University of Virginia Library

Need For Reform Cited

Ours is a complex and an
all-too-sterile society; it is time we
discarded the concept of packaged
knowledge in an already plastic
culture. There are areas of study
and scholarship that cannot be
labeled and shelved in a department.
There are more academic
disciplines than can be housed in a
departmental framework. But the
Virginia curriculum makes little
allowance for stray areas of knowledge;
if it cannot be classified, it is
apparently not worthy of the
Virginia students' or faculty's
attention.

This is hardly an appropriate
arrangement for an institution
founded on the axiomatic "illimitable
freedom of the human mind."
The basis of our curricular structure
is an anti-Jeffersonian as racism - it
limits the mind. At the University
of Virginia, any area deserving
academic recognition must be
broad enough to accommodate full
departmental status. Special area
studies attempts, such as Latin-American
Studies, Russian Studies,
or the proposed Black Studies
program, are not fully institutionalized,
and hence not given full
funding, staffing, or status. Such an
arrangement is, if anything, unprogressive
and anti-intellectual. It is
time we recognized the rest of the
universe outside the realm of our
twenty-six departments. There are
more things in heaven and earth
than are dreamt of in our curriculum.
Let's admit our fallibility.

Within our departmental walls,
the Virginia course offerings tend
to be insular and traditional. There
is very little room for experimental,
imaginative, or meaningful (in the
real sense of the word) additions to
the course lists. Faculty committees
are reluctant to add any courses
that may be outside their departmental
bounds; thus, we find many
potential courses thrown into a
state of limbo, with no department
willing to provide funds or instructors
in order to assimilate them.

These circumstances - strict
departmental division and insularity
within departments - leave many
areas, especially those of contemporary
interest, untouched. Technology
and scholarship have increased
man's body of knowledge
enormously; but Virginia's
curriculum has allowed for this
expansion only internally, within
the established courses and
established (and antiquated)
academic disciplines.

But what of the "new" areas of
study, those already recognized and
institutionalized in American
scholarship? Does not the Virginia
undergraduate merit at least the
option for exposure to areas such as
the film, liberal arts, journalism,
communications? Is there no place
within departments for qualitative
courses in bioengineering, zoology,
literary criticism, archeology, or
evolution? Can we not implement
substantial programs in urban studies,
black studies, American studies,
African studies, comparative
literature, comparative an European
studies, Russian and East Europe can
studies (to mention a few) without
the complexities and irregularities
of departmental sanction?

We are dealing with individuals
in our undergraduate program -
people whose lives are a part of an
advanced, affluent, and complex
society. Although it seems senseless
to reiterate this fact, it is also
senseless to try to educate such
individuals with an outdated orientation.
We cannot limit ourselves to
single dimensions and capsulized
knowledge. A dynamic University
must be a multi-varsity - an
institution with all channels and
possibilities of study and learning
open.

Where should the transition
from university to multi-varsity
begin? We could start with a
loosening of our departmental bureaucracy
scheme. Inflexibility leads
to intra- and inter-departmental
competition, neglecting the goals of
teaching and a responsive curriculum.
Dealing with the departmental
structure as it stands at present, we
could offer undergraduates several
alternatives. These recommended
changes would provide for self-regulating
curricular reform and curriculum
adaptability. Students
could adjust their schedules to
include specific areas of interest
without suffering under binding
college requirements:

1. ONE PASS-FAIL COURSE
PER SEMESTER, regulated by
academic advisors, granted full
credit, with the instructor's permission.

2. AD-HOC COURSES, If sufficient
interest is shown in an
academic or related subject, and if a
bona fide instructor or professor
will voluntarily conduct it, an
ad-hoc course could be added to
the curriculum for any one semester
(a course department
ties). Enrollment would be
limited, and full credit awarded, as
long as course conduct complies
with standing regulations. Such
courses would serve to augment the
College curriculum and provide for
specialized and inter-disciplinary
studies. If an ad-hoc course should
show enduring merit, it could be
added to the permanent curriculum.
Administration of ad-hoc
courses could be by student-faculty
committee.

The undergraduate student in
the College (under the current
system) must either choose a
discipline or play "collegiate hopscotch"
to suit a program of study
to his needs or goals. There are two
sweeping reform solutions that are
feasible in correcting this predicament:

1. INTER-DISCIPLINARY DIVISIONS
(Humanities, Life
Sciences, Physical Sciences, the
Arts). The institutionalization of
general divisions within the College
faculties. Faculty "pools" in each
division would provide exchangeable
instructors for separate studies
programs. Each larger division
would have an autonomous administration,
dividing its programs into
area studies. Courses that overlap
disciplines or can not be fitted into
a particular studies area could be
taught under the general division
most appropriate, with faculty
provided from the divisions general
"pool."

2. THE NO-MAJOR MAJOR.
With the intensity of professionalism
being shifted to the graduate
schools, it would seem appropriate
to allow the undergraduate student,
if he desires, to declare no major
field or concentration. He could
make known his intentions after
two years of college work, and then
continue to complete a stipulated
number of advanced courses under
the direct guidance of his academic
advisor.

The rationale for the current
majors program is corrupted already
by the crossing of departmental
lines during movement from
undergraduate to graduate work.
The undergraduate major does not
normally achieve proficiency in his
major filed, and, in fact, may not
need or desire such training. This is
particularly true if post-graduate
plans do not include an extended
study of a specific undergraduate
discipline (e.g. legal or medical
studies). A further alternative here
would be general majors programs
in one of the four division suggested
above in proposal No. 1; a
student could major in Life
Sciences or in Humanities, specializing
as prescribed by his advisor or
as he desired.

Certain existing parts in the
super-structure of the College curriculum
are not showing signs of
deterioration and are demanding
immediate attention, If these time-honored
traditions are to remain
productive elements in a revitalized
curriculum, they should be reappraised
now:

1. THE HONORS PROGRAM.
If outstanding or intensely-motivated
undergraduate students are to
benefit from an honors program,
then the seminars, advising, and
requirements must be re-examined
periodically to assure the original
objectives of individualized independent
study.

2. RELATED COURSES. Some
courses can be related and others
not, depending on individual needs
and goals. Why must we standardize
a list of such courses? A related
course should be one related to the
student's individual pursuits.
Criterion for relatedness should be
established by each undergraduate's
academic advisor rather than by
general departmental decree.

3. COMPREHENSIVE
EXAMINATIONS. If we are going
to maintain our major fields of
study, then the comprehensive
exams that culminate that study
should fulfill an ultimate purpose -
either as a goal towards which to
direct work or as a just test of
proficiency in a prescribed course
of study. If we are realistic in
realizing that the nature and scope
of undergraduate education is
changing and de-emphasizing specialization,
then the comprehensive
should be either abolished or
offered as a three-hour course for
all majors, with the final exam
corresponding to the current comprehensive
exam.

This curriculum philosophy admittedly
can offer only a partial
framework for reform. In most of
the areas of our investigation we
have raised questions and only
alluded to solutions. There is a
mandate for change evident from
our work with student evaluations.
Committee ineffectuality will no
longer be acceptable in lieu of
genuine structural reform. Such
institutional change, in order to be
fully realized, must be accompanied
by a simultaneous shift in attitudes
of the people the institution serves.
A dynamic undergraduate curriculum
will require a concerned and
energetic academic community.

Next: FACULTY AND ADMINISTRATIVE
OBSTACLES