Editor:
I would like to offer a response to the assaults on the proposed core curriculum that I have seen in the Arizona Daily Wildcat and heard in casual conversation. On Friday I attended a meeting of the Faculty of Science to discuss the issues involved with the proposal. Incidentally, out of about 50 people, I was the only student present despite the fact that there was a full-page ad on the back of the Wildcat asking for interested student input. When I entered the meeting I was skeptical at best of the idea of a core curriculum, but after listening to the reasons behind its recommendation and some of the possible details of its implementation, I am convinced that the core curriculum is a step in the direction of improving undergraduate education. Furthermore, it seems to me that most of the opposition is founded on lack of information. I mean how many of you honestly feel you understand the issues involved here? And please allow me to point out that there's more being discussed than just making the UA "user-friendly."
While it's impossible to summarize all of the topics addressed at the meeting, I would like to try to illuminate a few of the relevant themes. Some concern was expressed about the structure of the present general education classes. For example, as well as Psychology 101 and Astronomy 100 may be taught, do they really give the student any concept of why these disciplines are studied and how they help form our concept of ourselves and our environment? Or are they just randomly selected courses that students take to fulfill requirements? And who hasn't been frustrated by the different general education requirements when trying to switch majors or colleges? Furthermore, it is my belief that a first-year course that covers a broad range of intellectually exciting material could provide a common contextual base for subsequent studies. It might even provide unifying experiences for new students if it can provoke discussion among its enrollees. I know this isn't as exciting as Thomas E. Tolley's Orwellian vision of "automatons who are unable to generate an original, creative or inspired thought" ("Core curriculum will create automatons" Oct. 28), but let's not be apocalyptic by assigning this result to courses that are designed to offer an alternative to the incoherent structure of existing gen ed courses.
Please don't misunderstand me by assuming that I feel we already have an ideal plan for the implementation of the core curriculum. I realize that there are a lot of "ifs" involved, including the criticism that if the faculty isn't excited and motivated to teach challenging courses like this it will certainly be a disappointment. However, I am excited by the possibilities and I am willing to bet that the faculty here will be able to turn these courses into a fantastic experience. So let's not blindly criticize the proposal without considering the benefits as well as the drawbacks. Then maybe we can replace this orgy of uninformed belligerency with some intelligent discussion and progress.
Joe Holmgren
Biochemistry Sophomore