---

In print | Published January 29, 2009

The euphemistic ideal of a liberal arts institution (“help[ing] students fulfill their responsibilities as citizens and grow[ing] into cultivated and versatile individuals,” as the Swarthmore website aptly puts it) and the reality of its implementation are, at times, far removed from each other. At Swarthmore, students grow into cultivated and versatile individuals by completing a series of distribution requirements intended to force reluctant students to broaden their horizons. These requirements entail, among other things, taking a minimum of three courses in the humanities, natural sciences and social sciences.

The college’s philosophy of a well-rounded education for every graduate requires no amendment. The problem, rather, is that the college often misses the mark on helping students turn coursework requirements into a liberal education. Or, less nebulously, distribution requirements are in many instances failing to translate into actual knowledge.

The problem is that some classes offered to non-majors lack the rigor commonly associated with a Swarthmore education. While many of the classes intend to make students feel comfortable in classrooms they would otherwise avoid, accessibility sometimes comes at too high a price. The relative ease of many of these classes means that they fail to challenge students to think critically in disciplines other than their intended majors. Too often, students take introductory classes exclusively to fulfill their distribution requirements, without actually seeking to further their educational “versatility.”

Some schools have attempted to avoid the predicament of filler classes by rejecting distribution requirements altogether. Amherst College, a school in many ways comparable to Swarthmore, has no distribution requirements. According to its website, Amherst has the same concern about graduating a versatile student body, writing, “Amherst’s liberal studies curriculum is based on a concept of education as a process or activity rather than a form of production. The curriculum provides a structure within which each student may confront the meaning of his or her education, and does it without imposing a particular course or subject on all students.” However, it continues, “Students are encouraged to continue to seek diversity and attempt integration through their course selection.” The idea, buried beneath layers of rhetoric, is that the best way to achieve versatility is to allow students to select courses unimpeded by pesky restrictions.

As tempting as this approach may seem, it is hardly foolproof. If students are free to take whatever classes they want, conventional logic goes, they will elect to take exclusively what they, for whatever reason, arrive at college wanting to take. And that, needless to say, leaves behind the liberal arts mission of graduating students that are more “cultivated” than when they arrived.

And thus we return to the notion of distribution requirements. There is, of course, nothing inherently wrong with pitching courses to non-majors. The raison d’etre of such classes — allowing students to study subjects that they don’t necessary plan to major in — is fine in theory. There are, however, a number of problems with Swarthmore’s implementation of this ideal, at least as things presently stand.

At least in part, the problem stems from the fact that these courses expect little in the way of prior knowledge from enrolled students. To gain admission to Swarthmore, students had to demonstrate a proficiency in a wide range of subjects — when the average SAT Math score of a member of the class of 2012 is a 710, even the most math-phobic English major can’t plead complete ignorance. And while many students do not feel confident in subjects outside of their personal comfort zones, Swarthmore provides easy access to professors and a staff of tutors. Of course, certain students have different levels of expertise in different areas, but with all the available support, claims that students are unprepared or unable to tackle rigorous classes in any field outside of their majors should be treated with skepticism. The problem, more often, is that we simply don’t want to.

Swarthmore’s professors can hardly be blamed for this. Because teacher evaluation forms play a substantial role in hiring and tenure decisions, faculty have an incentive to ensure that students aren’t frustrated with their classes. Some professors may find it easier to move through material slowly, rather than discover that frustrated students, expecting an easy grade, have panned them on end-of-semester evaluations.

The problem is attitudinal. Swarthmore students expecting perfect grades in every class they attend are shocked when a class they blew off comes back to haunt them. Yes, the t-shirt slogan goes, anywhere else it would have been an A, but anywhere else, lambasting professors for offering academically challenging courses to non-majors would rightfully be seen for what it is: a manifestation of a student body accustomed to coming by everything easily.

But more is at work than just students expressing their frustration at being “screwed” by their non-major classes. There is, of course, nothing wrong with offering classes designed for non-majors, but the efficacy of some of these classes demands greater scrutiny by the college. There are some concrete steps that the administration could take that would make courses for non-majors more fulfilling. For instance, some course evaluation forms ask students for their thoughts on whether the classes move too slowly or too quickly. Such forms should be implemented in every class designed for non-majors. Moreover, departments should take into greater account the opinions and feedback of students who don’t plan on majoring in their subjects.

But improving courses is a cooperative process, and, indubitably, the burden cannot fall exclusively on professors and departments. A more extensive dialogue needs to be initiated between students and faculty on the subject of non-major courses. Students taking courses outside of their majors need to submit extensive feedback, preferably throughout the class, on what their experiences have been (both positive and negative) and how the classes might be improved. Students must be invested not only in the departments they aspire to join in the spring of their sophomore year, but in every department throughout the college. Feedback isn’t optional, and improving courses can only happen when students tell professors what they’re doing wrong in a concrete and detailed way.

---

« RETURN TO OPINIONS

« PREV ARTICLE | NEXT ARTICLE »