Author: eohara (Page 27 of 28)

Paragraph on a learning outcome that does correspond with an enriched major

One of the learning outcomes of a Political Science major is to “Have an informed sense of the historical dimension of the various political issues, developments, trends, theories, and forms of inquiry relevant to the student’s interest”. This skill set may seem vague and very open to interpretation. However, in the context of Political Science, you can apply knowledge of what topics will be covered to understand that these expectations do touch upon all three of Boyer’s essential elements of an enriched major. For instance, given that these learning objectives would be applied to the politics of the U.S and abroad, keywording such as ‘developments” or “trends” can translate into areas of inquiry such as the U.S’s political involvement in Afghanistan or Vietnam. Just that one example would provide a history of war in politics, gender inequalities, economic gains of countries involved, and social unrest seen through various forms of activism. Though at the surface level, this learning outcome can present itself in a broad and hard to utilize way, with some critical thinking and applying common knowledge of what Political Science theories usually addresses, an immense amount of possibilities arise within the structure of an enriched major.

Paragraph on a learning outcome that does not correspond with an enriched major

A learning outcome within the Political Science major that does not show an abundance of enriched major qualities is to “Have developed a mature political imagination…to envision what constitutes an important political question/issue and to understand the various ways in which a political scientist might address such a question/issue”. To Boyer, a learning outcome such as the one described above is not overly nuanced in many different areas of liberal learning. This outcome’s objective is designed to prepare students to think critically but in a way that fixates on political theory and perhaps even in preparation for law school. This is a more philosophical outcome that could have opportunities to discuss portions of Boyer’s enriched major requirements like social, historical, or moral implications. However, for the most part, this objective sets students up for one particular kind of analysis and inquiry under the political sphere. 

Paragraph on a course description from a required class that fits elements of an enriched major 

A course description I selected to connect to elements of an enriched major is under the course PSC 200 – Intro to Political Theory. The description says this class will “ examines a selection of the most profound and influential works of Western political theory from the origins to democracy to the present day…study what different thinkers have had to say about the meaning of justice, order, the good life, the common good, freedom, and democracy…understand and critically evaluate the arguments of different theorists…and to reach your own reasoned positions on the issues raised by them.” Many elements listed above correspond to Boyers essential enriched major characteristics. To study the origins of something, in this case, political theory, inherently implies the historical and traditional scope of an enriched major to be met. Going deeper into analyzing what influential people think about this topic enhances the social and economic implications through objectives like “the good life” and “freedom.” Many of these topics can provide a variety of social theories based on economic prosperity as the gauge of how well a society is doing or the happiness of a particular group of people. Similarly, this course description offers a method for uncovering moral and ethical views as well. Being instructed on how to “reach your own reasoned positions” allows for self-reflection and an in-depth understanding of how certain political theories affect different groups of people, whether that be minority communities or developing nations; a level of moral and ethical dilemmas could emerge abundantly within this course.  

Paragraph on a course description from a required class that does not fit elements of an enriched major 

Boyer’s argument that three crucial elements involving history/tradition, social/economic, and moral/ethical must be evident in order to deem a major enriched could be missing from a course description under the title “PSC 319 – Education Law”. In this course, the emphasis is solely on how legal and law-related issues arise in K-12 schools and provides a background into the “legal structure of education with respect to local, state, and federal governments will be fostered while emphasizing the knowledge and skills needed to effectively analyze legal situations that occur within schools”. It would be tough to touch upon all three of Boyer’s requirements within a short time, such as one semester. More likely, the course would focus specifically on legal issues in schools surrounding social and economic implications. Not to say there wouldn’t be any mention of the other two enriched major characteristics, but this course description narrows into one specific area of law. It aims for students to have the deepest level of awareness and understanding in that one area.

Paragraph 1: Aspects of a Political Science major that do fit elements of an enriched major – added on to 

Looking at the course requirements and learning outcomes of a Political Science major, there seem to be many areas that correspond to Boyer’s idea of an enriched major. There was great emphasis on understanding the complexities of political questioning that explain why those questions are even being raised. I think that this element goes along with an enriched major in terms of how Boyer states that it should encourage students “not only to explore a field in-depth but also to help them put their field of special study in perspective.” Much like we have discussed in class with Scheuer, Ungar, and our guest faculty member Professor DeWolfe, gaining context and a deeper understanding of whatever major you are in will only help broaden your skills in the end. Within the categories that Boyer lays out as essential qualities of an enriched major; history and tradition, social and economic implications, and ethical and moral, I saw aspects of each expressed clearly within the Political Science major. There are courses aimed at exploring geopolitical influences, family, and religion for history and traditions while developing “skills to use historical events to understand political issues, developments, and trends.” Social/economic and ethical/moral implications are also highlighted in economies, human rights, and power dynamics. 

Moving into specific areas within the categories Boyer lays out these three categories as essential to an enriched major “What is the history and tradition of the field to be examined? What are the social and economic implications to be understood? What are the ethical and moral issues to be confronted”. At first glance, these criteria aren’t clearly expressed through the learning outcomes and required courses, however, looking deeper into the course descriptions for the requirements opens up a whole new perspective into Political Science. With broad titles like “Intro to American Politics 101” the integrated materials Boyer puts forth seems hard to recognize, yet for just this one example of an introductory level course we see that its primary goal is to “…raise the questions, “What is democracy?” and “How closely does American politics conform to democratic ideals?”. Moving high up to the 300-400 level courses, courses are more specialized and maybe geared towards addressing specific aspects of what seems to correlate to Boyers idea of social/economic and well as ethical and moral. For example in the course Education Law 319, the description states it will “explore how politics affect education law, since public schools as public institutions, supported by taxpayers’ dollars, essentially become political foci.”.  This course meets both a general idea of a liberal arts curriculum, as we’ve seen stated previously by Ungar and Scheuer, that it broadens the student’s depth in a subject that creates an environment for critical thinking and analysis but it also identifies social ramifications of the law and urges students to understand connections between the real world and academic endeavors. 

The overarching theme within Political Science seems to draw from many different viewpoints of how to ask questions, why they are important, and what we as students can gain as insight into the political world around us. Boyer’s elements of an enriched major certainly seem prominent throughout both learning outcomes and required course material.

Paragraph 2: Aspects of a Political Science major that does not fit elements of an enriched major – added on to 

Boyer’s argument about his idea of an enriched major expresses that certain aspects of educational endeavors have no place in a college atmosphere. However, for most of its goals and curriculum, political science seems to match Boyer’s characteristics of an enriched major. Nevertheless, some do lean towards a more career-oriented path. For example, one of the most prominent learning outcomes listed is “to be able to compete successfully for placement into graduate programs or employment.” This example of career-centeredness for a Political Science major to Boyer may insinuate that the underlying goal is to know how to “play the game” so to speak, and be able to ensure a spot at a prestigious graduate program or edge out other people for a job. Within Boyer’s work, he describes how there is an increasing amount of tension between career and technical majors and more traditional liberal arts majors; in the case of Political Science, which would lean more towards liberal arts, it may be more of an inward tension. One way to think about the emphasis on job readiness is that compared to a degree like English. While an English major can prepare students for a multitude of careers, it tends not to focus on them within the course structure. In contrast, there are a few careers that seem to be implied when majoring in Political Science. For instance, there are many career options listed on the Political Science homepage, such as Lawyer, Policy Expert, Elected Offical, Teacher, etc. Compared to the broad and sometimes vague career options of an English major or interdisciplinary humanities major, to Boyer, a Political Science major can fall under a more career-driven major. 

Within individual required course material and their descriptions I feel that depending on a student’s goal, Political Science courses could feel very skewed towards the pre-law realm or preparations for a political career. In my case, I will benefit greatly from exposure to legal ideologies and reasoning prior to law school. Nonetheless, I could understand how someone pursuing this degree with a career in journalism or public relations might not need to go as in-depth to courses such as Constitutional Law. The skills and knowledge being taught could be interpreted as only pertaining to someone who wants to be a lawyer or politician. Perhaps this isn’t a bad thing though, it offers a perspective into the minds of our countries legal system which in part deals with a lot of attorneys. Boyer’s argument that majors that are too vocational lose sight of the liberal arts methodology of education, but with all the exposure and expertise students have obtained from a liberal arts education, at the end of the day, most people in society need to translate those into a career. I understand Boyer’s point that it can’t neglect or diminish the extremely beneficial skills acquired from critical thinking and inquiry, strong communication skills, and broadened viewpoints yet I feel a balance must be achieved.

Paragraph 1 – Aspects of a Political Science major that do fit elements of an enriched major

Looking at the course requirements and learning outcomes of a Political Science major, there seem to be many areas that correspond to Boyer’s idea of an enriched major. There was great emphasis on understanding the complexities of political questioning that explain why those questions are even being raised. I think that this element goes along with an enriched major in terms of how Boyer states that it should encourage students “not only to explore a field in-depth but also to help them put their field of special study in perspective.” Much like we have discussed in class with Scheuer, Ungar, and our guest faculty member Professor DeWolfe, gaining context and a deeper understanding of whatever major you are in will only help broaden your skills in the end. Within the categories that Boyer lays out as essential qualities of an enriched major; history and tradition, social and economic implications, and ethical and moral, I saw aspects of each expressed clearly within the Political Science major. There are courses aimed at exploring geopolitical influences, family, and religion for history and traditions while developing “skills to use historical events to understand political issues, developments, and trends.” Social/economic and ethical/moral implications are also highlighted in economies, human rights, and power dynamics. The overarching theme within Political Science seems to draw from many different viewpoints of how to ask questions, why they are important, and what we as students can gain as insight into the political world around us. Boyer’s elements of an enriched major certainly seem prominent throughout both learning outcomes and required course material.

Paragraph 2 – Aspects of a Political Science major that does not fit elements of an enriched major

Boyer’s argument about his idea of an enriched major expresses that certain aspects of educational endeavors have no place in a college atmosphere. However, for most of its goals and curriculum, political science seems to match Boyer’s characteristics of an enriched major. Nevertheless, some do lean towards a more career-oriented path. For example, one of the most prominent learning outcomes listed is “to be able to compete successfully for placement into graduate programs or employment.” This example of career-centeredness for a Political Science major to Boyer may insinuate that the underlying goal is to know how to “play the game” so to speak, and be able to ensure a spot at a prestigious graduate program or edge out other people for a job. Within Boyer’s work, he describes how there is an increasing amount of tension between career and technical majors and more traditional liberal arts majors; in the case of Political Science, which would lean more towards liberal arts, it may be more of an inward tension. One way to think about the emphasis on job readiness is that compared to a degree like English. While an English major can prepare students for a multitude of careers, it tends not to focus on them within the course structure. In contrast, there are a few careers that seem to be implied when majoring in Political Science. For instance, there are many career options listed on the Political Science homepage, such as Lawyer, Policy Expert, Elected Offical, Teacher, etc. Compared to the broad and sometimes vague career options of an English major or interdisciplinary humanities major, to Boyer, a Political Science major can fall under a more career-driven major. 

4 Interview Questions

1. What is the most common career for someone who graduated with a B.A. in Political Science? 
2. In your opinion, which of the learning outcomes of a Political Science major do you think fits in with a traditional scope of a liberal arts program, and which do you feel could be interconnected with career readiness? 
3. How would you describe the Political Science major here at UNE? 
4. How would you define success within this major? 

Connection/Synthesis Table

1. What is a central tension Boyer discusses in his chapter? 

– The central tension that Boyer discusses in this chapter is the debates within University faculty members about whether majors should be geared toward vocational, career-oriented success or a more “breadth” general education in liberal arts form. Boyer expresses a common viewpoint that liberal arts majors do not have a set career at the end of their course. College campuses were described as being “torn between careerism and the goals of liberal learning.” Whether the conflict arises from the so-called “newness” of certain majors or the lack of prestige that accompanies some of these new majors makes Universities feel uneasy about their standings. Boyer explains that narrowing certain majors or technical training at the expense of a more liberal arts education responds to a market that focuses too much on an end result and not the range of useful skills and knowledge students should have. 

2. What is Boyer’s “Enriched Major” idea, how does he imagine it as a response to a key tension? 

– Boyer’s idea of an “Enriched Major” is a means for students to expand upon the depth of a subject in their major and form context and connections to aspects such as historical relevance, social and economic impacts, as well as citizenship. His goal was to “relate the values of liberal learning to vocation” and “ Rather than view the majors as competing with general education, we are convinced that these two essential parts…should be intertwined”. Boyer discusses how this enriched major concept could give a deeper understanding that can be applied to a student’s life regardless of differing majors or careers; it carries a human experience aspect that can go beyond those boundaries. Boyer argues that college should prepare students for life in the best way possible and that it is essential to expose students to a curriculum that brings together technical and liberal as “they inevitably must be brought together during life.” Leading students from “depth to breadth” can foster a society that values their education to its highest capacity without forging the importance of social connection and human experience. 

• “Microhistorians, typically denied any such coziness with actual, living informants and motivated by the many concerns of social history….betray those who have left abundant records (the Father Foucquets and John Williamses) in order to resurrect those who did not ( the John Hus and Eunice Williamses).” → This quote makes me think about two ideas that I have had discussions about in this class, LIL 120, and in my class with Prof DeWolfe, Women in the Ancient World, and that is when the spotlight is on one area, what are we leaving out? We talked about this in Regarding the Pain of Others in this class, and a common theme within Prof DeWolfe’s class is trying to find women’s voice in history when for the most part, it is abundantly male-oriented. Is it fair to say that one aspect of learning history is better than another? Microhistorian vs. biographers, they both examine a person or event but is there a need to conceptualize the culture and societal influences surrounding that person or event that may have shaped the how and why of research questions? 

• “Biographers do, after all, write about the lives of people they consider monsters or repellent human beings.” → This quote stood out because of its bluntness, the reality of what has to be done to achieve a well-informed society regarding history. When reading about historical figures who are cruel, unjust, and pretty much, yes, monsters, it is hard to imagine yourself as the one tasked with informing the public about those events. The passion for history has to surpass the passion for just one specific person or event in history, which makes me think of the greater good. I wonder if there is a way to be truly unbiased as a historian? That word is thrown around a lot when it comes to news relaying facts, but do we really want unbiased as a historian? Or rather, do we need someone so passionate about the retelling of history and accuracy that they take a much more broad knowledge of history to inform us about the person or event so that we become more knowledgeable and do not repeat mistakes. Active vs. passive in a way?

– People can turn off not just because a steady diet of images of violence has made them indifferent but because they are afraid” → In class, we have been discussing how people interpret images and what form of actions can result from that. This quote stood out to me because I had forgotten the genuine human aspect of fear. Someone might feel sympathetic and want to support a particular cause, yet self-preservation and the desire to look away from something dangerous is very strong. Does that make someone less sympathetic regarding the pain of others? (Chapter 6, pg 199) 

– “…that there is no way to guarantee reverential conditions in which to look at these pictures and be fully responsive to them” → With the majority of photographs we look at being either online or on the news, it is rare that we look at printed photos when it comes to war. I have noticed how hard it is to concentrate on reading an article or looking at images on my phone or computer. There is always some notification popping up or endless scrolls of images to get through. Does this inherent distraction that comes from digital media change the processing of images of war or suffering? (Chapter 9, pg 120)

• “ They show a suffering that is outrageous, unjust, and should be repaired. They confirm that this is the sort of thing which happens in that place”(chapter 4, pg 71). → This quote was speaking to the Rwandan Genocide of 1994 between Hutu and Tutsi people. What makes this quote even more striking is the knowledge that the UN leaders and major national leaders were in line with this reasoning of that kind of thing happens there. Only later did the majority of the public become aware of the atrocities and most probably felt a sense of “thank god I don’t live there”. I think that response is used heavily to act grateful for a certain area they might live in and a way to push the suffering of the other group out and chalk it up to a dangerous “uncivilized” area. How do we get people who live in “developed” countries to understand that they could very easily be in these situations? It was pure luck that they were born in a certain area; they had nothing to do with it. Is there a way to expand personal ties to places where suffering, war, and horrific events occur?

• “ Transforming is what art does, but photography that bears witness to the calamitous and reprehensible is much criticized if it seems “aesthetic”; that is, too much like art” (chapter 5, pg 76)→ Brings in the discussions we’ve had about the separation of art and reality, what makes art good, bad, able to be understood, etc. This quote implies that photography has different realms of use; one could certainly be art, but context and the subject need to be considered. Is photography art if it captures the changing color of leaves in autumn or the sea of people walking to work in New York? Is photography not art when the subject is war, pain, or suffering? However, a painting depicting war is art, is it because the work was done in reflection to an event and not in the present as the event was taking place?

Chapter 1 QCQ 

“And the pity and disgust that pictures like Hick’s inspire should not distract you from asking what pictures, whose cruelties whose deaths are not being shown” ” → This quote provokes the question of how unbiased can photographs be during war. Is there ever one side during war that goes without killing and cruelties? This starts to open the readers’ minds to challenge preconceived ideas about what photography and war mean. Is one type of death more important because it has been recorded? These are very heavy questions, and I don’t know the answer, but I think they are essential to keep in mind as people make judgments and form opinions on these types of images. 

Chapter 2 QCQ 

“ The war America waged in Vietnam, the first to be witnessed day after day by television cameras, introduced the home front to new tele-intimacy with death and destruction” → I always found it so interesting that arguably the most protested war was also the first war that showed the public unfiltered realities of war. It seems like in previous wars, all photography, films, and the news were sorted and picked and then fed the public some viewpoint that corresponded with it. Vietnam had so many points of access that made the public able to calculate more of their own opinions. I wonder if the overwhelming anti-war movement during Vietnam would have been the same if those photos/news videos were not allowed to be seen by the general public? 

• “This feeling of membership in the collective human experience across time and space is the highest achievement of culture, and nothing contributes more to its renewal in every generation than literature” → I like the theme of membership and connectedness this quote embodies but also how it importantly highlights the need for renewal. I feel that sometimes literature can seem closed off and like the “classics” are set. The renewal of generations bringing in more concepts, social challenges, and viewpoints is a great way to update what resonates with the people. Which, as was stated, is how we travel beyond set boundaries and share our collective experiences. This quote also makes me wonder at what point contemporary literature becomes a classic and piece of writing understood by most to be influential? 

• “Nothing better protects a human being against the stupidity of prejudice, racism, religious or political sectarianism, and exclusivist nationalism than this truth that invariably appears in great literature” → I understand what this quote is getting at, yet I can’t help thinking of the negative ways literary works were used to push forward all the examples above. Political propaganda and fake news of today make it incredibly hard to find a work of literature that is fully truthful and doesn’t create even more inflammatory conditions between groups of people. Literary writings of the past even claimed biological reasons for slavery based on “scientific findings”. Today, we know these works are atrocities and completely untrue, but what did people think when they came out? Literature can create some deep divisions within people, especially political, but is there a way to circumvent that? I do think that being well-read and exposed to many different ideas and views can help make society have more well-informed and intellectual thinkers, but there has to be an acknowledgment of the negatives as well. 

 Quote →“…exhibiting one’s work implies a sort of declaration even when one does not mean to make one” 

Comment → I found this quote to be intriguing, and the way it is worded got me thinking a lot about how people are perceived in society. The whole concept of how others view you vs. how you view yourself is fascinating and hard to wrap your head around. Then, in this quote, we see an addition to this concept that not only are you as an individual being constantly observed by others around you but now so is someone’s work. Exhibiting ourselves on a day-to-day basis just by existing is a type of declaration. For example, the clothes we wear, the places we go, our jobs, and all these small choices add up and make a declaration to others around us that we might not even consider as we are going about our lives. 

Question → With the exhibition of artwork like Pozzi talks about, it seems like an easier concept to understand that a declaration is being made for an art exhibition. I wonder if this makes it less important though? Even though something might be easier for the public audience to interpret and judge, should we still value that someone has put this out without full awareness of how much society can interpret and give some understanding? 

Quote → “Depersonalization art, they feel, better represents the one-dimensionality of men and women’s lives and, by including less of the egotistic concerns of an individual artist or the cultural elite, it offers a common denominator of access to mass culture”

Comment → Depersoanlizaion seems like an excellent way to make art reach the most people and stretch beyond boundaries, which I think can be true. However, when I think of music, cinema, and other types of art, it is deeply personal and specific, yet people still make their own interpretations and find ways to connect something to their own lives. I would think that there could be the same kind of quality within art as well. I understand that maybe some people who are not well versed in more sophisticated types of art could look at the work and not get as much out of it as someone who did understand the background and cultural references. Nevertheless, I would like to think there could still be an appreciation of beauty that comes from it. 

Question → : If music, film, etc., can be very personal and specific, could art be too? Why should an artist hold back on their personality shining through their work for fear that not enough people will get exactly the right image or explanation? It becomes so personal for every person who admires it because we all have different points of view, and no one person will feel the same. To me, it becomes a fantastic feeling that someone’s artwork can reach across boundaries just because of the human experience and all our collective backgrounds.