Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Anthropology in the RDU area

Expand Messages
  • <dianne.chidester@...>
    You are right that there is not a lot of anthropology taught at the community colleges in NC. I took my first anthro classes at Alamance Community College
    Message 1 of 1 , Feb 25, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      You are right that there is not a lot of anthropology taught at the community colleges in NC. I took my first anthro classes at Alamance Community College from an adjunct instructor.

      I think a lot of students interested in anthropology go straight to ECU, NCSU, UNC, UNC-G, UNC-A, UNC-W, UNC-Charlotte. The community colleges in NC and SC have a legacy for workforce training and not so much as "feeder schools" for the universities. Also, the state populations are not as large nor as dense as in some other states which impacts demand.

      In addition, many of the universities want their graduates to take their courses. Back in the 1990's, even though I lived in Chapel Hill and had worked at UNC-CH, I was advised by friends on faculty and staff that UNC-CH was not really interested in non-traditional students. To this day I am only aware of three UNC-G Anthropology graduates who have been able to get into the graduate program at UNC-CH. (Two of them are SACCers and twins, Dona and Dorothy Davis! The third was in fieldschool in Mexico when I was in 1994. He had lots of GIS experience and probably didn't need any stipends from the university. :( )

      This is probably more than you wanted to know!

      --Dianne

      Dianne Lynn Chidester
      Anthropology & Sociology
      Greenville Technical College
      506 S. Pleasantburg Dr.
      Greenville, SC 29607

      864-250-8729 (office)

      ________________________________

      From: SACC-L@yahoogroups.com on behalf of Conal Ho
      Sent: Sat 2/23/2013 1:48 PM
      To: SACC-L@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: [SACC-L] Re: Teaching Sociology in North Carolina CC



      Thanks to everyone who replied. I know that in California community colleges, they have something like a course equivalency process whereby someone can demonstrate through say their own research that they have done enough to be credentialed to teach particular classes. For instance, a friend of my who also has a PhD in anthropology teachers in the intercultural studies department at a California community college and she was able to do that by showing her qualifying exams and PhD research which was on race and ethnicity relations. I wonder if something like course equivalencies are available in North Carolina.

      It's a shame that anthropology does not attract more students, at least in the region of North Carolina where I'm at (Raleigh-Durham). Anthropology programs in CC's in San Francisco Bay area seem to be quite a bit bigger. I wonder if part of this is anthropology as a discipline not advertising itself well. Perhaps old notions of anthropology as only study the "exotic tribal" people still hold? I mean, after all, anthropologists for the past 30 years have studied in urban areas, deal with social problems, diversity issues, power issues, etc.! I mean, there doesn't seem to be any discipline-related reason why sociology should be so much bigger in CCs than anthropology.

      Regarding Dianne Chidester's comment:
      > Also, I have found that teaching the sociology courses is really done
      > from a less holistic view and the focus really is on using the
      > theoretical perspectives. There is some crossover, but that is limited.

      I think this can really go both ways. There are so many ways to teach anthropology and the tension between the more humanistic and scientific perspectives can be generative and fruitful.

      Who in the community college leadership do I turn to to ask for how faculty qualifications for a course are done? And how do I find out if there is wiggle room? From reading the accrediting agency (SACS) website, having 18 graduate hours of coursework isn't only the way to be credentialled:

      from SACS FAQ page: http://www.sacscoc.org/FAQsanswers.asp#q14
      > Institutions are required to document and justify that each faculty member is qualified to teach assigned courses. Documentation and justification may be accomplished by using only traditional academic credentials, by using a combination of traditional academic credentials and "other" qualifications, or by using only "other" qualifications consistent with Comprehensive Standard 3.7.1, and reporting these on the Commission's faculty roster form. In essence, the institution is called upon to "make its case" for why the faculty member is qualified to teach courses assigned.
      >
      > If the traditional academic credential approach is used, then following the Faculty Credential guidelines will prove very helpful. When the qualifying credential aligns with the courses being taught, no justification is normally required as the credential speaks for itself, e.g. Ph.D. in English teaching English. However, if the Ph.D. is in Business Administration and the faculty member is teaching Accounting, then a written justification is normally necessary.
      >
      > If a combination of traditional credentials and "other" credentials is used, or if the "other" qualifications only approach is used, then a portfolio approach for qualifications is suggested. This approach normally requires a careful and thorough justification that demonstrates the linkage between the various components of the portfolio of qualifications to the courses being taught.

      Thanks for the guidance!

      Conal Ho

      ------------------------------------

      Find out more at our web site http://saccweb.net/ Yahoo! Groups Links







      This electronic mail message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message. To the best of our ability and knowledge, this mail message has been scanned and is free of viruses and malware.


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.