UPDATED: May 10, 2016 1:41 a.m.
Yesterday, the Arts and Sciences faculty voted to approve the simplification of distributive requirements and the creation of world culture and quantitative and formal reasoning requirements. While these changes to the core curriculum will not affect current students, the proposals are intended to take effect as soon as possible. The faculty also rejected a proposal to require all students to take a non-English language class at level three or higher, without students being able to place out of the requirement.
The faculty also postponed the discussion and vote on a measure to replace the non-recording option with a satisfactory/D/E option. This means that students could no longer set grade limits on certain courses. Rather for those who elect this option, any grade above a failing one would show up on a transcript as satisfactory.
Only 80 members of the faculty of Arts and Sciences, including College President Phil Hanlon and Dean of the Faculty Michael Mastanduno, were present for voting, just above the quorum of 75 Arts and Sciences faculty needed to have a binding vote on the proposals.
The new distributive system will require that students take three courses in the natural and applied sciences, three courses in the social sciences, three courses in the arts and humanities and one interdisciplinary course. It will replace the current system of 10 classes across eight distributive categories. The proposal passed by a vote of 40-32.
The faculty amended the initial proposal that would implement the changes starting with the Class of 2024 to a non-specified as soon as possible start date,
Dean of graduate studies Jon Kull and religion professor Susan Ackerman both questioned the reasoning behind the initial proposal of delaying the introduction of the curricular changes until the Class of 2024.
Computer science professor Tom Cormen was in favor of the flexibility offered by the new distributive system.
Engineering professor Solomon Diamond criticized the simplified distributive system for eliminating the distinction between natural and applied sciences. Diamond noted students often have little experience in applied sciences before college.
Multiple professors also noted the risk of students taking three similar courses within a distributive section under the new system rather than experimenting with a broader range of courses.
Mastanduno said the committee wanted students to think like someone in a distributive area, be it a social scientist, scientist or humanist.
The passed proposal would also require a “reflective document” of all students by the end of their second year explaining their rationale for their selected distributive courses.
Cormen also said he was not sure what he would do if a student gave him a very poor reflective document.
The simplified distributive system partially reverts back to the old system of distributives used before the 1994-1995 academic year, which also required three science, social science and humanities courses, as well as an interdisciplinary course.
The single world culture requirement replaces the current requirement that students take one course each in western culture, non-western culture and culture and identity. The new world culture requirement would modify the CI requirement, but is intended to be satisfied with a more limited range of 40 to 50 courses rather than the 250 courses which currently satisfy the CI requirement. Currently, the courses that satisfy the CI are considered so amorphous that even members of the Committee on Instruction were unsure of its current meaning, Mastanduno said. The world culture requirement passed by a narrow margin of 35-32.
Sociology professor Deborah King raised the concern that the elimination of western and non-western requirements would make it possible for a student to never take a course relating to a place beyond North America or Western Europe.
The quantitative and formal reasoning requirement will remain at least one course, but the faculty have yet to decide on the specifics. One of the stated reasons for the new quantitative requirement was that it would elevate quantitative and formal reasoning to the status of an essential skill, akin to the writing requirement.
Three of the four proposals debated originated in the curricular review committee, which released its report last April.
Mastanduno said that the four proposals would be the final proposals from the curricular review committee. The committee of department chairs has previously approved the four proposals discussed at yesterday’s meeting.
The curricular review committee also has recommended previous proposals that the faculty approved such as the new class schedule that will start this coming summer term and the extension of pre-major advising to sophomores.
The faculty so overwhelmingly opposed the new language requirement that the meeting’s organizers did not bother to count all those voting against the proposal. Multiple professors objected that the policy would force students fluent in foreign languages not offered by the College to take courses to level three in a language at the College despite their foreign language proficiency.
Anthropology professor John Watanabe noted that a bilingual student speaking English as a second language who had the daily experience of crossing linguistic and cultural boundaries would still have to take three terms of another language at Dartmouth.
“This is a prime example of why students of color are so unhappy with this place, because it embodies normative bias,” he said.
Had the language requirement change passed, waivers would have only been granted in the instance of students being unable to complete the requirement for reasons such as auditory disability. Students with waivers would still be expected to take an alternative course, potentially in English, to satisfy the requirement.
Lynn Higgins, in defending the language proposal, said she found it problematic that high school foreign language classes could substitute for college-level foreign language instruction. Higgins also noted that students would be able to transfer language credit from other schools.
Anthropology professor Deborah Nichols rebutted Higgins’ point about transfer credit by giving a past example of a native Navajo speaker whose family would have had difficulty securing the $2,000 dollar transfer fee. Nichols added that non-native English speakers had a more intensive immersion in English through the College’s writing requirement than many English speakers did in a foreign language through the language requirement.
Some criticized the lack of specificity in some of the proposals. For instance, the curricular review committee did not define the precise nature of the world culture requirement but would instead task the committee on instruction with determining which courses will satisfy the requirement.
German and comparative literature professor Irene Kacandes stated that she felt extremely uncomfortable voting on at least two of the proposals whose details were yet to be determined.
Hanlon opened the meeting, mentioning recent faculty awards and campus initiatives and also announcing a search committee for a new dean of the faculty to replace Mastanduno. Sociology professor Denise Anthony then summarized the findings of the recent campus climate survey of the College. One professor questioned Anthony about the validity of the survey results due to the low 18 percent response rate from students. Anthony said that the survey results are corroborated by more frequent student surveys with as high as 40 percent student response rates that contain similar responses to the campus climate survey.
