<p>b@r!um: Personally, it just isn't flexible enough because I would still be forced to take classes from areas I quite honestly don't have any interest in. That's just me. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with the system, but it just doesn't suit my style. I prefer to just concentrate on the subjects I love.</p>
<p>hoedown, as I've said before, being exposed is wonderful; in my opinion, studying a specific field in depth is even better.</p>
<p>My two cents...</p>
<p>I have no idea why anyone would be forced to take math in college, especially if they finished Calc in high school. If one is positive one is not going into a math or science career, it's really a waste of time. Someone please tell me how one will use derivatives in the business world? Besides, advanced math for business should be gotten in B school. Students already learned everything they need for the real world in 11th grade math. I think time would be better spent honing skills one will really need and use. The same goes for science. If one has already had biology, physics, and chemistry, one has already learned more than one will ever need in one's adult life. Improving English language skills is probably something everyone should continue in college. That should be a requirement, as well as perhaps an introductory course in Economics, Psychology, and Statistics (unless done in high school). Beyond that, at last students should be free to pursue a rigorous academic path of their choosing (with few requirements).</p>
<p>As someone going to Brown, I completely agree with those who favor an open curriculum. As someone previously said, High School is where I have exposed myself to a variety of disciplines, taking two AP sciences, multivariable calculus, as well as numerous foreign languages, English, and history classes. At this point, while I enjoy most subjects, I don't feel that I truly want to extend myself much further in math or science, while I'd much prefer to focus on languages and history and expose myself to new disciplines like economics and anthropology. Open curriculums are not for those who want to avoid taking classes. They are for those who already have a broad education and want to spend four years doing what they love and taking classes with people who are passionate about a wide range of subject matters. </p>
<p>Core curriculums or distribution requirements have a good philosophy but they often result in liberal arts students taking easy science classes and science students taking easy liberal arts classes. I remember at Tufts when the admission rep gushed about how you can fulfill your science requirement with "Wildflowers of the Swiss Alps." Penn talked about "Physics for Poets." Even Chicago has some sort of environment class just so that non-science majors satisfy all of their requirments. Why should I waste my time in a bs class when I could be studying medieval literature or something? Core curriculums also make it difficult for someone to get a deep education in more than one discipline, since you have to get requirements out of the way. I certainly understand that people should come out of college with broad knowledge of the humanities, natural sciences, and social sciences, but I think that this is better accomplished through actually studying the different subjects, not taking a surface approach to them as happens in most cores. </p>
<p>In an open curriculum, even seniors can experiment with new subjects and classes, so long as they fulfill their major. In a core or distribution system, freshmen and sophomores take required classes, while juniors and seniors focus solely on their majors.</p>
<p>I love learning and really considered attending a school with a core curriculum, and i'll probably take a broad curriculum at Brown that theoretically would satisfy some college's core. Regardless, I love the philosophy that, for four years of my life, I can devote myself to any and every class that I so choose.</p>
<p>"I guess I don't really like the thought of taking four years to learn how to learn. I already love learning, already know how"</p>
<p>It's wonderful that you love learning. That cannot be said of all college students. But don't assume that you already "know how" to learn. I don't know you and don't know what you know. However, based on my many years of experience with college students, I can tell you that there's a lot to learn about learning! Most students don't have the ability to learn in a rigorous way. While they may have curiosity and motivation, they just don't have the analytical tools to deal with a text or situation in a detailed and focused way.</p>
<p>Also, why I certainly understand you not wanting to take certain subjects, with all due respect, I've found that when people are exposed to topics, even those they think they don't care about, sometimes they find much of interest. In some cases, people even switch their focus or find ways to incorporate the new interest into what they already care about. Often the most creative and innovative approaches come out of these intersections, and these can surprise the student or other knowledge-seeker.</p>
<p>And while I hear you about not wanting to take four years to do something, you will live those four years and do SOMETHING. You will be four years older four years from now. So why not take the time to learn how to learn, as those skills will be useful for the rest of your life?</p>
<p>lol, I was starting to wonder if I was the only person on here that preferred the open curriculum. Jen89 also made a great point about the BS classes - I hadn't even thought of that, but it's definitely true.</p>
<p>Kheryn, lets agree that we have different personal preferences.</p>
<p>However, in your very first post you asked about the definition of a liberal arts education and Wikipedia cleraly supports my/our opinion(s). It says that liberal arts refer to "studies that are intended to provide general knowledge and general intellectual skills rather than more specialized occupational, scientific, or artistic skills." In that context it makes perfect sense for LACs to have a core curriculum or distribution requirements so that students don't study humanities or sciences only.
I don't know if you have noticed it but most small liberal arts colleges award BA degrees only. In contrast to BS degrees BA degrees are awarded after a more "general" program of studies while BS degrees at general universities require more in-depth classes in one or two related subjects.</p>
<p>I am going to come to the States exactly because I don't want to study one subject exclusively for my undergraduate degree (which is what would expect me at German universities). If you want to have a different college experience , that's fine with me. It's just not the purpose of a "liberal arts" education.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I have no idea why anyone would be forced to take math in college, especially if they finished Calc in high school.
[/quote]
You simply transfer the AP or IB Calc credit and fulfill your math requirement that way. No college I am aware of requires all students regardless of major to take a math class that's more advanced than Calc BC.</p>
<p>momfromme, I don't think requirements will teach a student how to handle a rigorous system, if that's what you're saying. Learning how to think differently and analyze is something I hope is found in all colleges, and will certainly be found in all of the open curriculum colleges I know about. SLC, for example, forces the students to think differently in the seminar classes. I don't think that ability is a result of someone spreading themselves thinly over numerous subjects.</p>
<p>I know about finding interest in unexpected places. I HATE science - with a passion. Yet last year, I took Marine Biology... and because it was so hands on, I fell in love with the class. I even ended up getting the award for the best student in the class. Still, while it was interesting, I know for sure that my future won't be found in the sciences - as it certainly won't be found in math. I've always known I'll be a writer; writing is really the only thing that makes me happy. I'm quite positive that won't change. It's different with every individual. You must have a specific passion yourself, something that you can see yourself doing for the rest of your life. </p>
<p>For the rest of my life, I want to do things that are exciting and interesting. I don't want to have to do anything reluctantly. I already have my plans for life during and after college. Sure, plans change, but I doubt that mine will. It's what I've been looking forward to since I was ten years old.</p>
<p>kheryn:</p>
<p>perhaps you missed (or ignored) Jen's comment "that people should come out of college with broad knowledge of the humanities, natural sciences, and social sciences..." Obviously, that is impossible with a writing only curriculum. But, more importantly, the Pres of Brown is frequently quoted as saying that they open curriculum results in most students taking their own distributives, i.e, classes outside their field or major. </p>
<p>Think about it this way: Vonnegut was a great writer bcos he understood science and made his novels believable. Dean Koontz is making millions bcos he can do the same.</p>
<p>"Sure, plans change, but I doubt that mine will. It's what I've been looking forward to since I was ten years old."</p>
<p>Cool. But I know one person who was already admitted to med school, which had been a life-long dream, who took a ceramics course, decided not to go to med school, and who now shows ceramics in galleries and runs a ceramics school. I know someone else who wanted to be a fiction writer who took a bio class and then decided to focus on science writing; he is now a science journalist. I know someone else who was an English major who got interested in health care and then went back to school, post B.A., and took the med school science requirements and who is now a doctor. Frankly, I have many more stories like this!</p>
<p>The point is: You just don't know what you will do, particularly if you project over the course of your lifetime. People change careers more than you used to and your best preparation for a flexible, engaged life is to have a broad education that will allow you to follow your developing passions.</p>
<p>b@r!um, read the entire Wikipedia article, and you'll see that it clearly states that the core curriculum made up medieval universities - and that the "scope of the liberal arts has changed with society." That said, the USA has extremely traditional institutions where you'll surely find the core curriculum; but the USA is also growing to be nontraditional and more innovative in the schools, as seen with SLC, Brown, and other open curriculum schools.</p>
<p>Go further down: it states that colleges TYPICALLY have requirements. Typically is used to avoid the use of a stereotype, meaning that there are clearly Liberal Arts Colleges that don't have any requirements. Meaning that yes: open curriculum schools are liberal arts colleges too.</p>
<p>And, just for good measure, the Sarah Lawrence College article calls it a private liberal arts college.</p>
<p>Honestly, the point of this thread wasn't to get technical with dictionary definitions; it was to express opinions on personal definitions. I don't know, maybe I'm being overly sensitive, but I feel slightly insulted that you would try to state that core curriculum schools are better than open curriculum schools as though it were fact. I accept it if that's your opinion; I've accepted everyone's opinions. There's no problem with that. But please don't try to state your opinion as though it were fact. It's just unnecessary.</p>
<p>bluebayou, that's Jen's opinion - and your opinion. I think it's an interesting idea, but no: personally, I don't think that's necessary at all. </p>
<p>As I've said before, open curriculum schools allow students to study different subjects in depth. It differs with every individual, but I know that I plan on studying history, LGBT studies, and writing in depth. That'll let me write novels with extensive knowledge on famous homosexuals throughout history. Besides, if I don't like math or science, why would I want to write a novel on those subjects?</p>
<p>momfromme:</p>
<p>Yet not everyone changes their plans, do they? Sure, there are people who suddenly have an epiphany about themselves; but by this time, I'm pretty positive that I know myself enough to know that I won't ever like anything to do with math.</p>
<p>I didn't want to bring it up before because I was trying to keep this a general conversation instead of just focusing in on my individual issues, but I have a LD in math. I don't understand numbers - at all. At the same time, I'm considered far above average in writing. Those are the facts, and they're reflected in my personality. If I go a few days without writing stories, I get depressed. It's my passion - it's a part of me.</p>
<p>I doubt that I'm going to pick up a calculator one day and decide that I want to study math for the rest of my life.</p>
<p>Besides, as I've said before, I don't care much about jobs or money. As long as I'm learning about something I love, I'm content.</p>
<p>bcos "history" does not exist in a vacuum-history occurs bcos of science, history occurs because of math, history occurs bcos of technology; history occurs bcos of languages; and on an on....</p>
<p>I never said that academic requirements are better than an open curriculum or that schools with an open curriculum do not provide a liberal arts education (I applied to Smith which also has an open curriculum).</p>
<p>What I did say was that it makes perfect sense that a college that wants to offer a broad liberal arts education to its students does implement some academic requirements (be it a core or distribution requirements). I said that in my opinion some requirements are a good idea. I did NOT say that those requirements are necessary or that they are appropriate for every student.</p>
<p>bluebayou, there's a difference between learning about the Industrial Revolution fleetingly and studying how to make an engine in depth.</p>
<p>I would prefer to know the facts about the Industrial Revolution and move on. There's no point in me lingering half-heartedly.</p>
<p>b@r!um: Thanks for making that clear.</p>
<p>b@r!um, Phi Beta Kappa also agrees with the concept that you (and wikipedia, and some of the rest of us) put forth. I knew some people at my college who missed being in Phi Beta Kappa solely because they hadn't taken enough breadth.</p>
<p>
[quote]
in my opinion, studying a specific field in depth is even better.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Kheryn, you respond as if distribution requirements lead to dilletantism. Breadth does not preclude study in depth. Colleges can promote both. The major, or concentration, is designed around the concept of study-in-depth, and that's a convention that nearly all colleges adopt, even those with a core curriculum.</p>
<p>I reject the notion that "BS" classes cannot still have worth, even if they are Physics for Poets instead of Theorhetical Physics for physics majors. I think that exposure to a wide variety of courses at the college level is important, and that even if a brillant writer only learns about flowers and low-level calculus in the science department of his or her college, she/he is better off than having not taken the class. </p>
<p>I'm not saying that an open curriculum is all bad, or even that someone who simply does not want to take another math or english or science or whatever course cannot still have a pretty well-rounded education. But it does concern me that people in these kind of enviornments can drop not just one or even two subjects--they can drop pretty much everything not related to their major, if they so choose. I don't care how much depth you get into--that's not a well-rounded Liberal Arts education. Why go to an LAC or Liberal Arts oriented university if all you want to do is concentrate on ONE thing? I don't really get that. That's why I like the idea of at least distribution requirements...at least everybody has to take SOMETHING in each subject.</p>