No one can contest the desirability of reviewing the curriculum to determine whether or not it still provides a solid grounding in the liberal arts for contemporary students. This is especially true for an educational edifice in place for over three decades. But age is not necessarily an indication of obsolescence; on the contrary, the survival of our system of general education (with its continual updating) suggests that it has been successful in achieving its objectives. Just within the past month or so, both the U.S. News and World Report rankings and a sophisticated analysis of top student choices by three nationally known economists told us the same thing: Furman has made enormous progress in moving into the elite tier of American liberal arts colleges. We not only attract students of enormous potential, but send them forth in large numbers to the very best graduate and professional schools, where they compete on more than equal terms with graduates of even more “elite” institutions. Much of this success has been due to the broad and rigorous nature of our general education, along with the excellent training our students received in their chosen majors.
What, then, is the rationale for major changes in general education? I have seen none that is really very compelling. Early on the NSSE study was offered as proof that something was lacking in a Furman education because our students apparently did not stand up well with our “comparison group.” A close look at that survey’s response rates, weighting procedures, and other characteristics makes it abundantly clear that we can have little confidence in such comparisons. For example, the much higher response rates for Furman students than for the national sample strongly suggests that our numbers are biased downward simply because we have tested a larger proportion of the student body, not just the minority of more intellectually engaged students who responded in other institutions. In addition, a close look at the responses of Furman’s own students reveals substantial internal diversity, showing that intellectual engagement among seniors is the product not only of general education, but also of the quality of the student’s major program. And, not surprisingly, the Furman majors that demand the most from students in “engaged learning” produce the best results.
Another rationale for fundamental change is that the quality of our new clientele makes unnecessary the extensive general education program that we have maintained. One critic even labeled our general education program as “high school on steroids,” merely recapitulating what students already knew. The only shortcoming of this thesis is its distance from empirical reality: every study extant shows that college students, whether new or graduating, even at the most elite institutions, know less today about history, geography, religion, government, literature, mathematics, the sciences, the arts (and almost any other discipline) than their counterparts did thirty years ago. This certainly does not support the notion that we should drastically reduce the range or number of required general education courses. If anything, it suggests the need to strengthen the current regimen.
Nor is it sufficient to simply produce a few “interdisciplinary” courses designed to introduce students to the methods, analytic procedures, “ways of thinking,” etc. that are characteristic of the “sciences,” “social sciences,” “humanities,” and so on. Liberally educated “citizens of the world” need to know the substance of history, politics, economics, religion, ecology and a host of other subjects. Understanding the methodology of the social sciences or humanities is not going to take anyone very far in understanding the sweep of Islamic fundamentalism in the contemporary world. Courses in world politics and/or religion might. Left to themselves, the great majority of Furman students will gladly choose to avoid subjects “not relevant” to their interests: humanities majors will avoid the sciences, science majors will avoid the humanities, and social science majors will avoid the sciences and humanities. In practical terms, the “demand” for general education classes will fall dramatically, especially in fields in which students do not currently major in large numbers. We must not facilitate such choices, either by the type of general education courses we construct, or by substantially reducing their number.
Having indicated my skepticism about some kinds of changes being proposed in general education, let me indicate a few ways that our current curriculum and educational process can be improved:
1. Reduce the size of general education classes. If we can find the resources to teach a myriad limited enrollment “freshman seminars,” why can’t we produce at least some smaller, more intensive general education classes in history, sociology, or chemistry? This change would also have the advantage of maximizing the number of students with good freshman experiences in a wide range of classes, not just one seminar that often may be a second, third or fourth choice for the student.
2. Enhance science education for non-science majors. In this critical area, Furman has unfortunately taken the easy path. We have superb programs in the sciences, many of which have received national recognition for the quality of their graduates. But Furman has shown much less commitment to science education generally. Doing an adequate job here will require changing some attitudes among science faculty, as well as greater ingenuity and commitment of University resources to this task.
3. Take steps to broaden general education within the existing framework. One seemingly small step, for example, would be to require that all social science majors take their general education courses in the social sciences outside their own department. Similarly, we should require that all students take their two social sciences courses in different departments, broadening their experience. There are many such “minor” modifications that would truly enhance general education without jettisoning the current curriculum. Another example might be to offer an elementary statistics course as one option for the mathematics requirement. Certainly, the ability to evaluate critically news reports on global warming, public policy or the efficacy of new drugs would be enhanced for students choosing this option.
4. Make calendar adjustments to maintain and enhance the existing advantages of our current system in fostering engaged learning. I have no doubt that the sustained quality of our foreign study programs, our Washington program and a wide variety of other valuable projects in active learning are enhanced by our three-term system. I certainly wish we would alleviate some of the problems of winter term by restoring the two weeks of class time that we have lost over the past thirty years in that term. Of course, that would be resisted in various administrative quarters as too expensive. If we are not willing to do this, we should consider moving to a quarter system, as has been suggested by a number of your correspondence. This would permit the continued vigor of these excellent programs, while eliminating some of the difficulties so many see in our current calendar. A “J-term” would not be long enough to permit such experiences.
These are just a few of the changes that could be made to enhance
the success of our existing program without encountering the start-up
costs, uncertainties and disruptions inevitable in a major
transformation of our curriculum. As the old saw goes, if the vehicle
is running smoothly, doesn’t leak oil, and is getting us where we
want to go, there is little point to tearing the engine down and
putting it back together.