The Gatepost Editorial: UCC made the right decision

By The Gatepost Editorial Board A proposal to overhaul the General Education (GenEd) model was tabled by the University Curriculum Committee (UCC) on April 25. Thank you to the UCC for deciding to table this log until next year. The Gatepost Editorial Board appreciates the decision not to push this proposal through just because the end of the academic year is here. Although this is the right call, we hope the ongoing revision process next fall will result in a GenEd model that will truly support students and reflect the values of the institution. We remain concerned about the lack of clarity concerning key components of the proposed GenEd model as well as the larger structure of the model itself. Along with core requirements that are similar to those in the current GenEd system, the proposed model just states that students should take two courses from each college. That means any two general education courses from each of the respective colleges of the University: STEM; Arts & Humanities; Education and Social & Behavioral Sciences. Rather than fulfilling domains that may happen to fall under specific colleges or more than one college, the new model proposes that students select GenEd courses based on college, not on what specific goal or skill might be gained from taking them. Although the goal of the proposed model is to encourage students to explore a broader range of courses within each distribution area, students would select based on personal interests rather than clearly defined learning goals that identify skills and expertise a liberal arts college graduate should possess in the 21st century. Giving students too much freedom of choice without telling them what their choices mean for their education or their futures ultimately does them a disservice. While the paradox of choice suggests more options might be a path to greater freedom and happiness, in reality, it often leads to anxiety, dissatisfaction, and paralysis. When everything is possible, nothing feels meaningful because no choice stands out as inherently better or more authentic. Currently, students often choose GenEd courses by picking from a list of options that don’t conflict with courses they are taking for major requirements. Nevertheless, they are informed about the value or purpose of each course because our current model provides detailed descriptions of each requirement. Framingham State’s proposed model does not do this. Maybe that is why the UCC has been considering adding “overlays” to the proposed model. Rather than being specific general education requirements, overlays are skills or areas of knowledge that would be fulfilled somewhere in the general education model. If something is important enough to be proposed as an overlay, shouldn’t it just be a requirement for a general education course? The Gatepost Editorial Board believes areas such as civic literacy, creative expression, and quantitative reasoning are not just academic categories - they are cornerstones of a 21st-century curriculum that develops well-rounded, engaged, and informed students and citizens. This model must be reviewed by the entire faculty through another campus-wide survey. Then, the proposed model must be fully revised by the General Education Advisory Board. Minor edits will not suffice. Make the model more interesting! For example, Salem State University has QUEST, an exciting, easy-to-understand approach to general education. This approach lets students have freedom in choosing classes while also articulating ‘why’ each requirement is valuable to students in furthering their education. The general education model must have values that align with those of FSU. For example, students should be required to take world languages as part of the core because “Global Stewardship” is one of six “core values” articulated by FSU on its website. “Ethical Citizenship” and “Public Purpose and Commitment” are also “Core Values.” Therefore, the University should implement a GenEd requirement for a civic engagement course. The new model should communicate to students what Framingham State’s educational values are. We must respectfully disagree that a GenEd system should simply provide a menu of choices without articulating values or priorities. A model can be designed that articulates specific values and priorities while still guaranteeing students take courses in each division of the college. We hope that through the revision process, the GenEd model will be changed to reflect Framingham State’s values.