Curriculum 2000, the brainchild of the Undergraduate Curriculum Task Force, is a set of structural changes to the College of Engineering that would not only make it easier for students to get out on time - it also would enrich the education they get. The task force has found an effective solution to a long-standing problem and deserves commendation for this inventive initiative.
At the heart of the new curriculum lies the combination of several 100-level introduction classes. Engineering 101 - Introduction to Computing, a four 4-credit course - will absorb Engineering 103,104, 106, 107 and EECS 100. Unlike the old classes, 101 does not pair a specific programming language with an introduction to computer science, weeding out classes that beat dead computer trends to death.
Moreover, the new curriculum design aims to streamline coursework to make graduation in four years a reachable goal. Tuition isn't getting any cheaper; getting students out on time saves students money.
In addition to making four-year degrees more attainable, the new curriculum promises to increase their value by expanding their breadth. Currently, some of the engineering programs allow for as few as two elective credit hours. As part of Curriculum 2000, each undergraduate engineering program must have at least 12 elective credit hours, enabling the student to have a more diverse educational experience.
The task force is composed of four students from different sections of the College of Engineering. Student members represent every class except the present group of first-year students. The committee's cross-section of the Engineering student body is beneficial and promotes discussion of a variety of concerns.
Students have been calling for a change to allow them to graduate within a four-year period. The College of Engineering has answered those requests by establishing a program to improve this possibility without requiring students to overburden themselves with 17 or 18 credits per term.
Between students' influence on the task force and the demand from the student body to make four-year graduation feasible, Curriculum 2000 is an excellent example of the administration tapping the resource of student input to help solve a difficult problem.
LSA could learn from Engineering's example. LSA students also face the problem of involuntary graduation delays. Upper-level concentration classes frequently require more work and a greater time commitment but offer fewer credits. The credit system forces students to take on more than they can handle - or stick around for an extra semester or two or three. LSA administrators should try to solve the credit problem in a similar manner to the College of Engineering. The results might not only alleviate the problem, but might improve the education students receive.
Curriculum 2000 promises to help solve some of the problems facing Engineering students. Regrouping may save students an extra year's tuition while enriching their education. Michael Parsons, former associate dean of Engineering and chair of the task force, said: "We have accepted our students' arguments."
Indeed, the new programs should increase both the quality and accessibility of students' education. The University should finalize the plan soon.
Some of the hardest-hit departments would be those Engler has already abused during his time in office. The Department of Natural Resources stands to lose up to 21 percent of its workers. James Carter, DNR personnel chief, says the largest number of retirements would come from parks and recreation. Park managers and wildlife biologists preserve the livelihood of Michigan's wildlife - the positions must remain intact.
Also, the Department of Civil Rights could lose 47 of its 166 employees - just less than one-third. Michigan has moved to the right since Engler's reign began, but the state must uphold its commitment to civil rights. And being committed means retaining enough personnel to pursue and resolve all civil rights complaints.
Engler hasn't left out his favorite department to cut - education. Under his plan, up to 20 percent of Department of Education workers would be eligible to retire. The department certifies teachers and appropriates funds to local districts. Any loss of scrutiny in these areas would put the state educational system at risk.
From a broader perspective, Engler's plan puts the state government in danger. The retirement offer would extend to a 50-year-old with 25 years on the job, and a 60- year-old with 10 years of service. Many higher-ranking officials, including several department heads, have expressed interest in the plan - which, coupled with term limits in the state legislature, would result in a loss of state institutional memory.
In addition, an exodus of workers would leave an inordinate number of responsibilities to redistribute. Chaos would result. Numerous and simultaneous promotions, along with higher workloads, would adversely affect all departments. Few officials could provide training and some persons would inherit duties they are unequipped to handle. Vital departmental functions would fall through the woodwork.
Engler's proposal would also affect the pension plans of new employees. The new pension - "defined contribution plan" - could result in lower benefits. Moreover, union officials fear it would damage the fiscal solvency of the current retirement system. The state must solicit union input and explore long-term fiscal effects.
Michigan is not in dire financial straits. Nevertheless, Engler wants to keep chopping the budget - and eliminate jobs while he's at it. His early retirement plan would result in an overburdened, inexperienced staff. After implementation, the state could not maintain current levels of service. Engler needs to refocus his energies on the needs of his constituency - rather than using the governorship as a springboard to national prominence.