<p>what do you think?</p>
<p>I see where the school's coming from, but I side with the UCs on this one. I question the merits of any biology class taught in a private high school (not saying that all religious institutions have shaky biology foundations, but it can be difficult to weed out the ones that do). I don't think the UCs arbitrarily denied credit for the courses; they must have seen the course material or made the judgement based on the performance of other students admitted from the university.</p>
<p>This is one of those stories that it's almost impossible to have an educated opinion about, because the reader isn't given enough information about the content of the classes in question. If the classes were turned down solely due to christian content, then UC has a big problem. But if the classes were turned down because UC didn't think they were academically rigorous enough then they should be on pretty firm ground, IF they can show some consistency in how it makes such determinations. The story tells us that other classes involving Buddhist, Islam and Jewish viewpoints were approved -- but did these classes appear to have the same rigor as those that were rejected? What about courses having a Christian viewpoint that were approved by UC? There are just way too many unanswered questions here.</p>
<p>I wonder what the UC system actually means by "bias", when they say courses can be rejected if they are too "biased".</p>
<p>Coming from my innocent, no taxes over my dead body state, I'm amazed that UC system has the resources to review all those courses for content! In my state,the state sets the required curriculum, and approved textbook list (which is quite long). Teacher committees in the individual systems re-review those texts for applicability to the local system, then select texts for the system. the universities depend on the state graduation requirements, affirmed by GPAs and test scores, to admit students. Sounds like UC is setting education policy for the whole state - Christian schools aside.</p>
<p>Makes me wonder about how the universities evaluate private students here, because there are some less than rigorous private schools - some lousy publics, too. Probably purely through test scores.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I question the merits of any biology class taught in a private high school (not saying that all religious institutions have shaky biology foundations, but it can be difficult to weed out the ones that do).
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Wow! Not too biased. There are many private schools that teach Biology courses which highly selective colleges give credit for. Many of these courses are at a higher level than most public school courses. What a comment. </p>
<p>This is the best decision UCs have made since they abandoned National Merit...yet another scam on the suburban public.</p>
<p>The way I read the article, it seemed as if UC thought biology classes were really religious classes, i.e. students being taught how God created the world in 7 days as opposed to scientific biology content, and therefore UC didn't want to give credit.</p>
<p>Evangelical Biology? Is that an AP or Honors course? hehehe So if the UCs treat the Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu biology courses the same should be no problem....</p>
<p>As I understand it, the classes in question were rejected after UC reviewed the curricula and textbooks. The textbooks being used are unabashedly fundamentalist, putting religious beliefs about science ahead of established science. Other courses at the school are accredited, so the issue is not the school per se but the course content of a few classes.</p>
<p>UC really does review high school courses! Anytime a high school adds a new course they have to go through a formal process with UC to get it approved for UC admissions credit.</p>
<p>UC's do review curriculum. D is taking a "UC approved" English class at her Catholic high school that has the word "God" right in the course title: God in Modern Literature. The class has to wade through a tall stack of novels, all of which are read in one or another English class at the public high school. The difference is that it is a literature class, but with a religious theme. The theme could just as easily have been "women in society" using the same novels used in the "God in Lit" class. There are also religious classes at the school which are not UC approved. D is not Catholic, but those classes have been valuable for several reasons: she has a deeper understanding and appreciation for others whose views don't coincide with hers, and she has had to think very hard about ethical, logical and philosophical issues that she would not have encountered in another academic class. I think the high schools should have the right to teach what they want, and the UC's should have the right to accept what they find acceptable and reject what doesn't meet their requirements. After all, D did have a choice in attending a parochial school, nobody forced it on her.</p>
<p>DSC, nicely put. "Christian" schools are free to teach what they want, the UC's are free to accept what courses they want. The word "science" has a meaning in academia; those who don't subscribe to it shouldn't be surprised if their usage of the word doesn't find acceptance.</p>
<p>The UC's are allowed to accept which courses they want, but the problem lies in the fact that the UC system is a state system. If it were private, there wouldn't be a thing any parent could say. However, because it is a state institution, this lawsuit will continue, I just think that the seperation of church and state will prevail. I would tend to side with the UCs on this one.</p>
<p>I don't see this as having anything to do with UC being public or private or separation of church and state. UC is a university system with standards for admission. There are non-religious classes at both public and private high schools which UC's also do not accept as meeting A-G requirements. This is based on rigor and content of curriclum. Public universities have the right to set curriculum standards for applicants, and private schools have the right to ignore them. Nobody's free speech rights have been violated. Nobody has an inalienable "right" to attend a UC. Only those who have fulfilled specific requirements have that right.</p>
<p>Another article on the matter at: <a href="http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/12/12/MNGBNG6N2K1.DTL&type=printable%5B/url%5D">http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/12/12/MNGBNG6N2K1.DTL&type=printable</a></p>
<p>Listen, religious discrimination is a bad thing, but it isn't religious discrimination to say that a biology class using a textbook prefaced by "The people who have prepared this book have tried consistently to put the Word of God first and science second. If, at any point God's Word is not put first, the author apologizes." isn't the best biology class.</p>
<p>For those unfamiliar with the UC system: </p>
<p>UC approves specific courses to meet their "A-G" requirements. They do look at content. Students must have certain courses in order to qualify for the UC system, chosen from the approved courses -- but they can also take electives that don't fit. UC will give credit for some of those as electives - but they won't fill the basic requirements.</p>
<p>All schools in California have some requirements and some courses that UC will not accept -- for example, it is likely that the high school requires drivers' ed, health, and physical education to graduate - but those courses don't count for UC. </p>
<p>Course title alone is not good enough. Another example: due to a scheduling conflict, my daughter can't take a regular physics class, so she is taking "conceptual physics" instead. Her class will be accepted as a physics course by most colleges, but it will not count as a lab science for UC -- so at best it counts as an elective, not a fulfillment of the science requirement. </p>
<p>And I would tend to agree that the religious school's courses probably simply fall short of the requirements. It is not religious content that excludes the course; it is the lack of content beyond the religious.</p>
<p>My point is you won't win a lawsuit against a private university for something like this, whereas, with a public university, it is much easier to win the lawsuit.</p>
<p>Hold on a minute. Neither of the courses rejected by UC were science courses. One was in history and the other was in English. In addition UC approved 43 of the school's other courses. In addition the article noted theat there were attempts by both parties to negotiate curriculum changes which would have allowed UC to certify the courses for admission purposes.</p>
<p>I think UC should prevail in court on this one. It is not telling the school that it cannot teach these two classes but merely that students will not be given credit for the courses during admissions. Presumably the school's students also know which courses are not UC certified thus allowing them to choose one of 43 other classes.</p>
<p>Going beyond lawsuits, issues of separation of church and state, and such... I have to wonder at what is really behind this. After all, not everyone teaching or studying at UC schools is Christian--and that is an understatement. If your religion is something that you hold so dear that you cannot come to a meeting of the minds on course content with UC, what do you expect your students will encounter when they get there?</p>
<p>
[quote]
Wow! Not too biased. There are many private schools that teach Biology courses which highly selective colleges give credit for. Many of these courses are at a higher level than most public school courses. What a comment.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I should have been more specific, I meant private religious institutions. I only say this having visited several of such schools down here before I enrolled in the public school system; maybe it's just because I'm in the heart of the Bible Belt though.</p>
<p>Having not seen the curriculum, I cant take a strong positionunlike most every poster here, I do not default to an anti-Christian perspective (and I am not a Christian) so I cannot assume that the courses are not rigorous enough from an academic standpoint. If, on the other hand, some of the above posters have been given access to the course material before they pronounced their judgment, I apologize (something tells me I wont have to apologize).</p>
<p>On the surface, I am skeptical of the UC administrators position. It doesnt smell right. Is the problem a lack of literary or historical analysis or is the problem the perspective of the analysis. If it is the later, the UCs are out of line and trying to dictate cultural perspectives. If the former, the courses should be unacceptable for credit. </p>
<p>We are not even talking science classes: this is literature & history, neither of which demand absolutes.</p>
<p>[one last time: there is no constitutional separation of Church and State in the US constitution, but you all know thatand even, god forbid, if there was, it would have no bearing on a private school]</p>
<p>You are in grievous error if you believe that posters defending the UC's position have an anti-Christian outlook.</p>