MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2993301232

Co-Articulating the Value of a Liberal Arts Degree with Students.

2012· article· en· W2993301232 sur OpenAlex

Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base

Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.

aboutLe titre ou le résumé porte un signal canadien du lexique géographique.
no affAucune affiliation canadienne : ce travail est invisible pour une base fondée sur la seule affiliation.
Aucune affiliation canadienne. Une base fondée sur la seule affiliation (le devis habituel) n'aurait jamais vu ce travail. C'est l'un des travaux qui justifient l'inversion de la base.

Notice bibliographique

RevueCollege and university · 2012
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineSocial Sciences
ThématiqueService-Learning and Community Engagement
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésLiberal arts educationValue (mathematics)The artsWitnessHigher educationSociologyLiberal educationDegree (music)Public relationsPedagogyPolitical scienceMathematics educationPsychologyLawComputer science
DOInon disponible

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

While most scholars and higher education professionals believe in the intrinsic value of a liberal arts degree, high school students and their parents often have a different bias as they seek to determine where to invest themselves and their resources. Anyone who has taught in or recruited for the social sciences or humanities will recognize the familiar pattern of eager interest in engaging, challenging topics followed by that unsettled look as the prospective student asks, what could I actually do with this degree? It is a fair question. If we believe in the value of a liberal arts degree, we ought to be able to explain why we do. This article is about how we are collaborating with faculty, the registrar, and the alumni office - as well as alumni themselves - to better answer the question. THE SCHOOL AND THE PROGRAM Our university has a network of (recent graduates) hired to tour high schools across Ontario; the job of the liaisons is to share what makes our liberal arts degree distinct. We are one of three affiliate campuses to a large researchintensive university, and our enrollment is 3,500 full-time undergraduates. The affiliates increasingly are being invited to develop complimentary (non-duplicate) offerings since students can take courses at any campus. Our interdisciplinary program has thrived by providing a distinct worldview for students interested in making a difference and understanding more about the social injustices they witness and read about. In just nine years, the program has grown: we have several full-time faculty and sessional instructors; we teach roughly 200 introductory students each year and offer many core courses, electives and a series of local and international experiential learning opportunities. Yet we were confronted by four significant challenges: * Retention: Could we raise retention in majors/honours modules above the usual 20-25 percent of the first year class ? * Recruitment: How might we better convert high school students' interest and enthusiasm during informational visits into enrollments? * Understanding students: How could we achieve greater clarity around the diversity of our students' interests and futures ? * Vocational Support: Could we identify better ways to support current students and recent graduates who are uncertain how to translate their degrees into vocations and paid positions ? Although the current generation of college entrants tends to be characterized by educational uncertainty and prolonged adolescence, these characteristics tell us little about students' uncertainty about our program in particular. On the other hand, students' genuine concern about the value of the degree - particularly in relation to discerning a career - is a common barrier to choosing (or remaining in) the program. This concern pervades many of our discussions with high school students and parents during welcome days, recruiting events, and the registration period. Our sense was that seniors in the program in fact were faring well compared to their peers in other departments. Many were being awarded internal and external scholarships and grants, and many were using their degrees in impressive ways. But our knowledge about such things was largely anecdotal and was dispersed widely among professors; evidence existed primarily in the form of e-mails and phone conversations. We decided that we owed students a better answer. PROJECT GOALS It was important for us to identify overall as well as division-specific project goals. (Clarity of purpose helps to ensure that a diverse working group makes progress.) We are fortunate to have an innovative registrar with a reputation for openness to student and faculty initiatives. Given the different responsibilities of professors, registrars, and alumni officers, we believed it would be beneficial to clearly state the unifyinggoals of our project as well as distinct, role-specific benefits and objectives. …

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,202
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,741

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,045
Tête enseignante GPT0,289
Écart entre enseignants0,245 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle