A PRELIMINARY REPORT
Executive Summary
Abstract The Ad Hoc Curriculum Review
Committee was formed at the request of the President Malcolm Gillis,
Provost David Auston, and the Faculty Council and was charged with
developing recommendations for improving the undergraduate
curriculum, particularly those aspects of the curriculum that do not
ordinarily fall under the purview of the various majors. Though we
are not yet ready to present a set of final recommendations, we ask
you to consider what we regard as the major options available to us
at Rice, given our size, our resources, the nature of our several
constituencies, and our potential.
We hope you will use this summary to begin
your preparation for being an active participant in upcoming
curriculum discussions. This printed version has been produced with
extra-wide margins for easy annotation. For a fuller version of our
work to this point as well as descriptions of other programs and
suggestions we have been considering, please check the electronic
version and the many other documents we have gathered and placed on
our web site. Reports of our meetings with the various university
departments are also available. The URL is: http://ruf.rice.edu/~currrev.
Report of the Ad Hoc Curriculum Review
Committee
Rice University
December 4, 1997
The Rationale for Review: An enormous opportunity
Major Dimensions of a Plausible General Curriculum: Basic Skills
Major Dimensions of a Plausible General Curriculum: Substantive Areas of Study
Major Means of Accomplishing the Aims of General Education
Notable Issues and Problems Pertaining to Changes in the Curriculum
Some Further Thoughts to Ponder
In recent years, higher
education has been the target of mounting criticism and discontent.
Though Rice is not among the most heavily criticized institutions,
such complaints raise issues that deserve our careful attention and
thoughtful response.
A high number of colleges and universities
have taken a serious, critical look at their curricula and have
undertaken significant change. Though some disagree, it appears that
a majority of the Rice community believes that faculty can and should
take a significant role in shaping the intellectual, personal, and
social development of students, and that our curriculum can be
substantially improved.
At most universities, including Rice, degree
requirements fall into three broad categories:
Our charge is to focus primarily on that
second set of requirements: information, skills, values, approaches,
or experiences we want all our students to have when they graduate,
whatever their field of concentration. Our goal is to work with the
faculty, with appropriate input from students and other
constituencies, to produce a curriculum that will not only add
substantial value to the development of our students, but will be of
such an appealing nature that students will want to come to Rice
because of it.
In examining numerous studies of curricula
and general education programs and in talking with faculty and
students, we have found substantial agreement on a number of goals
thought to be appropriate for undergraduate education. Among these
are the following:
Significant curricular change can be
especially difficult to accomplish in a first-rate research
university. Good students can scratch out a passable education
without much help, which makes it possible to overlook the fact that
their undergraduate experience might be markedly improved with
careful attention. In addition, professors in such universities have
been winners under the existing system, in which we have not had to
be overly concerned with how well we are serving our students.
Several recent surveys, however, make it clear that Rice students
feel their education, good it as it is, could be significantly
better. Many faculty members agree.
Rice's mission, as set forth in the recent
report of the Strategic Planning Committee, includes
While a program of general education fits
most appropriately under the first of these missions, it should also
prepare students to participate in achieving the other two goals.
The need for improvement in the ability to
write effectively was easily the most frequently mentioned item in
our discussions. Both faculty and students are concerned with the
level of writing and writing instruction at Rice. Moreover, virtually
every program or report we looked at put writing at the top of the
list of needed improvements in contemporary higher education.
Suggestions we have considered include the following:
This might be accomplished through courses
such as HUMA 101, "trailer" courses accompanying other introductory
level courses, or freshman seminars.
Because different fields require different
kinds of writing, many colleges and universities attempt to integrate
writing into all disciplines, often with the aid of writing
instructors specially trained to teach the kind of writing required
by different fields. Both alumni and current students appear to favor
this approach. One possibility would be to designate certain courses
as "intensive writing" courses and to require students to take a
specific minimum number of such courses during their undergraduate
careerfor example, at least one each year.
In an expanded writing center, instructors
would help students identify the sort of prose needed for particular
tasks and help them learn to write in that style. Several professors
indicated they would be willing to assign more papers if there were
more assistance in teaching writing.
Additional suggestions included assessing a
portfolio of written work rather than asking students to take a
single exam; more emphasis on revision, with greater feedback from
professors; and a substantial writing component in each major.
Faculty, students, and alumni regarded the
need for greater skill in oral communication as second only to
effective writing. Given the fact that Rice has no speech department
and that only a handful of students can take the speech courses that
are currently offered, the most feasible means of meeting this goal
appears to be greater attention to active oral participation in
class. This might involve student presentations, more (or more
effective) discussion sections, and freshman seminars.
We believe that an effective program of
general education should include, during the freshman year, thorough
instruction in the use of library resources, the Internet, and other
forms of information technology.
We believe college graduates should possess
considerable competence in quantitative reasoning, which would
include familiarity with probability and statistics, the ability to
use mathematics with confidence, and competence to analyze practical
and scientific problems. Well-educated people should be able to
understand the mathematical reasoning involved in matters of public
policy and to detect faulty quantitative reasoning in newspapers and
other accounts of public issues. They should know how to read tables
and other visual presentations of numerical data intelligently and
critically.
No single method seems appropriate for
meeting this goal. The best-supported suggestions included the
following:
Students should be able to interpret texts,
make good arguments, and understand key concepts in a variety of
fields. Often mentioned in this connection is the ability to
understand the basic operations of science and the ability to apply
concepts to real-world situations. The most fruitful way of
inculcating habits of critical thinking may be to give greater
attention to these matters in individual courses. Freshman seminars
might help get students off to a good start in developing habits of
critical thinking.
Many faculty are concerned to ensure that
students get considerable exposure to moral and ethical reasoningto
the processes involved in making value judgments, in taking ethical
considerations into account in the making of decisions, in resolving
ethical dilemmas, and in the construction of and adherence to
professional ethics. Most felt that, instead of requiring all
students to take a particular course or sequence of courses to
satisfy such a requirement, it would be preferable to consciously
incorporate an ethical dimension into all majors.
Most faculty believe students should get at
least a taste of original research during their undergraduate years.
Since most research efforts will occur within major fields, this is
not really part of our committee's charge, but we believe it ought to
receive careful consideration in any reworking of the curriculum.
Several promising possibilities for encouraging research by students
exist.
We foundespecially among alumni who
responded to a surveya strong sense
of a need to foster the ability of students
to work in teams and to learn collaborative skills, since these are
skills that prove to be extremely valuable in most careers. We
welcome suggestions as to how this important aspect of education can
be accomplished.
Given the relative success of the humanities
foundation courses, it comes as no surprise that the School of
Humanities favors a program of general education and feels, in large
measure, that courses such as HUMA 101 and 102 should play a
prominent role in such a program. A recent Humanities Foundations
Committee Report recommends that all entering freshmen be required to
take a general education course in the Humanities. Such courses, the
report notes, nurture critical and creative thinking, are
characterized by interdisciplinarity, emphasize writing and speaking
effectively, and involve common materials that should help create a
sense of intellectual community among students and help facilitate
serious discussion outside of class.
Some educational psychologists and
admissions officers assert that the verbal SAT score predicts college
performance better in all fields than the SAT in other fields,
including math. If this holds true at Rice, requiring a higher verbal
SAT cutoff for science and engineering students might result in
better performance and might cut down on the number of students who
abandon those majors. Other evidence from aptitude testing indicates
that verbal proficiency is a key ingredient to success in almost any
realm, including science, engineering, and mathematics. Thus, one
could argue that particular attention should be devoted to developing
and enhancing the verbal proficiency of S/E students, and that the
humanities courses are particularly well suited for this task. In
addition, it would follow that S/E courses would need to give
increased attention to this dimension.
The basic goals of social science overlap
strongly with the goals of general education. These include knowledge
of one's own and other cultures; the gathering, evaluation, and
analysis of empirical data; an historical perspective and
cosmopolitan outlook; openness to new ideas and methods; awareness of
the influence of social structures and social forces on individual
freedom and action; appreciation for the complex nature of human
existence and interaction; and humility with respect to the limits of
human understanding. The social science faculty manifests quite
limited support for a broad-gauged foundations course, preferring
instead that students satisfy any proposed social science requirement
by taking designated courses, or perhaps a sequence of courses
offered by individual departments or by interdisciplinary teams from
two or more departments.
Virtually all members of the faculty believe that any meaningful program of general education must include substantial instruction in science and technology, despite the difficulties involved in providing such instruction. A 1996 NSF report estimates that 95 percent of Americans are scientifically illiterate. If secondary schools, colleges, and universities fail to offer adequate science instruction to all students, we risk producing a society with little scientific literacy at a time when it is needed more than ever.
The situation at Rice is not as good as it could be. Of 100 entering students declaring engineering as a desired major, approximately 35 change majors or leave Rice. On the other hand, approximately 20 transfer into engineering, primarily from science but from humanities and social science as well. The resulting 85 graduating with 100 entering is near the university average. While the ability to decide on one's interests and abilities and to change majors is a strength of Rice, it may be the quality of the curriculum and instruction is part of reason that 35% leave engineering as major rather than a change of interests. This would be consistent with a complaint echoed throughout American academia. The NSF report called Science / Math / Engineering / Technology (SMET) instruction "perhaps the weakest part of American higher education - the Achillesí heel."
The large number of semester-hours required for the major makes it difficult to have enough time in the studentís program for both the desired amount of university required general education courses and enough free electives for the students to craft a personal educational program. This large number of courses in the major discourages the faculty from developing courses for non-engineering majors. This is a dilemma across the country but one with which Rice should be better able to deal.
Oft-repeated complaints include the
following:
Some studies assert that curricula for
majors may be in greater need of reform than that for non-majors, and
that special attention must be given to the scientific education of
women and minorities.
Most faculty clearly feel that Rice has a
responsibility to ensure that all students achieve a certain level of
scientific and technological literacy. At a minimum, students should
be able to understand the basic operations of science and to acquire
the ability to understand new and exciting aspects of science at the
lay-critical level. They should also be conversant with technology
and its implications, at least at the level discussed in Science and
Scientific American.
Possible solutions
The NSF report offered numerous suggestions
for improving SMET instruction. These include:
Recent studies of curricular reform have
asserted that it is important to have more courses that do not
require the full-bore quantitative skills required by S/E majors.
They have also found that integrative and interdisciplinary courses
have been shown to result in substantial increases in learning.
Members of the faculty noted several
concepts that might form common threads for a variety of
interdisciplinary courses. Our research has led to an encouraging
number of apparently successful efforts to provide more effective
SMET instruction to non-S/E undergraduates.
Examples of these may be found in the full
document.
Engineering presents a special challenge to
a program of general education. The requirements for an engineering
degree are typically so extensive as to leave limited room for
general education courses and electives. In addition, even fewer
existing engineering courses are appropriate for non-S/E majors than
is the case for science courses. It was repeatedly noted that it
would be extremely desirable to have additional courses similar to
John Bennett's robotics course, in which students learn about
technology by building robots.
Worth noting is that several engineering
professors asserted with considerable assurance that some engineering
majors could be streamlined, with the same material taught in fewer
courses, thereby relieving some of the pressure on students and
perhaps making possible a reduction in overall course requirements.
In their view, majors need to be looked at carefully and perhaps
seriously reworked. ABET (the accrediting board for engineering) is
shifting its focus from numbers of courses to outcome-based criteria.
If Rice were to adopt this approach, some of the tension between
requirements and electives could be eased.
Virtually all our discussions acknowledged
the advantages of knowing more than one language in an increasingly
transcultural world, even though representatives of various
disciplines tended to differ in the importance they placed on
languages, particularly when compared to other learning
opportunities.
An early proposal
The most thorough proposal regarding
languages at Rice is that prepared by Professors Bernard Aresu,
Deborah Nelson, and Harvey Yunis in 1987 and still felt by most
members of the language departments to be worthy of serious
consideration. Highlights of this report follow.
Justification for a language
requirement
High school language instruction no longer
provides the level of competence the Rice entrance requirement (two
college-preparatory classes in a foreign language) is intended to
secure. Perhaps the most important way to understand another culture
is through learning a foreign language. Ignorance of a foreign
language is a weakness in the modern world.
A strengthened requirement will better
prepare students in all disciplines to meet demands they will
encounter in graduate schools and careers and will help Rice produce
its share of leaders in science, technology, culture, business, and
politics.
A Proposed Requirement
Adequate competence in a foreign language
could be satisfied in one of two ways:
A score of 560 or above on the National ETS
College Entrance Level Placement Exam, 4 or 5 on the AP exam, or 62
or above on the CEEB achievement Test
A passing grade (C or above) in the 202
(second-year) level of any foreign language taught at Rice.
Students who do not meet the requirement
will, in consultation with an appropriate member of the faculty,
enroll in a language course proper to his or her level, and proceed
with the sequence until the 202 level is completed.
Students may retake the exam, so long as it
is passed before graduation. They could acquire the necessary
competence through the language center, professional language
schools, study abroad, summer travel, or private study.
The level of competence sought would be the
ability to converse with a native speaker on everyday topics, read
newspapers and basic texts of average difficultynot mastery, but a
foundation, the ability to tell if one is being mistranslated, to get
the drift of off-the-record talk at conferences, to exchange E-mail
with foreign colleagues. There would be no requirement for
conversation in Latin or Greek.
Requirements at a sample of leading
institutions are provided in the electronic version of this document,
together with opinions from various members of the faculty.
Plan 2000
In April 1996, the Committee on Languages,
convened by Dean of Humanities Judith Brown, issued a report titled
"Plan 2000," a proposal for overhauling and improving instruction in
languages and enhancing the internationalization of the curriculum.
One of its key recommendations was the institution of a Center for
the Study of Languages. That center has now been instituted and
Professor Maria-Regina Kecht has been appointed to direct it. In
consequence, some of the recommendations of Plan 2000 are subject to
alteration, but it seems worthwhile to summarize here those portions
of the plan that are most pertinent to general education,
particularly to consideration of a language requirement. For a
somewhat fuller summary, please consult the electronic version of
this summary.
The key recommendation: the creation of a
Center for the Study of Languages, now accomplished
To enhance introductory language
instruction, The Center, which falls administratively under the Dean
of Humanities, will do the following:
Other major recommendations include the
following:
The committee believed that implementing
these proposals, as well as others included in the complete report,
will not only significantly enhance foreign language instruction at
Rice, but will also contribute to a greater student awareness of the
diversity, richness, and relevance of other cultures.
Most faculty agreed that Rice students need
greater exposure to other cultures. This is in line with a widespread
trend in American colleges and universities toward
"Internationalizing the Curriculum." The following points are often
cited in presenting the rationale for this development:
A report prepared by Professor Benjamin Lee
(Anthropology), Professor Richard Smith (History), and Dean Robert
Stein (Social Sciences) offered additional observations:
A more extensive document, prepared by
Anthropology professor Ben Lee, offers helpful elaboration of the
rationale for increased attention to what he and others prefer to
call "transcultural studies." A summary of these points is available
on line. Professor Lee notes that Rice could become the focal point
for a network of institutions, both here and abroad, that could share
resources and work together to develop innovative forms of teaching
and research.
According to the 1996 Consortium On
Financing Higher Education report, over 40 percent of Rice students
who were surveyed expressed a desire for courses in international or
intercultural communication, to enable them to communicate
effectively with audiences in other cultures and countries. This was
most often noted by students in the social sciences and humanities,
but over a third of engineering majors expressed a desire for such
courses, and no division had less than a third of its students
responding positively.
In addition to substantive courses expressly
dealing with, for example, historical, economic, sociological,
literary, or aesthetic dimensions of the other cultures, other
factors also contribute importantly to international education on the
campus, such as
Despite the difficulties incurred with some
of the foundation courses, numerous faculty members expressed the
conviction that we need more interdisciplinary courses, which have
the potential to disrupt conventional modes of thinking and to
encourage students to use their skills in imaginative ways.
Predictably, enthusiasm for
interdisciplinary courses was not uniform. While many felt that
interdisciplinary and interdivisional experiences can be quite
important in expanding students' horizons and aiding their
development as educated persons, some expressed concern about
teaching in disciplines outside their area of expertise, as might be
called for in interdisciplinary courses. Others feared that
instructors from different divisions would simply talk past each
other, with insufficient effort to cross disciplinary boundaries and
integrate materials.
Overall, there appears to be support for the
notion that interdisciplinary work might help offset the intellectual
balkanization so common among Rice students. Virtually all agreed
that interdisciplinary courses must have a strong intellectual (not
procedural) justification.
Most faculty members appear to believe that
the inclusion of formal consideration of and exposure to the fine
arts is a desirable component of a well-rounded education. A key
problem at Rice is the lack of adequate staffing for such courses.
While we believe that existing and new courses in music, visual arts,
and theater, and perhaps in dance, could significantly enhance the
educational experience of most Rice undergraduates, we suspect that
any general requirement would be difficult to implement without
significant increases in teaching personnel. Still, we think it
important that faculty and students alike consider this matter
seriously while contemplating revisions of the curriculum. We invite
you to note examples of such requirements at other universities, a
brief discussion of the current possibilities at Rice, and a letter
from Professor Honey Meconi of the Shepherd School.
We found considerable support for some kind
of distribution system. Some felt the present system is adequate,
particularly if minor changes were made. Others expressed a
preference for an earlier system that required a certain number of
courses from each of three groups, with virtually free choice among
courses in these groups. For an overview of the current Rice
distribution system and examples of alternate systems from Duke,
Trinity, Stanford, Harvard, and Brown, see the electronic version of
the summary.
Flexibility is generally seen as vital.
Opposition to specific, mandatory courses was reiterated. Current
groupings of courses are perceived to be rigid and not always
sensible. We should be careful about accepting divisional boundaries
as accurate indications of content.
One major problem with the distribution
system currently in place at Rice is that a number of courses seen as
appropriate for distribution (e.g., HUMA 101 and 102 and various
"restricted distribution" courses) are seriously overbalanced with
students not majoring in those areas, depriving all students of the
opportunity to interact with students from other divisions. Without
having worked out the detailsthis may well be the hardest part of our
taskwe are leaning toward a system of university-wide requirements
(with considerable flexibility) that must be met by all students, but
some of which could be met within the normal course of most, perhaps
all, majors.
We have found consistent enthusiasm for
freshman seminars in which students could have regular, sustained
contact with faculty in a small-group setting and the opportunity to
develop their reading, writing, oral communication, critical
thinking, and research skills under close supervision. Dozens of
excellent universities and colleges have instituted extensive
programs of freshman seminars in recent years. They appear to be
popular with both students and faculty and seem to foster higher
achievement, greater satisfaction, and better retention rates.
Several types of freshman seminars have been suggested:
Seminars with a common reading list, or at
least enough commonality to facilitate effective training of the
instructors and to foster the development of an intellectual
community as students discuss the reading materials.
Seminars in which each instructor would
choose the topic he or she wished to concentrate on, giving students
and faculty wide choice. All courses, however, would emphasize a
common set of skills, such as writing, speaking, library research,
and effective use of the Internet and other information technologies.
The experience of other universities indicates that professors would
need to scale back the amount of material they could expect to cover
in such a course, since part of the seminar's aim would be to foster
the development of specific skills as well as to study a particular
topic.
Seminars in which contemporary subjects, as
examined in such major general publications as The Atlantic, The
Economist, The New Yorker, or The New York Times might serve as
stimuli for discussion. This should make it possible for professors
to lead discussions on topics outside their fields but generally
within their range of competence. It could also provide a common set
of reading materials and help instill in students the habit of
reading a major newspaper and other contemporary publications
regularly.
If the faculty approves of freshman
seminars, it should be possible to experiment with several types of
seminars simultaneously, perhaps using the residential colleges as a
way of funneling students into the various approaches.
Seminar Staffing
Although one major aim of freshman seminars
would be to give all students the experience of working closely with
a faculty member early in their careers, it would not be a simple
matter to staff the fifty or sixty seminars that would be required
each year. We estimate that it would be possible to recruit faculty
to teach such seminars if they were expected to do so only one of
every three or four academic years, and that such a plan would not
seriously detract from regular departmental offerings. Some emeritus
faculty might enjoy the opportunity to teach in such a program.
Post-docs could be recruited to lead or take significant
responsibility for seminars. Also, of course, the seminars could
serve as a means of giving graduate students some teaching
experience, either on their own or as assistants to regular faculty.
At the least, graduate students could assist faculty who might not
feel comfortable teaching writing. View a variety of options in the
electronic version.
Given Rice's strengths and resources as well
as the capabilities of our students, the faculty seem united in the
belief that we must be certain that our students develop mastery of
or at least significant familiarity with various forms of technology
that have special pertinence for research and education. Since a high
proportion of Rice students are already familiar with basic computing
operations, much of any increased use of innovative information
technology in the curriculum will require increased effort and
creativity on the part of faculty.
The National Science Foundation has observed
that learning from print and passive listening is increasingly
foreign to students. Other organizations are offering sophisticated
and effective multimedia instructional packages. The "virtual
university" is becoming a much more likely possibilityat lower cost.
Traditional universities ignore these developments at their peril.
Radical transformation of the information industry is much closer
than most people realize. Faculty in other institutions have noted
that, if universities want their faculty to use these technologies
and to develop curricular materials that make effective use of them,
they must be willing to reward instructors for taking the time
required to become proficient with them and to use them
regularly.
Observations from Tony Gorry, Vice
President for Information Technology
In a recent (October 13, 1997) paper, "Rice
University in the Information Age," Tony Gorry made a number of
salient observations about the potential role of information
technology in the University. The following are but a few of
these.
After noting that Rice's stance has been to
take "a cautious, evolutionary integration of information technology
into our academic endeavors." Dr. Gorry sees this approach as
short-sighted, contending that "information technology should play a
fundamental, not a peripheral role in the future of the University,
and an excess of caution will stifle our development. Instead of
hesitating, we should move aggressively to integrate new technology
into the singular style of learning and investigation we value so
highly. This integration will enrich the education of our students,
enhance the scholarship of our faculty, and bring renown to the
University in the Information Age."
Among his several recommendations for the
use of advanced technology, he asserts that we can
To develop an appropriate technology
infrastructure to accomplish these goals, he suggests that Rice
should:
Learning Technologies Center
Leslie Miller, Director of the Learning
Technologies Center and Senior Research Scholar in the office of the
Vice President for Information Technology, has expressed an eagerness
to work with faculty who wish to incorporate various learning
technologies into their courses and research programs. Our committee
feels that the Learning Technologies Center can be of enormous
assistance in the development of interdisciplinary courses that can
be particularly effective in a program of General Education.
Obviously, no curriculum plan, however
imaginative, can be effective in the absence of high-quality
instruction. Much of the teaching Rice students encounter is
excellent. Some, unfortunately, is apparently dreadful. The
university rewards good teachers with several cash prizes and offers
a brief orientation for new teachers at the beginning of each
academic year. Encouraging and helpful as these may be, we found even
more notable encouragement for good teaching at some other
universities. Of 53 institutions participating in a study by the
American Association of Universities, more than half claimed they
were making more rigorous evaluation of teaching performance and were
giving greater weight to teaching in hiring, tenure, promotion, and
salary decisions. Nearly two-thirds have established teaching centers
or special programs that concentrate on upgrading teaching efforts of
regular faculty and teaching assistants. We do not doubt that any
program of general education will be enhanced by administrative,
divisional, departmental, and collegial support of good teaching.
It should come as no surprise that a number
of proposals made during our meetings were met with opposition,
criticism, or questions about feasibility. We think it quite unlikely
that any plan we recommend will be free of opposition or flaws. We
hope that opportunity for feedback will help us identify
less-than-obvious problems and, perhaps, point the way toward
creative solutions. The following items were typically mentioned by
several people, but might also represent the views of a small
minority. Unless specifically noted, they may or may not to reflect
the views of the committee. For a fuller account, see the electronic
version.
Virtually every program we have examined
acknowledges the inevitable tension between independence and
guidance, between encouraging students to play an active role in
shaping a course of study best suited to their abilities and
aspirations and, at the same time, drawing on the experience and
presumed expertise of faculty formalize guidance. The majority
opinion at Rice appears to be that we must allow some freedom of
choice, but that it is quite reasonable, perhaps even required of us
as responsible educators, to lay down guidelines for a Rice
undergraduate education. This is not an easy one, but we are
optimistic that a satisfactory resolution?or a bearable level of
tensioncan be achieved
A generally strong favorable interest in
general education was tempered by the feeling that it should not
detract or interfere with current faculty commitments and that we
must keep in mind the cost of any changes. We assure our colleagues
that we are acutely aware of this dimension of our task, but are
pleased to report that President Gillis has made it explicitly clear
that substantial new resources will be made available to support a
responsible general education program. These resources might be used
to hire new faculty, to pay for part-time faculty, to compensate
departments for courses not taught, to pay for the start-up costs of
new courses, to pay for the costs of continuing oversight of courses,
as well as other costs of sustaining such a program.
We found little support for the common
practice among Rice students of meeting the requirements for two, or
even three, majors. Many felt that advisers should do more to
discourage students from this practice and encourage them instead to
avail themselves of a wider range of intellectual experiences.
Although HUMA 101 and 102 are seen as
successful, some are concerned that these courses take up too high a
proportion of required courses in the humanities area and hope for
greater flexibility. Others, however, feel that all students,
regardless of major, should be required to take these courses.
Humanities professors note that the costs of HUMA courses to the
departments involved are significant, particularly in terms of other
courses that do not get taught.
Music students have no free electives and
little flexibility within the distribution requirements. Some have
expressed concern about any additional requirements that a revision
of the curriculum might entail.
The committee found considerable support for
a normal load of four courses per semester. Those holding these views
felt that students need more time to absorb and reflect on what they
are learning, as well as more time to take advantage of other
opportunities available to them at the university and in the
city.
Some noted that we do not have the same
requirements for all degrees and asked how much uniformity is truly
required. Perhaps different divisions could have different general
education requirements.
Good advising is especially important in an
open system with numerous choices. If we develop a system that
depends heavily upon advising, we might face a serious problem,
unless the advising system is also improved.
The university presently requires all
students to take two physical education courses, for which they
receive no credit. Many students, some faculty, and a few deans think
the requirement is out of date. Others, however, feel that students
need to participate in some form of physical education but that,
lacking a specific requirement, many would not. The administration
has suggested that a recommendation regarding the physical education
requirement would be appropriate to our committee's task. Several
noted the incongruity of requiring varsity athletes to meet such a
requirement. Others feel that athletes need instruction in sports
they can pursue after graduation, and that exempting athletes would
further isolate them from other students.
We found general agreement with regard to
undesirable effects of the pass/fail option. The 1995 Science
Curriculum Committee strongly recommended that the pass/fail option
not apply to any distribution course, suggesting that the option was
a factor in the downfall of the foundation course system and has had
bad effects in other courses. Participants in other divisional
foundation courses agreed. The pass/fail option, we were told
repeatedly, can ruin a small course. In general, sentiment strongly
favored eliminating the pass/fail option completely. Another option
might be to raise the threshold, so that a "C" would be the floor for
a passing grade, or to restrict pass/fail to electives (courses that
would not satisfy general education requirements).
Students should not be able to use AP
credits to avoid taking general education courses. This opinion was
expressed on several occasions. The committee agrees.
One reason we have been a bit slow in coming
to you with a report on our activities is that curriculum reform is
such a multifaceted enterprise that we keep being reminded of
additional dimensions we need to consider. Given our experience, we
would not pretend to have thought of everything even now. So, we ask
you to respond to anything you find here and to share with us and
each other any thoughts you may have about matters we have failed to
mention. We would especially appreciate your response to the
following questions.
What difficulties do you see in
implementing a program of university-wide requirements?
Immediately obvious possibilities include
resistance from students or faculty, insufficient personnel,
inadequate facilities, lack of room within course-heavy majors, and
lack of sufficient commitment (from both faculty and administration)
to ensure that even the best programs would last beyond a short
period. You may readily think of others. What do you regard as the
greatest problems that would have to be overcome, to make a program
of general requirements a success?
What might you and your department
contribute to a program of general education?
What changes, if any, might reasonably be
needed in the programs offered by your own department or division
that could enhance a program of general requirements? At this point,
assume that logistics can be worked out and that reasonable resources
will become available.
What will it take to get you involved in
general education (or other efforts to improve the curriculum)?
Think about what your own participation
might involve and tell us what might help encourage you to contribute
to a program of general education or, for that matter, to other
notable changes in the curriculum. For most of us, it would be easier
simply to keep on doing whatever it is we have been doing. We have
been impressed, however, by the fact that professors who have
participated in curriculum changes and innovations in other
universities frequently speak of the satisfaction and rejuvenation
they feel as a result of this experience. Some changes might be
relatively simple for you to make. Others might require significant
time, effort, and money.
What kind of resources would be needed to
sustain a top-notch program of general education?
What steps will Rice need to take to enlist
the participation of considerable numbers of faculty and staff in a
program of general education and, ultimately even more important,
keep such a program going over a span of years? Faculty and
administrative positions dedicated exclusively to the program? A
special endowment? Regular orientation of new students, faculty,
staff, emphasizing the rationale for the program and its relation to
Rice's central mission? Again, we will value your best thoughts on
this.
A 1994 report of the American Association of
colleges offered an encouraging word to universities considering
curricular reform, particularly in the area of general education.
Improving general education appears to have a positive impact on the
university as a whole. Of institutions studied, 80 percent of those
that reported making large changes in their curricula claimed a
positive impact on the sense of community, the renewal of faculty,
and the identity of the institution.
William Martin, CHAIR
wcm@rice.edu x3481
Sociology MS-28
Brandon Bidlack
bidlack@rice.edu 527-4969
Senior, Lovett College
Sidney Burrus
csb@ece.rice.edu x5484 or 4020
Electrical and Computer Engineering
MS-366
Priscilla Jane Huston
Special Assistant to the Provost
pjh@rice.edu x4007 MS-119
John Hutchinson jshutch@rice.edu
x5366 or 527-6025
Chemistry MS-60
Walter Isle
wwisle@rice.edu, x5606
English MS-30
Benjamin Lee
transcult@aol.com x2584
Anthropology MS-20
Kathleen Matthews
ksm@bioc.rice.edu x4871
Biochemistry and Cell Biology
MS-140
Carol Quillen
quillen@ruf.rice.edu x2269
History MS-42