' :THE‘CADRE,’ TUES., NOV. 27. 1973 Paqe 3

KampUs

Now that most students on this campus are in the pr—

ocess of gathering inform-J

ration for the Christmas evaluation, it is fitting that we taketa review of this semester with a view towards forming a synthes- is of the progress or reg— ress of the drive to have evaluation procedures hum— anized.

UPEI is going into en- trenchment. Since 1969 this university has been- grasping at straws to det- ermine its direction and purpose. Now, in 1973, we 'are witnessing a reaction towards the pre-l960's style of evaluation and course requirements.

For example, proposals A and B of the curriculum proposals, printed in the last issue of the Cadre, remind one of the situati- on at most universities before the revolutionary period of 1967-69 in educ-

ation. In those days a per—

son entering university with the intention of gai- ning a bachelor of arts degree was required to take courses predelinea- ted by the various depart- ments, and made mandatory by the body governing the academic functioning of the Arts faculty. That meant that students in an arts program had no choice for their first two years of study. /

After a virtual educatio— nal revolution on the maj— or campuses throughout North America in the late 60's most universities at- tempted to reform their programs, especially in the Arts and Education faculties. This university,

since it was formed at the'

climax of the "break - th— rough" period, attempted to liberalize the Arts pr- ogram with such programs as the ?Pilot Project". For everyone though] there were no required/courses as such. Although a stude—

nt had to have a major, lie.

—14 courses in one area of study, all choices of cou— rses were, and still are, left up to the student._ Now, however, we are Wit- nessing the return of the pendulum. The Pilot Project is dead. Free choice at all levels in the Arts fa- culty is on thin, very thin ice. We are not far from the day when a stud— .ent entering UPEI will ha-

ve his/her program outlin- ed and computerised for the sake of up—lifting the standards at this univers- ity. But one can ask if the’assumption of necessa— ry courses for a degree is a valid one? It is based on another assumption, na- mely the supposed inabili— ty of the student, coming out of high school, to co- rrectly make judgements in picking courses towards a useful degree in Arts. One can argue to the contrary!

Instead of making courses mandatory one should take a long hard look at the structure of course style education. Maybe this is not the best method? Maybe a new method of interdisc- iplinary non-courses, i.e. a program in total immer— sion would be better. In— stead of taking five or six courses of Various disciplines maybe a total immersion in one field per year or semester would be more beneficial to the students. The program wou- ld look something like th— is.

If a student wished to gain a B.A. degree he wou— ld choose one field per semester. If he were inte- rested in say, philosophy at any particular time, then a total immersion, with no other courses of other disciplines, in phi- losophy for a period of one or_two semesters would be to his benefit. This

,would allow the student to

concentrate his grasp on one area in order that he "break—through" the surfa—

ce and delve into the dep-‘

ths of philosophy, etc., gaining a better and more complete knowledge of the method of philosophical inquiry, the history of philosophy and the other various modes that is phi- losophy.

Once a person has been immersed in one method, of which he/she now has adeq- uate understanding, he/she can enter other disciplin— es with some sort of "att— ack" to work from. Since the method has been devel— oped through immersion the student has a sense of "solidness" that the pres- ent system and style seem not to develop.

Graphically the system looks like this:

First Yzar — total immer— sion ir ggg field.

N’ r3 v0

Koncern

by ioel hansen

Second Year - Interdisci— pline study. This is the year the student branches out to different discipli- nes for new comprehension of his/her totality.

Third Year — Second immer- sion. This year the student does a recast or a rethink of his/her first immersion in a verification mode. The third year is a verificat- ion of the first, as a re- sult of the second.

Fourth Year — This year the student must present a th- esis, original in nature, which is to be evaluated by his/her professor who has administered the imme- rsion program of the stu— dent's choice.

(In all years, any struc- ture or method of teaching is to be left up to the pr- ofessor and student, with the exception of the sec- ond year which, due to its cross-disciplinary nature, would be quite like the present system.)

In all years the method of evaluation should be left under departmental control.

The benefit of this syst- em, which lifts it over the present system, is its im— mersion feature. Linguists have known fer a long time that the immersion method ensures a more adequate un— derstanding of the materi- al to be grasped.

The only argument against this idea is the problem- of financial structuring

of the purchase of the de- gree, i.e. tuition costs. The present system leads toward a functional marke- ting technique, i.e. a course is offered in a pa— ckage at a price.

I claim that this system, (the present one) can lea-

ve the student "high and dry" after four years of university. A student can attend university for four years and still not adequ— ately understand any one discipline because of the surfaceness of the present system.

Basically I am saying th— is. Instead of reaction, let's have revolution: let‘ us push onward toward a better, more humane educa- tional system. I offer th— is idea of a program to support that quest.