<p>Annasdad: That looks pretty good except for the exclusion of Asian history. Shouldn’t chemistry be in there too? </p>
<p>Even without those, I agree that your proposal would be well-rounded. However, what level of proficiency should a college student attain in these subject? Should they be required to pass comprehensive exams in all subjects before graduation? Is learning those subjects at a 4 or 5 AP level in high school sufficient? Should a truly well-rounded student also demonstrate some level of physical fitness as well - rather than my kind of well-roundedness. Even taking calculus as a freshman seems more for show than for any sort of real benefit - if the non - STEM student takes no more math for the next three years, then I doubt that person really knows calculus when he / she graduates. </p>
<p>As for English Lit, what books should every educated person study? Do math majors need to dive into “Ulysses” and “Moby Dick.” How much Shakespeare should educated persons know? Math is quantified into “calc and Stats,” but what is a comparable level of writing skill? Mathematicians and scientists need to be able to write clearly to communicate their ideas to others. Writers do not need to know calculus, stats, physics, etc unless they are writing about those specific subjects. Your proposed curriculum seems desirable, but not necessary. </p>
<p>Also, what level of proficiency should an educated person maintain? “I don’t know much about the science books / I don’t know much about the French I took.” Exposure to a wide variety of subjects is probably a good thing, but retention of knowledge decades later is a problem when one’s field has nothing to do with many subjects - at least it is for me. I can’t read music anymore and cannot read French without a dictionary and a great deal of patience. If that is the case, how much energy should be spent in college becoming “well-rounded”?</p>