WHETHER YOU call it the21st century, the "DigitalRevolution" or the "Sexual Revolution," one thing is certain: Our world is changing. To what end is definitely a concern, but assuming a positive future, one must ask: What will this new world look like here at the University? Recently there have been many questions and concerns surrounding attempts looking into broadening and globalizing the University's curriculum. Efforts to expand the number and types of courses that the University offers should not be viewed with skepticism or fear but, rather, should be embraced as something that will keep our institution elite and at the cutting edge of academic research. Just as importantly, diversifying will ensure that the University recognizes growing trends and comes down on the right side of history.
There is a student-led effort to gauge the student body's interests in classes and programs that the University does not offer. This week the Curriculum Globalization Committee, an ad-hoc subcommittee of Student Council, held an open forum regarding this issue "to clear misconceptions," said committee chairman Ryan McElveen, about what the plans to move forward will be. According to a press release, the committee is "concerned primarily with analyzing the lack of global perspectives in [University] academic departments," although its activities will not affect courses in Western subjects.
The open forum addressed concerns that the University's academic programs are potentially inferior to those of comparable institutions like Berkeley. As McElveen explained, "our curriculum is below par for schools at our level." He went on to mention a laundry list of languages offered at a school like Berkeley but missing from the University; among them were Afrikaans, Bulgarian, Croatian, Cuneiform, Tamil and Turkish. McElveen also highlighted the absence from the University of a Queer Studies program, despite the fact that they are present in several other universities and institutions that have reputations comparable to our own.
It is important to understand that the Curriculum Globalization Committee plans, through a series of polls to be administered later to students signed up for a major, only to better understand what the student body thinks might be missing from the current curriculum. It plans to release its final report in February 2007. In sum, McElveen stated that the goal of the committee is to "relay student interest back to the departments." Skeptics at the open forum generally raised questions about why the introduction of new programs is necessary and how these programs would help the University. One person noted that funds could be better used towards existing programs that need them rather than dispersing resources to new departments. Another argued that, contrary to what proponents allege, these programs would not make the University more competitive because they would focus our efforts over wide areas instead of specializing in certain fields.
Despite these claims, however, diversification will likely result in a broader pool of University applicants. It is very unlikely that prospective Wahoos would turn down a chance to be here because we offered programs that they may not be comfortable with. On the other hand, it is highly foreseeable that applicants with particular interests could reject the University because it was deficient in certain areas. McElveen also stressed the need that potential new programs appeal to all sides of the political spectrum, something that should spur support for these initiatives. Often a problem in this debate is that the proposals seem "too liberal," but this should go beyond ideology. Subjecting the University's future to political haggling is a big waste of time with no desirable consequences.
Diversification and expansion must not be strictly confined to areas stereotypically identified as liberal; it would be interesting if the University offered a major or a minor in military history, for example -- something I would sign up for in a heartbeat. Ultimately, one of the worst things we can do is allowing ourselves to be left behind. The issue now centers around perception as much as it does on competition. Diversifying will show to the world that the University community is dedicated towards providing more than just a static curriculum, that we are ready to move into the future as leaders and pioneers rather than followers and acolytes.
Erald Kolasi's column usually appears Fridays in the Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at ekolasi@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
PATEL: Personal development courses support students beyond the gradebook
By Heer Patel | 5 days agoThe University must rethink its approach to education beyond traditional major-specific requirements and mandate personal development courses.
EDITORIAL: Commercialization threatens U.Va.’s educational mission
By Editorial Board | 5 days agoAfter all, measuring the University’s worth in terms of accrued capital, operational efficiency and numerical rankings molds this space into just another cookie-cutter institution.
YOUNIS: Why every U.Va. student should say yes to English
By Ayat Younis | January 9, 2025Every student at the University, regardless of their primary field of study, can professionally and academically benefit from engaging with the English department.
