|
CURRICULUM REVIEW STEERING
COMMITTEE FACULTY OF ARTS AND SCIENCES FINAL REPORT ON THE
UNDERGRADUATE CURRICULUM AS APPROVED Table of Contents I. Introduction A. History and
statement of General principles B. Overall Approach to
Requirements C. The Independent
Learner II.
Courses and Faculty Course
Assignments A. The Semester System B. Concentration
Requirements and Faculty Teaching Assignments III.
Requirements for the Degrees of A.B.
and B.S. A. General
Requirements B. Proficiencies 1. Foreign
Language 2. Writing 3. Physical
Activity 4.
Computing C. General Education
Requirements 1. Proposal
for GER
a. Proposed GERs
b. Sub-committee on GERs
c. Considerations relating to these requirements 2. General
Education Requirements
a. Mathematics and Quantitative Reasoning
b. The Natural Sciences c. Social Sciences
d. World Cultures and History
e. Literature and History of the Arts
f. Creative and Performing Arts
g. Philosophical, Religious and Social Thought 3.
Sub-committee on General Education Requirements D. Sequence E. Concentration IV. The
Independent Learner A. The First Two Years B. Upper-Level Small Group Learning Experiences V. Oral
Communication VI. Technology
in the Curriculum VII. Teaching A. Fostering Excellence
in Teaching B. Adjunct Faculty C. Teaching Assistants VIII. Honors
and Pass/Fail - Pass/No Pass A. Honors B. Pass/Fail - Pass/No Pass IX. Implementation A. The Subcommittee on
General Education Requirements B. Implementation
Schedule Appendix A: Steering Committee
and Subcommittees Appendix B: Impact Analysis Appendix C: Statement of Purpose
and General Education Objectives Appendix D: Mathematics Appendix E: Sciences
I.
INTRODUCTION A. History and Statement of General Principles In September, 1990 David Lutzer, Dean of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences, formally announced his initiation of a comprehensive review of the undergraduate curriculum. He appointed Clyde Haulman, Dean of Undergraduate Studies, Chair of the Curriculum Review Steering Committee. Dean Haulman, in turn, appointed a total of twenty-two Committee members, including fifteen faculty members from Arts and Sciences, one faculty member each from Business and Education, and five students. (See Appendix A for Committee membership.) The Educational Policy Committee, meeting several times in the summer of 1990, unanimously endorsed the creation of this Committee. The consensus
that this was an ideal time to conduct a comprehensive curriculum review was
founded on the following considerations: 1. The
last curriculum revision took place in 1970; the last attempted revision took
place in 1980. A key issue is whether the existing requirements --
proficiencies, area, and sequence -- adequately reflect William and Mary's
goals and objectives. Do the ad hoc curricular changes of the last twenty years
fit together as a coherent whole? Can new initiatives, such as freshman
seminars, be integrated into the College's general education curriculum? Does
the present curriculum reflect the intellectual and pedagogical changes that
academic disciplines have undergone over the past twenty years? Only a
systematic review can answer these questions. 2. The
College's Self Study of 1984 recommended that a major examination of the
curriculum should be part of the next accreditation review, due in 1994. 3. The
Curriculum Review provides faculty with an institutional mechanism for
influencing the College's response to the current budget crisis, and for
ensuring that this response will be informed by a balanced appreciation of the
College's academic mission. 4. The
Review provides a structure through which the College can comply with the
request from the State Council and the legislature that we rethink our
curriculum in light of the recommendations of the SCHEV report "The
University of the Twenty- first Century." 5. The
Review will provide a forum to study the concerns raised by several faculty
committees that both student course loads and faculty teaching assignments need
re-evaluation. For example, the Dean's Advisory Council (composed of department
chairs and program directors) advised the dean to initiate a systematic study
of these questions in May of 1990. 6. By
the close of the 1992-93 academic year, all of our departments will have
completed thorough assessments of their concentrations. A comprehensive review
provides us with an opportunity to adapt the curriculum to the recommendations
that have emanated from these assessment studies. The Steering Committee held
preliminary meetings in the Fall of 1990, targeting nine major curricular areas
for in-depth study. These nine areas are: the general education curriculum; the
faculty/student course load; teaching; concentrations; the freshman/ sophomore
years; honors; writing; physical education; and language proficiency. Dean
Haulman assigned three of these areas to standing Arts and Sciences committees
(Educational Policy, Honors and Interdisciplinary Studies, and Writing); he
created six new ad hoc sub-committees to study the remaining six areas. The
membership of these subcommittees was drawn both from the steering Committee
and from the wider faculty. In all, approximately eighty faculty and students
served on at least one of these subcommittees. (See Appendix A for a list of
committees and their memberships.) Each subcommittee examined its respective topics
within the context of two documents: the Statement of Purpose, which has
appeared in the Catalog since it was first articulated in the 1984 "Report
of Self-Study"; and the "General Education Goals and Objectives,"
which emerged from the assessment process and is intended to further
operationalize the Statement of Purpose. While the subcommittees have worked in
detail with these documents, the Steering Committee has focused on two broad
themes that lay at the foundation of its conclusions. The first applies
primarily to the general education portion of the curriculum while the second
applies to the curriculum as a whole. B. Overall
Approach to Requirements The elective portion of the curriculum is important,
in part because it allows students to pursue their own interests and develop
the capacity to judge and choose on their own. However, requirements are
equally important if we are to ensure that students have those specific
academic experiences that are central to the goals and objectives of the
College. The steering Committee concluded that it would: 1. recommend
requirements in all and only those areas where a specific academic experience
is central to the goals and objectives of the College; 2. allow
students as much flexibility as possible to satisfy requirements in ways that
are consistent with their individual backgrounds, interests, and plans;
and
3. encourage
a policy of academic “multiple use” that, where appropriate, would allow
students to satisfy more than one requirement with a single course (thereby
both [a] decreasing the number of general education courses that departments
will have to offer, and [b] increasing the elective portion of the student's
curriculum and encouraging an integration of the student's general education
experience). The aim of the Steering Committee, in sum, was to
rigorously justify each requirement that it recommended; to identify, where
possible, a diversity of ways that each requirement can be met; and to
encourage departments to create, and students to enroll in, general education
"multiple use" courses. C. The
Independent Learner Like all institutions of higher education, the
College seeks to impart subject-matter competencies to its students. But there
is wide consensus in the College community, underscored in the two documents that
guide this Review, that we aim to go further and cultivate our students'
intellectual curiosity, flexibility, and depth. If our students are going to be
equipped to play leadership roles in the arts and sciences, in public affairs,
and in the business world, we must nurture the skills and habits of independent
inquiry. Moreover, we should nurture these skills not only in a handful of
advanced honors students, but rather in all of our students and in a diversity
of settings, including summer research opportunities and both freshman and
advanced seminars. Subcommittees began reporting their findings and
recommendations to the steering Committee in the Spring and Fall of 1991. The
Committee debated these reports and merged them into a Preliminary Proposal
issued in April 1992. Meetings were held with faculty and students in the
Spring and Fall of 1992 and the proposal revised as a result of these
discussions. A Final Report was issued in February 1993, and in a series of
meeting during February, March, and April the Faculty debated and revised the
proposal. This document presents the results of Faculty decision at those
meetings. II. COURSES
AND FACULTY COURSE ASSIGNMENTS A. The
Semester System The
B.
Concentration Requirements
and Faculty Teaching Assignments The Faculty of Arts and Sciences should reaffirm the prerogative of individual departments to determine concentration requirements and faculty teaching assignments at their initiative within constraints established by the Faculty and the Dean. III.
REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREES OF A.B.
AND B.S. The credits for a degree must be completed in
accordance with the following requirements. (See the 1992-93 Undergraduate
Catalog pp. 143-46.) A. General
Requirements One hundred and twenty semester credits are required
for graduation. Of these one hundred and twenty: 1. a
minimum of sixty semester credits must be in residence at the College; 2. no
more than forty-eight semester credits in a subject field shall be permitted to
apply toward a degree (thus, seventy-two of the one hundred and twenty semester
credits must be in subject fields outside of the concentration with a limit of
forty-eight credits in any other single subject field); 3. no
more than fourteen semester credits may be in Applied Music (excepting Music
concentrators); 4. no
more than four semester credits may be in a program of physical activity
(excepting Kinesiology concentrators); 5. no more
than thirty-three semester credits may be in Elementary Education; 6. no
more than twenty-four semester credits may be in Secondary Education; and 7. no
more than six semester credits may be in Military Science. The remaining portion of the section “General Requirements” beginning with “A minimum of 240 quality points ...” will continue as it currently appears on page 42 of the 1992-93 Undergraduate Catalog. B. Proficiencies 1. Foreign
Language:
The Committee recommends no change in the requirement as stated on page 44 of
the 1992-93 Undergraduate Catalog. For the purpose of verifying that students
exempted from the foreign language requirement through four years of high
school language have a proficiency equivalent to that of students completing
the 202-level course, the Committee recommends that the Dean and the
Departments of Modern Languages and Literature and Classical Studies examine
those students in the next entering class who have been exempted from the
requirement based on four years of high school language training. The results
should be reported to the Educational Policy Committee for analysis and for
action, if needed. 2. Writing: The Committee recommends no
change in the requirement as stated on page 44 of the 1992-93 Undergraduate
Catalog. 3. Physical
Activity:
The College's Statement of Purpose and the Statement of Goals and Objectives
make it clear that the acquisition of physical skills and the development of
attitudes and habits conducive to physical health are important aims of the
undergraduate program. To achieve these aims students are required to pass the
equivalent of two activity courses. This may be accomplished in the
following ways: a. The
requirement may be satisfied with 100-level courses in the Department of
Kinesiology, including both one-credit “activity” courses and Wellness (which
will become a one- credit course and will satisfy one unit). While activity courses and Wellness have somewhat
different aims, both address concerns that are at the heart of the
justification for this requirement. All activity courses will be exclusively pass/fail and
will receive academic credit. No more than four physical activity credits may
be counted toward the 120 credits required for a degree. b. Students
may demonstrate proficiencies. Proficiency levels are tied directly to the
performance of students who successfully complete activity courses or, if the
activity is not offered by the Department of Kinesiology, proficiency levels
will be determined by the department in consultation with the Educational
Policy Committee. Students satisfying this requirement through proficiency test(s)
will not receive course credit. c. Students
may meet the requirement through participation in a varsity sport. One year of
participation in a varsity sport equals one unit up to a maximum of two.
Students participating in more than one varsity sport may use each sport to meet a unit requirement up to a
total of two. Students satisfying this requirement through varsity sport(s)
will not receive course credit.
4. Computing: Students must satisfy a Concentration
Computing Requirement
established by each department, program, or school and approved by the
Educational Policy Committee. The purpose of the requirement is to ensure that
all students have mastered the advanced computing skills appropriate to their
respective disciplines. Students will be required to demonstrate proficiency
in: a.
computer programming, or b.
the computer-aided composition of
original, creative material (including mathematical or simulation models, music
or other works of art, or significant experimental studies), or c. the
use of a computer to retrieve, process, and analyze numeric or non-numeric
information. Concentrations may designate certain departmental
courses and/or courses in other
departments (such as Computer Science) as satisfying the requirement. C. General
Education Requirements in the Undergraduate Program 1. A
Proposal for General Education Requirements The
College's Statement of Purpose asserts that William and Mary is an institution
committed to "liberal education" and that the undergraduate program
is central to that task. The root meaning of "liberal" has to do with
that which helps to make students free and self-governed. It is through a
program of general education that institutions like William and Mary
traditionally have sought to foster the liberating arts of self-examination,
critical thinking, the discrimination of values, and the nurturing of
the creative imagination. General education and education in
the specialized disciplines are not separable, and they share in this liberal
enterprise. Nevertheless, the central aim of specialized education, of the
concentration, is the acquisition of competence in a specific body of knowledge
and skills. We currently live in an age of specialization, and the pressures in
our society for special training make it imperative that we also reaffirm our
commitment to general education, that is, exposure to the broader knowledge and
skills required to deal with the perennial issues facing the human community. Specifically, general education in
the late twentieth century must ensure that our students are able to think
clearly and communicate thought, are highly literate, are able to understand
and deal with numerical data, and can comprehend the fundamental principles of
the natural and social sciences, as well as their major accomplishments,
possibilities, and limits. Furthermore, in an age of global interdependence it
is imperative that students be knowledgeable about their own cultural heritage
and about cultures very different from their own. Historical perspective can
free students from provincialism and ingrained prejudice and can allow them to
envision new ideas and creative possibilities. Students also need to be aware
of the possibilities of artistic creativity as a means of expressing human
meaning, and to be familiar with aesthetic forms and achievements, recognizing
how profoundly they mirror and shape culture. Finally, it is evident that the
complexities of modern society require citizens capable of discerning and
analyzing competing values and
of dealing responsibly with moral questions of great personal and social
importance. In brief, the aim of general education is to help
students develop critical judgment, imagination, and moral autonomy. This, of
course, is what we at the College have long aimed to do. However, general
education requires a structure that clearly reflects the program's purposes and
goals. It is the perception of many faculty members that the current Area
distribution requirements lack a clear focus, and that a significant number of
current distribution courses do not effectively meet our stated general
education objectives. Furthermore, it is the view of many colleagues that our
general education
program should include a broader range of requirements than is currently the
case. Data support faculty perceptions that large numbers of students avoid any
exposure to important components of liberal learning, such as the natural
sciences, history, other cultures and traditions, literature, and the arts. The
committee, therefore, proposed the new general education requirements (GERs) as
a means of better meeting our general education objectives. a. The
Proposed General Education Requirements Each of these requirements may be fulfilled by a
variety of means. Students may fulfill each requirement by completion of an EPC
approved course or courses, or their equivalent as identified by the
Educational Policy Committee (EPC) and approved by the Faculty. All GER courses
will be either 3 or 4 credit courses, £ single course may fulfill at most two
GERs and may also be used to fulfill concentration and/or proficiency
requirements, and the College may develop a sequence of courses specially
designed and approved by the EPC to satisfy a group of distribution
requirements. 1. Mathematics
and Quantitative Reasoning one course* 2. The
Natural Sciences A. Physical Sciences one
course* B. Biological Sciences one
course* One of the two courses must
have an associated laboratory 3. The
Social Sciences two courses* 4. World
Cultures and History A. History and culture in the European Tradition one
course* B. A Course in History and Culture That Does Not Fall Under The
Above Category one
course* C. One Additional Course in Either Category A
or B, or a Course on Cross-Cultural Issues one
course* 5. Literature
and History of the Arts one
course* 6. Creative
and Performing Arts two
credits* 7. Philosophical,
Religious, and Social Thought one
course* *See
below (p. 11 (2) and p. 12 (3) and pp. 12-23) for details of how the Faculty
might consider that these requirements could be fulfilled by means other than
courses taken at William and Mary. b. Sub-Committee
on General Education Requirements It is recommended that the Educational Policy
Committee establish a Sub-committee on General Education (SGE) as a standing
sub-committee See page 23 for details. c. Considerations
Relating to these Requirements The committee wishes to emphasize certain important
considerations that relate to our proposals. (1) The committee's study and recommendations have
been guided by the purposes and goals set forth in the faculty-approved
Statement of Purpose and Statement of General Education Objectives. (Appendix
C) (2) Since the achievement of a specific general
education objective is the goal of each requirement, the EPC and the Faculty
may consider alternative means of fulfilling the requirement besides the
completion of courses taken at William and Mary. If this occurs, the proposal
is likely to reduce the number of courses required to fulfill the College's
general education requirements. Alternative ways of fulfilling GERs that the
EPC and the Faculty might wish to consider include: successful completion of a
course approved
by the EPC as satisfying the particular requirement; advanced placement (AP) or
international baccalaureate (IB) credit; SAT and/or achievement scores
determined by the EPC in consultation with all interested departments;
successful completion of an examination approved for this purpose by the EPC in
consultation with all interested departments. (3) Any department or faculty member may submit a
course proposal for the fulfillment of one or more general education
requirement. The focus of each such requirement is on the achievement of a
specific general education objective, so it is possible that courses from
several different departments may meet that single goal, and that courses from
one department may meet two or more different objectives. For example,
Psychology as well as Biology courses might fulfill the Biological Sciences
GER, and courses offered by the Government department might satisfy the GERs in
the "Social
Sciences," "World Cultures and History," and
"Philosophical, Religious, and
Social Thought." (4) While the committee strongly urges faculty
members to offer new courses specifically designed to meet particular general
education objectives, it is likely that most of the proposed requirements can
be met by current departmental offerings or by somewhat modified versions
thereof. All courses offered as satisfying a GER would be certified by the EPC,
as noted above. (5) Certain pedagogical conditions are, of course,
indispensable if we as a faculty are to achieve our general education
objectives. These include opportunities for small classes, writing-intensive courses,
group exploration and discussion of ideas, and engagement with various modes of
the creative process itself. In some measure, these must form the foundation of
the curriculum. However, the specific purpose of this proposal is to offer a
curricular structure that can help us better achieve our general education
objectives. (6) The proposed GERs will replace the present Areas
for the purpose of general education distribution requirements. However, the
current Area designations will continue to serve other faculty governance
functions, such as the determination of faculty representation on Arts and
Sciences and College-wide committees. 2. GENERAL
EDUCATIQN REQUIREMENTS a. Mathematics
and Quantitative Reasoning Many
liberal arts colleges now include mathematics in the list of courses that will
satisfy part or all of a distribution requirement in the natural sciences.
Computer science, statistics, and logic are often included as well. But there
is wide agreement, both in the recent national literature on distribution
requirements and among the Area III faculty at William and Mary, that this is
not a satisfactory arrangement. It does not adequately address the importance
of mathematics and quantitative reasoning for general education, and it dilutes
the distribution requirement in the natural sciences. RECOMMENDATIONS It is
recommended that the College institute a general education requirement in
mathematics defined in such a way that it ensures each student demonstrates
that he or she understands a serious application of mathematics and
quantitative reasoning. 1. Students
may satisfy this requirement by: (a) successful
completion of a specially designed College course approved by the EPC to
satisfy the requirement; (b) successful
completion of any (other) College-level course in mathematics, statistics,
symbolic logic, or computer programming approved by the EPC; (c) successful completion of any college course
certified by the EPC as having a stated or implied prerequisite of a course
defined by (a) or (b). For example, a physics course that demands mathematics
competency beyond that of courses defined by (a) or (b). 2. Some
alternative ways the EPC and the Faculty may wish to consider for allowing
students to satisfy this requirement are: (a) by
AP or IB exemption or credit in Mathematics; (b) by
combined SAT-math and math-achievement scores at a level to be determined by
the EPC; (c) by
successful completion of an examination offered by the College; or (d) by
other reasonable means developed by the EPC for the purpose of enabling
students to demonstrate that they already satisfy this requirement. A number of existing Mathematics courses and courses
such as Computer Science 141 and statistics courses in the social sciences are
expected to satisfy this requirement.
RATIONALE AND CLARIFICATIONS A number of institutions similar to William and Mary
have recently adopted, or are currently considering, proposals to make
mathematics and quantitative reasoning a separate distribution requirement.
Such proposals are typically defined so as to include various courses in logic,
computer programming, and statistics. Given the goals for general education
recently approved by the Arts and Sciences faculty, separating mathematics from
the requirements in the natural sciences seems fully warranted. This was confirmed both in the committee's
discussions with faculty, and
in its own deliberations. In each forum there was general agreement on two things
with respect to mathematics: (1) that the distribution requirement should
stand alone, separate from those in
the natural sciences; and (2) that such a requirement should not involve
a core
course required of all, or nearly all, William and Mary undergraduates. The typical
requirement for foreign languages provides an obvious model for a proposal
that satisfies both criteria. Some of the assumptions that lie behind our
recommendation are as follows. (a) The mathematics panel of the
American Association for the Advancement
of Science Project 2061 formulated a visionary statement of the mathematical
and quantitative reasoning skills that are likely to be needed by typical
adults living in the twenty-first century. The mathematics and quantitative
reasoning requirement proposed here is intended to move all William and
Mary graduates toward the standard proposed for the typical adult by that AAAS
report. (Appendix D) (b) Exemptions
similar to those used for English 101 and the foreign language requirement, can
guarantee, as effectively as a course requirement could, that all
undergraduates have the requisite knowledge of mathematics. (c) Given the variety of abilities possessed by entering students,
defining a variety of ways for satisfying a requirement in mathematics seems
appropriate. The obvious options are advanced placement, performance on
national or local examinations, and completion of appropriate College courses. (d) It
is reasonable to believe that any program of study currently adequate for a
baccalaureate degree at William and Mary guarantees, as effectively as a
distribution requirement could, that a graduate will have the requisite problem
solving ability in the area of informal logic or critical thinking. Further
discussion of these matters is provided in Appendix D. b. The
Natural Sciences RECOMMENDATIONS It is recommended that the College maintain its
"distribution requirement" approach to general education in the
sciences, but that the "areas" in which students must satisfy the
requirement be redefined. 1. As the report "The Liberal Art of
Science" by the American Association for the Advancement of science (AAAS)
says, "Education in science is more than the transmission of factual
information: it must provide students with a knowledge base that enables them
to educate themselves about scientific and technological issues of their times;
it must provide students with an understanding of the nature of science and its
place in society; and it must provide them with an understanding of the methods
and processes of scientific inquiry." To achieve these goals, students
must demonstrate basic knowledge, skills, and experiences in both (a) the physical
sciences and (b) the biological sciences. This requirement represents the minimum requisites of a liberal education. students may satisfy this requirement by completing: (a) a one semester course in the physical sciences,
and (b) a one semester course in the biological
sciences. One of the two courses must have an associated
laboratory. Courses meeting this requirement must be approved by
the EPC. The committee will examine each
proposed course and determine if it will provide students with the broad skills
and basic knowledge envisioned in the general education goals. Thus, for
example, the biological sciences are not necessarily synonymous with the
Biology Department, and any department or faculty member could offer courses
satisfying either component of the requirement. (See Appendix E for further
specifications of these broad general education objectives in science.) 2. Some
alternative ways the EPC may wish to consider for allowing students
to satisfy the physical sciences and/or the biological sciences components
of this requirement are: (a) SAT
Achievement (Subject) test scores in the physical sciences (geology, chemistry,
physics) at a level to be determined by the EPC. (b) SAT
Achievement (Subject) test scores in the biological sciences at a level to be
determined by the EPC. (c) AP
or IB exemption or credit in biology, chemistry, and/or physics. (d) Participation
in special programs such as the Governor's School in the Sciences or other
summer or academic year programs that provide significant progress toward
meeting the goals of this requirement. (e) Passing
exemption examinations designed and administered by the College. (f) Other
reasonable means developed by the science departments in cooperation with the
EPC for the purpose of enabling students to demonstrate that they already
satisfy the general education objectives in either the physical or life
sciences requirement. In addition to regular departmental courses that
have been certified as meeting GERs, faculty could also introduce new courses
specifically designed to fulfill them. Any such general education courses would
be offered simultaneously with the approved departmental GER courses. RATIONALE AND CLARIFICATIONS The faculties of the intellectual
skills, and values that constitute the minimum requisites of a liberal
education. The objectives for science are particularly important for citizens
of our contemporary world. Each
individual is constantly confronted by both the wonders and problems of modern
technology and the science upon which it is based. We are called upon daily to
make social and political decisions that presuppose a general knowledge of
fundamental scientific principles, an understanding of the processes by which scientists
reach and justify their conclusions, and an appreciation of the limitations of
such methods. Unfortunately,
the preliminary results of the College's assessment process, along with a
considerable amount of so-called "anecdotal" testimony, suggest that
our graduating students are not meeting these objectives. The surveys
given to graduating seniors report that the majority of our students would not
be comfortable participating in even informal discussions of some of the most
important scientific issues facing society today. The alumni surveys similarly
report that a significant majority of our graduates do not believe that they
were liberally educated in the sciences. Study of our students' course
selection patterns shows that William and Mary non-science concentrators take
remarkably few science courses as electives. Twenty-two percent of our students
graduate without any course work in the physical sciences and over forty
percent graduate with no education in the biological sciences. The majority of
the faculty with whom our committee spoke acknowledge that we are not
adequately meeting the College's general education objectives in science. (It
is interesting to note that these disappointing findings are in sharp contrast
to the well-documented excellence of the training which William and Mary
science concentrators receive in their respective disciplines!) There was a clear consensus both in this committee
and in the group of science and mathematics faculty consulted that a major
defect in our current curriculum's distribution requirements is the inclusion
of mathematics in the present Area III. This allows a student to graduate from
the college having taken only a single semester course in the natural or
biological sciences. There was therefore agreement that mathematics and quantitative
reasoning should constitute a separate Though discussions with science faculty members
indicated considerable reservations
about requiring "core" courses in science of all students, there was
also a surprising amount of interest in considering such courses, provided that
they not attempt to accomplish too much in anyone course and that they not be
required of all students. Our proposal reflects both of these concerns. (See
Appendix E for suggestions for possible specially-designed general education
science courses.) c. Social
Sciences RECOMMENDATIONS It is recommended that the College institute a
general education requirement in the social sciences. The purpose of this
requirement is to give special attention to the methodology, foundational
concepts, theories, assumptions, uses, and limitations of present modes of
inquiry in the social sciences thereby exposing students to the analysis of
social phenomena and/or the assessment of public policy alternatives. This requirement may be satisfied by: (a) completion
of two approved departmental courses that give special attention to the
methodology, foundational concepts, theories, assumptions, uses, and
limitations of present modes of inquiry thereby exposing students to the
analysis of social phenomena
and/or the assessment of public policy alternatives; (b) a two semester sequence of courses that meets the objective of
this requirement -- for example Economics 101-102 or Psychology 201-202; or (c) interdisciplinary
courses specially designed and approved to meet this requirement. Some alternative ways the EPC may
wish to consider for allowing students to satisfy this requirement are: (a) by
AP or IB credit or exemption in appropriate social science courses; (b)
by exemption examinations designed
and administered by the College; or (c) other
reasonable means developed by the social science departments in cooperation
with the EPC for the purpose of enabling students to demonstrate that they
already satisfy the social sciences general education objectives. RATIONALE AND CLARIFICATIONS The social sciences are a necessary component of a
liberal education, and especially the liberal education of democratic citizens.
While the humanities and life sciences help us understand individual and group
behavior, the social science curriculum is a crucial vehicle for achieving this
goal. They also are an important means, although not the only one, for
introducing civic perspectives to the curriculum. Social science can be defined as the application of
empirical methods (construed broadly) and/or mathematics to the description,
explanation, or prediction of human behavior. "Behavior" here is
understood to include not only action and social interaction but also the study
of psychological phenomena, institutions, practices, history, and culture.
According to this definition, "courses in the social sciences" is not
necessarily synonymous with "all and only those courses offered in
departments now labeled Area II" for the following reasons. First, many courses for which Area II credit is
currently awarded would not be included under this definition. For example,
while Government 303,304, and 305 (Survey of Political Philosophy) may well
satisfy the seventh GER (Philosophical, Religious, and Social Thought), they
will not satisfy the social science GER because they do not introduce students
to the broad objectives of this requirement. Similarly, while courses in the
Department of History will satisfy the new World Cultures and History GER, many
will not satisfy the social science requirement. In general, many courses that
now receive
Area II credit will not qualify as social science general education courses
either because they lack an empirical approach altogether, or because they are
too methodologically narrow, thereby failing to “give special attention to the
methodology, foundational concepts, theories, assumptions, uses, and
limitations of present modes of inquiry thereby exposing students to the
analysis of social phenomena and/or the assessment of public policy
alternatives.” Second, courses might be developed to meet this
requirement in departments that
are not currently included in Area II. For example, a specially designed
linguistics course could provide an excellent general education course in the
social sciences. d. World
Cultures and History RECOMMENDATIONS It is recommended that the College institute a
general education requirement in World Cultures and History to ensure
understanding of basic ideas, institutions, and cultural movements that have
created and continue to inform cultures. The requirement consists of: (A) History
and Culture in the European Tradition
one course (B) A
Course in History and Culture That Does Not Fall Under the Above Category
one course (C) One
Additional Course in Either Category A or B, or a Course on Cross-Cultural Issues
one course 1. Students
may satisfy this requirement by: (a) successful
completion of courses chosen either (i) from a list of departmental courses
approved by the EPC, or (ii) from specially designed courses approved by the
EPC; (b) successful
completion of a sequence of specially designed courses approved by the EPC to
satisfy a group of distribution requirements including this one; All courses will include a historical framework and
will emphasize important events, institutions, ideas, or literary and artistic
achievements that have shaped cultures. To allow for significant latitude,
while at the same time ensuring appropriate breadth in order to meet the GER
objective, courses may be organized in alternative ways, such as the following: (a) courses
covering more than one major historical era (for example, (b) courses
designed after the model of civilization courses, such as those long offered at
2. Some
alternative ways the EPC may wish to consider for allowing students
to satisfy parts of this requirement are: (a) by
AP or IB exemption or credit in appropriate fields; (b) by
exemption examination(s) designed and administered by the College; or (c) by
other reasonable means developed by the EPC for the purpose of enabling students to demonstrate that they already
satisfy the general education objectives of this requirement. RATIONALE AND CLARIFICATIONS There is substantial evidence that increasing
numbers of college students are ignorant of the most basic ideas, institutions,
and cultural movements that have created and continue to inform cultures. These
courses can provide a "vocabulary of reference" for understanding the
forces that have shaped history and culture. These courses also can demonstrate
the various modes of interpretation and perspectives by which world history can
be understood, and that these interpretations are debatable and are open to
revision. Further, in this age of global interdependence, it is especially
important that students develop
the capacity to understand very different ways of knowing, valuing, and
behaving. This requirement can assist students to understand the rich diversity
of human experience, the value of alternative ways of envisioning life, the
ways in which cultures can be compared, and the causes of inter-cultural and
international conflict and cooperation. e. Literature
and History of the Arts RECOMMENDATIONS It is recommended that the College institute a
general education requirement in Literature and History of the Arts. 1. Students
may satisfy this requirement by: (a) successful
completion of one course in literature or history of the arts chosen from a
list of departmental courses approved by the EPC; -- (b) successful
completion of one specially-designed course approved by the EPC; or (c) completion
of a course for which an EPC-approved course is a prerequisite. 2. Some
alternative ways the EPC may wish to consider for allowing students
to satisfy this requirement are:
(a) by AP or IB credit or exemption
in appropriate fields; (b) by exemption examinations designed and administered
by the College; (c) by other reasonable means developed by the EPC
for the purpose of enabling students to demonstrate that they already satisfy
the general education objectives of this requirement. Courses
that will satisfy this requirement are surveys of literature or courses in the
history of fine arts, dance, theater, film, or music. RATIONALE AND CLARIFICATIONS A liberally educated person should possess knowledge
of important and influential forms of literary and artistic achievement, and of
how they both reflect and shape their cultural contexts. Courses should
introduce students to major forms, genres, or movements, and/or methods of
reading and analysis. f. Creative
and Performing Arts RECOMMENDATIONS It is recommended that the College institute a
general education requirement in the Creative and Performing Arts. 1. Students
may satisfy this requirement by: (a) successful completion of a minimum of two
credits in one of the creative or performing arts chosen from a list of
departmental courses approved by the EPC; (b) successful completion of one course with a
significant creative or performing arts component approved by the EPC; (c) successful completion of one specially designed
course approved by the EPC; or (d) completion of a course for which an EPC-approved
course that meets this requirement is a prerequisite. 2. Some
alternative ways the EPC may wish to consider for allowing students to satisfy
this requirement are: I (a) by
demonstration of achievement in a creative or performing art, including
creative writing, at a level determined by the EPC in consultation with
appropriate departments, through portfolio submission, or performance/audition; (b)
by AP or IB credit or exemption in
appropriate fields. (c) by
exemption examinations designed and administered by the
College; or (d) by
other reasonable means developed by the EPC for the purpose of enabling students to demonstrate that they already
satisfy the general education objectives of this requirement. The "creative and performing arts" include
dance, music performance, music composition, creative writing (including
non-fiction), studio art, cinematic arts, theater arts, and computer graphics.
students who opt for satisfying this requirement in, music or dance must
achieve a level equivalent to the first two semesters. RATIONALE AND CLARIFICATIONS The purpose of this requirement is to understand the
artistic process. The creative and performing arts represent an important
approach to knowing and understanding that is different from traditional
academic preparation. The requirement may be fulfilled either through courses
that develop artistic skills or through courses that enable a student to engage
in artistic activity and performance in order to experience how the artist and
the work of art relate to one another. The latter courses are not concerned
with the developmental history of art. By actively involving a student in
exercises that entail artistic choices, these courses aim for an
experience-based understanding of how the artist
communicates meaning and how the art work attains meaning. g. Philosophical.
Religious and Social Thought RECOMMENDATIONS It is recommended that the college institute a
general education requirement in philosophical, religious, and social thought. 1. Students may satisfy this requirement by: (a) successful completion of one course from a list
of departmental courses that give special attention to the normative dimensions
of important and influential approaches to philosophical, religious, and social
thought; or (b) successful completion of one interdisciplinary
course specially designed and approved to meet this requirement. 2. Some alternative ways the EPC may wish
to consider for allowing students to satisfy this requirement are: . (a) by AP or IB credit or exemption in
appropriate fields; (b) by
exemption examinations developed and administered by the College; or (c) by
other reasonable means developed by the EPC for the purpose of enabling
students to demonstrate that they already satisfy this requirement. RATIONALE AND CLARIFICATIONS Cultivating reasoned analysis and judgment on
matters of enduring concern to human life -- that have to do, for example, with
issues of meaning, value, justice, freedom, and truth -- is an essential part
of education in the liberal arts. Such issues are often rightly put aside in
order to get on with other aspects of a particular historical, creative, scientific,
or technical inquiry. However, the importance and complexity of these questions
justify the central place that they have traditionally held in the
undergraduate curriculum. To meet this requirement a course must provide the
student with a critical analysis of some of the most fundamental concepts,
theories, assumptions, claims, and limitations of important and influential
philosophical, religious, and social ideas as they bear on significant human
concerns. Courses that fit this description can be found in the curricula of
several departments, including Philosophy and Religion, as well as departments
such as Government (e.g., Introduction to Political Philosophy) that are
situated within Area II under
our current system. A course could simultaneously satisfy requirements in this
and another GER category. For example, a course on Islam that emphasizes the
analysis of Islamic religious and/or political thought could meet both this and
Part B of the World Cultures and History requirement. Courses that are essentially descriptive,
historical, or explanatory would not satisfy this standard. For instance, a
course that restricts itself to "social theory" in the sense of
explanatory or predictive "theory" would probably not be appropriate.
To take another example, the traditional "Western Civilization"
course is ideal for Part A of the World Cultures and History GER, but insofar
as its primary goal is historical and descriptive rather than the systematic
and rigorous analysis of concepts, theories, values, and:-claims,
it would be inappropriate to include it under this category. All
of the recommendations in this report concerning general education requirements
presuppose a procedure for approving courses as appropriate for one or more of
the requirements. Moreover, our recommendations are based on a concern for
better faculty oversight of the general education part of the curriculum. The
obvious mechanism for this is
the Educational Policy Committee. But the task as we envision it seems large
enough to warrant assigning many of the duties to a subcommittee of the EPC. It
is understood, of course, that such a committee will report to the EPC for the
action of the latter. RECOMMENDATIONS It is recommended that a Subcommittee on General
Education (SGE) be established,
as a standing subcommittee of the Educational Policy Committee, as follows: a. that
the membership of the SGE consist of the Dean of Undergraduate Studies, the Director of Academic Advising (as a
non-voting member), and three other faculty members and one student to be
elected by the Educational Policy Committee from among its members; and b. that
the duties of the SGE be with the concurrence of appropriate faculty members
and departments (i) to invite, receive, assess, report upon, and recommend
general education proposals for courses, examinations, or placement policies
for action by the EPC; (ii) to oversee and routinely assess the operation of
the general education requirements; (iii) to publish and keep current a catalog
of general education requirements and courses; and (iv) to perform related
tasks at the direction of the Educational
Policy Committee. RATIONALE In the current university setting, it is difficult
for students and faculty alike to gain a clear and perspicuous view of the
general aims, concrete objectives, and resources available for the purposes of
general education in the liberal arts and sciences. These matters tend to be
embodied in a set of distribution requirements detached from formally approved
educational goals. Implementing the distribution requirements then gets reduced
to maintaining a list of courses, and over time, the criteria for including
courses on the list tend to lose their connection to the general education
objectives of the College.
Continuing oversight of these matters is important. D.
Sequence Many faculty feel that the concept of additional
intensive study in a subject field
outside the area of the concentration has merit and is an important part of a
liberal education. They believe that a sequence requirement should be
maintained. The Steering
Committee discussed a sequence requirement at length and ultimately rejected
including some type of sequence requirement on the following grounds: 1. Students are expected to experience a
wider range of courses with the new GERs than they do with the current requirements.
We believe that as students encounter knowledge and subject fields new to them,
they will be motivated to pursue additional work in depth in these fields.
Thus, students will meet the spirit of the sequence without a requirement. 2. In the Class of 1992, almost half the
class had a minor (24.3%) or second concentration (20.8%) and for 65% of these
students the second concentration or minor was in an area other than that of
their concentration. If these figures remain constant under the new requirements,
45% of students will have substantial study in depth outside their
concentration while about one-third can be expected to conduct that study
outside the area of their concentration. Further, analyzing the transcripts of
those members of the Classes
of 1992 who had no second concentration or minor, we find that when courses
in the concentration and those used to meet area requirements are excluded,
78.6% of Area I concentrators, 82.3% of Area II concentrators, and 84.2% of
Area III concentrators have 12 or more credits in at least one other
department. Thus the vast majority of students complete significant work in
depth in a department in addition to those of their concentration and sequence. The Committee believes strongly in the value of
in-depth course work in subject areas outside the concentration. We also
believe that through academic advising and other means (advising and
orientation guides, catalog copy, etc.), students can be encouraged to obtain a
broad, liberal education with intensive work in several subject areas and that
they will do so without the need for a sequence requirement. The existence of
the "48-Hour Rule" limits course work in a single subject field. This
combined with general
education requirements that encourage breadth will, we believe, stimulate
students to explore the curriculum and in doing so to find that their interest
leads them to in-depth study outside their concentration. E.
Concentration The
Committee recommends that the following be added to the section on
concentration: A minimum of 15 credits in the concentration must be
taken in residence at the College. No other changes are recommended in the
concentration requirements on pages 45 and 46 of the 1992-93 Undergraduate
Catalog. IV. THE INDEPENDENT LEARNER A. The
First Two Years 1. Recommendation A system of freshman seminars shall be instituted as
an important element of the new curriculum. These courses shall be graded and
limited to approximately fifteen students. They shall all be reading-,
writing-, and discussion-intensive. Seminars shall be added until a sufficient number
exists to require one of each first-year student. Seminars shall be fully
integrated into the curriculum. Where appropriate, they should count towards
the concentration and fulfill general education requirements; where possible
they should be linked with freshman advising, and, when they satisfy the
requirements established by the Writing Committee, they shall meet the writing
proficiency requirement. Freshman
seminars should be standardized as four- credit courses. To encourage the growth of freshman seminars, a
faculty development program should be put in place by the 2.
Rationale Like all institutions of higher education, the
College seeks to impart subject-matter competencies to its students. But there
is considerable consensus in the College community that we also aim to go
further and nurture our students' intellectual curiosity, flexibility, and
depth. To accomplish this it is important that we provide students with a
substantive seminar experience during the freshman year. It is especially in
this environment, and at this formative stage in their education, that students
can develop a respect for evidence and for alternative points of view, and the
oral and written skills to articulate
and defend their informed conclusions. There is certainly a place for large
lecture courses, and the College must continue to look for techniques to
improve their quality. However, when these courses dominate the introductory
curriculum, as they do presently, they discourage the growth of independent
judgment and encourage the development of a spectator or consumer orientation
to knowledge, to education, and, ultimately, to life itself. If we are serious
about preparing students for upper-division seminars and independent research
projects, not to mention cultivating the academic skills and intellectual
habits that are at the center of our Statement of Purpose, we must identify the
creation of a diverse and flexible system of substantive freshman seminars as one
of the highest priorities for undergraduate curricular growth. B. Upper-Level Individual or Small Group Learning Experiences 1. Recommendation Having recommended that freshman seminars be
required of all students, we cannot ignore the importance of individual and
small group learning experiences in the junior and senior years. Therefore, the
Steering Committee recommends that during the junior or senior year, each
student be required to take at least one course designated as an individual or
small group learning experience. This may include seminars, tutorials,
independent study, or supervised research projects including Departmental
Honors and special summer projects such as the Wilson Cross-Disciplinary
Scholarship. All courses satisfying
this requirement must offer each student significant opportunity for the oral
presentation and defense of her or his ideas or research results. 2. Rationale Among the most important educational objectives
enumerated in the Statement of Purpose and the Statement of General Education
Objectives are the skills involved in the development, oral presentation, and
rational defense of the student's ideas, particularly when those ideas are the
results of their independent study or research. These skills are clearly
essential to the conception of a liberally educated individual, and they are
among the most valuable of skills needed by our graduates as they pursue a wide
range of careers and leadership roles within their respective communities.
Nonetheless, evidence from our assessment process, along with anecdotal
testimony from recent graduates, indicates that many William and Mary students
do not receive adequate training in the oral communication and defense of their
views, in sharp contrast with our general success in developing their writing
and other research skills. V. ORAL COMMUNICATION To speak clearly and communicate effectively is an
important objective of a liberal education. The small discussion-intensive
freshman seminars and upper-level individual or small group learning
experiences required in this proposed curriculum provide opportunities for
students to develop and enhance this skill. To assist faculty teaching these
classes and other classes emphasizing oral communication, we recommend that the
administration support a regular program of workshops and seminars on teaching
discussion intensive classes as part of an ongoing faculty development program. Relying on discussion-intensive classes ensures that
students gain important oral communication skills as part of their education.
However, more needs to be done. A pilot project in Fall 1991 indicated that
William and Mary students perform very well on standard national evaluations of
oral communication proficiency. However,
when a more rigorous standard was developed specifically for our students,
approximately ten percent were found to need further development of these
skills. Therefore, we recommend that the highest priority for introductory
speech courses should be the identification and training of those students who
are least proficient at oral communication and that the administration and speech
faculty cooperate to determine the best way to use existing resources to meet
this objective. VI. TECHNOLOGY AND THE CURRICULUM The Commonwealth's Commission on the University of
the 21st century has stressed that "The 'information age'
signifies a new relationship between us and the world in which we live."
Their report suggests that challenge
for William and Mary is to think creatively about how we use technology in the
curriculum and to make that use a reality in ways that enhance what we do while
ensuring that our students come to understand technology's implications beyond
the classroom. To ensure that the College moves to the forefront in
innovative uses of technology in the liberal arts and sciences curriculum, the
Steering Committee recommends the following: 1. The
administration should continue and expand its existing program of curriculum
technology development grants to departments and programs. 2. A
program of grants to individual faculty members to develop and/or adapt
innovative technology applications for their classes should be established. To
be successful, this program must provide funding for the faculty member in
summers or during the academic year, provide support personnel to assist
faculty members (this might take the form of graduate student aid in Computer
Science and undergraduate student assistant wages), and provide funding for
specialized software as needed. 3. Current
efforts to build a curricular software library should be continued and
expanded. 4. William
and Mary should provide additional technologically advanced classrooms for
instruction and ensure that all new and renovated academic facilities
incorporate classrooms capable of using the most effective instructional technologies. VII. TEACHING If a curriculum review addresses only the shape of
the curriculum, it has done only part of its job. How that curriculum is taught
and learned is of equal importance, and a focus on teaching quality should
remain a central priority of William and Mary. In this section we suggest steps
that will reinforce that priority. Like scholarship, teaching should be a
public part of a faculty member's professional life. It should be the focus for
collegial discussion, faculty development, and thoughtful evaluation. A.
Fostering Excellence in Teaching Teaching quality begins with the hiring process and
continues once new faculty members arrive on campus. We recommend that the
Dean, department chairs, and program directors formulate policies and
procedures to ensure that teaching quality is a priority in the hiring,
acculturation, and evaluation of new faculty. Such policies and procedures
should use as a starting point the recommendations found in the Report of the
Subcommittee on Teaching. We should promote conversations about the importance
and effective evaluation of teaching not only for new faculty, but also for
continuing faculty. Faculty renewal and experimentation in teaching should be
encouraged and rewarded. Deans, department chairs, and program directors should
assume responsibility for such developments and funds to support such efforts
should be made available. Faculty should be encouraged also to think beyond
these initial conversations and to develop plans to foster excellence in
teaching on a continuing basis. Such plans should be a component of the program
reviews currently undertaken by the college-wide assessment program. Furthermore, we recommend that funds be set aside to
foster excellence in teaching college-wide. Under the auspices of the B.
Adjunct Faculty While many individual part-time (or adjunct) faculty
are a credit to teaching at William and Mary, such faculty do not ordinarily
contribute to the full spectrum of our mission. Therefore, William and Mary
should decrease its reliance on teaching by part-time faculty except in
situations where the special expertise of such faculty adds components to the
curriculum, which would not otherwise be available to students. Concern for excellence in teaching at William and
Mary requires that measures to ensure high quality teaching extend to part-time
faculty. Policies and procedures regarding the hiring and acculturation of new
faculty are equally pertinent for adjunct faculty. Further, departmental
faculty should work to bring adjunct faculty into the departmental
"mainstream" and such faculty should have access to such teaching
development tools as videotaping and departmental seminars on teaching and
pedagogy. Finally, it is necessary that departments require student evaluation
of all courses taught by part-time faculty and review all course syllabi. C.
Teaching Assistants As William and Mary has developed from a liberal
arts college into a "university college" with selected doctoral
programs, it has assumed responsibility to prepare doctoral students for
teaching. However, no policies and procedures exist to guide William and Mary
with respect to using doctoral students in the classroom. Therefore, we
recommend that the Educational Policy Committee and the Graduate Studies
Committee jointly appoint an ad hoc committee to formulate policies and
procedures and recommend that the following general principles guide the ad
hoc committee's discussions: 1) William
and Mary has built its state and national reputation upon its commitment to
undergraduates, as evidenced by its reliance on regular, full-time faculty to
perform the teaching mission. Undergraduates expect to be taught by professors,
not by graduate students. To preserve the distinctiveness of the College, we
recommend that departments not employ M.A. candidates as instructors on their
own. Teaching assistantships should be reserved for doctoral candidates in the
second year of graduate school and beyond. In addition, we urge departments to
rely chiefly upon regular faculty for introductory courses and to provide other
teaching opportunities -- for example, upper-level seminars on specific fields
of expertise -- for advanced doctoral students. Even as it prepares a modest
number of graduate students for teaching careers, William and Mary need
not--and should not-- follow the example of many large public and private universities. 2) In
preparing graduate students for the college classroom William and Mary should
develop a formal plan for their training and support. With such support, young
graduate students, excited about their subjects, close in age to undergraduates,
and prepared
for teaching, may bring to the classroom a special enthusiasm and freshness. VIII. HONORS AND PASS/FAIL - PASS/NO PASS A. Honors "Honors" has several meanings at William
and Mary, including special restricted enrollment honors courses and sections,
Dean's List "honors students," Latin honors, and concentration
honors. The Committee on Honors and Interdisciplinary Studies (CHIS) conducted
a study of all of these "honors" programs during the Spring and Fall
of 1991. It focused in particular on concentration honors, establishing a
subcommittee that conducted a survey of department chairs. RECOMMENDATIONS CHIS came to the conclusion that on the whole the programs
enumerated above are working well and therefore recommends no major changes.
However, the Committee noted several clarifications that might be made in the
concentration honors program. Concentration Honors Clarifications 1. On
rare occasions students and faculty inquire whether students must do honors in
the department in which he or she concentrates. The Committee came to the
following conclusions. (a) As a
rule, students will, and should be encouraged to, do honors in their
concentration department. This, of course, does not preclude an adviser from
another department from being heavily involved in the project. (b) In
rare cases, a student majoring in concentration X may be awarded "honors
in concentration Y." Such a student needs the pre-approval of
department Y and the CHIS. (c) In
rare cases, a student majoring in concentration X but doing a truly
interdisciplinary honors project may be awarded "honors in
interdisciplinary studies," with the pre-approval of the CHIS. 2. The Committee wishes to standardize rules and procedures for dealing with students who have difficulty meeting the established April 15 deadline. The following has been approved by the Committee on Honors and Interdisciplinary Study: (a) If
the student terminates the honors project after the first semester, he or she
may convert the first semester credit hours to an independent study number,
with the approval of the adviser and the department. (b) If
the project continues to the April 15 due date, the student must do one of
three things: turn in the completed thesis; convert both the first and second
semester courses to independent study numbers; or take an incomplete. The
choice among these alternatives must be approved by the adviser and the
department. In the case of an incomplete, a firm deadline must be established. (c) If,
after the oral defense, the thesis is deemed beneath the "honors"
level, the honors courses must be converted to the appropriate independent
study number (so that the student's transcript will not mislead graduate
schools and potential employers). 3. A
majority of department chairs expressed the wish that the name of the program
be changed from "Honors in X" to some other designation that calls
attention to the fact that the designation refers primarily to the thesis and
not to the student's overall performance in the concentration. The student's
overall performance in the concentration is relevant for the determination of
his or her eligibility to do honors; it is not relevant for the
determination of whether the student is awarded honors, or the degree of honors
that the student is awarded. The concern of these chairs is that the
designation "Honors in X" could be construed by graduate schools or
potential employers as referring to the student's overall record. Since there is no single designation that is acceptable
to all departments, the Committee concluded that departments should have the
flexibility to select the name for their program ("Honors in Physics
Research", "Honors Project in Physics", the traditional
"Honors in Physics", etc.). The Committee emphasizes that all of the
existing eligibility standards and procedures will continue to apply. Since the
Registrar can accommodate this variation, departments will be invited to submit
name changes to CHIS for approval. B. Pass/Fail The Pass/Fail option is limited to one course in
each full semester of the junior and senior years and to courses in Arts and
Sciences and Education. The option is irrevocable after it is exercised and
courses taken Pass/Fail may not be used to satisfy proficiency,
area-sequence, or concentration requirements. A number of questions have arisen about how students
use the Pass/Fail option and how faculty is affected by its existence. The
steering Committee recommends that the Educational Policy Committee study the
Pass/Fail option and, based upon its findings, propose changes, if any, to the
Faculty. In particular, questions concerning existing limitations should be
addressed. Should the option be open to all students -- freshman to seniors?
Should the limits be stated in terms or courses, credits, or courses and
credits? Should departments be able to exempt certain courses, for example,
seminars that depend on
active student participation, from the Pass/Fail option? Finally, should
courses taken Pass/Fail be eligible to meet GERs and/or concentration
requirements? C.
Pass/No Pass Courses The EPC should consider creating a category of
courses to be graded pass/no pass. Such courses are those in which it is
difficult and/or inappropriate to assign grades. Courses that might be
considered for such designation are physical activity courses, 100-level
applied music, clinical experiences, the Washington Program, makeup (Theatre
206), short courses associated with conferences, practicum, etc. IX. IMPLEMENTATION The Steering Committee urges the faculty to be
cognizant of the demanding nature of the implementation process that will
follow the approval of this proposed curriculum. Our proposal calls for the creation
of an Educational Policy Committee "Subcommittee on General
Education" to oversee the implementation of the new curriculum. We
envision this committee calling as needed on groups of faculty to assist in the
implementation process and in assessing the operation of the GERs. The
Subcommittee on General Education must be constituted, alternative means of
satisfying GERs evaluated, existing courses reviewed for possibly fulfilling
GERs, and new GER courses developed where appropriate. The result will be a
substantially revised Undergraduate Program Catalog. This section proposes a
tentative agenda and schedule for this implementation process.
A.
The Subcommittee on General Education At the heart of the implementation process will be
the new Subcommittee on General
Education. While proficiency requirements will continue to be administered as
they are under the current curriculum, the Subcommittee on General Education
will oversee the new GER system. We envision this committee temporarily
establishing seven GER committees, one for each of the new GERs, to assist in
the implementation process. We recommend that five faculty representing at least
three different departments be appointed to each of these committees by the
SGE, with full consultation of the EPC and appropriate departments and faculty
members. The GER committees will include both faculty from departments that
offer courses that might fulfill the GER, and at least one faculty member from
a department that does not (and as such can offer an "outsider's"
perspective). Each of these committees will oversee the curriculum
for its GER, establishing criteria for meeting the requirement and evaluating
the merits of allowing specific courses to be used to fulfill the requirement.
Committees will report to the SGE, which in turn will submit recommendations to
the Educational Policy Committee for approval. The EPC will then bring
recommendations to the Faculty for final approval only after adequate GER
courses are in place to implement all GERs will EPC declare the implementation
phase to be complete, and at that point the new curriculum will apply to the
next fall's entering class. After the implementation of the system of GERs, we
propose that a periodic review of each GER take place. The timing of the review
process is to be determined by the Faculty on the recommendation of the EPC and
the Assessment Steering Committee. These committees should present a joint
recommendation regarding the periodic review of
GERs to the Faculty in the 1993-94 academic year. The periodic review will be
the responsibility of the SGE and reconstituted versions the original GER
committees. The review should include a thorough examination of the objectives
of the GER, as well as a systematic assessment of the syllabi and student
course evaluations for the courses in place
to meet these objectives. B.
Implementation Schedule The Steering Committee proposes the following
tentative timetable: a. Spring
1993 Establishing membership of
the Subcommittee on General Education b. Academic
Year 1993-94 and Fall 1994 This will be the period during which the
time-consuming work of approving GER courses will take place. In some cases
these will be existing courses, or slightly modified versions of existing
courses; in others, individual faculty and disciplinary or interdisciplinary
teams may develop wholly new courses specifically designed to provide students
with the targeted spectrum of skills and knowledge. One attractive possibility
is the creation of "multiple use" courses (that would allow students
to meet more than one GER with a single course). c. Spring
1995 This term will be dedicated to completing the
approval process and preparing the copy for the 1994-95 catalog, which will
reflect all of the changes associated with the new curriculum. d. Fall
1995 The freshman class that enters this term will be the
first that is under the new curriculum. |