So far I have defended GE courses in general, and I have made two particular statements about the logic and ethics courses. I think many of the concerns students have are with how GEs are actually executed. For some reason or another, students aren’t leaving their history courses with an understanding they find relevant to their own lives and pursuits. So today, I am going to address the issue of how much “room” professors should have to work with when it comes to GE courses.
If the University is going to make a course mandatory for a particular reason, shouldn’t it ensure that what is intended with a particular GE is actually being fulfilled?
I’m going to say no. The reason is that administrative control often has a negative effect in the classroom. Compare it to the public school system in Southern California, which in my opinion is suffering from overregulation. Teaching to a set of requirements that are too specific doesn’t seem to work. Professors need room for their own style, to display their passion for their subject in an individual way. Perhaps GE professors should meet with the administration to be reminded of the purpose of GE courses, or get a packet with the mission statement of a particular GE course. Beyond that, I think professors should be free to conduct their courses as they please.
Though I can’t make the full argument here, I think it is more beneficial in the end to give professors this freedom and have students sometimes feeling they are not getting much out of the courses (though they probably could in many cases), than it would be to have a set policy for GE courses. I don’t see how such a policy could be efficiently enforced either.
In the end, I firmly believe that if students truly desire to learn something from their GE courses, they can, and will.
