<p>Based on your own experience or your child's experience, what do you think works or doesn't work?</p>
<p>Effective at what?</p>
<p>Lots of reading, writing & discussion.
;)</p>
<p>My oldest is in a core curriculum school and is ok with it, but would rather take courses he’d prefer to take. He’s getting a broader education in some respects, but less options in what he specifically would like for that broader education.</p>
<p>My middle is in a school without a specific core curriculum and is enjoying thinking about what he’ll take outside his major.</p>
<p>I prefer the latter, but will let my youngest decide which is right for him himself.</p>
<p>For society as a whole, I don’t see one being better than the other.</p>
<p>DD1’s in a state flagship with a core program and it’s more of a nuisance than anything else. Architecture students take 3-4 history of architecture type classes and are still required to take an 100 level art history class :)</p>
<p>I had very easy to fill distribution requirements and at the time I liked that very much, but I can see the attraction of a core which theoretically ensures that all the students in the school have been exposed to some of the classic works of literature, basics of history and most important ideas in science and math, but I think for well-prepared students it may seem repetitive and is probably not even practical in highly sequential fields like math. The idea of people discussing a common set of classes around the dinner table or late at night in the dorms is very attractive. I think a core works best when taught by excellent teachers in small groups.</p>
<p>I attended a school with a strong core curriculum and I think it turned out very well. I can understand and be party to work discussions ranging from engineering to psychology.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>For sequential fields like math or foreign language, the college could allow well prepared students to skip the beginner or introductory courses and start in more advanced courses, so that they may finish that part of the core or breadth requirements a semester or few early.</p>
<p>I know the point of core curriculum is to ensure a baseline broad education platform upon which to build. </p>
<p>My kids covered most of it in high school Dual and AP classes and aren’t taking much of the core curriculum at all. They prefer it that way. They can get on with what THEY came to college for.</p>
<p>Quebec university-bound students have no such thing as a university-wide, core curriculum. Because what’s in a core curriculum (4 French-language literature courses, 3 philosophy courses and 2 English courses) is made prior to applying to university. So I can’t really judge about undergraduate core curricula.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, but does it really happen?</p>
<p>One of my kids was in a high school IB program where most of the students had to take most of the same courses, so it was very much like a core curriculum. But I don’t think there were ever the kind of intellectual discussions you envison. Sure, the kids talked about the classes, but it was more about what was likely to be on the next test or whether they could get away with not doing some of the reading. I would be very surprised if there were many conversations about course content.</p>
<p>Catria,</p>
<p>Core curriculum here is a lot more.</p>
<p>More like 6 hours of English/Lit., 4-8 hours of Natural Science, 3-6 hours of Math, 12 hours of History and Pol. Science, 3 hours of Arts, 3 hours of Cultural Diversity/Language - and I may be missing some.</p>
<p>Is it really a core curriculum if students can choose different courses to fulfill the requirements?</p>
<p>There are strict core curricula in which everyone takes the same courses to fulfill general education requirements, and then there are colleges that refer to their general education requirements as a “core” but allow for many choices (i.e., a distribution system).</p>
<p>Do you really have a “core” curriculum if one student can take astronomy to fulfill a physical science requirement while another takes geology, or if one student can take European history while another takes Asian history to fulfill the same requirement?</p>
<p>Marian,</p>
<p>The colleges I’ve seen all allow some leeway in class decision - especially in Science and Foreign Language/Culture classes.</p>
<p>Most require the same classes for English/Lit., Pol. Science, History. </p>
<p>The science classes are usually at the same level though (Chemistry I, Astronomy I, Physics I, you get the picture). Math is usually VERY basic, and it’s whatever level for which you test. Some students might take Math for Society, some Algebra and some Calculus I.</p>
<p>Since my side-hobby is travel, if there was anything I could have changed in my “general education” requirements for my undergrad degree, I would have taken the following…</p>
<p>1) Used macro/microeconomics for my social science requirements
2) Used geography for another social science req.
3) Opted for an additional year of foreign language</p>
<p>Sometimes a core curriculum is good to have but it just can’t be too big.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Except at schools like MIT and Caltech, math and science breadth or core requirements can typically be satisfied by easier courses for non-majors.</p>
<p>Good point. I think D2 actually took Introduction to Astronomy - because she’s a Music Education major. You don’t really need Chemistry I or Physics I for that! :)</p>
<p>She also took Math for Society rather than Calculus I</p>
<p>Globaltraveler,</p>
<p>What GREAT suggestions! LOVE IT! In today’s world, this would be fantastic for most Technical/Engineering and Business majors too!</p>
<p>
That’s not true of all colleges. My college only allowed you to pick a language. The rest was core for all students:
Micro/Macro Econ, History, Mech E, EE, Aero, Astro, Calc 1-4, Bio, Chem, Physics, English, Philosophy, Phys Ed, Management, I can’t even remember what else.</p>
<p>The Major courses would go on top of those classes.</p>