Keeping good teachers would boost intellectual life

As something of a public service, I am writing this open letter to the student body on behalf of the Undergraduate U-Council in order to raise awareness about ongoing efforts and future plans. At last year's final CPUC meeting in the spring, the undergraduate U-Councilors presented three affirmative proposals geared towards creating more opportunities for intellectual engagement on campus. One proposal involved strengthening an already-existing series of Thursday night USG-sponsored conversations on current events; a second announced the creation of a University-wide editorial-style online discussion board; and, the third proposal called on the University to institute a monthly dinner program that brings students, faculty and graduate students together to discuss topics of their choosing. This third proposal asks that the University carve out an hour-long period each month (6:30-7:30 p.m.) during which all other campus activities will cease, thus making room for all interested students, faculty and staff to join a small discussion/dinner group. The dinners would create a much-needed venue for casual intellectual exchange that would encourage cross-class interaction and serve as a great preface to the institution of four-year residential colleges. Ideally, all groups would include one professor (or administrator), one graduate student, as well as undergraduates from all classes. With this final proposal, we have asked the University to send a strong symbolic message reaffirming its emphasis on vibrant intellectual exchange. And to that end, University administrators have pledged to create a committee that will carry out a feasibility study and begin making this proposal a reality.

Notably, these proposals all focus on creating more opportunities for intellectual engagement outside the classroom. The domain outside the classroom is one that we, as members of student groups and the student government, can directly and tangibly affect. And, for the most part, this is the domain of intellectual life with which virtually everyone has been concerned since the publication of the U-Council's initial letter in late September of last year. For example, the vast majority of students U-Councilors spoke with — whether expressing agreement or disagreement with our perceptions — automatically moved towards a reflection on their dinner table and late-night dorm lives.

The U-Council would like to take this opportunity to redirect the discussion on undergraduate intellectual life by reviving a forgotten but central aspect of its original letter: concern with intellectual life in the classroom. The U-Council's concern with this broad and daunting issue stems from the somewhat troubling revelations contained in a Precept Review and Reform Committee report published in the spring of 2002, which indicated "a high level of student dissatisfaction" with precept experiences (the report can be accessed through the USG web site). A majority of students described experiences that failed to be intellectually challenging or stimulating. When we realize that the precept is the primary venue for intellectual engagement with course material outside of seminar courses, these findings become extremely troubling. What does it say about the structure of our courses and the assignments designed to challenge and stimulate the intellectual imagination when the precept experience is described as lackluster by so many?

It is the U-Council's belief that the classroom should be the origin of intellectual fervor on this campus. Ideas and texts presented through course work should stimulate not only energetic precept discussions but also conversations over the dinner table and in the dorms. That is to say that no strict dichotomy should exist between undergraduate life inside versus life outside the classroom. Thus, we should view perceived problems with undergraduate intellectual life as a commentary on the quality and effectiveness of the classroom experience. Moreover, there is no doubt in our minds that an engaging and thought-provoking classroom experience would vastly improve the intellectual climate on campus.

And there is an obvious and tangible way to help achieve this kind of vibrant and stimulating classroom experience. The University bills itself as a formidable research university that focuses uncompromisingly on teaching its undergraduates. If this is true, Princeton should be making extraordinary efforts to retain faculty who have proven themselves as great teachers. To Princeton's credit, it is clear that even upon a cursory comparison with other Ivy League schools, the level of direct faculty interaction and exposure that undergraduates receive is unparalleled. Indeed, faculty and administrators alike have been very receptive to our requests to retain and acquire inspiring teachers; but it is our firm belief that we should always be striving to improve the classroom experience. The classrooms that make up and ultimately define this great institution simply cannot afford to lose great teachers.

So, if it is agreed that intellectual life is not as vibrant as it should be (note: the U-Council readily acknowledges that this is by no means a settled debate), our reaction should be to scrutinize our practices in the classroom — in lecture, precept, lab and seminar. Do we give enough attention to pedagogical issues? Do we adequately emphasize the teaching mission of the college and take measures to retain good teachers? These are questions that we would like to see the University administration and faculty, in conjunction with the student body, address. Concerns about the quality of education will undoubtedly persist no matter the measures taken. But one thing is clear to us: a healthy and focused discourse on these central issues is always beneficial. Brandon Parry is a sophomore from Washington, D,C.