Core Curriculum at Hopkins: The Negative
The Student Discourse
This week we introduce a series of debates about life at Hopkins, The Student Discourse.
In this edition, two writers discus the merits of establishing a set of core curriculum at Hopkins.
How you feel about a core curriculum depends largely on your feelings about college in general - about what you believe a college should provide and what purpose an advanced degree serves. The prevailing attitude in the United States has traditionally been skewed towards broad instruction in the "liberal arts": even research universities such as Hopkins adhere to a basic form of credit distribution in which the student must demonstrate proficiency in a wide area of subject matter while pursuing advanced study in one discipline.
Such a program represents the middle ground. On the extremes are schools with no core curricula (Middlebury, Brown, etc.) and schools for which the mandated curriculum dominates the undergraduate agenda. The most famous examples of this latter group include Columbia College and St. John's, which both structure their curricula around major works of the Western canon.
The immediate advantages of the core curriculum are obvious, especially when considered in light of our political and economic circumstances. America's educational system is unique in that its objective is not career training. Our universities are not trade schools. The same cannot be said for Western Europe, China or virtually any other developed nation. It is important to note that even the most prestigious institutions of foreign countries cater specifically to professionals. Even in France, birthplace of the enlightenment and modern philosophical thinking, the educational system is highly ramified. Their Grand Ecoles prepare students for political administration, science, business or law almost exclusively.
Structured, linear education is born out of necessity in other parts of the world, where job markets consist of tight industry niches that seek out the most highly trained candidates. If you do not have the pedigree, you will not get the job. In contrast, America's free markets favor innovation. College graduates typically work several kinds of jobs in various industries before settling down. As a result, American businesses do not look for experience per se - they expect that employees will accrue most of their knowledge through on-the-job training. Instead, they look for students with a wider range of academic successes: students who can adapt and grow.
In this edition, two writers discus the merits of establishing a set of core curriculum at Hopkins.
How you feel about a core curriculum depends largely on your feelings about college in general - about what you believe a college should provide and what purpose an advanced degree serves. The prevailing attitude in the United States has traditionally been skewed towards broad instruction in the "liberal arts": even research universities such as Hopkins adhere to a basic form of credit distribution in which the student must demonstrate proficiency in a wide area of subject matter while pursuing advanced study in one discipline.
Such a program represents the middle ground. On the extremes are schools with no core curricula (Middlebury, Brown, etc.) and schools for which the mandated curriculum dominates the undergraduate agenda. The most famous examples of this latter group include Columbia College and St. John's, which both structure their curricula around major works of the Western canon.
The immediate advantages of the core curriculum are obvious, especially when considered in light of our political and economic circumstances. America's educational system is unique in that its objective is not career training. Our universities are not trade schools. The same cannot be said for Western Europe, China or virtually any other developed nation. It is important to note that even the most prestigious institutions of foreign countries cater specifically to professionals. Even in France, birthplace of the enlightenment and modern philosophical thinking, the educational system is highly ramified. Their Grand Ecoles prepare students for political administration, science, business or law almost exclusively.
Structured, linear education is born out of necessity in other parts of the world, where job markets consist of tight industry niches that seek out the most highly trained candidates. If you do not have the pedigree, you will not get the job. In contrast, America's free markets favor innovation. College graduates typically work several kinds of jobs in various industries before settling down. As a result, American businesses do not look for experience per se - they expect that employees will accrue most of their knowledge through on-the-job training. Instead, they look for students with a wider range of academic successes: students who can adapt and grow.
Be the first to comment on this story