Dear Editor:

After going through my sixth advising period as a professor at the University of Massachusetts Lowell, once again I am left curious and perplexed by the narrow tracks laid down before our students in their navigation of the general education requirements.  I think back to my own undergraduate experience at the University of California – Santa Cruz (yes indeed, one of the oft sited schools of the UC system of which our former Chancellor William Hogan, more than once in my presence, held up as the model for the UMass system), and the ease with which I completed my general education.  Starting first as a Physics major, I completed three quarters of Physics for majors, and three quarters of Calculus for science majors, and then switching to Art, taking Drawing I, Drawing II, Drawing III, five quarters of Art History, all of which ‘counted’ toward my general education requirements as either major.  So, I ask myself, why does the University of Massachusetts Lowell think it must require a Bachelor of Fine Arts major to choose from a very narrow set of courses in Arts and Humanities (AH) for two more AH on top of: two Drawing courses, three Art Foundation courses, two Art History courses, and four Aesthetics and Critical Studies courses, which count for what?  In all fairness, my understanding is our majors do have to take one less AH than other majors.  What I am driving at is the lack of choice our students have in exploring their own paths in becoming generally and liberally educated.  I do not know of another Bachelor of Fine Arts program in which students are required to take three science courses, two with lab.  I am not saying this is a bad thing for some students, like myself as an undergraduate.  But, narrow course offerings and the time intensive nature of Art courses (six contact hours per course per week) means almost all our majors have the same science courses, and if I have a student who is apt with computers (which I have many) and wants to take a programming course, we would have to petition the Gen Ed credit in the very unlikely event the student could even take such a course.  Frankly, our students think the general education program is a set of unrelated courses which will have little to no baring on their lives, as much as I try to convince them otherwise.

Now that I have stated a broad impression of the general education curriculum at the University of Massachusetts Lowell, I want to get specific and take on two irksome points which keep me up at night wondering who my colleagues really are in other fields on the General Education Committee. 

First, Drawing, can you believe drawing is not a general education course, and after repeated submissions to the General Education Committee at the University of Massachusetts Lowell this semester was denied that status?  I cannot!  I have degrees from three different universities, all in the top 100 in the nation (which, with the exciting new hire of Provost Abdelal is now a stated goal for UML), and I have taught at no less than three other universities in the top 100, all of which have drawing as part of their general education curriculum; in fact UMass Amherst has drawing in their general education curriculum.  Why don’t we?  I take personal exception to the exclusion of drawing as worthy of a general education course, as I consider drawing as the basis of my research practice and see it as the foundation of Art and Design, as well as, as an essential communication mode for almost every natural science, engineering, and mathematical expression.  Drawing, since the first pigment was applied to cave walls, has served as the basis of visual communication, which lead to pictograms, to ideograms, to hieroglyphs, eventually to alphabets and literacy.  But, this is not an evolution of replacement; try building a bridge with text-based instructions only.  The importance and essential nature of drawing has not changed in 30,000 years, but its efficacy and application has resulted in quantum leaps in almost every area dealing with the physical world, as well as, the fantastic, creative, expressive and imaginative worlds, how many other fields of study in the university can claim likewise?  Drawing is more than a skill, it changes and strengthens natural world observation, encourages problem solving with kinesthetic input, and unleashes fantasy and creativity in a low-stakes environment; think of Frank Gehry or Antoni Gaudí without their initial architectural risks taking shape in the form of drawing, it would not happen!  I could go on, but I think you get the idea: drawing is at the core of so much, why can’t we see that fact at UML?

Second, is the exclusion of major course work from courses ‘counting’ toward general education requirements.  This is an issue of choice for our majors in Art, who currently have no free elective courses in the 120 (usually 122) units they need to graduate.  Meaning, while at the University of Massachusetts Lowell students graduating with a BFA in Fine Art or Design, have only courses offered in our department (choices of which seem to dwindle with each semester), or perfunctory general education courses from the narrow list heretofore mentioned.  Again, I know there are great courses in the general education catalog, and I helped write some the grants funding this new and very exciting interdisciplinary course work which is taking our faculty into other areas.  If general education courses in the major counted, our students would have at least two free electives.  Allowing them, for example, to take two business / management courses, which, as artist and designers—who are almost always self-employed at some stage in their careers—would be very helpful, and relevant.  At present our students cannot do this.  I know this is also a matter for internal discourse with my colleagues in the Art Department, and at NASAD (National Association of Schools of Art and Design) the body who accredits our department, as well. 

Many people complain, so I will offer up one idea (there are many, just googling ‘general education’ is a wild ride) to help this problem.  Leave the general education requirements the same except for these changes: give all 100 and 200 level courses in all departments a general education code letter, and allow departments and individual instructors to determine criteria for who is allowed to take the course (this assumes all courses in the university are at a college level and draw there foundation from some greater general and educative discipline!); let arts and humanities majors take at least one less science with a lab and replace it with another general education course in any area, our students might surprise us; and let majors satisfy general education requirements within their majors—they will still need to take 120 credits to graduate—but with this new openness could come a whole host of minors, even the never-seen-at-UML BFA in Design with a minor in Business Administration!  Finally, disband the General Education Committee—or at least impose reasonable term limits—without the cumbersome course review process, and with all reasonable introductory courses transferring from the community colleges, and other four-year institutions, with a general education equivalent already on the books at UML: Introduction to Life Science at UNH would just automatically count as a Gen Ed, because Introduction to Life Science at UML would be a Gen Ed (without having to have the chair of Biology sign-off on it)!  Think of it, a university where engineers and artists actually get general education credit for their major course work, so they could perchance take an Ethics class, or Political Science course, which might just help them to become interesting people and participatory citizens.  It seems for far too long at the University of Massachusetts Lowell we have been treating our students, not to a liberal arts model, but to a focus on proprietary majors and disjointed general education.  I see light entering the tunnel, and I have nothing but confidence in both Provost Abdelal, and Chancellor Meehan as leaders and innovators who will address issues like General Education reform, and infrastructure at the University of Massachusetts Lowell.

Sincerely,

Prof. Jim Jeffers

Assistant Professor of Art and Design

Art Department

University of Massachusetts Lowell