SFS Overhauls Map of the Modern World Course

I had no real love for the old Map course, but it was uniquely SFS. Also, I feel like it did give me useful information. This new class sounds like total fluff.

This is unfortunate for those of us who will be sitting in map again this year...while I should have passed it last year, I missed by two points and will consequently have to take the course again. This time, however, my notes will be useless, as will my plans for improvement. I only hope I don't fail again because of the different format...

That sounds like absolute fluff/BS. I bet the final will be a blank page and you'll have to draw what you think the world should look like.

The old map course, as far as I could tell from my MSB vantage, was one of the classes that made SFS solid and reputable.

One tradition hasn't changed: G'town administration bungling things.

This sounds awful, they're butchering an institution. I am glad I didn't have to deal with this.

I don't agree with the previous posts. I think this is a much needed change and doesn't affect the "tradition" status of Map--it's still another required course for all SFSers that we need to suffer through! These changes do not sound like fluff either--the way the course used to be taught, we were crammed with a bunch of info that no one remembered accurately the next semester--isn't that worse than fluff?

I have already passed Map but am considering sitting in on some of these new Map courses in the hopes that I'll actually retain some of the info this time!

Richard-Anderson is a dreadful bore and will ruin one of my favorite courses at Georgetown. I never thought I'd say this, but bring back Hrebenak!

This does sound like fluff. Yes, geography is important. Tribes need resources. They will die, get killed by other tribes, or kill other tribes to get it. Mountains separate groups. Water is crucial for life and trade, being a land-locked country sucks.

What was the committee smoking when they decided to placate Reardon-Anderson?

Deans, wake up and change this.

This is an outrage. One of the reasons I was able to perform so well in my SFS classes was BECAUSE of the way Pirtle taught Map of the Modern World.

To this day I can pick out any country in my head, see where it is in the world, and remember the relevant political history behind its geography. That course is what made the SFS what it is.

This new course will not give the students the grounding they need for their advanced courses. Other instructors will have to spend significantly more time teaching the basic relevant political history when covering certain countries and modern-day area conflicts.

The new course is a complete farce and will only serve to hurt the current crop of SFS students as well as Georgetown's reputation and alumni donation.
I begin to wonder whether the administration's main concern is, in fact, its students and alumni, or merely making sure the budget is cut within an inch of its life.

First they water down the proficiency exam to pass/fail, and now they change Map? And now we have a public "find a new dean" committee? It seems that while the school has been busy putting up "pretty" MSB buildings it has let the core of the undergraduate colleges at this university -- the SFS -- slowly deteriorate.

Passing Map was like a rite of passage. It was great because it was challenging; it was a class that we all knew we would have to work for when we took it. Hrebenak's way of teaching was unique, and all of us benefited as a result.

This new course sounds like a disappointment that will deprive the eager freshies of a truely SFS tradition

Sorry, George, but the "core" of the undergraduate COLLEGE(s) is not the SFS.

I tend to agree with Bunny and not Angela. Perhaps she should have paid better attention in map, because I certainly didn't forget what Hrebenak taught me, and the facts I learned in Map have formed an underlying foundation for the rest of my studies in international affairs.

There are so many things currently wrong with the SFS curriculum, like having baloney certificates rather than the option to minor in the other schools (like the MSB has). Suffering through Hrebenak's military style lectures remain one of the highlights of not only my freshmen year, but my entire academic experience at Georgetown. The class is still amongst my favorites.

Certainly, the concepts mentioned in the article should be taught to SFS students...but they have 4 years to learn those things. Map served a purpose that is too often lacking in today's college experience; studying rote knowledge. This isn't to say everything should be rote, but college student today are, quite frankly, intellectually lazy and courses like Map forced you to sit down and study. You can't BS knowing the capitals of Africa, or the former political boundaries of Yugoslavia, the way you can BS most English papers.

I can already see the final for this course. "This is the boundary between the United States and Mexico. Please explain your emotional response to this boundary and how it has affected your community."

What's missing in the discussion about these changes is that the SFS curriculum is ostensibly designed to prepare students for the FSOT. While one may argue that Pirtle/Hrebenak's course isn't the BEST means to that end, a course about "earth tectonics" is by no means better.

One thing I've heard from current Foreign Service Officers is that though the FS exam is not the most pleasant process in the world, it encourages a sense of solidarity on the other side -- it is hard, and for that reason, successful candidates have a certain modicum of respect for each other off the bat. It's not a perfect analogy by any stretch of the imagination, by Map acts in a similar way for the SFS.

I have to take Map for my senior year next year when I come back from abroad.

Most of you are overreacting. They're still going to teach geography and political borders AKA Map of the Modern World. I am a CULP major and my intro to CULP professor actually specialized in Geography, and Geography is NOT just about learning about conflicts and political history.

SFS students actually IMO have a tendency to lack the scientific understanding of their peers in the College and I think that serves them to the detriment and adding some science to MAP for a better understanding of geography will do some good.

I will miss the old MAP but for all those of you who actually remember what you learned in MAP, talk to your peers, most of them don't remember too much from it.

Its not "watered down", they still have to pass 70 or higher at the final exam and study very hard.

I agree with the majority of posters here. Words cannot explain how much I loathed taking Map, but I took it and I passed it and I know more now than I did coming into Georgetown. I agree that aspects of physical geography should be addressed, but not at the expense of "This is Country X. It gained independence from Country Y in 1918. It fought a war with Country Z over fill-in-the-blank." More physical stuff you WILL learn in your regional histories, and geology, while valuable, is not the point of the course.

Definitely the SFS curriculum needs to be overhauled. Personally, I'm all for ending our "safe from science" status and giving SFS students the same math/science requirements that Arts majors in the college have. As for the certificate/minor issue, according to my dean, the problem is that the SFS was designed to be interdisciplinary, so a minor, which is basically six classes in the same field, doesn't go along with our mission statement. I agree that it's stupid, but at least there's a point there.

Different George before we get on which school is better...

Did the old MOMW have its uses? Of course. All us SFSers went through it. This one is different, in that it seems to not only consider POLITICAL boundaries but natural ones as well, and yes, that will have a significant impact on the future. Wars over water, anyone? So long as everyone still learns where these nations are (even if they aren't tested on every specific fact of their history), and if they gain a broader understanding of some of the political violence and other conflicts that occur...many of which are related to those natural boundaries, it could be a sound improvement to Map.

Sure, we're being possessive. It's been a right of passage. Something tells me Reardon-Anderson won't do the military drill routine of Hrebenak or the guy before him. That doesn't mean it's going to be worse. They haven't even done a semester of it yet, yeesh.

In all honesty, however, the SFS Deans' Office would've been better off considering some student feedback and maybe they should do a demo class this fall to give people a sense of where this is going so no one walks in blindly.

And an option to test out using the old material should be given to students who didn't pass their previous try, rather than making them sit through a fundamentally restructured Map that doesn't correlate to what their peers did.

"the earth-sun relationship"

Does anything else really need to be said?

I hated that Map was so intense when I was in the class but I actually learned a lot from it, bonded with people I may never have spent a lot of time with, and actually continue to apply everything I did learn to my courses now. I don't want to see first-year SFS-ers miss out on all of that this year. It seems to me that the course will lose its intensity and integrity, 2 aspects that made what we learned in the course worthwhile in the first place. Sorry, but geography just doesn't cut it.

I totally lived in fear of Map as an SFS frosh. But after conquering it, I realized how much I had learned, despite being petrified both of Dean Pirtle and of failing the course entirely. But I did pass, and came out of it with a respect for Pirtle that I eventually ended up taking two semesters of Sea Powers with him. Hope the new curriculum works well for all parties.

Since the SFS is supposed to produce graduates that have an global understanding of current issues, it seems natural that students need to first know where countries are located.

The old Map was awful to study for, but it was one of the most useful classes I took at Georgetown. The new class seems like it's going to be a complete waste of time - a whole class on the relationship between the earth and sun? Seriously?

Geology? Climate Change?

I can't see how anyone could cramm any more info into the very tight class time MAP has. 50 minutes per week barely allowed Hrebenak to cover basic geography, adding more material, especially stupid stuff like sun-earth relationships almost guarantee that much will be sacrificed.

As a non SFS-er, I can say I'm deeply saddened by this. I saw friends taking the course last year, and while they were constantly freaking out about it, ultimately I was envious of how much they learned and the sense of accomplishment given by passing the final exam. I was actually planning on taking this course in the spring just for the sake of it, not for any sort of requirement. Now? I doubt it.

"three lectures on the fundamental forces that shape physical geography: the earth-sun relationship, atmospheric physics, and earth tectonics"

what a joke. next thing you know, proficiency in emoticons will count for the modern foreign language requirement.

map will always be defined by pirtle. ill never forget the importance of guano in world history...

I never thought I would say this, but this makes me pine for Prof. Pirtle. Map was a hard class, but you learned. This new course does not sound like an improvement. As much as we would wish otherwise, in this world borders and boundaries exist and shape international relations far more than "geology" or "climate change" ever has.

This is crap. There goes my alumni donation to SFS. Sending it to the football team instead. The last thing they need to do is make it fluffy and easy.

SFS '04

If you are frustrated by the changes, join our group and learn how we are fighting them.
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=283447210202&ref=mf

This is a foolish change. I am not disputing the need for a class on physical geography, but the purpose of Map of the Modern World was elegantly stated by Professor Pirtle: "Map, Map, Map." It was designed to transfer a specific toolset about what country sits next what other country and how it got there. This information is important for everyone but it is critical for a Foreign Affairs professional.

I am an FSO and I have been working around the world since 1998. I have used what I learned in that class over and over and over. I am appalled that Georgetown would cast aside such a useful class.

Here's an idea: If the folks who run SFS think this new "earth-sun relationship" class is so important, why not require both the traditional Dean Purtle Map course and the new course?