Universities/colleges should make climate change courses mandatory. Agree or disagree?

[True Dough]

According to author Rebecca Solnit:

Report: Multiple universities, including Arizona State University and University of California San Diego, are requiring students to take climate change courses starting in the 2024-2025 academic year, preparing the students who will soon be part of the nation’s workforce for one of the world’s toughest challenges: solving the climate crisis.

Other institutions, such as Columbia, Harvard, and Stanford, are taking the climate focus a step further and establishing entire schools devoted to climate.

And some are becoming living laboratories, testing new energy- or water-efficient buildings and other solutions around campus. For example, students at the University of Washington, Bothell, are studying on-campus nature-based solutions. The Cascadia wetland runs through the Bothell campus, northeast of Seattle, as a restored floodplain filled to the brim with salmon species. Also on campus, the Sarah Simonds Green Conservatory greenhouse is decorated with native plants—with beds showcasing plantings and experiments—surrounding classroom spaces.

Although these universities are all taking different approaches to improve sustainability and climate education, administrators say they are all responding to the same need: educating students who care deeply about the climate crisis, according to public opinion surveys.

[Scrivener7]

1. Great idea. Agree.

[ITAL]

2. I would say "maybe"

Not because it's not important, but because we had to take a certain number of science credits (or semester hours as we termed it at my school) to graduate as it was regardless of Major. I suppose in my example you could make one mandatory and have the other two be elective, but I wouldn't mandate a fourth semester for people who have majors that have little to nothing to do with a science.



* I took a semester of archaeology and two of astronomy to fulfill my science requirement

[Freethinker65]

3. Disagree about the mandatory. Courses cost real money. Would there be any opportunity to place out?

Honestly, if you scored well on the AP Environmental test or just have taken a side interest in climate change, the course could be a waste of money and time on material you already have a good understanding of and that could/should be spent on other fields of study.

I can see it be a potential elective to complete credits required not in one's primary field of study.

[WhiskeyGrinder]

21. Colleges require mandatory classes all the time

[Freethinker65]

26. And IMO, I think many of them are a waste of time and money for many students

I graduated from the University of Michigan School of liberal arts years ago. I was required to take a certain number of courses from areas not in my "major". I thoroughly enjoyed my required electives (and even took a few advanced level courses in them). Specifically required courses I believe were a math and a writing class (plus foreign language if you hadn't had enough HS years or were not bilingual) for which placement test were given for the opportunity to place out. I placed out of the math class, but not the writing. It ended up being practically useless but Mom and Dad were paying so no big deal. I came out with a reasonable well rounded education and have no regrets.

For my Master's degree, at a different University, one biochemistry class at UM didn't "count" (it was considered self paced at the time), so I was required to retake Biochemistry with no option to place out. Not only was the class expensive and I now had to pay for it, the text and coursework less rigorous and I learned absolutely nothing, and it wasted valuable time as I was working full time. I still resent having to retake that class.

I think it is important to have a well rounded education, but specifying specific courses in disciplines not related to one's major I disagree with.

Just so you understand my background, my degrees (both undergraduate and graduate are in Biology/Environmental Science/Engineering). I am very pro-science, pro-liberal education. I somehow ended up on a different path in life and never used the degrees for employment. I have no regrets about studying for and earning the degrees and almost always encourage others to continue their education post HS.

[underpants]

4. Reminds me of one of my all time favorite cartoons

[lapucelle]

10. Well that wins the thread...

[Irish_Dem]

5. The billionaire power structure will never allow this.

The people with money and power refuse to deal with climate change.
They are going to let the regular person pay for it as the damage occurs.

[orthoclad]

14. You hit the nail on the head

The obscene wealth of our ruling class is dependent on the profits of the petrochemical economy.

I have to wonder though:
will they allow coursework which normalizes the inevitability of global heating
and
puts it on the "consumer" to fix, like they did with recycling plastics. Instead of preventing global heating, teach us to shade our buildings better, wear broad-brimmed hats (Reagan), and how to play King Cnut with the tides?

Privatize the profits, socialize the costs.

[Irish_Dem]

18. Yes exactly.

They will normalize the horrendous costs to people in terms of money, health, lives, property damage.

Give us ridiculous small solutions like you suggest.

Yes any damage to their businesses will be subsidized by the taxpayer.

The taxpayers are totally on their own.

[orthoclad]

24. only if we continue to let them

The first step is to clearly identify just who the enemy is.

[Irish_Dem]

25. Billionaires, GOP, and foreign enemies.

They are trying to destroy our country for power and wealth.

[orthoclad]

27. Foreign enemies?

Granted, we've earned many over the years, with our imperialism, but let's start with our own domestic one.

[Irish_Dem]

28. Domestic and foreign enemies are one and the same now.

The GOP is owned by Putin. And supported by Saudi, China, Iran, NK.

And the global billionaires have no allegiance to any one country.

[orthoclad]

30. In what way are those countries our enemy?

You are correct: we are experiencing global class struggle. We need to avoid nation-state struggles, aka war.

[Irish_Dem]

32. Oh my.

You don't know how Russia, China, NK, Saudi and Iran are our enemies?

Words fail me here.

[orthoclad]

37. Russia is not my enemy,

Putin is. He is exploiting Russian fears of the West, which has invaded Russia repeatedly for centuries. Millions of their people died in the last one.
China is no threat to the US. They're wary, but they don't have imperial plans, despite the fact that the US invaded China (Boxer rebellion). They're smart enough to coexist. They are a dynamic rising country with 1/6 of the world's population. We should also be smart enough to coexist.
Iran had a secular democracy until we overthrew it in the 1950s. This gave the world the ayatollahs, who like all such high priests, are oppressive and evil. But in what way is Iran a threat to the US? Until Trump, we had a deal with Iran.
NK is a tiny, weak country full of bluster, like a chihuahua.
We treat the Saudi royal family and most mideast countries as our best friends and arm them. Our oil monarch besties are the enemies of the whole world.

Our oligarchs like to have us fear other countries. That distracts us and consolidates their power over us.

[lapfog_1]

35. no amount of money will pay for the damage

You can't replace a lost food supply or the lack of fresh water. The planet becoming uninhabitable ( by humans in large areas ) cannot simply pay more to ensure access to plentiful food and other resources that we have counted on for thousands of years.

[Irish_Dem]

38. The billionaires and politicians know this.

There is not enough money on the planet to pay for climate change damage.
The billionaires will not pay one penny for the damage they caused.

So the people will have to pay what they can to repair damage and get
food, water, shelter.

The rich think they will be protected and even think about going off planet.

[lapfog_1]

39. the people will pay by starving to death

and trying to live in places that will become simply too hot to sustain life.

There are places like that NOW on this planet, but we simply burn more fossil fuels to provide A/C for people and a few selected animals. In a hundred years ( or less. maybe much less ) these sorts of band aids will fail. No amount of money will fix it.

As crops fail around the world, we will have food riots. Mass migrations ( already happening ), constant revolutions ( already happening ) and more authoritarian governments in power to protect those with wealth ( already happening ).

The earth's albedo is changing. Unless we reverse global warming, and fast, that is something that will not be stopped. The feedback loops are fully engaged meaning that the earth will continue to warm and the ice will melt even if we NEVER burn another gallon of fossil fuel ( methane, coal, oil, etc )

[Irish_Dem]

41. The planet will eventually be fine.

It will repair itself to some extent over time. A long period of time.

In the meantime yes, lack of food, mass migration, deaths, for the humans on the planet.

I think China and Russia are planning to take full advantage of the chaos to make a
power grab.

[lapfog_1]

43. it isn't the planet that I worry about.

It may turn into a new Venus.

Probably some form of life with survive.

But humans and many of our favorite other animals will not.

population collapse is a real possibility for many many species... even extinction events.

[Irish_Dem]

46. Yes

The planet will survive in some form.
And there may be life which survives.

Yes the human and other species will adapt or die.
That is how it works.

The earth is 4.5 billion years old.

We have no idea how many times humans have played out their cycle.

[anciano]

6. Excellent idea.

This little marble in the universe is the only home we humans have.

[Voltaire2]

7. Each should determine their own curriculum requirements.

I have no problem with including a course on fundamentals of climate catastrophe awareness. Seems like a good idea. Better late than never.

[Tetrachloride]

8. absolutely mandatory or get out

[lapucelle]

9. Adding climate science, environmental science, or earth science to the general education requirements

for any student seeking a degree is certainly not a bad idea. but I think there would be push back in some quarters. Requiring students to be science-literate, apparently, is a symptom of the "woke mind virus".

FWIW, here are the general education competency components at Stony Brook University, a world-class SUNY institution that is tuition free for NYS residents. (Thank you Democrats!)

One of my kids studied there, and I'm proud to say that he now works in the field as an environmental scientist focusing on remediation at super fund sites.

- Explore and Understand the Fine and Performing Arts (ARTS)
- Engage Global Issues (GLO)
- Address Problems using Critical Analysis and the Methods of the Humanities (HUM)
- Communicate in a Human Language Other than English (LANG) (see Note 1)
- Master Quantitative Problem Solving (QPS)
- Understand, Observe, and Analyze Human Behavior and the Structure and Functioning of Society (SBS)
- Study the Natural World (SNW)
- Understand Technology (TECH)
- Understand the Political, Economic, Social, and Cultural History of the United States (USA)
- Write Effectively in English (WRT)

[Yavin4]

11. Should be taught in all High Schools

Every kid needs to understand what climate change and what it means for their future as every person will be affected by it.

[orthoclad]

12. Make it broader: petrochemical pollution

Most of our problems, including but not limited to climate change, are traceable to the petrochemical economy.
Plastic pollution
Toxic chemicals
Wealth inequality
Urban sprawl
and more

[ProfessorGAC]

13. Disagree

There should be as few mandatory classes in college as possible.
If we want to make the topic required in the general science classes liberal arts majors take, I can go along with that.
The level of thermodynamic & spectrochemistry detail to fill an entire class is not needed for a great fraction of students.

[Zoomie1986]

17. I can tell that Environmental Science isn't your field

I took the ES for Idiots survey course in college. This was my textbook:

The Environment and You, Second Edition, by Norm Christensen and new co-author Lissa Leege, gives today’s generation of students reason to be hopeful about environmental challenges by emphasizing the role that science plays in environmental problem solving and solutions. The text offers a solid foundation in the science and demonstrates the role that science can play in influencing personal, community and global environmental issues.

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0134102444/

If there's not enough material to justify a climate change course, then it's rather strange to see professors teaching from 700 pages of information about ***introductory*** environmental science that specifically focuses on 'the role that science can play in influencing personal, community and global environmental issues.'

Funny, that sounds exactly like the makings of a good core curriculum course in climate change to me.

[ProfessorGAC]

20. Whatecer

I stand by what I said & I'll bet $100 thar I've been more directly involved in environmental impact studies than 99.9% of people.
I don't need a lecture.

[Ponietz]

15. Dead man walking

Just ONE car emits 4.6 TONS of CO2 per year.
There are 1.5 billion cars on the planet.
There are 20 POUNDS of CO2 in just ONE gallon of gasoline.
Mandatory deck chair rearrangement on the Titanic.
“The problem with capitalism is capitalism.” — Herbert Hoover
Buckle up.

[Brenda]

47. +100

Too little, too late.

[CoopersDad]

16. College is WAY too late. Start in 2nd grade, revisit it in 6th.

Teacher/admin/PD provider here.

We wait too long to teach essentials like civics and core principles of sustainability.

Second grade standards include photosynthesis, the basis of all life and food and energy. Start there.

Sixth gets back to food chains and carbon cycles so bring it back big time in sixth.

Start talking at the same time about careers in energy and the environment and climate change.

That's all.

[Prairie Gates]

19. FYI: JD Vance's mother-in-law (post-menopausal...) is the Provost at UCSD

and had to have therefore signed off on this curricular requirement. Just a tidbit for the debate...

[True Dough]

23. Now that

is an interesting twist. Thanks for contributing it!

[hunter]

22. Without the math It would all devolve into bullshit.

Can I sell you some wind turbines?

Anyone who "believes" climate change is real doesn't actually know what they are talking about. Global Warming IS real, and to understand that one has to have some understanding of math and science.

Unfortunately many people who graduate from high school and college are essentially innumerate and cannot relate the few math skills they do have to the physical world around them.

Let's solve that problem first.

[FirefighterJo]

29. Disagree on the execution, not the idea

Climate change has repercussions on all levels of society, industry, science.... instead of making it a separate course, make those implications of climate change a 'red line' part of every course and the specific aspects for that course. Just as has been done with safety.

[Silent Type]

31. I'd certainly like to see core curriculum courses include a few days/weeks of such topics.

[Emile]

33. They need an adult civics class to teach a

greater understanding among adults of the nuts and bolts of our democratic republic!

[waterwatcher123]

34. Maybe call it part of the core curriculum instead of singling it out as a target for the right.

I have always operated by the theory of using stealth to get around obstacles (right wing cultists). By the time the opposition figures it out, it is well embedded into the scheme of things.

[jaxexpat]

36. Science should have primacy over any othe all other means of

understanding the physical world. Yes, science should be required for any college degree.

[Kaleva]

40. Solving it would require a massive worldwide effort

and a level of cooperation amongst nations that has never been achieved before.

Teaching students what should have been done 20-30 years ago may not be of much use

[Angleae]

42. And what gets removed from the curriculum in order to make room?

[lapucelle]

44. Many colleges and universities require that all students complete coursework in a core curriculum,

aka "general education requirements". The principle behind this is that there are topics in which every well-educated college graduate should have at least broad background knowledge.

For the most part, students take elective courses - classes of personal interest that are neither overall degree or degree major requirements - to complete the overall number of credits required for a diploma. For many, a gen-ed credit requirement in earth or environmental science could simply be switched out for an elective.

Foundational knowledge in a variety of fields makes for a truly well-educated student.

[AllaN01Bear]

45. should start at the elementary level which already doing some to college.

[Brenda]

48. It might have made a difference if this was done 30 years ago.

Now, it basically won't change a thing to require climate change courses even in K through college.

There's the internet, social media, radio, TV and church to negate the education or at the very least instill doubt and uncertainty into the students.

[crosinski]

49. I think we should have stared doing this twenty years ago.

And oh what a push back from big oil there will be.