<p>I recently learned that Mount Holyoke College dropped its natural science w/ lab requirement–quietly–for the class of 2017 and for future classes (according to my overjoyed friend, who goes to MHC, it dropped “half of the distribution requirements” for them). Initially, I struggled to make sense of this, but then the words of Colin Diver, ex-president of Reed, came to me: “By far the most important consequence of sitting out the rankings game, however, is the freedom to pursue our own educational philosophy, not that of some newsmagazine.” It seems that MHC’s decision to drop those distribution requirements, particularly the science requirement, was out of a need to improve the graduation rate, which is a component of the rankings. Isn’t this sad? Isn’t Colin Diver right? I wonder if this is why institutions moved towards open curricula (i.e making the students happy at the expense of pursuing the institution’s academic philosophy)? I wonder when Grinnell, Vassar and Hamilton moved towards open curricula, and if this “movement” is consistent with the methodology changes to the US News rankings.</p>
<p>No college “sits out” the rankings game. All colleges compete for students and with each other, even if they dont admit it. </p>
<p>I wouldn’t think dropping one science requirement would have much of an impact on graduation rate. I think you see this kind of rhetoric coming from LA schools that promote their philosophy of other colleges. </p>
<p>Rankings really have nothing to do with a college. It ranks the students that go there. So, maybe you could argue that this makes them more attractive.</p>
<p>There are a number of well-respected colleges and universities that have no science with lab requirement (Brown probably being the best known). Many schools are moving to more “open” curricula, dropping the Common Core or broad distribution requirements. Doesn’t devalue the educations their students get.</p>
<p>Yes, and although the idea of an open curriculum is appealing to many students, my question is, when did colleges begin to adopt open curricula (except for Brown)? And also, more importantly, why didn’t Mount Holyoke just drop all of its requirements, instead of dropping arguably the hardest requirement for non-science majors (1 year science w/ lab)? I’m not saying it devalues the education at these schools (although a social science major who has not taken a single science class w/ lab to deeply appreciate the “scientific method” would be sad), but why drop only some of the requirements? Why not just drop everything and adopt an open curriculum?</p>
<p>I believe the core idea at college is one of those things that go through cyclic changes (with the exception of Brown that has none and Columbia that has a very detailed one). In the 70’s colleges were dropping the idea of core classes and being more flexible and then between then and now it changed at least once (if not more times ) - it is a pendulum which probably will keep swinging. In other countries (UK) there is no core - students only study the subject that they major in.</p>
<p>I remember MHC as having an extensive and somewhat restrictive set of distribution requirements compared to the other colleges my Ds were accepted to. It was one factor that made D1 select another school (she was down to 2 final choices, MHC was one of them). For them to drop one requirement still probably leaves them on the heavier end of distribution requirements for graduation if I remember. And MHC is quite strong in the sciences, I don’t see this as any evidence of a problem in that area. I don’t think it is significant.</p>
<p>Okay, so for the record, they dropped these requirements:</p>
<p>1) the minor/second major
2) two science classes with one lab (now just one science class–no lab required)
3) three humanities classes requirement (now just one class)
4) two classes in the social sciences (now just one)</p>
<p>Your daughter would probably have considered MHC more strongly if this had been the case then, right, @intparent? </p>
<p>Yes, I think she would have. Not sure she would have attended in the end, merit money was good from the school she went to. But I believe MHC gives out more merit money than they used to. So merit money plus this recent change, I bet she would have been a Paw (did anyone else know that was the mascot of MHC? I just had to look it up, and don’t think I ever knew it).</p>
<p>From my experience, I see no reason to assume that the science with lab is the most difficult requirement. Have taken all 3 sciences in HS, I took introductory Geology and Astronomy in college, both of which I found very interesting. Neither was what I would call difficult, and certainly not more difficult than courses in the humanities and social sciences. The introductory Art History and Music courses were both more difficult, for example, and required more work. And I’m sure that language study would have been more difficult still, had I not been exempted due to my SATII score. (In hindsight, I wish I had pursued it further.)</p>
<p>I think that generally-speaking, the students who attend such schools have broad intellectual interests and don’t need to be prodded to take courses. They usually are not interested in getting a credential as quickly as possible.</p>
<p>Whether a requirement is onerous or not depends on the individual student. STEM kids hate humanities requirements with lots of reading and papers as much as non-STEM students dislike having lots of lab heavy science requirements.</p>
<p>
Because very few institutions move that quickly. They move iteratively - change one thing, evaluate, change the next thing and so on. If it doesn’t work, or doesn’t provide the results they want, it is easier to restore one lab to the requirements than to restore all requirements.</p>
<p>I would argue that a lab science course doesn’t particularly teach the scientific method. Often the labs are just to learn technique and how to write a report; valuable for majors in the subject, not so much for non-majors. </p>