Erudition vs. Edification-- Your thoughts on core/distribution requirements

College Search & Selection
1

<p>In an uncharacteristic truce between the warring UChicago and Northwestern factions, CC member elsijfdl (Northwestern) and I, unalove (UChicago), have been discussing, among other things, the value of core or distribution requirements. Though I'm sympathetic to both sides of the argument, I would like to begin by explaining why I chose a school with a Core requirement.</p>

<p>Chicago's core is explained fully in the link below. I'm going to try to truncate what it says as best as possible.</p>

<p><a href="http://collegeadmissions.uchicago.edu/level2.asp?id=7%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://collegeadmissions.uchicago.edu/level2.asp?id=7&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>In short, there is no REQUIRED class at Chicago, but rather, a choice of five or six classes to fulfill a certain category. The most significant categories, I think, are the humanities, social sciences, and civilizations. No matter which of the five or six full-year classes you take to satisfy these categories, you will be in small, discussion classes and will be confronted with the likes of Marx, Smith, Kant, and Freud. A class called "Power, Identity, and Resistance" will not read the same texts as "Self, Culture, and Society," but there is considerable overlap in terms of authors and works. There are other categories to fulfill, including one art/music/drama, foreign language, and math, but these categories are similar to distribution reqs at other schools.</p>

<p>To me, there are three major reasons to go through a program like Chicago's core. One is any argument that proponents of distribution requirements will give you: college is a chance to learn new things, and your major and your interests should not be the only things guiding you. My older brother’s favorite courses at Cornell were the ones that ended up satisfying distribution requirements—had he had his druthers, he would have frontloaded his schedule with quantitative courses and nothing else, but he would have neglected the sort of liberal arts education that a school like Cornell can offer. As a result of these distribution requirement courses, he has become engaged with art history and religion in a way that an accountant wouldn’t have the opportunity to be otherwise.</p>

<p>The second argument is that the core curriculum as it is at Chicago is designed specifically to get you reading, writing, thinking, and asking questions, all in an intimate setting with your classmates and a professor. The core helps you sharpen your skill set. If a bio major learns how to examine Marx’s writings and ask questions of them, he is also learning how to examine cancerous tumors and ask questions of them.</p>

<p>The third argument is that core curriculum builds community. Many schools (Smith, Cornell, Penn, and I’m sure tons more) ask incoming freshmen to all read the same book so that when students arrive on campus, they’ll be on the same page as each other and they’ll have an icebreaker of sorts. Though I could as easily have taken “Classic Political Theory 101” at any college, I can go into my house lounge and say, “I HATE READING ARISTOTLE!” and my housemates will understand, having been there and read that. I’ve also often found that my friends and I compare notes on our discussions after we have them, giving me two or three times as many ideas about the texts than what I got in class, and that I can also go to my friends for help in editing essays and vice versa.</p>

<p>Thus is my support for a core curriculum. I’d like to hear other thoughts about core, distribution requirements, and open curriculum. I know you guys are out there!</p>

2

<p>Just to stir up the discussion, I think "core" or "general education" requirements are just an evidence of the weakness of the American undergraduate education system in general. In countries like France or Germany, one is supposed to fulfill those general education requirements in High School (which is normally one year longer than in the US ), whereas university studies concentrate instead on a single major or broader field of study (e.g. social sciences, natural sciences, etc.), thus covering several subjects, ranging from math or physics to classical literature or philosophy, at a much deeper level than in the typical U.S. undergraduate course.</p>

3

<p>I am a little confused about why there's truce between UChicago and NU factions on this one. I thought if there's one, it would be between Brown and UChicago. UChicago's core is certainly well-known but Northwestern also has its own distribution requirements. In fact, they just added a new program to enhance its liberal arts offering: <a href="http://www.kaplanscholars.northwestern.edu/%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.kaplanscholars.northwestern.edu/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

4

<p>"college is a chance to learn new things"</p>

<p>I can achieve that easily at other schools, without being required to.</p>

<p>"designed specifically to get you reading, writing, thinking, and asking questions"</p>

<p>I honestly don't think only a core can provide that. For example, my intended major, linguistics, includes an optional course on the philosophy of language, which would provide most of those skills. Hell, most of the courses within a major will do that. At least, that's the ideal.</p>

<p>"The third argument is that core curriculum builds community."</p>

<p>I think community can be built in various other ways -- in classes alone, where people are passionate about the subject and bonds form because of that.</p>

<p>I am honestly against a large core because I don't want 1/3 of my courses taken at the school to be courses I don't really get to choose (despite there being variety). I've had a broad, general education, I've learned to read and think and learn and question, I don't need more of it. I want to focus on the subject I love -- that's all.</p>

<p>I think a curriculum is successful if it can engender all of your points without core requirements -- if the classes within the majors themselves (or even stray classes that don't go toward your major) can nurture logical and probing thought, analytical skills, a thirst for knowledge.</p>

<p>At Berkeley, for instance (and here I go again tooting Cal's horn), there are some 14 required/distribution courses in the College of Letters & Science. You can get out of some of these by scores/classes (and some are more difficult than others). Then there's the seven-course breadth list, in which each student must take courses in:</p>

<p>Arts & Literature
Biological Science
Historical Studies
International Studies
Philosophy & Values
Physical Science
Social & Behavioral</p>

<p>For linguistics, 5 of those classes can be satisfied within my major; the other two, I can easily find a course that I like, because there aren't just 5 or 6 other courses to choose from; there are well over 100. For example, the biological science requirement can be satisfied by any of these classes:</p>

<p><a href="http://ls-advise.berkeley.edu/requirements/breadth7/bs.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://ls-advise.berkeley.edu/requirements/breadth7/bs.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>And simply because I can stay in my major doesn't mean I will; if I want, I can choose among 7,000 courses offered, just for the pure and simple pleasure of learning. Why in the world would I want to take a class on religion in Western civilization, if the subject doesn't really interest me enough to take it over a class that does interest me? Sure, academic exploration and whatnot, but whoever said taking a class was required to expand your mind? And on that note, whoever said that course I decided to take instead wouldn't cultivate the same skills as the other course?</p>

<p>An alternative, also, would be to suggest courses of study, and from what I've found, students often follow it. Why? Because they know that in the liberal arts education, they're free to explore for a while (before they have to declare their major, which is by the end of their sophomore year).</p>

<p>I'm not putting down Chicago for its core -- I just disagree with it.</p>

<p>One thing, though, has bugged me for a while. Chicago's core, as you said, develops all of the above. The assumption, then, is that a curriculum that does not have a core (or anything of the sort) does not have all of the above, or Chicago's version of it is somehow better because it has a core that nurture it. At least, this is something I've gotten from many of the students who support Chicago's core. Again, I'm not attacking the school, but the logic that follows the points supporting the core often leads to ridiculous conclusions (i.e. that a school without the core doesn't have the same feeling, or that the students aren't as intellectual, etc.).</p>

<p>Anyway, that's my take on the core.</p>

5

<p>
[quote]
The third argument is that core curriculum builds community

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I thought Brown is known for having strong sense of community!</p>

6

<p>Answering a few questions and comments:</p>

<p>Sam-- I guess the Brown and UChicago linking hands would have been better, but the idea for the post just stemmed out of conversations with a Northwesterner.</p>

<p>Kyle-- Nowhere did I come to the conclusion that Chicago students were more intellectual than students at other schools because of the core. I'm sure you can find other Chicagoans who assume that, but I, for one, don't. I'm happy that at least you see where I'm coming from, because every aspiring Chicago student should have an understanding of the core and what it entails before submitting an application. I understand, also, that it doesn't appeal to everybody. As I said before, I support open curriculum/minimal distribution requirements too, and I don't look down upon them. However, core is for me. A few more counter-counterpoints:</p>

<ol>
<li><p>You're absolutely right that in open curriculum, you can do your own version of distribution requirements. However, think about the friend you have who never wants to do something new, even though you are SURE that he or she may like it. You tell them to see this movie, read this book, watch this TV show, try this food, and they go, "Nah, I like what I have already." I think it's good for people to be pushed around and confronted by new and unfamiliar things sometimes, and I also think that an 18-year-old does not always have the best perspective on what will be the best education for him. At worst, distribution requirements, like a shot at the doctor's office, won't hurt a bit. At best, they'll be exciting and new and challenging and "Hey, I never thought I'd like political science!!!" I think it's worth considering the risk for the reward.</p></li>
<li><p>There are many classes that will get you to read, write, and think-- I hope!!!!-- but maybe combine reading, writing, and thinking skills with working with exhilirating classic texts is what makes the core so exciting for me. Many universities offer first-year writing seminars designed to get students to write, topic irrelevant, thus sharing the same vision with Chicago in terms of stressing writing and thinking skills. At Chicago, though, the topic is extremely relevant. Again, not objectively "better," just "different."</p></li>
<li><p>There are many ways to form communities in college. Your dorm for one. Your intramural sports buddies. Your Grey's Anatomy crew. Your chem lab group. The school newspaper. Your fraternity or sorority. However, for me, a very academic person, I want a very academic community, in that I want to be around people who have read or are reading a similar canon to me and are facing similar academic challenges to me. I know very little about Brown, and I'm sure there is a sense of community there, too, but I was interested in something even more specific when I think of the word "community."</p></li>
</ol>

<p>On another note entirely: I know many students who are interested in both Brown and UChicago, and I have always maintained that the schools remain odd bedfellows. Though their practical approaches are different, I think the particular academic philosophies of both schools are extremely similar.</p>

7

<p>And Bruno-- interesting observation. I was not satisfied with my high school education, so maybe in a way core is "redoing" high school. I do plan to be an English major, though, and I am interested in taking as many upper-level and graduate classes as I can tolerate. (With a huge graduate school attached to Chicago, I can go very, very, painfully deep into English literature). Maybe the advantage to a European school is that I would be able to focus on English exclusively. But I like other subjects too!</p>

8

<p>"Nowhere did I come to the conclusion that Chicago students were more intellectual than students at other schools because of the core."</p>

<p>I know you didn't, but as I said, many often do come to that conclusion, or imply such a conclusion. I was hoping you would rebut that, and you did. I'm not one to assume holier-than-thou attitudes, but one thing (as I said, one thing that's bugged me) that I got from some Chicagoans -- in this forum and elsewhere -- is that the core makes the school superior to others, that it brings more intellectualism to the campus. Of course, I certainly didn't draw conclusions on the whole school or all the students, but I've gotten that feeling before.</p>

<ol>
<li><p>Last I checked, top universities are looking for students who display a strong sense of curiosity and intellectual vitality, so those who get admitted to Chicago or Brown or wherever will tend to be open-minded enough to explore, without being forced to. Academic and intellectual exploration is highly encouraged and recommended at both Brown and a school like Berkeley, which have few requirements. In this way, they're able to get students to try new things while giving them the freedom to choose those new things. Thus, they're able to please everyone, as not everyone would be happy with all the required courses. This is, of course, assuming that not everyone wants the core (I'm sure there are more Chicagoans who want it than those who don't), which is expected at a university with few requirements.</p></li>
<li><p>Well, perhaps John Doe doesn't like classic texts and would enjoy, say, a course on the social impact of computers. He wouldn't be held back by the core to explore that interest. To me, those skills -- in conjunction with an exciting topic -- can be just as exciting to discover through courses not in the core. Regarding seminars, I think that although the topic in a seminar is variable and often dependent on the professor's interest, a seminar's topic is highly relevant. The students often choose the seminar because of its topic, and then they're able to present and discuss and debate the different aspects of that topic, while learning to read and think critically.</p></li>
<li><p>From what I've found, the core brings students together because it is, obviously, something they all have in common and they all want it (considering they decided to apply to / attend Chicago). And of course, they connect because of the material itself, which acts as some sort of "social mortar." I just wonder, though, what would happen if a school like Brown were to attract all the students, and after matriculating them, the school would drop a big core on 'em to see how the community is affected (this assuming that the students don't burn the school down in protest =p). My thought would be, it'd bring them together just as any of the other courses would (in part because these students didn't matriculate because they loved the core). It's an interesting subject, but I definitely see what you mean by the community aspect. In the same breath, though, I'd say that the community at a school like Brown or Berkeley is just as strong -- but as you say, "different."</p></li>
</ol>

<p>I think the most important thing you've said is, "However, core is for me." To you, and indeed to most Chicagoans, I suspect, the core is wonderful. But to someone like me, it isn't. Perhaps I'm just a bit bitter, as I'd looked extensively into the school because of its well-regarded linguistics department and even went as far as convincing myself that I like the core. But after exploring the ling department more, I found that the course offerings were rather limited, to me -- but then I realized that they're taken along with the large core, so that's rather normal. That's when I realized that the core isn't for me. So really, it's all about preference -- the pros for you are cons for me, etc.</p>

9

<p>
[quote]
In short, there is no REQUIRED class at Chicago, but rather, a choice of five or six classes to fulfill a certain category.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>see this is news to me because i always thought chicago's core sequence consisted of an exact set of classes that must be taken by all students, is that how columbia's core works?</p>

10

<p>Unalove,</p>

<p>Your primary intent in setting up this thread is obviously to bring attention (once again) to UC and its core. But your introduction to the topic, even in jest, as "an uncharacteristic truce between the warring UChicago and Northwestern factions" is an unnecessarily misleading promotion. NU students do not “war” with UC students. They would, in fact, find the idea a patently ridiculous invention. While this is something I hope you understand other prospective freshmen may not. The schools draw very different student bodies and no animus exists between campuses. On the contrary, as you should also know, significant collaboration on multiple fronts exists (esp. applied science/engineering). This symbiosis is possible given the realities of two schools that see their strengths and their missions in very different lights.</p>

<p>On a personal note, I was once someone who thought the world of the Columbia and UC cores when I was a babe. I have long since come around to believing that while collegiate high achievers may benefit from light direction, heavy handed curricular requirements can be stifling. The overwhelming majority of top colleges apparently agree. Even your core-curriculum bastion has become somewhat “core-light” by standards of what once was. Ultimately, to each his/her own.</p>

11

<p>"NU students do not “war” with UC students. They would, in fact, find the idea a patently ridiculous invention."</p>

<p>I'll have to disagree on this -- I've seen some rather combative NU students. I think it's a bit difficult to be the advocate of an entire student body, though.</p>

12

<p>Bala-- I was being facetious, and making a blithe reference to past "Chicago vs. NU" threads that have popped up on these threads in the past. If you're a new poster here, do a search-- you will find that many, many people (including yours truly) have said what you just said. I did, of course, make the post to draw attention to Chicago's curriculum because I feel it gets tossed aside quite often for one reason or another. I am still waiting for an open curriculum person to chime in. I would give a post on why an open curriculum is beneficial, but being as I've never experienced one, I don't know that I am the right person to do it.</p>

<p>I am interested, for example, in hearing more about why you think of core as "stifling," because I think of it as "eye-opening."</p>

<p>els-- Yes, Columbia's core has required classes; Chicago's gives more flexibility. When it comes down to it, both are very similar, but I thought I'd draw out the distinction.</p>

<p>kyledavid-- my Cornellian brother found mysteries exciting, and was able to take required first-year writing seminars in Agatha Christie and Alfred Hitchcock. I find Plato exciting. We were both able to attend schools that catered to what we found exciting. Though I'm tempted to jump the gun here and say that Plato is more important, but important to whom and in what sense? Also, considering that I spent six weeks reading Freud, a psychoanalyst and social philosopher who is considered "wrong" on many levels, I can't say that my education was more useful.</p>

13

<p>
[quote]
Your primary intent in setting up this thread is obviously to bring attention (once again) to UC and its core.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>not really, actually this thread was my idea after some PMs from unalove and we thought it would be a worthwhile discussion</p>

<p>
[quote]
But your introduction to the topic, even in jest, as "an uncharacteristic truce between the warring UChicago and Northwestern factions" is an unnecessarily misleading promotion.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>it was just for fun man, lighten up, the whole point was that this could be a more productive digression from the usual "which school is more prestigious" debate</p>

<p>what you said about the core being stifling was more on the right track, opinions were sought</p>

<p>i can see the core being stifling to some degree, one part of me believes that a school should have a set sequence for all students so that students become a strong product of that school and all can more cohesively tackle subjects together, even if their opinions are not in tandem. it makes a "product" of a school, and not in a negative way, it ensures that you know what you're getting when you get a student form "core college," that they will be versed a certain way, have a certain education.</p>

<p>There also is something to be said for making students think about issues and topics that they would not otherwise think about without guidance. That way a student can become more well-rounded, more comprehensive, more wholly edified and their perspective on the world more grounded in erudite thought. you would be surprised how much one can learn about business, say, from reading philosophy, or about philosophy, say, from studying economics. A comprehensive package makes a student a more reasoned being, in my opinion. Less rash decisions will be made and comments will be more thoughtful.</p>

<p>Then there is the other part of me that thinks about how little interest i can have in something i'm being forced to take. I think back to taking spanish, for example, and wonder how much i actually learned simply because i could care less. Does a student being forced to take classes they might not want to take, in the end, actually end up learning less than a student free to take whatever they want simply because they do not apply themselves to the material, do not consider it?</p>

<p>I think in light of such a question a thing like a core can only be implemented effectively at a strongly academic, and not preprofessional school. At a strongly academic school, students will take note of their core, they will contemplate it, they will use it to benefit themselves. At a preprofessional school students will toss it aside, disregard it, and in the end gain nothing from it because they simply don't care for it. They will learn more if you just let them take what they want to take. aka spanish for me.</p>

14

<p>oh and just an aside to bruno, i think that is also an interesting observation and an interesting difference in approaches to education, but i don't necessarily see it as a fault for America, i don't have any specific reasons why i think our system is better except that you see many more international students coming to American than to Europe so we must be doing something right ;)</p>

<p>and this might sound strange, but i think sometimes a very deep level is not always preferred, there is always grad school, in America the focus is on a good education, but it's on a maximally efficient good education, meaning learning enough to the point where you start exhibiting "diminishing marginal returns" (to bring in some economics) for application in a real-world setting. just my 2 cents, any thoughts?</p>

15

<p>Sorry, Unalove but it all seems quite self serving (U Chicago serving?) to repeatedly try to introduce the “drama” of a rivalry that doesn’t exist. This is not your first “facetious” reference in this regard:</p>

<p>“Chicago and Northwestern are nothing alike. I think that's the only thing that students from both schools can agree upon without descending into warfare.” (July 18, your response on another thread)</p>

<p>Your comments struck a nerve and prompted my response standing side by side, as they did, with the “Best College Rivalry” thread. Nothing could be farther from reality, at least until Chicago joins the Big 10.</p>

<p>And, yes, while I may not have 441 posts since March as you do (what’s up with that for a current college student?) I am not new to CC.</p>

16

<p>^^ I'm not even a student at either, nor am I easily deceived into believing stereotypes, but I personally have seen much rivalry between the two (student interactions and the like).</p>

17

<p>can we please stay on topic? this is a very interesting debate, and one that's really important in figuring out what kind of college you want to go to, so it'd be a shame to let it slide into stupid ad hominem attacks and petty tangents...</p>

18

<p>I hate distribution requirements; there's nothing better than choice! I shouldn't be forced to take ridiculous language classes if I don't want them! :rolleyes:</p>

19

<p>key difference, though! </p>

<p>I think it's really important to recognize that a core corriculum and distribution requirements are not the same thing. I think the pro- open curriulum argument that says "well, we could just take those courses anyways! why do you have to make us??" is very applicable to whether or not schools should implement distribution requirements, but it doesn't necessarily apply to the argument against a core curriculum, because a core is comprised of specific courses that are supposed to teach key skills, which will then enable to you become a better student while you study other things. Thus, the point of a core isn't to make sure you study certain areas, which one could certainly do with an open curriculum, but rather to enrich your intellect and make you a better scholar, an end which is best achieved through pointed, intensive courses, and an open-curriculum cannot allow for that. that's why I think it's beneficial to have a core.</p>

20

<p>Whether or not there are distribution requirements, the courses we take in college need to be carefully considered based on our plans. If grad school is in the future, foreign language competencies may be required. It might slow down grad school to blow off languages in college. If you plan to work as a teacher, consideration of the specific courses needed for a teaching credential in the state of your choice would reduce the need for expensive and duplicative course work after graduation. </p>

<p>I do think that when colleges and universities have a core common education program, they enhance the marketability of the graduates that are produced. There is some basic knowledge that graduates of XYZ institution will have. </p>

<p>Courses in cultural diversity seem to be increasingly important for our pluralistic society, too.</p>