|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Rice Thresher
Phone:
|
by Mariel Tam Thresher editorial staff The faculty is likely to either reduce or completely abolish a language proficiency requirement, that has been in effect for less than a year, for undergraduate students. The University Standing Committee on Undergraduate Curriculum will present a motion to reduce the requirement at Wednesday's general faculty meeting, CUC chair John Zammito said. "What we're hoping is that there will be a serious and sensible discussion of the language requirement," he said. If the motion to reduce the requirement is voted down, Zammito said, "The general faculty could decide that it wants to abolish the program." For the faculty to change or abolish it, votes at two faculty meetings would be necessary. "I will recommend to the general faculty explicitly in presenting the motion that we, as a committee, do not recommend [the requirement] standing as it is," Zammito, History Department Chair, said. The curriculum committee is willing to go with either modifying the requirement or abolishing it, he said. This semester, the committee voted 14-1 to send forward a motion that the faculty re-examine the language requirement. "The main view of the committee is that this is something the general faculty needs to consider because there are significant inconsistencies" between the requirement that was passed and its actual implementation, Zammito said. These discrepancies have included "a lot of loose ends" that appeared when new students arrived last fall, interim Dean of Humanities Gale Stokes said. Some students raised questions about proving competency that had not been addressed by the requirement that was passed by the faculty. For example, students who had passed a Rice placement test and an oral proficiency interview in some languages had not technically filled the requirement because some tests had yet to be certified. Stokes issued clarifications in response to the questions in September. "I think [the problems] arose primarily because the requirement was not very well-written," Stokes said. Also, fewer incoming students were able to pass out of the requirement than had been projected. Students who make a score of 4 or 5 on an Advanced Placement language exam while in high school have fulfilled the requirement. Another way to prove competency in a language is by scoring an average of intermediate-mid or higher on a proficiency exam. The written part of the exam tests reading, writing and listening abilities, followed by an oral proficiency interview to test speaking ability. Intermediate-mid is a level determined by the American Council on Teaching Foreign Languages, which certifies the tests that were written by Rice. "This is not a particularly high standard, but it's an important one, I think, to give people the basic ability to use the language," Stokes said. The Language Steering Committee had estimated in September 1998 that 47 percent of freshmen that year would have been able to place out of a requirement with Advanced Placement credit or by passing a Rice exam. But according to curriculum committee figures, only 13 percent of this year's incoming students completed the requirement with the AP test, while 8 percent averaged intermediate-mid or higher on the test. Five percent of first-year students passed the written placement exam but did not take the oral interview, instead choosing to enroll in a 300-level or higher course. Fewer students were able to pass the exams than expected, Stokes said. For instance, of the students who took the Spanish proficiency exam in the fall, only 25 percent passed the written test and 6 percent passed the oral proficiency interview. Another problem is that some students never took a placement exam. "A significant portion of last year's incoming class are unidentified," Stokes said. "We don't know why they haven't attempted the language placement exam, and we don't know what their curricular plans are." The language requirement has been a hotly debated issue among the faculty since its inception. The language requirement narrowly passed 87-84 at the November 1998 general faculty meeting. At the September 1998 meeting, on the requirement's first reading, the proposal passed by an uncounted clear majority. Next week, the faculty could vote to abolish the requirement. Stokes said he expects to see "considerable support for doing away with the requirement," Stokes said. "The foreign language requirement is obviously going to be a big demand on students' time," said Physics and Astronomy Professor Stanley Dodds, who said he would vote against keeping it if it comes up in the general faculty meeting. "The question then is: Is that the best use of our students' time, or should they be taking more courses in history or economics or statistics or even science? "Beyond that, there are serious questions in the implementation," Dodds added. At the October faculty meeting, Dodds presented written comments about Stokes' clarifications, which Dodds said changed the substance of the legislation passed by the faculty. However, other faculty members are wary about completely striking the requirement after its first year. "I wasn't enthusiastic about the language requirement initially," Political Science Professor John Ambler, a CUC member, said. However, now that it is in effect, "we've already drawn one class of freshmen into it" and it shouldn't be abolished, he said. Ambler's vote in the CUC was the one dissenting vote against putting forth the motion to re-examine the requirement. Whether or not the requirement continues, Stokes said, the attention to the language program has brought worthwhile improvements. If the requirement were abolished, "it would not change the way we teach languages," he said. "One thing that the language requirement has done for teaching foreign languages at Rice has been to stimulate terrific changes in how language is taught."
- back - |
|
|
Search the Thresher pages:
This document may be distributed electronically, provided that it is distributed in its entirety and includes this notice. However, it cannot be reprinted without the express written permission of: The Rice Thresher, Rice University MS-524, PO Box 1892, Houston, TX 77251-1892, USA. The Thresher Online Project -- ethresh@listserv.rice.edu |
