Liberal Education and the Dismay of GenEds

In her essay, Carol G. Schneider argues that the perceived importance of liberal education has steadily been declining in recent years. She cites the proliferation of “general education requirements” as one of the symptoms of the problem, and I couldn’t agree more.

In class, we briefly discussed our opinions on general education classes, and I think it was agreed that the main objective of GenEds is to give students of all disciplines the opportunity (and obligation) to have diversity in their education, to briefly study something they would otherwise miss. Schneider gives a list of these potentially missing things, mentioning “integrative learning” and “cross-cultural knowledge” among others (65). She argues that modern universities try to ‘fill in the blanks’ that a departmental major leaves with general education requirements.

In a previous reflection, I expressed my deep satisfaction with one of my general education classes, CLCV 115: “The Mythology of Greece and Rome”. While this class stood out as an exceptional intellectual experience for me, I must say that the majority of my general education classes were a pain to take, and I’d be wholly surprised if that sentiment wasn’t shared by at least a majority of students. It is no secret (in fact, it is often openly said) that most people take GenEds to get them “out of the way”. (Schneider even mentions this specifically, but I think I’ve heard it too much in the past four years to cite her with the idea.) The root of this sentiment is no secret: GenEds are purposely different from a student’s chosen path of study, often in subjects they have no interest in. Even with the broad choices available, it is unlikely to find classes filling each requirement without at least one you’re less than excited about.

The immediate solution comes to mind: eliminate general education requirements. If there is such general distaste for forcing these classes on people, it seems logical to fix the problem at the root. This, of course, is counterproductive to the big-picture-goal. These classes are distasteful because they are so foreign to a student’s chosen curriculum. The solution isn’t to eliminate the foreign element, but to integrate it more effectively.

Schneider argues for an increase in all of the “core liberal education requirements” in every possible major. While her plan may be effective in eliminating the need for general education classes, I don’t think it addresses the larger problem of full integration. It’s true that any discipline could be skewed to include at least a basic understanding of all of the basic liberal education goals. What’s missing, it seems to me, is the diversity of class topics that made CLCV 115 so alluring to me.

My idea, instead of eliminating GenEd requirements, is to move the requirement to a higher level: something like an obligatory minor. In addition to the classes that make up a student’s major, a core of classes would be required that must be significantly different enough to represent all of the “blanks” left by the main concentration. The subject of these classes is up to the student; the only requirement is that the “minor” classes represent a core of liberal education goals different than that of the major.

I recognize a major opposition to my plan: a forced minor would increase the amount of courses required to graduate. I see this as the price of insuring a “complete” liberal education for a student, and one that they can absolutely be interested in. If the goal is increasing the importance of core liberal education, I see this as an option in reaching that goal. Schneider writes that we are on the forefront of “an era characterized by greater expectations in every sphere of life” (76). Our response to this challenge should come from our commitment to improve the effectiveness of our education, instead of letting it decline.