This is part one in a three-part examination of the state of the Core.
In explaining the Core Curriculum on its admissions web site, the College makes no attempt to hide its grand ambitions. “We require courses in physical sciences and biological sciences so that students understand both the power and limitations of scientific observations and experiments.” The current science curriculum, however, falls well short of delivering that promise. For example, the metabolism sequence, an alternative to Core Bio, requires students to keep a diet log, and to run on a treadmill while measuring their oxygen intake. While a balanced diet may be critical to a healthy lifestyle, it hardly warrants a place next to Self, Culture And Society as a pillar of a University of Chicago education. Both classes—Metabolism and Exercise, and Metabolism and Nutrition—offer practical guidance but little in the way of critical, foundational theory.
The problems with the science requirements are myriad. Many courses, especially the numerous lecture-based offerings, feature little to stimulate students other than often tedious PowerPoint presentations and even more tedious busy work assignments. Attendance is sporadic. In the case of Core Bio, the class is little more than an expanded version of what most students learned in high school.
What Core sciences classes lack most of all is a larger foundation. In contrast with Hum and Sosc classes, which provide students with a clear framework that informs the way they think throughout their time in Hyde Park and beyond, science classes almost uniformly fail to deliver. Not all Core science classes are bad, though, and many of the courses that might not be fitting for the Core (like Astrophysics or Global Warming) could be dealt with more seriously and rigorously as electives.
As it stands, Core science courses are mired in the unfortunate general education middle ground between rigor and nonexistence. Many students leave such courses feeling like they wasted a course slot, as well as tuition dollars. The solution is either to make the classes tougher and more scientific—which would be in line with the ideal of the Core—or scrap them altogether.
On its face, neither option is particularly appealing. How can we remain proud of the Core’s supposed rigor if it lacks even a basic science requirement? And after slashing the number of required courses 10 years ago with an eye toward improving student life, how can the administration return to a more rigorous Core?
The true affront to the Core is a set of science courses that often fail to achieve the curriculum’s goal. It’s time for the College to re-evaluate its prized Core once more, and either thoroughly revamp, or scrap entirely, its science requirements.
The Maroon Editorial Board consists of the Editor-in-Chief, Viewpoints Editors, and two additional Editorial Board members.
On its face, this article sets up a false dichotomy between more scientific rigor/scraping the classes–neither reach the goal of a better science core.
I wonder, is it possible to structure a sciences sequence like a sosc/hum sequence?
A study in foundational texts (Einstein, Darwin, Gould) combined with lab work is the solution.
A ideal science curriculum for undergraduates would present the major advancements of science, its present paradigms and continuing problems. Technical knowledge of a few specific areas does not help one advance an encompassing picture. That picture, the larger schematic framework, is exactly the type of knowledge that the Self sequence aims at.
Hence, a “once-removed from practice” discussion section (that would have a syllabus with a family resemblance to the HIPS sequence) combined with lab-work that reinforces the major discoveries, is the ideal way to provide a comprehensive picture to undergraduates, and the critical foundational textual knowledge that the rest of the core aspires to.
Core Bio (depending on the version) is aimed at introducing students to the fundamentals of biology. While many students at the U of C have a strong biology background, there are quite a few who don’t. If, as you claim, Core Bio is “little more than an expanded version of what most students learned in high school”, how can you explain the fact that there are many students who still struggle with the course? Many international students come here without ever taking a biology course, and many American students come here without ever taking a biology course more in-depth than their freshman year of high school requirement.
A basic understanding of biology (which, despite your claims, many students here lack) is just as important as, if not more important than, exposure to the works covered in the Hum/Sosc requirements.
How dare you assume the bio course is not up to par. From how you sound I am guessing you had the upper hand of going to a high school or having parents who taught you bio. Everyone at our school has not had the same introduction to bio as you. I hope you think more about what you say and write in life!
The Global Warming class is designed for the core from the ground up. I think a non-science major gets a good idea of how a working scientist thinks by examining a single problem from lots of viewpoints, rather than getting a survey like some museum tour.
I find this article to be quite true. While science majors receive an excellent writing-oriented background in hum/sosc/civ, the science core does not do the same for non-science majors.
The core phy-sci offerings are all humorously easy, and are tailored to a specific field instead of providing foundational scientific knowledge.