This is also the case with my college junior, whose college has Gen Ed requirements. There is no question his writing is much better. If it hadn’t been for the requirement, he would have avoided any classes involving writing. Good writing skills are really important.
OTOH, my son was dreading meeting the language requirement. In the end, he found a way to manage that with the least amount of stress. He took the classes at the local CC over the winter term, with only pass/fail as an option. I don’t think it caused him too much stress, and he may even have gotten something out of it.
My college grad had loose distribution requirements at her school, but was required to take two semesters of physical Ed. I was glad of this, because otherwise she might have never done anything physical. It was actually great. She discovered she loved yoga and continues doing it to this day.
I don’t think anything is particularly bad about core requirements. I guess the phrase implies rigidity, but there’s usually still plenty of room for students to explore other areas of interest. I think all the various options are still mostly rooted in the idea of a well-rounded eduction.
Personally, I’m happy that the school our S attended had a set of classes (options within each type of class) that all students were required to take. Left to his own devices, I think he would have taken more math and CS classes. Instead, the required classes exposed him to new ideas and strengthened his writing skills.
Sometimes the word “Core” also comes with a timing requirement. At UChicago, you must start start your Humanities sequence your Autumn quarter of your first year. Some of the other sequences also only start in Autumn.
Like most CC issues, it depends on the student. Some like having a core curriculum others do not.
Pros:
Great way to explore new interest areas and maybe even find something you were not exposed to in high school that can even become a career path.
Good way to improve writing.
Good way to see the intersection of subjects.
Good way to gain exposure to the world at large and all its variables via many exploratory courses.
Cons:
There can be too many core courses which don’t interest you or a course that’s core and difficult for You to do well in based on your skills.
You might find exactly what you want to do at any time in college. Beyond that point, you might want to study only things of interest yet not be done with the “Core”
You might have to take a Summer course or extra course just to fit in all the core courses.
I have one kid that loved Columbia and UChicago’s core. My youngest would despise the idea of taking a core curriculum. Different strokes kind of thing.
At many colleges with typical (more flexible) general education requirements, this is already the case, in that students can choose harder or easier courses (e.g. science majors can take courses for science majors, while others can take “for poets / jocks” courses, to fulfill a science general education requirement).
But perhaps you mean for colleges with more specified core curriculum courses, where your idea could mean a college allowing an exemption if the student takes some more advanced courses (for example, if Columbia allowed exemption from the Frontiers in Science core curriculum course for students like @relaxmon 's student who take more advanced science courses).
I went to an engineering school that had humanities requirements. I loved those classes. They were a welcome respite from all the math & science for me. For others, it was excruciating. Everyone is different.
My D went to Vanderbilt and thoroughly enjoyed her AXLE requirements. There was quite a bit of flexibility to choose courses that interested her. My S went to a state school that had a much narrower group of core courses from which to choose. He didn’t care for most of his core classes, although he did appreciate the opportunity to fulfill his language requirements with etymology. Both kids knew what the requirements were before saying yes to the school, so they knew what to expect.
Yes. If a college already has a more flexible distribution requirement, it wouldn’t be necessary to design different sets of requirements for different groups of students.
I would argue that in fact that is the point of K-12 education. By the time a student finishes high school and moves on to post-secondary education they should already have received a well rounded education. Certainly 14 years of schooling should be sufficient. Should students who do not attend post-secondary education not also be sufficiently well-rounded?
How much more diverse instruction remains after that point should be the student’s choice. Instead of requiring a diversity of courses, the focus should be on building and polishing skills within the chosen field of study and that can be built into the curriculum.
I went to a classical education private high school, where we learned stuff like Latin, in addition to the more common subjects. That was a solid underpinning for college, but it was just an underpinning for future growth in college.
However, when I was in college and “was forced” to take subjects like econ, poli sci, art, music etc, it opened my eyes to worlds I had never even dreamed of.
Most kids are around 17-18 when starting college. While I appreciate some of these students will know exactly what they want to study, most (like me) don’t. I went from wanting to become a doctor to becoming a lawyer, primarily because of the “forced” exposure to the social sciences. I discovered I had a knack for those and it came effortlessly to me, whereas the sciences were something I simply detested. If I didn’t have to take those other subjects, I might never have had a way to compare the misery (for me) of science vs. the joy of non-sciences (for me).
As others have stated, I think it seems to come down to a question of DEGREE in core classes in college. I will definitely advise my children to look at the core requirements of each college they are interested in to make sure there are no deal-breakers from their perspectives.
Your point is well-taken, though. I have a D who seems to think she’s learned everything she needs to in HS, so now it is to focus on what she wants to study for her career. Good, but keep an open mind is what I keep telling her. She might decide that what she wanted to do as an adult may change from high school to college, just like what happened to dear old dad.
The core classes available to our S were so beyond any offer at HS that there is no comparison. Subject topics, class discussion/debate, quality of teaching, and (yes) quality of student engagement are just at a different level.
That probably varies significantly depending on which college you are attending. I don’t think you could make that statement universally for every college that has a core.
It really depends so much on the school and the student. At some schools, the core or GenEd requirements can end up being met by taking a watered down versions of classes (geoscience often nicknamed Rocks for Jocks) or Physics for Poets. Useful? Possibly.
Most schools require some kind of writing course for freshman. I actually think my school did a disservice to students by allowing them to place out of the “english” requirement by SAT score. The SATs in those days had no writing component and I definitely would have been well served by a writing course.
My science major son loved the philosophy course he chose for his humanities area requirement.
Not quite. My kids have received an excellent education. And they are well rounded. But the way the school was structured they didn’t have exposure to many subjects which may be of real interest to them. Let me give you an example, our youngest wants to do Biomedical engineering as an undergrad. Kid will not take biomedical anything in high school. Yes, biology, yes and maybe engineering if it fits. AI is another area interest. No class in that. And doubtful if there was, it would fit in. Some schools are designed so kids can dabble in many subject areas in high school. Most in the US are not set up this way esp if a school is small. Has nothing to do with the excellence of the education.
18 is pretty young to know exactly what you want to do AND stick with it. Most kids change their major. So allowing them to dabble with purpose in college makes sense (IMO) for those who want it. Not every kid wants to do so
Yes, so kids who don’t want a core curriculum shouldn’t chose a school with it.
IMO, that is far too early as an undergrad. You need to learn the skills first, then put them into practice in the working world, then polish them. I know some kids go into programs which are pre-professional in nature. But most undergrad education in the US is still learning rudimentary skills like writing, analytical thinking, communication, and other soft skills based on a major.
A student can always take any intro courses as electives. A curriculum requirement is meant to compel students to take courses in certain areas they otherwise may not take to ensure minimum breadth that the college thinks all its students should have. We can probably all agree that writing, some college math, and basic sciences should be part of a student’s college education. The question what other subjects should be included. A college student can only take finite number of courses, and for some students in certain majors, the depth requirement in their majors (or their desire to dive deeper in those subject areas) limits the number of other courses they can take (whether they’re interested or not). Most students probably prefer flexibility (that’s one of the reasons why schools like Brown or Amherst are popular), but there’s certainly an argument to be made that a college student should be exposed to some basic knowledge in a few core subjects, regardless of their majors.
Brown and Amherst educate a tiny fraction of college kids in America- so I’m not sure you can conclude that “most” students prefer flexibility. I think it’s safe to say that “some” students prefer it, others are either indifferent or prefer some clustering around different requirements.
I interview a lot of mid-career professionals who were educated overseas (undergrad in their own country, then grad school here) who tell me that they would have NEVER studied what they ended up studying if they’d had a US style core/distribution requirement. HS kid good in bio? They’re off to become a physician. Kid good in math? Actuary. They are often amazed by the depth and breadth of possibilities at a US university.
I went to Brown- and even in the boho days when the “open curriculum” was still new- virtually everyone ended up with a reasonably traditional core (of their own choosing). My advisor in the Classics department encouraged me to take Econ and Anthropology. EVERYONE I know took statistics at some point- the social science and hard science folks because it was required, everyone else because “it shows I’m good at math even if I’m majoring in French literature”.
So even at U’s where there are no distribution requirements, most students understand that JUST taking courses in your own discipline won’t give you the same kind of education you get by pushing yourself into things you don’t know, aren’t good at, haven’t been introduced to.
I probably “use” that stats class more than any other course I took as an undergrad!!! (not much demand for translating Plato in my current career…)
This is the greatest advantage of the US-style higher ed, in my opinion. Kids who are 17-18 need flexibility. Why absolutely commit to a course of study AND, in some cases, not have options to study outside that course of study, at such a young age?
Agree with you totally here. Having the freedom (but a reasonable requirement) to take a variety of courses in different disciplines makes for a much better and open mind.
The reason I suspect that most students would prefer flexibility is because they still can choose to take those traditional core classes on their own. Most of us (college students included) prefer that we can make our own decisions, rather than having something imposed on us. I agree that it isn’t necessarily the best thing for us individually (or the society), however.
It would not be surprising if core or general education requirements were low on the factors to consider by most students and parents when selecting colleges.
