<p>But the point is most people don’t learn it, and would tell you they are doing fine in their lives without it.</p>
<p>I don’t need the lecture: I use to teach medieval art and philosophy at the University of Chicago. One of my masters papers was on Dante and St. John of the Cross (at Chicago); another (at Oxford) on the Christian philosophy Prudentius and the rise of medieval philosophy (and its impacts on Shakespeare.) I know its value.</p>
<p>And I can tell you that my wife, without any such background, who grew up Jewish, and a Hampshire dropout, does just fine with Western art, Melville, Shakespeare, etc., etc. Would she be richer if she had it? No question. Would I be richer if I understood the internal combustion engine? Surely, even though I drive perfectly well (well, maybe not so perfectly well) without it. I feel absolutely certain that I would be enriched if I could play Rachmaninoff like my younger one, or learned how to do a ‘flying triple flipova’, and new the history behind it, but I hardly think it a requirement of a good education.</p>
<p>I think both my wife and I do equally fine traversing our current social, economic, and political system. There are very good arguments for a core curriculum. (Hey, I think I’ve made it clear that I like the idea, for the students who want it.) But I don’t think this is one of them.</p>
<p>Hadn’t realized that my post had taken the form of a lecture. I’m sorry if it came across that way. I’d only intended to comment on the OP. I don’t for a moment doubt that you are far more educated on these issues than I am. I’m of much humbler intellectual stock: Mine is only an opinion.</p>
<p>Just to return to the comments on how distribution requirements come naturally to intellectually curious students, I think not. On a university level we are talking about courses designed to train students to work professionally in academics or other areas. So…the kid who might be fascinated with an NPR report on genetic ends up taking a rigorous molecular biology course that is meant to produce lab rats. I am not sure how much sense this makes. I know some schools have the “shocks for jocks” kinds of courses that are an easy way to fulfill requirements, but not all do, and not every student wants to take guts like those. A true “core” course fills a very special niche.</p>
<p>But, the “science for jocks” nature of a general lecture/discussion core science course, like that at Columbia, works against the kids who want to major in a science. Here’s why:</p>
<p>When you actually sit down with a course catalog and write down the requirements for major in a half dozen different departments (as every pre-frosh should do), it becomes strikingly apparent that the requirements in several fields (physics, chemistry, engineering) are very demanding in terms of number of courses. One of the big drawbacks to these majors is that they don’t leave a lot of room for the courses in the humanities and social sciences. The last thing on earth a science kid needs is a science “core” course when that would be much better used as a slot for broadening horizons.</p>
<p>As for jocks, the whole thing would be a non-issue if universities would simply go back to the way it was handled in the early days of collegiate football at elite colleges – just hire professional players.</p>
<p>I like distribution courses, I think that for the students who are already planning on a breadth and depth education then great, but for the students who perhaps just want to take business or engineering courses, they benefit by having a broader perspective.
I think however that we need rox for jox type courses. For a humanities major to take a lab science class that is a required class for science majors drags down the level of the lab class and overwhelms the english major. There are a lot of english classes science majors can take to fulfil their requirements, but I empathize with those arts majors who don’t have the interest or the time to take a class that is meant to screen out those dabblers.
At Reed they recently did away with a class that had fulfilled the purpose of rox for jox, and much complaining has been heard.
My daughter as a biology major hasn’t had a problem with the other distribution requirements, but as the sciences are usually filled with those who had a really strong background in high school- there is still a need for an intro level course</p>
<p>“The last thing on earth a science kid needs is a science “core” course when that would be much better used as a slot for broadening horizons.”</p>
<p>A true core course does broaden horizons, ID. I say this as the parent of a kid who has taken serious lab science in college and decided that it’s not for her because it is more about facts than ideas, something I find very discouraging. A science core course such as the one Columbia introduced recently talks about questions of meaning, implications for society, etc. And by bringing together students who are desperate for discussion of ideas with those who appreciate the more technical side of things, they create an interesting, mixed intellectual community. Likewise, in a core course on literature and humanities, the English majors who can get into the technical aspects of lit crit are brought back to the meaning and richness of the works by non-lit majors who are asking different sorts of questions. At least, this is what I hear.</p>
<p>ID–you’re yoking together two disparate arguments. “Frontiers of Science” is not Science-for-jocks. It is a very challenging course. I will agree that it is onerous for science majors who have very heavy required courseloads, and I can see that they might want to be exempt. But it’s rigor has nothing to do with jocks at schools; my nonjock son worked his butt of in it.</p>
<p>I’m not suggesting a lack of merit in a “Frontiers of Science” type course. It’s the mandatory one-size-fits-all aspect that is the problem. It’s a perfect type of course for non science majors and, in fact, virtually all colleges I’ve looked at offer something along the same lines as an option.</p>
<p>Anyone looking to major in physics, chem, or engineering is automatically going to be taking at least two of the four courses each semester in the math and science divisions, starting from day one of freshman year. This leaves, at most, two courses per semester to explore all of the humanities and social sciences. Throw in a freshman writing course (mandatory, IMO) and it becomes difficult to even sample enough departments in time to make an informed choice of major. Even harder to preserve your options for majoring in other departments since most have pre-reqs that have to be started in freshman year.</p>
<p>For a physics major to use up one of those precious “slots” on yet another science course, and one that doesn’t even count towards a major, is a real burden. A potential physics major at Columbia would have to take Intro Physics, Calc, plus the “Frontiers of Science”. Throw in the other “core” courses and it’s probably junior year before he gets to take that interesting poli sci or art history or African sociology elective – the type of courses that are important for a science major, not only for understanding their world, but for sanity during college.</p>
<p>I do find the Frontiers of Science class at Columbia more of a noble effort than of great value, as the parent of a science kid. Let’s say, having just been introduced this year, that it’s a work in progress and takes on the extremely difficult task of engaging both science and science-phobic students. The level is definitely a big step up from science for jocks, but something of an annoyance for science majors. </p>
<p>It’s very appealing as an idea, even to scientists, however, because science itself is such a broad, expanding, yet specialized area of study. Physics majors might well go through college taking an English or History class or two, yet never taking a class that introduces them to neuroscience,global warming, evolutionary biology, or some of the other topics addressed. (Topics vary by semester.) An additional idea behind the class is that everyone these days needs to be somewhat science literate, at a time when major debates of the day include topics like stem cell research. The course tries to teach how scientists approach questions, evaluate evidence, etc. So, I give them A for effort if not for execution yet.</p>
<p>It does take up one class that might be used otherwise, but the Columbia Core has included three science courses of a students choosing, so this takes the place of one of those three. Also, Columbia students usually take five classes rather than the four students take many places, as a way of cramming in the stuff they’re interested in beyond the core and their majors. They can also graduate with a concentration rather than a major, if they’re really interested in broad exploration.</p>
<p>Interesteddad: An art history class (ArtHum) is also part of the core, to be taken any of the four years, and African sociology could be taken to fufill another core major cultures requirement.</p>
<p>I fully agree with you that physics students need to understand the world and take courses for enjoyment. My son, the potential physics major, loves the core for just that reason. He loved reading Herodotus and Augustine and Montaigne, looks forward to MusicHum and ArtHum, and really looks forward to his sophomore year Contemporary Civilizations which is basically a political philosophy class. These classes ARE enjoyment for him.</p>
<p>BTW, engineers are in SEAS, and are not required to take the whole core curriculum.</p>
<p>I’d likes to throw in the “anti-jock” argument in wherever he can.
It usually follows his drunken frat boy sentiment! Sometimes they run together :)</p>
<p>I’m not getting into that one way or the other any more; I just wanted to make the point that it had nothing to do with the course under discussion.</p>
<p>Back to more general issues: I find the unifying intellectual experience of the core appealing. It comes about precisely because all the students are taking the same class and reading the same works. If you’ve read Denby’s book, then you know that not all sections are taught the same. However, the unifying idea is that of a group of bright kids exploring some enduringly great works together in small groups, with guidance from a teacher, rather than a more typical introductory humanities class experience of an expert on a particular work lecturing about his/her years of scholarship. Kind of an informed intellectual group grope. If led by someone who is good at class discussion (amazing how few professors are) and at giving feedback on essays, this can be a wonderful experience.</p>
<p>It seems to me that current trends clearly do not favor a revival of a core. I suppose there are many reasons for this but the big ones are known to most of us and some even prefer the trend. The irony, it seems to me, is that this appears to be somehow more ubiquitous within the culture of the liberal arts school!?</p>
<p>Although, I must say that I’m surprised to see so many parents prefer the cores piteous demise, there are obvious reasons why 17, 18 & 19 year olds would celebrate it-- everyone believes they are born knowing what is best for them and how to feed their progressive desires, and the universities themselves, catering to this inclination, have probably taken a cue or two from the shopping malls and cable programmers amazing success in just this regard: I believe Duke was even offering free I-pods to its in-coming class…how up-to-date and now of them, its like being offered free samples of the latest diet-craze at Costco (Atkins, South Beach, Suzanne Summers) or being seduced by the Wonder-bread-white, shirtless lotharios at Abercrombie and Fitch. </p>
<p>The core is part of the past with no more than a few hold-outs who regard it as their very person (unlike those who simply felt obliged to offer it as a matter of a sound education) from years past Columbia, Chicago and the Blessed St Johns.</p>
<p>It seems they have lost the pulse of America, though it was an ignoble effort. :)</p>
<p>When my daughter visited Duke last summer there was a front page article in the Durham paper about complaints the students had regarding their saftey concerns. In the article, a young lady of some local importance was complaining that Duke was able to find the money to give away I-pods but was all thumbs when it came time to pony-up for some sort of new security-system or other–I don’t recall the particulars but it gave us a bad impression, whether rightly or not.</p>
<p>Wood,
I absolutely agree with you that safety was a big concern of ours too. We were happy to see that Duke was willing to address the issue, and spend the resources to do so last fall. The following changes were made last September in reponse to student concerns raised.</p>
<p>“As the academic year began, Duke Police instituted a program with Durham Police to provide expanded patrols on 9th Street and immediately off of East Campus. We also hired contract safety personnel to supplement the work of the Duke Police on campus. Starting this Saturday we expanded those programs, authorized additional overtime for Duke Police, the hiring of additional contract personnel and expanded the joint patrols with the Durham Police department on campus.”</p>
<p>These were long term changes that were authorized to address the safety issue. I do not know at what cost. My understanding is that the Ipod “experiment” was at a one time cost of $500,000. It is not clear how much of the cost was assumed by Apple. To be honest, I think Apple got more positive “marketing press” than Duke with the whole Ipod thing.</p>
<p>Don’t get me wrong, I liked Duke and so did my daughter. She’s going to Dartmouth this fall and they have no core to speak of, much to our chargrin; however, our daughter loves the school and plans to major in Phil+Chem, both of which she has been passionate about throughout highschool, so we assume she’ll be rounding most of the bases in either case.</p>
<p>I was serious about that article though: it couldn’t have been worse timing than that the Duke/violence article was on the front page the morning we arrived in Durham.</p>