Change can be good. We are presented with a great opportunity:
to examine thoroughly what we have been doing and to decide whether we can make
significant improvements. And we all want to put our imprint upon the nature of
the University, something that precious few of us have been around here long
enough to do at the fundamental level of curriculum structure. My plea is that
we do not fall into the trap of believing that change for its own sake is a
virtue. Let us examine the option of retaining the status quo.
In the 35 years since the current
curriculum was inaugurated, surely there have been two parallel evolutionary
developments—in the nature of our student body and of our faculty. Perhaps one thing that has not
changed is the set of goals that drove the fashioning of the “new
curriculum.” Our
predecessors undoubtedly had the goal of providing the path to a complete
liberal education of the whole person. So, the critical question is “Have
those radical proposals of 1968 become outmoded with relation to our current population?”
The preceding paragraphs sound to me like the preamble to a
comprehensive plan, to be laid out in all of its detailed glory. But actually I
am currently compelled to write about only some particular concerns. First, I
wish to analyze the assumption of many that the General Education Requirements
(GER) list is too long and must therefore be pared down. Second, I wish to
defend two specific areas of the GER list—to defend them from erosion or
elimination.
Yes, our GER list is longer (and occupying a greater proportion
of a student’s entire curriculum) than those of many other colleges. It was probably created by a melding
of idealistic and pragmatic motives. As to the former, it attempts to provide
adequate exposure to every major “way of knowing” that humankind has used. As to the latter, it attempts to
provide significant “face time” with students for nearly every academic unit
of the University. And
in both realms, it attempts to provide more than a superficial contact with
each of the various disciplines. With these goals, it is no wonder that the
list is long.
What does the current GER do for students? (1) It shows them how
the various disciplines go about their business. (2) It provides sufficient
exposure to many (if not all) of the disciplines so that students carry away a
body of actual content that can be used in future decision-making and in the
pleasurable exercise of their minds as educated citizens. (3) It enables those “undecided”
students to make informed decisions about declaring a major and beginning a career track. (4) It confers
great flexibility for their future endeavors.
Let me expand upon point 4 in the preceding paragraph. I
recently attended a lecture by a Furman alumnus who graduated thirteen years
ago with a chemistry degree. He then earned the Ph.D. in chemistry and followed
that with the J.D. degree. He is now a National Science Foundation employee
overseeing grant applications for their compliance with regulations on using
humans and animals in research projects. His work combines science, law,
politics, and ethics. I believe he would agree with me that his broad exposure
to a wide variety of GER courses, along with his major courses, made it easy
for him to span these intellectual areas with a certain degree of ease.
Over the past three decades our students have (on average)
become more capable in their scholastic endeavors, but that has been matched by
a concomitant increase of complexity in our world. Today’s
students still need the broad range of exposure that our current GER list attempts to
impart.
The GER list has been modified over the years, both in terms of
area requirements and of the content of specific courses. It is not a stagnant
remnant of the 1960s. My plea is that keeping the current number and distribution
of required courses should be a viable option as we examine the curriculum.
Change for its own sake is not a sufficient criterion in this case. If the
polls and accolades are to be believed, Furman has made gigantic strides in its
academic stature over the past 35 years. Could not the stringency of the GER be
partially responsible for our current enviable reputation? Is it not a “distinctive”
along with the Engaged Learning component and others? Folks, we have been doing some
things right. Let’s examine
the GER list as potentially being one of those positive attributes of the
University.
Now I turn to two specific portions of the current GER, once
again favoring the status quo. First, I vigorously defend the retention of two
required natural science courses and one mathematics course. (A disclosure at
this point: I teach in the division of Natural Sciences.) I hope that all of
you who have read this far are appalled by the depth of science illiteracy
existing in our nation. At a time when we are more than ever influenced by
scientific events, in all of life’s realms, we are demonstrating as
a population that we are often unable to assess those events in a rational way. The pros and cons of stem cell
research, genetically modified foods, sending humans to Mars, accepting claims
for herbal medications, protecting endangered species, and dozens of other
issues are debated by intelligent people having little or no scientific acumen.
We are doing a great disservice if we graduate students who have had only a
minimal exposure to the language, methods, and factual content of the science
disciplines and then ask them to make difficult decisions that will have impact
upon their lives and the health of the planet.
Perhaps the following fact has some relevance. A year ago I
participated in a science teaching event sponsored by the Associated Colleges
of the South. I polled the representatives of the sixteen well-respected
colleges at this event. Fifteen of the sixteen schools require at least two
courses in the natural sciences. Our peer schools are not short-changing
students in this area of education.
For many of the same reasons, I find it unthinkable to allow our
students to bypass any college-level familiarity with both the rigor and tools
imparted by studying mathematics. I would fight against any GER reform proposal
that allows students to choose only one course (or even two courses) among the
natural sciences and mathematics, with the option to avoid one of these
disciplines.
Now, please allow me to defend one other specific area. If the
GER list is contemplated as “too long,” a vulnerable course would seem to be HES 10. But I believe that this unique
course is one of our most valuable requirements and should not be put on any “hit
list.” It is one of
Furman’s most integrative courses, combining biology, chemistry,
physics (in the form of biomechanics), psychology, and sociology. It helps fulfill our stated goal for
the GERs “to develop the whole person” (Catalog, page 3). Many of our
graduates remember this course
as having been instrumental in molding their lives for the better. What if this
course were to retain GER status but become an option within, say, the social
science area? If so, precisely the students most in need of its content would
be among those opting out of taking it. I assert that HES 10 should be left on
the GER list as an absolute requirement, for the benefit of all of our
students.
Thanks to the CRC and to all faculty who are seriously examining
the curriculum, for providing this forum for airing my convictions.
Posted by love at
November 1, 2004 10:45 AM
Discuss
this proposal in the forum, or leave a comment below!