By Steve Matchak
Department of Geography

Steve Matchak

As with many of my peers, I am deeply concerned and involved with the curriculum. As all of us have, I taught my load, advised hundreds of students, served on departmental curriculum committees and on the All-College Curriculum Committee. As department chair I had to handle student requests as well as problems, not to mention transfer course evaluations. Over the years, I have come to think of the curriculum as a ball and chain that shackles both faculty and students to an unwieldy structure. The curriculum as a structure has become outmoded to the point that many consider it a deterrent to education. It is an obstacle course with so many hurdles that, anecdotal evidence suggests, it has become a factor in retention.

So, I have had to give the curriculum quite a bit of thought over the years. Since the college is about to embark on a major overhaul of the core curriculum, I thought that I would throw in my two cents as the process begins in hopes of getting a few ideas on the table.

A Few Thoughts to Begin With

1. Examine the whole curriculum. No one knows exactly what the core covers. We should look at the competencies, distributions, and “V’s, W’s, & Q’s.” The core is part of the whole curriculum that provides a context for this discussion. We should not modify one part without considering the other parts.

2. We should create a curriculum for a university that we are about to become and acknowledge the reality of our transfer situation. Let’s not tinker, let’s envision a curriculum to fit into a new university. SSC plans to become a university. A few years ago, the Carnegie Foundation reclassified higher educational institutions. The university classifications expanded from U1 and U2 (extensive research and intensive research) to U3 (teaching university) and U4 (specialty university). Two U3 institutions are UMass/Lowell and UMass/Boston. Why not consider comparing their core curriculums to ours? SSC has remained in the Masters Large category. The other issue is transfers. Many undergraduates who transfer from community colleges are able to use their community college cores at SSC because of Massachusetts Compact agreements. As a result, virtually half of our graduates do not take or complete the SSC core. So, I believe that the SSC core should align itself with the university that we would like to become and recognize the reality of our transfer agreements.

3. Let’s consider an undergraduate curriculum that meshes with a graduate program. Many of our undergraduates would stay for professional qualifications. Moreover, the undergraduate degree is important, but it is not the final step in education. We should craft a solid degree that leads to graduate education rather than an overstuffed degree that tries to do too much.

4. Appreciate where our present curriculum comes from. In the mid 1970’s there was a blue-ribbon committee that designed the curriculum. It was driven by the demands of teacher education and by a desire to control the curriculum. Also, those were dark times at Salem State as well as in public education generally, and faculty wanted to keep their jobs. Students were required to take a wide array of courses that kept faculty employed. The curriculum reflected both their academic and economic desires, which probably made our curriculum outmoded and restrictive from its beginnings. Since then, much of the curriculum changes have added layers to the base. The curriculum, however, has not really changed in thirty years.

5. The core should be focused on concepts, skills, and competencies. Today education, especially for the core curriculum, should be driven by the necessities of concepts, skills, and competencies. Employers need bright, flexible, innovative, and proficient employees. Content is, of course, important but the emphasis has to shift toward skills. The major should provide a rudimentary understanding of an academic discipline or future career so that students may continue their education at the graduate level and have the academic skill set to successfully enter the workforce. Graduate education should provide professional qualifications.

6. Two Core Curriculums. I believe that there should be two core curriculums, one for SSC students who will graduate with just a SSC degree and the other for students from China in the dual degree program. Some of their Chinese courses should be counted for the core as well as those courses chosen to meet their core needs. Expecting these students to complete the SSC core as is fails to meet their needs and cuts into their major courses unnecessarily.

An Ideal Curriculum

This is my design of an idealized curriculum with limited explanations:

There are three central parts:

• A core curriculum of between 30 and 35 credit hours
• A major field of study of between 30 and 45 credit hours
• An elective section for each student to fulfill 30 credit hours
• A block of 15 or so credit hours to fight about

The core curriculum

The core should contain an initial English composition series to ensure that students write at a college level and to prepare them for upper division classes.

Students should have more choices and fewer required sequences than in the current core. These courses should expose students to ways of thought and types of research as well as content material. In addition, SSC should require two science courses rather than a sequence to match what many transfer students are already bringing to SSC.

In my heart, I believe in a freshman seminar that all students would take in their first semester. However, I just do not see how it could be done. Instead, blocking and seminars for some core courses maybe the best that SSC can manage at the moment. In addition, Student Life could do more to help students make a transition from high school to college. It is unfortunate, but the current freshman seminar has not panned out and should be scrapped.

Core competencies should also be scrapped. The reading competence should be inculcated through the entire course of study. A college math competency should not be based upon a high school SAT score. Likewise, computer competence should be infused throughout the curriculum.

There should be fewer 100-level courses in the core. Students should move up to a wider range of 200 & 300 electives that will expose them to new ideas that stimulate and allow them to develop intellectual and methodological competencies.

The Major

With some exceptions, no department should require students to take more than 45 credit hours to complete the major. The world has changed over the last 30 years. It is no longer necessary to stuff as much content as possible into a required course of study. It is better to teach the basic concepts, skills, and competencies along with an offering of electives.

There are exceptions and a TEST. Most of the exceptions come from the realm of accreditation. If, for example, the Theatre and Speech Communication Department has an accreditor that requires that students have 64 credit hours in their major, so be it. For other programs that desire more than 45 credit hours, there should be a simple test. Simply compare the program to similar programs at other institutions. If other programs can do the job in 48, or 52 credit hours, why cannot Salem State? Without jeopardizing quality, why cannot Salem State be more streamlined and efficient in its curriculum?

The curriculum should have several objectives:

1. Prepare graduates who have the background to go on to graduate school (even though many fields of graduate institutions will accept students with other academic majors).
2. Prepare students for professional programs that are broadly based, such as law school or administrative programs.
3. Prepare students for the workforce in which their academic majors will mostly likely fade into memory. The need to pack everything into an undergraduate degree is diminishing.

The Electives

Students should have at least 30 credit hours for their own discretion. Our students should be able to discover their interests and themselves intellectually. They should be able to have the time and space on their flowsheets to study abroad, to enroll in study/travel seminars, and/or to have community service opportunities. Transfer students also need someplace on the flowsheets to put their credit hours. We also have to accommodate all of our students who just want to change their mind about their major. Changing a major is natural and healthy, especially in the first two years. Students should not be penalized simply because they have nowhere to put extra credits, nor should they be punished by curricula that are both lengthy and rigid. The degree really should be achievable in four academic years with a higher degree of flexibility.

The Missing Semester

If you are counting, there are 15 or so credit hours yet to be accounted for. Perhaps this is a good place for the foreign language requirement or a minor that will complement the major.

Parting Shots

1. Potential students applying to SSC, with exceptions, should not declare majors as they apply. Students should select a major that suits their abilities, desires, and expectations in the sophomore or junior years. The exceptions are the performing arts: music with a recital, art with a portfolio, and theater with an audition. Nursing too should be specified simply because of the required background and student demand.

2. There should be limits on majors. The college has to balance the short cycles of student demand with the longer cycles of college structure and curriculum development. The college should develop a loose formula that would establish the number of students in a major. This would be based upon the number of faculty, classrooms, labs, and cognate courses provided by other departments, among other criteria. There is a handful of departments that are simply swamped with students. Their faculty could meet to select students who would apply for the major. This is, in large part, what the University of Massachusetts Amherst does in selecting students for its School of Business. This is also similar to what the School of Education does as it selects the more qualified students for its program. A meeting every semester to choose majors would be far better than constant complaining and overworked faculty.

3. The School of Education should be far more of a graduate than an undergraduate program. Other states, such as New Hampshire, offer their graduates a one-year masters for certification. Students have a major and a strong education minor. Let’s use the graduate program to its fullest extent. Too many double majors just go nuts trying to do two majors at the same time and then crack up either by leaving education or the college. Relieve the pressure of the double major.

In conclusion, I think that the core as part of the curriculum needs to be revised to meet the college’s broader goals and objectives. These include becoming a university within the state system. Salem State’s curriculum should compare well with our sister institutions rather than being so nonconforming. The college should offer a greater number of choices for student growth as well as shorter, well-focused majors. The core should serve all members of the college with an emphasis on concepts and skills to better prepare them for upper division work as well as a life of learning.

This article is part of ASpect’s March 2010 issue on the core curriculum.