Nuances of a New Curriculum: Gettysburg Considers Curriculum Changes

By Josh Carmel

The poet Theognis noted that, “the eyes and tongue and ears and intelligence of quick-witted man [and all individuals for that matter] grow in the middle of his chest.” While it may be a bit hyperbolic in comparison, such a sentiment properly embodies the current struggle for a reformatted curriculum at Gettysburg College.

Amongst an ostensible thicket of superficial “turf battles” and disciplinary contentions, there exist both countless professors and students who harbor firm convictions about standards intrinsic to both the College and the Liberal Arts. For those involved, the proposals concerning curriculum change serve not only to expedite administrative tasks, but also to improve academic flexibility for students.

“The [current curriculum] gives students the opportunity to delve into a number of different subjects,” said junior Antonia Hernandez, “but what it lacks [is that in] four years it is hard to maintain [a] solid expertise.”

Hernandez’s contention that, within a 32 “course unit” requirement, over 10 units, or a third of the requirement for graduation, are devoted to possible spheres of study outside one’s major, is readily echoed by other students as well.

“It’s very strange that we have a 32 credit system, when all of the other colleges don’t,” said freshman Ashley Logan.

The current Gettysburg curriculum was implemented in 2004, with the stipulation that it would further be reviewed in five years by the Academic Program and Policy Committee (APPC), a group chaired by Dr. Kevin Wilson of the Psychology Department.

“As a member of the APPC,” wrote Chair of the English Department Dr. Suzanne Flynn, my colleagues and I have been working for nearly 18 months on reviewing our current curriculum and figuring out how to address some of the problems that both faculty and students have found with it.”

Now that the time has arrived for the APPC’s analysis, a confluence of different perspectives has flooded the campus as to the proper method of reformatting the curriculum. While many feel that the current structure warrants repair, others feel that it is best left alone.

“It’s a liberal arts school,” challenged sophomore Mike Parker, “we’re supposed to be pushed into all aspects of education [and ] not just one’s we personally excel at…that’s what makes Gettysburg so difficult, but great.”

Parker’s sentiment is likewise harbored by many faculty members.

“I prefer the curriculum as it stands, which encourages student thoughtfulness about classes and between classes,” Chair of the Philosophy Department Dr. Steven Gimbel said.

Gimbel is also joined by Chair of the History Department Dr. Timothy Shannon.

“I think the college’s core curriculum is consistent with the ideals of a liberal arts education,” said Shannon. “It encourages students to sample broadly from a variety of fields and to think about how they are connected to each other.”

Ultimately, the APPC proposals were presented to the Student Senate by Flynn on Nov. 11. The committee suggested a change in the definition of Multiple Inquiries, in order to broaden the spectrum of courses available for students. In the same fashion, the “Local and Global Citizenship” requirement would be renamed “Informed Citizenship,” just as “Domestic Conceptual” and “Non-Western” would be redefined as “Aspects of Diversity” and “Global Understanding,” respectively. The overall implications of these minor curriculum changes were discussed by Senate President Denitsa Koleva in a recent article for The Gettysburgian.

“If the changes are implemented, students would still have to take three courses that satisfy ‘Informed Citizenship,’ however, now they will also have the opportunity to choose only two or three goals (Aspects of Diversity, Global Understanding, or Science and Technology),” wrote Koleva. “Another proposed change is the introduction of an Integrative Project to replace the confusion surrounding the cluster/interdisciplinary requirement.”

Additionally, the APPC proposed stipulations which would prohibit a course from contemporaneously satisfying three requirements toward the College Curriculum as a whole.

“The major issues [as it pertains to the redefinition of course names] are: some people are confused by the differences between ‘domestic’ and ‘global’ diversity requirement…I don’t think that changing these terms will radically change anything about the college, its environment or the nature of a liberal arts education,” Chair of the Theatre Arts Dr. Susan Russell wrote.

Her sentiments were also echoed by Wilson.

“The APPC proposal would not allow ‘triple dipping’—‘double dipping’ would still be fine,” wrote Wilson. “Also, students wouldn’t choose which requirements the course fulfills (so if it fulfills two, everyone gets credit for both).”

Despite support garnered for the APPC proposals, several faculty members still take issue with their subsequent implications and overhaul. Chair of the Economics Department Dr. Charles Weise, representing a group of 20 tenured professors, presented an alternate proposal to the Student Senate on Dec. 7. During the discussion, Weise advocated the removal of the cluster requirement, as well as endorsed stipulations which would recommend completing core requirements during a student’s first two years. While the proposed curriculum would allow students to bypass an unrealistic requirement if an advisor’s signature were presented, it would also restrict the number of requirements which could be satisfied by one course.

“My sense is that the second set of motions, offered by Professor Weise and others, is principally an effort to further simplify and slightly reduce the number of course selections which make up the total requirements,” Professor of Political Science Dr. Kenneth Mott said.

Likewise, English Professor and Coordinator of Women, Gender, and Sexuality Studies Dr. Temma Berg plans to submit inquiries formulating another proposal.

“[It's] very hard to design a perfect curriculum…everyone is going to have different opinions,” Berg said.

The contentious issue for Berg, however, stems from the APPC and alternate proposal stipulations restricting the number of requirements which could be fulfilled by a particular course.

“When I first viewed the curriculum, I hoped that all of my courses met [the] requirements,” she said.

Instead of the APPC or alternate revision, Berg wants to submit the following proposal:

“If the concern is lack of flexibility, and fear that students are taking particular courses because they meet several goals, [would] the best solution [be] to say [that] any course can only meet one goal, even if the faculty member believes that her course meets more than one goal? Might it be a better solution, and provide more flexibility, to say that when a course meets two or three or even four goals, students may designate which goal they are satisfying with this particular course?”

In this manner, the student would simultaneously achieve a certain degree of control over his or her academic designations, while being granted the ancillary flexibility necessary to focus on a major or concentration.

The struggle for new curriculum provisions is rife with perspective, emotional discourse, and personal preference. As the APPC, faculty, and administration continue to hear a wide range of different opinions, all of which could not, unfortunately, fit within the parameters of this article, the nature of conflict will become charged and the solution more convoluted.

For students who have attempted to wade through the labyrinth of courses presented on the Gettysburg website, these changes may aid in alleviating excess pressure. Either way, it is necessary for all those involved to, as Theognis urged, use their minds, voices, ears, and hearts. Only in that manner can a proposal exist in keeping with student interests.

“Our [the faculty's] overarching interest is in trying to assure that all of our students will have course experiences which comport with the College’s general mission as a liberal arts institution,” Mott said.