This group began with a discussion of our current requirements and how courses are designated for distribution, and a bit about history.

Problems were cited with the introductory courses, particularly in S/E (NatSci 101 haunts us still...). In addition, there was concern that HUMA courses take up 2 of the 4 courses in this area for distribution. More choice was desired for students taking Area I courses. In addition, the privileged status of the HUMA courses was decried. Some distress regarding the structuring without community input and the inelasticity to design modification was expressed. There was also concern about teaching in disciplines (i.e., in an interdisciplinary course) outside one's area of expertise. This arrangement may lower the level of the subject matter to which students are exposed. The current HUMA system privileges the larger departments and excludes smaller departments from input and participation. If larger lectures were taught, team teaching would allow each person to teach from their own expertise. Costs of HUMA course to the departments are significant.

Philosophical issues regarding the groupings for distribution courses were expressed. Although students don't seem to mind the requirement for 8 courses outside the major area, the groupings are perceived to be rigid and not always sensible. We need to rethink our system of grouping and perhaps relax the rigidity and increase flexibility.

A strong sentiment of this group was that students be able to choose among courses. More freedom rather than more requirement was indicated to be desirable.

A question was raised about how we choose courses that qualify for distribution. We should leave it to the students to decide with appropriate faculty advising.

Current desire to teach undergraduates is difficult to fulfill for the Jones School faculty.

Multiple concerns were indicated about our advising system. Guidance for what students select is important, but not at the expense of choice. The current system is mechanical and takes away the _thinking_ that should occur about courses. Advising on the campus was perceived to be very poor. Faculty know very little outside their own area (if that). If we develop a system with heavy emphasis on advising, there is a serious problem. The quality of advising must be addressed. It was suggested that advising should not be run by the Masters, but rather by Academic Advising. A substantive recommendation regarding advising must come out of this process. Mark Scheid may have information to offer on advising.

Advising often happens too late to be effective. Students sometimes choose courses early without guidance from the appropriate advisor and don't end up with a cohesive (and therefore effective) plan of study. It may be worthwhile considering whether to get students who have a sense of their interest into majors and programs earlier in the process (or at least facilitate that contact even if they do not declare a major). The advising system seems to have deteriorated slowly, with everyone (students and faculty alike) taking it less seriously. We must address the quality of the advising relationship.

If we relax the requirements, we must pay attention to the athletes and ensure that they take challenging courses across the curriculum.

It was emphasized in the discussion that courses must be rigorous (i.e., if students can choose between Shakespeare and Detective Novels, these courses should be of comparable rigor).

Rather than having targeted courses on literacy, numeracy, or presentation/team experiences, faculty need to teach in ways that demand writing, speaking, computer use, quantitative thinking. One way to do this is to teach fewer courses overall and increase support for those taught. Have students practice SKILLS in the classes that are focused on specific material/content. It is better not to have targeted skill courses (Jones School has experience in this area), but rather to integrate this experience into existing classes.

The desire for students to take advanced courses in disciplines outside the major was discussed. The number of students in upper level courses is often low because they do not have sufficient time to focus in areas outside the major, and the courses they do have must be distributed.

No consensus on a canon (or canons) of knowledge appeared feasible to this group. In addition, whatever we decide today will be obsolete in a short time. "Canon" courses can tend toward becoming stagnant.

Concern was noted that Rice is "run by Departments" and that choices made by Departments may limit the curriculum in ways that are not desirable (e.g., the small number of courses in Asian Studies or Latin American Studies). There is no body that looks beyond the Department boundaries to identify and implement serious curricular needs.

Discussion of the idea of Freshman Seminars was interesting: One view was that Freshman Seminars won't work here - students don't like requirements for specific types of courses. Where would the faculty come from? The idea was labeled a "recipe for disaster", in essence it is a diversified Foundations answer and is destined to fail. The colleges should serve this purpose. The courses would not be guided by substance. This might work for Jr/Sr, but not for Freshman.

Further discussion indicated that perhaps Fr. Seminars could be tried as an experiment. Start with a few; they may fail, but changes may have future benefits. One suggestion was that seniors could be involved in these seminars.

With regard to our inquiry regarding an ethical dimension, there was not a strong sense that a "course" or set of courses should be mandated. However, there was the suggestion that we might figure out how to have exposure to ethical dimensions within the majors.

The need for team work by the students was discussed.