Should Universities Have Required Courses?

Adam Smith · October 21, 2003, 21:11

I was pretty motivated in college and did very well. I also had a fairly broad background, with a double major in Economics (social sciences) and Applied Mathematics (physical sciences), and an honors thesis in Roman History (humanities). But 25 years after graduating, I can see some glaring gaps in my education. I could have used a course in People Skills 101. A basic course in Ethics would have made it easier to cope with a lot of current issues.

Sure you can pick up some of this stuff on your own. I learned more economics and a lot more about writing after getting a Ph. D. than before. But for the amount of money you are paying for college, why not have the benefit of this learning from go?

I am not sure your average 18 year old freshman (or even an above average one) is capable of identifying courses which will benefit him or her 20+ years in the future. And then there is the question of whether said student is motivated enough to take such courses if they are available. Not to mention the question of whether we (not just the US, but most industrialized countries) are turning out increasingly specialized students who do not have enough generalized knowledge to make informed decisions in a democratic form of government.

So should universities have required courses for all students? If so, which courses should be required? I am not talking about "pick one from Column A and two from Column B" to make sure your education has some breadth. I mean specific courses which every student from performing art to engineering majors has to take.

(U Chicago students and alums feel free to praise or damn The Core at great length.

)

Dr Strangelove · October 21, 2003, 21:28

Yes. WHen I was in college most curriculae required at least the equivalent of one year of mathematics, science, English, social sciences and a foreign language. Have the requirements changed much in the past 30 years? One of the colleges I went to required that every student take at least one philosophy or ethics course. I strongly support the idea of a core curricullum, and I agree that it should include more than the traditional math, sciences, language, and social studies. Requiring ethics is a good idea, and I think that philosophy ought to be required also. People skills sounds intriguing, but I'm not sure that they can be taught effectively within the context of a college course.

Shi Huangdi · October 21, 2003, 21:30

"I am not sure your average 18 year old freshman (or even an above average one) is capable of identifying courses which will benefit him or her 20+ years in the future."

Yes, but at that age the student should be recognized as an adult and ought to be able to take responsibility for their education.

Imran Siddiqui · October 21, 2003, 22:09

They are taking responsibility for their education. They are paying money to the institution to teach them and the institution is telling the student what it requires from him.

Drake Tungsten · October 21, 2003, 22:19

Quote:

They are paying money to the institution to teach them and the institution is telling the student what it requires from him.

Looks like someone should have been required to take a women's studies course...

SnowFire · October 21, 2003, 22:21

You forget something rather crucial. A course is far more interesting if everybody in it is doing so voluntarily, because they're interested in it. Even if it's required for "Column A" reasons of breadth, they took the option out of Column A that appealed to them most. Requirements like the kind you suggest would put uninterested students in the course, making it worse both for the ones being required to take it as well as those who genuinely want to take it (don't forget that the curriculum will have to be adjusted to take into account that all are required to take, and presumably pass, the course).

Now, if you're going to have a giant 200 person lecture hall in any case, then perhaps it doesn't matter whether the people in it care or not, but for proper 20 person courses with students working together and discussing things... (and assuming that you'd simply have more sections of 20-person capacity courses to take into account the influx of people)

Anyway, ultimately, it's best for each college to have their own set-up. Some might have general requirements, and that'll be something they have to offer; others will let you explore more freely. Myself, the requirements on me were very light at Oberlin, and yet I took 2 Philosophy courses, 2 Economics courses, 2 Politics courses, a Religion course, and probably more all way outside my majors & minor.

Imran Siddiqui · October 21, 2003, 22:21

Using the male term for both genders is proper English.

GePap · October 21, 2003, 22:29

Core's are great! They give a student a sampling of ideas they would not otherwise chose to engage in, and thus can trully know when they chose what they will study at length that they trully want to study that becuase it interestes them, not only becuase of pre-concieved notions. It also creates better educated people: while the true Renaissance man is no longer possible, at least with a comprehensive core you leave with a wider understanding of the world. NO more enlgihs majors who can't add, or math major's who can;t read more than some technical pamphlet.

So says the U of C alumn

St Leo · October 21, 2003, 22:33

Calculus up to integration and Physics up to dynamics should be mandatory. No one should be considered an adult until they pass those.

"Anyone who cannot cope with mathematics is not fully human. At best [they are] a tolerable subhuman who [have] learned to wear shoes, bathe, and not make messes in the house."
- Robert A. Heinlein, Time Enough for Love

Quote:

Using the male term for both genders is proper English.

Only if you choose to make it that.

Nubclear · October 21, 2003, 22:36

Yes. Every person should have to go through a Human Anatomy course.

Hands on learning is the best way.

TCO · October 21, 2003, 22:37

The core is good. USNA and USMA still do this.

GePap · October 21, 2003, 22:40

Universities were not set up to be commodities, or trade schools: they are centers in which the collected knowledge of generations is passed down and new ideas formulated: someone coming into the University does NOT know what is what, otherwise, why are they there?

If all people want is to come in and take the classes they like to fulfill requirements to get a job, go to trade schools.

Spiffor · October 21, 2003, 22:44

Languages (native and foreign) should be taught absolutely, as well as basic mathematic, scientific, historical and geographical knowledge. But otherwise, the students should remain specialized, and the obligatory knowledge should just be what's needed not to be clueless out of one's field.

TCO · October 21, 2003, 22:53

most "college students" need trade school more than liberal arts education.

Tuberski · October 21, 2003, 23:00

Quote:

Originally posted by GePap
If all people want is to come in and take the classes they like to fulfill requirements to get a job, go to trade schools.

You can become a lawyer or doctor at trade school?

Wow, I'm moving where you live.

ACK!

GePap · October 21, 2003, 23:07

Law school is a form of trade school, and so is medical school. That these sort of instutitions want to avoid taking in students without BA's, well, their choice, but you really do NOT need a BA in anything to then go straight into Law school or even Medical school, as far as what you will be studying. The one things going to a 4 year college beforehand gives you is more experience in handling the workload and hopefully better writing skills and better math (but this depends on what high school you went to.

I call them trade schools cause the only thing you learn in Law school is how to be a lawyer, and in Med school, how to be a doctor of some sort..that is waht trade schools are, fully focused on getting you the skills needed in one particular field.

Imran Siddiqui · October 21, 2003, 23:10

I'll second what GePap said. Law and Medical schools are trade schools. The only difference is their requirements include a BA (usually... if they are accredited

). What we consider 'trade schools' usually have lesser requirements to get in.

Tuberski · October 21, 2003, 23:14

Like a pulse.

ACK!

Kuciwalker · October 21, 2003, 23:27

I don't know about college's, but I think the requirements for each category of courses for high school should be looser. I don't want to take four years of english and social studies/history; I want to have room in my schedule for more science courses.

Jon Miller · October 21, 2003, 23:28

I think certain types of classes should be required

but I guess I would consider that the case considering I come from a liberal arts school

Jon Miller

Kuciwalker · October 21, 2003, 23:30

What I meant was, I should be able to choose to take only, say, three years of english/history and use the two extra course slots for math or science.

TCO · October 21, 2003, 23:42

But the whole thing becomes sorta semantical. What is wrong with universities in name ebing trade schools in function. Do we really need the amount of people who go to college to get true liberal arts educations?

Jon Miller · October 21, 2003, 23:46

it is what is needed to have an educated populace

which is nice for a well running society

Jon Miller

Drake Tungsten · October 21, 2003, 23:47

Quote:

Using the male term for both genders is proper English.

Of course it is. Not very PC, though.

cinch · October 21, 2003, 23:48

Quote:

Should Universities Have Required Courses?

No!

...

I just don't want to have to take any science courses anymore, dammit!

Tuberski · October 21, 2003, 23:49

Quote:

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

Quote:

Using the male term for both genders is proper English.

Of course it is. Not very PC, though.

**** the PC, ****, ****, **** the PC.

ACK!

The Emperor Fabulous · October 21, 2003, 23:55

Why the **** should I have to take a science course? And a LAB science at that?!

At my school, required courses count for over ONE THIRD OF MY CREDITS!!! WTF?!?!?!

Imran Siddiqui · October 22, 2003, 00:01

We only had 3 required years for History (but I took 4).

But, if you say that, then I'd argue that you should have less required math/science cources to use for history/english, etc.

Maybe having just 3 years required for math, science, history, english, and then have your senior year be free for you to choose?

In our school, we only had to take 4 years in English and three in everything else. But most of us took 4 years in Math and Science, because colleges liked that sort of thing

.

Kuciwalker · October 22, 2003, 00:03

Quote:

But, if you say that, then I'd argue that you should have less required math/science cources to use for history/english, etc.

Of course, at a regular school, however I go to a science and tech school (says so in the name

), so you SHOULD be required to take a higher number of math and science courses.

My real complaint centers on the fact that I have to basically choose two of three (and I'm doing way more than most): computer science, biotech/chem, and physics stuff. I want to do all three, but I don't have enough course slots to do them all.

Imran Siddiqui · October 22, 2003, 00:05

Yes, but they can't leave you as being a total noob in other subjects

.