Finley, Wilcox Clash Over Gen Ed; Upper-Level Courses Need Change?

Three of the most important participants in the College's re-examination of General Education last night gave a scant 15 students an idea of the confusion, fatigue, and frustration that the Faculty's long debate has caused.

Out of a series of attacks and comments on the new Gen Ed proposal came two significant new developments:

* John H. Finley Jr. '25, one of the College's most ardent supporters of Gen Ed, urged the Faculty to reject the new proposal, which was formulated by the Committee on Educational Policy.

* Edward T. Wilcox, the CEP's secretary, said that many of the currently offered upper-level Gen Ed courses may not fulfill the requirements of the new program.

Under the CEP's proposal, a student could fulfill his Gen Ed requirement by the present means or by taking certain departmental courses and then taking upper-level Gen Ed offerings.

However, Wilcox said, a student could only follow his lower level departmental course with specified upper level Gen Ed courses.

The scheme Wilcox outlined would work this way: a student would take Ec 1 as his departmental course in the Social Sciences. After that, he could take for Gen Ed course credit only those upper-level Gen Ed courses that had Wilcox did not bar the possibility that these courses might add pre-requisites, but if they did, he "assumed" there would be a certain amount of change in their structure. Ec 1 as a pre-requisite.

Because most upper-level, Gen Ed courses do not now have pre-requisites--are not part of a "sequence" of courses--they would not qualify for Gen Ed credit.

Neither the CEP's official Gen Ed plan, nor an accompanying letter of explanation, give any hint that upper-level Gen Ed courses without specific prerequisites would not count. Wilcox said this had been the CEP's intention.

Wilcox vs. Finley

Wilcox spent most of two hours in Kirkland House Jr. Common Room last night disagreeing with Finley.

"Why did the CEP have to get into this thing?" Finley, presently the chairman of the Gen Ed committee, asked.

He declared that the new proposal threatens to return the College to the kind of distribution scheme that prevailed in the 1940's when there was no General Education. Permitting departmental on the lower level contradicts the spirit of Gen Ed, he contended.

More Flexible

Richard T. Gill '48, like Finley a member of Doty Committee which reviewed Gen Ed from 1962-64, agreed with Finley that the new proposal might be "dangerous."

However, he said, if strong additions are made to the upper-level Gen Ed offerings, the entire program would become "bigger and better--with more flexibility."

The Faculty will discuss the CEP's proposal at its October meeting and probably vote on it in November. Gill tentativley pledged support of the plan but cautioned that mere accepetance would not be enough.

"It must be made clear," he declared, "that we are reaffirming our desire to have a greater effort (in Gen Ed) and that more resources will be put into it.