Ford Predicts Change in Doty Report; Deans Question Constable's Proposals

Dean Ford predicted yesterday that the Faculty of Arts and Sciences would modify some recommendations of the Doty Committee on General Education. He declined to name the proposals that he thought might be revised.

Ford praised the Doty Committee's work, but said that it was natural that points of view different from the report's should be aired. Ten members of the Faculty were on the Doty Committee, but nearly 600 attend Faculty meetings, he observed.

Nearly six months after the publication of the Doty Report, the Faculty has at last fixed upon specific issues to discuss, according to Ford.

When the Faculty meets again on Dec. 1 at least three main questions will be argued, he said. First, does the Faculty still endorse the concept of a compulsory inter-departmental General Education program? Second, will the departments give the Committee on General Education more power? And third, is the proposed division of Gen Ed courses into Sciences and Humanities acceptable to the Faculty?

The first question, sharpened by a proposal made at the last meeting by Giles Constable, associate professor of History, will undoubtedly spark the most controversy. Constable's idea of a simple distribution requirement received enthusiastic applause from the Faculty, but, said Dean Ford, "no one knows yet who will support the proposal or in fact precisely what form it will take."

Dean Monro yesterday called the Constable suggestion "attractive on the face of it. As I understand the proposal, it would put all courses in a competitive framework, thereby giving both Faculty and students plenty of elbow room," Monro said.

But he cautioned that implied in the distribution scheme was an "atrophy factor." Gen Ed, he said, has always "been a requirement in a dual sense": students must take it, but the Faculty is also obligated to give Gen Ed courses. "Without a requirement for Gen Ed courses per se, some much-needed offerings might wither away." If professors could satisfy their Gen Ed "requirement" by teaching introductory courses, very few would venture outside their department, Monro suggested.

Although he found value in the distribution plan, Ford also had questions about it. Unless the Faculty goes strongly on record in favor of Gen Ed, he said, younger Faculty members will be reluctant to experiment with imaginative interdepartmental courses. Ford cited Soc Sci 3 as an example of a course which had been designed by assistant professors and instructors from different departments.