Friday, April 3

) Liberal Ed.

Continued from page 3

hence of the general nature of
a science, If a science is defined
as “universal knowledge which
starts from principles (concepts,
axioms, deiinitions, and hypo—
theses). arrived at by sensation,
abstraction, induction, etc, and
proceeds by reasoning to
theorems,” then a scientist
should have an adequate
knowledge of the terms of this
deiinition and their properties
and also oi the general
procedures in a science. A
lawyer, too, needs the principles
of logic to some extent. Similar
remarks apply to the principles
of any art, though little is said
about it in a methodology course
nowadays,

Now since the abstract is often
empty without the concrete, or

the importance of the accurate
selences lies more in their ac
curacy and their being close to
an ideal of whatascierice should
be, that of the less accurate lies
more in the fact that they are
concerned also with values. For
want of better terms, We may
call the more accurate sciences
“physical" or “natural" and the
less accurate “social." Then
perhaps two sciences should be
required, one physical and one
social, each presented in a
manner less technical and more
general than that for majors. A
student majoring in a natural
science need not take a course
in another natural science as a
requirement; and the same
applies to any major.

As for an exemplification of an
art, this comes under “the ape
precia'm of the arts,” which
lnclud a variety of ﬁelds
(music, paintings, sculpture,

since “the universal does not
exist apart irom the particular,”
some exemplification of the
nature of science and of art is
advisable. 0f the sciences, some
are very accurate (mathematics,
physics, chemistry, biology),
others are less so (the social
selences). The former use
relatively few principles, the
latter use more numerous. The
accurate sciences are concerned
mainly with matters at fact, the
less accurate sciences tend to
include values as well. sowhile

literature, drama, etc). A
foreign language as a
requirement should be limited to
its literature; for one who wishes
to take such a course as an
exemplitication of an art should
enter college With knowledge of
the elements oi a ioreign
language, or else take an
elementary course as a
prerequisite for this
requirement.
Our next
discussion of
health

THE GRADUATE
FACULTY OF
POLITICAL AND
SOCIAL SCIENCE,
NEW SCHOOL FOR
SOCIAL RESEARCH

ANNOU NCES

TWO NEW M.A. AND PH.D.
PROGRAMS IN
CULTURAL
ANTHROPOLOGY

the
and

Concern is
character

interdisciplinary in scope, the program
will be conducted within an historical

and comparative iramework. It will provide
sludenls with a thorough background

in the philosophy, methods, perspectives.
problems, and types at oalaihot
constitute cultural anthropology as a
system at inquiryi

Ph.D. students will concentrate on one oi
live ateas—evolulion and revolution.
nationalities, community studies.
philosophical anthropology,

orecalogical anthropology.

Apply now for September 1970 semester.

Write toriurlher iniormatten and
application terms to:

DIRECTOR OFADMISSIONSr
GRADUATE FACULTY,

THE NEW SCHOOL

66 West 1 2th Street, New York 10011

 

SCARLET AND BLACK

} Faculty Poll

Continued from page 1

Edward Foster, English: I
believe the proposal is phil-
osophically and educationally
unsound Not only would it give
to students a power in decision-
iiiaking improper to their role at
the institution, but it would also
compromise the faculty’s present
power to recommend policy in
cooperation with the President,
Moreover, the proposal promises
to be unwieldy in practice. The
proposal committee seems well
designed only ior the speciiic
task of eliminating general
requirements. lwoulol regret that
functioll and can foresee no other
function with any prospect of
success,

L, H. Durketﬁtology: I am
in favor oi it, (the proposal) but
l-would personally be reluctant
to give up part of my teaching
load to serve on the committee.
At llle same time I cannot think
or an alternative proposal that
would serve as wellf

Peter Bowman, Physics:

Who plight to determine the
general curriculum? The
President? The Faculty? The
Students? My thinking on this
question is swayed by my
thinking on another, closely
related question: On what
grounds should the first question
be decided? Precedence?
Competence? involvement?

Those who say precedence,
whether they cite local practice
or that oi our sister institutions,
are guilty oi fallacious reasoning,
it seems to me. For they are
inlerring from iactual situations,
what has been done in the past
or what is being done at present,
to an evaluative conclusion, what
ought to be done in the future.

Those who say competence use
sounder reasoning 7 but argue
from false premise. They assume
that the President and the
Faculty possess this commodity

BEYMER’S

Klng's Food Host USA.

with rcspcct to the general
ciii-i-iculuin.whereasthestudents
do not, But. is this true? recent
evcnts both near and iar argue
that it is not: the failure of the
Grinnell curriculum adopted just
two years ago, the WASP-
oriented ethnocentricity oi
curricula all over the country, the
overproduction of PhD s, etc. It
seems to me that the Faculty and
the President are no more
competent than the Students to
dccide on the general
curriculum.

What’s left? On what other

, grounds than involvement can we
decide the question at issuei
None that I can think of, The only
legitimate consideration is a
straightforward one at who‘s
involved in the curricular process
itself, the process of Faculty
teaching students. And to what
conclusion does this clone
sldel‘ation lead7 To the con-
clusion that those who are
directly involved in the general
curriculum ought to determine it.
That the Faculty ought to
cooperate with the Students in
doing so 7 not with the
President, as the Trustees By-
Laws currently allow, And that
the By-Laws ought to be modified
accordingly.

L. E. Erickson Chemistry;
AS a member of the so-called
”llaveman Committee," 1 now
feel that the curriculum proposed
by that group and subsequently
approved by the faculty was,
although reasonably sound, ens
tll’ely too flexible, The document
itseli was a set of closely coor~
dinated proposals, each at}
companied by a corresponding
rationale. It attempted to solve
certain problems and answer
certain criticisms by setting up
appropriate detailed curricular
and administrative structures
(e.g., the Upperclass General
Education Requirement and
Divisional Educational Policy
Committees). The effectiveness
ot these structures varies widely,
but the whole approach was
entirely too legalistic, in my
opinion. I’m afraid that the
current proposal errs in the same
direction.

1 agree with the stated ob-

LEVI'S

A New
Spring Shipment
In Stripes, Solids,

and Plaids

Flairs and Tapers

Bang's
Apparel

Page Five

jective of the proposal; l.e., to
involve students more closely in
curricular decision making
processes, However, I do not
iavor the mechanism proposed.
In my opinion, the number oi
committees and other bodies
which must approve a proposed
change needs to be reduced
rather than increased, A
proliferation of committees will
solve no problems. Nor am i
convinced that the approval of
the entire student body should be
required for any changes in
general requirements. On the
contrary, i believe that the
desired objectives can be
achieved within our present
structures,

To achieve greater student in-
tluence in general curriculum
matters, [suggest the following
changes- (1) equal represen»
latlon by faculty and students on
divisional EPCs‘, (Zlexpanslon of
the role of these committees to
include regular consideration of
all general requirements, in.
cluding components outside oi
the lelsion (Requests for con
sideration oi changes could
originate with faculty or
students); (3) adjustmenl in me
role of the Executive Collnc‘i to
permit its members (especially
the EPC chairmen) to play a
more important role in
curriculum matters.

iii the objective is to achieve
specific curricular reforms, I
believe that the above changes
could substantially increase the
likelihood of such reforms. If the
objective is student power ior
student power‘s sake, the
preceding analysis and
suggestions are completely
irrelevant.

Irwin Goldberg, Sociology:
“Essentially my view is that
students have an appropriate role
in advising faculty on
curriculum, but it is the
responsibilty oi the iaculty to
make final decisions.

Edward Moore, English: 1 am
very much in favor of the method
that this proposal initiates, that
is, an attempt to deiine the areas
oi student, faculty, and ad-
ministrative concern and
legislate functions accordingly.
This approach makes a lot more
sense to me than the previous
proposals of having student
representatives as voting par-
ticipants in all iaculty meetings

FACULTY POLL»—

Continued on page 7

Mackinac Island
Hotel

needs waitresses, bartend»
ers, dock porters. sin.
mer employment, June 8
hrough sept. 7, For in.
ermatlon write:

John Ross
3821 Bishop
Detroit, M iii 43224

DANISH MAID BAKERY
Fresh Pastry Every Day

INDULGE'.

IOWA“

 

