New Distribution Requirements Expected to be Approved by the End of the Year

If you’ve been reading the Quest closely, or paying attention to the flyers in the GCC bathrooms, you may have heard that the faculty have been discussing upcoming changes to the distribution requirements. What’s up with that?

Faculty have been discussing the distribution requirements, first in committee, then on the floor of the general faculty meeting, for years at this point. After months of faculty meetings being taken up by lengthy discussion on this topic, we are finally reaching a close.

The Ad Hoc Committee on Distribution Requirements has several distinct proposals for revising the distribution requirements. If all goes as planned, the February 17 faculty meeting will involve a lengthy discussion and hopefully a vote on amendments to these propositions. By the end of the March 10 faculty meeting they hope to have approved new requirements, which would go into effect starting next academic year.

If all stays on schedule, the new changes should be in place for the 2025–2026 academic year. Students admitted for next year and beyond would work toward the new requirements while current students would still complete the current requirements.

How did we get here? Why are we changing the requirements?

Prior to Fall 2019, Reed had different group requirements: ​​2 units in the same subject for each of the following: Group A (Literature, Philosophy, Religion, Arts); Group B (History, Social Sciences, Psychology); Group C (Natural Sciences); Group D - (Mathematics, CSCI, Logic, Foreign Language, Linguistics); and Group X, 2 units in any one department outside of the major. 

In spring 2018, the faculty voted to implement the current three-group system, which went into effect starting in the 2019–2020 academic year. At the time, proponents of the change argued that it would encourage breadth of study, allow more flexibility (especially for group C/3), remove the oddly structured Group D, and make the requirements easier to understand. However, some had concerns about the size and coherency of Group 1, as well as the impact on language enrollments, which proved to be prescient.

In September 2022, an initial committee was formed to study the impacts of the 2019 change in distribution requirements. “The committee was planned to run for at least two years. The initial charge to the committee did not include making changes to the distribution requirements but rather just assessing the impact and determining whether or not they should consider changes,” said Suzy Renn, Associate Dean of the Faculty and current chair of the Ad Hoc Committee on Distribution Requirements. During the two years of work, the committee ultimately determined that the faculty should consider making changes.

In their work, the committee heard several concerns about the current model. Some were concerned that there are loopholes in the current structure that fail to ensure appropriate breadth across the groups. There’s asymmetry between groups regarding the number of topics and the number of faculty; for example, Group 1 has more subjects and classes than the other groups. Additionally, the 2019 update increased the number of required units for some majors, as the major requirements now overlap with less of the group requirements, resulting in less flexibility for students to take classes outside of what is required.

Last spring, the Ad Hoc Committee on Distribution Requirements sent out three rough proposed models. The response to those models varied widely within and among departments and divisions. No one model stood out as universally positive. Colleagues disagreed, sometimes strongly, about relevant categories of academic experience. The committee last year concluded that “any scheme, actual or proposed, will involve any number of perceived compromises and imperfections.” 

At the September 25 faculty meeting, Renn facilitated discussion on the general importance of four topics: taking two courses in one subject in each group, learning quantitative concepts, studying a second language, and experiencing lab-based data collection. Based on the feedback in this discussion and a follow-up survey, the committee presented five potential new models at the November 4 faculty meeting, which professors shared feedback on. At the December 2 faculty meeting, the committee shared results from a survey on those models, narrowed it down to two models, and facilitated yet more discussion.

Finally, at the most recent January 27 faculty meeting, the committee presented four distinct proposals based on the previous discussion and feedback. Some variation on these proposals will hopefully be voted on and approved by the end of the year.

What are the proposed changes?

At this point, the committee is not proposing a wholesale revision of the group requirements, but rather multiple small changes. These propositions are not mutually exclusive, with the exception of propositions 3 and 4. Please note that none of these proposed changes have been voted on or approved yet, and all of them are subject to amendments. It’s likely that not all of them will pass, and/or that some of them will be amended. 

Proposition 1 is to remove the requirement to take two units in the same subject for each group. Students would still be required to take classes from more than one subject in each group. Arguments in favor of this proposition include that it would add more flexibility and that the addition of minors has made the two-in-one requirement less necessary. Throughout past discussions and surveys, there has been large consensus in favor of this proposition. According to the survey sent out after the September 25 meeting, only 20% of professors found a depth (2-in-1) requirement important. 

Proposition 2 is to add a one-unit language requirement, which would be nested under Group 1 (somewhat like the current lab requirement in Group 3). The rationale includes increasing awareness of cultural nuances and perspectives, diversity, and encouraging multi-cultural participation. This requirement would not apply to “students from regions that are not majority native English-speaking whose secondary school transcript shows that the language of instruction was other than English.” However, the requirement would apply to heritage students (those who grew up speaking another language at home). 

In the current version of the proposition, students would not be able to test out of the language requirement. Study abroad or transfer credits could be used to fulfill it, but not AP or IB credit. Because the requirement is offering something other than just proficiency, Renn said at the January 27 meeting, the committee is suggesting a one-unit requirement rather than simply a proficiency. A notable subset of professors have expressed support for allowing students to test out, so an amendment may be proposed. However, others have shared concerns about the logistics of determining proficiency, especially for languages not offered at Reed.

According to the faculty survey sent out following the September 25 meeting, 55% of respondents found a language requirement important, including 13.2% who wanted students to be able to test out. Some professors have expressed support for requiring students to study a second language in an academic context, specifically at a college level. There has also been discussion of the importance of allowing study abroad credit, so that students could study languages not offered at Reed. On the other hand, some have concerns about how this would affect course enrollments; Kate Bredeson (Theater) said at the January 27 meeting that although she supports a language requirement pedagogically, she’s concerned that it might further “decimate” arts enrollments. On the other hand, Luda Korobenko (Math) said at the November 4 meeting, “We’re talking about breadth, but what we really mean is that we don’t want languages to die out.”

Proposition 3 is to drop the number of required units in Groups 2 and 3 from three to two units. The rationale for this is to reduce the number of total required classes in order to better match comparative schools and to increase perceived flexibility. It would also better reflect the number of courses in each group: there are a wider range of courses under the umbrella of Group 1, and there are also more faculty in Group 1 (although many of them are teaching Hum 110). 

Proposition 4 is to add a quantitative requirement as a subset of Group 3. If passed, students would be required to take two units from “subgroup 3a” (Biology, Chemistry, Physics, Psychology) where one is a lab (the current 3+ categorization), plus one unit from “subgroup 3b”: Computer Science, Math, Stats (Econ 311 and 312, Pol 311, Soc 311, Psych 348), or Logic (Phil 201). If a student is taking a social sciences class to meet this requirement, it would count for Group 3 instead of Group 2. Approximately 90% of students already fulfill this requirement without it being officially required.

Note that Proposition 3 and Proposition 4 are mutually exclusive, because if both were to pass, Group 3 would consist only of lab classes and quantitative classes, leaving out all other Group 3 classes. This proposition has not been specifically discussed as much as the others, though a version of it was included in one of the models proposed earlier in the year, for which there was generally positive sentiment.

Although there has previously been support for some form of quantitative requirement, there are still doubts about which social science classes should count as meeting this requirement (and whether any should count at all). For instance, Jon Rork (Economics) said at the January 27 meeting that, although he would prefer to remain in Group 2, he teaches a lot of classes that have Math 111 as a prerequisite that are not listed here (such as Game Theory), and he thinks logically they ought to be counted as quantitative if the other classes are. Another professor asked at the same meeting why certain linguistics courses involving formal reasoning aren’t included, given that Logic is. Additionally, Math and Natural Sciences faculty were generally opposed to this requirement.

What comes next?

Up next, the committee will be sending out a survey soliciting amendments for each of the propositions. They will connect people with similar ideas to put together amendments. Those amendments will then be brought to the faculty floor and discussed at the meeting on February 17.

Depending on how many amendments are proposed and how long discussion lasts, the propositions may be voted on at the February 17 meeting. If not, the vote will be held at the March 10 meeting. After this point, we will know what official changes will go into effect for next year.