University of Virginia Library

Colloquium

Peculiar Crisis - A Curricular Appraisal

By Jere Abrams & Jackson Lears

This semester's work of the Student
Curriculum Evaluation Committee, under
our direction, has been compiled and
published in an exhaustive report, to be
released next week. Our catalogue, a first of
its kind in the history of the University of
Virginia, is an attempt by students to
examine and analyze the curriculum of the
College of Arts and Sciences. Originally, our
objective was to record and report student
opinion of the courses offered, revealing
inadequacies or excellence and proposing
minor reform measures.

However, the conclusions of our investigation
have led to a more ambitious
approach to the curriculum. There is
evidence in our research to justify a
radically new conception of the University
as an institution, and, more specifically, its
undergraduate program. In our report, and
in this series of articles, we have alluded to
and tried to define the nature of that new
educational philosophy.

The crux of our report, then, consists of
individual course and departmental critiques.
But the impact is intended to effect
a new awareness, and perhaps a revolutionary
approach to the needs of the University
and its students.

Procedure Followed

The procedure followed in compiling our
catalogue was designed to assure accuracy,
yet retain subjectivity, in our results.
Twenty thousand subjective questionnaires
for students and faculty in the College
provided the raw data for our team of fifty
editors. We have used the utmost of care in
producing a just reflection of actual student
consensus. The validity of opinions has been
carefully weighed, with the help of guiding
factors and discretion. Where we have been
in doubt, we have made all efforts to
"pursue the truth" and assure verity. All
work has been carefully supervised and
checked to guard against error and unnecessary
bias. Our personal conclusions (in these
columns) have been a result of our
evaluation data and critiques, personal
observations, and an intensive search for
informed opinion.

The catalogue which will go on sale next
week includes a subjective summary of all
College courses for which we have had
response (over 500 courses and 70 pages). In
addition, we have provided pertinent course
requirements, statistical analyses of student
opinion, constructive recommendations, and
summary departmental critiques. The report
is an expansion of the current college
catalogue, describing not only course
purposes, but also accomplishments. It is
intended to help students suit the present
curriculum to their needs, provide important
faculty feedback, and serve as grounds
for a call for curricular reform. Curricular
reform here is an all encompassing plea for
faculty, administration, and student commitment.

We are calling for a more dynamic
institution than now exists in Charlottesville.
Such a responsive university can be the
only kind that will survive and serve in the
future. And if the University of Virginia is
to be dynamic, we the students, faculty, and
administrators must recognize our ultimate
function - that of broadening human
understanding. To do so means to adjust the
goals of undergraduate education according
to the changing temperament of our society.
And, ideally, the University of the future
will give impetus and guidance to that
changing temperament.

Our Intention

Our intention has not been to further
alienate the three major academic factions
at Virginia, but rather, to unite all members
of the academic community (no longer
"village") in a common endeavor. Our
concern arises out of a love for the
University of Virginia and its spirit, and
from a sadness that she, as an undergraduate
institution, is not fulfilling either her
function or her potential. Those who do not
agree with this assertion can turn to the
student body, as we have, for their empirical
evidence. It is with the students that we
have centered our argument. For, regardless
of their motivation, Virginia undergraduates
are not being given the opportunity to find
rewards or pleasure in the learning experience.

What we are attempting to do in this
final commentary is (to use a strong word)
"educate:" that is, we are passing on
observations from a third-plane perspective
We have reported our analytical observations
in the Curriculum Catalogue and in
our articles of the past few days. We are
now attempting to tie that direct and
indirect analysis together to complete the
intricate picture of Virginia's College curriculum.
It is essential that we make clear the
ramifications and the fundamental importance
of curricular affairs in the University.
There are numerous interacting elements
within the university structure which
determine both the nature and the effects of
the curriculum. Without a consideration and
understanding of these elements, no reliable
alterations in the curriculum can be made.
Understanding the symbiotic character of
the relationship of students, faculty, and
administration, to the curriculum is the key
to resolving the conflicts in the curricular
structure. And the success of future reform
will hinge on the interpretation of this
relationship.

Students are the "raw material" of a
university - they both act upon and react
to the curriculum. And, their living
conditions while at school largely determine
the nature of the action and reaction. The
physical environment plays an important
part in the curriculum. Dormitories, apartments,
and fraternity houses are a long way
from Cabell Hall. Hence, "living" and
"learning" are seen as mutually exclusive
occupations, often literally miles apart. The
separation between intellectual pursuits and
"hedonism" is further intensified by the
anachronistic all-male situation which still
prevails in Charlottesville. While the compulsion
to take "road trips" is understandable,
it has undesirable effects. The students'
academic lives, rather than flowing smoothly
along with their social lives, become
truncated. Coeducation is no panacea, but it
will certainly help change the dichotomous
situation.

Cause Or Effect

It is difficult to say whether the
fraternity system is a cause or effect of the
disjointed nature of undergraduate life.
Whichever the case, fraternities have certainly
compounded the problem by encouraging
the "road trip" and subordinating learning
to hell-raising.

As fourth-year fraternity men, we have
had considerable first-hand experience with
the shortcomings of fraternity life at
Virginia. Yet we retain more than just a
sentimental hope for the system's continued
viability. After all, fraternity houses (dilapidated
though they may be) certainly
provide a more congenial atmosphere for
discussion than do the sterile McCormick
Road dormitories. Fraternities can bridge
the gap between the student and his studies.
But up to now they have only served as an
isolating force. Hell-raising is still "relevant"
and a lot of fun besides.

The point is, fraternities have left a lot of
other options unexplored. And by over-emphasizing
or distorting their "social" aspects,
fraternities have left the individual
brother short-changed on his educational
possibilities. The extinction of the fraternity
system would be tragic, but it would be a
fair price to pay for a more thoroughly
integrated social and intellectual environment.
Let us hope that if the fraternity is to
remain influential at Virginia, it will be of
positive rather than negative influence on
undergraduate education.

A Further Problem

A further problem among students, here
and elsewhere, is a new sort of anti-intellectualism;
it is very different from the old
Easters-weekend-grain-party type of attitude.
The proponents of this new mode of
thought do not reject real learning, but
rather, they are critical of the traditional
methods of learning. They then look at the
battleworn trappings of academia: i.e.,
grades, requirements, credits, and capsulized
knowledge in general. In their zeal, they
sometimes succumb to a vague culture of
amateurism. Thus they claim that seminars
and discussion groups are the only worthwhile
teaching methods, and only problems
of the most pressing contemporary importance
are worth teaching. Political activism,
too, is often a reflection of the frustration.
Extremism in this direction is not a rational
solution.

Yet even the wildest of excesses derive
from very legitimate grievances. Central to
all the external problems of environment is
the fundamental factor of time - or more
precisely, lack of it. There is simply no real
learning without the time for reflection.
And, with fifteen hours of courses required
per semester and 120 hours to be
accumulated in four years, the student is
simply too busy racing to meet deadlines to
really think about his work. The division of
attention into five distinct disciplines is also
counter-productive. (Have you ever noticed
how few places there are to sit down around
the University outside the classroom?)

The Straight Student

As Warren Sussman writes: "Instead of
the college degree being a qualitative
expression, evidence of intellectual achievement,
it is too frequently merely a
quantitative expression: Having put in time
and accumulated credit for hours of work
and not having upset anyone too much
along the way, the undergraduate is awarded
a degree." It is this type of student, the one
who "doesn't upset anyone too much along
the way" who is perhaps even more
pathetic than the revolutionary evangelist in
search of "relevance." This "straight"
student, having accepted the present curriculum
structure completely emerges a total
creature of his environment. He may have a
2.0 mind, but he has a 4.0 grasp of the
"system." Often, ironically, his plodding or
cynical mastery of the curriculum is treated
as "scholastic excellence" by the university
community.

The causes for anti-intellectualism among
students, then, are complex indeed. They
are rooted deeply in both the academic and
social environments. For this reason, faculty
reform of the curriculum and administrative
reform of the social environment should be
of high priority. But U.Va. students are now
wholly without responsibility for their
150-year slump. Students may be transient,
but they do have individual determinism:
stereotyped indolence or indifference is a sad
excuse.