Last week, while campus was tucked away in bed binge-watching every show available on Netflix, it appears that the University did not take such a break. Instead of guffawing at the antics of the Bluth family or vacillating right along with Elena as she had to choose between her vampires, faculty members were hotly debating a proposed credit hour definition change that goes to vote this afternoon.
In this weekâ€™s Trinitonian, faculty columnist and political science professor David Crockett does a terrific job of retelling the debate in laymanâ€™s terms.
At the Trinitonian, we have already begun to take Crockettâ€™s advice and think about how we, as Trinity students, feel about this issue. We are beginning to wonder if perhaps the logic behind the proposed changes is a bit flawed. In order to lessen a studentâ€™s workload, a class will be eliminated. However, an extra credit hour will be added to each of the four existing classes, and instead of meeting more often, the credit hour will represent more time outside of class that professors expect students to be reading, researching and writing. Thus, as Crockett explains, a studentâ€™s weekly academic workload will presumably increase from 43 hours to 48 hours.
A university that already requires students to perform high quality work would like students to produce even higher quality work. We donâ€™t want to advocate laziness, but at what point will students hit a ceiling? Is it practical to teach students time management by heaping unreasonable expectations on top of them? Should we teach people to swim by throwing them into the deep end? The argument is intriguing, and we suddenly understand why the faculty are so caught up (got us feeling it, caught up).
We advise, fellow students, that you treat the credit hour issue like â€œArrested Developmentâ€ or â€œVampire Diaries,â€ â€œThe Walking Deadâ€ or, dare we speak its name, â€œBreaking Badâ€ and catch up.