By Rachael Bentley

The Thursday before Connecticut got hit with an unusual October snowstorm, a different storm was already brewing in room 231 in Copernicus during a campus-wide meeting for the Faculty Senate Ad Hoc Committee for General Education.  The whole point of this meeting was to discuss the initial ideas for the revision of general education.

There are four proposed plans thus far. Plan A changes nothing and keeps the current general education curriculum as is. Plan B has minimal changes to current program.

Plan C makes significant changes, including the removal of FYE classes and implementing a first-year critical inquiry seminar, and the need to complete a 112 language course or take a placement test to demonstrate that the student is already at a proficient level.

Plan D would give the current program a complete over-haul and would require students to complete a language 125 course (or place out with testing), would require a first year critical inquiry seminar, a senior year experience seminar and a course abroad experience, as well as greatly changing what would be required in math, science and other courses across the curriculum.

There were many parts of these revisions that I thought were major improvements, but some I did not agree with.

I do not believe that at a university should require all of their students to take a gym or health class. Are we not all adults and in control of our own bodies and minds? If we don’t know by now that we should maintain a healthy lifestyle, practice safe sex and drink responsibly then that is an issue that should be addressed by giving students the option of taking a class like PE 144, not force it upon them.

However, I thought the idea of implementing a critical thinking requirement for every student could in fact benefit everyone and allow for students to have more of a choice in what they are learning.

One of the main issues that is evident about the current curriculum is that many students see classes as a box to check off at the end of each semester, and I personally feel like this every time I do my own degree evaluation.

It would be in the students’ best interest if the committee designed a curriculum that would allow students to take classes that focus more on their major and helped prepare them more for the professional world.

My greatest concern focuses on what was said during this open forum. I was surprised and disturbed by the amount of faculty that spoke against requiring students to do more rigorous and challenging classes, such as taking more languages or requiring a critical thinking class.

Whether they meant to or not, I got the general vibe that they did not believe that CCSU students could live up to these requirements.  And to be honest, I’m sure that a lot of students would turn their noses up at the idea of having to take a semester or two of a language.

Looking at the bigger picture, making these changes to the current program would in fact make CCSU a better school. How would future employers of CCSU graduates feel if they knew they could speak more than one language or use critical thinking skills?

Companies that hire CCSU graduates experience first hand what a CCSU student can bring to the table, and pushing students to work harder for their degree will reflect in their work ethic later on.

These changes may not affect us directly, but the credibility of what college or university you graduated from can follow you your whole career. Higher education is supposed to be a time in your life where you are pushed academically, and is supposed to be a challenging experience. Perhaps it is time that CCSU started pushing their students a little harder, and expected more from them.