University of Virginia Library

'Cramming It'

Many faculty members of the College of
Arts and Sciences, as clearly demonstrated by
yesterday's vote on the foreign language
requirement, have yet to realize the "why"
behind the curriculum reform. Many must
believe that they are there to replace old
restrictions and requirements with new,
improved ones. They fail to see that reform is
needed because the present curriculum was
designed to meet outmoded and anachronistic
goals. The fact that this same curriculum is
failing to even come near achieving these goals
makes the situation truly pathetic.

The concept of a liberal education had
little to do with the establishment of these
goals. Rather, they seem to have risen from a
highly condescending attitude in educators
which first gained strength during and around
the period of World War II. Unfortunately
they are still strongly rooted in many faculties
across the nation, notwithstanding our own.
Basically, the goals of general education were
designed to deal with the large number of
students seeking an education before and
immediately after the war. Instead of a
relatively free atmosphere where students
could meet with teachers to develop a course
of studies best suited to their own needs,
students were shackled with a curriculum
overloaded with required courses which were
designed to instill the values of Western (i.e.
Uncle Sam's) culture while at the same time
preparing them for post-graduation jobs and
assuring their roles as "productive citizens."

Any merits for such a system were
doubtful twenty years ago and certainly do
not exist now. Yet, as demonstrated by much
of the self-righteous rhetoric and actions of
recent meetings, many professors must still
prefer this system. Those who clamored for
the retention of a foreign language requirement,
for example, did so on the grounds that
training in a foreign language was a necessary
part of a student's proper education. A degree
simply could not be granted without it. We
seriously doubt the validity of such an
argument; aside from that, we would not be at
all surprised if at least fifty per cent of those
students having met the existing requirements
will not even be remotely proficient in their
language at graduation.

It is also doubtful whether it is possible to
adequately educate all college students in a
language or other required course. Not much
can be learned in the large classes which
presently dominate many departments. But
the faculty is not talking about changes in this
aspect of the curriculum. Instead of taking
action to improve the quality of course
instruction, many would devote their efforts
to making certain that students will be duly
"punished" if they commit the sin of failing a
pass-fail course.

One primary but overlooked motivation in
keeping a curriculum with required courses is
simply a matter of numbers and money. Many
departments depend on required courses to
insure a quota of students. With more
students come more faculty members, graduate
teaching assistants, and more money.
Abolishing all requirements, then, could
conceivably threaten the security of some
departments, and for this reason certain
required courses will be continued. Whether
students want to take them or benefit from
them simply becomes a secondary consideration.

What must be realized, however, is that
required courses, whether they are vital to a
department or not, are not beneficial to a
student's education. Forcing a student to take
selected courses in the proposed area requirements
- English, humanities, social studies,
foreign language, and math and science - does
not automatically provide the student with a
basis for a liberal education. It is simply a
modification of the concept of a general
education. These area requirements will still
force many students to take courses in which
they have no interest and will deny the
opportunity of a self-determined curriculum.
While supposedly giving the student a broad
educational background, area requirements
will actually provide very cursory contact
with a hodge-podge of poorly organized
material.

Faculty member who fear that students
will tend to take courses only in a highly
specialized areas should realize that such a
curriculum will provide a much greater
opportunity for a liberal education than one
with area requirements. A student can obtain
a very broad educational outlook in a
so-called "specialized program." As one
faculty member pointed out, there are courses
in psychology ranging from the math oriented
to those emphasizing the social sciences.
Moreover, many students will impose their
own "requirements" by taking the courses
necessary to prepare them for graduate
school. And there will still be departmental
requirements for a student's major field of
study.

The concept of general education - with
required courses designed to cover a selected
group of fundamental courses - is no longer
functional or desirable. Students should be
allowed to determine a curriculum free from
self-defeating requirements. We believe they
can benefit more from a curriculum which is
not (to borrow from one faculty member)
"crammed down their throats."