Just how liberal should liberal education be?

The recently approved Revitalized General Education Program (RGEP) has yet to clarify this point even as it won the favor of more than half of the UP Diliman University Council (UC) members who voted on it Wednesday last week.

Both the pro- and anti-RGEP groups apparently believe in open-minded inquiry and genuine interest in academic courses, but disagree on how such openness and interest are achieved.

For the 248 UC members who approved of the administration-backed curicular reform, students should not be required to take subjects which the present curriculum stipulates; they should be free to choose only those courses which they are likely to respond more eagerly to.

For the 105 who voted against the RGEP, liberal education is establishing a common ground of concepts in students, regardless of whatever specialization they would be taking up in their higher years.

For the clueless college student, however, these arguments are just one of those things best left with the activists while he goes out to watch a movie.

Then again, RGEP's concept can be likened to a cable channel's strategy in airing movies.

At certain days, Star Movies airs movies based on polled requests from viewers, who choose from a selection of movie trailers. They call this promo "You Pick the Flick."

Under the proposed curriculum, general education courses in communication, humanities, natural sciences, philosophy, social sciences and history may very well end up in a bandwagon along with new subjects in a "You Pick the Subject" fashion. The GE courses will no longer be required units, but merely part of a roster of "revitalized GE subjects" which include tailor-made courses sponsored by investing firms. Unpopular subjects, i.e. subjects which do not fill up their minimum quota of enrollees, will be dissolved and eventually phased out.

In effect, the general education courses will have to compete with each other for enrollees. For all we know, Nat Sci I (Physics and Chemistry) may find itself lost in space when offered alongside intriguing subjects such as "Entering the Cyborg Millennium" and "Embracing Einstein's Universe."

UP President Francisco Nemenzo makes GE courses sound even more drab in criticizing the present framework as "a set of required courses imposed on all undergraduates," which ensure "even the boring teachers and the classroom tyrants of an audience."

At the very least, Nemenzo's statement only goes to show that the University, despite its prestige and academic excellence, in fact has in its payroll inefficient instructors teaching the country's (purportedly) "brightest" minds.

Also, as pointed out by Prof. Michael Muega of the College of Education, Nemenzo's "emotionally charged language" are rather ambiguous. For example, an easy-go-lucky student would love professors who come to class unprepared and who improvise off-tangent activities; to him, professors who come to class with fully-detailed lectures and related discussions are "classroom tyrants."

Such a case as Muega suggested also goes to show that there are lousy students in the University, as well.

What then can we make out of this?

As it is, the current GE program has its flaws. It has given the impression that it is not important, when it is supposed to be the foundation on which students should put their course specializations in context. Part of the blame may be attributed to some inefficient professors who mishandle the subjects.

Then again, RGEP is an even more dangerous experiment to implement. The poor quality of education in the elementary and secondary education has put the burden of unlearning wrong concepts at the college level. The task is hard enough, but to add competition to subjects aimed at unlearning these wrong concepts would make it even harder.

It is about time to introduce change in the curriculum, but it should not be at the expense of general education.

The RGEP has brought discussions on curriculum change to a point where what students want are pitted against what students need; to have a curriculum dictated by students' demands defeats the very purpose of liberal education. Students will only be exposed to their wants, their personal education; they will be confined to a narrow way of looking at things. Only the reality of general education--that the earth revolves around the sun, and not the other way around-- will truly liberate them.