By Bennan LaBrie and Raven Lirio
Reporter and Copy Editor
For the first time in over 10 years, Pacific Lutheran University is reexamining the backbone for all students’ education — the general education requirements.
At the December faculty assembly, the Ad Hoc Committee for General Education presented two proposals for a new gen-ed program. These two proposals are to be reviewed at the February faculty assembly, during which one proposal will be chosen as the basis for a new and revised general education program at PLU.
This process dates back to last May, when the Ad Hoc Committee was formed to review the current requirements for PLU undergraduate students. This decision was made based on the fact that PLU had not seen any changes to general education since the early 2000s, said committee co-chairs Michelle Ceynar, professor of psychology, and Kevin O’Brien professor of the religion.
“It’s been a really long time since we looked at gen eds,” Ceynar said. “It’s always good practice to reevaluate what we’re doing and make sure the curriculum is what it should be.”
At the same time, requirements for gen eds by college accreditors have become more critical and demanding of data over the years, said Ceynar.
Additionally, Ceynar and Kevin O’Brien said that the current general education program is difficult to assess, primarily due to the number of courses that count for general education.
Classics and International Honors (IHON) professor Tyler Travillian added that “there are over 1,000 possible general education classes. Currently we’re at 1024, but that number grows every time we count.”
“Every student has a completely different path and that makes it difficult to know that all of our students are getting the same thing out of general ed by the time they graduate,” Kevin O’Brien said.
To kick off the new gen ed process, the committee conducted faculty, student and alumni surveys asking the respondents their experience with PLU’s general education program. Hundreds of responses displayed two overarching themes: a wide demand for inclusion of diversity, sustainability and social justice and a decrease in the amount of required credits.
Both of these demands were taken into consideration by the committee, which consists of Kevin O’Brien and Ceynar, eight faculty members, and two student representatives, when drafting four initial models in the spring of 2018. The most well received elements of these four by faculty and students were combined into the “Liberal Arts Foundation,”
In feedback from surveys, the importance of a “liberal arts” education was highly emphasized by all of the groups surveyed. As such, the committee decided to use this term in their proposal.
The Liberal Arts Foundation
The “Foundation” was based on a distributive core of classes that resemble the current gen ed program with the addition of academic proficiency requirements including a global engagement category, which could be fulfilled either through one semester of language or studying away, and two pathways. These can be seen on the Foundation flowchart on the Ad Hoc website.
The biggest differences were the elimination of two health and fitness credits, the addition of religion and diversity in replacement of world religion and a change in FYEP 190: Inquiry Seminar to FYEP 102, a similar class with a focus on DEJ and better connection to FYEP 101.
The “Foundation” was presented to the faculty assembly in September and was met with heavy criticism from the faculty, many of whom believed it was too similar to the current program based on faculty survey results.
Amy Young, Chair of the Communication Department, voiced the concerns of many faculty members surveyed.
“The first General Education revision proposal we were sent is nearly identical to the Gen Eds we currently have,” Young said. “I like nearly nothing about it.”
Fellow Communication professor Kate Hoyt echoed this sentiment that the new plan “retained a lot of the elements that the faculty felt needed improvement, and it seems overly burdensome for most students with 46 credits”.
There was a decrease in only two credits, which many believed was not sufficient as the current requirements make up ⅓ of PLU’s required 128 credits to graduate. Many students and faculty surveyed already felt that this overwhelms too many students, especially those with higher credit majors or multiple majors and minors.
“Students and alumni overwhelmingly affirmed the vast majority of our current requirements,” the committee said, “and did not provide a clear consensus for a larger or smaller general education program,” said the committee in response to this criticism.
Many faculty members also questioned why the topic of diversity was tied exclusively to religion in the new “Religion and Diversity” core requirement.
“I have no problem with Religion offering courses on content that is more widely representative,” Young said. “But they are not the only department with that expertise.”
Young, along with many other faculty members who gave online feedback, also questioned the need for two religion courses.
French and IHON professor Rebecca Wilkin was “stunned” that two religion classes remained as requirements, while classes in language and history continued to be left out of the general education program.
“I do not think students should be forced to take a Christian Religion–we do not demand people express a particular religious faith or any faith at all–this isn’t representative of who we are as an institution,” Wilkin said.
Many professors echoed Wilkin’s sentiments of what they see as an unequal inclusion of disciplines such as religion and philosophy in both the current program and the Foundation.
Religion professors Suzanne O’Brien and Erik Hammerstrom agreed with this notion.
“I do feel that this first model could be improved by amendments,” Suzanne O’Brien said. “In particular, I’d like to see it modified to include explicit requirements in history, sustainability, and global education.”
Hammerstrom added that language should be required as well.
“Even if that was a loss of one religion, I’d be okay with that.”
Despite these critiques, many faculty members voiced their support of the Foundation.
“It’s an opportunity to reach out and work with faculty across divisions which is something we need,” Travillian said.
“It provides students with both guidance and choice and clearly articulates our identity and what’s distinctive about PLU,” Suzanne O’Brien said.
Gracie Anderson, one of the student representatives on the committee, said ASPLU felt that the Foundation was strong, and got the sense that their constituents did as well after holding student discussions.
The Liberal Arts Framework
As a result of these concerns, the assembly voted for a second proposal to compare and contrast to the Foundation. This resulted in the creation of the “Liberal Arts Framework.”
The “Framework” is a drastic change in structure and format from the Foundation and the current gen ed program.
“The faculty wanted something bold, so we gave them something bold,” Anderson said.
O’Brien said that the Framework intended to respond to the criticism by faculty over the inclusion of some disciplines over others by distancing itself from specific disciplinary and departmental requirements.
Each gen ed class would count for one keystone and one proficiency each, and students would need to complete all 6 of each to graduate. The Framework retains the FYEP system and drops 2 health and fitness credits.
Young found the Framework to be “significantly improved” over the Foundation, and more “inclusive.” She also appreciated the “clearer integration of topics and disciplines, and the freedom that 10 less credits will give students, from being able to take additional classes of interest, to adding a minor or even studying away.”
The increased flexibility created in the Framework was applauded by many students and faculty on the online forums but it was also met with plenty of critiques. Many found it overly complicated.
Sophomore Jared Shelly agrees. “I think the Liberal Arts Foundation is easier to follow and it seems simpler and easier to grasp, compared to the Framework. The Framework confuses me.”
“I’ve heard students say they like the idea of the pathways. They like something that is kinda laid out for them,” Wilkin said. “It’s more of a line to follow than a grid to fill. It’s less confusing to them.”
Travillian had particularly strong oppositions against the Framework, pointing out the subtext in the framework calling for students to take courses from every division and department with specific restrictions on what counts.
“This is a 4D chart presented to look 2D,” Travillian said. “How do you define what these name? What classes would count? How do you advise for this? We have no way of preparing for that.”
Too Flexible?
Some online responders were concerned over which departments might be most negatively affected by the drop in required credit hours.
Hammerstrom brought up what it might cost PLU to pay teachers in affected Humanities classes. With less students enrolled in classes, Hammerstrom speculated that costs to students would increase as a result of less courses being taught by Humanities.
Many others were concerned that this new program would require teachers to change their classes in order to fit within the new guidelines. Wilkin worried that teachers might even jump departments to teach essential classes in the gen ed program. Some classes might become stuffed while others become under enrolled.
Other online responders voiced concerns that a drop in a clear religion credit drew PLU away from its roots as a school founded in Lutheran Education.
Anthropology professor Bradford Andrews did not believe a Lutheran education required two religion courses, and added that it should be considered why a Lutheran education would not include a clear language requirement.
PLU Alumni Samuel Manders, who graduated with a BA in Religion, supported this claim, but also argued against the removal of the religion requirement entirely.
“Taking religion classes at PLU isn’t required for the fulfillment of a higher Lutheran education,” Manders said. “It’s ironic that a Lutheran university isn’t requiring its students to take at least one or two religion classes. With this in mind, I also don’t see the harm in dropping the number of required religion classes from 2 to 1.”
Ceynar said “both models provide opportunities for our current faculty to invent new classes that will fit, so there’s some possibilities for creative change. Some of the classes that we have will slip right in.”
The Committee is currently drafting a proposal to form a permanent General Education Committee, one with faculty-elected individuals who would devote much of their time to overseeing the gen ed program. That committee would have much more deciding power than the current gen ed council.
Wilkin and Travillian were worried that this council’s strong deciding power would result in different departments competing with each other to get their classes to count for a keystone or proficiency. Wilkin feared it might become “politicized, giving maybe too much power to a group of faculty on something that affects everybody very, very much.”
“I think that could lead to competition,” Kevin O’Brien said, “It could also lead to really interesting collaboration and cooperation.”
This is an ongoing issue at PLU that will remain in discussion through the rest of the year into next year with new Lutes entering PLU.
Information
If you wish to share your opinion on this topic, go to plu.edu — General Education — Ad Hoc Committee — Submit Feedback. Also, to view the two different gen-ed proposals and other supporting documents, go to: https://tinyurl.com/GenEdProposals.
