<p>We liked distribution requirements and core curriculum.</p>
<p>If we "got" the school and for want of a better cliche, that what they were trying to accomplish " spoke " to D, then it made sense, to run with that a little bit and assume that those who are farther along in academia, would have a broader picture of what texts and classes and experiences would get her along her way, rather than taking things because it was offered at the time she wanted to get up, and that it gave her plenty of time to get to the lab that was required for her major. ;)</p>
<p>We also liked that the students had somewhat of a common experience with some of the core requirements, and that other profs could then plan for further exploration based on that common knowledge.</p>
<p>Perhaps one of the differences is that of the entry level courses, those who are majoring in science, do not take different science classes, than those who are poets. ( which is one thing that poets may complain about- )</p>
<p>I like the breadth requirements- eg 12 credits social sciences, 12 credits humanities, 12 credits science, including some biological, for the college of Letters and Sciences at my flagship U. I do not like mandated courses such as a required core (except those such as math/English for those not testing out to assure a basic level of competence) as there are too many good choices to become well rounded without requiring some Western/Great Books et al style courses (with a Eurocentric bias these do not leave room in some schedules for Eastern based, equally valid, courses). Core classes also do not allow for tailoring material to appeal to different tastes- eg a physics for poets course or literature for engineers course- one "size" does not fit all.</p>
<p>College is not tech school/job training school, knowledge beyond the HS level in different areas is good. Humanities majors benefit from learning college level, albeit elementary, sciences just as much as science majors benefit from the other disciplines. College is all about getting an education, grad school is where you really limit your area. Regarding not taking courses you don't want to take- there will be mandated courses in one's major one despises but needs so the thought of having only students who want to be there doesn't hold true. As others have noted, taking a course to fulfill a req has often made a life changing difference.</p>
<p>Colleges can get students to experiment and experience different areas before settling on a major by offering excellent and consistent advising.</p>
<p>(Distributional requirements, in my view, are the easy - and cheap - way out. And without excellent advising, they are a hit'n'miss way of having a certain few students luck into something that may turn out to be important to them. Hence the variety of experience on this board. There really is no educational rationale behind them other than the general sense of the need for "well-roundedness". But others will feel differently, and I think it is terrific that there are different choices out there.)</p>
<p>I wasn't talking about " well roundedness" and I am not sure what that is, but for example the two schools D was considering seriously, in some ways, couldn't have been more different.</p>
<p>Reed has a [HUM110[/url</a>] class that is one year class that students have been required to take for a while. It is taught in a lecture/seminar format with different profs lecturing and your seminar class is much smaller, with your prof seminar leader.
The topics were broad, but within the "classics" of philosophy/art/literature/history/religion/science/politics.</p>
<p>I haven't ever taken anything like this- so please allow for some clumsiness in description, but my impression is that the value exists not necessarily with studying the dead white guys, but in studying more than one facet of these works and in that in seminar, students begin to chisel the rough edges off each other while they hammer out what it is that they are studying. It isn't just an art class, or a Greek class or a religion class . It is all those things and all freshman take it.</p>
<p>(By the way, we had a laugh once when my d. went to visit Reed, and she asked the admissions officer - who was a Colby grad - why (for HUM110) they were still using an outdated translation of the Iliad? I think that was a question he'd never gotten from a prospective applicant before - though at Reed, it shouldn't have caught him by surprise.)</p>
<p>but what do you mean "outdated"- is that like using an "outdated" translation of the Bible?
I believe some translations are preferable, but others have their strenghts and weaknesses, are you asking why they aren't using Fagles?
He is certainly easier to read for those unused to reading prose. but Lattimore is considered by many to be stronger and a segueway to reading Greek</p>
<p>I mean that it contains literary anachronisms (as does the King James Bible). As for Greek, you certainly aren't arguing that reading a less contemporary (and artistically lesser) translation is more likely to get students to study Greek. (Is it a goal to get students to study Greek?)</p>
<p>At any rate, all beside the point. The admissions officer had no idea what she was taking about - he went to Colby, where they had distributional requirements. :);)</p>
<p>Contrary to booklady's experience, if our son's college had strict distribution requirements he would not be on the career path his is now and is so excited about. He graduated with a dual major and dual minor and picked up one of his minors(computer game and simulation arts) during his last three semesters. It enabled him to get a wonderful internship in Pasadena last summer and get a good grad school acceptance package at USC commencing next month.</p>
<p>And like the Amherst rep stated every elective class in his majors and every class in his minors he selected because he knew he would enjoy them.</p>
<p>The downside was that his academic program was very focused in the area of computer and cognitive sciences. Its not what I did even as an engineering major but it certainly enriched his 4 undergrad years.</p>
<p>I had to smile at the reference to "math for poets" and "physics for poets". While at Middlebury 3 days ago, the person leading our information session actually suggested "The Physics of Dance" for sciencephobes to fulfill their distribution requirements in science. </p>
<p>While I appreciate the liberal arts mantra of well-roundedness, it's a little hard for me to justify this while contemplating writing the tuition check.</p>
<p>I was an Echols Scholar at UVA (a "design-your-own-major" program) so did not have the same requirements as other students. That was a strong selling point of the program but, in hindsight, I wish I'd been pushed a little more strongly (or maybe even required?) to get a taste of some disciplines I've never been exposed to.</p>
<p>The bottom line, of course, is that different people are looking for different things out of a college education. It's important and heartening that there are schools all along the take-whatever-you-want to St. John's spectrum.</p>
<p>By awarding a degree, colleges are saying there are certain things this graduate knows--hands down, no exceptions. Required distribution courses are among the 'required' pearls of wisdom. Being 'well-rounded' is, to me, what LACs are all about. Seems they should require the computer/ math/ science geek {no offense intended :-) } to, at the very least, be exposed to some of the finer things like music or art history. Similarly shouldn't the artsy-fartsy (again, no offense intended!) types be expected to know some of the basics--perhaps a working knowledge--of at least some of the physical sciences? Shouldn't every student take a basic social science course or two?
I know I'd be better off in today's world if I'd had a good professor sharing his/her knowledge about Middle Eastern religions with me and if I'd taken a basic economics class rather than trying to teach myself today.</p>
<p>To say such requirements result in wasted time or money is somehow missing the point of getting an 'education' in the first place. College is a time to explore and, given the age/maturity level of those doing the exlploring, perhaps institutions of higher learning should lead them to the water and 'encourage' them to drink! ....Perhaps a few too many mixed metaphors, but you get the point~</p>
<p>My attitude towards distribution requirements: it depends</p>
<p>Frankly, from what I am seeing from interning students, I would require:</p>
<p>one year of english,
one semester of logic. One semester of philosophy.
One semester of literature.
I would require a semester in math IF it were more practical math and not calculas.
I would also require a year in some social science or history.
I would require one course in public speaking.
Finally, I would require a year of economics,which I find would be very useful to voters in understanding the economic policy proposed by candidates.</p>
<p>I would, however, allow waiver of english IF they did well on their SATs and writing sections ( at least 650 in each) or if they did well in the AP courses.</p>
<p>Notice, I would not require a science or other types of subjects. I want strong critical thinking and writing skills emphasized.</p>
<p>I'm a fan of distributional requirements in the sense that it forces a student to take classes in a wide range of areas. It forces me to take classes outside of my major that I would have probably overlooked like the music class I took. At the same time I believe that schools shouldn't have the super watered down classes for non majors. At my school a science major will take a real english class and history class to graduate. A history major will probably never take a real science or math class to graduate. One of my friends is getting away with taking Ideas in Math (easier than half the math he took in high school), psych, and rocks for jocks. Is it too much to have everyone take a calculus or statistics course to graduate? I don't think a history major needs to be thrown into a class of engineers or premeds to get a good math/science experience, but I do believe that they need to take a course that is a bit more sciencey than "history of medicine."</p>
<p>"Is it too much to have everyone take a calculus or statistics course to graduate?"</p>
<p>Apparently so - - many students at colleges with distrib requirements take "Ideas in Math," "The Physics of Dance" and other specially designed "lite" courses rather than "real" math or science. That was my original complaint about distrib requirements - - why bother with the requirement if you let (or encourage) students to weasel out with these lesser courses.</p>
<p>My D. Honors program has mandatory requirements that she has to take to stay in a program. She took one of them last year. She was very frustrated, learned nothing, mentioned many times that it was absolute waste of time. Nothing she can do, she still wants to be in Honors with all its benefits. Sometime it is a trade off.</p>
<p>Taxguy, what is "English" at the college level, as distinct from "literature"? I was an English major, and ALL of the courses--other than creative writing--were literature courses. And none of them were "survey" courses. There were courses in specific periods, genres, and authors: Modern Drama, Modern Poetry, or 19th Century British Novel was about as general as it got, and those were introductory courses. Are you talking about the "Freshman Comp" kind of thing that some schools have?</p>
<p>My school had distribution requirements, but no classes like Physics for Poets or Rocks for Jocks (or Poetry for Pre-meds, for that matter). You could satisfy the requirement by taking introductory courses, but it was the same introductory course that eventual majors took. I thought it was valuable insurance against too much specialization. Of course, we also had minimal advising until we declared a major at the end of sophomore year, when we were assigned a major advisor. At Amherst, for example, they made a point that despite the lack of requirements, advisors would often push students to take specific classes outside the student's known comfort zone that they thought would provide a valuable perspective in the long run.</p>
<p>There will always be students who simply aren't up to the challenge of taking courses outside their comfort zone. Schools that cater to these students by allowing them to graduate without ever taking a social science course or a humanitites course or a math/stat/science course serve these students well.</p>