Last year, the State College Board decided to reduce credit hours in a measure to ensure that students graduate in a timely fashion and that the cost of attending college would decrease.
As reported by The Reflector, “the University Committee on Courses and Curricula and leadership of the Faculty Senate had asked the provost that the university’s response to the degree change be ‘faculty run.'” As it stands now, the university core committee and the individual departments have been charged with reducing hours in their respective areas.
A university professor, who has been a stalwart intellectual on this campus for years, recently lamented how the process has become about departmental power as opposed to departmental merit.
The problem I see is that with this process being only “faculty run” and not “faculty/independent observer run” is that the academic Mafioso’s (not in a criminal sense) have been out with their Saturday night specials protecting their departmental interests to the death.
This reminds me of much of our political system where federal spending is relative. If “cutting this program hurts your congressional district and not mine, then so be it. If it adversely affects my district, then we have a fight on our hands.” No matter the merits of the program or if the district really doesn’t need the money, it’s all relative.
If you are in the minority in the academic departments represented on the faculty run bodies, then you just have to hope for the best. If you are in the science fields, you are probably happy with the process. If you are in the foreign languages field, you might feel like a liberal in the Republican congressional caucus.
I absolutely have no attachments to foreign languages. I know that many students taking foreign languages, but I also know a lot of people who hate taking 11 hours of life and physical sciences in the College of Arts and Sciences.
Every core and departmental requirement should seriously be examined and not be subjected to the politics of academia.
I have heard all the arguments for a diverse curriculum and I totally agree with training students for all aspects of society. The problem is that sometimes, too much is too much. How can they consider 17 hours of math and sciences but three hours of American government and public policy to be a well-rounded curriculum?
Aren’t we always complaining about how apathetic and uniformed our students are? I am not advocating imposing more government classes on biological sciences majors, but I would also like to be afforded that same respect.
What would be more important for me if I were a student entering the public service field, 11 hours of sciences or basic Spanish? In our diverse nation, I would say Spanish.
In this process of reducing credit hours, we should examine all courses. I haven’t reviewed the curriculums in areas like agriculture and engineering, but in the largest unit on campus, the College of Arts and Sciences, I have a few recommendations.
If we are going to reduce foreign languages to nine hours, how about reducing the science requirement from 11 to six hours or math from six to three hours.
I know a lot of people who hate math, more specifically calculus and statistics, as much as they hate foreign languages.
A lot of people will say, “Well, we have to keep our SACS accreditation.” That’s true, since without it our degrees our worthless. But if they would approve only three semesters of languages, they most certainly would approve six hours of science.
Although this process has been mostly done with minimal regular student input, I would encourage everyone to contact the university provost and the Faculty Senate to voice your concerns about your particular curriculum no matter what college or school you are in.
Edward Sanders is a junior political science major. He can be reached at [email protected].