<p>Just back from NE college visit trip. At Middlebury, they told us that the school had experimented with a curriculum that didn't have core distribution requirements, but went back to the more traditional and usual liberal arts model. So students are required to take classes in several different areas to produce a well-rounded liberal arts education. Which all made sense.</p>
<p>Then we went to Amherst and learned that it is one of the few national LACs without such requirements. They pointed out that, with their model, students in every class are there because they want to take the class, not because they were required to take the class. And this results in classrooms of motivated, interested students. Which also made sense. </p>
<p>I can't even remember if I had distribution requirements back when I went to school. For those who can - what are your thoughts on this?</p>
<p>I've always thought of distribution requirements as high-schoolish. Which doesn't mean I don't think students may benefit from experimenting with and exploring areas which are new to them. Some will, and some won't, but I can't see why a college feels it is their responsibility to make sure a student is "well-rounded", whatever that is. I think a stronger case can be made for helping a student jump deeply into his/her passion.</p>
<p>The case for a core curriculum is different. I'm not a great fan of it (except for the one at Scripps), but there are students who love it, and it has a better intellectual rationale.</p>
<p>Isn't it great that there are choices?</p>
<p>(I went to a school that had distributional requirements. Mostly, they were a waste of time and money, though occasionally there were excellent teachers - as there should be in any department. The new things I explored as a result of the distributional requirements I likely would have taken courses in anyway, so I didn't gain a thing as a result. My older d. went to a school without distributional requirements, but required them for "Latin Honors", and she is the type of student who would have done them in any case. My younger one is going to a school with distributional requirements, but those are required as part of national accreditation for business programs, so at least I understand where they are coming from.)</p>
<p>Open curriculum is not all that uncommon among n'east LACs. </p>
<p>I'm not a fan of the distributions reqs - - especially since so many schools offer watered-down courses (especially in math and sci) to satisfy the gen eds or distribution requirements. If a college thinks all students should take math then for goodness sake, take real math - - not math for poets.</p>
<p>Glad you brought this up, ChiSquare. H and I both went to Grinnell which then (as now, I think) had no distribution requirements, but we did have very hands-on advisors who made sure we received a "well-rounded" education. So that is my frame of reference, but I need to remind myself and D as we continue her college search that this is something she should think and ask about.</p>
<p>PRJ, interesting that you mention Grinnell. Amherst actually gave us the list of the 5 (national? small? not sure what the denominator was) schools. The list of 5 included Hamilton and Grinnell, so I guess that is still the case there.</p>
<p>We had distribution requirements in college. I remember feeling that putting everything together was a bit of a puzzle. If there had not been the requirements, I probably would have skipped bio and foreign language. I had AP credit for math, so I was lucky on that. I don't think these requirements helped me ultimately, but they didn't really hurt.</p>
<p>I went to a school with a core curriculum and the older I get, the more I feel that I have benefited from it. I particularly appreciate my theology, philosophy, and science requirements.</p>
<p>I would rather see either a true core curriculum or no general education requirements at all. I don't think distribution-style requirement schemes accomplish much. One from column A and two from column B does not necessarily add up to a well-rounded general education. And if the requirements don't add up to a well-rounded general education, why are they there at all? They just impede students' chances of taking courses that truly interest them.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I would rather see either a true core curriculum or no general education requirements at all.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I agree with this. I think the real value of a core is everyone is studying the same thing at the same time, and that can lead to wonderful interactions among students.</p>
<p>hmmm.... just discussed this with H. while MY experience at Grinnell was positive (I had an advisor who strongly encouraged me to take some art and science classes in addition to my social science major), H doesn't feel that he was as fortunate. he was also a social science major (econ), took no science or art classes, and regrets that today. so I guess the success of no core curriculum or distribution requirements really depends on the strength of the advising system, and on the inclination of the student to study broadly.</p>
<p>Vassar and Sarah Lawrence also have no or very minimal distribution requirements. Brown, although not a LAC, has no requirements. </p>
<p>I agree with Mini on this one. I'm actually surprised more schools don't head in this direction. For a student who wants few or no requirements, there aren't that many schools to chose from. I always found it amusing that during college tours/info sessions, many schools with distribution requirements would stress how easy it is to meet the requirements, that most students would take those classes anyway, how the requirements are no big deal. Many schools have requirements that are easily met if students have some APs. If distribution requirements are so easy to meet, and no big deal, then why have them?</p>
<p>Carnegie Mellon has distribution requirements in I think three areas, but Mathson got out of nearly all of them with APs, so he'll be getting a British style education. He's happy, I don't know he'd be that much better educated with another history course and a couple of social science courses. I wish he'd take a modern language since he took Latin in high school, but I doubt he will. He hates traveling anyway.</p>
<p>I found the distribution requirements at Harvard reasonable when I was there. Didn't like what it got replaced with or the current version. Basically it boiled down to you could take four semesters of a "general ed" course, or eight semesters of departmental courses or some combination. For science I took Calculus 1 and 2, Physics 1 (full year lab course) and one term of a gen. ed computer programming course. For social science I took a two semester political theory course, something in Sociology, and a semester of Chinese history all of which were gen ed courses. My major was in humanties.</p>
<p>I would never have applied to a place with a core curriculum like Chicago or Columbia and St. Johns just sounds like torture to me!</p>
<p>Just to add to the list: Wesleyan only has distribution “suggestions.” They are required for honors in most majors, but not to gradate.</p>
<p>I kind of enjoy being pushed by the distribution requirements to take classes (esp. in the sciences) that I might otherwise overlook, although I do agree that the “physics for poets” classes kind of defeat the point. I took one last semester because it was the only thing that fit my schedule, and it was a waste of time. </p>
<p>OTOH, I do like that having distribution requirements (or suggestions) makes schools think about interesting classes to offer for non-majors. For instance, I took a different science class that was bio-chem. for non-majors that taught me a lot about medicines, diseases and drugs — things that I found both interesting and genuinely good to understand — without overwhelming me with a level of detail that I, as a non-science major wouldn’t find useful (it also didn’t throw me in with the super-intense pre=meds, which is nice). Very good, pretty rigorous class that I don’t think would have been offered if the school didn’t know there would be non-majors looking to fulfill distribution suggestions.</p>
<p>If my college hadn't had distribution requirements, I wouldn't be in the field I am now. I took a class that I wouldn't have taken otherwise, and found a real passion for the subject. But I realize that probably doesn't happen all that often. Still, I like the idea of students branching out - it's part of what college is for.</p>
<p>Most college freshmen -- and I am not referring to students in elite, uber competitive schools, but the average freshman at the average state u -- have had very spotty backgrounds in literature, world affairs, history and humanities in general. These areas have seen tremendous degradation in high school curriculum. The distribution requirements are an attempt to fix that. And in most schools they're badly needed -- many kids enter college culturally illiterate. DH taught a freshman seminar at a branch of University of Colorado where not a single freshman -- not one, out of over 35 recent high school grads -- could name a single famous French person. In any field. Finally, one student timidly raised his hand, "Napoleon?". My husband had to be satisified with that.</p>
<p>katliamom, distribution requirements have been around a long time. They're not an attempt to "fix" things for kids from substandard high school backgrounds. I'm grateful that I had requirements when I went to an "elite, uber competitive" college back in my day (from a top high school). I explored new interests that way and never once felt forced to take anything (except math ;) ). Someone I know whose child attends a prestigious college with no requirements is distressed that the student will graduate without ever taking a college-level history course. </p>
<p>(Slightly OT: Culturally illiterate people come from all walks of life and all educational backgrounds.)</p>
<p>I attended a LAC with a History of Civ and distribution requirements and do not regret it one bit. My son is in a LAC with Core and distribution requirements and it has led to him discovering a love for science (which he formerly denied). And I believe having a college level exposure to the classics is invaluable in just developing the capacity to analyze and reflect. But then again, I think we are both genetically "grazers" rather than "raptors". So the key element for a college search may be whether a student already has a well-formed and definite direction (not the norm for most adolescents in my opinion). Some kids are ready to define their path and don't want to wander around some. Others really need to explore and benefit from being required to browse widely before choosing their forte. (How's that for a smattering of metaphors....) And I have to say that I did take a "science for non-scientists" class that was inspiring and valuable to this day. I actually think the good teachers among bench scientists sometimes love teaching the "poets" because you get to present things on the level of meta-theory and convey your passion for the subject rather than the fine details.</p>
<p>D will be a senior at Amherst. Just because there is no core doesn't mean there aren't required hours for graduation that need to be filled. There are a plethora of courses outside the major the student can take in all kinds of fields. D has had the ability with her advisor's consent to dabble in courses she would never have been able to take otherwise, while staying away from subjects she already knew she didn't care for after having had them in HS. Because of this, she shifted her original focus and will be doing her honors thesis on a subject that grew out of one of her classes, incorporating that with her major. I think back on the Physics for non-majors I took, which was a waste of time, and don't know any physics to this day. And Bio for non-majors: Animal Behavior. While fun, a lot of money to watch Born Free and movies on whales and apes. After seeing her experience and comparing it to mine, I love no-core.</p>
<p>My father had an experience like that of Booklady. Thought engineering was his calling, took a microbiology class because he "needed a science class," and found his true calling. Went on to get a PhD...</p>
<p>How can universities get kids to experiment and experience different areas before settling in on a major?</p>