<p>Keil, you are the perfect example of what I’m talking about. Go major in Classics, English, Neuro-linguistics, anthropology, or whatever, and take a class in statistics, the micro/macro sequence in economics, and a finance or accounting class.</p>
<p>You are mistaken if you believe that the “imposed core” will not enhance your study of English literature; you are mistaken if you believe that learning macroeconomics will take time away from your love of the humanities; you will probably find that you are better at everything having taken the core. Nothing gets learned in a vacuum; everything ties and relates to something else; the way to emerge from college as an educated person who can earn a living is to learn how to take disparate bits of knowledge and information and figure out how they are a cohesive whole.</p>
<p>I interview kids who have so many silo-ed bits of knowledge at their disposal (the double major with a minor problem) that they’ve never actually integrated their education. If I’m trying to figure out who I can send to our office in Prague to work on a cost-cutting initiative, it sure isn’t going to be the person who thought that learning history or music theory or taking a foreign language was a waste of time which prevented them from studying their one true love-- even if the true love was “Financial Analysis in the post-Soviet era economy particularly the Czech Republic”. Especially since next year they may need to work in San Francisco.</p>
<p>blossom -It seems (to me at least) that for the last few years we’ve heard “what you need to do is find a special niche-career”. Do you think that is causing some students to combine interests thinking that might set them apart? When in reality 99% of jobs are not fitted to or filled by people who structured their education so narrowly.</p>
<p>blossom - What did you not understand about "My parents insist that I major in a “marketable field”? They have since eased up a bit on that requirement, but when I was considering schools, I was pretty set on the CS major for their sake. I suppose they would be happy with Econ too… but that doesn’t solve the double major + Core problem. And I wanted to invest more coursework in the disciplinary humanities/socsci than Chicago’s core would have allowed after one major, especially since I’m interested in so many different fields in those two broad divisions. Surveying French civilization is great, but it doesn’t satisfy my desire to take a course on French existentialists.</p>
<p>I believe in the value of a Core. I think Chicago has one of the absolute best Core sequences in the nation, along with Scripps… but it was not right for me. Because I also believe that I can explore macroeconomics and anthropology and classics through electives… while still retaining flexibility because they are ELECTIVES. Core would enhance my study of literature, no doubt, but I think I can achieve that same effect in other ways. I think taking interdisciplinary courses, and disciplinary courses in related disciplines, is an equally effective way of integrating the liberal arts.</p>
<p>Would you never hire a graduate from a non-Core institution? From Amherst, for instance, even if that student had one major and had taken a variety of different electives? What if the student had only taken one science course, instead of the four required by Chicago’s core?</p>
<p>“Math and philosophy are closely related as philosophy has become very mathematical. Mathematical logic is often taught by members of philosophy departments, I believe.”</p>
<p>I’m actually taking a philosophy class right now (and not Logic…) and there’s a surprisingly large number of engineering/math/CS/other quantitative major people in it taking it as one of their humanities classes. I feel that even beyond Logic classes, philosophy has more connection to quantitative majors than other humanities classes.</p>
<p>That <em>is</em> fun(er) then. I had to take basically the same thing for HS so it wouldn’t be a problem. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Funnily enough I agree with Keilexandra partially on this one. I’ll explain:</p>
<p>I think UChi has one of the best programs for the Life of the Mind sort of academics. It’s part of why I applied- I like learning for the sake of learning, if it fascinates me. However, the core probably would not have been right for me- I want more than just a major. I want to go the extra ‘above and beyond’ if I can, because I can, and because I want to. I think I shouldn’t have to relate them if they happen to be far apart- like the comp sci and english examples. I think it would be awesome if I could relate wildly different things, but I think that given loose guidelines, or none at all, I would end up taking a wide variety of classes on my own anyways. </p>
<p>A core that could limit that variety wouldn’t be very fun- because at the end of four years, I want to say I have gained extensive insight on more than one subject & some insight on a breadth of subjects.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>They’re probably fans of the The Dancing Wu Li Masters book- Quantum Physics and Philosophy combined. My philosophy teacher last semester recommended it, as it’s written densely, but for those who may not be intimately aquainted with physics. Great plane trip read.</p>
<p>I actually like reading about the higher sciences/maths, but darned if I know how to apply any of it/attempt to do things myself. But I understand the appeal of philosophy to quant majors.</p>
<p>Yurtle, you should read Chad Orzel’s HOW TO TEACH PHYSICS TO YOUR DOG. Layperson’s introduction to quantum physics in a great writing style. I say this as someone who despises physics.</p>
<p>The AP Physics C teacher at our high school assigns the Wu Li Masters for summer reading. My husband (majored in biology and physics) took lots of philosophy for his humanities distribution requirements. I, however, am completely allergic to philosophy.</p>
<p>Philosophy has not become mathematical. It has become more analytical or formal, but there is now close to zero (or maybe actually zero) overlap of research between philosophy and mathematics. Where philosophy has an overlap with other formal disciplines it is generally with computer science or linguistics.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Mathematical logic separated from philosophy about 50 years ago. Some of the early results, prior to the split, are covered in philosophy departmental classes, and math departments lacking a logician occasionally have philosophy professors as instructors for logic classes covering that material. Logic intensive math or CS classes attended by mathematicians (not formal logic as a math-for-poets alternative to calculus) are more likely to be offered by math or computer science specialists than by philosophers.</p>
<p>Exceptions may exist, but it is completely wrong to paint math and philosophy as having come together. The chasm between them opened long ago and has been growing for decades.</p>
<p>My D. had only 2 of “general education” classes, both exceptionally easy. One - Honors English (she still referes to it as a joke after being tortured in her AP English in HS - one of the hardest class in HS) and another Spanish - based on placement test, she had to take 3rd year of it. So, she had no complaints about “general” classes, just easy couple A’s. She loves all classes in her major and 2 minors, but some of them are very challenging and need a lot of work. She is senior next year, according to her, she has met all Honors requirements and should have enough to graduate without ever taking summer classes, but thinking about dropping one of her minors, since material will be covered in Graduate school any way.</p>
<p>We visited a school last week that had a 44 credit core. The admission’s rep told us that D could NOT have a major and one minor and still graduate in 4 years. To me, that’s a problem! And sure enough, our tour guide was a 5th year student with a major and a minor.</p>
<p>o/t I don’t mind physics/astrophysics or higher levels or math, so long as I’m not the one doing it. The higher up it goes, the more theoretical it gets anyways. And that’s when humanities and the sciences become equally unanswerable, and meet in combined unanswerable questioning and technical gibberish. <em>sniff</em> Gets me all sentimental.</p>
<p>^However, Bio seems to be different, has been very interesting and almost fascinating to my D, she talks about with excitement. Almost the same, however, for all her classes. She does not take what she does not like. She believes that she is OK graduating in 4 years without single summer class, and thinks that she will need filler class(es) to be full time student in her last semester of senior year. These is in addition to her lighter schedule in junior year due to taking MCAT prep. class, which takes very many hours to study every week. It looks like requirements are different from school to school and D. is lucky not to have many general education requiremnts (she had some AP’s but not very many were offerred in her HS).</p>
<p>I dislike Core requirements, which are different than breadth reqs. U of Chicago, for example, may give a student a core in Western Civilization with its required common core, but this takes so much time students won’t explore courses they might otherwise. I find it much better for a student to be able to meet humanities/social science reqs with more choices- having some Eastern Civilization courses instead, for example. Students get a required core education in HS. </p>
<p>The required core is outdated. Generations ago a well educated man (women were generally excluded) learned Latin and Greek. Requiring in depth courses in the Western foundations of our society takes away time perhaps better spent learning about nonWestern cultural foundations- more important in our current global world.</p>
<p>Requiring a writing course also is restricting. It is good for business and engineering students to take some of the liberal arts courses for their education (not as many as required for other schools), not just job training. A university also has different breadth reqs for a BS and BA. Specifically requiring an arts or other limited field course also is limiting. Major universities have the breadth of courses such that students are not limited in choices, students have more opportunities to think outside the box with their electives needed for meeting reqs in various fields. A college student forced to meet breadth reqs without needing specific courses can take so much no HS offers. </p>
<p>Grad students have no such reqs, the focus narrows even further then. My H did a 6 year post HS college experience which led to an MD equivalent (MBBS in India) but he did not get to study anything nonmedical intensly enough to major in it or have the time to take all of the fun courses I did.</p>
<p>Just a minor correction, the Core at Chicago requires two civilization course, not western civilization, there are a range or civ courses available. S1, for example, took African Civ. (Also, Chicago’s Core is quite different than what most experience in HS.) Grad school “trains,” undergrad “educates,” their purposes are quite different.</p>