<p>I’ve been thinking about this a lot lately, and I thought this portion of a book review spoke so eloquently on the subject. The first sections of the article deal with speech codes/political correctness issues on campus, and frankly, I’m bored with discussing those for the time being. However, I encourage you to read through or past those sections to get to the last one, quoted here:
<a href=“Policy Review | Für die Gesellschaft von Vorteil”>Policy Review | Für die Gesellschaft von Vorteil;
<p>For many kids, a core curriculum is a great thing. Some schools insist on it to the extent that they will not permit any testing out of the courses. They want the kids from different interests to have this common core and they want all of the students to start out with some semblance of a common footing. The goals are important ones, and I applaud them.</p>
<p>However, for some kid who have been balking at the reins throughout highschools, and it is high time that they get to go their own way, such a school may not be the best choice. My friend who is a foreign language advocate, who has fought schools, school district policies, school offerings and requirements due her her fervent belief in the importance of foreign language study in the educational system, recently threw up her hand at her own recalcitrant son who looked for programs with NO foreign language requirements, having dropped his language after sophomore year and picked up a new one junior and then senior year of high school, and has no intention of taking any foreign language for college. It was the bane of his exisitance as it is for some kids. It all depends on the kid.</p>
<p>But I think your friend’s experience makes the case for requiring certain curricula. We make them eat green vegetables, because it’s good for them. If there’s a way out, they will find it. I understand it’s not everyone’s cup of tea, but the idea of a campus where all the students are reading the same great works, and discussing them, has appeal. How many kids do you know who realize that Calvin and Hobbes are more than comic strip characters? Or even realize that Bill Watterston was having fun when he named them?</p>
<p>I read an article in a magazine many years ago in which the author interviewed very famous musicians playing many different instruments from all genres. Among the many common points: they nearly all credited their mothers for “making me take piano” as a child.</p>
<p>For both kids, I insisted that they attend universities with distribution requirements; as it happens, both schools have strong core curricula. Reed’s Humanities 110 course is a phenomenal common bonding experience (EVERYONE takes it, even transfers) as well as being a great intro to “western civ.” I was stunned by how much my D learned, and how much she has carried over into other courses. MIT of course has a strong science and math core with no one course being required of all students but instead a common emphasis on level of basic knowledge. </p>
<p>An advantage I don’t often hear addressed is that a strong common core administered during freshman year allows ALL professors to assume a certain level of knowledge from that point, which allows the instruction to begin at a higher level for many courses.</p>
<p>The best core we saw was the Humanities Core at Scripps. Three courses over two years. All students take it. A lecture (with all first-year students in attendance) and two discussion groups a week, and lots of papers. The entire faculty is involved - from scientists to the historians - and the college pres. as well. Concentration is not only on the material itself, but ways of knowing. We were very, very impressed. (I was once a TA in the Core at Chicago, and thought Scripps’ was superior.)</p>
<p>I ended up doing my “core curriculum” in graduate school - Committee on Social Thought, UChicago. Required MA equivalence in four separate fields, with an emphasis on core material (my masters papers covered Dante, St. John of the Cross, Weber, Marx, Luther, Bhagavad Gita, and Shakuntala). I probably would have loved it as an undergrad, though my English major was a very traditional one (even Milton - blegh!). Surprisingly, my “core curriculum” was in music, which has stood me in better stead than any other part of my education - and I’ve had to use it.</p>
<p>The flip side is that my homeschooled D1 had already studied a core curriculum larger than the one offered at Reed and UChicago, and was ready to go off in new directions. </p>
<p>Discussions of what should be “core” are another matter entirely. ;)</p>
<p>I am a great propenent of solid core curriculums for all of the reasons given. Unfortunately, a number of my kids, and kids I know do not feel the same way. Fortunately, there are colleges that can serve either view. There is a book “Choosing the Right College”, the ISI guide that gives more info on this subject for a number of schools than anything else I have seen. Though the ideaology of the group may not be to many readers’ tastes, there is valuable info in there.</p>
<p>
The great Yale historian and classicist Donald Kagan made the same observation in the early 80s, saying that while he supported the idea of returning Yale to a core curriculum, in practice he would have to oppose it because of the core he felt the faculty there would enact :)</p>
<p>I’m really enjoying the current (2005) edition of “Choosing the Right College.” While some here deride it as a right wing propaganda tool, I’m finding the new edition to be even better than the last, mostly because their real bailiwick is core curriculum, not political correctness/liberal vs. conservative, as is often assumed. A new feature is a list of 8 courses, drawn from each school’s actual curriculum, by which a student so inclined could devise their own “core curriculum.” I really like this feature. Here’s the recommended course of study for a Williams College student who wants to go retro, academically: </p>
<p>Classics 101, Greek Literature
Philosophy 231, Ancient Political Thought
Religion 210, Reading Jesus, Writing Gospels: Christian Origins in Context
Religion 216, The Middle Ages
Political Science 232, Modern Political Thought
English 201, Shakespeare’s Major Plays
History 252a, British Colonial America and the United States to 1877
History 227, Europe’s Long Nineteenth Century</p>
<p>Here’s the one they recommend for Swarthmore:</p>
<p>Classics 33, Homer and Greek Tragedy
Philosophy 102, Ancient Philosophy
Religion 4, New Testament and Early Christianity
Religion 5b, Introduction to Christianity (closest match)
Political Science 12, Modern Political Theory
English Literature 20, Shakespeare
History 5a, The United States to 1877
Philosophy 49, Marx, Nietzche, and Freud</p>
<p>I don’t think it matters, to be honest, what core curriculum a school chooses; I think it does matter that it choose one, precisely because of the subsequent learning enabled by a core set of courses.</p>
<p>I do think prospective students must be aware of the core when selecting a college, making sure that it meets their needs.</p>
<p>My D, who has a love of learning decided on a school without a core or requirements. For her, this will be wonderful. She felt restrained in HS, trying to meet the requirements and keep her GPA up and quenching her curiosity. Curiosity lost out for 4 years. She will be taking all those philosphy, biology, calculus, medieval studies, art history, music theory and ancient lit classes that might or might not be in the core, anyway, but will be able to do it because she wants to learn the subject. She is a true Renaissance woman with interests in many fields, so her college will give her the freedom to explore and learn. The core didn’t bother her, as she was accepted at UofCh, but their FA was lacking, so out of the other schools, she chose one without a core, but will wind up taking what could be a diverse core in another school. For her, it didn’t matter. For another student, it could be a problem, becuase they could focus on just a few areas and not get the well-rounded education my DD will even without a core.</p>
<p>A few comments on core/open:</p>
<p>My college had no core curriculum and no distribution requirements-- but when they analyze the records of graduates, something like 90% have chosen a program that would fulfill typical distribution requirements anyhow.</p>
<p>The obvious appeal of no requirements to an 18 year old is that they can set down subjects they simply don’t like very much. For me, it was math. Kids heading to Brown or Vassar have surely taken enough math to have reliably hit a point where they either want to go on or not.</p>
<p>Practical benefits: You can choose your schedule on a semester by semester basis picking the classes that fascinate you most, without having to worry about getting some reqirement in. You will always be 100% engaged in your classes as will everyone else in your classes. Nobody is logging time, ever. </p>
<p>Finally-- and this took me by surprise-- I graduated with a much greater sense of adventure/competence/certainty/passion than many of my friends at other schools. The discipline of having complete autonomy over choices-- of making your own way, of being able, yes, to squander your time OR to make it valuable-- this really kick starts one’s adult independence. </p>
<p>For me those 4 years of complete interest in what I was doing set a rather high bar for me for my adult life-- to be passionate & engaged. I also had the skills and experience to be a good steward of my time and energy, a clear sense of what I most loved to do, and the certainty that I could make my way and recover from mistakes.</p>
<p>I do not knock core, it has big benefits. I just wanted to point out that open does too.</p>
<p>For others it might be language. After four years of Latin followed by three years of Spanish my D said No Mas, and greatly appreciates that her school, while having distribution requirements, has no core or foreign language requirement.</p>
<p>I should have added that the “Core” as described at Scripps <a href=“http://www.scrippscol.edu/dept/core/about/index.html[/url]”>http://www.scrippscol.edu/dept/core/about/index.html</a> is by no means as restrictive as to “texts” as the Victorian version/vision offered by ISI, and which, in my judgment, makes it that much stronger.</p>
<p>the “core” at my schjool had two parts - there was some courses that EVERYONE had to take - Human Communication, English Compisition, Writing about Literature, Critical Thinking and Problem Solving (or higher level math course), and Information Literacy. In addition to that, you had distribution requirements. Two courses from art/music, two courses from history/government, two courses from behavioral sciences, two courses from sciences, and two foreign language/foreign country courses. </p>
<p>i had taken like 8 art courses for my minors, 2 of which counted for my requirements. then i took american government and american civ 1 as my history/gov courses… and macro economics, and micro economics as my behavioral sciences. physics and biology as my sciences, and spanish for my foreign langauge.</p>
<p>It’s also a great way to meet people outside of your major. I’ve met some of my best friends at school in my non-major related courses.</p>
<p>then, we actually had a department core as well. all majors in the business department had to take the business core courses. then, your major had major courses which were major specific.</p>
<p>I’m always stunned by the results of these surveys, this one from Dartmouth</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.dartreview.com/archives/2005/06/02/students_ignorant_of_western_culture_poll_shows_need_for_core_curriculum.php[/url]”>http://www.dartreview.com/archives/2005/06/02/students_ignorant_of_western_culture_poll_shows_need_for_core_curriculum.php</a></p>
<p>The Dartmouth Review is just another indication of what is WRONG with the neo-Victorian idea of the core. No attempt is made to demonstrate its utility, either in terms of the information required or in terms of “ways of knowing”. </p>
<p>When I can get to it, I might get around to noting how Matthew Arnold came up with this idea of a “core”. Meanwhile, it might be worth noting, even in that brief questionnaire, the lack of references to Thomas Paine, the ideas behind the American Revolution, the French Revolution, Marx, Freud, Rousseau, and John Dewey, the western “core” that reflects our current social and political organization. I know - just an “oversight”.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No kidding. First, the neo-victorians better get their stories straight. As I look at the recommended texts mentioned here (Mills, Nietzche, Marx, etc.) I notice that many of them were contenders for the recent list of “Ten Most Harmful Books of the 19th and 20th Centuries” by a panel of conservative “scholars”:</p>
<p><a href=“Welcome to Our Blog About the Most Prominent Events of the 20th Century”>Welcome to Our Blog About the Most Prominent Events of the 20th Century;
<p>Second, I don’t think requiring the study of a single religion fits with the American philosophy. This strikes me as a demand to turn US colleges into something very close in concept to the maddrassa schools. Given that religious freedom is a fundamental tenent of our country, a better core course would be survey of the world’s major religions.</p>
<p>Third, a core does not take into account that many kids, by the time they reach college, have already taken much of this core. For example, I know that Massachusetts public schools are “leftist” and all, but my daughter had already studied the Illiad and the Odyssey, Greek tragedies, and Shakespeare. She had studied the heck out of the Middle Ages and read about the European colonial thru early American period of history ad naseum. Whether she studies these topics some more or not is a choice that I think she is perfectly capable of making on her own.</p>
<p>Fourth, I am appalled at any “core curriculum” that fails to include a single course in the hard sciences or math. That is a total rejection of the concept of liberal arts education and, therefore, a rejection of core values fundamental to Western civilization. I find the attack on core Western values by elite “right-wing” scholars, such as those at ISI, to be quite frightening.</p>
<p>I would be just as apalled if Dartmouth students performed so poorly on your list. Penn publishes a similar survey, with similar results, perhaps that one would be more palatable to you than one published by a conservative student paper. The fact remains, it’s inexcusable that so many students at any college or university–elite or otherwise–would perform so poorly when asked such questions. At least they admitted being embarassed about. Simply knowing facts is not particularly useful outside of crossword puzzles, or perhaps Jeopardy!, but not knowing so many facts which should be basic knowledge for anyone with a decent high school education or a few years of college under their belts speaks of an educational system that is shortchanging its students. I bet Columbia and Chicago students know who Goethe and Dostoyevsky were. And who wrote the Federalist, under which pen names.</p>
<p>ID, every time I turn around, something’s “frightening” you. Get a grip, man!</p>
<p>If you actually take the time to read the new ISI guide, you concerned Swarthmore dads can rest assured that your daughters can follow the ISI advice and still be exposed to Karl Marx! One of the 8 courses ISI recommends for a well-balanced Swarthmore education in Western thought is Philosopy 49, Marx, Nietzsche, and Freud. You can stop quivering, now.</p>
<p>As for the math and science being required, I agree! It would be a great thing. If you go back and read the article I actually first posted, you’ll see that the author mentions that very thing. BTW, it’s by a Peter Berkowitz, not David–no need to be frightened.</p>
<p>I’m sure most of the kids who go to St. John’s, Chicago, Columbia, et al. have also studied the Greeks, Romans, and Shakespeare at the high school level. Somehow those institutions manage to take it to another level and still maintain their interest.</p>
<p>Didn’t notice that it was a conservative paper. What I did note was the content of the questions, and the lack of recognition regarding what that content (and the lack of other content) implied about what is core. </p>
<p>Again, I like the idea of a “core”, but I remain deeply concerned about what its content is, and what it implies. (I am much more concerned about students who can’t explain what “natural selection” is - whether they agree with it or not - than whether they know who led Dante on his journeys. The content MATTERS.)</p>
<p>My d. can tell you who Goethe and Doestoevski are, and who leads Dante, and what “natural selection” is, and talk to you intelligently about John Dewey, but (other than the Dante) is not likely to take a course where she will meet up with any of them.</p>
<p>I have one child attending one of the aforementioned Core schools (Columbia) and one who graduated from an open curriculum (Wesleyan). Because of the kinds of people they are, I have no doubt that each has and will continue to seek a broad education, because they both love thinking and ideas. It’s really about the student, not the school. Students have to want to learn for its own sake; if the curriculum is forcing it into them against their will, it won’t do much good, anyway.</p>