It’s certainly not perfect; first drafts rarely are! But it is the result of study, input, experience, and design by many faculty members, students, and staff.
The most important question is not “for it or against it?” but rather “what parts help improve general education and what parts should be changed?” In today’s “with-us-or-against-us” world, the idea of a true dialogue may seem strange, but in this case it’s true.
I’m thrilled that so many faculty, students and community members have weighed in on the ideas in that draft, and I am sure the final proposal will be better because of their input.
It’s also important to note that many faculty love much of the proposal, though their voices may not have come to the DTH’s attention.
Some of the specific issues raised in the editorial are likely to be addressed as the dialogue continues. For example, the arguments against combining US and Global Diversity into a single requirement are persuasive.
And it probably makes sense to make the distinctions among areas more fine-grained than simply Math & Science, Social Science and Fine Arts & Humanities. (The editorial is mistaken, though—the draft does not recommend combining social and natural sciences.)
There will be more public meetings, more dialogue, and more design work—and, at the end, I’m confident that we will end up with a curriculum that serves our students well.
Prof. Andrew J. Perrin
Chair of the Curriculum Revision Coordinating Committee