The sweeping changes called for by the Committee on Educational Policy eleven days ago were discussed at a meeting of the Faculty yesterday afternoon. Consideration of the proposals was described last night as "a preliminary discussion in a favorable atmosphere."
"It seems that the Committee's recommendations will pass in spirit, but there may be strenuous objection in certain areas," one Faculty member stated. The most critical opinions were voiced against a proposed examination for sophomore Honors candidates, it was also learned. Several members of the Faculty said that such an examination would interfere with the flexibility of tutorial programs.
Although it was generally agreed that at least 30 per cent of tutoring in each department should be done by officers of faculty rank, the Faculty expressed differing opinions regarding the means for reaching this goal. Some said that more faculty members must be appointed, while others favored reducing the number of courses required of senior faculty members who join tutorial staffs.
The discussion yesterday afternoon was limited to the Committee's proposals concerning Honors programs. However, several aspects of the non-honors proposals were touched on--including the forced "prescription" of departmental courses for non-Honors candidates.
Some opposition to this measure was indicated privately, and to any other one which would involve "further differentiation" between students in Honors and non-Honors programs. One senior Faculty member called the proposal "an uncalled-for separation of the sheep and the goats," and warned against "a false assumption of lower standards among non-Honors candidates."
Dean Bundy's explication of the Committee's report accounted for approximately half of the time spent on the C.E.P. proposals.