Williams Home > Strategic Planning > Curricular Innovation > Phase IV: Final Curricular Proposals from the CEP > Addendum: Other Curricular Issues
Phase IV: Final Curricular Proposals from the CEP
ADDENDUM: OTHER CURRICULAR ISSUES
The work of the CEP this year has been at the general level, addressing college-wide issues. In the areas of contents and skills requirements, in the proposals for the tutorial program, interdisciplinary studies, and experiential education, we have deliberately focused on the general education portion of the curriculum. There remain, of course, a number of important related issues. In particular, we suggest that the CEP consider the following as the planning for curricular innovation continues: The structure of the major curriculum; academic advising; a credit hour system, and academic policies and practices. Below we list and briefly describe these issues.
- STRUCTURE OF THE MAJOR CURRICULUM
The cornerstone of our major curriculum is a standard of at least nine courses for a major, with eleven courses typically constituting the maximum. We need to have a better idea of how well this is working and what effect a courseload reduction might have on this standard. Related to this are four other issues: 1) double majoring, 2) minors, 3) course numbering and 4) the major capstone experience. One consequence of our relatively low number of required courses for a major continues to be the practice of double majoring. Faculty differ significantly as to whether double majoring is in the spirit of or antithetical to a liberal arts education. We heard in our consultations that instituting an optional minor system might be a very effective way of addressing the practice of double majoring and would often make much better curricular sense for our students. We have recognized that there is by now very little cross college standardization in the use of course numbering; the character and difference between 100 and 200 (and even 300) level courses varies dramatically from department to department. This can make advising more complicated. It would be helpful to discuss how this problem might be addressed. In addition, the sequence of the major and the character of culminating capstone experiences within in the major have continued to diverge rather dramatically across the college. It is time for a general review of our individual department practices.
Finally, during this year, the CEP considered several proposals concerning the structure of the major curriculum, and several proposals concerning important skills such as library and other research skills and information technology skills. We believe that these are related issues, and that they are best considered by departments and programs, as a next step in curricular innovation, and in collaboration with the CEP. Department and program staff might be asked to consider questions such as the following: What are the core intellectual skills, as well as the core content areas, in the major? Those skills will vary across majors but they should be articulated and linked explicitly to the major curriculum. In some, critical and close reading is a core skill. In others, empirical methods, laboratory techniques, or certain technological skills are core. In others, being able to use theories to critically analyze texts is a core skill. The point is that each major curriculum should insure that students are taught about "doing," as well as "learning about," the discipline. Does the distribution of students across courses at the 200, 300, and 400 level, and class size, permit the types of pedagogy that allow maximum educational value of the courses? If not, what staffing or re-organization is needed to permit that? Are there creative ways to work with the library and OIT staff to accomplish some of these goals? With regard to contents, what are the "distribution requirements" of the major and what is the rationale for them? Can courses from other departments satisfy major requirements? Do the requirements ensure adequate breadth and does the progression through the major ensure adequate depth? How do the major requirements compare to the standards for undergraduate education in that field or discipline?
- ACADEMIC ADVISING
Student complaint about advising has been consistent and significant this year. Faculty are also concerned about it. The CEP believes that high quality, individualized academic advising can significantly enhance the educational value of a Williams education. Ideally each student would have an academic advisor who knows his or her academic strengths, weaknesses, interests, and goals very well. There would be continuing contact with the advisor as the student developed, and the advisor would help the student find his or her way through the curriculum with a plan that addresses the student's interests, goals, and academic needs.
It may be that this is an area in which there will never be a perfect solution, but two specific areas could usefully be addressed: the absence of advising in the sophomore year and the commitment to departments being the main source of advising for the last two years. Proposals have been floated over the years to find a way to continue the first year advising assignments for the first two years, but those have been regularly rejected as impractical. In the absence of that, departments have been asked to designate non-major advisors primarily aimed at sophomores. In addition, we have seen the development of an autonomous senior advisors program also aimed primarily at sophomores. We need to evaluate the level of success of these two programs in providing for the needs of all students, but especially sophomores. In the last two years departments are supposed to be the primary home for advising, supplemented by a number of campus offices. We need to evaluate how well this is working.
Though we have no specific proposals about advising to bring forth at this time, we are hopeful that in the near future a better advising system may be created. We suggest that in 2001-2002 a working group composed of staff from the Dean's office and a few faculty and student CEP members consider the issue of advising, and suggest solutions. As a starting point, we list below some of the ideas for improving advising that arose during this year's curricular discussions.
- Could we devise some system of incentives and perhaps even evaluation of advising so that those advisors who are really interested in and good at advising are the ones doing it?
- Consider the designation of a team of faculty advisors who would work out of an academic advising office under the supervision of the Dean of the College's office. Such a team of approximately 20-30 advisors would receive course relief and function as advisors to students in all four years.
- Could a student be paired with an academic advisor for four years? The advisor would be the primary academic advisor for the first two years (unless s/he was on sabbatical leave), but would remain as a mentor, more general advisor, "friend on campus" type advisor in the last two years as well, even as the student finds a major advisor, if mutually agreeable.
- Might academic advising be linked somehow to sophomore tutorials?
- Might Winter Study provide a time for intensive academic advising, perhaps in the sophomore year and perhaps integrated with associated special programs on career counseling, talks by alumni about their careers, "majors fairs," etc . This might help create a more thoughtful ethos surrounding course and major choice in the sophomore year. Perhaps faculty and staff who are particularly good at advising would take this on as their Winter Study assignment.
- What if students, when they declare a major, also present their departmental advisor with a portfolio of their work? This might include written work such as papers and exams, art work, music, etc. as appropriate to the studentıs interests, as well as a written statement about the student's interests, goals, and self-perceived educational strengths and weaknesses. This would enhance the quality of major advising, and shorten the time it takes to get to know the advisee.
- CREDIT HOUR SYSTEM
The one large idea that the CEP has not had the opportunity to carefully consider is the proposal for a credit hour system. It is an idea that has a number of ramifications and may be of value in administering a faculty course load reduction. It could make possible better advising of students and also calculation of faculty workload. Being able to develop small curricular units of one or two credits might make it possible to try new kinds of instructional formats.
In addition, the CEP heard a number of concerns this year about student work load. We believe that this can be productively addressed in conversations about the structure of the major and the role of the major(s) within the student's complete experience. While we do not have a particular proposal at this time, the possibility of a credit hour system has been suggested as potentially helpful in this regard. In sum, we believe that a credit hour system is definitely worth a more sustained investigation.
- ACADEMIC POLICIES AND REGULATIONS
The call for ideas during Phase I of the curricular innovation yielded a number of comments on academic policies and regulations. Some may be relevant to whatever curricular innovations are adopted and should be considered as needed. Others are more a matter of "housekeeping" that the CEP may wish to take up in any case. These included: Winter Study and the length of semesters; The four course rule; Half courses; Advanced placement; The eight semester rule; The division of the day; Grading practices and policies; The 36-course requirement; Pass-fail regulations.