No change in general education requirements

The Special Committee on General Education decided not to "push the issue of credit reduction."

After a lengthy, confusing discussion yesterday, the committee decided to forego its previous decision to reduce the amount of general education credits. The committee then moved the focus of the discussion to the quality of general education, and not the quantity.

The committee identified large class size and inexperienced teachers as two problems affecting the quality of general education.

"Our students are not being served by big classes with inexperienced teachers," said Robert Pangborn, committee chair.

John Moore, associate professor of English and comparative literature added to Pangborn's point.

"We have a splendid structure, but not a first-class delivery," Moore said. "The problem is that we're not solving the delivery of (general education)."

Committee member Cheryl Achterberg, professor of nutrition, agreed that focusing on quality instead of quantity will improve general education at the University. But, she also maintained that a credit reduction is necessary because unlike a teaching method, credit reduction is tangible.

"We cannot legislate a change in teaching," she said. "The only real thing this committee can do is structural."

Associate Dean and Professor of communications Jeremy Cohen said the most important issue is the quality of learning.

"The primary issue is the delivery, what can we do to improve the learning," he said. "I'd like to back away from the credit fight."

Caroline Eckhardt, department head and professor of English and comparative literature, agreed with Moore that the existing framework of general education is not the problem.

"It's the standard that needs to be changed, not the structure, she said."

While the committee did decide to move its focus from credit reduction to improving the quality of general education, it did not come to a conclusion on how to go about accomplishing that goal.