|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I have received a number of e-mail responses to my second letter on the new Communication Requirement, which appeared in the last issue of the Newsletter. In the course of my exchanges with colleagues from around the Institute, several issues have arisen that seem to call for further clarification. I have isolated four dominant themes:
1. "HASS" Is Not Equal To "Humanities." One colleague objects to my proposal because he feels that the idea of relying upon HASS to develop students' communication skills "has demonstrably failed." This may well be true, but I was writing about what I called "core humanities" courses, not all HASS courses. The tendency to conflate these categories will prevent us from appreciating the distinctive contribution that core humanities subjects like Literature and History can make to a new Communication program, if they are put in a position to do so. If the idea of letting HASS handle communication training has failed, I would attribute the failure to the fact that the existing HASS-D system offers those students weakest in communication skills too many ways to avoid taking the kind of classes (core humanities ones) in which communication training is not merely added on to the intellectual substance of the discipline, but is inextricably involved with it.
As I said about my own discipline in my last letter: What we fundamentally do is teach students to respond to language, in language. HASS courses that are primarily quantitative or creative in nature do not involve so intimate a connection between intellectual substance and communication skills, and so do not compel students to acknowledge communication skills as more than secondary matters. My debates with colleagues on this issue have strengthened my conviction that we need to raise the visibility of MIT's core humanities subjects, which operate in different ways and with different rationales than do the Social Sciences or the Creative or Performing Arts.
2. To Deny Some Kind Of CI [Communications Intensive] Credit To All Humanities Courses Is To Make A Mockery Of The New Requirement. A colleague rejects my idea that all core humanities courses should carry CI credit, arguing that literature courses "don't need to be designated communication-intensive because it's obvious." My experience at MIT has led me to believe I can take very little about my discipline for granted on the grounds of its general obviousness. But the important thing here is that only CI credit, not flattering words, will suffice. Only by granting some kind of CI credit to our courses will MIT signal to students that it recognizes the contribution humanities courses can (and should) make to communication training. MIT must put its money where its mouth is, and in this context, credit is the only "cash."
3. A Student's Four Years Of CI Training Should Be Conceived Of As A Progression Through Different Tiers Of CI Credit. The idea of different tiers of CI credit is vital: I was alluding to it above when I wrote that all humanities courses should carry "some kind of" CI credit. As I envisioned things, most middle and upper tier humanities courses would carry "CI#3" credit and would retain their status as electives. Juniors and seniors would be able to choose CI#3 courses in their major departments, if they preferred.
4. A Student's Four Years Of CI Training Should Give Due Weight To The Goal Of Shaping Citizens, Not Just Future Professionals. A number of respondents argued that, in order to work, the new requirement ought to build upon students' primary interests by focusing their CI training within their major departments. I agree that, as one interlocutor put it, "passion has a lot to do with success." But MIT has a responsibility to direct students toward other areas it considers important for them to encounter. It has recognized this responsibility by instituting HASS requirements, but the problem of communication calls out for a more detailed roadmap.
Humanities subjects should not exercise exclusive control over the new requirement, but they should play a central role. If MIT students lack the motivation to work hard enough at their humanities courses to reap the full benefits those courses offer, MIT can help by strengthening its message to students about the importance of taking humanities (not just HASS) courses. And it cannot do this by lip service alone (see #2 above).
Thank you for the opportunity to revisit this issue.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|