September 20, 2004

Values underlying liberal education (#14)

In addressing the tension between content and process (and I do think there is a tension at the undergraduate level because so much is news) I weigh in more on the side of process. I think it is most important that students have an appreciation for all that they don’t know (and even for what they don’t know they don’t know), and the process of uncovering truth for themselves, than I do that they have a vast encyclopedia of knowledge. Especially in the information-rich climate that we more and more inhabit, facts are relatively cheap. I think that Furman and other high quality liberal arts institutions are uniquely situated to introduce students to the challenges and excitement of participating in the heart of the academic life.

My core values for a liberal arts education are:

1) To produce critical thinkers, able to solve difficult problems and grapple with uncertainty.
2) Provide an understanding of methodology for scholarship in different disciplines.
3) Foster an integrative knowledge that imbues facts with relevance for students and their world.
4) Provoke students to be compassionate, connected and engaged concerning society’s big issues (justice, war, poverty, health, religion, for example) with the aim of producing ‘world citizens’.
5) Give students a sense of their unique and connected place in history.
6) Ensure that they are able to communicate well.
7) Ensure that they have an appreciation for the validity and value of alternate opinions, experiences and interpretations.
8) Help them develop a strong sense of self that is comfortable with individual responsibility so that they might see necessity and opportunity for their contribution.


GER
All freshmen take a year long course entitled “Is anybody telling the truth?” The general structure of this class is outlined in a separate document that was a group effort. Briefly, the course would be limited to 12 students and require a lot of reading, writing and discussion. During the 1st half, all classes would have the same syllabus, and faculty would participate in a seminar focused on how to best teach this course (an open question). During the spring term, participating faculty would have two roles: first, to lead tutorials with groups of two students meeting every other week for discussion of their written work; and secondly, to teach mini-courses (two weeks long) on specific inquiries concerning this general theme. Overall, the first semester would challenge students with bigger issues about truth (i.e., is there such a thing, how have people sought truth, is history “true”, what about literature, or science? How is truth uncovered? Are we getting closer), while the second semester would introduce students to some of the ways in which scholars grapple with these issues. The second term would be topic/problem based (e.g., global warming, genetics and race, aids, etc.) and serve, in part, to introduce students to the methodology of particular disciplines as well as provide concrete examples of how faculty here pursue truth. Students would produce a final paper in which they respond to the question “Is anybody telling the truth?”.

Sophomores would be required to experience “other”. I’m not sure what this would look like but I do feel strongly that it should be an experience such as study abroad or community service that they “do” (not “think”, which hopefully was accomplished the preceding year) outside their comfort zone.

Juniors would be required to take two interdisciplinary and/or integrative courses such as the “classes of distinction” offered at Colgate. They would have chosen a major by this time, and these courses would either provide them with a broader understanding of their field of choice, or introduce them to a new field.

Seniors would all write a thesis. I am aware that the logistics of such a project are daunting, however I think the payoff for students is well worth it. I taught at Reed College for a year before coming to Furman, and all Reed students completed a thesis. It shaped all four of the college years, and in a lot of ways, set the intellectual tone (and at Reed this was substantial and pervasive) of the college identity. Almost without exception, Reed alums say that this was the single most meaningful part of their education. It gives them a tangible and undeniable achievement and a powerful sense of ownership in their education that I think would go far in ‘invigorating the intellectual life’ at Furman. Despite the obstacles, I think it is critical that all students do this. Although there are many reasons for this sentiment, two of the most important are these: 1) if we only encourage “honors” students to push this hard, we’ll create a two-tier system that won’t revolutionize the intellectual climate in the same way and 2) I think our top students already get similar experiences. For me, the critical mass is the average Furman student, who I see as smart and capable, but passive and unengaged.
*At Reed, each faculty was responsible for helping about 4 students per year, and the teaching load included this and 4 other classes. There were 2 other faculty on a students’ committee, and it was run much like a master’s thesis, though obviously the quality varied.

These are the only GERs I would require, except that students who scored below some basic level of math proficiency would need to achieve this, and those who demonstrated need of extra writing help would be referred to an appropriate resource.

I would definitely limit students to a single major and one minor or area of concentration.

Another thought: the Freshman seminar in many ways reflects a microcosm of the 4 year experience and hopefully both of these model the intellectual process more generally.

Posted by love at September 20, 2004 08:24 AM
Discuss this proposal in the forum, or leave a comment below!

Comments

I think this type of early experience is a perfect introduction to how college will differ from high school. Many students come to college ready to accept new facts without challenging their methodology of how they acquire and evaluate truth claims. When they are confronted by conflicting facts, they are stumped - one must be true and the other false. It is natural to accept the fact they have long believed. To address the notion of truth, itself, is to challenge methodologies, not fact claims. This may allow students to understand why they accept something, and it may help them hold two contradictory ideas in their head at the same time without bleeding from the ears. This might allow them to build a new foundation for learning rather than simply adding bricks to an existing (and potentially unstable) structure.

Posted by: Wade Worthen at September 21, 2004 08:28 AM