UCLA may lower GE requirements

By Noah Grand
Daily Bruin Reporter

The General Education Governance Committee is discussing a major
overhaul of GE foundations and requirements, especially in the
sciences.

A work group of science faculty has been formed to discuss the
science changes and make recommendations after a large part of the
science faculty was not pleased with the original proposal.

“You have to start with what you want non-science students
to know about science,” said David Rodes, Director of the
General Education Governance Committee.

Science faculty members were displeased with the original
proposal because it would cut the required number of science
courses from six to three, keeping the quantitative reasoning
requirement.

While Rodes said he hopes there will be a faculty vote at the
end of the year, Karen Rowe, chair of the faculty executive
committee, said committee regulations could slow the voting
process.

Regardless of whether a vote is taken this quarter or in the
fall, the changes would not go into effect until 2002, and they
would only affect incoming freshmen.

The humanities and social science requirements would be cut from
four to three classes each.

“I just feel that we should encourage humanities students
to have more exposure to science and math,” said Kuo-Nan
Liou, chair of the Atmospheric Sciences department. “You need
to know something about science to get your degree.”

This proposal was not agreed upon, largely because the science
faculty would not approve of it, according to Rodes. The science
work group is deliberating ways to cut fewer science GEs.

“A (new) recommendation that seems to be gaining some
favor would be having two life sciences, two physical sciences and
quantitative reasoning,” said Judith Smith, vice-provost of
undergraduate education.

Some science faculty, including Liou, said they felt the GE
Governance Committee was unfair because it did not fully represent
the science faculty.

Rodes said the committee was specifically chosen to be a fair
representation of the faculty at large by choosing faculty members
from both north and south campus.

“We understand that this was a working proposal and that
we would have to get down in the trenches and work with
faculty,” Rodes said.

The proposed changes in science general education are only part
of a more massive overhaul in GE requirements and policies, which
have been fairly constant since 1983, according to Rodes.

The changes in general education are intended to streamline
requirements by reducing the number of classes and units of GE a
student takes, simplifying what is needed, according to Rodes.

“I would definitely change general education,” said
Russel Schuh, linguistics vice chair of undergraduate affairs.
“If I were an undergraduate student, I wouldn’t know
what to take.”

Cutting GE courses is another goal, because UCLA has the most
general education requirements of any UC school.

“I believe that we can improve the quality of a
student’s overall general education experience if we could
have a modest reduction in the number of courses required,”
Smith said.

Reducing the number of required GE courses would allow student
to take more elective classes, or have more classes available to
take a minor or second major.

“When universities were formed, there was supposed to be a
student’s major, GE and electives. Now there are some
students in some majors who, just by putting together their major
and GE will have very little room for choice of electives,”
said Brian Copenhaver, provost of the College of Letters and
Science.

Copenhaver said there have been large-scale structural changes
in general education under way since 1994, with the major changes
in that time being the addition of writing II courses and GE
clusters, which are both five-unit courses. The GE proposal
revolves around all GE classes being five-unit classes.

“Each GE course offered has a greater depth of study
because they are five units instead of four,” Smith said.

In addition to discussing the quantity of science GE courses and
the number of units those classes should be, the science work group
is discussing what should be taught to non-science students in
science GE courses.

“A given course could provide foundation knowledge in
science but could have the broader goal of understanding how
science is done,” said Robin Garrell, a chemistry professor
on the science work group. “The course could also show why
judgments in science are different than ethical decisions or
personal value decisions.”

These conceptual changes reflect a shift away from teaching
specific content in GE classes. Instead, concepts like the methods
and foundations of scientific inquiry would be emphasized,
according to Rowe.

The proposed changes would need to go through the science work
group, the GE Governance Committee and the Faculty Executive
Committee before the faculty would vote on the proposal. Even if
approved by faculty vote, the proposal must still be approved by
the Undergraduate Council and the Legislative Assembly, according
to Smith.