Reference no: EM131021891

Instructions

Please choose one assignment from the following options to submit for this week's response. Please type up your response according to the guidelines listed in the syllabus, and upload your assignment as a WORD or PDF attachment at the bottom of this assignment.

Your response will be evaluated on the basis of: a) how well you demonstrate an understanding of and engagement with the course material; b) the clarity and quality of your writing; c) your overall effort on the assignment. The assignment will be graded on a scale of 0-10 points, and the grade and grader's comments should be returned to you within one week of the original posting date.

The assignment is due on Friday, April 8 at 5 pm, however, I will give a 24 hour grace period, so that you may submit assignments until Saturday, April 9 at 5pm without being penalized. No assignments after 5pm on Saturday will be accepted.

The weekly assignments correspond with the assigned readings and lecture material for the week. The questions posed in each option are designed to help guide your thinking and response. You are not required to respond to all (or even any) of the listed questions, although your responses should be organized in some way. As with any writing assignment, giving specific examples to support your views will make your ideas clearer and more convincing.

You are welcome to write beyond the minimum page requirement for the assignment.

PLEASE NOTE: Format ALL of your papers in 12 point, Times New Roman font with 1" margins. This will standardize the amount of writing for every assignment. I have also attached to the bottom of this assignment a sample paper to show how to format your paper and give you some helpful tips to improve your papers. Your grade may be penalized if you do not follow these formatting guidelines.

Also bear in mind that the volume of writing you produce is not a substitute for quality. In other words, ideas that ramble on without a clear purpose will not garner you extra points (and in fact, if you are way off topic, may lose you points). Writing concisely is valued far more than 'fluff.'

Option 1:

Re-read the section on the 'research university,' in Andreatta (pp. 1-13). Also take a look at the 'major features' of the California Master Plan for Higher Education (originally authored in 1960). In a two-page response, discuss how a research university, like UCSC, differs from other types of universities, such as CSUs, community colleges and private institutions. Discuss the advantages and disadvantages in attending a research university, and what specific things you can do as an undergraduate to take advantage of the opportunities available to you at UCSC.

Option 2:

Re-read the section on 'New Ways of Knowing' in Andreatta (pp.13-17). Look carefully at Table 1.1 on pp. 15, 'Bloom's Hierarchy of Knowledge.' In a 2-page response, discuss three different competencies or skills in Bloom's Hierarchy that you have utilized thus far in some of your classes or course assignments. Be specific about how the class(es) or course assignment(s) incorporated the competencies or skills in Bloom's Hierarchy, and discuss what you think the broader learning objective(s) for the class or assignment was. Were the courses and/or assignments successful in helping you reach the overall learning objective(s)? Why or why not?

Option 3:

Re-read Chickering's proposed ‘seven vectors of college student development' as discussed in Andreatta (pp. 52-54). Complete the ‘Chickering and You' activity on p. 55. Review your answers and write a 2-page response analyzing your responses. Begin by discussing your responses to the questionnaire overall. Then discuss specific responses: are there any vectors that you feel particularly strong in or proud of? Are you surprised by any of your answers? Are there any vectors that you would like to work to improve? Which ones? How might you go about improving it?

Option 4:

The University of California has been in the news a lot lately (for violations of the sexual harassment policy among other things). A recent report by the state auditor has found that the UC has relaxed admissions standards for higher paying out-of-state and international students than for tax-paying in-state students, and that out-of-state students more frequently receive admission offers from the UC campus of their choice than in-state students (who are guaranteed admission to the UC--as long as they qualify--but not necessarily to the campus of their choice). The report also finds much higher rates of out-of-state and international student enrollment since the state-wide budget crisis in 2008. In a two-page response, discuss your reactions to these findings. Are they fair? Are they a 'necessary evil' in the age of a budget shortfall? How well do they coincide with or violate California Master Plan for Higher Education? You may consult external links to read up on this debate, including discussions on KQED's FORUM program, KQED's California Report, and recent newspaper articles in the San Jose Mercury News, the SF Chronicle, and others. It should be noted that UC President, Janet Napolitano, disagrees with the findings in the report. The UC Office of the President's defense is most clearly represented in the FORUM discussion.