Breeze Perspectives: Grievances against GenEds
Are general education courses really necessary for a liberal arts education?
Posted on January 31, 2008
As I sit in my class of 40-plus juniors and seniors taking a GSCI course, I can’t help but ask myself, “When am I ever going to use this?” For years, the answer to that question has been something along the lines of “You will need it later in school.” I apologize for being the bearer of bad news, but college is the time when “later” occurs. With that said, why are we still being forced to learn information that relates nothing—I mean absolutely nothing—to what most of us want to do in the future?
I understand that as a liberal arts university, JMU wants to produce well-rounded students. I also understand that in order for students to be well-rounded, they have to take classes in an array of subjects. Yet to get into this university in the first place, we had to complete a series of classes in high school meant to prepare us for college. Those classes consisted of the basic areas of academic study: math, science, history, English, languages and so on.
In high school, and even before, most students make a decision about which classes we like and dislike. College is supposed to be a time for us to expand our knowledge on a subject that interests us, and that we could consider developing our interest into a career.
Many General Education courses limit choices of study to students, particularly cluster three, which contains only math and science courses. The main problem with cluster three is that it forces students to take two sciences (one science worth four credits or a one credit lab must be taken) and a math. For students who are scientifically and mathematically challenged it is a daunting task that will either consume much of their time. Making students take three math and science courses would be just as dreadful and confusing as making a physics major take three philosophy or English courses, or making a math major take GCOM 123 three times.
In addition to frustrating students, General Education courses take time away from work in students’ specific majors. As I sit listening to my professor talk about frequency, waves and particles (all which are flying over my head), I can’t help but wonder what more important things I could be doing or more pertinent things I could be learning about—and it is only the third week of school. I can only imagine how I will feel when I have a test in my major, but instead of studying for it I am “learning” about frequency and particles. Furthermore, it does not help that my syllabus states that this specific General Education course should consume approximately six hours of out-of-class time each week.
I understand the General Education Program here at JMU is crucial for expanding our knowledge on many different areas of study. General Education courses provide students 41 credits toward their overall credit hours. However, modifying the program may prove to be beneficial to students and to teachers.
I am not quite sure how to suggest modifying the whole General Education program but one suggestion may be to focus less on minor classes and details and focus more on an overall understanding of certain criteria. Focusing more on an overall lesson may be less stressful for students taking the courses and professors in charge of teaching. In the end the same knowledge will be imparted on students without the frustration and stress of memorizing minor facts which may not be retained after completion of the course.
I know JMU is working hard to inform students on many different subjects. Yet, if students are not interested in an area of study it may be hard for students to focus their time and energy on a certain subject. This lack of enthusiasm for a class may be discouraging to students and professors. With a broader area of study and more of a focus on the outcome of the course students may be encouraged and motivated to expand their knowledge on different subject areas.
Emily Taylor is a junior communication studies major.
