quote: In turning down the English course, Sue Wilbur, the director of UC undergraduate admissions, checked two categories as "inadequate" on a standard form: "Lacking necessary course information," and "Insufficient academic/theoritical [sic] content." She added a note that said: "Unfortunately, this course, while it has an interesting reading list, does not offer a nonbiased approach to the subject matter." And she also commented that "the textbook is not appropriate." During the interview, Patti said the textbook was an anthology and that UC demands some full texts be read.
This despite the fact that the school in question is accredited by:
Western Association of Schools and Colleges (WASC)
National Association of Secondary School Principals (NASSP)
Western Association of College Admissions Consortium (WACAC)
posted
I'm siding with the University of California on this one.
One of the textbooks' introduction states, "The people who have prepared this book have tried consistently to put the Word of God first and science second."
This seems problematic to me. It's one thing to value both the Word of God and science. It's a completely different thing to say that science is not the most important thing to teach in a science classroom.
Posts: 866 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have somewhat mixed feelings about this. I'm leaning more towards UC on this one, mostly because of the quote that Celaeno gave. On the other hand, the articles don't really give enough information to make an informed judgement.
For starters, I'd like to know what actual courses were using rejected books. In addition to the science courses, there were several humanities courses that were also rejected. Without any more information about what courses they were, or more specific information about the rejection, all we can do is speculate.
Posts: 2437 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
UC has approved 43 courses at Calvary Chapel as a-g college preparatory courses, and these courses cover all disciplines, including science. However, Calvary Chapel’s applications for certain courses were not approved, for a number of reasons. In one case, a literature course was rejected because the use of an anthology as the only textbook was in direct conflict with UC’s policy that students read assigned works in their entirety, meaning anthologies may not be the only texts required in literature courses.
Some of the courses rejected by UC used certain textbooks published by Bob Jones University Press and A Beka Books as primary instructional materials. Although UC has approved courses that use other textbooks from these publishers, these books were reviewed by faculty who concluded they did not meet UC’s guidelines for primary textbooks. Had the courses at issue used these textbooks as supplementary, rather than primary, texts, it is likely they would have been approved.
The question the University must confront in reviewing these texts is not whether they have religious content, but whether they provide a comprehensive view of the relevant subject matter, reflecting knowledge generally accepted in the scientific and educational communities and with which a student at the university level should be conversant. In the books in question, the publishers themselves acknowledge that the primary goal is to teach religious doctrine rather than the scholarship that is generally accepted in the relevant fields of study. For example, the introduction to the primary textbook for the science courses in question states clearly that it teaches students that their conclusions must conform to the Bible, and that scientific material and methods are secondary:
“The people who have prepared this book have tried consistently to put the Word of God first and science second. To the best of the author’s knowledge, the conclusions drawn from observable facts that are presented in this book agree with the Scriptures. If a mistake has been made (which is probable since this book was prepared by humans) and at any point God's Word is not put first, the author apologizes.” (Source: Biology for Christian Schools, 2nd Edition / Bob Jones University Press, p. vii.)
The University has declined to approve courses that use as their primary source the books named in the case, not because they have religious content, but because they fail to meet the University’s standards for effectively teaching the required subject matter. Again, the University does not approve whether the school can teach the course or use the text, but whether students who take the course will have it counted as having met a college preparatory requirement at UC.
[ January 17, 2006, 02:59 PM: Message edited by: Beren One Hand ]
Posts: 4116 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't understand... what "credit" are these students getting for high school courses? When I was in college, I only got credit for AP courses, and that was based entirely on how well I did on the AP test, not how the course to prepare for that test was taught.
If this is an admissions issue, I think the question then is, is there any evidence that students from religious schools perform less successfully in college than those who took only secular courses? If so, then there could be grounds for using this as a factor in admissions. If not, however, rejecting religious school graduates is an arbitrary blow to diversity at the college in question, no different from arbitrarily rejecting black students or foreign students or students with a last name that begins with "W".
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
The literature course will be the biggest hurdle for UC:
quote:The English course would have included reading material from many major authors, from Hawthorne to Tolkien. The syllabus called it, "an intensive study in textual criticism aimed at elevating the ability of students to engage literary works."
The primary text, published by A Beka Press, of Pensacola, Fla. -- whose biology text also was rejected -- was to have been "American Literature: Classics for Christians."
In turning down the English course, Sue Wilbur, the director of UC undergraduate admissions, checked two categories as "inadequate" on a standard form: "Lacking necessary course information," and "Insufficient academic/theoritical [sic] content." She added a note that said: "Unfortunately, this course, while it has an interesting reading list, does not offer a nonbiased approach to the subject matter." And she also commented that "the textbook is not appropriate." During the interview, Patti said the textbook was an anthology and that UC demands some full texts be read.
But Bird scoffed at the explanation in his soft Southern accent as a "post-hoc rationalization. Unless I can't read, there's no objection to its being an anthology."
I think this is where they've exposed themselves to charges of bias, especially "a nonbiased approach to the subject matter."
It will be interesting to see how it plays out.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh cool... So as long as ya print "This book conforms with the Word of God", a University hasta accept it as the one&only textbook around which to base a course. Just what America needs... ...more folks getting their college degrees through courses like "Here Comes Dick and Jane" and "The Cat in the Hat".
Posts: 8501 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Oh cool... So as long as ya print "This book conforms with the Word of God", a University hasta accept it as the one&only textbook around which to base a course.
Do you make up arguments for positions you oppose simply because you can't refute the actual arguments?
quote:Just what America needs... ...more folks getting their college degrees through courses like "Here Comes Dick and Jane" and "The Cat in the Hat".
These course don't give college credit, aspectre.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:So as long as ya print "This book conforms with the Word of God", a University hasta accept it as the one&only textbook around which to base a course
That's a pretty big strawman.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know how the college system in the US works - I'm only familiar with western Canada. There, each university decides which courses from other universities they will give credit for.
I don't have a problem with what UC is doing as far as the information is provided is accurate.
Posts: 8355 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
This isn't about what they give credit for. It's about whether the class will count toward the entrance requirements.
I've never heard of a college accrediting individual classes that way for entrance requirements, so I'm not sure of the exact procedure.
From the second link in rivka's post:
quote:The university is not telling these schools what they can and can't teach," Patti said. "What the university is doing is simply establishing what is and is not its entrance requirements. It's really a case of the university's ability to set its own admission standards. The university has no quarrel with Christian schools."
posted
According to rivka's first link (USA Today) it is about receiving college credit.
quote:Calvary Chapel Christian School, which has 1,300 students, are fighting to receive college credit for some courses.
Although that's only in the title and in the sidebar, so maybe the person writing those misunderstood the article.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's credit for admission. I had to X number of high school credits to get into UVA undergrad.
See the quote I added above.
Also, from the first link:
quote:The Calvary Chapel Christian School of Murrieta, Calif., with 1,300 students, is suing UC for not giving credits for some courses with a "Christian viewpoint" when students apply for university admission.
I've also never heard of a college giving college credit for high school course without a standardizd (such as AP or IB) test at the end.
More from the first link:
quote:Christopher Patti, a lawyer for the university, says UC isn't stopping Calvary Chapel or its students "from teaching or studying anything." He says students are free to take courses uncertified by UC, and there are alternative paths to admission — including taking extra SAT tests in specific subjects.
BTW, I'm not trying to dogpile. The wording is confusing and I didn't arrive at this conclusion until I finished both articles.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I realize that. I'm just saying that it isn't surprizing that some readers will misunderstand, given the headline and sidebar in the first link.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ah, OK. I don't think it's surprising either, but it is important to deciding if UC's actions are appropriate, so I wanted to be clear.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Then let me add that in western Canada, universities will decide on an individual basis what courses and which grades within those courses will be accepted as entrance requirements. It's easier, of course, if you went to an Alberta high school and are applying to an Alberta University. When I was in high school, the courses a student took were regulated by the board of education as far as determining that, for example, English 10 at high school A was equivalent to high school B on the transcript. But then, the year I graduated, provincial exams for the matriculating subjects was introduced, so that makes it easier for universities to determine if we received a proper, by their standard, education. If that makes sense.
It's late and I'm going to bed. Posts: 8355 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think whether or not the actions are appropriate depends on whether or not the admission requirements are spelled out clearly, and whether they are applied to all high schools' courses equally. I have no problem with a college requiring, say, "four years of high school English, which must included a broad-based survey literature course and must include reading and analyzing a minimum of 3 novels." (Especially if there are alternate ways to fulfill the requirement in case your school doesn’t offer the required courses.)
My other question would be, is the college saying that the rejected courses don’t count at all or that they don’t fulfill a particular requirement. And, of course, is that same requirement applied to courses at non-religious schools.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, those are exactly the questions that need to be answered.
I wish the articles had been better. Too much concentration on the "culture war" stuff and not enough on the issues that matter.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: The literature course will be the biggest hurdle for UC:
quote:The English course would have included reading material from many major authors, from Hawthorne to Tolkien. The syllabus called it, "an intensive study in textual criticism aimed at elevating the ability of students to engage literary works."
The primary text, published by A Beka Press, of Pensacola, Fla. -- whose biology text also was rejected -- was to have been "American Literature: Classics for Christians."
In turning down the English course, Sue Wilbur, the director of UC undergraduate admissions, checked two categories as "inadequate" on a standard form: "Lacking necessary course information," and "Insufficient academic/theoritical [sic] content." She added a note that said: "Unfortunately, this course, while it has an interesting reading list, does not offer a nonbiased approach to the subject matter." And she also commented that "the textbook is not appropriate." During the interview, Patti said the textbook was an anthology and that UC demands some full texts be read.
But Bird scoffed at the explanation in his soft Southern accent as a "post-hoc rationalization. Unless I can't read, there's no objection to its being an anthology."
I think this is where they've exposed themselves to charges of bias, especially "a nonbiased approach to the subject matter."
It will be interesting to see how it plays out.
Really? I'd think the English courses would be the easiest to defend -- while it's certainly poor teaching to present opinions to adopt, rather than allow the students to form their own, the study of literature is the study of free expression and interpretation. I have no problem with a Christian approach to literature.
Science, now, has to remain objective. I fully support the UCs in refusing to recognize biology that includes intelligent design or any other such fraudulent crap.
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
hmmm, I guess things have changed from when I applied to UC schools (sheesh I guess that was almost a decade ago)
I was homeschooled and therefore in a non-accredited private school and we never had to worry about whether the UCs approved of our courses or not. I just had to have them listed. Heck, I wrote up my own transcripts, making sure the subjects had standard names like English I, II,II etc. I think the wierdest course name might have been Botany.
I know CA law states that private schools must teach subjects comparable to public schools. However that still should allow the private schools room for teaching from a religious perspective.
AJ
(*grin* sorry I didn't make it clear why I was using myself as an example. I got in to every UC I submitted my application to, and even got offered a full tuition scholarship to one.)
Posts: 11265 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lalo, I think I wasn't clear enough. The "they" meant UC, not the high school. The English course is the one most likely to get UC in trouble, pretty much for the reasons you stated.
I have little doubt that the science textbook is inaequate, but I don't think the prologue sentence proves it in and of itself. I think the high school's argument will be that UC reacted to the Christian perspective, not any analysis of the science, and so exposed UC's bias against Christianity. UC's response would probably be something like, "We all know what that sentence means with respect to biology, and the high school could have resubmitted if it doesn't actually mean they're teaching ID."
A good advocate for the school should be able to make the science refusal useful, even if in and of itself the science refusal was constitutional.
But basically, I agree with you based on my expectation of what a Bob Jones textbook would be like.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I can't remember if I've ever reviewed a Bob Jones science text. However I definitely read all of the ABeka ones through high school, and other than a wholesome quote on each page, most of it is just plain basic science. Even in *college* biology, evolution is only a couple of chapters, and a small fraction of the entire basic course.
Believe it or not, Bob Jones actually does publish some decent children's books, that I enjoyed, including some fantasy series.
posted
That's why UC should have reviewed the whole book or at least commented on where they found the science to be faulty.
I based my guess on the contents of the science book on what I know of Bob Jones and the ID debate. If that guess is wrong - something easily verifiable by the university - then the high school has even stronger ammunition.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Nothing to argue, Dagonee. When ya try to transfer between colleges, the college at which the application is made decides on whether or not to accept, to give credit for courses taken at your old college. The decision is not made into an automatic acceptance by your old college's membership in some association of colleges. The same decision-making right is being applied to high school courses and acceptance/rejection.
What you're arguing about is whether a school can guarantee acceptance of credit by other institutions merely by posting "This book conforms with the Word of God" in its course texts.
Posts: 8501 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:The same decision-making right is being applied to highschool courses and acceptance/rejection.
And they might lose if their criteria for acceptance is found not to be viewpoint neutral.
It is not the contention of the plaintiffs that "a school [should be able to] guarantee acceptance of credit merely by posting 'This book conforms with the Word of God' in its course texts."
Rather, it is the contention of the school that posting that notice should not be sufficient reason for denial.
It's a big distinction.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Also I think the distinction also important is that it is a *high school* NOT a college. This isn't like transferring credit between two colleges or universities. This is just to satisfy the high school breadth and depth subject requirements to say that the student is college ready.
The UC system *also* requires 3 SAT IIs and the SAT. And if you are judged deficient in any area but still elgible for admission, they can accept you conditionally and require you to make up that deficency in your first semesters at the UC. I bombed the SATII English section cause I was sick and in no mood to write a cheesy essay. I was judged deficient in that area.
However, they also accepted my community college transfer units for English which covered that deficiency, so I really wouldn't have had to make it up. But I wouldn't have had a problem if they had made take an english class either.
Even many "college Prep" science classes in high school (short of AP) fail to adequately prepare kids for college science classes, so it is often strongly reccommended that you take an intro class, before hitting the heavier stuff. I don't have any problem with that either.
posted
The logical thing to do for this private school is to teach the class as an AP class, and have the kids pass AP tests, because with a 3 or better those are considered equivalent to freshman college classes, and it would be much harder to dispute the validity of the science curriculum if the students actually passed the AP test.
And here's the thing. If a Christian school is going to teach intelligent design (which they have every right to do) they still *should* be teaching the kids the answers to give in order to pass the AP tests. Because if they don't teach both, they are deficient in educating the kids. I'm not saying that they should tell the kids to lie on the tests, but on a multiple guess test like the AP test they are never going to have the "creationist" answer as an option anyway.
quote:If a Christian school is going to teach intelligent design (which they have every right to do) they still *should* be teaching the kids the answers to give in order to pass the AP tests.
Yes, yes, yes.
I have a problem if the inclusion of additional material can render a class inadequate. I have no real problem with someone declaring a class inadequate because it doesn't cover all the "necessary" material - as long as such determinations are fair, of course.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm pretty sure. It was automatically taken care of because the academic program I was on in high school took college entrance requirements into account. But I remember getting a form signed by the guidance counseler that stated how many credits or units in certain areas I had.
That was back in the dark ages of course.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
This case is one of the reasons we're seriously considering moving our son out of private Christian school (an ACSI accredited school, btw) and back into public. It's not the only reason, or even one of the main ones, but it's part of the consideration.
Posts: 5948 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
To clarify: as far as I can tell, no one is attempting to get college credits. The UC system has very stringent entrance requirements due to the California’s Master Plan for Education (more on that in a minute). When they talk about credits they are not talking about college credits which can be applied toward a student’s UC degree. Rather, they are talking about high school credits the student is required to have completed to be eligible to apply to a UC school.
The school in question is accredited by WASC and WACAC. Their students do considerably better than average on AP tests and the SATs. And while they may have a claim as far as the lit class goes (if it is indeed true that no other accepted courses from other schools depend solely on anthologies -- which I have good cause to doubt), the claims regarding the science classes are bogus. Clearly (judging both by the test scores and the accreditations -- I know what it takes to get WASC accreditation), the material dictated by the California Framework guidelines is being taught. UC seems to be objecting to the fact that OTHER things are being taught alongside. I don't think they have the right to make that call.
UC is not a private system. It is funded by my tax dollars, and has a very specific mandate. Adding more restrictions is unfair, unethical -- and IMO, quite possibly a violation of the California constitution.
What I need to figure out is who to contact, both as a UC alumna and as a taxpayer, to express my unhappiness with UC's decision.
quote:But Wendell Bird, lead attorney for the schools, believes, "This is a liberty case, the right of nonpublic institutions to be free."
quote:In 1978, when he was a law student studying under Robert Bork -- whose rejected nomination to the Supreme Court was an early battle in the culture wars -- Bird published an influential article in the Yale Law Journal. In it, he laid out a strategy for using the courts to compel public schools to teach creationism alongside evolutionary theory.
How amazingly, amazingly hypocritical.
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:A federal judge in Los Angeles has refused to throw out the suit, ruling in August that the schools should have a chance to prove that religious discrimination was behind UC's decision. A two- or three-week trial is expected in 2007.
posted
Just so you now...there are some schools...a number which is growing larger every year...that does award college credit (not just admissions credit) for passing the class. Not an AP class, with a test at the end, but a class that is taught in high school that awards actual college credits to those who pass it.
My cousin got about 12 credits that way her senior year in high school.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
I am perfectly aware of this, as I am the coordinator for such programs at the college where I work. They're often referred to as dual-curriculum classes, and they require the high school to be working in cooperation with a college (most often a CC, but not always).
Not every college will accept such credits. UCLA, last I heard, did not accept them.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
