In the light of current discussions about changing back to a semester system, and questions which I have been asked about how we got to where we are today, it seemed appropriate that I put down in writing, as best I remember it, the history of the 3-3-3 curriculum. I have conferred with the few others on campus who remember those beginning days, but this is much more a product of memory than one of careful research. Take it as that.

First, a word about my personal history as it relates to this topic. I was a student at Otterbein (under the semester system) from September, 1957 to June, 1961. After three years as a graduate assistant at OSU I came to Otterbein as a part-time teacher for two years while I finished my graduate program. It was during those two years that the 3-3-3 plan was first proposed and planning began. Upon completion of my Ph.D. I went to Westmar College in Iowa where I taught for five years. During these years the planning of the 3-3-3 program was finished and it was put into place. When I came back to Otterbein in September of 1971 as a full-time teacher the plan was in place but was new enough that people were still struggling to adapt.

Otterbein went through tremendous changes during the 60's, as did the entire country. President Lynn W. Turner, who came in 1958, was the first Otterbein President who was not a clergyman. Academic Dean James V. Miller, who came in the very early sixties and was the architect of the 3-3-3 plan, was (I believe) the first Academic Dean who was not a member of the Evangelical United Brethren Church (or, prior to 1947, United Brethren) and perhaps the second not chosen from among the ranks of the faculty. The Evangelical United Brethren Church merged with the Methodists in the late sixties. Baby boomers were beating at the doors to get in. There was until very recently a rule on the books that the Administrative Council must set an upper limit to enrollment; administrators in those times wanted to admit more students than the faculty felt they could handle. Even so, enrollment increased by at least fifty percent during the decade.

There are other factors, however, that remained fairly constant during the decade of the sixties but are significantly different now. The large majority of the students then were traditional age, went through in four years, lived in dormitories, and were affiliated with a Greek organization. There was almost no evening program, and weekend courses were unheard of. Many fewer had cars, and the campus was much more active during the weekend. Part-time faculty such as myself were such a rarity that they had to decide whether I was entitled to go to faculty meetings or not. Since I taught about 2/3 time, they decided that I was. Faculty who could, and did, walk to their classes were much more common then. Faculty salaries were worse then than now.

A third set of factors at that time were the primary ones that led to the 3-3-3 plan; I leave to others the opinions as to how much they are factors now. The curriculum at that time had been largely under the control of a single faculty member, Harold Hancock of the history department. He had been chairman of the curriculum committee for as long as anyone could remember and pretty much ran that aspect of the campus. Many felt that the curriculum was fragmented and bloated. There were empires and fiefdoms among the faculty, and an outright feud between biology and chemistry. In order to escape a two-year foreign language requirement for the BA and BS degrees, many students took a BS in Ed. Degree, even including student teaching. Division chairs were appointed by the president and were very powerful, running their division with fierce control and in many ways making up a Dean's cabinet.

Into this mix came Dean James V. Miller with a plan he called 3-3-3. The college would have three terms (not quarters, we were not copying OSU) and a student would take three courses each term. Each course could meet on whatever schedule suited it, but it was to occupy a third of the students' time. With the exception of Physical Education Activity courses there were to be no partial courses. We would offer only BA, BME and BSEd. degrees. (We would not talk about credit hours, we were not OSU.) Grade point averages were not to be calculated. Graduation requirements called for passing of 32 courses; only four D's were allowed and they had to be matched by an equal number of courses with B or better.

In order to deal with what some considered a "bloated" curriculum, and with hints that doing so would improve faculty salaries, departments were required to limit major requirements to nine courses within their own department. There were no such things as "fields of study", or interdisciplinary majors. Hiring was held down tightly so that departments could not, in fact, offer much more than what was necessary to provide for a nine-course major. One does have to take into account that nine courses was almost a third of a complete program and that we were claiming that a course was worth 6 quarter hours (for transfer purposes only.)

Finally, a set of "Common Courses" was prescribed. Each such course was offered, either in multiple sections, one large section, or some combination, only once a year. Certain ones were prescribed for the freshman year, others for the sophomore year, others for the junior year, and others for the senior year. All members of a class would take their common courses at the same time. There was no such thing as a substitute for a common course. It was the idea that most Common Courses, and certain other courses as well, could be taught in very large sections. In general, multiple sections of a course during the same quarter were to be replaced with a large section, and multiple sections during a year were discouraged where possible. (English and foreign language courses were an exception.) Faculty who taught a large section of a course were supposed to have that as their only teaching assignment that quarter; this promise was never kept. Finally, in addition to common courses, there was a requirement of math through Calculus II or four terms of a foreign language.

Along with the curriculum changes, a new plan for faculty utilization was made. There was to be a "core faculty" and the remainder of the faculty would occupy "rotating" positions. These rotating positions were almost like extended post-doctorates. Typically, a brand new Ph.D. would be hired, have three years to gain experience, and then move on. The rules were strict; no one in a three year position was given employment by Otterbein beyond that unless a vacancy in a core position opened up and that person was considered the best person for the job. Many very talented people came and went. A consequence of this was supposed to be that the "core faculty" could then be paid above average salaries. This promise was not kept either.

A further enticement to the faculty was, in fact, implemented. This was the sabbatical plan. Each member of the core faculty was to take a mandatory sabbatical every seventh quarter. It was not competitive, not even optional; you had to take it. How well you used it was to be part of your evaluation.

Along with curriculum and faculty changes came a new governance system. Students, faculty, and administrators were to share in the decision making processes. Interestingly, very little change has occurred in structure of the governance system since then except for the addition of new committees. The one difference is that campus interest in participating is noticeably less now.

A new student payment plan was also part of the package. We required students to pay 50% of a year's tuition at the start of the Autumn quarter, 40% at the start of Winter Quarter, and the remaining 10% at the start of Spring quarter. (Eat your heart out, Steve Storck.) The college argued (with some legitimacy) that resources had to be committed on the basis of fall enrollment. The more important operational fact was that we could get away with it since there were always students wanting in badly enough to pay that way. Those years were probably the ones with the highest financial capability of our students ever.

Another part of the payment plan that went into effect at the same time was the elimination of laboratory fees and other such fees. An Otterbein education was to be "buffet style" rather than "a la carte". Two exceptions were made; student teaching included a fee to cover travel, and private music lessons incurred an extra fee.

The turbulence involved in making these changes is hard to exaggerate. I missed most of it, but I heard a lot about it. Faculty distrust of each other must have been at an all-time high. There are stories of secret faculty caucuses held off campus (in the band shell in the park.) There is the story that certain faculty managed to persuade Mrs. Clements, the big financial giver at the time, of the folly of the plan so that when President Turner refused to listen to her demand that he abort the idea she placed in her will the provision that though her house was to go to the college, President Turner was never to live in it.

The plan was adopted as the sixties came to a close, and, with this as the shining star in his resume, Dean Miller left for bigger and better things. The deanship passed to Roy Turley, who had been chairman of Chemistry.

A number of changes have occurred since this plan was put into operation. The first thing to change was our determination to be different. Without credit hours and grade point averages it was very difficult for students to transfer in and out. Also, with a 32 course graduation requirement and a typical 9 course-per-year student load, many students were graduating in three years. In the earliest years of the plan, at least two were trying to get in for every one graduating, so we didn't worry too much about it. However, that state changed quickly. By the early 70's we were struggling to get students. We also came to realize that we were fooling ourselves with the idea that we could make a course that met five days a week for 50 minutes each day (the typical pattern) equivalent to six quarter hours credit; this was the standard required by our 32 course graduation requirement and was what we told other schools to which our students transferred.

In the mid seventies, Otterbein faced the fact that it had to go back to credit hours, and to do so according to commonly accepted standards. Through the governance system came a bill establishing the value of a course meeting for five 50-minute periods a day as 5 quarter-hours credit and establishing the graduation requirement as 180 quarter hours. (Just like OSU.) This was extremely controversial, but since it included a phase-in schedule that made the impact on current students minimal it did pass. Not too long after this the graduation quality requirement was recast as a 2.00 GPA rather than the course/grade-count requirements that had been the case. The 50%-40%-10% payment plan didn't last much longer after that either.

Many other changes began to affect what we could and would do. The four-year, lock-step pattern of education didn't go well with the increasing mobility of students and the variety of educational patterns that they wanted. Common courses began to be offered more frequently and on a more flexible basis. Substitute courses began to be introduced. A few years later the name "common courses" was changed to "integrative studies" and these courses were collected into a department. (The original common course theme, "The Nature of Man," became the less sexist "Human Nature" as well.)

The "Calculus or Foreign Language" requirement could not survive either. Too many students decided they would rather die by Calculus than by Foreign Language. Soon after the plan's commencement the mathematics department had to introduce a "Contemporary Topics" option, of which our current Math 150 is a vestigial remain. Eventually, under the leadership of Dr. Paul Reddit, a religion professor, the college came to the sensible position that some of both math and foreign language was better than an either/or requirement.

Faculty policies had to change as well. The "three-years-and-out" policy for rotating faculty had seemed reasonable during the 60's but by the mid 70's was clearly inhumane. The expected financial benefits for the core faculty were never realized. We first extended the rotation period to five years and eventually adopted the Renewable Term Appointment pattern. It has only been in the last few years that RTA faculty have been included in the sabbatical plan, and only now that we are working to eliminate this two-tier policy.

I have to insert a personal opinion here. For thirty years Otterbein operated a faculty employment pattern that was unfair and exploitative. We did so primarily in the name of being prepared for downsizing; really, in the name of making downsizing administratively easier than it otherwise would have been. That need never, in all those thirty years, materialized. I remember with great sadness people like Jerry Hopfengardner, Jim Winkates, Jim Miller, Lyle Welch, (there were numerous others) and the wrenching emptiness that was felt when they were forced, through no fault of their own, to leave. If my writing this document does nothing more I hope it can persuade us of the inappropriateness of trying to attain humane ends through inhumane means.

As I mentioned earlier, the structure of the governance system has changed little. The original plan had been for the senate to be a representative body, with not all faculty being members. But the faculty couldn't agree on a plan of how many representatives there would be from each department, division, etc. They finally decided to leave out first year faculty and include everyone else. Over the years the communication function of the senate has taken on more importance and so after a while even first-year faculty were included.

Looking back over the last thirty years or so, the thing that strikes me is how very little difference there really is between then and now. Most of what was put in place at so great a cost is gone, especially in the curricular area. We tried a "one size fits all" approach to education. As long as we could get plenty of students who fit that size, it worked. However, when we needed again, as we had through most of Otterbein's history, to attract as many students as we could, a variety of sizes was required. We still have integrative studies, but they are much closer to other colleges' requirements (e.g., Basic Educational Requirements (BER's) at OSU) than before. (Other colleges have, to some degree, moved in our direction.) We still have a participatory governance system, though it is less effective than at first. We have quarters instead of semesters.

The sixties were, it seems to me, an aberration rather than a normality in our history. (Which doesn't mean it couldn't happen again.) Revolution, rather than evolution, was the preferred vehicle for change. And colleges found themselves in the unusual position of being able to revolutionize themselves without, at least immediately, disastrous consequence. But, many didn't survive. Those with long histories, solid alumni bases, and generally sound finances, are still around. But one only has to think of Parsons College with its many newly founded branches and "draft haven" atmosphere to see what could happen. Westmar College, where I taught during the late sixties, staked its growth on an influx of students from the East Coast, and though it struggled mightily from then to just a few years ago, finally foundered. Clausewicz was right; "First, secure your base."

Latest revision: 11/6/98 11:16:27 AM