I have not been at RPI long enough to remember when the academic credit system switched from the old three-by-five system to the current four-by-four. By all accounts, the curricula now in place, at least in my opinion, are still a sufficient education worthy of the reputation of the Institute.
However, somewhere along the way, the academic credit system lost all logic and meaning. Some classes were combined together, when their old credit values totaled four, to create a new four-credit class. Other classes had their content and difficulty increased so as to "compensate" for the fact that they were worth four credits now instead of the usual three. Still others, for reasons I am not sure of, never quite made the conversion, and to this day are still worth three credits.
This semester, I have a potpourri of credit values assigned to my classes: two-credit, three-credit, and four-credit courses all mashed together. I hope this isn’t what they had in mind when they switched to four-by-four.
The real failure here, however, lies not in the diversity of the credit values, but in the incredible disparity between classes with the same value. How many of you out there have had a one-credit course that requires little more than attendance at the lectures to do well, and then had another one-credit course with more homework than the sum total of the rest of your classes? Or a four-credit class that meets six, seven, even eight hours a week?
I find the credit value system, if you can even call it that, misleading at best. If there used to be logic to it, there are now so many exceptions that any trace of consistency is lost for good. What we have on our hands now is a creation gone awry: a revamped curriculum using revamped class formats with a revamped scheduling system. We have set for ourselves, as an Institute, and as a student body, very lofty goals for academic achievement. Regardless of whether or not the old system was adequate to meet those needs, too many patches have been applied; now we are in danger of preventing many students from reaching those goals because they are overworked past their limits.
There is no need to revamp the syllabi—for the time being, at least. Most classes have about the right workload for their pedagogical mission, and the anomalies are not worth exploring here. But the credits assigned to each one must be revisited. The recommended class combinations must also be considered, and alternate recommended curricula must be developed in light of not only the studio class philosophy but also the new scheduling system.
It is time for the Institute and the five schools within to be honest with their students and provide for them an educational plan with a balanced workload, strict academic goals, and accurate credit. The system is too muddled now because of a curriculum revision made without enough collective leadership and Institute-wide direction. Nothing should be done in the name of four-by-four; everything should be done in the name of the students.
