Calendar
From my perspective the present calendar offers distinct features
that broaden the possibilities and strengthen the educational programs
at Furman. In the sciences and perhaps other disciplines courses are
most effective when they are designed in a sequence with one course
building on material covered in other courses. A clear example is in
languages. For a beginning student the sequence, 11, 12, 21 works; 21,
11, 12 would not. Physical Chemistry I requires that students have
taken five courses in chemistry, two in calculus, and one in physics;
and Physical Chemistry II requires Physical Chemistry I and additional
courses in calculus and physics. Having three terms each year provides
12 terms in which students can schedule courses. The nine-course
chemistry major can be completed in three years without having to take
courses out of sequence or double up with two chemistry courses in one
term. Such flexibility makes it possible for chemistry majors to plan a
foreign study course or to complete a chemistry major beginning in the
sophomore year. A semester calendar will place severe limitations on
scheduling for such options. Experimental Techniques in Chemistry is a
course specifically designed (in 1967) to take advantage of the winter
term schedule. The advantage lies in the student’s having only
two courses so that half of the hours each day can be devoted to the
lab course. This schedule makes it possible to offer a much more
realistic, intensive engaged learning experience in laboratory work
than is possible in any calendar that would restrict lab periods to
three or four hours one afternoon a week. Those departments that have
developed overseas travel or off-campus programs for winter term have
realized the benefits of this uniquely effective calendar. Those that
have not bothered to plan courses that take advantage of the special
features of the three-term calendar have failed in curriculum
development.
My proposal is that Furman keep the present calendar with one
exception. The winter term should be scheduled for 8 weeks as it was
originally envisioned. Most of the difficulties that faculty fret about
arise from having fewer contact hours with students during the 33 days
of winter term than the 55 days of fall or spring. No wonder. Letting
an “hour” stand for 50 minutes in class and assuming one
and a half hours for a winter term class period, the contact time in a
winter term course is 49.5 “hours.” A winter term with 37
class days and three days for exams would provide equivalent time for
courses taught in winter and wing terms. There may be nonacademic
reasons for cutting winter term to 33 class days, but nonacademic
considerations should not be allowed to determine the fate of the
academic program.
I have taught CHM 11 in fall and winter terms. In every case the same
amount of material was covered, and student performance on tests and
the final exam was the not recognizably different. When I hear faculty
say that a given course cannot be taught in winter term, I must
interpret that to mean that they choose not to teach it in winter term.
I believe that student intellectual development is a function of the
hours spent on task. If the same number of hours are available in an 8
week term as in a 12 week term, the learning will be just as effective.
If this were not the case, we should seriously question the efficacy of
summer school courses.
It is certainly the case that many students would like to get the Furman degree with less effort. Many have found out how to do so by careful selection of courses and major. My concern is that Furman not attempt to make students happier by expecting less academic work. The original concept of a semester hour of credit corresponded to 15 classroom hours. So in a 15 week semester a class that meets 3 days per week is worth 3 semester hours of credit. This is 45 classroom hours for 3 semester hours. With this guideline a 4 hour course would represent the equivalent of 60 classroom hours- not the 49.5 hours of a current winter term course. This accounting method is, of course, not sacred; but this standard should be kept in mind as a guideline to keep us from straying too far in expecting less work for equivalent academic credit. No one should be surprised to find that students flock to courses and majors that deliver a bachelor’s degree with minimal effort on the part of the student. Any change that increases the likelihood of such “cheap” degrees will erode Furman’s academic integrity. We have often commented on the paradox of a customer being happy to get less for her money, but such is the case in the academic setting when the only value for many students is the degree on paper, not the intellectual development.
As an aside, I have wondered about the discrimination against laboratory credit over many years. Laboratory teaching is arguably the most effective teaching we do in science. I suspect the same can be said of other areas such as fine arts. And yet 3 hours in lab is “counted” as only one hour credit for the student.
Curriculum
I will begin by stating clearly that I am a product of a traditional
liberal arts curriculum. I am open minded but passionately committed to
the liberal arts concept for undergraduate education. I will support
any changes that will strengthen the educational experience of Furman
students. But I must be convinced that the changes will in fact enhance
the intellectual growth of students.
What is wrong with the present curriculum? What’s broke and
needs fixing? Who says it is broke? I don’t want to hear gripes
about winter term. I want to know how we are failing to provide an
appropriate liberal arts learning environment for our students. What
attitudes are we failing to instill? What perspectives are we
neglecting? What skills are our graduates lacking? What wells of
ignorance are we leaving them wallowing in? What visions have we not
inspired? What prejudice have we not prodded? What values have we not
illuminated? What joy have we not surprised them with?
These are serious questions. They are always in the background of my
mind as I prepare for class. These matters must be considered apart
from any calendar issue. I think they must be considered individually
by each faculty member for each course. Obviously the curriculum as a
whole has a bearing on these questions, but only in an incidental way.
Require what courses you wish. Give all the freedom and flexibility you
wish. What ultimately matters is the daily engagement of students in
intellectual contexts that deal with such issues. My skeptic’s
view is that any calendar, any set of courses can provide a genuine
liberal arts experience for students if the courses are taught by
faculty who love the discipline and love the students. If we are not
doing that now, it is the fault of individual faculty not the fault of
the calendar or GER requirements.
I welcome suggestions for new courses that explicitly incorporate some
of these liberating encounters. I would love to teach such a course-
drawing on my own experience and intellectual strengths. The goal of
curriculum reform is laudable, but I am not convinced that a massive
change in calendar and GER will provide any identifiable improvement in
the overall goals of liberal education at Furman.
For a curriculum proposal I suggest greater flexibility in GER for certain students. Those with a rich high school background as indicated by IB, AP, or other experiences should be allowed to work out with a faculty member (or committee) an appropriate set of liberalizing courses. Our present requirements serve well for the bulk of our students- at least on paper. It really depends on the individual courses meeting the goals of general education requirements. I would welcome a carefully conceived course that would focus on the general aims of liberal education. When it would be offered, what the subject matter would be are open. There are several excellent possibilities. I would support a GER in philosophy. I usually suggest to advisees that they make that their third course in humanities. It would be a mistake to decrease our current GER courses. Our students need them desperately.
Ultracurriculum
MS Word has underlined this “word” with a squiggly red line to let me know that it is not in the MS Word dictionary- never will be. So let me define it. Ultra- beyond; curriculum- a course of study.
One of the great strengths of Furman’s educational program as it has developed over the past three or four decades has been the involvement of students in a wide range of activities or experiences that contribute in significant ways to their liberal education. These are not extracurricular activities- outside the curriculum. I prefer to use the word ultracurricular- beyond the curriculum, more than the curriculum. It is not possible to develop the topic fully in this document. I will simply outline some of my thinking in order to put the notion on the table.
A small and incomplete listing of examples will indicate what I have in mind. Student participation in music ensembles, working on staff of student publications, involvement with theater productions (I was even in one or two as an undergraduate), model UN, mock trial, CESC, writing for the Humanities Review or Echo, departmental seminars without CLP credit, senior seminar (the chemistry requirement by design does not carry “credit hours,” presentation at NCUR or professional meetings, Furman Advantage activities, other internships, and, of course, undergraduate research.
All such activities constitute for our students the opportunity to grow intellectually, learn responsibility, expand horizons, develop self-confidence, and become thoughtful, informed citizens. These activities are not graded, they do not count in the GPA, they don’t have final exams. And yet, I submit, they represent for our good students a crucial component of the Furman experience.
But some of the best things we have to offer have not adequately been planned, coordinated, explained, promoted, or funded. Now is the time for the faculty to consider seriously how we want such programs to develop over the coming decade. By faculty I mean individuals, departments, and the Faculty at the university level.
Should ultracurricular activities conform to a set of guidelines or expectations? Don’t be absurd. Should all students be required to participate in the ultracurriculum? I think not, but that is a matter for discussion. Should academic credit be associated with the ultracurriculum? Definitely not- in my opinion. Should faculty be compensated for directing or participating in such activities? Yes, yes, yes! (Subject to administrative recognition of the value of ultracurricular activities. After all, athletic staff are compensated for their involvement in extracurricular activities.) Could honors at graduation be associated with a student’s involvement in the ultracurriculum? I think this point has some compelling arguments in its favor.
In all discussion of calendar and formal curriculum we should keep in mind the contribution of the ultracurriculum to the Furman educational experience and consider the effect of any proposed changes on student engagement in ultracurricular activities.
Clientele
In planning for sweeping changes in curriculum and calendar Furman must
consider carefully the students who will derive benefit from these
changes. It is all being done for them. My premise is that Furman has a
pretty well defined demographic profile of the target clientele. It may
not be the one “we” would like. We may want to change it.
But the fact is that Furman could not make its budget if it fails to
enroll substantial numbers of students from upper middle class,
conservative families that live in the Southeast. Furman’s
strength has been that such students come here with high expectations,
have their butts kicked intellectually, grow beyond their expectations,
and after four years out go beyond the “bubble” to
accomplish much and live well. I commend efforts to provide variety in
the intellectual, religious, cultural, and ethnic backgrounds of our
students. Such efforts must continue and be made more effective. But
realistically I view such efforts as providing the spices for our meat
and potatoes student body.
In all this planning it is crucial that we know as well as is possible the interests and opinions of our students- current, former, and prospective. We must get as much information as possible on these students’ opinions about calendar and curriculum. We need data. And I remind you that the plural of anecdote is not data. I suspect (without any hard data) that one reason Furman has ranked 30th in the recent ranking of ability to attract strong students is that something is unique about Furman in the eyes of prospective students. I also believe (or like to believe) that the one unique feature of Furman is its calendar- 3-2-3. Three courses or two courses a term, not five or six. In my own experience student performance improved when the new calendar was implemented in 1968. It suited the temperament and abilities of Furman students. But that is anecdote, not data. There is a special recruiting edge in having a unique approach. Our curriculum stands out as recognizably different from that of other schools on the semester system. We should be sure we are not losing some advantage by becoming like every other school our students consider. Mine is a conservative view in this regard. I surprise myself. But I firmly believe that over the next few decades Furman will be better served by serving our traditional clientele rather than gearing up to change over to a completely national student body such as those at Grinnell or Swarthmore.
Accounting or Accountability
When all is said and done everyone should have a clear and accurate understanding of faculty obligations. First- will Furman require the same number of hours credit for graduation? I hope that will be the case. Second- will we in general have classes of the same size as now? If so, we will have to have the same number of classes offered during the academic year. With no increase in faculty, each faculty member will have to the same number of contact hours in the new curriculum as in the present one. The numbers do not add up to have the same course expectations along with lighter work load for faculty. And I do not see the gain for the student’s education that would come with reduced requirements. Everyone, faculty and administrators, must understand exactly what any new calendar and curriculum will require in terms of faculty load. By the way, faculty load could be reduced with the present calendar- depends on budget priorities.
Posted by mfairbairn at November 2, 2004 11:14 AM