The Abandonment of the True Core Curriculum
Columbia should focus on promoting the value of Western tradition, not mandating as many disciplines as possible.
“What’s your Roman Empire?”
Here at Columbia, it might very well be our own campus, whose neoclassical architecture doesn’t shy away from trying to reflect 3,000 years of Western civilization.
Stand on College Walk, and to one side you’ll see Butler Library with its classical Ionic columns, exhibiting itself as a grand temple to knowledge. A row listing philosophers reads, “HOMER HERODOTUS SOPHOCLES PLATO ARISTOTLE DEMOSTHENES CICERO VERGIL.” On the other side, you’ll encounter Low Library, modeled after the Pantheon in Rome.
Columbia’s architecture is not just abstract. It reflects the University’s commitment to exploring the Western canon, a tradition that goes far beyond its buildings. It defines our education as students, as evidenced in the College’s signature general education program, the Core Curriculum.
This is not to say that when the Core was implemented in 1919 it was ancien and based on the status quo. In fact, it was unlike any experiment in higher education at the time. The Core sought to apply John Dewey’s method of progressive education. Its goal was not to transmit knowledge hierarchically from instructor to student, but to “create knowledge collectively at the intersection of historical consciousness and self-awareness,” using Western philosophy, literature, and history as the basis for doing so. But today, too many Core classes both in and outside of STEM fall short of this principle.
It is true that science and math are based on the same process of analytical reasoning found throughout the humanities. The scientific method is a direct consequence of Europe’s humanist revolution, the Renaissance. This is outlined in Francis Bacon’s Novum Organum as a method of three parts: a description of the facts, a classification of the facts, and a determination of phenomena connected to the investigation. Columbia students would do well to learn and apply this method, not just in science classes but in other subjects, and more importantly, in their lives.
However, the College’s introductory science requirement, Frontiers of Science, does not teach the scientific method as a means of understanding the world around us. Introduced in 2004, it also does not give students an understanding of the “scientific humanities” of Bacon, Galileo Galilei, and Isaac Newton. Instead, students are taught about the regions of the brain, how to use formulae, and how to solve physics problems. These skills are evaluated in exams. Even though lectures are accompanied by seminar classes, in my experience, seminars merely supplement lectures, further explain material, and help students prepare for exams. They don’t, however, provide an adequate forum for rigorous discussion. The sole exception might be the final unit, Climate and Us, which does highlight the real-world implications of climate change.
This is at odds with the mission of the Core. What would we say about a Contemporary Civilization curriculum that forced students to memorize important dates in European history rather than encounter and discuss the Great Books?
Of course, it makes sense that there would be little room for argument or a deep understanding and application of the scientific method in an introductory science class. But this is precisely the problem. If the humanities are taught well, there is always room for argument, irrespective of course level. How do we interpret Plato’s Republic, as a manifesto for good governance or a satirical text? Was Augustine a prude or a proto-existentialist? How does Ibn Arabi shatter our preconceptions about Islamic civilization in Europe during the Middle Ages?
There is no clear answer to these questions, and that’s the point. By presenting students with readings and encouraging rigorous conversation and debate, the humanities compel us to answer—without dogma and in consideration of other perspectives—the big questions of the past, present, and future.
As with Frontiers of Science, in the foreign language requirement and in University Writing, knowledge is transmitted from instructor to student rather than students developing knowledge and understanding together. (Granted, introductory foreign language courses necessitate grammar learning and word memorization. Writing is also a more individual process.)
These classes simply should not be included in the Core. Just because we may think that required classes in science, foreign languages, and writing are essential for student success does not make them Core-eligible. We are not an open curriculum school like Brown or Amherst, giving students total freedom of choice in the courses they take. But we also shouldn’t fall into the trap of implementing a distribution requirement of humanities, STEM, and language classes like those of Harvard or MIT. What makes the Core so special is its specific mission in the Western humanities.
None of this is to say that Columbia should not promote the rigorous study of STEM, foreign languages, or writing. But this all comes against the backdrop of a higher education environment that is already transitioning to skill-based learning which is more likely to produce higher salaries post-graduation, as opposed to scientia gratia scientiae: knowledge for the sake of knowledge.
STEM occupations are now growing twice as fast as non-STEM occupations. As more and more students choose STEM pathways, it is all the more important to preserve the Core as the hallmark of Columbia’s liberal arts tradition. It is crucial for every single Columbia College graduate—irrespective of major—to have grappled with the big ideas of the original Core. The foreign language requirement, University Writing, and Frontiers of Science detract from this. We should seek to foster a community of Ivy League nerds, yes, but ones who can also fit into the pseudo-intellectual social scene of the Upper East Side and recite miscellania (of course, there’s more to the humanities, but cultural literacy is itself very important).
As the Core approaches its 106th anniversary, let’s reconsider what this curriculum means, and restore it to its original purpose. All students at Columbia should have a classical liberal arts education—that has, for over a century, been the mission of the Core—and not be distracted by classes that make the Core a mundane exercise in doing a bit of everything.
Mr. Mohammadi is a rising sophomore at Columbia College majoring in American Studies. He is a staff writer for Sundial.
 | A guest post by
|