Much has been made of the residential changes that are proposed in The Committee on the First-Year Experience's report. On that subject, almost everyone has some sort of opinion.
However, in light of the debate, it seems that an equally important facet of the report -- that of the steps to supposedly improve intellectual life at Dartmouth -- has been overlooked. While the goals of improving intellectual life at Dartmouth and moving learning outside the classroom are good ones, the methods by which the committee seeks to attain these goals are insufficient.
Among other things the plan would place a faculty member in each freshman cluster. The idea is that this professor would serve as a leader of intellectual discourse for the entire cluster, approximately 350 first year students.
Throughout last week's "Town Meeting", Dean Pelton frequently said that these proposals would make faculty/student interaction more comfortable, whereas in its current state such interaction is forced. The way I see, it two types of activities could take place involving these faculty members.
First of all, they could administer programs for the entire cluster. One needs to wonder, though, if every student in the cluster would be interested in this sort of programming. It has been my experience that some students are simply not interested in this sort of discourse.
A prime example occurred during freshman orientation this year. One evening Professor William Cook delivered a speech that was centered around a book that all incoming freshman had been asked to read. After the lecture, each dorm broke up into groups to discuss it. This was perhaps our first opportunity for intellectual discussion at Dartmouth, and what happened?
Many students came and simply waited for the discussion to end. Others did not even bother to come in the first place. The point is that for intellectual activity to be productive, those who are participating in it need to be interested. It is foolish to try to force feed it. Clearly large scale programming is not going to truly improve intellectualism.
This brings us to the second way in which faculty members in residence can promote intellectualism. Ideally, these professors would be able to interact with the first year students not only as a group, but also on the personal level.
However, we are talking about one faculty member for every 350 students. Considering the busy schedules these professors undoubtedly have, it is absurd to assume that they will be able to initiate any sort of interaction with each and every cluster member.
Where does this leave us in the quest for promoting a generally more intellectual campus? Probably in the same place we already are.
The students who are going to take advantage of the faculty members living close by are those that are already in professors' offices during office hours; those who seek out professors after class for further discussion; those for whom interaction with the faculty is already natural and is far from forced.
If we are seeking to instill intellectual passion in those who currently lack it, there is a need to drastically alter the ratio of faculty to students from 350 to 1 that is currently proposed. To truly promote intellectualism in those who seem disinterested, the faculty member must have a significant understanding of the student. This sort of understanding requires interaction of a far more personal nature than the report allows.
In the final analysis, it becomes obvious that intellectualism is a personal characteristic that one either exercises or one does not. This is not to say that we all do not have the capability for it. However, tapping the valuable intellects of those who shy away from intellectual discourse requires reforms that are more radical that the current proposals.
Right now it seems that these proposals are merely paying lip service to the admirable goal of improving intellectualism but will fail to pay any true dividends.
