I am the point person in my department for curriculum matters. I don't want to dispute the fact that a lot of professors check out or let activism crowd out scholarship; that happens. But let me offer this counterpoint. At my institution, the process for revising a course description has become so bogged down in bureaucratic paperwork and activist meddling ("oh, the new syllabus for the course on maximum likelihood estimation etc. - does not have a land acknowledgment or consider the ethics of non-parametric estimation as a counterpoint!) that my colleagues and I often just give up. So, many of us simply teach our revised courses under standing special topics course numbers, and leave the old course descriptions to moulder on the university website. It's far from optimal, but when the university essentially taxes faculty in time and patience for updating their courses... well, then faculty will respond accordingly. This is the nature of large bureaucracies.
Simple, delete 20% of course descriptions every year for 5 years, then start over again. Updating course descriptions once every 5 years shouldn't be too much of a burden for professors. For those who refuse to provide updated descriptions, simply supply the default "NO COURSE DESCRIPTION AVAILABLE." That should tank course attendance, and even the most obstinate and irascible profs need students to teach.
Dr. Leaks, at the graduate level a lot of material is taught in the 599, 699, 799 Special Topics Course Numbers. At my prior institutions 3/4 of the graduates courses in our department catalog have not been taught in a decade or more so the description is not relevant. Now of course this excludes the stats requirement and the always expanding diversity requirements.
I am the point person in my department for curriculum matters. I don't want to dispute the fact that a lot of professors check out or let activism crowd out scholarship; that happens. But let me offer this counterpoint. At my institution, the process for revising a course description has become so bogged down in bureaucratic paperwork and activist meddling ("oh, the new syllabus for the course on maximum likelihood estimation etc. - does not have a land acknowledgment or consider the ethics of non-parametric estimation as a counterpoint!) that my colleagues and I often just give up. So, many of us simply teach our revised courses under standing special topics course numbers, and leave the old course descriptions to moulder on the university website. It's far from optimal, but when the university essentially taxes faculty in time and patience for updating their courses... well, then faculty will respond accordingly. This is the nature of large bureaucracies.
Simple, delete 20% of course descriptions every year for 5 years, then start over again. Updating course descriptions once every 5 years shouldn't be too much of a burden for professors. For those who refuse to provide updated descriptions, simply supply the default "NO COURSE DESCRIPTION AVAILABLE." That should tank course attendance, and even the most obstinate and irascible profs need students to teach.
Dr. Leaks, at the graduate level a lot of material is taught in the 599, 699, 799 Special Topics Course Numbers. At my prior institutions 3/4 of the graduates courses in our department catalog have not been taught in a decade or more so the description is not relevant. Now of course this excludes the stats requirement and the always expanding diversity requirements.