University of Arizona also has a required core course, Organization of
Information, in which Cataloging is taught.  We have a KO mini-track
(these are electives, suggested courses for knowledge organization).

Rationale for it is discussed here:

>  I know this is expanding the thread a bit but I was wondering if others
> of you are doing something similar in developing a career pathway of
> courses for Cataloging/Tech Services, and would be willing to share your
> thoughts.

This is the idea behind the KO electives (an advising tool for careers) as
it gives examples of professional titles in this area

> It depends on what you meant by a cataloging course.  If you meant
> broadly a course covering the characteristics of bibliographic info,
> cataloging principles (as part of general principles of info
> organization), components of a catalog record (and other bibliographic
> records), tools used in cataloging (e.g., bibliographic standards,
> encoding standards, controlled vocabularies), and classification theory,
> then, yes, we do have such a required course at the University of
> Wisconsin-Milwaukee.  After all, many faculty members and students refer
> to this course (Organization of Information) as a "cataloging" course.

Isn't this interesting!

At Arizona the curriculum has three required core courses (organization of
information, information ethics, and research methods) and two other cores
(evaluation of resources, management of services).  The organization of
information core course, prior to 2002, was titled Knowledge Structures
(KS). Comments from students and community including LIS educators and
practitioners revealed that nobody thought KS was about organization. So
we changed the course title to the more tradionally understood
organization of information.

Interestingly, googling "knowledge structures" now, brings up some
interesting results (besides just our old KS syllabi).  KS, I still feel,
is a good thing for students in this area to know about.  Am I wrong? Is
even introducing the concept in an entry level core not good practice?

I try to balance KS theory with cataloging/metadata theory and practice.
Thus, we use the Taylor text but I explain with others (Svenonius,
Lubetzky, Vickery, etc).  For example, Brian Vickery's 1987 diagram about
transfers of meaning is one I use to explain KS.  Vickery's schematic is
based on the Shannon-Weaver model of communication,  I
apologize for the poor quality of the image.  Anyway, it shows how
knowledge structures (K), as represented in the source and system, by it's
scheme of organization (messages and designations) and in the users as
represented by their queries (Q), become unmatched because of problems in
the transfers of meaning.

[log in to unmask]