Georgetown University Edmund A Walsh School of Foreign Service

Fall 2009

Principal Investigator: Josh Mogil (SFS ’11)

Co-Investigators: Max Cascante (SFS’11), Lucas Stratmann (SFS’12) William Kim (SFS ’13), Jon Askonas (SFS ’13)

status report: map of the modern world

Mission Statement: We seek to present a detailed and independent study comparing and contrasting the curriculum, course notes, and visual presentations of the Map of the Modern World Program from the previous years with the new program suggested to be introduced Spring 2010. No other body in the SFS has undertaken such a prodigious project. We seek to solicit opinions of faculty, students and administrators about what would make up an ‘ideal’ Map program, and to make recommendations based on that data. We present this study to the SFS School Council.

Table Of Contents

History and Development of the Map Program at Georgetown University………… 3 Research Methods and Access to Data……………………………………………… 3 Why the Report: Recent Reactions to Proposed Changes…………………………... 4 Analysis of the Current Model………………….…………………………….……... 5 Analysis of the Suggested New Model…………..………...……………………..…...5 Proposed Recommendations……………………………………………................... 6 Potential Criticism Answered…………………………………………….................. 7 Concluding Remarks……………………………………………............................... 7

SFSAC This report was commissioned and sponsored by the elected student representatives of SFS undergraduate population, the SFS Academic Council, in accordance with the SFSAC Constitution. “We shall seek to address the concerns of the SFS student body and to foster a strong academic community.” (Preamble, SFSAC Constitution) President Caitlin Ryan Vice President Joshua Mogil Secretary Leticia Ferraras Treasurer Lucas Stratmann Members: Fan Feng, Arfiya Eri, Max Cascante, Jon Askonas, William Kim Questions or Comments? Email:gusfsac@gmail.com

history and development of the map program

research method and access to data

In order to obtain a wide variety of opinions and to complete a careful analysis of the Map Program in the School of Foreign Service, we reached out to many groups, individuals, and professors. We have interviewed previous professors in this course, received input from hundreds of students and alumni, and have received recommendations and accounts from Professors in the SFS on the SFS School Council Committee and SFS Curriculum Committee. We have carefully analyzed the passing percentages from the previous program and the opt-out exam given October 2009. We have carefully reviewed the course lectures from the Map Course as developed by Professor Pirtle and taught by Professor Hrebenak. We have also been granted access to, and have carefully reviewed, the course lectures, class notes, and visual displays for the proposed course for Spring 2010 to be taught by Dean Reardon-Anderson. We have sought input from other interested parties ranging from professors to Dean Lancaster. This report is based on comprehensive data.

The Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service was founded in 1919, recognizing the need for a school that would prepare Americans for roles as diplomats and business professionals in the wake of American expanding involvement in the world after World War I. The school predates the U.S. Foreign Service by six years. The first geography class was introduced to assist with the mission of the SFS, and it focused on a physical geography, economic geography and political geography. Dean Krogh then installed the one-credit required Map of the Modern World course, as developed by Professor Charlie Pirtle and instituted consecutively, minus a one-year break. Students taught by a different professor during that one year hiatus argued that they were at a disadvantage to their peers. In order to prepare to take the helm of the course, Professor Keith Hrebanak sat in on Professor Pirtle’s lectures for a few semesters in order to maintain the aggressive and multidisciplinary nature of the program. The Map program is world-renowned for it’s emphasis on geography in a time when 37% of Americans cannot even locate the United States on a map, and other schools deemphasize the importance of an explanatory and foundational class that literally describes the formation of the Map of the Modern World. (Gallup Poll, 2008) Other universities and periodicals cite the program as a model to be commended and replicated. http://thedp.com/node/45527 (U-Penn Newspaper)

why the report? recent events and general reaction

Facebook Protest Group, 715 members Hoya Editorial Condemning Process of Change

SFS Student, Non-SFS Student, Faculty, and Alumni Concerns: 1. Many were shocked that these changes happened so suddenly without any formal review process. 2. Many were concerned that the SFS curriculum committee was not even allowed to review the change, and a vote was not permitted at the SFS Curriculum committee. 3. Many were concerned that because of the unique nature of the course and its place in the core curriculum, the SFS Deans Office should have made this decision with greater care. 4. Many are concerned this is a change to the SFS core curriculum that fundamentally affects the education of all students in the SFS. Especially with such a high passing rate on the opt-out exam. 5. Many are concerned that the limited scope of the proposed course harms students. They were disappointed that the class has lost its multidisciplinary nature. 6. Students are concerned that the school did not conduct a study, or even solicit their opinions on the matter. 7. Students feel that they have lost their voice in regards to their education. They also feel that their concerns have gone unanswered by the administration 8. Many alumni were so upset that they wrote notes stating that that they will not donate to a school that does not respect their concerns. Example Letter (Abridged) Rev. Dr. Nikitah Okembe-RA Imani Associate Professor of Sociology and Africana Studies James Madison University SFS ‘89 I was a member of the Bicentennial GU class of 1989. Among other things today, I engage in global spatial analysis of sociological issues and I can honestly say I would not remotely be doing that were it not for SFS and that particular course which not only introduced me to critical knowledge about the world in which we live, but also to the diversity within the field of geography itself, allowing me a window into the critical connections upon which I would later build a scholarly and personal political agenda. As a faculty member, I am extremely sensitive to the need for curricular evolution and professorial discretion, but in my own pedagogical development I have striven to be sure that changes would represent either the vast improvement of what was being done or an overall change in the mission of the academic program in which a course was situated. In this case, I don’t see either. The changes proposed, to the extent that my external comprehension of them is accurate, not only do not substantially improve the pedagogy but may sacrifice critical dimensions of what the course represents to the SFS core. And this raises the second issue. That SFS mission remains the same and thus the course as it exists serves that function optimally. No reason not to add, but subtraction seems to be totally off the mark. Finally, there is this outcry itself, which is a testament not to failure, but to the tremendous success of the course in providing value to the students. One cannot overlook that. I urge you to hear the students, my brothers and sisters of SFS, and retain the integrity of the existing course, perhaps adding a few modules or components where there are contemporary deficiencies, but holding together the core of this experience for the benefit of the institution and its greatness. I thank for hearing me and I pray the Lord will guide you rightly as you reason over these measures.

analysis of current model

analysis of the proposed model

“The knowledge you have gained and the effort you put in here sets you apart from your peers.” (Note at the end of the Map exam) After a careful analysis, we find many positive aspects of this program and have some suggestions for improvement as well. This course emphasizes the political map as a “first step in understanding world events and international relations.” We find the courses areas of success to include its political and historical emphasis on the development of the modern map, decolonization, and its focus on regions and major nationalistic, ethnic, and boundary conflicts as well as its introduction to international law. Other areas of success include the course’s introduction to basic climate science and the potential for future resource battles. Some weak points include the fact that the course de-emphasizes Western Europe and North America, and overemphasizes some memorization especially concerning the Pacific island region. There is definitely room for improvement, but we believe this class provides a strong foundation for the students in the SFS to proceed with taking other classes and having institutional knowledge about the world to assist them in their studies.

After a careful analysis, we find that this course overemphasizes the role of physical geography at too high a cost. The first few lectures emphasize the fundamental forces that shape physical geography (earth-sun relationship, atmospheric physics), and the next ten regional lectures describe how these forces have shaped the physical geography of that region and the effect that this has had in terms of human behavior and history. We applaud the introduction of some geographic science into this program, but find weak points in the overemphasis on the carbon cycle, the earth-sun relationship, and the removal of many other disciplines from this introductory class. Specifically, international law, ethnic and nationalistic conflicts, as well as the general shaping of the map of the modern world is missing from this program. There is much room for improvement. In a school as demanding as the SFS, students must be introduced to a multidisciplinary worldview about all of the forces shaping the world around us. Anything less will not effectively support students in their studies.

proposed recommendations

1 Our first proposal is to reinstate the former Map Program with its curriculum intact until such time that a new program can be further developed and carefully reviewed. After carefully analyzing the proposed curriculum for the suggested Spring 2010 course, we feel it is too limited in scope (the role of physical geography) and does not adequately serve as a replacement for the original Map Program. We also feel that the passing rate (65 students compared to the previous 3 students) from the exemption exam demonstrates that this class will be easily passed by many in the SFS and will not contribute to new learning.

2 We invite this committee to initiate a panel to review any proposed recommendations to the Map curriculum and make additions to incorporate those elements that would best serve this foundational and important program. We encourage a dialogue to begin immediately; if the new curriculum for the “best” map class is developed before Spring 2010, we urge this committee to endorse that curriculum and permit it to replace the original program.

3 If the two proposals above are rejected by the School Council, we encourage the professor of any future Map of the Modern World class to recognize the importance of a multidisciplinary approach to an SFS education. We strongly recommend this committee endorse the idea that guest speakers, including previous Map professors, be invited to guest-lecture for part of a lesson, from time to time, in order to showcase a variety of views on the development of the map of the modern world. This would introduce students to some of the best and brightest professors in the SFS, strengthen their education, and ensure that Map remains a program that assists with their foundational knowledge of the world.

4 We strongly encourage this committee to endorse the preservation of Professor Pirtle’s lecture notes. These tools can be of great value to any future Map professor, and other students interested in a full-disciplined geography course. We encourage this committee to assist in making those notes accessible to interested students. We invite this committee to study the feasibility of permanently preserving Professor Hrebenak’s lectures on video/internet media.

concluding remarks to school council

potential criticism answered

The Hoya Editoral Board, September 24th , 2009:

We appreciate Reardon-Anderson’s investment in the course and his willingness to alter the course as he sees fit; we’re eager to see how his changes will ultimately affect the Map curriculum. The problem with this overhaul is institutional…Any proposed modifications to a course as foundational as Map of the Modern World is to the SFS experience deserve the input of the students affected. The SFS administration’s reticence to collaborate with students, or at least take their views into account in enacting this curricular change, effectively silences the voice that students deserve to have.

“Map is a regular class; therefore a Map professor has a right to teach whatever they want in their classroom.”

“This is not a fundamental change in the curriculum of the SFS education.”

“This will not put students and teachers at a disadvantage.”

Map is not a regular class. It has many distinguishing features. (1) It is the only one-credit program at Georgetown, unique in that nature. (2) Students are required to take the class. For other classes, students have an option to sign up for the individual professor. For example, in Microeconomics, a student has the right to select a specific teacher who may teach a variation of the program, and the curriculum is not set by the professor but rather the department. When a professor teaches a required one-credit program with a curriculum that is foundational for all other classes in the SFS, she/he cannot alter the curriculum and limit the scope of student learning without first seeking discussion and approval by an appointed body comprised of both faculty and students. The professor is hired to teach a curriculum that is pre-set, as has been the historical case. For these reasons, a change to the Map of the Modern World course is also a fundamental change in the curriculum; after carefully evaluating both sets of class notes and displays, we note that certain elements have been removed from the curriculum that are essential for an SFS-er’s education. This missing element will put students and other teachers at a disadvantage as they seek to make up for this loss.

The responsibility of this committee is to preserve the mission of the SFS, and to give students the tools they are clamoring for to succeed. We encourage the committee to take our proposals seriously, as we have worked tirelessly on their formation. We have talked to hundreds of interested parties, and as a result have issued this carefully crafted report. We also encourage this committee to support the idea that major changes to any program should go through some evaluation process. Everyone deserves a seat at the table to offer advice; our decisions will have an impact on the SFS for years to come. Thank you for your continued service to our school, and your work on this committee.