After the Faculty Senate voted last month not to recommend the latest four-by-four proposal to GW's nine schools, many faculty members are saying that students need more information about the plan that would change GW's credit structure.
At the meeting, faculty members expressed doubt about the extent to which there needs to be an overhaul of academics at GW and were skeptical of data that shows low academic engagement and challenge.
The four-by-four plan would change the curricular structure from five three-credit classes a semester to four four-credit classes a semester.
"We ought to have an ongoing and serious debate with our students to find out what they think of our education," said law professor Miriam Galston at the last Faculty Senate meeting earlier this month.
Despite the uncertainties of student perception of academics at GW, students have largely been absent from the four-by-four debate. Three students were members of the task force that initially discussed and then crafted the four-by-four plan that was released in October, but that task force is no longer meeting.
In December, Executive Vice President for Academic Affairs Donald Lehman met with Student Association members to give a presentation on the four-by-four and to answer questions. Timothy Little, the SA's vice president of academic affairs, said it is difficult to talk about the four-by-four with students.
"It's very hard to inform students about this abstract idea without more specifics," said Little, a sophomore.
Student Association senators were critical of a plan that tries to dictate how teachers teach and how students learn, but also supportive of the general idea of improving academics at the University. GW administrators who have proposed the plan say it would make classes more rigorous.
"How can you tell teachers to makes classes harder? How can you regulate it? If you're going to make them harder, how does it affect students who intern?" questioned SA Senator Daniel Bernstein (CCAS-U), a junior.
At the meeting, faculty members expressed doubt about the extent to which there needs to be an overhaul of academics at GW and were skeptical of data that shows low academic engagement and challenge.
The four-by-four plan would change the curricular structure from five three-credit classes a semester to four four-credit classes a semester.
"We ought to have an ongoing and serious debate with our students to find out what they think of our education," said law professor Miriam Galston at the last Faculty Senate meeting earlier this month.
Despite the uncertainties of student perception of academics at GW, students have largely been absent from the four-by-four debate. Three students were members of the task force that initially discussed and then crafted the four-by-four plan that was released in October, but that task force is no longer meeting.
In December, Executive Vice President for Academic Affairs Donald Lehman met with Student Association members to give a presentation on the four-by-four and to answer questions. Timothy Little, the SA's vice president of academic affairs, said it is difficult to talk about the four-by-four with students.
"It's very hard to inform students about this abstract idea without more specifics," said Little, a sophomore.
Student Association senators were critical of a plan that tries to dictate how teachers teach and how students learn, but also supportive of the general idea of improving academics at the University. GW administrators who have proposed the plan say it would make classes more rigorous.
"How can you tell teachers to makes classes harder? How can you regulate it? If you're going to make them harder, how does it affect students who intern?" questioned SA Senator Daniel Bernstein (CCAS-U), a junior.
