What Can Be Done for the Liberal Arts Curriculum?Author(s): William BuchananSource: AAUP Bulletin, Vol. 58, No. 3 (Sep., 1972), pp. 293-296Published by: American Association of University ProfessorsStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40224601 .

Accessed: 15/06/2014 18:23

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

.

American Association of University Professors is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extendaccess to AAUP Bulletin.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 185.44.78.156 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 18:23:48 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

What Can Be Done for the Liberal Arts Curriculum?

William Buchanan

the excitement of debate on how and where teaching is to take place, how (and whether) learning is to be

graded, and who is to govern the university, the academic

community appears to be making almost by default an- other decision whose long-run consequences may be at least as crucial. Made in a piecemeal, decentralized fash- ion, the decision is to dismantle the standardized "distri- bution" or "group" requirements for the bachelor's degree that have been in effect for half a century. These actions, taken independently by each institution, are entirely justi- fied. The requirements were neither an adequate sample of what the undergraduate would subsequently be offered nor a unified set of concepts and skills to help him deal with it. What should be a matter of serious concern to the collective undergraduate faculties of the United States is not that the requirements have been abandoned but that they have not been replaced by any coherent alterna- tive. Curricular decisions fall clearly in the domain where the faculties have undisputed responsibility and preroga- tive. The present disorder implies that we who teach are ourselves uncertain of the purpose and utility of the bac- calaureate degree.

From the 1920's until the 1950's the normal require- ments for a B.A. degree, in addition to the major spe- cialization, were a laboratory science, some mathematics, freshman English and history, a social science and some

European literature in the original. (Most students also had to swim the length of the pool.) Whereas at that time the requirement tended to be a specific course (Eng- lish Composition or History of Western Civilization), now it is likely to be met by any literature course or any history survey course. This flexibility leaves the require- ments for the major as the only stiffening in the curricu- lum, and even these may be avoided by the student who hand-tailors his own "independent" major. Most degrees guarantee merely that the holder has been around for

four years and has spent his time studying one thing more than the others.

This vitiation of the requirements has been necessitated

by the absence in the old core curriculum of either logic or relevance (the word is used without apology). The

English requirement had once meant practice in compo- sition, but some students no longer needed this, and the

department preferred to emphasize literature and free- style creativity. The historians were having trouble find-

ing a course that everybody needed that nearly everybody hadn't had in high school. Majors in the humanities could see no need for mathematics and lab sciences; and if you could substitute chemistry for physics, and biology for

chemistry, why couldn't you substitute math or psy- chology for any of them? Why must a graduate learn one of those languages used by that fourth of the world's

population most rapidly declining in power and prestige? If one could take sociology or political science or anthro-

pology, why not history instead of any of them? And so on. Answers to such questions were forthcoming, but

they did not impress the faculty much more than they impressed the students. They didn't impress prospective freshmen at all. The more one examined the require- ments, the more they seemed to reflect no logic except that of the balance of departmental power in the late hours of a faculty meeting a generation ago.

The vanishing distribution requirements, when insti- tuted, were themselves a modified version of the rigid classical curriculum of the early nineteenth century academy, which gave way under pressure for vocational education and the force of the elective system. The latter was devised to give students the opportunity to study science, but around the turn of the century electives were increasingly restricted when it became clear that the sys- tem encouraged too many students to fill their schedules with easy courses. The distribution program has under-

gone some changes: enlargement to embrace social sci- ences, the inclusion of synthesizing courses during the era of "general education," the elimination of the philoso- phy-religion requirement left from the days of "Christian

WILLIAM BUCHANAN is head of the Politics Depart- ment at Washington and Lee University and was chairman of the Committee on Undergraduate Instruction of the American Political Science Association.

AUTUMN 1972 293

This content downloaded from 185.44.78.156 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 18:23:48 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

education," the upgrading of the mathematics require- ments, the substitution of language proficiency tests, and the reduction of English composition requirements to

adjust to changes in secondary school preparation. What remains since the recent curriculum revisions is often

merely a demand that the freshman sample the natural sciences, humanities, social sciences, and maybe a lan-

guage. This happy arrangement gives every department a crack at potential majors and keeps graduate students

employed teaching introductory sections. Bright students have the freedom they so vociferously demand; less bright ones have the hope of finding some courses they can pass. The latter concession becomes important as the propor- tion of the 17-21 age group in college edges towards 50

percent, at which point we shall see in our classes more than a few people of subnormal capacity (in the literal

meaning of that adjective), and many others of inade-

quate preparation. Thus the phrase "liberal arts" has lost its meaning when

applied to the curriculum, and it now refers only to a sort of residual administrative entity or a kind of small

college. It has even taken on a pejorative connotation of "elitism" in the worst sense of the word, suggesting effete middle-class cultural pretensions.

I believe there is a core of knowledge and intellectual skills that corresponds to the older idea of a liberal arts

degree, and that its contemporary content can be dis- covered, organized, and taught to undergraduates. But it is now too late to unscramble the distribution require- ments or to roll back departmental specialization. There- fore, this core can be presented only as an optional pro- gram, competing with other majors. But it should carry a distinctive title, for if there is indeed such a body of

subject matter and if it has the virtues which I attribute to the older version of the liberal arts, then we need to

identify the graduates in later life and to demonstrate that they are making a significant contribution to society.1 I suggest "Bachelor of Liberal Arts."

How can we determine what such a curriculum should contain? To present a model risks the ultimate presump- tuousness in this day of academic specialization - telling the other fellow what he ought to teach. But I shall take that risk because I believe we have been brought to the

present parlous state by everyone's reluctance to look at the liberal arts curriculum as a whole for fear of reveal-

ing his ignorance of another discipline or provoking re- taliation in faculty power struggles. Even if my model is defective, perhaps it will draw the attention of the aca- demic community to the responsibility it has defaulted.

of the curriculum should take into account

.assumptions about the sort of society the graduate

will live in. This would include recognition of such trends as urbanization, aggrandizement of large organi- zations but diminution of trust and confidence in them, reduced production but increased services and leisure, continued anxiety and alienation, more diversity and less

conventionalism, more concern about the value conse-

quences of political decisions, continued inadequacy of health care, increasing specialization of occupations, and so on. The reader's list might differ a little from mine, but it would probably lead to a similar conclusion: the need to cultivate experience with a wide variety of tech-

niques for analysing and coping with human dilemmas. The formerly dominant ideal of the liberal arts - under-

standing the Western cultural heritage - becomes only one constituent element in the redefined ideal.

I propose six required "blocks" (using that word to avoid implying that these are courses of a semester's or a year's duration, though some might be). The blocks fit

badly into the present organization of departments and

disciplines, which, though not intentional, may be in their favor. Most of these blocks could be taught by present faculty members, probably better as teams than indi- viduals. I shall not elaborate upon details of syllabus, credit, grading, or classroom technique. We have been too concerned of late with how to teach and too little with what to teach.

Block One: Expository Communication. The students would present brief and factual answers to meaningful questions, drawing material from first-hand observation,

original documents, and/ or library sources. An assign- ment might have as its purpose either persuasion or de-

scription. These presentations should give the students

experience with the two media they will later need to use: the written report and the videotaped document for tele- communication. Teachers should be careful not to distract the student with standards of literary or dramatic criti- cism or with an emphasis on "creativity" as contrasted to workmanship.

Block Two: Logical and Statistical Inference. This block would require as a prerequisite, or offer in class, sufficient calculus and probability theory to make clear the distributions underlying significance tests. It would treat inductive and deductive inference, the testing of

hypotheses, and the philosophy of natural and social sci- ence. Other concepts that might be presented are logical systems, levels of measurement, game and decision theo-

ries, correlation and regression, and the design of experi- ments. Laboratory demonstrations or experiments would be useful. Students would then undertake some independ- ent project, not designed to equip them as a researcher in

any particular field but rather to give them experience with the processes by which researchers reach conclusions.

Block Three: Human Psychology and Physiology. This would present the major functions and systems of the human body at approximately the level of a professional nursing course. It would also touch on genetics and

reproduction, the symptoms and treatment of mental disorders and what is known about normal drives and

motivations, and the effects of common drugs, licit and

1 In the past the liberal arts colleges have turned out more than their share of U.S. senators, Ph.D. holders and Who's Who biographees. But they have also been more selective, so we cannot attribute this entirely to what they taught rather than to whom they taught it. If the factors could be un- scrambled, I believe we might find that the old liberal arts curriculum made its own contribution.

294 AAUP BULLETIN

This content downloaded from 185.44.78.156 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 18:23:48 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

illicit, on mind and body. It might incorporate intern- ships in public health or mental health institutions. While this undertaking may have incidental benefit in helping graduates to take care of themselves and their associates or family, its more important purpose is to meet the legitimate demands of undergraduates for self-knowledge and identification, and to equip them to participate sen- sibly in community decisions about health, welfare, mor- als, mental health, pollution, population, and environ- ment. It is odd that many who profess to be humanists know so little of that most basic of human possessions, the body; the next generation can and should learn more.

Block Four: A Non-Western Language and Culture

(including its art, literature, and history). Much of the work should take place in the country studied, or in inten- sive contact with its citizens. (The old justification of the language/ literature requirement, that it exposes one to a

style of life and thought that is unfamiliar, is weakened when instruction is available only in those European cul- tures most like the student's.) There are problems in the teaching of non-Western languages: their sheer number and variety, the variation in their level of difficulty, the

poverty of literature in some and its sophistication in others. We could not expect students to gain proficiency at the rate they do in Western languages. Yet when we consider what skills and perspectives will be needed by our best graduates twenty or thirty years from now, what will then be the definition of a well-educated man, the investment in improved understanding of African, Middle Eastern, and Asian cultures will be paid off in both social and individual terms. Again, the primary function of this block should be considered in liberal, humanistic terms - presenting a contrast to the rationalist, "linear" mode of thought that runs through Western culture.

Block Five: Ideas and Their Consequence in the West- ern Culture. This would consist of an examination of some typical religious creeds, political ideologies, eco- nomic theories, scientific explanations, literary and artis- tic movements, popular superstitions, ethical principles, or racial dogmas of the past. Their derivations, justifications, and appeals, and their consequences both for the groups holding them and those who came in contact with these

groups should be investigated. The objective, of course, is to give students some perspective on their own beliefs and their consequences.

It's exciting to imagine what could be done with vari- ous combinations of Western thinkers, particularly those who spanned more than one field or medium: Aristotle, Leonardo, Descartes, Rousseau, Jefferson, Zola, Kropotkin, Russell, Churchill, or Snow. Ideally the teacher of such a course should be free of the compulsion of "coverage," the felt need to include some achievement of every his- torical figure. The instructor would be allowed to select those works he knew and especially admired or disliked, or to include trivial or fallacious thinkers for contrast. The faculty of the course would face a challenge in keep- ing its objectives constant, while allowing different in- structors with training in art, science, literature, philoso- phy, or sociology to choose the works to be examined.

Block Six: Systems. If there exists a concept that can unify the modern humanities and the natural and social sciences, it is that of a "system" - the idea that a complex of interactions among a number of related elements pro- duces an outcome that cannot be predicted from any one or two of its component inputs or transactions, but can be traced by constructing a model of all the important interactions. Sometimes this may be accomplished in practice with acceptable precision, sometimes in theory only. As the word "system" has many meanings, the concept has many homes, in academe and outside. Our thinking about the human and non-human environment relies heavily on analogies carried over from one system to another, helpfully or fallaciously. Logical systems, pat- terns in history, solar systems, ecologies in nature, busi- ness systems, chemical processes, national economies, guided missiles, international relations, or whatever phe- nomena are familiar to the instructors would provide the raw material for verbal, algebraic, flow-chart, mechanical, or computer models of known systems. Students would be encouraged to model systems that have not been adequately described.

there is some order and relationship among the blocks, it would be proper for the student to take

One and Two the first year; Three and Four would prob- ably require at least two years to complete; Five might be taken at any stage; but Six should be delayed at least until Two has been completed and Three is well under way. This material could probably be covered in a little over two years, leaving the rest of the time for courses in the regular curriculum, freely elected. A student who wished might also complete a conventional major if he or she were willing to give up the electives.

The most obvious omission in this curriculum, given its objective, is history. However, anyone who completed it would probably return to history, and with a different perspective from the one acquired in secondary school, since he would now be equipped to examine a nation, a period, or a problem analytically, rather than to listen to a long story told by the instructor. Omitting the physical sciences as such is a harder choice, but given two cultures we may have to face up to the necessity of training the undergraduate adequately in one rather than poorly in both. One reason the liberal arts curriculum has lost credibility, I believe, is our unwillingness to face such hard choices.

I have outlined a rigorous course, believing that liberal arts education is indeed oriented to a potential elite, for whom it constitutes unique preparation for coping with human affairs, and that such a view of the liberal arts is historically as sound as the notion of culture for its own sake. Only a minority of the student population would choose this curriculum, perhaps a proportion of the age group no larger than that attending college a generation ago. Since they would be self-selected from a pool that includes nearly half the age bracket (and in time more than half), we need not be embarrassed to call them an elite. If we can agree that this or some other combination

AUTUMN 1972 295

This content downloaded from 185.44.78.156 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 18:23:48 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

of analytical skills constitutes a core that enables the student to understand himself and his surroundings, it should attract a number who are now stumbling about in search of guidance and coherence but are unwilling or

unready to accept the specialization demanded by depart- mental advisors. It is possible that student demands for

flexibility would evaporate in the face of faculty consensus that certain matters are more basic than others, if this consensus were honestly achieved.

The difficulty, of course, is to discover a forum in our vast national academic institutional structure where this decision could be thrashed out and implemented, or even recommended authoritatively. Individual faculties are both so jealous of their autonomy and so departmentalized in their outlook that any decision politically feasible may

well turn out to be an empty compromise like the present distribution requirements. A curriculum that hangs to-

gether is bound to slight some discipline, and one that does not will be unable to produce graduates whose con- tributions demonstrate its superiority. Making the degree an optional one helps, but it does not entirely solve the dilemma. Yet I have confidence that if the attention of scholars were to be focused on the search for unity and

integrity in undergraduate offerings, both a consensus and a mechanism for implementing it would eventually emerge.

If no such agreement is forthcoming, then we should consider turning the awarding of degrees over to the

departments and leave to the colleges and universities

only the residual chore of certifying time in residence.

A View from the Tower The randy revolutionary in the next office thumbtacks Angela Davis to his door as if he were Luther and she his private 95. I counter with Horticulture cutouts of mushrooms bursting from a thread and poppies wild and woolly on the far side of a path. Each knows the humor in his stance; behind our doors we sift the same important piles of paper, respond to the same machine. We even served together in the war, before those goodly realms of gold fell to the Whole Earth Catalog. Well, perhaps next month he'll tack up a marigold and I a piece on woman's lib -

it's what we have left. At best, we're rival missionaries for churches no one goes to; at worst, figures in a native comic strip: sahib and bwana swapping hats.

Frederick M. Link

University of Nebraska - Lincoln

296 AAUP BULLETIN

This content downloaded from 185.44.78.156 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 18:23:48 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions