The Badger Herald

OPINION & EDITORIAL

Timetable experts not ‘world citizens’

Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.

Also by Hannah Shtein:

Abortion 'facts' flat out immoral (November 20, 2007)
Forget the base: Take middle path on voter issues (November 6, 2007)
In politics, use your head, not your heart (October 23, 2007)
UW making big mistake with quota (October 9, 2007)
Timetable experts not 'world citizens' (September 26, 2007)

by Hannah Shtein

Wednesday, September 26, 2007

Head on desk, eyes glazed and unfocused, cell phone held under your desk as you pray that a new text message will save you from your boredom.

Sound familiar? You're in that dreaded class that makes you want to shoot yourself in the face just so you can avoid going. It is "that class" you're taking so you can fulfill "that requirement" — insert eye roll and groan. Although it's true that sometimes we need to be pushed in a new direction in order to become more open-minded or discover a new interest, making you take "those classes" is not the path to success.

The ideology behind the University of Wisconsin's general education requirements is rooted in the very admirable desire to make every student "well-rounded," or proficient in a variety of disciplines. However, since the requirements usually do not relate to students' interests in any way, there is no opportunity to become acquainted with these courses on a personal level, which in turn fails to foster knowledge or curiosity.

The first two years of our undergraduate careers are supposedly a time for exploration —who remembers being told to "just take whatever you want?" However, in reality, this time is spent frantically trying to figure out a direction without really being allowed to see what we enjoy learning. Time and energy are devoted to searching for a class that will fulfill a literature or physical science credit, rather than one that simply interests the student. This system can render a sophomore no closer to realizing his or her true passion than a year earlier. With the absence of enthusiasm for the material comes decreased motivation to do well or to actually learn something, and the large size of most lectures doesn't aid in personalizing a class from which you are already somewhat mentally removed.

The level of mental and emotional investment in coursework that comes with taking Intro to the Middle East because you actually want to learn about Israeli-Palestinian affairs is undermined by scanning the timetable for a "p" or an "I" and then choosing the least painful-seeming class of the bunch.

A solution to this problem would allow the prospective chemistry-art-political science student time to explore each of these fields to provide a basis for declaring her concentration; it certainly would grant my Spanish major roommate the chance to study the language and culture from a political perspective. And maybe I could finally take that painting class just because I want to try it out.

It's understandable for an academic institution to want to lay some kind of foundation intending for important disciplines to be covered, especially those that expose students to modern-day issues. However, it is more important that the foundation is relevant to the student, even if this means that it must include fewer classes because it is this sense of importance on a personal level that has the power to create curiosity and drive for the subject matter. The university's goal to create a graduate "engaging in life-long learning in a continually changing world" will be fulfilled best not by making students take as many courses as possible in as many disciplines as possible, but rather by planting the desire to continue education, whether formally or informally, post-college.

The way for this to work is to bring requirements, at least in some way, into the sphere of a student's interest, which can be done by broadening the range that allows a requirement to be met. At the University of Rochester in New York, for instance, all the university's courses are split into three categories: Humanities, Social Sciences, and Natural Sciences and Engineering. Students are required to take a "cluster" in the categories not covered by their majors/minors. A cluster consists of a set three courses united by a theme, such as Earth and Environmental Sciences or Film and Media Studies. Because the cluster groups the courses in such a way, similar to a compressed major, students can frame a subject that attracts them within the framework of a previously unfamiliar field. This approach has fewer specific requirements with a greater effort placed on tailoring the curriculum to suit the students' desires. So if John Smith is exposed to science in a way that ties it into his love for philosophy, he is more likely to display future interest in science than if he were to choose a random geography class that sounds like it'll be an easy A.

So what makes you the more "well-rounded" student? Is it acing your Timetabling 101 course and taking as many slacker requirement classes as possible, or is it your thorough understanding of the subjects that inspire your passion and devotion? If the administration truly expects us to become "citizen[s] of the world" upon graduation, then one would hope it would want us to actually attend our classes. If we pride ourselves on being such a progressive campus, it is time we moved past this archaic system.

Hannah Shtein (shtein@wisc.edu) is a sophomore majoring in philosophy and religious studies.

Feedback

Show all comments

Hide anonymous comments

Anonymous (September 26, 2007 @ 10:07am):

Something that's missing in this whole equation is the utility of seeing an ACADEMIC ADVISOR. They are paid to be the "timetable experts" on this campus, and know more than they could ever want to about courses and policies. For example, if John Smith would make an appointment before scheduling courses saying, "I don't like physical science but really enjoy philosophy," I almost guarantee that the advisor would suggest an Integrated Liberal Studies course. The department includes courses that satisfy all breadth requirements and are taught by award-winning professors -- including one for science credit that comes from a philosophical/historical perspective.

It's a big campus and you can't expect things to be handed to you. If you don't like that, maybe you shouldn't be here. But, at any rate, reach out to an advisor, and you might find that fulfilling this or that requirement may not be as painful as you expected it to be.

Anonymous (September 26, 2007 @ 10:15am):

Every time I read the Badger Herald, I am stumped by the overwhelming ignorance of the writers. This article is no exception.

Perhaps you should have checked on the different requirements for the Engineering School before you started ranting about the requirements at other institutions. They are required to take classes in the same "cluster" requirement that you described.

Perhaps you are simply not aware of the kind of degree you are getting, as a philosophy and religious studies major. That's right: you are getting a single degree from the College of Letters and Science. That means, dear, that you are expected to take a large number of breadth classes. Ask any advisor, you know, the actual experts on the timetable. Being a well-rounded Letters and Science grad means taking all these required courses.

There are, of course, a few requirements that everyone on campus must have. Comm A and B and Ethnic Studies course, to name a couple. And if you ask me, most students should have to take a couple of ethnic studies courses--because, really, it's just that important. There are greater issues at hand with that requirement than boring the hell out of students who aren't interested in learning about another social group that has been historically oppressed.

Anonymous (September 26, 2007 @ 11:34am):

So let me get this straight...

the University of Rochester forcing students to take a cluster of three classes that may not interest them (rather than being able to pick and choose) means we'll like our classes more?

Huh?

Anonymous (September 26, 2007 @ 7:42pm):

With regard to the other comments, I am continually shocked by the blind support of this school and its policies. The article is not lamenting Madison's Engineering School or academic advisors, (though all of my experiences with the latter have been impersonal at best). It is simply saying that as adults, we should have the right to direct our own education to reflect our interests, rather than comply with the sort of obligatory balance the general education requirements provide.

Anonymous (September 26, 2007 @ 11:19pm):

I believe that the author makes a point in that classes which are too beyond our own interests do not need to be taken. I certainly cringe in pain when I remember that I have to take humanities-type gen eds (I'm a science student and I rather abhor the humanities).

The cluster system fails in the fact that it lacks variety and enforces the same three classes on everyone who chooses the cluster. On the other hand, too-heavy gen ed requirements will no doubt foster a certain amount of cynicism in us students about having to take classes that foster a sense of begrudging and genuine dislike for the class (having a lot of work is a completely different thing). It is possible to keep the spirit of a liberal education (and, for you conservative readers who keep popping up these days, 'liberal' is used in the sense that it is broad, objective, and makes an individual more facile in interactions with the world) while reducing the load of classes we just don't want to take.

I propose halving the current gen-ed credits.

Anonymous (September 27, 2007 @ 9:10am):

Hmm, the clustering of three courses sure sounds an awful lot like the FIG program offered here for first year students.

Anonymous (September 27, 2007 @ 7:44pm):

but the fig program is only offered to first-years, and usually ends up not affecting the student's major, especially since figs fill up very quickly

Shawn Snyder (December 5, 2007 @ 10:51pm):

non of your articles make any logical sense, or you're crying about something that's your fault but blaming someone else.

Add a comment

We welcome your thoughts, but please keep your feedback thoughtful, on-topic and respectful. Offensive language, personal attacks, or irrelevant comments may be deleted.