<p>I can't provide a link to this article, by Peter Berkowitz of the Hoover Institution, because it's in the paid section of WSJ on-line. The gist of it is that Harvard and other colleges are shortchanging undergraduates by not requiring the equivalent of the core as done by Columbia. His ideal core would require semester courses in Greek & Roman history; European history; American history; European literature; American literature; biology; physics; principles of American Government; economics; political philosophy; comparative religion (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam); and one non-western literature, hisory, or religion. All students would be required to demonstrate proficiency in at least one foreign language.</p>
<p>I happen to love the idea of the core and a liberal education. I remember writing a paper ldealing with this in the dark ages of the 60's-70's, when Stanford was throwing out the whole Western Civ thing--no dead white men!</p>
<p>I like the fact that some colleges have cores and some don't. Honestly I did so much of that in high school I was glad to explore other things in college.</p>
<p>That is what a son of a friend of mine said.</p>
<p>He went to * fancy prep school* and worked very hard, even in subject he didn't like. His mother wanted him to look @ Reed- with its reputation for rigor & core curriculum. He felt it would be too similar to the style of his high school curriculum, with few electives outside his major.
He is at ( or will be) USC.</p>
<p>I don't know exactly where the thread is, but Unalove and a guy from Northwestern were having a very civilized discussion about the relative merits of core/non-core. Many of the respondents agreed with mathmom and emeraldkity because some high schools have curriculums covering much of the same material. Ours doesn't do that to the same depth, although the AP Euro class covered a lot of cultural material.</p>
<p>Hoover not only wants core requirements, he wants the requirements standardized so every student has the same sampling of educational requirements. Seems more than a bit nutty. I took my share of courses in Greek and Roman languages, history, philosophy and art. I don't regret any of them, but I can understand students who would not be interested in these studies and don't see the importance. Our world is becoming highly technical. Maybe the old fashioned Greek and Roman studies should be replaced by a core that is more focused on science and technology. How about universal, standardized requirements for advanced math, computer science, and real science courses instead of the introductory pap? I don't think so. We want different points of view and different interests. That is a basis for creativity and new ideas.</p>
<p>Part of the problem is not the core curriculum itself. I would argue that most college students are not sufficiently prepared to benefit from a rigourous core curriculum. </p>
<p>I have seen many college graduates who have woefully inadquate knowledge on biology, government or literature. How many of us here can participate intelligently on topics such as stem cell research, ethics of pharmaceutical drug pricing, or the mathmatical basis that could have declared Ralph Nader or Al Gore winner of "that" election instead of George Bush? These seemlingly diverse topics are nonetheless critical and should continue to be discussed.</p>
<p>Very interesting views by P. Berkowitz (who did not receive tenure at Harvard and is not a wholly disinterested critic).</p>
<p>There are many different ways to skin a cat.Although S did not take a course in Western Civ as such, he is entirely capable of discussing, as he did just the other evening, Kant's Critique of Pure Reason, or Nietzsche's Genealogy of Morals. </p>
<p>More seriously, Berkowitz would leave out the civilization of China and India which are poised to be THE countries that will dominate this century and beyond. Much as I love the Classics (I learned Greek and Latin), there are civilizations outside of the West, with histories as ancient and as rich as those which he considers educated men and women should know about. Never fear, though. My S also learned the difference between legalists, Confucians and Taoists.</p>
<p>I think Berkowitz was making a slight nod to the non-western civilizations with his one semester course. However, given the rise in globalism, your point, Marite, is well-taken. When we lived in Singapore and Hong Kong, I felt at a disadvantage because I wasn't well-versed in Confucian thought--I knew about the Merit Examinations and Ming vases, (and I had read Shogun--Japan, I know). I still know almost nothing about India.</p>
<p>I think the comments above about technical education also bear merit.</p>
<p>One of the things I took back from the Columbia information session was that one of the goals of the core curriculum is that all students have a common reference point. You could argue that the goal of a liberal education is that all educated people have a common reference point. However, I don't know that there's agreement about that goal.</p>
<p>The idea that all students have a common reference point is a great one; it's the basis of both the Columbia and the Chicago core curricula. At the same time, this priority can interfere with other needs of individual students/ Mine decided not to apply to Chicago because he was afraid (rightly or wrongly, I can't be sure) that it would make scheduling his math classes more difficult. </p>
<p>Years ago, Yale faculty objected to the idea of a single model Western Civ course so strenuously that Robert Bass, who had given $20 million to create such a course took his money away. It's not that Yale does not have courses that accomplish what Berkowitz wants students to learn. But year after year, the most popular course is Jonathan Spence's course on Chinese history. It's not that Yalies are more aware of the importance of Chinese history than students at other colleges. It is that Spence is a fabulous teacher.<br>
I don't think that classes in Western Civ should be presented to students in the same way as the cod liver oil of my childhood:" Take it, it's good for you." Rather, great courses taught by great teachers will attract students.
I agree with Padad that the notion of an educated individual should encompass more than a glancing familiarity with Western Civ or even non-Western Civ. Scientific literacy is also important.
Finally, let's remember that there are only 16 semesters in which undergraduates can learn something about lots of things and a lot about one or two things. If they could spend twice as long in college, there would be fewer battles over the contents and even idea of a core curriculum.</p>
<p>I agree with the last comment above: when I was formulating my "ideal" curriculum in my class 37 years ago, I ran into the limits ot time--if everyone took all of the required classes, there wouldn't be any time left for the major.</p>
<p>I also think the comment about the Chinese class is relevant--if the class isn't interesting and/or well-taught, then the students won't get much out of it, which defeats the whole purpose.</p>
<p>I like the way Barnard (an affiliate of Columbia) structures its "core" curriculum: around what they call the "Nine Ways of Knowing". Hokey though that may sound, the idea of having broad basic requirements in each of these nine areas (including "reason and value", "cultures in comparsion", "historical studies","laboratory science", "social analysis", "language", "literature", "the visual and performing arts" and "quatitative and deductive reasoning") with a generous selection of courses that fulfill each (with quite a bit of overlap) seems to me to be a good compromise.</p>
<p>The absolute best thing about the US system of higher education is that there are few national standards for curriculum content, and that there is at least one college for every conceivable educational approach. Especially to students of highly-state controlled education (see "Europe") this must seem really messy, but I love it. I don't want all thousand points of light to be the same color.</p>
<p>To put it another way, a standardized "western civ" curriculum would be a disaster. Death to mindless conformity.</p>
<p>This is yesterday's news. Conservatives recycle this argument every few years. It's most stridently expressed by Alan Bloom (Not Harold Bloom at Yale) who entitled his book THE CLOSING OF THE AMERICAN MIND.</p>
<p>I think the core is fun; it's fun that all frosh sophs etc. have common frame of reference for upper level courses, but I think both Marite and padad make excellent points. They don't call 'em dead white men fer nothin.</p>
<p>There is really too much information out there for one person to master. The core concept is a holdover from a time in which a library was well stocked with a hundred volumes and some one could reasonably peruse all significant, seminal texts.</p>
<p>Another problem is that teaching the core is somewhat like preaching to the choir. The kids who love it and benefit the most would probably have done it anyway.</p>
<p>There were many grumbles when ivies and other elites eliminated Greek,Hebrew and Latin requirements for graduation. All that remains is a swim test. (LOL -- see thread "Staying afloat in college.")</p>
<p>and if you have a strong core, what is its content? The classics? Science? Math? Literature? Languages?</p>
<p>The fact is that there is hardly enough time in a 4 year program to squeeze to much in, and a great risk that if one does try to squeeze a lot in, it becomes the dread survey approach: heavy on facts, light on thought.</p>
<p>FWIW, I think we have even less science/math/statistics/probability/economics literacy in our country, especially among the masses of liberal arts and social science majors. And all the worse for us as a society. </p>
<p>The classics are great, but what about basic economic literacy for example? Heck, we might even end up with a few less bad financial decisions and might have avoided the recent debt crisis....</p>
<p>Wish there was a "core" for grownups. I would love to take some of those classes, like Latin and the classics, which help form the basis of Western thought. That would be only half of it, though: I'd follow up with a full dose of "other cultures!"</p>
<p>SuNa, Reed College (strong family connection) mails parents a copy of The Odyssey during the summer before their first-year students arrive. During orientation, a sprinkling of the best profs offer a class for parents covering their summer reading. It's great fun! The students get one in the mail too, as an introduction to a yearlong required integrated humanities course. They learn to sing in Greek. None of this precludes advanced study in non-Western topics (or in any topic), but it does wonders for establishing a common bond.</p>
<p>
[quote]
and if you have a strong core, what is its content? The classics? Science? Math? Literature? Languages?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>at Columbia, the answer to that question is--Yes to all of the above. Also art, music, and phys ed.</p>
<p>Though math is rolled in with choices of science, so you could skip math if you want.</p>
<p>They also have to take two classes in non-Western cultures, and the lit hum and contemporary civ courses also have been updated to feature dead women and people of color, too. ;)</p>
<p>It's not for everyone, but S has had some real, meaningful education in these classes, as has his sis who went to a "we don't require nothin'" college. it's all in the student's approach.</p>
<p>garland: Personally I would adore the core. I just don't like Alan Bloom and the neocons saying education is going to hell in a handbasket because a very traditional core is not at the heart of all undergraduate education. I agree with your last point. That said, both my kids, through only their own desires, started college with Classics 101, so we all love the core! BTW: The course was oversubscribed and friends of S were closed out. He is happy he wasn't. He also approves of the fact that prof is using the Lattimore translations for Homer, just to show you how crazy we are. I think the Core is one of the things that makes upper level lit. courses at Columbia so wonderful -- the common background. I am glad D at Barnard got this background a different way so she can fully participate in these courses.</p>