Pitfalls & Pluses of Colleges without core and distribution requirements

Parents Forum
1

<p>I have a rising 11th grader and am going up the learning curve on colleges. There are a number of colleges that do not have distribution requirements or a core. It seems to me that advising must be very strong in this case because students can take inappropriate classes or have lopsided courses. </p>

<p>Anyway, I'm wondering if any of you have war stories -- successes and disappointments -- about colleges with this kind of curriculum. </p>

<p>For example, if a student doesn't know his/her major until the end of 10th grade, there may be a problem with prerequisites. On the other hand, it certainly would foster learning for learning's sake in subjects of interest. My college had a core and stringent distribution requirements, so I'm trying to understand what it would be like without these. </p>

<p>Thoughts/experiences please.</p>

2

<p>My son's college (Carnegie Mellon) gave him credit for all of his AP courses. The result was that the only distribution requirements he had were one world history course and one required freshman writing course. His major (computer science) requires a minor, but he'll probably do something else in the sciences (he's thinking physics now). Part of me is appalled and part of me thinks it's just fine. I'm not sure that a couple more history or literature courses would make him that much better educated. Essentially he's just getting more of a European style education where everyone specializes as soon as they get to the university. Sometimes I think the US graduation has a rather shallow if broad knowledge base.</p>

<p>I think it's good that there are both styles of education here. I would have hated to go to a colleges with a core curriculum, but I didn't mind having some distribution requirements.</p>

3

<p>Aren't schools without distribution requirements relatively few and far between?</p>

<p>I'm aware of Brown, Sarah Lawrence, I'm guessing Hampshire and its ilk (maybe Bennington?) also would not, but can someone list other schools that don't have them?</p>

4

<p>Core classes are annoying, but they do help you meet people (sometimes) and they give you classes to take that don't feel like you're wasting time when you don't have a clear idea of what you want to do.</p>

5

<ol>
<li><p>There aren't many colleges with no distribution requirements or required courses. The few I know in that category are relatively small (including Brown -- 1,000 per class is "relatively small") and of course emphasize advising.</p></li>
<li><p>Not knowing your major at the end of 10th grade isn't a problem at all. Not knowing your major until the end of your second year of college isn't usually a problem, either, because most students will have had some idea before than and gotten a prerequisite or two for the possibles under their belts in the process of checking them out. </p></li>
</ol>

<p>But of course, if a student really doesn't know what he wants to study, there can definitely be a problem with prerequisites. However, having a core or strong distributional requirements probably doesn't help with that, since it would be unusual that a student would take some of the prerequisites for his ultimate major because the college forced him to. It may even hurt, since a focus on meeting core or distributional requirements may leave too little room for a student to experiment with what he actually likes during his first two years.</p>

<ol>
<li><p>The vast majority of situations I have seen where a student has trouble completing major requirements fall into two categories: (1) Large public universities where critical classes in popular majors are perennially oversubscribed, and even senior majors aren't guaranteed spots. (2) Students who switch majors late in the game, usually from a science (pre-med) kind of major to something in the humanities or social sciences, where few if any of their previous courses count towards their majors. Those situations can arise with or without a core or distributional requirements.</p></li>
<li><p>I have known people who changed their minds about what they wanted to study because of distributional requirements. My best friend took Rocks for Jocks to meet a science requirement and wound up switching from a History major to Geology (and graduating on time, barely). But I think that's pretty rare. </p></li>
</ol>

<p>A few weeks ago, I was with a group talking to a professor who teaches a core physics-oriented course on global warming designed for non-science-majors. He was very charismatic and impressive. Someone asked him, "Do your students ever get so interested in this that they decide to become scientists?" He answered, "No. I don't think this class has ever produced a scientist, or even a science major. What it has produced is some environmental lawyers."</p>

<ol>
<li><p>Open vs. forced curriculum makes less of a difference than one might think. Kids who are smart enough to get into the no-requirements colleges like Amherst and Brown tend to want a broad general education, and their advisors encourage them in that direction. It's probably a small percentage of students in those schools whose overall course list wouldn't meet most other colleges' distributional requirements, or would fall short by more than a course or two at most.</p></li>
<li><p>This general-education-in-college thing is fairly unique to the United States. In most of the world, university students do not have requirements other than their major requirements, and people don't place a high value on dabbling in fields that one isn't going to pursue. In the U.S., colleges with no-requirements curriculums come across as vaguely hippie-ish, but in global terms that's the conservative position, and the American mainstream general education curriculum is mushily romantic.</p></li>
</ol>

6

<p>I think at least the following should be on the no required courses list : Amherst, Brown, Grinnell, Hamilton, New School General Studies Program (for "adults" only), Smith. I think--but am not certain--that Haverford requires one English course, but otherwise has no requirements. </p>

<p>The benefits:</p>

<p>(1) You're always in classes with people who are interested in the subject. If you ARE interested in something like astronomy or geology,i.e., subjects which lots of people take only to fill requirements, this is a big advantage. It's tough to be in a course where most people just aren't all that interested when you really are. In many cases, teaching the introductory courses is seen as a chore and something to be assigned to the most junior faculty. So, if you ARE interested, you may also end up being taught by a prof who resents having to teach the course. Taking intro geology or astronomy at a school without distribution requirements is usually a MUCH better experience than taking one at a school with distribution requirements. </p>

<p>(2) Many schools with distribution requirements have special courses for non-majors, particularly in math and science. Sometimes, as JHS's post states, you get interesting profs to teach these courses. Too often, they are watered down and really aren't college level work at all and are taught by profs who are very junior and aren't interested in teaching the course. The great thing about Brown's S/NC (satisfactory/no credit) grading system is that non-science majors can take the SAME courses as science majors S/NC without worrying that they will mess up their gpa for law school, etc. That means that instead of taking Rocks for Jocks or Clapping for Credit, the non-major takes more rigorous--and usually more interesting--courses. </p>

<p>(At many schools with distribution requirements, you are allowed to take a certain number of courses pass/fail. However, at many of them, profs are entitled to require all students to take their classes for a grade. Look at the course catalogs in the sciences especially and you'll find that the courses students rave about as "fantastic" state that students can't take them pass/fail. )</p>

<p>(3) Many students with distribution requirements have "gateway" courses, even when more narrowly focused courses don't really require the information. For example, you'll usually find a big huge psychology 1 or 101 course that MUST be taken before any other psych courses. Sometimes there are 2 or 3 gateway courses which MUST be taken before you get to the good stuff. At a school like Brown, "gateway" courses are uncommon. If a student is interested in a particular subject, say adolescent pyschology, it may be possible to take the course without taking prerequisites, especially on a pass/fail basis. </p>

<p>(4) The need to fill distribution requirements can distort a student's course selection. If you must take a certain number of classes from group A, B, C, and D, a student may pass over a course in any given group because (s)he has already filled requirements in it. A music major, for example, may not take any art courses because they are in the same group as music. A biology major may not take an astronomy course for the same reason. A student who has to fill foreign language requirements will pass on other subjects only tangentially related because they are in the same group. If a foreign language is considered part of the "humanities group," the student may pass on English or literature courses because they are in that group.</p>

<p>At a school with no distribution requirements, I think it's more likely that a student who is interested in poli sci and thinks it's his/her probable major might also try anthropology or sociology or some other social science and get a better match. The student who thinks he will major in poli sci at a school with distribution requirements is, IMO, less likely to try courses in allied fields early on--(s)he's too busy trying to make sure he meets requirements in other groups.</p>

7

<p>Twenty-five years ago or so, I transferred from a state college with really minimal distribution requirements to a liberal arts college that had a stringent core curriculum. The school had what I wanted, but I was disgusted at the additional courses "not even in my major" I had to take. Until I took them.</p>

<p>The courses I took in that core curriculum - art, music, theology, all sorts of things - have enriched my life far more than almost any of my major classes. I think a core curriculum is a fantastic idea. Often, young adults are short-sighted and impatient. They want to get it done and get out in the real world. The American historic cultural belief is that to be truly educated, a student should have a broad liberal arts foundation - be a Renaissance man, so to speak. That's the kind of education our founding fathers had and it served them well. That heritage of not merely being trained to fill a place in the machine, but to have a depth of knowledge across the curriculum, is, I believe, foundational to what makes America successful in the world - innovation, leadership, entrepreneurship, being able to think outside the box. A core curriculum makes sure students have that foundation despite themselves.</p>

8

<p>My daughters top two choices for college- were very different.
One didn't have grades- no majors, only " concentrations".
The courses are interdisciplinary- usually taught in teams.
The program may run for a qtr or all year, not leaving room for anything else.
You had to approach the instructors at a "fair" to register & explain your interest and preparation.
It sounded flexible- a little too flexible, but could be very exciting for someone who was focused and could keep track of their goal.
But if you had a tendency to take what sounds good at the time, you could end up with a degree that might be well suited to " jack of all trades - master of none"</p>

<p>The school where she decided to go - didn't routinely give grades- you had to make an appt with your advisor to see them.
Courses were structured and majors had few electives that weren't distribution requirements compared to some schools.
At least one course, was required of all freshmen- not one course from that distribution but * that course* Hum 110.
year long course- 1 & 1/2 credit course that was the basis of an education from that college.</p>

<p>I think it benefits many students to attend college with strong distribution requirements. a broadbase education , will serve them best in the long run.</p>

9

<p>American college education is designed to complement (and to act as palliative) to American high school education.
In the French education system, a high school student must study two foreign languages, all three sciences, math, literature, history. This is from 6th grade through 12th grade. A Baccalaureat holder is usually considered eligible for Advanced Standing at many top American colleges as a result of this broad education. A lot of distribution requirements are really designed to make up for the fact that American high schoolers do not have to take math to the same level (currently all 12th graders must be exposed to calculus) or all 3 sciences.</p>

<p>But the strength of the American college education is not just that it allows second and third chances at changing majors, it exposes students to different disciplines and methodologies (environmental lawyers are a good illustration of this).
My S, who would have happily taken courses in a very narrow range of subjects seems to have enjoyed the gen ed classes he's taken. That's a good thing, as it enables me to have decent conversations with him!</p>

10

<p>^^ Sounds a lot like Reed.:D</p>

<p>I too would like to hear different points of view about the open curriculum.</p>

11

<p>I am in the midst of analyzing survey responses from a class of seniors who just graduated. One of the things we asked was whether they wished they'd done something differently. It was open-ended--they could write about anything.</p>

<p>A surprising lot of them said they wished they'd taken a broader variety of classes. Things outside of their major, things they were interested in that had nothing (directly) to do with their intended job, things that would make them more well-rounded.</p>

<p>This university has a distribution requirement, so most of them were forced to take a variety of things. But upon graduation a good many of them wish they'd done even more. I think that's pretty interesting.</p>

12

<p>Thank you for all your thoughtful responses. In my original post, I meant declaring a major at the end of sophomore year -- not 10th grade. See, I have to think college and not high school! </p>

<p>When we drove to the midwest last summer, we visited a few colleges. Grinnell was one of them, and after visiting he became enamored with the idea of having the freedom to pick his own courses. He has always been at small independent schools with college-oriented courses and limited selection. Anyway, I may suggest that he look at Hamilton, Amherst and Haverford and others that might be good for him. I know they are very competitive. </p>

<p>At this point in time, he is only considering the possibilities out there. I suspect that he will gravitate to schools without stringent distribution requirements and will consider no requirements a plus.</p>

13

<p>Burb- at the end of the day I predict that your son will come to realize that this is a small factor among a lot of huge factors. A kid who wants MIT is not likely to be turned off by the relatively large number of required science and math courses (and how rigorous they are... even for humanities majors). A kid who is interested in Brown is only going to become marginally more interested by the "no core" philosophy. There's nothing to stop a kid at a no-core school from taking a wide range of courses in a well balanced manner, and there's no reason why a kid at a heavy core school can't also indulge their interests in other, non-major or non-core areas. 4 years, two semesters, 4-5 courses per semester... that covers a lot of art, music, philosophy, theology, history, and literature... even for a polymath.</p>

<p>Not a big factor in my opinion. YMMV.</p>

14

<p>I went to Smirh that had open-curriculum. I honestly didn't really know what to take in my first semester so I used their Latin Honors requirements as basis for my course selection in my first year. The requirements for gaining Latin Honors at Smith was very much like your typical distriubtion requirement- one class in literature, humanities, social sciences, mathematics, science, foreign language, etc. It just really helped to structure my course selection even though I knew that I wanted to spend time with the Russian department.</p>

<p>Luckily, my ciredts transferred easily to Colgate, completely antithesis of Smith. Not only we had distribution requirements but we had to do the Core curriculum. I had already done all of my distributions at Smith except for a math class. But I had to take 2 Core classes, which I would say, not all that great. One of them was in cultures which I picked Israel- funny, I ended up studying there so I had all the basics of Israeli history. I ended up impressing my Israeli friends with my knowledge :) The other core class was "Art & Chemistry." I did appreciate the scientific side of art and oil paintings and now look at paintings much more carefully in museusm. Other than those, I wish I had picked better courses with better professors.</p>

<p>That math class? I eventually took it in the fall of my senior year and by that point, I just wanted to be done and over with. So I just did the minimum work and yes, that C ended up killing my GPA a bit.</p>

<p>I say that distribution requirements tend to work well within the first two years when the studenti's not so focused on the major otherwise, there's a potential for students to bomb them in their senior year when they're exhausted.</p>

<p>Did I wish I had taken other courses? YES! The more I got into my major (really starting in the fall of my junior year), the more I wanted to take sociology, anthropology, and religion courses to help supplement my history classes. Unfortunately, the introductory courses were closed to seniors. :( Now I have to...read on my own for my research in graduate school instead of relying on my memory from those lectures.</p>

15

<p>Another thing to keep in mind is that not all distribution requirements are created equally. If your S is interested in a school that has them, make sure he looks at the course catalog. My D was not looking forward to her new school's requirements ... until she saw the very cool classes she could pick from. Her old school had prerequisites that kept her from taking some of the classes she would like to have taken ... her new school offers classes she likes that don't require prereqs. Each kid is different, so it's important for your S to see if HE likes/doesn't like the requirements at a given school.</p>

16

<p>This may be an apocryphal tale but I read somewhere that a study revealed that toddlers, when given a free hand to choose their own food from a buffet, would eventually balance their own diets. They would initially gravitate toward the cookies, but overtime, left to their own devices, would eventually head for the broccoli.</p>

<p>Colleges that have no distribution requirements follow that theory, that college students are smart and mature enough to know that they should take advantage of all the wonders of academia and supplement math with Shakespeare or philosophy with physics. Maybe they are, maybe some are. It would make an interesting study.</p>

<p>Most distribution requirements are in no way onerous. For example, at Williams you need to take three courses each from three very general categories. If you're a math/science student and you can't find three classes in English, Foreign Language, Art, Art History, Drama, Music etc. that appeal to you maybe you shouldn't be at Williams. Same goes for the English major: surely among physics, geology, oceanography, biology, chemistry, environmental science, astronomy, and all of math you'd find something interesting.</p>

<p>Williams (and I would guess other colleges and universities that promote the liberal arts) also has minimal requirements to complete a major. In fact they limit the number of classes that you can take in your major each semester and encourage double, even triple majoring.</p>

<p>Or to turn the argument upside down, since all intellectually curious students would choose to take classes in a range of disciplines, there's no downside to having distribution requirements.</p>

17

<p>U of Rochester has one required freshman writing course and distribution requirements among hard science, social science and humanities. Net result > it is easy to double major with the flexibility Rochester offers.</p>

18

<p>My oldest daughter just completed her sophomore year at Brown. One of the main reasons she chose the school was its open curriculum. Though she knew her major when she applied (Math & Economics), she's taken a variety of courses in different disciplines (e.g. Political Thought, Public Educational Policy, Psychology, Spanish, etc) and studied abroad. She's self-directed and revels in the opportunity to select courses outside her concentration.</p>

<p>Her younger sister is about to apply and won't even consider colleges with a core. (She even argues against applying to schools with distribution requirements.)</p>

<p>For the right type of student (self-directed), this can work very well. But it's not for everyone. And there's something to be said for ensuring that students ALL come out of college with certain basic skills... such as the ability to write a concise report that's easy to comprehend.</p>

19

<p>There is a program at Cornell called the College Scholar Program which allows you to design your own major and frees you from distribution requirements. You apply in your freshman year (there is a minimum GPA requirement). It was great for me. I designed my own major (I had to prove that it was something that went beyond the scope of the regular program) and spent the next three and a half years taking only literature and art history classes. When I applied to grad school for art history they really didn’t care that I hadn’t taken math and science in college. However, this only works for students who have a clear direction. I knew I wanted to study English and Art History when I was a freshman so it was perfect for me.</p>