<p>^Of course, i agree completely. As i said, my D's school, Wesleyan, had almost no requirements, and she got an equally deep education. I was more responding to the idea posted elsewhere that the C Core must be a shallow experience, or all DWM.</p>
<br>
<blockquote> <p>...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.<<</p> </blockquote>
<br>
<p>Another Yalie bashing Harvard. What a surprise! Save it for the football game, Peter.</p>
<p>coureur: Haha! Politics, politics.</p>
<p>It's a free country and it is great that there are colleges for those who want a traditional 18th century education. </p>
<p>To say that anyone who does not choose this path is being shortchanged is absurd. Devoting that much time to ancient literature will of necessity prevent a deep study of modern technology and the huge explosion of knowledge that has occurred since this older model of uniform education was abandoned decades ago at most colleges. It is fine if some want to do this, but requiring it would make it pretty difficult to turn out people prepared to function in technical fields, or knowing enough about math, science or economics to understand the political world around them. Might that be part of the goal?</p>
<p>I went to a LAC with a "core" requirement (Oxy); my son is in one now (Whitman)--I think they are invaluable in developing a whole human citizen of a global community. What is "core" has evolved in interesting and meaningful ways. It does make me sad to think that some would decide they had "done" it in high school because there is so much control of what and how it can be taught in high school (it is true some prep schools can and do teach outside the lines of course). In any case, what my son learned in APEuro and what he learned in a core sequence at a LAC were widely and deeply different and I am glad he didn't miss the contrast...The adolescent brain is everchanging and there is much to be said for visiting the classics (of many cultures) when you are truly able to think, question, and reflect in a beyond-high school way.</p>
<p>OK, garland, as long as we're talking specific colleges, U of Chicago does not allow one to duck the math. In fact we had dinner with an alum two nights ago who still remembers having to take what she called "math for urchins" on a noncredit basis in order to take the level of math required of all undergrads. In fact, at U of C, most kids complete at least elementary calculus, even if they are english majors. This is in addition to the humanities, social science and natural science core.</p>
<p>I still maintain, though, that we have all to many grads that are sorely lacking in science literacy. Berkowitz proposes one quarter each (maybe it was semesters, its late..) of biology and physical science. I can guarantee you that level of study is essentially worthless in terms of science literacy, especially since it is hard to teach physical sciences without a decent math background. </p>
<p>So classics? What about science?</p>
<p>newmassdad: I am sure you are right about science literacy. I seem to recall that in a poll of recent college graduates over half of them did not know the cause of seasonal changes in temperature and explained them in terms of distance from the sun, which is perhaps the intuitive answer, albeit the incorrect one.</p>
<p>I'm afraid that the scientific method is the most difficult thing to teach; I overhead three Stony Brook seniors in Starbucks explaining personality in terms of astrology. They were discussing the "ramming" personality of one Aries they knew as opposed to the "butting" personality of the Taurus. I wanted to ask them what they thought was the mechanism to create these personalities but did not really want to intrude (or "butt in" in an unpleasant way. (Am not a Taurus. Ha ha.) Stony Brook is a major ressearch university and well known in science disciplines. This animated young women were speaking of astrology as factual. </p>
<p>However, because science is invaluable,it does not mean that other studies are not invaluable as well. mmaah makes this point about the traditional humanities. We don't really have an either/or situation. Some great scientists have also been great humanists.</p>
<p>Because of the explosion of knowledge, I return to my earlier point that is no longer possible for one person to know all there is to know. The core is a nod to a time when this was not so, and is perhaps romantic in this way. However, that doesn't say that entire sets of texts or skills can be ignored. I think these classic texts are more in danger from disappearing from society than a study of science. We certainly don't need all schools to perpetuate them, but it is nice, and important too, that there are still some that do.</p>
<p>Of course, Reed, U of Chicago, St. John's and other schools mentioned are all wonderful schools. My son chose one without core requirements, Grinnell, but he chose it for the combination of academic excitedness and social wackiness, not for the lack of requirements. He loves to learn and will pick a broad array of classes. Some students really like the respect of personal choice implied by an open curriculum.</p>
<p>What we felt in looking at 20 colleges and studying many more, is the strenghth of the US higher education model. Individuality in spades. Every kid can find an educational soul mate here. I don't believe every student needs to spend 4 years with the dead white guys, but it benefits us all if some students get that type of education, others go for an Eastern/Western mix, others specialize in math or science and some people continue to learn the trades. That people can pursue their own dreams in their own way is the strength of the US higher ed system, in my mind.</p>
<p>Where would we be without electricians, plumbers, builders and car repair people? And, in my life, I've found that some of the trade people are some of the best read, most interesting people around. Maybe that's more true in VT?</p>
<p>I don't know, but the personalities of different schools fascinates me. Some people say they all seem the same. I felt every one we saw was beautifully different.</p>
<p>I dislike the thought of cores because they all seem to think in terms of Western civilization- limited by a Eurocentric mindset. I would rather see these schools update their requirements to acknowledge the rest of the world's contributions to our civilization, especially with (as Marite noted) current Asian influences becoming greater. The present cores would not leave many electives for math/science students to explore "outside the box" of what they are likely exposed to in both HS and college. Many people would be shocked to find out how much they attribute to Europeans either came originally from Asia, or was developed independently in both areas.</p>
<p>College is meant to learn about one (or two) fields in depth, not to create uniformly educated graduates. There is never enough time to cover everything. I personally cringe at how little science/math is required of nonmajors in comparison to how much nonscience (humanities/social science) is required of science/math majors. It is a lot easier to read literature independently than it is to explore areas of a lab science without the school's facilities.</p>
<p>Regarding the compass- it needs a different heading than the traditionalists are aiming at.</p>
<p>Actually, bethie, my friend's painter recited the opening prologue of CANTERBURY TALES in its original Middle English while up on a ladder on Long Island.</p>
<p>(Take that for an unlikely sentence Noam Chomsky!)</p>
<p>wis75: As bethie points out, if you feel that way you have many other choices. The strong Eurocentric bias of the core (at least in times gone by) is why the neocoms favor it so. However, at this point many of the schools with core curricula are socially progressive and revise core requirements to reflect the excellent points you make.</p>
<p>"...students and parents are poorly positioned to AFFECT change."
Ouch. Don't they have editors?</p>
<p>agree regarding the eurocentric view of many core advocates.</p>
<p>Frankly, I find it hard to separate out political and social agendas of these advocates from those truly interested in broad education.</p>
<p>JMHO.</p>
<p>Newmassdad--the Core at U of C sounds like another great version of this concept. Which is why I guess I'm surprised you mused on on its faults, like a supposed lack of depth. I'm guessing that's not what your D experienced. AS far as "ducking" math, well, most don't, but in any event, so could a student in a non-core school, if they so desired.</p>
<p>Wis--as I said above, Columbia does require two courses on non-Western cultures; my S has done one in Middle Eastern culture, and is now starting one on Latin America. Also, the Core lit and civ courses incorporate more non-Western, non-white, and non-male authors, in keeping with current, less DWM, thinking.</p>
<p>My S would laugh at the idea that he's getting an 18th century education. Students at core colleges still have majors, and of course the core classes do not stop at the 18th, or 20th for that matter, centuries. His Frontiers of Science class dealt with, duh, frontiers.</p>
<p>Since Columbia gets more press for being far left wing, I'm guessing the advocates for its program are not thus for facile political reasons.</p>
<p>Science pervades all aspects of society- our food and water supply, climate changes, pollution, medical issues, bio-ethics, war, urban planning, international business, on and on...why then should a core curriculum be so light on science (one semester or bio, physical, and math) and so heavy on literature and history? Not that the latter isn't important, but without an understanding of scientific principles, just about every issue we face in the world today is nonsensical. How can one who is steeped in classical studies, but ignorant of science, be expected to form an informed opinion on, say, stem cell research or global warming?</p>
<p>
[quote]
In fact, at U of C, most kids complete at least elementary calculus, even if they are english majors. This is in addition to the humanities, social science and natural science core
[/quote]
</p>
<p>No longer true. My guess is your alum friend graduated at least ten years ago, before Chicago's core got somewhat of a face lift and became less cumbersome. (This "new" core helped make the school more popular, but it did push the president who put it in place to resign, and you'll still hear a lot of profs-- and students-- talking about the good ol' days).</p>
<p>For me, core is not really about the canon as much as it is about voluntarily putting myself in a position to be challenged, mystified, and frustrated, and doing it with other people. You might want to curse out your copy of Aristotle's Ethics, but only at a school like Chicago (or Reed, or St. John's or Columbia) can you go to your dorm's lounge and complain about Aristotle to somebody who did that reading too.</p>
<p>Chicago's core is also not exclusively dead white males, and students have a number of options for fulfilling each component of Core, and can choose a class that overlaps with their interest the most.</p>
<p>The argument for core courses is the reason many parents send their kids to private high schools with a focus on academically challenging liberal arts courses. These students attain a solid LA base of knowledge and are equipped to choose their college path and specialize as they see fit.</p>
<p>DP--at C, students must take at least three semesters of science. Outside of science majors, I'm not sure if there are that many schools that require more (S took Frontiers, two semesters of Astro, Physics, and Calc (and is in Oceanography,just for the fun of it, now.))</p>
<p>unalove: Your well-written andappealing post makes the best argument.</p>
<p>We went from the question, "Should the core be required at every college?" (no) to "Should the core exist at all? (of course, for those students who want to be well-versed in the major texts of Western civilization +). As garland has pointed out, both core and non-core schools offer wonderful educations. As bethievt has pointed out, we have choices and can choose the programs that suit our goals. Since knowledge is now too broad to be mastered by anyone, much will always be left out. It's a matter of goals, style, and desire what we learn and what remains outside the scope of our educations. </p>
<p>I still maintain that a strong Humanities background does acquaint students with scientific ideas, even if the hours spent in the lab are somewhat shortchanged. And how many non-engineering students learn engineering? If engineering had been required for graduation I might be working at a supermarket instead of teaching students to write at a college. I went to school in the wooly sixties - early seventies during which time core and distribution requirements are my school were virtually non-existent. (We had a history of rioting, haha.) I took 60 credits in one major and 30 credits in another, leaving only 30 credits for the minor distribution requirements I had. I took two social science classes and two science classes (non lab), and that's it. Every other class was in the humanities. I now teach Darwin, Freud, Marx, Einstein, E.O. Wilson (biologist/environmentalist), chaos theory, a bit of fractal geometry, etc. etc. I read and teach original texts. It's true I could not actually do work in these other disciplines (and I don't want to), but I can pass on core concepts that are relevant in making social and political decisions on important issues such as global warming. My training in the Humanities taught me to be able to analyze and discourse about texts and understand their historical importance. In fact, many of my friends who are doctors and physicists (most people in my town fall into one of those two categories because of three hospitals in a four mile radius and a major international physics research facility within ten miles) have no idea of significant science outside their disciplines. I presume students of a core at a strong school would likewise emerge with the analytical skills to understand whatever they wanted to. I certainly learned all these various things I teach outside the boundaries of my curriculum.</p>
<p>I might have been a scientist if the sixties had been more encouraging of women going into science, but I am content with the role of I have and the education I had. And I chose it, just as I chose to learn all these other things.</p>
<p>D is at a school with really hairy distribution requirements. She doesn't think she is learning anything past what she already mastered in HS having taken a full complement of math/science/language/humanities/history/economics/government there. She is however, learning new and exciting things in her two majors.</p>
<p>Engineers probably have the most restrictive requirements that prohibit most outside learning, but this suits the goals and aims of most in those disciplines (and teaches people to be able to design, build, calibrate, etc. so many of the things we depend on engineers to do.)</p>
<p>"Engineers probably have the most restrictive requirements that prohibit most outside learning, but this suits the goals and aims of most in those disciplines (and teaches people to be able to design, build, calibrate, etc. so many of the things we depend on engineers to do.)"</p>
<p>Er, no - not even close. The most restrictive programs, by far, are those related to the fine arts. Check out graduation requirements at music conservatories - even those within or associated with top tier universities.</p>
<p>It is of great concern to me that our young citizens can choose a path of specialization which, by its nature, also means they <em>can</em> choose a path of ignorance. I understand, and even admire, those so fascinated by a given path of study that all else is viewed as a distraction. But, at the same time, I want our citizens/leaders to understand the consequences of decisions and choices - across a broad variety of fields. </p>
<p>It can be quite appalling to listen to the arguments put forth and/or believed by supposedly educated individuals. We all need to have a basic understanding of world cultures, philosophies, religions. We all need a basic understanding of science and math. Obviously, some people will get this on their own - but others will not. </p>
<p>I am disappointed that more colleges do not feel a responsibility to "guide" their students choices. I think this is a result of the "marketing orientation" of the colleges - give the students what they want and they will come. Or, perhaps it more that they are afraid if they don't sell them what they want to buy, they will go elsewhere where they can.</p>