The question is not whether or not the students of the Renee Crown Honors Program are frustrated and angry about the recent changes to the curriculum. The question is if they can channel that frustration into a useful outlet.

The new curriculum for the program requires students to commit to all four years of the program and write a thesis, as opposed to previously being able to simply take two years of honors classes and choose not to write a thesis.

‘I guess it’s just frustrating that they waited until two years into college to tell us what we had to do,’ said Carrie Stern, a sophomore physics and policy studies major. ‘It’s a lot harder to plan everything, and it’s a lot more work than it was before.’

Ryan Kelly, a sophomore advertising and marketing major, said students are not reacting well to the new requirements, even if it’s possible to inspire change.

‘I know a lot of people who are in the program now and they’re going to drop out,’ Kelly said. ‘In fact, most of the people I know are going to drop out, or so they’ve told me.’

This frustration has prompted some students to take action. Stern said she signed a petition that was being sent around one of her classes.

‘(The goal of the petition) I think is so current sophomores and freshmen can grandfather the honors program so we could stay with the old honors curriculum instead of the new one,’ Stern said.

Some students, however, don’t feel the need to change the program and are perfectly fine to live with the new curriculum.

‘I’m indifferent really, because I have no recollection of the old program. I think it’s just a more rigorous course,’ said Kelly of the new requirements.

Samuel Gorovitz, founding director of the program, said that he was also aware that students in the program were ‘distressed’ it took so long for the details of the requirements to be made known.

However, Gorovitz said most of the students’ frustrations are stemming from ‘misunderstanding … and that fuels the students to want to see something different. Most of the students who I have spoken with, once they understand the realities, are quite comfortable with what we have done.’

The petition has not been brought to the attention of either the Student Association or the University Senate, Kelly said.

Gorovitz, who is also responsible for overseeing the transition from the old program into the new one, said that he had not seen any petition either.

Gorovitz is, however, used to petitions. He said that the program receives many petitions on a regular basis from ‘students with unusual situations asking for unusual considerations.’ Gorovitz said each case is looked at individually and often the problem is solved.

Gorovitz said he is unable to comment on a petition he may see in the near future, simply because he has not yet seen it.

‘If it’s a well reasoned petition – not one that says, ‘I want this, may I have it?’ – If it’s one that intelligently lays out the arguments, then it’s going to be much more impressive,’ he said.

The question also arises as to whether the petition will be a proper representative of the sophomores involved in the program.

‘If a petition has 20 signatures and they’re claiming to speak for a population of 150 to 200, then why should anyone believe that they have standing to represent anyone but themselves?’ Gorovitz said.

If it the petition is successful or not, Kelly feels that there’s really only one part of the program that needs immediate revising.

‘The only thing I’m upset about is the popcorn machine (in the Honors lounge) being gone,’ Kelly said. ‘I want it back.’

Published on October 12, 2005 at 12:00 pm