Saint Mary's College General Education

The Committee met in the parlor of Holy Cross Hall with faculty from Anthropology, Justice Education, and Chemistry. The conversation first centered on knowledge and skills faculty expected students to acquire from the College's general education offerings. The four different models for SMC General Education (1.0) were then discussed. Afterwards, the committee met among itself to review the feedback it received and to talk about the format for the upcoming General Education lunch on February 26th. The Committee will meet with the Student Academic Council on Monday night (February 19th) and with the Board of Trustees Education Committee next Thursday, February 22nd.

---

Those at the meeting were first asked to consider the two questions previously distributed to all faculty.

A faculty member began by passing along a comment from a colleague that the committee ‘not fix what isn’t broken.’

Another on the advantages of being forced to take classes in disciplines other than those that one would have chosen oneself. The so-called ‘cafeteria approach’ to general education allows exposure to different things. Places in the curriculum need to be created where diverse modes of thought could be foregrounded.

Students need to know what is going on in the world. How many students know the real issues in Iraq, for example?

Certain disciplines such as anthropology contribute very directly to fostering a global perspective. The holistic and comparative approach of anthropology gives students a way of understanding the complexities of cultural differences and global, cross-cultural interactions.

Students should be allowed to be wrong and to see in being wrong a place to go rather than to avoid so that learning occurs.

General education is about changing students, said one faculty member. If we’re just passing along facts, then there is no opportunity for reflection and hence, for change. This led to a conversation about a proposed first-year experience. Why, the question was asked, does Model A have an ungraded component? One response was that certain life skills might not have a home in particular disciplines. (The Committee was urged to think more explicitly about a student affairs component to general education.) Another faculty member said that we shouldn’t grade people on the basis of personal insights or belief systems. There was a discussion on whether students really can take risks if a particular assignment is graded. But perhaps we need to teach students to take risks even if they’re being graded. Should grades be carrots to intellectual risk-taking?

Another faculty member asked if the reference to solidarity in Model A allowed for a notion of personal solidarity? Or is that somehow a contradiction in terms?

A member of the committee said that it’s important we shouldn’t start out arguing about the roadmap if that prevents us from realizing where the map is supposed to take us. He opined that previous attempts to reform general education may have failed for this reason.

It would be good to have a bridge between the College’s Mission statement and general education requirements.

Study abroad cannot and should not be required of all students. There are scheduling issues in particular majors that make very difficult carving out enough time to travel abroad. While summer or inter-term international study programs may address the concern about disrupting highly sequential major sequences, the added expense might still limit use of such an alternative for some students.

Next, the topic of the relationship between general education and the major was discussed. What the General Education Committee is proposing is a more organic relationship between general education courses and the student’s major. If general education means those parts of the curriculum that are common to all, does that mean that something like the Advanced W is really a part of gen. ed.? This is am important issue because it would affect who ends up having control of the Advanced W. This also relates to different programs for general education depending upon the degree the student is pursuing.

There is also an issue here about faculty course loads which could be significantly affected if a department’s general education courses are changed. This is especially the case faculty who have responsibilities teaching science labs. The question was asked by a member of the committee whether teaching non-lab science classes would give the professor more opportunities to develop other courses. The idea was presented of the lab as a cross cultural place.

A faculty member said that he felt the presentation in all the models was too complex for students and that, consequently, there was a need for simplification. Should the Committee present different renderings of general education for different audiences? Perhaps it’s better to have one document for all to avoid inconsistency and promote uniform understanding. It needs to be remembered that students don’t come to a particular college for its general education requirements. For that reason, there needs to be something in the vision/goals statements for the models that ‘sells’ general education to the student.

A faculty member said that Model B’s skill sets were less appealing to her.

Another faculty member complimented the Committee by saying she thought the decision to put these different models out there was a good one.

---

Any comments on the models or on any of the other issues discussed above can be posted below by anyone from the community.