Editorial New senior work policy must be implemented carefully

Author: [no author name found]

In a vote taken last spring, the Middlebury faculty approved a measure to require senior work for all students, beginning with the class of 2013. We applaud this audacious decision as it exemplifies two values that Middlebury stands for: high-level academic discourse, and intimate faculty-student interaction. We expect the new requirement will produce impressive scholarship, and will serve as a guiding influence for students throughout their four years at Middlebury.

Having a definite academic goal, such as a thesis or symposium presentation, forces academic discipline. Although it may at first seem daunting, the class of 2013 should appreciate the structure they've been afforded.

Most gratifying about the faculty's decision was its intention to narrow the distance between student and professor. Even though our professors keep their doors open for a few hours a week, student and faculty communication increasingly takes place electronically - precious face to face interaction is dwindling. We hope the new requirement will reverse this trend.

The new senior work policy may even positively change the culture of senior spring. While the Spring Student Symposium has slowly grown the past two years, this policy will provide it a shot in the arm, as no doubt a larger portion of the class will be involved in the process.

Despite the overwhelmingly strong theoretical basis for this policy, we urge that its implementation be both meticulous and fair. With graduation at stake, this new policy represents an academic sledgehammer-and the faculty must exercise caution with its use. The definition of senior work is vague, and it is the prerogative of each department to decide what does and does not consitute senior work. The departments must be careful. If they make the minimum requirements too difficult, they run the risk of overwhelming students and turning a stimulating project into tedium. A thesis is imposing enough as a voluntary endeavor, forcing participation in the endeavor can change the dynamic of scholarship. On the opposite end of the spectrum, if the minimum requirements are too easy this policy could potentially water down the expectations for future senior work.

Finally, academic departments should work together to ensure that senior work expectations have some consistency in regard to size-students should not be dissuaded from certain majors because of an overbearing senior work requirement. In the same vein, exceptionally light senior work requirements should not draw students to a certain discipline. Recent discussion of what could constitute senior work suggests it could be completed in as short a period as a single Winter Term. We worry that just four weeks of scholarship may fail to realize the stated goals of the senior work program. There is potential for a distinct double standard to emerge; one student's full year thesis could stand next to another's four-week effort.

The faculty has boldly decided to use their academic sledgehammer to fix the problems of declining senior scholarship and academic conversation between faculty and students. We appreciate the faculty's daring mentality and trust that it understands the importance of wielding their new tool well.