Re-Rad 2008 Distribution Requirements Proposal

This is the Re-Rad Proposal for New Division I Distribution Requirements, which was submitted to the EPC on November 24, 2008, and subsequently revised and resubmitted in January 2009.

Introduction
Having closely followed the past four years of discussions concerning Division I, Re-Rad respectfully submits the following proposal to the Educational Policy Committee (EPC). This proposal outlines a replacement system for the current distribution requirements, which are currently tied to the five schools. These areas do not intend to replace the five schools, nor change them in any way; they are meant to provide a different rubric for Division I distribution requirements. This proposal will provide for greater flexibility, creativity, and intellectual coherence than the current system. However, this document is a work-in-progress, not intended to be implemented without further review and revision.

Why this proposal?
In this proposal we have striven to create areas based on modes of inquiry rather than content or subject matter, in order to focus on providing students with the tools they will need in their higher-divisional work. Dividing classes based on the methods employed in the coursework emphasizes that Division I is about acquiring skills and techniques for learning. This approach inherently fosters interdisciplinarity, by bringing together disparate fields and encouraging students to see the connections. It also provides for much more freedom and creativity in creating a curriculum, both for teachers when designing courses and students when choosing how to fulfill their requirements. These areas will challenge students to think critically about the meaning behind their Division I experiences.

This proposal reduces faculty workload, which is a critical concern. Seats in 100-level courses are evenly distributed over all four areas. And with four instead of five areas, fewer adjunct professors will be needed.

Proposal
Re-Rad proposes that the four areas be designated as Empirical and Mathematical Inquiry, Practice of Arts and Design, Social Theory and Global Context, and Analysis of Created Works. The descriptions of each area are as follows:

Empirical and Mathematical Inquiry is focused around exploration of structures within the natural world. These structures are the theories, methodologies and philosophies which work to describe the universe of physical and logical phenomena. These structures additionally empower students to effect positive changes in the world through advances in technology such as improvements in sustainability.

Practice of Arts and Design is focused around skillful creation and production of original works. Students will conceive of and create their own work, not limited to but including works written, performed, and designed, as well as visual works.

Social Theory and Global Context is focused around placing subjects within their greater contextual frameworks, whether they be social, political, historical or theoretical. These classes will document and model the development and interrelations among and within human communities, and place them within a theoretical framework. Students will apply their understanding to current and historical data, looking at general trends as opposed to specific instances. This area focuses on discovering connections based on such themes as power relations, social justice, studies of gender, sexuality, race, class, and ethnicity. Students will also learn to look at such theories critically and develop their own perspectives.

Analysis of Created Works is focused around understanding and interpreting created works using critical theory and other methods of interpretation. Studies in this area analyze specific works as opposed to general trends, and concern cultural artifacts rather than human behavior. Methods of studying the humanities tend to fall into this mode of inquiry. Though context is an important part of any class, these classes will be primarily concerned with the works and ideas themselves, with the background as a secondary focus.

Background and Discussion
Re-Rad based this proposal upon the EPC’s conclusions, which came out of the small group faculty discussions as well as past EPC discussions. These are :


 * “Four seemed like a reasonable number of categories.” This will decrease the number of required 100-level courses, thus allowing time and energy to be spent on a greater number of 200 and 300 level courses. (Many faculty are in favor of this, especially those from the smaller schools.) This shift would also increase flexibility for both students, in choosing an extra course, and faculty, in cutting 100-level obligations for the ability to pursue deeper levels of study in more advanced classes, something that faculty from all five schools brought up in the discussions.
 * “That new categories should have an underlying intellectual coherence.” Some of the faculty feel that Division I has no broad vision. These proposed distribution requirements can provide students with the breadth that the present five-school structure cannot address.
 * “The categories should be compatible with the faculty resources we have in different areas.” This is extremely important, as we do not want to negatively impact faculty workload. In a preliminary analysis of the 08-09 list of courses satisfying distribution, Re-Rad found that 845 seats were Empirical and Mathematical Inquiry, 1004 were Practice of Arts and Design, 1070 were Social Theory and Global Context, and 993 were Analysis of Creative Works.
 * “The categories should encourage interdisciplinarity.” Many of faculty members agreed that distribution should be separated from the schools, which encourages interdisciplinarity. In the aforementioned analysis, no school fit entirely into one area, and most schools contained courses in at least three areas.
 * “The categories should not be tied too closely to the schools.” In addition to encouraging interdisciplinarity, a new structure would ensure the categories distribute more evenly across faculty, so that no one school is over-burdened. Currently, no clear divisions separate the schools; they work as bureaucratic institutions. This proposal does not intend to negate the schools, but instead to separate distribution requirements from schools in order to create more intuitive categories. The 2008 Re-Rad Faculty Survey Report that 72% of faculty would consider distribution requirements based on academic areas defined separately from the five schools, with a further 24% saying that they it would depend upon the implementation. Only 4% of faculty members did not want to consider this option.
 * “The categories should be framed in terms of the structures being explored and the kinds of questions being asked, rather than being defined in traditional disciplinary terms.” Re-Rad, in formulating these categories, worked directly off of this principle.

Re-Rad also wishes to address other issues brought up by the faculty:


 * Distribution requirements are a key part of a liberal arts education, which, as a NEASC-approved liberal arts college, Hampshire must provide to its students.
 * Many faculty members were worried about increased bureaucracy; they felt that moving distribution from the schools would mean creating more committees and unnecessary oversight. Re-Rad proposes a very straightforward system that will not increase faculty workload nor necessitate the creation of any new committee. The faculty will designate their course as fulfilling one or more distribution requirements, and the broader oversight will be provided by the school deans, who at the dean’s meeting will approve the designations.
 * Student engagement and excitement is key to a successful Division I. By having greater flexibility and encouraging professors to provide more interdisciplinary courses, student engagement should increase. In addition, by having distribution requirements that have clear intellectual coherence, there should be more excitement about the courses students take to fulfill the requirements. More excitement about courses also leads to a more academically focused culture, which over time improves Hampshire’s academics and its external image.
 * As four requirements can easily be completed in one year, it is unnecessary to extend them into Division II. In addition, the distribution requirements are presently an integral part of Division I, since they provide a basis for an introduction to Hampshire and the variety of academic disciplines found therein.

Over the course of the faculty discussions, many proposals were created and debated. Discussed proposals included:


 * How do I create art?, How do I do science?, How do I interpret literary texts/cultural artifacts? And how do I understand relations of power/people in groups?
 * one CS/NS, one SS, and two HACU/IA
 * SS, CS or language, NS, and HACU/IA
 * Art making, cultural representations (denoting the study of art/media/culture/literature/music), society and politics, and cognitive and natural sciences
 * The physical world, the social/political world, the created world, and mind
 * The arts including creative writing, social sciences, sciences-natural and cognitive, and humanities and cultural studies

Re-Rad did its best to integrate the ideas and themes of all the proposals into the proposed categories.

Re-Rad also decided against framing the areas in terms of questions, for several reasons. First, when discussing the proposed questions with students, many felt that they were too juvenile and uninspiring. Hampshire wants to encourage students to ask their own questions, not simply answer someone else’s. In addition, for there to be four questions that are broad enough, they would have to be overly simplistic.

Re-Rad found a consensus among many proposals that science and the production of art should be two distinct requirements, and included these two areas in this proposal. Two more areas were developed based on Re-Rad’s analysis of the discussions of the faculty proposals and other data.

Conclusion
This proposal concerns only the question of Division I distribution requirements, which is merely a small portion of the topics that need to be addressed in order to improve Division I. Ideal implementation of this proposal necessitates other changes to the system as well, which will be discussed this spring. In addition, this proposal remains a work in progress, and your comments and critiques are highly encouraged.