Dean Carol Folt's response ("The Fact of the Matter," March 3) to my column ("Dear Old Dartmouth?" Feb. 28) attempts to divert attention from the generalized problem of oversubscribed classes by focusing attention only on the economics department.
But as anyone who has spoken widely with students or has been an attentive reader of The D understands, this problem exists all across the College ("Recent hirings do little to relieve crowded departments," Jan. 24; "Verbum Ultimum," Jan. 28; "Students find promises of small class size unfulfilled," Feb. 3).
Why class overcrowding occurs so often is unclear: the number of undergraduates has not increased over the past few years, nor has the total number of faculty members decreased. If many departments are overcrowded, it would seem logical that certain departments are begging for students.
Is this the case?
Perhaps Dean Folt could let us know the quantitative basis for this recent pedagogical development; she could also reveal the exact number of oversubscribed classes as a percentage of all classes. After all, department-by-department figures on the total number of oversubscribed classes each term are only a few keystrokes away in the Registrar's office.
Dean Folt, will you share this information with everyone, please?
I stand corrected for writing that the College's writing program "at present consists of only a single computer science professor doing research into how to improve students' written expression." Dean Folt points out that writing director "Professor Tom Cormen, and his staff of three" paid College employees are all working on "revising the current curriculum and developing an expanded discipline-wide portfolio of writing opportunities."
However, Dean Folt goes on to affirm that after "several years" of work by the subcommittee on writing, and after having Professor Cormen and his staff on the job since July 1, 2004, no specific steps have yet been taken to change the teaching of writing at the College. To be fair, she does state without elaboration that we can expect to see "incremental changes" in the "coming years."
I do agree with Dean Folt when she writes that the College has a "highly talented and dedicated faculty" and "an exceptionally gifted and engaged student body." Graciously, she extends an invitation to alumni "to come to campus and sit in on a day of classes."
This past summer, I audited History 52, and in the fall term, Religion 6. As Dean Folt promises, both courses were fascinating and challenging. Alas, for the unfortunate students who were turned away from them, both of these classes were oversubscribed.
Government chair Anne Sa'adah's letter ("Debunking the Drift Myth," March 4) regarding my column is a flashy piece of writing, filled as it is with literary references and wise-sounding generalizations about the world's changing conditions.
However, while Professor Sa'adah uses some form of the word "change" seven times, she never clearly defines the types of change to which she refers, nor does she suggest responses to them by Dartmouth.
Additionally, she employs broad historical analogies in an effort to depict me as a stereotype.
Somehow, according to Professor Sa'adah, my fact-based criticisms of certain aspects of undergraduate education at the College tie me to the traditions of the authoritarian right and left, and also to pre-Enlightenment thinking.
How do these unsupported smears advance our discussion?
Professor Sa'adah continues in an ad hominem vein by impugning my motives in creating and funding the Departmental Editing Program (DEP), a College program begun seven years ago in which three full-time editors have given intensive, one-on-one writing assistance to almost 3,000 students in the departments of art history, religion and mathematics. Again, her goal is unclear.
What does Professor Sa'adah herself have to say specifically about education at Dartmouth College? Read her text critically: hiring is "complicated" and "difficult"; the College faces "multiple and complex challenges"; and she and her colleagues would "like to see our course count increased; we expect to have to make an argument, we respect the needs of others, and we recognize the complexities involved."
In short, Professor Sa'adah tries to rationalize away (or simply accepts as inevitable?) the things that concern me about the present state of the College, many of which are also features of her own troubled department ("Govy Gridlock," Feb. 24).
The only examples of tangible progress that she cites are the band-aids of "working with the Registrar to improve the queuing system" for oversubscribed courses, revising the government major and improving student advising.
Finally, she charges that I am guilty of "nostalgia," a content-less debate device often used by defenders of the status quo.
Apparently Professor Sa'adah deems it nostalgic that I wish Dartmouth College to be known for good writing, continuity in dorm living, small classes with no waitlists, intimate libraries, free debate and vigorous sports teams who are able to train and play in modern facilities.
In response to her charge, allow me to paraphrase a quotation from American revolutionary Patrick Henry: If this be nostalgia, make the most of it!
Neither Dean Folt nor Professor Sa'adah directly responds to my detailed description of the qualitative decline of day-to-day life at the College. Their defensiveness and wordy obfuscations are excellent examples of Dartmouth's malaise, the result of an Administration unable to prepare for the future or to act promptly in response to the student/faculty discontent that fills The D and animates conversation all over campus.
We deserve better.
