses is expressed as follows. “In short, New
Aberdeen Courses would show how disciplines work and, in doing so, would produce
better informed discipline graduates with a wider and more critical understanding.”
The aim and the goal set for the New Aberdeen Courses seems entirely laudable.
However, it is not clear that a large-scale focus on multi-disciplinary courses is the
best way to achieve this aim and this goal.
A key question is how much time and effort does it take for a teacher to convey and a
student to absorb the essential questions, problems, and issues that a discipline seek to
address, and the methods by which it does so. Can this aim be achieved by a course
that spends, for example, two weeks on each of five disciplines? Or is it more likely
that a student would need to take at least an introductory course in a discipline to
achieve any appreciation of the discipline’s issues, problems, and methods?
There may well be some role for interdisciplinary courses particularly at the first and
second year levels. It can be useful for students to see how a range of disciplines
attack a particular problem. Indeed, the first part of these comments suggests that a
relatively small core of high-quality creative courses that focus on how disciplines
solve problems could significantly enhance the breadth and distinctiveness of
undergraduate education.
However, it also seems likely that there are diminishing returns to an approach based
primarily on interdisciplinary courses. The first such course that a student takes may
well be a valuable experience. Perhaps the second also provides useful additional
points of view, but what about the third and fourth? Experience suggests that a
disciplinary focus becomes increasingly valuable as a benchmark from which to
assess the approaches of other disciplines. And how many high quality
interdisciplinary courses will the university be able to deliver? Moreover, the limited
time available to students means that they must balance the value of more breadth
with the value of a deeper understanding of their own discipline. It is noteworthy that
the first attribute of an Aberdeen graduate listed in the Curriculum Commission report
is “In-depth and extensive knowledge, understanding, and skills at internationallyrecognised levels in their chosen discipline(s)...”
If more breadth is desired, an alternate strategy that ought to be considered is to
permit or require that students take introductory courses in several disciplines as part
of the undergraduate degree. As the report recognizes, this is already done to some
extent in the current degree structure. But, if it is deemed desirable, the current
provisions could be expanded by allowing students to take more such courses or even
by setting compulsory distribution requirements. Resources could also be made
available to teachers who wish to develop introductory courses that emphasize how
the approaches to particular issues within their discipline contrast with the approaches
in other disciplines or courses that are designed to appeal to students from other
disciplines in other ways. Further enhancement of Joint Honours programmes in ways
that include more than two disciplines may be also envisaged as a vehicle to
significantly enhance the breadth and distinctiveness of undergraduate education.
One important additional problem with a major emphasis on interdisciplinary courses
is the excessive degree of overlap that is likely to be required between courses. In a
two-week segment on the economics of climate change and a two-week segment on
the economics of oil and a two-week segment on the economics of developing
countries there is likely to be substantial overlap as some of the common basic facts
and methods of economics are reviewed. In a course taught primarily within a single
discipline, the second two weeks do not need to begin with a review of the first two
weeks, the fifth and sixth weeks do not typically need to review the first four weeks
and so on. Courses with a disciplinary focus are thus likely to be far more efficient in
conveying the “fundamental modes, concepts, and perspectives” of the discipline in
question.
1b International Perspectives
At the start of section 4, which introduces the proposal for the interdisciplinary New
Aberdeen Courses, the report states, “Our research revealed international support for
such an approach and examples of how it is achieved in other countries”. Statements
like this together with related briefing papers on the “Melbourne Model” and
“Curriculum Reform at Harvard” that are provided on the curriculum reform website
give the impression that there is broad international support for a movement toward
more interdisciplinary courses and even, possibly, toward more interdisciplinary
degrees.
The impression that there is broad international support for a move toward
interdisciplinary courses or interdisciplinary degrees may well be not so clear. It is
worth noting that, according to the briefing paper, the “Melbourne model” was only
“launched” in Spring 2007 and has not yet been implemented for new incoming
students at the University of Melbourne. Hence, there is no track record on whether
the Melbourne proposals will be successful. Similarly, it is not clear from the briefing
paper whether Harvard’s proposals involve mainly interdisciplinary courses or
distribution requirements that require students to take a range of disciplinary courses
somewhat like the alternative suggestion made above. The briefing paper does make it
clear that, as of the last information in May 2007, the Harvard proposals had not yet
been implemented by Harvard.
Princeton University is an institution that is, arguably, at least as prestigious as
Harvard and far more prestigious than the University of Melbourne. It has at least as
deep a commitment to the ideal of a liberal education as Harvard or the University of
Melbourne. A review of Princeton’s Undergraduate Announcement and course
offerings - which are available at the university’s website – indicates that Princeton
achieves its commitment to breadth in undergraduate education primarily by having
students take courses within a number of individual disciplines rather than by a
reliance on interdisciplinary courses. It may be that the “Princeton model” is a far
better description of best practice among the “best universities” than the Melbourne
model.
2. Phasing in changes incrementally vs. an all-at-once approach and the issue of
policy impact
A number of the proposals contained in the First Report of the Curriculum
Commission involve major changes in the way that the university conducts its
teaching. For example, on page 9 the report states that “We propose that all students
should normally study at least one New Aberdeen Course each semester until the end
of level three. We see these as an essential means of achieving the desired graduate
attributes.” Hence, the report is proposing that one-quarter or more of the existing
undergraduate curriculum in the first three years of undergraduate study be revised
almost completely in the next few years.
The proposed revisions to the degree structure are potentially even more extreme.
The Curriculum Commission report proposes to add a “one year taught masters level
programme, which is closely linked to the honours programme. (p. 6)” It is not clear
how this new masters will affect the degree currently awarded to undergraduates. It is
also not clear how the proposed new masters degree will affect existing programmes.
The report observes “Existing, stand-alone, masters should continue but there would
be opportunities for efficiency of provision if these were articulated with the new
level five provision. (p. 7)”
The costs associated with these changes are likely to be high. At the very least, a great
deal of faculty time and energy will be required to create new courses equal to onequarter of the first three undergraduate years. Moreover, other existing courses will
need to be modified to fit into the new four-course-per-semester format. Surely such a
massive change will cut significantly into the time and effort faculty can devote to
research. If the impact on the research environment is sufficiently negative, then those
faculty who are most mobile and those with the greatest commitment to research are
likely to leave. Such departures could quickly undermine the impressive investment in
research capacity that the university has made in recent years.
The uncertainties and risks associated with the proposed changes also seem high. At
best, there must be considerable uncertainty as to how changes in the undergraduate
degree structure might be perceived by prospective students. If the proposed changes
prove unattractive to students, then the result could be a sharp drop in enrolment
which could be disastrous. If the new proposed masters degrees affect the quality of
existing masters programmes or how existing masters degrees are perceived by
employers, then the result could also be a disastrous fall in the enrolment for existing
masters degrees.
It also seems possible that the introduction of a new taught masters and other
proposed changes may make it more difficult to fit in with the goals of the Bologna
process, which the Curriculum Commission report suggests is an important
international benchmark for degree programmes in EU countries. The first two
benchmarks listed in the briefing document on the Bologna process available at the
curriculum reform website are (i) “Adoption of a system of easily readable and
comparable degrees...” and (ii) “Adoption of a system essentially based on two main
cycles, undergraduate and graduate.” The introduction of a fifth year masters as a
modification or extension of the standard Scottish degree may make the University of
Aberdeen degree less comparable with other degrees in Scotland and the rest of the
UK. To a lesser extent, the same may also be true for the wide-scale introduction of
New Aberdeen Courses. Moreover, by blurring the line between undergraduate and
postgraduate degrees, the introduction of a fifth year masters may also conflict with
the aims of benchmark (ii).
As noted later in these comments, the significant costs and risks that may be
associated with the proposed changes impose an obligation to consider seriously
whether the benefits of such changes are likely to outweigh the costs and risks.
In light of the uncertainties and risks associated with the proposed changes, it seems
important to consider whether theses changes can be implemented in a gradual way
designed to maximize the information collected about the effectiveness of the changes
and reduce, as much as possible, the risks associated with these changes.
For example, a small number of New Aberdeen Courses could be made available to
students on an optional basis. If the students find favour with these courses, then they
could gradually be expanded and even made, in part, compulsory. It might even be
desirable to do experiments where students were required to choose between one or
more New Aberdeen Courses or one or more courses with a disciplinary perspective
selected from a range of disciplines.
It is a bit more difficult to imagine how to introduce changes in degree structure
gradually. One obvious observation is that it is neither necessary nor desirable to
introduce a change in degree structure across the whole range of Schools and
departments simultaneously. If a change in degree structure is deemed desirable, it
should be introduced first in one or a few programmes to see what happens. Of
course, it could be a contentious issue to determine who will be the “unlucky” guinea
pig department or School. On the other hand, there may be departments or Schools
who are persuaded that the proposed changes are desirable. These would be plausible
candidates for a trial run.
3. Addressing the issue of retention rates.
As part of a justification for proposed changes, the First Report of the Curriculum
Commission offers the following statement. “We still attract the very best entrants but
there is clear evidence that many of those with lower entry qualifications have
difficulties, and our retention rate suffers accordingly. (p. 6)” Part of the rationale for
the proposed changes is to provide “opportunities for those with lower entry
qualifications and commits us fully to the social inclusion agenda. (p. 6)”
The Curriculum Commission does not necessarily seem to be the appropriate venue to
discuss any question regarding retention or enrolment rates and it is not clear that
curriculum reform is likely to be the appropriate policy tool to address this issue.
The Principal discussed the motivation for curriculum review in his Principal’s Essay
to the University Community of February 2007, which the Curriculum Commission
report mentions as one of the main documents establishing a conceptual foundation
for the commission’s work. As far as we can see, the Principal does not mention a
decline in enrolment or retention as one of the motives for the review.
Given the issue of retention rates, the first questions are quantitative. How big of an
issue is it? Other than the assertion that there is “clear evidence” and the comment in
footnote 8 that “The University operates in an increasingly competitive market at
home and overseas and faces a declining demographic of Scottish Students”. When
hasn’t the University operated in a competitive market? How large is the declining
demographic of Scottish students? In the interests of transparency and peer review,
the Curriculum Commission should present any evidence and analysis it has done to
all interested parties.
If the decline in retention rates exists, the question is how should we interpret this?
For example, it is relatively easy to imagine a scenario where a policy to encourage
“social inclusion” has declining retention rates in the first and possibly the second
year as a consequence. The extent to which a decline in retention rates matters is a
more subtle question than it might first appear.
Perhaps most importantly, there are many policies other than major changes in
curriculum that can affect retention rates or enrolment. Some of these policies are
likely to have much lower costs than major curriculum reform. Remedial courses and
tutorial support are two alternative policies that come quickly to mind. Is there
evidence that these are less effective or more costly than major curriculum reforms?
Finally, a careful argument needs to be made that the proposed changes are likely to
have a significant effect on retention rates. We have difficulty imagining how the
introduction of the interdisciplinary New Aberdeen Courses or a fifth-year masters
programme will increase retention rates in the first and second years.
Part III. Some General Comments
1. The View of Current Conditions at Aberdeen
The First Report of the Curriculum Commission seems to us to contain a somewhat
negative view of the current educational experience at the University of Aberdeen.
This negative view appears to be an important motive for proposals the emphasize
radical changes such as the development of a large range of compulsory
interdisciplinary courses (New Aberdeen Courses) and the addition of new one-year
taught masters programmes that modify the traditional four year Scottish honours
degree.
The genesis of this view is not clear. Our reading of the Principal’s Essay to the
University Community of February 2007, which the Curriculum Commission report
cites as one of the foundation documents for the current review, does not suggest such
a view of current conditions at the University of Aberdeen. Nor are we persuaded that
this view is really warranted. We would suggest that if this view is to be taken as a
starting point in these discussions then there is some obligation of proof to show the
deficiencies of current programs.
Which view of current conditions at the University of Aberdeen is correct is, of
course, important. If conditions at the University are generally good, then we suggest
that the appropriate goal of the review should be to look for opportunities for
beneficial, incremental change guided by the principle “to help, or at least to do no
harm.” If current educational conditions at the University are generally bad or worse,
then almost any change can be argued for on the principle that “any change is better
than doing nothing.”
Here are some examples that speak to our interpretation of the view expressed in the
Curriculum Commission report. The First Report of the Curriculum Commission
states on p. 3 that
“we do not mean to suggest that what we currently teach is not already of good
quality, merely that it can, and should be enhanced...”
Other statements within the report, however, seem to contradict this sentiment. For
example, in the paragraph immediately following the statement quoted above, the
report states
“The primary objective of our proposals is, through creating a culture of aspiration
and achievement, to enhance the Aberdeen learning experience, and so make an
Aberdeen education more attractive to students, and Aberdeen graduates more
attractive to employers.”
If a culture of aspiration and achievement must be created then, by definition, it must
not currently exist. If such a culture currently exists, then emphasizing its creation
would not make an Aberdeen education more attractive to students than it currently is.
Nor would such an emphasis be needed to make Aberdeen graduates more attractive
to employers than they currently are.
Another example is stated in the first paragraph of the report as follows.
“To review and make proposals for the reform of our educational objectives,
programme structures and curriculum content, with a view to developing a high
quality, distinctive and attractive educational experience for undergraduate and
postgraduate students at the University of Aberdeen, which takes account of
developing international approaches.”
If a high, quality, distinctive, and attractive educational experience which takes
account of developing international approaches must be developed at the University
of Aberdeen, then it must be the case, ipso facto, that such an experience is not
currently provided. Either the current educational experience is not high quality,
distinctive, or attractive or it does not take account of developing international
approaches.
The difference between a generally positive and a generally negative view of current
conditions at the University of Aberdeen is the difference between a view that some
change may be desirable and a view that major change is necessary. We believe that
the former view is much closer to reality than the latter view.
2. Incremental vs. Radical Change
Whatever view one takes of the quality of the current education delivered by the
University of Aberdeen, the First Report of the Curriculum Commission seems to
suggest a preference for radical rather than incremental change. For example, the
establishment of compulsory interdisciplinary courses could significantly change the
nature or our undergraduate degrees. The addition of a fifth year taught masters
programme as a modification of the traditional four-year Scottish degree could leave
the University of Aberdeen out of step with the rest of Scotland and other UK
systems. The fifth-year Masters also appears contrary to the goals of the Bologna
process as outlined in the briefing document provided on the curriculum reform
website. The first area of action listed in the briefing document on the Bologna
process calls for the “adoption of a system of easily readable and comparable
degrees.” The second calls for the “adoption of a system essentially based on two
main cycles, undergraduate and graduate.”
The costs and risks of radical change are likely to be high. Potentially large amounts
of faculty time and energy are likely to be diverted from research to the
implementation of these changes. If some changes are not successful, so that, for
example, large numbers of students choose not to come to the University of Aberdeen
because of the modifications in the degree structure, then the result could be
disastrous. If the changes involve sufficiently large negative impacts on the research
environment at the university, then the most mobile faculty and those with the greatest
commitment to research are likely to leave. Such departures could potentially
endanger the impressive investment in research capability which the university has
made in recent years.
In light of the costs and risks, prudence suggests that the commission has an
obligation to consider whether the likely benefits of such change outweigh the likely
costs and risks. In the interests of transparency and the principle of peer review, such
an analysis and the data upon which it is based should be freely available to all
interested parties. For similar reasons, the commission also should feel an obligation
to show that there are no lower cost policies, for example, policies involving mainly
incremental changes, that could secure the benefits which the commission expects
will be obtained by proposed radical changes.
3. The Existence of Tradeoffs
Everyone involved in considering reform must remember that, in a world of limited
resources, tradeoffs must be made. It seems likely that most, if not all, readers of the
Curriculum Commission report would feel that each of the long list of educational
goals represented by the Aberdeen graduate attributes listed on page 5 of the report is
desirable. It also seems likely that most, if not all, readers would recognize the need
for any educational program to prioritize among these worthy goals. But in this case,
it is necessary to consider which educational goals will be enhanced by the proposals
advanced in the Curriculum Commission report and which goals will be
disadvantaged compared to the status quo.
It is a serious error to maintain that any proposal for change can improve every
educational goal in the presence of resource constraints. By failing to discuss which
educational goals will be adversely affected by the proposals advanced in the
Curriculum Commission report, the report appears to have implicitly fallen into this
trap.