Biological and Chemical Sciences site, The University of Queensland

Science and engineering are at the heart of the 21st century. New knowledge is a powerful driver of economic prosperity and a force for human progress. That makes new knowledge the most sought after prize in the world.

Dr Rita R. Colwell, Director of US National Science Foundation 1998 – 2004

The complete Review Submission can be downloaded from HERE

We are living in an era of unprecedented change, in which knowledge is reported to be doubling every couple of years. This, coupled with an increasingly diverse and demanding student body, is raising enormous challenges for effective science and technology education. Globally, the traditional activities and modus operandi of tertiary education institutions are also changing, as societies require such institutions to undertake broader roles, often with decreasing or static levels of resources and with greater accountability (www.ed.gov/about/bdscomm/list/hiedfuture/reports/ pre-pub-report.pdf).

Within this context, in 2005 the Academic Board of The University of Queensland (UQ) expressed a wish for the Bachelor of Science degree (BSc) to undergo a major review. This request from the governing academic body of the University provided a timely opportunity for the Faculties of Biological & Chemical Sciences (BACS; teaches ~70% of the BSc), Engineering, Physical Sciences & Architecture (EPSA; teaches ~20% of the BSc) and Social & Behavioral Sciences (SBS; teaches ~10% of the BSc) to focus, in an holistic manner, on all aspects relating to the UQ BSc, ranging from its contribution towards achieving the broad vision of the University, to specific details of the BSc structure and content.

A key step in realizing this vision and meeting the goals of the University was ensuring active involvement and input from all stakeholder groups, including students, staff from all relevant faculties, the University (including the UQ Research Institutes), and industry/government. This has been achieved via a comprehensive process of formal and semi-formal consultation, including broad committee representation and discussions, presentations, symposia and forums for stakeholder input, surveys, and opportunities for individual and group input.

The consultation and discussions provided an opportunity to reflect on the rapid scientific advances that have occurred over recent years, and to consider how we can best address the key requirements of science in the future. We must capture and present advances at the interdisciplinary boundaries whilst ensuring the expression and growth of fundamental knowledge in existing disciplines. It is clear that partnerships between industry/government and the university sector are essential to provide the diversity necessary for us to meet the needs of the wider employer base/economy as well as to respond more readily to external changes. We also recognize that the ability to face and respond to these external challenges requires strength and quality of leadership that can drive cultural change at all levels and set the values and direction for the university in partnership with all the stakeholders.

The Review process has highlighted many examples of excellence in the current UQ BSc experience, but also identified a number of opportunities for improvement. A key step towards developing and implementing a visionary and high-quality BSc experience and meeting the goals of the University has been planning how to best deploy resources and people in order to undertake the key University business of discovering, managing and imparting knowledge.
In this submission, the three faculties have sought to present an innovative, flexible and sustainable 15-20 year plan that will position the BSc at the forefront of science programs nationally and internationally. As a result, graduates from the UQ BSc will be well-positioned to address critical challenges facing the modern world in areas such as health, food, water, energy, and the natural and man-made environments.

Student Outcomes

Students are the highest priority of any university and therefore must be at the heart of the curriculum review process. In developing its Teaching & Learning Enhancement Plan, The University of Queensland (UQ) has emphasized that teaching is underpinned and informed by recent advances in disciplines. This is in line with the Boyer Report [Reinventing Undergraduate Education: Blueprint for America’s Research Universities (http://naples.cc.sunysb.edu/Pres/boyer. nsf/)], which emphasizes the need for student learning to be based on discovery and guided by mentoring, rather than the passive transmission of knowledge. This theme was also strongly endorsed by the international Conference held at UQ in 2004 entitled “Science Teaching & Research: Which way forward for Australian universities” (http://www.brightminds.uq.edu.au/TRC/ report.htm).

Within this context there was a strong awareness amongst academic staff that they are equally responsible for the learning process in partnership with students. Indeed, in opening the above Conference the Vice-Chancellor of UQ, Professor John Hay, stated that best practice incorporates both teaching and research, and that students are best served when horizons and imaginative possibilities in their fields of interest are “available to them sooner than later.” Thus the linking of teaching and research is strongly inculcated in UQ culture and is reflected in our strategic planning process and at the highest level of the University. However, it is likely that the most exacting test of any science curriculum in this age of rapid knowledge gain will be whether it provides the students with a curiosity for and the strategies to enable life-long learning. These are the graduate attributes that will provide future generations with the capacity to unravel the increasingly complex world in which we live.
As a guide to framing the review process we used a recent book by Newman et al (2004) that proposed the following questions:

What knowledge do we expect students to acquire to be productive and effective in the workforce and as citizens?
What does it mean when we say that students are prepared for successful participation in the economy and society?
What knowledge and skills do our students currently have when they leave high school or enter from the workforce?
What skills and knowledge are necessary for all students regardless of a major?
Which teaching methods do we use, and are they producing successful outcomes for all students?
What roles can technology play in improving teaching and learning? What roles can it play in assessing learning?
What assessment tools should be used to demonstrate mastery of agreed-upon academic goals and knowledge levels?

These questions and principles have guided many of our discussions about the future of the BSc.

Student Expectations

The report on the Science Teaching & Research Conference referred to above (http://www.brightminds.uq.edu.au/TRC/report.htm) concluded that students have the right to expect that they will be continually challenged intellectually and will be part of a community of learners while at UQ. It went on to identify that the best way to do this is within a research-based learning system where several methods of interaction take place between lecturer and student, rather than simply the traditional “large lecture theatre with a non-accessible academic at the front”. Inquiry/discoverybased learning inherently implies exchange of elements in both directions between lecturer and student, to the mutual benefit of both. Students also have the right to expect that the outcome of their educational experiences at a research university will equip them, not only to be worthwhile citizens, but also with the knowledge, technical and communication skills to make a significant contribution to their chosen field of endeavour, and to be internationally competitive. Finally, students have the right to expect a significant amount of contact with academic researchers and scholars, who will take the role of advisors and mentors. Importantly, academic staff should not be constrained in this role because of pressures due to other aspects of their University commitments. These recommendations significantly echo the major thrusts of the Boyer Report (http://naples. cc.sunysb.edu/Pres/boyer.nsf/) and Bio2010 that have guided much of our discussion. Our challenge is how to facilitate these interactions in the context of a large research intensive university. In particular, how do we best embrace the large student numbers to our advantage in terms of innovative cutting-edge education delivery modes?

The review of the BSc has also presented an opportunity to consider recommendations concerning the curriculum stemming from the seven yearly Academic Board reviews of the following schools: Biomedical Sciences, Molecular & Microbial Sciences, Integrative Biology Physical Sciences, Geography Planning and Architecture, and Psychology. A number of University wide centers have also recently been reviewed and the reports to Academic Board on their performances contain recommendations about contributions to undergraduate education. The BSc review has provided a unique opportunity to assess the different review recommendations in an holistic context and to come forward with a curriculum that enhances the student experience. Many of the important issues highlighted in the above reviews have been embedded in the new curriculum.

Access, Equity & Excellence

Increased access and equity in higher education has resulted in massification of the Australian Higher Education system over the last two decades. There has been a tendency for this to overshadow the sometimes tenuous state of excellence as a driver. In recent times we are witnessing an alarming “flight from science”, but at the same time a decrease in resources per student is reducing our capacity to achieve excellence in teaching. For example, the cut-offs for our BSc have gone from OP7 in 2003, to OP10 in 2004 and to OP12 in 2006 (see Section 4). While the ability to address such changes may only in part reside with this review, it highlights the need for Universities to continue their drive to have their contract with the Commonwealth Government renegotiated. Obviously, justifying such a change requires us to be more accountable to our students, in particular ensuring that their Higher Education experience produces an engaged and appropriately skilled citizen. A greater effort is required to impart in our students generic skills such as leadership, teamwork, problem-solving, analytical thinking, global consciousness, ethical thinking, quantitative skills, information skills, reading, writing and oral communication. Our ability to deliver these core attributes is frequently questioned by both industry and government sectors. They flag the need for us to look critically at how we educate our students, the way in which these generic skills are embedded in our courses and most importantly, how we can evaluate attainment of these skills. We are encouraged by the fact that the literature shows that a rigorous curriculum has the most significant effect on student learning (Adelman, 1999; Geiger, 2002). Thus at UQ we must ensure that our students are continually challenged intellectually during the course of their BSc studies. This will require current and future leaders (Heads and Deputy-Heads of Schools) to embrace the idea of collaboration and innovation in science education. It will also require the University to commit to a new collaborative vision for science education.

Student Consultation

To gain student input into our teaching and learning programs, it is University policy that such programs are subjected to formal evaluation using the following instruments:

Course experience questionnaire (CEQ);
Student experience survey (UQSES); and
Course evaluation questionnaire (iCEVAL).

In general, the University has data from these instruments for the period 1999 to the present. These data enable identification of trends in student satisfaction over this period, and a summary of these data in relation to the different areas of the BSc degree can be found in Section 5 of this submission.

It is also University policy that individual lecturers carry out regular teaching evaluations (TEVALs) of the courses to which they contribute. However, these data cannot be used in a public analysis as the information is considered private to the individual lecturer and the Head of Unit.

To obtain further information on student satisfaction with the BSc degree, a number of focus groups were held and a comprehensive survey was administered by the UQ Social Research Centre on the recommendation of the Student Experience Working Party. In total, more than 900 students replied to the survey and the results can be found in Supplementary Document: BSc Review Student Survey of this submission. To further engage student involvement in the Review, the Secretary of the UQ Student Union was invited to be a member of the Steering Committee. An Open Forum was held on 25 May for students to provide additional input into the Review process. Further, six students were invited to take part in a panel discussion at the Caloundra Retreat. This enabled them to highlight, from a student perspective, the major issues that the Review should address. It also provided an opportunity for staff to ask questions of the student representatives.

Student Destinations

There is little doubt that Higher Education has become part of the market place (Geiger, 2002; Bok, 2003; Kirp, 2003; Newman et al, 2004; Washburn, 2005) and this is probably best emphasized by the publication of University rankings and fierce competition for research funding and full fee-paying students. In the Australian context, top academic staff are expected to bring in funding from the Australian Research Council, the National Health & Medical Research Council and industry funding, both to support research activities and to raise the prestige of the University. This prestige is further reinforced by attracting outstanding students (such as OP1 to OP3 students), and it is very apparent that elite Universities need top students every bit as much as top students need the Universities (Kirp, 2003).

In considering the student mix within the BSc, it was possible to break the composition down into three broad categories that reflect the different career trajectories of our graduates:

Those students who are present to obtain a general science-based education,
Those students who are positioning themselves to enter a professional degree (e.g.
medicine, pharmacy, physiotherapy, psychology, engineering, law etc), and
Those students who see science as a career path and will proceed to Honours and probably a PhD (including industry, academia, technical sales and support, government, patent attorney etc).

The second category often elect to participate in the dual degree program (e.g. BSc/BA, BSc/LIB, BSc/BCom, BSc/BEcon) and currently about 25% of our student body is in this category. A further group choose to prepare as science teachers through the BSc/BEd or BSc/GradDipEd. The above highlights the rich and diverse backgrounds of our students and has required us to be increasingly sensitive to their needs to ensure they participate in a quality undergraduate experience at UQ.

Our success in attracting high-quality international students has been impressive, and these students have helped us realize that we live in a global village. They bring a wealth of cultural backgrounds to the University that enriches our community and we are appreciative of the honour they bestow on us by choosing UQ for their education. However, we struggle as a community in providing the right mechanisms to encourage domestic UQ students to go either interstate or overseas to enrich their personal and educational horizons. This lack of movement of domestic students at both the undergraduate and postgraduate levels is still a major shortcoming of the Australian Higher Education system. The advances in modern communication and travel, the rapidity of movement of industries and jobs to other states and countries, and the challenge for us to be a player in a knowledge-driven society requires all our students to develop a global competency. To meet this goal we have attempted to develop a flexible future curriculum that allows students the ability to have an interstate or international experience during their undergraduate science degree. The recent introduction of Overseas Study HELP (OS-HELP) by the Government (http://www.goingtouni.gov.au/Main/Resources/StudentSupport/Study+overseas/ OSHELP.htm) will at long last assist in the internationalization of domestic students in Australian universities. However, for such a mechanism to work effectively, it will require the prioritization of an interstate/international experience for our students in the curriculum and for us to commit some of our own funds to such an endeavour. This again is one of those areas that signifies we are on a continual journey to appropriately position the UQ BSc.

Interaction with Secondary Schools

In his book entitled “The Uses of the University” (2001), Clark Kerr, the former President of the University of California, stated that forming meaningful interactions with High Schools was a difficult task to master. This is very much the same in Queensland and elsewhere in Australia, but we must recognize that these schools provide the feeder system that drives much of our student intake. Interestingly, the Queensland Studies Authority (QSA; http://www.qsa.qld.edu.au/consultations/) is currently undertaking a “Review of the Syllabuses for the Senior Phase of Learning” and we have contributed to this process. The “flight from science” that is currently happening at both the high school and tertiary level in Australia demands that we, as key stakeholders, continue to provide input and guidance into the school curriculum. Similarly, we have extended to the Queensland Studies Authority an opportunity to participate in our review. It has also highlighted the need for us to examine the prerequisite knowledge base for entry into our degree and to ask how much “remedial” teaching is acceptable. It is fair to say that while this area was actively debated over the last year, our ability to adequately engage the QSA has not been optimal. It is one of those areas that signifies we are on a continual journey to appropriately position the UQ BSc.

In addition to domestic students, we were also aware that approximately 15% of our student intake is comprised of international students from a vast array of backgrounds. This mix is also being impacted upon and enriched by mid-career adults, growing numbers of students with English as a second language, and retired persons wanting education for consumption purposes. This diverse composition of our student body required us to look afresh at the opportunities we are providing for them within the science market.

Teaching & Learning

This review process has been a time for us to recognize and support our staff in the passion they have for teaching and learning. We are blessed with an academic staff who not only show excellence in many teaching and learning activities, but also contribute significantly to the creation of new scientific and pedagogical knowledge. This is best seen in UQ being ranked on most national research indicators between first and third (http://www.avcc.edu.au/). UQ is also highly ranked in global university ratings such as those published by Shanghai Jiao Tong University (http://ed.sjtu.edu.cn/ranking.htm), Melbourne Institute (http://www.australian-universities.com/ rankings/) and The Times Higher Education Supplement (http://www.thes.co.uk/worldrankings/). Furthermore, UQ is the most highly cited Australian teaching university, having won Australian Awards for University Teaching in each of the eight years since they were introduced, including the Prime Minster’s Award for University teacher of the Year three times overall. From the three faculties involved in this review, Assoc. Professor Peter O’Donoghue, Professor Ian Cameron, Dr Michael Bulmer and Dr Merrilyn Goos have all been recipients of these awards as individuals, as has the first year psychology team for excellence in teaching larger classes.

UQ is in a unique position to integrate its excellence in both teaching and research to construct a truly innovative, internationally leading BSc experience, at the cutting edge of science education. In reinvigorating our BSc degree it is important for us to recommit to our goal of contributing to a knowledge-led society that has as its core concept the educated person. This rapidly expanding and changing world requires disciplines to go where knowledge takes them (Gould, 2003). Our academics need to be engaged with students as equal players in the knowledge game. This means that academics have to embrace the fact that undergraduate education is demanding closer cooperation between disciplines. Disciplines can no longer adopt a modus operandi that affords a kind of protection against other disciplines. Living in a digital age also demands that the excitement of learning be driven by new pedagogical approaches, and we must recognise that knowledge will be gathered from many sources that know no boundaries.

The UQ Research Institutes

At the time of writing this introduction, the scientific milieu at UQ is in the process of major change. In particular, the three faculties of BACS, EPSA and SBS have given rise to five new research institutes on the St Lucia campus. The Institute for Molecular Bioscience, which is part of the Queensland Bioscience Precinct that includes CSIRO, was opened in 2001 (~700 staff), and the Sustainable Minerals Institute was opened in 2004 (~225 staff). The new building for the Australian Institute of Bioengineering & Nanotechnology is currently being occupied and the Queensland Brain Institute will be completed in August of 2007. These institutes are each expected to have staffing compliments of approximately 300 scientists when at full capacity. The Institute for Social Science Research will commence operations in 2007 with a core staff of more than 100. This adds a scientific workforce in the institutes that is comparable to the combined staff of BACS, EPSA and SBS. In addition, the new UQ Clinical Sciences Centre at the Royal Brisbane Hospital complex is due for completion in late 2007. Plans are also well advanced for the new Diamantina Institute for Translational Research (DITR) at the Princess Alexandra Hospital.

Such significant developments provide unprecedented opportunities for Science at UQ, especially in undergraduate, Honours and postgraduate research training. These institutes are already helping faculties to attract a higher quality of academic staff, and the opportunity for research staff in institutes to contribute to a new look BSc degree is in our hands. A major challenge for the review of the BSc degree is to find new pathways for this critical investment in institutes to impact in a significant positive way on undergraduate education. To achieve this end, there are proposals from both EPSA and BACS for a high-quality, comprehensive undergraduate research experience.

The Review Process Background

It is important to highlight that the review process has been significantly guided and informed by the wealth of excellent resources that were available to us. We have drawn heavily on the Boyer Report (http://naples.cc.sunysb.edu/Pres/boyer.nsf/) and the documentation provided by the Faculty of Arts and Sciences and Harvard College, on the review of the Harvard College curriculum at Harvard University (http://www.fas.harvard.edu/curriculum-review/). We have also followed the spirit of Bio2010, a project of the National Research Council of The US National Academies, which has as its subtitle “Transforming Undergraduate Education for Future Research Biologists”. Further, Derek Bok’s book entitled “Our Underachieving Colleges: A candid look at how much students learn and why they should be learning more” and the book by Newman et al entitled “The future of higher education: Rhetoric, reality and the risks of the market” have helped to significantly shape our thinking. In being guided by the above we have asked what parts of our current activities and curriculum represent best practice and what parts require renewal. In the process of preparing our submission we spent critical time on deciding what is required to educate a person in the rapidly expanding and changing sciences of the 21st century. We also challenged our staff to answer the question “what is the UQ BSc degree seeking to deliver and where does it fit within the Teaching & Learning Enhancement Plan of the University?”

Preparation for the Review

The review process has involved a number of meetings, forums, working parties and conferences. It has been underway since 18 November 2005, when a special seminar was held at which Dr Fiona Q. Wood and Dr Leo Goedegebuure of the University of New England’s Centre for Higher Education Management Policy, presented talks entitled “Meeting the demands for innovation: Implications for Australian science training” and “Trends and issues for S&T education: Comparative reflections,” respectively. The presentations from these talks are available at the Review web site (http://www.bacs.uq.edu.au/cirricu_review-forums).

This event was then followed by an Open Forum for members of the Faculties of BACS, EPSA and SBS on 28 November 2005. The Deputy Vice Chancellor (Academic), Professor Michael Keniger, opened the Forum and presentations were given by each Executive Dean and the relevant Heads of School. To help stimulate debate each school was requested to develop a position paper on the future of science education prior to the Open Forum. Presentations from the Forum can be accessed from the Review web page (http://www.bacs.uq.edu.au/bsc-review) and the position papers are in Section 9 of this submission. The Forum also had presentations on six different national models of science education (from England, France, Germany, Scotland, Singapore and the USA), along with presentations from the UQ institutes outlining their vision for the future. The Forum concluded with a general discussion which addressed the questions:

Is the current UQ BSc degree internationally competitive? and
Is the current model of science education capable of positioning Australia to be a knowledge-based economy?

It was clear from much of the discussion that the academic staff were engaged in the process of the Review and that the journey towards reviewing the BSc degree was well underway.

To further assist in focusing the minds of staff on this important undertaking the following presentations were prepared:

Australian Higher Education and the review of the UQ BSc degree;
U.S. Higher education: A brief dot point history; and
A summary of the recommendations of the Boyer Report for curriculum review.

Like other background documentation they were made freely available via the Review web site (http://www.bacs.uq.edu.au/curriculum-review).

An outcome of the Open Forum was the establishment of a Steering Committee, comprising Executive Deans and Heads of Schools involved in the BSc degree and academic staff who have received national teaching awards, to oversee the Review, and four Working Parties to drive the Review. These Working Parties were:

Structure of the BSc;
Pedagogy;
Student Experience; and
Honours and careers (see Figure 1).

Co-chairs and members of these Working Parties were drawn mainly from the three faculties that teach into the BSc degree. Academic staff were invited to nominate for one of the Working Parties and others were approached directly, in particular the Co-chairs. The faculties of Health Sciences and Natural Resources, Agriculture & Veterinary Science were also invited to nominate representatives for the Working Parties.

To guide their initial discussions a set of questions was provided for each Working Party and these can be found in Section 1 of this submission: Terms of Reference and Guidelines for Working Parties. Each Working Party began discussions in earnest in February 2006. A detailed record of the meetings of the different Working Parties, including meeting minutes, is available on the SharePoint web site which was developed to encourage communication and discussion within and between the different Working Parties. This is password controlled and can be accessed throught the web page: http://www.bacs.uq.edu.au/curriculum-review.

To obtain guidance from the University concerning the Review, another Open Forum was held on the 13 February 2006 for the Senior Deputy Vice-Chancellor, Professor Paul Greenfield, the Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Academic), Professor Michael Keniger, and the President of the Academic Board, Professor Mark Gould, to address academic staff. The general outcome of this meeting was to empower the faculties to examine the BSc and to be bold about the way forward. Further, the point was made that any new recommendations should be placed in the current context of Australian Higher Education where resources per student have not been keeping pace with inflation. For example, Professor Greenfield emphasized the need to develop a structure that streamlined our teaching and, along with the other speakers, highlighted the importance of new pedagogical research being applied to our teaching. Speakers also emphasized the importance of enhancing the overall UQ experience for science students.

Over the period from February to September 2006, the four Working Parties provided reports on their respective areas to the BSc Steering Committee. The Working Parties also provided the position papers that drove the BSc Curriculum Retreat that was held at Caloundra on 8-9 June (See Suplemantary Document: BSc Review Retreet Booklet for details). Following this Retreat a decision was made to combine the Pedagogy and Student Experience Working Parties. This combined Working Party and the Honours & Careers Working Party, were asked to prepare their submission for the BSc Review Symposium that was held on campus from 30 & 31 August (see Suplemantary Document: BSc Symposium booklet for details). However, it was clear from the Caloundra Retreat that the Structure Committee had much unfinished business, and they were asked to continue their discussions.

The bulk of the critical discussion at the Review Symposium in August centred on recommendations stemming from the Structure Committee. The Symposium highlighted that a large amount of progress had been made, but that more discussion of curriculum change was still needed, particularly within BACS. Meetings in early September led to agreement on details of the new second and third-year curricula.

Summary

Throughout the process of preparing our submission for the Review of the BSc degree, we have attempted to view the process as a major opportunity to influence the future education of our students. It is very encouraging to report that to date, a significant outcome of the review process has been the establishing of numerous cross-disciplinary interactions in the context of an integrated BSc. At the same time we also acknowledge that some aspects of the review process have been confronting, and that change is often difficult to manage. While taking into account these caveats, we can be very proud of our achievements as significant gains have been made. The key achievements are highlighted below:

Development of a proposed structure that focuses more on the quantitative and information aspects of science, in which all students are required to take the courses entitled Foundations of Science and Analysis of Scientific Data and Experiments.
A very concerted effort to teach a range of courses in a more interdisciplinary manner, rather than as isolated entities.
Strong recognition that mathematics, physics, chemistry and biology are enabling sciences, and this is reflected in the expectation that all students who graduate with a UQ BSc will have achieved a level of competence in all of these areas.
A dramatic reduction in the number of majors, from 40 to 14.
A significant reduction in the number of first year courses; for example, the number of first year Biology courses has reduced from 6 to 3.
Discipline specific streaming to commence much later than at present, in the second
semester of second year.
A significant reduction in the number of second and third year courses offered, which
should enable students to plan their program of study in a more rational manner and
simplify student advising.
Creation of proposals for undergraduate research experiences, which assist in embedding the students into the research community and will reduce alienation of students early on in their studies.
A major focus on teaching excellence, pedagogical advances and the science of learning, especially on how these areas can assist us to deliver a high-quality educational program.
Special attention placed on the student experience, with a number of significant
recommendations on how this can be improved.
Submission of a $22 million grant proposal for a Science Teachers Centre (STC) to Atlantic Philanthropies, which will help the University promote the importance of science to the primary, middle and secondary school sectors. It will also ensure that our undergraduate teaching practice is evidence based and provide a forum for industry and government to have input into and ownership of our BSc degree.
Tabling of a submission for an Undergraduate Research Learning Space (URLS) to significantly enhance the quality of the learning environment for students in science, engineering, technology, and the behavioural sciences, which reflects current research and practice into how students learn.

References

Bio 2010: Transforming Undergraduate Education for Future Research Biologists. Committee on Undergraduate Biology Education to Prepare Research Scientists for the 21st Century, Board of Life Sciences, Division of Earth and Life Studies (National Research Council of The National Academies, 2003)

Clifford Adelman. Answers in the Toolbox. Washington DC: Office of Educational Research and Improvement (1999).

Derek Bok. Universities in the Market Place –The Commercialization of Higher Education (Princeton University Press, 2003).

Derek Bok. Our Underachieving Colleges: A candid look at how much students learn and why they should be learning more Princeton University Press, 2006).

Rita Colwell. Biocomplexity: The New Bioscience Frontier Interview with Rita Rossi Colwell (http://www.actionbioscience.org/newfrontiers/colwell2.html).

Roger L, Geiger. The competition for Higher-ability students: Universities in a key marketplace. In: The Future of the City of Intellect (Edited by Steven Brint, Stanford University Press, 2002).

Eric Gould. The Univer$ity in a Corporate Culture (Yale University Press, 2003).

Clark Kerr. The Uses of the University” (Harvard University Press, 2001).

David L. Kirp. In Shakespeare, Einstein, and the Bottom Line – The marketing of Higher Education (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, 2003).

Frank Newman, Lara Couturier and Jamie Scurry. The Future of Higher Education: Rhetoric, reality and the risks of the market place (John Wiley & Sons, San Francisco, 2004).

Jennifer Washburn. University Inc. The corporate corruption of higher education. (Basic Books, New York, 2005).

The Future of Higher Education: Report by the US Higher Education Commission. (http://www.ed.gov/about/bdscomm/list/hiedfuture/reports/pre-pub-report.pdf).

The complete Review Submission can be downloaded from HERE