I have a question about “core curriculum” colleges. Is there a problem with them? It does seem that certain posters on CC find these requirements troublesome. Apologies if I misread that.
I confess to not really understanding what the problem, IF ANY, there is with having students at College X take a certain number of “core” classes. Doesn’t this expand the student’s universe? Isn’t that the point of a “UNIVERSity”?
Also, how do “core curriculum” requirements equate with “GenEd” requirements? Are these just synonyms?
I apologize in advance for my ignorance. I would welcome your thoughts.
They overlap to some extent, but not completely. Some core curricula have a large list of specified courses, but others allow a choice of courses within each category that it covers. Colleges that call their requirements core curricula usually have more restrictions on the choice of courses for each category than those that call their requirements general education requirements. But there is no clear line here – for example, MIT calls its requirements “general institute requirements”, but some of them list specific courses like calculus, multivariable calculus, physics 1, physics 2, and biology.
The volume and type of core or general education requirements may be a good or bad academic fit for a particular student. Different colleges have different emphases in the core or general education requirements. Compare Columbia, Chicago, MIT, Harvey Mudd, USMA, and USNA.
Note that even when there are few such requirements, students who want a broader general education can use the greater number of free elective schedule spaces to take additional general education courses of their choosing.
If a student is weaker and/or uninterested in a specific subject (like foreign language, science or math) they may struggle in a college with a core curriculum that requires 2 or more classes in their weaker subject.
Student may also feel that it takes away from credit opportunities in classes in what interests them. Northeastern is a school I have heard of where you are free to choose classes in your major without going through an intense core curriculum first.
However, I do agree with OP that a core curriculum requirement during freshman and sophomore year can be a great way to achieve a well rounded education and could be viewed favorably by students who value that opportunity.
A student with a degree from x college has a fundamental mastery of certain subjects such as math through a certain level or FL and
Prior to picking a major, students have exposure to a wider range of disciplines/subjects at the college level, many of which are not offered at the high school level.
Students most likely to resent this are ones who struggle in some required area.
Personally, I think this is a good idea for both reasons. So many students I know have experienced an intellectual spark that has changed the overall direction of their college education in one of theses classes (more often a gen ed “pick from this group” type of class.)
Most colleges have some minimum breadth requirements. They may call these requirements core, general education, or distribution requirements. Those who call theirs “core” requirements may try to signal the extent or specificity of their breadth requirements, and those who call theirs “distribution” requirements may try to signal the more “flexible” nature of their breadth requirements. IMO, the exact terminology matters less than the actual requirements themselves. Applicants need to look at the actual requirements themselves to make sure they’re comfortable with these requirements and the requirements are compatible with their educational goals.
I think it really depends on what your student wants to study and how restrictive the core requirement is. As an example, my D went to Brown, which notoriously has no requirements. She wanted to major in one of two liberal arts areas but also wanted to be premed. In a school with looser “pick from a category” requirement scheme, she probably would have met those requirements. But if she had gone to a school with more restrictive core requirements, she probably would have had to choose between those two liberal arts majors earlier (and not be able to explore those topics as much) in order to be able to do both one of those and premed and graduate on time.
A core curriculum (like at Columbia and Chicago) is often a more strict/prescribed set of classes and their progression, as compare to gen eds, but there is overlap among these terms.
It’s easy to take a look at course catalogs to see if students like the core curriculum (or gen ed) options at a given school. There are many college options in the US, it’s easy to find one that suits a given student.
For example, love language and culture? Choose Tufts where students must demonstrate a mastery thru 3 semesters of a foreign language and 6 of the 34 (now 120 semester hours) classes must be FL/culture (although one can take fewer that 3 semesters of FL by doing well on the entrance exam).
Don’t want a take a language? Choose an open curriculum, or school with broad gen ends, like Bowdoin or Oberlin (there are many more), where one doesn’t have to take any FL classes/demonstrate mastery in a FL.
Most US colleges have some sort of “General Education” or “Distribution” requirements, designed to make sure that students emerge with at least a somewhat ‘rounded’ education. These requirements range from minimal (eg, at least x credits in classes designated as quantitative) to extensive and detailed. Almost every college has some sort of first year writing requirement.
UChicago & Columbia in particular have a strong philosophical commitment to the value of a deep, challenging academic foundation across all the ‘liberal arts’ (physical & social sciences, math, philosphy, history, and creative arts). Where requirements at most colleges can be met by choosing from a wide range of classes (hence unfairly maligned classes such as Intro Geology, aka ‘rocks for jocks’ that will meet the ‘science’ requirement), colleges with a strong ‘core’ ethos will have a lot of specific requirements, often including specific classes that most/all students will take.
There is no problem with a school having a strong Core- but as the above posts have pointed out, it doesn’t suit everybody.
On CC posters we see students putting both Columbia and Brown- the extremes of Core and requirement-free- on the same list, and posters will ask why, and suggest that they may need to dig a little deeper: while there are students who would enjoy both, imo it’s a small subset. A surprising number of students are bewitched by the marquee (Columbia = Ivy! NYC!). and have not actually even read what the requirements of the Core entail.
Colleges may have different emphases in what is highly specified and what is less specified. For example, Columbia’s humanities requirements are more highly specified than its science requirements, while MIT’s science requirements are more highly specified than its humanities requirements.
Core may be limiting in not allowing the student to explore electives in areas of actual interest as one can end up taking prescribed courses for the first few years. It can also be frustrating in your area of interest. My kid who went to Columbia was taking high level physics courses while having to “suffer through” - his words - Frontiers of Science with kids whose dream was to never take a science course. Guess which of these he bombed? Both my kids went to schools with heavy duty core requirements and although I wouldn’t view it as make or break based on other factors, overall I view it as a negative. Kids by that age are adults and should be able to select their courses. General distribution requirements which can be fulfilled in many ways are much easier to live with than hard-core core curricula like Columbia and UChicago.
While people seem very focused on the top schools (Columbia, Chicago), there are many other schools that also have strong cores, particularly catholic universities. My daughter decide against Fordham because she felt the core requirement was too much.
I don’t think there is an inherent “problem” with a core curriculum or an open curriculum. All depends on the student.
One disadvantage of a core that resonated with my kid is that in certain mandatory classes you will share the room with students who are there because they have to be. With an open curriculum those in attendance are there because they have an interest in the subject matter.
At schools like UC or Columbia the students are obviously highly motivated and smart so I suspect it isn’t that big a deal but for some students they prefer the flexibility of an OC.
The way I hear the terms used, a core curriculum is typically larger and more defined (ex. requiring specific courses or classes from specific departments) as compared to General Ed Requirements. There is often more leeway for students to fill General Ed Requirements.
There is no inherent “problem” with having a core curriculum. It is more a matter of if having a large core curriculum will work for a particular student.
In my family having a large core worked great for one child but would not suit the other. Maybe this personal anecdote can help.
–My S went to a Jesuit college with a very large core curriculum as a business major (so there was also a business core curriculum). He had no particular interests outside of business. The core pushed him to get an extremely well rounded/rigorous undergrad education in the humanities as well as business. I feel that this has served him well. S only had (I think) one or two free electives in his four years of college.
–My D went into college wanting to major in a STEM field but she also had a couple of very specific areas of long-term interest she also wanted to pursue in college (she ended up with a minor in one of those subjects). If she had to take a large core she would not have had room in her schedule to take upper level coursework in those areas and she would likely not have had as fulfilling an experience at college.
Most colleges have their course catalog online and you should be able to find information about graduation requirements. Let the student consider if having a large core is something that would work well.
Personally, I’d prefer colleges offer two different sets of core/gen ed/distribution curricula. One for their more quantitatively inclined students (likely STEM majors, some Econ majors, etc.) and one for the other. The more quantitatively inclined students get full exposure to the foundations of quantitative methodologies as well as the essential elements of non-quantitative thinking and approaches in humanities and social sciences, while their non-quantitatively inclined peers get the exact opposite.
I think the theory behind most cores is to expose students to areas they would not normally choose to study. FWIW my S became a much better writer due to the core at his college. An open curriculum would allow students to only delve into areas of interest/strength.
The Jesuit colleges, who all have big cores, use the term “cura personalis” meaning having concern and care for the development of the whole person.
Again, a large core isn’t right for every student.
Well, not just posters on CC – there is a reason many universities with core curriculums have dialed them back.
A couple of decades ago Chicago reduced its Core requirements from 21 courses to 15 courses (going from 1/2 of a student’s courses to 1/3), for example, and more recently it dropped its swimming and PE requirements.
Yes, the only question is the degree to which students should be compelled to take courses in subjects they’re either less comfortable with or less interested in. Schools like Caltech or MIT can have extensive humanity/social sciences/writing requirements outside of their students’ core interests in STEM subjects because their students are generally very well equipped so that those extensive requirements aren’t too much of a burden and have little effect on their students pursuing the subjects they’re more deeply interested in. But I suspect that may be not the case in many other places. It’s about tradeoffs.
Agree, it is about finding the right balance/fit for each person. If a student is not OK with the core at any particular college then he or she should not apply to that school. As I said upthread a core worked well for my S but my D specifically did not apply to colleges with huge cores. It is a personal choice.