|
|
Faculty
Bicker, Debate Over Proposed Credit System
by Ariella Cohen
In a Tuesday meeting of the College Faculty Committee,
an EPPC proposal to change Oberlins 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 proposals 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 arent
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 wont take 26 somethings
and a bunch of duffle-dorf? Professor of Politics Ronald Kahn
said.
Other professors challenged the proposals use of data compiled
at peer institutions and Geitzs 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. Ive seen what this plan would do to the biology
department and that doesnt 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. Lets face it, we are all
workaholics here and our students also do too much to be healthy,
have many interests. Thats 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]
lets 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 students
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 didnt 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.
|
|
|