<p>just looking for opinions on this issue...</p>
<p>One thing I like about is that it gives you a chance to meet/work with people in different majors from your own. It also allows students to get a taste of different fields before committing to one for the rest of their lives.</p>
<p>Freshman humanities courses do seem like a huge waste of my time and money, though.</p>
<p>It forces you to take a variety of classes you might not otherwise try ,so yes .</p>
<p>I’ve taken some cool courses I probably would have missed out on had I not been required to take them. Thankfully my uni just requires general subjects (e.g. “Social History” or “Arts and Humanities”) rather than specific classes. I got to take a course on contemporary moral issues for my humanities class and a course on urban studies and planning for my “Social Behavior” requirement.</p>
<p>Do you mean a true core curriculum of mandated courses or distribution requirements such as ThisMortalSoil describes?</p>
<p>While I personally am against both, I am especially against a true core. This isn’t high school anymore; I want to explore courses my own way. If that means not branching out, so be it, if that means REALLY branching out, so be it. More importantly though, I can’t think of anything worse than being forced into a classroom with a bunch of people who don’t want to be there. What kind of intellectual environment is that?</p>
<p>Even at Brown, where we didn’t have any distribution requirements, roughly 95% of students would have fulfilled the distribution requirements that exist at many of our peer schools; therefore, a core or even distribution requirements, are not needed to force students to explore as many of the above posters allude to.</p>
<p>Take control of your education! No more core!</p>
<p>At my school only 5 courses are specifically required: English I, English II, College Algebra (for the few majors that don’t require something higher anyway), World Civ from 1500 to Present, and Global Issues (a basic intro course in International Relations).</p>
<p>I have no problem with that: the knowledge taught in those 5 courses are pretty much the basic minimum to call yourself an educated person in this society, and all of them but Global Issues can be exempted quite easily if you already know the material.</p>
<p>Broad knowledge is for high school, university should be where you go in-depth into your chosen major. High school graduates are supposed to be adults ready for the world, with all the basic skill needs met, right?</p>
<p>I’ve only taken English classes, except for 1 history class while doing my year abroad in Mass.</p>
<p>Literature is my only great interest, and my other interests - History and Psychology (my AP classes) - can be incorporated into essays if I choose.</p>
<p>One math class would do <em>nothing</em> for my crappy math skills, and less for my future career.</p>
<p>Depends on how you define the ‘core.’ UChicago’s core sounds fascinating – I’m sure the majority of the student body would agree with me, while students in a pre-professional track at a different school wouldn’t think it sounds lame. I’m also a fan of SMU’s Cultural Formations, a lot of which sound like you’d always thought a college class should be like.</p>
<p>It’s when you hit a requirement (almost always seen in distribution requirements, and not a core; there’s a difference) where your choices are: radical feminism, sensitivity training, or violent male bodies in sixteenth-century prose that I want to get a refund on my tuition money.</p>
<p>I think it depends on the college and their implementation of the core requirements. I’m in favor of them, but some colleges go overboard.</p>
<p>I think it’s generally a good idea to require some breadth, but in many places the implementation could be improved. At UCLA for example, we have to take 10 General Ed classes in 7 different categories. The problem is that only specific classes count for GE’s, and they end up being large lecture courses designed around that purpose. I can’t just take a random philosophy course that interests me to satisfy the requirement. Intro econ doesn’t even satisfy any GE requirement. Instead, many of the available classes are about very specific and somewhat obscure topics (along with a few survey courses). It seems to me that it misses the whole point of breadth.</p>
<p>“High school graduates are supposed to be adults ready for the world, with all the basic skill needs met, right?”</p>
<p>considering how ****ty a lot of US high schools are…</p>
<p>There are only 4/5 absolutely required courses for all students at my school. History 103, Philosophy 103, and Religion 103 (catholic school) as well as either Enligsh 101 and 102 or the condensed honors English 114. The rest of the requirements can be met by taking a variety of classes. For example, my ‘social science’ requirement could be met by sociology, anthropology, psychology, economics or even political science.</p>
<p>I honestly don’t mind having these requirements. I like to meet new people and learn about a variety of subjects, plus I can break up all of my science courses by taking a mix of science and humanities classes.</p>
<p>It’s helpful for students who haven’t been in school for awhile. I know non-traditional students who like taking those classes because they admit it helps them re-adjust to being back in school and re-learn skills they haven’t really practiced since high school.</p>
<p>But for those who just took similar classes in high school, it’s pretty useless. I would say it is a beneficial experience if it wasn’t for the fact that people are paying thousands- sometimes tens of thousands- of dollars to take these classes. Then of course for every extra semester or year in school you have to add in thousands of dollars worth of living expenses as well. Not to mention a lot of these classes are taught by graduate students. As much as I would love to say that no one should graduate college without taking a really good American history class or a basic biology class I couldn’t bring myself to ask people to pay such a ridiculous amount to do so.</p>
<p>I think it’s odd that schools are so strict about their general education requirements, but some schools aren’t anywhere near as strict about teaching their students to find internships, job hunting skills, resume writing, etc.</p>
<p>I had a pretty bad high school experience, so I’m particularly grateful for the distribution requirements. It taught me all the stuff I was supposed to learn (in the remedial classes), as well as college-level things. </p>
<p>I think they’re important- otherwise, many humanities students wouldn’t end up taking science classes and vice versa. It’s necessary to have an open world view to be really successful today.</p>
<p>We have a distribution requirement system at my school and I think its beneficial. I’ve taken some truly amazing class with the most passionate professors that I’m sure I never would have taken if I didn’t “have” to. I like being able to branch out, so yes, I think it helps you become well rounded.</p>
<p>My high school has an extremely rigid curriculum–there’s honors track and regular track, and that’s all the variety there is. Senior year, I’ve finally had a chance to choose classes that sound interesting–or, at the very least, less boring than the other choices, and it’s gone so much better. That said, everyone should get their feet wet in every subject, if only to be able to declare that they’ve tried it, and it’s not for them. I don’t have a problem with distros, but there should be some flexibility to explore the parts of the subject that are most interesting. So a strict core seems like a bit of a problem, to my mind.</p>
<p>Different students want different things in their educations. One of the important points to consider in making your college decisions is the curriculum offered by the schools you are considering. If you aren’t interested in a true core, Columbia or the University of Chicago would be a bad choice for you; if you want a true core, don’t go to Brown. Most schools fall somewhere between these two extremes. When making your decision of where to apply or attend, go over the school bulletins to see what courses are required for the various majors you are considering.</p>
<p>I’m not too familiar with the core curriculum. What are the general classes required for you guys?</p>
<p>Also, what do you mean by a “true core?”</p>
<p>Everyone says that mandatory subjects force people to try subjects ‘they wouldn’t otherwise try’.</p>
<p>Uh, I tried all that stuff over 14 years of school!
I decided Lit was my best subject, collected some basic qualifications in math and science and now I can move on.</p>
<p>I wouldn’t mind being required about 10 classes, but beyond that, I’m super peeved.</p>
<p>I’m required:
Three Englishes (101, 102, 200+ elective)
Three histories (US, European, and non-western)
Two maths
Two lab sciences
2-3 semesters of foreign language
3 social sciences
1 philosophy
3 humanities
1 fine art</p>
<p>That’s about twenty classes… To me that’s quite a bit much. I think high school is where you really need the well-rounded education. Beyond that, college should have some introductory courses your first year, but it should mostly be about your major.</p>