NCTQ likens syllabi to a menu, implying that items that are not on the menu can be ordered. Hasn NCTQ ever heard of “specials”?
It is only because NCTQ is looking for evidence of basic, essential topics that we can make fair use of syllabi for rating course quality. Here’s a useful way to better understand NCTQ’s methodology: If a syllabus for an early American history course contains no mention of topics associated with the American Revolution, one might rightfully suspect that the course is deficient, because the Revolution is considered a basic, essential topic. But it wouldn’t be as troubling to discover that Benedict Arnold was omitted from the syllabus. The professor might not have thought to list Arnold, and in any case he might end up talking about Arnold in a lecture not unlike adding a “special” dish to a menu one night. But even if the professor doesn’t, it would be unfair to assume that the course is deficient as a result of the omission, because Arnold is not a basic, essential topic. When NCTQ rates a reading course, for example, we look for references to the five components of scientifically base
