Letter to the Editor

Thank you for your editorial of April 11th about the proposed General Education model. Throughout our process, GEAB’s has taken as a guiding principle that students should have the power to chart their own path through a well-rounded education, so your feedback is appreciated during these revision and approval processes.

We would like to address a few of the points raised in that editorial. First, comparing our proposal to the programs at Salem State and Fitchburg State overlooks a key difference: those universities use 3-credit courses while we use 4-credit courses. For approximately the same 40 credit hours, Salem requires 14 courses (12 Gen Ed courses plus two “overlays” in advanced writing), and Fitchburg requires 17 (14 Gen Ed courses plus three “overlays” in integrative learning). 

We only have 10 courses available to meet our accrediting body’s 40 credit hour minimum. If we required as many courses as our sister institutions, many majors would not be possible in four years, and those programs – and their students – would rightly object.

Your editorial also implied that Salem and Fitchburg favor the Arts & Humanities. However, at Fitchburg, only about 42% of Gen Ed courses are solidly housed in the A&H, and only about 36% at Salem. Our proposal houses 40% of the requirements in the A&H: first-year writing, world language, and two open A&H courses. 

Further, our proposal anticipates a slight increase in the number of students taking A&H courses. Analysis of the last two years’ data shows that roughly 36% of students fulfilled General Education requirements with A&H classes. Under the proposed model, that number would rise to 40%. While those courses would no longer be spread throughout the model, more students would be required to take A&H classes. Note that First-Year Writing is included in both the 36% and 40% calculations.

Several times over the last month, the GEAB has been accused of slipshod work on this proposal. Nothing is further from the truth. Our decision to propose open electives in three distribution areas aligns not with our colleges, but with the requirement from NECHE, our accrediting body, that we show “a balanced regard for what are traditionally referred to as the arts and humanities, the sciences including mathematics, and the social sciences” (Standard 4.17).

More importantly, we made an intentional decision to afford students more control in their education. Currently, students often choose Gen Ed courses by picking from a list of courses that don’t conflict with major requirements. This approach is not about breadth or career-readiness or any of the other goals of General Education. This is expediency.

Our proposed model would encourage students to explore a broader range of courses within each distribution area, selecting based on personal interests and learning goals. This shift would necessitate more advisor involvement, and we recognize the need for additional training and guidance. 

Our approach is not an easy way out or a negligent effort, but rather a position born of respect for our students as adults capable of taking ownership of their education.

Throughout the nearly two years we have worked on this model, we have repeatedly requested input from students through focus groups, forums, and surveys, and we are grateful for your thoughts as the model continues its review by UCC. 

Sincerely,

Members of GEAB

Joseph Coelho

Susan Dargan

Rebecca Dowgiert

Vincent Ferraro

Alexander (Sandy) Hartwiger

Michael Krul

Laura Lamontagne

Lori Lavigne

Patricia Lynne

Stefan Papaioannou

David Restrick

Amanda Simons