Page 876

A SALUTARY INFLUENCE which had been dropped more than three years earlier. Between then and the end of 1965 the committee visited the departments and engaged in what it hoped would be "frank discussions" with their members, in an effort to determine how much support, if any, there was for change, as well as the direction which any change might be expected to take. Committee members found many colleagues at least willing to consider reducing both the number of courses students could take in any one term and the number of distribution requirements. Beyond that, they were given little helpful guidance. Although the faculty began discussing alternatives to the existing calendar and curricular system early in 1967, it was not until the fall that the academic policy and program committee, sensing that the faculty might be about ready to act, proposed a timetable by which its sentiments might be tested during the 1967-1968 year. In numerous regular and informal meetings, the faculty responded positively to most of the committee's initiatives. First, it narrowly rejected the thirty-two course system which the committee first presented; the vote was 54-55. Second, it overwhelmingly approved a thirty-six course system, later deciding that a student must pass thirty-five courses in order to be graduated. Third, it determined that all courses should be of equal credit value, excepting only a few in health and physical education and music education. Fourth, it considered three calendars accommodating a thirty-six course system and, by a wide margin, selected 4-1-4.158 Fifth, it redefined the major field of study (eight to twelve courses) and eliminated the minor field. Sixth, it adopted a set of distribution requirements which accounted for about one-third of the student's total program, down considerably from the one-half or more which had prevailed for most of the time since 1922. Seventh and finally, as agreed upon at the beginning of the debate, on April 25, 1968 by secret ballot the faculty considered the question of reaffirming its previous actions. The vote was 87 to 7.159 Obviously, for the first time since 1921-1922 the Gettysburg faculty had firmly committed itself to major calendar and curricular change, even to the point of actually voting decisively for it. In reducing from forty-four to thirty-six the number of courses a student could take, without at the same time greatly increasing the rigidity of the curriculum, it was necessary to effect a significant 158The three calendars, all of which were already in use in other institutions, were 4-1-4 (four courses in the fall, one in January, and four in the spring), 3-3-3 (three courses during each of three ten-week terms), and 5-5-4-4 (five courses during the first two years and four during the last two). The faculty began considering 4-1-4 as early as the January 1967 meeting. During the 1967-1968 debate, the faculty changed its preference from 4-1-4 to 4-4-1, but later reversed itself. 159Later, in the fall, the faculty voted to make senior comprehensives optional, which was a long step toward making them a thing of the past. 87