Faculty Bicker, Debate Over Proposed Credit System by Ariella Cohen In a Tuesday meeting of the College Faculty Committee, an EPPC proposal to change Oberlin’s long-standing credit system and graduation requirements met criticism and questions, provoking several quarrels among College faculty and a delay in the scheduled vote on the measure. This vote on whether EPPC should continue working on a final proposal was planned to happen with no voting student representatives present. The proposed credit system would reset all course credit values to four credits, instead of the three-credit value that is predominate in College classes, particularly non-science courses. Partnered with a proposal to lower the number of credits required for graduation, this twofold change is intended to lessen the number of classes that students take each semester. “This proposal would create a track to graduation where students could take four classes a semester, instead of the five classes now required in several majors,” Associate Dean of Arts and Sciences and the proposal’s main proponet, Bob Geitz said. “I hope you vote for this. It will reduce the fragmentation of students, who spend so much time switching context that they aren’t getting their work for their classes. This will get ExCo and private readings back to a proper place where students are taking things because they want to learn not to pad their schedule,” Geitz said. Some faculty, however, questioned the validity of the EPPC proposal. “What you are talking about is changing the numbers, not changing fragmentation...How do we know that they won’t take 26 somethings and a bunch of duffle-dorf?” Professor of Politics Ronald Kahn said. Other professors challenged the proposal’s use of data compiled at peer institutions and Geitz’s frequent allusions to other schools, such as Grinnell, that use credit systems like the one suggested. “All I see is that we are being persuaded by what other schools are doing, not what our own problems are. I want to see data of our own students. I’ve seen what this plan would do to the biology department and that doesn’t make me happy,” Professor of Biology and Department Chair Yolanda Cruz said. The discussion appeared split, in many ways, between the sciences and humanities faculty. Professors bristled at mentions of “easy history classes” and “courses that will require more hard work.” “Do we have to get into a gun-slinging contest? ‘My course has more work then your class.’ Let’s face it, we are all workaholics here and our students also do too much to be healthy, have many interests. That’s why we like teaching here. I would guess that our students work hard enough, the question is, what are we going do [to reduce fragmented schedules]…let’s stop drawing lines in the sand,” Professor of Classics and Department Chair Thomas Van Nortwick said. The issue remained, however, that the proposal means different things for different departments. The neurobiology department pointed out that under the new plan majors would be forced to take seven fewer elective courses. The major would eat up over 50 percent of the student’s courses. With the lowered graduation requirements they fear that students would complete the major but take fewer non-mandatory courses, chancing their admittance into more competitive graduate programs. “We need to be thinking from a student-centered point of view. Students learn differently, have different curricular interests, and need a broad education. We did in fact have data suggesting that students who take less classes did, in fact, do better. We in the social sciences and humanities are looking at the broader value of their education on the whole,” Professor of English Carol Lasser said. The meeting opened with a brief exchange between the College administrators and several student senators who showed at the meeting in hopes of voting on the measure. According to College policy, senators represent the student body as voting members of the General Faculty Committee. However, administrators denied senators entrance into the meeting because, rather than a General Faculty meeting, it was a College Faculty meeting. To vote on issues raised in College Faculty meetings, senators must stand on involved committees. The senator working on the EPPC committee didn’t show and none of the senators that did show were eligible to vote. Later in the meeting, another member of senate attempted to enter the meeting. Following her departure several professors mentioned the need for more student feedback on the issue.

April 5 April 12

site designed and maintained by jon macdonald and ben alschuler :::