The following piece is an opinion and does not reflect the views of The Eagle and its staff. All opinions are edited for grammar, style and argument structure and fact-checked, but the opinions are the writer’s own.
For most students, the core curriculum likely only crosses their mind as “that thing I have to do to graduate,” but the core should be so much more than that. A strong core curriculum can teach valuable lessons beyond just class material. Instead of being an inconvenience, a structured core offers a challenge that the whole student body tackles together.
We have to change our belief that a core curriculum’s main value is providing essential information for students’ future careers. That perspective ignores the benefit of a universal core. If the goal is simply learning math, it doesn’t matter whether a student takes calculus or statistics. However, students’ experiences in these courses will vary greatly. A universal core ensures that students learn the same material and share the same experiences.
We likely won’t remember most course content, but the experiences we gain will last. The value of a structured core partially comes from being restrictive. The advantage comes from how students face new viewpoints they otherwise wouldn’t. A restrictive core also gets students comfortable with discussing different perspectives which prepares them for constructive dialogue throughout their lives.
Stanford academics Debra Satz and Dan Edelstein argue that core curriculums that prioritize students’ choice over common foundations eventually make meaningful discussion scarce. American University, being such a politically engaged school, should recognize that a core shouldn’t only be about content, but also about preparing students for real political discussion. The current “buffet model” of the Habits of Mind system allows students to avoid unfamiliar perspectives, forgoing the potential of a more structured core.
Unfortunately, restrictive core curriculums usually aren’t favored by students, as they tend to resent being told what to do. Reactions to the AU Encounters courses show how students react to mandatory courses. However, the University shouldn’t be dissuaded by that. The benefits of a structured core outweigh any complaints. AU Encounters tries to be too much at once, which makes its purpose unclear and unfocused. Rather than stretching one course to cover everything, we should make core courses more specific.
Shared core courses ensure students wrestle with new information. Broad courses fail to build meaningful experiences, since constructive discussions require well-informed participants.
The University prides itself on having a politically active student body, but we are missing the first step in developing a civic education. Restructuring the core to require shared courses will build a shared intellectual foundation. If we create a core that encourages discussion, critical thinking and exposure to different perspectives, success is guaranteed.
Deniz Kurdi is a freshman in the School of Public Affairs and a columnist for The Eagle.
This article was edited by Quinn Volpe, Alana Parker and Abigail Turner. Copy editing done by Luna Jinks, Olivia Citarella, Jaden Anderson, Emma Brown and Nicole Kariuki. Fact checking done by Luna Jinks, Olivia Citarella and Diana Melgar.
