<p>A “core curriculum” involves requires that everyone take the same specific courses. It is not the same as requiring a number of credits in humanities, sciences and social sciences. Those in favor like that there is exposure to Western Civilization, for example. Those of us against that concept consider the freedom to explore outside of the Eurocentric world represented by all courses I have ever heard of in a core curriculum. A student may be better versed in Western Civilization but at the expense of not trying something totally outside that box.</p>
<p>Required Honors classes that are surveys of fields instead of taking a course in a field take away time that could be spent delving into things. Japanese/Chinese/Indian… literature is equally mind expanding in understanding the human condition. A century or more ago young men (the vast majority of college students) were expected to learn/know Greek and Latin. Not relevant in today’s world. Likewise limiting precious course credits to specific courses for an entire school means noone has different knowledge they can impart to their classmates.</p>
<p>Having specific course requirements for any specific major is an entirely different matter. Perfectly logical to also have basic math as well as literature skills. Very logical to require a lit major to take certain courses, or a science or engineering major to have a basic foundation. </p>
<p>Core requirements are also not the same as a core curriculum. The latter specifies the courses, not the general areas. Literature requirements don’t limit a student to specific cultures.</p>