University of Virginia Library

'Western Tradition' Urged
As Base Of Curriculum Reform

By Everett U. Crosby

Because of the pressing importance
of the issue of curriculum
reform, I hope that this letter,
which offers some criticism of the
Interim Report of the Curriculum
Committee reviewed in The Cavalier
Daily on November 3rd, will
invite further discussion on the
problems which that committee has
set before us.

At the outset it does not appear
that the aims of university education
are clearly stated. If the
changes in the curriculum are not
made in accordance with certain
basic premises so that the new
structure satisfied the demands of
faculty and students to a greater
degree than the old, then it would
seem that either no change is
necessary or that any change would
be acceptable. There is, to be sure,
a brief mention of education "in
accordance with the traditional
values of liberal education," with a
suggestion for courses in the natural
sciences, social sciences and the
humanities. It is a scheme that
provides the necessary coverage
since it includes all the fields of
inquiry from which a college
student would ordinarily choose his
area of study. It fails, however, to
make clear just what the "traditional
values of liberal education"
are. What do we expect the student
to have accomplished during his
four years; how is his course of
study to be arranged so that these
expectations can be fulfilled? There
is, of course, no official definition
of "liberal education." But in order
to establish a set of aims in relation
to which I would propose changes
in the curriculum, somewhat different
from those in the Interim
Report, I suggest that the following
description might not be too wide
of the mark. Education of this kind
aims at the refinement of the
rational process; it encourages the
search for the meaning of things
and the relationships among them;
it forms a perspective, and it
enriches the pleasure one has of
contact with great minds of the
past. Moreover, it teaches the
student the great lesson that real
discipline is self-discipline. Liberal
education helps the student to
make up his own mind. He learns to
think. It is education that forms the
Individual. Every significant
achievement in art, science, philosophy,
medicine and industry has
been brought about by the vision
and persistence of some individual;
and "where there is no vision the
people perish." The faculty is well
aware that a great proportion of the
facts learned in four years will be
forgotten in the next four. What
they hope will remain is a discipline
of mind so that new ideas, and old
ones, can be dealt with and
evaluated firmly, sensibly and dispassionately
in terms of their own
value and in relation to larger
structures. Now what kind of
program leads to this ideal state?
History, English, philosophy, and
the foreign languages and literatures
form the core. To these may be
added the natural sciences, the arts
and the specialties to be cited
shortly.

First of all, to evaluate ideas
points of reference are needed and
this means comparing our society
with those from which it grew, as
well as with foreign cultures. It
means studying the past because
only then can one begin to
understand the present. Historical
perspective, therefore, is an essential
part of liberal education.
Because it is of first importance to
appreciate what we are by knowing
what we were, study of the western
cultural tradition should precede
study of those cultures, such as
African, Asian, East Asian, which
although important in themselves
and for their influence, are not
central to the European-American
development. The important related
specialties where no historical
survey is intended in economics
geography, foreign affairs and so
on, are not substitutes because they
do not set out to give a sense of
historical development, they do not
attempt to inculcate in the student
a method of dealing with past
events. I would suggest, therefore,
that instead of allowing a choice
among the six disciplines in section
4 (social studies), another group be
established to provide a year's work
along the lines just outlined. This
move may be criticized by remarking
that a historian would naturally
select his own discipline for special
treatment. However, the plan is
defensible in broader terms than
those of specialist scholarship. "The
value of history," as Collingwood
put it quite simply, "is that it
teaches us what man has done and
thus what man is."

Retaining the principle of distribution
which the Committee rightly
considers so important, the
student would then have a choice
from the group in section 3
(Natural Sciences and Mathematics)
and from the group in section 5
(Humanities). At this point, however,
I would like to see a further
separation because there are some
studies in this last section that are
too important to be left out of the
student's program should he choose
others which are available. In the
first place, literature; in the second,
ancient and modern languages.
These should be made separate
groups so that one course from
each is made a part of liberal
education. Section 5 would then
include the arts, music, speech and
drama and appropriate courses
from the departments of Philosophy,
English and Religious Studies.
Another section would include
literature and another, languages.
As it stands how section 2 of the
Interim Report does not fulfill this
need. A choice is provided between
foreign language and foreign culture,
but the one is not a substitute
for the other. To be sure, through
the language one begins to know
the culture, but a sequence of
French courses through level 6, for
instance, does not mean that the
student has gained much insight
into French society; it does not
even mean that he can communicate
in French. Currents of isolationism
are never far below the
surface in American society. If at
present they are more emotional
than anything else, to regard
linguistic training as unnecessary to
the preparation of the university
student is to fall victim to this
creeping myopia. For a long time
many high schools have been
reluctant to support a strong
language program with the result
that students at the university are
taking elementary courses in
French and German grammar. By
giving up the language requirement
in the university we repeat the same
error and pass on to the graduate
schools the burden of students who
have had no linguistic training. As
many members of the faculty will
attest, the burden is often too great
for the student as well.

Moreover, it seems ludicrous to
exempt a student from a language
simply because he has scored 700
on his board test after three years
of study in high school, or to bind
him to one more year if he makes a
score of 550 with two years in high
school. I would hope that the
University of Virginia, in the wealth
of its intellectual life, would be able
to offer the well-prepared student
additional work in the language of
his choice without boring or frustrating
him. This same criticism
applies to section I (English). Do
not exempt a student from advanced
work in English if he has
already done the work for English
1. The additional hours will be well
spent. Judging from the difficulties
many students have in expressing
their ideas orally and on paper, two
years of study in the mother tongue
would not be inadvisable.

The choices under the section
on Foreign Culture purposely exclude
the European tradition. How
a study of East Africa can replace,
in any way, Italian, German or
French is quite beyond me. I
continue to maintain that in the
first two years a thorough grounding
in western civilization is of
primary importance. In the last two
years the student will have the
opportunity to reach out to explore
the non-western cultures, if he so
desires.

Therefore, the groups from
which the student would choose his
courses for two years would be
re-arranged this way:

1. English

2. Historical Studies

3. Languages

4. Literature

5. Natural Sciences and Mathematics

6. Arts

In regard to the grading system,
I see some virtue in a pass or fail
arrangement in that it diminishes
the race after marks, it discourages
the temptation to identify learning
with the first four letters of the
alphabet, and it might embolden
students to explore fields in which
they do not trust themselves to
perform well. Nevertheless, I see
more virtue in retaining the existing
system with all its imperfections.
Thinking is hard work and generally
people do not like to work hard,
and will not do so unless there is
some pressure upon them. A system
whereby the quality of the student's
performance is constantly in
view by being judged excellent,
good, fair, poor or unsatisfactory,
provides a necessary kind of pressure.
It is not a device for
punishment, rather it is a means of
encouragement. The A or the B, or
C or D is not, in the end, the grade
which the professor gives the
student; it is the grade which the
student gives himself. The tendency
for the average student in a pass-fail
course would be to work at a
reduced pace, furnishing the minimal
quality and quantity of work
to stay in the pass group. In fact, in
a large course, he might not even
know that more was expected of
him. On the faculty's side I suspect
that there would be an imperceptible
tightening of standards with
the effect that those students who
before received D and C- would
more often than not be in the
group that failed. While raising
academic standards is to be applauded,
this might result in discouraging
a greater number of
students from going on with the
course and having the satisfaction
of improving their work. The fact
that the pass-fail system in the
proposed curriculum applies to
only a few-courses, and that it is
not allowed in those courses which
part of the basic area requirements
or any of the tree majors, implies
that the Committee considers it to
be too uncertain a way of measuring
progress to be used in the
courses which count for the degree.

The Interim Report allows up to
two courses in the departments of
military, air and naval science to be
included in the degree program.
There are a number of arguments
for and against these groups in
university. I am no less disturbed
by the idea that a military outfit
training men for war is living next
door to lio, than I am by the
realization that the subject matter
taught is hardly an essential ingredient
in a liberal arts education. I
would hope that the faculty would
vote to abolish any academic credit
for any course given by these
departments.

Finally we come back to some
of the principles underlying th