GEN. ED. LEADERS REPLY

To the Editors of the CRIMSON:

Your editorial of February 17, asserting that Freshmen must write too many papers in their General Education courses, creates a false impression.

You point out that the average Freshman is subject to approximately 20 papers in the course of the year, but you fail to mention that the requirement of a theme a week in English A came to about 24 papers a year, so that the number of papers is not significant apart from their length. The usual weekly theme in English. A was 600 words. There were occasional long papers running up to 2,000 words. The 12 papers now required in General Education A--half the requirement of English A--are all 600 words. The papers in the other courses have no standard length; they vary from 1,000 words to 2,500 words.

Five Hour Wonders

You say that "if Freshmen spent the four or five days their instructors say a typical G.E. theme needs, they would be pouring a third of their first year into papers alone." You also recommend fewer papers and higher marking standards "so that the five hour wonders could not continue to bull their way to B's. Since the former statement suggests that the requirements are too severe, and the latter that they are nor severe enough, we are somewhat in doubt as to which side you take. But apart from this point, neither statement seems to be based on any careful examination of the facts. The 600-word papers in General Education A require no research and are expected by the staff to take three or four hours each, or less. Accordingly, your statement about "five hour wonders" has no application here, Indeed, a man who needs five hours on one of these papers to achieve a B is scarcely to be regarded as a bull artist, but as a conscientious plodder. Five hours of solid work would also go a long way toward completion of one of the 1,000 word papers in certain other courses which require no research. Longer papers would take proportionately longer. Some of the longest might require most of a student's time for a number of days. But it is hard to see how anyone might suppose that there could be a standard requirement as to the time involved for all papers. The suggestion that Freshmen are expected to spend one third of their first year on papers alone has no basis. It is possible, of course, that some students may put one third of their actual working time on their papers, but if so, either they have unusual difficulty in writing or they spend very little time on their other work.

Chief Difference

You say that the 20 papers required of the Freshmen represent "four times the usual upper class load." Since the middle-group courses vary widely in their requirements it is hard to see how the "usual upper class load" can be determined. A single term paper in a middle-group course may involve more work than half a dozen short papers of the kind required in General Education A. Furthermore, if there is a disproportion between the amount of writing required of Freshmen and of upper classmen, it does not follow that the Freshmen write too much. Strong arguments can be made that the upper classmen should write more.

You seem to disregard entirely the chief difference between the present system and the former. Instead of writing papers exclusively, or almost exclusively, for a separate course in composition, the Freshman now divides his writing between a composition course and his other courses. The aim is to establish a closer relation than existed previously between a student's writing and the subject matter of his general courses. The merits of this policy may perhaps be debated, but your position is ambiguous. You criticize General Education A on the ground that the papers are generally unrelated to the rest of the student's work. But you also say that the papers in English A were specially valuable as academic experiences, despite the fact that in this respect they were just like the papers in General Education A. We find it difficult to determine which side of the issue you support.

If evidence is presented that the existing requirements are too onerous, either in the program as a whole or in particular courses, we shall be glad to review the question. However, your editorial does not seem to offer a well considered or coherent appraisal. Philip H. Rhinelander   Chairman,   Committee on General Education   Stephen K. Graubard   Executive Secretary

First, to clear up some misunderstandings: the CRIMSON did not refer to English A papers but to papers in other courses when discussing the worth of papers in the old days. secondly, Drs. Rhinelander and Graubard confuse the CRIMSON's gripes about Gen. Ed. Ahf with its criticisms of the standard General Education courses. A B papers gained by five hours work has no place in the Humanities, Social Sciences, and Natural Sciences courses. But if the Confidential Guide questionnaires are accurate, they do crop up.

It is true that English A had far more papers than Gen, Ed. Ahf. But the writers fall to mention that English A was a fourth course, open to exemptions, while AHF is a compulsory fifth course. And the three-course G.E. requirement forces Freshmen to take courses with more research papers than in the days when the requirement was smaller or non-existent.

The CRIMSON does not believe Freshmen work too hard. Rather, the quality and value of the work they do could be improved if the quantity was reduced and its component parts better related to each other. Joint submission of papers, with more rigid standards, was suggested to help bring this.

The CRIMSON is in essential agreement with Drs. Rhinelander and Graubard on the aims of Gen. Ed. Ahf. But "a closer relation. . . between a student's writing and the subject matter of his general courses" can be better accomplished if Freshman writing is integrated, not divided. Originally, Gen. Ed. Ahf was to relate composition to the Humanities, Natural Sciences, and Social Sciences courses, and to give writing criticism to the type of papers written in other courses. Insofar ad Ahf veers from this original purpose, it is weakened. Insofar as it can better adhere to it, it will be strengthened.--Ed.