Reading What Happens When a 35-Year_old Man Retakes the SAT? reminded me what bullshit standardized tests are. If and when I decide to go for a PhD, I'll have to retake the GRE, an obligation that made me want to tear my eyes out and put a bullet through my head the first time around. I hearthe exam has gotten harder and longer. I'm not looking forward to it.
Thinking about standardized tests got me thinking about standardized education, which of course led me to the mos required (and most often dreaded) general education requirements. Now I'm usually the first one to defend gen eds, but I wonder...are they really as valuable as I've let myself be convinced they are?
In COM 111 (the first semester course of my college's freshman writing sequence), my students write their second essay on higher education. I charge them to rebel against some aspect of or belief about higher that they believe needs to change. The two most popular topics are soaring tuition and--you guessed it--gen eds. Every student who has ever written about gen ed requirements has argued to either abolish them or make them discipline-specific (more on that later). They are required to research their opposition (the belief that gen eds are valuable and/or necessary) and interview faculty and staff from a college or university. Most remained unconvinced by opposing arguments and more and more often the faculty they interview agree with them that gen eds are essentially bullshit--a waste of time and money.
After spending the last three years shocked and appalled by college faculty telling my students this, I wonder...Are they right? How much do you actually remember from teh gen ed courses you were required to take? It's only been 11 years since I finished my gen ed requirements, and I remember diddley squat. From an entire semester of Western Civ, I remember that the Spartans were some hard core, bad ass dudes. From Econ 101, I remember that the student worker in the library was hot, so pretending to study in the library was a hell of lot more engaging than going to class. I remember that SPE 101 did not make me any better at public speaking despite acing the course with little effort. (I'm the worst with verbal filler...um, yeah, well, ok...). I remember I was paid to create sample tests as study guides for my bio class, but I don't actually remember anything about biology. In fact, the only courses that left any lasting knowledge in my brain are the writing and literature courses I took, the classes I most enjoyed, the classes directly related to my major. Was you experience any different? I doubt it.
So why did I have to take any of these courses in the first place? What value have they actually had in my life?
The courses I teach are part of the gen ed curriculum. Students don't take writing because they love it. They take it because they have to. I find myself spending most of my time trying to convince students that the skills they will build in my class are not only valuable but necessary to their success in the world. I pitch it as power. Who doesn't want more power in the world? Apparently a lot of people. Most of them just don't buy it, and many who do just don't care.
How do we get students to care about gen eds (that is, if we still think they are necessary and valuable)? I think my students have the answer. Make them discipline specific. What if I had learned history in conjunction with the literature I was reading? What if my political science class investigated politics through 1984? What if my auto tech majors were learning American history through the lens of the auto industry and poli sci through the actual policies that will directly affect their work? What if business majors learned psychology specifically as it relates to dealing with customers and employees? I could go on and on with examples, but I think you get the idea.
Plenty of K-12 schools have adopted integrated curriculums. My daughters middle school did, and the kids loved it. Everything they were learning made more sense because they saw how knowledge and learning is interconnected. And more of what they learned stayed with them because they were being taught according to the ways in which our memories actually function. It's pure science. Why haven't more colleges and universities begun to move in this direction? We're charging students a fortune to earn a degree, a degree they need in order to get a decent-paying job (although even that is not a guarantee anymore). We owe it to them to offer the best education possible. If that education is going to include gen eds, we need to shift toward a more integrated model.
No comments:
Post a Comment