Professors Beckman and Groves raise a number of concerns. I believe these concerns may be summarized as follows:

1. Prof. Groves and Prof. Beckman argue that my proposal is incompatible with collegiality because it places either sole or primary responsibility for the social-awareness aspect of the mission statement on the H/SS Department. (Response)
2. Prof. Groves and, to a lesser degree, Prof. Beckman assert that there is no need to require an STS course because students can be prepared to deal with these issues by a broad, liberal education. (Response)
3. Prof. Groves states that my proposal would severely restrict student choices in a way that he believes is unpalatable to most students. (Response)
4. Prof. Groves further claims my proposal limits the intellectual growth of students by taking away their responsibility to ensure that their courses fulfills the colleges mission. (Response)
5. Profs. Groves and Beckman both insist that the emphasis in my proposal on STS is misplaced, as I am reading the mission statement selectively and such an emphasis is incompatible with the tradition of general education which has been the historical hallmark of the college. (Response)
6. Prof. Groves contends that the senior ethics course I suggested is intellectually hollow and logistically impossible. (Response)
7. Prof. Groves maintains that, contrary to my claim that Hum 2 has no specific purpose, Hum 2 is meant to solidify the writing skills gained in Hum 1 (as well as giving students a choice in subject matter and introducing students to said subject matter). (Response)
8. Prof. Groves posits that Hum 2 cannot be "STS-themed" because it would place undue burden on STS faculty and would eliminate a rare choice in the freshman curriculum.(Response)

1. (Up to question) On this point I am in violent agreement with Professors Groves and Beckman that the whole faculty bear responsibility for promoting awareness of social impact issues. Indeed, my proposal never refers to the IE as a HumSoc requirement, and, furthermore, it is specifically designed to promote IEs outside the HumSoc department. I see the HumSoc department as possessing a leadership role because it is best equipped to study these issues; it is difficult to encourage a thoughtful discussion of ethical issues when one is teaching how to solve boundary values problems. More generally, students need to be taught to approach science from non-science perspective--no system can verify itself.

2. (Up to question) Prof Groves asks, rhetorically, "Do we not learn about human cultures and their role in shaping societies when we read novels, contemplate artworks, listen to musical compositions ... ?" Regrettably, the answer to this question is an emphatic no; we do not learn anything about culture from listening to a piece of music (or experiencing other art). We would also need to know at the very least the piece's history, performance practice, and music theory associated with its (sub)-culture to learn something about culture from listening to the piece. This doesn't mean that we do not benefit from studying music--one can gain valuable critical thinking skills as well as personal pleasure from such studies. However, an important second ingredient in learning about culture is context. A broad knowledge base to provide context and critical thinking skills to two separate things, each equally necessary to tackling problems. STS is that knowledge base for approaching scientific problems from a non-science perspective. While the general critical thinking skills I gained from studying music theory will help me appreciate the impact of my work on society, my knowledge of how to compose 5th species counterpoint will not--and devoid of any knowledge of STS, I could not meaningfully attack such problems. Unlike the Greeks, I do not believe that all knowledge can be gained through pure reason.

3. (Up to question) I have discussed this proposal at great length with some dozen students. Most had the same initial reaction as Prof. Groves did: that this proposal is overly restrictive. After thinking about it, however, all but one concluded that it is not significantly more restrictive than the current curriculum, and that the slight loss in freedom is more than compensated for by the increased focus on STS. Thus, I'm led to the conclusion that a majority of Mudd students would support this proposal, or at the very least not oppose it on account of it being overly restrictive.

4. (Up to question) I also fail to see how my proposal reduces the student's responsibility to design an effective HumSoc program. Although one course is prescribed for them, they are now given five electives rather than four. Further, STS is an inherently interdisciplinary discipline, so that students could take a variety of courses in philosophy, history, anthropology, sociology, and other areas to fulfill their STS distribution, and the department is further encouraged to approve as many courses as possible which are not listed as STS courses as fulfilling this requirement. This does not constitute, as Prof. Groves complains, a "narrow list of courses." The only course in which the student's choice is truly restricted is the ethics seminar, but the trade off is that students get an extra elective. Thus, it would seem that the burden on them is just as great as or greater than it is in the current system.

5. (Up to question) Just like Professors Groves and Beckman, I am also a big fan of general education, but one must keep in mind what is feasible within the constraints of a 4 year education as well as the effectiveness of the program. Just by way of comparison, consider the University of Chicago, long known for its focus on a general education. At the UofC there is a similar distribution requirement in that each student is required to take a year each of Humanities, Social Science, and Civilization. There are many different courses, the so-called "Core" courses, that a student can take to fulfil these requirements. However, Core courses are year-long courses, typically taught by the same professor throughout. They are unified, in-depth introductions the subject matter, and as such develop both a knowledge base and critical thinking skills. While adopting a Chicago-style system at Mudd would have certain advantages, it will also severely restrict students' choices and to a much greater degree than my proposal does.

   At Harvey Mudd, students are required to take six courses in six different departments--the same number of year courses, but in a very different manner. This poses manifold problems. I do not claim--as Professor Groves seems to believe I do--that these problems stem from the fact "students may not take this distribution seriously" and thus "the sampling we envision leads only to a superficial exposure." Rather, it is the structure itself, which forces students to take six introductory courses, which is flawed. While HumSoc tends to be less rigidly structured than the sciences, there is certainly a distinction between introductory and advanced classes. This is readily apparent in the various sequences taught in the social sciences, but it is also true in the humanities and the arts. To cite an extreme example, in the music department one is required to take two years of theory and a year of history before one can take advanced courses such as composition, orchestration, or conducting. In general, introductory courses tend to teach the basic concepts and nomenclature of a field of study and deemphasize those vaunted critical thinking skills.

   So what to do at Mudd? My proposal takes one route: increase the focus on STS, cut down at the required distribution requirements, and trust and students and their advisors will design an effective programs with the five electives that remain. I do not think this proposal ignores "well-versedness" part of the mission statement. Students will have a deep knowledge of their concentration, some knowledge of STS and ethics, and an introduction to at least two additional departments. That sums to courses in a minimum of five different departments, not all that different from the current six. A second, less radical solution, is to drop the requirement that the two courses in a given distribution area be in different departments. This would allow students, if they so desire, to take take three year long courses in the Chicago style. Even if they don't, this change permits more advanced classes to be taken would promote a deeper understanding of HumSoc, even if it may somewhat reduce the breadth.

6. (Up to question) I don't think think the senior ethics course is intellectually vacuous. It is a capstone experience on par with the Integrative Experience. It further gets tech faculty actively involved the "impact part" of the mission statement. I do readily see that it is logistically difficult. However, as Prof. Groves himself points out, no set of requirements is ever perfect.

7. (Up to question) I wish to reiterate my concern about the role Hum 2 plays in the curriculum. Prof. Groves asserted that one of its two purposes is to solidly the writing skills gained in Hum 1, as my proposal suggests. However, discussions with friends show that there is huge variation in the writing intensivity of Hum 2. For example, in my Hum 2 class, the entire writing component of the class consisted of two rather short essays, with no editing process or other "writing instruction." I do not think this qualifies as "writing intensive," as Prof. Groves suggested. Without regard to whether the other parts of this proposal are adopted, the role of Hum 2 must be clarified.

8. (Up to question) I believe that this objection stemmed from a failure on my part to write clearly. I therefore revised the proposal to make clear that "STS-themed" does not necessarily mean a formal introduction to STS, merely that the course touch on "impact issues". I believe this addresses Prof. Groves complaints, as students still have a free elective in their freshman year and any faculty member can teach a course in his or her field of expertise.