NEC's take
4000 level: extensive use of primary literature; suitable for upper level undergraduates or first year graduate students. 3000 level: requires 2000-level prereqs and "bridging" the 2000-4000 level gap. Senate policy:
3xxx Courses primarily for undergraduate students in their third year of study.
4xxx Courses primarily for undergraduate students in their third or fourth year of study; graduate students may enroll in such courses for degree credit.
Comments
To me: X000 level has an implication of some previous (X-1)000 level work. Not necessarily a specific (X-1)000 level class but (X-1)000 level work.
For 3000 level I think there should be some primary lit but agree that 4000 should have even more. Otherwise they see primary lit as important in ItR but perhaps never again.
Does it make sense that our straight chem majors can graduate without a 4000 level chem class? And most do. But our Biochem majors have at least 3.
The three of the four 4000 level electives on the books (that we routinely offer) are the same ones that we're seeing low enrollment. How much of that is student impression that 4000 level means super hard versus an interest in the material?
Posted by: JAG | February 20, 2009 9:40 PM
May be (that they think "super hard", but I also think that they would benefit from taking at least one 4000 level course.
Posted by: nec | February 20, 2009 9:55 PM
For what it's worth...
Inorganic Chemistry on the Twin Cities Campus is Chem 4701. It is Chem 3701 on this campus. The course material is roughly the same. Based on what I know about the Twin Cities offering, my course has more emphasis on the primary literature.
Posted by: Anonymous | February 22, 2009 11:07 PM
I think everything is well suited. 3xxx courses are a bit tougher, then 2xxx and 4xxx the same. It seems that the like of some students follow suit as well. Also i like the idea of prereq's of 2xxx for 3xxx and 3xxx for 4xxx courses.
Posted by: Zach | March 3, 2009 5:59 PM