Distribution system requires overhaul

Along with the college system, the distribution system is a major feather in Rice’s cap. It allows Rice recruiters to go to high schools across the nation and make bold statements such as, “We don’t have any required courses at Rice University.” Sure, it’s technically true, but with the addition of the (essentially) required course COMM 103, we should ask how true we are staying to the spirit of that mantra.

The purpose of the distribution system, as stated in this year’s General Announcements, is to ensure that Rice students receive “a broad education along with training in an academic specialty. This goal is achieved by courses that are broad based, accessible to non-majors and representative of the knowledge, intellectual skills and habits of thought that are most characteristic of a discipline or of inquiry across disciplines” (page 15).

So why aren’t all classes listed as distribution courses? The prime example of the distribution system’s failure is in foreign language education. While the stated goal is to make distribution courses “accessible to non-majors,” languages could hardly be more unfriendly to those not majoring in them. For some reason, the first two semesters of a language a student takes do not count for any sort of distribution credit. Regardless of what ridiculous message this sends about 100-level language courses — are students not actually learning languages in them? — it acts as a roadblock to students who want to branch out into a new language. It forces a newcomer to spend two extra semesters on that language before satisfying any sort of distribution requirement.

Since only some courses are listed as distribution, we don’t have true freedom to explore interests outside our main field of study. Any class not listed in one of the distribution categories is an affront to both the letter and the spirit of Rice’s distribution system. So why are we even confronting this problem? I see two reasons and one simple solution.

There is a set of guidelines professors must meet in order to list their courses as distribution. If professors do not want to go through the red tape of meeting the requirements, the easy solution is for them to say they do not want their courses listed as distribution. It’s a simple answer to their problem, and there are few immediate repercussions from their points of view.

The second problem occurs nearly as a direct result of the first. As more and more professors decide their courses are above the petty requirements laid before them, fewer and fewer distribution courses are available to students who need that credit to graduate. And so those courses that still satisfy the requirement become more and more “popular.” Professors become upset at large classes filled with students whose only interest is that the course gets them closer to a diploma.

Some professors choose an obvious solution to this problem: If they, too, refuse to have their courses listed as distribution, uninterested students will have no incentive to register for their courses. These professor’s classes fill with eager, interested pupils — a professor’s paradise.

For those of you who do not believe that this is really the thought process, I once heard a professor complaining that his course had accidentally been listed as distribution. He wanted to make sure all of his students were interested and understood that students would sign up for his class solely for the distribution credit.

But this is only an ideal solution from the professors’ standpoint. Those students are still going somewhere, which means that as more professors nix their distribution courses, students are shunted into the courses of any professor willing to have them. The end result of this process is the death of the distribution system.

If you didn’t spot it above, that process is called a positive feedback loop. As each new professor catches onto the brilliant scheme of “unlisting” courses as distribution, a different prof’s classes start filling up with more students who do not want to be there. Eventually, we will be left with only a few courses in each distribution group.

That’s not freedom, and it’s not fostering interdepartmental interests. In fact, we are moving towards a Rice University with little sense of the glorious idea the distribution system represents.

The solution is simple: First, reduce the requirements on professors, or eliminate them altogether. The purpose of the system should be to give students a nudge into other departments, not force them into courses that will bore them with knowledge they find neither applicable nor interesting. Second, make sure every course is listed as D1, D2 or D3. That way professors do not have to worry as much about students swarming to distribution courses. With a greater array of courses to satisfy the distribution requirements, students have a better chance of finding classes which interest them and put them one step closer to graduation.

The distribution system should be a bragging point of our university. It is a beautiful concept, but without responsible stewards to implement it properly, it will continue to garner more praise than it deserves.

Sean McBeath is a Martel College sophomore, news designer and calendar editor.

Back to top