The Gatepost Editorial: Proposed GenEd model uninspiring

By The Gatepost Editorial Board A proposal to overhaul the general education model is currently being reviewed by the University Curriculum Committee (UCC). The model is boring and simplistic and we at The Gatepost are concerned! While the intention for the change is to create a more flexible and accessible system for students, the new proposal may unintentionally compromise the depth and breadth of a well-rounded education. The new framework, which was developed by the General Education Advisory Board (GEAB), retains core courses such as writing, math, and world languages, which The Gatepost supports. However, it also simplifies course requirements and adopts a reductionist approach that decreases the value of a holistic educational experience in favor of expediency. While the current GenEd model identifies skills and ways of learning by requiring courses in areas such as quantitative reasoning, 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, and 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 students select GenEd courses based on college, not what specific goal or skill might be gained from taking them. General education is not just about meeting minimal discipline-area requirements - it's about ensuring students are exposed to diverse ideas, interdisciplinary skills, and new ways of thinking. The purpose of general education is to develop students' diverse and comprehensive interests and expose them to a wide range of skills that are necessary for excelling within an academic community and as citizens and professionals in a 21st-century world. The new model should communicate to students what Framingham State’s educational values are. Fitchburg State University does an amazing job of accomplishing this. Fitchburg’s program states that every student must take both a civics and ethics course; a stand-alone diversity course; a stand-alone course in fine arts; and both a literature and history course, among other requirements. It is clear what Fitchburg State’s values as a university are because of this model. Framingham State’s proposed model does not accomplish this. Maybe that is why the UCC is 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 someplace 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 has reviewed the GenEd systems for many of our sister state universities. They do not have overlays. They have easy-to-understand general education categories that reflect the institutions’ values. Salem State University, for example, has QUEST, an exciting, easy-to-understand approach to general education. According to the university’s website, the acronym stands for: Question in many ways and in many settings; Understand your and others’ identities and how society and contexts shape them; Explore the world at large and the various areas of human activity and ways of knowing; Share by learning to communicate effectively with different audiences, using a variety of tools in a range of settings; and Take action by putting your knowledge into practice on campus, in the community, in your own life and for a just and democratic society. Salem State requires students to take courses in engaging categories such as Diversity, Power Dynamics, and Social Justice. Many of the models at our sister institutions require students to take civics courses, oral communication courses, quantitative reasoning courses, and creative expression courses (such as studio art or creative writing). Some of these categories exist in our current model but are now being proposed as overlays. These models at our sister state universities have clear and definitive learning objectives for their students that reflect their institutional values. Framingham State’s proposed model does not. Also, if one of the concerns about our current model and its learning objectives is that it is too complicated, as was suggested at the March 28 UCC meeting, how does a system of overlays alleviate that concern? In the current GenEd model, students are able to take interdisciplinary courses, such as Introduction to Digital Humanities, to fulfill their quantitative reasoning domain. Taking a course such as Digital Humanities helps students - especially Arts and Humanities majors - to connect their GenEds to real-world dilemmas, such as the one we are all currently facing with the rise of AI. We recommend retaining a quantitative reasoning GenEd requirement rather than a technology overlay. Interdisciplinary courses are particularly effective at fostering critical thinking, creativity, and cultural awareness - all of which are indispensable for developing engaged, thoughtful citizens. Particularly given the current political climate, cultural awareness and critical thinking are more important and needed than ever. Humanities studies, which actively develop these skills, are becoming less prioritized. When we reviewed the GenEd models of our sister institutions, we were impressed because of their focus on the humanities. It is clear other public universities in Massachusetts value the transferable skills learned through this discipline. We would like to see more of that in the proposed model. Framingham State is only now determining what specific competencies it wants its general education model to promote through a discussion of overlays. The overlay system should be the start of determining what our new GenEd model should be. It's where FSU’s specific values will lie - not in a “take two courses from each college” approach. In the “just take two courses from each college” approach, students will be left with the unfair responsibility of choosing courses only guided by which course sounds the “coolest” or by what easily fits into their schedule, rather than being shown why and how these courses are important to their academic growth. By reducing the complexity of the GenEd system, the University may inadvertently shift the burden of decision-making onto students who are ill-prepared to handle it, ultimately compromising their academic success. This is particularly concerning given that retention rates are a critical issue for Framingham State, and early academic failures are a significant predictor of student dropouts. The new system may increase student frustration and diminish the overall educational experience. While freedom of choice is an important principle, it cannot come at the cost of a well-rounded education. Students need both the opportunity to explore their academic interests and the guidance necessary to navigate a complex educational landscape. The current proposal, while well-intentioned, may be more overwhelming than liberating, particularly for freshmen who are still finding their footing in college. As the UCC continues to hold open forums about this proposal, it must consider the long-term impact on student success and the importance of a well-rounded education that includes a strong foundation. It is time to head back to the drawing board!