Harvard University is once again re-thinking its basic curriculum for undergraduates (via PZ). This matters, of course, since Harvard is unanimously recognized as the World’s Greatest University (or at least that’s what they told me when I was there). Opinions differ, as you might expect, about what should be the basic course of study we expect to be mastered by every student obtaining a bachelor’s degree at an accredited college or university. At a place like St. John’s College, every student takes exactly the same classes — and every professor is expected to teach every class, from Physics to Classics. At the other end of the spectrum, some places basically allow students to choose their own course of study, without any specifically required courses.
Most academics feel that what they went through as a student is right for everyone, and in this case I’m no exception. I went to a upright Catholic institution, where the required core curriculum was substantially lengthier than anything you’ll come across in the Ivy League. There were requirements in all the canonical disciplines of the liberal arts and sciences, with some degree of flexibility within each category. I think it’s a good system; undergraduates don’t necessarily know best about what they might like to learn (who does?), and sometimes even things that you don’t enjoy might be good for you.
So here is the curriculum I would insist on if I were the Emperor of Learning. The courses every college undergraduate should take:
- Two semesters of English Literature. (No specific writing requirement, but writing would be emphasized in many of the courses across the board.)
- Three semesters of History, at least one of American history and one of non-American history.
- Some degree of proficiency in a foreign language, as measured by some standardized test.
- Two semesters of Philosophy or Religious Studies.
- Three semesters of Social Sciences, at least one but not all to be in Economics.
- Two semesters of Mathematics, either a year of Calculus or one semester each of Statistics and Algebra/Geometery at a fairly high level.
- Two semesters of Physical Science — Physics, Chemistry, Astronomy, etc.
- Two semesters of Biological Science.
- One semester of Fine Arts.
(At Villanova there was no fine arts requirement, and only one year of science was required. But we had to take three semesters of Philosophy and three semesters of Religious Studies.) I don’t think I would require any non-English literature, as reading in translation is fun but not necessarily central. I also wouldn’t require any lab component to the science courses, which I’m sure will cause howls of outrage. I believe firmly in the importance of experiment and that the scientific method is grounded in empirical exploration etc. etc. But I also know from experience that every lab course that I either took myself or served as a TA for, not to put too fine a point on it, sucked. They served mostly to turn students off of science forever. Maybe I have simply been unlucky, but lab courses would require some deep re-thinking before I would include them in the required curriculum.
Let’s see, four years of college, two semesters per year, four courses per semester means that a student will take at least 32 courses as an undergraduate (they are welcome to take more courses per semester, of course). The above list comes to 17 courses, at least if they’re lucky enough to test out of the language requirement. Imagine that a typical major (or “concentration,” as they say at the WGU) insists on 10 courses in that discipline; but any given discipline will probably cover two semesters worth of the above requirements, so really only 8 more required courses. That gives a total of 25 required courses, leaving 7 completely free electives. They could be taken within the student’s major, or anywhere else. So everyone gets one course almost every semester just to have fun. (Double majors would likely require students to take extra courses; worse things could happen.)
While I think it’s good to demand that students take a long list of breadth requirements, I would be extremely flexible when it came to the required courses for a major. If I were in charge, every student could design their own major by proposing a program of study of 10 or more courses that somehow hung together to form a sensible story, even if it didn’t fit comfortably within any of the existing academic departments. So you could major in biological physics, or philosophical psychology, or the history of ideas, or German studies, or what have you. A standing committee of the University would judge all such proposals for coherence and rigor, and the successful student would be awarded a B.A. or B.S. in whatever they called their made-up program. (None of this is exactly original, to be sure.)
Different strokes for different folks, of course. Even if I were Emperor, I wouldn’t want the same set of requirements to hold at every university; a great strength of our decentralized system of higher education is that individual schools can serve as laboratories for innovation, which is a feature rather than a bug. At Caltech every undergraduate is required to take a year of calculus-based physics, for example; that probably wouldn’t work for everybody. (They also don’t admit people as English majors, although you’re allowed to switch into “Humanities” if you make that choice once you are here. Not sure what social pressures such people must feel.) But I still believe in the ideal of a broadly-based education in the liberal arts and sciences, where everyone who graduates from college knows something about the theory of evolution, the history of the Roman Empire, the law of supply and demand, and the categorical imperative. You may say I’m a dreamer, but I’m not the only one.
Good article and I really agree with you. However (here come the howls) as a scientist I think exposure to a lab or field class is probably important. However, a lot of the entry level lab classes that I took were pretty painful and they probably turn people off of science with lab work that is mundane. However, I think everyone should learn how to use a microscope, telescope, look at rocks and roadcuts on a field trip, learn some plant and animals species in the field. I really don’t know what the ideal solution would be….
Hmmm, I agree with the philosophy that everyone should have a broad and well-rounded education. That’s a good thing overall. However, it’s a bit of a squeeze to also fit in a solid physics education with only 15 courses (and that assumes that one tests out of the langauge requirement or chooses not to learn a second langauge or chooses not to become even more proficient in a single langauge). I counted my undergraduate courses that I consider to be essential for a decent physics major education. It’s a bit difficult to translate for 2 reasons – I was on the quarter system, and I was a Physics/Math double major. Leaving out the Math classes that I will arbitrarily call non-essential (and leaving out the 1st year physics and calculus sequences) here’s what I had:
Sophomore Quantum: 2 semesters
Special Relativity: 1 semester
Classical Mechanics: 1.5 semesters (hard to translate 2 quarters of material into semesters)
E&M: 1.5 semesters (ditto)
Stat Mech: 1 semester
Senior Quantum: 2 semesters
1 Senior Special Topics Course (I took HEP, other choices were Solid State or Optics): 1 semester
Multi-variable Calc/Diff EQ/Linear Algebra sequence: 2 semesters
Partial Diff EQ: 1 semester
Math Methods: 2 semesters
If one is going to be a serious physicist, it is hard to see what should be cut from the above.
Oh – thank you David Syzdek, I forgot to count my junior lab course! (Guess it didn’t impress much on my theory bent brain…) That’s another semester of physics class to add to the list.
As an undergrad I took a Field Ecology course. Once a week we had a six hour adventure out in the wilds of Laramie, Wyoming. We might do an analysis of plant species on the mesa, or collect various species of invertebrates from a river. One excursion had us taking cores from trees to determine ages within a particular plot. We’d then have lab time to analyze our findings and learn how to do proper write-ups. It was the best lab course I took and was well integrated across a variety of disciplines (math, statistics, biology).
Why do we need to learn a “foreign” language. American is pretty darn near the universal language isn’t it?
😉
Harvard is the best university in the world? I guess I missed that email. Harvard is notorious for having a weak undergraduate program (I know, I was there).
I would like to suggest two more core courses: one in computer science/ technology and the other a Life Skills class. The computer course (ideally spanning two semesters) could be selected according to the student’s major. The Life Skills class would cover the basics of personal finances, nutrition, exercise, vehicle repair and maintenance, basic home repairs, first aid, etc. that are also needed for a well-rounded life.
The course outline that Sean presented strikes me as similar to what the University of Chicago required. The side effect was that many undergrads had to take
courses in the summer, or overload for two of their four years. That was
kind of hard them.
I know that I went to a typical liberal arts “take courses that reflect who you are, what you are interested in!” which meant I did not take hard non-science courses (except for linguistics) unless I absolutely had to. It took a lot of years in grad school to begin repairing my deficiencies in history, literature, and art. God help me with regards to the social sciences.
So, there is a lot to be said for Sean’s proposal. But Joanne’s point about course requirements for the stricter majors means that it would be very difficult for many people, and downright impossible for engineers.
I’m one who doesn’t think that my undergraduate education is the ideal…
…but then again, I went to Harvey Mudd College, where it was ideal for the very specialized and peculiar student body that college has. First semester Frosh year, everybody takes the same classes, unless they pass out. Of one of the classes, that is. Chemistry, Physics, first or second semester Calculus, Computer Science (really: How to Program), and “Rhetoric”, a basic English/Writing class. (Yes, 5 classes, plus lab for Chemistry; 5 classes was pretty standard every semester at HMC.) I also took an additional unit (orchestra), but it was gravvy that I got course credit for that.
Second semester is mostly all the same — now you have a “core elective” and a “core humanities course” to choose from. Third semester it slacks off a bit more, and after that it’s more open. You do your major, and you compete the “Humanities & Social Science” requirements (which amount to 10 courses, 5 in an area of concentration, 5 distributed across fields).
But… this would be a terrible program for a lot of students. Calculus based chemistry *and* physics all in the first semester. Indeed, as a pre-major advisor, I’d be alarmed if I saw somebody signing up for a schedule like that, unless they were clearly a nerd like myself.
As for what is *really* the ideal curriculum, I disagree with Sean; I would give the students more flexibility. Yeah, they don’t know what they want to take, but they have some idea. A too heavy core is burdensome, and a too overspecified core means more students in classes that they resent having to take. I’d like them to have the flexibility to experiment with different things and to take various things they like, and the advising that tells them that college is an opportunity to study lots of things, not just to get requirements “out of the way” and do a major or two.
Then again, different curricula for different students. At Brown, they probably have the right sort of student body that a curriculum of “and it harm none, do what thou wilt”, or something like that. At Harvey Mudd, uberthrashing on all fields of science (I think they include Biology there now too) is appropriate for that student body. At Vanderbilt, either one of those curricula would be a disaster.
Okay, what I really think is that everyone should be taking five courses per semester, if only to make up for the ridiculously inadequate secondary education provided by the typical U.S. school system.
But an entire semester of special relativity? That’s just crazy.
If I were the “Emperor of Learning” I would focus on primary and secondary education. The earlier you learn things, the better. So, I would move linear algebra, calculus and most of the undergraduate stuff that is taught in university to high school.
Yeah, I was really imagining that I was the Emperor of College. Compared to primary and secondary schools, higher ed in the U.S. is an unimpeachable success.
I would take one or two semesters away from the three semesters each of history and social science and apply them to cultural anthropology.
I agree with Sean with regards to laboratory courses. As a current undergrad I can attest to the blatant inadequacy of the basic lab courses. Don’t get me wrong, as a physics major I wouldn’t give up my experimental physics course for anything, but the elementary labs that are required of basic physics and chemistry courses are more of a lesson in anger management than the scientific method.
On the flip side of that is the foreign language requirement (being fluent in another language might be the one thing I’d give up experimental physics for). ‘American’ might be spoken all over, but it only adds to the arrogant american image that we’ve worked so hard to earn. In fact, Boston University requires fluency in a foreign language of their physics graduate students. Bully to them, I say (that sounds foreign, right?)
I say no requirements, and don’t even make the kids take courses. On the other hand, give them four years, plus a semester’s grace, to graduate, or kick ’em out. Keep the degrees, keep the disciplines. Keep the lab courses, but make them more like intermediate lab (a.k.a., here’s a room full of equipment and a list of experiments to do).
Foreign language requirements, swimming requirements, humanities requirements, these are all rubbish. If the student isn’t interested, they merely annoy him. If he is interested, they needn’t be required. Further, they make it impossible to pursue some courses of study because they involve a converging set of cumulative skills which take a lot of time to develop. Perhaps a case could be made for foreign language, but in the US language instruction is a joke.
I don’t buy the “well rounded human being” argument, because as far as I could tell, the students after their required courses were merely shallow and vulgar about things that did not deserve such treatment. The ones I found who knew the most about literature, history, and philosophy at any nontrivial level were scientists and engineers, who didn’t learn it in their required courses.
Just to put this in perspective, I went to University of Virginia for undergrad, and their honors program cancels all course requirements, gives the students priority registration for courses, and makes things like course prerequisites not apply (I loved it…and did nothing but math and physics). Now I’m in grad school at the Rockefeller University, where there’s no qualifying exam, no departments, and no core set of classes — not to mention no undergrads.
(And this is why no one would ever dream of putting me in charge of anything involving education.)
I consider the undergraduate education I obtained at Melbourne University amongst the best in the world. I double phys/maths majored, and here are the classes I took (it’s a 4-yr honours degree):
Algebra: 1 semester (3rd yr)
Algebraic Topology: 1 semester (3rd yr)
Applied Partial Differential Equations: 1 semester (3rd yr)
Astrophysics: 2 semesters (integrated with 2nd and 3rd yr optics) (2nd & 3rd yrs)
Complex Analysis: 1 semester (2nd yr)
Computational Physics: 1 semester (3rd yr)
Cosmology: 1 demi-semester (4th yr)
Electromagnetism/Classical Electrodynamics: 2 semesters (2nd & 3rd yrs)
Functional Analysis: 1 semester (3rd yr)
Graph Theory: 1 semester (3rd yr)
General Relativity: 1 demi-semester (4th yr)
Integral Transforms & Asymptotics: 1 semester (3rd yr)
Laboratory work: 2 semesters (1st & 2nd yrs)
Linear Algebra: 1 semester (2nd yr)
Mathematical Methods: 1 semester (2nd yr)
Optics: 2 semesters (2nd & 3rd yrs)
Point-set topology: 1 semester (2nd yr)
Quantum Mechanics: 2 semesters (2nd & 3rd yrs), 2 demi-semesters (4th yr)
Quantum Field Theory: 1 demi-semester (4th year)
Solid State Physics: 1 semester (3rd yr)
Special Relativity: 1 semester (integrated with 2nd yr electromag) (2nd yr)
Statistical Mechanics: 1 demi-semester (4th yr)
Thermal Physics: 2 semesters (2nd & 3rd yrs)
Vector Calculus: 1 semester (2nd yr)
A total of 32 courses.
Because I started uni mid-year, I did only 1 semester of 1st year stuff, and moved to 2nd year in my second semester. So, this enabled me to do more stuff in 3rd year. Before starting uni, I had no intention of majoring in maths at all, but things changed quite quickly in my mind. Funny thing is, with one more applied maths course, I would have, according to Melbourne Uni, triple-majored (they count pure maths and applied maths as different majors). I don’t think I would have been able to do so many things, in phys and maths only, in any other university that I know of (except maybe Cambridge Uni). Melbourne Uni is also going through course revamp lately, but I don’t have the details.
I’ve always wondered how the courses of undergrads from institutions like the Ecole Normale Superieure (Ulm, Paris), Moscow University, Swiss ETH, would be.
Studying a foreign language at uni is a complete waste of time! One can do so in primary and to some extent in secondary school, but not at uni! I simply don’t think this makes sense, since it took me more than 10 yrs to master French.
“Life Skills”? WTF? That’s clearly high-school or earlier. If they haven’t acquired them by college, there’s no helping them.
I was a Caltech undergrad, and the biggest problem I found was not enough math, early enough. I had even tested out of some of it, but the opportunities for more advanced classes useful for physics just weren’t there, or weren’t made known to the undergrads.
They do use trimesters there, and 5 courses each term was pretty standard, at most classes were 9 units. The units there are supposed to correspond to hours, and they mostly did, but there were always exceptions.
As far as the humanities balance there goes, you are required to take at least 4 terms of humanities, 4 terms of social sciences, and 4 more between either. Some more direction might have been nice, but the flexibility was handy as well.
One term of quantum sophomore year was I think enough for that level, though moving on to Cohen-Tannoudji as a junior was a bit much. The sophomore stat-mech class was not very useful though. If only they had presented it frm the bayesian perspective…
What?? 32 courses?? Of how many hours per week? I mean, college in Mexico is 64 (on average)… I mean, courses with 3-4 hours (plus homeworks, student events, competitions with other schools). Got like 40 common courses, meaning no matter if you are B.A. or B.S. Curiously enough I did get 7 slots to “choose” whatever I wanted.
Common courses include, 7 English levels, 3 of writing, oral communication, Mexican and world history, economy, something about worldwide values, cultural differences, how to make a startup, logic, obviously calculus, statistics, and some more.
Music, arts, sports and the like aren’t enforced. However about 50% do it just because we like them. Sorry if it seems I’m bragging, it’s just that I didn’t knew you had so few classes.
I’m bachellor in computer science, if you wondered.
If we are going continue to push everyone through some educational potato ricer then lets require a “how to interact with other human beings” class.
Prerequisite: ability to breathe (mechanical help allowed).
Skills that will be mastered (any or all of which you can test out of):
1. personal hygene and knowledge of human sexuality
2. ability to carry on a converstation about the weather and other mundane topics with a stranger
3. advanced first-aide and CPR
4. ability to write a coherent one page letter
5. ability to listen and ask open-ended questions
6. ability to accurately paraphrase what a person tells you
7. ability to talk about what you know without being a pompous ass
8. ability to mediate conflicts between two other people
9. ability to resolve conflicts between you and another
10. ability to do planning as part of a group
11. ability to do things for other people without being asked or expecting a reward
12. ability to allow people to do things for you
13. ability to give and receive hugs regardless of the other person’s gender
14. ability to go a week without saying some negative about another human being or make a cutting remark — okay, that’s unrealistic, make it 24 hours
15. ability to plan, shop, and cook a good vegetarian meal for four people (no frozen or prepared foods allowed)
16. ability to make a fire and spend one night sleeping under the stars including being able to take a dump in the woods and take care of it responsibly
If you can master that program, you may just be qualified to take your place as a functioning adult in society. Oh, hell, let’s make this an entry requirement for higher education or, even better, a high school graduation requirement.
I know few people who are competent at all the skills on this list and even less who are comfortable with them. Yet aren’t they, or something akin to them, some of the most vital skills we need in society?
So, you mean to say, that even when physicists get OUT of undergrad, they still compare themselves to each other on who was “smartest” and “got the best education”?
Oh dear God.
Not to be rude or anything here, but what did you guys learn between the ages of 5 and 18? Most of that core stuff I did in school (that’s *high* school over the pond.)
I’m with Fred Ross. The ‘well-rounded human being’ – if she exists – is an emergent property of several years of being curious about things.
Hi Sean, remember me from Trieste? Just wondering if you’d make general relativity a requirement! Totally agree about the lab, although going through the ordeal the did let me know I didn’t want a lab based career. I’ve no idea how university in the US works, but unless the course marks are heavily weighted to your major, any course I took involving the writing of essays would be a ‘write’ off.
English, mathematics and history should be admissions requirements, not college classes. That they are required in universities in the US is an admission of failure of secondary education.
I agree that some liberal education is appropriate; something like 2 semesters of philosophy, and a little bit of social science and natural science (with lab), but other than that university should focus on majors + electives.
Most of the Gen Ed is a waste of time and, as other commenters note, mostly just annoys people.
I did my undergraduate at UChicago, so my perspective is obviously colored by the fact that I chose to go to a place with broad-based requirements (the Core).
First, to all of you who say that history and english and calculus should be taught in high schools, well yes. And in good high schools, they are. That doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be taught in college as well. There’s always deeper to go and more to learn. And particularly in the age of NCLB (in the US), curriculums can become so set by the standardized tests that things like South Asian Civilization, Poetry, and Economics get short shift. (I was fortunate enough to have all three in my high school)
Second, Sean, I noticed your curriculum doesn’t really have a place for so-called interdisciplinary humanities. One of my most valuable non-physics classes at the U(C) was a course called Media Aesthetics, for my humanities requirement. It was part literature class (Shakespeare, Wilde, Blake, Beckett) part fine arts class (painting, photography, music, and film) and part philosophy class (Plato, Aristotle, Benjamin, Nietzche, duBois). It was wholly different from the more rigid class categories I had experienced before and woke me up to a totally different way of thinking about these things.
Other than that, between the Core and my electives, I think I covered basically all of what Sean suggests in his outline, with the exception of American History and Economics, and I agree that they form a strong basis for an excellent education. I don’t feel as though my physics education lacked for all of the “fuzzy” subjects I took—in fact I feel it strenghtened it. Perhaps I haven’t taken as much math as some of my fellow grad students, but I also don’t find it difficult to pick up the essential results that I need for applying to my work without having to drudge (for me) through all the proofs.
Alex, I wouldn’t make GR an undergrad requirement, although I would make it very easy to take for anyone majoring in physics.
And yes, many of the above courses could/should be taught in high school rather than college. But they are not, so…