Students voice disagreement with Gen. Ed. proposal

Letter to the Editor (Thursday, April 3)

Dear Editor,

The undersigned students would like to voice their surprise and dismay at the new General Education program's removal of the previously required History element. Studies in history at the collegiate level are not just about learning dates, places, and names, but about learning how to understand and interpret such information in it's proper historical context. It is our belief that a basic understanding of history and how to consider events present, past, and future within their wider historical context is key towards advancing any institute of higher learning's interest in creating a well-educated citizenry as well as Emporia University's specifically stated goal to “impart society's cultural heritage” upon its students.

Given the value of the study of history, especially within a liberal arts education, the undersigned students would like to voice our support for Professors Charles Brown and Karen Smith in their call for the return of the GE proposal currently under consideration back to the General Education Council where it may be given the full vetting and consideration such a drastic change deserves. For such a considerable change to be made without greater input from the academic community expected to function within it's guidelines would be a grave disservice to the University and the students which it exists to serve.

Sincerely,

Benjamin J. Howard, senior social sciences major

Emily A. Adams, senior communication major

Shawna Berry, sophomore art major

2 Responses to "Students voice disagreement with Gen. Ed. proposal"


Guest
April 10, 2008 8:57 am
It seems to me that most of the people complaining about the proposal are either students who actually like taking history courses or faculty who teach the classes. If a student wants to take a history course, there's nothing stopping them. I mean, it's not like the course is disappearing.
When a class is “required” that’s really another way of saying we’re “forcing” the student to take the class. If the students don’t what to be there, they probably won’t retain any information anyway. This is why the new proposal gives the students more options; so they can take classes they’re actually interested in.
Benjamin J. Howard
April 10, 2008 10:03 am
A liberal arts education is not about just taking those classes which one finds interesting, but about striving to create a well-rounded, broadly educated member of society who is prepared to participate in their civic duties in an intelligent and thoughtful way.

Yes, a required class is one that students are forced to take, for their own benefit. I am not a particular fan of the sciences, but I still value the time and effort I am expending to pass my biology class because I feel that a basic understanding of biology is something all people claiming to be "educated" need to have. The same is true of history. The fact that students may not want to take a history course is no reason not to require them to do so.

I whole-heartedly agree that more flexibility in GE requirements would be a plus for both students and the University. Allowing students to take a history course in their field of interest which would also satisfy the GE requirement, such as Art History meeting the history requirement for Art BAs. This to me seems a more reasonable solution than making the study of history "optional" all together.