The Select committee on distribution requirements, formed by the Hunter College Senate, to investigate and propose changes to our problematic system of requirements, finished their report, and their conclusions lead us to believe that changes are indeed coming.
The report released on Sept. 10 by the committee, chaired by Professor Andrew Polsky, reveals very considerable flaws in the currently used system, and, for the first time in more than a decade, the report seriously faces this flaws.
The distribution requirements were first introduced in 1969, and since then, the atmosphere surrounding higher-education has changed dramatically. CUNY hasn't escaped these changes. The two major transformations suffered by Hunter College have had direct impact on the requirements issue.
The first major shift at Hunter was in demographics of the freshman-transfer student ratio. The ratio had changed over the years to its current status where transfer students are actually a majority on campus. The large number of transfer students calls for change in the requirements because these are the students who are especially hindered by the current system. When they transfer to Hunter, students normally have a large number of credits which, although accepted at their previous schools as part of requirements, can only be used as electives here at Hunter. The students are then forced to desperately chase credits to fulfill both Hunter's requirement and their major, often graduating with more than 120 credits.
The second major change Hunter suffered over the years came with the notoriously draconian budget cuts. Money is short, and as the committee reports, "The need to staff multiple sections of introductory courses to help students meet the requirement helps to skew departmental offerings toward upper-level courses." For example, Every extra section of Philosophy 101 added cuts out one 300-level philosophy course.
This also reveals a trend that the current requirements foments: students are taking too many introductory classes, and they end up with no concrete knowledge of the fields that the requirements compel them to explore.
Intro. courses are also not as writing-intensive as a college that believes in "writing across the curriculum" would prefer. The report says that "it seems counterproductive to promote enrollments in introductory courses".
The solution to these problems, in the committee‘s opinion, would be to seriously diminish the number of credits needed for the requirements in all or some sections, especially for transfer students who will be specifically dealt with. One of the possible solutions for transfer students would be to reduce the number of required credits they need according to the number of credits they already have. The report suggests the following example: "a student who matriculates with sixty or more credits might be permitted to waive six credits in the requirement, chosen at the discretion of the student."
The intentions are excellent. The initiative is well received, but what will be done now? the first step will be the creation of a sub-committee under the Undergraduate Course of Study Committee, which would propose for Senate vote what measures should take place in the 1997-1998 academic year, limited to change in one or two categories a year. In the meantime, we wait and watch.
