Last week the Faculty began sketching the outlines of a sound General Education Program. In four important votes, it chose to retain three key facets of the present program and to improve on one other.

* The Gen Ed requirement in a student's area of concentration was retained.

* The Gen Ed requirement outside a student's area was retained.

* The Nat Sci requirement was held at one year.

* The Gen Ed Committee was authorized to increase the number of courses suitable for filling the Gen Ed requirement in each area.

Only one essential question concerning requirements remains. Should a student be permitted to substitute, at a 1.5:1 or 2:1 ratio, departmental for Gen Ed courses? Supporters of the Constable proposal wish to extend the ratio system, which now applies only to Nat Sci, to all three areas. Several other Faculty members would restrict the system to areas outside a student's concentration. "Traditionalists" oppose the system across the board.

We feel the traditionalists have the best case. Admittedly the ratio system has worked well in the Natural Sciences. But this reflects the peculiarities of that area, not the inherent advantages of the system. In the sciences, general education means training in the methods of science. Often departmental courses can impart, as well as can Gen Ed courses, an understanding of the scientific method.

In the Social Sciences and Humanities, however, general education means more than training in methodology or style of thought. What it does mean no one has yet been able to specify. Some Soc Sci and Hum courses present a cross-departmental overview of an area. Others treat important topics that do not fall clearly in any department. Still others use the Gen Ed rubric to introduce the student to the great men and books of Western Civilization. They all, however, share a common purpose: to interest the beginning student in broad academic topics that are in that area, central to the understanding of an area, ill-covered by any department, and essential to a "liberal education."

The purpose is not always fulfilled. But this is no reason to abandon it, and adoption of the ratio system would amount to just that. For the system rests on the assumption that general education is a matter of quantity not quality, that the advantages of a Gen Ed course can be duplicated by any two or 15 departmental courses. This assumption is simply false. As Professor Chalmers said last week "two unsatisfactory departmental courses do not constitute a satisfactory Gen Ed course."