I couldn't agree more with the Tuesday
article of Jere Abrams and Jackson Lears on
curriculum reform. Their presentation was
well thought-out and showed that they put
in a lot of time analyzing and evaluating the
courses offered at the University. Their
criticisms were valid, clear and yet constructive
— faculty and students alike should
benefit from reading the article's suggestions.
Messrs. Abrams and Lears and especially
perceptive about student response. For
students who have spent four years in high
school learning "the basics" to come to the
University to be spoon-fed for another two
years is really an insult to their intelligence.
Certainly, facts and theories must be
learned and digested before students can get
on to more independent study. But part of
this digestion process should be the
continual feedback and response offered by
student discussions moderated by a teacher.
The University, fortunately, has recognized
at least some truth in this; the in-dorm
seminars for next year, led by experienced
professors, are a step in the right direction.
But one step isn't enough - does the
University really expect a sensitive, curious
and independent student to spring up out of
the ground after two years' cultivation with
massive doses of lectures and multiple choice
tests?
I applaud the small seminars planned for
1969-70 - I also applaud the Abrams-Lears
critique of the University curriculum and
their suggestions for change. The students
and faculty would do well to sit back and
think a little bit about where they want
their University to go, and how they want it
to get there. After all, it's your education.
