The lab was dropped as a concession to increased lecture hours. If a major purpose of our gened requirement is to develop an improved appreciation of the scientific method, then we should NOT remove the laboratory requirement from general education requirement. However, if an important objective is broader based understanding of science in more than one discipline, then we must make sure that our students are exposed to scientific advances in more than a single discipline. I would actually prefer to see us raise the science requirement to two years with lab, one in physical and one in life sciences. There is a connection between the debate over the science lab as raised by Professor Auerbach, and the discussion in Group 3 over the language requirement.
Many students repeat the language in College that they took in high school.
Many students openly admit sandbagging on placement tests in order to get into lower level language courses. The defeated idea was to require the student to take a different language in College from that taken in high school if they did not test out of the language requirement based on an entrance examination. Those who tested out of language would take just one year of a second language, or a year at the 300 level in the same language. We should not stop students from taking additional courses in any discipline they find interesting. The rational for change in both proposals was that breadth beyond high school is preferable to slightly better understanding of what was learned in high school.