Faculty meet to discuss pilot curriculum

Over 25 School of Arts and Sciences undergraduate department chairpersons, program directors, interested faculty and College Office staff members attended a meeting last Thursday to further evaluate the proposed pilot curriculum, according to College of Arts and Sciences Dean Richard Beeman. Thursday's meeting marks the first time undergraduate chairs and program directors have met as a group to talk about the School of Arts and Sciences' "experimental college" proposal since a summer of brainstorming by the Committee on Undergraduate Education. "We can't claim to be running a valid experiment if we don't put into place rigorous methods of evaluation at the very outset," Beeman said. Beeman, who observed the General Requirement portion of the session but was not its "primary mover," said he is very enthusiastic and optimistic about the proposal. The pilot College General Requirement was developed at a faculty meeting last April. At that time, 33 SAS professors endorsed the idea on an experimental basis, with the stipulation that the 14-member committee return in December with a more precise plan. In September, over 60 faculty members brainstormed course topics for the proposed pilot. The proposed experimental College curriculum -- which would reduce the number of courses in the requirement from 10 to four -- would begin with interested participants from the Class of 2004 and would not affect current students. At Thursday's meeting, CUE Chairperson Frank Warner, who is helping to spearhead the project, requested that faculty voice their concerns about the new proposal. Warner, a Mathematics professor, said the meeting focused on developing an evaluation process for the pilot by forming an evaluation committee. The evaluation committee would determine the way in which students are to be selected for the experiment and examine applying the various components of the curriculum to the entire student body. Since CUE developed the proposed pilot, it should play "only a modest role" in starting the actual evaluation effort, Warner said. "That evaluation process must belong to the SAS faculty," he said. At the meeting, several professors urged careful evaluation of the proposed experimental College curriculum. Political Science Department Undergraduate Chairperson Henry Teune said the evaluation committee and coordinator should be anonymous to prevent lobbying. And Psychology Professor Robert DeRubeis, who attended on behalf of the Psychology Department undergraduate chairperson and did not partake in developing the proposed pilot, said he suggested that the faculty define the goals of the pilot before evaluating it. "The next step [should be] to define the objectives clearly," DeRubeis said, adding that evaluators will be able to assess the proposed General Requirement once its objectives are laid down. Neither Thursday's faculty discussion nor the workshop held earlier this month involved any student input. Student Committee on Undergraduate Education Chairperson Aaron Fidler said the brainstorming sessions are faculty events at this point, noting that students might add a different, possibly intrusive, dimension. "I'm pretty much up to speed," the Wharton senior said Saturday, adding that Warner and Beeman have kept him informed of progress. Beeman said the follow-up to Thursday's discussion will be "two-fold." Steps include appointing the evaluation committee and engaging teams of faculty in course development.