Gen. Requirement creates confusion

By Kara Blond It seemed simple enough. Ten courses. Seven sectors. All in eight semesters. But changes made to the General Requirement guidelines for the College of Arts and Sciences last spring are anything but simple. "We wanted for students to be given more freedom in choosing among a wider variety of courses," said David Brownlee, chairperson of the Committee on Undergraduate Education and a member of the committee set up to review the General Requirement. College students must still complete two courses in each of the first three sectors -- Society, History and Tradition, and Arts and Letters. But beginning this semester, one of the two required courses from each of the first three sectors can be chosen from a list of "distributional" courses. Most College students said while they are pleased with the increased number of choices, they are confused by the changes. "I'm not sure what the requirement changes were," said College junior Debra Shiau. "I don't remember reading anything about them." But for Shiau and other upperclassmen, the new requirements could have a potentially large impact. According to Kent Peterman, executive assistant to the College Dean Robert Rescorla, the curriculum changes are "retroactive" -- meaning students who previously took a distributional requirement course could count that to the General Requirement. Brownlee said changes to the requirement were firmed up over the summer. At that time, department chairs were asked to decide which courses would be considered "distributional." These "distributional" courses are smaller, often upper-level classes in more concentrated areas of study. "Most students were complaining to us that most classes that were in the [sectors] didn't make any sense," said Matthew Kratter, chairperson of the Student Committee on Undergraduate Education, which proposed the changes. "All we did was really seek to improve the choices in that system." But many believe the changes only serve to increase student confusion. "I don't really understand the [requirements]," said College freshman Wendy Kanareka. "I didn't really get any explanation besides the course book. Even the College advisors had no idea what they were doing. " College freshman Alice Birnbaum agreed. "I think maybe they should narrow the choices and the sectors down a bit," she said. "It's great to have a lot of choices, but it's a little confusing." But while the number of "distributional" courses will be increased, the number of courses tailored specifically for the General Requirement will be carefully restricted. "What we want now is to concentrate on making sure those courses on the General Requirement list are increasingly scrutinized," Brownlee said. "We want to see that first- and second-year students are given the most tantalizing introduction possible to the various studies we engage in here." College Dean Robert Rescorla said that no "definite plans" have been made for additional changes to the General Requirement, but added that a standing committee has been created for its evaluation, chaired by Philosophy Professor Paul Guyer. "We've asked the departments if they want to make changes in the General Requirement," Rescorla said. "We want students to start viewing [the requirements] as beneficial instead of seeing them as obstacles." He added that although the new guidelines were "probably not as well advertised as they should have been," the College Advisor, a newsletter that will be sent to all College undergraduates prior to advance registration for the spring term, will detail the changes. But for now, students continue to be baffled by the current guidelines. "I think they need to get information out," said College junior David Rosenberg. "I don't think [the changes] were well publicized at all."