|
Nearly
two months have passed since the issuance of the Curricular Review
Report, so this is a suitable time for the Curricular Review
Committee to provide a brief update. First, I want to thank all of
our colleagues who attended the three open meetings. The comments,
criticisms, and suggestions voiced at those meetings were
constructive in spirit and stimulating in substance. As such, they
marked a fine beginning to what will be an extended conversation
about the ways in which we faculty, working together, can improve
student learning and create the stronger, more pervasive
intellectual community that so many of us think is urgently needed.
On
the basis of these meetings and also of many conversations
individual members of the committee have had with colleagues, we
detect some agreement emerging on several fundamental points. First,
changes in pedagogy are likely to be at least as important as
changes in the curriculum as a means of promoting serious and
sustained student engagement with their studies. Second, the current
distribution requirements are not satisfactory, and a better general
education program has to be devised. Third, whatever curricular
changes are adopted, they should afford students a large measure of
choice. And, fourth, it is vital to find ways to ensure that
students have an especially powerful intellectual experience during
their first two years. We believe these four points provide a good
basis for continued faculty deliberations and represent an important
milestone on the journey toward consensus.
Over
the past several weeks, the committee has met with each of the four
academic divisions to discuss the report and its implications for
each division. Individual departments and programs have also begun
discussions of the report. We have drawn up a short list of
questions that we are asking each department and program to consider
during these discussions. The responses will help the CRC refine its
own thinking about the curricular and pedagogic issues raised in the
report and will lead, in time, to revised proposals for faculty
consideration.
In
closing, I want again to express my appreciation of the candid and
constructive nature of our colleagues’ reactions to the report,
both in the open meetings and in private conversations. While we do
not underestimate the difficulty of effecting curricular and pedagogic change, the serious and thoughtful
manner in which our colleagues are engaging with the report makes us
optimistic about the final outcome.
back to top |
