1831 offering liberal education to both men and women. The seminary shared many
characteristics with other institutions caught in the philosophical triangle of the early 19th
Century. The 1834-35 Westbrook Seminary catalog states that the Seminary offered “common English Studies” and “languages and higher branches of mathematics”. The 1844 catalog
positioned these studies into two departments; the Classical Department providing the ancient
and modern languages and the English Department which is similar to the liberal studies of
today. Two practical fields were available within the English Department, navigation and
surveying. The curriculum provided choices for those desiring knowledge for the sake of
knowledge and those who would continue with professional studies. The remaining catalogs for
the 19th Century recorded the curriculum in terms of books not courses, similar to today’s “Great Book” general education model. The Seminary was granted the ability to confer two degrees to
women, “Lady of Liberal Learning” and “Lady of English Learning”. These degrees evolved
into a “Laureate of Arts” and a “Laureate of Science”, respectively. In addition, a Department
of Special Studies was developed for painting, drawing, and music. Interestingly in 1870,
elective courses were offered and lectures for all students were added outside of a normal class
structure. Again, one can see the roots of various current general education models.
some extent, restrained in the early 1900’s in an attempt to create common preparation and
competencies for all students regardless of discipline. Institutions also had to provide a pathway
for those who may not yet know their future career plans. As a result, there was movement away
from the elective system in favor of the implementation of distribution requirements (Wehlburg,
2011; Mendez, 2006; Stevens, 2001).
Harvard University completed an important revision to its general education curriculum.
The General Education in a Free Society or “Red Book”, told the story of this reform that still
proves to be influential (Harvard University, 1945; Word, 2012). Here, it was proposed that general education should be “one-third” (as cited in Wehlburg, 2011, p. 6) of the undergraduate
degree allowing for breadth and depth [within discipline]. This design is very similar to the
current requirements of the New England Association of Schools and Colleges (NEASC), University of New England’s accrediting body. The publication of the Red Book brought the
role of general education to the forefront of scholarship, further contributing to the incoherence
between general education and specialized education (Word, 2012; Hofstander & Hardy, 1962;
National Society for the Study of Education, 1952). Most of this literature, including the
Harvard publication, called for a clear distinction between both approaches, one which focuses
on the becoming a responsible citizen, the other addressing practical competencies specific to a
profession. This confusion contributed to the ongoing debate about the overall purpose of the
general education curriculum; was its purpose specifically rooted in classical liberal education or
should it be adjusted to the social constructs of the current culture? (Harvard University, 1952;
Weisinger, 1963; Word, 2012). Walker suggested that these ongoing tensions and the lack of a
clearly defined purpose of general education led to an explosion of multiple, disarticulated
To add to the ongoing dialogue, the Higher Education Act of 1965 was implemented
which allowed for increased funding and accessibility to higher education. Institutions would
now also have to consider education to an increased heterogeneous population versus a system
once reserved for the more elite. At this time there was an increase in specialized research, a
need for more diverse disciplines, and increased credentialization (Mendez, 2006; Stevens,
2001). The education goal at this time shifted towards social mobility, perhaps more than any
time that came before (Labaree, 1997). Thus, the importance of general education requirements
was perceived to be lessened in order to support the needs of the students within their
specializations.
During the latter parts of the 20th Century, the Generalists [of the General Education
Movement] were very concerned about the diminishing emphasis on breadth and the lessened
value of general education (Bloom, 1987; Mendez, 2006). Several reports were published to
call attention to this concern: (a) Missions of the College Curriculum (Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, 1977) which declared general education as a “disaster area”
(p.11), (b) Cheney’s (1989) 50 hours: A Core for College Students which addressed the
“fragmented state of the curriculum” (p. 1), (c) Integrity in the College Curriculum (Association
of American Colleges, 1990) which warned against designing the curriculum based on the
marketplace and expressed the need for a general education with more rigor than that defined by
distribution requirements and student interest, and (d) New Vitality in General Education
(Association of American Colleges, 1992), which reported that students were graduating with a
perception of receiving an indistinct and disarticulated education in courses outside of their
discipline. Generalists suggested that the university, due to overspecialization, was failing to
Lattuca (1997) proposed that the primary emerging theme from these reports was that general
education, despite its ongoing tensions, provides value to undergraduate education and its
purpose is worth pursuing. Due to the ongoing dissatisfaction and conflict, the transitional
period from the late 1990’s to the present would become a time of vast general education reform
(Mendez, 2006; Ratcliff, Johnson, & Gaff, 2004; White, 1995).