A Proposal for Revising University-wide Requirements for Undergraduates at Rice University
April 23, 1998 (as edited for the Rice News)
August 25, 1998 (edits in Green)
October 13, 1998 (edits in Purple)
- SUMMARY
- PROPOSAL FOR AN ONGOING STRUCTURE -- AN EVOLUTIONARY SYSTEM
- PROPOSAL FOR UNIVERSITY-WIDE REQUIREMENTS
- OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
- CONCLUSION
The Proposal Freshman Seminar -- Rice 101 (1 course)
An ideal first course to introduce students to critical, intellectual thought and resources of the universityWays of Knowing
Designed to expose students to substantive content as well as different ways of thinking from multiple perspectives and to encourage development of their own critical and creative thinkingEngaging Science and Technology (4 courses)
Students will be required to take a total of 6 courses from the following four categories. At least one course must be taken in each of the four categories.
Encounters with Texts and the Arts
Interpreting Human Behavior: Individual, Social and Cultural
Required Capacities (to be satisfied within major, Freshman Seminar, or elective Ways of Knowing courses):
Writing (4 courses)
Oral Discussion and Presentation (1 course)
Quantitative Reasoning (1 course)
Language Competency (separate vote)Other Important Capacities ("sense of faculty" vote):
Ethics and Moral Reasoning
Teamwork and Collaboration
Health and Physical EducationOther Considerations (recommendations to UCC):
SUMMARYThe Ad Hoc Curriculum Review Committee was formed by the Faculty Council, the provost, and the president in response to concerns regarding the university-wide component of our three curricular requirements: major courses, university-wide courses, and elective courses. The concerns that led to this effort were manifold, but the guiding principle embraced by the committee was to determine how Rice University can best fulfill its educational mission amid the complex challenges of the coming century. What and how should we teach our students when the cutting-edge work of today may become obsolete tomorrow? In this context, acquiring specific knowledge, while critically important, must be coupled with learning how to learn, how to evaluate the vast amount of information that lies at one's fingertips, and how to integrate critical thinking and develop analytical models across multiple perspectives. We interpreted our mandate to address only that component of the curriculum that applies specifically to all students regardless of major (i.e., university-wide requirements), while maintaining essentially intact the hours available for the major requirements and electives. The proposal for university-wide requirements that has emerged from this examination addresses not only curricular requirements for all students, but also provides a university structure designed to maintain faculty supervision and ongoing discussion of, reflection about, and development of this important curricular component.
History
General dissatisfaction with the current set of requirements that apply to all students has been voiced across the Rice community--faculty, students, and alumni. The current restricted distribution system arose from the effort to implement a system of foundation courses and coherent minors and has been cobbled through a series of more-or-less disconnected decisions without significant integration or attention to the underlying purpose of these requirements. Faculty concerns are reflected in discussions documented in faculty meetings over a number of years, and student/alumni concerns are well articulated in a series of surveys (most notably, surveys of Rice seniors conducted for the Council on Funding Higher Education) that point repeatedly to a paucity of instruction in writing and speaking and insufficient attention to reflective experiences. These concerns were among those that led to the appointment of the committee.
At a faculty meeting held on Feb. 12, 1996, the faculty voted to meet no later than Feb. 1, 1998, at which time it would either "confirm the present restricted distribution plan or ... adopt a new set of requirements." At that same meeting, Tom Haskell, speaker of Faculty Council, reported that the council had reached a consensus in support of having a committee appointed jointly by Faculty Council and the administration, for the purpose of addressing various issues related to the undergraduate curriculum. Late in the semester, that committee was formed and charged with developing a program of general education at Rice. The committee was informed that it "should define the fundamental issues, assess the strengths and weakness of our current curriculum, and recommend a new curriculum and an implementation plan."
The committee first examined what other institutions have pursued to address requirements that are placed on all students. In open meetings held with faculty and students in 1996-97, many concerns and a staggering multiplicity of options and approaches were voiced. Faculty repeatedly noted significant dissatisfaction with the perceived low level of student ability to think analytically, to develop models, and to translate critical analytical methods across intellectual fields. Further, concerns about writing and oral presentation abilities were widespread among both faculty and students. As a consequence of this crucial input, the committee was led to guiding principles that focused efforts to develop an effective mechanism to meet the challenges of university-wide requirements. On Feb. 3, 1998--just two days past the proposed deadline--the Ad Hoc Committee presented a preliminary proposal for a new set of university-wide requirements. In the weeks that followed, the committee held a number of meetings which all faculty members and students had the opportunity to attend and offer responses to the proposal. The discussion was often lively, and the committee adapted its preliminary proposal in light of the many thoughtful questions raised and suggestions made. What follows is the result of that extended process of discussion and deliberation.
Guiding Principles
University-wide requirements must provide our students exposure to a broad range of intellectual content, generate an understanding of the processes and theoretical perspectives within and among disciplines, and encourage development of lifelong competency in critical and creative thinking -- the ability to identify, develop, interpret, and translate models within and across disciplines, including the capacities to communicate effectively in both written and oral form and to solve problems by drawing on multiple perspectives and employing available technologies.
PROPOSAL FOR AN ONGOING STRUCTURE -- AN EVOLUTIONARY SYSTEM
In investigations of other institutions, the committee found that those institutions organized with a dean of arts and sciences or with an undergraduate school (dean of undergraduate school or dean of general education) had built-in systems for nurturing and developing university-wide curricula, sometimes in novel and interesting ways. In contrast, the rather unusual divisional organization at Rice means that no individual or body is charged currently with specific oversight of and responsibility for university-wide requirements. As a consequence, this component of the curriculum often takes a lower priority than, for example, the major requirements that are overseen closely by departments. Furthermore, university-wide requirements do not enjoy advocacy within the wider community, in part because no individual or body is charged with the responsibility to foster conversation and creative thinking about this curricular component or to generate enthusiasm and support for it. Continuing dialogue among faculty at Rice, between faculty and students, and with educators at other institutions of higher learning is essential to creating and maintaining a compelling vision for effective implementation of university-wide requirements at Rice. An evolutionary system, rather than an abrupt overhaul, will provide continuity and ability to respond effectively to changing needs and resources as well as interested and informed oversight of university-wide requirements.
While the Undergraduate Curriculum Committee (UCC) has oversight of the entire curriculum and reports to the provost, the volume of work conducted by that committee and the Provost's Office precludes close attention to university-wide requirements. The ad hoc committee therefore recommends that the president, with advice from the Faculty Council, (1) establish a faculty Committee for Undergraduate Edcuation (CGE) with student representation, integrated with the Undergraduate Curriculum Committee (UCC) and (2) appoint as Director for General Education Requirements a faculty member who may also serves as chair of both UCC and CGE. The membership of the UCC and CGE might contain some common members, and these two bodies would convene jointly several times per year. CGE would comprise eight to 12 faculty, appointed on overlapping terms of three years and would, like UCC, report to the director and to the provost. UCC would continue its current mandate to oversee the entire curriculum, while CGE would focus its attention solely on university-wide requirements. The director and CGE would allocate new and reallocated resources devoted to university-wide requirements; approve courses for credit toward those requirements; encourage course development that responds to needs within university-wide requirements by requesting proposals from the faculty, and convening working groups for development of new interdisciplinary courses; oversee implementation of university-wide requirements as approved by the faculty; facilitate incorporation of advanced technologies into the curriculum; and recommend adjustments in the university-wide requirements to the faculty on a periodic basis. The responsibility for facilitating and ensuring continuing dialogue regarding curriculum among faculty and students will reside with the director. The level of these responsibilities for both CGE and the director mandates that the faculty who commit to this endeavor be provided some incentive for their participation.
PROPOSAL FOR UNIVERSITY-WIDE REQUIREMENTS
Rice 101, the Freshman Seminar, is regarded by the committee as an integral part of a new set of university-wide requirements designed to address many of the issues raised over the past two years. The primary goal of Rice 101 is to create an appropriate context in which to foster a sense of intellectual community among students and between students and faculty. Faculty who lead freshman seminars would participate in groups at both the planning stage and during implementation of the seminars, to encourage interdisciplinary perspectives and discussion. Each Freshman Seminar will be expected to explore serious substantive material (i.e., have a significant content base); emphasize a common set of skills that includes writing, speaking, discussion, effective use of the library and information technologies; and equip students to obtain information and experience that facilitate informed, thoughtful, critical analysis and discussion. A key goal of this effort is to create, at the beginning of each student's career, an experience in intellectual exploration that will set a life-long pattern of inquiry and analysis.
The following examples of freshman seminars already being offered at Rice or elsewhere provide some sense of the kinds of topics that might be addressed.
The Life of Muhammad
Jefferson and the Origins of the American Republic
Recording the Past in History and Film
Contemporary Issues in Science Fiction
Molecular Biology and Modern Society: Issues of Promise and Concern
Do Animals Think? An Introduction to Cognitive Ethology
AIDS: Yesterday and Today
Images of Minorities in America
Introduction to Modern Cosmology
Faces of Jesus
Perspectives on Alternative Medicine
Memory: Fact and Fiction
Issues in Native American Studies
Feminism in the Nineties
Conflict and Conflict Resolution between Israel and the Arab World
Genetics, Ethics, and the Law
For more examples, click HERESuch courses will offer professors an opportunity to explore 1) topics of particular interest to them; 2) topics that will offer students an interesting introduction to a discipline they might not otherwise consider; or 3) topics ordinarily dealt with in upper-division courses, but capable of being presented at a level appropriate for freshmen with no previous exposure to the subject. These seminars will also provide opportunities to try out ideas for courses that might later become a regular departmental offering. Another intriguing possibility might be for professors in several disciplines to select a common topic--for example, a given nation such as China or Germany--and to prepare a set of related seminars, dealing individually with such aspects as economic arrangements, political organization and trends, religion, family structure, educational systems, literature, popular culture, majority-minority relations, and the like. In the summer prior to offering the courses, funds might be available to enable the team to visit the nation to be studied and to gain a brief first-hand exposure to the country and its culture. Without question, the professors involved should be greatly enriched by such a collaborative experience. It is difficult to imagine that their students will not feel a significant spillover effect.
The seminars are envisioned as comprising about 15 students each, necessitating 45 sections to accommodate all students during their freshman year. In addition, support for the writing effort in these seminars will be provided by staff from the existing Writing Center in Humanities and the Cain Writing Center in Science/Engineering, for which $5 million in funding has been secured. The seminar experience will include exposing students to the intellectual foundations of the emerging information age--a new way to express knowledge and a new way to organize and process it--as well as its capabilities and limitations and, more practically, to the resources available in the library and on the Web. While systematic presentation of such material might necessarily have to occur in large groups, its application to the specific content area of the seminar could occur in the smaller sections.
Resource questions regarding implementation of this component of the proposal are significant, as optimum implementation will involve full-time faculty teaching in each of these seminars. If each faculty member taught a seminar on a regularly scheduled basis, this responsibility would occur approximately every eight years. Realistically, the committee does not expect that every faculty will want or even be well equipped to teach such seminars. Reports from other institutions, however, indicate that many faculty have had extremely positive experiences with freshman seminars and choose to engage in this activity regularly. In addition, many freshman or lower-level seminars already exist or have been discussed within departments; these courses might be incorporated into this program over the long term. Advanced post-doctoral students and non-tenure-track faculty are alternatives to full-time faculty involvement, but multiple objections have been voiced to such involvement, and the committee feels that resort to such measures should be taken only after careful consideration of individual circumstances.
The freshman seminars will be phased in through several experimental efforts. A grant has been submitted and awarded that will fund a pilot program in two residential colleges. Albert Van Helden will be in charge of this program. Another possibility would be to initiate a modest number of seminars, with participation by freshmen on a voluntary basis. Feasibility issues and other unforeseen aspects of the proposed program will naturally emerge in this pilot period, and effects of instituting Rice 101 as a university-wide requirement on faculty and students, as well as on the intellectual life of the university, will be evaluated before expanding the program further. In the long run, in addition to new resources, reallocation of existing resources will be required to implement such a program fully. However, successful completion of the pilot program and favorable evaluation should provide significant motivation to the faculty to address the long-term resource issues within schools and departments.
For purposes of disciplinary study (majors), it is both practical and reasonable for experts in these fields (professors in individual departments) to set requirements and design courses that delve deeper into specific areas. But courses that meet requirements applying to all students should include a large subset that are aligned with modern research and intellectual inquiry and that cut across traditional disciplinary and even divisional boundaries. This experience, so successful with the institutes and centers in our research endeavors, can be translated effectively to our undergraduate curriculum. The committee recommends "slicing the pie" in a somewhat different manner, to generate encouragement for interdisciplinary course development that broadens the perspective of our students while providing crucial content in these courses. This need for exposure to broad fields of knowledge is an underlying rationale for the courses within the category of Ways of Knowing. Within each of the courses that would be considered as appropriate for meeting the Ways of Knowing requirements, an underpinning provided by extensive substantive content is explicitly presumed. Such courses, however, will also have to meet additional criteria, as evaluated by the Committee on General Education (CGE), to be counted toward meeting the requirements in this category.
All courses offered for the Ways of Knowing requirements should meet the following criteria:
- Extensive substantive content.
- Explicit introduction to problems within the area of inquiry and to various approaches and pathways toward understanding these problems.
- Attention to the creation, development, and modification of models, multiple theoretical perspectives, and interpretations pertinent to the subjects explored, currently and over time.
- Accessibility, when possible, to both majors and non-majors.
Exposure to different ways of thinking in multiple disciplines is crucial to the development of critical and creative thinking. While the following categories will not satisfy every member of this community, they are intended to be all-inclusive and overlapping and to encompass the entire range of our endeavors. The committee believes that every corner of our campus will be able to provide or contribute to courses that meet the Ways of Knowing requirements. Furthermore, we believe that many departments will offer courses in more than one category.
The Categories:
Engaging Science and Technology (4 courses, two of which must be designated for scientific reasoning): Courses in this category are intended to provide students insight into the key methodological and epistemological approaches in science and technology as well as to expose them to a portion of the knowledge base that now exists. Two courses in this category should have an explicit, substantial focus on how we know what we know and how we have accumulated over time the body of knowledge on which much of modern society is based, and should examine the implications of that knowledge and its applications. These courses will be designed to enhance insight into how hypotheses and theories are developed and tested, and how observations and experimental results become established as scientific facts and form our shared understanding about underlying principles. The recursive nature of this process will be emphasized, in that insights from experiments not only may confirm the original ideas but also generate new and unexpected hypotheses. Two courses in this category should incorporate this theoretical perspective where possible, but will primarily provide an in-depth view of a more specific body of knowledge in science or engineering.
Students will be required to take a total of 6 courses in the following four categories. One course must be taken in each of the categories. The remaining two courses may be taken in any of these four categories.
Approaches to the Past: Courses in this category will give sustained, focused attention to aspects of the past that have exerted or continue to exert considerable influence on human history or experience. "History or experience" are here understood in the broadest possible terms. In addition to courses focused on major epochs (classical civilization) or complex historical phenomena (the Reformation, colonialism), courses in this category might focus on the emergence of scientific thinking, the rise of democracy, comparative religious traditions, the evolution of primates and hominids, or aspects of philosophical, artistic, or literary traditions. Where at all possible, courses should include primary documents, texts or artifacts and should offer multiple interpretive approaches. Preference will be given to courses that are chronologically broad in scope, OR comparative in focus OR wide-ranging in perspective. Such courses could be offered by faculty in a range of departments in all divisions or they could be developed collaboratively by faculty from different departments.
Encounters with Texts and The Arts: Courses in this category should invite students to analyze firsthand significant products of human intellect and imagination. "Texts and the Arts" is meant to be construed as broadly as possible to include major works of literature, philosophy, religion, art, film, music. The focus should be on helping students to learn how to read critically and independently. Ideally, courses in this category would emphasize multiple interpretive possibilities or standpoints--different methods for interpreting a novel, for example, or different approaches to sacred texts, or different ways of understanding a portrait or a building. Where possible, these courses would analyze works from more than one genre.
Interpreting Human Behavior: Individual, Social, Cultural: Courses in this category should provide students with an introduction to and some understanding of the psychological, social, or cultural dimensions of human behavior. "Human behavior" is intended in the broadest possible sense. Courses might focus on cognitive or linguistic phenomena, on social institutions or structures, or on comparative cultural development. These courses would communicate a sense of the range of approaches to the study of human behavior by 1) examining a variety of cultural or social contexts, OR 2) examining one culture or society from a variety of perspectives, OR 3) examining encounters between or among different societies, OR 4) analyzing experimental, statistical, or other empirical data in ways that are applicable to a variety of social and cultural contexts.
Methods, Analysis, and Inquiry: Courses in this category are intended to explicitly introduce students to concepts, frameworks of analysis, or paradigms that are or have been important in the discovery or creation of knowledge. With what concepts and methodologies do scholars approach their objects of study? Through what techniques do they evaluate different possible approaches? How do they decide what counts as good, true, right and good? These courses are construed as broadly as possible to include the theories, assumptions, and concepts that make inquiry within any particular discipline possible and productive. Courses in this category might, for example, compare competing hermeneutical traditions, or study competing epistemologies, or analyze the history of scientific inquiry, or examine various theories of design.
Meeting the Criteria:
Many professors and departments have been understandably concerned with what courses will qualify for inclusion in the above categories. Will they be expected to devise entirely new courses? Will they have to be interdisciplinary? Will existing courses, as they are now taught, meet the criteria? If not, what changes will need to be made? What courses will not meet the criteria? Who will decide? What effect will this have on enrollments and recruitment of majors? All these are quite legitimate questions and concerns, and not all can be answered with assurance at this time. We can, however, assure our colleagues that we seek the kind of cooperation and participation that will be broadening and enriching for both faculty and students. Because our ad hoc committee is not the committee that will be making these decisions, what we offer here is somewhat hypothetical and deliberately quite incomplete. But the following is what we have in mind.
Courses that qualify for inclusion in the Ways of Knowing categories will be of three types:
1) New courses, specifically designed to meet the criteria set forth above. We propose that a minimum of five to 10 new such courses per year be developed in each of the next five years. Departments and faculty participating in the development of these courses could reasonably expect to receive appropriate assistance--for example, technical assistance, provision of special instructional equipment, attendance at workshops, visits to other universities. Released time or other compensation may also be possible.
2) Existing courses, modified to fit the Ways of Knowing criteria.
3) Existing courses, taught as they are currently taught.
It will be necessary to offer students a wide range of courses from which to choose--courses that will be taught on a regular basis, and at varied times.
Because we do not currently have a large number of broad-gauged courses of the sort we envision, the Ways of Knowing categories will necessarily include, in the early years of the program, a number of courses that are less than ideal for the purpose. As new courses are developed and existing courses modified, some courses that initially qualify for inclusion would likely be excluded from the categories unless appropriate changes were made.
Decisions as to the appropriateness of a given or proposed course will be made by CGE, after consideration of syllabi or proposals submitted for approval.
A third category, Required Capacities, can be satisfied within the entire range of courses students take to meet their total hours for graduation&emdash;Rice 101, Ways of Knowing courses, major courses, and electives. These requirements are not intended to be additions to the courses delineated for majors and university-wide requirements, but would be met in the normal course of satisfying those requirements.
Writing was repeatedly identified as a key concern of both students and faculty. Students will be required to take at least one course designated as an "intensive writing" course each year. Rice 101 will count as one such course. The Committee on General Education (CGE) will designate additional courses as meeting this requirement, after careful perusal of each syllabus. Writing requirements could be met in any course that meets requirements for graduation at Rice, although encouraging departments to develop courses with writing components for their majors will ensure capacity to write in multiple contexts and in ways appropriate to given disciplines. Well-funded and well-staffed writing centers in humanities and in science and engineering will provide expert assistance to students and faculty, to encourage and facilitate optimal development of writing skills. Requiring at least one intensive writing course each year is an acknowledgment that good writing requires sustained practice, not just a course or two that can be "gotten out of the way" and forgotten.
Oral Discussion and Presentation
Oral discussion and presentation were also noted repeatedly by both students and faculty. Students will be required to take at least one course that involves substantial emphasis on group discussion and oral presentation. The ability to convey concepts orally is essential in the modern world in almost every work context. This requirement is designed to provide students feedback and opportunity to develop their oral skills. This requirement can also be met in any course that meets requirements for graduation at Rice. In this area, experience within the major with oral discussion/presentation might be most appropriate, but this requirement can be met in any other course so designated by CGE after examination of the syllabus. It may also prove to be the case that the requirement could be satisfied by Rice 101. It could also be met by successful completion of one of the increasing number of speech courses being offered at Rice.
This requirement is designed to ensure that students have the basic ability to reason with numerical data. This can include the ability to work through the development of a quantitative model, whether it be scientific, economic, sociological, or other. Students should understand the relationship of numerical data to functional or graphical representations of that data, and the importance of these representations to quantitative reasoning. Alternatively, this requirement can ensure the ability to assess the basic statistical aspects of an argument from an understanding of statistics and probability. Students should have at least an introductory understanding of careful probabilistic thinking.
This requirement, like writing and oral presentation, could be met in courses on a number of topics in which quantitative reasoning is an inherent part of the subject. Such courses, of which there already exist a wide variety, will be designated "quantitative reasoning-intensive" courses. The incorporation of quantitative reasoning into additional existing courses and attending more carefully to developments of skills that utilize logical and quantitative reasoning in our broader curriculum will expand student experience with this important capacity.
The Language Steering Committee (LSC), an ongoing committee appointed by the dean of humanities to advise on language instruction at Rice, comprises the chairs of the French, German, Linguistics, and Spanish departments, the director of the Center for the Study of Languages, and the heads of Asian Studies and Classics-Ancient Mediterranean Civilizations. The LSC indicates agreement with many Rice faculty who feel that knowledge of a second language is one of the "hallmarks of an educated person," and that it ought to be considered an essential component of a "first-rate university education." In this context, the LSC has developed specific recommendations for a language competency requirement. Despite an entrance requirement for language, experience has shown that this prior experience does not ensure that students enter with proficiency in a foreign language. Therefore, the LSC recommends a language competency exit requirement that can be met in a variety of ways. Given the many demands on Rice students, maximum flexibility was considered a priority. Thus, the LSC recommendation offers six alternative ways to fulfill a foreign language exit requirement:
1) A score of 4 or 5 on the national Advanced Placement foreign language or literature tests.
2) A score of "intermediate-mid" or higher on a standardized placement test administered by Rice.
3) A grade of C+ or higher in a single Foreign-Language-Across-the Curriculum (FLAC) course. Such courses, now being planned under the guidance of the Center for the Study of Languages, are content-based courses in which all or some of the instruction is conducted in a foreign language. FLAC courses will be available in all schools of the university and could be offered as Freshman Seminar and Ways of Knowing courses, thus allowing students to satisfy the language requirement while satisfying those other requirements.
4) One semester of study or work abroad in a foreign-language environment, followed by satisfactory performance (with a grade of C+ or higher) on a Rice fourth-semester equivalency exam. This should abet efforts to increase the opportunities and incentives for Rice students to spend part of their academic career abroad.
5) Completing a course of instruction in an intensive summer language program (in the United States or abroad), followed by a grade of "C+" or higher on a Rice fourth-semester equivalency exam.
6) A grade of "C+" or higher in the fourth semester of any foreign language course taught at Rice or accepted for transfer credit.
The ad hoc committee supports this recommendation by the LSC, regarding it as a significant contribution to a program of university-wide requirements, but proposes that it be voted upon as a separate component of the larger proposal.
This category of potential requirements encompasses a number of areas, about which the diversity of faculty and student opinion is broad. At this point, the committee recommends that any final proposal regarding these requirements be considered further by the CGE and UCC before presentation to the faculty for a formal vote. We will, however, ask for a "sense of the faculty" vote, to gain a clearer idea of the importance of these issues to the faculty.
Many institutions require courses in ethics and moral reasoning as part of their curriculum. The worth of exposing students to the processes involved in making value judgments, in taking ethical considerations into account in decision-making, in resolving complex dilemmas with competing forces, and in the construction and adherence to professional ethics is self-evident. Nonetheless, we found some opposition to the institution of a specific requirement in this area, and the committee's judgment is that we will encourage individual departments to make a self-conscious effort to incorporate a substantial ethical dimension into all courses of study for the major.
The ability to work effectively within a team and to collaborate to generate a product is necessary in the modern world, not only in business but in most major professions, including academia. A requirement for one course that incorporates teamwork and collaboration was viewed to be an excellent goal for the future. The committee recommends that faculty and students consider this matter seriously, particularly in future examination of the curriculum.
While not a specific part of our charge, the physical education requirement has long been a university-wide requirement and may properly be considered in this context. Both faculty and students have expressed considerable support for, or lack of opposition to, continuation of this requirement, with some sentiment in favor of permitting participants in varsity and club sports to waive one of the two courses. Another, apparently smaller group, however, strongly favors eliminating this requirement. Because it has not been a pivotal concern of our committee, and because the implications for the Human Performance and Health Sciences Department, the intramural program, and the athletic programs are extensive and complicated, the committee proposes that the question of the physical education requirement be dealt with by the Undergraduate Curriculum Committee, the body regularly designated to deal with such matters.
AP and International Baccalaureate (IB) credit for university-wide requirements is problematic, as the intention of the committee is to encourage the development of courses that cross disciplinary boundaries and introduce students to different ways of thinking than they might encounter in courses that provide AP credit. The committee recommends that AP/IB credit could be used to satisfy two of the courses for Engaging Science and Technology, and that CGE, in consultation with departments, may decide what AP/IB credits, up to two additional courses, may apply in other categories. The committee reasons as follows: It appears that most AP tests appropriate for science and engineering credit do indeed indicate a level of understanding equal to that expected in the courses for which they now receive AP credit. But in history, for example, a high score on an AP test may indicate a good knowledge of basic historical facts, but little exposure to the approaches to the past a Rice student should be expected to understand. On the other hand, some high school history courses can be truly outstanding, and a high AP score, coupled with information about a student's actual background, might satisfy a Ways of Knowing requirement. In any case, AP credit will continue to count toward the total number of hours required for graduation, though it might not fulfill a Ways of Knowing requirement.
Pass/Fail is perceived by many faculty to inhibit class discussion and interaction in courses in which a substantial proportion of students take a specific course P/F and thereby change the character of the class itself. The committee has heard a number of options offered by both students and faculty, and clear concern has been expressed by students regarding the loss of the P/F option. The committee prefers that Ways of Knowing and Freshman Seminar not be an option for P/F. In addition, we recommend that the UCC seriously consider raising the standard for a grade of "Pass," so that "C" will be the lowest grade eligible for a "Pass." Grades lower than "C-" will be accorded a "D (+/-)" or "F."
Students must assume a new level of responsibility for their own education --identifying those areas in which their knowledge is weak or missing and taking an appropriate set of courses to address these deficits. One mechanism for assisting students in self-evaluation is to provide a list of questions that might be used in a variety of contexts--from freshman week to freshman seminars to direct interactions with advisors. These questions will be designed to generate awareness of the range and types of information that many consider crucial for an "educated" person. The committee recommends that the UCC, CGE, student advising, college masters, and students engage in discussions about mechanisms for implementing a program that will encourage the development of individual student responsibility in designing a curricular plan.
The ad hoc committee expects that a period of three to five years, beginning in the fall of 1999, will be required to add new courses and revise existing ones before a full complement of desirable offerings will be available. In the meantime, the Required Capacities and Ways of Knowing requirements might have to be met by courses that are adequate, but not ideal. In the likely event that not enough freshman seminars are available to provide that experience to every freshman student at the outset, that requirement will be optional until the program expands, is altered, or is dropped. Precise timing on these matters will be determined by the Committee on General Education (CGE) after careful examination of courses proposed by departments, schools, and individual faculty.
Rice 101, Ways of Knowing courses, and Required Capacities are designed to entail a total of 11 courses (a decrease of one course from the current 12 required courses). All of the Required Capacities course requirements can be met within the major, university-wide requirements, and elective courses by even moderately careful attention to the choice of courses each year. By our analysis, most students will take eight courses outside their major to meet university-wide requirements, similar to the present load, while in the "worst case" situation, some students may have a maximum of nine courses outside their majors.
One view of this system is as a matrix--one axis corresponds to all courses taken, while the other indicates which courses meet writing, oral, and quantitative reasoning requirements. Thus, the writing-intensive, oral skills-intensive, and quantitative reasoning-intensive courses are part of the total number of courses required for graduation, not an addition to them. These requirements can be met within any category of courses that meet the total number of courses required for graduation.
The proposed changes to curriculum and creation of a sustaining structure are intended to provide a beginning, not an end, to curricular discussion and development. In the two-year discussion of curriculum undertaken by this committee, each member has found his or her own teaching affected in unanticipated and valuable ways by the discussion. The committee therefore encourages our colleagues to engage in continual discussion that may lead to creation of courses not yet imagined, taught in novel and creative ways to provide our students with unsurpassed educational opportunities. If our university-wide requirements are to have a lasting impact on our students, we must continually examine and refine our efforts to expose our students to information and experiences that engage them in intellectual thought and critical analysis and provide them resources for learning that will last throughout their lives. The vision for these requirements, both university-wide and disciplinary, will change with our context, and the rate of this change is increasing rapidly. A responsive structure coupled with an engaged and challenging faculty will be essential as we continue to envision a curriculum that meets the needs of the next century.
Ad Hoc Curriculum Review Committee:
Brandon Bidlack, undergraduate;
Sidney Burrus, electrical and computer engineering;
Priscilla Jane Huston, provost's office;
John Hutchinson, chemistry;
Walter Isle, English;
Benjamin Lee, anthropology;
William Martin, sociology;
Kathleen Matthews, biochemistry and cell biology;
Carol Quillen, history.
Last updated 10/13/98 by Priscilla Huston