This afternoon, the Arts and Sciences Council will discuss Curriculum 2000 for the last time before the decisive Jan. 14 vote. The proposal is likely to pass; interviews with nearly half the 60 council members showed a clear majority favoring the principles of the new curriculum.
But many of these faculty members, including some supporters, expressed substantial reservations about the plan's feasibility.
Perhaps the most serious concerns came from faculty in the economics and biology departments, who worried that a lack of resources will make the new curriculum unworkable.
Professor of Zoology Steven Vogel said the "grossly understaffed" biology department would be unable to provide enough writing and research courses for its many majors. He noted that the department is already struggling to provide enough courses for the 20 percent of Trinity College students who are biology majors.
"If the resources were there, we could start doing something," said Vogel, who is unpersuaded by the University's promise of additional faculty. "Their oral promises are certainly worth the paper they're written on."
Dean of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences and Dean of Trinity College William Chafe said resources will be provided. "I am prepared to work closely particularly with departments with high numbers of majors to both help staff and develop courses that will make it possible for them to meet their research and writing," he said.
Vogel added that he has other reasons for being skeptical of the proposal. The 17 courses required for a B.S. in biology would restrict majors' electives. "From the student perspective, I'm terribly worried about how constraining this system will be for the biology major," he said.
Vogel, like many of his colleagues on the Arts and Sciences Council, said he is torn between his philosophical support for the proposal and his practical objections. He plans to listen to more debate before deciding how to vote.
Professor of Economics Roy Weintraub said his department faces a similar problem to biology-a large number of majors. "Though we're pretty content with the general outline, the department's position is that it's not manageable for the department as things are now set," he said, adding that the size of the economics faculty would need to increase by a third to be able to provide enough courses. "The department is mistrustful of the availability of resources."
Professor Marjorie McElroy, economics department chair, said more faculty are certainly needed, but the department cannot grow too fast without sacrificing quality. McElroy noted that she does not know how her department will get to the point where it can graduate seniors who have successfully completed the matrix. "[It's] murky, but somehow or other we'll get there," she said.
Chafe said, "The economics department knows that we have an ambitious hiring plan for the next few years."
Weintraub's position illustrates one of the paradoxes of the looming Curriculum 2000 vote. Despite his major concerns about resources, he plans to vote for the "intelligent and competent statement" of curricular principles and said most other faculty in his department would do the same. "If it doesn't work, it doesn't work, and it will have to be changed," he said.
Professor of Experimental Psychology Robert Erickson said he initially was skeptical of the proposal's definition of what an education should entail. For example, he said, it cites "depth and breadth" as priorities, but these terms are often impossible to define.
Nevertheless, Erickson said he plans to vote in favor of the proposal. "One could moan and groan on and on, but an attempt is being made; it's sort of OK. It's better than what we had before," he said. "Change in itself is sometimes good."
Through interviews with more than 20 other council members, three distinct groups emerged.
The supporters
A substantial core of the Arts and Sciences Council is largely supportive of the proposal with only a few minor reservations. This largest group will likely push the proposal through by a comfortable margin.
"I'm in favor of it because I think there's a need to have as broadly based as possible a liberal education for students," said Associate Professor of Religion Vincent Cornell. "In general, American students are not well-prepared in foreign language and this... tends to increase a parochial outlook on the part of Americans."
The details of the writing requirement will be determined by a separate task force next spring, a decision with which Professor of Political Science Joseph Grieco said he disagreed. However, he explained, his disagreement with this decision will certainly not prevent him from voting for Curriculum 2000. "Overall, looking at the proposal as a whole with the revisions, I'll be happy to support it," he said.
Although Associate Professor of Political Science Peter Feaver worried that the matrix categories will deemphasize the teaching of general subject material, he also plans to support the curriculum. "I think it is impressive in its vision and impressive in the way that it logrolls various constituencies in the University," he said. "In the end, this may be the best compromise, and it's a pretty good one."
The dissenters
Some Arts and Sciences Council members are very skeptical of the curriculum. Associate Professor of Statistics Donald Burdick said he wished the committee had provided more assessment of the potential impact of the curriculum. "I'm also not really convinced that there's anything seriously wrong with our current curriculum," he said.
Professor of Health, Physical Education and Recreation Al Buehler, who has been at the University for 44 years, agreed with Burdick. "I put a whole bunch of alumni out there, and I think they've come out pretty well," he said.
The undecided
Like Vogel, many Arts and Sciences Council members are torn between philosophical support and practical concerns.
"It's a thoughtful document," said Associate Professor of the Practice of Mathematics Jack Bookman. "I don't know what it's going to be like in practice." Bookman said his vote will likely follow the sentiment of his department, which remains up in the air. "Some people are for it. Some are against it," he said. "Almost everybody would be willing to change their minds with some good reasons."
Although Associate Professor of Sociology Xueguang Zhou said he favors the foreign language and Cross Cultural Inquiry requirements, he has yet to be convinced of the overall utility of Curriculum 2000. "I'm a little bit concerned about too much regulation and too many boxes that constrain students' creativity," he said.
The Arts and Sciences Council will continue informal discussion of the proposal today before beginning formal consideration. Associate Professor of Philosophy Tad Schmaltz, a member of the executive committee, said council members will likely be allowed to submit written amendments before the Jan. 14 vote.
Tim Millington and Greg Pessin contributed to this story.
Get The Chronicle straight to your inbox
Signup for our weekly newsletter. Cancel at any time.