The first part of the discussion explored what we were doing, in part to see whether we had a specific agenda, and reviewed historical information about requirements.

A lively discussion ensued. The question was raised: What happens if no consensus among the faculty emerges from these discussions? It was suggested that the default position should be the Brown system - no requirements.

A strong sentiment for FREEDOM rang through this session.

In response to the question of what kinds of skills/knowledge we wish the students to have:

• want people to be able to make good arguments and interpret text
• Want quantitative reasoning skills.
• Want exposure to cross-disciplinary/divisional studies
• Want students to know something other than their own field in depth.
  

A counter argument is that the emphasis on interdisciplinary work within the divisions has stifled inter divisional courses. We need to open the divisional boundaries.

If we have required courses in our curricular plan, these courses must have a strong intellectual (as opposed to procedural) justification. Such a justification is also required if there is a short list of acceptable courses. Students indeed should have cross-divisional/disciplinary exposure, but to single out and build a program based on specific courses (whether within a discipline or inter-disciplinary) must be based on some strong sense that this body of knowledge is important for students. Although the EXPERIENCE of discussion, writing, etc., was considered an intellectual justification, it was pointed out that any course in the Humanities would provide this experience - we don't need special courses to do it.

While experience in small sections, requirements for writing, and exposure to stimulating discussion are important for all students, these do not form the rationale for required courses. HUMA 101/2 is perceived to have the required intellectual underpinnings in that a body of faculty has said that we feel that this is essential and basic knowledge.

Skepticism regarding interdisciplinary courses was expressed. There is a danger that we talk past each other; we have different standard, different approaches, and we must be careful in how we present/cross boundaries. The concern was not with the idea of interdisciplinary courses, but the thought that these might be IMPOSED rather than emerge.

Writing can happen in existing courses; we do not need to create courses for writing experiences. Could have writing tutorials that go with existing courses.

The only reason for requiring a course is the SUBSTANCE in the course.

We must be realistic about our students and where they are going. Their years here are not just a time of study, but they are headed somewhere. Interdisciplinary and inter divisional experiences may be very important to expand their horizons and generate educated persons. Cross-disciplinary conversation among the students is very important. Forcing some diversity is important. The issues that students face are increasingly complex, and we need to prepare students for the world. Some felt students would do this for themselves.

Opposition was expressed to specific, mandatory courses, and concern even about short lists was reiterated. The desires were for

• Diversity in student exposure.
• Choice for students AND faculty (e.g., small courses are OK if faculty have free choice of subjects).
• More writing in curriculum.
• Statistical/quantitative reasoning across the curriculum.
  

The perception of the need for parallelism across divisions is a major problem, and we need to get past this idea. We must not get locked into similarity in requirements for all divisions. Some things work some places and not others (e.g., Foundation courses).

There was general sentiment in favor of old distribution system, perhaps with some rethinking of the categories. One course in quantitative reasoning (with lots from which to choose), one with a multi-cultural element could be required.

We were reminded that we must keep in mind the COST of any changes. We must maintain faculty freedom to develop courses. For example, for intensive writing and discussion, freshman courses of small sizes would be expensive. Do we want to target our resources to freshman or to upperclasspersons who can use the more detailed and in-depth courses. We don't want to lose small upper level courses.

There was concern about our PR and reality being out of rink. We talk about small courses in public, but privately the administration decries the small classes. We want to avoid a 2-tier system, with a selected set of "right" or required courses that receive support and others than don't.

Attempts to draw students out of their passivity is a continued challenge, and no educational theory or particular path exists to institutionalize that kind of experience. We may wish to FOSTER courses without requiring them.

If we provide choices, we need careful scrutiny to ensure that the courses are of high quality. We need in this context to be sensitive to and develop academic pluralism.

The college system was perceived to provide a strong framework for a system that has significant freedom. However, some indicated that we must address the advising system in whatever we recommend. The current system through the colleges does not always work well. In addition, perhaps the load of advising could be spread more evenly. Good advising must be a complement to an open system that has choices.

FLEXIBILITY was reiterated multiple times in this discussion.

Freshman seminars were discussed. It was contended that the majority of humanities courses are already like that. Resource issues were raised: there would need to be A LOT of sections. Is the payoff worth the cost? What about the long-term energy/effort needed to keep such a system working? What are the controls/training? Also, there is a cost in terms of other courses that won't be taught. If there are new faculty brought in, do we really want them for this purpose or perhaps there are better ways to use new faculty in the Departments.

Are we short-changing the freshmen now? Can we afford not to short-change somebody? Who should that be? 300-400 level courses for juniors/seniors?

Despite the concerns, there was a sense that this type of course might be a good introduction to the university.