For university officials around the nation, one of the most pressing issues in regard to the core curriculum is the debate over what exactly students need to know in the 21st century.The fundamental idea behind the core curriculum is a predetermined definition of what constitutes a well-rounded student.
Others may view the core curriculum as a detriment to academic freedom. The importance of the core curriculum – what it should include or whether it should exist altogether – is an issue that could revolutionize institutional academia in the U.S., depending on how it is decided upon.
The core curriculum has been the long-standing cornerstone of a typical university’s education system. It provides a widespread consensus of “what is” and “what isn’t” necessarily important to know. Advocates note it dramatically contributes to the wholeness of a student. Despite these benefits, however, I tend to take an opposite stance.
While TCU does have a highly accredited core, there are some concerns. In high school, my main extracurricular activity was speech/debate. In competition, I would be given 30 minutes to prepare an unrehearsed speech over world politics. The independent school district wasn’t happy enough with this experience and required me to enroll in high school speech, where I composed ice-breaker speeches. Irritation was re-instilled upon learning I also needed to take basic communication studies at TCU – only this time, at a tuition rate that makes my head spin.
In light of TCU’s Core Curriculum purpose, exactly how am I “understanding the past, comprehending the natural and social order, searching for the good and the beautiful, or integrating knowledge into significant wholes,” as stated on TCU’s Web site, by being enrolled in such a course? I have now taken speech twice. I would be much better without TCU’s mandated speech course – either with money to allocate elsewhere or hours to spend on a course I believe to be more beneficial to my academic growth.
When a university commits to an engraved core curriculum, it relinquishes the student’s ability to participate in an entirely liberal and free-minded education. I personally am fascinated by economics, political science, philosophy and psychology. But the deterrence of needing to fulfill “x” number of hours within the core will prevent me from exploring all of my academic interests. The core undermines a student’s ability to study everything he or she wants.
Argumentation opposing the idea of an open-ended curriculum is that a curriculum is far too varied for undergraduates to make intelligent decisions about their education. However, it is this exact notion that undergraduates are incapable of making wise decisions about their education that undermines the spirit of academic freedom.
Even faculty members recognize the lack of importance of some classes assembled under the core curriculum. Friends have told me about professors frustrated with students who are “simply taking this class to fulfill a core requirement.”
Brown University is one of the few universities in the nation that still has a free-ended curriculum. According to Brown University’s Web site, “students value … the freedom they have to shape their own academic program. It is only through a comparable mentality that true academic freedom can be attained.”
Brown should be the model for TCU and other universities alike – an academic infrastructure that does not impose certain classes upon students, allows students to focus solely on their interests and passions, and a curriculum that does not undermine the capabilities of the student.
Most students only have four or five years here at TCU. As such, each hour should be spent on hours conducive to the interests, talents and willful explorations of the individual and autonomous student.
Matt Buongiorno is a freshman economics major from Arlington.