University-wide general education: Fun idea or Evil Empire?

On March 3, the Faculty Senate is poised to pass a proposal called University-Wide General Education. "What is that awful thing? Can it hurt me?" Actually, the students currently enrolled will not be subjected to the change, but it will be implemented with the University of Arizona's entering class of 1998. The mandate does affect current students by lowering the quality of education and damaging the reputation of our school.

The University-Wide General Education proposal is a standardization of general education requirements across all colleges. This means that all students, from sociologists to chemical engineers, will be forced to take classes from the same "study areas" and satisfy the same basic proficiencies. The university bureaucrats, professors and administrators, have spent countless hours in committees, formulating new general classes, and trying to make minor, useless adjustments. It does not appear, however, that they have taken time away from getting a head rush over their clever conception. Has no individual taken off the blinders to restore perspective and reassess the inherent merits of this frightening plan?

I believe that general education requirements need to be changed by being reduced, not by replacing a bad system with a worse, more centralized one. How presumptuous for the education fascists to believe that they are better equipped to mandate university-wide standards than for individual colleges and departments to decide what best suits the need of their students.

The main argument for University-Wide General Education is that "students will be able to change colleges and majors with the assurance that the general education courses they have will continue to apply in their new programs." I disagree. First, any student who spends a significant amount of time in a study area and transfers has to expect additional classes.

Do not punish students who know what they want to do from the beginning by forcing them into ridiculous classes. Their less decisive peers will eventually make up their minds, take extra classes as a consequence, and yes, even graduate. Second, and most obviously, if the sheer volume of required general education classes was reduced, this problem would be eliminated. This solution is the most efficient and cost effective. And I don't even have a Ph.D.

Other benefits of this program are touted as students developing a "set of skills (to meet) pedagogical expectations." This statement, vague and near meaningless, is typical of the rhetoric used throughout the documents. Professors' expectations will be better met with a firm grounding in the subject matter of the major, not by diverting the students' attention to extraneous areas. The University-Wide General Education plan reduces specialization and depth of learning in the major field, simply by occupying time with required classes and leaving less time for elective work. This lack of specialization, in turn, reduces marketability, both for employers and graduate schools.

Think about it. Would you rather have someone who had studied their subject in depth or spent their time learning about lots of cool different stuff? The most successful people are the most specialized. Excellence in a given area takes huge amounts of time and energy. That is the theory behind choosing a major. The UA will be stripping these students of their competitiveness and income potential. But, it's only money, right?

Contrary to popular belief, knowledge is not inherently useful. Some things are more important to know than others, and this hierarchy differs with an individual's needs. A broad range of classes will still be available to students to CHOOSE from. As college students, we are responsible for our education. Few people enjoy being forced to learn and, when they are, rarely retain the information. Perhaps it has something to do with the information's utility to them. I have spent almost four years scheming to circumvent these requirements so I could learn what I was really interested in. Spanish class at Pima was never sweeter.

So, off I go, to cast the dissenting vote on March 3 for this proposal. I am in a small minority, but I will do what I can. A contemporary band rages, "Action must be taken. We don't need to key. We'll break in." That is unnecessary, but if you believe University-Wide General Education is a bad idea, come to the Faculty Senate meeting on Monday, March 3 at 3 p.m., in Room 146 of the College of Law and speak out. You can also e-mail me with your opinions at sliger@u.arizona.edu. Be warned. This bureaucratic nightmare just might explode.

Lauren C. Sliger is a molecular and cellular biology and economics senior. She is also an undergraduate senator and a faculty senator.

By Lauren C. Sliger (special columnist)
Arizona Daily Wildcat
February 18, 1997