We are aware of many students at Furman who are searching for the type of intellectual culture that the Strategic Plan outlines as a goal. These students are hungry for a higher-level view of their subject matter and their educational activities. Unfortunately, some of these students can end up disillusioned, bored, or even, at worst, wanting to leave Furman to fulfill their intellectual needs. This program of study is designed to catch those students and enrich their educational experience with a rigorous and thoughtful approach to a topic of their choice.
Rationale
The “up side” of a concentration is that it can enable students to look at a topic from several different disciplinary perspectives. The “down side” is that it has the potential of being a collection of courses that have little connection to one another in the student’s educational experience. We are proposing a truly interdisciplinary and flexible course of study, designed by the student under supervision before the courses are taken, that will produce a thoughtful reflection on the relationship among the humanities on a particular topic of interest to the student. A series of courses in different departments thinking about, for instance, Platonic philosophy as expressed in literature, or metaphors of leadership in American history through political speeches, will result in the type of integrated thinking and analytical abilities for which we strive in a liberal arts institution. At the end of the concentration, students will produce a paper which takes an interdisciplinary view of their topic, incorporating the variety of coursework in a meaningful way.
Another benefit of this type of program is that it is easily adaptable to an honors program. Several other institutions maintain this kind of format as an honors system that supplements or sometimes replaces a student’s ordinary course of study in his or her major (which, incidentally, may or may not be a humanities major).
Format
First, we realize that a “concentration” may or may not be in the final iteration of the curriculum, but will use the format of a concentration as a shorthand way to refer to this or other similar programmatic modes. Given our current system, however, a Humanities concentration might take the following approach. Two courses specific to the concentration would be required, one at the beginning and one at the end of the series of courses: first, an introductory class in the history of humanistic education and philosophy, and finally, a capstone research course culminating in a summary paper based on that student’s selection of courses. The integration of coursework would be achieved by a requirement that students would plan with an advisor from the oversight committee a group of courses that would have some interdisciplinary relationship on a proposed topic. In this way, the concentration would resemble our current ICPs in that, instead of the student taking a fairly random choice of courses from a list, a core topic would shape the selection of courses ahead of time. The introductory course would be something like the Humanities 21 course being offered this spring: HUM 21 will explore the history and practice of the liberal arts in the western tradition from the classical period to the present, with a close look at the history and place of the humanities and arts in American society and government. The directed research of the final course would incorporate a synthesis or reflect the relationship among the chosen course scheme.
Filling in the middle would be four other courses from a specified list of upper level humanities courses that fit the criterion of being an in-depth look at a particular area of humanistic study. “The list,” selected by the oversight committee based on each year’s curricular offerings, would not include all upper-level Humanities courses, but only those that seem to take an in-depth look at its subject matter (meaning that it might not include survey courses or courses which are also GERs). Again, this process presupposes our current system of identifying required courses for students, but can be adapted to a variety of other systems of academic requirements.
We support the notion of “engaged learning” but realize that it has possibilities much greater than internships and research. This program of study will enable students to take an intentional approach to their learning and require them to integrate their coursework from term to term, linking the different disciplines through their chosen project. We believe that it can continue that sense of intellectual commitment and excitement that draws students to a liberal arts college.
After a conversation over lunch today, I decided to offer the following proposal and hope that serious consideration can be given to it under the right circumstance. If all else fails (the "right circumstance"), we should at least consider reversing the present winter and spring terms, i.e., have a twelve-week term from January through March with an eight-week term following during April and May. I offer the following rationales for this modest calendar change:
I would consider the proposed "flip-flopping" of the winter and spring terms to be a marginal improvement that should benefit almost everyone (except possibly some seniors who might choose not to do study abroad programs during spring terms before their graduations), and I urge that serious consideration be given to this proposal if consensus cannot be reached on other curriculum/calendar proposals.
As faculty who are also Furman graduates (late 80s) we have followed with interest the curriculum review process from its inception last year, to the retreat this fall, and now through perusing postings on the web and listening to general conversations across the campus. Herein, we would like to address three concerns. First, the choice of external participants at the retreat suggests that there are certain colleges (Colgate, Amherst, Williams) against which we are comparing ourselves – perhaps in an attempt to be more like them. Our concern here is that we might lose our ability to attract our current unique student body that has represented us so well. We believe that a wonderful aspect of Furman is that she is elite without being elitist and this taps a student group that other colleges and universities cannot. We also see much sentiment for a reduction of our current GE requirements – a suggestion we both oppose. Finally, we both see significant advantages to the three scheduling periods currently offered under our current calendar. Our reasoning follows.
Upon graduation from high school, each of us was academically strong and counselors suggested we apply to the top universities in the country. We did not do that – rather we applied to schools with top flight regional reputations. Schools like Duke, Harvard, and Williams interested neither of us. We lacked the confidence – not the skills, to attend such schools. At Furman we each acquired the additional skills and confidence necessary to take a step neither of us would have considered earlier, namely, each of us attended prestigious graduate schools far from the South in both distance and culture (Stanford University and University of California, Berkeley). Furman had been just the right stepping stone. Anecdotally, we see a number of students in this category here now too. These students are not weaker than students at top schools; perhaps they are just a bit more sheltered and a little less world wise. We are very proud of what we are able to accomplish with this student group and would miss them greatly if Furman were repositioned such that these students felt more comfortable applying elsewhere.
So what did Furman do to take each of us out of our more regional mindset? In part it was the nurturing family-like atmosphere that we are all proud of at Furman. But in large part it also was the curriculum. The passion to learn outside our “comfort zone” (i.e. our major courses) was acquired. In hindsight, it would have been a foolish decision, but early in our college experience, each of us would have gladly avoided the challenge posed by most of the general education requirements. Thus, we are grateful that the faculty made the decision that we should learn integral ideas/concepts of the liberal arts education. Indian Philosophy, Music Appreciation, Art Appreciation, three terms of Humanities, three terms of language, Romantic English Literature, and Anthropology are some of the courses that helped shape us more than our major courses. Now that we hear that some of the even more “prestigious” colleges and universities have fewer requirements in these areas, we value our Furman education all the more.
Finally, we would like to expound the benefits of our current calendar. Our experience as students was that focused attention on fewer courses was a particularly effective approach for learning. This is also the opinion of majority of the students we now teach. The twelve registration periods afford students significant flexibility in their schedules. In particular, foreign study would be impossible for some majors in a semester system. Finally, one of us has just come from having taught for almost ten years at institutions on semesters. He has not found that system to be any more amenable to research or teaching. In fact, the necessity of teaching more classes at once reduces the familiarity with students because each faculty is responsible for more students at a given time.
In your deliberations, please consider the uniqueness of Furman and her student body. Our student body is different than that at many other elite institutions. Not lesser, only different. I have no doubt that we all share in the goal of doing what is best for our students. By retaining our uniqueness we give students a different great liberal arts institution to choose from rather than the same one with a different name. Diversity of institutional types in education is key to providing students with choices.
“Information and computer literacy, in the conventional sense, are functionally valuable technical skills. But information literacy should in fact be conceived more broadly as a new liberal art that extends from knowing how to use computers and access information to critical reflection on the nature of information itself, its technical infrastructure, and its social, cultural and even philosophical context and impact – as essential to the mental framework of the educated information-age citizen as the trivium of basic liberal arts (grammar, logic and rhetoric) was to the educated person in medieval society. Indeed, such an extended notion of information literacy is essential to the future of democracy, if citizens are to be intelligent shapers of the information society rather than its pawns….”
Shapiro, Jeremy J., and Shelley K. Hughes. "Information Literacy as a Liberal Art: Enlightenment Proposals for a New Curriculum." Educom Review 31.2 (Mar.-Apr. 1996). 3 Nov. 2004 http://www.educause.edu/apps/er/review/reviewArticles/31231.html
The following proposal addresses the issue of information fluency (hereafter IF) in the revised curriculum. We in the library cannot stress enough how important we believe this issue to be to the future place of our students in our information society. Increasing the IF levels of Furman students is one of the objectives of the new Strategic Plan. It was also listed as one of the first of the key educational outcomes in the article from AAC&U that Tom gave the Committee several weeks ago: “strong analytical, communicative, quantitative and information skills.”
As students confront today’s dizzying information environment, they are increasingly feeling something known as “information anxiety.” When they discover the number of research resources available to them through the library for their research projects, they tell us again and again that they feel “overwhelmed” and that they have “no idea where to start.” Without guidance, they almost invariably fall back on what they are comfortable with—Google or Yahoo. We are sure that many of you have seen the results of these types of research effort. It is only after they have had one or more IF instructional sessions that they begin to understand the value of more scholarly, reputable sources. Once they become comfortable with the recommended research process, they see how much easier it is to find background information on a topic in a subject specific encyclopedia rather than a web search that yields three million documents. Because of the nature of the information environment, we need to emphasize information-seeking strategies with our students at least as much as memorization of facts and theories.
Information skills are not the same as technological skills, although there is considerable overlap. In their Final Report, the American Library Association’s President’s Committee on Information Literacy said that “To be information literate, a person must be able to recognize when information is needed and have the ability to locate, evaluate, and use effectively the needed information.” The colleges which are members of the Associated Colleges of the South have collectively decided to use the term “information fluency” instead of “information literacy” to indicate that we are striving for an even deeper level of understanding and comfort with information issues and needs.
Currently, we are only able to expose students to IF instruction haphazardly, and there is no guarantee that a Furman student will graduate with any IF instruction at all. We encourage English professors to incorporate IF instruction into all of their English 11 classes, but only about half of them do so, in part because many of them do not require any sort of research for their writing assignments. After English 11, a student’s chances are even slimmer. Because research has consistently shown that IF instruction is only effective if it is course-integrated and related to a meaningful research assignment, we only teach IF sessions at classroom professors’ request. In addition to being very hit-or-miss, this process is completely non-sequenced. Since there is no guarantee that we have seen any given student in any sort of introductory session (such as we do with English 11), we constantly have to start over at square one—we never really get to square two, much less square nine or ten or beyond. This is frustrating for students, because in any given class, some of the students are lost because they lack some of the introductory IF work, and some are bored because they have seen much of it before. Faculty have the sense that by the time a student is a junior or certainly a senior, they are well equipped to handle any necessary library research, but this is simply not the case. Every spring, we have seniors who come into the library and tell us “I’ve never used this library before, but…”
With these issues in mind, we would like to propose a sequenced path for IF instruction with at least 3 levels of encounter with students: 1) first term of their Frosh year in their First Year Seminar, 2) in the “Intro to the Major” or “Research and Analysis” course for their major and 3) in the capstone or senior seminar for the major.
First Year Seminars:
We believe it is extremely important for students to learn early to incorporate research into their writing, giving proper credit to these external sources. Our guess is that many of the cases of academic dishonesty we now see might be prevented if students were ALL taught early in their first year how to conduct effective research and correctly cite their sources. Incorporating IF into the First Year seminars could significantly increase the level of academic integrity on campus. This need not be a complicated or long research project—just enough for them to get a sense of how the academic literature is structured and to be able to distinguish some of the basic types of sources and their uses. IF instruction at this level would also include the basics of evaluating resources. (For an outline of skills we believe all Frosh should have by the end of their first term, see Appendix A). We envision pairing a librarian with each First Year Seminar as an integral part of the course. These librarians would have an excellent understanding of the objectives of the course and could assist the classroom professor as s/he plans the research project(s) for the class. The librarian could also serve as a resource for the students in the course throughout the term, helping them overcome their information anxiety. Overall, IF instruction integrated into the first year seminars would provide students with the foundation of information seeking skills to carry them into research projects for other courses.
Intro to the Major/Research and Analysis:
In this course, we could begin to help students understand how the literature in their chosen field is structured, including the major journals and reference works in the discipline and subject specific article databases they would need to know how to search. We would begin to help them move into more scholarly, peer reviewed sources. These encounters would prepare them for any future literature reviews or other library research they would need to do in their major. (For an outline of skills at this level, see Appendix B).
Capstone/Senior Seminar:
In the capstone seminars, we would focus on the more advanced stages of research including citation searching and comprehensive literature reviews. It would also be the time to explore the social and ethical context of the information in their discipline. At this stage, students would begin the switch from searching the literature of a discipline to contributing to that literature through publication—either print or electronic. (For an outline of skills at this level, see Appendix C).
Depending upon the sequence of courses in the major, some departments might wish to add intermediate phases of IF instruction within their courses, but these three are the minimum we see as providing sufficient exposure to information skills for students to remain competent information seekers after graduation.
The typical student today spends hours browsing through dozens or even hundreds of pages on the Web when a 20 minute search in the appropriate article database would yield far better information. We find this a tragic waste of our students’ time and intellectual resources, with frightening implications for their future ability to find information they need, be it on a disease afflicting a family member or a political issue of concern. We appeal to the Curriculum Review Committee to provide a solid place for Information Fluency in the new curriculum.
Introduction
A number of faculty members, both those with and without education in the law, have discerned a common interest in the intersection of law and humanistic studies such as philosophy, literature, oratory, and history. At the same time, we have become aware that students realize these areas of knowledge have connections, both academic and professional, and are interested in studying them. Thus, this proposal outlines a concentration that unites such areas as the philosophy of law, the rhetorical aspects of legal discourse, and the legal analysis of literary texts (and vice versa), topics which, if taught at all, are usually taught in separate departments at Furman.
The use of the term “concentration” is itself employing a bit of “legal fiction” in this proposal. We realize that a concentration is one way of grouping thematically related courses in a program of study, and that there are other ways. We are referring to the plan as a “concentration” merely to work within Furman’s current system, and are open to other programmatic modes that may suit this idea.
Rationale
If a concentration connects related courses, what is the connection here? And what is the purpose of connecting them? First, we believe that “legal studies” is one way of engaging in humanistic study that encompasses a broad spectrum of human life and knowledge. Operating under the law is one of the few true commonalities that applies to any given person in a society. To a large extent, a legal system is responsible for expressing and implementing a society’s moral and political values. The law thus explicitly or implicitly raises moral, political, philosophical, and even theological questions about human values. Law defines and regulates relationships between and among people and institutions, addresses social, political, and economic issues, among others, and attempts to do so by creating a rational framework with a consistent underlying philosophy. Therefore, understanding legal systems requires understanding their history, development, function in particular cultures, and social roles. In addition, understanding the law requires understanding the role that oratory and rhetoric, inductive and deductive reasoning, and the interpretation of legal texts plays in the life of the law. Modes of reasoning and categorizing information are distinguished; analogies are drawn between sets of facts; past events are analyzed to legislate future events; and judgments of what is “right” and “wrong” are supported with different kinds of arguments. All of these cognitive processes, bodies of knowledge, and skills are part of what makes up an individual fully equipped to participate in civic life: to support and behave in accordance with laws that we understand to be just, to participate in the political process and legal system knowledgeably and responsibly, and to discern and promote the betterment of a community.
The law thus raises a number of interesting and profound questions that require a number of different courses and academic disciplines to adequately address. We would like to take advantage of the ways in which our different fields support and compliment one another to work toward creating such educated, active citizens.
As of yet, we have not addressed the rationale that might seem obvious for a Legal Studies concentration: that of the student intending to go to law school. This concentration is not meant to be a pre-professional track. Part of the purpose of the concentration is to insist on the presence of legal philosophy, analysis, speech, and history throughout human culture, not to train students ahead of time in the information or classroom models they will encounter in law school. While the program would be beneficial for the law school bound, as we have indicated, our purposes and scope encompass much more.
Format
The concentration would consist of five courses, some of which are already in place at Furman (see below) and some of which could be developed. A capstone course of directed interdisciplinary research would be the fifth course, requiring students to integrate their studies and produce an article-length essay or study of some legal issue, not as a case to be decided, but as a matter that affects and is affected by the larger aspects of the human community.
The Strategic Plan indicates Furman’s desire “to cultivate habits of the mind and heart that have at their core intellectual energy and curiosity.” We think that developing habits of considering and critiquing the governing principles and practices of our society further both the ends of intellectual maturity and civic responsibility.
Relevant Courses
In Communication Studies:
In Economics:
In Business Administration:
In English:
In History:
In Philosophy:
In Political Science:
In Sociology:
I propose that Furman’s revised curriculum exclude Military Science courses from receiving academic credit, and make ROTC a purely extra-curricular activity. My reasons follow my plea to my readers.
I realize this proposal will be unpopular with many at the university, and with many more outside it, including alumni. Our task, however, is to think clearly and carefully about what the faculty believes to be essential to a liberal arts education, and this is the appropriate time to ask if giving academic credit for military science is in keeping with our vision of a university, and of the faculty which oversees its educational program. I have just returned from a moving ceremony to re-dedicate the Doughboy memorial at Furman, and saw a number of my friends and students there, leading the ceremony. I have nothing but respect for those who participate in ROTC; I participated in it as an undergraduate. We need good, educated people in the military as in other areas of society. A curriculum review, however, is not a referendum on which departments contain good people; it should be a serious attempt to define our educational goals, and amend our program to conform to those goals. This is the reason I call for this re-consideration of military science courses, and I hope my readers will give my thoughts a fair hearing. Consider the following:
(1) The Furman faculty does not hire Military Science professors, does not review their performance, and has very limited oversight of their curriculum. All of this is done by the Department of the Army, in the Pentagon in Arlington, VA. The faculty therefore has virtually no control over the program. It is the only such program at Furman, and this reason alone, I believe, justifies our questioning its place in the academic program. Why should Furman give academic credit for a U.S. Army program?
(2) The purpose of ROTC courses is primarily narrow ‘professional’ training to be an officer in the U.S. military. This is much more job-oriented than other Furman departments.
(3) Half of the courses in the department are not open to most Furman students, but only to those who have committed to serve in the US Army. Again, this is unparalleled by any other department.
(4) The reason for offering course credit for ROTC is to make it easier for students to both get a college education and be trained for leadership in the military. Thus Furman is serving as a recruitment instrument for the US Army, helping them to fill their quotas. This may have been more justifiable when there was a universal draft, but it should be unnecessary for a volunteer army. The equivalent situation would be for Furman to give academic credit for training courses run by BMW or some other corporation.
(5) Not every university allows ROTC courses for credit; many do not (Harvard, Yale, Colgate, Amherst, Williams, etc. Colgate, incidentally, does have an academic Department of Peace Studies). Those that allow students to participate in ROTC often do so by a co-operative arrangement with another campus or nearby base, so that the program remains extra-curricular.
(6) Though war is a part of our world, and study of issues related to war is obviously a legitimate issue for academic disciplines, the training of military leaders is a very different matter, and is in basic conflict with Furman’s history (“grounded in Judeo-Christian values” – Catalogue, p. 4) and its aim as a liberal arts institution to teach critical thinking. If Furman is not going to excise all references to Christian values from its marketing literature, then it should not give credit for courses that help train soldiers for combat. Though those who have served in the military might consider this proposal “ridiculous,” those of us who are Christians consider training soldiers as an expression of Christian values “ridiculous.” That such training happens without careful thought and justification by the faculty is indefensible.
(7) As other universities have found, it is perfectly possible to offer ROTC and the scholarship money it offers without giving academic credit for military science courses. ROTC would become an extra-curricular activity that students may choose to participate in, and which may continue to turn out commissioned officers for the US Army. But Furman would not be endorsing such training as a legitimate educational aim of the institution. Furman should investigate such a possibility here.
Philosophy of education:
One commonly expressed goal of education is that of empowering the self to make better choices. I see problems with this goal. First, it is inherently isolationist. Second, a selfish self will do more damage to society after empowerment than before. Rather, I agree with John Henry Newman that the goal of education should be to carry one beyond oneself, towards "the eternal order of things, "towards the God claimed by Protestants, Catholics, Muslms and Jews, the self-dependent, all-perfect, unchangeable Being" (Newman, The Idea of a University). This means not the assimilation of creeds and dogmas and does not imply exclusiveness, but rather the very opposite. It is a goal that fosters exploration of every system of belief and every aspect of life and promotes concerns for social justice as well as for individual growth.
A story:
In the midst of my lecture on culture in the early centuries of the first millenium after Christ, she interrupted me. A good student, she asked with considerable irritation, "Who is this 'Constantine' you keep talking about?" I was able to patch together an explanation, drawing on other elements in the fabric of her historical knowledge; however, had that fabric been slightly more threadbare, I might not have been able to anchor the missing patch.
In my experience, many students do not come to Furman with a solid grounding in Western history and culture. The intellectual formation of many is infused by a heavy dose of the pre-digested, contrived ideas of mass culture, which interfaces only indirectly and vaguely with the thought of the Greeks, or of Aquinas, or of Lincoln. It is a real possibility that students could lose their understanding of the Western tradition (yes, I am aware of problems with the concept and terminology) altogether. I believe that the Western tradition should be thoroughly learned, understood, and appreciated on its own terms and should not be regarded as an impediment to be dismantled and discarded. It is well worth preserving and passing on. People of every tradition wish to preserve and pass on their cultural legacy; we would be foolish not to do so.
This endeavor need not be at the expense of learning about other cultures and traditions and it need not foster a parochial mentality. We can teach about every culture, starting with our own, with respect for its strengths and with clear-minded assessment of its weaknesses and failures.
I should like to see us reinforce, not weaken, the teaching of the Western cultural legacy at Furman. A required course in great books would be one possible way of implementing this goal. Certainly History 11 should retain its status as a GER.
Proposal:
A required course in great books of the Western tradition, including works of history, philosophy, theology, politics, and literature and taught as a seminar, in the freshman or sophomore year, by faculty across the disciplines. Retention of History 11 as a GER.
I urge the strengthening of the biblical literature component in our current curriculum or any new curriculum arrangement being considered. I believe we should have a separate, distinct course required of all students, that would engage bibical texts in a serious academic fashion. My reasons are as follows:
The Freshman Humanities Sequence has proven to be, from numerous reports of its alumni over the years, both a meaningful and provocative class experience for first-year Furman students. The undersigned staff have participated in the teaching rotation of the course since its inception in the early 1970s. We would like to propose a flexible but substantive course of action regarding the sequence.
The staff believe that it is crucial to begin immediately in the freshman year the process of developing students’ inquiring and reflective abilities on a mature level. The Freshman Sequence should be a core element of the “freshman experience” program, however that looks in its final iteration. Therefore, we urge the CRC and the faculty to retain an interdisciplinary, team-taught humanities sequence as one way to fulfill an educational requirement in the first year of Furman students as we revitalize our curriculum.
This is not to say that we are hidebound in the current traditions of the course. Many of them we do not want to give up – the variety of lecture and discussion, the focus on primary texts, the interaction among the teaching faculty, and the involvement of an upper-level “alum” as a teaching assistant. But the content and form of the course may change as the university considers various options for general education requirements and various calendar possibilities. Some staff members have expressed interest in having more than one track of the first-year sequence may be offered, with different content emphases such as a non-Western focus, or an emphasis on certain themes (a couple of possibilities might be the history of science or the development of human communities). The course could also easily be adapted to a semester system. In other words, we are committed to the concept, but not determined that it look exactly the same.
Idea:
Students present closely argued proposals that articulate a selection of courses from multiple departments around a problem, issue, question, or topic. These ad hoc “pods”* are an alternative to traditional departmental minors or established concentrations.
Benefits:
Open questions:
*I’ve adopted “pods” as a provisional term here to avoid precipitate conflation with majors or minors, which aren’t predicated to the same degree on student intention. (I also happen to like the metaphor of courses as “peas” for which students fashion “pods.” And, of course, “pod” as in “foot” or “feet,” as in students standing on their own.)
We are writing as a portion of the current second-year faculty in hopes that we can convey some concerns of junior faculty. As a large influx of tenure-track faculty (nine of us began positions in the fall of 2003), we wanted to offer thoughts that we had in common. We are excited about the possibilities engendered by this curriculum assessment process. In short, we strongly urge change in both curriculum and calendar at Furman; specifically, we hope that the curriculum review process will endorse both a reduction in number and specificity of courses in the General Education Requirements (GERs) and the adoption of a semester system.
CURRICULUM
We find a surprising congruence between our hopes for change in the curriculum and those expressed by the designers of Furman’s new curriculum in 1968. The changes at that time represented “streamlining and enrichment” according to the Dean Bonner (Reid 1976, 219). We, too, believe that “streamlining” and “enrichment” are important goals for the new curriculum.
First, we find ourselves deeply concerned about the number of GERs in the curriculum. As new advisors, we felt this fall that we spent more time helping students begin the “checking-off” process, than we did talking about the broader picture of what they personally hope for in a liberal arts education. The number and (as we will discuss below) the specificity of courses discourage students from constructing a curriculum that challenges them or reflects their potential array of interests.
Second, we find it puzzling that the GERs are so heavily balanced towards the humanities. In the current system, if languages are considered within the humanities, students must take 6-8 humanities courses (depending on their foreign language ability entering Furman), only three or four science and math courses, and only two social science courses. We propose a new plan to simplify – or “streamline” – the process of meeting requirements, so that students can explore a balanced menu in the three major divisions, as well as explore deeply in their major, and beyond.
The courses that students take beyond their major is also a significant concern for us. We feel that not only the number, but also the specificity of the courses that students must take, contribute to the following problem. Many, if not most, of the required GERs are introductory courses (indeed, many of them are also specific introductory courses required of all students.) We believe that this artificially maintains Furman students in a an approach to subjects where they rarely move past the foundation within a discipline: they learn only the “stepping stones” that would take them further in any given field, but don’t pass across them into the more advanced application of the field’s central concepts or methods. Instead, all they seem to expect of their education is that they will absorb multiple introductions to multiple disciplines without building upon those foundations, except in their major.
Enriching the curriculum could be as simple as making GERs more flexible so that students can build upon their base of knowledge; students would take more upper-level courses to fulfill distribution or other kinds of requirements. (Ironically the current curriculum was praised for its “promise of flexibility and vitality” in 1968 (Reid 1976, 219); we tongue-in-cheek propose a campaign slogan for the revised curriculum as “Restore the Promise.”)
To these ends of streamlining and enrichment, of flexibility and vitality, we offer two possible models for the curriculum. Both have emerged in our discussions as possibilities. While we may write as individuals to endorse a particular plan, as a group we see both as having a significant potential to ameliorate the conditions that concern us.
Plan One: Divisional Distribution Requirements:
This plan is designed to encourage students to explore flexibly while ensuring a balance of courses across the divisions. Since individual courses are not specific, students have the option to explore broadly at the introductory level, or to meet division requirements with a combination of introductory and upper-level classes. While this may appear to be a similar load to our current GERs, the numbers are smaller than they appear, because in our plan students overlap their major courses with the divisional requirement for the division of their major. Thus, for example, a biology major does not need to take three additional non-biology courses within the natural sciences division.
For graduation a student would need to complete:
0-3 courses in foreign language*
3 courses in the social sciences
3 courses in the natural sciences & math
3 courses in the humanities, one of which is a composition course**
A 1st-year seminar***
One of the above courses would need to be concerned with “non-western” or US “minority” peoples/ cultures.****
*We believe that if the goal of a language requirement is to ensure that students experience the expansion of horizons that comes with knowing another language, then students who are already proficient, even fluent, in any foreign language should be exempted from the foreign language requirement. By their proficiency or fluency, they have achieved the goals of this requirement. There are a variety of testing services available to assess students in languages not taught at Furman.
**This composition course would be equivalent to the current English 11. We have wondered if perhaps exceptional students could test out of English 11, as determined, of course, by the English Department.
***A first-year (or freshman) seminar meets a number of important goals. These courses would be taught by all departments depending on interest and availability. They would not meet divisional requirements, and thus, would not have to introduce students to a core of a discipline. They would be topical, with an emphasis on teaching students critical thinking skills. Our interest in these seminars stems from our discovery that Furman students prefer to learn facts. An anecdote from one of us captures this issue perfectly: In running a simulation, students had to extrapolate from only limited knowledge about particular countries to their policies on certain issues, a task which they found incomprehensible, and therefore they did not complete the assignment. In the debriefing, one of the very brightest students said, “Professor X, we should have been told that we were allowed to think outside the box!” Many of us, in our individual classrooms, do challenge students to think outside the box, and to think about thinking. However, we hope that if students discover that they are indeed “allowed” to think outside the box from the very beginning of their time here, and if this exhortation takes place in an institutionally-endorsed form such as a required freshman seminar, then their entire time at Furman will proceed quite differently.
****These course designations would be decided by the curriculum committee; obviously, this departs from the current “Asia/Africa” designation. We believe that the current system under-represents areas about which Furman students are under an equal imperative to explore, for example, the Middle East, Latin & Central America, as well as the diverse peoples that make up this country.
Plan Two: Skills-Based Requirements
This plan would also ensure flexibility, since students could draw upon a variety of courses to fulfill each of the ten required skills. The skills are diverse enough to ensure balance within the curriculum, while students are still given flexibility in how they meet these requirements. This plan is based on Pomona College’s curriculum, about which more information can be found at www.pomona.edu/ADWR/Registrar/Overview/Curriculum.shtml. The important aspect to note is that the curriculum committee would be an important and powerful committee under this plan, as they would determine which courses qualified to meet the required skills.
Students would have to take ten courses, each one of which was designated to meet one of the following skills:
1. read literature critically
2. use and understand the scientific method
3. use and understand formal reasoning
4. understand and analyze data
5. analyze creative art critically OR perform or produce creative art
6. explore and understand human behavior
7. explore and understand the relationship between humans and the natural environment
8. explore and understand an historical culture
9. compare and contrast contemporary cultures
10. think critically about values and rationality
In addition, one of these ten courses would be a First-Year Seminar, on the model of those described above. Thus, all Freshmen Seminars would need to meet one of the ten skill requirements.
CALENDAR
In this section, we would like to respectfully disagree with a central tenet of the curriculum review process. We believe that calendar should be considered, and should be considered independently of the curriculum, if the ultimate goal of the process is the enhancement of intellectual vitality at Furman. The five-day per week teaching schedule has direct effects on intellectual vitality at Furman; we believe it does not support student intellectual vitality, nor does it enhance the intellectual vitality of the faculty. We propose a traditional semester system, with classes meeting on the M-W-F or T-Th schedule.
For Furman students, we think that daily class meetings reinforce the tendency to see courses as providing facts that students assimilate. Because students have so little time in between class meetings, their assignments and their study time are broken into short chunks instead of time to reflect on course material or time to immerse themselves in one course’s readings for an entire afternoon. Neither do they learn the critical skills of balancing competing demands and of taking initiative in their own learning as well as they might under a traditional semester system, where they meet less often. We hope a semester system would provide a more supportive structure for reflection, immersion and learning to pro-actively balance competing demands.
The semester system would also benefit Furman by enhancing the intellectual vitality of the faculty. As junior scholars, we face an imperative to teach well upon our arrival at Furman, to be active within our disciplines, to continue with our research agendas, to perform actively in our artistic fields, and/or to serve the University in any number of capacities. Many of us may be preparing new courses, continuing ongoing research projects, or adapting our work to our new location and circumstances. Yet teaching five days per week, with many of us facing the expectation that we are in our offices available to students for most of the working hours of the day, means that these multiple goals truly pose a challenge. Some of us have found that if we want to take even one morning a week to stay out of the office to concentrate on our writing that we are told that senior faculty will not approve. Others of us are active in our fields in ways that require us to travel, to perform, or to do hands-on work on the issues about which we teach. Yet this is difficult all but 10 weeks of the year. Finally, we hear senior faculty at times describing their own research “work week” as Saturday and Sunday. For us, who either have young families or may be considering beginning them, this may not be a workable or desirable solution to the 5-day a week teaching schedule. Furman’s intellectual vitality will be in large part shaped by the extent to which her faculty remain engaged scholars. It seems to us it would serve that interest to give faculty the flexibility to do so.
Thus, for the reasons above, we suggest a semester calendar, but with a month-long winter term in January. We believe that this structure could mitigate potential negatives about the semester system, in that it would allow for study abroad during that term. Departments could choose to offer travel courses in that January term (as well as perhaps during the regular semester). However, our suggested January term would not mandate faculty teaching. Students would be required to complete perhaps three projects during their four winter terms, and these projects could be internships, independent activities subject to faculty approval (but not necessarily direct supervision), or travel, elective or interdisciplinary courses offered by departments or individual faculty. It is possible that an additional month-long term after the spring semester could also be created, which would provide even more flexibility. A semester system would bring significant benefits, with fewer costs than some might fear.
In closing, we would like to thank you for the opportunity you have created, which has inspired so many conversations among faculty, including among ourselves,
I. Why a Religion GER?
First, Furman’s heritage, its existing defining documents (The Character and Values Statement, for example), and the public claim that the University takes seriously the need to educate the “whole person” demand a non-optional GER in Religion that gives a central place to the biblical traditions.
Beyond that there are many other reasons to argue for the importance of a religion course as a non-optional GER in a liberal arts curriculum. One cannot understand history, art, music, or literature without knowing something of religion’s role and influence in different cultures. Religion is also a central factor in virtually all the cultures studied by social scientists, and it figures prominently in human psychology. Religion competes with science and philosophy, but for most of the world’s people it remains the lens through which truth is understood.
In the contemporary world, religion is a powerful motivator for both good and evil. It has inspired suicide bombers, American politicians, and Mother Theresa. It fuels war and feeds anti-intellectualism, but it is also at the heart of civil rights movements and heroic humanitarian campaigns, as well as profound thought. Religion also enables millions of ordinary people to find meaning in the face of adversity and joy in the midst of pain. Unfortunately, some of those same ordinary people use religion to justify bigotry, oppression, and even abuse.
Given this, the University cannot with integrity say that religion is a purely private matter that should be relegated to the fringes of the academic program. It is crucial that young people understand what religion is and how it operates in their lives and the lives of others. Developmentally, the time could not be better; most of our students are at a crucial stage in their identity formation, and, inevitably, religion will for most students be important in that process. The academic program should not leave the spiritual formation of students to chance or to the efforts of student religious organizations, many of which are led by young, relatively uneducated individuals who are not employed by the University and who may not be as committed as the University to “freedom of inquiry” and a context in which “faith is cherished but not coerced.”
Neither should the Religion course be an optional requirement. Indeed, there is no area of study about which students are more profoundly ignorant. Moreover, the students who believe they are knowledgeable of the subject, fundamentalists and skeptics alike, may be at once the most ignorant and the very ones who would choose not to take a religion course. Yet, arguably no other course in the curriculum could as effectively open their minds.
II. Which Religion Course?
The proposed non-optional Religion course is most like the existing Religion 12, Introduction to Religion, which contrary to popular opinion, was actually designed and approved as an introduction to religious phenomena using the Biblical traditions as a starting point. It does, however, include comparisons with other world religions, even though it is not intended as a systematic introduction to the world’s religions.
Some would argue that in today’s world an Introduction to the World’s Religions would be a more appropriate choice. As valuable as that course is, its weakness as the Religion GER is in part the very fact that it is a survey and not a course that allows students to see any tradition with the kind of depth that allows them to really know something of each tradition’s vulnerabilities. In fact, I would suspect that most university survey courses of world religions attempt first, and often primarily, to present other traditions in a positive light, avoiding material that might lead students to make a reductionistic judgments about a tradition. On one level there is no problem with this practice, but it does not accomplish what the required religion course should accomplish. Knowing a little about and appreciating “other” religions might make students more tolerant, but it does not necessarily challenge their religious framework. A world religions survey course has a very important place in the curriculum, hopefully as one choice in a list of “diversity courses” required for another GER, but an in-depth, critical examination of the biblical traditions is for most students more challenging. It provides a provocative context for helping students examine and reformulate their religious paradigms. As for the students grounded in something other than the Bible, experience indicates that they not only want to understand the tradition that dominates western culture but that they are also challenged to examine their own tradition when they see the faith of the dominate culture subjected to scrutiny. In many ways the skeptics are the most resistant to such a course, but many of them operate on a false premise that fundamentalism is the only possible religion.
III. The Proposed Course
Title: Religion, Identity, and Culture: Interpretation and the Biblical Tradition
Proposed Course Description: Drawing primarily, though not exclusively, on the biblical traditions, this course explores the nature of religious experience and interpretation and the influence of religion in all aspects of culture. Equally important in the course are the ways in which religious experience is influenced by and interpreted from within a cultural context.
Content Goals of the Proposed Religion Requirement:
Interpretive and Synthetic Goals of the Proposed Religion Requirement:
Personal Goals of the Proposed Religion Requirement:
Sample syllabus: http://alpha.furman.edu/~hlturner/assigrel.htm
Staffing Issues:
It is obvious that a course that attempts to challenge the religious paradigms of students should be small enough to allow for conversation. That alone might require additional faculty. Perhaps even more important, however, is the concern that staffing a non-optional GER course not be allowed to detract from our growing offerings in religions of the world. Consequently, it is hoped that the Peace Chair will be filled by someone qualified to teach this GER.
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.
The faculty retreat at Black Mountain, NC was an informative and exhilarating two days of presentations, exchanges, and casual conversation about matters of utmost importance to Furman’s future. I am writing with my thoughts on the presentation about “patriotism.” The talk about the values of "patriotism" reflected so much of what my graduate school training aimed to challenge and much of what I am trying to work against in the classroom and elsewhere.
The Samuel Huntington-like presentation erased historical realities about age-old trade, borrowing, syncretism, integration in favor of easily accessible and seemingly logical dichotomies like West / non-West, and more problematically... us / them. Perhaps because Nussbaum used Rabindranath Tagore's novel "Home and the World"1 and makes parallels between nationalism and identity politics, these issues are especially salient to me as both teacher, researcher, and citizen of the world. In light of Furman's curricular considerations, my concerns are more pressing indeed. Biblical metaphors and multiple references (like Paul's or Christ's "words") furthered my concern for Christian hegemony at an institution of liberal learning and troubling, uncritical assumptions about morality / the individual / modernity / freedom / justice being owned by and solely under the auspices of the "West". As indicated by others in the break-out sessions, the substance of the talk reified Western triumphalism despite its attempts to do differently. The presentation appeared to me as a neo-Imperialist, neo-Orientalist version of something that has been disbanded and refuted at least a decade or two ago at comparable institutions. Indeed, Mary Ann Calo told me that although Colgate University has not quite figured out how to handle debates and controversies about their "Western Traditions" and "non-Western" core divisions, the conversations are constantly taking place -- all the time! Yes, the talk certainly sparked conversations in our break-out session, but I wonder if they were really the most useful ones to have. Far more nuanced ones were overshadowed.
Finally, I will punctuate my comments with a statement about my deep concern for a philosophy of education that sees students as flock and professors as shepherds. I request that the Committee considers the failure of liberal education if the intention is to lead our students to the predetermined pasture. As mentioned by someone in my break-out session... it's good if a sheep gets a little lost, a little scared, gains some skills on its own, and has something to offer to the other sheep. Andrew Abbott's article speaks to this much more eloquently than I could possibly do.
1 Rabindranath Tagore (1861-1941) was a Nobel laureate for literature (1913) and was one of modern India's poets and the composer of independent India’s national anthem.
During my 14 months of teaching at Furman, I have been in awe that a university of this caliber and regional reputation has been able to maintain its distinction with a curricular structure that requires such a high number of requirements outside of a student’s major and that does not proactively embrace an international focus. As part of a second-year faculty cohort that investigated the 1968 curriculum design, I was struck by language that emphasized “flexibility,” “new teaching techniques,” and “inter-disciplinarity” in curricular design. In the 1960s, that design along with the implementation of the Asia-Africa requirement was a maverick attempt to stay ahead of the times; today the design appears to me as out of sync with current pedagogical and humanist interests. Since the letter sent by second-year faculty expresses in detail our concerns about the graduation requirements, my individual letter focuses on strengthening the curriculum by making it truly internationalized.
Across the country, college students present an increasing range of ethnic, racial, religious, and class difference. Campuses are enlivened and embittered by contemporary debates about the politics of diversity and the uncertainties of identity based on personal and intellectual pursuits of faculty, staff, and students. These negotiations do not begin or end in the classroom; they flourish in government offices, neighborhoods, workplaces, and homes. I suggest that, as educators, we encourage and create environments that are comfortable spaces for informed and rigorous discussions about the politics in which both teachers and students participate. By questioning how we represent ourselves and how we are represented, we can challenge students to question the mechanisms by which individuals, nations, hemispheres are represented, written into or out of histories, and to what end. The classroom then has the opportunity to provide a framework for understanding the self in the world -- not the self and the world as if the two exist separate from each other. Together, students and professors can take on the challenge to interpret, understand, disagree, and continue to explore how a diverse set of intellectual precedents and circumstances has shaped our contemporary geopolitics predicament.
To this end, I ask the committee to consider curricular initiatives that provide unique and creative ways to internationalize a curriculum even if this means foregoing current specific requirements (e.g. Asia-Africa or foreign languages) for something more inspiring. Our global cultural landscape has been, and continues to be, transformed and transfigured by age-old migrations. The world is not compartmentalized into seven neat and "knowable" continents with cognate cultures or civilizations.1 With a proliferation of scholarship and journalistic writing about the movement of the world's people, commodities, and ideas, there exists an increasing need to teach, live, travel, and learn amidst such global phenomena. The imperative is a result of the present environment in which local economies are increasingly internationalized and where the transnational impact of media, communication, and technologies are being lived out all over the globe. The sanctity of borders, myths of a common past and shared origin, and territorial sovereignty must continue to be challenged. In order to explore networks of which we are all a part and in order to act upon a responsible awareness of present conditions of the world's people, institutions of distinction like Furman have the opportunity to continue to be on the cutting-edge as it was in 1968.
I encourage the reviewers of Furman's curriculum to consider an international curriculum that does not put into ghettos vast bodies of literary, historical, political, artistic, economic, environmental, sociological, and scientific knowledge from Asia, Africa, and Latin America. Rather than fall prey to tokenism, Furman has the opportunity to spearhead initiatives that promote international components across the disciplines in an integrated and meaningful manner.
1 See Martin Lewis and Karen Wigen The Myth of Continents: A Critique of Metageography (Berkeley, 1997).
When our department met in early October, one item on the agenda was a reminder that your committee had begun its work and was ready to receive input from faculty. One of our members suggested that it would be helpful for us to meet for the specific discussion of the issues with which you are wrestling and with a goal of helping each of us clarify our own feelings and ideas. We thought this idea had merit and decided to devote an afternoon to conversation on these topics.
Our group very quickly discovered the vast array of possibilities for modification or even replacement of the current model for General Education Requirements. Far from achieving any agreement about the model for GERs in a new or revised curriculum, there was considerable sentiment for having at least some aspects of the distribution model for required courses. While no detailed suggestions arose, what did develop was complete agreement that whatever model arises, a mathematics course experience would be an essential component. What the content of that course or courses might be would need to be developed in light of student degree programs, pre-requisite linkages and a number of other concerns. It was interesting to note the unanimity with which the faculty agreed upon this central issue.
In our view, a student cannot claim to have received a liberal arts education unless that education includes some experience with mathematics, for mathematics meets the requirements of such an education many times over. A liberal arts education is one which provides critical thinking skills, as opposed to purely vocational training, and of course mathematics thoroughly develops such things as quantitative analysis and logical reasoning. These thinking skills are broadly applicable and interdisciplinary, and mathematics clearly plays an essential role in the physical and social sciences, among other disciplines. But, a liberal arts education should also provide an understanding of our world culture and its historical development, and the role mathematics plays in meeting this requirement is often overlooked, if not completely unknown. In a mathematics course, even an introductory one, students are exposed to some of the greatest intellectual achievements and thinkers of mankind. And, it must be noted, these achievements have roots in essentially every cultural community. Their subsequent evolution and further discovery may be the best illustration for our students of the collaboration possible from so many diverse sources when all are in pursuit of mathematical truth. These achievements have not only revolutionized things which constantly and thereby directly affect the culture and commerce of the world, but have also challenged and reshaped some of mankind’s fundamental philosophical notions. Moreover, mathematics is a universal language, a rare common culture transcending time, geography and political boundaries in a way that few other disciplines can. The mathematics of today includes the mathematics of two millennia ago, and in studying mathematics, a student is studying part of the history and heritage of cultures throughout the global community.
One other topic generated rare unanimity among our faculty; it was that to provide the best possible opportunity for learning mathematics the standard semester model for calendar is much preferred to the current one. While it was noted that the calendar issue was not independent of the other questions, it was of sufficient concern to all that we wanted that position communicated clearly.
We all agreed that your task is well-described as being monumental. And, we hope you know that your efforts on behalf of the faculty and future Furman students is very much appreciated by our department.
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.
I think that we all need to take into consideration a number of important realities in determining any changes to be made to either our present curriculum or our calendar.
1. One thing that has become increasingly obvious to our colleagues in both other quality liberal arts programs and to professors in top-level public institutions is that as SAT scores have gone up, the amount of information and the quality of skills that students bring with them to college is dropping across virtually all disciplines. Many of us who have taught at Furman for fifteen years or more see this in bold relief, as we commonly encounter bright young kids who score well on the SAT, but know less about math, science, history, government, society, the economic system, philosophy, religion, and many areas of the fine arts than students coming to Furman in the 1970s, 1980s and early 1990s. The notable exception is in command of computer related subject areas.
Those of us who have taught in the Governor's School in Charleston over the years have found this to be especially true. SAT scores have moved dramatically upward among these students to the point that the average SAT for the group of 24 students I taught this past summer was over 1500. Yet, my 1989 class, which averaged just over 1200, was far better prepared and far more intellectually curious.
Many of our colleagues in other institutions find that two things seem that "jump out" at them about our contemporary students. The first is that they seem to be reading much less than even five years ago, and that interest in reading seems to decline further each year. Second, most professors see an increasing need to do remedial work at the college level, especially in science, math, and the languages, or to approach many courses as if the student has not had any work in the area at all!! Political scientists, psychologists and sociologists view high school course content as virtually useless—and the courses usually taught by people trained outside the academic area and in non-selective schools. Our department has instituted a Teachers of Government Program designed to teach certain fundamentals of social science to the approximately half of social science teachers in this state who are teaching outside their major concentration or, often, with no course work at all in the social sciences.
These deficiencies appear as our world is becoming far more complicated and technologically sophisticated. To understand our world and to be able to operate within it, students must be grounded in the knowledge and analytic approaches of a wide variety of disciplines. How can a student be “liberally educated” without knowing something about how society works (and has worked) in all its manifestations (history, government, economics, sociology), how human beings use symbolism to understand and change the natural and human environment (in mathematics, the sciences, philosophy, religion, literatures, and languages), and understand other cultures, especially in those such as Africa, Asia, and other parts of the developing world that American students know little if anything about?
What this leads me to believe is that GERs are very important and that we should actually expand and strengthen them. We should make sure that all our students (not just science majors) get real courses in math, chemistry, biology, physics, and the earth sciences. Students should have to take their social science requirements outside their major and not in the same subject area. They need to have courses in philosophy and religion, so very important in analyzing the narrow religious understandings in which so many students are steeped. We should also make sure that all graduates have enough courses in a foreign language to make them actually competent in speaking the language. And, that they have a firm grasp of the history of the society and the world within which they live. If we don't do all this, we are not broadly educating our students in the best of the liberal arts tradition.
2. Calendars will always be contentious items: no calendar will ever fit the perceived needs of everyone at any particular time in a university's life. No calendar will ever be perfect, though we should always pay attention to calendar issues and "tweak" when and if necessary.
To begin, I want the committee to understand that there is great value in the present calendar. I strongly believe that so much of what has made Furman a strong institution is rooted in the pedagogical advantages that the calendar makes possible. Yet, as a young faculty member I did not understand those advantages, nor feel strongly about its value to students, faculty, and the institution. When I first came to Furman, fresh out of graduate school and its culture of academic and professional focus (and a world of dissertation hours and relatively few if any teaching responsibilities), I was shocked by the demands of teaching—as compared to being able to spend virtually all my time on the dissertation. My friends, who took jobs in other schools with other calendars, felt the same trauma of having to teach full time and to do so as we worked on finishing the dissertation or turning it into a book. The pressures, real or imagined, of seeking tenure made us felt overworked and stressed. None of us in my cohort from graduate school, whether teaching in quarter systems, semester systems, trimester systems, or in Furman’s modified quarter system was happy with "the calendar!"
Eventually I recognized a number of things. First, it is always difficult for a young scholar to make the transition to full-time teaching. One has to spend huge amounts of time to "get up to speed" in each course and, for most of us, each course was a new course. Second, finding blocks of time to finish the dissertation or to do research seemed impossible under "the system," no matter what the system. While at Furman I taught four or five days a week in many courses and was seemingly unable to get the blocks of time necessary for scholarly work, my graduate school colleagues who were teaching in semester systems usually had three (or more often four) courses at a time, rather than two, and like me, always had at least one class every day of the week, and heavier teaching loads on three days each week. And, with the larger number of distinct courses, the "somewhat open" dates on Tuesday and Thursday were usually filled with preparation time.
I have also come to understand the real pedagogical value of our current calendar. First, I am absolutely convinced that our present calendar, by allowing our students to concentrate fewer courses at one time, is responsible for the fact that our students compete on even terms in graduate programs with students from the Ivy League and other fine institutions. It allows us to play "catch up" ball with our kids and to catapult them to the next level. As compared to "A" students from Amherst, Williams, Colby, and other schools with which our students compete, our students are "B" or "B+" when they come to Furman, yet in virtually all of our majors our students in graduate programs compare favorably with students from schools who attract entrants with SAT averages well over 1400. Changing to a calendar that adds more courses during to a term or moves us to a three hour course system would take away a "comparative advantage" we currently enjoy.
I am also convinced the present calendar, with its flexible three term system, makes possible most of our major "out of classroom" academic innovations often identified under the umbrella phrase, "engaged learning." Those experiences in turn also help explain why our students do well in the classrooms at Furman and in the graduate programs so many of our students enter. Our internships, study abroad programs, and collaborative research programs (with Furman professors) provide remarkable opportunities for academic growth, and for building confidence, maturity, and responsibility among students. These programs enhance the academic atmosphere at Furman, both in the classrooms and in the informal fora that mark the intellectual life of a university. We have students studying with Furman professors around the world, we have the largest Washington internship program of any liberal arts institution (and maybe any public institution), and a wide variety of other experiences under the direct control of Furman professors that makes us virtually unique among most institutions of higher learning in the United States. This achievement is has been greatly facilitated by our three-term system. The length of time of our terms and the number of terms makes it possible for our faculty to be with our students rather than our students being forced to participate in another school's program or in some not-very-rigorous consortium system. Given various cost factors, moving to a two-term system will inevitably diminish the number of Furman students studying abroad. A two-term system will also limit the number of faculty who can be involved in such programs. Similar problems will affect participation in internships in Washington and other locales outside of the immediate Furman area.
We need to pay special attention to these academic engaged learning programs (study abroad with Furman professors, off campus internships with Furman professors present, and collaborative research with Furman professors) as they are the very ones that, along with participation in Furman Singers and Mock Trial, are continuously identified as the definitive experiences that were of "most value" to students while at Furman and which worked to bond students to Furman while on campus and as alums. In addition, study abroad and off campus internship programs have created a more cosmopolitan, international, and motivated faculty in many departments, which has added massively to the intellectual atmosphere of the institution. In addition, the three-term system and the engaged learning opportunities it makes possible gives Furman a strong competitive advantage in attracting students and retaining students.
Finally, as one who had substantial experience in "winter term" study abroad programs I state unequivocally that a quality winter-term program overseas must be at least six weeks long. The one-month interim programs that some schools have for study abroad are pedagogically unsound for schools with standards such as Furman’s. Those programs allow schools to claim that they have a large number of students engaged in study abroad, when in reality what most "J" terms create are three-week long "tourist" programs. We must continue to offer our students real, academically sound study abroad programs, so that when they return to campus they will continue to add to the intellectual life of the institution.
Having worked on the letter from (some of) my cohort of faculty, I don’t
have much else to say. But I would like to tell a story that underscores
the issues that were raised in that letter. I have a number of new freshman
advisees this term, but also three new majors, one of whom is a
junior. She came in to see me a few days into the term, being short a
course due to a mistake of her own. We talked through her progression
through the major, and I asked her about her GERs; she had only one left,
the Asia-Africa, but of course, most of those courses are full at that
point.
When it became clear that she had come to Furman with AP credit, and had
taken summer school courses at her home state university and in Europe both
summers since entering Furman, I suggested that perhaps she did not need to
meet her Asia-Africa requirement this term, and could consider underloading, without worry. She admitted that she was “tired,” not having had a break from school in two years.
I encouraged her to take a dance class, or an art class at Furman or in
Greenville. Suddenly she remembered that she had always wanted to take
photography, and that she had enjoyed a yoga class in high school. Then
she talked about how much fun she had had the one time she went to Jones Gap State Park, and that her friends have always talked about returning, but
they have never found the time. I sent her off to comb the Greenville
Yellow Pages, with an assignment to find some things she wanted to do and
to arrange a group hike to Jones Gap sometime that term.
The next day she appeared in my office again, having signed up for yoga, but also saying, “Well, I went home and I decided to look in the course catalogue, since I could take two classes and if I took one pass/fail, I could still do some other activities.” She’d found an art history class that she was thrilled to take, and confessed that she’d never looked in the course catalogue just to see if there was a course she wanted to take, just because she was interested in it.
This student may be an extreme case; I haven’t been here long enough to
know. But this story seems enough in keeping with some of the others I’ve
heard that I am concerned. I find it incomprehensible that a student who
has been here two years is not looking in the course catalogue for courses they
would want to take. It seems they are juniors before this is even an option
for them!
Students should be barraged with possibility from the minute they arrive.
They should be overwhelmed with a vast array of ways to become educated and informed. They should be encouraged and nurtured to become passionate
about learning.
Please take this letter as an endorsement of flexible distribution
requirements. I believe that the approaches outlined in the group letter sent by members of my cohort would represent a substantial improvement of
our curriculum.
In our globalized world, students need to develop an intellectual foundation that 1) grounds them in the Western intellectual tradition, which is “home” to most Furman students, 2) exposes them to thought and culture beyond the borders of the United States, and 3) teaches them practical skills necessary for coping in our global society. The following revision of the GER curriculum seeks to lay this foundation. Its most innovative (and expensive) feature is a requirement that all Furman students take at least one “engaged learning” course outside the United States.
The new GER curriculum would consist of a menu of courses in three categories: western core, global core, and practical skills. Students would make selections from the course titles listed below. All courses are four hours unless otherwise indicated. “Student’s choice” courses allow students to choose courses from a list proposed by departments and approved by APC.
Western Core
Students must take each of the following:
Students choose 1 of the following:
Global Core
Students must take:
Practical Skills
Students must take the following courses:
Freshman Seminar: Thinking and Writing (must be taken freshman year)
Foreign Language (1-3 courses)
Students choose 2 of the following (must be taken in a single term):
Furman students will take the equivalent of 12 four-hour courses (counting language as “1”) to meet the general education requirement under this system.
I propose that we establish a Freshman Seminar in Western Civilization at Furman, one modeled on our existing Freshman Humanities Sequence and on the program at Colgate University described by Mary Ann Calo at our faculty retreat. My proposal takes promoting critical reflection to be one of our central educational aims and seeks to enhance our ability to pursue this aim. In what follows, I will discuss the content, organization, relationship to the rest of the curriculum, and rationale for this seminar under separate headings.
Content
The Freshman Seminar would mirror our existing Humanities sequence in beginning roughly with the ancient Hebrews and covering important texts, topics, and movements in Western history through the twentieth century. We would need to establish a list of texts that would be covered in all sections of the seminar, as they do in the Colgate program. These texts would constitute roughly 60 to 70% of the syllabus for all sections of the course. Individual professors would choose the remaining texts based on their interests, expertise, and choice of emphasis.
Organization
Depending on our decision regarding the academic calendar, the Freshman Seminar would be either a two- or three-course sequence required of all freshmen. Individual sections of the course would be team-taught by two or more professors from different academic disciplines, presumably (but not necessarily) in the humanities. We would need to establish some kind of committee to determine the list of shared texts to be used by all sections of the course. The committee would vote for a list of texts to be used for a specified length of time, say for a period of two or three academic years. At the end of that period, the committee would reconsider the list of texts and modify it as members collectively see fit.
Along with the Freshman Seminar, I propose that we also establish an annual or biannual Summer Humanities Institute that would bring participating faculty together for a series of meetings and seminars to discuss issues that arise in teaching the course. The institute would provide a forum for participating faculty to share with one another their expertise regarding certain texts and their experiences of successful and unsuccessful ventures in the classroom.
Relationship to the Rest of the Curriculum
It seems clear that our decision to create a Freshman Seminar would not mandate any particular changes to our existing General Education Requirements (GERs) and would be compatible with many such changes. I take this to be a virtue of my proposal. Let me briefly mention a couple of ways the seminar might be incorporated into our curriculum.
One possibility would be for the Freshman Seminar to replace our existing History, Religion, and Literature requirement. Our students now have the option of taking the Humanities Sequence to satisfy this requirement; we might use the very similar Freshman Seminar in Western Civilization as the only (or perhaps the preferred) means of satisfying this requirement. Alternatively, we might take the Freshman Seminar in conjunction with one other course (e.g. Religion 11 or 12) to satisfy this requirement. Another possibility, independent of the two already mentioned, would be to design the seminar to be writing-intensive and have it “absorb” the English 11 requirement in addition to any other requirements we take it to satisfy.
Rationale
The educational aim underlying the Freshman Seminar is to teach critical thinking and reflection. There are at least four features of the seminar that would promote this aim. First, the seminar would provide students with a more explicit understanding of the ideas, narratives, texts, and historical events that have played a key role in creating the world in which they live. This kind of self-understanding is crucial for critical thinking because such thinking always takes as its point of departure a set of existing beliefs, values, and practices that have become problematic and stand in need of reassessment. (I should add here that I don’t see how we could promote this kind of self-understanding among Furman students without ensuring that substantial attention is paid in the Freshman Seminar to the Bible and Christianity.)
Second, an important aspect of the seminar would be to stress the diversity inherent in what we somewhat misleadingly refer to as “Western civilization.” The seminar would provide students with an introduction to the cultural, religious, and philosophical diversity that has always been characteristic of what we loosely call “the West.” Awareness of this diversity would promote critical thinking by making students aware that contemporary beliefs and social arrangements always sit amidst a sea of alternative possibilities.
Third, the seminar would also convey the diversity in methods and approaches that characterize different academic disciplines. Since professors from different disciplines would teach the course, students would become aware that there are different ways to approach shared course materials. Moreover, since the assigned texts would presumably include works of literature, philosophy, science, and religion, students would encounter diverse forms of knowledge and expression in the texts themselves. Exposure to “diverse ways of knowing” would promote critical thinking by multiplying the resources that students can draw upon in order to address contemporary issues.
Fourth, at least a portion of the seminar would ideally be devoted to voices that are critical, marginal, or heretical in relation to historically dominant voices. The course could thus include texts by critics like Nietzsche, Marx, Freud, and Foucault, along with texts written by women, homosexuals, people of color, and members of other historically marginalized groups. The inclusion of such voices would promote critical thinking by calling students’ attention to the various ways in which they occupy positions of privilege and by encouraging them to reflect upon the burdens such privileges impose upon disadvantaged groups.
Conclusion
I am convinced that adopting a Freshman Seminar in Western Civilization at Furman would embody a very positive change. It would provide students and participating faculty with a shared frame of reference from which innumerable courses and conversations could branch off. It would promote a spirit of community and shared endeavor among participating faculty, who would be engaged in an ongoing conversation about the meaning of the liberal arts. And it would substantially advance our aim of promoting critical reflection among our students.
This document very briefly explores how our new curriculum can better prepare our students to address the environmental or ecological crisis that humankind is facing. The curriculum should reflect Furman’s Strategic Plan, which includes the following strategic goal: "Furman University will strengthen its commitment to the environment by promoting the concept of sustainability through educational programs, environmentally sensitive campus operations and construction practices, and public awareness initiatives." The first initiative under this goal is: Ensure the curriculum reflects Furman’s commitment to sustainability. Sustainability simply put means satisfying the basic needs of people for food, for clean air and water, and shelter into the indefinite future. A sustainable society would do this without depleting or degrading Earth’s natural resources–our natural capital.
First Goal: The curriculum must foster our connectedness to Earth, not in a theoretical or remote senses, but in a real sense and indeed to our particular patch of Earth here in the Upstate. By forging that connectedness we can inspire love for the planet so that we will, in Stephen Jay Gould’s words, “fight to save it.” How to achieve this goal: Have a true January term or May semester, with students participating in two or three of four possible terms. Why not make one of these terms an environmental immersion? One example: 1) River systems immersion—students live on the river, swim in it, drink from it, canoe it, trace it to its headwaters, observe its daily changes, study the geology of sediment, channel and bank/floodplain, study its wildlife and aquatic flora and fauna, listen to it, write poetry about it, read literature related to and inspired by rivers, use natural materials in the river system for artistic expression or as the subject for painting or photography, talk to folks who live along the river about its history and economic importance, study the politics of water use for the region, think about the philosophic and religious meaning of water and waters relation to life and life’s origin, measure the flow rate and study the mathematics of turbulent and laminar flow; the list is endless, encompassing all of the traditional “disciplines.”
Second Goal: The curriculum must foster a sense of world citizenship and responsibility for the global commons. We need to make sure our students realize how utterly dependent they are on “the services of nature” and on other life forms, from the simple to the complex. How to achieve this goal: Have a palette of Environmental (E) courses that define and discuss sustainability and make the clear connection between lifestyle and environmental health. E courses aren’t necessarily science courses, but they must address sustainability regardless of the context. Students would be required to take at least one E course, and the course may also meet a requirement in science, social science, humanities, etc.
Third Goal: The curriculum must foster interdisciplinary thinking and break down the barriers that separate narrow disciplines and departments. The curriculum must look at the big picture and ask the important questions, focus on the causes of the human condition in the broader context of the Earth system, rather than just studying the symptoms. I agree with David Orr when he writes, “The great ecological issues of our time have to do in one way or another with our failure to see things in their entirety.” Fewer GERs will provide students with the opportunity to take more elective courses and allow faculty (free from teaching so many GERs) to be creative in offering interdisciplinary electives, which offer a broader perspective.
We have discussed possible curricular changes, especially in relation to the general education requirement (GER) and hopes that the Curricular Review Committee will address the following four issues:
This has been a very good year for the University. Our new library has been dedicated, several departments in the Humanities have moved into their beautiful new offices, the Science faculties have planned a $50 million project, we are “full pond” with talented students, and we are listed as one of the top 30 universities or top 38 liberal arts colleges in one publication or another. Yet, there is a sense of malaise among the faculty, one, curiously, not shared by the students. Could it be that we are doing something right?
I am a staunch defender of the curriculum and calendar that has accomplished so much for our students in the past thirty six years. We graduated young people who thereafter succeeded in their various endeavors. Could the curriculum, with its strong emphasis on General Education Requirements, have played a key role in this?
I see particular value in our year-long, daily foreign language classes. Imagine another scenario by which an entering first year student can acquire sufficient fluency in another language to engage in a rudimentary conversation with a native speaker. Yet, many of our entering students do not value this ability. An informal survey conducted with students enrolled in chemistry, history and political science indicated that many students would like to drop the language requirement. What a hasty, foolish, and dangerous attitude in today’s world. Europeans consider our knowledge of the outside world appalling and our facility with foreign languages laughable.
Will we be able to sustain our impressive list of Study Abroad programs given another calendar and curriculum? Will faculty enlist for 15 week tours of duty abroad away from home and family? Can we create four or five courses for the participants to take? Will we maintain our sturdy 40% rate of overseas experience among our graduating seniors? Or, we will “outsource” these programs to other institutions? Will these other programs maintain our academic standards? Will we regret losing a shared experience among our faculty and students?
We live in a world where we need to be cognizant of contemporary events and the histories and cultures of those who share our common destiny. I submit that our General Education Requirements develop the skills to acquire and to communicate information and provide the solid foundation necessary to develop a deeper knowledge of specific disciplines.
New curricula not only give birth to new courses but have the potential for killing off old ones. This proposal asks the CRC to consider the impact of their decisions on the current Humanities Sequence.
At the inception of the so-called New Curriculum in 1967, one of Furman’s most successful curricular inventions was the Humanities 11, 12, 13 course sequence (generally known simply as Humanities). It has been popular with students—they often enthusiastically report on their appreciation of this course years afterwards—and with faculty. The thrust of the course, for those not familiar with it, is that it is a year-long, team-taught, interdisciplinary course with emphasis on the great works of the Western tradition, covered in chronological order. The course fulfills Furman’s GER requirements as an equivalent for English 12 (or another literature course), for History 11, and for Religion 11 or 12. Indeed, one of the reasons for the course’s popularity has been that it has fulfilled three GERs over the year.
Other reasons for Humanities’ success include the following. Humanities is unique in that it is the only course that covers the whole sweep of Western history from Egypt up to the present (History 11, by contrast, covers only the modern era). It is truly interdisciplinary in that each department compromises some of its disciplinary aspects to the broader goals of the course. Also, the students over the course of the year encounter several different professors from all three or four disciplines that are represented.
Further, the course is well organized in that it has always had a course coordinator who sees to it that administrative tasks are dealt with and that the thematic unities of the course are maintained over all three terms. In other words, while some professors move in and out of the course on a term by term basis, one person has traditionally been in the course all three terms. All the professors attend class each day: the course is not taught in a sort of “drop by and give your lecture” approach. The morale of the teaching staff has generally been high because the choice to teach in Humanities has been voluntary. It is very rare that a department has to appoint someone to teach in the sequence.
One other surprising aspect has been that the number of students who want to take the class has been at about 100 for many, many years (with obvious occasional dips and rises). Thus, a predictable equilibrium has been attained. Generally speaking the students who choose Humanities like to read and discuss ideas a bit more than the rest of the student body. Faculty advisors seem to understand the course’s approach and have helped serve as an important filter for getting only those students into the course who really want to be there and who really have the abilities to handle the (fairly heavy) reading load, and for keeping those students out who really wouldn’t appreciate Humanities. I think, again, the voluntary aspect of the course for the students is another important reason for the course’s success.
Given suggestions made to the CRC committee, two questions beg a response: (1) how would the Humanities sequence relate to new curricular and calendar changes, and (2) could it serve as a model for a freshman seminar? To the first question, I think Humanities could survive as a year-long course in a semester system, provided it satisfies some GER requirements. To the second question, I think the answer is more problematic. I don’t see how a required freshman seminar experience can replicate the strengths of the Humanities sequence—a course coordinator, voluntary participation by the faculty, and voluntary participation by the students. In my opinion, a freshman seminar would be a different animal altogether.
This proposal is designed to give added flexibility in student course requirements, and hence to provide some relief from the present GER by a reduction in the number of courses required, and to largely use the present course structure that is in place today. This does not exclude the possibility of new courses being added. The key feature here is that we would have a core curriculum that would consist of 11 to 13 courses. With respect to the total curriculum all students would be expected to complete 30 courses divided into three major groups: Core Curriculum, Electives, Major requirements.
Using the current Degree Requirements Checklist designations, the Core Curriculum proposal is as follows:
Composition - one course, Eng 11
Combine History, Religion , Literature , Upper –level humanity and African-Asian courses into one group from which students must choose and complete three courses.
HES 10- one course
Foreign Languages – Students would complete two courses up to the intermediate level or place out of the requirement. Zero to two courses.
Mathematics - one course.
Physical Science – two courses.
Social Science - two courses.
Fine Arts – one course.
The total here is between 11 and 13 GER courses depending on language placement.
With respect to the major we would maintain a standard ten courses to meet the major requirement, some of which could also be counted as GER courses. This is our present situation. These changes are intended to allow students the option to take more electives, including some in the major department.
This would leave at least 7 to perhaps 11 courses that students could take as electives.
We are sure that many of these choices would be used to support major requirements; however, we believe that this arrangement would offer more degrees of freedom for the students.
Finally with respect to the calendar, we believe that our current three term academic year should be retained largely because it provides more opportunity for student choices with respect to entry into and exit from programs and to make career adjustments. If there would be a change in the calendar we would recommend the adoption of a standard quarter system of say 10 weeks per term. This would shorten our current academic year by 2 weeks, and hence allow students to engage in exterior summer internships and employment opportunities at an earlier point in time.
The GER as it exists today was created to provide students at least some exposure to all forms of knowledge and the various ways in which knowledge is gained. It also was intended to provide a general literacy of the various fields of study and to encourage the selection of a major based on actual experience with a wide variety of courses.
In general the present GER does a good job. While it may be possible to reduce the GER and have it remain effective, some very good things come out of the existing curriculum. For example, the social science requirement introduces many students to psychology and surely some psychology majors are recruited through the social science GER. Likewise some philosophy majors are recruited from students who sign up for Phl 20 to meet the upper level humanities requirements.
The present GER might be criticized as being a collection of disjointed pieces. Courses like the humanities sequence fight this weakness by engaging ideas across disciplinary lines.
The present GER could be strengthened by developing more interdisciplinary ways to meet the GER. Consider a two-semester course sequence that would take the place of Hst11 and one science GER. Such a course could place scientific discovery in a historical context. A careful treatment of major figures such as Descartes, Newton, Franklin, Einstein and Oppenheimer would easily lend itself to the seminar format favored by many for our freshmen. And the interplay between science and society will be even more important in the future.
Many other interesting pairs of courses immediately come to mind. A course that combines the sorts of things that Phl 20 and Rel 11 bring to the GER could be very challenging for our students.
Likewise a course in sacred art could study the beliefs and practices of the various religions and pay particular attention to the role of art in religious places. Comparison to contemporary secular art could help define the religious character of sacred art. Such a course sequence could meet the religion and the fine arts GERs. This pair would make an especially exciting format for foreign study.
The statistical nature of many studies in psychology make a math/ psychology pair an interesting possibility. Actual studies could be done by the students and analyzed using the appropriate statistical methods. Such a two-course sequence could meet one social science requirement and the math requirement.
The language requirement plays an important role in a liberal arts education. While language skills fade quickly when unused, there is a lasting benefit to a certain level of foreign language proficiency. The nature and structure of language (tenses and cases and such) in general is revealed by this level of proficiency. I feel that my experience with a foreign language taught me much about English through this improved understanding of language in general.
Furman has an unusual calendar. While there are some conspicuous problems, the calendar has many real advantages. First, it allows students in highly sequential majors like chemistry and physics to go on foreign study. Being away for one of three terms is easier to manage than half a year.
Likewise the three-term schedule gives students the benefits of more advising sessions and registrations. This translates into students being able to complete majors like physics and chemistry after declaring relatively late in their careers.
It would be a shame for this unique calendar to be changed just to make Furman more like other schools.
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.
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:
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
We propose a first-year program organized around the question, “Is anybody telling the truth?” The program consists of two semesters or terms in sequence, organized as follows.
First term
Every freshman in the program takes the “Truth Seminar,” faculty-led classes limited to 12 students and organized around a syllabus of common readings that explore different conceptions of truth and its related issues and problems. Co-curricular activities such as films, speakers, and debates provide “quilting points” to support the emergence of a broad intellectual community around the seminar. Assignments will be writing-intensive and will engage students in questioning their own assumptions and beliefs about truth, about who tells it, and about who has access to it. The purpose of the first term is to familiarize students with academic questioning and reflection in preparation for the second
term.
The existence of a common curriculum for this first term does not imply a traditional or canonical set of readings, nor would the course necessarily revolve entirely around texts. No discipline or division within the university would be privileged, the course's defining question being understood as one going to the heart of liberal education in the broadest sense. More specifically, that question might be approached by looking at (1) figures or models of those who have questioned truth, (2) ways of critically evaluating rival claims to truth, and (3) different modalities of truth, including the scientific, aesthetic, religious, emotional, literary, poetic, and so on. The course, in summary, would not be
content-oriented, but would attempt to introduce students – at the beginning of their college experience – to a rich intellectual journey that characterizes true scholarship.
Second term
The second term is organized as a series of “mini-courses,” disciplinary or interdisciplinary, of approximately two weeks each that focus on particular topics or problems concerning truth. Each student selects four or five mini-courses, and, through thoughtful integration and articulation, composes an account of an original and meaningful intellectual journey as represented in a culminating 20-page thesis. The seminar is still organized into small sections of 12 students, but for this term meetings take place as tutorials in which students meet reguarly with the professor as they begin to build on the experience of the
mini-courses to elaborate their own theses. These tutorial meetings might be organized according to any one of a number of formats; the essential idea is that students be accountable to both the faculty leader and each other. Each faculty member commits to doing both terms of the course. During the spring term, a faculty member normally spends about 12 hours teaching a mini-course, and 30 or so additional hours (perhaps two a week) in tutorials with members of the 12-person seminar group. The co-curricular program continues in this term, this time with special emphasis on events that bring various mini-courses into dialog with each other and thereby help to demonstrate and foster integrative thinking.
To ensure the success of such a jointly-taught course, it is essential that faculty members' participation be encouraged, facilitated, and rewarded. Specific ways in which this might be done include: (1) a collaborative seminar for faculty running concurrently with the course, designed to support and inspire teaching (also, grants might be available for summer or other workshops on pedagogical models appropriate for small-group seminars); (2) ensuring that the teaching of the course is valued as part of the faculty evaluation process; and (3) an organization of the course that permits a diminished time commitment by faculty during the spring term (as described above). But the most important incentive for participation would be the intellectual community that would grow up around the course, eventually making its impact felt throughout campus life.
This program combines the benefits of both the common curriculum and a topical approach to freshman seminars, with special emphasis on modeling and developing the spirit of intellectual curiosity and serious reflection at the outset of students’ college careers. We believe that such an experience will enable students to be more thoughtful about their education and may well foster new levels of passion and independence as students undertake their remaining three years of study at Furman.