An alternative to distribution requirements (#30)
I. Proposal
All students at Furman will complete 32 four-hour courses. These will
include:
A. A two-semester freshman seminar.
B. A group of courses (at least 8 and no more than 12) constituting a
major.
C. Courses (or in some cases other curricular and extracurricular
experiences) which include as a substantial component each of the
following:
- the
scientific study of nature and natural phenomena
- contemporary problems
or issues involving the environment, technology, or the natural sciences
- the scientific study
of human behavior and human society
- in-depth analysis and
argument with respect to key issues facing contemporary society
- ethical or religious
implications (some service-learning experiences and internships might
qualify as well as courses)
- in-depth study and
interpretation of texts or other cultural artifacts (works of art or
music, film)
- the systematic and
reflective study of the human past
- substantial
acquaintance with a non-Western culture, or a traditionally marginalized
group or culture within the West (some service-learning experiences and
internships might qualify as well as courses)
- a significant
international experience (normally taking the form of immersion in another
culture for an extended period of time; qualifying experiences would
include study abroad for a term or summer, international interships, and
independent employment or research abroad, but not travel for tourism or
recreation)
- quantitative reasoning
- the use of a foreign
language (normally satisfied by a course or internship in which a language
other than English is the primary medium of communication, if necessary
after a semester of language instruction; but students with insufficient
competence in a foreign language to reach the necessary level within a
single semester, or choosing to begin a new language, could satisfy the
requirement with two semesters of language instruction)
- training or experience
in active communication or performance (qualifying experiences would
include participation in music ensembles, theatrical productions, debate
teams, or mock trial as well as course work)
- sustained research or
creative activity under faculty supervision (including a junior or senior
thesis, not necessarily in the major field, or summer research under
Furman Advantage or similar programs)
- study of personal
wellness and fitness, or sustained participation in organized activities
designed to improve wellness and fitness (qualifying experiences might
include HES 10 or similar courses, courses addressing such issues as body
image, eating or exercise disorders, and public food policy, and
participation in varsity athletics)
A single course might satisfy more than one of these
requirements.
Courses counting toward a major might also satisfy these requirements.
II. Explanation
In considering the question of curricular requirements (GER's), we have
two main models before us:
(1) distribution requirements based on the main divisions of the
university (e.g., all students take two courses each in natural sciences,
social sciences, and humanities; students have many options within each
division), and
(2) core courses (all students take certain specific courses;
students
have few or no options).
Furman's current system can be described as consisting
essentially of a
distribution system with somewhat limited options (two courses in natural
sciences, two in social sciences, one in fine arts, one in literature) and
a few core courses (Hist 11, Rel 11 or 12, HES 10). Most proposals before
us modify the current system by removing the core courses and adopting a
simple distribution requirement in the humanities (or humanities and fine
arts together), but retaining specific foreign language and math (or
numeracy) requirements.
I have these reservations about distribution requirements based
on
university divisions:
(1) Such plans seem to me to owe more to administrative
convenience and
negotiatory expediency than educational logic. Are the
discipline-groupings called "social sciences" and
"humanities" (or
"humanities and fine arts") really meaningful enough to ensure
pegagogical
breadth, or accomplish any other important educational goal? Why should
courses on history and linguistics be categorized with those on music and
poetry, rather than with those on politics and anthropology? What is the
justification for any particular proportioning of requirements among the
divisions?
(2) By adopting such a plan we evade what I feel is a need and
even a
responsbility at least to discuss the tough question of whether to adopt
or reject certain very specific curricular requirements. At a university
in the midst of debate about its religious identity – and
just after a
significant part of the faculty, in the year-long Lilly seminars, has
reflected on the role of religion in their teaching – will
we adopt a new
curriculum without ever considering whether some acquaintance with
religious studies should be required? Will we not discuss whether such
educational goals as environmental literacy, acquaintance with world
cultures, and textual interpretation – which many of us have identified
as
fundamental – should be translated into specific course requirements?
The curricular plan outlined above is an attempt to provide – as a
basis
for discussion – some alternative to division-based distribution
requirements, avoiding at the same time, to the extent possible,
requirements linked to specific departments. I do not actually think the
14 curricular components I listed should all be required; some of them I
would probably oppose. I simply tried to set out a number of educational
goals I thought we ought at least discuss embodying in our curriculum in
some concrete way. No one faculty member, obviously, could formulate a
satisfactory list of this sort; a list we might ultimately agree on,
should we pursue anything like this, would have to emerge from in-depth
discussions, and would certainly be much shorter. But this basic
principle – the principle underlying the above proposal – seems to me
sound: if we think a Furman education should accomplish certain goals, we
would do better to express those goals directly – as a series of
curricular (and extracurricular) imperatives each student must satisfy –
than to map them onto the existing administrative structure of divisions
and departments, assuming that the goals will be met if students are
required to distribute several courses according to a given formula across
those administrative boundaries.
III. Potential Objections and Response
- This plan calls for
even more required courses than we already have.
No, because a list the faculty could ultimately agree on would probably
have fewer components; a single course might satisfy more than one goal;
and some goals might be satisfied by experiences beyond classes. More
fundamentally, if a curricular plan like this worked as it should, it
would not be perceived as a set of "requirements," at least not
to the
extent ordinary core and distribution requirements are. Nearly all
courses in the catalogue would satisfy some goal, many two or even three.
(For example: Phil 23, "Ethics," might satisfy goals 4, 5, and 6
on the
above list; Com 24, "Public Speaking," might satisfy 4, 5 and
12; Fr 45,
"French Literature in the Age of Louis XIV," might satisfy 5, 6,
7, and
11.) Students pursuing their intellectual curiosities by sampling courses
of many sorts in various disciplines would, over their four years, take
care of most of the goals without trying. The plan could be thought of as
an elective system subject to a series of checks intended to counter the
drawback of full-elective systems – that a few students limit themselves
to a narrow range of familiar courses, and that many students avoid one or
two types of courses that intimidate them.
- The stated goals are
just slightly disguised departmental
requirements. If the plan ended up being interpreted or administered that
way, it would be pointless. To work meaningfully, it would have to be
based on the recognition that faculty from a number of disciplines may
legitimately lead discussions of religion or human health, teach
quantitative or linguistic skills, and so on.
- Administering a plan
like this would be a nightmare, and ultimately
the decisions about what requirements a course met would be political.
The curriculum committee, or a new committee of some sort, would have to
decide which of the goals each new course (and some extracurricular
activities) satisfied, and would have to develop standards or guidelines
for making these decisions; and courses would presumably be flagged in
some way in the catalogue. This would be a lot of work, but would not
involve judgments radically different from those we now make on
applications for Asian-African or CLP status. As far as
inter-departmental politics go, the plan could only work if the faculty
were willing, in certifying courses as meeting certain goals – as we
appear now to be willing in simply allowing new courses to be taught – to
assume our colleagues can teach what they claim they can teach.
- This is an untested
approach, very different from those in use at peer
institutions. The idea is not all that bold: many of the proposals we're
considering include language, quantitative, and non-Western requirements;
this proposal takes the principle of specific but non-departmental
educational goals and goes further with it. (Harvard's new curricular
proposal includes requirements of "a significant international
experience"
and "student research" similar to 9 and 13 above.) Moreover, if
Furman's
faculty is unusual – as we certainly are in our commitment to basic
undergraduate teaching, and possibly in our capacity to conceive a college
education as a meaningful whole – then maybe we have it in us to come up
with a curriculum that is imitable rather than imitative.
Posted by love at
November 1, 2004 10:23 AM
Discuss
this proposal in the forum, or leave a comment below!