Continuing from where we left off (I trust the new members have caught up with our past discussions; a reminder that it is all on the blog)
First, about one of the ideas we had explored, on liberal education and careers. Michael had emailed in response that:
AAC&U has some interesting documents on the role of disciplines and relationships between LE and career preparation: http://www.aacu.org/resources/liberaleducation/index.cfm
Yes, indeed, the AACU has plenty of materials on the theme of liberal education/career-prep, though not explicitly about geography itself. A couple of years ago, I recall a few presentations that addressed this, and they were all from the STEM disciplines.
More than that, on page 11 in the June AAG Newsletter, I came across an announcement about a forum on "Geography Careers in Business and Government." The key questions and format outlined there are almost exactly the structure and content we had discussed over breakfast in DC. However, this will not be at the AAG meetings in Seattle, but at:
the 2010 Applied Geography Conference in Fort Worth, Texas (October 20-23), to be chaired by Michael Solem and Janice Monk.
Given this, I am not in favor of duplicating the efforts and, instead, prefer to wait for a summary of the proceedings from Michael/AAG. What do you folks say?
The other option we discussed at length was a panel discussion on how Geography programs view the significance of the recently published NRC report--on their respective curricula and what the report will mean in practical terms, and how we could measure then the difference between the NRC-influenced curriculum and its impacts on learning, versus the current curriculum.
The more I think about this option, the more excited I am in pursuing this. However, I wonder whether we might be a tad premature in pursuing this in Seattle. Because, there is a good chance that most faculty would not even have had a chance to peruse this document yet--it came out towards the end of the last academic year, which means that only in 2010-2011 will it gain any substantive review across campuses.
Thus, I am leaning towards scheduling this topic for the AAG meetings in 2012, which will be New York.
So, if I think both the items we had planned on are not quite feasible for the Seattle meetings, what do I have to propose?
We continue to deliberate on the NRC report, so that by the time this Committee meets in Seattle, we will have a fantastic sense of how to put together a session or two in 2012--related to the report. Or, explore any other topic?
Let us know what you think. And, yes, enjoy the rest of the summer :)
ps: perhaps you are already aware of the two geographers who are on an exciting adventure on the road, in the London-Tashkent rally ...
The more I think about this option, the more excited I am in pursuing this. However, I wonder whether we might be a tad premature in pursuing this in Seattle. Because, there is a good chance that most faculty would not even have had a chance to peruse this document yet--it came out towards the end of the last academic year, which means that only in 2010-2011 will it gain any substantive review across campuses.
Thus, I am leaning towards scheduling this topic for the AAG meetings in 2012, which will be New York.
So, if I think both the items we had planned on are not quite feasible for the Seattle meetings, what do I have to propose?
We continue to deliberate on the NRC report, so that by the time this Committee meets in Seattle, we will have a fantastic sense of how to put together a session or two in 2012--related to the report. Or, explore any other topic?
Let us know what you think. And, yes, enjoy the rest of the summer :)
ps: perhaps you are already aware of the two geographers who are on an exciting adventure on the road, in the London-Tashkent rally ...
