<p>If I had a say in what was required at a college, I would have only two requirements: a writing course and a course on understanding politics/government/what’s going on in this country and the world.</p>
<p>I would leave the rest up to the student. I strongly believe that an open curriculum is good for the student AND the classes the student is in, since most students actually WANT to be in the classes, rather than having to take them to fulfill a core requirement. When students drag themselves to classes to fulfill a core requirement that doesn’t interest them, their boredom, misery and inertia create an unwelcome environment for fellow students and the professor. </p>
<p>If I trust my child enough to go off to college on his own, make choices about how he lives, make decisions about sex, drugs, and rock n roll, so to speak, and choose a major that will lead to a career, I should certainly trust that he will be able to pick classes that will be enriching enough for him.</p>
<p>Both of my kids went to universities with strong core course requirements. Both of my kids also entered college with a major in mind and graduated with a degree in that major.</p>
<p>HOWEVER, we had a conversation with them about their core requirements and both really liked them. They felt these requirements gave them the opportunity to learn in areas they might not have otherwise chosen. Both had a favorite core course that didn’t relate to their major at all. </p>
<p>We strongly encouraged our kids to look at schools with core requirements. We wanted them to take courses in disciplines other than their chosen majors. </p>
<p>Oh…and both spread their core requirements over the four years as it gave them a “break” from courses in their majors.</p>
<p>My experience with my two oldest pretty much mirrors Thumper’s. Both kids did either a minor or tweaked their major concentration based on classes they took to fulfill core requirements. Both were also able to grab arts classes that they may or may not have taken had they not needed to fulfill a requirement.</p>
<p>Momofthreeboys & Thumper1 - I expect that will be similar to what D3 will experience - being able to enjoy some of her core curriculum as a break.</p>
<p>D2 however has a major that requires 130 credit hours - which really winds up being MUCH more than that. They don’t get credit for all of the hours actually spent in class, and there are required workshops that they also don’t get credit hours for. She’s VERY fortunate she got her core out of the way in high school. Fortunately her major is also her passion, and there’s nothing she’d rather be doing.</p>
<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>
<p>MIT’s core curriculum does not have any “Eurocentric” requirements; the specified courses (with limited options for honors or more advanced courses based on prior preparation) are in math, physics, chemistry, and biology; humanities, arts, and social studies are required, but students can choose any subject areas for these.</p>
<p>Cromette, it was a service academy. I like to think it’s the best example of a liberal arts curriculum since you have to take a little bit of everything. BTW, my major was management and finance.</p>
<p>The core curriculum “sounds” like a great idea, you should take courses outside your area of interest, get exposed to other students and ideas. Learn a language, be familiar with science, history, art.</p>
<p>In practice, it doesnt really work. Due to core curriculum I took astronomy and rocks for jocks. Really a waste of time, and doesn’t help me when I’m discussing issues like genetics that we face today.</p>
<p>My older son school has area requirements. He’s a math major but none of his math courses count towards the math/science requirement. </p>
<p>He also has a foreign language requirement - which he despises. In theory this makes him a better citizen of the world. In practice, its a waste of time and he will never use this skill. It mostly seems a ploy to prop up the language department by forcing students to choose these courses.</p>
<p>It’s also interesting the assumption that if there weren’t core requirements, students would not take a range of courses. Just check out Brown U. and you’ll see that students, all on their own, will choose courses across disciplines.</p>
<p>I think the following elements can contribute to the effectiveness of a core curriculum:</p>
<ul>
<li>Motivated, curious students</li>
<li>Small classes </li>
<li>Lots of discussion in and out of class</li>
<li>Experienced professors who understand how to prompt a discussion and keep it on track </li>
<li>Use of rich primary source materials</li>
<li>Focus on big, enduring questions that cross academic boundaries</li>
<li>Willingness to question the meaning of things (words, data, concepts)</li>
<li>Challenging writing assignments and exams</li>
<li>Respect for different points of view; openness to persuasion</li>
<li>Respect for clear definitions and convincing evidence </li>
<li>Academic freedom (freedom to think and speak; freedom from political or economic pressures)</li>
<li>Continual reassessment of the curriculum and whether it is effective</li>
</ul>
<p>Most of the same elements can contribute to the effectiveness of an “Open” curriculum, too. However, in a Core model, the faculty sets the standards for what kinds of knowledge are most worth having (not the individual student, not the government, not social or market forces).</p>
<p>This is more dependent on the campus culture and individual students. Although Oberlin didn’t have a core curriculum beyond general distribution requirements, one of my fondest undergrad memories was having long meandering discussions on a wide variety of topics including political philosophies, History, Science Ethics as applied in genetics, Sociology, Literature, music, etc and how they related to our perceptions of the world. </p>
<p>Those conversations drew from what we were learning in class and from other sources and tended to get so interesting and involved that they’d continue into the following day if we didn’t have class/exams/ECs/part-time jobs to prepare for the following day/week. </p>
<p>Funniest part was not having a “Core Curriculum” ended up working well because we had a wide variety of majors evenly distributed among Humanities, Social Science, Natural Sciences, and the Conservatory. </p>
<p>As for the OP’s question…whether a Core Curriculum is effective or not really depends on its intended purpose and whether the students subjected to it are engaged and interested or not. I’ve seen plenty of Columbia College undergrads who weren’t terribly engaged and interested for a variety of reasons…including not understanding the implications of Columbia’s “Core Curriculum” undergrad program until they were enrolled for a semester or few. Hard to believe…but true.</p>
<p>My son attends Brown, with its well-known open curriculum. I think “wanting to be there” can often make a world of difference in the classroom experience: The discussions are more intense and, should you need to collaborate on a project, you can count on the other student to work on it enthusiastically, too.</p>
<p>It seems to be a selling point when hiring professors, too: Imagine a classroom where everyone is paying attention!</p>
<p>While an open curriculum reduces the number of students taking unwanted breadth requirements, there could be students in some courses who are not all that interested in them, but have to take them for their majors (they are more interested in some other subareas of the major), or “need” to take them for some other reason (e.g. pre-med).</p>
<p>Note that engineering majors at Brown do have to take out-of-major humanities and social studies courses, as this is required for ABET accreditation. This makes these majors exceptions to the open curriculum.</p>
<p>You are certainly right to a degree, ucbalumnus, but I also got the sense that the courses are often designed differently at Brown: You don’t always need to waste a semester taking a dull general Intro to X class just to be able to take a more interesting variant that has Intro to X as a prerequisite. Since Brown encourages buffet-style sampling, you’ll often see an interesting class that incorporates the general intro material while focusing on a more interesting specialized sub-area of the field.</p>