COLUMN: Apathy stems from failed college system, ambiguous goals

---

by Mike Nabavian

---

What follows is a list of Rice's problems as I see them, along with a few tentative solutions.

* The college system. Can you guess why Rice made the decision to switch over to a residential college system in 1957?

A chapter on the formation of the college system in The History of Student Life at Rice University notes that the system was implemented to correct Rice's two main defects, namely "a lack of social responsibility and a lack of `intellectual ferment,' or intellectual stimulation outside of the classroom."

Although the system has been in place for almost 40 years, we're still griping about apathy and anti-intellectualism. What this tells me is that the residential college system has been a dismal failure, at least by the standards of those who initiated it. Even worse, the colleges as implemented at Rice are the ideal havens for insecure, unoriginal and static personalities who are drawn to the kind of community that will accept them unequivocally.

Yale University's residential colleges, in contrast to Rice's, frequently serve as forums for political debates, student presentations and discussions with visiting scholars and artists at the master's house. And as a means to alleviating the "community problem" I just alluded to, Yale doesn't actually make its students live in the colleges until their sophomore year.

If the college system at Rice hasn't succeeded in its original aim of promoting social responsibility and intellectual stimulation, what's it doing here? College spirit and a forced sense of community, in the absence of opportunities for each member of the college to flourish intellectually, invariably mold lukewarm individuals rather than dynamic individuals. Abolishing the college system might be precisely the shock Rice needs to begin rousing itself from its intellectual torpor. Just a thought.

* Academic ambivalence. Is Rice an engineering school, a liberal arts college, a full-fledged research university or what? A school this small should decide once and for all what it wants to be. As it is, the Rice student body has neither the idealistic spirit that might be found at a good four-year liberal arts college (Swarthmore, for example) nor the irrepressible science-nerdiness of the student bodies at M.I.T. and Caltech.

Rice's middle-of-the-road approach, which might be better suited to a school with more students and more course offerings, has helped create a "blah" atmosphere that tends not to foster meaningful discussion outside the classroom. Of course, it's too late now for the university to embark on a radically different path, so perhaps the most we can hope for is that students who seek intellectual discussions but can't find them will follow the suggestion offered in Alan Cohen's recent letter to the Thresher and form a community of their own.

* No overriding goals. Too many Rice students believe that learning means frantically stuffing knowledge into their brains like so many garments into a duffel bag. In part, this misconception is the fault of Rice's faculty and administration, which have been generally unsuccessful in imparting to the typical undergraduate overall philosophies with which to approach learning, both in his chosen major and outside of it.

As Jenna Christensen pointed out in a letter printed here several weeks ago, a core curriculum is long overdue at Rice.

Ideally a core curriculum class should provide an overview of how and why a particular field of inquiry has been pursued through the ages. It's an excellent way of learning what's important, what's controversial and what methods are employed in a given field.

The kind of curriculum I'm talking about teaches students the paradigms they'll need in order to discuss issues related to the "core" subjects intelligently, to apply what they've learned to their own lives and to learn more about these subjects in the future.

* Too many classes to take. Once again, this problem was addressed in Christensen's letter, so there's not much point in rehashing it here. Suffice it to say that as it stands, course loads surpass the point of diminishing returns and that lowering graduation requirements can only enhance the quality of this university.

I've met an astonishing number of people here who believe that since they work harder than their counterparts at other top schools, they must be getting a better education. This is such a cherished illusion for so many students that dispelling it is next to impossible. Again, the fault lies ultimately with the university for not promoting any coherent view of what it means to learn.

Major structural changes are going to have to be made before it will be possible for a truly intellectual atmosphere to develop here. It won't happen overnight, and I myself have opted to transfer rather than wait around for those changes to be made. But as long as a minority of students continue to make noise about Rice's apathy and anti-intellectualism, a concerted effort to fix things is bound to be launched sooner or later. The only question is, who will get the ball rolling?

Michael Nabavian is a Sid Richardson College sophomore.

This item appeared in the Opinion section of the April 21, 1995 issue.

Copyright © 1996 The Rice Thresher. All Rights Reserved.
This document may be distributed electronically, provided that it is distributed in its entirety and includes this notice. However, it cannot be reprinted without the express written permission of:
The Rice Thresher, Rice University, 6100 Main, Houston, TX 77005-1892, USA.