|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Rice Thresher
Phone:
|
To the editor: I read an article on the language requirement that appeared in the Thresher ("Faculty Votes to Abolish Language Requirement," March 2) and was appalled. I feel that the language requirement has not had a chance to prove itself, yet the faculty, after little more than one semester, is ready to do away with it completely. I strongly support the language requirement. We can no longer expect everyone to accommodate our needs and learn English. To allow students to graduate without some knowledge of a foreign language perpetuates the stereotype of the ignorant, stubborn American. Proficiency in another language not only implies a sound understanding of grammar as well as the ability to write, speak, read and listen effectively in another language, but it is also the first and most necessary step to understanding another culture. The way in which people communicate is just as telling of their perspective of the world as the words that they say. I am strongly convinced that proficiency in a foreign language, in addition to offering insight into the lives of other people, gives one a competitive advantage in the business world. In my recent search for a summer internship, nearly every firm listed knowledge of a foreign language as a plus, if not a necessity. In response to the comments made by Associate English Professor Scott Derrick to the effect that coercive learning is ineffective, I would like to point out that every single Rice student endures some form of coercive learning during his or her time here. Have we gotten all too used to getting out of distribution requirements through classes like "Rocks for Jocks," "Stat Too-Easy" and "Clapping for Credit"? I do not doubt the value of a well-rounded education, but I think maybe one side of that education is getting a little more rounded than the other. I do feel like our high schools have let us down as far as language instruction goes, or at least mine did. I do not, however, think that that should be any reason for Rice to drop its language requirement; if anything, it should be grounds for strengthening it. A "watered-down" language requirement is unacceptable, but eliminating the requirement does not solve the problem. If anything it only exacerbates the existing one. I have also heard the argument that the language requirement pulls students out of other classes that they would have otherwise taken, and may hinder them in their studies in one of the more demanding majors, such as chemical engineering. The language requirement should not, at least in theory, pull anyone away from any other class at Rice. As I understand it, the first year of language study does not count toward distribution of any kind, leaving the student with another four Group I classes to take before degree requirements have been fulfilled. It may be a little extra work each semester during the freshman and sophomore years, but this is Rice after all; we should have to work a little bit harder here, we should have to do a little bit more. Otherwise, that reputation for excellence that seems so important to so many people here is absolutely worthless.
Matt Williams Sid sophomore
- 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 |
