The curriculum again

I was slapped twice for my post on totalitarianism. First by SteveG, who knows how to blog and therefore posts in the comments section:

"Oh my God, we're making students think about their education and actually have to do something. How could we? They can't sleepwalk through and just figure out how to get a C, but actually must think ABOUT the content of their courses. Locating the material in the broader world beyond the slot in the course catalogue? Being reflective about what they learn? Trying to draw a single connection between the content of any two courses? Who would dream such an absurd thing could happen at a liberal arts college, of all places?"

Then by a colleague who does not have a handle on this blogging thing and prefers to communicate by email:

"Totalitarian curriculum; cluster f***ing; re-education camp; pile of crap; reprogrammed brains; etc. Wow. Not the most politic way to open up a conversation with colleagues about the curriculum."

Good point, anonymous blog-unsavvy colleague, my posting was not a good way of opening up a conversation about the curriculum. Perhaps we ought to start one up, and I promise to be politic about it. I'll take one last dig at the current curriculum, which SteveG, to his everlasting shame, played a part in developing. It's not that any of the goals that SteveG lists above are unworthy - the problem is that our curriculum is poorly designed for attaining them. We'd be better off, I think, having a "checklist" curriculum that we recognize as such rather than a "checklist" curriculum that passes itself off as a way to get students to integrate their courses and so on. Ok, nuff said, here's my proposal:

1. A fairly well-scripted first year of courses. Two possibilities:

a. Back to something like the old system: students have to take one course from each division and two language courses, maybe a math course.

b. Develop some theme-like survey courses on topics like "science, technology and society", "world religions and politics", etc. Have students take these in large lecture courses. The idea would be for all students to have this common experience. Older colleagues shudder at this idea because apparently back in paleolithic times there was something similar called "coloquy" that didn't work out so well.

2. A major.

3. A minor in an interdisciplinary program (6 courses or so).

Motivation: in the first year, students need to learn substance: basic facts of history, basic principles of science, etc. This gives them the language that all educated people should have and that forms the basis for future studies. They do not need to know epistemology at this point (different modes of inquiry, etc.). The major in later years gives them depth. The interdisciplinary minor gives them an integrative experience. Thinking about the major-minor combination gets them reflectin' and intentionalizin'.

How's that?

P.S. When do we get to start the process of reviewing the current curriculum and proposing alternatives formally? I think the motions establishing the current curriculum included a timeline for evaluating it - when is that?