Rhinelander Questions Council's G.E. Findings

Student Council interpretation of its recent study on General Education made the program appear considerably more unsuccessful than it really is, Phillip H. Rhinelander '29, executive secretary of the committee on General Education, said yesterday.

Rhinelander, Lecturer in Humanitles 4, added however, that both he and the committee considered the study a "very conscientious, careful job." He said that not only were they considering all its recommendations very carefully, but would welcome a similar study after G.E. develops further.

Contrary to the feeling of the Student Council, which thought that "the attainments of G.E.'s basic aims cannot be said to be very great," Rhinelander thinks that the effect of the study is in general "favorable." He added that although it is really too early to evaluate the overall success of the program, both he and the G.E. committee are "generally satisfied" with its progress. They are convinced that it has "tremendous possibilities."

Rhinelander differs most strongly with the Council's interpretation in the matter of student opinion on the general aims of General Education.

Council Position

The Council felt that the answers to the questions which it posed on these basic aims indicate that General Education is not operating in accordance with them. Many students appear to confuse G.E. courses with survey courses.

The questionnaire asks students to list in order of importance the following aims: 1) to provide a general background knowledge in a field of study, 2) to develop effective thinking, 3) to provide a general body of knowledge which can be held in common with other students, 4) to balance specialization in departmental courses, 5) to make the student inquire into problems of social and personal values.

The last four of these are valid G.E. aims as set down in the original plan, while the first is the aim of a survey course. Thirty-four percent of those asked thought the first was most important.

Rhinelander thinks that this data does not quite justify the conclusion that G.E. is unsuccessful because students think that they are survey courses. He points out that the important result is not that 34 percent picked the aims of a survey course, but that 65 percent--the aggregate of the other for aims--think that they are not.

He added that even if background information is the primary object of a survey course, it doesn't follow that a non-survey course cannot accomplish it, too. The case method can give background information as well as the survey method.

Rhinelander commented that the fact that students didn't agreed that any fact single one of the legitimate objectives were pre- dominant was a "healthy sign," if they had agreed it would have indicated that the other aims were being slighted.

Rhinelander also questions the Council's recommendation that G.E. courses limit reading and stick to fewer authors and topics. "I am not convinced that reading a few authors a great deal is better than reading a smaller amount of many authors," he said. He pointed out that a topic is an indefinable quantity, and that if a topic means a problem, you might get more topics by reading one author like Plato than reading many all dealing with the same problem.

Concerning the general low opinion of G.E. sections brought out in the report, Rhinelander said that it is very likely that the problem is more serious here than in departmental courses since it is difficult to find section men with necessary breadth of knowledge for wide G.E. topics. He also pointed out that students must take some of the blame since they often fall to contribute to Section discussions