Trinity College faculty debated the proposed changes to the undergraduate curriculum Thursday.
The proposal, released by the curriculum review committee in April, proposes significant changes to Trinity distribution and major requirements.
Faculty at the Trinity Council of Arts & Sciences discussed one recommendation that revises the current curriculum by requiring students to take two courses in all of the six areas of knowledge. Trinity undergraduates currently have to take courses in five out of the six areas, which include categories such as arts and literature and quantitative reasoning.
The council did not vote on whether to accept any of the 18 recommendations made in the report at Thursday's meeting. But the council will have to approve the report in November for the administration to implement it for next fall's entering class, said David Sanford, council chair and professor of philosophy.
Some faculty cited problems with the proposed changes.
"I have very serious misgivings . . . on the general rule that by taking two courses in each area, you get a `liberal education,"' said Steven Vogel, professor of zoology.
Students make "an enormous trivialization in their choice of courses," Vogel said. Some students complete the natural sciences requirement without challenging themselves, he said.
Students and faculty recommended improvements to the advising system as one way to ensure that students take a broad range of courses.
"This is precisely one of the things that make it important that advisers are involved," said Howard Strobel, professor emeritus of chemistry and council secretary.
"If I was challenged as a freshman to think about [choosing classes] in an intellectual way . . . I think my choices would have been more informed," said Trinity senior Mark Grazman, member of the committee that drafted the report.
Some said that the major problem with students' course selection lies not in the curriculum but in the students' anti-intellectual attitude.
"In many ways, the specifics of the curriculum is less important than the attitude taken towards the curriculum," said Stephen Nowicki, assistant professor of zoology.
Sanford echoed Nowicki's thoughts. "They're going to have to bulldoze the architecture to get rid of the fraternities to solve that problem," he said.
Other faculty questioned whether the recommendation requiring students to take classes in all six areas would improve their education.
The current curriculum was designed to ensure that students would get a broad education even if they opt out of one area, said James Rolleston, professor of Germanic languages and literature.
But William O'Barr, professor of cultural anthropology and chair of the committee that produced the report, said students should not be allowed to drop an area.
"The idea that someone [could] go to Duke University and never study science is an abomination," O'Barr said.
Get The Chronicle straight to your inbox
Signup for our weekly newsletter. Cancel at any time.