Some 50 students and faculty met at the Bechtel International Center on Wednesday evening to discuss a University effort to reshape the undergraduate general education curriculum. This meeting, arranged by committee members of the Study of Undergraduate Education at Stanford (SUES) and moderated by Jim Campbell, a history professor and co-chair of SUES, served as an opportunity for faculty to listen to and assess student perspectives regarding general education requirements and the greater educational goals of the University.

Recognizing the drastic changes that Stanford has undergone in the last decade, the administration is making an effort to reassess the makeup of a Stanford education, something that has not been done comprehensively since the 1993-1994 academic year.

Provost John Etchemendy Ph.D. ’82 and Vice Provost for Undergraduate Education John Bravman ’79 M.S. ’81 Ph.D. ’85 rolled out the study in February.

On Wednesday, study co-chair Harry Elam, a drama professor, said general education requirements are a focal point of SUES.

“What we’re really trying to do is think about the rationale — what general education requirements are there and what general education requirements are supposed to do,” said Elam in his opening address to the students. “What is most important to us is your perspective on where general education is at Stanford.”

Student responses were diverse, with some upperclassmen saying, in retrospect, that they were enriched by their experiences in Introduction to the Humanities (IHUM) and the Program in Writing and Rhetoric (PWR). Others pushed for making drastic changes to the general education curriculum by either reducing or completely eliminating IHUM and other general education requirements.

“The balance is between giving a little bit of guidance and giving students freedom to move,” said Julie Kennedy, a senior lecturer in Earth Systems and a member of the SUES committee. “This is important and this is something we can think about, not just broadly for four years, but most pressingly for freshman year.”

There was also lively discussion about bridging the perceived social-intellectual divide between “fuzzies” and “techies.” The 19 members of the SUES committee, who come from a variety of departments and intellectual backgrounds, were especially interested in making Stanford a more interdisciplinary and integrated school that trained students who could function as productive citizens.

“A lot of the key issues around interdisciplinary studies at Stanford and what it means to be an educated citizen were brought up tonight and I’m glad that happened,” said Theo Gibbs ’11 after the meeting had concluded. “I definitely think it’s time for reform. I think there’s still a culture of division [between techies and fuzzies] and I don’t think that’s productive.”

Committee members asked students how they felt this gap could be bridged. Several students responded by emphasizing the importance of the Education for Citizenship requirements.

“The reason I came here tonight is because when you do your introductory classes, you get stuck in this rabbit hole, and you forget why you’re here at Stanford; you forget the bigger picture,” said Nishant Jacob ’13. “I think it’s refreshing to be reminded again what I’m truly here for.”

The discussion last night was one of a series of talks held by the SUES committee, which has been spending winter and spring quarters in discussion with students. Next year, SUES will be dedicated to more sustained and focused discussions about general education requirement details, Campbell said.
“We talked to the ASSU last quarter and this quarter we’ve been seeing students every Wednesday night at their dorms,” Elam said. “I’m guessing at the end of this quarter we’ll have talked to at least 200 students directly…we also have questions on the sophomore and senior surveys directly related to our work.”

“I don’t want to speculate on what we will change or won’t change because I truly don’t know,” he added. “If all goes well, we will complete our work in the summer of 2011 and bring a report to the Faculty Senate in the fall of 2011, which will most likely include some suggestions for changes.”