1. We envision a set of distribution requirements very much like those currently in place. Although we did not have enough time to discuss the current requirements as fully as we would have liked, members of the group are (in general) supportive of the current requirements in English, foreign language, history and the sciences. (We never talked about social sciences at all!).

2. The Perspectives Course. In addition to the current distribution requirements, each student must take one course that exposes the student to a perspective which is different from the dominant cultural heritage of the United States (e.g., African American Studies, Women’s Studies, courses on developing nations or non-western cultures).

1. General information. Each student will be required to take two (distinct) sequences of courses outside the major. Each sequence will be organized around a common theme (a contemporary problem, a time period, a region). Sequences must be approved by the General Education Committee (See II, below). At least one sequence must address subject matter that has a significant ‘international’ component. The purpose of these sequences (elaborated below) is to provide thematic unity in the students’ general education experience. That is, these sequences help the student to develop a deeper understanding of the ‘relationship among the branches of knowledge’ (goal #1). Students are permitted to ‘double count’ courses to receive credit toward the distribution requirments and the sequences. For example, ENGL 201 might count both as a humanities distribution requirement as as a component in a British Studies sequence. However, students must complete two distinct sequences: a single 3-course sequence cannot satisfy both sequence requirements.

2. Thematic sequence. Students will complete one sequence of three courses. All three courses will be from different disciplines (outside the major), and at least one course will be at the 200-level or higher. The courses should all address a common theme -- an historical time period, a major contemporary problem or issue, a geographical region, etc. The general education committee (see section II below) will be charged with determining which sequences are sufficiently coherent to satisfy this requirement. (See Appendix for examples.)

3. International Sequence. This is a 2-course sequence. Students will take two courses (from different disciplines) that bear on a single region outside of the United States. There will certainly be an overlap in the list of international and thematic sequences (e.g., three courses in Oriental Studies might count as a thematic sequence), but we require students to complete two distinct sequences (i.e., can’t use a single sequence to meet both requirements). (See appendix for examples.)

1. Require each major to demonstrate how it progressively develops the central skills identified in the general education goals (i.e., reading, writing, speaking, skill in the discipline’s methods of inquiry [including relevant computer skills], critical thinking, problem solving). Some majors already do this to some degree (e.g., the history department). To implement this, we will need more precise definitions of the relevant skills (see section III on general recommendations).

Rationale: This requirement serves two purposes. First, it provides continuity between the skills developed in the major and those emphasized in general education. Second, it provides an opportunity to develop those skills in a progressive way. Our group thought that progressive development of skills was important, but hard to achieve outside of the major.

2. Writing intensive course. Each student will be required to take at least one writing intensive course at or above the 300 level. The general education committee will set guidelines on what counts as "writing intensive" (e.g., how much writing, whether re-writes are required, etc.) and determine if proposed courses meet these requirements. Obviously, these requirements will need to be sensitive to the variation in the kinds of writing done in different disciplines.

Rationale: to provide an opportunity to further develop writing skills. This proposal offers one way to encourage the development of a central skill and shows continuity between the general education courses and more advanced work in the major or minor. Our expectation is that virtually all majors can and will develop courses to satisfy this requirement. These courses should have appropriate enrollment caps so that teaching a writing intensive course will not be unduly burdensome.

1. In order to create a greater sense of campus community in which ‘dialogue about intellecutal debates and controversies can occur’ (goal #9), we recommend the development of shared experience courses. The general education committee would select a book that raises important issues that cut across disciplines. Faculty would be encouraged to include this book in their courses. Orientation materials would provide new students with the bibliographical information about "the book," and copies would be available at the College Bookstore during summer orientation. Faculty who wished to participate would agree to use the book in one or more of their regular classes during the fall and/or spring semester. Class sections of participating professors would be noted by a special section prefix (e.g., HIST 101, section F01). Freshmen and transfer students would be strongly encouraged to enroll in at least one of the sections discussing "the book."

2. When possible, on-campus events should make an effort to address the book(s) being discussed. For example, we can use speaker series or (sessions similar to Candide Day) to enhance the campus-wide discussion of this book.

1. At present, it is unclear precisely how hard it will be for students to jointly satisfy the two sequences and the distribution requirements. We’d like to make several comments about this. First, members of group 1 believe that high-quality advising is a crucial component of general education. Without good advising, this type of general education structure may be difficult for the student to "navigate." One particularly difficult problem is that freshmen and sophomores will be asked to begin choosing both international and thematic sequences before they have yet defined their areas of intellectual interest. While we recognize that this is a problem, we believe that the coherence created by these requirements is truly worth pursuing. One (partial) solution would be to reduce the number of hours required in the distribution requirements. For example, we could reduce the number of humanities hours from 12 to 9.

2. At least some members of the group thought that this proposal did not achieve enough coherence. We entertained the possibility of replacing the distribution requirements (as currently conceived) with a set of sequences (a la James Madison), but did not have enough time to fully assess this possibility.

1. The general education program at the college should be governed by a dean (or director) of the general education working in close connection with a standing faculty committee on general education. The director should be a tenured faculty member who would serve in this role for a term of 3-5 years. The director (and perhaps an adminstrative assistant) would provide continuity and a long-term vision for the program. However, it is important that the faculty continue to provide input regarding the future direction and assessment of our general education program. Thus, we would like to see the director’s role "checked" by a standing faculty committee. The precise division of labor between the director and the committee will have to be carefully thought through.

2. The duties of the director and the committee should include:

3. In our view, it is very important that the people who are administering the general education program become involved with the ongoing process of assessing gened. Thus, the general education committee should work closely with the existing assessment committee. We do not have a specific structure to recommend, but we believe that three broad principles should guide us in forging a connection between these committees: (1) The gened committee should take advantage of the expertise members of the assessment committee can offer, (2) The gened committee should be actively involved in assessment, and (3) we should not make positions on either committee unduly burdensome (for example, we should not insist that some people sit on both committees -- which would likely make these important faculty committees unattractive).

4. High-quality advising is central to the success of a general education program. This topic is large and well-beyond our immediate task, but we hope that this review of general education will eventualy lead to specific proposals to address advising as an important element of the general education experience.

A. The body admininstering the general education program should develop specific criteria for determining which courses will count towards the completion of each distribution requirement. For example, we will need to develop criteria for determining whether a particular course should count as a "writing intensive course," a "laboratory science" course, a "social science" course. Departments can then petition to have courses count toward the distribution requirement. Ideally, departments should also suggest ways the general education committee can assess these courses. This will encourage departments to think about what the course will achieve and will also reduce the assessment burden on the general education committee.

B. The previous recommendation requires that we have a clear vision of what objectives we hope to achieve with each requirement. For example, we cannot sensibly determine what courses should count toward the science requirement until we have a clear vision of what we want the "science requirement" to accomplish. Are we aiming for (1) knowledge of the content of a single science, (2) an understanding of the central scientific concepts of a range of sciences, (3) an understanding of the scientific method, or (4) skills in problem solving? We do not believe that the college community has a clear vision of what we want to accomplish with each requirement. Thus, the ad hoc committee on general education should develop a procedure that will help the campus community to articulate the rationale (the objectives we hope to accomplish) with each element of the distribution requirement. This rationale should be justified (at least in part) by reference to the goals adopted last year.

C. The Ad Hoc Committee on General Education should work to develop definitions of the central skills (e.g., What is "critical thinking"?). Furthermore, we should develop specific criteria for assessing these skills.