![[comment image]](http://www.erinoconnor.org/archives/commentimage.gif)
Entry: Daniel Webster at Dartmouth
In my opinion, the natural sciences at the large public university where I teach have been anything but watered down over, say, the last 20 years. This goes for the intro and advanced courses for the "science" students, and also for the "science for poets" offerings. The latter, admittedly, are far easier, and different in character, than the "science track" offerings.
Classical programs like what the Daniel Webster program appears to be are probably a good thing for some students. I have to say I'm less concerned about the core than I used to be. Reason: the science students I teach don't seem to care much about it, and in addition, I don't trust the humanities and social science people to come up with something that would be of value. I think those people are hopeless and increasingly I am content to watch them stew in their own juices, whilst hoping that whatever infected them isn't infecting what's left at the universities (I'm not sure).
But getting back to the science students that I mostly deal with. Most of them wouldn't care less about something like the Daniel Webster program if it were available where I teach (which isn't the case).
I think it's probably worthwhile, but a niche item, just as quantum mechanics or molecular biology are.
I would also worry a bit about the multiculturalism in the program. Some very interesting discussions about the Quran would probably be off limits at a place like Dartmouth (or most any university). It might be better just to skip it, given the climate.
Posted by Mike at April 4, 2008 10:29 AM
I support a core curriculum, but I think colleges need to steer between the twin monsters of High School Part II on the one hand and Every Man For Himself on the other. Once we agree that students need some core, the temptation is to shift to a core so rigid that the entire apple is core. Even around these parts, we hear calls for required math courses, required science courses, required world history, required American history, required literature, required foreign languages . . . to the point that every professor comes to think that his or her area need be part of the core.
So let's think pragmatically about this. Consider a college consisting of eight semesters of four courses each. That's 32 courses in total.
And let's consider a realistic example: a literature major, say. Mastery in a foreign language would take up four courses. So we're down to 28. World and American History requirements bring is to 26. Required sciences (bio, chem, and physics) and required math (stats, calc, and symbolic logic) bring us to 20 courses.
What about the social sciences? Required courses in sociology, psychology, econ, and political science leave us with 16 classes. Enter the intro to philosophy and a comparative religion courses and its 14 left for the major. Two semesters minimum for Rhet/Comp give us 12.
So can we do a comprehensive lit major in 12 courses? Intro to fiction, intro to poetry, and intro to drama is 3. Shakespeare; Chaucer; and Milton is 6. Bible as Lit and Mythology is 8. 18th century poetry and fiction is 10. Romantic poetry and Victorian poetry is 12. The 19th century British novel is 13. British modernism is 14. Early American literature to 1800 is 15. The 19th century American novel is 16. 19th century American poetry is 17. American modernism is 18. British lit after 1945 is 19. American literature after 1945 is 20.
And what about, say, a course on Jane Austin? The Brontes? Dickens? James? Pound?
What about any literature beyond the received American, English, and very major Scottish or Irish canon? (That includes the French novel as well as the African-American novel.)
Clearly, our non-major requirements short-change the major. Our imaginary lit student couldn't take the advanced seminar in empirical philosophy or German Idealism. She couldn't take the lecture course on the History of American Religion.
And I've left out the fine arts and technology entirely.
So how do we cover math, science, social science, humanities, fine arts, and foreign language requirements in under 50% of the student's career? Who's getting cut?
All of which is to say we need a reliable way to balance flexibility with academic rigor.
Posted by Luther Blissett at April 4, 2008 8:50 PM
If interesting to compare this situation with the situation in most english universities, which do not have a core curriculum at all. I may be misinformed - if so, please correct me - but some of my friends in england who "read maths" for their degree do not take any non-math courses.
Posted by alex at April 5, 2008 2:17 AM
Another practical issue to consider here is enrollment. If every undergrad at Large State U has to take the same Intro to Psych, Intro to Soc, Comparative Religion, European History, etc. courses, then we're talking 11,600 underclassmen (at a place like OSU) needing access to those courses *every* semester to ensure no graduation snags. Which means cavernous lecture classes, more adjunct teaching, contact largely with 22 year old TAs, and so on.
So one advantage to more general curricular requirements -- such as "All students must take two Arts and Humanities courses and two Science and Technology courses and two Social Science courses" -- is that it spreads the students around, allows them to take smaller, seminar-style classes, and rarely leads to graduation snafus.
My own undergraduate institution -- Stockton College of New Jersey -- has an excellent College of General Studies. In this program, all the professors regularly run topic-based seminars for non-majors. All students have to take a set number of these Gen Stud courses in the different sub-headings -- Arts and Humanities, Math, Science, etc.
The problem here is that, sure, a student can get through college by taking a course on Film Noir for one of his Arts and Humanities requirements. But at what point is the topic not canonical enough? A Shakespeare course but not a Faulkner course? I mean, I don't see why it's any better if a student takes a Faulkner course and a music appreciation course to fulfill Ar-Hu requirements than if he takes a Film Noir course and a Mechanical Drawing course.
Posted by Luther Blissett at April 5, 2008 8:06 AM
My college had a year-long core program (double-credit for each class), called Foundations of Western Civilization. It covered history, philosophy, political theory, and major cultural and sociological underpinnings of modern society. It was taught by some VERY liberal professors, but they made a great effort to make sure that students received a relatively non-biased framework.
I was personally exempt - I talked to my advisor, and he agreed that I had covered the core content before I transferred in. Other than me, every student in the college was required to take it. It did give a solid foundation to the many students whose high school coursework was spotty.
Posted by Linda F at April 13, 2008 6:21 AM
Alex,
You’re correct to a point, but that situation does exist. In the UK and in Canada, to complete the required degree, one does not necessarily need to take courses outside of one’s own track. You simply need enough credits to complete the major and degree, and if there are some courses one desires to take, then you are at liberty to do so. Here in Canada, one must complete 120 Credits (90 In Québec because of the required 2 years of college for all students). Of those 120, the major takes up at least 15 courses (45 credits) and can be more. You need “General Education Requirements” which can be taken in any department –including your own. You are requested to take at least a science and a social science outside of your department, but there are often times, enough credits within your own department to remain there. But then, our Honours program is also much different from that in the United States, too.
Posted by Phillip at April 27, 2008 5:57 PM