<p>To what extent has exposure to the different subjects in the core curriculum shaped your academic path? Do students routinely find unexpected areas of interest that turn into new passions? Does the core curriculum play a large role in this? </p>
<p>It may be that I could be asking this question in a better way. But I am hoping that those of you who have experience with this can lend some insight into the extent to which the Chicago undergraduate experience opens and sparks your mind.</p>
<p>Ha, I think you question answered what I was about to say.</p>
<p>What I love about the Core, asides from the intellectual common denominator it provides inside and outside the classroom (i.e. you can be talking about Freud in a fiction class and everybody who took Self knows exactly what you’re talking about, you can go into the house lounge and complain about Aristotle and your peers can commiserate) is that it provides you with a well-rounded education. The physics majors know Marx; the econ majors know Shakespeare; the biology majors can talk about music.</p>
<p>I’m one course away from completing core, and I do think it’s opened up new fields for me. Although it hasn’t changed my intended major, it has shaped the way I approach different academic fields (revisiting biology was a very good thing for me, and even though I’m not better at it than I was in high school, I now like it) and approach different challenges (Smith, Marx, and friends). If nothing else, Core has assured me that I can take classes outside of my comfort zone, and for next quarter I’m taking courses all around the college in all sorts of fields, simply because they interest me.</p>
<p>Thanks unalove. Has it changed or refined the intended major for any of your classmates? Is it correct to say that those who choose Chicago embrace the Core (as opposed to tolerating it) ?</p>
<p>What a great question to ask!</p>
<p>My older kid at Chicago would probably say exactly what unalove did, except for the part about liking biology. I don’t think it changed her academic interests at all (something that was a little disappointing to her parents, actually), but it definitely affected how she approached things. She would probably put herself in the “tolerating the Core” category, although it’s a little more complicated than that. She went to Chicago largely because she liked the idea of the Core, and she still likes it, and she likes that everyone she knows there has broad interests and a shared base of common reference points. She has learned, however, that she enjoys courses more when they are narrowly focused.</p>
<p>Hmmm… I think Core helps identify academic strong points, and I’m sure for at least some it points toward a new major. I didn’t know I would find Freud exciting, but I did when I read him in Core, and I look forward to exploring the relationship between psychoanalysis and literature, among many, many other things I’m interested in.</p>
<p>I think that Core is a feature for most rather than a drawback. If a student didn’t want to do Core, he or she would be better off at almost any other school. If I weren’t in a school that had a core, though, I would most certainly be creating my own core.</p>
<p>I appreciate your thoughtful replies. It is great hearing the perspectives of a student and a parent.</p>
<p>One symptom of very major-driven education is that it can lead to a very narrow academic perspective. I think this is often plagues many areas of academia. Often breakthroughs occur when someone takes a little step back and notices something that their discipline had systematically ignored. An education that offers a bit of everything seems to gives student a bit more ability to break out of disciplinary norms to gain another level of insight. I didn’t change majors because of the Core, but I certainly respect what other fields of study have to offer more because of it, and I recognize the weaknesses in my particular field.</p>