Built to Last: Curricular Planning to Stand the Test of Time

At Lawrence University rapid, wholesale personnel changes allowed us the unique opportunity to completely rethink our curriculum in 2000. The major challenge that we faced was how to offer a curriculum that reflects the growing interdisciplinarity and complexity of the geosciences with a relatively small faculty (three members). We addressed this issue by identifying the essential elements of a geoscience program and reconciled these with our own priorities, strengths, potentials, and limitations. We then built the strongest possible program given these resources and constraints. As new faculty members were hired, we deliberately sought out versatile, flexible candidates whose training embraced several sub-disciplines. As we discussed the skills and concepts we considered essential for geology students and assessed the expertise of our faculty, we concluded that for us the most efficient curricular framework would emphasize 1) fundamental processes that drive Earth systems and 2) connections with cognate sciences. This shift in focus also has allowed us to serve the interdisciplinary Environmental studies curriculum in an integral way, without undercutting the department's own mission. There are serious challenges to departments looking to change their core curriculum. Resistance to change can come from both within departments and through external entities. Because all of our faculty were new to Lawrence, we faced no internal resistance. However, we have faced some challenges in explaining our major to "old school" alumni, emeriti, and to some graduate programs who note the lack of specific course titles on student transcripts. We also have found the need to make adjustments to our initial curricular redesign to effectively cover topics such as optical mineralogy and sedimentology and stratigraphy. Finding appropriate textbooks for our courses continues to pose a problem. Despite these challenges, we are very positive about the student response to our changes. Enrollments in our courses are up almost 20% and we see an increasing number of students from other sciences in our upper level classes. Although the number of majors has not changed significantly, we have noticed that more of our majors are attending graduate school or finding employment in the geosciences. As the scope of the geosciences grows and the boundaries between disciplines blurs, there is no longer any possibility of `comprehensive coverage' in the undergraduate curriculum. We do not consider our curriculum a universally applicable template. But we do believe that leading geoscience programs of the future will emerge from departments that identify their priorities, know their strengths, and construct their curricula based upon these intellectual foundations.